Academic, governmental, religious, what have you.

What?

Skronk wrote:it's the consensus version of events.

Do you have trouble with this?

No, because it doesn't exist. It is a strawman.

That's funny because the Warren Commission existed, the NTSB exists, which were crucial in formulating what you call 'non existent official stories' regarding JFK, and 9/11.

Why don't you stick to topics you've mastered, like baiting Rick, because you suck at a decent discussion.

I have a hard time with this concept of an "official story", being as it is, completely made up.

Earwicker wrote:As with many things what is the simplest theory depends on your interpretation.

The way I see it (and that way may very well be foolish), CIA-backed shadiness seems, well, the "simplest" theory. As I've said before, when you have a rogue, clandestine gov. agency whose entire job is to assassinate politicians, wage secret wars, etc...is the idea that they'd take on "domestic projects" really that foolish? Especially against a politician whom, they felt, completely fucked them and possibly put the entire nation in mortal danger? Hell, the CIA funded Ngo Dinh Diem's assassination just a few weeks before Kennedy was murdered.

That's why I think it's a bit ridiculous for big_dave to act like such a cock about this. Take the "Mafia connection theory." Not sure where I stand on it, but just consider it for a moment. big_dave mocks such a possibility as crazed, fevered, and unsubstantiated thinking.

Well, what do you know, last year, the CIA publishes the "Family Jewels" dossier, a 1973 document detailing the how the CIA used the Mafia to try and kill Castro back in the early 1960s. Suddenly, "the Mafia conspired with the CIA to kill JFK" is, at the very least, significantly less ridiculous.

One could argue that the Iraq war was another such "conspiracy" induced by a bunch of powerful rightwingers rattled out of their minds by 9/11. One could even say that a presidential administration lied and doctored intelligence to get us into a war that's led to hundreds of thousands of deaths. One could say...oh wait, that's exactly what happened.

big_dave wrote:I have a hard time with this concept of an "official story", being as it is, completely made up.

So, to you, the concept has no validity?

You don't recognize the difference between the accepted version of events (fire weakening the building's trusses, for instance), as apposed to a dissenting view (controlled demolition)?