[ExI] Top ten dumbest remarks
lcorbin at rawbw.com
Mon Oct 8 04:10:19 UTC 2007
> 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.
Now, how many people would have to be involved in that
conspiracy? (I honestly ask for estimates.) 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.
More information about the extropy-chat