On Sep 15, 3:47Â am, "Sean"
now.com.au> wrote:>
gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ad5107a8-cfc3-42f6-a3f7-8965d86909e0@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 13, 4:12 pm, "Sean" now.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> "BOfL"
gmail.com> wrote in message>
>
>>>
gmail.com> wrote in message>
>
>>> rationalisations, and self-righteousness.
>
>>> Happy days hey! cheers, it;s been ... interesting, wait till next year
>>> comes
>>> around mate. ;-)))
>
>> Brian waffled lyricly:
>> Thats like prescribing Viagra to a eunoch. Tomorrow never
>> comes ...agghhhhhh...;-)
>> ------------------------------------
>
>> Sean:
>> I was speaking numerologically, as the slow return of the venus transit
>> does
>> it thing. :)
>> -------
>
>> Just watched the best yet regards 9/11 on the History channel. Removed
>> any doubt regarding the 'whitewash'.
>> ----------------
>
>> Sean:
>> Aha, you've been drinking the soma of cable tv again, I see. You should
>> have
>> gone for a run instead. hehehehehe
>
> 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
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> But do you mean your doubts about a whitewash are gone, there was one, or
>> there hasn't been one?
>
> 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 ?? ] Â 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
> sometimes the truth is far beyond anything anyone would even
fantasise about ....<
If you need such finite convincin you may well need no convinvin at
all - are you afraid to be incorrect about somethin? - the truth about
the truth is that it is impeccable whereas the lie is impeccably true.
