addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcredit-cardcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobe--smallglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1launch-new-window--smalllight-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

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

From: user 7.
Sent on: Saturday, March 23, 2013 4:43 AM

Hi. I hate to put it this way, but you do realize that it's 430 in the morning and your subject matter is going on 12 years old.  Even if there was foul play (and I'm not sayin that) there is no REMAINING evidence to be examined.  If it's impossible to prove anything with what you already have, then you're done.  File it with the Kennedy assassination.  And...of course we don't know everything about what happened that day; it was chaos.
On Mar 21,[masked]:39 AM, "Tim Campbell" <[address removed]> wrote:
>
>  
>  
> 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&
>>
>>
>> THIS makes sense?  A plot to destroy two INHABITED buildings, killing 30,000 or more people in order to make room for "an exciting new skyline"?
>>
>> He posits deliberate design flaws that ensured a collapse should the building ever be attacked by jumbo-jet-bombs.
>>
>> Shall we widen the conspiracy and look at insurance companies helping us remodel the Pentagon and the White House also?  They ARE getting to be rather old!
>>
>> Another bothersome paragraph written by Mister Orel.  He seems to have forgotten or is conveniently ignoring that little part where fully fueled jumbo jets hijacked by operatives of Al-Quaeda were flown into the buildings at better than 500 miles per hour.
>>
> THE TOWERS FELL IN A PANCAKE FASHION WITH THE FALLING PART ACTING LIKE A PISTON AND DRIVING THE AIR AND DEBRIS OUT OF THE FLOORS BELOW AS EACH WAS HIT DURING THE COLLAPSE--GIVING THE APPEARANCE OF CONTROLLED EXPLOSIONS. 
>  
> The straight-down collapse was enabled by the type of construction of the towers, a surrounding comb that acted like a channel. 
>
> A bit elaborate and just a bit impossible, IMO.  But if Mr Orel had provided a bit of evidence or anything showing a link between NYPA and Al-Quaeda, or anything showing secret cash funds begin paid out to a secret demolition company, but no, nada on the evidence front.
>
> Yet the conspiraloons have no problem making heinous accusations against men and women who are almost certainly completely innocent of any wrong-doing or conspiring in this case.  With nothing to back themselves up but misdirection and paranoia.
>
> And apparently, I am cursed with common sense, though, child that I am, I have trouble abiding fools and loons and ignorance.
>
> Especially since you obviously do not trust any of the data that HAS been made available
>
> idiotic assertions
>
> Where the "irrational" aspect enters into the conversation is when people with absolutely no qualifications whatsoever, no direct or even indirect connection to an event, begin to tout "theories" that require such expenditures of energy and people in order to succeed that secrecy becomes almost impossible, and while none of the hundreds of trained professional investigators miss the truth, only THEY see the elephant behind the sofa and the secret passages in the Kama Sutra that reveal the truths hidden to us mere mortals.
>
> Really?  An interesting observation.  So the worst attack on American soil (in terms of deaths) since the Civil War was really the fortuitous prelude to a giant urban renewal project?   What evidence--real evidence, not internet musings by nutjobs--that two of the largest towers in the world were slated for demolition?  And are you saying that this attack simply worked into the plans of the developers?  You are insulted when I accuse you of irrationality and being a loon, but YOU wrote the above paragraph.  And even if developers were looking at changing the usage of the area and removing the existing structures, do you really see this attack as an "inept" government maneuver, perhaps to aid the developers? 
>
> Good for you.  Most of us watched the second aircraft fly into the second tower.  Witnesses described the first crash and that was verified by FAA and others on the ground and inside the towers after the crashes.  Aircraft wreckage was found inside the debris of both towers, at the Pentagon, and in a field in PA.  Bush was at a grade school, but perhaps Cheney and several minions were waiting in the basements of both towers in order to set off timed charges that would then bring the towers down, despite the destructive capabilities of two giant fully-fueled jumbo jets hitting tall buildings at about 300 or 400 miles per hour.  But we won't come to any conclusions until Mark Orel (structural engineer, physicist,aeronautical engineer, and expert in Hungarian and Taiwanese cuisine) has had the chance to study the structural forensic data.  ONLY THEN will we be able to sleep at night, knowing that Mark Orel and his own minions have drawn the correct conclusions.  Sheesh.
>
> Perhaps a grant from the government will enable Mr. Orel to devote the time to this topic that it deserves. Obviously, the many agencies of the government and the thousands of people who worked on this were all under the way of government "social engineers".
>
> Perhaps Mister Orel and his minion Rus can co-publish an article in SA or a book blowing the lid off this giant conspiracy.  Boy, won't I look foolish then?!!!! lol
>
>
>
> M. Orel
> P.S.
