conspiracy theory 911

April 25, 2004 11:48 PM

September 11th panel working to overcome conspiracy theories.
posted by thedailygrowl (33 comments total)

"The commission sought to deal with reports that relatives of bin Laden and other influential Saudis were permitted to fly out of the United States right after the attacks, when the FAA ordered all U.S. flights grounded.

Six chartered flights carrying 142 Saudis did leave the country after the attacks, but none left before commercial flights resumed and all were screened by the FBI before they were permitted to leave. "Nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave," the commission concluded. "

It's easy to mislead when you avoid the subject.

This is discussed in the first chapter of Dude, Where's My Country (Michael Moore), backed up by an article in The New Yorker and one in The NYT.
posted by quasistoic at 12:36 AM on April 26, 2004

The greatest conspiracy theory ever:

19 men (at least four of whom are, according to the BBC, still alive) of whom 14 are Saudi nationals engage in a coordinated Kamikaze attack on the symbolic centers of American military and financial power. 3000 innocent civilians are murdered in cold blood in about one hour.
Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Ladin are immediately blamed, but the U.S. government fails to provide any substantial evidence for this claim. A war on "terror" is declared. Strong ties are demonstrated between the president of the U.S. and the Bin Ladin family, but never really investigated by the media or the government.

The attacks become the justification for an enormous bill called USA PATRIOT. Democrats threaten to block the bill. At about this time a series of letters containing an advanced strain of Anthrax is sent to political and media figures including Democrat leader Tom Daschle. The USA PATRIOT act passes, even though most of the congressmen and senators had not had a chance to read the full text of the legislation. The person or persons behind the Anthrax attacks remain unknown and at large. The president attempts to prevent a congressional inquiry into the kamikaze attacks but, under pressure from the media and survivor's families and after much wrangling, relents. The white house is given final edit of any report emanating from this commission. Much of the testimony given before the commission is secret and not revealed to the public. No one in our government is ever fired or reprimanded and no one resigns for their failure to prevent the attacks.

Meanwhile, an administration that has closer ties to the petroleum industry than any other in history uses the attacks as justification for two land wars against nations that offer important access for a proposed oil pipeline and vast oil wealth, respectively. The second of those nations, Iraq, the administration openly admits had nothing to do with the attacks. Congress hardly debates before handing over their constitutionally mandated power to declare war over to the president without a fight. Saudi Arabia, a nation that gives more private (and possibly public) money to terror than anyother is still a major recipient of U.S. aid. Also untouched by American vengeance and much touched by American dollars is Pakistan, a longtime Washington ally, whose security agency, the ISI, was a major backer of both the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Over a period of about two and a half years about 800 american and allied troops die. In this same time period at least 10,000 Iraqi and Afghan civilians and an unknown number of soldiers are killed in the name of avenging the attacks on America. Also, the U.S. military and intelligence services begin interning large number of foreign nationals in overseas U.S. military bases outside the reach of American, and, evidently, international law. These men are declared to be "enemy combatants" without rights.

Two and one half years after the attacks it is revealed with little fanfare that the President and his close advisors had planned both wars months in advance of the attacks. The American people remain largely supportive of the president even as the truth about this comes out. Most Americans also continue to believe, as they have been subtly or unsubtly encouraged to by the President and his closest advisors, that Iraq was in some way behind the attacks. The illegal weapons stockpiles and programs used as the official justification for that war are never found.

So that is a series of facts. I have strung them together in a way that might induce someone so inclined to falaciously infer causal relations where they may or may not exist, or it might not. How is 911 not a conspiracy? 19 men is a conspiracy. The old man in the caves is a conspiracy. So-called "neo-conservatives" who have been calling for war against Iraq since 1992 and who include in their number our secretary of defense, at least one assistant secretary of defense (Wolfowitz, also Feith?), vice president Cheney and scores of others in the government and media are the very definition of a conspiracy. The axis of evil is a conspiracy theory. The liberal media is a conspiracy theory.

got to catch my breath...

"Conspiracy theory" is a term people use to discredit other people's arguments and ideas, it is an expression of power that is used to limit discourse and, by extension, thought. In the posted article it is being used to discredite the very sane and reasonable words of John Judge. Decontextualize his words from the foil-head stuff that surrounds them and you will find that he is asking for something that every American should be asking for: the truth. I hope that nobody reads that article and thinks that John Judge is crazy. I think it is quite obvious to anyone who has been paying attention that the government of the United States of America does not want a full and accurate public accounting of the events surrounding September 11. At the same time, the media is not and has not been doing its job. That is a conspiracy that more people should be angry about.

