"tim gueguen" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
kirill wrote:

The video evidence speaks for itself. All
that absurdly improbable
symmetry in the collapse. Also the complete
absence of any support
for the pancake collapse theory.

This whole "explosives took the building down"
theory is interesting in
a psychotic fashion.

So... the US government used planes (either
remote-controlled or stolen
and piloted by suicidal CIA types), crashed
them into some buildings,
and *then*, after some time, set off some
explosives in several places
in order to knock the buildings down and blame
it on Al-Qaeda... instead
of taking the much easier tack of just putting
explosives into the
buildings and setting them off, while blaming
it on Al-Qaeda, which had
tried it before.

Its amazing how many conspiracy theories are
like that, requiring the
supposed perpetrators to concoct ridiculously
elaborate schemes when much
more simple ones would lead to the same results.

tim gueguen 101867


That's the nature of conpspracy theorists: the more complicated the conspiracy,
the more likely no one will believe them. The simple explanations don't make
sense to such people: Not with JFK's assassination, nor with Princess Di's
death, not with 9-11, and the Mars rover (already the "it's a hoax" crowd
is springing up, like with Pathfinder in '97).

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!