http://www.guardian.co.uk/cuba/story/0,,2167354,00...
"Only a projectile could have created the geometrically round orifice created by the alleged airplane," he said. "We were deceived as well as the rest of the planet's inhabitants," he said.
Too bad. Maybe he saw Loose Change? How about Hugo Chavez, did he say something similar?
Anybody have Fidel Castro's email address? : )
Yes, if someone has his email we can properly educate him . . .
Note this in the Guardian also --
It's interesting that this links to the hardcore hoax sites -- directly to Fetzer and the Webfairy/Nico Haupt controlled 911review.org (nukes, pods, TV Fakery, holograms). Just typing in "911 Scholars" does not lead to the link they have for "scholars", so there is an effort to promote the misinfo at Fetzer's site. The real academics and intellectuals left Fetzer's group nearly a year ago now. Even the "911truth" link they give goes to hoax sites -- Shayler, etc.
Someone should email him a reasonable list of references -
http://stj911.org/resources/index.html
On 9/12/07, Scott Page <> wrote:
From the Guardian: A cautious yet significant article:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell...
9/11 - the big cover-up?
Even the chair of the 9/11 Commission now admits that the official evidence they were given was 'far from the truth'.
Peter Tatchell
Hey, Scott just posted and he appears legit but just misinformed on his sources . . .
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell...
"The failings of the official investigation have fuelled too many half-baked conspiracy theories. Some of the 9/11 "truth" groups promote speculative hypotheses, ignore innocent explanations, cite non-expert sources and jump to conclusions that are not proven by the known facts. They convert mere coincidence and circumstantial evidence into cast-iron proof. This is no way to debunk the obfuscations and evasions of the 9/11 report....
"There are dozens of 9/11 "truth" websites and campaign groups. I cannot vouch for the veracity or credibility of any of them. But what I can say is that as well as making plenty of seemingly outrageous claims, a few of them raise legitimate questions that demand answers...."
This is what I actually wrote. Period. Misrepresenting me as a conspiracy theorist, and linking me to various wacky ideas, will not wash.
Some of my critics seem to saying: you may have reasonable queries, but don't dare raise them because you will give a boost to "nutters" and "weirdos".
Is that the logic of a democracy? Is it right to tell people they should shut up and go away, because their concerns may encourage others to talk nonsense?
Judge me on my words, not on how others may misuse them. Or is it now guilt by association that rules on CIF?
You must log in to post.