Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

[Charlie Bell]

On 28/09/2006, at 7:24 AM, Deborah Harrell wrote:



What I think has me 'smelling something rotten' are
the various other oddities and discrepancies (as
others have already listed, frex the Saudis flying out
unquestioned AFAIK); I think it is far more likely
that 'the conspiracy' (instead of our gov't. actually
setting up the towers to be blown) will turn out to be
deliberate ignoring of and/or covering up of pre-Day
intel that such a terror attack was imminant.  IOW,
lying.


Or just sheer opportunism. As the case of Jo Moore showed (it's "a  
good day to bury bad news"). The hypocrisy with regards to Saudi is  
ongoing and has been a feature of Western politics of all stripes for  
years, and I am no longer surprised by the blatant and tasteless  
cynicism of many of those with power.


Charlie


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

[Deborah Harrell]

Didn't have time to finish this yesterday, so am
completing it first thing-

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Dan Minette wrote:
>> > > Behalf Of Nick Arnett

 
>> > > Assuming that a large number of people can't be
> > wrong about something
>> > > because they are smart and well-connected is a
> > tautology. 
 
> > > I think that you are still missing the point, so
> > >let me try it again.  In particular, when 
> > >one's own area of expertise is involved,
> > >using that expertise to understand is all but
> > >instinctive...
 
> >I have absolutely no experience in structural
> >engineeringbut
> >I'm just going to toss out one medical example of
> >well-educated folk in the field being wrong:
> _Helicobactor pylori_ infection and relation to
> >peptic ulcer disease.  One researcher 
> >studied this; the vast majority of
> >gastroenterologists disagreed completely -- until
it
> >was finally shown to be true.  Took years.
 
> >My gut
> >about this administration is that it spins 'truth'
> >like a top, and is utterly untrustworthy.  About
the
> >towers, I really don't know; about cabals within
our
> >government manufacturing crises: Gulf of
Tonkin(g?).
 
> But this is a different situation. The discovery
> that ulcers were caused by helicobactor was a
> typical breakthough
> in medicine and science where previously held
> beliefs are found to be incorrect and an old theory
is 
> replaced by a new and better theory (think Einstein
> and Newton). 
>The point being made in this case
> is not that there is faulty science but that the
> facts that exist cannot be explained with the 
> theory that the buildings that were brought down by
> a the planes. People with both knowledge and 
> experience in such matters see no significant
> inconsistencies and as far as I can tell those that 
> exist are of the type that are always present in
> complex real life circumstances

Except that some _do_ find discrepancies, according to
what has been written on-List; I'm not saying I accept
their views, but I'm keeping the possibility in mind. 
A conspiracy involving thousands is exceedingly
unlikely, I agree.

What I think has me 'smelling something rotten' are
the various other oddities and discrepancies (as
others have already listed, frex the Saudis flying out
unquestioned AFAIK); I think it is far more likely
that 'the conspiracy' (instead of our gov't. actually
setting up the towers to be blown) will turn out to be
deliberate ignoring of and/or covering up of pre-Day
intel that such a terror attack was imminant.  IOW,
lying.

'There are no secret prisons for terror suspects.'
'No one connected with this administration had
anything to do with outing a CIA agent.'
And so forth.

Debbi
I Do Not Trust Them, Sam-I-Am  Maru

__
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?)

[bemmzim]

 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 2:46 PM
Subject: RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no 
reliable information?)


> Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Behalf Of Nick Arnett

> > Assuming that a large number of people can't be
> wrong about something
> > because they are smart and well-connected is a
> tautology. 
> 
> I think that you are still missing the point, so let
> me try it again.  Let
> me start with one example: Gautam's dad.  He's a
> structural engineer.  I
> think it is fair to say that one of the first
> instincts that a technical
> person like him or myself when faced with something
> like this is trying to
> understand it.  In particular, when one's own area
> of expertise is involved,
> using that expertise to understand is all but
> instinctive.
 

I have absolutely no experience in structural
engineering, so have not comented on this thread, but
I'm just going to toss out one medical example of
well-educated folk in the field being wrong:
_Helicobactor pylori_ infection and relation to peptic
ulcer disease.  One researcher (from Australia, IIRC)
posited and studied this; the vast majority of
gastroenterologists disagreed completely -- until it
was finally shown to be true.  Took years.

My personal experience has been that my 'medical gut
feelings' are correct better than 90% of the time,
even when specialists' opinions do not concur.  My gut
about this administration is that it spins 'truth'
like a top, and is utterly untrustworthy.  About the
towers, I really don't know; about cabals within our
government manufacturing crises: Gulf of Tonkin(g?).

But this is a different situation. The discovery that ulcers were caused by 
helicobactor was a typical breakthough
in medicine and science where previously held beliefs are found to be incorrect 
and an old theory is 
replaced by a new and better theory (think Einstein and Newton). The point 
being made in this case
is not that there is faulty science but that the facts that exist cannot be 
explained with the 
theory that the buildings that were brought down by a the planes. People with 
both knowledge and 
experience in such matters see no significant inconsistencies and as far as I 
can tell those that 
exist are of the type that are always present in complex real life 
circumstances. Those arguing
against the planes did it theory are not arguing that there are features of 
structural engineering 
theory are incorrect thus explaining the conspiracy they are arguing that the 
structural engineers
are incorrect in the standard use of their theories and knowledge.  

Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and security 
tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free 
AOL Mail and more.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

[Deborah Harrell]

> Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Behalf Of Nick Arnett

> > Assuming that a large number of people can't be
> wrong about something
> > because they are smart and well-connected is a
> tautology. 
> 
> I think that you are still missing the point, so let
> me try it again.  Let
> me start with one example: Gautam's dad.  He's a
> structural engineer.  I
> think it is fair to say that one of the first
> instincts that a technical
> person like him or myself when faced with something
> like this is trying to
> understand it.  In particular, when one's own area
> of expertise is involved,
> using that expertise to understand is all but
> instinctive.
 

I have absolutely no experience in structural
engineering, so have not comented on this thread, but
I'm just going to toss out one medical example of
well-educated folk in the field being wrong:
_Helicobactor pylori_ infection and relation to peptic
ulcer disease.  One researcher (from Australia, IIRC)
posited and studied this; the vast majority of
gastroenterologists disagreed completely -- until it
was finally shown to be true.  Took years.

My personal experience has been that my 'medical gut
feelings' are correct better than 90% of the time,
even when specialists' opinions do not concur.  My gut
about this administration is that it spins 'truth'
like a top, and is utterly untrustworthy.  About the
towers, I really don't know; about cabals within our
government manufacturing crises: Gulf of Tonkin(g?).

Debbi
who has much List-catching-up to do

__
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?)

[Deborah Harrell]

> Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Behalf Of Nick Arnett

> > Assuming that a large number of people can't be
> wrong about something
> > because they are smart and well-connected is a
> tautology. 
> 
> I think that you are still missing the point, so let
> me try it again.  Let
> me start with one example: Gautam's dad.  He's a
> structural engineer.  I
> think it is fair to say that one of the first
> instincts that a technical
> person like him or myself when faced with something
> like this is trying to
> understand it.  In particular, when one's own area
> of expertise is involved,
> using that expertise to understand is all but
> instinctive.
 

I have absolutely no experience in structural
engineering, so have not comented on this thread, but
I'm just going to toss out one medical example of
well-educated folk in the field being wrong:
_Helicobactor pylori_ infection and relation to peptic
ulcer disease.  One researcher (from Australia, IIRC)
posited and studied this; the vast majority of
gastroenterologists disagreed completely -- until it
was finally shown to be true.  Took years.

My personal experience has been that my 'medical gut
feelings' are correct better than 90% of the time,
even when specialists' opinions do not concur.  My gut
about this administration is that it spins 'truth'
like a top, and is utterly untrustworthy.  About the
towers, I really don't know; about cabals within our
government manufacturing crises: Gulf of Tonkin(g?).

Debbi
who has much List-catching-up to do

__
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?)

[Deborah Harrell]

> Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Behalf Of Nick Arnett

> > Assuming that a large number of people can't be
> wrong about something
> > because they are smart and well-connected is a
> tautology. 
> 
> I think that you are still missing the point, so let
> me try it again.  Let
> me start with one example: Gautam's dad.  He's a
> structural engineer.  I
> think it is fair to say that one of the first
> instincts that a technical
> person like him or myself when faced with something
> like this is trying to
> understand it.  In particular, when one's own area
> of expertise is involved,
> using that expertise to understand is all but
> instinctive.
 

I have absolutely no experience in structural
engineering, so have not comented on this thread, but
I'm just going to toss out one medical example of
well-educated folk in the field being wrong:
_Helicobactor pylori_ infection and relation to peptic
ulcer disease.  One researcher (from Australia, IIRC)
posited and studied this; the vast majority of
gastroenterologists disagreed completely -- until it
was finally shown to be true.  Took years.

My personal experience has been that my 'medical gut
feelings' are correct better than 90% of the time,
even when specialists' opinions do not concur.  My gut
about this administration is that it spins 'truth'
like a top, and is utterly untrustworthy.  About the
towers, I really don't know; about cabals within our
government manufacturing crises: Gulf of Tonkin(g?).

