Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Fantasy » alt.fan.tolkien » OT Simple Math
OT Simple Math [message #254120] Mi, 19 April 2006 13:30
onq  
Simple Math demonstrate that the Official 9/11 Account is a Fabrication
by Elias Davidsson

www.globalresearch.ca 29 April 2005

The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DAV504A.html


The term “official 9/11 account” refers to the account of the events of
Sept. 11, 2001, as presented in June 2004 by the Commission of Inquiry
appointed by President George W. Bush, and complemented by other official
documents issued by US government agencies. This account includes
various details, such as identities of the alleged hijackers, identities
of aircraft, timelines and other data used to prove that the crime of
9/11 was perpetrated by the named individuals under the orders or the
inspiration of Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders.

It can be demonstrated by two straightforward mathematical techniques
that the official acccount on 9/11 is simply not true.

The first method uses boolean algebra. The other method is based on
probability theory.

Boolean algebra used to invalidate the official 9/11 account

Boolean algebra deals not with numbers but with truth values. In Boolean
mathematics we have only two values: True and false. One of the primary
operations in boolean algebra is the operator AND. In the equation A
AND B we have:

Given A = true and B = true, then A AND B = true
Given A = true and B = false, then A AND B = false
Given A = false and B = true, then A AND B = false
Given A = false and B = false, then A AND B = false


The AND relationship can be illustrated by three bulbs connected in
series. The truth value for each bulb is ON or OFF. In order for bulb C
to be ON, both A and B must be ON. If either A or B or both are OFF, C
will not obtain electrical current and be OFF. The same would apply to a
longer series of bulbs connected in series.

Applying the AND relationship to the official 9/11 account, we posit that

in order for the official account to be true, a number N of fundamental
allegations must be proved as true. If any one of these fundamental
allegations are false, the entire official account is false.

Thus, it is only necessary to demonstrate that a single fundamental
allegation in the official account is false for the entire account to be
deemed false. Fundamental allegations include the following (a
non-exhaustive list), all of which are part of the official version on
9/11:

1. No plans existed prior to 9/11 to protect the Pentagon and the White
House against approaching aircraft (if such plans actually existed,
questions would arise why they were not implemented and who prevented
their implementation).
2. The idea that the World Trade Center could be attacked from air, did
not occur to any US government agency before 9/11 (if it is shown that
the idea actually was discussed by US military agencies, the question
would arise why it was not taken into consideration to protect these
assets).
3. All persons named by the FBI as hijackers actually boarded the four
aircraft which crashed on 11 Sep. 2001 (if they did not board the
aircraft, the hijackings could not have taken place).
4. The planes which crashed on 11 Sep. 2001 were flight number AA11 (tail
number N334AA), flight number AA77 (tail number N644AA), flight number
UA93 (tail number N591UA) and flight number UA175 (tail number N612UA)
(if the flight and tail number are not those listed here, the question
arises whether the planes that allegedly crashed at the known locations
were the same ones which departed from the listed airports).
5. Flight AA11, a Boeing 767, left from Logan Airport, Boston, and
crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York (some
critical assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of
this flight number, the airport of departure and on the type of
aircraft).
6. Flight AA77, a Boeing 757, left from Dulles Airport, Washington,
D.C., and crashed into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. (some critical
assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of this
flight number, the airport of departure, the type of aircraft and the
claim that this aircraft crashed on the Pengaton).
7. Flight UA175, a Boeing 767, left from Logan Airport, Boston, and
crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center in New York (some
critical assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of
this flight number, the airport of departure and on the type of aircraft.
8. Flight UA93, a Boeing 757, left from Newark Airport and crashed into
a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania (some critical assumptions made in
the official story rely on the identity of this flight number, the
airport of departure and on the type of aircraft).
9. The US military were not notified in time to scramble military jets
and prevent the crashes of the hijacked aircraft (had they been notified
in time, questions would arise why they did not scramble military jets in
time and who was negligent).
10. President George W. Bush did not know that “America was under
attack” before entering the primary school in Florida on the morning of
9/11 (should it transpire that President Bush actually knew what was
going on in New York as he entered the school, questions would arise as
to his foreknowledge of the crime).
11. The South and North towers of the World Trade Center as well as WTC
no. 7 collapsed due to fire (if evidence can be produced that steel
buildings cannot be made to collapse by fire, it would suggest that they
were made to collapse by explosives, as actually suggested by a number of
witnesses).
12. Numerous calls from hijacked passengers were made to family members
and airline personnel with cell phones (if it can be shown that at the
particular moment of the phone calls the planes were flying above 8,000
feet and/or at the speed of 500 miles per hour or more, it would suggest
that the cellphone stories are a fabrication, because of the technical
high improbability of succeeding such calls from high altitude and/or
high speed).

