Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_urchin who wrote (7883)	8/22/2004 6:30:52 PM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Paradoxically, that's why I believe they are genuine. That's not paradoxical, that's common sense! I'm glad someone is applying some. Had they been "officially" produced, I'm sure their quality would have been better. That's generally true, but if there's something I know about conspiracy theories - and a handful of individual conspiracy theorists on SI, in particular - it's that part and parcel to their regimen is the integration of new or confounding information as part of the conspiracy itself. It's little more than a form of self-defense, and invites easy discredit by merely observing that with each new bit of information, the alleged conspiracy has to become larger, embrace new groups and individuals, stretch to more countries, ad nauseum. Childish, really. But, as you said... [W]e are only doing this for our own edification and amusement. Absolutely, Searle. Virtually no one outside of this forum, and certainly not that I have come across as a New Yorker, give these meandering, disconnected and often nonsensical tales of whimsy any credence whatsoever. Veni, vidi...dormivi. LPS5

To: sea_urchin who wrote (7883)	8/22/2004 8:56:20 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

So good quality evidence that can actually lead to real, supportable conclusions is clearly planted and faked just because it is good quality and poor quality evidence that leads to endless controversy and can prove nothing is good? Is that what you said? What planet do you live on? Does anything work there? You know our local comnspiracy theorists first claimed that burning jet fuel coulod not cause a high-rise building to collapse, don't you? When that was disproven (in fact, the weight bearing beams of those buildings are insulated to protect them against fires expected to be of even lower temperature than that), they retreated to claiming the Pentagon had been hit by a cruise missile. When photos of plane parts were lying both inside and outside of the building were produced, the principal proponent, Duray, admitted that in fact that was not the case and it had been struck by a plane. However, whenever he thinks he can get away with it, he still throws that claim in. Now given the proven credibility of your compadres, do you find it surprising that there are those of us who find their latest twists of convenience hard to swallow?