Debbi
who has much List-catching-up to do

__
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?)

[Charlie Bell]

On 25/09/2006, at 9:31 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:


On 24 Sep 2006 at 10:55, Charlie Bell wrote:


I occasionally say that evolution is a theory in much the same way
that gravity is.


How it works is a theory.


Kind of a mystery, too, which is pretty cool when you think about  
it.


Very cool indeed. Mysteries are what science is all about.


Even when the suggestions are as..odd..as the one from m-theory that
our universe has no inherent gravity, it gets it via leakage from
another universe "nearby" in m-space, hence why it's so weak...


Yeah, or dark matter which is more and more weird the more I  
understand it. Still, doesn't matter how weird it is as long as it  
works...


Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

[Andrew Crystall]

On 24 Sep 2006 at 10:55, Charlie Bell wrote:

> > I occasionally say that evolution is a theory in much the same way  
> > that gravity is.
> >
> >> How it works is a theory.
> >
> > Kind of a mystery, too, which is pretty cool when you think about it.
> 
> Very cool indeed. Mysteries are what science is all about.

Even when the suggestions are as..odd..as the one from m-theory that 
our universe has no inherent gravity, it gets it via leakage from 
another universe "nearby" in m-space, hence why it's so weak...

AndrewC
Dawn Falcon

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

[Julia Thompson]

William T Goodall wrote:


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


OMG, I just realized I have no idea of the last names of some of my RL 
friends, so I don't know if they're in on that particular conspiracy!  Aie!


Julia

who knows of an infant that's got to be in on it!  aie!
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

[Charlie Bell]

On 24/09/2006, at 2:58 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:


On Sep 19, 2006, at 8:01 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:


On 9/18/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


...'cause there's no such thing as something that is so well
supported it can be considered a fact. Like gravity. Just a theory.


I'm fairly certain that gravity is a fact.


I occasionally say that evolution is a theory in much the same way  
that gravity is.



How it works is a theory.


Kind of a mystery, too, which is pretty cool when you think about it.


Very cool indeed. Mysteries are what science is all about.

Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?

[Julia Thompson]

John W Redelfs wrote:

On 9/13/06, Gibson Jonathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Thanks Dan,

I guess I missed that message in the bustle of my life.

As another after word, every single one of my Archt schoolmates
contacted in no way buys the official story.  Every one of them cited
the pile-up of those vertical support beams should have tipped the
building, any building, off to one side or another.  None could think
of examples of a zero footprint implosion w/o demolition.
Confusion over the complete sell-off of all material that could be
studied was a mystery that baffles many



The same sort of thing baffled me after the fire that destroyed the Branch
Davidian compound in Waco, Texas.  How can anyone conduct an arson
investigation to see who started the fire if the mess is cleaned up before
the ashes are even warm?  Isn't that called destroying evidence or 
something
like that?  


What's really sad is when the law enforcement officials in charge of the 
investigation are the ones messing up the evidence.


(I had a friend who was there at the site, observing the investigation; 
my understanding is that DPS was in charge, and they were totally 
messing up the area, much to the dismay of the FBI folks who were there. 
 And no, I can't ask that friend about it now, because she died of 
cancer since then.)


Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Sep 19, 2006, at 8:01 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:


On 9/18/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


...'cause there's no such thing as something that is so well
supported it can be considered a fact. Like gravity. Just a theory.


I'm fairly certain that gravity is a fact.


I occasionally say that evolution is a theory in much the same way that 
gravity is.



How it works is a theory.


Kind of a mystery, too, which is pretty cool when you think about it.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.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?)

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Sep 16, 2006, at 1:12 PM, Dave Land wrote:


After watching the "Pyroclastic" video that WTG pointed to, I realized
that I'd been giving way too much credence to "Just-So Stories" about
what might possibly have happened. It's not that this particular video
was all that bad (it was utterly unconvincing to me, but that's beside
the point), it just highlighted for me how much I'd been accepting the
"coulda beens" and "shouldna beens" that are the stock in trade of
conspiracy theories.


I know it's not easy to back away from an ardently-defended point of 
view. I'm glad, though, that the light of reason broke at last.



--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.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?)

[Nick Arnett]

On 9/19/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> I'm fairly certain that gravity is a fact.
>
> How it works is a theory.

Finally - that's exactly what I was saying about evolution before.
Same thing.


No disagreement here.

Nick

--
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?)

[Charlie Bell]

On 20/09/2006, at 1:01 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:


On 9/18/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


...'cause there's no such thing as something that is so well
supported it can be considered a fact. Like gravity. Just a theory.


I'm fairly certain that gravity is a fact.

How it works is a theory.


Finally - that's exactly what I was saying about evolution before.  
Same thing.


Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

[Nick Arnett]

On 9/18/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


...'cause there's no such thing as something that is so well
supported it can be considered a fact. Like gravity. Just a theory.


I'm fairly certain that gravity is a fact.

How it works is a theory.

Nick

--
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?)

[Charlie Bell]

On 19/09/2006, at 2:52 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:


On 9/18/06, jdiebremse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Isn't that not a tautology at all, but one of the basic assumptions
about peer-review in science?


Only for scientists who treat theories as if they were facts.


...'cause there's no such thing as something that is so well  
supported it can be considered a fact. Like gravity. Just a theory.


Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

[Nick Arnett]

On 9/18/06, jdiebremse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Isn't that not a tautology at all, but one of the basic assumptions
about peer-review in science?


Only for scientists who treat theories as if they were facts.

Nick

--
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?)

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 9/17/06, Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Now I understand what your reasoning. I didn't realize that you were
> positing a vast coverup as part of all the conspiracy theories.
>
> Assuming that a large number of people can't be wrong about something
> because they are smart and well-connected is a tautology. I think
> there are many examples of large numbers of smart, well-connected
> people who turned a blind eye to an inconvenient truth. Not that I
> arguing that that's the case with 9/11... but I've generally found it
> more profitable to question authority than to make the kind of
> assumption that you are arguing.

Isn't that not a tautology at all, but one of the basic assumptions
about peer-review in science?

This argument is very similar to the argument used by Creationists when
I start pointing out the tremendous geological evidence against the
young-Earth hypothesis.

JDG






___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

[Nick Arnett]

On 9/18/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


He wasn't well connected, he did not have inside information.  He just knew
the subject matter.  There are thousands of structural engineers who should
have been able to see the holes in the explanations of the collapse of the
towers if the holes in the explanations were as big as claimed.  The WTC
collapse is at least one of the most, if not the most, studied building
collapses in history.  And, everyone but a few brave outsiders missed the
obvious?


Who says it's obvious?  Lemme share some personal experience with
obviousness, if I may.

I suspect that I've done many more investigations of public events
than most on this list, so perhaps I speak with a bit of authority on
this subject.

As I think you know, you're writing to the guy who came up with the
truth about the Reagan shooting when the rest of the Washington press
corps missed the story and accepted the White House version.  As you
probably don't know, that's just the most famous of a number of
investigative pieces I did over the years.  And often I'd find that
the truth is staring bright and well-connected people in the face but
they don't see it.

For example, there were a lot of people here in Silicon Valley back in
the mid-80s who were certain that there was some kind of trickery
involved in getting federal funding for a light rail system.  Many,
many of them had looked at the document that showed that the local
preference was for light rail (part of the federally mandated
Environmental Impact Report process) without seeing what was wrong
with it. The report showed eight out of nine cities in favor and the
one opposed was the smallest city in the county, the tiny town of
Monte Sereno.  The light rail backers had simply omitted six of the
country's 15 cities from the report... and they just happened to be
the ones that either voted against it or declined to take a position.
Even though I had years og experience with this sort of public
document, it was very hard for me to see what was missing.

That kind of shenanigan happens all the time (throughout the Vietnam
War, for example) and believe me, it is harder to see than you might
think. I looked at that EIR document a number of times, intuition
screaming at me that there was something wrong, before I saw the
problem.  Many, many others looked at it over the course of months and
months, without seeing it.

Large bunches of smart and/or well-connected people miss things that
in retrospect seem obvious.  I believe that given the concentration of
power in media and government, that sort of thing is happening less
and less often, as there are fewer and fewer people who are willing
and able to question authority.

More to the point, people see what they want or expect to see... and
it can be very hard to overcome those misperceptions... which
certainly are present on all sides of the 9/11 controversies.

So... sorry, but I don't buy the idea that just because lots of smart
and/or well connected people have looked at the evidence, we should
accept their conclusions. The world just doesn't work that way much of
the time... and I think we should encourage people to think for
themselves rather than assuming that just because a bunch of people
with authority say something, it must be true.  I suspect that sort of
attitude enables facism, despotism and other rotten leadership.

I intend none of this to support any 9/11 conspiracy theory.  I think
it is just fine that people are raising questions... and even finer
that we have a new medium that allows people with expertise to
critique them.  The quality of the debate often sinks low, but we're
still learning how to use this new medium.

Nick

--
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?)

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Nick Arnett
> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 9:43 AM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there
> is no reliable information?)
> 
> On 9/17/06, Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >  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.
> 
> Now I understand what your reasoning.  I didn't realize that you were
> positing a vast coverup as part of all the conspiracy theories.
> 
> Assuming that a large number of people can't be wrong about something
> because they are smart and well-connected is a tautology. 

