BE -- "death wish for the planet" why the internet?

[Mark Kohut]

Yeahp, a 'Journal", peer-reviewed by the usual truther suspects. Surprised,
Kai, I am. So it be.

I prefer scientists.

Were I eternal, I'd track down every assertion. The illogic of suspicion by
association is rife. Sample: a Bush team report in 2000 speaks of some
cataclysmic event that might get us into the Middle East. "isn't it
suspicious, there was one"? Right. or Yeah, right.

 In time, they will either be proven right, I say laughingly or someone
will do to this Journal's question what Bugliosi did to Kennedy assignation
conspiracy theories. Which is what I predict. That book is such a wonder of
thinking clearly and thoroughly.

Every goddam event in history has conspiracy theories around it even the
massacre of schoolchildren in Connecticut---which many believe was
'fabricated"

What a world.

Why did I waste my time on this post?

On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 5:27 AM, Kai Frederik Lorentzen <lorentzen at hotmail.de
> wrote:

>
>
> http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Intersecting_Facts_and_Theories_on_911.pdf
>
>
> On 03.03.2016 18:42, Mark Kohut wrote:
>
>> THEY ["truther stupidities"] HAVE ALL BEEN REFUTED BY SCIENTISTS. check
>> Popular Science, Popular Mechanics and so many more ...
>>
>>
>>
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20160305/45bd0ee2/attachment.html>