103 People Who are Likely or Suspected as 9/11 Criminal Co-Conspirators

[Guest Vandar]

The Translucent Amoebae wrote:

> On Jan 17, 12:16 pm, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:

>

>>In article <EfydnT__v6UzMhLanZ2dnUVZ_s6mn...@comcast.net>,

>>What Me Worry? <__@____.___> wrote:

>>

>>

>>>"Ralph" <nos...@noway.net> wrote in message

>>>news:1iaudqa.1i7x92h71hv6iN%nospam@noway.net...

>>>

>>>>Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:

>>

>>>>>103 People Who are Likely or Suspected as 9-11 Criminal Co-Conspirators

>>

>>>>>http://www.whodidit.org

>>

>>>>This list left out Osama and 19 hi-jackers.

>>

>>>To date, there is no hard evidence putting 19 hijackers aboard 4 planes.

>>

>>DNA, personal possessions, fingerprints, abandoned rented cars, video

>>cameras in public places, goodby letters, boarding records, credit

>>card traces, history of acts prior to 9/11/2001 ....

>>

>>No evidence here, only you you don't want to see it.

>

>

> Sometimes when there is Too Much Evidence... That makes it kind of

> suspicious...???

>

> How can you tell when Too Much is Too Much...???

> The Quality...???

> The Context of the Evidence when forming a coherent timeline...???

>

> i think that real evidence has a distinct flavor to it, and if it's

> too sweet or sour or bitter or if it just smells a little off... Then

> maybe you should take a step back and see if anyone else who's eaten

> it, is throwing up...

>

> And in the case of 911, there are plenty of people throwing up.

 

Yeah, because "how many people believe it" is such a reliable way to

determine the authenticity of something.

[Guest Iarnrod]

On Jan 17, 11:34

[Guest Iarnrod]

On Jan 18, 5:56

[Guest Iarnrod]

On Jan 18, 5:51