In article <200620060909416309%erfc@netcabal.com>, erfc@netcabal.com says...

Amanda Angelika <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote:

In news:u0af9294trh8r0o9h8o2r1f3pl0h65fhkq@4ax.com,
Never anonymous Bud <newskat@katxyzkave.net> typed:

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 03:08:50 GMT, www.peaceinspace.com <truth@r.us>
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:47:58 GMT, "granitegriz"
<granitegriz@earthlink.net> wrote:

I thought this NG was about UFO's?

It is.

Actually, NO.  THIS group (sci.skeptic) is about LOTS of things.

You really need to watch what groups you're cross-posting to.
alt.alien.research,alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,sci.skeptic

Interesting. Given that no one can present conclusive and irrefutable
evidence in
favour of the official account of the events of 911, and a belief in that
story requires a certain degree of unquestioning blind faith and trust in
the
current US administration.

Which is basically why doubts have been raised and conspiracy theories run
wild and are even considered by intelligent people and not simply by
propagandists with a political axe to grind.

Obviously the standards of scepticism are falling fast LOL

No, the truth is that everyone of your kooky arguments has been
shredded, and still you choose to persist in clinging to them.

-- 
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
 as designated by Brad Guth

"And without accurate measuring techniques, how can they even
*call* quantum theory a "scientific" one? How can it possibly
be referred to as a "fundamental branch of physics"?"
 -- Painsnuh the Lamer

"Well, orientals moved to the U.S. and did amazingly well on
their own, and the races are related (brown)."
 -- "Honest" John pontificates on racial purity

"Significant new ideas have rarely come from the ranks of
the establishment."
 -- Double-A on technology development

There is nothing wrong in being skeptical.

You however, need experts to confirm what experts say....

With 911 as with the Oaklahoma City Bombing - you have targets
which are 'hard' targets.
An expert says - the truck bomb could not have brought down the
Federal building, and you have others saying, Oh it just happened to
be in the right place to do so [This view presented in a series called
"Why Buildings Fall Down" - an excellent series, apart from this one,
 because of what eye witnesses saw at the scene --- Federal employees
 more concerned about their workplace, than in assisting survivors at the
 scene...

Likewise with the Twin Towers - and the Pentagon strike - that both
crash impacts, are not consistant with the official story of the events
that took place. We don't have a consistant story with consistant eye
witness reports, that the events took place, as per the official story.
Just like with the TWA 800 aircrash - eye witness testimony differed
from the official explanation of the event.

Same as with the JFK assassination.
Oh, the witnesses at the scene, were wrong - there was no gunman or gunmen
on the knoll of the hill. Oh sure, they just acted like there was, all
for nothing...

Harvey