--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > 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.

> 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

> 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.

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