Reply #14: ROTFLMAO. I love that conspiracy theory lingo...

[eallen]

Here is a sentence lovingly crafted by a conspiracy theorist:

"We charged then, and reiterate now, that the least plausible explanation of the September 11 tragedy is the official version: that terrorists entered the United States, obtained training at US flight schools and organized the simultaneous hijacking of four airliners, without any agency of the American government having the slightest idea what they were doing."

Notice that without its last phrase, it is a complete denial of the notion that four planes hijacked by Islamists were the central mode of attack on 9/11, leaving the reader to imagine all sorts of alternate scenarios, from planted demolitions in the buildings, to Israeli secret agents on the planes. The last phrase -- "without " -- completely negates what the majority of the sentence seems to say. And the negating phrase is vague and weak. "Any agency of the American government" covers everyone who ever served in the military to the contracted fellow who mops the floors for a Coast Guard office in Miami. All any such person need know is "the slightest idea" of what one of the hijackers was doing. Not necessarily that they were planning to bring down the twin towers. Not even that they were planning an act of terror. Not even that they were going to do something significant. Only that they were up to something. Like overstaying their visa. Then -- lo! -- the sentence is true. While seeming to deny everything, it in fact denies almost nothing.

Whoever wrote that sentence should be working for Murdoch. ;D ;D