In a message dated 4/2/2013 2:42:50 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[address removed] writes:
You saw the folly in your
statement and corrected,
There was no folly in my statement. It was a simple statement of
fact. The towers would still be standing had they not been attacked.
Perhaps my statement was just too simple for your complex mind.
Okay, in my speculation the buildings were being
prepared for demolition.
By who? Who hired them? Who paid them? How many people involved who
NEVER STEPPED FORWARD after the collpase.
Explosives are set.
By who? When? IN AN OCCUPIED BUILDING?????? Please show a
single instance in this country in which an occupied building is prepped with
explosives for demo while occupied.
Because the N.Y.P.A. wants to do this with minimum
input by the
Minimum? Seriously? How abut ZERO. One call to one
newspaper or TV station and we have Channel whatever shooting footage of
explosives wrapped around a pillar five feet from where Heather is typing.
But the Port Authority doesn't count
on an attack by
Al-Qaeda. The buildings begin to topple.
In order to minimize the
damage and loss of life, the
order is given to set of the charges causing
to implode into there foot print.
Who decided that the buildings were going to fall and how does that person
coordinate with the person who could detonate these explosives? And how do
these explosives get detonated. Wireless is unreliable. And hard
wire would be visible and subject to being severed by the aircraft.
Al-Qaeda is just an unfortunate coincidence.
Unfortunate? Interesting word.
is one speculation given the visual record.
Given the visual record? This is a scenario that wouldn't make it on CASTLE
let alone in the real world.
the forensic evidence support, I don't know, I
haven't seen it.
Quite the stretch. In fact, absurd even for you.
The proposition is silly and the execution of such a project within a
project impossible to keep secret for number of obvious reasons:
1) NYPA is actually a committee of 12 individuals, appointed by the
governors of two separate states. EVERYTHING they do is subject to political
review by both governors.
2) ANY consideration to demolishing or remodeling or even painting the
bathrooms have to go through these individuals in either open meetings (secret
is possible, but with 12 people and two governors, not very likely for anything
bigger than determining the color of the bathrooms). 12 plus 2 governors
equals 14 individuals of varying degrees of trust and agendas. Why keep
such considerations private? The world would pretty much know if any such
pre 9/11 consideration was occurring.
3) No demolition company in the world would begin setting explosives
into place in a building that is occupied, no matter how low the occupancy
percentage was. What about competition for the job? Bids?
4) No demo company's insurance company would back such an
operation. No political appointee or appointee group would attempt to implement
such an operation without an enormous amount of public support. AND NOBODY
WOULD GIVE THE GO AHEAD TO DO THE WORK WHILE THE BUILDINGS ARE STILL
5) No business or its employees would sit still while explosives were
being planted on EVERY floor of their office building. Now you have 14
people PLUS all of the employees of a mythical demo company PLUS the 30,000 or
so people working in the building while explosives are being planted (assertions
that these mythical explosives were planted while the building was being
constructed are even more absurd. Requires even more mythical people to be
6) Making the decision and activating mythical explosives within a
40-60 minute timetable, with hundreds of rescue workers still inside is equally
absurd. This would require certain knowledge that the collapse was
imminent, and that would require an inspection and a decision to be made by
people who would be unlikely to be available through that chaos in order to make
such a decision. Absurd even for you, Mark.
7) Most normal people work for a paycheck. That means that someone
has to pay them for their work. There are a number of demo companies in
the NYC area,in fact in the U.S. Who pays them to install explosives and
who pays them to not point this out, and who prevents there from being any sort
of paper trail that would be snagged by investigators from a number of separate
agencies? To prepare buildings this size would require an enormous crew of
demo people ALL OF WHOM WOULD THEN HAVE TO BE IN ON THE CONSPIRACY OR MADE TO
KEEP SILENT. Dozens? Hundreds?
8) Why not posit space aliens, Jimmy Dimora, or Tc3's occult
nonsense? Or just back up and admit that your proposition is much more
absurd and unlikely than the scenario offered by the NIST report.
