Do you have any reputable evidence supporting your nonsensical claim?
The claim that an official version is a lie makes sense. Always. And, given that you accept only official media as reputable, there can be, even in principle, no "reputable" iyo evidence against a mainstream claim.
You have just done it again re your nonsense on 9/11,
Oh? So, even if I do not support any particular position at all about what has really happened, I support some "middle ground" position?
But, may be this is what your thinking and decision making process is all about? You want to follow the mainstream. But the mainstream is not a particular position, but a wild mixture of very different positions, even if one excludes the clearly non-mainstream positions. And the middle ground of all proposed positions is, in fact, what defines the mainstream position. So, it is, indeed, quite natural: You reject a few openly non-mainstream positions, do not hear them at all. Then, from all what you hear - what is roughly mainstream - you do not exclude anything as wrong, contradicting itself, or so, but find some middle ground.
And this technique, which you apply yourself, is all you can imagine, so you think I apply it too, if I propose to hear all sides. But, no, what I propose is to hear all sides, to be able to decide myself who is right and who is wrong. So, I will never end in some middle ground. If the information is insufficient to decide who is right, I do not decide (as long as I don't have to).
So, it looks like your "middle ground" accusation is simply a cheap projection of your own strategy.
The problem actually is your own warped definition of things as per your defining of adhoms. You want to throw bombs and then hide somewhere.
My definition of ad homs is the usual one. They are very weak arguments, but cheap, which makes them easily accessible. So, sometimes they are useful.
Once you have nothing but these cheap ad hom arguments, I often note that your argument is ad hom - in particular, this makes sense whenever my arguments are not ad hom, but about the content. You have to live with this, given that you are unable to argue about the content. Such is life.
Like river, you wear your "alternative thinking" like a badge of honour and then accuse others of being sheep because they align with the bulk of evidence. It's just your way of being noticed.
There is a big difference between the mainstream position and the bulk of evidence. You mingle them, because there is an overlap. The evidence, as well as the mainstream, heavily support quantum theory, GR and the standard model of particle physics. So I support them too - following the bulk of evidence, you support them, following the mainstream.
But there is a lot in modern physics where evidence remains silent. So, there is no evidence at all supporting string theory or GUTs or supersymmetry. But they are mainstream - so you support them. I don't. Because I follow the bulk of evidence - but once there is none, I'm free to try my own way.
The "badges of honor" look like another projection. You think in terms of "badges of honor", because this is what the mainstream gives to its rulers. To receive a badge of honor, one has to be mainstream, so you follow the mainstream to have at least some chance to get such a "badge of honor". Unfortunately, the sheeple do not give badges of honor to the sheep in the center. It gives badges of honor to its rulers. And to become a ruler, one has to make own decisions - instead of computing some middle ground from averaging the opinions of all the sheeple around.
