Coherence is in the eyes of the beholder. But I'm not going to argue this with you Judy, since the last time we talked, it was plain that you are more interested in trading insults than actually having a conversation. Trading insults with you was amusing that one week some time back when I went for asshole of the week, but it is not something I want to do on a regular basis.
--- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela > Mailander > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > All of them together are suspicious. > > "All of them together" aren't even coherent, Angela. > Many of them are easily refutable. > > Some of the ones that seem to suggest foreknowledge > look credible to me. But many of those, if they're > accurate, refute the "controlled demolition" notion > because they suggest the foreknowledge was of the > hijackings and attacks by air. If everything was > so carefully planned to demolish the buildings right > after the attacks, they'd have had to know which > planes were going to be hijacked, and they wouldn't > have had to cancel their own flights--just for one > point. > > As for the > > videos you see in the mainstream media, do you > think > > you can trust them? > > Ah, so every bit of video of the collapses that's > been available from public sources has been > carefully retouched to show debris falling faster > than the towers, so perfectly that nobody has > been able to expose it? > > Have you seen the video recently > > released which a private individual took who > happened > > to be on a high up floor with a plain view of the > > towers? I'll try to find the link if you're > > interested, but I doubt that you're really > interested. > > No, I'd be delighted to have a look. > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
