RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Nick wrote: > Is there > some reason I'm not > > aware of that you and your network of highly > placed acquaintances > > would need to be notified if we were planning an > act of high treason? In his rush to play the man instead of the ball, Nick completely misses the point of my posts. The whole thrust of my argument is precisely that, for there to be a conspiracy of the type alleged, thousands of _perfectly ordinary_ people would have to be involved. Not nefarious actors with malevolent links to Saudi financiers. Just engineers, scientists, civil servants, businessmen, and even students. If Nick were to plot high treason, we'd never know - well, until he was caught, of course. But for this type of conspiracy to have occurred - one in which the towers were destroyed by explosives inside the building, and then the evidence of this suppressed after the attacks - then literally thousands of people would have to be involved in the coverup, because that's how many people were involved in the investigation and/or have the skills to identify flaws in the published reports about the investigation. The number of people involved is so large that even a graduste student without wealth or political connections would have to know many, many people involved - so many that for me not to have noticed _something_ strange going on would take either heroic stupidity or active connivance. Either of those is possible, of course. Jonathan had the courtesy to disclaim any such beliefs, but Nick does not need to, of course. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Nick Arnett > Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 9:17 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there > is no reliable information?) > > On 9/15/06, Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > So either my entire immediate family and a surprising > > proportion of my friends, and I, were all in on the > > conspiracy > > I'm sorry, but I don't quite see why it would be necessary for you and > your various acquaintances to have been part or or even aware of any > of various conspiracy scenarios that are floated around. > > I'm not saying that the conspiracy theories are more credible as a > result... just that I don't quite grok your reasoning. > > It seems to me that the "need to know" theory idea -- > compartmentalization of sensitive operations -- would assure that you > and your various pals would be in the dark, since I really can't > imagine why any of the people you describe would need to know about > such an operation if there were one. Is there some reason I'm not > aware of that you and your network of highly placed acquaintances > would need to be notified if we were planning an act of high treason? I think the argument is not that these folks would have to know it beforehand, but would have had to see telltale signs afterwards if they were as obvious as the various conspiracy theories argue. The conspiracy theory that is given by the loose change video clearly would require thousands of conspirators. "Scholars for 9-11 truth" argues that the official explanation is impossible. If they could see it, then why did the McKensey study miss it? Why did all the structural engineering departments who studied this miss it? They either all had to be blind or in on the plan. Now, if someone were to come up with a plausible theory that involved only a handful of key players being in on it, and being so perfect that the results are identical to those that would result if it were AQ attacking with planes, then that theory would no longer suffer from that problem that thousands of Americans had to either be in on the coverup or unbelievably stupid. These types of conspiracy theories, as I've seen them, involve a very weak link with the President just downplaying terrorism vs. N. Korea as a security threat. In short, no-one has come up with a mechanism by which a few folks could have faked a terrorist attack without leaving clues that people like Gautam's friends should have picked up. For that matter, if the arguments on these sites were true, _I'm_ an idiot for not being able to do simple physicsOK, I know I gave you a straight line there. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies or why the Red Sox collapsed
Bob wrote: Good to here from you. So even though you are clearly wrong about 9/11 (everyone knows that it was a mutant energizer buddy sent by the Bush daughters because they could not count up to 103 and were therefore insulted by the towers) I hope you have some more insight into the collapse of your beloved sox. I think George talked to George who told Manny David that they had to lose. The future of the free world depends on Yankee victory. Seriously who do you like for MVP Big Hurt. 8^) -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
Dan wrote: Popular science programs (especially on places like the Discovery channel) often/usually overstate the scientific certainty in such matters. We're discussing Diamond's book Collapse, as is indicated in the subject header, and while I have no objection whatsoever to your participation in the discussion, I'm not sure that you're qualified to draw conclusions about the material if you haven't read it. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)
On 9/15/06, Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So either my entire immediate family and a surprising proportion of my friends, and I, were all in on the conspiracy I'm sorry, but I don't quite see why it would be necessary for you and your various acquaintances to have been part or or even aware of any of various conspiracy scenarios that are floated around. I'm not saying that the conspiracy theories are more credible as a result... just that I don't quite grok your reasoning. It seems to me that the "need to know" theory idea -- compartmentalization of sensitive operations -- would assure that you and your various pals would be in the dark, since I really can't imagine why any of the people you describe would need to know about such an operation if there were one. Is there some reason I'm not aware of that you and your network of highly placed acquaintances would need to be notified if we were planning an act of high treason? Nick Not On the List, Either, I'm Pretty Sure -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)