The attacks on September 11 and the events before and after are a vast web of conspiracies, anyone who denies that is confusing ignorance for truth. These conspiracies may not be as baffling or sinister as the ones mentioned in this article, but they do have the advantage of being real, and the hardcore "skeptics" are being just as irrational as the looniest of the conspiracy theorist. It should be remembered that government is the greatest conspiracy of them all. Our fellow citizens working together for the good of all. Ideally government is just, honest and transparent. At this moment in our history it is not any of those things. The many conspiracy theories about 911 are an honest, if irrational, reaction to this sad fact.
posted by mokujin at 1:35 AM on April 26, 2004

Great comment mokujin.

funny, if it was presented to a publisher as fiction, it woud be turned down as too implausible. I guess truth is stranger.....
posted by re_verse at 2:08 AM on April 26, 2004

I feel like starting a conspiracy to make mokujin comment more often. That was...wow.
posted by attackthetaxi at 3:16 AM on April 26, 2004

re_verse i'll second that, and of course truth is stranger that fiction, fiction has to make sense.
posted by dabitch at 3:23 AM on April 26, 2004

The newspapers in France and Spain are rife with incredible conspiracy theories on a daily basis. Someone told me he thought that the Jews were aware of the attack beforehand and stayed home from work that day. Someone else told me she thought that 90% of the people who died in the WTC were Jews, since they control Wall Street. Both are well-educated, middle-aged, mainstream Socialist voters.

People's willingness to believe any story that supports their ideology (a tendency easy to spot on MeFi) actually detracts from the legitimate criticisms of the Bush Administration. The most useful electoral arguments against Bush are not necessarily the wildest accusations. Mokujin's story is brilliant, but it mixes clear abuses with more speculative insinuations (such as the role of Pakistan) in a way that makes it easy for those who disagree to ignore it completely.

"Truth is the first casualty of war". We're not going to get the full truth from this or any other government; let's hope at least that the report finally dispels the myth of the Iraq-Al Qaeda link and demonstrates that there are people in the Administration who had responsibility for preventing the attacks and failed at their jobs.
posted by fuzz at 4:37 AM on April 26, 2004

Pakistan's role random* remainder.

*Random as is "one of many outrageous & very clear abuses"
posted by magullo at 4:46 AM on April 26, 2004

The newspapers in France and Spain are rife with incredible conspiracy theories on a daily basis.

Oh hell, I heard the security guard here at work telling the super that it was all a plot by the CIA (who invented AIDS according to a few of my co-workers) to the citizens docile. Of course he also said that the woman who stepped on my foot while I was smoking a cigarrette did so because she wanted me to "hit that shit off." So he may not have the best perception of things.
posted by jonmc at 6:51 AM on April 26, 2004

The newspapers in France and Spain are rife with incredible conspiracy theories on a daily basis.

I don't know in France, but in Spain, where I live, I haven't read anything close to what you say.

Could you give me an example of this?
posted by samelborp at 7:19 AM on April 26, 2004

I don't know in France, but in Spain, where I live, I haven't read anything close to what you say.

I'll bet you have. Don't WMD's, Saddam's links to 9-11 or the FBI not wanting to ask questions to the family of the mastermind behind the WTC attacks ALL ring a bell? And what are/were those but conspiracies? ... or myths, I guess.

/I don't know in Barcelona, but I'll tell you what the conservative, pro-war crowd says (said?) in Madrid about the WMDs: "Why doesn't the US plant some evidence in Iraq and be done with it?". True story.
posted by magullo at 7:44 AM on April 26, 2004

what about that 9-11 commissions own right wing nut job john lehman floating the all but completely debunked theory that saddam was somehow linked to the oklahoma bombing again in open session last week?

WTF?
posted by specialk420 at 7:47 AM on April 26, 2004

Great comment, mokujin. But I'm curious about:
19 men (at least four of whom are, according to the BBC, still alive)

Hadn't heard this before. Got a link?
posted by Vidiot at 8:05 AM on April 26, 2004

Yes, there will always exist truly deranged conspiracy theories - and there are also many American evangelicals who, to this day, believe that the sun and the stars in the sky rotate around the Earth - as described in Biblical Scripture (go ahead - look it up! It's true) - but what of it ?

