Here's "outrageous consp. theory" for 9/11, but true, accurate, verified....

Below-copied by ap first published at comments, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015...l#comment-form

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"Outrageous Consp. Theory"--But True, Accurate, Verified
(Apollonian, 13 Sep 15)

Isn't it significant Bush told us "never tolerate outrageous consp. theories"?--and isn't it because, very simply, that's precisely what it is--an OUTRAGEOUS conspiracy?

After all, we KNOW the official gov. consp. theory is false on its face--up to 9 or 10 of the "Arab" hijackers turning-up alive, just for one detail. And we know further many other details indicating complicity of numerous officials, judges, and then the mass. corp. "news" media. So the material is there to substantiate the inductive conclusion for outrageous conspiracy.

Therefore isn't it most appropriate to form a "theory" that grasps and engrosses such an outrageous conspiracy?--what would that be?--wouldn't it be that principle which most entails and under-lies all possible, conceivable criminal activity?--the satanic principle?

So what then is satanism?--it's making oneself God the creator, right?--and that's extreme subjectivism, right?--whence all reality issues fm one's own mentality/consciousness.

Finally, who are most organized, "connected" subjectivists?--these being serious subjectivists and even satanists--they would have to be most tightly "connected," hence COLLECTIVISTIC, right?--and who then are more organized and connected than Jews, right?--NOT just "zionists," but Jews, people who take devilish Talmud seriously. See Talmudical.BlogSpot.com, RevisionistReview.BlogSpot.com, and Come-and-hear.com for best Talmudic expo.

And isn't it significant everyone is so absolutely terrified to thus naming these Jews?--including Fetzer. And isn't it significant practically everyone, even among known and prominent "consp. theorists," are so terrified to naming the Jews? And those who DO name the Jews are vilified and slandered, condemned as the very lowest of the low? ho ho ho ho.

So there u are folks: an "outrageous consp. theory" which, however, is perfectly true and verifiable for all necessary details. Q.E.D.