On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 11:58:34AM -0800, tom arnall wrote: > On Saturday 27 January 2007 03:15, Chris Bannister wrote: > > -- > > Chris. > > ====== > > " ... The official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of > > rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government > > conspiracy of `X-Files' proportions and insidiousness." > > Letter to the LA Times Magazine, September 18, 2005. > > > That 9/11 was a result of the manipulation of Islamist crazies by American > spooks is a view which I believe can be held by reasonable men. Note that I > don't say that the view is necessarily accurate, but merely that it is a > reasonable view.
http://www.911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/boeing_707_767.html http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030317140323 http://implosionworld.com/reading.html http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_22_01/Some_Survivors_Say__Bombs_Expl/some_survivors_say__bombs_expl.html http://americanfreepress.net/08_09_02/New_York_Firefighters__/new_york_firefighters.html http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html The 'official view' doesn't seem to be accurate either. -- Chris. ====== Don't forget to check that your /etc/apt/sources.lst entries point to etch and not testing, otherwise you may end up with a broken system once etch goes stable. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
