Comments by "bj0rn" (@TheLivirus) on "Sean Munger" channel.

I was a 9/11 truther for about a week before I applied the same skepticism to the alternative theories as to the official explanation, after which most of them came down crashing. The only hypotheses I kind of held onto as plausible is 1: some people welcomed the mandate and political will created by the attack which they exploited to expand their powers, suck up resources and realize their plans, using deceptive tactics 2: some of these people may have known about the planned attack or at least risk of attack but chose not to act. Sean argues that the latter would be very difficult to pull off, but I find that a rather weak argument. Surely he can find examples in history of conspiracies with worse odds that were nevertheless pulled off. On the other hand, I do understand where the burden of proof lies.
1
@SeanMunger Thanks for your reply and recommendation. I don't understand what you mean by inapposite comparison. If you have definite evidence that no one had prior knowledge or warnings of the attack, you should have presented this instead of arguing about likelihood of success. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. To be clear, I'm not arguing that there was a conspiracy, I just haven't seen enough to dismiss this, so I keep my mind open.
1