Conspiracy Acceptability Threshold - How many?

[whatchamacallit]

Poll question: Conspiracy Acceptability Threshold - How many?

I notice the "nut cases" label being reflexively applied to those who have questions about the fate of Beverly Eckert. While I admit there is currently no evidence to indicate foul play, I find the near-hysterical reaction to the notion, interesting. I'm curious if there is a spectrum or threshold of acceptability for such ideas, or if they should always be considered idiotic (as if there's never been an occurrence of similar deeds in recorded history). So here goes...

If ten people were closely connected to a controversial event, an event which may have involved capitol crimes, how many would have to die in accidents before you would entertain the notion of foul play?

[JuniperLea]

1. This is a very good question

There seems to be a lot of Coincidence Theorists among us, who go into full blown, double-barrel attack mode at the slightest provocation. Yet here we are just now coming off one of the most absurd presidential administrations in our lifetimes, one wrought with more lies than you can shake a dead cat at, at yet still...

How many coincidences does it take?

[SDuderstadt]

2. I'd be willing to bet you don't understand a lot about...

probability.

By the way, I despised the Bush administration and sincerely hope that Bush and Cheney are vigorously prosecuted.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. "near-hysterical reaction to the notion"

This emotional tenure to the reaction is something you've imported, and says more about you than those you seek to correct.

[rollingrock]

4. There was no absence of motive, that's for sure

The powers that be certainly wanted this woman silenced. Beverly Eckert just wouldn't take no for an answer.
Whether is was an accident or not, you can bet your hiney that they're rejoicing at this moment.

9/11 Activist Who Sued Government Killed In Buffalo Plane Crash
Friday, Feb 13th, 2009

One of the passengers aboard the plane that crashed into a house 10 miles from Buffalo, New York, airport late on Thursday was a 9/11 widow who had questioned the official account of the attacks, sued the government and consistently lobbied for an Investigative Commission.

Beverly Eckert was flying to the city for a celebration of what would have been her husband Sean Rooney’s 58th birthday, reports the Press Association. Mr Rooney died on the 98th floor of the World Trade Center’s south tower.

She was among the 44 passengers and four crew on board the Continental Connection flight operated by Colgan Air when it crashed in the Buffalo suburb of Clarence Center.

After 9/11, Ms Eckert refused to accept a cash settlement as compensation and instead sued the government.

"I am suing because unlike other investigative avenues… my lawsuit requires all testimony be given under oath and fully uses powers to compel evidence," Eckert wrote in December 2003 in a statement entitled My Silence Cannot Be Bought.

“The victims’ fund was not created in a spirit of compassion.… Lawmakers capped the liability of the airlines at the behest of lobbyists who descended on Washington while the September 11 fires still smoldered.” she wrote.

Other September 11 relatives who accepted settlements forfeited their right to sue the airlines, airports, security companies, or other US organizations that could have been faulted for negligence and inadequate security measures. This ensured that very little detail of the attacks emerged outside of the government appointed 9/11 Commission.

In the same statement Ms Eckert also wrote:

“I want to know what went so wrong with our intelligence and security systems that a band of religious fanatics was able to turn four U.S. passenger jets into an enemy force, attack our cities and kill 3,000 civilians with terrifying ease. I want to know why two 110-story skyscrapers collapsed in less than two hours and why escape and rescue options were so limited.”

As a co-founder of the steering committee group “Voices For Sept. 11” Ms Eckert joined other activists in pushing for an Investigative Commission.

Only because of the consistent efforts of the relatives groups were the deaths of more than 2800 Americans ever formally investigated by a government who would have rather kept the truth about 9/11 buried.

In 2004 the Ms Eckert also successfully lobbied Congress to pass a sweeping reform of the U.S. intelligence system.

Last week, Ms Eckert was at the White House to talk with President Barack Obama about how the new administration could deal with terror suspects.

According to reports, the Colgan Air flight was on final approach to Buffalo airport, 5 miles from the runway, when the control tower lost all contact. Weather was reported as light snow and fog and a 17 MPH wind. There was no radio message indicating a problem, so whatever happened happened in an instant. Only one house on the ground was destroyed, so the aircraft was on a nearly vertical path when it hit.

[Realityhack]

5. "Near histerical"

Time to check your 'reality-o-meter'

As for your poll. I don't think it can be reduced to a simple number. All kinds of other information factors in.

[SidDithers]

6. "While I admit there is currently no evidence to indicate foul play"...

Without evidence, it's all just pointless speculation.

Sid

[whatchamacallit]

10. Agreed but

that doesn't automatically make the speculator bat-shit-crazy, or even wrong for that matter. We don't call people who believe in God, crazy simply because they can't provide evidence of his/her/it's existence.

[hack89]

7. Don't you think the time frame has some bearing?

a handful of deaths in a couple of months - reason to be suspicious. Handful deaths in seven years - no reason to be suspicious.

[whatchamacallit]

11. Not necessarily a per unit time issue

If the perps were people in positions of power, who could control the avenues for their exposure, the deaths would likely fall in clusters around key events; court hearings or depositions, congressional investigations, changes in law... Years could pass between these events without incident. Another key time would when be when they lost their positions of power and their ability to control their level of exposure. All of this is admittedly pure speculation, but not in the realm of the ridiculous.

[Bryan Sacks]

8. On the "near hysterical" response to most things branded 'conspiracy theory'

http://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Panics-Political-Rationality-Popular/dp/0791473341

[whatchamacallit]

9. Interesting...

From the Editorial Review:

"With his concept of conspiracy panics, Bratich makes a major contribution to thinking about our complex relations to conspiracy theories, those theories that haunt and annoy us, that we want to dismiss but cannot avoid."

"... theories that haunt and annoy us, that we want to dismiss..." - Why the OCT are want to clobber us

"... but cannot avoid" - Why they won't leave the dungeon

[Bolo Boffin]

12. You know what's interesting?

A DUer just did a doctoral dissertation comparing Democratic Underground to Free Republic. A couple of her conclusions:

A more robust rhetorical ecosystem existed at Democratic Underground, as they often applied Burke’s “comic corrective” to points of conflict and took a more egalitarian approach to who could speak and when. The participants at Free Republic were more likely to assign motivations that precluded the agonistic frame.

Now ask yourself: which side of this debate consistently and without fail assigns motivations that preclude the agonistic frame? Which side is constantly demonizing the other? Which is trying desperately to silence their opponents by so demonizing and motive assigning?

And which is consistently more comedic in their approach to the whole debate, allowing the debate opponents a way back into good graces?

This is not to say one or the other is composed of Free Republic moles, not in the slightest. But there is a DU mindset here, and I dare say that the debunkers here consistently display it a hell of a lot more than the other side.

So stop your whining and lighten the fuck up. All of you.