> >Got any >facts rather than just claims and opinions and assertions? I mean, >got any that someone like me will accept as facts? > >Sure. Anyone who has ever seen the results of an explosion knows >that the official story is fantasy. Photographs show rubble from the >building thrown across the street, past where the truck was parked. >There would be no rubble there if the only blast was the truck. >Blast from the truck would send rubble away from the truck and yet >we find it on the side away from the building. Explosives are >required to be in the building to send rubble in the other >direction. Simple physics.
And the other side? What does the opposite camp say? Or do all agree that those are simple facts of simple physics? Obviously not, eh, or it wouldn't be a controversy, if it's really a controversy rather than just fringe stuff. Anyway, does the opposition agree it's just simple physics? Say they do. The following question would be, and so? What does it prove? What's the favoured conclusion (both sides - or all sides, I guess there's more than two)? Keith >Kirk > >The eyes see what the mind knows > > >--- On Tue, 9/8/09, Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] U. S. Head of Military Intelligence >Publically States 9/11 was Staged Event >To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org >Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2009, 8:52 AM > > >No, he is outside the expectation of a military officer. Just too >>free a spirit perhaps. > >More like a deluded one perhaps, or a somewhat deranged one perhaps. > >Let's put it this way: it's sheer BS, it shouldn't even have been posted. > >>Who else retired would step up to the plate > >No need to put it quite so nobly. Step up with what, is the question. >Stepping up with fact-free conspiracisms and perhaps not being very >honest about it isn't a contribution to anything other than confusion. > >> - well maybe Benton K. Partin Brigadier Gen. USAF (Ret.) 8908 >>Captains Row Alexandria, Virginia 22308 703-780-7652. >> >><http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/PARTIN/okm.htm>http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/PARTIN/okm.htm >>oklahoma bombing > >My word, Kirk, you will have your conspiracies won't you. Got any >facts rather than just claims and opinions and assertions? I mean, >got any that someone like me will accept as facts? The list itself is >the same, it has a long and honorable tradition of being rigorous, as >you know. We're quite happy to explore possibilities or we wouldn't >have achieved what we have, but sheer conjecture dressed up as fact >isn't included. > >>Partin was a research scientist - invented the continuous rod warhead. >>very qualified guy. > >Made bombs, nice. Couldn't we have done without more and better bombs? > >Best > >Keith > > >>Kirk >> >>The eyes see what the mind knows >> >> >>--- On Tue, 9/8/09, Keith Addison >><</mc/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>wrote: >> >>From: Keith Addison >><</mc/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] U. S. Head of Military Intelligence >>Publically States 9/11 was Staged Event >>To: </mc/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>biofuel@sustainablelists.org >>Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2009, 3:11 AM >> >>>The stargate project was spook remote viewing. >> >>Does spook mean spy or ghost, in this context? >> >>Stargate was devoted to **psychic** remote viewing, "the purported >>ability to psychically 'see' events, sites, or information from a >>great distance". Bit superfluous to say it wasn't exactly successful. >>Echelon works at least, on the other hand, for instance, as opposed >>to pixie dust. >> >>>CIA put effort into it. >> >>I know, but I don't think that gives it much cred. The Soviets tried >>it too, that's why the US tried it. It achieved nothing. >> >>>Not as woo woo as you might think. >> >>Totally woo woo, IMHO, just as I thought. > > >>Sure, maybe some people are psychic or clairvoyant or even > >telepathic, maybe everybody is, or could be, maybe that's how the >>whole biosphere really works, who knows, but trying to use >>clairvoyance as a reliable technique for intelligence gathering or to >>support conspiracy theories is ludicrous. >> >>Wikipedia will do, very easy, no need to go any further: >><<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project> >> >>Anyway, is