On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 22:44, Kevin Callahan<[email protected]> wrote: > > now we discover [Abu Grahib] was policy from the top down - approved > by the executive branch, by the oval office
Yeah, you'd think if the government WAS behind 911 (pretty easily a bigger endeavor than covering up Abu Grahib) that conspiracy would've collapsed under it's own weight by now as well. I guess they managed to execute that one flawlessly. > particularly of a 47 story steel building falling at essentially free-fall > speed that was not hit by a plane So, at what speed should a building fall once its structure has failed? > it's only *reasonable *that countless people are not convinced by the > official story .. and are asking questions -- > simply asking questions The problem with the people that are simply asking questions, is that they've been given adequate answers and they either keep asking the same questions or start asking new questions without acknowledging the previous answers. In addition, it's not "just asking questions", there's a definite motive in there as well and the "asking questions" theme just tries to distract from that. "Oh, I'm not saying we never landed on the Moon, I'm just saying there's things that are odd. I'm just asking questions about that." "I'm not saying the government brought down the towers, I'm just saying the official story isn't satisfactory to me and I want more information." What information would be definitive? What qualifications would assure you that the official story adds up? What ANSWERS will put to rest your questions? Every "truther" question I've ever heard has been answered logically and without the need for any more than planes, fuel, and fire. The answers are all there. -- arno s hautala /-\ [email protected] pgp eabb6fe6 d47c500f b2458f5d a7cc7abb f81c4e00 _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
