From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 11:22:48 +0000, Your Name Here=Harvey wrote:
> In article ,
david@edenroad.demon.co.uk says...
> Psychics have the ability to reveal new information, if they are
> 'psychic'. ie. new evidence.
No, you're missing my point: it has never been proven that psychics are
capable of revealing information which could not have been obtained any
other way, so why should we believe _anything_ they say?
> eg. Tell us, what did hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon?
> What exactly did hit them?
Planes! Weren't you watching!
> What does the government say? Oh, they were Boeing 757's piloted by
> muslim terrorists.
> Mohammed Atta was no 'muslim'. He drank, gambled and loved prostitutes.
> The guys he hung out with, his friends, associates, etc were no muslims too.
They were Saudi's who grew up in a muslim culture - perhaps they weren't
strict muslims; but I don't hear anyone say they were.
> There should have been enough, at the Pentagon to show what did hit there...
> Probably enough from the Twin Towers too? If only, they (FBI, government
> agencies at the scene, etc) will show us any evidence...
>
> Then it would be case closed. Evidence collected, confirms the
> official story, etc. There would be no coverup.
> Release all the video footage, security camera footage taken on the day,
> that would confirm 100% there is no alternate conspiracy theory worth
> talking about.
And it still wouldn't satisfy the conspiracy theorists (BD, for example,
appears to think that the BB recovered from Flight 93 was faked).
Besides, how could you _prove_ that there was no further evidence to
release?
--
=======================================================================
= David --- No, not that one.
= Mitchell ---
=======================================================================
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
