How did you rule out that 911 was an inside job?

[Max Photon]

"STOP," cried the thief!



Greetings good people,


Consider the following:

If a man goes to the police to report his wife murdered, the police will naturally suspect the man.

If a business's inventory goes up in flames, investigators will naturally suspect the owners.


When there is a crime, it is perfectly reasonable to suspect and investigate the reflexive solution.


A question to 19-Hijacker Conspiracy Hypothesists:

How did you rule out that 911 was an inside job?


Max

 

[Pardalis]

The absence of evidence.

 

[HyJinX]

The absence of evidence.

Coupled with a confession.

 

[DGM]

The absence of evidence.

Agreed! Plus I would like to add lack of real motive.

 

[R.Mackey]

The inability of anyone to articulate a remotely plausible alternate story, no matter how motivated to do so, despite the alleged vast size of the Truth Movement, after six years of rumination, pretty well ices it.

 

[The Almond]

In both of your situations, Max, the investigating body wasn't there to see anything happen. On 9/11 hundreds of thousands of people watched airplanes fly into the towers. We know who was flying those airplanes.

Beyond that, I stopped looking for a "reflexive solution" when I realized that there was no need to do anything other than what the terrorists already did. In other words, if terrorists were responsible for crashing airplanes into the towers, Shanksville and the Pentagon, why was there any need to demolish the towers further? As far as the terrorists were concerned, the attack was quite sufficient to cause us to be afraid of them. If the federal government were looking for a reason to attack Iraq, the terrorist attacks were of sufficient magnitude even without the total collapse of the towers.

In short, there was no reason for the government to be involved in any way in the 9/11 attacks.

 

[Pookster]

Consider the following:

If a man goes to the police to report his wife murdered, the police will naturally suspect the man.

If a business's inventory goes up in flames, investigators will naturally suspect the owners.

When there is a crime, it is perfectly reasonable to suspect and investigate the reflexive solution.

A question to 19-Hijacker Conspiracy Hypothesists:

How did you rule out that 911 was an inside job?

Max

(edited for brevity)

Probably for the same reason the Government was likely ruled out as a suspect in the wife's murder and the business inventory fire ... lack of evidence.

 

[T.A.M.]

"STOP," cried the thief!



Greetings good people,


Consider the following:

If a man goes to the police to report his wife murdered, the police will naturally suspect the man.

If a business's inventory goes up in flames, investigators will naturally suspect the owners.


When there is a crime, it is perfectly reasonable to suspect and investigate the reflexive solution.


A question to 19-Hijacker Conspiracy Hypothesists:

How did you rule out that 911 was an inside job?


Max

I would disagree, and explain here...

I think in the list of possibles, when a crime is committed, to suspect all sorts of things.

If someone is found dead, an investigation would OBJECTIVELY look at the evidence, and if the evidence led them to believe unnatural causes, then suicide, murder, or accident must all be considered. You go WHERE THE EVIDENCE LEADS YOU.

If a building goes up in flames you investigate, and if the evidence collected leads you towards possible arson, you go down that road, you GO WHERE THE EVIDENCE LEADS YOU.

For 9/11, you had planes hijacked, and flown into buildings. You have flight manifests that included the names of people who were later found to be connected to Al Qaeda. You have evidence left behind by said passengers connecting them to the acts. You have Confession videos, you have eye witnesses by the thousands to the events. You have audio testimony in the form of phone calls, identifying hijackers of Arab descent on board the planes.


What evidence was there to lead the investigators towards the "inside job" theory???

TAM

 

[PB2007]

If a man goes to the police to report his wife murdered, the police will naturally suspect the man.

As well as anyone else who might have a motive. It could also be the finale of a sexual assault, a mugging, a random murder, an accident even....

If a business's inventory goes up in flames, investigators will naturally suspect the owners.

As well as anyone else who might have a motive. It could be a random arson. a revenge attack, an electrical / chemical accident...

When there is a crime, it is perfectly reasonable to suspect and investigate the reflexive solution.

And also the alternatives. However once the evidence is in then the events can be examined.

Problem is the Truth Movement think of a theory and then try to fit / mangle / invent the events to it, rather than look at the events and work out what happened....

Dammit T.A.M. beat me to it....

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I ruled it out using my amazing ability to not be a bloody moron.

 

[peteweaver]

Well, call me Mr Picky, but the manure from the 'truth' movement, hardly constitutes factual evidence of a conspiracy.


There's been a number of detailed studies by experts (not nuclear physicists, philosophers, theologians, or talk show hosts, but bonafide structural fire engineers).

There's the fact that the most popular 'inside job' theories have been completely demolished. And then there's the fact that some of the most popular conspiracy people have faked evidence with hue shifted photographs, fake explosion sounds, and misqotations of witnesses including the owner of the WTC buildings...

It aint lookin good for the troofers.

 

[Totovader]

Well... you see, there were these planes...

I don't believe that the null hypothesis is inside job. That's the first error of any conspiracist.

 

[Drudgewire]

Bush said so, and I believe everything he tells me.

 

[Anti-sophist]

I haven't. I remain perpetually open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job. I just need a single shred of evidence.

 

[Aoidoi]

I ruled it out using my amazing ability to not be a bloody moron.

Evidence?


(I kid I kid)

Can't say I "rule out" that 911 was an "inside job" for sufficiently vague definitions of each term, but I haven't seen anything particularly convincing that it was more than a terrorist act by a known terrorist organization which has claimed responsibility. A bunch of guys hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings doesn't stretch credibility nearly as much as anything else I've seen presented. Space lasers, magical explosives, remote controlled planes, mini-nukes, none of these things make for a remotely compelling case.

If conspiracists would stick to claiming incompetence or malfeasance on the part of the US government that didn't involve impossible scenarios I'd be much more inclined to believe something is up. It's trivial to believe people in the government were inept, and not a stretch these days to believe them to be actively engaged in illegal activities, but nobody seems to be digging up credible evidence on officials, just the usual tilting at windmills.

 

[Brainster]

Well... you see, there were these planes.

Exactly. Once you accept the planes it becomes extraordinarily difficult to come up with a theory that the government was behind it. Almost all the MIHOP people are no-planers when it comes right down to it, no matter how hard they try to dance around it.

 

[IMST]

Let's take your police and crime scenario.

If a man goes to the police to report his wife murdered, the police will naturally suspect the man.

So the police initally suspect the man. They start their investigation and find out the wife was murdered in a public place with witnesses. The witnesses describe a female attacker of a different race, age, and body size as the man. The man and his wife were consistantly described as a loving couple with no history of fighting or violence between them. The wife had recently been threatened by an employee of hers who fit the description of the person who was seen comitting the act. The murder weapon and forensic evidence could be traced to the employee who made the threats. The employee sent an email to the company confessing the crime and outlining why she did it.

Do you think at that point in the investigation the police are justified in ruling out the man? I haven't even addressed any alibi or exonerating evidence for him yet.

Is there any part of the evidence you actually have a problem with for 9/11 that no one has addressed? Have you looked at information Gravy or the BBC or Popular Mechanics or any number of other non-conspiracy theorist sources in regards to evidence that you feel implicates the government? Is there any particular piece of evidence for the 19 hijackers theory that you feel is incorrect? Does that piece of evidence really matter in context of the other evidence for that theory?

 

[leftysergeant]

Any investigation begins with determining the facts of the crime or accident. Physical examination of the scene and/or remains will determine the cause of death or the cause of a fire. Accident or crime will then be ruled in or out.

Once a determination has been made that a crime has been committed, it is then neccessary to determine who may have had:

1. Motive

2. Means

3. Oportunity.

That PNAC has a vested interest in starting wars almost goes without saying. But why would they do such immense harm to their own financial interests to do it? A lot of very wealthy people lost a lot of money and infrastructure in the collapse of the towers and the subsequent business slow-down.

Al Qaeda had the motive, in that Osama wants us broke, impotent and frightened to venture outside our boarders. W has subsequently given him all but the last.

Al Qaeda has a lot greater access to the services of kamikaze airliner pilots than has PNAC.

PNAC could not pull this sort of attack off secretly because it would involve too many opportunities to tip off government insiders when their normal activities were disrupted.

Al Qaeda had nothing else to do at the time.

Looks like an al Qaeda job to me.

 

[Par]

If a man goes to the police to report his wife murdered, the police will naturally suspect the man.

Initially, they might. However, if all the evidence points towards another party, and none towards the husband, they are unlikely to sustain that suspicion.

 

[Par]

If a business's inventory goes up in flames, investigators will naturally suspect the owners.

Initially, they might. However, if all the evidence points towards another party, and none towards the owners, they are unlikely to sustain that suspicion.