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
more snippage for brevity
Assuming that a large number of people can't be
wrong about something
because they are
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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]
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
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
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
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
-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
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 [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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
--- 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
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
--- 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
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
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,
31 matches
Mail list logo
