9/11, C-SPAN and the Media

A tangent to an earlier thread...

So, I'm watching C-SPAN earlier this week and there's a show with this con artist, self-described as a documentarian and talk show host leading a symposium about how 9/11 was an "inside job" and these people out in L.A. are lapping it up. This is not about people trying to get at "the truth", it's more about people making money chasing ghosts.

They've got a professor of physics from BYU on the panel - educated at Vanderbilt, PHD at Stanford, post-doctoral work at Cornell... a pretty smart guy, right? He's got a theory (not peer reviewed). They've got a former Lt. Col. in the Air Force, who also has a PHD, and he's running for congress. They've got a hack who's been writing about conspiracies and making a living off of telling lies for years. They've got another whack nutjob who founded "911 scholars for truth" who's schtick is to get indignant, start voice-quivering and shaking, rail at the New York Times for their failure to break this story, etc.

These guys are nucking futs. They host this symposium and people love it. Almost every morning on C-SPAN's Washington Journal (you'd think the folks who watch that show are pretty intelligent) someone calls in about how 9/11 was an inside job conducted by the government. But the media cover it and discredit it, the hardline nuts become more entrenched in the theories because they think the media is in on it. This stuff is like Bigfoot hunting. If they ever find Bigfoot, what happens to the Bigfoot hunting business?

By the way, two thirds or more people thought the Kennedy assassination was a conspiracy from the start, and most have never been convinced otherwise, despite convincing evidence that Oswald acted alone. In fact, this thread will probably turn into a Kennedy assassination debate because mainstream opinion is that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK.

My questions to you: Is this stuff harmful, and how should the media be covering the 9/11 conspiracy theory movement?

You can watch the 9/11 theories symposium on the American Perspectives link on C-Span's web site:

http://www.c-span.org./VideoArchives.asp?CatCodePairs=,&ArchiveDays=100&Page=6

 

PoO --
Which evidence that Oswald acted alone are you referring to?

 

The media should cover the growing 9/11 conspiracy movement, but I'd think C-Span could find about 2,500 better things to put on its limited airtime than that whacko symposium. I watched a little of it and I'm stunned it wasn't hosted by Art Bell.

 

Seriously, what do you me by he acted alone? That he was the only gunman or that no one else encouraged him to do what he did.

Back in the '60s, your random nutjobs didn't travel to Russia.

 

Read "Case Closed" by Richard Posner. He makes a great case that Oswald was just a lone nutjob...he goes through all the previous investigations, gets engineers to calculate where the bullets that hit Kennedy had to have come from and he goes into Oswald's life.

 

Even Nostradamus said Oswald was the patsy ...

"The ancient work will be accomplished,
and from the roof evil ruin will fall on to the great man.
Being dead, they will accuse an innocent of the deed,
the guilty one hidden in the misty woods."

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0001BFDKU/102-2861376-5866564?v=glance&n=130

In addition to the book referenced, this documentary provides conclusive evidence that Oswald was the lone shooter, and in its exploration of Oswald's life, is convincing that he was indeed just a lone nutjob. But conspiracy is much more profitable...

 

What's the point of debating if there was a conspiracy to shoot JFK at this point? After almost 43 years, anyone who could have possibly been involved is either dead or close to dead. If anyone who could have been involved is still alive could they still be brought to justice?

 

...and a lot of people don't want to believe that Camelot could be smashed down by one nutjob loser with an $18 rifle he got through the mail.

 

Yep. I watched it a while ... crazy stuff.