from "loose nuke" over at blogger:

The govt should have, and be able to produce, a great deal more than it has. That evidence is being withheld isn't proof the alleged hijackers didn't board, it's proof the govt is withholding evidence- for unknown reasons. Perhaps they're hiding something that contradicts what the public has been told, but it may not be that the alleged hijackers didn't board- it could be that this evidence might point to how they were being helped by unnamed persons on the inside at the airports. Or maybe on this aspect it's a cover up of incompetence and negligence or just ass-covering 'just in case'.

Absolutely, the govt should be pressed to release all the evidence and make it's case. I'm in favor of continued independent research and investigation, but i'm skeptical of claims that the failure of the Feds to be forthcoming is evidence the alleged hijackers/probable patsies were not knowingly involved in a terrorist plot. One of the things that does need to be established is what kind of plot the alleged hijackers thought they were participating in, and which ones, if any, were double agents. Some may have known it was a hijack, but not a suicide hijack.

The point that loose nuke is missing (or perhaps deliberately obfuscating) is that the government NEVER satisfactorily proved that the alleged hijackers were indeed involved. "Evidence being withheld is not proof the alleged hijackers did not board" is a classic straw man argument -- loose nuke needs to back up a step and ask, where is the conclusive evidence that the hijackers DID board the planes? And were who we have been told they were? How do we know that evidence is being withheld if we cannot even know with certainty that such evidence exists? Elias Davidsson makes a compelling case for this step having been omitted entirely in the construction of the OCT. Evidence being withheld strongly suggests that the government CANNOT make this case satisfactorily, although it does not prove it. More importantly, innocence until guilt is proven is central to our system of justice -- not only to make sure people are not punished for crimes without convictions but also to increase the odds that real perpetrators rather than scapegoats (to paraphrase Davidsson) are the ones convicted.

This is the danger of the patsy-obsessed fake truth movement -- that so many "facts" have accreted around a hypothesis that we should have been profoundly skeptical of by midmorning on 9-11-2001 -- facts do NOT directly support the hypothesis and which are IRRELEVANT if the hypothesis is not proven by some other means. We should have said, "You prove to us as in any criminal investigation that you are not pulling hijacker identities, etc., out of your collective ass -- using the same standard of reasonable doubt that would be required in a courtroom, rather than the more lax version employed in the court of public opinion." Instead, years have been wasted on transferred porkchops and the other machinations of the patsy network -- and what is worse, people are emotionally attached to the point of irrationality to the role of the patsies in the 9/11 narrative.

(If anyone would like to argue that the Moussaoui trial produced the evidence we need to ASSUME that hijackers boarded the planes, be my guest.)