Bhairitu, I've got the impression that this group is not really interested in an honest exchange of ideas, but, rather, in finding ways to shoot one another down with more or less venom. It doesn't matter how good your logic or your evidence is, it simply will not be received in the spirit of honest inquiry. I'm not accusing you and have not seen you do this---I'm only noting a general impression. Also, the shooting down is usually not at any major point in an argument, but some side issue---I'd call it a special instance of the Texas sharp shooter's fallacy in which the shooter sprays bullets at the side of a barn and then goes and draws a target around the places where the bullets have hit. Of course, he's on target every time in his own mind. Is this your impression also? Or am I totally wrong? a
Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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 Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