If any one of the above allegations is found to be false, the official
account must be put in doubt or rejected and the suggestion of official
deception or criminal complicity must be considered as justified.

Probability theory used to invalidate the official 9/11 account

It is also possible to “disprove” the official 9/11 account by using
probability theory. If it is shown that the probability of the official
account is so low as to approach zero, it can be safely maintained that
the official account is untrue.

The probability of a compound event to have occurred is the product of
all sub-events necessary to accomplish the compound event. The
underlying assumption is that the probability of each sub-event is
independent of the probability of another sub-event. The following
sub-events appear independent of each other. All of them have a low to
extremly low probability. In order to simplify the demonstration, we
arbitrarily assigned a probability of 0.1 (or 10 percent) to each of the
following selected propositions which underpin the official account.
Skeptics may try other combinations of probabilities, higher or lower, in
order to test the methodology.

1. Four young, healthy and educated Muslims who possess large chunks of
cash and like to party, can be expected to prepare for many months to
sacrifice their lives in a murderous hijacking operation.

2. Four groups of Muslims can be expected to board four different
aircraft in the United States on the same day without raising suspicion.

3. Young muslim men, known to have been in Afghanistan, would be
expected to receive a visa to the United States in order to learn to fly.

4. Foreign Muslims who plan to hijack planes in the United States, can
be expected to choose to train in US, rather than Arab, flight schools in
order to prepare their hijackings.

5. A person planning a hijack operation in the US could be expected to
tell an official US employee about his criminal motives, as Mohamed Atta
had reportedly done in his encounter with Johnelle Bryant of the
Agricultural Department in Florida.

6. Muslims who meticulously plan a hijacking operation in the United
States, could be expected to "forget" a Kor’an on a bar stool on the eve
of their operation and a flight manual in Arabic on the morning of their
operation, in a rented car left near the airport from which they intended
to hijack a plane.

7. Hijackers can be expected to fly from another town to the airport
from which they intend to commit the hijacking operation merely two hours
before their intended hijacking should start.

8. US military authorities can be expected to schedule, for exactly the
date of the murderous events, war games and exercises including simulated
plane hijackings and planes crashing on government buildings.

9. Conversations from cell phones made from passenger aircraft can be
expected to function at any altitude and speed.

10. Passports of hijackers could be expected to be found on the crash
sites, regardless of the lack of bodies and wreckage.

11. The US air force could be expected to bungle its attempts to
intercept the hijacked planes.

12. No plans could have existed at the Pentagon to protect US government
buildings against the risk of an accidental or malicious plane crash.

13. Neither the CIA nor the FBI could have any prior knowledge of the
identities and whereabouts of the alleged hijackers before 9/11.

14. A law enforcement authority, such as the FBI, could be expected to
show little interest in investigating mass murder.

15. A government would be expected to oppose an investigation of a
terrorist attack against its own country.

16. Terrorists can be expected to commit mass murder without making any
demands.

17. Five individuals with only packing knives can be expected to
overwhelm fifty adults in a plane.

18. Hijackers in three different planes can be expected to successfully
enter the pilot cabin without raising alarm.

19. A person who had never flown a Boeing passanger jet could be
expected after a little simulator training to plunge the aircraft
successfully between the first and second floor of the side of the
Pentagon, even under conditions of extreme stress.

