Cardinal Chunder wrote:

Justin Case wrote:

"Cardinal Chunder" <cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:e7upn90b1o@news2.newsguy.com...

Justin Case wrote:

"Cardinal Chunder" <cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:e7ui9301t9i@news3.newsguy.com...

Justin Case wrote:

"Bookman" <thebookman@kc.rr.comNULL> wrote in message
news:klir9254lup6r4qm8tec6gcl19s00b2g9v@4ax.com...

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 21:44:36 GMT, "Amanda Angelika"
Proves nothing.  Which never stops the konspiracy ko0ks.  Ever heard
of Occam's Razor?

Occam's Razor is used to trim the fat off of scientific theories.

Bullshit. It is, to paraphrase, to favour the simpler explanation, all
things being equal.

Surrrrrrrre it is kookman,

The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is,

"when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same
predictions, the one that is simpler is the better."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

Congratulations for confirming what I said you dolt.

It also confirms what I said. You are just a troll.

No it doesn't you ignorant fucking cretin. Occam's Razor has nothing to
do with "trimming the fat off of scientific theories".

Concerning 911, all things are not equal.
Nice try though

You're right they're not equal. Konspiracy kooks (that's you) don't have
a single shred of evidence to back up your wild fantasies. You don't
even state with specificity what your wild fantasies even.

You like to label people don't you ?
I look at the facts, about 911 the facts point to conspiracy.
Only a credulous fool would believe the 'official' explaination
that has so many holes in it that it sank faster than the titanic.
Only a credulous fool would continue to defend it.

And what is the conspiracy? I've asked you repeatedly for details and as
yet you have not even said. Please explain what actually happened.

I bet you believe Kennedy was killed by a lone assassin.
Why not ? The official explaination said so.

Non sequitor. 9/11 could have been a conspiracy and JFK not, or vice
versa, or both could have been or both could have not been. JFK is
utterly irrelevant to this thread in other words.

It would not be wise to use it in conjunction with a conspiracy

because

most conspiracies have patsies and cover stories.

And apparently casts of thousands all prepared to murder in the most
baroque convoluted and nonsensical series of events that only a kook
could string together.

Your kookiness is showing. What cast of thousands ?

The cast of thousands required for any of the stupid alternative
explanations that kooks allude to without providing details.

It would not require a 'cast of thousands ' to have orchestrated 911.
Why do you assume it must ?

Well you tell me your alternative theory and why it doesn't require a
cast of thousands. All of the kooky theories I've heard thus far that
allude to explosives in the building, remote controlled planes, dancing
Mossad agents, painted military jets etc. do require a cast of thousands
at all levels of government in the US and even abroad. They even require
complicity by investigators, firemen, police and large numbers of eye
witnesses.

If your theory is different, let's hear it. I've asked you repeatedly to
provide one and yet you won't. Why is that I wonder?

--
"Hello. I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is
true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining
lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is: No."

I think it is undeniable that aircraft did the damage. That is however
not the real question, the real question is who knew what when. It
cannot be denied that the CIA "sowed the dragon's teeth". They
supported OBL to the hilt during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
They controlled all the arms conduits and all the secret bank accounts.
If the CIA had not wanted the Taleban/OBL in power after the Soviets
left it would have been quite simple to have cut the supplies of money
and arms and switched their support to another faction. This (really
like the aircraft is not open to dispute. In fact we can draw up a list
of established facts as follows.

1) OBL was built up and supported to the hilt.
2) Hijacked aircraft did destroy the twin towers, although how they
came to be hijacked is open to dispute.
3) The US could have crushed OBL very easily in 1990/1991 but chose not
to do so.
4) The CIA was alerted to Mohammad Atta early on and lost him. Was this
simple incompetance or something more sinister?

The CIA

1) Needed another scare to replace the old "red scare".
2) The Secutity Industrial Complex did not want an era of peace and low
levels of terrorism.

Thus the creation of Al Qaeda was a necessity for the security
establishment. Actually I think the CIA probably did know something
about 9/11 before it happened but they did not expect it to be as
successful  as it was. The kamikaze attacks by the Japanese in WW2 were
often only partially successful. Anyway the CIA did have an insurance
policy for falure - Anthrax.

There is no dispute that the Antrax attacks were caused by the US
Military. The strain of Anthrax was a US military strain, all
biological weapons have a unique genetic fingerprint. The laboratory
from which the Anthrax originated was quickly identified.

A Briton who was working at that lab became the prime suspect. The
evidence against him was purely circumstantial, he was away from the
lab when the postings were made. No charges were ever made. He is the
"official culprit" but no effory was ever made to charge him.

My contention - If the CIA/FBI REALLY felt he had done it no effort
would have been spared to drag up every detail of the man'life. Agents
would have gone to Britain and interviewed his parents, grandparents ex
school chums etc. etc. The fact that this was not done indicates that
the "establishment" basically knows what happened but cannot tell
anyone else.

The Security Industrial Complex keeps telling us that a biological
attack is inevitable. Bollocks - only if we are attacked by you!
Perhaps other countries should start drawing up their own no fly lists
of members of the SIC.