On May 13, 2010, at 3:39 PM, Matt wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 03:14:21PM -0400, Shane Mage wrote:
>
>> Especially since nobody put any effort into "proving" the guilt of
>> "Al
>> Qaeda" but they all put very great effort (the "9/11 Commission of
>> Inquiry")into covering up the truth about whatever actually happened.
>
> If you state that you have no idea what actually happened to the
> WTC ("whatever actually happened"), how can you be certain a theory
> consistent with the data that is widely accepted,
What does "widely accepted" mean, when the "data" in question consists of unchallengeable official claims? The "data" proving the guilt of Dreyfus was also widely accepted, as was the "data" proving that Spaniards blew up the Maine.
> is wrong ("covering up the truth")?
When no criminal investigation of a crime is permitted, what is that if not a coverup? When an "investigation" is staged that excludes all the important questions (relevant officials not required to testify, everything related to the non-functioning of the air defense system off limits, etc.) what is that if not a coverup? And when was there ever a coverup where there was nothing gravely embarrassing to cover up? And don't say "incompetence"--Bush's incompetence (which the Opposition party had no imaginable reason to cover up) was not only no secret it was actually a point of pride!
Shane Mage
> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
> kindling in measures and going out in measures."
>
> Herakleitos of Ephesos