Re: [humanism-174] "The Bible" on History Channel

From: Mark R. O.
Sent on: Saturday, March 23, 2013 4:10 AM
Mr. Campbell: 

I implied nothing beyond what I wrote.  The implications
came from you, do to your bias.  My main points were,
and still are: "To point out that there are conspiracies
out there that deserve, that require our attention.  And
to think of all conspiracies as irrational, is irrational, and
dangerous".  

To have Government agencies that are tasked to investigate,
do so and not abandon their own standards.  And allow
reasonable access to the evidence that leads to whatever
conclusions are arrived at. 

I do not know if the conclusions as stated in the N.I.S.T reports
are correct or not.  I would like to evaluate the evidence for myself. 
And yes I do think I have the skills to do so.  One does not need to
design a 100 story building to evaluate its structural integrity or the
manner in which it is brought down.   Just as one need not have
ever written a mathematical proof to prove or disprove its validity.  
I only know that I have questions that have not been satisfied. 

And again I thank you for further demonstrating cognitive bias.

"And btw, there is a difference between demonstrating cognitive bias and expressing
an opinion based on conclusions made after evaluating evidence.  Especially opinions
expressed after reading YOUR opinions.   YOUR own words and innuendos demonstrated
that you are at least sympathetic to the conspiracy nuts, ( and there is sometimes a
difference between a conspiracy theorist and a nut, though the line is sometimes blurry!)

 
And apparently after spreading your own "don't trust the official conclusions until I have
reviewed the data and been satisfied" innuendos and implied "questions", you really
do not have any point at all.

 
Now the events were all just unfortunate coincidences that may or may not have to do
with a desired urban renewal project, or an insurance scam, or Al Quaeda or something
unknown. " 


Again your statements are not rationally based but emotional, and intuitive. 
All of the innuendos and implied "questions" are yours. 


M. Orel


On[masked]:30, Tim Campbell wrote:
Question: who is the real "skepdick"?
 
To be clear, as with any scientific theory, I accept CONDITIONALLY the conclusions of the NIST regarding the attack on and collapse of the WTC towers--1, 2, and 7.  I accept these conclusions CONDITIONALLY for two reasons:
 
1) their conclusions were plausible and supported by the evidence THAT THEY PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC.  One can certainly question whether or not everything they saw was presented to the public or whether they saw everything that there was to see, but questioning without contrary evidence is one thing, doubting without contrary evidence is simply being contrary for the sake of being contrary--a characteristic of the conspiraloons.  Based on location and timing, pretty much everyone in the civilized world witnessed the events and saw the tragedy unfold countless times from numerous angles. 
 
2) Neither I nor Mr. Orel (unless I am mistaken) has ever been involved with the design, engineering, building, servicing, or demolition of a 100+ floor office building.  My own experience with structure has been limited to residential homes and small office buildings.  And none of the structures I have been involved with were ever impacted by flying aircraft.  Therefore, I am not qualified to demand more and more data from the NIST or any other investigative agency (except for the FBI, but that is a different topic and SHOULD be looked at for evidence of incompetence and hubris that borders on the criminal!).   That all said, I have not seen a single competing scenario that is at all plausible or even sane. 
 
None of the competing "theories" has ever been supported by any sort of actual evidence.  Innuendo, implication, occult symbolism, and disconnected threads are not evidence.
 
Mr. Orel is skeptical about the conclusions drawn by the NIST. He is skeptical while admitting to having no contrary evidence. Yet he has not shown himself to be skeptical about the conspiracy assertions that were posted here by Rus, assertions that the towers had been designed purposely to fail and/or purposely prepared with demolition devices that were the actual causes of the towers' collapses.  I, on the other hand, am conditionally accepting of the official explanations with the caveat that they are plausible but not necessarily 100% accurate, but am both skeptical AND doubting of all of the conspiracy scenarios that have been presented by the conspiracy theorists.
 
