I won't get into the to and fro of the fine points of this and that. Suffice it to say that for now, the official explanation of what happened and who did what works for me. There were errors and lots of questions around the WTC but I don't go along with intent to do harm by the US government. Storing fuel oil in the WTC seems a foolish thing to have done and who knows how much armaments were in the complex since I believe that the secret service (and the CIA) had offices in the complex. No pun intended but a potentially explosive situation. So lets say that we will agree to disagree at this time. Perhaps we can get back to the future of work and working. arthur
________________________________ From: Darryl or Natalia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon 6/25/2007 8:05 PM To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM Cc: Christoph Reuss; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] WTC was hit by a Military Jet Arthur, If you didn't find the YouTube video credible, it would suffice to offer that view, perhaps explaining why. A response tantamount to, "Well, if you can believe that, how about some swampland in Florida?" is not a contribution, nor even a retort, worthy of someone who should be trying to encourage worthwhile conversation on this public forum. Belief is the foundation of all perceptions, and agnosticism is merely yet another belief; but your belief about yourself utterly fails to explain why you can say of me that I "believe" in the "conspiracy" theory based on faith. Many agnostics subscribe to this theory, and they believe there is material evidence to support their views, so what does agnosticism have to do with your position? You have in the past, and by virtue of the way in which you poo-pooed Chris's submission, accepted the official version of the conspiracy of muslim terrorists having orchestrated 9-11. I specifically recall that you wrote in your acceptance of the official version as a likelihood. But really, are you trying to deflect this topic by playing at word games that address faith and belief, or are you just hoping to regain impartiality by hiding behind agnostic fences? I may find certain 9-11 theories credible, but 'believing' in something, to me, means that one has faith beyond reason and evidence to the contrary. I never used the word "believe" -- you did, and brought it up in a derogatory manner. The word is used in two ways today, and I will often apply it to mean "subscribing to a popular view" as much as the next person. There is plenty of reason to doubt the official explanation, and plenty of reason to determine that there was a criminal cover-up. That you assert it necessary to have a "faith based" view in order to accept 9-11 conspiracy theories is a very poor agnostic's argument against those who question the "logic" of the government/military/media issued muslim conspiracy, and exhibits yet another 'belief' of which you claim to feel incapable. Natalia. Cordell, Arthur: ECOM wrote: Wow. I see that you "believe" in The Conspiracy. Nothing I do or say can change your views. Nor do I want to change or trivialize your position. I am agnostic by nature so have a hard time taking a faith based stand pro or con vis a vis The Conspiracy, no matter how many grainy videos are put forward. I actually viewed the material on YouTube but found it lacking. We can argue all day whether a bomb went off, whether there was something under the plane, etc. (speak to anyone at the scene of a traffic accident or crime scene and try to get a straight story of what happened and who did what....there will be conflicting accounts) arthur snip, snip,snip........
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
