those in power don't have to keep secrets if nobody can do anything about it.
Nor do they have to if the secret to be kept seems so outragously preposterous that the vast majority would never believe it even after seeing proof.
wrong....in this case, if there was a whiff of evidence beyond the bloviating of loons, the Bush hating press would have swarmed all over it.
troofers should read that popular science issue that utterly debunked the various troofer theories on scientific grounds. Like Rosies "fire can't cut steel" comment....that's about the general level of troofer paranoia and illogic.
I was speaking theoretically and not about this specific instance. I was very clear in my post about that. Again, I have no interest in defending a position I do not hold, but saying the Truthers are wrong and saying that such a conspiracy could not be carried out are two different things. I beg to differ on the latter. And again, I am not disputing the facts in this case, nor the science of it, I am just saying that basing your argument on "Troofers" all being "bloviating loons" and a "Bush hating press" isn't the most sound method. For instance, an insane man doesn't make a good witness as he can tell you an absolute truth, yet he is not credible. That doesn't mean he's not telling the truth, just that nobody will believe him due to his past history. Secondly, just stipulating that the press does hate Bush merits stipulation that the same press is owned by the big boys. All such an entity would take in order to silence it is the flow of cash ending. Your stipulation cannot be satisfactorily proven in an objective manner. Mine can.
So while such a conspiracy may not have been carried out, it doesn't mean that it would have been impossible to do so.
