<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Originator-Info: login-id=zarembka; server=imap.buffalo.edu X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.6 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-UB-Relay: (cast-zarembka.caset.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7%
--On Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:56 AM -0700 Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Listening to Cindy tells me that she is capable of deciding for herself >> whether 9-11 was an inside job. She doesn't need to depend upon either >> your nor my opinion about it, nor if and when to use any knowledge >> gained. [P.Z.] > > clearly, you _want_ her to embrace your theory. That's what I was > addressing. [J.D.] Jim, You are incorrect: a. I want her to think about 9-11 with some attention to detail (same as for teaching students about Marx). b. I never think of myself as owning any theory (cf. -- "your theory") to which others could "embrace". c. Saying the 9-11 was an inside job, is no more or less than saying than it was an outside job. In any case, neither is a 'theory' in the scientific use of the word. If you consider me a 'conspiracy theorist', I don't mind as long as you also label G. W. Bush, and several other persons, as 'conspiracy theorists'. In either eventuality, the issue is what happened and why? This point has already been made by others on this list. ... > it really doesn't matter if the President uses conspiracy theory, > bogus facts, weak logic, bad syntax, etc. since he's got a lot of > troops, unlike his critics on the left. As Stalin allegedly asked > about the Pope, "how many divisions does he have?" Well, Bush has > many. We do not, so we have to care _a lot_ about our credibility. > > Sure, it's our intellectual obligation to poke holes in his theory, > point out his lies, parse his illogic, ridicule his grammar, etc. This is exactly what David Ray Griffin did in his THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT: OMISSIONS AND DISTORTIONS. Please read it. Afterwards he must have said to himself, let's not stop there and furthered his analysis of what happened and why, e.g., in Chapter 3 of HIDDEN HISTORY, "The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True". > ... But that doesn't mean that we should embrace poor or incredible > theories, lie, become illogical, speak incorrectly, etc. Tell me what is your antecedent might be in this case, i.e., what "poor or incredible" theory? I find a-man-in-a-cave-and-19-accomplices-with-box-cutters such an incredible theory as to be a good comedy line for "Saturday Night Live". (I'm quite serious -- if the same thing happened to Leningrad before the Afghan war, and the Soviets told us such an incredible story, can you imagine the fun we'd have had.) > By Bush's conspiracy theory, do you mean the idea that al-Qaeda was > behind 911? didn't they take credit for it? No, to the best of my knowledge. But if they did, you would believe them? I could go on, but I guess my drift is clear enough. Paul P.S. Mike Berger of the 9-11 Movement was on Scarborough last night for a VERY limited engagement. You may find it interesting at http://www.911blogger.com/ Paul *************************************************************** THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001, P.Zarembka, ed, Elsevier, 2006 http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka/volume23.htm ***************************************************************
