--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" > <shempmcgurk@> > <snip> > > > > No, the oldest trick in the book is to let you THINK that the > > > > powers that be let the kooks run wild and to let you THINK that > > > > the real evidence is being obscured by the fuss they stir up. > > > > > > Um, no, Shemp, there'd be no motivation for them to > > > do that if they were "clean." > > > > There's "clean" and then there's "clean." > > > > I can easily make the case that the Bush Administration LIKES the > > confusion, not because they have anything concrete to hide, but > > because as long as people are muttering about "conspiracies" > > they're not bitching nearly as much about gross incompetence. > > I kind of don't think that could be it, simply because > the conspiracy theorists are in a really tiny minority. > Keeping *them* distracted from the gross incompetence > isn't going to be that much of a help. > > But because they're so highly motivated to find the dirt, > distracting them from real dirt could be a *huge* help; > they're likely to be the ones who find it, if there is > any. > > And I think there is *some*. The most glaring evidence > that something funny was going on is what happened on > the stock market in the days before the attack. I > haven't seen anybody even attempt to make a case that > that was benign. > > On the other hand, it's usually just mentioned in passing > as one of the "unanswered questions." I'm unaware of > anyone who is seriously trying to dig up information on > it. > > Seems to me it would be the key to the whole thing. Yet > people are much more fascinated by the controlled- > demolition and "Where's the plane?" scenarios, which just > aren't going to get anywhere definitive (unless somebody > 'fesses up). >
True enough, but that's what I meant. Give the conspiracy theorists free reign to come up with all sorts of silliness and any glaringly obvious things are drowned out in the morass of silliness. And who is to judge just what is silly and what isn't? A.K. Dewdney has been a 9/11 conspiracy theoriest for quite a while and yet his background is technical and quite mainstream. He was the editor of the Mathematical Recreations column for Scientific American fo rmany years, IIRC, and a professor of applied math before he got hooked on 9/11 conspiracies. That's not to say that he might not be a pure nut and/or deceiving himself, but that his background and credentials are such that you can't just dismiss him as "just another nut" without addressing his claims directly. And none of the skeptical types seem willing to do this that I have seen. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
