16-04-2009, 03:40 PM
This problem has plagued the JFK research community since Day One.
Yet the solution is right under our eyes.
We must relentlessly distinguish between the "how?" and "who and why?" questions.
In re JFK and 9-11 (among other issues): By "how?" I mean LN or conspiracy (as opposed to rifle or pistol or poison dart, or nano-thermitic materials or mini-nukes or space beams).
If we so discipline ourselves, the enemy has no opportunity to resort to a "someone would have talked" non sequitur.
Back to the WTC "how?" question: In the case under scrutiny, either the material is there, or it isn't. If it is, then somehow it was brought in.
We're nowhere near being ready to answer the "who and why?" of 9-11 until we establish a definitive answer to the "how?" of it all.
Discipline, my friends. Discipline.
Yet the solution is right under our eyes.
We must relentlessly distinguish between the "how?" and "who and why?" questions.
In re JFK and 9-11 (among other issues): By "how?" I mean LN or conspiracy (as opposed to rifle or pistol or poison dart, or nano-thermitic materials or mini-nukes or space beams).
If we so discipline ourselves, the enemy has no opportunity to resort to a "someone would have talked" non sequitur.
Back to the WTC "how?" question: In the case under scrutiny, either the material is there, or it isn't. If it is, then somehow it was brought in.
We're nowhere near being ready to answer the "who and why?" of 9-11 until we establish a definitive answer to the "how?" of it all.
Discipline, my friends. Discipline.