9) Or maybe just admit that the real world isn't your cup of tea and
that this particular event just is not an event you are qualified to think
about. Of course, I would speculate (and if you can, I can) that this is
all a coverup for a conspiracy involving you and Tc3. Tc3 planted the
explosives in secret at night after using sleeping gas on the security people
and you detonated them using the powers of your mind and rubbing a small crystal
ball that had been given to you by the impish and very evil O'Rourke, King of
Conclusion: There is a lot that we the civilian populace do not know
about 9/11--the events leading up to and those afterward. FBI ignoring
Islamic pukes taking jumbo jet flying lessons, Lax security at Logan, the
Bush/Cheney use of 9/11 to kickstart an unrelated war. And so on. THESE
are issues that need to be examined. Loons proposing absurd
explanations and impossible and highly unsubstantiated scenarios based
on their own paranoia and complete lack of knowledge about the real world do not
help at all.
Stick with your bible studies, Mark. This isn't your ballgame.
What exactly is illogical or irrational about
my statement? Perhaps I should amend it by stating that the towers
would MOST LIKELY still be standing today had they not been struck by
passenger aircraft that had been hijacked by Al-Quaeda loons. I won't
dignify these gutter people by calling them "operatives".
Of course I am presuming that the NYPA would
not have hired Mafia goons or SPECTRE or THRUSH to sneak in and blow them up
at another time, in order to make way for a "new skyline" as you so absurdly
stated in another of your "geee why don't they bring me ALL the evidence;
they must be hiding something if they don't show MEEEEEEE everything"
YOU made two statements that had no evidentiary
or logical connection with each other and have refused to justify
them. If that was your idea of an alternative explanation, then
perhaps aliens from outer space conspiring with NYC cab drivers to make new
city routes available might work also.
-- In a message dated 4/1/2013 2:37:11 A.M.
Eastern Daylight Time, [address removed]
There is no dissonance on my part
cognitive or otherwise.
As I said before, when I was
asked to give another
explanation with the evidence that I had
And as I said, the only evidence I have is the
record. I've been nothing but harmonious.
FACT: If Al-Quaeda loons had not flown passenger
aircraft into the towers, they would still
This is another illogical and
Tim Campbell wrote:
Nonsense, Mark Orel.
"So, what's left but to speculate. What
makes the most sense?
Three buildings that were losing occupancy.
Real estate that
still had real value. The buildings were at about
1/2 to 3/4 of
their projected life expediency. Why not make room for
more exciting skyline?"
AND you wrote:
As to the WTC specifically, you are mistaken to assume
that I believe that our Government colluded with Al-Qaeda.
think that was just an unfortunate coincidence.
The conspiracy, I
believe is much more mundane.
I believe the buildings were being
prepared for demolition,
to make way for a new
You accuse me of cognitive bias.
YOU are guilty of cognitive
YOU refuse to explain the link between
Sentence three and sentence one in the second paragraph. And you claim
that paragraph one does not imply anything? And you write both
paragraphs without a single bit of supporting evidence (as you also
If paragraph one does not place you
squarely into the conspiraloon camp, it at least places you in their
parking lot. And paragraph written without any evidence is an
obscene libel of men and women who had nothing to do with the attack on
the towers and nothing to do with the eventual collapse of the
FACT: If Al-Quaeda loons had not
flown passenger aircraft into the towers, they would still be standing
There is no spoon.
In a message dated 3/23/2013 4:10:10 A.M.
Eastern Daylight Time, [address removed] writes:
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
to think of all conspiracies as irrational,
is irrational, and
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
I do not know if the conclusions as stated in the
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
which it is brought down. Just as one need not have
written a mathematical proof to prove or disprove its validity.
I only know that I have questions that have not been
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
after reading YOUR opinions. YOUR own words and innuendos
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!)
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
Again your statements are not rationally based but
emotional, and intuitive.
All of the innuendos and implied
"questions" are yours.
11:30, Tim Campbell wrote:
Question: who is the real
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
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
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!
On[masked]:59, Tim Campbell
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
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY",
your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing
list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Mark R. Orel ([address removed])
from The Cleveland
To learn more about
Mark R. Orel, visit his/her member
Set my mailing list to email
me As they are
sent | In one daily
email | Don't send me mailing list
4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your
message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list
This message was sent by Tim Campbell ([address removed]) from
To learn more about Tim
Campbell, visit his/her member
profileSet my mailing list to email
me As they are
sent | In one daily
email | Don't send me mailing list
Meetup, POB 4668
#37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]