20. A crashed plane can be expected to leave any visible trace.

21. A high rise steel building can be expected to collapse on its own
footprint after a raging fire.

22. Debris from a crashed plane can be expected to be found many miles
from the crash site.

The compound probability of the above events is the product of the
individual probabilities or 0.1**22 (0.1 in the 22 exponential). The
actual figure is so small that it practically nears zero.

If one accepts the above propositions (even by increasing their
probability of occurrence to 0,5), it follows that their compound
probability is near zero. In fact, it suffices that a subset of the
above propositions be shown to have a compound probability of near zero,
to invalidate the official account on 9/11.

While both methods demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the U.S.
authorities have fabricated the official account, the question arises why
they have done so, what are they covering up, who perpetrated the mass
murder of 9/11 and how was it accomplished. These questions are not
pursued further here. As long as the above statements of fact are not
fully investigated, the U.S. administration must be considered as
covering up the crime and thus as the prime suspect in this crime against
humanity
Re: OT Simple Math [message #254124 ] Mi, 19 April 2006 22:59
BaJoRi  
"Michael O'Neill" <onq [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:44461F40.E7C5E5F9 [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie...
> Simple Math demonstrate that the Official 9/11 Account is a Fabrication
> by Elias Davidsson

Here you go Mike. Seems you lost your last one.

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/build.html
Re: OT Simple Math [message #254128 ] Do, 20 April 2006 18:50
onq  
BaJoRi wrote:
>
> "Michael O'Neill" <onq [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie> wrote in message
> news:44461F40.E7C5E5F9 [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie...
> > Simple Math demonstrate that the Official 9/11 Account is a Fabrication
> > by Elias Davidsson
>
> Here you go Mike. Seems you lost your last one.
>
> http://zapatopi.net/afdb/build.html

Yaaas, I'd say you used to go to a lot of trouble to prevent logical
thought getting in to your brain, Tinfoil-boi.

M.
Re: OT Simple Math [message #254131 ] Fr, 21 April 2006 04:21
BaJoRi  
"Michael O'Neill" <onq [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:4447BBEC.E9B0A649 [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie...
> BaJoRi wrote:
>>
>> "Michael O'Neill" <onq [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie> wrote in message
>> news:44461F40.E7C5E5F9 [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie...
>> > Simple Math demonstrate that the Official 9/11 Account is a Fabrication
>> > by Elias Davidsson
>>
>> Here you go Mike. Seems you lost your last one.
>>
>> http://zapatopi.net/afdb/build.html
>
> Yaaas, I'd say you used to go to a lot of trouble to prevent logical
> thought getting in to your brain, Tinfoil-boi.
>
> M.

There are these interesting guys around that are referred to as "structural
engineers". You may want to check what they have to say. As well, someone
might well have made mention of doing a demolition job on #7. Do you know
how long it takes to wire a building for explosive demolition, even if it is
done willy-nilly? Have you ever seen a demolition in person? Notice the
little things called explosions? Other than the impact of the jetliner,
where were they? What, they were internal to the building? But the windows
didn't blow out. Hmmmmm.......and buy the way, isn't it likely that people
who work there would have seen the building being rigged for demolition? I
have not heard that claim from any survivor. it only seems to come from
anti-American conspiracy theorists who are the product of 4 generations of
brother+sister breeding.

That foil beanie? You really need it.
Re: OT Simple Math [message #254135 ] Fr, 21 April 2006 23:45
Pippen  
"BaJoRi" <bajori [at] cbg.com> wrote in message
news:ZkX1g.39468$117.11304 [at] fe02.news.easynews.com...
>
> "Michael O'Neill" <onq [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie> wrote in message
> news:4447BBEC.E9B0A649 [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie...
>> BaJoRi wrote:
>>>
>>> "Michael O'Neill" <onq [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie> wrote in message
>>> news:44461F40.E7C5E5F9 [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie...
>>> > Simple Math demonstrate that the Official 9/11 Account is a
>>> > Fabrication
>>> > by Elias Davidsson
>>>
>>> Here you go Mike. Seems you lost your last one.
>>>
>>> http://zapatopi.net/afdb/build.html
>>
>> Yaaas, I'd say you used to go to a lot of trouble to prevent logical
>> thought getting in to your brain, Tinfoil-boi.
>>
>> M.
>
> There are these interesting guys around that are referred to as
> "structural engineers". You may want to check what they have to say. As
> well, someone might well have made mention of doing a demolition job on
> #7. Do you know how long it takes to wire a building for explosive
> demolition, even if it is done willy-nilly? Have you ever seen a
> demolition in person? Notice the little things called explosions? Other
> than the impact of the jetliner, where were they? What, they were internal
> to the building? But the windows didn't blow out. Hmmmmm.......and buy the
> way, isn't it likely that people who work there would have seen the
> building being rigged for demolition? I have not heard that claim from any
> survivor. it only seems to come from anti-American conspiracy theorists
> who are the product of 4 generations of brother+sister breeding.
>
> That foil beanie? You really need it.
>

BaJoRi,

I have lurked here for a long time. MO is a great source of knowledge when
it comes to Tolkien but is a nut case when comes to his opinion of the
world... Just in case you have not noticed.

-p
Re: OT Simple Math [message #254136 ] Sa, 22 April 2006 01:59
BaJoRi  
"Pippen" <not [at] valid.mail> wrote in message
news:e8qdnZ37SMHvz9TZRVn-vg [at] comcast.com...
>
> "BaJoRi" <bajori [at] cbg.com> wrote in message
> news:ZkX1g.39468$117.11304 [at] fe02.news.easynews.com...
>>
>> "Michael O'Neill" <onq [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie> wrote in message
>> news:4447BBEC.E9B0A649 [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie...
>>> BaJoRi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Michael O'Neill" <onq [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie> wrote in message
>>>> news:44461F40.E7C5E5F9 [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie...
>>>> > Simple Math demonstrate that the Official 9/11 Account is a
>>>> > Fabrication
>>>> > by Elias Davidsson
>>>>
>>>> Here you go Mike. Seems you lost your last one.
>>>>
>>>> http://zapatopi.net/afdb/build.html
>>>
>>> Yaaas, I'd say you used to go to a lot of trouble to prevent logical
>>> thought getting in to your brain, Tinfoil-boi.
>>>
>>> M.
>>
>> There are these interesting guys around that are referred to as
>> "structural engineers". You may want to check what they have to say. As
>> well, someone might well have made mention of doing a demolition job on
>> #7. Do you know how long it takes to wire a building for explosive
>> demolition, even if it is done willy-nilly? Have you ever seen a
>> demolition in person? Notice the little things called explosions? Other
>> than the impact of the jetliner, where were they? What, they were
>> internal to the building? But the windows didn't blow out.
>> Hmmmmm.......and buy the way, isn't it likely that people who work there
>> would have seen the building being rigged for demolition? I have not
>> heard that claim from any survivor. it only seems to come from
>> anti-American conspiracy theorists who are the product of 4 generations
>> of brother+sister breeding.
>>
>> That foil beanie? You really need it.
>>
>
> BaJoRi,
>
> I have lurked here for a long time. MO is a great source of knowledge when
> it comes to Tolkien but is a nut case when comes to his opinion of the
> world... Just in case you have not noticed.
>
> -p

I had. Hence the foil beanie instructions.
>
Re: OT Simple Math [message #254137 ] Sa, 22 April 2006 02:44
samdekat  
Pippen wrote:

>
> I have lurked here for a long time.

Not long enough it seems...