>
> For every conspiraloon there is a corresponding skepdick. 
>
>
>
> On[masked]:12, Tim Campbell wrote:
>>
>> Another bothersome paragraph written by Mister Orel.  He seems to have forgotten or is conveniently ignoring that little part where fully fueled jumbo jets hijacked by operatives of Al-Quaeda were flown into the buildings at better than 500 miles per hour.  He also has conveniently forgotten about the third and fourth aircraft that were NOT targeting New York.  Shall we widen the conspiracy and look at insurance companies helping us remodel the Pentagon and the White House also?  They ARE getting to be rather old!
>>  
>> Oh and btw, I also have a background in construction.  I have been around construction since the age of 12! (yes, 12! My father was a builder and I began working as a poorly-paid go-fer on Saturdays and during the summer when I was about 12!  I am STILL involved with construction, but on a peripheral basis--handling low voltage applications and wiring.
>>  
>> And I have studied physics.  And apparently, I am cursed with common sense, though, child that I am, I have trouble abiding fools and loons and ignorance.
>>  
>> Tim
>
>
>
>
> On[masked]:51, Tim Campbell wrote:
>>
>> I am considering the invention of another new word: conspiraloon.  Not official yet, but considering what we have seen this past week or so, am giving it thought, child that I am! lol
>>  
>> Mark Orel has admitted to not having evidence to support his "speculation".  Since he has presented none, I think we are safe in agreeing with him and accepting this assertion!
>>  
>> However, he has offered speculation regarding New York Port Authority and unnamed persons that if true would constitute both the second most horrific crime of  all time--after the holocaust arguably--AND the most elaborate and sophisticate plot of all time. 
>>  
>> However, he has been a tad disingenuous in his use of sleight of hand and misdirection in order to ull off this trick of illogic.
>>  
>> He 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?"
>>  
>> THIS makes sense?  A plot to destroy two INHABITED buildings, killing 30,000 or more people in order to make room for "an exciting new skyline"?
>> A plot that required coordination and secrecy among dozens of New Yorkers, a committee of 12 political appointees (NYPA consists of twelve people, six appointed by NY governor and six appointed by NJ governor), and the vehemently anti-US Al-Quaeda.
>> He posits deliberate design flaws that ensured a collapse should the building ever be attacked by jumbo-jet-bombs.  And failing that, he posits the standard conspiraloon assertion that because the collapsing buildings APPEAR to be the result of pre-set demolition explosives, they MUST be the result of pre-set demolitin explosives.
>>  
>> However, he fails to answer the obvious questions:
>>     Who set these mysterious explosives?
>>     How were they set in OCCUPIED buildings secretly?
>>     How was this process kept secret given that trained professional demolition crews are neither stupid minions nor robots? 
>>     How did the plotters know that Al-Quaeda was going to strike, and how did they know which floors would be struck?
>>  
>> Mister Orel questions the timing of the collapses.  Yet these differences could very easily been the result of such mundane factors as strike-angle or strike-speed or even the difference in the floors struck.  But the conspiraloons see conspiracy in all of these things.
>>  
>> Scenario 1  -- as touted by that pesky evil government:
>>  
>> Al-Quaeda plotted an attack on the U.S., sent a number of Saudi citizens to the US. They trained briefly on piloting, then hijacked four aircraft.  FOUR AIRCRAFT, MARK.  Two of them targeted the WTC; one targeted the Pentagon, the fourth targeted either the White House or the Capitol.  The two struck the WTC towers about forty minutes apart.
>>  
>> The two towers eventually collapsed due to intense hear that distorted and weakened the steel in the floors struck  (each by a fully fueled jumbo jet flying at more than 500mph upon impact).
>>  
>> btw, everyone saw this.  There IS evidence to support what I have just said.
>>  
>> THE TOWERS FELL IN A PANCAKE FASHION WITH THE FALLING PART ACTING LIKE A PISTON AND DRIVING THE AIR AND DEBRIS OUT OF THE FLOORS BELOW AS EACH WAS HIT DURING THE COLLAPSE--GIVING THE APPEARANCE OF CONTROLLED EXPLOSIONS. 
>>  
>> The straight-down collapse was enabled by the type of construction of the towers, a surrounding comb that acted like a channel. 
>>  
>> Scenario 2 -- as imagined by the conspiraloons.
>>  
>> NYPA plotted with a secret demolition crew that snuck in and set explosives on specific floors of three buildings occupied by more than 30,000 people. None of those demolition men had family associated with WTC nor did any of them have consciences.  The plotters (New York Port Authority political hacks) then coordinated the demolition with Al-Quaeda's attack, and set off the explosives by remote control after each towers was struck by its assigned jumbo jet. 
