a typical problem with "conspiracy" theories

Just from browsing these sites, I notice a common
theme. They attempt to convert a lack of information
into information. 'Where is the debris?' ... we
don't know, so therefore..... And the like.

-Carl

you observation here is totally inappropriate and does not apply
Look at the pictures and tell me what you think happened.
If you are so into the scientific method.
No the theory is a plane hit the building. the obvious scientific question
is where is the plane and why is there no debris.
It seems this is more a case that you will believe anything the main
stream press tells you.

like i have repeatedly said,. When i first saw the shots of the pentagon.
i said that it does not look like any plane hit it. long before any
theory.
This is based on using my eyes.

Carl Lumma wrote:

> Just from browsing these sites, I notice a common
> theme. They attempt to convert a lack of information
> into information. 'Where is the debris?' ... we
> don't know, so therefore..... And the like.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

> Look at the pictures and tell me what you think happened.

The pictures I've seen tell me virtually nothing about
what happened.

> No the theory is a plane hit the building. the obvious
> scientific question is where is the plane and why is
> there no debris.

First, how much debris should we expect? Second, how
do we know it wasn't removed?

> It seems this is more a case that you will believe anything
> the main stream press tells you.

On the contrary, the refusal to lend belief to either side
is central to my position on this subject.

> This is based on using my eyes.

Eyes can be fooled, but they are a good place to start.

How many pictures of planes hitting buildings have you seen?

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote:

> > Look at the pictures and tell me what you think happened.
>
> The pictures I've seen tell me virtually nothing about
> what happened.

and why is that

>
>
> > No the theory is a plane hit the building. the obvious
> > scientific question is where is the plane and why is
> > there no debris.
>
> First, how much debris should we expect? Second, how
> do we know it wasn't removed?

how about some debris and if you bothered to LOOK and read and
investigate the pictures were the first pictures taken at the site (they
also are on an air force site too BTW) within 10 minutes of the plane
hitting. Of course i cannot prove that the smoldering airplane was not
removed in this period of time ., and hidden.

>
>
> > It seems this is more a case that you will believe anything
> > the main stream press tells you.
>
> On the contrary, the refusal to lend belief to either side
> is central to my position on this subject.

>
>
> > This is based on using my eyes.
>
> Eyes can be fooled, but they are a good place to start.

Exactly

>
>
> How many pictures of planes hitting buildings have you seen?

Well i saw the WTC pictures and they don't resemble each other in the
least or the color, the way the fire started, neither is the type of
explosion (released in the only video put out), nor does the building have
more than a small hole in it which i would assume a whole airplane would
not fit into.

others have also mentioned that one does not use water on gasoline fires

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST