Hacker News Reader

Comment by larrys | Hacker News Reader

"and that it has been at all times an outright fabrication on the part of the American government to protect the domestic auto industry which is presently owned by the American government"

If there were a shred of truth to this the press and in particular news magazines like 60 minutes as well as WSJ and NYT would be all over this. There are people in this country who also believe that the government played a role in 9/11. As if a conspiracy such as that could actually be kept quiet given the number of players involved in pulling that off not to mention the absurdity of the idea to begin with.

View on HN

> "unintended acceleration -> outright fabrication"

> If there were a shred of truth to this the press and in particular news magazines like 60 minutes as well as WSJ and NYT would be all over this

ROTFLMAO!!!

In the 80ies, it was 60 minutes who manufactured an "unintended acceleration" story, pretty much out of thin air. Well, some compressed air as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_unintended_acceleration#...

What they claimed was physically impossible, and never happened. More here:

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cjm_18.htm

Anyway, here's the kicker: my dad, who was an executive at Volkswagen, received an anonymous letter in the 90ies, from people who claimed they had engineered this scare, and who offered their "services". Could have been a hoax, but considering how engineered the whole thing was and how effective, I am not so sure.

So I am ever so slightly skeptical when I hear of unintended acceleration stories, and I think your trust in 60 minutes and the rest of the media is, er, misplaced.

    >> If there were a shred of truth to this the press and in
    >> particular news magazines like 60 minutes as well as WSJ
    >> and NYT would be all over this

    > In the 80ies, it was 60 minutes who manufactured an
    > "unintended acceleration" story, pretty much out of thin air.

Unless you think that investigative journalism has a strong interest for Sudden Acceleration, the take-away here is that they have a strong interest in scandal and stories that sell newspapers/airtime/whatever. The US government conspiring to protect the domestic auto market is exactly the kind of scandal that sells newspapers.

...given the number of players involved...

While there are many good arguments against conspiracy theories, this is not one of them. Given how long it took for people like Snowden and Manning to come along, it seems compartmentalization, patriotism, and NDAs go a long way.

In the Toyota case, not many in-the-know would be required at all.

>the absurdity of the idea to begin with

A false flag operation initiated by America is an absurd idea? What about all the documented and public comings and goings of when America has done just that?

How in the hell is the notion of America creating an enemy to rally against absurd when there is proof of it occurring in the past?

Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Project TP-Ajax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

Many people say the Gulf of Tonkin incident which initiated the Vietnam "conflict" was also one.

I'm astounded that you can make a statement like that when there is such black and white proof of such incidents occurring in the past. I'm not talking about 9/11, I'm just saying that it isn't out of the realm of possibility for a government to manufacture an enemy.

What I'm wondering is, are you just ignorant and you've never heard of these documented false flag operations? Or instead have you heard of these things and choose not to believe it?

You present evidence that the US has done such things in the past as evidence that it is not absurd to believe that 9/11 was a false flag operation.

But why is the idea that 9/11 was an inside job absurd? Is the only reason because people consider it absurd that the US would ever do such a thing? Or is it possible to believe that, yes, the US has done such things, but it is absurd to think that 9/11 was one of them?

I submit that it is possible to believe that the US has done such things, and also possible - even reasonable - to believe that it is still absurd to think that 9/11 was such an event.

Whether or not 9/11 was a priori suspicious is irrelevant. It's not September 12, 2001, it's nearly 15 years later and the investigations are long-finished and utterly conclusive.

    > A false flag operation initiated by America is an absurd 
    > idea? What about all the documented and public comings
    > and goings of when America has done just that?

I am confused by the links you follow up with. The first is a _rejected_ false-flag operation against American civilians, the second is CIA action overseas. The Gulf of Tonkin incident saw ... no American casualties.

And you use these as some kind of proof that the idea of the US government knowingly killing 3,000 of its own citizens, causing massive economic damage to the US, isn't absurd?!

    > What I'm wondering is, are you just ignorant and you've never
    > heard of these documented false flag operations? Or instead have
    > you heard of these things and choose not to believe it?

What, the first one, which never happened, or the second one which wasn't a false-flag incident against the American people, or the third one which involved no American casualties?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com