Describing a "possible motive" is not evidence of anything. The Red Cross story involves contributions intended for 9/11 victims being used for local programs instead. That has nothing to do with supporting or contradicting "the official story" of what happened on 9/11.
As I've explained, I don't deny the record (except to point out that your summation of "the record" is extremely poor). I ignore it because it's not relevant to evaluating the evidence of what happened on 9/11.
There's an awful lot in the world that's difficult to believe.
I find it difficult to believe that when I look at a certain blob of light among the stars at night, the light I'm seeing has taken two and a half million years to reach my eye from another galaxy. But the scientific evidence for that claim is very strong.
I find it difficult to believe that there is a box in my kitchen that makes cold. Even though I understand every principle of every component and every step in the process, even though I could probably build a refrigerator-freezer from scratch given enough time, the net effect still seems like magic. But I can't deny that it does what it does.
I find it difficult to believe that 77 Lexington farmers on April 19 1775 started a war that became a world war and all but bankrupted the two largest powers in Europe before ending with a final skirmish in India. But the historical evidence is overwhelming.
I find it especially hard to believe, whenever I get on a huge jet airplane, that the damn thing is going to be able to get off the ground. But it does, every time.
So, is it difficult to believe that 19 terrorists crashed four airliners, destroyed three skyscrapers, and damaged the Pentagon on September 11, 2001? I don't know; I think the Lexington farmers accomplished incredibly much more with much less. And each step in the narrative is plausible, complete, and supported by evidence. There are things we don't know for certain (as always), but there is nothing that we do know that is unexplainable. We know why the hijackers were able to get control of the planes; we know why the planes were not shot down in time; we know how the terrorists were able to pilot the planes to their targets; we know the effects of violent collisions on structures; we know the effects of fire on structures; we know why progressive collapse occurred.
Disbelief is not evidence of anything. That is why "argument from incredulity" is a logical fallacy.
A fair question -- except for the part about "faith" which I have already stated is not a relevant factor.
What you might not understand is that part of being a skeptic is to ask oneself questions like this, all the time. Even most skeptics have some beliefs that are not based on critical thinking, but on emotion, faith, cultural tradition, etc. and they will admit as much. It's only intellectually dishonest if you pretend that those beliefs are supported by facts and logic, when they are not.
My investment in polarizing myself from all things truther is minimal. I didn't come to the JREF forums because of conspiracy theories; what brought me here was my interest in defending evolution against false creationist arguments, at a creationist board called evolutionisdead.com. (I'm Myriad there too; you can check out my posts if you like.)
I also have no interest in supporting the Bush administration. I oppose it, ironically, for many of the same reasons I oppose truthers: their contempt for scientific expertise and their use of ideology instead of reason to judge what is right. It would be nice if the whole lot of them (the bushies, that is, not the truthers) could be tossed in the hoosegow for having planned 9/11. It would certainly save a lot of the hard work of politics needed to get rid of them by creating a better alternative and convincing voters to support it.
But if the evidence doesn't exist, such a proposition is not only doomed to failure, it's also wrong, disreputable, not deserving of success.
I think my agreement with (not my "faith in" which doesn't exist) the "official version" is supported by facts and logic. And I think that assertion is itself supported by what I've written on this forum.
And I see conspiracy theories as wishful lazy excuses to avoid real political work. Calling for prosecutions, invasions, or revolutions that are not justified by the facts and not going to happen, is as worthless as it is easy. The more you can pretend a big conspiracy is preventing the normal political system from working, the more excuse you have for doing nothing at all about the real problems that exist.
Respectfully,
Myriad
