Ok so methodology aside, you leave open the (slim?) possibility (in your mind) that elements within the US government were deeply complicit in the 9/11 terror attacks.
The question, as phrased, is difficult to answer. There's a huge difference between CD/not CD. There's still a huge difference between plane/fire taking out the twin towers and seat of the pants CD of WTC7 for logistical reasons versus CD of WTC7 for nefarious reasons (yes, even with covering it up). And CD being false doesn't eliminate the notion of some level of foreknowledge or complicity. Ignorance and stupidity can rise to the level of criminal.
To take your question as-is, yes, I leave open the slim possibility of deep complicity. The deeper it is, the slimmer it is.
But that has to be judged against the context of my admittedly peculiar approach to matters like this, which might be described as pseudo-quasi-Bayesian. To a true Bayesian, absence of evidence might be considered evidence of absence. I try to believe two pi impossible things before breakfast and, most times, I've come full circle by the time breakfast is served. That is to say, I'm not afraid to challenge conventional wisdom but most times conventional wisdom wins. I rely heavily on abductive reasoning which has served me well but carries with it a burden of investigation and analysis in order to arrive at significant confidence. That's not always practical or even possible, therefore most things I hold true are beliefs based on a measure of faith. That doesn't mean blind faith, but if I'm waiting for certainty to make a decision, I'll never get out of bed.
I
believe it's exactly the same way for everyone else, but few are cognizant of that fact.
It does mean I don't tend to argue my beliefs in forum discussions. Virtually everything in the socio-political realm comes under that heading. In these matters, I have to take other people's word for things to begin with, choose my sources carefully and evaluate what I can. Fortunately, a lot of physics and engineering mechanics is accessible to me and so I can operate from first principles objectively. Therefore I DO discuss these things here.
In both cases, it implies that neither of you are confident that the 9/11 "investigations" produced satisfactory conclusions. In your case though, are you open to a "new", independent forensic criminal investigation into 9/11? If not, why not?
I'm not entirely satisfied with the investigation and would not object to additional investigation at considerable expense. However, I'm not calling for it, either. While I would not object to additional engineering investigation I have near zero expectation of any of that producing a "smoking gun" in this regard. It might advance engineering knowledge by some degree. Politically, I do feel the 9/11 Commission Report read like a bad TV treatment; I expect as much in these circumstances and would expect only more of the same if that were to be revisited.
I have very little in common with the concerns I see expressed
en masse by the CT community. My dissatisfaction is more an operations concern. I hold my own work to high standard and public service seems by and large not inclined towards the same, sorry to say. I don't expect a different result in another investigation nor any significant subsequent improvement. So I don't much care whether there is or isn't. I am satisfied with the lion's share of the story if only because the bulk of the complaints have been addressed to my satisfaction. A surprising number seem to be entirely groundless and some border on insane.
opcorn:
