As to 9-11, I would encourage you naysayers to offer your own theories about what happened. If you concede that the perpetators were part of conspiracy, then any version of the events on and leading up to that day is, necessarily, a conspiracy theory, including the governments version, for which they admittedly have no evidence. What I don't understand is why so-called progressives would rather attack people challenging the government's conpiracy theory rather than challenge the governments patently counterfiet version of events.
Yes, this is from the much loved (around here) American Free Press:
"In an April 19 speech delivered to the Common wealth Club in San Francisco, Mueller said that the purported hijackers, in his words, “left no paper trial.” The FBI director stated flatly:
In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper—either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere—that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot.
In describing Mueller’s evidence fiasco, Los Angeles Times reporters Erich Lichtblau and Josh Meyer, whose article was reprinted in The Washington Post on April 30, note that:
Law enforcement officials say that while they have been able to reconstruct the movements of the hijackers before the attacks—all legal except for a few speeding tickets—they have found no evidence of their actual plotting.
The Times reporters acknowledge that Mueller’s comments “offer the FBI’s most comprehensive and detailed assessment to date of its investigation, remarkable as much for what investigators have not found as for what they have.”
The FBI director explained away the absence of evidence by making the disingenuous assertion that the hijackers used “meticulous planning, extraordinary secrecy and extensive knowledge of how America works” to conceal their scheme.
Mueller made this claim despite the fact that in the immediate wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, a variety of U.S. officials and media sources speciously announced, almost instantaneously, that there was firm evidence not only that these 19 Muslim men were agents of Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda “network” but that they were indeed the individuals who hijacked the doomed flights on Sept. 11."
>From: Jon Johanning <jjohanning at igc.org>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Fisk avoiding facts? really?
>Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:58:47 -0500
>
>On Thursday, November 20, 2003, at 12:29 PM, cian wrote:
>
>>The other question, is why conspiracists never notice these
>>things, either. Perhaps open conspiracies aren't sexy enough - they'd
>>rather
>>be battling secret subversives for the soul of the world. Who knows,
>>certainly the psychology of the crazed is not my area of expertise.
>
>I think that's basically right. I would put it this way: the idea that they
>battling secret subversives for the soul of the world is what boosts their
>self-image. They want to feel that they are smarter than everyone else --
>that they can see more deeply into reality than anyone else. Basically the
>same frame of mind that motivates those folks who pester university physics
>professions with cranky "papers" proving that Einstein was wrong.
>
>Like the Einstein debunkers, they can be recognized fairly easily by the
>fact that, while they claim to have superior insight to anyone else's, they
>have not bothered to master the fundamentals of the subject -- in this
>case, the economic and political realities of the world power situation.
>
>But one must also concede that even apparent "kooks" may be saying
>something we "saner" folks need to listen to. I am somehow reminded of
>someone like Dostoyevsky, who steadily moved over his life into a more and
>more repellant (to us lefties) political position, but nevertheless had
>some very penetrating things to say about political psychology, especially
>the political psychology of those who consider themselves revolutionaries.
>What are the Kennedy assassination, 9/11, etc., conspiracy theorists
>saying? I'm not sure, but it may be that the shiny, rational,
>Marxist-tinged image of things that most of us are comfortable with masks a
>real world that teems with creepy-crawly creatures that we are not at all
>comfortable with acknowledging the existence of.
>
>
>Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org
>__________________________________
>A gentleman haranguing on the perfection of our law, and that it was
>equally open to the poor and the rich, was answered by another, 'So is the
>London Tavern.' -- "Tom Paine's Jests..." (1794); also attr. to John Horne
>Tooke (1736-1812) by Hazlitt
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
_________________________________________________________________ Is there a gadget-lover on your gift list? MSN Shopping has lined up some good bets! http://shopping.msn.com