--- In [email protected], Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > authfriend wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@> 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?
I see something that looks an awful lot like a big airplane, yes. <snip> > > 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. No, you didn't, but Tarpley does, and administration shills do as well. > > 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? Huh? Do I believe it was a legitimate threat? Did you read what I wrote? > Find those WMDs yet? Complete non sequitur. Am I making you a little nervous? > >> 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. I beg your pardon? 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? Quite a bit. I've spent many hours on the various Web sites, watched several of the films. For awhile I thought there was something to it, but then I began to find some very good debunking sites, and most of the claims just don't hold up under examination. > I just can't believe you fall for the official story. It's a lot more than just "the official story." You don't have to depend on what the government says--or on Popular Mechanics, for that matter-- to figure out that the conspiracy theories are bunk. > >> 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 There are several people on FFL who are skeptical of the conspiracy theories. > Again I have my doubts that you've looked into it that much. I've been very interested in it ever since it happened and have read everything I could find on it. How do you think I know the Popular Mechanics debunking was so poor and simplistic if I haven't looked into the theories in some detail? You don't seem to see the contradictions in your own arguments.
