New (sort of) arguments against 9/11 truth and how to deal with them

Recently I have seen the following argument against 9/11 truth with increased frequency:

"I don't believe it was an inside job because they would have implicated Iraq, not Saudi Arabia, if it had been."

Another increasingly common one is:

"If it had been an inside job, they would have planted WMD in Iraq."

I think both of these arguments are a very good sign. They are a long way from what we used to hear---"Yous is a bunch of %^$#& freaks and nuts!"

Both of these arguments contain the assumption that it could have been an inside job and require their proponent to think from that point of view, thus taking the matter much more seriously than in the past.

I wonder if others have noticed this and what people think are the best really short answers to these two arguments.

Also, if people have noticed other changes in OCT defense strategies and arguments, this might be a good place to bring them up. The best answers go straight to the heart of the person's statement and cause them to stop and think and have serious doubts. Some classics have been: "Why was anything able to hit the Pentagon?" "I don't know. That's why we need a new investigation." "How did that passport survive the crash?" There have been many others. These statements work like judo moves that use our opponents' own momentum to drive home the point.

As to why the hijackers weren't Iraqi...

In order to have fundamentalist muslims to use as patsies you have to first find fundamentalist muslims. Iraq was a secular nation under Saddam and did not allow the influence of fundamentalism because he thought it would challenge his own power.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." -The Declaration of Independence

Both GeorgeWashington and I...

...have written very detailed essays debunking "the hijackers would have been Iraqi" premise. My essay also goes into why they also weren't Afghans.

Here's GW's essay:

A very good point from his essay: "A similar argument made by the defenders of the official story is that - if the Neocons were such bad people - they would have just planted WMDs in Iraq. Well, according to leading investigative reporter Larisa Alexandrovna, they may have tried to do just that.

"More importantly, the mainstream media was completely in the administration's pocket, as Scott McClellan has made clear. So it was not even necessary to find any WMDs."

And here's a snippet from my essay

...remember that Rumsfeld on 9/11 wrote a memo to his aide, "Judge whether to hit S.H. at the same time. Not only U.B.L. Go massive. Sweep it all up, things related and not." Rumsfeld, in other words, initially did not want to wait til March '03 for Iraq. He wanted to attack it that fall. Unfortunately, intelligence communities were not convinced that Iraq bore any measure of responsibility (despite FOX news propaganda at the time). So Rumsfeld and crew grudgingly say, "Well, Afghanistan is part of our agenda too, so we might as well get that out of the way (since we planned its invasion back in May). We'll have a quick victory and a regime change, then we'll propagandize the American public into being scared for another year, with terror alerts and threats of west-coast bridge bombings, during which time they'll forget the difference between Saddam and Osama."

Both yours and GW's essays

Both yours and GW's essays are excellent, but I am hoping we can find an even shorter answer. KNOWAR's answer above is quite strong and short. There is also the fact that if they planned to use bin Laden, Saudi's would be more natural than Iraqis. Can someone put that in one sentence?

I am hoping for something that will quickly disarm an ordinary, thoughtful person who is starting to become interested in 9/11 but still sees it only through the veils of the OCT.

Claim: "Then they would have used Iraqis."
Answer: "Not if they wanted to frame UBL and get Americans pissed at the entire Muslim world."

I don't think this example is all that good, but it gives an idea of what it would be helpful to have.

Remember all the back-and-forth about the Pentagon and how all of that was fairly well summarized and dismissed by the single statement "How could anything have hit the Pentagon?"

Sometimes arguments can be too simple, but a quick one-liner can sometimes also reveal deep thought. A good one moves the discussion forward due to its surface meaning but also to the way it summarizes the thoughts and research of many people.

Another instance where one of those was helpful was in defeating the "conspiracy nut" accusations. DRG started saying that "all 9/11 theories are conspiracy theories" and pretty soon the accusations died down.

JFK on secrecy and the press

A: They could have used

A: They could have used Iraqis If they only wanted to attack Iraq and no further. Only an international Muslim terrorist organization could provide the US policy change for attacking multiple sovereign nations abroad for the goal of empire.

Something along those lines?

With the propaganda machine...

And willing Congress available to them, the hijackers could have been Chinese, and they could have still sold the war in Iraq. Remember the fear they used? It's amazing what people will agree to in order to feel "safe." I think they "took what they could get" with regards to hijackers.

With regards to WMD, they only needed the excuse to get into Iraq. That was their goal. Get... in... Iraq. They didn't actually need them to be in Iraq. Again, with the propaganda machine available to them, and the idiot politicians going around the country talking about how there were WMD in Iraq (Santorum comes to mind), they may as well have found them. I think the percentage of Americans that think they found WMD is STILL high considering the fact that there WERE NO WMD.

However, with regards to WMD, I think they tried to find a "political solution" for that problem.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?