If that makes ME a skepdick, what does that make Mr. Orel? Is he a conspiraloon or himself a skepdick? Or does he just like posting contrary opinions without any regard for rationality or reality?  I have my own opinions on the matter; others may decide as they wish!
 
And since I can almost see Mark T rolling his eyes at yet another post on this topic, I would like to make this my last effort here on this topic.  Most of you understand what I have been saying, and those who do not will never be able to!
 
Tim Campbell

On[masked]:59, Tim Campbell wrote:


And btw, there is a difference between demonstrating cognitive bias and expressing an opinion based on conclusions made after evaluating evidence.  Especially opinions expressed after reading YOUR opinions.   YOUR own words and innuendos demonstrated that you are at least sympathetic to the conspiracy nuts, ( and there is sometimes a difference between a conspiracy theorist and a nut, though the line is sometimes blurry!) 
 
And apparently after spreading your own "don't trust the official conclusions until I have reviewed the data and been satisfied" innuendos and implied "questions", you really do not have any point at all. 
 
Now the events were all just unfortunate coincidences that may or may not have to do with a desired urban renewal project, or an insurance scam, or Al Quaeda or something unknown. 
 
Whatever. Better to be a skepdick than a conspiraloon. 
 
Tim Campbell
 
In a message dated 3/21/2013 9:39:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [address removed] writes:
 
 
In a message dated 3/21/2013 4:35:10 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [address removed] writes:
Mr. Campbell:

I can't thank you enough.  Your responses are a perfect example
of cognitive bias, I couldn't have asked for better.  The quotes below
are yours, and in direct response to me.  You have a predetermined
view of what a conspiracy theorist should be and have made me fit that
profile within your own thoughts.  
Hardly. 


Just as a couple of direct examples.  I clearly stated that Al-Qaeda did not
collude with the Government.  I said that Al-Qaeda was an unfortunate
coincidence.  Yet you continue to assert that I believe that Al-Qaeda
conspired either with the Government or the developers.    I never said
there was a plot to kill 30,000.   I never said or posited that the design flaws
were deliberate.
Then what exactly IS your point? What exactly do design flaws or NYPA concerns about occupancy have to do with 9/11? YOU are the one who IMPLIED a connection, basically that somehow the two were related.  If they are not, then there IS NO conspiracy.  If they are, then HOW? 
 
If you are not positing that these alleged design flaws were deliberate, then who cares? Both buildings collapse after the majority of occupants had evacuated.  Most, but not all, of those who were killed were either responders or those trapped on the floors above the impact points.
 
The two buildings were struck by jumbo jets that were ALMOST fully fueled (of course a certain amount of fuel had been expended prior to impact, but both aircraft were fueled for cross country flights, so close enough).  They collapsed, but they held together long enough for a substantial evacuation to take place.  Unfortunately, the people above the impact points were arguably doomed as there just was no technology available for mass rescue (speculation on my part)
 
In other words, Mister Orel, if there was no conspiracy between NYPA or other American agency and Al-Quaeda, and no deliberate design flaws, and no indication whatsoever of previously set demolition devices, then what the hell was your point?  What do you expect to glean from the data other than the facts as set above?


In addition you continue to call me a fool and a "loon". 

My comment concerned the data and the lack of openness to that data. 
I was asked to give an alternative explanation to the collapse of the WTC. 
I did so, and supplied the only evidence I had, which was the visual record. 
When I asked only to be able to view the evidence that allowed the N.I.S.T. to
arrive at their conclusions, I was derided.  These same conclusions
you use as evidence, but again, are only the conclusions not the evidence. 

As an aside and a point of logic.  How can the airliners be fully fueled at the time of
impacted, after stand-by time, taxi and flight time?  Airliners are never fully fueled in
preparation for flight unless the distance requires it.   

And although the following link is not directly related to the WTC it is germane to
the discussion.  Op-ed though it is. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/opinion/krugman-marches-of-folly.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130318&_r=1&

Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy