View Single Post
  #77   Report Post  
Posted to misc.kids,alt.music.monkees,rec.models.rockets,alt.home.repair,misc.survivalism
Harry K Harry K is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,044
Default WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition

On Mar 16, 8:37*am, "
wrote:
Again. *Citing one conspiracy (that doesn't exist) to prove an
unassociated one is Kookism. *Use a bit of logic for god's sake.


Harry K- Hide quoted text -


I would love to know what you base this on. *I dare say the hsca had
access to everything. *They had at their disposal the best methods of
study avaiable at the time. *They concluded that there was likely 2
gunmen, and also that it was probable jfk was killed as a result of
some sort of conspiracy. *That is fact. *There is no longer a question
of if there was a conspiracy, but instead of how many and what other
people were involved. *We will never know. *But we know through this
report that it did occur.

As far as comparing the 2 things, I am not comparing them at all.
just stating the fact that sometimes people rush thrugh an
investigation to get it to the public ASAP and when reviewed later, it
is foudn the intial report was wrong. *it happens all the time, and
not just in cases where there are conspiracy theories.

I would love t hear you rationale for disagreeing with the findings of
the hsca. *I dont know anyone who still clings to the lone nut theory,
that isnt themselves a litttle nutty.


The only people who believe in a jfk conspiracy are more
conspiracists. There have been zero reputable investigations that
concluded any thing other than that Oswals did it and there was no
conspiracy. Even the Russians agree and they provided KGB files for
examination after the fall of the communists.

In spite of your denial you _are_ using one theory to cast doubt on
another, unassociated report. Twisting logic, evidence, outright
lying...all methods of the kooks to avoid actually providing any
evidence for their theory.

Again: for you to claim 911 conspiracy you have to not only put forth
some supposed problem with the report, you also have to explain away
all the things that say it didn't happen the way you want.

Claiming CD because someone heard something that 'sounded like' an
explosion is not enough, you have to explain how a CD was rigged and
how it was coordinated with an attack and how thousands of people who
had to know about it haven't said anything, etc. etc. etc.

Harry K