--- In [email protected], Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > (BTW we know that SF mayer Willie Brown was warned not to fly > that day as he had a flight booked).
That seems to have been a routine press briefing from the State Department a week before 9/11 directed at Americans *overseas*, particularly those at U.S. military bases in Japan and South Korea. See this SFGate report from 2006 (scroll down about halfway): http://tinyurl.com/thlm7 > To Peter, I've seen the "released" footage and there is no > airliner in that. There is, but it's hard to see. > Edgy, the Popular Mechanics report has been debunked. It hasn't been "debunked" per se, but it's pretty flimsy, a very poor job of rebutting the conspiracy theories, which are a lot more sophisticated than it portrays them to be. > My favorite book on the subject is by Princeton scholar Webster G. > Tarpley called "9/11 Synthetic Terror." Tarpley's investigative > journalism goes back to the Aldo Moro assassination which he wrote > a book about. His book is thorough and well documented. He > alleges that Bush actually didn't know what was going on and > claims that a message was received when at the school that "Angel > is next." "Angel" is the code name for Air Force One. People in > Sarasota said that Air Force One took off like a rocket almost > straight up. We can all remember that it flew around quite a bit > aimlessly that day and allegedly without fighter escort. Bush > himself revealed the message in a CBS interview a year > later. Actually, Ari Fleischer, the press secretary, "revealed" it the next day at a press conference. It was relayed to the Bush folks after Air Force One had taken off, not at the school. And the "code name" wasn't "secret"; it had been published numerous times. Moreover, it turned out to have been a misunderstanding all along, in the chaos after the attacks. The White House has promoted it as an excuse for Air Force One's "aimlessness" and for Bush not coming back to D.C. right away. So much for your guy's "thorough documentation." <snip> > I can understand that some people don't want to entertain the > idea that official 9-11 was cover because that would mean they > are living under a hostile regime. Guess what, Bhairitu? Some of us have been well aware for some years that we're "living under a hostile regime," and we *still* think the 9/11 conspiracy theories are bunkum. Those two ideas are not mutually exclusive, sorry. > Duh. Even without 9-11 we have the most corrupt > government in the history of the nation. If you > can't see that then you're part of the problem and > obviously taking (to use the "Matrix" movie analogy) > the "blue pill." We *do* see that, Bhairitu. We just don't find the conspiracy theories about 9/11 convincing.