I think that you are still missing the point, so let me try it again.  Let
me start with one example: Gautam's dad.  He's a structural engineer.  I
think it is fair to say that one of the first instincts that a technical
person like him or myself when faced with something like this is trying to
understand it.  In particular, when one's own area of expertise is involved,
using that expertise to understand is all but instinctive.

He wasn't well connected, he did not have inside information.  He just knew
the subject matter.  There are thousands of structural engineers who should
have been able to see the holes in the explanations of the collapse of the
towers if the holes in the explanations were as big as claimed.  The WTC
collapse is at least one of the most, if not the most, studied building
collapses in history.  And, everyone but a few brave outsiders missed the
obvious?

Only in the movies can clever plotters take care of all the threads in an
extremely complex plot.  Puzzling clues are usually left.  For tech folks,
anomalies are to be pursued, even if one has no real candidate for what
causes them.  A grad. student in structural engineering doesn't need to
believe that the WTC was brought down by bombs to conclude that the speed of
the collapse was inconsistent with the basic numbers.  Having been a
technical grad. student, I know what is usually done in this case.  First
one goes over one's own numbers a few timesthen if one can't see a flaw,
one brings it to a trusted colleague.  Then, if there still is
inconsistency, several grad students look at it, then take it up the chain
as a:  "we might all be missing something, but on the surfacethe numbers
just don't add up."  Heck, there already was a smoking gun for a secondary
cause that everyone would be inclined to accept: shoddy workmanship by
contractors who cut corners on the WTClike the common understanding of
the Big Dig.

If there were stand down orders throughout the air force, unusual drills
that just happened that day, or other parts of the planthen a lot of
folks should have noticed something really really oddnot just a few
brave souls.  If, as alleged, the AA planes that hit the WTC didn't really
exist...because no plane hit the WTC, then what was going on with the crew
and passengers?

Going back to Gautam's friends, why did McKensey miss important clues in one
of their most important tasks?  Shouldn't they have noticed something, since
they had access to primary information?

This is where the numbers get into the thousands. A conspiracy like those
portrayed would have had to leave clues that thousands should have noticed.


> I think
> there are many examples of large numbers of smart, well-connected
> people who turned a blind eye to an inconvenient truth.  

It's true that even the brightest people can deny the elephant in the living
room.  But, this is not the same as a bright scientist denying the signs
that his son is a drug addict, or the denial of the existence of well
attending lynchings.  

I could see your argument more if noticing the clues would have required
accepting a horrid reality behind the clues.  If, as alleged, a few high
placed people in government were in the process of overthrowing the
Republic, then people might deny the evidence that would require them to
accept that their trust had been horridly betrayed.

But, in this case, the clues would have had to be denied by folks who didn't
realize what the clues meant at the time.  Significant emotional baggage is
not associated with simply noticing that the numbers just don't add up.
There is a lot of difference between stating that we still can't understand
the mecha

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

[Klaus Stock]

> be a conspiracy of the type alleged, thousands of
> _perfectly ordinary_ people would have to be involved.

There was an estimate that in the GDR, one out of seven persons worked for
the Stasi ("Staatssicherheit" = "state security"), in one way or the other.
Most were of course IMs ("Inoffizielle Mitarbeiter" = "inofficial
co-workers"), and quite a few did not really do what they were supposed to
do.

Best regards, Klaus

_
This mail sent using V-webmail - http://www.v-webmail.orgg

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

[Nick Arnett]

On 9/17/06, Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


 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.


Now I understand what your reasoning.  I didn't realize that you were
positing a vast coverup as part of all the conspiracy theories.

Assuming that a large number of people can't be wrong about something
because they are smart and well-connected is a tautology.  I think
there are many examples of large numbers of smart, well-connected
people who turned a blind eye to an inconvenient truth.  Not that I
arguing that that's the case with 9/11... but I've generally found it
more profitable to question authority than to make the kind of
assumption that you are arguing.

Nick

--
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?)

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- 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?)

[Dan Minette]

> -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 (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

[Nick Arnett]

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?)

[William T Goodall]

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: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

[Dave Land]

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: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

[William T Goodall]

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
--  
William T Goodall

Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are  
the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm writing to apologize for being such a pompous
> ass. Also to state
> that my current position on the whole thing is that
> whoever it was who
> plotted to bring down the WTC buildings succeeded in
> a manner so
> spectacular that it must have surprised even them.
> 
> 9/11 was a ghastly crime committed by crazed
> fanatics, some or all of
> whom were Muslim extremists.

Dear Dave,
Thanks for the kind words.  In fact, I just want to
note here that in fact you are _precisely_ correct.  I
can't cite the page # for you because my books are in
the office, but as _The Age of Sacred Terror_ among
other books notes, it is exactly true that the
plotters were surprised by their success.  We have _on
video_ Usama Bin Laden stating that he was the most
optimistic member of Al Qaeda in terms of his
expectations for the damage done by the impacts, and
that even he thought that only the floors above the
point of impact would be destroyed.

Best,
Gautam

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?)

[Dave Land]

Gautam, et al,

Sometimes, my wife says of herself, "I don't know how you can stand to
be around me: _I_ can barely take it." That's a little how I feel about
myself and my recent interest in all the 9/11 conspiracies: I can hardly
stand to be around myself when I get caught up in it.

After watching the "Pyroclastic" video that WTG pointed to, I realized
that I'd been giving way too much credence to "Just-So Stories" about
what might possibly have happened. It's not that this particular video
was all that bad (it was utterly unconvincing to me, but that's beside
the point), it just highlighted for me how much I'd been accepting the
"coulda beens" and "shouldna beens" that are the stock in trade of
conspiracy theories.

I'm writing to apologize for being such a pompous ass. Also to state
that my current position on the whole thing is that whoever it was who
plotted to bring down the WTC buildings succeeded in a manner so
spectacular that it must have surprised even them.

9/11 was a ghastly crime committed by crazed fanatics, some or all of
whom were Muslim extremists.

The fact that I observe that the crime was siezed upon by other fanatics
as license to commit other ghastly crimes must not cloud my mind to
believe that there is some shadowy connection between these groups of
fanatics.

Thanks,

Dave

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

[Gautam Mukunda]

John Gibson wrote:
I understand your acceptance.
Interesting that your friend is well-placed and
perhaps well-heeled -  
this actually fits a premise I'll go into later about
people who know  
where their bread gets buttered.  I'd really like to
know just how  
these studies were funded, administered, who supplied
their raw data  
and coordinated the results before accepting this -
given so much else  
around the event is in question.  It may well take
serious scholarly  
work a decade or two to sift this out.  If I have to
eat old crow that  
is desiccated and moldy, so be it - are you equally
prepared?

My response:
Well, I left the list largely in response to this sort
of thing, but against my better judgment, I have to
reply to this one.  I'll have four questions at the
end, and I'd really like your answer to them.  It's my
friend you're slandering, after all.  So, I notice
that conspiracy theorists are often enthusiastic about
in describing vague, overarching conspiracies, so it's
worth taking this down to a concrete level.  This
isn't a "high levels of government" type conspiracy
you're describing, after all, one just involving say,
passive incompetence on the part of intelligence
agencies or what not.  You're suggesting that it's
possible that the towers themselves were destroyed by
something other than airplane impacts.

OK.  So let's think about what that implies.  On a
personal level, I could put it this way.  McKinsey was
thanked publicly by Mayor Bloomberg for its analysis
of the accident and the public safety response.  I
worked there, and while I wasn't part of that project,
I did look at the results.  If what you're positing
did occur, we _should have_ noticed.  You've mentioned
that you don't believe the MIT study on the towers as
well because you don't know who funded it.  I'm a
graduate student at MIT now, so there's another link. 
Finally, I have at least three close friends who were
senior staff at the White House and Pentagon at the
time of the attack (one of whose desks was 50 feet
from the point of impact at the Pentagon, in fact), so
they probably would have had to know too.

On an even more personal level, my father is a
structural engineer and has been for more than thirty
years.  We've talked about the attacks many, many
times.  If there was really something highly
implausible about the way the attacks played out, he
_should_ have noticed.  My mother was trained as a
nuclear physicist (in fact, she got her PhD at 22,
making her surely one of the youngest people, and
certainly one of the youngest women, ever to do so -
and if you think that because she got it in India it's
not a "real" PhD, I'd just point out that her
professors were from MIT and CalTech, IIT Kanpur,
where she got her degree, might be the most difficult
school to get into in the world, and Richard Feynamn
was there for the oral defense of her dissertation)
who has spent the last 30 years doing safety analysis
for NASA - and is good enough at it that she was one
of the first people called to help with the Challenger
investigation.  So she certainly should have been able
to tell if there was something wrong with the official
explanation as well.

Let's see.  My friend on the 9/11 Commission was
chosen to be senior staff on probably the most
important investigation in history when she was in her
mid-20s.  After that she was accepted into, and is one
of the best students at, MIT's Political Science
program, certainly one of the 3 best programs anywhere
in International Relations and Security Studies.

Finally, people on the list know who I am.  You can
get my bio on the web by googling my name - it's the
first thing that will come up.  But I've spent a fair
amount of my life studying organizations (particularly
militaries) in crisis, and there's nothing strange or
surprising about the way people behaved on 9/11 to me.

