>... a "deductive" approach instead of an
> > >"inductive" one. That is, it starts with finding who had the motive,
>> >opportunity and means and then see whether he did it, instead of
>> >collecting pieces of evidence and then trying to connect the dots.
>>
>> Watch out. Apply that method to the question of
> > whether the Bushits deliberately allowed the 9/11
> > attacks to succeed and you'll have Chip Berlet et. al.
> > convicting you of Conspiracy Theorizing.
>
>
>The main difference between conspiracy theries and the deductive
>approach as outlined below is that the former can thrive on the absence
>of empirical evidence corroborating the conjecture, whereas the latter
>can be disproved by the absence of such evidence.
>
>The Bushits deliberately allowing 9/11 to happen is too farfetched, even
>as a theory...
"...Bushits deliberately allowing 9/11 to *happen*..." misstates my point. I wrote "...deliberately allowed the 9/11 attacks to *succeed*..." precisely because their having prior knowledge cannot (without an explicit confession from someone) ever be proven. What can be proven is that they had the motive (remember the moron's little joke about "winning the trifecta"?), the opportunity, and the means--and that in fact they did permit it to succeed, not least by refusing to mobilize the whole East Coast air defense network until long after it was clear that the first hijacking was a terrorist, not a ransom, hijacking. Your criteria are good ones--and all were met.
Shane Mage
"Thunderbolt steers all things."
Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64