tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post7941363820775552990..comments2024-03-29T05:14:33.223-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: UPDATED: Conspiracy Theories Nobody Is Interested InUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-54324487318804447062008-03-02T23:28:00.000-08:002008-03-02T23:28:00.000-08:00"tanabear said...Who are you going to believe a go..."tanabear said...<BR/><BR/>Who are you going to believe a government "expert" who can't even explain the collapse of WTC1,2and 7 or your lying eyes?"<BR/><BR/>I'll believe my lying eyes, which saw the top of one of the towers break off and fall......right about at the floor where the BIG AIRPLANE hit it.<BR/><BR/>"Truth said...<BR/><BR/>"Well, technically speaking, how does one justify the passport of one of the 'fluttering out of a fiery inferno and landing face-up on a Manhattan street unscathed. For that matter, how does one justify a 'plane' hitting the Pentagon without leaving wings, engines, seats, bodies, luggage, landing gear or anything else."<BR/><BR/>Let's see, which side does a coin land on. Heads or tails. Heads? Must be a conspiracy.<BR/><BR/>So it wasn't an airplane that hit the pentagon. A missle, perhaps? What about the eyewitnesses who saw an airplane? And if it wasn't a plane, where's Barbara Olson today? Living in "The Village"? And why was Rumsfeld there? Wasn't he part of the conspiracy? Wouldn't he have found some excuse to not be in the office that morning?<BR/><BR/>"Those who answer yes would be classified "fertilizer" and immediately executed."<BR/><BR/>And you think the government are evil, soulless, murderers? You sound like the sort of guy who'd personally push the plunger on the WTC (your scenario) if it had only been filled with the right kind of people.<BR/><BR/>I don't think I want any part of your "truth"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-18454640690995056262008-03-02T21:03:00.000-08:002008-03-02T21:03:00.000-08:00"For the most part you strike me as people who kno..."For the most part you strike me as people who know very little about anything technical."<BR/><BR/>Well, technically speaking, how does one justify the passport of one of the 'fluttering out of a fiery inferno and landing face-up on a Manhattan street unscathed. For that matter, how does one justify a 'plane' hitting the Pentagon without leaving wings, engines, seats, bodies, luggage, landing gear or anything else.<BR/><BR/>Steve tends to discuss IQ a lot on this board I think all IQ tests should be revamped to consist of one question:<BR/><BR/>Do you believe the official 9/11 story?<BR/><BR/>Those who answer 'no' would be classified "smart enough"<BR/><BR/>Those who answer yes would be classified "fertilizer" and immediately executed.Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-62445846289575601352008-03-02T13:17:00.000-08:002008-03-02T13:17:00.000-08:00Truthers:So Bush is willing to blow up the WTC and...Truthers:<BR/><BR/>So Bush is willing to blow up the WTC and Pentagon but doesn't even try to plant some WMDs, post invasion, in Iraq to justify his war? Huh?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-38196503714028123892008-03-01T16:46:00.000-08:002008-03-01T16:46:00.000-08:00Martin writes, "A plane in that scenario would hav...Martin writes, "A plane in that scenario would have been moving at a speed of about 200 mph at most."<BR/><BR/>Wrong! A white paper from 1964 states:<BR/><BR/>"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."<BR/><BR/>"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed… The building structure would still be there."<BR/>John Skilling, WTC building designer <BR/><BR/>Martin writes, "whereas in the actual event it was largely blown off of the steel by the shrapnel from impact."<BR/><BR/>This is speculation. Some of the fire-proofing was blown off and some of it wasn't. This is not that important since NIST discovered that the steel did not get that hot anyway. <BR/><BR/>"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns<BR/>had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC(482F...sing metallographic analysis, NIST determined<BR/>that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above<BR/>600C(1112F)"<BR/>NIST, 2005<BR/><BR/>Martin writes, "But it[WTC7] did get sprayed by flaming debris and then burn for nearly the whole day."<BR/><BR/>So did WTC3,4,5, and 6. Why did the building that was the furthest away and suffer the least structural damage of all the buildings in the WTC complex collapse? WTC5 had far more extensive fires compared to its size. Why has the government yet to release an official explanation for the collapse of WTC7? FEMA stated in their report, <BR/><BR/>"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time...the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."