From: you@somehost.somedomain.aus   
      
   In article ,   
   david@edenroad.demon.co.uk says...   
   >   
   >On Wed, 31 May 2006 01:15:25 +0000, Your Name Here=Harvey wrote:   
   >   
   >> I've been watching a lot of 9-11 documentaries, which in effect   
   >> say that the official story we are told, are not what happened on the day.   
   >> ie. How can a plane disappear into a building?   
   >   
   >It's travelling at two hundred miles an hour, and there's a lot of empty   
   >space in both.   
   >   
   >>     How can the Twin Towers collapse as they did? From a fire?   
   >   
   >Because it was an _enormous_ fire, fuelled by hundreds of tonnes of fuel,   
   >and they weren't designed to withstand it.   
   >   
   >> Everything in the official story amounts to a lie.   
   >> The facts do not check out.   
   >   
   >Got any proof of that?  Or just wild, hopelessly ill-informed,   
   >paranoid speculation?   
   >   
   >>   
   >> So I wonder if any psychic source does reveal who was behind it,   
   >> and what did happen on the day?   
   >   
   >Yeah, 'cos they were so good at predicting it (and finding Osama   
   >afterwards).   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Note: other similiar events did not happen...   
   >> eg. Oklahoma City Bombing - the truck bomb in itself did not bring the   
   >>     building down.   
   >>     TWA 800 - something else brought that plane down, eyewitnesses   
   >>     always said a missile was present (this may? have been the case with   
   >>     the Pentagon strike of 9-11?)...   
   >   
   >Eyewitnesses are wrong, as the video footage shows.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> It is just that, when looking at the details, particularly eye   
   >> witness testimony - they do not tally with the official story, therefore   
   >> the official story is a coverup of some kind.   
   >   
   >Great logic!   
   >   
   >Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.  Surely you know that?   
   >   
   >> And the more information   
   >> you gather, the more this is the case.   
   >   
   >Depends on your sources.  Are _any_ of yours likely to be reliable?   
   >   
   >> The official story, is not logically plausible.   
   >   
   >You mean that it's not logical that hitting a building with hundreds of   
   >tonnes of metal and fuel at hundreds of miles an hour would cause it to   
   >catch fire, and burn fiercely enough to fail?   
   >   
   >I beg to differ.   
   >   
   >--   
   >=======================================================================   
   >= David    --- No, not that one.   
   >= Mitchell ---   
   >=======================================================================   
      
   Here is a site, in which the whole matter is looked at,   
   with reason and intelligence...   
      
   http://www.physics911.net/   
      
   http://www.physics911.net/stevenjones.htm   
      
   Harvey   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)