--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Michael Murphy" <dawnhawk@> > 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.
I declare you the winner. I am signing off of this thread. 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/