> MO is a great source of knowledge when
> it comes to Tolkien but is a nut case when comes to his opinion of the
> world... Just in case you have not noticed.
>

Michael might be a bit delusional, but compared to Baron and his
theories on a vast Israeli-Palestinian-UN-British-Red Cross conspiracy
to cover up the truth of Deir Yassin, Michael is lucid and sober. The
best approach to both of these people (but particularly with the
certifiable lunatic Baron) is simply to not acknowledge their presence
- you'll notice that is what others in the group do. We'd appreciate
you doing the same.
Re: OT Simple Math [message #254138 ] Sa, 22 April 2006 03:23
BaJoRi  
"Sam's the little guy" <samdekat [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145666640.548096.22700 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> Pippen wrote:
>
>>
>> I have lurked here for a long time.
>
> Not long enough it seems...
>
>> MO is a great source of knowledge when
>> it comes to Tolkien but is a nut case when comes to his opinion of the
>> world... Just in case you have not noticed.
>>
>
> Michael might be a bit delusional, but compared to Baron and his
> theories on a vast Israeli-Palestinian-UN-British-Red Cross conspiracy
> to cover up the truth of Deir Yassin,

You still cannot accept the fact that the Palestinian military commander for
that area admitted to fabricating the massacre story. HAHAHAHAHAHA! It must
eat at you like a cancer. Go back to pretending that the Palestinians are
interested in peace.

Michael is lucid and sober. The
> best approach to both of these people (but particularly with the
> certifiable lunatic Baron) is simply to not acknowledge their presence
> - you'll notice that is what others in the group do. We'd appreciate
> you doing the same.
>
Re: OT Simple Math [message #254139 ] Sa, 22 April 2006 04:16
Noh Phu Ling  
Sam's the little guy wrote:
> Pippen wrote:
>
>
>>I have lurked here for a long time.
>
>
> Not long enough it seems...
>
>
>>MO is a great source of knowledge when
>>it comes to Tolkien but is a nut case when comes to his opinion of the
>>world... Just in case you have not noticed.
>>
>
>
> Michael might be a bit delusional, but compared to Baron and his
> theories on a vast Israeli-Palestinian-UN-British-Red Cross conspiracy
> to cover up the truth of Deir Yassin, Michael is lucid and sober. The
> best approach to both of these people (but particularly with the
> certifiable lunatic Baron) is simply to not acknowledge their presence
> - you'll notice that is what others in the group do. We'd appreciate
> you doing the same.
>

There's an unrelated NG which I read quite often but post to quite
seldom. Most of the folk there are genuinely interested in an open
exchange of facts AND opinions on a broad variety of topics. With the
NOTABLE EXCEPTION of one flaming, raving, monomaniacle androgynist NUTCASE.

For reasons that escape me, a certain few folk insist on feeding this
troll (who has posted the same word-for-word blither-blather over and
over for years, literally) their identical responses, literally for
years. It passed being even mildly entertaining a very long while ago.

To summarize the summary of the summary, people are a problem.

Pete H
Re: OT Simple Math [message #256591 ] Di, 25 April 2006 09:04
samdekat  
pmhilton wrote:
> Sam's the little guy wrote:
> > Pippen wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I have lurked here for a long time.
> >
> >
> > Not long enough it seems...
> >
> >
> >>MO is a great source of knowledge when
> >>it comes to Tolkien but is a nut case when comes to his opinion of the
> >>world... Just in case you have not noticed.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Michael might be a bit delusional, but compared to Baron and his
> > theories on a vast Israeli-Palestinian-UN-British-Red Cross conspiracy
> > to cover up the truth of Deir Yassin, Michael is lucid and sober. The
> > best approach to both of these people (but particularly with the
> > certifiable lunatic Baron) is simply to not acknowledge their presence
> > - you'll notice that is what others in the group do. We'd appreciate
> > you doing the same.
> >
>
> There's an unrelated NG which I read quite often but post to quite
> seldom. Most of the folk there are genuinely interested in an open
> exchange of facts AND opinions on a broad variety of topics. With the
> NOTABLE EXCEPTION of one flaming, raving, monomaniacle androgynist NUTCASE.
>

I probably wouldn't use such strong terminology to describe our version
(BaronJosefR) of their troll, mostly because we actually have worse
trolls. But the ship of his mind certainly set sail from the port of
sanity some time ago now.


> For reasons that escape me, a certain few folk insist on feeding this
> troll (who has posted the same word-for-word blither-blather over and
> over for years, literally) their identical responses, literally for
> years. It passed being even mildly entertaining a very long while ago.
>

There's a difference between troll baiting for the fun of it, and troll
snaring for the purpose of removing a presence from a group. The latter
is certainly unpleasant, but I would argue necessary on occasion. We've
had our group clogged with trolls in times past. Drano might stink,
but it clears the blockage.



