I'm in the category of those who want the truth about 9/11. So far, all we have are theories. LIHOP is not much different than MIHOP, don't you think? One sort of leads to the other.
Different enough. Certainly the level of active involvement in MIHOP needs to be substantially larger than LIHOP, the latter which could be as little as one step removed from bumbling incompetence.
It was a terrorist attack, there's no question about that. What we don't know is who are all the terrorists who were involved.
See, we agree on something. I do think though the major players are known or have been dealt with.
What are you talking about? There's nothing silly about CD claims, those are the most plausible theories outside of miracles. We just don't know all the dirty details. Terrorists come in sorts of flavors, the most dangerous kind being domestic ones.
There isn't a single CD claim that meets the requirements for prima facie or even comes close.
No plausible hypothesis for CD explaining the who/what/when/where/why/how has ever been presented.
There is no physical evidence supporting any form of CD, only claims of unexplained anomalies vaguely tied to CD by innuendo.
There is no CD scenario that has ever been presented AFAIK that is compatible with terrorist attack (MIHOP is
required for CD claims).
IMHO, CD claims do not originate from the process of reasoning, of scientific investigation. CD claims come from the convergence of two different processes.
1). Personal incredulity:
'I can not believe airplanes can do that, therefore they didn't do that.' That the belief is wrong is not questioned, reality is instead denied.
2). Ideology:
'The government/Jews/NWO/Illuminati/Reptilians/etc,... are evil, therefore they must have done it.'
These two processes are usually mixed to varying degrees. Regardless, the process involved includes arriving at the conclusion based on pre-existing bias, then working to confirm that conclusion through careful selection of the evidence, choosing only that which fits or at least seems to fit, ignoring what doesn't or what contradicts the belief and inventing whatever is needed to fill in the gaps. In other words, it is working the problem backwards. I have never encountered a CD claim that was not framed in this fashion.
The supporting evidence is usually framed in the form of one or a few individual anomalies the proponent of CD can not explain, with tacked-on reversed burden of proof (eg; 'I say free-fall = CD, you prove me wrong'). What does nto happen is the problem is not worked in a scientific fashion of examining
all of the evidence, sorting out which bits are
relevant, putting the relevant bits together in order to reach an understanding - a testable hypothesis - that explains the event.
In the case of 7 World Trade Center one has the additional factor that any CD there would have been absolutely pointless and of no use to the plot while adding considerable unnecessary risk - a factor ignored by CD proponents no matter how often I bring it up. Invariably the conversation circles back around to
first time in history type claims of incredulity.