So either my entire immediate family and a surprising
proportion of my friends, and I, were all in on the
conspiracy and thus guilty of the worst act of treason
since Benedict Arnold or we are guilty of truly heroic
levels of professional incompetence.  I'd say, given
the information above, there's at least a prima facie
case that we're not incompetent.  So I have to be
either in on it, or a complete idiot.  If what you
believe is true, one of those has to be.

So, John, my questions for you are really pretty
simple.  Given what I've written above:
1) Do you think  I was part of the conspiracy, at
least after the fact (I didn't have to be in on it
beforehand)?
2) If you do, why?  You've suggested that the people
who believe the official story "know which side their
bread is buttered on."  OK - who's buttering my bread?
3) If you _don't_ believe I was in on it, that leaves
two other possibilities.  Do you think (as I described
above) that a large proportion of my friends, family,
and colleagues are all complicit in high treason and I
just didn't twig to that?  And if so, w

Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?

[Gibson Jonathan]

Sorry Charlie,
I have lost the references I have to the side-toppled buildings I speak  
of, but will relay them as they turn up.  Some of the same ones  
appeared in the threads when we first dove into this some months ago,  
if that helps.


Ok, let's get into the science a bit more.
This event triggered a number of memories for me as I was almost out of  
High School when nearby Mt St Helens blew.  Watching the turbulent  
cloud motions of WTC has been gnawing at my hind-brain for some time.   
I'd not made the connection until I saw this piece.  He nails it.
http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/pyroclastic-flows 
-911s-smoking-gun_13.html  22 minutes in length


This piece of video compares pyroclastic flows & a good use of layered  
data to see various interactions, physical simulations and the times  
they occurred.  This example relies on basic newtonian principles to  
question the secondary plumes and arcing debris that is seen RISING and  
ARCING away from the building AFTER initial shock-waves and debris  
fields HAVE PASSED in the collapse wave - what causes material to  
exhibit a cannonball trajectory except explosive action?  It helps  
explain why debris was found farther than expected from the central  
core, although I'm still searching for more factoids.


As a paraglider one learns to gauge the elements in a highly tuned way  
and in a funny accident of fate I've even launched off Mt St Helens.   
Riding thermal updrafts is essential to staying up longer than a few  
minutes in the air.  Something was making powerfully clear thermals to  
my trained eye {simply put your maimed or die if you don't learn these  
tricks when flying} and even laymen can appreciate the force we see  
once it's pointed out.  It also examines the heated dust columns with  
some notations under the clip to quantify the needed heat to move these  
particles.  This motion we see in the central dust/smoke plume bespeaks  
of an intense heat source driving everything straight up on a clear  
day.  I'd like to know if the kinetic release of heat caused by this  
mass impacting the ground is anywhere near hot enough to exhibit this.   
I doubt it.


Additionally, I refused to watch the agitprop "Paths to 9-11"  
dreck-u-mentary on ABC, but instead watched Robert De Niro host a CBS  
viewing of a documentary made by the two French brothers, Gedeon &  
Jules Naudet, who were filming a rookie firemen's journey at the  
closest WTC firehouse that morning.  They caught the footage of that  
very first plane striking and have come up with an amazingly touching  
film.  In this film you see the only footage of the interior lobbies  
known and at one point we see the elevators finally disgorge hapless  
worried riders trapped when event began.  This flies in the face of the  
'aux-current' official story that lobby destruction was caused by jet  
fuel "somehow" coursing all the way down from above through those  
shafts to blow marble facades off the walls to explain why firemen  
witness burned & broken people in the lobby when they arrived.  These  
are not the jumpers who come later in horrifying audio crashes.  I  
never understood how this burning fuel traveling down suddenly turns  
into an explosive mechanism only towards the bottom {there were several  
more extra large floors below street level} in this fable and now I  
feel it is debunked.  I've mentioned before those same burned & dazed  
people have born witness that something exploded out of the basement.   
It was those same firemen's testimony about a series of explosions  
"just like a demolition" bringing the buildings down that got me off my  
ass to investigate the discomfort I had with the official story{s}.



BTW - I'm done with ABC.
I've V-chipped ABC, ABC family, Disney, Lifetime, A&E, E!,  and ESPN  
right out off our household and I haven't missed anything yet.  My wife  
may want to tweak my list but my son will never watch Disney's  
Fantasyland {in more ways than one} again and I refuse to purchase  
their Pixar DVD's for him.  Nyet.  Nada.  No way.  I suggest if your  
offended by their blatant coddling to this administration while only  
critical of the Clinton-era, then it's time to lance the boil. It's  
worse than Fahrenheit 911 because there you knew where the POV of the  
director was facing, here they insist it's factual in the face of 9-11  
Commission reports, etc.
And tell them, tell them all, as well as the "it wasn't us" ABC News  
team of your feelings if you hope to have any near-term effect on their  
craven conduct.


- Jonathan -


On Sep 15, 2006, at 2:08 PM, Charlie Bell wrote:


On 15/09/2006, at 11:52 PM, Gibson Jonathan wrote:


Charlie,
You've turned the whole thing in it's head.  Your asking me to prove  
support for your position that the official story, du jour, holds  
true.


No, I'm asking you for evidence to support your claim that it doesn't.

"The point we are all scratching our heads over is how th

Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?

[Charlie Bell]

On 15/09/2006, at 11:52 PM, Gibson Jonathan wrote:



Charlie,
You've turned the whole thing in it's head.  Your asking me to  
prove support for your position that the official story, du jour,  
holds true.


No, I'm asking you for evidence to support your claim that it doesn't.

"The point we are all scratching our heads over is how they didn't  
topple off to one side.  None of these buildings {though WTC7 was a  
shorter one} acted as any other building has.  Ever."


That's what you said. Back it up with evidence of other buildings of  
the same type acting differently, and I'll go "Hmm. Interesting" and  
we have a conversation about why. As it is, you're making an  
unsubstantiated assertion, and asking others to disprove it. No,  
that's not how science works.


"Where's your examples that prove your assumptions?"

I don't have assumptions. I'm just reasonably happy that the  
explanations I've heard fit the evidence I've seen. If you're  
challenging those, then you provide evidence to support that. As I said:


"Good assertion. So let's see the evidence. Show us please a case  
study of a building collapse *of this construction type* that has  
toppled further than half its width in a progressive collapse. If you  
can show us one that has acted another way, then we have a comparison  
line."


I'm not dismissing you and I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm  
interested in your view. But I need you to back up your assertion  
with a bit of evidence. It's a simple request.


Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?

[Gibson Jonathan]

On Sep 14, 2006, at 3:34 PM, Charlie Bell wrote:


On 14/09/2006, at 7:26 PM, Gibson Jonathan wrote:

Hey, there was a lot of mass and volume to be those structures and it 
is little wonder some of it spread out.  The point we are all 
scratching our heads over is how they didn't topple off to one side.  
None of these buildings {though WTC7 was a shorter one} acted as any 
other building has.  Ever.


Good assertion. So let's see the evidence. Show us please a case study 
of a building collapse *of this construction type* that has toppled 
further than half its width in a progressive collapse.


If you can show us one that has acted another way, then we have a 
comparison line.


I think it's fair to not go line by line through your post before we 
have a basic data point.


Charlie



Charlie,
You've turned the whole thing in it's head.  Your asking me to prove 
support for your position that the official story, du jour, holds true. 
 There has been no such examples provided that I can find, nor was the 
single architect I was able to reach as I reply.


Your task would be to start citing where else this rarified and 
extra-ordinary event is not so very exotic.  My claim is that it's 
unique: guess what, my null search results thus far prove my point.  
Can you disprove this


Where's your examples that prove your assumptions?

Jus' wundrin'...


Jonathan Gibson
www.formandfunction.com/word
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Sep 13, 2006, at 4:24 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

Only if you ass—u—me that whatever a "soul" is, it is contained within  
a fertilized egg cell.  All we can say for sure is that if a living  
human being requires some sort of spirit or essence or katra or  
whatever you call it then at some point prior to a live birth such an  
entity must enter or become associated with the unborn child.


Why? Can't it develop after the fact, growing, like consciousness does?

As it happens, I posted something on this very topic this morning.




--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?

[Charlie Bell]

On 14/09/2006, at 7:26 PM, Gibson Jonathan wrote:



Hey, there was a lot of mass and volume to be those structures and  
it is little wonder some of it spread out.  The point we are all  
scratching our heads over is how they didn't topple off to one  
side.  None of these buildings {though WTC7 was a shorter one}  
acted as any other building has.  Ever.


Good assertion. So let's see the evidence. Show us please a case  
study of a building collapse *of this construction type* that has  
toppled further than half its width in a progressive collapse.


If you can show us one that has acted another way, then we have a  
comparison line.


I think it's fair to not go line by line through your post before we  
have a basic data point.


Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 10:00 PM Wednesday 9/13/2006, Ritu wrote:


Ronn Blankenship wrote:

> IIRC there are some religions
> which believe that the baby acquires a spirit or
> whatever they call it when s/he takes his/her first breath
> outside the womb.

>From what was said to me during my pregnancies, I think the Hindus [or
at least the non-atheist/non-agnostic Hindus] believe something like
this:

The soul starts 'visiting' foetus at ~ 3 months, just looking in and
getting acquainted. At the end of the second trimester, there is a
ceremony to mark the beginning of the third trimester. Apparently, this
[the beginning of the third trimester, not the ceremony] is the time the
soul comes to 'stay' inside the womb, to get used to the trappings of a
body once again. The ceremony thus is called, for the want of a better
translation, a 'centring' ceremony. The expectant mother is told that
her prime duty from this moment on is to maintain a balance in her life,
thoughts, emotions, and actions, for any imbalance would be less than
beneficial to the child.