Invoking "conspiracy theories" in the manner that the linked Capital Hill Blue story does demonstrates laziness or stupidity. But - intentionally or not - this tactic amounts to both a sleazy smear tactic, a logical non-sequitur, and a colossal red herring.

As Mokujin so eloquently argued, the mere existence of those conspiracy theories which seem to be either insane, unsupported by the evidence, products of extremist ideologies - or all of the preceding - does not prove anything at all, nor does it disprove the arguments of those who assert that there remain far too many troubling and unanswered questions surrounding the September 11th attacks.

" "Conspiracy theory" is a term people use to discredit other people's arguments and ideas, it is an expression of power that is used to limit discourse and, by extension, thought." - Indeed.

Let me add one useful distinction here - I would parse "conspiracy theories" from logical conjectures which are based on known facts.

"The world is really controlled by creatures which appear to be human - but, behind their artful latex rubber masks, they are reptilian aliens!" - Proof ? Well if you ask - you're one of them! (obviously). - This is an example of a classic paranoid and delusional conspiracy theory which is completely disconnected from known facts.

On the other hand, to ask : "Why were a number of politicians warned not to fly on September the 11th, 2001 ? And why did some Pentagon officials cancel their travel plans as well ?" does not advance a "conspiracy theory" or any theory at all.

In the above case, such foreknowledge - in and of itself - would not prove existence of any conspiracy. But it could demonstrate, at least, irresponsibility and incompetence.

I feel that this should be obvious but - if not - let me make it clear that : One of the central human impulses which has propelled the birth and development of that vast body of knowledge and theory which is modern science is human curiosity, the impulse to probe those inexplicable and anomalous events and phenomenon we encounter.



You can read an enormous collection of unanswered questions surrounding Sept. 11, 2001 at Unanswered Questions, the website of a nonprofit group seeking answers.

Paul Thompson's vast and impeccably sourced Complete 9-11 Timeline at this site. It's worth a long, long look. You'll never hear this chronicle mentioned by the Bush Administration or by the Sept. 11th Commission - the body of Thompson's amassed evidence, all from major and reputable news sources (and cross referenced in many cases as well), is just too damning.

But Thompson does NOT advance any specific conspiracy theory. He merely presents a narrative chronicle by way of an assemblage of facts.
posted by troutfishing at 8:22 AM on April 26, 2004

The commission sought to deal with reports that relatives of bin Laden and other influential Saudis were permitted to fly out of the United States right after the attacks, when the FAA ordered all U.S. flights grounded.

Well, no, no flights flew out of the US before the grounding was lifted, but the approval was given before, and they were certainly flying around inside the country while Americans were forbidden from doing so. Here's Richard Clarke's public testimony before the commission:

GORTON: One more question on that subject. When the approvals were finally made and when the flight left, was the flight embargo still in effect? Or was that over; were we flying once again?

CLARKE: No, sir. No, Senator. The reason that a decision was needed was because the flight embargo, the grounding, was still in effect.

Ashcroft said that because of an unspecified security threat, he was advised to use private aircraft because he needed to be accompanied by an armed security guard. He said it wasn't his idea, and that he and his family continued to use commercial flights when they were on personal trips.

What Ashcroft said under oath is contradicted by this contemporaneous CBS article from July 26, 2001:

Fishing rod in hand, Attorney General John Ashcroft left on a weekend trip to Missouri Thursday afternoon aboard a chartered government jet, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart.

In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term.

Is that weekend trip home to go fishing a business trip? Or was Ashcroft flying on charter planes even for personal travel?

Someone told me he thought that the Jews were aware of the attack beforehand and stayed home from work that day.

There's a grain of truth in that anti-semitic conspiracy theory. The CEO of Odigo, a US-based instant-messaging company with offices in Israel, has confirmed in Ha'aretz that 2 workers got a warning that the WTC was going to be attacked, 2 hours before it happened.
posted by jbrjake at 8:32 AM on April 26, 2004

The MIO ladies and gentleman, lets give him a hand.

