[ExI] Top ten dumbest remarks

[Samantha Atkins]

On Oct 7, 2007, at 9:10 PM, Lee Corbin wrote:

> Richard writes
>
>> There does not need to be any suggestion that anyone knew any precise
>> details of the attacks.  No conspiracy to do anything at all (and
>> certainly not a conspiracy to blow anything up).  And no knowledge of
>> exactly what the attack would be.  Just a decision, at some level,  
>> that
>> they had to allow the widely expected big attack to get through.
>
> A decision, at some level, "to allow the widely expected big
> attack to get through" would leave traces, no?  Again, a conspiracy
> must be immune to defectors and to people wanting to write a lot
> of books and become celebrities like John Dean.
>

Yes.  If an investigation is allowed to look into them.  A conspiracy  
needs to control who knows what and prevent to deep a probing for the  
facts afterwards and be able to discredit defectors adequately.  It  
does not need to be perfect to succeed.  That history is replete with  
conspiracies only widely believed long after the event should teach us  
that even large-scale conspiracies do occur.

> Now, how many people would have to be involved in that
> conspiracy?  (I honestly ask for estimates.)

A handful of people at the top able to give appropriate commands and  
true believers to do a few necessary bits of work would be sufficient  
to create the event.

> Do you suppose
> that the 9-11 pictures, TV shots of people jumping from
> buildings, and so on, never cause these people remorse
> or second thoughts?  All in all, conspiracies require a lot
> of evidence to be believed in.
>

I have no idea or interest in whether there is remorse or second  
thoughts.  I want a full real investigation into the facts of this  
great tragic event that changed so much.

- samantha