<BR/><BR/>"We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors.… But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7." Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, head of the NIST investigation. <BR/><BR/>So far the "experts" are not capable of explaining the collapse of WTC7. <BR/><BR/>As well, even though NIST released their report on WTC1,2 in 2005, they still do not examine the actual collapse. They state clearly that their report,<BR/><BR/>"does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached..."<BR/><BR/>In this sense, their report is merely a pre-collapse analysis.<BR/><BR/>In a Request for Correction issued by members of the 9/11 Truth Movement NIST responded, <BR/><BR/>"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse." <BR/><BR/>So who are you going to believe Martin, the Ivy League professor who assures us that the races are all the same or your lying eyes?<BR/><BR/>Who are you going to believe a government "expert" who can't even explain the collapse of WTC1,2and 7 or your lying eyes?tanabearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13683878890408974918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-75440470778347509032008-03-01T12:01:00.000-08:002008-03-01T12:01:00.000-08:00"tanabear said...Actually, you do. Plus, WTC7 was ..."tanabear said...<BR/><BR/>Actually, you do. Plus, WTC7 was never hit by a plane and it collapsed via a controlled demolition at 5:20pm that afternoon. The buildings were designed to survive the impact of jetliners."<BR/><BR/>The World Trade centers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 landing at or taking off from JFK. A plane in that scenario would have been moving at a speed of about 200 mph at most. Also the 767 is a significantly heavier plane than the 707 - a 767-200 series has an empty weight at least 30% greater than a 707. I don't know about fully-loaded weight, but assuming that it is proportional to empty weight, than the 767's hitting the WTC would have had at least eight times the kinetic energy as the putative 707 in the designer's scenario.<BR/><BR/>Add to that the fact that the building designers assumed that the fire-retardent sprayed on the steel would prevent weakening of the structural members long enough for the fire to be put out - whereas in the actual event it was largely blown off of the steel by the shrapnel from impact.<BR/><BR/>Add to that the fact, that the designers may not have adequately designed the building to withstand impact from even a 707. Sure you can say that you have, but absent realistic testing (which as it happens was not done until Sept. 11), it doesn't really mean much.<BR/><BR/>As for for WTC 7 - no it wasn't hit by an airplane. But it did get sprayed by flaming debris and then burn for nearly the whole day - it was the site of the city's emergency command post, and housed large diesel fuel tanks to run generators and emergency vehicles. <BR/><BR/>And as for that lame "pull-it" comment: the guy in question meant pull the fire crews, not pull the building. You truthers take every quote, even out of context, to support your case, but you ignore anything said by anyone which disproves your risible "theories" (like for example, things said by Mohammed Atta).<BR/><BR/>As Steve is fond of saying: Who are you going to believe- Official or Expert X, or your own lying eyes?<BR/><BR/>For 'truthers' like you, that should be amended to: Who are you going to believe - some internet conspiracy blogger whose realy name you probably don't even know, or your own lying eyes.<BR/><BR/>I have read a good deal of the writings of 9/11 'truthers'. For the most part you strike me as people who know very little about anything technical. You people are deluded fools. I don't mean that perjoratively either. It is a mere statement of fact. You are deluded. And you have been fooled.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-24709488773862401582008-03-01T04:58:00.001-08:002008-03-01T04:58:00.001-08:00Why have we given up the hunt for Osama Bin Laden?...<I> Why have we given up the hunt for Osama Bin Laden?</I><BR/>Because he's a double agent and as such more useful alive or "missing in action"?<BR/>The line between terrorists and spies is blurred. Anybody can hire them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-7604407337604022032008-03-01T04:58:00.000-08:002008-03-01T04:58:00.000-08:00Why have we given up the hunt for Osama Bin Laden?...