From: you@somehost.somedomain.aus   
      
   In article ,   
   david@edenroad.demon.co.uk says...   
   >   
   >On Wed, 31 May 2006 22:32:59 +0000, Your Name Here=Harvey wrote:   
   >   
   >> Here is a site, in which the whole matter is looked at,   
   >> with reason and intelligence...   
   >   
   >... wild speculation and paranoia.   
   >   
   >Sorry, I'm getting bored now.   
   >   
   >We'll almost certainly never know whether the "official" explanation is   
   >correct, and I find those sort of sites tedious at best.   
   >   
   >--   
   >=======================================================================   
   >= David    --- No, not that one.   
   >= Mitchell ---   
   >=======================================================================   
      
   It is only because the official explanation is inadequate that these   
   alternate conspiracy stories take off.   
   There should not be the inconsistancies, nor the anomalies.   
      
   To determine the truth of the matter, you have to take into consideration   
   both sides - and rule out the one with the most inconsistancies, and   
   where the facts actually stack up on. See what the basic investigation   
   work turns up?   
      
   Your view is simply closed and made up already. Like the official   
   commission report, which just tags along with the official retelling of   
   events. It does not address or clear up any of the consistancies -   
   it just ignores them.   
      
   http://www.physics911.net/   
      
   http://www.physics911.net/stevenjones.htm   
      
   Tries to address the inconsistancies and explain them...   
      
   Harvey   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)