bring that up because you watch that, and as a layperson, you're like this. But then if you think that through and you say, okay, what would be required in order to actually have three buildings wired, prepared for a controlled demolition? It would require a very large conspiracy, presumably, and what is the tangible benefit? In other words, what is the cost-benefit analysis that you would run to say you're going to fly planes into buildings? And then, as if that's not sufficient to justify a preemptive military action or a war on terror, you would control demolition. My point is simply to say that I would have felt that for someone like Tucker, and this is true in general, our journalistic centers have deteriorated, I would have expected it, and certainly 10 years ago or 20 years ago, you would have certainly seen more pushback, and you would have asked the person to put forward a competing theory. And I feel like that isn't something that we see much anymore. We just see everyone (66/99)
You are viewing a single comment's thread from: