Jimmy Higgins

NTSB still puzzled

Have they looked into Conservative treason yet? Probably not. Maybe it was an act of al Qaeda.

The longer this isn't solved, the more and more I start to wonder.

Abacus

Be careful about sounding like a conspiracy theory loon.

Zar

Abacus,

I do not know the truth behind this crash yet myself, but I do not think it is justified to rule out deliberate tampering by someone at this point. Although you might be justified in saying that "conspiracy" is unlikely and initially improbable, I don't think you are justified in calling Jimmy Higgins a loon, either.

You know what would be a great service? Instead of just calling Jimmy Higgins names, can you please show with evidence and logic why a conspiracy is ruled out? Perhaps you can put Jimmy Higgins' fears to rest and close the books on this.

Abacus

I wasn't trying to say that Jimmy is a loon. I apologize if it sounded that way. There were better ways for me to express my skepticism.

I could probably think of dozens of far more likely reasons for that plane to crash. That small plane crash. I was in the Minneapolis/St Paul airport, watching the ground crews de-icing the airplanes, when the news of Wellstone's death came on the TV. The weather was really shitty that day. Pilots are human, and thus are prone to error. Planes are mechanical devices with many moving parts, and thus are prone to mechanical breakdown or failure. To suggest that the crash was part of a conspiracy, despite the lack of evidence suggesting so, all the while ignoring far more likely causes, would be a step towards kookiness, in my not-so-humble opinion.

If you believe Wellstone's death was the result of a conspiracy, then the burden-of-proof lies with you.

Zar

Abacus,

You are quite right. And I hope I did not to sound too harsh, because my only point was that I wanted to see some reasons put up as to why this or that conclusion is to be reached. My point was to say no particular conclusions -- neither foul nor fair -- have been ruled out or proven. But there is definitely the burden of proof on Jimmy Higgins for his claim. I think he ought to post some reasons to think it is a conspiracy (meaning, someone deliberately created the potential for the plane to crash.)

With your second post, you have taken the next step, and I thank you for it. However, I think some of the things you stated in response as reasons to think it was just a natural accident have been disputed, which is probably why there hasn't been a conclusion yet as to what was the cause, and why some are suspecting foul play among other things. But I think it is Jimmy Higgins' job to point this out in detail and continue the discussion that he, after all, started.

All in all, I only want to see a healthy debate and not just an exchange with Jimmy Higgins saying "It was a conspiracy!" and others saying "Don't be a conspiracy nut!" And since I feel I am not personally well versed enough in this problem, I was hoping to see that someone else here had a detailed, informed opinion to offer. So, I want to see this continue with facts and reason rather than summary statements.

Having said this, I think the ball is in Jimmiy Higgins' court now.

emphryio

How about a huge list of all the other conservative "conspiracies" that actually have been proven to be true? Would that count for anything much?

Let's say the suspect is "the conservative movement", this suspect has already been proven guilty of quite a bit of amazing stuff. Is it not reasonable to identify the suspect as "the conservative movement?" Or do we have to pretend past history doesn't exist when looking at this?

Majestyk

Not really but I'd be interested in seeing the list anyway.