How many others here are willing to change their conclusions based on credible fresh evidence as it comes to light vs those in the 'my mind is made up don't bother me with the facts' camp?
4x, I am willing to consider the _faint_ possibility that 9/11 was "an 'inside job' and a government attack on America" but I find it very difficult to consider this http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050613-102755-6408r.htm credible in spite of upi perhaps having a somewhat better reputation than, say, the National Enquirer. After all, despite the 'semi-insider' nature of his former position, the guy seems to be an economist, not an engineer (tho that criticism is a bit 'ad hominem'). Besides, my mind just boggles at the logistics and the scheduling and the organizing that would be necessary to pull off what is suggested in the article. However, this 'crap' (as Collins, perhaps correctly, called it) just does not seem to want to go away, does it? Honestly, I don't know what to think. What do you think? R -- http://www.quen.net "Gold needs no endorsement, it can be tested with scales and acids. The recipient of gold does not have to trust the government stamp upon it, if he does not trust the government that stamped it. No act of faith is called for when gold is used in payments, and no compulsion is required." -Benjamin M. Anderson _______________________________________________ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
