[lbo-talk] 9/11? wazzat?

ravi ravi at platosbeard.org
Wed Sep 19 15:05:07 PDT 2007


On 14 Sep, 2007, at 16:06 PM, double bluff wrote:


> Now several believers in the official conspiracy theory on this list
> should have some hard time. Welcome in reality. We tinfoilhat nuts
> expect apologies :-)
>
> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18369.htm
>
> Even the chair of the 9/11 Commission now admits that the official
> evidence they were given was 'far from the truth'.
>

No, no, my friend... that's not how it works. The anti-"conspiracy" gang have all this figured out. Expect before long the response:

Well, it doesn't matter if your conclusion is correct! The problem

was that the facts of the time did not engender the conclusion. The

facts have now changed and we too believe differently now. Except

when we believe it, it is warranted and thus no longer a

"conspiracy".

In case that rhetoric sounds familiar, here is the unsurprisingly similar BushCo version:

It does not matter that Iraq turned out not to have participated

in the 9/11 attack, that there were no WMD, etc. At the time we

invaded we all believed they did and the few tinfoilhat nuts who

did not, had no access to the facts... blah, blah... they do not

support the troops, they are traitors... blah, blah...

Any time you see trick words like these ("traitors", "support the troops", "conspiracy theory") you should realise immediately that the dispenser is fully stocked with more of them... you just can't win! ;-)

--ravi (who has no position on the 9/11 "conspiracy")



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list