> What is quite remarkable about the 'anti-conspiracists' on
> this list and in general is that they rarely if ever actually
> take on any specific 9-11 researchers or intellectuals who
> have questioned the 9-11 narrative [...] Daniel Ellsberg [...]
[ ... ok, I'll bite; I read the links you sent ... ]
> It seems fairly obvious that the criminal consiracy did not
> begin and end with the alleged hijackers.
I'd like to see you show that Daniel Ellsberg supports this view. The link you sent has a Correction at the top of it; it reads:
-=-=-=
Correction: The original headlines for the interview with Daniel Ellsberg posted on July 19, 2006, and parts of the story, incorrectly paraphrased the accompanying transcript (which is accurate) and inadvertently misrepresented his views. He did not, and does not, predict that the "Bush regime will stage terrorist attack to provide pretext for Iran, Syria invasion," nor that "within days after a US military strike on Iran. Bush's handlers would probably stage some type of terror attack in the West to legitimize the new war." Nor does he believe that the government "may have carried out 9/11" except in the limited sense that elements in the government have, in his opinion, the "psychological capability" to do so, as others, in his own experience, have had in the past.
-=-=-=
The last sentence is important.
/jordan