by streeb » Thu Sep 07, 2006 2:32 am
My 20 year old sister-in-law is nuts for Maddox, and I like him too. She forwarded his 9/11 piece to me. In the half hour or so that I had to make breakfast for me and the kid, and get ready for work, I put together an email explaining to her (as best as I could at the time) about straw men, and Maddox's less-than-watertight thinking on this issue, gave her my opinion of Loose Change, told her all about Mockingbird, and Chertoff, and put together a rough compendium of things that Maddox should think about (Mineta, NORAD, the Cheney-Bush handholding session during the Commission, Able Danger, the role of the ISI, the put options, the hard drives, Indira Singh, Sibel Edmonds... as much as I could while I was in a hurry) and finally told her that I think Maddox is great when he's attacking Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith or the smell of lady-farts, but is way out of his depth with 9/11.<br><br>She forwarded my email to Maddox. I wasn't expecting that. And I certainly wasn't expecting a reply...<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Even if I was completely wrong about Loose Change, which I'm not, there are too many questions, too many variables, not enough evidence, and no satisfactory motive.<br>I mean, these theorists are literally sitting around watching grainy video stills all day long, instead of asking questions like: why? That's a really tough question to answer, and there are no good reasons. The primary reason emerging is for a gateway into Iraq (how they could have predicted congress' vote is beyond me--unless you want to say they<br>were part of it, but your brother-in-law seems to think it was very few people in on it). Yet nobody wonders why this government--so corrupt that it would kill its own people and hundreds of thousands of people thereafter, wouldn't simply plant weapons in Iraq to say they found<br>them, if war in Iraq was the motive. There is no good motive. Period. I'll admit discrepancies in the "official" account of events (I don't even know what that means because there is no "official" record; the closest thing to it is the 9/11 commission which isn't comprehensive). Of course it's fishy that Bush hindered the commission, but it was probably because of his incompetence, and not because of a conspiracy. The August 6, 2001 PDB was titled something to the effect of "Osama Bin Laden intent on striking inside the United States." It specifically mentions hijacking in the document. Bush dropped the ball... he's trying to save face, not cover up a conspiracy.<br>maddox@xmission.com<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>It's probably a little unethical of me to publish a private email like this, but there you go. He started it.<br><br>I'm impressed that he replied. I hope he was rattled. He's still out of his depth. <p></p><i></i>
