I carry a mini portable on a frame so I can do both simultaniously.:-)

Some of those programmes(including the History channel I think) are
produced by the BBC in the spirit of World In Action, Panarama, and
our Four Corners.
My neice is an exec of the BBC current affairs, and she stands for no
nonsense. Worth the cost of ten beers a month :-).
----------------------------------------

Sean: who are you trying to convince. :-0
Hey, I was just de-baiting ya. hehehe
-----------------------------------------------

The title of the doc. was Investigation Zero:911.I think the history
channel will have a web link.

The information was as compelling as anything Ive seen. There were no
theories put foward regarding resonsibility, but having been open
minded and aware of the need for validation for the conspiracy
theorists I was totally convinced that the offficial version was
contrived.

They even went into the behaviour of Atta and his cronies.Just prior
to the attacks act
ing anything other than Muslim fundementalists, and being highly
visible to boot.
------------------------------------------------------

SEAN: Yes, I've read a lot about that latter info, and it sure did prick my
ears up as well. Much more obscure on the conspiracy hoopla sites that other
matters. It is interesting that at some are still paying attention to that
aspect.

and I have not heard or seen that particular doco [ all praise the BBC !!! ]
so I will dig into it. Sounds interesting. especially given you're
impressed, that means something to me.

THX
-------------------------------------------------------------

Precisely :-)

I read you mail in detail, and each point you bring up had very strong
contrary evidence. A Boeing pilot especially regarding flying skills.
Day Brown brought up a good point also, regarding the volume needed to
'store' all the structural steel ithey collapsed. There was a
photographer who showed pics of melted steel, which could only
possible have happened at tempratures many times that of a diesel fire
burning for a few hours. There were comments regarding flame colorI
handt heard before,and one of the most compelling was the interview
with the caretaker who was in the basement when the first plane hit.
He was not even called to give evidence
st compelling was the intervew with the caretaker who was on duty

As I said, I would challenge any open minded person to not have their
view affected by this vid.

And then of course, there is Q33NY.And wing -dings? Only an Aussie
would see that one. I only just did.

The only conclusion Icame to was that there is an understanding by the
administration responsible for the cover up that no matter how
compelling the evdence, many do not have the capacity to take it in.
Far too impacting, as we know in day to day stuff.

All good fun :)

BOfL
-----------------------------------------------------------------

SEAN: OK, yes yes and yes. I liked your "precisely", most exacting that.
hehehehe :-)

Day's comment doesn't bother me much. I mean, the buildings were there, then
they weren't, and there was a huge pile of rubble. Whatever the physics
involved as to "space" in the lower floors etc, or molten or not, well, it
fit!

I hear what you're saying overall, and that's all quite reasonable to me.
Many things are plausible and possible. It's the whacko bs that streams out
of 99%% of the 911 sites that gripes my cookie. It's a distraction imho.

My alter plausibilty profile says to me that if high quality pilots or
remotes were used, they wouldn't fly a plane 6 ft above the ground to hit
the spot they hit if the purpose was as much destruction as possible. I also
think almost any idiot can fly a plane and crash it. So, all I'm saying
really is that if someone wants to prove something, just seeding doubts
about this doesn't go very far.

My logic also tells me that whatever happened in the foundations does not
change the fact that the building fell from the top down, and not the other
way. Controlled demolitions collapse from the bottom up as the building
implodes centrally towards a centre. It may be a small point to some. But
none of the buildings, even wtc7 really collapased like a controlled
demolition when one looks all around the building and not just from one
perspective.

These things are "distractions" for me, not proof of anything. I need more
than this before being willing to point fingers at anyone. also al queda &
pakistani militants [ or ISI ?? ] was behind the kenyan embassey bombings.
A building collapsed there too. It was only 3 ton of tnt in a 6 ton truck.

However, sometimes the truth is far beyond anything anyone would even
fantasise about .... that is so very true, which is why I haven't decided
one way or the other, and all possibilities are still on the table whilst is
simply say "i don't know".

Your last point is undoubtedly important, and one I hadn't ever discarded.
But thanls for the reminder.
Yes, all fun and interesting to ponder. I'll check out that doco.

cheers sean