-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Requesting Evidence Suitable for Court
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 06:59:17 +1000
From: Gerard Holmgren <holmgren@iinet.net.au>
To: (scholars list)
[[The problem with "controlled demolition" conspiracists is that they have
a strong tendency to believe that anyone who does not agree with their
interpretation of events must be a defender of the government.]]
Yes , there are some people who talk that that, but it makes no
difference to the science of the issue which proves that the buildings
were demolished. This started out as an attack on the demolition
evidence. The statement above seems to have morphed it into a complaint
that some people who promote demolition evidence have a bad attitude – a
complaint I agree with. Well, that complaint is fine in so far as it
goes, but I hope its not meant to masquerade as an argument against the
science of the demolition proof.
[[If you are closed to the possibility that any argument besides "controlled
demolition" deserves consideration, then don't waste your time:]]
I hope that this wasn’t directed at me, because one of the main problems
I have with the 911untruth movement is the tiresome chant of “only
controlled demolition “ with apoplectic tirades against anybody who
wants to mention any of the other of the evidence.
That’s not me. As you’ll see from my website
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
<http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eholmgren>
I present and promote all aspects of the evidence. Including demolition.
Like any aspect of the evidence, I’ll defend it against the foggy
thinking presented earlier by Michael. That was how this discussion
started. If you want to talk about the demolition evidence , then talk
about it. The science of it. Don’t try to obfuscate with drivel about
court cases, and calculations of working crew times, and complaints
about the bad attitude of some demolition advocates.
Although on that score, I’d like a $ for every time a demolition denier
has called me – as the entirely of their “argument”, a “whacko”
“conspiracy nut”, “loony”, “traitor”, “space alien”… etc.
It cuts both ways. Once can’t exactly say that the demolition deniers
always display a good attitude either. Who cares ? This is an important
issue, with high stakes and things get rough and tumble – on both sides.
While its better to stay nice if we can, that has nothing to with the
science.
[[If you think you have evidence and arguments which will hold up in court,
then take it to court, and I'll watch the proceedings with an open mind.]]
Am I just talking to myself here ? As I just explained in my previous
mail, you can’t take “persons unknown” to court and charge them with
“controlled demolition”. “Controlled demolition” as such is not even an
offence.
Now we’re talking about bad attitudes, this is what gets people snippy.
When someone just pretend that your counter argument doesn’t even exist,
and chatters away like a programmed robot, ignoring all responses. There
could hardly be anything ruder than that.
If you’re going to show that kind of disrespect, then don’t complain
when it gets dished back. Address the science of it or shut up and stop
wasting our time.
[[I am not closed-minded about this, but I have standards which must be met
before I'll take something like this seriously.]]
Perhaps those “standards” might include finding out about a little thing
called the law of gravity ? it still works, you know.
If you do find a scientist willing to deny that a free falling object in
a vacuum falls at 9.81 m/sec2, then do let us know. And if you do find a
scientist who’s willing to deny that an object meeting resistance falls
slower than an object not meeting resistance, then do let us know. And
since all three buildings collapsed at virtually the same speed as if
they had been falling through air….when they were allegedly falling by
smashing through their own structures, crushing themselves….
Moving right along…
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* mpwright9@aol.com [mailto:mpwright9@aol.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, 28 March 2006 4:24 AM**
*Subject:* Re: Requesting Evidence Suitable for Court
I have exposed several lies in the 9/11 Commission report and I beleive it
is a cover-up. I am no defender of the "official story." There are some
corrupt U.S. officials who belong in jail.
The problem with "controlled demolition" conspiracists is that they have
a strong tendency to believe that anyone who does not agree with their
interpretation of events must be a defender of the government.
That is nonsense, and personally I find it insulting.
Further, I would like to see the corrupt officials implicated in 9/11 be
charged
with crime, tried, and sent to prison.
That is a very practical goal, and I have extreme doubts about whether the
"controlled demolition" crowd will ever accomplish this. Along the way, the
minor industry they are spawning will earn some of its members nice fees for
books, lectures, and films.
