by NewKid » Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:54 pm
all seem pretty lame (e.g., Manjoo, In These Times, Vanity Fair -- not even really a debunking, more like a missed opportunity -- tv reports on Barrett and Fetzer). Why aren't they citing the guy/firm from 9-11 myths all the time? Is Manjoo really so sloppy that he did a piece on 9-11 and Loose Change and didn't find the arguments in 9-11 myths? Why does he cite Hoffman instead, knowing Hoffman doesn't support his views? <br><br>Granted, all that these pieces really need to do is provide some plausible sounding rebuttal to hang your hat on for a few of the more exotic sounding conspiracy claims, and the reader who's looking to believe the official story can comfortably seize that and rest at ease. But given the level of 9-11 truth in the news recently, why aren't the debunkers trying harder to make their case? <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 7/13/06 10:10 pm<br></i>