Edg, I don't think you're arguing so much for a 9/11 conspiracy as you are suggesting that there's so much other dirt we'll miss if we become preoccupied exclusively with 9/11. On that point I agree.
However, I have a couple of factual corrections and comments on specifics. (Note: If all I get back from you is one of your denunciations, the hell with you. If you'd like to actually respond and discuss anything I've said, I'll be happy to do so. But please do me the courtesy of quoting whatever you're responding to.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > 2. This pancaking is seen to be perfectly happening in the fall of > Building Seven also. After Building Seven fell, an official being > interviewed admits ON CAMERA that "yeah, we pulled it." FWIW, here's what he actually said: "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." >From everything I've read, "pull the building" is firefighter's shorthand for "Pull everybody out of the building" (i.e., because it's too dangerous for them to stay). It's *also* demolition shorthand for "Take the building down." But the former meaning fits the context of what the guy was saying a lot better: Let's not keep trying to save the building, let's get everybody out before even more people die. Moreover, common sense should tell you that if there had actually been a conspiracy to rig the building for demolition, nobody involved would be likely to spill the beans so casually on camera in a PBS documentary. That this guy's comment has gotten so much traction among the 9/11 conspiracy theorists is an indication, to me, that their thinking is extraordinarily sloppy. But no one > can "pull a building" and have it pancake down like Building Seven > without MONTHS OF PLANNING. Exactly. But the conspiracy theorists claim it was *already* rigged for demolition, that it *had* been planned. So why were they trying to save it?? Just doesn't make any sense. > 6. The Saudi family being allowed to fly a plane when all the other > planes were grounded. Not so. Bin Laden's family members were flown out of the U.S. after the grounding order had been lifted. > The thing stinks with muddy issues. There are a lot of muddy issues that do appear to stink, but there's so much misinformation (and, IMHO, disinformation) and paranoia involved that it's very difficult to sort it all out. It's far from an open-and-shut case either way. > But 9-11 was merely a blip on Evil's radar screen. > > The one thing that Bill Maher and Bill Clinton have not addressed > in their debunking efforts is the fact that the USA is a country > that tortures whole nations with carnage upon the innocents. The > idea that Americans in high places "could never do such a thing as > an inside job," is so unbelievably untrue given even the > history "allowed to be reported" in the USA. But there's a difference here: This involved the cold-blooded murder of thousands of American citizens. There isn't a whole lot of history of the government doing that sort of thing. Moreover, the more important question is whether it would have been *physically possible* for them to do it. As unlikely as it seems for them to have been *willing* to massacre Americans, it's vastly less likely that they could have actually accomplished it, for a whole bunch of reasons--not least their demonstrated lack of competence in accomplishing practically anything. <snip> > that bulldozer guy who SLOWLY RAN OVER A WHITE > CHRISTIAN AMERICAN BEAUTIFUL YOUNG WOMAN WHILE CAMERAS ROLLED IN FRONT > OF A CROWD He was IDF, not an American. And there are some excellent arguments, including eyewitness testimony, that the whole thing was a horrible accident. So it's not open-and-shut either. <snip> > Conspiracy nuts should pick their battles better. Agreed. > Hell with 9-11, read this morning's headlines. > > Here's just a mild sample: "Director of fake FEMA press conference > promoted." Actually, he had already obtained another gig in a different agency and had already resigned prior to the press conference; his resignation was to become effective several days afterward. He has apologized profusely for his misjudgment. Both the White House and Michael Chertoff, director of Homeland Security, have publicly blasted FEMA for this stunt. Chertoff: "I think it was one of the dumbest and most inappropriate things I've seen since I've been in government. I have made unambiguously clear, in Anglo-Saxon prose, that it is not to ever happen again and there will be appropriate disciplinary action taken against those people who exhibited what I regard as extraordinarily poor judgment." I'm obviously not a supporter of the Bush administration, but I do believe in trying to get my facts straight before I blast them about anything. You can't make a good case if your evidence is bogus.
