Why is one conspiracy any more believable than another?
To read forums and blog comments, some people believe that 19 incredibly lucky Arabs with boxcutters pulled off the total destruction of the entire World Trade Center complex, plus the destruction of a plane with passengers and crew in Shanksville, PA, plus heavy damage all the way through several rings on one side of the Pentagon.
I'd say that's fairly outlandish.
But if you suggest there's more to the story, or a different story, all of a sudden it's impossible because it would take the assent, aid and continuing silence of thousands of people!
This, my friends, is a straw man argument. There is no mainstream 9/11 Truth theory that calls for a cast of thousands.
I mean, if all it took was 19 mostly Saudi Arabs, then surely another group of 19 could do it too. Especially if the event was planned in advance and the mechanisms put in place over time.
I do not believe now, nor have I ever taken seriously, the motive ascribed to Osama bin Laden and his followers, that, "they hate our freedoms." Did Osama benefit? Did Islam benefit? Did the Taliban benefit? Just who did benefit? And who might have had the means and a motive?
If we are looking for motive, we find one right here -- the implementation of the PNAC's hegemonic plan simply could not have happened absent our "new Pearl Harbor." The neo-cons seem to have been ready for 9/11/2001.
[Tunick photo found here, fair use]