I think the above is essentially right - both the times I was told this,
the babies were busy kicking the bladder and I had more immediate
concerns, like politely excusing myself and finding a bathroom.



Which provides a pointed illustration of the fact that yet other 
cultures consider the quickening (when the mother first feels the 
baby move) as the point when the spirit enters the body . . .



-- Ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 09:17 PM Wednesday 9/13/2006, William T Goodall wrote:



If pigs could fly we could bottle their farts and use them to build a
time machine Maru




If pigs could fly I'd give serious consideration to investing in pith helmets.


Quasihomophony Maru


-- Ronn!  :)

"While looking out for number 1, be careful not to step in number 2 . . . "



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 09:04 PM Wednesday 9/13/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


In a message dated 9/13/2006 7:26:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:




_If_ humans have a spirit (which seemed to be a basic enough 
assumption in the context not to have to state it explicitly :P) ,




All we  can say for sure is that if a
living human being requires some sort of  spirit
or essence or katra or whatever you call it then
at some point  prior to a live birth such an
entity must enter or become associated with  the
unborn child.  IIRC there are some religions
which believe  that the baby acquires a spirit or
whatever they call it when s/he takes  his/her first breath outside the womb.




We can say this for sure? How about humans like all other animals are pure
meat. What we call the soul and what early people called elan vitale 
or soul or

 mind or the little version of me who sits inside my head at a really big
control  board with switches and buttons (like "stomach") and by the 
way has to
have an  even smaller version of me inside its head and so forth and 
so on all

the way  down to the infinitely small) is just the actions of a human brain
experiencing  itself.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


-- Ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?

[Alberto Monteiro]

Gibson Jonathan wrote:
> 
> Because my simple napkin calc starts with the two eggs, stir & 
> gestate,  and then bake until brought to term... how can two hot-
> cross-bun  children share one soul? I suppose they could be half-
> souls each, depending if Confucius rules  apply and the difference 
> is split ... ;-)
>
You failed to do the homework and pay attention to the data.

In Hollywood movies, whenever there is a pair of twins, one
of them [at least] is Evil.

Ergo, twins have just _one_ soul. The other is soulless!

QED.

Corollary: clones are also soulless. Kill'em without mercy!

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?

[Richard Baker]

JohnR said:

> True, oh so true.   There are actually irrational people in America who
> think that somehow the universe created itself. LOL.

Even more amazingly, there are people there who believe that the
universe was created by a God who was somehow not ever created.

I suppose Americans are better than the rest of us at believing absurd
things as they've had more practice at it! ;)

Rich
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?

[Gibson Jonathan]

On Sep 13, 2006, at 7:29 PM, Dan Minette wrote:





-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On

Behalf Of Gibson Jonathan
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 3:24 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable  
information?


Thanks Dan,

I guess I missed that message in the bustle of my life.

As another after word, every single one of my Archt schoolmates
contacted in no way buys the official story.  Every one of them cited
the pile-up of those vertical support beams should have tipped the
building, any building, off to one side or another.


OK, then why did all the graduate school studies in structural  
engineering
that I referenced get this wrong?  Or, are they all part of the  
conspiracy?


It would be helpful if one of your buddies did comparablel engineering
analysis...


None could think
of examples of a zero footprint implosion w/o demolition.


But, of course, there wasn't such a minute footprint.  Recently, I  
posted on
Brin-L a link to pictures that showed a footprint that shows a tower  
having

a lateral component to it's footprint covering about 2 blocks.

http://www.spaceimaging.com/gallery/9-11/default.htm#



Hey, there was a lot of mass and volume to be those structures and it  
is little wonder some of it spread out.  The point we are all  
scratching our heads over is how they didn't topple off to one side.   
None of these buildings {though WTC7 was a shorter one} acted as any  
other building has.  Ever.


I have not looked into the reports themselves, but I have heard and  
read that NIST inflated heat ranges and durations playing loose with  
the raw inputs even before tweaking the behavior models interactively.   
I certainly recall hearing about the paint chips tested showed the heat  
was barely hot enough to reach the sagging point of some of the steel  
members and that even this was an extremely short duration and nothing  
like what would have been needed nor what is declared by the official  
stories.



Confusion over the complete sell-off of all material that could be
studied was a mystery that baffles many


I quote from the head of the


There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the  
team

has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has
subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The  
team
has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been  
able to
obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that  
having

access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a
significant difference to understanding the performance of the  
structures.





I repeatedly hear that investigators NOT sanctioned by the Powers That  
Be are refused any such access.  You, know, those scientists who are  
raising concerns, but have the wherewithal to do serious work on the  
debris.  Some of them show their request letters and the denials that  
return.


Why not clear the air, make a PR showing of handing over verifiable  
samples, following up with NOVA, Discovery Channel, CNN, to dispel the  
growing clamor?


Or, release anything more than a single blurry digi-chunky frame of the  
Pentagon strike either, for that matter.  Even that took FOI requests  
and was like pulling teeth.  There were multiple cameras on that  
building.  Why not clear this up?

!


- as well as no regulatory body
issuing upgraded reqs in light of an unprecedented tripple-whammy
systemic failure occurring the same day.



Let me quote from the testimony of Dr. W. Gene Corley on behalf of the
American Society of Civil Engineers, before the Subcommittee on  
Environment,
Technology and Standards & Subcommittee on Research Committee on  
Science

U.S. House of Representatives.

It's available at

http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf

BTW, the team assembled to study this looks fairly impressive.



Oh, Corley, the "Cleaner" guy who gets called in when the government  
wants to cover up?
Underwriters Labs {former} branch head Dr Ryan mentions meeting him as  
part of the NIST process and paints Corley as laying out the scope and  
limits of the investigation before it even began - because this is a  
the scientific method, right?  That man presided over the Oklahoma City  
bombing review as well.  I'd trust him as far as I could throw him at  
this point.



All believe WTC 7 is the lynchpin that can reveal what/who benefits
from this canard.


All conspiracy theorists?  I doubt there is such unanimity.



All of the colleagues I spoke with anyway - which is what I said  
before.  As we know theories ebb and flow in many directions and people  
accept various ones or not.  These are not residential designers but  
commercial building architects.  These professionals voiced a similar  
feeling about this mystery.  Others may not.  I'm relaying what I can  
as I f

Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?

[Gibson Jonathan]

On Sep 13, 2006, at 4:24 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:


At 05:49 PM Wednesday 9/13/2006, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
Yes, our friends and neighbors live an exceptionally rich fantasy  
life.


On Sep 13, 2006, at 12:38 PM, William T Goodall wrote:

On 13 Sep 2006, at 8:34PM, Dan Minette wrote:
 I think she used some four letter words in response to the poll  
that stated
that somewhere about 30% to 35% of Americans believed that the US  
government

was somehow involved in 9-11besides questioning the poll's
methodologyshe was rather upset that very many people at all  
could

subscribe to crackpot theories.


Most Americans believe in prophetic dreams; four in 10 say there  
were once "ancient advanced civilizations" such as Atlantis. 91.8%  
say they believe in God, a higher power or a cosmic force.


Crackpot theories are *very* popular in America.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-09-11-religion- 
survey_x.htm

--
William T Goodall


Sam Harris had a nice long talk w/Q&A at the Long Now Foundation late  
last year that describes the lunacy that afflicts far too many of us  
- his quest is to educate around religious tolerance and how much  
slack we give people on this topic whereas everywhere else in our  
lives we demand proof: legal contracts, structural collapses,  
scientific findings, etc.  I particularly like his take on religious  
moderates giving vast cover to the extremists because they deny those  
motivations are really religious and do little to stop them - because  
they fear that they themselves are not sufficiently strong in their  
beliefs as compared to the zealots, and have little authority to say  
No.


Some notable items I recall from the talk {apx}:



"apx?




As in, I was citing from memory.


- Stem Cell Research: Since any


living



Yes, he stretches it to make the guffaw-factor greater - but the point  
of where we are going and what can be done is clear enough.


 cell has the capacity to be developed into a clone/copy, then every  
time George Bush scratches his nose there is holocaust of potential  
life being destroyed.


Only if he scratches hard enough to get through the outer layer of  
dead epidermal cells which the body constantly sheds one way or  
another and gets to the live cells below them.





I heard Harris give a shortened version of this {C-SPAN?} where was a  
bit more graphic by making GwB digging in & picking his nose rather  
than scratching the exterior.  The same issues apply, of course, even  
as he moderates his schtick.


- God, after creating all the vast cosmos, galaxies, planets, chose  
the land of Palestine for the Jews - acting in his role as an  
omniscient real estate broker.



He also allegedly helps people find their lost car keys.  Why  
shouldn't He be a real estate broker, too.



- In the wake of Katrina how absurd it would be for a Senator on the  
floor of Congress to say we really need to pray to Poseidon more  
because that realm of the sea and storms is his... and he's angry.
- Try to lecture someone suffering from an acute appendicitis  
rupturing about "intelligent design"... I'd add the purists should be  
required to waive their rights to inoculations for Bird Flu, etc.



