Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

2006-09-27 Thread Charlie Bell
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

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

2006-09-27 Thread Deborah Harrell
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 >> > > Assuming that a large number of people can't be > > wrong about something >> > > because they are smart

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

2006-09-26 Thread bemmzim
-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 Arnet

RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

2006-09-25 Thread Deborah Harrell
> 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 sta

RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

2006-09-25 Thread Deborah Harrell
> 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 sta

RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

2006-09-25 Thread Deborah Harrell
> 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 sta

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

2006-09-24 Thread Charlie Bell
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

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

2006-09-24 Thread Andrew Crystall
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 scie

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

2006-09-24 Thread Julia Thompson
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

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

2006-09-23 Thread Charlie Bell
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

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

2006-09-23 Thread Warren Ockrassa
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

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

2006-09-23 Thread Warren Ockrassa
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 uncon

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

2006-09-19 Thread Nick Arnett
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 __

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

2006-09-19 Thread Charlie Bell
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 th

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

2006-09-19 Thread Nick Arnett
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] Mes

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

2006-09-18 Thread Charlie Bell
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 a

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

2006-09-18 Thread Nick Arnett
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 _

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

2006-09-18 Thread jdiebremse
--- 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 s

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

2006-09-18 Thread Nick Arnett
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 hole

RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

2006-09-18 Thread Dan Minette
> -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 in

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

2006-09-18 Thread Klaus Stock
> 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

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

2006-09-18 Thread Nick Arnett
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 inv

RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

2006-09-17 Thread Gautam Mukunda
--- 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 complet

RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

2006-09-17 Thread Dan Minette
> -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 in

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

2006-09-17 Thread Nick Arnett
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 e

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

2006-09-17 Thread William T Goodall
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 .

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

2006-09-17 Thread Dave Land
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 simil

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

2006-09-16 Thread William T Goodall
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 truste

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

2006-09-16 Thread Gautam Mukunda
--- 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

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

2006-09-16 Thread Dave Land
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 watch