I have a problem with calling 911 conspiracy buffs 'truthers'. Can't we call them something more accurate, like 911 conspiracy buffs? I realize they are the ones who coined the name for themselves but really, need we go along? 'Truthers' are not even traditional conspiracy buffs. Normal buffs use their conspiracy theories to solves mysteries or to answer questions which have not been sufficiently answered by the 'official narrative'. I suppose sometimes it takes a conspiracy and a convoluted line of reasoning to explain events that simple logic and investigation cannot. In the case of the trade center bombing the role of the conspiracy theory is quite different.
First off, for those who have forgotten or never knew, the 911 attack was conducted by a number (19) arabs in the al qaida terrorist organization. The leader and some of the actual participants were Saudi Arabians. Members took flying lessons in America, smuggled carpet knives on board, commandeered the aircraft and crashed them into the world trade centers and the pentagon and (due to the efforts of some passengers), an empty field. Osama Bin Laden was implicated and accepted responsibility. That's the official version. It is also one that fits in well with the facts. Included is the well established fact of islamic suicide bombers and Bin Laden's expressed interest in using aircraft for terror purposes.
So what is the truthers' theory? A good question, but one without a good answer. The problem is that there are so many out there. Like all kooky conspiracy theories, this one evolves in response to changing memes and in response to criticisms. Basically however, they assert that the attack was an inside job. George Bush/the CIA/Mossad/ Big oil set the whole thing up in order to justify an attack on Iraq/destroy evidence stored in building number 7/forward some evil zionist world control plot. They did this by means of brainwashed arabs who thought they were terrorists/suicidal CIA and or Mossad agents posing as arab terrorists/just blowing up the buildings and claiming it was aircraft (my favourite) or using remote controlled 747's, utilizing an override switch. The evidence supporting these manifold theories is abundant and varied, from leaked autopsies, to passenger manifests, the black boxes, explosive residue on site, pictures of the pentagon, you name it. All you have to do is Google it. Any idiot can find it. More importantly any idiot (the idiot part is mandatory) can believe it. The same idiots who mistrust the footage of the moon landing nonetheless are willing to take the word of any crazy fool on the 'net who claims to have evidence of a big cover up.
Addressing the manifold pieces of 'evidence' is like trying to slay a hydra. People will believe what they want to believe. I also contend that it is possible to find 'evidence' on the web to support any contention you could imagine. The internet is full of BS. We all know it. It is a little easier to address the who and why and how in terms of logic.
Most truthers agree that it was the government of the US, under George Bush that was the culprit. Not the whole government of course, just George Bush and some of his evil allies, using agents and such. Whether it was the Jews playing puppet master or just George himself trying to impress his dad, they all think the president was the one who did it. His motive for doing such a thing is less clear. I refuse to address the whole Mossad thing. The anti jew (yes jew, not zionist you bull shitters out there) derangement precludes the use of logic. There is no point in arguing with someone who hates so much they are willing to put a jewish face on every villain. So what were Bush's motives? There seem to be two main themes here.
The most popular involves the president's desire of another war in Iraq. In order to please his dad/ capture all the oil rights for Haliburton/steal the Iraqis oil/ kill arabs to sate his blood lust, George Bush dreamed up and executed the elaborate 911 false flag terrorist attack. There are serious problems with this theory. For one thing, at no point was there an effort to blame Iraq for the attack. Certainly an organization which could pull of 911 and fool billions of people could have also managed to implicate the people they wanted to take revenge on. Iraq and Al quaida were enemies, not allies. More to the point, the war in Iraq was justified by the (as it turns out inaccurate) reports that the Iraqis were making weapons of mass destruction. Surely if you wanted justification for attacking Iraq, you would have used a bombing or nerve gas attack, rather than what happened on 911. After all, we didn't attack Iraq to prevent them from building air liners. It is also important to note that months passed between 911 and the Iraq war. It seems reasonable that an administration trying to use fear and revenge as justification would not have allowed so much time to pass.
The other suggested motive that i have heard was that Bush needed to destroy evidence that was going to be used to convict him of something or other. I don't recall the details, and I won't address the likelihood that a US president had much to fear, regardless of the evidence. The real telling point here is that people are willing to believe that George Bush would be willing to kill thousands of americans, including women, children, friends of his, and hundreds of thousands of foreigners just to keep himself from getting a slap on the wrist in an american court. There is no precedent for this type of crime. Of all the mass murderers throughout history, none had so petty a motive. If true, it would mean that George Bush was probably the most evil person in history. Really? Somehow I just don't see it.
If George wanted to destroy evidence in one of the world trade center buildings why didn't he destroy the building directly? Would it not have been easier to blow up the building with a huge truck full of explosives and incendiaries? Surely they could have taken out the whole block just to make it less obvious. No, I suppose it made much more sense to fly jets into the twin towers, then use demolition charges to make them fall, knowing that enough debris would fall on building 7 to light it up. Then they just had to use the massive demolition charges they had secreted in building 7 (after working hours ) to drop the building and watch it burn. Throw in some other planes, aimed at the pentagon and white house just to throw folks off the scent. Yes, that is much simpler and so much less risky than just firing up a truck bomb or 5 with Allahu Akbar written on the side.
The complexity of the 911 conspiracy theory (which ever one you like) is the key weakness. All of the theories end up being so much more complicated and risky and evil than the accepted story. The other problem is consistency. The shadowy government figures manage to pull off an immensely complicated false flag attack but then fail to find a single piece of evidence of weapons of mass destruction in the Iraqi war zone. What happened there? Did Bush's chief covert operator go on vacation? I am sure a man evil enough to murder thousands of his own citizens would not hesitate to kill few million to avoid being made a fool of in Iraq.
When these theories first began people were actually denying that there were any planes involved! Then they settled on the pentagon plane not being a plane at all (based on a dodgy picture). There was a lot of argument about whether the towers were intentionally demolished (based on incorrect and simplistic engineering 'facts'). Now it turns out that the planes were flown by remote control (by Americans of course) and that there were no arab terrorists at all (the passengers of flight 93 must have been so surprised that they had dreamed it all up). This last bit of nonsense evolved as a response to doubts about whether you could find american pilots willing to kill themselves by crashing planes full of people into buildings. What does it say about people who are willing to believe you can find agents ready to murder thousands of people using human bombs but unwilling to believe that you could find suicidal maniacs who would do so? It tells you that they are not really using logic or common sense, they are just trying to create a scenario that fits the narrative they believe.
Which brings us full circle. Truthers are misnamed. They are not interested in the truth. They are interested in promoting an anti Bush, or anti government or even an anti Israel narrative. They are not even trying to exonerate an unfairly accused arab group. Bin Laden and al Quaida did not deny their responsibility. Truthers are motivated in the same way as the Egyptians who accuse the Israelis of causing shark attacks and hepatitis outbreaks. Hatred.
On a final sad note I see the the Boston marathon bombings were an inside job. Despite all the evidence, including a police chase involving grenades and fire fights and dozens of witnesses, some people prefer to point out apparent homeland security presence a the event as proof positive of a false flag operation. This time it is president Obama who is murdering us in order to increase government control. One believes what one wants to believe i guess.