The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

[Mashuna]

It's certainly possible, but not nearly as probable as the U.S. government helping them.

That's a claim - where's your proof?

 

[332nd]

Just the same, I've stated several times that I haven't seen any proof that shows Al-Qaeda acting alone. Neither you (nor anyone else) has provided any, so there is no reason for me to think Al-Qaeda acted alone on 9/11.

Ah! So you don't understand how critical thinking works.

I don't need to prove the U.S. government was involved. All I need to prove is your inability to back up your belief that Al-Qaeda was solely responsible. To that I say, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

No, you have to prove that the USG was involved. See, we know AQ was involved. We don't know that the USG was. Thus you fail.

Again, I don't need to prove the U.S. government was involved. If they were involved, then my proving it is irrelevant. Reality is what it is. What's done is done. I'm only here to confirm for myself and reveal for others that you true believers in the government truther movement have no more evidence for what you believe than those you admonish and mock.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

...Um... We can prove AQ was involved, you can't prove the USG was involved, so you have just as much evidence as we do?

Stundied!

 

[SpringHallConvert]

That's a claim - where's your proof?

Where's yours?

I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

 

[Mashuna]

Where's yours?

I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

You first - you made the claim.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

...Um... We can prove AQ was involved

That's altogether meaningless until you can prove Al-Qaeda was and still is a legitimate, independent terrorist organization working without state sponsorship. The government-provided conspiracy theory you subscribe to assumes that Al-Qaeda was solely responsible for the attack. Meanwhile, you have no evidence for this belief. You just believe it.

So, where's your proof for this conspiracy theory of yours?

 

[SpringHallConvert]

You first - you made the claim.

I'm kind of shy. I'll defer until you show me yours.

 

[Mashuna]

I'm kind of shy. I'll defer until you show me yours.

Yeah, that's about what I expected. As I have reason to doubt your honesty, I'll just note that you're unwilling or unable to provide any support for your claims and leave it there.

 

[332nd]

That's altogether meaningless until you can prove Al-Qaeda was and still is a legitimate, independent terrorist organization working without state sponsorship. The government-provided conspiracy theory you subscribe to assumes that Al-Qaeda was solely responsible for the attack. Meanwhile, you have no evidence for this belief. You just believe it.

Nope, you have to show proof that the USG was involved.

Why can't you?

 

[Oystein]

Wonder why he's not into deep politics anymore?

The hijackers, with degrees in in mechanical engineering from North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University and urban planning believed they would be successful, without knowing the total incompetence of the U.S.A Military, NSA, CIA, FAA for that 1 day, is why they succeeded ..... Or they did know?

First, every criminal who plans a crime counts on the inability of state agencies to ürevent the crime. According to your logic, every successful burglary is proof of inside job. Pretty whacky, huh?

Then, KSM had hatched a pretty awesome plan: Hijack 4 planes in close temporal order, and minimize the time from hijack to crash. It doen't really matter what they thought of the ability of the military, NSA, CIA, FAA. It was clear that hijacks are possible, it was clear that flying a plane was possible, and it is clear to every person with a bit of common sense that the government is not prepared to shoot down civilian airliners within 30 minutes everywhere with the country.

But please tell me: What do you think the FAA could have done to prevent them from crashing planes, once they are on the planes? And what could the CIA have done? Anything at all? Answer: Nothing at all. (FAA could have alerted NORAD quicker, perhaps)

Now suppose FAA had alerted the military faster, the military had fighters in the air within minute, all had perfect situational awareness, and they had in fact managed to intercept all four planes. What then? Before crash 1 - would YOU have ordered to shoot down an American civilian airliner with plenty of American civilians aboard over American soil? Hardly. At the time, it wasn't clear at all what their plan was.
Once AA11 was over New York, and perhaps intention dawned on you, would YOU have ordered a shoot-down then? Causing how many American casualties on the ground in addition to all aboard?
Now let's suppose you have the three other planes in front of your guns after AA11 has already been crashed. Would you order a shoot-down now? Even if you did - forcing the USA to kill three planes full of innocent Americans, and having hit and destroyed one WTC tower, would already constitute a HUGE success for AQ. So what do they care how fast the military reacts?

 

[Oystein]

You're not making any sense with this response. Assuming, for a moment, that WTC7 was rigged with explosives, how would the firefighters have known about it? They might have suspected it, but I doubt they knew with any certainty.

Still no claim and no evidence.

You seem awfully reluctant to cite your evidence with any specificity.

I wonder why.

Still no claim and no evidence.

Evidence proving that Al-Qaeda was working on or involved with the 9/11 attacks does not necessarily constitute enough evidence to conclude that Al-Qaeda did it all by themselves.