Why?



Oh, to be consistent with the religio-philosophical framework espoused.  
 Spread a limited resource among those who actually support science,  
education, reason, that sort of thing.

K?




- The arithmetic of souls: What happens when a cell



I presume from the context that you mean a fertilized egg cell rather  
than just any cell.





Yes.


divides into twins... two souls, right?



Why?




Because my simple napkin calc starts with the two eggs, stir & gestate,  
and then bake until brought to term... how can two hot-cross-bun  
children share one soul?
I suppose they could be half-souls each, depending if Confucius rules  
apply and the difference is split ... ;-)


What happens when those cells sometimes reform back into one living  
embryo: does this mean that a soul is merged, or lost again, does it  
become a super-soul?!?  I agree it doesn't add up.



Only if you ass—u—me that whatever a "soul" is, it is contained within  
a fertilized egg cell.  All we can say for sure is that if a living  
human being requires some sort of spirit or essence or katra or  
whatever you call it then at some point prior to a live birth such an  
entity must enter or become associated with the unborn child.  IIRC  
there are some religions which believe that the baby acquires a spirit  
or whatever they call it when s/he takes his/her first breath outside  
the womb.




I would favor the latter myself - if I had to choose before another  
Grand Inquisition.


- None of the absurd Old Testament rules for owning slaves {just  
don't beat them so their eyes and teeth fall out}, killing insolent  
children, slaying unbelievers you come across {even if there in their  
own town} as they worship at their own alters or even in their own  
h

Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?

[John W Redelfs]

On 9/13/06, Gibson Jonathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Thanks Dan,

I guess I missed that message in the bustle of my life.

As another after word, every single one of my Archt schoolmates
contacted in no way buys the official story.  Every one of them cited
the pile-up of those vertical support beams should have tipped the
building, any building, off to one side or another.  None could think
of examples of a zero footprint implosion w/o demolition.
Confusion over the complete sell-off of all material that could be
studied was a mystery that baffles many



The same sort of thing baffled me after the fire that destroyed the Branch
Davidian compound in Waco, Texas.  How can anyone conduct an arson
investigation to see who started the fire if the mess is cleaned up before
the ashes are even warm?  Isn't that called destroying evidence or something
like that?  I thought destroying evidence was illegal?  And doesn't it seem
like that is what happened after the WTC towers came down on 9-11?  Why the
big hurry to clear up the mess before an investigation can be conducted to
see exactly what happened?  Look how long they tape off a crash site for a
downed airliner so they can figure out what happened.  But the way the news
came out on 9-11, it seemed they knew exactly what happened even before the
dust had settled.  They even knew Osama bin Laden did it before the day was
out.  Amazing!

John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Do you play World of Warcraft?  Let me know.  Maybe
we can play together.
***
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?

[John W Redelfs]

On 9/13/06, William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



On 13 Sep 2006, at 8:34PM, Dan Minette wrote:

>  I think she used some four letter words in response to the poll
> that stated  that somewhere about 30% to 35% of Americans believed that
the US
> government  was somehow involved in 9-11besides questioning the
poll's
> methodologyshe was rather upset that very many people at all could
> subscribe to crackpot theories.

Most Americans believe in prophetic dreams; four in 10 say there were
once "ancient advanced civilizations" such as Atlantis. 91.8% say
they believe in God, a higher power or a cosmic force.

Crackpot theories are *very* popular in America.



True, oh so true.   There are actually irrational people in America who
think that somehow the universe created itself. LOL.

John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Do you play World of Warcraft?  Let me know.  Maybe
we can play together.
***
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?

[Ritu]

Ronn Blankenship wrote:

> IIRC there are some religions 
> which believe that the baby acquires a spirit or 
> whatever they call it when s/he takes his/her first breath 
> outside the womb.

>From what was said to me during my pregnancies, I think the Hindus [or
at least the non-atheist/non-agnostic Hindus] believe something like
this:

The soul starts 'visiting' foetus at ~ 3 months, just looking in and
getting acquainted. At the end of the second trimester, there is a
ceremony to mark the beginning of the third trimester. Apparently, this
[the beginning of the third trimester, not the ceremony] is the time the
soul comes to 'stay' inside the womb, to get used to the trappings of a
body once again. The ceremony thus is called, for the want of a better
translation, a 'centring' ceremony. The expectant mother is told that
her prime duty from this moment on is to maintain a balance in her life,
thoughts, emotions, and actions, for any imbalance would be less than
beneficial to the child.

I think the above is essentially right - both the times I was told this,
the babies were busy kicking the bladder and I had more immediate
concerns, like politely excusing myself and finding a bathroom.

Ritu

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?

[Ritu]

William T Goodall wrote:

> Or perhaps all the 'souls' play musical chairs while we sleep and we  
> wake up with a different one each day :->

Wasn't that the premise of a Greg Egan short story? Not all the souls
playing musical chairs, of course, but one which "woke up" in a
different body each day...

Ritu

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?

[William T Goodall]

On 14 Sep 2006, at 3:04AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



In a message dated 9/13/2006 7:26:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


All we  can say for sure is that if a
living human being requires some sort of  spirit
or essence or katra or whatever you call it then
at some point  prior to a live birth such an
entity must enter or become associated with  the
unborn child.  IIRC there are some religions
which believe  that the baby acquires a spirit or
whatever they call it when s/he takes  his/her first breath  
outside the womb.


We can say this for sure? How about humans like all other animals  
are pure
meat. What we call the soul and what early people called elan  
vitale or soul or
 mind or the little version of me who sits inside my head at a  
really big
control  board with switches and buttons (like "stomach") and by  
the way has to
have an  even smaller version of me inside its head and so forth  
and so on all
the way  down to the infinitely small) is just the actions of a  
human brain

experiencing  itself.


Or perhaps all the 'souls' play musical chairs while we sleep and we  
wake up with a different one each day :->


If pigs could fly we could bottle their farts and use them to build a  
time machine Maru


--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

What's the difference between OS X and Vista?

Microsoft employees are excited about OS X...


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Gibson Jonathan
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 3:24 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?
> 
> Thanks Dan,
> 
> I guess I missed that message in the bustle of my life.
> 
> As another after word, every single one of my Archt schoolmates
> contacted in no way buys the official story.  Every one of them cited
> the pile-up of those vertical support beams should have tipped the
> building, any building, off to one side or another.  

OK, then why did all the graduate school studies in structural engineering
that I referenced get this wrong?  Or, are they all part of the conspiracy? 

It would be helpful if one of your buddies did comparablel engineering
analysis...

>None could think
> of examples of a zero footprint implosion w/o demolition.

But, of course, there wasn't such a minute footprint.  Recently, I posted on
Brin-L a link to pictures that showed a footprint that shows a tower having
a lateral component to it's footprint covering about 2 blocks.  

http://www.spaceimaging.com/gallery/9-11/default.htm#

> Confusion over the complete sell-off of all material that could be
> studied was a mystery that baffles many 

I quote from the head of the 


There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team
has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has
subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team
has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to
obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having
access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a
significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures.


>- as well as no regulatory body
> issuing upgraded reqs in light of an unprecedented tripple-whammy
> systemic failure occurring the same day.


Let me quote from the testimony of Dr. W. Gene Corley on behalf of the
American Society of Civil Engineers, before the Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology and Standards & Subcommittee on Research Committee on Science
U.S. House of Representatives.  

It's available at 

http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf

BTW, the team assembled to study this looks fairly impressive. 
   
 March 6, 2002
Testimony of Dr. W. Gene Corley, Senior Vice President, CTL Engineering
Chicago, IL on behalf of the American Society of Civil Engineers, before the
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards & Subcommittee on
Research Committee on Science U.S. House of Representatives.  


As many in the United States and the world examine the future of tall
buildings it is important to look at how well these buildings performed
under extreme circumstances. It must be remembered that large commercial
aircraft hit the World Trade Center Towers, yet both withstood the initial
impact. Additionally, as has been widely reported, almost all of the
individuals in the buildings below the impact zone were able to get out of
the buildings to safety. Efforts such as that being conducted by the
Building Performance Study teams and studies emanating from this initial
study will seek to extend the performance of structures to allow occupants
ample time to reach safety.

> All believe WTC 7 is the lynchpin that can reveal what/who benefits
> from this canard.

All conspiracy theorists?  I doubt there is such unanimity.  

> I'd like to know more about this grad-school gal who thinks she knows
> more than practicing architects about what should and shouldn't be able
> to stand.

What she probably thinks is that she had a chance to review multiple studies
of the structural engineering, and had a fairly good idea of the type of
analysis they did. For example, one would think that the professional body
of civil engineers, who are responsible for massive building projects, has
the responsibility to make a thorough investigation of this.  Which they
did.  Their work is part of the understanding of the 9-11 commission.  

There were, of course, many other groups that studied the collapse.  Some of
the websites are:

 
 http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/
 
 http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1024/news_2-2.html
 
 http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?iid=3742&isa=Category
 
 http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/
 
 http://www.mscsoftware.com/success/details.cfm?Q=132&Z=181&sid=269

 In addition, there is a list of abstracts that includes a number on 
 the WTC collapse at:
 
 http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWsrchkwx.cgi?Collapse


Personally, trusting groups like this sounds quite reasonable to me.