> To summarize the summary of the summary, people are a problem.
>


you got that right.
Re: OT Simple Math [message #256599 ] Mi, 26 April 2006 15:28
BaJoRi  
"Sam's the little guy" <samdekat [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145948653.485040.261080 [at] y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> pmhilton wrote:
>> Sam's the little guy wrote:
>> > Pippen wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>I have lurked here for a long time.
>> >
>> >
>> > Not long enough it seems...
>> >
>> >
>> >>MO is a great source of knowledge when
>> >>it comes to Tolkien but is a nut case when comes to his opinion of the
>> >>world... Just in case you have not noticed.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Michael might be a bit delusional, but compared to Baron and his
>> > theories on a vast Israeli-Palestinian-UN-British-Red Cross conspiracy
>> > to cover up the truth of Deir Yassin, Michael is lucid and sober. The
>> > best approach to both of these people (but particularly with the
>> > certifiable lunatic Baron) is simply to not acknowledge their presence
>> > - you'll notice that is what others in the group do. We'd appreciate
>> > you doing the same.
>> >
>>
>> There's an unrelated NG which I read quite often but post to quite
>> seldom. Most of the folk there are genuinely interested in an open
>> exchange of facts AND opinions on a broad variety of topics. With the
>> NOTABLE EXCEPTION of one flaming, raving, monomaniacle androgynist
>> NUTCASE.
>>
>
> I probably wouldn't use such strong terminology to describe our version
> (BaronJosefR) of their troll, mostly because we actually have worse
> trolls. But the ship of his mind certainly set sail from the port of
> sanity some time ago now.

Your hatred towards me makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. You see,
terrorist-supporting dipshits like yourself, I do not try or want to
impress. Go back to pretending that Artafat was a nice guy and that Al Qaeda
is just a charitable organization, as you once professed



>
>
>> For reasons that escape me, a certain few folk insist on feeding this
>> troll (who has posted the same word-for-word blither-blather over and
>> over for years, literally) their identical responses, literally for
>> years. It passed being even mildly entertaining a very long while ago.
>>
>
> There's a difference between troll baiting for the fun of it, and troll
> snaring for the purpose of removing a presence from a group. The latter
> is certainly unpleasant, but I would argue necessary on occasion. We've
> had our group clogged with trolls in times past. Drano might stink,
> but it clears the blockage.
>
>

Who is the troll? The guy who once professed that Al Qaeda and Hamas were
just charitable organizations, or the guy who calls you out on your
bullshit.

>
>> To summarize the summary of the summary, people are a problem.
>>
>
>
> you got that right.
>
Re: OT Simple Math [message #256649 ] So, 30 April 2006 14:19
Christopher Kreuzer  
BaJoRi <bajori [at] cbg.com> wrote:
> "Michael O'Neill" <onq [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie> wrote in message
> news:44461F40.E7C5E5F9 [at] bwahahaha.indigo.ie...
>> Simple Math demonstrate that the Official 9/11 Account is a
>> Fabrication by Elias Davidsson
>
> Here you go Mike. Seems you lost your last one.
>
> http://zapatopi.net/afdb/build.html

Should I mention that I've just finished reading the "Official Reader
for Fahrenheit 9/11" - the film by Michael Moore? It was interesting,
but it was difficult to know where he overdid his arguments. What was
rather depressing was the way the book periodically celebrated the
imminent removal of Bush as president in the forthcoming US presidential
elections (the book was published in early 2004). Seems like that didn't
happen.
Re: OT Simple Math [message #256695 ] Mo, 01 Mai 2006 16:15
samdekat  
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:

> Should I mention that I've just finished reading the "Official Reader
> for Fahrenheit 9/11" - the film by Michael Moore? It was interesting,
> but it was difficult to know where he overdid his arguments. What was
> rather depressing was the way the book periodically celebrated the
> imminent removal of Bush as president in the forthcoming US presidential
> elections (the book was published in early 2004). Seems like that didn't
> happen.

