That quote seems silly. If there were hidden elements to 9/11 (or JFK, or anything) obvious enough for lone nuts to find, then it’s reasonable to assume the government investigation would have found them also. Given that the government investigation didn’t say anything about it, then, it’s reasonable to assume it’s because they have something to hide.
Also, there’s the obvious, cynical “cui bono?” point. The government is one of the few entities that could reasonably be said to have benefitted from the attacks (expanded power, pretense for war, &c.), so if you start with the assumption that the “official story” is wrong the government would be the next most plausible culprit.
The argument used is much more applicable to creationist arguments of the form “evolution has this flaw, ergo god exists”.
I heard an interview with the guys who do South Park that for their 9/11 conspiracy episode they were considering making the real culprits the American flag manufacturers, because they clearly benefited the most.
If you start with the assumption that the “official story” is wrong the government would be the next most plausible culprit.
Which government? Almost all the major world powers have spy agencies that could’ve pulled it off. Russia would do it because of ex-Soviets holding a grudge. China would do it to strengthen their relative economic power. Israel would do it to ensure the US would continue backing their military. Most of the countries in the middle east, and half the countries in Latin America have grievances against us.
Lots of people acted strangely that day, but trustworthy information is hard to come by. More than anything else, 9/11 reminds me of the story of Alexander Litvinenko, which was in the news in 2006: Spy poisoned, accuses spy agency, spy agency denies it and accuses different spy agency, radioactive trail painted to someone’s door, and you might as well roll a die to decide who to accuse, because very skilled agents have already destroyed the evidence.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by
stupidity.
-- Hanlon’s Razor
Of course, once you start thinking in terms of stories instead of
theories, it’s easy to forget that only a tiny fraction of things that
happen are the result of planning or motive.
That quote seems silly. If there were hidden elements to 9/11 (or JFK, or anything) obvious enough for lone nuts to find, then it’s reasonable to assume the government investigation would have found them also. Given that the government investigation didn’t say anything about it, then, it’s reasonable to assume it’s because they have something to hide.
Also, there’s the obvious, cynical “cui bono?” point. The government is one of the few entities that could reasonably be said to have benefitted from the attacks (expanded power, pretense for war, &c.), so if you start with the assumption that the “official story” is wrong the government would be the next most plausible culprit.
The argument used is much more applicable to creationist arguments of the form “evolution has this flaw, ergo god exists”.
I heard an interview with the guys who do South Park that for their 9/11 conspiracy episode they were considering making the real culprits the American flag manufacturers, because they clearly benefited the most.
So… China?
Which government? Almost all the major world powers have spy agencies that could’ve pulled it off. Russia would do it because of ex-Soviets holding a grudge. China would do it to strengthen their relative economic power. Israel would do it to ensure the US would continue backing their military. Most of the countries in the middle east, and half the countries in Latin America have grievances against us.
Lots of people acted strangely that day, but trustworthy information is hard to come by. More than anything else, 9/11 reminds me of the story of Alexander Litvinenko, which was in the news in 2006: Spy poisoned, accuses spy agency, spy agency denies it and accuses different spy agency, radioactive trail painted to someone’s door, and you might as well roll a die to decide who to accuse, because very skilled agents have already destroyed the evidence.
What? there’s more than one?!
I think that should be ‘pretext for war’, not ‘pretense for war’.
Since we’re doing quotes:
Of course, once you start thinking in terms of stories instead of theories, it’s easy to forget that only a tiny fraction of things that happen are the result of planning or motive.