Re: Re: [POLITICS] Conspiracy theories - evidence-based vs. non evidence

[Guest guest]

>

> Not to keep re-hashing, but I admit I did go look at the " intro " speech by

.

> During the speech, my husband and I kept saying that the verdict is iffy

both ways,

> UNTIL we got to the end and saw building 7 collapse.  I think once a

person sees

> that, then all bets are off.  It looks like a demolition.  AND no planes

hit it.  If there is

> one piece of " evidence " that goes against popular opinion and the 9/11

mythos,

> then the video of that building does it, in my humble opinion...

> " Remember the Maine! "

> Deb in NC

Hi Deb,

I think the collapse of building 7 is viewed as the " smoking gun " in the

case for 9/11 being an inside job. Of course, it might be argued that the

lease holder, Larry Silverstein, had ample motive to bring the WTC towers

down since he made a couple billion dollars in insurance money from it, but

there is other evidence suggesting that it was in the government's best

interest that nothing be recovered from that building.

Suze

[Guest guest]

Suze-

> I think the collapse of building 7 is viewed as the " smoking gun " in

> the

> case for 9/11 being an inside job. Of course, it might be argued

> that the

> lease holder, Larry Silverstein, had ample motive to bring the WTC

> towers

> down since he made a couple billion dollars in insurance money from

> it, but

> there is other evidence suggesting that it was in the government's

> best

> interest that nothing be recovered from that building.

The collapse of building 7 is arguably a smoking gun that the official

story is grossly incomplete at best, but in itself it's simply not

probative as to the identity of the responsible party. You yourself

cite an alternate possible motive which requires nothing from the

government.

Unfortunately, I think we'll probably never find out for sure what

really happened on 9/11, but low-quality allegations ultimately serve

no one except the people profiting from their promulgation.

-

[Guest guest]

,

> The collapse of building 7 is arguably a smoking gun that the official

> story is grossly incomplete at best, but in itself it's simply not

> probative as to the identity of the responsible party. You yourself

> cite an alternate possible motive which requires nothing from the

> government.

It does give some indentification of identity -- it is suggestive of

inside complicity, where " inside " refers to whoever controlled the

security of the buildings. It is also at least somewhat suggestive of

CIA complicity, since the building was heavily used by CIA and,

although I don't know the details of the security administration, I

seriously doubt the CIA didn't play a part in overseeing the

building's security.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

Suggestive, yes; probative, no.

And even if it were probative of CIA involvement, what would that

really mean? The intelligence apparatus in this country (I don't even

know what to call it, really) is extremely compartmentalized and

factionalized. Even assuming complicity on the part of some component

of that apparatus (or whatever it would best be called) would that

really mean that " the government " was " behind " 9/11?

-

> > The collapse of building 7 is arguably a smoking gun that the

> official

> > story is grossly incomplete at best, but in itself it's simply not

> > probative as to the identity of the responsible party. You yourself

> > cite an alternate possible motive which requires nothing from the

> > government.

>

> It does give some indentification of identity -- it is suggestive of

> inside complicity, where " inside " refers to whoever controlled the

> security of the buildings. It is also at least somewhat suggestive of

> CIA complicity, since the building was heavily used by CIA and,

> although I don't know the details of the security administration, I

> seriously doubt the CIA didn't play a part in overseeing the

[Guest guest]

,

> Suggestive, yes; probative, no.

It makes no sense to look for " probative " evidence when arguing who

should be a suspect. Identification of a suspect is followed by

investigation, indictment, and trial. Probative evidence is offered

at the trial. The standard to identify a suspect and launch a

specific investigation of the involvement of such a suspect is

necessarily looser than what is required for conviction.

> And even if it were probative of CIA involvement, what would that

> really mean? The intelligence apparatus in this country (I don't even

> know what to call it, really) is extremely compartmentalized and

> factionalized. Even assuming complicity on the part of some component

> of that apparatus (or whatever it would best be called) would that

> really mean that " the government " was " behind " 9/11?

