> There's two things to consider regarding 9/11 conspiracies - is it true that they would want the benefits that fear of terrorism has lead to, and if so would they actually have killed people for that sake.
No, there's three things: (3) Did they actually kill the victims of the 9/11 attacks for that purpose; this differs from the second because it isn't just would they, in the abstract, be willing to have killed somebody, somewhere to do it, but did they actually do the particular acts that the conspiracy theory accuses them of doing.
> We're seeing more and more that the first part of that is true, i.e. proving the motive.
That they wanted the powers they were granted after 9/11 was evident before 9/11, since they were largely powers that had been overtly sought prior to 9/11 (some on "terrorism" or similar national security grounds, some to fight more regular crime -- notably the War on Drugs.) So evidence on that point is not really significant; its not the point that was in question.
No, there's three things: (3) Did they actually kill the victims of the 9/11 attacks for that purpose; this differs from the second because it isn't just would they, in the abstract, be willing to have killed somebody, somewhere to do it, but did they actually do the particular acts that the conspiracy theory accuses them of doing.
> We're seeing more and more that the first part of that is true, i.e. proving the motive.
That they wanted the powers they were granted after 9/11 was evident before 9/11, since they were largely powers that had been overtly sought prior to 9/11 (some on "terrorism" or similar national security grounds, some to fight more regular crime -- notably the War on Drugs.) So evidence on that point is not really significant; its not the point that was in question.