@ Sicarius.
If the question on the take on the trim's thread was for me, here's a collection of thoughts:
1) I did not follow the thread so far, since the way the discussion was open felt like trolling, and trolling - while it impels people to react - does not usually impel them to think deeply. So that the thread generated by trolling frequently becomes more heated than constructive.
2) Now that I review the thread (in order to be able to answer you), I agree with myself: the discussion in there bounces from IRA to JFK to Al-Queda to 9/11... with a collection of statements and reactions that do not help much the development of a greater understanding of the complexities of our time, but rather the creation of "parties" (the PRO and the AGAINST some theory). This is too simplistic to attract my attention and too little interesting for me to dedicate my time to it.
3) On the specific issue of 9/11, the Islamic terrorism, Bin Laden and the USA government roles, etc... my take is: "Both of the positions (it has been a false flag operation vs. it was a true, unexpected terrorist act) are CONSPIRACY THEORIES. Both of them call for a secret, mischievous plan (the conspiracy) and both of them are not supported by sufficient evidences (they are theories). In fact for me the key-point is that none of them have been proved beyond any reasonable doubt (while inconsistencies in both have been proved) and therefore none of them can be believed in the form that is told today".
4) People struggle in dealing with complexity: faced whit an irreducible complexity, most of the people prefer to believe in something (ranging from God to the FOX news) without thinking, rather than thinking and realising they miss a lot of pieces and therefore having to deal with the ambiguity. This is the case - for example - of the "war on terror". The problem being that when people stop thinking and start believing, their judgment becomes impaired.
If the question about the take on that thread was not for me... well... sorry!