Len Colby Posted September 15, 2011 Author Share Posted September 15, 2011 I assume that after the Plame affair they knew that naming CIA agents was illegal. They easily could have used pseudonyms instead of the agents real names. It wouldn't surprise me if they are doing this intentionally to get attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) I assume that after the Plame affair they knew that naming CIA agents was illegal. They easily could have used pseudonyms instead of the agents real names. It wouldn't surprise me if they are doing this intentionally to get attention. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXooooooooXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXoooo XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXoooo Colby "It wouldn't surprise me if they are doing this intentionally to get attention." A man who posts on PHYSICS sites,Airline Pilots sites,numerous Skeptic and 911 myth sites,a man with over 10,000 internet posts .....and its others who,"...are doing this intentionally to get attention." . I shake my head in sadness,sadness...... are doing this intentionally to get attention.= there is a name for this , its called 'projection' THANKS SG +++++++++++++ooooooo+++++++++++ Edited September 19, 2011 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) Avery is now saying "well, there was some kind of cover up.."? Fantastic. This has got to be the backtrack of the year. And I can't wait to se him explain in more detail the specifics of this. The "no plane hit Pentagon"; the "mysterious disappearance of flight 93", and so forth. These guys are truly incredible, they screw up beyond boundaries but they do not have the guts and decency to come clean. Pathetic. Edited September 16, 2011 by Glenn Viklund Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 16, 2011 Author Share Posted September 16, 2011 Avery is now saying "well, there was some kind of cover up.."? Fantastic. This has got to be the backtrack of the year. And I can't wait to se him explain in more detail the specifics of this. The "no plane hit Pentagon"; the "mysterious disappearance of flight 93", and so forth. These guys are truly incredible, they screw up beyond boundaries but they do not have the guts and decency to come clean. Pathetic. Pathetic as it is it's better than people like David Griffin who keep trotting out long discredited claims like 'there were no Arab names on the flight manifests'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 The major difference is that Griffin - so far - has not gotten the attention that Avery's fantasy got. By far, thank God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 17, 2011 Author Share Posted September 17, 2011 I am not so sure about that Griffin’s dozen or so books on 9/11 have been read by many people and his online articles & videos have been read or seen by even more. I think he is actually worse, as a retired but well-respected Ph.D. professor with dozens of books and peer reviewed papers under his belt he gives the “‘truth’ movement” a veneer of maturity and academic respectability that the hick kids, who cannot comprehend what a simile is, certainly do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Yes - and no. I'd say it's a double-edged sword. If, in fact, the professor in question is well respected, then you are right. If, on the other hand the professor's gone rogue, then he's quickly becoming his opponent's best argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now