From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk
On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 22:20:42 +0000, Your Name Here=Harvey wrote:
> In article ,
david@edenroad.demon.co.uk says...
> It is only because the official explanation is inadequate that these
> alternate conspiracy stories take off.
It's only inadequate because you don't believe it.
> There should not be the inconsistancies, nor the anomalies.
There will always be unknowns, especially in an event of this magnitude.
That doesn't mean that the official explanation is wrong, nor that the
alternatives are right.
> 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?
Most of the "Łacts" on all of the sites you've referred to are simply
speculation (as, of course, they would be).
> Your view is simply closed and made up already.
My "view" is based on what I've read since the event, as is yours.
The fact that it differs from yours makes is no less valid.
> 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...
No it doesn't. As I pointed out above, most of the "Łacts" are simply
speculation.
--
=======================================================================
= David --- No, not that one.
= Mitchell ---
=======================================================================
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