On 18 Sep 2006, at 12:43AM, Dave Land wrote: On Sep 16, 2006, at 4:24 PM, William T Goodall wrote: On 16 Sep 2006, at 9:12PM, Dave Land wrote: After watching the "Pyroclastic" video that WTG pointed to, Not me. Just to clear that up Maru Of course not. It was Jonathan Gibson. Gibson ... Goodall ... I think there's more to the similarity of these names than meets the eye. ;-) We're obviously part of the world-wide secret conspiracy of people whose surnames begin with G. Not so secret now Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will run out of things they can do with UNIX." - Ken Olsen, President of DEC, 1984. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
In a message dated 9/17/2006 3:29:42 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think a key point in the moral tale is the assumption that the population lived on the island for hundreds of years before the deforestation took place. This fits well with people who are in touch with the land and know how to live wisely. The moral tale then has them fall from grace, and using up resources on trivial things (the statues being the best example). If, however, the problems start with the rats gnawing seeds from the very beginning, as well as human cultivation from the very beginning, a different picture emerges. I did not take Diamond to be saying that religious fanaticism was the sole cause of the collapse. Although I have not read the book in awhile I think he meant to show that the isolated population could not sustain itself for a variety of reasons including lack of accessible fish etc. A civilization may last for centuries before its actions sufficiently degrade the environment. Think of Mesopotamia. When it was the cradle of civilization it was the fertile crescent. Now it is mostly desert (that is it is Iraq). How did this happen? Over time the people living in the region degraded the environment (cut down the trees - always a bad idea). But it took quite a long time. In the Easter Islands it is possible that the civilization that was already in decline when the practice of making the statues began in earnest in response to that decline. This leads to my argument. It is dangerous to make general conclusions from limited data about prehistoric civilizations (prehistoric in the sense that we do not have a history of the civilization to study.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies or why the Red Sox collapsed
Good to here from you. So even though you are clearly wrong about 9/11 (everyone knows that it was a mutant energizer buddy sent by the Bush daughters because they could not count up to 103 and were therefore insulted by the towers) I hope you have some more insight into the collapse of your beloved sox. I think George talked to George who told Manny David that they had to lose. The future of the free world depends on Yankee victory. Seriously who do you like for MVP ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Week 2 NFL Picks
John D. Giorgis wrote: >NY Giants at Philadelphia - Pick: EAGLES How about them Giants?? I can't believe they turned that around, as they were being soundly whupped for the first 40 minutes of the game. Though I have to wonder if it's a sign of their resiliency or the Eagles' inability to close out games. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)
On Sep 16, 2006, at 4:24 PM, William T Goodall wrote: On 16 Sep 2006, at 9:12PM, Dave Land wrote: After watching the "Pyroclastic" video that WTG pointed to, Not me. Just to clear that up Maru Of course not. It was Jonathan Gibson. Gibson ... Goodall ... I think there's more to the similarity of these names than meets the eye. ;-) Dave Deeper Hidden Meanings Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Doug Pensinger > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 11:54 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2) > > Dan wrote: > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> On > >> Behalf Of Gary Denton > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 1:33 AM > >> To: Killer Bs Discussion > >> Subject: Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2) > >> > >> I'll just make a brief interjection that a new study suggests that > >> Diamond got it wrong. Easter Island forest deprivation was more > >> likely caused by rats brought by the colonists, who also arrived much > >> later then previously thought. The human depopulation was caused by > >> slave traders and diseases introduced by Europeans.. > > > > This is a good find, Gary. I had read about this a while ago, but > didn't > > have website reference available. > > > > It reinforces one of the criticisms of using tentative archeological > > finds > > as the foundation for analysis of present day problems. Many times, > > these > > finds are a virtual tabula rossa, which allows an author with > > convictions to > > see his point well proven by a history that is conveniently veiled. > > Actually I have a number of problems with the article. First, he blames > the deforestation on the rats, but offers only evidence that the giant > palms were endangered by the rodents. There were several other species of > large trees, what became of them? Remember, when first contacted, the > islanders were in small, leaky canoes. Second, the actual population of > the island at its height is still in question. Diamond had a good deal > more substantiation for his estimate than I saw in this article. Third > the conclusion that the population collapse occurred after contact with > European explorers is not well substantiated. Has he established that the > cannibalism that occurred was after contact? Finally, I think that the > author's objectivity is questionable. He admits that one of the reasons > he took on the project was that a student of his from the island peaked > his interest. It is more than likely that a native of the island would be > anxious to disprove the idea that his ancestors were so irresponsible. I'm not sure that you see the same basic arguments that I do. I see his two main points as: 1) The conventional dating of human artifacts in lakes is conventionally early because it was taken from lakes. We have established that old sediment in lakes does get mixed up with newer human artifacts in other lakes, thus it is possible that this is seen on Easter Island. Further, since we found a wonderful spot to excavate on the one good beach on the island, and have established an earliest date of 800 AD there, this is the most probable time of landing. Therefore, the deforestation started at the beginning of the period. 