I've certainly read some of Moore's work - entertaining, but a bit
focussed on internal US politics and not very intellectual. A great
read on the Iraq war is "Bush in Babylon" -
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1859845835/103-6661856-0905 467?v=glance&n=283155

by Tariq Ali - discusses the various imperial incursions into Iraq -
the Ottoman empire, the British empire, and most recently the US, and
the motives and historical parallels between these invasions.

Also "Weapons of mass deception"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1585422762/103-6661856-0905 467?v=glance&n=283155
which discusses the techniques used by the Cheney/Rumsfeld
administration to firstly enhance, and then manipulate the fear felt
by the US citizenry post 9/11, and finally the deceptions used by the
administration to justfiy the invasion of Iraq.

And for a truly depressing read - Chomskys "Hegemony or Survival" which
discusses the latest US attempt at global hegemony in light of
previous, disastrous attempts (eg Noriega, Iran, Phillipines).

Also, the reports and books written by various weapons inspectors make
for good reading as well (eg Rod Barton)


Sam.
Re: OT Simple Math [message #256698 ] Mo, 01 Mai 2006 18:52
Tar-Elenion  
In article <kX15g.61843$wl.9103 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
spamgard [at] blueyonder.co.uk says...
<snip>
> Should I mention that I've just finished reading the "Official Reader
> for Fahrenheit 9/11" - the film by Michael Moore? It was interesting,
> but it was difficult to know where he overdid his arguments.
<snip>

Are you looking for a debunking?
--
Tar-Elenion

He is a warrior, and a spirit of wrath. In every
stroke that he deals he sees the Enemy who long
ago did thee this hurt.
Re: OT Simple Math [message #256699 ] Mo, 01 Mai 2006 19:16
Derek Broughton  
Tar-Elenion wrote:

> In article <kX15g.61843$wl.9103 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> spamgard [at] blueyonder.co.uk says...
> <snip>
>> Should I mention that I've just finished reading the "Official Reader
>> for Fahrenheit 9/11" - the film by Michael Moore? It was interesting,
>> but it was difficult to know where he overdid his arguments.
> <snip>
>
> Are you looking for a debunking?

As someone who believes Moore's right on the money much of the time, I'd
still have to say that any time you _think_ he overdid his arguments, he
probably did. Ultimately he does little good for those he's crusading for,
because he _is_ so easy to debunk. Even if he's right 9 times out of 10,
his research is shoddy and you only have to prove one or two significant
details to be wrong to cast his whole thesis into disrepute.
--
derek
Re: OT Simple Math [message #256700 ] Mo, 01 Mai 2006 20:59
Robert Kolker  
Derek Broughton wrote:

>
> As someone who believes Moore's right on the money much of the time, I'd
> still have to say that any time you _think_ he overdid his arguments, he
> probably did. Ultimately he does little good for those he's crusading for,
> because he _is_ so easy to debunk. Even if he's right 9 times out of 10,
> his research is shoddy and you only have to prove one or two significant
> details to be wrong to cast his whole thesis into disrepute.

Which is not difficult. Moore is a snotty git with more gall than
useable results. A wretched pinko stinko commie liberal is what he is.

Bob Kolker
Re: OT Simple Math [message #256701 ] Mo, 01 Mai 2006 19:59
Christopher Kreuzer  
Derek Broughton <news [at] pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> Tar-Elenion wrote:
>
>> In article <kX15g.61843$wl.9103 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
>> spamgard [at] blueyonder.co.uk says...
>> <snip>
>>> Should I mention that I've just finished reading the "Official
>>> Reader for Fahrenheit 9/11" - the film by Michael Moore? It was
>>> interesting, but it was difficult to know where he overdid his
>>> arguments.
>> <snip>
>>
>> Are you looking for a debunking?
>
> As someone who believes Moore's right on the money much of the time,
> I'd still have to say that any time you _think_ he overdid his
> arguments, he probably did. Ultimately he does little good for those
> he's crusading for, because he _is_ so easy to debunk. Even if he's
> right 9 times out of 10, his research is shoddy and you only have to
> prove one or two significant details to be wrong to cast his whole
> thesis into disrepute.

