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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
57 matches
Mail list logo
