See, there's a funny thing going on with conspiracists, and Troofers.
They always say "look at the evidence" - but they reject all the evidence which they don't like.
And in contrast to the massive amounts of evidence, from as diverse sources as you can imagine, which suggests 19 hijackers - there is NO DIRECT POSITIVE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for a conspiracy/inside job.
But none of the evidence counts for the terminally suspicious. It's ALL disregarded, apparently because it's compromised, unreliable, etc etc.
And of course, they tell us the "real" evidence is locked away......or destroyed.......or.....something.
What such beliefs rest upon is a mystery.
Why do you believe something for which you have NO EVIDENCE? Why do you reject all the evidence which contradicts your view?
Such cherry-picking is the staple of 911 truth.
I'm quite open to it being a conspiracy, or inside job, whatever. I used to believe it myself. But 7 years later I have to accept there's absolutely no direct positive evidence for it - whereas there is massive amounts of evidence from all sorts of various sources saying 19 hijackers, etc etc.
But troofers just disregard all the evidence they don't like. That is not the right way too proceed.
Iraq was a far greater crime - and we have all the evidence we need to conclude it's a war crime, of the highest order - a crime against peace. 911 is a distraction - parochialism.
911 conspiracy treads a difficult line: the conspiracy is sometimes huge - and at other times tiny ie it's never the same conspiracy all the way through.
It has to be small, to allow it remaining secret - and it has to be massive, to achieve everything needed.
For instance - the towers' collapse. If it was done by explosives, there'd need to be a lot of explosives. But that makes it very difficult to believe it could be done. So the amount of explosives needed is suggested to be very small - in which case a crashing jet and fires can easily account for the energy imparted by just a few explosives.
It is a clear, if unconscious tactic used by troofers - the conspiracy changes as the needs of explanation dictate.
And the history of 911 truth shows that as one element is eliminated, another pops into place to replace it, and the whole malarkey begins again.
It really doesn't generate any confidence.
And whilst there's no direct evidence for conspiracy, the huge amounts of evidence otherwise are simply ignored. And it's ignored because it's "official" evidence. But that again raises the issue of size - if ALL evidence is nobbled, then how big is this conspiracy? If it's soooo big, how come nothing has escaped it? And why believe anything at all if you reject every "official" piece of evidence? It's cherry-picking, isn't it?
So we have this "hidden" evidence - secreted away and witheld by the vast conspiracy? Why can't people see how presumptuous that is?
These errors run right throughout 911 Troof - and they lead me to be highly suspicious. How can "truth" be expected to come out of such cherrypicking? How can assumptions hold such sway? Why is all the evidence fatal to conspiracism rejected?
Clearly 911 Troof is interested in proving its hypothesis - and not "the truth". News providers which say the least thing in support of a conspiracy are believed - the same news orgs are disbelieved when they say anything that contradicts the conspiracy line.
That isn't investigation - it's an exercise in pure confirmation bias.
And what else to expect when so many are making money and gaining kudos from it? It's a money machine - like UFOs. Look at a bookshop and see how much crap on UFOs there is - and yet is there any credible evidence for the existence of aliens, and spacecraft etc? No - none. It doesn't stop them making money out of the gullible though, does it?
911 truth is just the same?