>>  
>> All this in order to clear the land for a new center.  And EVERYONE kept it secret! 
>>  
>> A bit elaborate and just a bit impossible, IMO.  But if Mr Orel had provided a bit of evidence or anything showing a link between NYPA and Al-Quaeda, or anything showing secret cash funds begin paid out to a secret demolition company, but no, nada on the evidence front.
>>  
>> Yet the conspiraloons have no problem making heinous accusations against men and women who are almost certainly completely innocent of any wrong-doing or conspiring in this case.  With nothing to back themselves up but misdirection and paranoia.
>>  
>> Tim Campbell
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> In a message dated 3/17/2013 3:33:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [address removed] writes:
>>>
>>> The N.Y. Port Authority was not subject to N.Y.C. building codes. 
>>>
>>> I never claimed to have evidence to support my speculation.
>>> I only had questions regarding the evidence used to support
>>> the conclusions of the N.I.S.T. Final Report of 2002.  Up to
>>> 2003~2004 that information was not fourth coming.  The report
>>> was a joke by any standard you would care to use.   Read it as
>>> scientific paper and tell me what you think.  Also it offered no
>>> conclusion to the collapse of WTC 7.  The 911 truth commission
>>> was also something of a farce.  Again, information that would clear
>>> up misconceptions was suppressed.  The government agencies
>>> that were tasked to investigate these types of catastrophes
>>> abandoned their own standards of investigation and openness.   
>>>
>>> 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? 
>>>
>>> What did we see?  We saw three buildings perfectly implode.   
>>> The first tower to collapse was the second tower to be hit. 
>>> WTC 2 fell after only burning for 56 min.  WTC 1 fell next,
>>> after burning for only 102 min.  WTC 7, fell without any direct
>>> impact at 1720hrs.  To implode a building requires a great
>>> deal of study of that buildings structure.  To make one building 
>>> perfectly implode into its own foot print, would normally take
>>> months of planning.  To have three "naturally" implode due to fire...
>>> I would think if someone were to calculate the odds of this happening
>>> before 9-11, it would be so unlikely, that anyone considering it
>>> might be called a lunatic.   If a controlled implosion went off
>>> before the safe guards could be set in place, like warping the
>>> support columns with geotextile fabric and chain link fencing
>>> to prevent pieces of debris from flying out and damaging other
>>> structures, we might see something like the collapse of WTC's 
>>> 1, 2 and then 3.   Three buildings two identical structures, and
>>> a third of different design.  And after the fact we discover that
>>> the designer considered a collision of a 707 into the WTC
>>> towers.  Not to mention the N.I.S.T.'s own white paper which
>>> showed an analysis of an impact of a jet traveling at 600 m.p.h. 
>>> It's hard enough for someone with an understanding of engineering
>>> to comprehend, what should others think who have no
>>> comprehension of even basic construction details?   Who in
>>> their right mind would ever consider that a building, any building,
>>> let alone three built on this scale, would be designed to fail? 
>>> Why should I believe something just because I'm told too? 
>>> The evidence should be clear and open, it was not, if it is now,
>>> fine, but now people are certain to what they know to be true. 
>>>
>>>
>>> M. Orel
>>> "I know nothing except for the fact of my ignorance."
>>>   - Socrates
>>>
>>>
>>> On[masked]:29, Chris K wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mark-
>>>>
>>>> You mentioned that you don't think there really was a 9/11 conspiracy but rather that the demolition of World Trade Center seven had already been planned. Can you elaborate on this?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> On[masked]:08, Randy Pelton wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If the buildings were be prepared for demolition, then there would be records of this. You can't just rig a building for demolition and then do it. It requires permits. The city planning department would have to be aware of these plans. In the absence of evidence to support this claim, one is foolish to accept it or to perpetuate it. So please provide evidence Mark.
>>>>
>>>> Randy
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Tim Campbell <[address removed]>
>>>> To: [address removed]
>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 16,[masked]:18 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [humanism-174] "The Bible" on History Channel
>>>>
>>>> In a message dated 3/16/2013 4:08:37 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [address removed] writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Mark Orel wrote the above paragraph.  Insults, ridicule, and qualifications or lack of aside, can Mister Orel explain what his last sentence means?  Any evidence of such preparation--i.e. documentation?  And what if anything does the desire of building owners possible have with the events of 9/11?  Or are you implying that bin Ladin was in cahoots with the building owners?  Until you can explain what you meant by this paragraph, I stand by all of my previous comments. 
>>>>  
>>>> Btw, if the building owners wanted a new complex, but were never in contact with Al-Quaeda, then 9/11 was a lucky break for the owners, but NOT a conspiracy, mundane or otherwise.
>>>>  
>>>> This is not about being right. This is about rational thinking. 
>>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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]

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