Self selection in conspiracy theorists

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'd also guess part of what contributed to the Red Scare was the extensive espionage activities by 4th columnists as evidenced by the Rosenbergs, their friends, and family who spied on behalf of the Soviets. This included a LOT of activities which were taking place at Los Alamos, which included the Manhattan Project (an open secret during that era).

- Doc

[_Markk]

So even in the intensely secret and highly motivated wartime atmosphere of the Manhattan project, leaks DID occur.

And we are supposed to believe that, out of the very large number of people from top politicians down to construction workers required to set up what '9/11 truthers' believe to have occurred, not a single one has blabbed since then? When, unlike the Manhattan project, there is an active group of people who devote huge amounts of time to nurturing and expounding the conspiracy story?

And there are people who find it easier to accept that there was such a huge and immensely well concealed 'controlled demolition' conspiracy, rather than accept that there will always be some aspects of the unique event of a fuel loaded plane impacting a skyscraper at high speed that involve complex collapse processes?

Oh well, Mormonism is alive and well. So anything is possible.

Consider also the "clean up" crew manpower that would be required to monitor and/or deal with any rogue "leakers." Not to mention rerunning potential fellow conspirators to help murder fellow Americans.

[_DarkHelmet]

So even in the intensely secret and highly motivated wartime atmosphere of the Manhattan project, leaks DID occur.

And we are supposed to believe that, out of the very large number of people from top politicians down to construction workers required to set up what '9/11 truthers' believe to have occurred, not a single one has blabbed since then? When, unlike the Manhattan project, there is an active group of people who devote huge amounts of time to nurturing and expounding the conspiracy story?

And there are people who find it easier to accept that there was such a huge and immensely well concealed 'controlled demolition' conspiracy, rather than accept that there will always be some aspects of the unique event of a fuel loaded plane impacting a skyscraper at high speed that involve complex collapse processes?

Oh well, Mormonism is alive and well. So anything is possible.

Consider also the "clean up" crew manpower that would be required to monitor and/or deal with any rogue "leakers." Not to mention rerunning potential fellow conspirators to help murder fellow Americans.

It happens in the movies all the time. :) I love a good conspiracy thriller, but I assume most people know what's plausible, and what's totally implausible (yet highly entertaining) fiction.

[_DarkHelmet]

I don't think there is any shame in questioning official narratives. Bush claiming Sadam had something to do with 9/11 should have been questioned more as well as his Sadam still having weapons of mass destruction invention.

Absolutely. Using the 9/11 attacks to justify pre-emptive war in the Middles East is totally plausible. That's why most people agree that the weapons of mass destruction excuse was a lie. It's not a stretch of the imagination at all and makes perfect logical sense, while the logic of rigging the twin towers with explosives and disguising missiles as planes falls apart very quickly.

[Guest]

Using the 9/11 attacks to justify pre-emptive war in the Middles East is totally plausible. That's why most people agree that the weapons of mass destruction excuse was a lie. It's not a stretch of the imagination at all and makes perfect logical sense, while the logic of rigging the twin towers with explosives and disguising missiles as planes falls apart very quickly.

Even given the idea that some nefarious government cabal set up the kamikaze airliner attack, why would it have been necessary to also rig the buildings with explosives to bring them down? Wouldn’t two gaping, burnt holes within the two tallest buildings in America - even if left standing - along with several hundred dead civilians and emergency personnel, been enough for hawks to successfully press for retaliatory action against bin Laden?

Alternately, if a secret government cabal managed to pull off the incredible feat of completely wiring these two buildings for a successful controlled demolition - and then actually did bring the towers down from it - wouldn’t it have been a whole lot easier to rent a few trucks, plant evidence in them that pointed to al Qaeda, then park them around the buildings for discovery after the fact?

It would seem that this conspiracy has an unnecessary amount of redundancy built into it that only inspires suspicion of a conspiracy.

But ...

.. wait ...

...maybe that aim to engender suspicion of a conspiracy proves that the conspiracy is real, because it shows that the conspirators were trying to elude detection by setting up a situation that would suggest a conspiracy to some, while making most folks think that believing in that conspiracy was madness, therefore poisoning the well of investigation and protecting the actual conspiracy!?!

; )

[_Markk]

It happens in the movies all the time. :) I love a good conspiracy thriller, but I assume most people know what's plausible, and what's totally implausible (yet highly entertaining) fiction.

Treadstone comes to mind.

[Guest]

I don't think there is any shame in questioning official narratives. Bush claiming Sadam had something to do with 9/11 should have been questioned more as well as his Sadam still having weapons of mass destruction invention.

Absolutely. Using the 9/11 attacks to justify pre-emptive war in the Middles East is totally plausible. That's why most people agree that the weapons of mass destruction excuse was a lie. It's not a stretch of the imagination at all and makes perfect logical sense, while the logic of rigging the twin towers with explosives and disguising missiles as planes falls apart very quickly.

And that's a good example of why one has to be careful with "Qui Bono." The fact that Bush et al used 911 as an excuse to take military action doesn't mean they caused 911.

[_moksha]

Trump entered a new argument against impeachment today. When he pardoned the Thanksgiving Turkey, despite its naval war crimes, he added, "If I can pardon this turkey, why can't Congress pardon me?"

[_Dr Exiled]

And that's a good example of why one has to be careful with "Qui Bono." The fact that Bush et al used 911 as an excuse to take military action doesn't mean they caused 911.

Res Ipsa:

Motive is an important area of criminal law and civil law investigations, as you undoubtedly know. Qui bono should always be asked in my opinion because motive seems to be the driving factor behind crime and other civil wrongs. It should be one of the first areas looked at when rounding up suspects. Why do you think the highjackers crashed the planes into the buildings? Obviously they had a motive, right? Osama Bin Laden had a motive and probably that was why he was the prime suspect within hours of 9/11. Qui bono seems to have led the way on accusing Bin Laden by Bush and others. When an older man dies suddenly and under suspicious circumstances and has a $2 Mil life insurance policy and has a young wife, shouldn't she be at least questioned? However, if she has a good alibi and another person looks like a better suspect, then one can move on. But one still questions the wife. Bush was a complete moron and so if he had been involved it was merely as a stage actor giving lines. Anyway, he was too stupid to have done 9/11.

[_moksha]

Trump entered a new argument against impeachment today. When he pardoned the Thanksgiving Turkey, despite its naval war crimes, he added, "If I can pardon this turkey, why can't Congress pardon me?"

The pardon of this turkey was not without compulsory favors. In order to have its life spared, the turkey had to manufacture dirt on Joe Biden.