Some meat for conspiracy discussion

[Carrol Cox]

Most conspiracy theories are "plausible," but that is irrelevant because
there are always an indefinite number of "plausible" explanations of any
event. The focus on plausibility rather than evidence is what makes
conspiracy theories both so useless and so tempting. But as to the
particular people named, no they are not close to being "big
bourgeoisie." If we want BIG bourgeoisie to be meaningful, we are
talking mostly about people and families listed in the annual Forbes
account of wealth.

Carrol

Ian Murray wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Noam A" <noamish at home.com>
> To: "Lbo-Talk" <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 3:40 PM
> Subject: Some meat for conspiracy discussion
> 
> > Are these dead bourgiousie "big" enough to reduce the plausibility
> of
> > alternative WTC theories to close to zero? Discuss.
> >
> > http://cnnfn.cnn.com/2001/09/13/companies/missing_people/
> =========
> I would also note, in passing, that Citigroup took a big hit and their
> Saudi-American bank may have been the tastiest target if one of the
> goals of the attack was to weaken Saudi Arabia's kakistocracy. The
> return of US troops to that country could be escalatory despite
> whatever the US gov. intentions.
> 
> Ian