--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/17/06, Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > But for this type of > > conspiracy to have occurred - one in which the towers > > were destroyed by explosives inside the building, and > > then the evidence of this suppressed after the attacks > > - then literally thousands of people would have to be > > involved in the coverup, because that's how many > > people were involved in the investigation and/or have > > the skills to identify flaws in the published reports > > about the investigation. > > Now I understand what your reasoning. I didn't realize that you were > positing a vast coverup as part of all the conspiracy theories. > > Assuming that a large number of people can't be wrong about something > because they are smart and well-connected is a tautology. I think > there are many examples of large numbers of smart, well-connected > people who turned a blind eye to an inconvenient truth. Not that I > arguing that that's the case with 9/11... but I've generally found it > more profitable to question authority than to make the kind of > assumption that you are arguing.
Isn't that not a tautology at all, but one of the basic assumptions about peer-review in science? This argument is very similar to the argument used by Creationists when I start pointing out the tremendous geological evidence against the young-Earth hypothesis. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
