...So, when a piece of evidence that they relied on is debunked, they revert to irrefutable speculation such as "US government is corrupt and benefitted from the event, therefore they must be responsible. You must be naive to think otherwise!"...
The "debunking" has entirely depended on an "appeal to authority" fallacy. "I am an expert and I say xyz".
The "conspiracy" side has offered the same.
The problem here is that so many "mainstream" experts are on the "conspiracy" side.
Creating straw men to target, as you do with "they revert to irrefutable speculation..." only makes a person wonder why you are using deficient logic. Have there really been a lot of people whose 911 position is based on "US government is corrupt and benefitted from the event, therefore they must be responsible. You must be naive to think otherwise!"? Honestly? Are there really a lot of people using that argument, or are you trying to blow smoke?
There are lots of concrete pieces of evidence that each of the mentioned groups had something to do with 911. But instead of answering those questions you make the above absurd comment and answer it instead.
Were Muslims involved?
Many pieces of evidence say so, including the people observed boarding the planes as a loose group were identified.
Were Zios involved?
Many pieces of evidence say so, including some young people who said on a talk show that they had been sent to monitor the explosions.
Were U.S. government types involved?
Many pieces of evidence say so, including that in a very high security post crash scene numerous pieces of paper appeared on the ground that would have been in the hijackers pockets, suggesting not only that someone dropped them but that others deliberately ignored the absurdity of paper surviving almost undamaged while the body the paper was on did not.
No one has said that any particular theory is proven, and especially no one has offered as proof the simple fact of irrefutability, as you imply. But the "official story" has been refuted to the satisfaction of almost anyone who studies the evidence.
So at this point we have the following
1) The official story is not supported by evidence. You may support it, but the evidence does not.
2) There are numerous alternate theories, depending on the background of the person theorizing. The most popular are "The U.S. government did it" or "The Zios did it".
3) Again, there is plenty of evidence pointing at Zios and U.S. govt types. Too much evidence, as mentioned before.
...
So, your mission is to orchestrate a false flag event, the aim of which is to increase the psychological fear of US (and world) citizens, to help get support for illegal wars and occupation of foreign countries, which will allow the US/The West to become richer and more powerful.
...
You don't know what the motive for the attacks was yet.
A person could speculate that the motive was to increase the sale of aspirin in Mexico. In that case the 911 attacks were poorly constructed and a complete failure.
If this wasn't the motive, what do you think was? Most theories I've heard use this as a basic, logical motive for the attacks.
As I've said previously, the evidence points to a hierarchy of motives.
At the top you have a group of individuals who have in common the heroin trade, a multi billion dollar business that comes with other benefits. These individuals are in governments and out. They belong to many nationalities, religions etc, but the top leaders are not nationalistic nor religious except in a strictly clannish way. It has always been like that in those industries.
One level lower you have people "using" the heroin trade for other motives. These are the leaders of the Muslim hijackers, the Zios, the second tier of "government types" involved etc. These people see the industry, i.e., heroin, as a tool to further some ideology which they frame as defensive.
One level lower than that, the true ideologues. The Muslim who wants to destroy the great satan. The Zio who wants to act on the best national motives. The U.S. govt stooge who understands that Jesus has some secret plan that justifies killing innocent people etc.
Yeah, this is a ridiculous line of reasoning. You can't just start shooting commercial airliners full of civilians out of the sky, especially if you're not sure exactly what's happening on board. Too much risk of political backlash - imagine the crazy theories that people would be spouting if the army had shot down the planes.
You are refering to the aircraft that went down in Pennsylvania. Everything about the downing is consistent with it having been hit by an air to air missile, and not consistent with a normal accidental crash.
Of course a pilot is not told on a daily basis t shoot down civilian planes. They aren't told "Whenever you see a suspicious airplane just shoot at it".
But on 9/11 there was obviously a group of hijacked planes crashing into major targets and your comment seems to be deliberately ignoring that context.