<I>Why have we given up the hunt for Osama Bin Laden?</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>Well, before the 2004 tape was release, virtually everyone assumed he was dead. He was pretty ill during 9/11 and he was widely reported dead in December 2001. When Kerry criticized Bush for letting Osama escape during the presidential debates, Republican pundits defended Bush by saying that everyone knew Osama was dead.<BR/><BR/>Then, shortly after that, an extremely blurry tape of Osama surfaced criticizing Bush. My opinion is that extremely blurry = deliberately downsampled to cover up the fact that it's a fake. Osama was a multi-millionaire opium kingpin, he could've afforded a Sony Handicam for crying out loud.<BR/><BR/>So the answer is: Osama is dead, but we pretended he was alive for a long time to frighten Americans into supporting the "War on Terror". Now it looks like they're phasing him out, probably because it's been too tough to come up with evidence for his existence that can withstand scrutiny. I'm sure soon enough we'll be told that he's finally died, and will even be presented with a mangled, unidentifiable Arab corpse as "proof".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-86380241123807398562008-02-29T22:13:00.000-08:002008-02-29T22:13:00.000-08:00Since Blogger ate my post I'll trim it down:Why ha...Since Blogger ate my post I'll trim it down:<BR/><BR/>Why have we given up the hunt for Osama Bin Laden?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-62023660104879107902008-02-29T18:53:00.000-08:002008-02-29T18:53:00.000-08:00Steve Wood:We don't know when the first anthrax le...Steve Wood:<BR/><BR/>We don't know when the first anthrax letter was mailed. The envelope was never recovered -- it was most likely burned. That envelope was addressed to Jennifer Lopez. It may have been postmarked September 4.<BR/><BR/>An important item to bear in mind regarding the anthrax letters is the difference in the grade of anthrax within. The letters in the NY Media wave contained clumpy, grainy stuff, which seems to have caused some cutaneous cases, but no inhalational cases. The Senate anthrax, sent to Daschle and Leahy, was totally different in quality. That stuff was so well prepared that it caused accidental inhalational cases among postal workers while the envelopes were still sealed. The Daschle letter contaminated an entire office building shortly after it was opened. A USAMRIID scientist who examined the Leahy letter, thankfully intercepted, watched the contents float up out of the envelope once he opened it. The New York Media buildings weren't closed for a year, like the AMI building in Florida and the Hart Senate Office building.<BR/><BR/>If that AMI letter was indeed present in the building before September 11, that would be quite problematic, wouldn't it. That's an important point that tends to get glazed over, but it goes to the heart of the motive. For some time, the narrative was that it was a biodefense insider run amok. The AMI letter would seem to either deflate that theory -- or inflate it by several hundred orders of magnitude. <BR/><BR/>And biodefense insider Hatfill? <BR/>Well. I don't believe he's any more guilty than the good Lt. Col. and his mock "Dromedary Association." But nothing about Hatfill's past leads me to think he's some babe in the woods, either.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01616851161350591326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-48497662766879460942008-02-29T18:29:00.000-08:002008-02-29T18:29:00.000-08:00Aanonymous writes, "9/11 Conspiracy theories aboun...Aanonymous writes, "9/11 Conspiracy theories abound because they feed the need for conspiracy theorists to discount the danger of jihad in favor of something not so threatening."<BR/><BR/>No, they abound because the destruction of 9/11 was the result of a secret plan, and the average person has no way of knowing much more than who had a motive and who had an opportunity to commit these crimes. What we can and do know tells us that the government's story is implausible, but it can't tell us just who was involved.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-78600110115029664252008-02-29T17:27:00.000-08:002008-02-29T17:27:00.000-08:00Steve:Your career has suffered because you are wil...Steve:<BR/><BR/>Your career has suffered because you are willing to investigate subjects others won't touch. And then you <I>publish</I> what you have found. I'm not sure you want to go down the anthrax rabbit hole. The warren goes pretty deep.