The next time a "truther" tells you to be more "open-minded"...

[SDuderstadt]

because you don't embrace their goofy conspiracy theory, have them watch this video. Although it is primarily directed at believers in the supernatural, I think the lessons can be directed at anyone with limited critical thinking skills:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI&feature=channel_page


Similarly, those "truthers" who insist that there were far too many coincidences for 9/11 to have been anything but a government plot, in my judgment, have a poor understanding of probability. They should be directed here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98OTsYfTt-c&feature=channel_page

[MrMickeysMom]

1. Boy, what an over-simplification that was...

If suspicion lurks of any conspired plot (MIHOP or LIHOP), then you must not only be a truther, but a goofy truther, at that!

Sheesh, I guess anyone who's ever had more than passing suspicion about 911, well... YOU'VE BEEN SERVED!!!

whoah.. struck that one out of the park!

[SDuderstadt]

2. Suspicion is fine, as long as one follows it up by a rigorous pursuit of facts....

but, to make wild-eyed claims that can only exist by ignoring the evidence against them is fallacious thinking. Do you really think the "truth movement" has proven its claims? The remedy to suspicion is to fact-find and leave one's biases out of it. Did you actually watch the videos? Did you find something objectionable about them? Are you willing to consider that "debunkers" just might be right and that "there is no there, there"?

[MrMickeysMom]

3. Don't try to take me down that silly argument, Dude...

I've gone through the pursuit of explanation with you and the other "gang" here, so bait someone else.

Believe it or not there are legitimate sites out there, researching " in search of truth" about everything from 911 conspiracies to the Lincoln's Assassination.

My own interests are in following what has been researched and written about JFK. Similarly, I've done the same with 911. You are quick to ask people if they've seen or read, but blow off what others may have read without admitting you ever check it out. Old ploys go stale.

Some debunkers ARE right to correct people who get so off the mark without much resources. But do you honestly think you have the corner on everyone's best evidence? What do you say to the person that does not believe the official story of what passes for truth of 911?

Quit using "there is no there, there, as it has no meaning. Use your head, instead.

[SDuderstadt]

4. Since you literally have no idea what I read or don't read....

please point to anywhere where I have been quick to "blow off what others may have read without admitting you ever check it out". Good luck.

In the meantime, are you willing to admit that debunkers could just be right? For example, have you read Bugliosi's book on the JFK assassination? Do you really think that nearly 46 years after the assassination, someone is going to happen upon some revelatory find? What drives the JFK controversy is that Ruby killed Oswald before there could be a trial and people have their questions answered. As hard as it is for people to accept, Oswald killed Kennedy and the evidence is overwhelming. Before you accuse me of not reading the "other side", I have no less than 25 books on my bookshelf ranging from Marrs to Lifton to Lane to many others.

As far as 9/11 goes, the "truth movement" has had nearly 8 years to find the "truth" and, so far, they've come up with zip. You can believe whatever the hell you want to about 9/11. But, without evidence, don't expect to convince those of us who require proof.

P.S. Did you actually watch the videos or not??

[greyl]

5. Watching and comprehending are entirely different things.

(as I'm sure MMM will continue to demonstrate)

She has provided absolutely no rational basis for claiming that either one of those videos is an oversimplification.

[MrMickeysMom]

9. Gee, I guess that makes me...

... just like you, greyl.

Swim up-thread where you can join your pal in the exercise. I'm sure it will provide more entertainment than trying to finish someone else's defense. You are good at piling on, which you continually demonstrate.

[SDuderstadt]

50. the videos are excellent...

and spot on.

[greyl]

51. Yes, and they're like Kryptonite to woo-woo ecumenists. nt

[SDuderstadt]

52. absolutely...

i have a woo friend who is always imploring me to be more open-minded regarding her ''psychic'' friend, toby...of course, i have been tracking toby's predictions and he's 0 for 7...pointing that out immediately triggers the response that i need to be more ''open-minded''...it's really an interesting dynamic...

[MrMickeysMom]

8. The ignorance is revealed in your response!

Bugliosi's book? OMG! Try doing a search and read the reviews of this book. The sales should clue you in, as well. That book reminds me of what it's like posting here with the "gang". Maybe you are selling it?

Bugliosi's best work admittedly was with trying Charles Manson, but as far as JFK research, it's really disappointing, and I would have loved for it not to be, as I always respected him. It is about the least objective book on the single bullet theory out there. Have YOU honestly read it??? This long missive has some facts, yes; but then- he reverts to name calling and complete omissions of the evidence after others for YEARS have clearly shown where witness testimony (outlaid in the Warren Commission) was MISSING, or worse yet- ALTERED. He then rants and calls other research and evidence of more than one gunman with names like "crazy".

Yeah, I watched the videos, Dude... I've watched more than a few videos, too. I've also read. Have you exercised your brain beyond what you would like to believe? Anyone who writes, "As hard as it is for people to accept, Oswald killed Kennedy and the evidence is overwhelming" has a little more research to do might want to keep reading, listening and "watching more videos". I'd suggest the first and second exercise, as it allows you to multi-task. Here, I'll help you... Start here:

http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

[SDuderstadt]

11. what would the sales of bugliosi's book tell you?

how is that relevant to the accuracy of the book? i don't think it sold all that well because it is such a massive book. did you read it? or, do you prefer to get your ''facts'' from ''blackopsradio''?

let's take your reservation about the ''single bullet theory''. have you seen dale meyer's computer recreation of that day from the zapruder and other films? connally was seated about 6 inches below jfk and to his left on a jump seat. connally was also looking over his right shoulder in response to the first shot. any shot that hit jfk in the back where it did, would have no other place to go other than to hit connally where it did.

again, have you actually read bugliosi's book?

