Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx
I think it's a pretty empty article, honestly. The author prematurely labels these as myths, without doing much to disprove any of them besides pointing out all the loose threads.
|
That's because the premise of the article was popular misconception over 9/11,
NOT[ whether or not certain things absolutely happened or not. The hijackers very well may have used box cutters to control the airplanes, but that's not the point of this article, and it leaves the loose ends in order to clarify that point.
Quote:
|
Of #5, his only explanation is that there has yet to be a conclusive verdict that the stocks manipulation "might well have" occured.
|
Now lets finish your selective use of information:
"The absence of any complaint suggests the SEC found nothing illegal, but that's not definite. The SEC and the Chicago board seal the records of their investigations and won't offer any explanation -- even if there is an innocent one -- for the strange trading. So, unless the SEC decides to file a complaint -- unlikely at this late stage -- we may never know what they learned about terror trading."
Once again, the point of the article is NOT that trading definitely went on, the point is that popular belief has led many to believe it without a doubt DID. This is a myth, in other words, something unproven (note: some things that are unproven can actually be true).
Quote:
He also says...
some operative may have inquired about crop dusting.
Moussaouis was prepared to fly some sort of plane.
Iraq should be suspect, and a connection is "entirely possible" .
Our knowledge of the final moments on those flights is incomplete and misleading, and since we don't know what happend the box cutter knives theory isn't "demonstrably false".
So what is this saying? Not much.
|
If you missed the obvious point of the article, I can see why that conclusion might been drawn.