It is the ignoble task of non-truthers to actually prevent the facts from being discovered, SiamDave. They are the equivalent of a modern day inquisition whose job it is to label people heretics for daring to question the cult of crazy George II and his government of war criminals of the recent past on their most excellent 9/11 false flag act of domestic terrorism. We now suspect it was bipartisan collaboration in Washington all along and with their own Al-CIA'duh leftover gladios warmed over from a cold war era which the whole world was fooled into believing was finally over. It's not. There really was a vicious empire during the cold war, and we realize now that it's bent on world domination.
I just want to point out, Fidel, that you've used a term RevolutionPlease has been trying to point out is extremely offensive. I'm sure another term could be found.
Anyway, I want to challenge your first sentence. You may believe, and it may in fact be true, that a deep look into the situation has been avoided at the official level. However, I certainly hope you don't believe this is the case in the threads you've engaged opposing opinions in. What I mean is...do you think that Pants-of-dog or anyone else in those threads who are, according to you 'non-truthers' (again, a term that I think spins the debate in a certain way as it makes assumptions about people's motivations) has attempted to prevent facts from being discovered?
Not everyone is convinced by your arguments. Some people have been engaging in a...imo super-human effort to engage you in a discussion on the topic. Are they only doing this to shut you up and hide the truth? Or are they trying to discover the truth? What are you assuming about the people who are debating with you? Is it fair to make those assumptions? Further...is it useful to make those assumptions?