23-08-2013, 01:30 AM
The official explanation does not explain; it conceals.
Of note is the observation of Tony Szamboti at 479
If I had to bet I would say it is a job. Only somebody in that situation would keep coming back saying the same things, after what they were saying had been shown to be extremely unlikely, if not outright impossible, numerous times.
It is the same method of propaganda used to keep the JFK assassination under wraps by its perpetrators. Put enough theory twisters (obfuscators) out there to muddy things and make it real complex to keep newcomers away and those who have seen the acts for what they actually were from making any progress alerting their fellow citizens. From what I see the theory twister usually starts out paying their dues to gain acceptance by initially making it look like they are sympathetic with the view of those who say the investigations of the crimes were frauds and that the real perpetrators were allowed to get away with it. They then proceed to gradually torture everything anyone says that makes any sense towards showing the crimes for what they actually were. If successful the theory twister causes enough doubt to bring on paralysis and the mirage of divided opinion, giving politicians an out because they can then say there is no consensus and we will never know.
With a recent aside from Yesbut and Butwait
If I had something better to do I wouldn't natter on the nets...
We haven't had nattering since Nixon's Agnew lashed out at nabobs
The towers did not collapse from heat-weakened steel, but from charges placed in advance
Gee, is this let it happen, make it happen, or play with your food
The result was to execute the pre-existing Iraq invasion plan and access the world's heroin supply
The lever was the alleged terror attack
The fulcrum was the horrible, intentional sacrifice of three thousand initially, and countless to follow, and follow
Peter has many valid points; hardly rubbish
A commission which would not look for explosives--after an earlier one which would not look beyond the a priori lone gunman
And a war after that one, too
Natter, no, not here
Of note is the observation of Tony Szamboti at 479
If I had to bet I would say it is a job. Only somebody in that situation would keep coming back saying the same things, after what they were saying had been shown to be extremely unlikely, if not outright impossible, numerous times.
It is the same method of propaganda used to keep the JFK assassination under wraps by its perpetrators. Put enough theory twisters (obfuscators) out there to muddy things and make it real complex to keep newcomers away and those who have seen the acts for what they actually were from making any progress alerting their fellow citizens. From what I see the theory twister usually starts out paying their dues to gain acceptance by initially making it look like they are sympathetic with the view of those who say the investigations of the crimes were frauds and that the real perpetrators were allowed to get away with it. They then proceed to gradually torture everything anyone says that makes any sense towards showing the crimes for what they actually were. If successful the theory twister causes enough doubt to bring on paralysis and the mirage of divided opinion, giving politicians an out because they can then say there is no consensus and we will never know.
With a recent aside from Yesbut and Butwait
If I had something better to do I wouldn't natter on the nets...
We haven't had nattering since Nixon's Agnew lashed out at nabobs
The towers did not collapse from heat-weakened steel, but from charges placed in advance
Gee, is this let it happen, make it happen, or play with your food
The result was to execute the pre-existing Iraq invasion plan and access the world's heroin supply
The lever was the alleged terror attack
The fulcrum was the horrible, intentional sacrifice of three thousand initially, and countless to follow, and follow
Peter has many valid points; hardly rubbish
A commission which would not look for explosives--after an earlier one which would not look beyond the a priori lone gunman
And a war after that one, too
Natter, no, not here