Standards of Evidence

One of the basic tenets of troofer logic is that any evidence which contradicts their theory is inherently fake, because, well it contradicts their theory so it must be fake. How could anyone believe it to be true? Duh!

A example of this is given by David Ray Griffin in yet another radio interview:

Now with regard to 9/11 the signs that it is a false flag operation with planted evidence is manifold. Let me give one example. They claim they found the suitcase of Mohammed Atta, that was supposed to get on flight 11, the first flight that hit the World Trade Center. And when they opened the suitcase they found all sorts of incriminating evidence, a Koran, instructions about flying Boeing airplanes. Instructions to other hijackers and so on. It also contained Mohammed Atta’s will. If you were going to fly a plane into the World Trade Center that was going to create an enormous fireball, would you take your will?

Well, OK. I could say that personally in the unlikely event that I were in this situation, I would probably not pack my will along, but how can you completely dismiss the existence of the suitcase based entirely on this? How does he know what Atta's intent was? Maybe he intended to mail it but forgot? Maybe he intended to give it to a friend but never had a chance? Maybe he wanted to change it but never got around to it? Maybe he didn't want it to be left behind as evidence, so he figured bringing it along would all but insure its destruction? Let's suppose for a minute for argument's sake that it was a fake, and we can tell it was a fake because it would be absurd to find a will under these circumstances. OK, well if some idiot on the Internet can "figure this out", than wouldn't the CIA operatives who went to all this trouble to create and plant this evidence know this too? You can't claim evidence is fake simply based on the fact that you don't find it convenient.

Griffin incidently also goes on to repeat his Marvin Bush connected to WTC myth (after listening to a good half dozen of these interviews, he says very little new in each one). He keeps changing his story though. Just a couple of weeks ago he said:

Another possible explanation comes from the fact that uh, a company that was involved with security for the World Trade Center has as its Chief Executive Officer Wirt Walker III who is a cousin of George Bush and another principal in the company was Marvin Bush, George’s brother.

Now he claims:

Well one of those a priori objections is, how could anyone get into the towers to plant the explosives, that takes dozens of hours and lots of people? Well, a little fact that the 9/11 Commission didn't reveal might be helpful here, that Marvin Bush, the President's brother was one of the principals of a company that handled security for the World Trade Center. So you see, well maybe there would be a way they could get in there. And also the Chief Operating Officer was Wirt Walker III who is a somewhat distant cousin of there's.

The fact is, Wirt Walker III has no known relation to the Bush family, the fact that Griffin can now only claim that they are "somewhat distant cousins" is indicative of this. He was also the CEO, not the COO, Griffin apparently can't make up his mind what his position was.