Remember, the government is conspiring to make you smarter.
posted by clavdivs at 8:36 AM on April 26, 2004

The Beeb and the Telegraph havesimilar stories asserting that several of the hijackers used stolen identities. The stories are old and as far as I know have been neither retracted nor followed up on. The official FBI lists have not been updated. I recommend the Center for Cooperative Research's awesome 911 timeline, which, by the way would be a much better basis for a Metafilter post then the link at the top of this page. All the stories it links to are from the "mainstream" media.
posted by mokujin at 8:38 AM on April 26, 2004

samelborp, today's El Periodico includes an editorial that justly denounces islamophobia, but opens with the outrageous sentence "The US has imposed the model that the good North American must be blond".

That's just the usual editorial exaggeration. I can't find a link, but the most recent one that really raised my eyebrows was an editorial I read in a local Baleares paper over Semana Santa, supposedly reprinted from El Periodico, claiming that Bush's support for Sharon and the war in Iraq were actually the result of his being controlled by the Jewish interests that also control Wall Street. My friend was surprised by my reaction; she thought everyone knew that. On the other hand, La Vanguardia ran a series debunking that myth, so maybe I was overstating my case.

magullo, you've probably noticed that I can't stand Bush, I'm only saying that right-wing lies and paranoia don't mean that the left should adopt the same strategy. Barcelona was over 85% against the war in Iraq, and so the only people I've met who back Bush are a few scattered transplants from the rest of Spain who are also willing to admit that they are unreconstructed Franquistas. You're right, they can have some amazing opinions.

troutfishing, you're being a bit disingenuous to say that a "Have they stopped beating their wives" line of questioning doesn't actually advance a theory. Or have you adopted Rush Limbaugh's debating style? Bush's crowd can be defeated a lot more easily by charging them with incompetence than by charging them with malice.

jbrjake, that Ha'aretz link is astounding. Has anyone corroborated that story?
posted by fuzz at 8:58 AM on April 26, 2004

fuzz - did you even read my comment? That's what I just wrote! - "to ask : "Why were a number of politicians warned not to fly on September the 11th, 2001 ? And why did some Pentagon officials cancel their travel plans as well ?" does not advance a "conspiracy theory" or any theory at all.

In the above case, such foreknowledge - in and of itself - would not prove existence of any conspiracy. But it could demonstrate, at least, irresponsibility and incompetence. "

On the Ha'retz/Medigo story - take a look on Paul Thompson's timeline (the same body of work Mokujin links to - it's hosted on several different sites). If there's any more on this Thompson would be on top of it.
posted by troutfishing at 9:14 AM on April 26, 2004

tf, sorry if I was unfairly harsh. What I'm saying is that when you pursue all those different lines of questioning, even if you provide a disclaimer (which I did read), you're still feeding the fires of conspiracy-think and making it easier for people on the other side to dismiss the huge battery of charges, half-charges, and leading questions.

There's a danger in drowning out the good arguments with bad ones. The opposition needs to find a small number of widely accepted, clearly damning points and stick to them. If we're lucky, the 911 report will give them to us, rather than leaving a big list of Vincent Foster-style open questions.
posted by fuzz at 9:31 AM on April 26, 2004

fuzz: well I'm googling for corroboration, and it's kinda tough. A site called Newsbytes.com apparently talked to Alex Diamandis, Odigo's VP for sales and marketing, and he gave a little more detail. But Newsbytes.com has since 9/11 been folded into the Washington Post, so if there are any copies, it's in the WaPo archives and probably costs a pretty penny. Of course, there are lots of whackos out there who zoomed in on the story within days of the terrorist attacks. A site that calls itself FreeMasonryWatch claims to have the text mirrored, but for all I know they edited something. They're just looking for a way to blame Israelis. If it's legit, there's not much more info there. The IMs were sent to two workers in R&D and intn'l sales. They recorded the IP. Won't say much else because of the "pending investigation." Another kooky site claims a mirror of a followup by the same Newsbytes reporter, Brian McWilliams, the next day. Here, that same Odigo VP seems to tell a different story than the CEO. Where Macover said two workers had been warned of the attack before it happened, here Diamandis says they didn't get warned the WTC was the target. So it was probably along the lines of "Something big's going to happen," but who knows? Update: Okay, I found the original text on findarticles.com.

