-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 <noozguru@> 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.
So why not use a *real* cover-up as an example? > Why would 9-11 be any different? There, you just did it again: Because there have been "cover-ups" in the past, therefore there must have been a "cover-up" of 9/11. Not every story backed by the government is a cover-up, Bhairitu. Nothing wrong with looking at government-backed stories more closely, but when you look and look and don't *find* anything that holds up under examination, it's time to give the cover-up theory a rest. That is unless you actually > believe that 19 terrorists armed with box cutters pulled the > thing off. They certainly pulled off the actual attacks. Whether they had some help from unknown sources is another question entirely. <snip> > 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. Oh, come on. Talk about a stretch! "Top secret code words" clearly refers to "Angel." And if the code word is "inside information," that also implies secrecy. Here's something Tarpley said during an interview: "'Angel is next' implies the top-secret codename or codeword for the Presidential aircraft, Air Force One." The administration is caught in a dilemma here. If the "message" was just a misunderstanding, it makes Bush look very foolish for not coming back to D.C. right away and going through all kinds of "aimless" maneuvers. If it *wasn't* a misunderstanding, as Tarpley correctly says, it would implicate people within the administration in 9/11. <snip> > > 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. Not. My position is entirely consistent. Your eyes are tap dancing. You still don't see where you got it wrong. <snip> > > 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? Up to you. The guy who put them up (I think he's responsible for both of them) says over and over again that we shouldn't take his word for anything. <snip> > >> 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. It's the logical implication of what you said above. And it's also just plain wrong. You don't have a clue what conspiracies I think are real, yet you claim I won't admit to any of them because I'm dubious about *one* of them. FYI, just for example, I'm virtually positive there were conspiracies to assassinate JFK, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Bobby Kennedy. I also don't think all crop circles are human-made, nor that UFOs are just a function of human misperception or delusion. I think the government is holding back information about both, particularly UFOs. So don't give me this "You don't like to admit to conspiracies" crap just because I don't buy into all of them. <snip> > >>> 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. Nope. You claimed I haven't looked into the 9/11 theories much, but if I hadn't, why would I say Popular Mechanics did a lousy job of debunking them? Many people thought the magazine did a superb, definitive job.
