authfriend wrote: > --- 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. > You must be seeing things (or what you want to see). You see a Boeing airliner eh? > >> 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. > I think there's been a pretty good job done of debunking the PM report. >> 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. > Whatever. It was around that time. Neither did I say it was a secret code word. > 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." > So you believe the Bush administration? Find those WMDs yet? > <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. > > This is like reviewing a movie without actually seeing it. Most of the people here have only read short accounts and really don't have that much knowledge of the 9-11 truth movement. How much of the "movie" have you seen? I just can't believe you fall for the official story. >> 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. > Who's we? Do you have multiple personality syndrome? :D
Again I have my doubts that you've looked into it that much.
