Think. The chances of a new PH happening, absent gov complicity are remote. It is a once in a lifetime event. The chances of it happening, absent gov complicity, when said gov has, effectively stated its propitiousness only months earlier, is now close to inconceivable. And finally, the chances of all this happening at the most useful time for the gov; not only 9 months in, thus allowing the gov 3 or 7 years to pursue the policy said PH was going to catalyse; but also, as the document states quite clearly, it happens crucially just before the 2001 QDR, a crucial moment since it is when the new president makes the choice of whether to “increase military spending to preserve American geopolitical leadership, or (to) pull back from the security commitments that are the measure of America’s position as the world’s sole superpower and the final guarantee of security, democratic freedoms and individual political rights.” In short, everything that neo-conservative policy stands for. The chances of this all being a coincidence, though existing, are almost too small to be taken seriously. Hence, the chances of 9/11 having happened absent government complicity, are equally almost too small to be taken seriously. So already we have built a pretty robust case for the goal of the Truth Movement. But in any case, take such chances seriously we shall, and we shall have a look at the rest of the evidence.
This is the thrust of your arguments about the PNAC, from your OP. Note that this is just an extended argument from incredulity. You find it
unlikely that such events would happen in, as you see it, such a beneficial order for the government. You say this alone builds a "robust case" for the Truth Movement.
However, this says absolutely nothing. While the probability of an event such as 9/11 occurring is indeed extremely low, the fact is that it
did occur. Thus, any arguments about its liklihood are essentially worthless. The probability of all events that have already occurred is 1. Even if the probability of the events happening in sequence again would 1 in a trillion, the point is that those events
did occur.
This is why I say that, absent other evidence, this means
nothing. For you to say things like this it implies that you don't work with probability much, and certainly not with risk probability. The simple point is that ◊◊◊◊ happens. On a long enough time line, or with a big enough sample, you're very likely to see a few highly improbable events.
Even something, as so say, as improbable as someone alluding to a catalysing event, having the power to theoretically create it (or allow it to happen) and, just a few months later,
there it is!
But so what? It doesn't prove anything. It doesn't even
mean anything. No more than someone really needing money and winning to lottery the next day. It's simply a coincidence. It's not like you found damning evidence - say, a memo talking about staging terrorist attacks or something.
So, if you don't mind, could you move on to the next point? Us spectators are getting bored, and we keep having to get our hands dirty and chip our nails and stuff.
ETA: Did I address your argument sufficiently for your liking, mjd? It appears that it's essentially a gussied-up argument-from-incredulity, or perhaps you might call it an argument-from-improbability. Unless you can dig up something more direct, all you're left with is "gee whiz, this was really unlikely and therefore suspicious." And you're claiming that this is
important to your point? Oy.
