Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?
As I've said previously on this topic, I have no doubt that if the 'interweb' was around in 1914 there would have been just as many websites devoted to the Archduke Ferdinand assassination as a black op by the Austrians. Its pattern exactly fits that used for argument by conspiracy theorists now.
The Archduke's parade was set for Serbian national day - 28 June.
He was advised not to go. He chose to still go.
He was advised to have a large military escort. He chose not to. One of the arguments was that their uniforms were dirty from manoeuvres.
He decided to drive very slowly and in an open-top car.
After the first attack they drove on to the Town Hall. But instead of leaving or increasing security they decided to visit the wounded in hospital, despite assurances their wounds were only minor.
On the way back the driver took a wrong turn that just happened to take them directly to Gavrilo Princip.
Princip was a terrible shot. He had been practising in the woods and people had laughed at him because he always missed his targets.
He took two shots - one hit the Archduke and one hit Sophia, the Archduke's wife. Each shot was fatal.
The Austrians took the opportunity presented by the assassination to invade Serbia.
There is no suggestion whatsoever that it was an inside job by Austria.
To explain the meaning of this example for those who still can't think their way through it, it is to illustrate one of many, many, many unusual coincidences in history and that they happen frequently where they have a large impact on events. To see coincidences in 9/11 and assume that there must be something sinister behind it is just a lazy and ill-informed approach. It is to use post hoc ergo propter hoc as an explanation, which is flawed. To point to coincidences in 9/11 and assume that means something was orchestrating events behind the scenes towards a grander plan is to approach the event like you would a novel or movie.
As I've also said, there is no motivation for the US carrying out 9/11.
Read any book about the Bush/Cheny administration (Angler is excellent) and there is no indication that it was a black op or that the administration desired such an outcome. The problems with the inside job argument is that it makes no sense, as the questions in the Rolling Stone article point to. To use Iraq as a cause for 9/11 simply because they took advantage of it (18 months later though), is to argue again using post hoc ergo propter hoc. But if the aim is to attack Iraq and allow further expansion in the Middle East, why was it not connected properly to Iraq and Saddam? Why instead did they resort to patently weak arguments later in their attempts to connect them? Why were the US not better prepared for earlier military action? Why was it so convoluted and complex, and yet completed without error or leak, but still not perfectly planned with ridiculous oversights, such as the one on connecting to Iraq? And the problems with the rationale for the conspiracy theory continue, yet still cannot be answered even remotely sensibly.
Use of usual soundbites, like 'power', 'money' and 'oil', are meaningless of themselves without linking them into a sensible and achievable rationale with logical objectives, that would see those people undertake such a devastating attack on their own citizens.
Yes, there are examples of countries falsifying attacks to justify their own aggression, but there are no examples of a country undertaking such enormous attacks on their own people, hence there are no precedents to point to on this.
Purely it is an argument from incredulity, silence and ignorance.