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.