Re: [OPE] 'conspiracy theory'

From: Paul Zarembka <>
Date: Fri Jan 01 2010 - 19:19:17 EST


Well, I took an excursion to your link. It doesn't say much. However,
its conclusion may apply to yourself:
  "healthy skepticism being abandoned for paranoia and rational basis
for explanations abandoned for irrefutable beliefs".

That is, you believe our government, no "healthy skepticism" or
"rational basis" required; further discussion of evidence unwarranted.

For you, it would not seem to matter if I told you that the '9/11
Report' accuses Almed al-Nami and Saeed al-Ghamdi but provides NO
exhibits (evidence) as to their guilts. Alleged to be on UA 93, they
are named and the CIA "report" (or similar) footnoted. That is all
that's there, no document, true or forged as in Niger yellow cakes.
(Actually, there are very few references of any importance to either
al-Nami ro al-Ghamdi in the 'Report' -six by my count. "Healthy
skepticism" is quite warranted.) By the by, both were reported alive
after 9/11.


(V23) THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11, Seven Stories Press softcover, 2008 2nd ed
====> Research in Political Economy, Emerald Group, Bingley, UK
====> Paul Zarembka, Editor

Dave Zachariah wrote:
> On 2010-01-01 21:42, Paul Zarembka wrote:
>> In other words, you are avoiding saying what you mean.
> No, Paul I'm avoiding reiterating what I've written in the past on a
> topic that has little relevance to me:
> <>
> I have nothing to add.
> //Dave Z
> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list
ope mailing list
Received on Fri Jan 1 19:33:08 2010

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jan 31 2010 - 00:00:02 EST