How far back into the history of PO do you have to go before it's simply a super-fringe crackpot idea with no supporting evidence, no proper research or data, no qualified assements from people with the right background and is universally derided by everyone?
1990 ? (I don't know by the way.....)
A huge percentage of the western world still regard PO as a total crackpot notion, why do we think otherwise?
Personally I buy into PO because a lot of credible people have done a large-and-growing body of work that underpins the PO concept with data, analysis, informed discussion, reasonble projections and joining-the-dots with known facts. And when you look at nay-saying bodies and institutions they increasingly look like vested-interest players or highly politicised.
Like PO in the distant past, the 9/11 theories are all talk and no data - and extraordinary claims really do require extraordinary proof.
If enough smart and decent people did enough research into 9/11 I would say that they could come up with a theory (whatever it might be) that was substantiated by a lot of data and informed opinion. The fact that millions of people work in the global oil industry and few people would be close enough to the bits of 9/11 of most interest only makes any such investigation doubly hard.
Like many here, I find the official story flawed but also much of the counter theory both implausable and totally unsubstantiated. Like PO of old, it's also a haven for nut-jobs who have just as much of a personal agenda as does Dubya.
If you care about advancing the cause of PO awareness than it's my view you have to disassociate it from 9/11 and any other such theories - regardless of which get proved right in the long run.
I find M Ruppet to be like George Galloway: I neither like him nor trust him - but that doesn't mean he's wrong.
Matt Simmoms gets more done for PO in a day than Ruppet does in a year or a decade, why? Because as a card-carrying republican with only one message off-the-party-line and otherwise water-tight credentials and a fully supported argument, people listen to him and he gets press. Ruppet might be 100% right on everything he says (
) but no-one will "get it" because of the way he sells (litteraly....) the message.
It's my view that people should do their own 9/11 research but that they MUST apply the same rigour to any conspiracy theory that they apply to the official one, moreover the counter-position must go the extra mile with evidence and data before it can be considered credible.
