--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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 that > someone who's opinions are are supported by almost half the population doesn't deserve > to be called a lunatic. I'm not saying he's right, but that his opinions do deserve respect.
So does that imply that since only 45% or so of people felt Saddam was not connnected to 9/11 deservere respect? Personally, I feel they do not. They are ignorant and uniformed. > > 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. All 55%? Did these 55% look more closely into the commission findings than the 55% who felt Saddam was connected to 9/11 looked into that issue? Or, is the former simply a more cdomfortable feeling for you? > > >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. And, by avoiding the question, it implies that you did not hear his reasoning and evidence. Your statement above imples that no one in the 55% could b e ill-informed, have poor reasoning, or even be a lunatic. Do you feel the same way about those that felt Saddam was connected to or orchestrated 9/11? If not, why? > > > 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. And one scientist's conclusions make it so? John Haglin will be thrilled to hear of this. If Jones' research has great merit, why have other scienists not jumped on his band-wagon? Why has the press not jumped on this story of the the last 100 years (It certainly swamps watergate, Monica, Iran-Contra, Jack Abramoff etc in significance. If you counter that the press are part of the conspiracy and/or owned by the corporations behind this (or other such conspiratorial drivel, IMO), then please provide support for such. > 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. If you a are saying that 'people are not aware the third tower collapsed and thus all the more reason to suspect that the collapses were'nt cause by the plane impacts and subsequent fires' then you get the non-sequitur award of the year. Did you mean something different? >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. Why would one reel reading the URL reveal the truth? What distinguishes this URL from any number of conspiratorial web sites with faulty facts and reasoning -- and which the press has ignored b because having looked at it, found it bogus. >It > is not a conspiracy theory but a well reasoned challenge to the commission report. And if so well reasoned, why have other scienists not jumped on his band-wagon? Why has the press not jumped on this story? > > 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 commonly > 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. cites? > If people prefer to accept the commission findings that's fine. Those are only two choices? Accept the commisison or accept your guy? >It's their right. But if they > want to look at the evidence with an open mind, that is also a persons right. Those are only two choices? Be irrational or spend 5 hours looking at your guy? I spent 5 hours looking at Spare Change and running down various claims, I found a lot of bogus stuff. Not worth the time. Why is your guy worth the time when Spare Change was not? >The people > who present that evidence should not be called lunatics and be removed from his job. Is that what the lecturer did? Systematically and objectively looked at both sides of the evidence? > Perhaps I am motivated to defend him, because I lost my job and career because I > expressed some perfectly reasonable views at MUM. MUM has become a cult IMO. Not a clear comparison to this case, IMO > They just didn't happen to be views > consistent with the commonly accepted paradigm there. Again, not parallel. But the taste of sour grapes does help explain your irrational exhuberence. > Michael > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> 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/