authfriend wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozg...@...> wrote: > >> authfriend wrote: >> >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> nelson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Not enough people believe this to make any difference. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> But it is a more probable scenario if one observes the >>>> patterns of behavior post 9-11 than the "official story" >>>> which is pretty ludicrous. After all what would "Islamic >>>> terrorists" have to gain by bringing a huge western >>>> country with a lot of military might down upon their heads >>>> in the Middle East? >>>> >>>> >>> You have to be kidding. >>> >>> *That's exactly what they hoped would happen*. That >>> was the *point*. Once that was accomplished, they >>> had more eager recruits than they knew what to do >>> with. >>> >>> And the other goal, of course, was to freak us out >>> so badly that we'd willingly give up a batch of our >>> much-vaunted freedoms in an attempt to prevent >>> future such attacks. >>> >>> They knew exactly what they were doing, and they >>> succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. >>> >>> The damage inflicted by actual terrorist attacks >>> pales next to the damage the society that's been >>> attacked inflicts on itself in response. >>> >> ROTL! Those attacks were too sophisticated to have >> been pulled off by a small group like Al Qaeda. >> > > Eminently disputable, but a complete non sequitur to > the point I was making. Would you care to address it, > or would that be too difficult?
Bullshit. But you're welcome to spin whatever fiction you want about my post but one thing it wasn't was non-sequitur. Apparently it was to difficult for you to understand. But I'm not going to bother playing badminton with Judy on this issue. For those who don't know she is very closed minded about it. She swallows hook, line and sinker the Bush Administration "Official Story" (the one they sanctioned though they were drug kicking and screaming to it). This shows she has a lack of intellectual curiosity. She's not alone as there are a bunch of liberal "gatekeepers" who buy the "official story" just as there are even more conservatives who do too. There are also plenty of liberals who don't buy the "official story" either. For instance, Gore Vidal originally said it was "pretty convenient" and now says it was a flat out inside job. Gore is privy to talk among the mucky-mucks the rest of us aren't. There is of course volumes of research into the subject refuting the "official story." Some may be far fetched and some may be right on the mark. Maybe someday we'll really know. But if it was truly like the report shows people in this country would be really upset and NEVER again trust government nor big business (they're starting to do that anyway). And those who did it know that. If the FBI has all the videotapes of the plane that hit the Pentagon why not release them? That would that debate wouldn't it? It must show a US made missile instead of an aircraft. But they trusted that the public wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it and a commuter plane. And then what about building 7? I've seen wild speculation here that the two towers would have damaged it but building engineers would tell even if it were damaged it wouldn't fall. You all know there were files on ongoing SEC investigations stored in that building don't you like on Enron?