this to suggest that a wacko like long-retired ex-Major >>General Stubblebine has some credibility with his 9/11 conspiracy >>theories, or with anything else? Because of Stargate? >> >>Stubblebine was forced to retire in 1984 and was replaced because of >>his obsession with the paranormal. >><<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project#Major_General_Albert_Stubblebine>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project#Major_General_Albert_Stubblebine> >> >>Not very surprising - "The primary mission of military intelligence >>in the United States Army is to provide timely, relevant, accurate, >>and synchronized intelligence and electronic warfare support to >>tactical, operational and strategic-level commanders." Not a trivial >>matter. If you were a field commander would you want someone like >>Stubblebine doing that job for you? >> >>How do you explain the deception in the YouTube title? >> >>> > The headline says: "U. S. Head of Military Intelligence Publically >>> > States 9/11 was Staged Event". >>>> ... >>> > Ah, so he WAS a major general once, and indeed head of army >>>> intelligence, but he retired **25 years ago**.. Not quite the same >>> > thing eh. >>> > ... >>> > Why the misleading headline? Not deliberate? >> >>Hey, Kirk, do some checking first, will you, please? >> >>Best >> >>Keith >> >> >>>Kirk >>> >>>The eyes see what the mind knows >>> >> > >>>--- On Mon, 9/7/09, Douglas Woodard >>><</mc/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>From: Douglas Woodard >>><</mc/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] U. S. Head of Military Intelligence >>>Publically States 9/11 was Staged Event >>>To: >>></mc/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org >>>Date: Monday, September 7, 2009, 9:42 AM >>> >>>No conspiracy was needed. >>> >>>Bin Laden knew what the U.S. wanted: an excuse for U.S. armies in the >>>Middle East. >>> >>>The U.S. knew what Bin Laden wanted first: a major strike at the U.S., >>>by preference at the World Trade centre (they had tried before, and it >>>was highly symbolic). >>> >>>They differed on what the result of U.S. armies in the Middle East would >>>be. Points to Bin Laden. >>> >>>Doug Woodard >>>St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada >>> >>> >>> >>>Keith Addison wrote: >> >>> >><<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFP_zKYU3aE&NR=1>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFP_zKYU3aE&NR=1> >>>> >>>> Aarghh!! Youtube! Who's got 5 min 16 sec to spare? >>>> >>>> This is quicker... >>>> >>> > The headline says: "U. S. Head of Military Intelligence Publically >>>> States 9/11 was Staged Event". >>>> >>> > But is he the Head of US Military Intelligence? No. >>>> >>>> It takes only the first 5 sec of Youtube for him to state that his >>> > name is Major General Albert Stubblebine, and another 10 sec to find >>>> this at wikipedia: >>>> >>>> "Major General Albert "Bert" N. Stubblebine III was the commanding >>>> general of the United States Army Intelligence and Security Command >>>> from 1981 to 1984, when he retired from the Army. He is known for his >>>> interest in parapsychology and was a supporter of the Stargate >>>> Project." >>>> >>>> <<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine> >>>> >>>> Ah, so he WAS a major general once, and indeed head of army >>>> intelligence, but he retired **25 years ago**. Not quite the same >>> > thing eh. >>>> >>>> (Walked through any walls lately Bert?) >>>> >>>> That saved 5 min 1 sec, and gave a much better result. >>>> >>>> Why the misleading headline? Not deliberate? >>> > >>>> Matthew Rothschild of the Progressive again: "Enough of the 9/11 > >>> Conspiracy Theories, Already" ><<http://www.alternet.org/story/41601/>http://www.alternet.org/story/41601/> > >>> >>>> If it doesn't start off with the preferred conclusion-of-choice and >>>> then go in search of the "facts" to "prove" it, but instead simply >>> > goes in search of facts, along with all the patient and careful >>>> cross-checking that takes, and then emerges with a fact-based >>>> conclusion that checks out, or even with just some hard facts without >>>> a conclusion.... well then, that's different. But AFAIK it hasn't >>>> happened yet, and don't hold yer breath. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> > > > > Keith _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
