|| -----Original Message-----
|| From: Max Sawicky
||
|| That the US Gov told law enforcement to cool it w/OBL
|| for the sake of a possible deal is not conspiracism. It's
|| either true or it isn't. It's not implausible.
||
|| To imagine that the WTC attack was implemented by US
|| agents, or that it was known about in advance and permitted
|| to take place, that would be conspiracist. And if this was a
|| real conspiracy, we would not hear about it from Paula Zipper,
|| uh, Zahn.
||
|| mbs
||
IOW when a scenario looks plausible to you, it's not conspiracist, but if it doesn't get the mbs impimatur, it's black helicopter material.
I think we need to redo that Karl Popper thread.
More great logic: If it's on CNN, it can't be a conspiracy. CNN also reported the Unocal story, even mentioning Unocal Veep John Maresca's testimony before the house subcomittee on Asia and the Pacific in 1998. But it left out the juciest parts and ended the story with: "So the idea that oil is now driving this war is totally unrealistic. It would be more sensible to be considering a pipeline on the moon." http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/11/26/afghan.oil/
The reason why the pipeline theory or the Brisard & Dasquié book is on CNN is spin control, and that's why Richard Butler is on the show. Not because he's an expert but because he's a trusted Bushie.
Hakki