Why's that? Is there something wrong with being a skeptic?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
k.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I think we need to keep an open mind... no not about Robert... :-) I don't
think there's any doubt that two planes hit the towers, but there is doubt
about what caused the towers to collapse. I have serious doubts about what
hit the pentagon. There are two many inconsistencies to just dismiss them
out of hand. We shall see.

You, too, are nuts.

Max

Why's that? Is there something wrong with being a skeptic?


Yep, Maxi thinks it's a specific attack on Bush somehow. I guess this
also means Maxi thinks Bush is a "good" president, something most
republicans now realize is not true.


RB
35s5
NY

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...
Why's that? Is there something wrong with being a skeptic?


Yep, Maxi thinks it's a specific attack on Bush somehow. I guess this
also means Maxi thinks Bush is a "good" president, something most
republicans now realize is not true.

As usual you're completely wrong. And nuts.

Max

also means Maxi thinks Bush is a "good" president, something most
republicans now realize is not true.

As usual you're completely wrong.


Oh really? Can you show us ANY poll showing Bush approval rating that
could, in ANY way hint that republicans are happy with Bush?


RB
35s5
NY

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
ps.com...
also means Maxi thinks Bush is a "good" president, something most
republicans now realize is not true.

As usual you're completely wrong.


Oh really? Can you show us ANY poll showing Bush approval rating that
could, in ANY way hint that republicans are happy with Bush?

About half the GOP still likes the guy, for whatever reason I can't fathom.
And about half aren't pleased with him. That isn't "most."

You're also wrong about my opinion of Bush.

In other words: wrong on all counts.

Max

Max, I don't think that at all. But, there's nothing wrong with being a
skeptic. Something isn't quite right about the events as described.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
ups.com...
Why's that? Is there something wrong with being a skeptic?


Yep, Maxi thinks it's a specific attack on Bush somehow. I guess this
also means Maxi thinks Bush is a "good" president, something most
republicans now realize is not true.

As usual you're completely wrong. And nuts.

Max

The CIA reported finding many Whitworth fasteners strewn about the
wreckage. The FBI concluded that it was a BSA 440 that rocketed into
the Pentagon.

BBob

"Binary Bill" wrote in message
ups.com...
The CIA reported finding many Whitworth fasteners strewn about the
wreckage. The FBI concluded that it was a BSA 440 that rocketed into
the Pentagon.

LOL.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
k.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I think we need to keep an open mind... no not about Robert... :-) I
don't think there's any doubt that two planes hit the towers, but there
is doubt about what caused the towers to collapse. I have serious doubts
about what hit the pentagon. There are two many inconsistencies to just
dismiss them out of hand. We shall see.

You, too, are nuts.

Why's that? Is there something wrong with being a skeptic?

Not at all. But there is something seriously wrong with being so
anti-something that you're willing to jump into bed with any half-baked
conspiracy theory that comes along to discredit it.

Healthy skepticism is the backbone of science. There's nothing healthy
about this left-wing conspiracy BS. This is the same sort of crap that the
black helicopter, tri-lateralist, ultra right-wing militia types engaged in
during the Clinton administration. Fanaticism, pure and simple, with no
basis in reality.

Consider this: we all saw the second airliner hit Tower number two. And
later we saw the film of the first plane hitting Tower number one. And
based on the info we now have, we can safely conclude that this was, indeed,
an al Qaeda act of terrorism against the USA. And we can also safely
conclude that it happened virtually without warning. (This is not to say
that signals weren't ignored--they were, but the attack itself was not
expected at that particular time on 9/11/01.) We also know that four
airliners are now gone, along with their passengers and crew. And we also
know that something hit the Pentagon--something with a huge amount of fuel
onboard. Yesterday we saw films of the plane hitting the Pentagon, and it
clearly looks like an airliner. So what other theory of what hit the
Pentagon will possibly hold water? A missile? Fired at what, and by whom?
An F16 fighter--why would the Pentagon deny that? **** happens, and flying
fighters is no picnic on the beach, especially when scrambled. The military
branches have all been absolutely forthcoming when dealing with aircraft
accidents. So why would they lie? And how would they get everyone else to
go along with such a lie in such short order, especially when the country is
in disarray following and unexpected attack of the magnitude of 9/11?

What is your theory of what happened to the Pentagon, and upon what do you
base that theory? Simply being skeptical isn't enough--you've got to have
an explanation to support an alternative to what the government is claiming.
Are you simply believing something because you *want* to believe it, or do
you have some solid evidence upon which to hypothesize such a belief? So
far Bubbles hasn't come up with anything beyond paranoid conjecture.

Max

Yesterday we saw films of the plane hitting the Pentagon, and it
clearly looks like an airliner.


What???? It doesn't look like anything. It's very small. No one
anywhere (except you!) said it looks like anything but a small white
blur. Meanwhile the damage and wreckage are not consistant with a crash
of this type and that's according to a LOT of experts and pilots. Maxi,
if you do some real research you'll see that quite a few people (with
far greater understanding of jet crashes) have some very serious doubts
about the Pentagon hit. This has nothing to do with laying blame since
we can't even be sure of exactly what happened. But it seems rather
doubtful to anyone with eyes that a 757 hit the pentagon. Where is the
757? Where are the passengers? All good questions. But that doesn't
make the doubts into nonsense. Most witnesses saw NO 757 hit the
Pentagon, describing a missile or small plane instead. The damage to
the Pentagon makes no sense at all, since it's impact point is much
smaller than a 757. The lack of wreckage is also a factor, some of
which did not match the 757 according to Rolls and Boeing.

RB
35s5
NY