If you want to review my independent 9/11 study, start here and follow the
links. If you are closed to the possibility that any argument besides
"controlled
demolition" deserves consideration, then don't waste your time:
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=10110
If you think you have evidence and arguments which will hold up in court,
then take it to court, and I'll watch the proceedings with an open mind.
Professor Jones apparently does not think he has arguments which would be
taken seriously by a peer-reviewed academic journal in physics. If he ever
publishes in such a journal, let me know.
And let me know if you ever find a professional organization with actual
experience in legitimate controlled demolition which will endorse this
argument.
I am not closed-minded about this, but I have standards which must be met
before I'll take something like this seriously.
Michael Wright
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Curtis su <curtisr@seattleu.edu>
Sent: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 08:16:49 -0800
Subject: Re: Requesting Evidence Suitable for Court
Michael,
The problem that you are having is a confusion over the logic of the
argument.
The skeptical position maintains that the full range of known facts
(presence of explosives, collapse dynamics, behavior of key individuals
and systems, etc.) cannot be explained by the official story. That is
the official story is logically impossible.
So you ask a series of questions that seem to be designed to expose the
complexity of any alternative to the official theory -- that Cheney, to
use Ruppert's claims as an example, was the person who was actually in
charge that day. But your point, this inherent point about complexity,
is not compelling.
The highly improbable is infinitely more likely than the logically and
physically impossible.
If, as it seems is obvious from the evidence, the official story is
logically and physically impossible, then some other version of the
events must be true, this other version would have to take into account
the various details that the official story cannot account for (and
generally it simply avoids mention of them, like not mentioning that 6
of the so-called hijackers are still alive, and by the way Griffin's
book contains the notes to allow you to personally track down the
interviews with these men so that you can see they really are the people
we have been told were hijackers not just someone with similar names).
In the end, this is the point that matters, the improbable is infinitely
more likely than the impossible.
Yours,
Richard
----- Original Message -----
*From:* mpwright9@aol.com
<javascript:parent.ComposeTo('mpwright9@aol.com');>
<javascript:parent.ComposeTo('skylax@comcast.net');>
*Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2006 5:28 PM
*Subject:* Requesting Evidence Suitable for Court
For those of you who believe that the WTC was brought down by a "controlled
demollition," I have these questions:
1. Do you have any evidence which will hold up in a court of law in
order to
convict those whom you think are responsible and get them sent to prison?
2. Do you have any sworn affidavits from anyone who saw the evil-doers
planting explosives and wiring them up in the WTC towers?
3. In support of the idea that 9/11 was an "inside job," and that "Bush
ordered it,"
do you have any eyewitnesses willing to testify of having heard Bush
give the order?
4. Have you initiated any litigation related to your claims about
"controlled demolition"?
5. If so, in what court? I would like to see the materials.
6. Has professor Jones submitted his "controlled demolition" paper to a
peer-reviewed
academic journal in PHYSICS?
7. Have you obtained an opinion from professionals who have conducted
legitimate
controlled building demolitions?
8. How many explosives would have to have been planted to bring down all
three
WTC towers?
9. How long would such a job have taken?
10. How many crew members would have to have been involved?
11. How could all of this been done without them being detected?
12. Theologian Griffin claims that at least six of the "alleged"
hijackers are still alive:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404
13. Where are these six men? I want to see them all together on a video and
holding a newspaper with a recent headline and their official IDs. I
want to see
whether their faces match the faces of six hijackers named by the FBI.
How many people are there in America named John Smith? Of the millions
of Middle
Easterners, is it not possible that there are some who bear the same
name? How
many Mohammeds do you think there are?
14. What is actor Charlie Sheen's interest in all this? Is he doing some
preliminary
public relations for a movie he wants to star in?
Michael Wright
Norman, Oklahoma
Search the archives for political-research at http://www.terazen.com/
Subscribe to the RSS feed for political-research at http://rss.groups.yahoo.com/group/political-research/rss
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/political-research/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
political-research-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment