Why I don't think 911 was an inside job

Here's is why I don't believe 911 was an inside job.

If I wanted to create a false flag to attack Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, & Iran (but not Saudi Arabia), then I wouldn't make it appear to be an attack by Saudi Arabians. I would create one that clearly looked like it was an attack by one of the  countries I wanted an excuse to go to war with.

The fact that the CIA was in a panic to get Saudi Arabians out of the country only AFTER the attack, shows it wasn't planned. If so they would have gotten them out beforehand.

If you were going to blow up the World Trade Center and Pentagon as a plausible excuse for an attack on Iran or Iraq, you would just use explosives and detonate them and make it look like Iranians or Iraqis planted the bombs --- something that would have been highly plausible to the public since this was the approach by previous terrorists trying to blow up the towers. It would have gone off without anyone questioning it. You would NOT do a complicated less credible thing with box-cutters and Saudi Terrorists AND blow it up another way too. What purpose would it serve? The fact that the story of the box-cutters and aviation simulation training seems ODD is evidence that it is true. A false flag to fool people would be designed especially to not seem odd.

I believe Al Qaeda did blow up the World Trade Center in the way we were told, and that it came as a surprise to the powers that be. I do, however, believe that the incident was used (quite implausibly, and in a very sloppy manner) as an excuse to attack Iraq.

In that sense it was used like a false flag.

I spoke to a man who was so astonished I could be so naive as to believe 19 Saudi nationals training in Afghanistan could . . . and then proceeded to tell the story of aviation training modules and box cutters to make it sound as crazy and complex and unbelievable as he could -- to show me how dumb I was.

But here is the scenario he believes.

Explosives were planted by the CIA in the Towers and detonated and missiles fired into the Pentagon . . . and then witnesses and footage was produced at great length and expense with no one noticing to make it look like airplanes, and then every length taken to make the latter story stick, by hiring actors to portray people who didn't exist to talk over cellphones . . . and ran about planting passports of Saudis (to make it look like Iraqis did it) and on and on and on . . . so that people would believe the far-fetched version of the story, and not guess the simple story. In other words the cover story was bizarre and unnecessary (and served no end of any kind) to cover the facts that were entirely simple.

I mean it's insanely complicated explaining the true story and the bizarre cover story. Why was the bizarre cover story necessary? Especially when the bizarre unnecessary cover story it impugned Saudis who were our allies. Wouldn't you want to make it look like Iraq?

The thinking of that man reminds me of a story I once heard about a murderer. He said he raped the girl after he murdered her to make it look like a rape.

Another argument I heard from a recent engineering school graduate, is fell like a controlled demotion, so had to have help. Why would whoever did that go out of their way to make it look like it wasn't the planes? What would be the motive to make it appear to be a controlled demolition? To raise suspicion? That is the implied implication. Someone had to help it along to make it look like a planned demolition. Again that's like making a murder look like a rape and murder. For what?