Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)
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 smart and well-connected is a tautology. I think that you are still missing the point, so let me try it again. snip 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?)
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?)
-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. snip 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?)
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. snip 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?)
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. snip 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?)
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. snip 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?)
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?)
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?)
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?)
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?)
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?)
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: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)
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?)
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?)
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?)
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?)
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?)
-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 mechanism of what happened and stating that GWB must have planned the whole thing. I'm pretty sure that Gautam's point is that, if there was a conspiracy, then many many people should have noticed something rather odd and unexplained in an area in which they had
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)
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?)
--- 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?)
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?)
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?)
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?)
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?)
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?)
-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?)
--- 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?)
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
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)
--- 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?)
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
9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)
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, what's