<BR/><BR/>One of the best commentators on the anthrax mailings is actually in Southern California, at Stanford. I think. He retired from the speculation business a little over a year ago and I haven't heard from him since then. I miss his sense of humor and commentary, but I'm pretty sure he wants to stay out.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure if you'd be willing to accept his ideas. His views on world events of the last two decades are pretty different from yours. However, if there's any journalist out there who is curious, courageous and persistent enough to tackle the task, it's you.<BR/><BR/>But one fellow who is still "in" is Edward Jay Epstein. I believe he has a new book due out this year, some of which may address the anthrax mailings within the context of the times. I dimly recall a post of yours on this blog about the late James Jesus Angleton, the half-Mexican head of CIA Counterintelligence decades ago. I think you would've had to have read some of the Angleton material on Epstein's website. I look forward to Epstein's newest release.<BR/><BR/>Do you still use that aol email address, Steve?<BR/><BR/>In closing, I'd like to admire this fine passage by an anonymous commentator above:<BR/><BR/><I>Don't know about the Anthrax thing. My recollection is that it was pushed down the memory hole within days. No one ever linked it to Saddam and with Saddam the main worry was over nukes.</I>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01616851161350591326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-50635300819979644442008-02-29T15:12:00.000-08:002008-02-29T15:12:00.000-08:00The Anthrax Attax are indeed a fascinating and fer...The Anthrax Attax are indeed a fascinating and fertile field for conspiracy theorists. The rapid disappearance of the attacks from the media, however, has a likely non-covert explanation. <BR/><BR/>The first letters were dated September 18, 2001. The last letter was eventually discovered (more than a month after its postmark) on November 16. I doubt that we have ever had two more preoccupied, terrified months in our history. Not only did the first attacks occur less than two weeks after 9/11, but the war in Afghanistan started in midst of the attacks. Once Stephen Hatfill emerged as "a person of interest" and was obviously not an Islamist operative, the entire country heaved a huge sigh of relief and, I think, made a collective, unconscious decision not to worry about domestic terrorism. <BR/><BR/>What happened to Hatfill was shameful, and the real story behind the attacks is an intriguing mystery, but I don't think there's any conspiracy not to talk about them. They were driven out of the public consciousness by more pressing matters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-8282758866372382062008-02-29T14:24:00.000-08:002008-02-29T14:24:00.000-08:00Dr. Zack is the fellow I wrote about a couple of m...Dr. Zack is the fellow I wrote about a couple of months ago -- I was sure he was the guy ... until I stopped and looked at the assembled evidence from a more skeptical perspective, then the case against him all felt apart. The scattering of clues against him were more easily explained by less spectacular theories.Steve Sailerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11920109042402850214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-78680574758107102022008-02-29T14:01:00.000-08:002008-02-29T14:01:00.000-08:00From the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax...From the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax_attacks#The_anthr<BR/><BR/><BR/>Others have claimed Dr. Philip Zack, who worked at Ft. Detrick where the anthrax came from, is a person of interest. [32] Dr. Philip Zack had the means, access to weaponized anthrax, exhibited hostile behaviours towards Dr. Ayaad Assaad, his colleague, and was caught on a security video entering a lab without authorization where anthrax samples went missing. The FBI knew of Zack and his unauthorized access to the lab, and it has been reported that Assaad had been questioned by the FBI in connection with the attacks. [33] [34]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-25416469325283057462008-02-29T10:03:00.000-08:002008-02-29T10:03:00.000-08:00A good article about the anthrax case:http://www.c...A good article about the anthrax case:<BR/><BR/>http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/terrorists/anthrax/index.html<BR/><BR/>Some indicators that it was probably Al Qaeda:<BR/>http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/terrorists/anthrax/12.html<BR/><BR/>The anthrax was the Ames strain, which was originally of US origin:<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax_attacks#The_anthrax_materialAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-805897856127852122008-02-29T09:04:00.000-08:002008-02-29T09:04:00.000-08:00anonymous writes, "9/11 Conspiracy theories abound...anonymous writes, "9/11 Conspiracy theories abound because they feed the need for conspiracy theorists to discount the danger of jihad in favor of something not so threatening."