Charles Anthony

delete

I would caution OurKim to keep her points to herself and not let anybody carry them in their Pocket without earning them. Otherwise, we will certainly see the value of these points split in two very fast. It says more of the general public's ignorance of not only the modern studies of economics and evolution but also of game theory which glues them together. I would suggest both of you learn a thing or two of each of those three disciplines before discrediting Oliver Curry's methodology as a farce. While the general public's interest in science may be enhanced by Magnus Pyke, his spinning arms can only scratch the surface of superficial knowledge. I recommend watching the film "A Beautiful Mind" which cleverly illustrates the basics of game theory in one very short scene. http://www.simonsingh.net/A_Beautiful_Mind.html Economics is not the study of making or counting money. Money to economics is like pencils to language arts. It just turns out that money is the easiest tool with which to illustrate the principles of economics to first-time learners. We could teach people to read and write without pens and paper but it would be exceedingly difficult -- although, Helen Keller seemed to succeed.

Personally, I am more intrigued to learn how much people value their own commentary.There are some posters who re-post ofter their own post rather than edit a previous unanswered post. Also, there are occasions where dubious links, references and quotes are posted.

Anybody willing to put their money where their mouth is? My preference would be a model whereby each member was charged per post -- what I would call a troll-tax -- but administratively, I suspect it would be difficult. I could not find any other forum like that. Thus, poll results would be less realistic. EDIT: This poll is in NO WAY coming from the Administration of the forum. It is just coming from lowly little me -- a fellow forum member.

GeofFrey, your attitude towards justice is unjust. I get shot down all of the time for my preference of an anarchist sense of justice and believe me, your dismissal of due process horrifies me. We often hear people say that we should respect war veterans because they fought for our freedom. I do not believe that but since eveybody else does, try to extrapolate that thinking domestically: we should consider respecting due process and historical precedents in our criminal judicial system because every single defendent (guilty or innocent) fought long and hard to defend themselves. Our freedoms are enhanced today as a result of their trials because we respect due process -- more or less. The cheesy saying of "A hundred guilty men go free instead of convicting yadda yadda yadda...." is worth repeating. I believe it firmly. I actually would rather shut down our judicial system all together than have one person (innocent or guilty) be denied due process.

I think so.Yeah. Congrats on finding it. How many pages of extraneous kook search results did you have to go through to find it?? CA - now you're talking about real detective work. I'm not sure if that's practical. What do you think ?Honestly, I think it is impossible. However, if the original "official" was somebody like you or me who missed $1 on a tax return, the I.R.S. would have the answer in a heartbeat. Maybe not but that is not my point. I want to know who is the vampire officer? His credibility is in doubt. Only the fact that it happened. At that point, I could not find anything that even hinted at who such "officials" might be. Now, I must retract calling them vultures. I will just call them men-in-trench-coats for now. No, not subterfuge. However, my point that there are "officials" with extremely high authority still stands. Now, I have to learn more about who this "Environmental Protection Aganecy's Criminal Investigation Division's Special Agent-in-Charge" happens to be. Sounds like an incredible title. Yeah. I almost feel like a reverse-troll!Just out of courtesy: Interesting, I didn't know kerosene was lighter than air.Have you ever lit a kerosene lamp? or a butane lighter? or seen an oil well set on fire?The fires go up to meet the lowest air pressure. They do not go down into the kerosene tank or into your hand or down into the ground to explode the world.

I recommend that you add the BELIEVEDTOBELINKEDTOALQUAEDA switch to the filter. You would not want to let anything nefarious slip through the cracks.

Just give eachother your marbles back and call it even.

On second though, I agree. That would be one place to look. Although, my first thought is to look at who paid the trucking companies. Work backwards from the scrap yard. Somebody at the scrap yard admitted a truck driver. The truck driver was hired by a trucking company. The trucking company was hired by ------- ? Keep going backwards.

Just for the sake of playing the devil's advocate. I could follow the same logic and ask: why TWO airplanes?? One would be enough. Tracing who (name or professional designation) authorized the first clearing of rubble to the scrap yards. I still maintain that whoever it was (whether it happened through incompetence or deliberate concealment of evidence), that person has a peculiar authority. That is irrelevent. How did the smoke get to the bottom of the tower? The official story is that the fuel went down the elevator shaft. It could have more easily gone up the elevator shaft. Diet cola for now.

Take a look: there is smoke coming from the bottom of the tower. I am sure there are both official and kooky explanations for it. That is over my head. I do not know what you are talking about. I am game.

Those are not the same questions. The answer to the first question is YES -- if we submit ourselves to the law or understand the concept of trespassing. The answer to the second question is NO -- because we submit ourselves to the law and understand the concept of trespassing.

That is what I believe is the main answer. In general, I believe that the single greatest appeal towards conspiracy or kookiness is entertainment. It is exciting. Everybody wants to be in on a secret. Furthermore, most people do not have the discipline to keep a secret. We all get a thrill out of being the one to tell a secret to somebody who is not in "the know" yet. Also, it reduces our load for personal responsibility. Like astrology, we look to explain things using things that are beyond our control. That way, we do not have to work hard to make them succeed nor take as much blame when they fail. Animals do the same. I always wonder why it is that a flock of sheep will fearfully run away from a little barking dog when they could easily turn around and trample him. I also wonder how it is that somebody can promise "Reduced waiting times!" as part of an election platform and get so many people to subscribe. It would make more sense to hear "Freedom and justice for all!" or "Pie in the sky!" instead. Mental illness (paranoia is often part of schizophrenia) as Aug91 suggested can undoubtedly explain the propagation of conspiracy theories too. The recipe is perfect: take a lazy smart-aleck and add a few nut-cases. Voila!