But, I take it that you are singularly unimpressed with 20-somethings that
have important staff responsibility for investigations like the 

Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?

[Bemmzim]

 
In a message dated 9/13/2006 7:26:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

All we  can say for sure is that if a 
living human being requires some sort of  spirit 
or essence or katra or whatever you call it then 
at some point  prior to a live birth such an 
entity must enter or become associated with  the 
unborn child.  IIRC there are some religions 
which believe  that the baby acquires a spirit or 
whatever they call it when s/he takes  his/her first breath outside the womb.




We can say this for sure? How about humans like all other animals are pure  
meat. What we call the soul and what early people called elan vitale or soul or 
 mind or the little version of me who sits inside my head at a really big 
control  board with switches and buttons (like "stomach") and by the way has to 
have an  even smaller version of me inside its head and so forth and so on all 
the way  down to the infinitely small) is just the actions of a human brain 
experiencing  itself. 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 05:49 PM Wednesday 9/13/2006, Gibson Jonathan wrote:

Yes, our friends and neighbors live an exceptionally rich fantasy life.

On Sep 13, 2006, at 12:38 PM, William T Goodall wrote:

On 13 Sep 2006, at 8:34PM, Dan Minette wrote:
 I think she used some four letter words in 
response to the poll that stated

that somewhere about 30% to 35% of Americans believed that the US government
was somehow involved in 9-11besides questioning the poll's
methodologyshe was rather upset that very many people at all could
subscribe to crackpot theories.


Most Americans believe in prophetic dreams; 
four in 10 say there were once "ancient 
advanced civilizations" such as Atlantis. 91.8% 
say they believe in God, a higher power or a cosmic force.


Crackpot theories are *very* popular in America.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-09-11-religion-survey_x.htm
--
William T Goodall


Sam Harris had a nice long talk w/Q&A at the 
Long Now Foundation late last year that 
describes the lunacy that afflicts far too many 
of us - his quest is to educate around religious 
tolerance and how much slack we give people on 
this topic whereas everywhere else in our lives 
we demand proof: legal contracts, structural 
collapses, scientific findings, etc.  I 
particularly like his take on religious 
moderates giving vast cover to the extremists 
because they deny those motivations are really 
religious and do little to stop them - because 
they fear that they themselves are not 
sufficiently strong in their beliefs as compared 
to the zealots, and have little authority to say No.


Some notable items I recall from the talk {apx}:



"apx?



- Stem Cell Research: Since any


living

 cell has the capacity to be developed into a 
clone/copy, then every time George Bush 
scratches his nose there is holocaust of potential life being destroyed.


Only if he scratches hard enough to get through 
the outer layer of dead epidermal cells which the 
body constantly sheds one way or another and gets to the live cells below them.



- God, after creating all the vast cosmos, 
galaxies, planets, chose the land of Palestine 
for the Jews - acting in his role as an omniscient real estate broker.



He also allegedly helps people find their lost 
car keys.  Why shouldn't He be a real estate broker, too.



- In the wake of Katrina how absurd it would be 
for a Senator on the floor of Congress to say we 
really need to pray to Poseidon more because 
that realm of the sea and storms is his... and he's angry.
- Try to lecture someone suffering from an acute 
appendicitis rupturing about "intelligent 
design"... I'd add the purists should be 
required to waive their rights to inoculations for Bird Flu, etc.



Why?



- The arithmetic of souls: What happens when a cell



I presume from the context that you mean a 
fertilized egg cell rather than just any cell.




divides into twins... two souls, right?



Why?


What happens when those cells sometimes reform 
back into one living embryo: does this mean that 
a soul is merged, or lost again, does it become 
a super-soul?!?  I agree it doesn't add up.



Only if you ass—u—me that whatever a "soul" is, 
it is contained within a fertilized egg 
cell.  All we can say for sure is that if a 
living human being requires some sort of spirit 
or essence or katra or whatever you call it then 
at some point prior to a live birth such an 
entity must enter or become associated with the 
unborn child.  IIRC there are some religions 
which believe that the baby acquires a spirit or 
whatever they call it when s/he takes his/her first breath outside the womb.


- None of the absurd Old Testament rules for 
owning slaves {just don't beat them so their 
eyes and teeth fall out}, killing insolent 
children, slaying unbelievers you come across 
{even if there in their own town} as they 
worship at their own alters or even in their own homes...
Kill, kill, kill and more killing is justified - 
even essential - and none of this {and more} was 
never repudiated by Jesus and still hold true for the fanatics.
- He compares Islamic jihadis with Tibetan 
Buddhists and asks why one is so ready to suicide-bomb and another is not.



Why?


-- Ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?

[Gibson Jonathan]

Yes, our friends and neighbors live an exceptionally rich fantasy life.

On Sep 13, 2006, at 12:38 PM, William T Goodall wrote:

On 13 Sep 2006, at 8:34PM, Dan Minette wrote:
 I think she used some four letter words in response to the poll that 
stated
that somewhere about 30% to 35% of Americans believed that the US 
government

was somehow involved in 9-11besides questioning the poll's
methodologyshe was rather upset that very many people at all could
subscribe to crackpot theories.


Most Americans believe in prophetic dreams; four in 10 say there were 
once "ancient advanced civilizations" such as Atlantis. 91.8% say they 
believe in God, a higher power or a cosmic force.


Crackpot theories are *very* popular in America.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-09-11-religion-survey_x.htm
--
William T Goodall


Sam Harris had a nice long talk w/Q&A at the Long Now Foundation late 
last year that describes the lunacy that afflicts far too many of us - 
his quest is to educate around religious tolerance and how much slack 
we give people on this topic whereas everywhere else in our lives we 
demand proof: legal contracts, structural collapses, scientific 
findings, etc.  I particularly like his take on religious moderates 
giving vast cover to the extremists because they deny those motivations 
are really religious and do little to stop them - because they fear 
that they themselves are not sufficiently strong in their beliefs as 
compared to the zealots, and have little authority to say No.


Some notable items I recall from the talk {apx}:
- Stem Cell Research: Since any cell has the capacity to be developed 
into a clone/copy, then every time George Bush scratches his nose there 
is holocaust of potential life being destroyed.
- God, after creating all the vast cosmos, galaxies, planets, chose the 
land of Palestine for the Jews - acting in his role as an omniscient 
real estate broker.
- In the wake of Katrina how absurd it would be for a Senator on the 
floor of Congress to say we really need to pray to Poseidon more 
because that realm of the sea and storms is his... and he's angry.
- Try to lecture someone suffering from an acute appendicitis rupturing 
about "intelligent design"... I'd add the purists should be required to 
waive their rights to inoculations for Bird Flu, etc.
- The arithmetic of souls: What happens when a cell divides into 
twins... two souls, right?  What happens when those cells sometimes 
reform back into one living embryo: does this mean that a soul is 
merged, or lost again, does it become a super-soul?!?  I agree it 
doesn't add up.
- None of the absurd Old Testament rules for owning slaves {just don't 
beat them so their eyes and teeth fall out}, killing insolent children, 
slaying unbelievers you come across {even if there in their own town} 
as they worship at their own alters or even in their own homes...  
Kill, kill, kill and more killing is justified - even essential - and 
none of this {and more} was never repudiated by Jesus and still hold 
true for the fanatics.
- He compares Islamic jihadis with Tibetan Buddhists and asks why one 
is so ready to suicide-bomb and another is not.
- If Jesus comes back to the Earth and reveals his magic powers then 
THAT would be the New Science and that all scientists worth their 
weight would have to subscribe to that since demonstrable proof was 
finally here - until that time, tho...


He has a number of interesting ideas worth a listen/watch.  He's not 
all about nay-saying and ridicule.   He's interested in the pan-society 
and time-honored traditions of mystical experiences, meditation, & 
conscious minds looking inward are all valuable and worth pursuing, but 
that science has yet to investigate and should w/o the trappings of 
religious dogma.

http://longnow.chubbo.net/salt-0200512-harris/salt-0200512-harris.mp3
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3975633975283704512

I particularly enjoyed his analogy of religion to a diamond hunt in the 
back yard of a churchgoing family... about how utterly convinced such 
citizens are that a huge refrigerator-sized diamond is back there 
someplace, what a bonding the experience is for them every weekend to 
go digging together, how they don't want to live in a universe without 
that diamond in their back yard...  you get the idea.


And my own take:  to Zues, we are all atheists.

Other notable Long Now Seminars 
http://www.longnow.org/projects/seminars/


Jonathan Gibson
www.formandfunction.com/word
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?

[Gibson Jonathan]

Thanks Dan,

I guess I missed that message in the bustle of my life.

As another after word, every single one of my Archt schoolmates 
contacted in no way buys the official story.  Every one of them cited 
the pile-up of those vertical support beams should have tipped the 
building, any building, off to one side or another.  None could think 
of examples of a zero footprint implosion w/o demolition.
Confusion over the complete sell-off of all material that could be 
studied was a mystery that baffles many - as well as no regulatory body 
issuing upgraded reqs in light of an unprecedented tripple-whammy 
systemic failure occurring the same day.
All believe WTC 7 is the lynchpin that can reveal what/who benefits 
from this canard.


Thought you'd like to know.

I'd like to know more about this grad-school gal who thinks she knows 
more than practicing architects about what should and shouldn't be able 
to stand.


