On 6/26/2006 9:57:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 6/26/2006 10:51:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > 2) The planes did hit the building, but explosive charges were set > > off in > > the floors that they hit. > > > > Bingo, and it resides as a suspicion, not a belief. None of the > "official explanations" precludes the sort of conspiracy required. > The > conspiracy theorists addressed such right from the get-go. > Now, > I'm *not* saying that the conspiracy theorists are correct or > that any of what they say is true, but very little of what they say > has been "without doubt" eliminated as a possibility. (The point > being > that they say quite a bit and it goes pretty much unchallenged > and/or > ignored) > So if you are going to blow up the buildings with explosives why fly > the > planes into the buildings?
Well, that's the heart of the idea of a conspiracy, eh? Knock down the targeted buildings but leave the rest of the business district mostly unscathed. >If you are terrorists why should you care whether the > buildings go straight down or topple over. Wouldn't > you want them to topple > to do more damage? Bingo again! And that is the only reason it is suspicious at all. What was the distance between adjacent buildings in that part of town? xponent Rumors Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