No proof that Al-Qaeda acted alone, either.

Still no claim and no evidence.

In other words, you don't really claim to know whether or not the U.S. government was involved in the attacks, you just believe and hope they weren't. I'm glad we got that ironed out.

Either way, the burden of proof is no more on me than it is on you. You believe without conclusive evidence that Al-Qaeda acted alone. I don't.

Still no claim and no evidence.

And where were these guys getting their funding and training? Were they a front and/or patsy for a different group of people? Were they unwittingly set up to be the fallguys? How can we be certain?
The same goes for you. The burden of proof is equally on you to prove Al-Qaeda was the only responsible entity for the 9/11 attacks.

We are also not aware of evidence that supports the claim that Al-Qaeda acted alone, so where is it?

Still no claim and no evidence. Amazing - he replied to a post by me where I bemoan that he makes no claims, only asks questions, and tries to shift the burden of proof to make other prove a negative where nothing has been positively asserted. And what do I get? No claims, but more questions, and an attempt to shift the burden of proof to make other prove a negative where nothing has been positively asserted.

You mean other than the entire Northeast air corridor being left undefended and Washington DC airspace left wide open for over an hour after the first plane hit the World Trade Center? No, not a whole lot.

How about you? Have you seen any proof that Al-Qaeda acted all alone? You got any?

Still no claim and no evidence.

You mean other than the entire Northeast air corridor being left undefended and Washington DC airspace left wide open for over an hour after the first plane hit the World Trade Center? No, not a whole lot.

How about you? Have you seen any proof that Al-Qaeda acted all alone? You got any?

Still no claim and no evidence. (Yes, I noticed. The same questions twice. But at 5 minutes apart I doubt it was an accident. This record is broken.)

Good, because the most extraordinary claim is the one you are making, that 19 clowns directed from a cave in Afghanistan pulled off the greatest crime in U.S. history while bamboozling the U.S. government and all of its policing and intelligence agencies.

The burden of proof is clearly on you, so where is your proof? That's right. You don't have any.

Still no claim and no evidence.

Ditto. I'm very sorry that you still don't understand the concept of burden of proof. You clearly want to have your cake and eat it to. You want to be able to demand evidence without providing any of your own.

Good luck in your future government truther efforts.

Still no claim and no evidence.

That doesn't do you any good if you can't prove that Al-Qaeda was working independently on 9/11. After all, the official conspiracy theory you've swallowed hinges on that point.

For all you know, Al-Qaeda might represent the tip of a much larger criminal conspiracy involving the CIA, members of the Bush administration, and other agencies of the state. You don't know, you only think you do. The government and their lapdogs in the media tell you what you want to hear and you eat it up without nary a question.

Still no claim and no evidence.

Great. Now where's the proof that Al-Qaeda acted alone and without state sponsorship?
This does not in and of itself constitute evidence that they are or were the only truly guilty party.

What is also lacking is your proof that Al-Qaeda acted alone.

Why are you so afraid of presenting proof that Al-Qaeda acted alone? You've already made a claim so you can drop the pretense of just questioning. Granted you can't back that claim up.

(See how easy this is for me? It's so easy a government truther could do it.)

Still no claim and no evidence. But at least you admit that the other side made a claim, so the other side is ahead, Oh and by the way, the other side also pointed to a LOT of evidence already, which you handwaved (Moussawi trial, 9/11 Commission Report, Bin Laden videos...).

Who really knows? Maybe it's proof that our government let the attacks occur on purpose. Of course, they'll never admit to such a thing and the controlled media won't do any real investigating.

Still no claim and no evidence.

The point is, over an hour after the beginning of the attacks, Washington D.C. was still without any effective air cover. A passenger airliner was able to enter Washington airspace and dive right into the Pentagon unopposed. How convenient that the fighters assigned to protect Washington were nowhere in the general vicinity.

Ah!! There is your first claim!
Could you now please present evidence for these claims:

• That DC was without Combat Air Patrol for over an hour after the beginning of the attacks. (Where do you place the beginning of the attacks? For most, the first sign that something really bad was going on was the first crash at 8:46. AA77 crashed into Pentagon at 9:37. That's less than an hour. So why is the more than an hour relevant to anything?)
• That there were fighters assigned to protect, specifically, Washington

After you have proven these claims (I grant that should be possible somehow), you need to show that the only possible, or most probable, explanation for that timeline is conscious complicity of the military. To do so, you need to make a convincing case that the military could have reacted faster and more precisely, given the information available at the time.