There are a lot of ways to distort this story--for example, Odigo is "powered by Comverse" which has lots of conspiracy theory stuff attached to it for being, I guess, too close to Israel and also for running most federal wiretaps under CALEA. I've seen people say that the Odigo workers were IN the WTC and were warned from their Israeli office, which makes no sense, or that the message came from people they knew inside the WTC who were also Israeli. Or people will connect it to that old Israeli art student spy story from 2001. Or use this to prove that Mossad knew what was going to happen. There's a lot of crap out there. As you said, there's a danger in drowning out the good arguments with the bad ones.
posted by jbrjake at 9:43 AM on April 26, 2004

Don't WMD's, Saddam's links to 9-11 or the FBI not wanting to ask questions to the family of the mastermind behind the WTC attacks ALL ring a bell?

Sorry, do you include also right wing conspiracies in Spanish newspapers and radio networks a la Jimenez Losantos? (I thought we were referring exclusively to anti-Bush administration conspiracy theories (you know, they knew and did nothing, so perhaps they did it!)

The US has imposed the model that the good North American must be blond

This is nonsense, but not an "incredible conspiracy theory"

Bush's support for Sharon and the war in Iraq were actually the result of his being controlled by the Jewish interests that also control Wall Street

I'll concede that this is probably the closest thing to a "conspiracy theory" you can read in a "normal" Spanish newspaper...
posted by samelborp at 11:32 AM on April 26, 2004

this doesn't help the situation. at all.
posted by mrgrimm at 1:13 PM on April 26, 2004

fuzz - I agree with your logic. I was thinking that I could serve it up here a little spicier, and then whatever message (if any) I broadcast would get blander as it moved away from the source.

I think the overall problem with the 9-11 story - in terms of pushing for any meaningful investigation - is that the overall tale is hellishly complex. But, Wesley Clark had a good line - "In the Military, whether we succeed or fail in a mission, we do a post-op critique and analysis so we can do it better the next time." (to quote him very loosely) So Clark asked among other things - why no investigation into the failures of NORAD and the FAA ?

That seems like a key issue to me, as does another little talked about - the lack of investigation into the known insider trading (with obvious foreknowledge) which made somebody a pile of money just before the attacks hit (maybe Bin laden, who knows). There was talk of investigation into that immediately post 9-11, but the talk then seemed to just dry up and blow away.

Anyway, your critique is well taken - limited # of points, ones with the highest probability of generating action - with the greatest bipartisan appeal.

This might be moot now, though. I think the horse has already left the gate.
posted by troutfishing at 2:02 PM on April 26, 2004

Insider trading? There you go again ;-)

On any given day, including September 10, 2001, someone is dumping huge blocks of stock. The only way to prove insider trading is to establish a direct connection between the seller and someone who had knowledge of the attacks. Give it up, you'll never make that one stick.
posted by fuzz at 2:18 PM on April 26, 2004

the fun part with that one was that it was American Airlines stock. But like tf said, that news dried up and went away.
posted by dabitch at 3:20 PM on April 26, 2004

And what about the plane that went down in PA? (worldnet link--i know. But many wonder.)
posted by amberglow at 6:25 PM on April 26, 2004

fuzz - here are four different accounts of that Odigo story

As far as the insider trading goes -

"Massive Put Options spikes and 'Naked' calls Bloomberg News reported that put options in UAL Corp (parent for United Airlines) surged 285 times the average volume and 75 times the total number of put options traded up until that time. This was the largest reported spike. In another observation of the same phenomena reported in the September 22nd Herald Sun, UAL put options contracts soared 90 times in one day over total from the previous three weeks. That's 90x not 90%. On September 10, put option contracts on AMR (parent for American Airlines) spiked 60 times the daily average and five times the total of all $30 put options traded before September 10. ["Pre-attack trading probed: Regulators in U.S., Europe and Asia check put options"; Judy Mathewson and Michael Nol, September 19]

"I saw put-call numbers higher than I've ever seen in 10 years of following the markets, particularly the options markets," said John Kinnucan, principal of Broadband Research quoted in The San Francisco Chronicle.