Personally I think it is more subtle than that. It is the way he phrases
things. He writes things in such a way that you come to associate
certain things. It is the way you use certain words for one side, and
then other sorts of words for the other side - colours the whole writing
and makes it difficult to see what is going on (everything, something or
nothing).

The whole, rather depressing, conclusion I am drawing is that I wouldn't
trust either the Bush administration or Michael Moore types to tell me
what is going on. And I'm left feeling even more in the dark than
before, with both sides making contradictory and emphatic statements
that should be easy to unpick and make sense of, but maybe not.

And in reply to Tar-Elenion, if you could link to some websites with
debunkings, that would be greatly appreciated. Just something to give a
bit of balance. And not too much discussion here, obviously. I think
Sam's links (which I've bookmarked but not read yet) give some more
intellectual stuff on Moore's and similar arguments, so something from
the "other side" would be good as well.

The best bit about the Moore book was the section of essays at the end,
where he candidly says that others talked in more detail about things
that he didn't even realise he was talking about.

I thought the last two essays were the best:

"Why the Media Failed Us in Iraq" - by Orville Schell
http://hnn.us/articles/6209.html

"Not Again" - by Arundhati Roy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,800015,00.html

[The above seems to be extracted from the longer piece here:
http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~peer/arundhatiRoy.html]
Re: OT Simple Math [message #256702 ] Mo, 01 Mai 2006 20:07
Tar-Elenion  
Try this for starters:
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20040702.html

And also this (PDF):
www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf

Which has responses from Mr. Moore and Mr. Kopel's responses back.
Re: OT Simple Math [message #256703 ] Mo, 01 Mai 2006 20:15
Derek Broughton  
Robert Kolker wrote:

> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
>>
>> As someone who believes Moore's right on the money much of the time, I'd
>> still have to say that any time you _think_ he overdid his arguments, he
>> probably did. Ultimately he does little good for those he's crusading
>> for,
>> because he _is_ so easy to debunk. Even if he's right 9 times out of 10,
>> his research is shoddy and you only have to prove one or two significant
>> details to be wrong to cast his whole thesis into disrepute.
>
> Which is not difficult. Moore is a snotty git with more gall than
> useable results. A wretched pinko stinko commie liberal is what he is.

But what makes a pinko stinko commie liberal "wretched"? He'd probably be
pleased to here you call him that. You can certainly call _me_ that. It
wouldn't be true, in either case, but you can't expect much from anyone who
fails to see the difference between "commie" and "liberal".
--
derek
Re: OT Simple Math [message #256709 ] Mo, 01 Mai 2006 22:41
Morgil  
tar_elenion [at] hotmail.com kirjoitti:
> Try this for starters:
> http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20040702.html
>
> And also this (PDF):
> www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf
>
> Which has responses from Mr. Moore and Mr. Kopel's responses back.

It doesn't seem to have the responses, but for a balanced
view, this article has a debunking of Mr.Kopel's debunking:

http://www.opednews.com/wade_071004_deception.htm

It seems Kopel makes himself guilty for much of the same
he accuses Moore about. Not a good sign.

Morgil
Re: OT Simple Math [message #256713 ] Di, 02 Mai 2006 01:35
Tar-Elenion  
In article <1146506831.186669.284080 [at] g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
tar_elenion [at] hotmail.com says...
> Try this for starters:
> http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20040702.html
>
> And also this (PDF):
> www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf
>
> Which has responses from Mr. Moore and Mr. Kopel's responses back.

This is the one with links to Mr. Moore's responses:

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenhe it-911.htm



--
Tar-Elenion

He is a warrior, and a spirit of wrath. In every
stroke that he deals he sees the Enemy who long
ago did thee this hurt.
Vorheriges Thema:Welcome! FAQs and important information.
Nächstes Thema:JRR Tolkien and Cats
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 03:05:11 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,63373 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered