It’s too bad we can’t just move the comments from the other thread over here. What I was getting at is that I think just listing improbable events and strange coincidences is noise. We have an accepted account of what happened and a bunch of evidence supporting that account. If you want to provide a case for a conspiracy you actually need to provide a hypothesis and show how that hypothesis is a better explanation of the evidence than the standard account.
That’s a very reasonable objection. It’s certainly true that if you look at anything in enough detail, be it 9/11, the JFK assassination, or the king james bible, you’ll start to notice peculiarities.
To reply to your post in the other thread:
So some shadowing group kills two thousand people, arranges planes to get flown into the WTC towers, the Pentagon, and the middle of Pennsylvania and does hundreds of billions in damage to the economy to pick up an insurance check… when the building was on some of the most expensive real estate in the world? Or to destroy evidence the SEC had? Is that how you would do it? Really?
The insurance check went to larry silverstein, owner of the WTC complex (who purchased it two months prior to the attacks. Sorry if that’s just noise). Presumably this was his slice of the pie for facilitating the operation, the PRIMARY motive of which was to create a pretext for war and politically beneficial hysteria.
By that logic, why should rich people ever take risks at all? Aren’t they already rich?
I’d say it was a pretty smart move on his part. Conspiracies don’t get revealed by the straw that breaks the camel’s back anyway, the camel is already buried in a mountain of straw, the trick is finding the needle… I’ve mixed my metaphors. But you get the point. Considering he’s sitting pretty, greedily taking that seventh box of money was the optimal move.
It’s too bad we can’t just move the comments from the other thread over here. What I was getting at is that I think just listing improbable events and strange coincidences is noise. We have an accepted account of what happened and a bunch of evidence supporting that account. If you want to provide a case for a conspiracy you actually need to provide a hypothesis and show how that hypothesis is a better explanation of the evidence than the standard account.
That’s a very reasonable objection. It’s certainly true that if you look at anything in enough detail, be it 9/11, the JFK assassination, or the king james bible, you’ll start to notice peculiarities.
To reply to your post in the other thread:
The insurance check went to larry silverstein, owner of the WTC complex (who purchased it two months prior to the attacks. Sorry if that’s just noise). Presumably this was his slice of the pie for facilitating the operation, the PRIMARY motive of which was to create a pretext for war and politically beneficial hysteria.
Wouldn’t Silverstein collect plenty just from the towers?
By that logic, why should rich people ever take risks at all? Aren’t they already rich?
I’d say it was a pretty smart move on his part. Conspiracies don’t get revealed by the straw that breaks the camel’s back anyway, the camel is already buried in a mountain of straw, the trick is finding the needle… I’ve mixed my metaphors. But you get the point. Considering he’s sitting pretty, greedily taking that seventh box of money was the optimal move.