Just the same, I've stated several times that I haven't seen any proof that shows Al-Qaeda acting alone. Neither you (nor anyone else) has provided any, so there is no reason for me to think Al-Qaeda acted alone on 9/11.

I don't need to prove the U.S. government was involved. All I need to prove is your inability to back up your belief that Al-Qaeda was solely responsible. To that I say, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Again, I don't need to prove the U.S. government was involved. If they were involved, then my proving it is irrelevant. Reality is what it is. What's done is done. I'm only here to confirm for myself and reveal for others that you true believers in the government truther movement have no more evidence for what you believe than those you admonish and mock.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

No claim and no evidence.

Apparently the protocol was to let them hit their targets.

75 percent of the time, anyway.

No claim and no evidence.

It's certainly possible, but not nearly as probable as the U.S. government helping them.

Well, that's sort of a claim.
Let's make this formal:
You claim P_AQ < P_US
Where
- P_AQ is the probability that AQ beat the military with a smart plan, acting alone
- P_US is the probability that the US government helped them.
In order to prove that any A < B, you need at least to establish an upper bound for A and a lower bound for B. Ideally numerically.
So
- What's the upper bound for P_AQ, and why?
- What's the lower bound for P_US, and why?
If you can't provide reasonable estimates for BOTH, then your inequality is unevaluated, your claim thus invalid.

Where's yours? I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

No claim and no evidence. Playground tactics instead.

That's altogether meaningless until you can prove Al-Qaeda was and still is a legitimate, independent terrorist organization working without state sponsorship. The government-provided conspiracy theory you subscribe to assumes that Al-Qaeda was solely responsible for the attack. Meanwhile, you have no evidence for this belief. You just believe it.

So, where's your proof for this conspiracy theory of yours?

No claim and no evidence.

I'm kind of shy. I'll defer until you show me yours.

No claim and no evidence. More playground tactics.

 

[Oystein]

Folks, please notice: SpringHallConvert does NOT yet claim that AQ was supported by the US government!

Until he makes that claim, and makes it specific, there is nothing to be disproven. So the only useful thing you can do is ask SpringHallConvert if he has a positive claim, a positive assertion, a positive proposition to debate!

I found two such claims - neither states or implies logically that the government was complicit:

1. That it took more than an hour after the beginning of the attacks to establish a CAP over DC. I believe this is even true. SpringHallConvert now needs to tell us, by way of making a positive claim, why that number (>1h) is interesting.
2. That the probabilty of KSM's plan to outfox the authorities is lower than the probability that there was government complicity. We now need to see evidence that establishes an upper bound for the former and an lower bound for the latter probability. If no evidence comes, we can dismiss the claim without evidence. If evidence comes, we then need to ask why that inequality of probabilities in interesting. In other words, if SpringHallConvert has a positive claim jto make that is based on this inequality.

 

[LSSBB]

Who really knows? Maybe it's proof that our government let the attacks occur on purpose. Of course, they'll never admit to such a thing and the controlled media won't do any real investigating.

The point is, over an hour after the beginning of the attacks, Washington D.C. was still without any effective air cover. A passenger airliner was able to enter Washington airspace and dive right into the Pentagon unopposed. How convenient that the fighters assigned to protect Washington were nowhere in the general vicinity.

So? You are still not making any point. The sun came out that day too. Was that any different than the day before? Would it have been any other way? Convenient, relative to what?

EtA: what do you mean by controlled media? Controlled by whom? How? Do you have proof of that? Lot of Assuming in your theory.

 

[000063]

Wonder why he's not into deep politics anymore?

The hijackers, with degrees in in mechanical engineering from North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University and urban planning

What?

believed they would be successful,

As religious fanatics are wont to do.

without knowing the total incompetence of the U.S.A Military, NSA, CIA, FAA for that 1 day, is why they succeeded ..... Or they did know?

And yet, they somehow managed to fail to account for a few determined passengers.

 

[000063]

You seem awfully reluctant to cite your evidence with any specificity.

I wonder why.

You have no sense of self-awareness at all, do you?

In other words, you don't really claim to know whether or not the U.S. government was involved in the attacks, you just believe and hope they weren't. I'm glad we got that ironed out.

Either way, the burden of proof is no more on me than it is on you. You believe without conclusive evidence that Al-Qaeda acted alone. I don't.

You're not exactly being honest; you believe, specifically, that the USG was involved, but you can't prove anything, so you just question any evidence indicating the USG wasn't involved. You're acting on just as much faith as you claim everyone else is.

You mean other than the entire Northeast air corridor being left undefended and Washington DC airspace left wide open for over an hour after the first plane hit the World Trade Center? No, not a whole lot.
...

Um, the Pentagon is almost literally a stone's throw away from a national airport, if that's what you are referring to. And it's in Virginia.

No proof of your claim.

Do you think the USG was involved with AQ in conspiring to bring about the events of 9/11?

 

[000063]

Nope, dismissed,
The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one who has the most extraordinary claim, what you are committing is the Burden of proof shift logical fallacy.

So lets try the opening post that you hand waved away without responding to. shall we?

Take note of the highlighted text


Have at it champ. What you are tasked with is to prove any of the "inside job conspiracy" points highlighted in yellow above, Failing that, point out what evidence Mark Roberts gets wrong via the link to his site in my sig.

Good luck Champ, and a reminder. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one who has the most extraordinary claim. That being YOU!

#000063bookmark

Good, because the most extraordinary claim is the one you are making, that 19 clowns directed from a cave in Afghanistan

You mean directed by an engineer who was found living in a mansion?

pulled off the greatest crime in U.S. history while bamboozling the U.S. government and all of its policing and intelligence agencies.

And yet got foiled by random people on a plane.

The burden of proof is clearly on you, so where is your proof? That's right. You don't have any.

Here's the thing; your claim is that they did all of that, but with much more people involved and less bamboozling. It is more complex, and much, much more extraordinary than the common narrative. Your claim is the most extraordinary.

 

[000063]

That doesn't do you any good if you can't prove that Al-Qaeda was working independently on 9/11. After all, the official conspiracy theory you've swallowed hinges on that point.

For all you know, Al-Qaeda might represent the tip of a much larger criminal conspiracy involving the CIA, members of the Bush administration, and other agencies of the state. You don't know, you only think you do. The government and their lapdogs in the media tell you what you want to hear and you eat it up without nary a question.

For all I know, I could be killed by a meteorite the second I leave the house.

Apparently the protocol was to let them hit their targets.

75 percent of the time, anyway.

Very funny. What were the procedures?

 

[A W Smith]

very simple , hijack planes, fly them into buildings.

Good, because the most extraordinary claim is the one you are making, that 19 clowns directed from a cave in Afghanistan pulled off the greatest crime in U.S. history while bamboozling the U.S. government and all of its policing and intelligence agencies.

The burden of proof is clearly on you, so where is your proof? That's right. You don't have any.

not extraordinary at all. what you suffer from is the imbecilic nature of your incredulity.

1) What makes you think they were "clowns" ?? Are you aware of the US death toll over there in Afghanistan?

2) Caves? please document when these hijackers or even OBL were in caves BEFORE 9/11, Videos show them resting comfortably in a home even after 9/11

3) "greatest crime in history" Please tell us how many commercial airliners were hijacked before 9/11. Not extraordinary at all. In fact in the sixties and seventies it was almost a monthly occurrence. It was thought that the safest course of action was to "cooperate"

The plan was very simple and even quite economical, Hijack planes, Fly them into buildings,
vs....
The inside job conspiracy. Infinitely more complex. 10 years later. No whistle blowers.

yep, look like the burden of proof still lies with you, chump.

 

[A W Smith]

Great. Now where's the proof that Al-Qaeda acted alone and without state sponsorship?



This does not in and of itself constitute evidence that they are or were the only truly guilty party.



What is also lacking is your proof that Al-Qaeda acted alone.


Why are you so afraid of presenting proof that Al-Qaeda acted alone? You've already made a claim so you can drop the pretense of just questioning. Granted you can't back that claim up.

(See how easy this is for me? It's so easy a government truther could do it.)

prove a negative logical fallacy

You are not very good at this.

 

[NoahFence]

Good, because the most extraordinary claim is the one you are making, that 19 clowns directed from a cave in Afghanistan pulled off the greatest crime in U.S. history while bamboozling the U.S. government and all of its policing and intelligence agencies.

The burden of proof is clearly on you, so where is your proof? That's right. You don't have any.

They weren't clowns. They were terrorists.

Who cares where they were directed from? "Hurt America" - that was the directive. pretty simple.

They didn't bamboozle the US Government. They used it. 9/11, for all its sheer magnitude, wasn't exactly rocket science.

Can't bring guns on an Airplane. What can you bring? Oh, boxcutters? That'll do.

 

[sts60]

I find it fascinating that so many people seem to think that it would be so simple - almost automatic - to scramble armed fighters to shoot down American civilian airliners, full of civilians and possibly (to the knowledge of the AF/ANG) hijackers, on a chaotic day, when an hour before the threat level was not elevated. They seem to equate them with Bears inbound over the pole or something.

Fortunately such people aren't generally in charge of making life-and-death decisions - usually something more like what toppings to ask Mom to get on the pizza.