It's good to look at 9-11 like a mystery movie. It would be like one of those movies were a dirty cop kills some innocent person and an equally corrupt police force covers up for him. In the process private detectives and journalists begin to uncover what really went on. Of course the corrupt police hassles them and try to throw them off as they get too close to the truth.
Likewise if 9-11 were an inside job then of course they it would make perfect sense that the perpetrators would use disinformation to throw 9-11 truthers off course. Many of the 9-11 truth people go to great pains to filter out disinformation and incorrect evidence. They're not going to be perfect but neither are the perps. Time will tell. authfriend wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> 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. > On what page of "9/11 Synthetic Terror" does Tarpley say that? I don't see it. > >>> 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? > Did you read what I wrote? The source on that would have had to be the Bush administration which is known for cover-ups and lies. > >> Find those WMDs yet? >> > > Complete non sequitur. Am I making you a little > nervous? > No it isn't a non sequitur. It is a joke, obviously. You make me nervous? Hardly, you're being delusional. > >>>> 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. > Care to share with us just what those debunking sites are (so I can debunk them)? > >> 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. > That is bunk. Conspiracies are a part of history. For some bizarre reason you don't like to admit to them. > >>>> 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. > So you speak for them? There are many others here who aren't so skeptical. > >> 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. > There are no contradictions in my arguments. You're just making that up.
