[Admin: Tread spun off and re-titled, starting with a question about what could be considered evidence]
Interesting and insightful answer. You make a good point about the suspicion being a precursor to the proof.
Would you agree that such criteria as motive, opportunity, ability and pre statement of intent would have bearing, at least as far as suspicion?
Do you think this may be a legitimate thread?
Photos of the explosives in-situe. Multiple consistent whistleblower testimony. Documentary evidence.
But I think it's more relevant to ask what would make me suspicious that 9/11 was an inside job. It's a much lower standard, and something that you'd need to have as a first step before moving on to convincing.
I would suspect it was an inside job if there was physical evidence of a controlled demolition. Stuff like loud bangs, or times and det cord wrappers found in the debris.
I would suspect an inside job if there was ANYTHING that was inconsistent with the official story. Anything that could not be explained by the events of the day. Basically the kind of things that the truthers claim are all things that would be good evidence to provide suspicion - except they are invariably wrong. Freefall, microspheres, dustification, energetic material, all wrong. But that type of thing would be relevant.
Interesting and insightful answer. You make a good point about the suspicion being a precursor to the proof.
Would you agree that such criteria as motive, opportunity, ability and pre statement of intent would have bearing, at least as far as suspicion?
Do you think this may be a legitimate thread?