From: you@somehost.somedomain.aus   
      
   In article ,   
   david@edenroad.demon.co.uk says...   
   >   
   >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?   
   >   
      
   OK, there is a series called "Sensing Murder" which was screened/made   
   in Australia and New Zealand, in which old murder cases are given the   
   pyschic treatment. Two psychics are used, they are given hardly any   
   information, and no information is passed from one psychic to the other -   
   yet they seem to provide new information, which can be checked out, either   
   by the police or private investigators working for the series.   
   I haven't watched every programme of this series, but from what I've   
   seen of it, they seem to give exact information relating to the case,   
   and not giving red herring information, which doesn't sound like the   
   case in question.   
   They do provide new information.   
      
   If these were mediums faking it, I think the makers of the series   
   would be extremely disappointed, and viewers would quickly lose interest   
   because you'll then expect vague and wrong information to be given.   
   They do not provide any detailed information to the psychic, none at all.   
   They may only say that a person has been murdered - I think every case   
   is a murder.   
      
   It's like with the Ghost Hunting series ... if nothing turns up at   
   all, it'll be dead boring - they would only make a couple of programmes,   
   and then can it. It is only because they've captured something on film/tape   
   that makes it interesting... that kind of thing. And if it's only the   
   filmcrew getting scared, with nothing to show for it, that would be boring   
   too.   
      
   >> eg. Tell us, what did hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon?   
   >> What exactly did hit them?   
   >   
   >Planes!  Weren't you watching!   
      
   The question becomes, then what planes???   
      
   It is possible that it could have been drone, remote controlled   
   planes, especially if the markings were not of airline markings, and that   
   would explain the accuracy of impact.   
   And in the case of the Pentagon strike - it could have been a smaller   
   plane involved, seeing that the impact area was very sharply defined, and   
   there wasn't that much debris scattered around.   
      
   >   
   >> 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 ---   
   >=======================================================================   
      
   I would be satisfied if the planes were accurately identified, either   
   by black boxes, engine parts, other parts, etc etc   
   and security camera footage that does show the said plane in plain view.   
   The video footage released after the event - can be made up, especially   
   if the plane simply disappeared into the building - a building is a   
   'hard' target, so for the plane to completely enter the building is   
   very very strange?   
   Boy do they make those Boeings super tough!!!! Why even stronger than   
   a building? How is that?   
   Oh, all debris should be verified by some independent investigator, to show   
   that it is what it is claimed to be. And not simply some government source,   
   "yes, we've got that engine you know, and we have assembled the parts   
   we've found in some hangar..." and then they don't show anyone what they   
   have done with it...   
      
   I would be happy to accept the official story, if there are no grounds   
   not to disbelieve it.   
      
   Harvey   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)