2) Investigation of deforestation in other Polynesian islands has given us a model for a likely scenario. Both humans and rats have been tied to deforestation. However, we do not have a case of massive deforestation with humans alone, while we do have a case of minimal human artifacts and evidence of a substantial rat population tied to deforestation. Thus, there is at least some evidence that rats have a stronger impact than humans. That seems reasonable to me on an offhand basis, but it will take a while for this work to take its place in the forming consensus. My point is not really that all of Diamonds assertions have been proven wrong by new research. My point is that we know fairly little about cultures such as these. Popular science programs (especially on places like the Discovery channel) often/usually overstate the scientific certainty in such matters. Reports of cannibalism are not sufficient to show a very large population (15k or so) that dwindled due to deforestation. I think a key point in the moral tale is the assumption that the population lived on the island for hundreds of years before the deforestation took place. This fits well with people who are in touch with the land and know how to live wisely. The moral tale then has them fall from grace, and using up resources on trivial things (the statues being the best example). If, however, the problems start with the rats gnawing seeds from the very beginning, as well as human cultivation from the very beginning, a different picture emerges. This leads to my argument. It is dangerous to make general conclusions from limited data about prehistoric civilizations (prehistoric in the sense that we do not have a history of the civilization to study.) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9-11 conspiricy theories
On 17/09/2006, at 9:12 AM, Dan Minette wrote: The first thing I want to address is the idea that folks who have the knowledge needed to demonstrate something is clearly wrong with an official report fail to do so out of fear of losing work because they are lumped with the "tinfoil hat" people. This is a standard argument that I've heard from folks who argue against the validity of quantum mechanics, special relativity, evolution, etc. That folks would not dare to point out that the emperor has no clothes. ...and failing to realise that Einstein, Darwin, Newton, Galileo and others did *exactly* this in their day. Pointing out a glaring flaw in a current body of theory and doing the work that ushers in a new way of thinking is the Holy Grail to researchers. If it was so easy to turn over evolution or relativity with a few criticisms, it would have been done already (and in fact has been to large parts of the original versions of those theories...) Charlie Just Got Off A 17 Hour Plane Ride, Will Respond More Tomorrow Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies
I bow to all of your greater intellects & training.
I recognize the need to split the political from the physical on this
topic. My training is insufficient to explore many of the arcane
directions of science this leads and clearly my brain has gelled into
some kind of tapioca over the years. I still get random misfirings
originating from up in there somewhere enough that certain aspects
remain hard to accept, but I am willing to let this go. I'm opening my
mouth wide here for a heaping helping of crow and wonder who wants to
use the spoon & who gets the fork.
On Sep 16, 2006, at 4:19 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Gibson Jonathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have no idea if your accomplished friend is in on
anything. If I had
I would have directly said so. I wasn't trying to
besmirch her, I was
pointing out many people accept a
go-along-to-get-along mentality and
yet others find this quite handy for climbing the
ladders of power.
Greetings John. That _may_ be true. But think about
whta that means in this case. It means that she (and
I, and many other people I know) are so committed to
"climing the ladders of power" that we're willing to
countenance - and in fact, actively cover for - high
treason. Do you really think that's plausible?
No, I didn't. I really thought I stated that clearer.
I was speaking of people's willingness to look the other way when
confronted with something that may shake their world view.
Personally, I had never considered massive {in
repurcussion} internal
conspiracies from within until I read Tom Clancy's
"Red Storm Rising"
many years ago: facing an internal crisis a central
soviet cabal
orchestrates an attack on the schoolchildren by
terrorists as pretext
to hide other systemic failures by launching WWIII.
Yeah, but, that's a _novel_. I'm not saying
conspiracices never happen - they do - but it's a
novel. It's also a novel about the Soviet Union, and
most people would say the old Soviet Union operated a
little differently than the US does.
Of course, it was just to illustrate. It was my intro to a notion I'd
seen before through my love of history, but brought into a modern
context. I will say that human history is ripe with examples of
immense nastiness across cultures and mankind has proven remarkably
resilient to change. Unfortunately.
Webster Tarply's
role in uncovering NATO intelligence behind the
multiple false-flag
machine-gun terror attacks by "Reds" in Italy - and
one such kidnapping
which killed a government minister is part of the
Italian public
record. General Smedley "war is a racket" Butler
was approached by a
cabal of wealthy industrialists who sought to
overthrow Roosevelt in
the 1930's, but he refused and exposed them - with
no action taken to
imprison them: this ought to inform your opinion of
some timeless facts
about American power structures. Operation
Northwoods was concocted by
American generals in the early 1960's to hijack
planes and kill
Americans as pretext to inciting a Cuban invasion -
Kennedy nixed it
and fired the perps.