I think you are demonstrating the lack of usefulness of the phrase

that " the government was behind 9/11. " I don't know who uses that

language. If anyone does, then they are using language that is

compromisingly imprecise.

The evidence does, however, suggest an elements or cooperating

elements within the government had some level of complicity.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On Oct 19, 2008, at 4:41 PM, Masterjohn wrote:

> ,

>

> > Suggestive, yes; probative, no.

>

> It makes no sense to look for " probative " evidence when arguing who

> should be a suspect. Identification of a suspect is followed by

> investigation, indictment, and trial. Probative evidence is offered

> at the trial. The standard to identify a suspect and launch a

> specific investigation of the involvement of such a suspect is

> necessarily looser than what is required for conviction.

>

> > And even if it were probative of CIA involvement, what would that

> > really mean? The intelligence apparatus in this country (I don't

> even

> > know what to call it, really) is extremely compartmentalized and

> > factionalized. Even assuming complicity on the part of some

> component

> > of that apparatus (or whatever it would best be called) would that

> > really mean that " the government " was " behind " 9/11?

>

> I think you are demonstrating the lack of usefulness of the phrase

> that " the government was behind 9/11. " I don't know who uses that

> language. If anyone does, then they are using language that is

> compromisingly imprecise.

>

I have no problems at all with that phrase.

While it is not as precise as saying that " Bush was behind

9/11 " , I think that most people have a sense of what it means. A first

approximation might be that some high ranking people with the power to

set U.S. policy planned and executed the events in some official

capacity.

>

> The evidence does, however, suggest an elements or cooperating

> elements within the government had some level of complicity.

>

I'd go so far as to agree that the 'evidence' is not inconsistent with

government involvement. However it's a long way from being evidence of

government involvement.

>

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

>

> Suze-

>

> > I think the collapse of building 7 is viewed as the " smoking gun " in

> > the

> > case for 9/11 being an inside job. Of course, it might be argued

> > that the

> > lease holder, Larry Silverstein, had ample motive to bring the WTC

> > towers

> > down since he made a couple billion dollars in insurance money from

> > it, but

> > there is other evidence suggesting that it was in the government's

> > best

> > interest that nothing be recovered from that building.

>

> The collapse of building 7 is arguably a smoking gun that the official

> story is grossly incomplete at best, but in itself it's simply not

> probative as to the identity of the responsible party. You yourself

> cite an alternate possible motive which requires nothing from the

> government.

,

Right, but as I've said before, each piece of the evidence needs to be

viewed within the context of the evidence as a whole. Only seen in this

larger context does the murkiness begin to disappear.

Larry Silverstein certainly had the motive and possibly means and

opportunity to blow up the WTC, but did Larry Silverstein obstruct multiple

FBI investigations that were closing in on bin Laden?

Did HE control the CIA funneling Islamic terrorists from the Jeddah, Saudia

Arabia consulate for " national security purposes " ?

Did HE obstruct US air defenses from defending the Pentagon?

Did HE have any financial conflicts of interest involving the bin Laden

family as the Bush family did?

Did HE lay out a plan for global imperialism that would require " a new Pearl

Harbor event " like 9/11?

Did HE ignore the intelligence from many countries warning of imminent

attacks?

Did HE ignore the *CIA*'s warning to the president in the few months leading

up to the attacks of an imminent attack?

Did HE decide to break Secret Service protocol and let the president

continue reading a book on goats and appear on national t.v. at the

elementary school while the country was clearly under attack?

Did HE give several of the hijackers clearance to train at US military

bases?

I'll stop here because I'm sure you get the idea, but this would be a VERY

lengthy list if I kept going.

>

> Unfortunately, I think we'll probably never find out for sure what

> really happened on 9/11, but low-quality allegations ultimately serve

> no one except the people profiting from their promulgation.

I agree that low quality allegations " ultimately serve no one except the

people profiting from their promulgation. " But what is that comment in

reference to? What allegations are you referring to that you consider to be

" low quality " ?

Suze