knews4u2chew@yahoo.com wrote:
On Aug 31, 7:48 am,
EskWI...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
In misc.survivalism
knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBPuu9o89dk&NR=1
Geee, more and more credentialed people figured out what I recognized
about 15 seconds after the first tower exploded into a dustball.
All he really says is "the explanations I have heard do not convince
me". It is pretty goddamned weak.
Ever heard of process of elimination?
Circumstantial evidence perhaps?
Logical reduction?
Occams razor?
In order to do any you need to include all th evidence.
We don't have more that would clear the air of a conspiracy than we
do.
Ever heard of guilty demeanor?
How about hiding in plain site?
If a tree falls in the forrest and nobody sees it, and government
tells you it didn't, did it still fall?
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are
always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
And one more appeal to experiential evidence. Consider who supports such
nonsense! The prime idiot of the usenet, JW, the the Junior Dummy. If he
supports it, it is immediately suspect. Why? Because everthing he has
supported in the past has turned out to be either a scam, grievous
error, or totally insanity. You have a perfect batting average in things
you support. None of them have ever turned out to be valid.
FK
