Reply #59: LOL, it's NEVER "difficult to jump to conclusions"

[William Seger]

That's the problem. The problem usually involves trying to make it sound like a rational conclusion, but not being very successful. E.g., your post. You've grabbed Occam's razor by the wrong end. Which is more likely: that radical Islamists were able to figure out that our government was unprepared to defend against that particular attack (and an unimaginable long list of other conceivable attacks), or that the best "false flag" plot that the "real perps" could come up with was an absurdly and unnecessarily large, complicated and risky hoax, when something far simpler and safer would accomplish the same purpose? Which is more likely: that the Bush administration was asleep at the wheel or that they were able to muster complicity from hundreds (maybe thousands) of people -- career civil servants, media, private industry, and ordinary private citizens -- in a mass-murder plot, and not one of those people had the guts and/or decency to expose the plot? Which is more likely: that the hijackers were lucky enough to hit three of their four targets, or that the "real perps" were lucky enough that nothing went wrong with their insanely complicated and risky plot, and that nobody spilled the beans?

So plausibility is definitely not on your side. Of course, being highly implausible doesn't mean it wasn't an "inside job." It does, however, mean that rational people will expect you to have some damn good evidence.

And this is why the "truth movement" never made it past the stage of being a bizarre little net cult.