I know there are some scientists and construction engineers who claim that it must have been a controlled demolition, but there are also those who claim the opposite. I find it highly unlikely that Bush would do this to his own people, so I go for the less unbelievable option: terrorists did it.
Interesting.
Do you consider yourself to be a “libertarian” however defined, or an “anarcho- capitalist”, however defined?
All I know is the more I hear the 911 conspiracy theorists trying to defend the theory, the more I believe the government version. If you have the truth, that shouldn’t be the case.
I consider myself a human being, first and foremost. I agree with many libertarian/anarchist viewpoints.
OK, so I assume that you consider yourself very familiar with the overall premises and philosophy behind the Bill of Rights; the necessary mindset needed for effective review of all government purported evidence for federal trials, the explicit rules of evidence admission and presentation , plus witness review and cross examination, plus evidence chain of custody issues etc. etc. , as they relate to the specific examination of all government “evidence” and or “witnesses”, for 911 or for any other federal trial, for that matter [, e.g amendments 4,5,6,7,] , should there be ever be a trial?[ However unlikely that is].
In other words, the Bill of Rights [something libertarians supposedly support] is designed to ensure a “higher standard of proof” for any and all government evidence - that is, it was purposely designed to ensure a very specific, pre-existing bias against any and all federal government “evidence”, for 911 or for any other federal case past ,present or future - yes?
If so, should not “libertarians” be exhibiting that general “Bill of Rights” state of mind regarding any purported government “evidence” for anything ?- that is, should they not be automatically pre-biased against the governments story [i.e the prosecution] especially when there has not even been a trial ? [assuming, for arguments sake only, that in real life any 911 defendants could ever actually obtain a fair trial in a US court].
As far as I can see, at this stage of the game, any libertarian “worth his/her salt” is obligated, merely for sake of intellectual consistency, to disbelieve any and all aspects of the governments story.
The absolute best they should be able to admit to would be “I really don’t know one way or the other right now” , but even that seems inconsistent /falls short of a consistent “libertarian” or “anarcho- capitalist” world view , as far as I can see from my jaded [:S] viewpoint.
I wouldn’t trust an investigation, as these people investigate themselves. That’s one of the problems with big government. Maybe the official version isn’t true, but I don’t believe the conspiracy stuff either. Inside job, reptilians, rosswell, world government… Sounds too far-fetched, and I know there are many sceptics out there who don’t represent the government.
If it was a controlled demolishio, someone must have planted the bombs there. How come nobody have noticed it? Something like 50 000 people worked in the towers, right?
Well, now that the “truther” as one othe Obama’s czars perhaps we can count on a new investigation of 9/11? 
Conspiracy theorists should watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKdG7yGi0KA
Its the ‘turd in the punch bowl’ analogy. You have the punch, in legitimate conspiracies, such as 9/11, JFK and the OKC bombing…and then someone drops in a turd, such as Roswell or the reptilians, in order to turn people off from the whole thing.
As for your question, there have been various theories advanced…first of all, there were several periods where the entire WTC complex was evacuated, in the weeks prior to 9/11…workers reported entire floors being devoted to construction, which were off limits in the weeks prior to 9/11…the fact that Marvin Bush was in charge of security…but in general, I think trying to explain how they carried it out, is profoundly irrelevant at this point.
Why? Imagine you a police officer, trying to prove suspect A is guilty of a recent murder, even though suspect B has been convicted. You are not allowed to conduct interviews with anyone closely connected to the crime, you are not allowed access to any forensic evidence or video tapes. Despite this, you manage to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, than B could not possibly have committed the crime, that A has repeatedly lied about the evidence, his alibi, and everything else.
Despite that you have proved A is innocent, and that B has lied at every step of the way, the judge refuses to overturn the verdict, because you are not able to detail A’s exact movements and motives, before and after the crime.
The fact that the Truth Movement has been able to do so much, with so little at its disposal, is quite frankly, incredible.
Anyone seriously interested in the debate must read David Ray Griffin on the subject.
Yes
I say government should be by consent of the governed and that taxation without representation is extortion.
If you listen to the people who claim that 9/11 was an inside job, you notice that their evidence consists of virtually nothing but red herrings.
“Who crashed the plains into the buildings? Well, Dick Cheney had business interests in the Middle East.”
Prove that 911 was an inside job (red herrings don’t count).
Indeed, if you seriously believe that the US President ordered the death of 3000 people that was carried out in broad daylight, what are you still doing here? Why aren’t you running away to some safer place, like, I don’t know, Cuba, Iran or North Korea?
prove that it wasn’t.
I take it you are well aware of this, no ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
So there you have a ‘conspiracy’ planned by the us government, with similar methods to those used in the 9/11 attacks.
That’s not how it works.
really ? maybe stirner said something about ‘burden of proof’ so it must be true ?
It’s damn near impossible to prove a negative, but Occam’s Razor shreds the inside job theories quite finely. The literal volumes of pure assumption piled upon pure assumption which are supposed to “prove” the inside job theories are not the least bit inspiring, except to conspiracy hobbyists - which is really all that can be said of most conspiracy theorists.
Mutually accepted ideas: The government is evil. The government is responsible for 9/11, whether they caused it or not. Ergo, we ought to oppose the government.
The endless rabbit hole of conspiracy theory does nothing to add to those ideas which are already established. If someone wishes to spend their time on conspiracy theory, that is their prerogative. But when others decide to strike the root instead of hacking at branches, it is always the conspiracy theorists who start evangelizing and crying “heretic” at anyone who just doesn’t care enough, in their opinion, about the minutiae of the melting temperature of steel, whose cousin had an affair with one of the Rothschilds, and gluing together the dozens of degrees of separation between somebody and the Bilderbergers.
I do not say whether any of those things are true or false; I only point out that it has absolutely no relevence to how I will live my life.
If Islamofascists blew up the twin towers because they hate us for our freedoms, I will devote my life to opposing the state.
If the Bildejewbankers blew up the twin towers because they want to rule the world, I will devote my life to opposing the state.
If it’s some far more likely explanation somewhere in the middle, I will devote my life to opposing the state.
The details are without consequence to me. So instead of spending my time mining for details, I’ll just go with the thesis that makes the fewest assumptions: Some evil, collectivist people wanted to kill Americans mainly because of what the US government has done to them, and the US government let it happen. Beyond that, I’ll entertain a possibilty only so long as I find it trivially interesting.
Are you saying that you don’t subscribe to “burden of proof” as a method to, say, reject claims of supernatural phenomena? Or that you selectively apply it when it suits your aims?