Bloomberg.com and Erlangersqeezeplay.com published reports identifying a clear pattern of highly unusual, and in some cases, massive spikes in put options in stocks that would have been deemed by those with detailed prior knowledge most likely hardest hit in the market aftermath of a WTC attack. These were primarily airline (UAL and AMR, notably not Delta), insurance, brokerage and hotel stocks. Phil Erlanger also noted a pattern of significant spikes in 'naked calls' in the same stocks. Naked calls are a high-risk form of short selling not backed up by stock position in the company at issue.

Thirty-eight companies were placed on a SEC list and circulated amongst brokerages that placed the put options on behalf of clients. These included among many others, TD Waterhouse, NFS (subsidiary of Fidelity of Boston), Alex Brown/Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, and Lehman Brothers. [The San Francisco Chronicle; AP]. In the January 2002 Congressional record, an informal survey conducted by Levin-Grassley staffs, revealed that 10 of 22 responding securities and brokerage firms, managed accounts for 45,000 offshore clients.

Below are a few standouts on the SEC list [' *' indicates a WTC tenant; (-x) represents the multiple over average volume]: Airlines: UAL (285x), AMR (60x) Insurance sector: Marsh & McLennan (93x)*, Citigroup (45x), Swiss Re, XL Capital Brokers: Bear Stearns (60x), Morgan Stanley (27x)*, Merrill Lynch (12x)

Not included on the SEC list, but featured on the Erlangersqeezeplay.com report, were hotel chains Marriott, Hilton and Starwood Hotels. Most anomalous were the huge put option trading spikes placed in only two of the three major US airlines. Almost always, if investors believe the airline industry is due to drop, they will short all three major carriers. This was not the case here because Delta did not see spikes similar to UAL and AMR......

'Last hours' surge of financial activity at WTC According to a Reuters report of December 16, German data retrieval experts, hired by WTC tenant firms, were mining data off damaged hard disks recovered from the ground zero. The goal is to discover who was responsible for the movement of unusually large sums of money through the computers of the WTC in the hours before the attack. Peter Henschel, director of Convar, the firm responsible, said, "not only the volume, but the size of the transactions was far higher than usual for a day like that." Richard Wagner, a data retrieval expert estimated that more than $100 million in illegal transactions appeared to have rushed through the WTC computers before and during the disaster." ( Source )

Here's an interesting trio of articles on this : Part One, Part Two, Part 3

"Stock Adviser Knew About 9/11 Attacks, U.S. Suggests" (NYT, May 25, 2002)
posted by troutfishing at 8:06 PM on April 26, 2004

If we're going to be talking conspiracy theories, I would opine that the most reasonable among them would be that Cheney knew something like that would happen but let it in order to let his "war in Iraq" pet project finally become reality, some 9 years after his protege Paul Wolfowitz presented the idea to a President named (wait for it)... George Bush.

At least Senior had the good sense to reject Wolfie's Machiavellic, imperial plan for an imperial America, but it was clear that Junior was having none of his dad's reasonable objections, because he'd put his Vice-President in charge of doing the heavy intellectual lifting.

But as I said, that would just be a crackpot conspiracy theory, the same thing that's fairly widely believed of FDR and Pearl Harbor.
posted by clevershark at 10:08 PM on April 26, 2004

clevershark - There is good historical evidence that the FDR/Pearl Harbor allegation is untrue.

On the other hand, your "letting it happen on purpose" theory is quite consistent with all the known facts.

Therefore, it is not a conspiracy theory at all really, nor is it crackpot. It is informed speculation which some find very disturbing.
posted by troutfishing at 6:56 AM on April 27, 2004

It is informed speculation which some find very disturbing.

like the Japanese used our own plan? which is not speculation but fact. Pearl harbor was not the only american target attacked that day. What is your informed speculation, that we placed all the battleships in a row to make it easier for them?
posted by clavdivs at 9:12 AM on April 27, 2004

i think he said "untrue", clav.
posted by quonsar at 9:29 AM on April 27, 2004

Q,
I think he said..."on the other hand"
posted by clavdivs at 9:55 AM on April 27, 2004

it is not informed speculation because it took 8 hearings to finally sort out the mess. informed would seem to suggest that all the facts or at least as many that can be gathered have been used to form a thesis on why it happened. All the info was gathered in the 40's thus negating any speculation. And trout is talking about those who believe this stuff by saying "some find" not "some found". true he may have meant back then for which i do agree, before the last hearing there were a lot of questions to be answered.
posted by clavdivs at 10:19 AM on April 27, 2004