Post by KNOWTHIS on Jun 28, 2007 13:35:42 GMT -5
www.journalof911studies.com/index.html
I was reading an argumentative letter of correspondence over at the Journal Of 9/11 Studies and felt the need to send an e-mail to Steven Jones to be forwarded to Laurie Manwell as explained below.
I was reading an argumentative letter of correspondence over at the Journal Of 9/11 Studies and felt the need to send an e-mail to Steven Jones to be forwarded to Laurie Manwell as explained below.
I didn’t know who to send to this to so I sent it to you Mr. Jones. Love your work by the way. Perhaps you could forward this to Laurie Manwell?
................
I was reading this following exchange from the ‘Letters’ section and felt the need to defend your side (for what it’s worth). I believe that James Bennett’s questioning of Manwell's interpretation of the Angus-Reid poll is purely anal retentive knit-picking. More importantly I feel that it’s also an invalid criticism.
This is the particular letter that I’m referring to entitled:
"Correspondence from James Bennett to Laurie Manwell with Responses June 27, 2007"
link to letter
This Bennett character tries to imply that none of the poll questions had anything to do with the specific attacks of 9/11 but rather just terrorist attacks in general. In support of this argument he exclusively chooses to make reference to this particular question in the poll.
"81. When it comes to what they knew prior to Sept. 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States…."
What he doesn’t like to mention is a previous question which relates specifically to attacks using airplanes.
“78. Do you think that George W. Bush personally knew before Sept. 11th, 2001 about intelligence reports that warned of possible terrorist attacks against the United States using airplanes, or not?”
As we all know, 9/11 turned out to be the major terrorist attack of our time ‘using airplanes’ so it’s hard to imagine that 9/11 wasn’t being singled out in this question. After all, the Bush administration has continuously repeated the false claim that they never could’ve imagined this happening even though they were running drills simulating exactly what happened, as it happened (wink, wink). If they knew enough about the possibility of such an attack that it compelled them to conduct a drill for it then obviously they possessed very detailed and pertinent information. What they knew becomes every bit as important as what they did, or didn’t do.
Furthermore, it’s not incorrect to state that there a large numbers of Americans that believe that 9/11 was an inside job where the government 'actively participated' in its manifestation. Other polls have stated this explicitly.
www.scrippsnews.com/911poll
"Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."
"The poll also found that 16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."
So it seems that to avoid dealing with the truth (that large numbers of Americans really do believe in 9/11 truth), Bennett is choosing to focus on one person’s interpretation of one given survey.
He’s rolling his snot in to tiny little balls over this insignificant point. The distinction between the two following phrasings, "what they knew prior to Sept. 11th, 2001” and “the events of 9/11”.
I personally consider any party that idly sits by and allows an attack (like 9/11) to happen (while knowing in advance that it’s going to happen) is just as guilty as a party that actively participates in that attack. In fact, depending on the circumstances, the line between the two can become very blurred. For those that disagree, I’d be more than willing to put my money on the notion that the jury is going to side with me. A ‘real’ investigation might finally reveal the truth. What are the debunkers so afraid of?
Keep up the good work Laurie Manwell. Don’t allow these minions of disinformation to discourage you.
................
I was reading this following exchange from the ‘Letters’ section and felt the need to defend your side (for what it’s worth). I believe that James Bennett’s questioning of Manwell's interpretation of the Angus-Reid poll is purely anal retentive knit-picking. More importantly I feel that it’s also an invalid criticism.
This is the particular letter that I’m referring to entitled:
"Correspondence from James Bennett to Laurie Manwell with Responses June 27, 2007"
link to letter
This Bennett character tries to imply that none of the poll questions had anything to do with the specific attacks of 9/11 but rather just terrorist attacks in general. In support of this argument he exclusively chooses to make reference to this particular question in the poll.
"81. When it comes to what they knew prior to Sept. 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States…."
What he doesn’t like to mention is a previous question which relates specifically to attacks using airplanes.
“78. Do you think that George W. Bush personally knew before Sept. 11th, 2001 about intelligence reports that warned of possible terrorist attacks against the United States using airplanes, or not?”
As we all know, 9/11 turned out to be the major terrorist attack of our time ‘using airplanes’ so it’s hard to imagine that 9/11 wasn’t being singled out in this question. After all, the Bush administration has continuously repeated the false claim that they never could’ve imagined this happening even though they were running drills simulating exactly what happened, as it happened (wink, wink). If they knew enough about the possibility of such an attack that it compelled them to conduct a drill for it then obviously they possessed very detailed and pertinent information. What they knew becomes every bit as important as what they did, or didn’t do.
Furthermore, it’s not incorrect to state that there a large numbers of Americans that believe that 9/11 was an inside job where the government 'actively participated' in its manifestation. Other polls have stated this explicitly.
www.scrippsnews.com/911poll
"Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."
"The poll also found that 16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."
So it seems that to avoid dealing with the truth (that large numbers of Americans really do believe in 9/11 truth), Bennett is choosing to focus on one person’s interpretation of one given survey.
He’s rolling his snot in to tiny little balls over this insignificant point. The distinction between the two following phrasings, "what they knew prior to Sept. 11th, 2001” and “the events of 9/11”.
I personally consider any party that idly sits by and allows an attack (like 9/11) to happen (while knowing in advance that it’s going to happen) is just as guilty as a party that actively participates in that attack. In fact, depending on the circumstances, the line between the two can become very blurred. For those that disagree, I’d be more than willing to put my money on the notion that the jury is going to side with me. A ‘real’ investigation might finally reveal the truth. What are the debunkers so afraid of?
Keep up the good work Laurie Manwell. Don’t allow these minions of disinformation to discourage you.
Steven W. S. makes a few additional