Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- Begin Message ----Caveat Lector-On Oct 22, 2004, at 8:18 PM, lawrence wrote: > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian Salter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Oct 22, 2004, at 7:09 AM, lawrence wrote: > >> Occam suggests the simplest reason why so many people think they see >> the flash producing pod is because the flash producing pod really is >> there. > > BS: "the flash exists, but there is no evidence connecing it > causally to any > "pod" , and there is no good evidence for a "pod" > either ...ludicrous...no engineer in > their right mind...frankly, impossible...even more > ludicrous...from Rube > Goldberg or Inspector Gadget..." > > LD: I believe the point 'Mr. Occam' was making is that > simplest solutions with the least variables, 'Occam's Razor', if > applied to investigating what really happened on 9/11 will leave > the 'official story' in shreds. yes, and a "pod", especially based on such weak evidence and analysis as it is, is a violation of occam's razor which adds variables against common sense, and against the burden of proof. as for your proof-by-popularity quoted above, one could also claim with absolutely equal validity that the fact that 75% of americans believed, one year after the invasion of iraq, that the US govt. had presented "proof" of saddam's "WMD" programs, meant that these WMDs really existed. > Why 'pod' theory should provoke such a storm of indignation and > ridicule from you seems curious to me. > An emotional response suggests you have some taboo against this > particular avenue of investigation. > You place the burden of proof on the wrong people. the burden of proof is on the "pod" people to offer any kind of evidence that the "pod" is not a normal effect of lighting and shadow on the wing fairing. your ad hominems are quite lame. > Would you at least accept that there is a possibility that the > aircraft used on 9/11 were specifically adapted > for a specific purpose? yes, i think there's good reason to argue this for the pentagon hit, being a "plane bomb" based on the forensics that bart & desmoulins have examined in detail. unlike the "pod", the oddities and anomalies in the pentagon are real and not imagined, and i think the "plane bomb" theory best fits the evidence and adheres to occam's razor. > > LD: You think not? Perhaps you could spend some time in the > letsroll911 forums. Or just call up the Boeing Co. and ask them what > the flash is. Of course if they tell you that they can't talk about > it for national security reasons that still tells you something. > To save you sifting through letsroll I'll put some random quotes > below. i didn't see anything in those quotes addressing my point. > BS: and i'm > still waiting to hear a logical reason for why some kind of > secret "flash" weapon was necessary in this situation. > > LD: One logical reason would be that to have a fuel-air explosion > there must be both fuel in the air and something to ignite it. No big > fireball to traumatize the witnesses and they might look for other > reasons why the building collapsed, like being demolished. show me where there is a scientific proof that the fireball from the crash was not of the normal size and intensity for a fully-fueled 767. there is no need for extra pyrotechnics... if the "flash" was needed to ignite an explosion, then why do crashing airplanes explode into fireballs all the time, all by themselves? and if an explosion needed to be "ignited", there would be no reason to go through the absurd effort to build an enclosed weapon-launching "pod" on the wing fairing and over the landing gear. > LD: I disagree. The unexplained yet undeniable flashes > are a great way to introduce an element of doubt to the majority of > the population who haven't questioned the official story at all. > Seeing the flash opens the door > to further inquiry. Truth movements are springing up all over the > place. Far from being a 'distraction' it is an attraction. if one is treating the video evidence honestly, then it could be something to get people interested. but you claimed falsely that the flash proves the existence of a "pod", which is something completely different. *that* is the distraction. > LD: Speaking of disinfo the Bureau of Transportation Statistics page > for 9/11 has recently added the mysterious Flight 77 that had been > notable for its absence previously. Of course it had already been > downloaded all over the net in its original form. the problems with the BTS records is an important area of evidence. but there is no hard documentation or data concerning the flights which gives any reason to believe in the "pod". -brian ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> <FONT COLOR="#000099">$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything. </FONT><A HREF="http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/vseplB/TM";><B>Click Here!</B></A> --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/ Please let us stay on topic and be civil. OM Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
--- End Message ---
