[FairfieldLife] From Judy: Re: 9-11 -- The Inside Job was merely a blip
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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] From Judy: Re: 9-11 -- The Inside Job was merely a blip
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.
Re: [FairfieldLife] From Judy: Re: 9-11 -- The Inside Job was merely a blip
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
Re: [FairfieldLife] From Judy: Re: 9-11 -- The Inside Job was merely a blip
It depends on the individual. There are plenty of people subscribed here who will engage in an honest exchange of ideas but they may not be posting at the moment. I think a number of people were also turned off by a posting limit and haven't been back since. And then there is that bunch who want to engage in arm wrestling. I've always taken it as a sign of insecurity. I also find this on some tech forums I'm on as people want to advertise their expertise even if it is only the armchair variety. And then because of search engines exactitude has become a disease on the web. Some people want your facts to be exactly right on with no causal or off the top of your head information permitted. That is a little insane I think and can make communication tedious. Angela Mailander wrote: 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] From Judy: Re: 9-11 -- The Inside Job was merely a blip
Thanks. I'll hang out and see what happens. I certainly am not interested in personal attacks. I also belong to a tech forum, which discusses the mathematics of G. Spencer Brown, there is very little posturing and always respect even for people who are beginners and trying to learn. a Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It depends on the individual. There are plenty of people subscribed here who will engage in an honest exchange of ideas but they may not be posting at the moment. I think a number of people were also turned off by a posting limit and haven't been back since. And then there is that bunch who want to engage in arm wrestling. I've always taken it as a sign of insecurity. I also find this on some tech forums I'm on as people want to advertise their expertise even if it is only the armchair variety. And then because of search engines exactitude has become a disease on the web. Some people want your facts to be exactly right on with no causal or off the top of your head information permitted. That is a little insane I think and can make communication tedious. Angela Mailander wrote: 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 Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] From Judy: (Re: 9-11 -- The Inside Job was merely a blip)
-- 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
[FairfieldLife] From Judy: Re: 9-11 -- The Inside Job was merely a blip
--- In Fairfieldfew [EMAIL PROTECTED], Angela Mailander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bhairitu, I've got the impression that this group is not really interested in an honest exchange of ideas, There is no group as an entity --there are a number of individuals. Some are interested in honest exchanges of ideas, others are not. Don't over generalize -- as you just did here and a few posts ago about americans. but, rather, in finding ways to shoot one another down with more or less venom. Certainly not everyone. It doesn't matter how good your logic or your evidence is, it simply will not be received in the spirit of honest inquiry. Well, it won't be perceived as such if one has a severe cognitive disability to overgeneralize. I'm not accusing you and have not seen you do this---I'm only noting a general impression. OK,thats fair,if you mean 50% do this, 50% don't (%'s are arbitrary example) Also, the shooting down is usually not at any major point in an argument, but some side issue Some do this. One tactic is to ignore such. ---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 the whole group doesn't do this. 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 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. 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
