Duveyoung wrote: > Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 9-11 -- The Inside Job was merely a blip > (snip .... thought police) > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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. >> > > Justifying the 9/11 conspiracy theories by suggesting > they're like what's portrayed in the movies is more > revealing than you realize. > The movie example (as you should well know) is used as an illustration of a cover-up. We've had a number of "cover-ups" exposed during our lifetime. Why would 9-11 be any different? That is unless you actually believe that 19 terrorists armed with box cutters pulled the thing off. > >> authfriend wrote: >> >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@> 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. >> > > It's quoted on the 911myths.com site (note that the > two paragraphs that follow are quotes from the book): > > According to Bob Woodward's canonical mainstream account: "At about > 10:30 AM > Cheney reached Bush again on Air Force One, which was still on its way > toward > Washington. The White House had received a threat saying, 'Angel is > next.' Since Angel was the codeword for Air Force One, it could mean > that terrorists had inside > information."... > > ...the "Angel is next" story contained an explosive potential for the > longer term, since by pointing toward the existence of highly-placed > moles within the administration who had access to top secret code > words and procedures, it threatened to explode the official myth of > 9/11 which was then taking shape. > Webster Griffin Tarpley > 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA > > http://www.911myths.com/html/angel_is_next.html > > Those are the pages I checked earlier right out of the book BUT it doesn't say anything there that specifically "Angel" was a "secret" codeword. The top secret code words and procedures would refer to the ones that allowed them to communicate the message. >>>>> 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. >> > > Right. Now read what I wrote again. > > >>>> 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. >> > > It's a *non sequitur joke*. You've got things very > confused in your mind about my position. > ROTFL! Position? Tap dancing would be more like it. > >> You make me nervous? Hardly, you're being delusional. >> > > That was a joke, Bhairitu. I was referring to > your obvious confusion about what I believe. > > <snip> > >> Care to share with us just what those debunking sites are (so I can >> debunk them)? >> > > Start with 911myths.com and debunking911.com. They > have links to lots of other debunking sites. Some > are better than others, of course. > So why should be believe them any more than we should believe the 911 truth sites? > >>>> 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. >> > > Never said conspiracies weren't a part of history. > I'll "admit" to plenty of 'em. For some bizarre > reason you believe anybody who thinks the 9/11 > conspiracy theories are bunk must be unwilling > to entertain the idea that there have ever been > *any* conspiracies--as if the fact that there have > been conspiracies in the past means the 9/11 > conspiracy theories must be true. That's so > illogical it borders on the irrational. > No, I never said that. You're jumping to conclusions again. > >>>>>> 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. > > Right. I'm speaking for the skeptical ones, obviously. > You really are having trouble comprehending what I'm > writing. > Not at all. But you seem to be having trouble comprehending what I am comprehending. Or is this just a "ritual defamation" exercise?
> >>>> 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. > > I just cited a contradiction. Read what I wrote > again, please. That's a long stretch. But enough badminton for today. :D :D :D
