On Apr 29, 4:19 pm, Mitchell Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> War Office <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 28 abr, 14:15, Eric Gisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Apr 24, 6:13 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > I love how folks like you ask for intellectual honesty when every
> > > effort is made to ignore evidence that doesn't agree with your
> > > presupposed findings.
>
> > Which evidence would that be?
>
> ***{I'm not a fan of the Bush administration, and would not put it past
> them to carry out an event such as 911, to create an excuse to jettison
> the Constitution and Bill of Rights. What is certain in any case is
> that, in fact, the Bush administration has used the events of 911 as an
> excuse to toss out the Constitution and Bill of Rights. There are,
> however, at least three possible scenarios regarding 911 itself:
>
> (1) The plane crashes were planned and executed by terrorists. The
> towers fell because of the impacts. Building 7 fell because of the
> impact of debris from the north tower.
>
> (2) The plane crashes were planned and executed by the Bush
> administration. The towers fell because of the impacts. Building 7 fell
> because of the impact of debris from the north tower.
>
> (3) The plane crashes were planned and executed by the Bush
> administration. The towers fell because of the impacts, plus the effects
> of pre-planted demolition charges. Building 7 fell because of the impact
> of debris from the north tower, plus the effects of pre-planted
> explosive charges.
>
> I analyzed (3), above, in great detail a month or so back, in a
> sci.physics thread entitled "The amazing denial of what "conspiracy
> kooks" really means...." If you are really interested in a reasoned
> response to those arguments, you can probably still find that thread on
> Google.
>
> My conclusion at the time was that possibility (3), above, fails because
> pre-planted explosives are not needed to explain why the towers fell, or
> why building 7 fell. Possibilities (1) and (2), therefore, are all that
> remains.
>
> This post is for informational purposes only, and is not to be taken as
> an indication that I am interesting in slogging my way through all this
> stuff again. Once is more than enough, and so I am killfiling this
> thread after making this post.
>
> --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> *****************************************************************
> If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
> that you are in my killfile. --MJ
What has all this got to do with Python?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