To protect our freedom and to stop any underlings that can abuse our freedom. I have a little concern about people who can by-pass public scrutiny in cases of crime.

It is in the complete quote below. This is as delicate as I can be: it is unfair to refer me to a multi-page citation to prove your point if you did not read yourself. That is a wild goose chase or it is similar to the little boy who cried "Wolf!" too often. My round. Before I buy, I will point out that you selected too little from your citation. I will quote more relevent text from your citation to prove my point. Here is what should also be quoted: all of my beer Now, I will answer your questions. Yes, it automatically discredits the evidence. I never said they would and that is not my point. [Personally, I am starting to no longer give a damn. If the American population permits their new Anti-Habeas Corpus law, I am starting to think that there are even more terrifying things to fear from the American bureaucracy in the future.] My point is that some unknown "officials" are able to filter evidence at a crime scene and get away with it. We are expected to sweep that under the rug. How can you disagree?? Your own citation and your own statement proves otherwise. You are floating in The Nile. I am not talking about "collected x sample" for the public relations exercise. I am talking about the vultures who first sifted through the debris (and dead bodies, I would like to remind you) and chose to send stuff to the scrap yards, the recycling depots and the landfills BEFORE your "investigators" started. I can not find anything that identifies who or how but your citations said it happened. FEMA f*#ked up.That is not a good enough excuse. Somebody did it and they did not do it by accident. Those "officials" who sent stuff to scrap yards are likely still alive today. It has only been 5 years. The answer is out there and we just brush it under the rug. Sorry guys but everybody should get to the bottom of this -- non-conspiracy theorists and conspiracy theorists alike.

Point out where that is, please.You want me to point it out to you in YOUR own references???? Did you read your own citations???Let me get this straight: 1) you refer me to a link to prove YOUR point but you do not quote anything 2) I give you the benefit of the doubt and read everything on YOUR link and the multitude of back-links on YOUR link 3) I find nothing that proves YOUR point 4) in fact, I find something else in YOUR link that proves MY point 5) I quote directly from YOUR citation to illustrate MY point 6) you now want me to "Point out where that is, please." in YOUR link ????? Get something straight: your "decision or decisions on what samples would be kept and what would not be kept" were NOT made as part of the investigation but BEFORE the investigation started. Who made that decision is important and the answer to that question can not be found. Now YOU are going to send me on a new wild goose chase??? Please! How about you find a quote that answers the question???? Could you provide a source for super hot pools of metal there for months afterward ?Yeah, me too, and please quote the relevent text. No wild goose chases!

Actually, no. That is not what happened. The "officials" processed the scene, then ordered it cleared and THEN the investigators were allowed in to investigate. BIG DIFFERENCE. Your links even corroborate that. The mystery is why people are allowed to salvage wreckage from a crime scene before investigators get access to it. Here is an other mystery: how can so many sheep accept the "official" story? That link does not answer my question. I read every secondary link on that site and stopped because I found nothing. I was considering reading through the tertiary links but then I stopped. How about YOU quote for me what is in those citations that address (hopefully answer) my question instead of sending me on a wild goose chase? From your citations: http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/fall.html The wreckage contained corpses. The desparate and eager need to move the wreckage from the crime scene sounds worse than a mystery -- it sounds horrifyingly pathetic.

Is that it? Mandatory voting will fix our problems??? You make trolls look bad -- or good -- or like they are doing a public service!

At a crime scene, yes. Unless, of course, we are at war. At which point the state can suspend such obligations. I can not find it. That is the thing. Yes, I want a name. I realize that it is an extreme demand but that is my point: unnamed people with extreme power are something to fear. It seems to go hand in hand with the anti-habeas corpus crowd.

It certainly makes it a cover-up.

Let me remind you that it was a crime scene. You are fueling the conspiracy theories.

That is a start of what?I jay-walk all of the time and people ride their bikes on the side-walk all of the time.

Is that your way of saying that you evade taxes?I have a better suggestion on how to avoid taxes: stop working. The problem is that not everybody in Canada votes that way. Some people's parasitism -- I mean, livelihood -- depends on government waste. I know people are probably tired of hearing this from me but Canada needs to dissolve. That is the only way we will see smaller government and less waste.

This is the most detail that document provides: None of that answers my questions but rather stil leaves those questions open. No, they did not just throw out all of the evidence, they just selected some of it and threw out all of the rest. I want to know: Who exactly are "they" that have the power to make such decisions? and to make them happen?

They are only "essential" for people who would go bankrupt if they were sued. If I was a rich zillionaire without car insurance, you could sue me in a car crash and get whatever you deserved. Unfortunately, most drivers are not worth the damage they can inflict. I agree. I think the essential question is do we want universal health-care? If you want to provide universal health-care, do so but, at the very least, also permit multi-tiered health-care to co-exist.