Paul Craig Roberts: "Where is the evidence?" 

Just saw this and thought I post my thoughts. He makes some excellent points that I think many here will resonate with. In particular, I liked the following (emphasis mine):

My opinion of “Loose Change” and Popular Mechanics is independent of who won the debate [on Democracy Now!]. The “Loose Change” producers are more to be admired than the Popular Mechanics editors for the simple reason that the former are committed to opening a debate and the latter are committed to closing debate down. Indeed, Popular Mechanics was early on the scene trying to close off debate by defending the government line. Why?

If I had been in the debate, I would have asked Meigs and Dunbar what’s conspiratorial about a thorough hearing and examination of an event that has been used to justify illegal invasions that are war crimes and have destroyed two countries and killed tens of thousands of people.

And this:

Perhaps more scientists will find the independence, time and energy to become involved. But until scientists can come up with an explanation of where the energy came from to account for the total collapse of the buildings and an explanation of how the energy was evenly distributed so as to produce sudden symmetrical collapse, there is no more evidence for the official conspiracy theory than there is for the unofficial conspiracy theories.

Roberts gets into the problem with the scientific debate about controlled demolitions. To me, this clearly illustrates why truthers shouldn't be emphasizing the questions about what brought the buildings down, or for that matter, what hit the Pentagon to the exclusion of a mountain of other evidence that implicates the government. I noticed that in that recent BBC interview with David Ray Griffin, the interviewer's questions tended to revolve around physical anomalies.

But, back to Roberts' article, here's what I had to say in the comments section:

If we were only to focus on the question of controlled demolition of the WTC, the 9/11 truth movement would have little room for making its case, simply because, as Paul Craig Roberts has explained, these are scientific calculations that pit one expert against another. Michael Ruppert correctly stated this problem in his book "Crossing the Rubicon" which is why he completely avoided talking about physical evidence.

There's enough to prosecute the thugs in this administration, just given the evidence of simultaneous war games, Cheney's role in the stand down orders, NORAD's "failure", put options on airline company stocks, prior warnings from so many sources, stonewalling the creation of a Commission, and a whole lot more.

In 2004, Jeff Wells of Rigorous Intuition wrote one of the best pieces questioning 9/11 -- and, it doesn't require going into scientific research about physical evidence. Go here and learn:

All that said, I do believe that the government's versions of how the buildings fell are laughable. But, we can prove 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB without even talking about controlled demolition or the hole in the Pentagon. Why not just stick to what we CAN prove? There's MORE THAN ENOUGH to indict and convict these monsters.

There's a new documentary that is a good place to start for anyone still on the fence about 9/11, and it's based on Paul Thompson's timeline and features the Jersey Girls and other victims' family members. The film never once goes into "conspiracy theory" territory -- it doesn't have to. It's so damn obvious that Osama couldn't have pulled off 9/11 without outside help. And, after viewing the film, I would be very surprised if any independent thinker would not be pointing the finger at American involvement.

9/11: Press for Truth