- Jonathan -


On Sep 13, 2006, at 12:34 PM, Dan Minette wrote:





-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On

Behalf Of Dave Land
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 1:05 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable 
information?


On Sep 12, 2006, at 10:16 AM, Gibson Jonathan wrote:


BTW - Is it impertinent to ask whatever happened to our WTC
questions now?


Someone, I'm not sure who, but I think it may have been Dan Minette,
wrote to the list that Gautam's friend on the 9/11 commission was
disinclined to answer further questions at this time.



I was the one, indeed, who wrote that.  To clarify, though, Gautam's 
friend
was a staffer for the 9/11 commission, not a member of the commission. 
 She

is now a fellow grad. student at MIT.

As I said, she is a liberal Democrat at a school where even the most
conservative people tend to think poorly of the Bush.  However, she has
become rather vexed with the conspiracy theories that have 
proliferated. I
think she used some four letter words in response to the poll that 
stated
that somewhere about 30% to 35% of Americans believed that the US 
government

was somehow involved in 9-11besides questioning the poll's
methodologyshe was rather upset that very many people at all could
subscribe to crackpot theories.

So, that possible avenue is now closed...sorry.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l



Jonathan Gibson
www.formandfunction.com/word
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?

[William T Goodall]

On 13 Sep 2006, at 8:34PM, Dan Minette wrote:

 I think she used some four letter words in response to the poll  
that stated
that somewhere about 30% to 35% of Americans believed that the US  
government

was somehow involved in 9-11besides questioning the poll's
methodologyshe was rather upset that very many people at all could
subscribe to crackpot theories.



Most Americans believe in prophetic dreams; four in 10 say there were  
once "ancient advanced civilizations" such as Atlantis. 91.8% say  
they believe in God, a higher power or a cosmic force.


Crackpot theories are *very* popular in America.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-09-11-religion-survey_x.htm
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are  
the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Dave Land
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 1:05 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?
> 
> On Sep 12, 2006, at 10:16 AM, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
> 
> > BTW - Is it impertinent to ask whatever happened to our WTC
> > questions now?
> 
> Someone, I'm not sure who, but I think it may have been Dan Minette,
> wrote to the list that Gautam's friend on the 9/11 commission was
> disinclined to answer further questions at this time.


I was the one, indeed, who wrote that.  To clarify, though, Gautam's friend
was a staffer for the 9/11 commission, not a member of the commission.  She
is now a fellow grad. student at MIT.

As I said, she is a liberal Democrat at a school where even the most
conservative people tend to think poorly of the Bush.  However, she has
become rather vexed with the conspiracy theories that have proliferated. I
think she used some four letter words in response to the poll that stated
that somewhere about 30% to 35% of Americans believed that the US government
was somehow involved in 9-11besides questioning the poll's
methodologyshe was rather upset that very many people at all could
subscribe to crackpot theories.

So, that possible avenue is now closed...sorry.

Dan M. 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?

[Dave Land]

On Sep 12, 2006, at 10:16 AM, Gibson Jonathan wrote:


BTW - Is it impertinent to ask whatever happened to our WTC
questions now?


Someone, I'm not sure who, but I think it may have been Dan Minette,
wrote to the list that Gautam's friend on the 9/11 commission was
disinclined to answer further questions at this time.

Dave


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?

[Gibson Jonathan]

Hullo,

I sympathize.
As someone with a good nose for bull-shite I tend to side with your POV 
on this.  What we are all witness to is the old signal to noise ratio.  
As the publishing sphincters have been loosened {so to speak} first 
with the DTP revolution and now the web allows any & all manner of 
voices to be heard.  I don't have the time I'd like to explore this 
just now, but I think the general idea is to go back to those sources 
you've trusted and build a chain of related and trusted outlets from 
there.


More later, I'm sure.

- Jonathan -


BTW - Is it impertinent to ask whatever happened to our WTC questions 
now?




On Sep 12, 2006, at 4:27 AM, John W Redelfs wrote:


On 9/9/06, Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


This is a vital point: ABC was _given_ the public airwaves --
a multi-billion dollar gift. People had to decide to drive to the
theater and pay ten bucks to see the Moore film if they chose to.
ABC will air "Path to 9/11" for free for two consecutive nights to
an audience that has a hard time discriminating between reality
and fiction when the fiction is presented as reality.

I think I see a way forward:

ABC can run a crawler under the entire miniseries (giving it
that "breaking news" feel) stating "THIS PART HAPPENED ...
THIS PART IS FICTIONAL ... THIS PART IS PROPAGANDA".



I am deeply puzzled by the events of 9-11.  I am a conspiracy theorist 
and
have been from my earliest teen years in the 1950s.  But I have always 
felt

I could tell the likely conspiracy theories from the obvious bunk and
baloney.  I have never gone in for UFO testimonials, stories about 
pyramids
and so-called Watchers, the hollow earth and other weirdness.  I do 
find
likely, however, that multibillion dollar banks and other private 
financial
institutions have a great deal of influence on governments around the 
world
and that they are involved in the financing of our wars throughout 
history.
And since corruption in government is so commonplace in countries 
around the
world and throughout history, it is reasonable to suppose that these 
vast
accumulations of capital in private hands are in some cases involved 
in that

corruption and that huge bribes take place that are never detected or
prosecuted, and so forth.

But I am really confused about the 9-11 attacks.  What part happened?  
What
part is fiction?  What part is propaganda?  Sure Osama bin Laden may 
have
had something to do with it, but how sure are we that he was not 
working at
someone's behest?  If our government is genuinely concerned about 
terrorism,
why do they continue to drag their feet in securing our ports and 
borders?
If millions of illegal aliens come into our nation every year, how can 
our

government be sure that there are no terrorists coming in and bringing
weapons of mass destruction with them?  Were controlled demolitions 
involved

in the collapse of the WTC towers?  How can we be sure one way or the
other?  If the towers were brought down with controlled demolitions, 
who
could have done it?  Why would they do it?  Did not Hitler and his 
followers
have something to do with the burning of the Reichstag in Germany 
during the
rise to power of the Nazis in that country?  Could the attacks on 9-11 
have

been something like that?

My access to the Internet has caused me to become increasingly 
skeptical
about virtually all information sources.  I no longer know how to tell 
good
information from bad information, something I used to think I was good 
at.
I am now confused to the point where I do not know what to believe 
about
anything.  It seems like almost everything is smoke and mirrors and 
media

hype.

What do you think?  Is the official government story about 9-11 
accurate?
Or are we being fed an official line that is covering up something far 
more

sinister?  I just don't know any more.

John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Do you play World of Warcraft?  Let me know.  Maybe
we can play together.
***
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l



Jonathan Gibson
www.formandfunction.com/word
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

What should we believe when there is no reliable information?

[John W Redelfs]

On 9/9/06, Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


This is a vital point: ABC was _given_ the public airwaves --
a multi-billion dollar gift. People had to decide to drive to the
theater and pay ten bucks to see the Moore film if they chose to.
ABC will air "Path to 9/11" for free for two consecutive nights to
an audience that has a hard time discriminating between reality
and fiction when the fiction is presented as reality.

I think I see a way forward:

ABC can run a crawler under the entire miniseries (giving it
that "breaking news" feel) stating "THIS PART HAPPENED ...
THIS PART IS FICTIONAL ... THIS PART IS PROPAGANDA".



I am deeply puzzled by the events of 9-11.  I am a conspiracy theorist and
have been from my earliest teen years in the 1950s.  But I have always felt
I could tell the likely conspiracy theories from the obvious bunk and
baloney.  I have never gone in for UFO testimonials, stories about pyramids
and so-called Watchers, the hollow earth and other weirdness.  I do find
likely, however, that multibillion dollar banks and other private financial
institutions have a great deal of influence on governments around the world
and that they are involved in the financing of our wars throughout history.
And since corruption in government is so commonplace in countries around the
world and throughout history, it is reasonable to suppose that these vast
accumulations of capital in private hands are in some cases involved in that
corruption and that huge bribes take place that are never detected or
prosecuted, and so forth.

But I am really confused about the 9-11 attacks.  What part happened?  What
part is fiction?  What part is propaganda?  Sure Osama bin Laden may have
had something to do with it, but how sure are we that he was not working at
someone's behest?  If our government is genuinely concerned about terrorism,
why do they continue to drag their feet in securing our ports and borders?
If millions of illegal aliens come into our nation every year, how can our
government be sure that there are no terrorists coming in and bringing
weapons of mass destruction with them?  Were controlled demolitions involved
in the collapse of the WTC towers?  How can we be sure one way or the
other?  If the towers were brought down with controlled demolitions, who
could have done it?  Why would they do it?  Did not Hitler and his followers
have something to do with the burning of the Reichstag in Germany during the
rise to power of the Nazis in that country?  Could the attacks on 9-11 have
been something like that?

My access to the Internet has caused me to become increasingly skeptical
about virtually all information sources.  I no longer know how to tell good
information from bad information, something I used to think I was good at.
I am now confused to the point where I do not know what to believe about
anything.  It seems like almost everything is smoke and mirrors and media
hype.

What do you think?  Is the official government story about 9-11 accurate?
Or are we being fed an official line that is covering up something far more
sinister?  I just don't know any more.

John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Do you play World of Warcraft?  Let me know.  Maybe
we can play together.
***
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l