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

From: Tim C.
Sent on: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 10:23 AM
 
 
In a message dated 4/2/2013 2:42:50 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [address removed] writes:
Mr. Campbell:

You saw the folly in your statement and corrected,
good job. 
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 public. 
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 the buildings
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.


This 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.
What does
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 OCCUPIED!
 
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 involved.
 
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 the Leprechauns. 
 
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.
 
Tim Campbell




M. Orel  
 


On[masked]:10, Tim Campbell wrote:
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" posts.
 
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] writes:
Mr. Campbell: 

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 available.  
And as I said, the only evidence I have is the visual
record.  I've been nothing but harmonious. 

FACT:  If Al-Quaeda loons had not flown passenger aircraft into the towers, they would still
be standing today.  


This is another illogical and irrational statement. 


M. Orel
On[masked]:10, Tim Campbell wrote:
Nonsense, Mark Orel.
 
You wrote:
"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 a new,
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.
I 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 complex.
You accuse me of cognitive bias. 
YOU are guilty of cognitive dissonance.
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 admitted). 
 
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 towers.
 
FACT:  If Al-Quaeda loons had not flown passenger aircraft into the towers, they would still be standing today. 
 
There is no spoon. 
 
Tim Campbell
 
In a message dated 3/23/2013 4:10:10 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [address removed] writes:
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] 11:30, 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
 
 
 







--
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 Freethinkers.
To learn more about Mark R. Orel, visit his/her
member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 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 (
[address removed])
This message was sent by Tim Campbell (
[address removed]) from The Cleveland Freethinkers.
To learn more about Tim Campbell, visit his/her
member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 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 (
[address removed])
This message was sent by Mark R. Orel ([address removed]) from
The Cleveland Freethinkers.
To learn more about Mark R. Orel, visit his/her
member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

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