<BR/><BR/>Jihadi's are a lot less threatening than than madmen running the world's most advanced military. Cave-dwelling mountain-roaming tribal people are hardly a threat to the United States. Our government is. As conservatives used to say, "love your country and fear your government."<BR/><BR/>anonymous writes, "Feminists like Naomi Woolf, Susan Faludi etc. are ground central for 9/11 Conspiracy Theorism."<BR/><BR/>I've suspected that 9/11 was an inside job since late 2003. Naomi Wolf and Susan Faludi are in no way central to the 9/11 Truth Movement. <BR/><BR/>martin writes, "When a huge airplane loaded with JP crashes into a building at 500 mph, you really don't need to invoke some other agency to explain why the building fell down."<BR/><BR/>Actually, you do. Plus, WTC7 was never hit by a plane and it collapsed via a controlled demolition at 5:20pm that afternoon. The buildings were designed to survive the impact of jetliners. <BR/><BR/>"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."<BR/>Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center.tanabearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13683878890408974918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-89190855080528872642008-02-29T07:19:00.000-08:002008-02-29T07:19:00.000-08:00"AQ was known to have experimented with both chemi..."AQ was known to have experimented with both chemical and bioweapons according to 9/11 Commission, unlike nukes you can make Anthrax without lots of $$$ and infrastructure, if you have a friendly government to send you the cultures. [Which would also prove embarrassing -- who sent Osama's boys the start cultures, like maybe Pakistan?]"<BR/><BR/>Brother, you have a serious sight alignment problem with this one.<BR/><BR/>The anthrax used in the attacks was the Ames strain developed at Ft. Dietrich MD, making it one of the most controlled substances in the world. We would know precisely who had access to it, when, and where they went to mail it. The leads are lying right there on a silver platter.<BR/><BR/>And the coked-up amateurs just smart enough to steer a plane spread this stuff from the Princeton post office just before the drive to Boston? Let me know how many bio-hazard suits turned up in Atta's apartment.<BR/><BR/>And then there's the targets of the attack. Who'da thunk AQ had such a hard-on for Tom Daschle, Pat Leahy and a tabloid publisher.<BR/><BR/>And then there's the letters: "Allah is great!" Teenagers write that sort of tripe to piss their parents off. That is a phrase that would not even occur to a devout, literate Arab Muslim.<BR/><BR/>Cui bono: the Bush administration and the military-industrial complex get their PATRIOT Act passed thru Congress quicker than castor oil.<BR/><BR/>Hypotheses: it was a bio-hazard drill that went so stupidly, catastrophically wrong that they dare not reveal the screw-up; or it was an Executive level conspiracy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-54990224672139984852008-02-29T06:33:00.000-08:002008-02-29T06:33:00.000-08:00Ever since 9/11, TWA Flight 800 seems to have drop...Ever since 9/11, TWA Flight 800 seems to have dropped off the radar, so to speak. I am very close to a former TWA employee who was dispatched to Long Island to work with victim's families in the wake of that, and who spoke to several FBI agents and Coast Guardsmen working the case who wanted to talk off the record. She'll go to her grave convinced that it was in fact an errant Navy missile being test-fired with a dummy warhead was what brought that 747 down, Pierre Salinger's clumsy investigations notwithstanding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-37760503667913167522008-02-29T05:00:00.000-08:002008-02-29T05:00:00.000-08:00Lady Diana's car crash still looks pretty fishy to...Lady Diana's car crash still looks pretty fishy to me. Even though I hold her in utter contempt as a person, I think there's a 50 % possibility she was set up to die.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Another murky and as yet unsolved event: the March 2004 Madrid Bombings. <BR/><BR/>The trial is over but we don't know who planned the bombings, who actually planted the bombs and what explosive they used. <BR/><BR/>Aren't those serious failings in a murder case when you lack the motive, the culprits and the weapon used?