Re: for your consideration 405
Well, Greenster, I thought this bit was pretty telling:"anyone who's seen a Tom Clancy movie knows that a handful of bad guys can pull off big conspiracies"Overall, the article reads like a Beautiful Mind, Connect-the-dots-I'm-Showing-You, conspiracy theory. I was interested by the bits about the 1933 killing of Chicago mayor Anton Cernak (who was shaking the hand of FDR at or near the time), but unsatisfied by this article's use of that material.Uncited quotations, unspecified claims . . . all adding up to, of course, the apparantly inescapable conclusion that 9/11 was a conspiracy of the US government, since clearly Prescott Bush had a hand in the "business rebellion" of 1933. Even given the premise, don't you see the non-sequitor?Overall, this article reads much like the postings of a former DBIS-er, who I'm told is missed around here, but whose work I don't particularly miss.Maybe I'm just overly suspicious of articles that deploy passive verbs in certain core parts of their arguments. For example, "it has been proven that," or "it is accepted that . . . " and so on.That sounds like government talk to me, and you know I don't trust them . . . Herring405
H
Herring405
(view)
Well, Greenster, I thought this bit was pretty telling:"anyone who's seen a Tom Clancy movie knows that a handful of bad guys can pull off big conspiracies"Overall, the article reads like a Beautiful Mind, Connect-the-dots-I'm-Showing-You, conspiracy theory. I was interested by the bits about the 1933 killing of Chicago mayor Anton Cernak (who was shaking the hand of FDR at or near the time), but unsatisfied by this article's use of that material.Uncited quotations, unspecified claims . . . all adding up to, of course, the apparantly inescapable conclusion that 9/11 was a conspiracy of the US government, since clearly Prescott Bush had a hand in the "business rebellion" of 1933. Even given the premise, don't you see the non-sequitor?Overall, this article reads much like the postings of a former DBIS-er, who I'm told is missed around here, but whose work I don't particularly miss.Maybe I'm just overly suspicious of articles that deploy passive verbs in certain core parts of their arguments. For example, "it has been proven that," or "it is accepted that . . . " and so on.That sounds like government talk to me, and you know I don't trust them . . . Herring405
