> > In a recent zogby poll 42% of those questioned felt the the
> government and the 9/11 
> > commission were covering up the true story. 
> And that means?

Only 45% felt that the 9/11 commissions findings were not a cover-up. It means 
someone who's opinions are are supported by almost half the population doesn't 
to be called a lunatic. I'm not saying he's right, but that his opinions do 
deserve respect.
> An opinion about a proposition, particularly by people not well versed
> in the evidence, doesn't make the proposition more likely. For
> example: i)over 50% of americans at the time of the invasion of iraq
> thought  Saddam had something of substance to do with 9/11, or even
> orchestrated it himself; 2) take a poll on quantum mechanics basic
> findings, or any science, and 90% will beleive incorrect things; 3)
> watch Jay Leno's Jay Walk -- lots of people out there are quite
> ill-informed, illogical -- even dense. 

In my experience the people who doubt the commission finding have looked into 
the issue 
much more deeply than those who accept it a face value.
> >I would say his views whether correct or not 
> > are certainly not lunatic or fringe.
> Why? Did you hear his reasoning and evidence?

The fact that he is part of a growing movement of people that includes almost 
half of the 
public by definition means that he is not on the fringe and lessens the 
likelyhood that he 
is a lunatic. 
> > Steven Jones professor of physics at Brigham Young U. has done
> extensive studies of the 
> > destruction of the towers an makes an extremely convincing case for
> a precision 
> > demolition. 
> >Especially for tower seven which wasn't even hit by and airplane. He
> claim to 
> > have found traces of thermite on steel beams from the towers, pretty
> much a smoking gun 
> > for a professional demolition job. See:
> > http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
> And no other possible explanation for this?

If it can be shown that the three towers were brough down by pre-postioned 
charges, It 
doesn't necessarily mean that the government was involved. I does make it 
highly unlikely 
that it was the result of a terrorist cell. There are only a handful of 
companies in the world 
that have the expertise to bring down down the three towers with the precision 
that they 
came down. Most people don't even know that a third tower collapsed. It doesn't 
get much 
attention because it didn't get hit by an airplane. All the more reason to 
suspect that the 
collapses were'nt cause by the plane impacts and subsequent fires. It would 
require a 
substancial committment of time to read the paper at the URL above. But if 
knowing the 
truth about what has happened is at all important to anyone they should make 
the time. It 
is not a conspiracy theory but a well reasoned challenge to the commission 

> How many in his or related
> professions agree that his evidence is conclusive, or even credible?

There is now an organization of scientists and engineers who question the 
accepted story. They are professional who have a lot so loose by taking this 
view, so they 
don't do it lightly. There are also a number of high government officals who 
question this 
commonly accepted story, including former members of the Bush administration.

If people prefer to accept the commission findings that's fine. It's their 
right. But if they 
want to look at the evidence with an open mind, that is also a persons right. 
The people 
who present that evidence should not be called lunatics and be removed from his 

Perhaps I am motivated to defend him, because I lost my job and career because 
expressed some perfectly reasonable views at MUM. They just didn't happen to be 
consistent with the commonly accepted paradigm there.


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups.  See the new email design.

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to