On May 13, 2010, at 1:12 PM, Shane Mage wrote:
>> If you state that you have no idea what actually happened to the
>> WTC ("whatever actually happened"), how can you be certain a theory
>> consistent with the data that is widely accepted,
>
> What does "widely accepted" mean, when the "data" in question consists of unchallengeable official claims? The "data" proving the guilt of Dreyfus was also widely accepted, as was the "data" proving that Spaniards blew up the Maine.
I don't recall if it was the first time that Doug introduced the conspiracy topic in recent weeks, or the second time, but I do recall asking at the time what the emotional reaction to the topic. Doug's backhand reply included the phrase 'breathtakingly stupid', which surprised me.
When it comes to data and it's analysis or extrapolation, I've always felt that I could trust Doug - I don't disagree with his self proclaimed state of enlightenment. But there seems to be no 'data' on which to build a counterargument here, and only this vague proclamation that the conspiracy theorists divert energy from recognition of our real enemies - (would that be global capital?).
I realize that I'm questioning motivation, which is impolite. I apologize in advance for any respiratory distress.
martin