I'm not going to comment on any of these in particular
- except to point out that even if they occurred, they
all involve a handful of people, and they were all
_discovered_. Any 9/11 conspiracy would involve
thousands of people - it would have to be so large,
remember, that it would probably include someone as
insignificant as me - and _none of them_ would have
ever said a word about it. Don't you think that's an
entirely different kettle of fish?
I'd say it's not beyond the realm to conceal a great deal when
assumptions are accepted and people WANT to move on. As Robert
Heinlein said, "Man is not a rational creature, it is a rationalizing
one." I'll just say their are many things I've heard that the {MIT?
Sorry to be vague!} studies overstate the temperature and even
empirical duration of the heat - but without access to this, and
someone with some training to look into this I will stand aside.
I'm reminded of a saying Gore Vidal once said
describing how things
have long worked in D.C., "I won't rat out your
scheme, if you don't
rat out mine." Much mischief gets done all the time
by our so-called
protector class. Why insist black hearted and
aristo-minded people
could not possibly treat us as expendable chattel?
Well, I met Gore Vidal in June and let's just say, I'm
not impressed by his insight into how the government
works. I'm sure he likes to think that's how it
works, but that doesn't mean that it does.
Perhaps, but I have found a lot of correlation with my own experiences,
observations of humanity at political play, and his parables. This was
but one small anecdote he was told by his grandfather walking the
capital as the Stalin-like buildings of the Supreme Court and other
buildings were under construction. Perhaps he lacks a tactical
up-to-date savvy to swim in those waters with any purpose as he is out
of the sausage making machinery. I
Week 2 NFL Picks
After one week, I am 11-5. Buffalo at Miami - The Bills return to the "scene of the crime", where they blew a 21 point lead last season. Unfortunately, the Fish have had a long week to prepare, will benefit from 90 degree heat, and Bills QB JP Losman has yet to show that he can play a complete game. PicK: DOLPHINS Oakland at Baltimore - After last Monday, I'm looking pretty silly for picking the Raiders to make a wild-card playoff run. After that debacle, winning the Brady Quinn sweepstakes seems more likely. Pick: RAVENS New Orleans at Green Bay - After getting shut out at home by the arch rival Bears, I fully expect Green Bay to bounce back against a team they rang up 50+ points on last year. Pick: PACKERS Houston at Indianapolis - Yawn! Pick: COLTS Carolina at Minnesota - Carolina is supposed to be a Super Bowl contender - but going 0-2 would put a huge dent in that. Pick: PANTHERS Tampa Bay at Atlanta - Atlanta looked good last week, and the Bucs got whitewashed, but for whatever reason Tampa has always had Michael Vick's number. Pick: BUCS NY Giants at Philadelphia - The schedule just doesn't get any easier for Eli Manning and the Giants. This could be a great game, but I see the Eagles pulling it out. Pick: EAGLES Detroit at Chicago - I smell a possible upset here - especially if the Lions defense that held Seattle to 9 points last week shows up again, but I just can't pull the trigger. Pick: BEARS Cleveland at Cincinnati - At this rate, I expect the Browns to field a good football team shortly after my first born child enters college - and I'm not married. Pick: BENGALS St. Louis at San Francisco - The 49ers gave the Cardinals all they could handle last week, and the Rams won a fluky game against a turnover-plagued Broncos team without even scoring a touchdown. Smells like an UPSET SPECIAL Pick: 49ERS Arizona at Seattle - The Seahawks escaped with a win from Detroit, and should get another one in their noisy home stadium. Pick: SEAHAWKS Kansas City at Denver - Speaking of picks of mine that look silly, its hard to see Kansas City going anywhere with Trent Green hurt. Pick: BRONCOS New England at NY Jets - Yes, the Jets won last week, and the Patriots nearly did not. But somebody had to win the Jets-Titans game - its in the rules. Pick: PATRIOTS (but if Eric Mangini took some of Belichick's secrets to New York, I could regret this one!) Tennessee at San Diego - I'll be curious to see if the Chargers again look like the machine they appeared to be against Oakland. Pick: CHARGERS Washington at Dallas - The Redskins always seem to find ways to lose to the Cowboys. Pick: COWBOYS Pittsburgh at Jacksonville - The Steelers appear to have survived the Charlie Batch era, and Big Ben should pick up where he left off. Pick: STEELERS ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