<BR/><BR/>We do though know the answer to the old question: "cui profit?" (who benefitted?): Spanish Socialists, Basque and Catalan nationalists, France, Morocco, and the American Neocons.<BR/><BR/>Look here and ponder:<BR/>http://tinyurl.com/8xkhq<BR/><BR/>Mr Sailer, believe me, there's a scoop for you in this if you manage to delve through the reams of evidence.<BR/>http://www.peonesnegros.es/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-62949796804690458202008-02-29T04:33:00.000-08:002008-02-29T04:33:00.000-08:00The "friendly-fire" death of Pat Tillman in Afghan...The "friendly-fire" death of Pat Tillman in Afghanistan.<BR/><BR/>Actually, I think it was an accident, but then again, I'm a sucker in certain ways.Black Seahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347464061061628147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-31238293389960918612008-02-29T03:42:00.000-08:002008-02-29T03:42:00.000-08:00Presidents leave office after two terms (unless th...Presidents leave office after two terms (unless they take the Hillary option): wouldn't it make more sense to assassinate Supreme Court judges, who can hang around for ever?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-36841160508350017912008-02-29T03:05:00.000-08:002008-02-29T03:05:00.000-08:00And what about Rumsfeld? Was he in on it? Do you t...<I>And what about Rumsfeld? Was he in on it? Do you think a man would calmly sit down in his office, knowing that a jumbo-jet is going to crash into the building he's in?</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>If it's not a jumbo jet but a guided missile conveniently aimed at the part of the Pentagon that was undergoing renovations then yes I do think he'd be willing to sit calmly in his office.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-25605961401896181412008-02-29T02:46:00.000-08:002008-02-29T02:46:00.000-08:009/11 Conspiracy theories abound because they feed ...<I>9/11 Conspiracy theories abound because they feed the need for conspiracy theorists to discount the danger of jihad in favor of something not so threatening.<BR/><BR/>A guy named Abu something screaming Allah Akbar! preparing to blow himself up (and you with him) is too scary to think about.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>Uhhh, quite the opposite actually. The popularity of the whole "War on Terror" and the concomitant anti-Muslim hysteria stems largely from the fact that Muslims are weak and essentially harmless opponents whom we can crush easily. They're easy targets, but people like to pretend that they're gonna take over the world so that we get to feel tough by beating them up. <BR/><BR/>Dealing with the fact that 9/11 was done by powerful elements within our own society means we've got a big bully to stand up to, so most people would rather go bury their heads in the sand. This probably explains why there is so much anti-conspiracy hysteria in general, even though it's obvious to any objective and intelligent person that powerful people conspire like crazy all the time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-41304756527962417622008-02-29T01:54:00.000-08:002008-02-29T01:54:00.000-08:00Economist Ben Olken on the effects of assassinatio...Economist Ben Olken on the effects of assassination (among other things) <A HREF="http://www.american.com/archive/2008/january-february-magazine-contents/graft-paper" REL="nofollow">here</A>.TGGPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11017651009634767649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-88299503411148545232008-02-28T23:03:00.000-08:002008-02-28T23:03:00.000-08:00"tanabear said...The Economist recently released i..."tanabear said...<BR/><BR/>The Economist recently released information on the 10 most popular conspiracy theories on the web. Not surprisingly, 9/11 came out on top. 9/11 is the most popular, because it is the most obvious and has the most evidence to support it's claims."<BR/><BR/>Which is to say, virtually none? The 9/11 conspiracy claims are ludicrous. When a huge airplane loaded with JP crashes into a building at 500 mph, you really don't need to invoke some other agency to explain why the building fell down.<BR/><BR/>And what about Rumsfeld? Was he in on it? Do you think a man would calmly sit down in his office, knowing that a jumbo-jet is going to crash into the building he's in?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com