[MrMickeysMom]

17. A question that is answered with a question-

That's you, Dude.

You haven't read it, and I have. Now, go read it and continue reading all the other books. If you bothered (which I know you didn't) you would have REALIZED that the authors interviewed on BOR have links to their books... You only read what YOU want, and you NEVER FUCKING ANSWER A QUESTION.

Predictably, a gansta mentality!

[SDuderstadt]

22. oh, but i have read it and i'm willing to bet you haven't...

it's right on my bookshelf. i read every page of it. i'm willing to bet you didn't because you don't seem very familiar with it and try to dismiss it as lagely a rant. don't pretend you've read it if you haven't.

[MrMickeysMom]

27. I won't pretend I've read it, if I haven't

And if you paid attention to that video, you'll recall that rehearsing your own prejudices isn't an example of acting objectively. Anyone with respect for "assassination science" might hold back their own prejudices and wonder why some people mentioned in some of these books (like Oswald's widow) may have had a reason to lie. When Vince flips off what he calls "conspiracy buffs" and Oliver Stone's movie, you begin to read this long, tedious missive that you just know is meant to destroy the witness. It's here that the books stops being even somewhat enjoyable (as I remember the first part was). Things start looking like he's trying to cross examine someone on the witness stand only to destroy them by insulting them.

I'm pretty impressed if you read all 1,612 pages. Well, good for you. But you forgot the major points of Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History", apparently he's a Prosecutor, and not much of a researcher, after spending all that time. I didn't buy it, but I'll bet I can get this piece of trash for a song.

I'll bet you thought Gerald Posner's 1993 "Case Closed" was an objective read, too!

Jesus, why am I wasting my time here?

[SDuderstadt]

31. how, specifically, am i ''rehearsing my prejudices''?

you refer to bugliosi's book as a ''piece of trash'' but you offer nothing substantive to butress your opinion. perhaps you can reveal some material facts he got wrong, otherwise this is just your conjecture. do you deny the physical evidence he presents? you can downplay his book all you because it contradicts your deeply held beliefs, but you have a long way to go to conjnvince the rest of us. when are you jfk conspiracy buffs going to prove your case? after every direct witness has died?

[MrMickeysMom]

47. "conjnvince"? ... whatever... The "rest of you" are but a few...

... and you are runner up for the "ignore" button, which I find to be my friend already with one person.

[SDuderstadt]

49. because you can't take the heat of rigorous debate...

i love the way ''truthers'' resort to ignore when the going gets a little rough.

[NowHearThis]

12. Read those 25 books & then tell us why the only one you...

believe is credible is the one by "the bug" - which no serious student of the JFK assassination gives any credence to as being an
objective study.

[SDuderstadt]

13. please prove that...

otherwise, it's just your unfounded assertion. exactly who qualifies as a ''serious student of the assassination''? did you actually read bugliosi's book? how, specifically, is it not objective?

[NowHearThis]

14. Is that your final assertion?

Get back to us after you've read something other than a prosecutor's brief.

[SDuderstadt]

15. i see you can't answer a rather simple challenge...

just what i thought would happen.

[NowHearThis]

16. I see you like to play games but you avoid answering questions.

Why do your posts seem to involve pointless busywork for the respondeee to convince you - rather than you
presenting your own difference of opinion, if that is what you really believe?

[MrMickeysMom]

21. I think you probably know the answer by now, NHT...

Welcome to the 911 forum and to DU.

I hope we can discuss, at least from time to time. :hi:

[JuniperLea]

30. The only way to discuss is to completely ignore those who try to stop the discussion...

They hate that. :hi:

Who knows, with some discussion, everyone might actually end up on the same page. But are "they" willing to let it take it's natural course? Oh, hell no. "They" feel the need to proclaim their intellectual superiority and "your" stupidity and attempt to bully you into submission. I don't know about you, but I find all that action very suspicious, not to mention rude. It makes me feel the need to disprove them because bullies suck as bad as anything I know... then I realize this thinking is just like theirs, and I don't want to go there.

Discussion is great. Bullies suck. That is all.

[SDuderstadt]

32. who, precisely, is trying to stop the discussion?

why do conspiracy theorists often claim that?

[spiritual_gunfighter]

56. Your OP tried to stifle discussion

Proving your supposed "superiority" over those "idiot truthers" that I guess are killing your buzz. It really only outs you as someone that doubts your own intellect. It is quite glaring.

[SDuderstadt]

57. so, you claim trying to educate people about critical thinking and probabilty is...

an attempt to stifle discussion? amazing.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

59. That was trying to educate people about critical thinking and probability?

I think you should try again.

[SDuderstadt]

60. i think maybe you should actually watch the videos...

n/t

[spiritual_gunfighter]

61. Yeah I watched them both

and I think that your arguments are of the "apples and oranges" variety. I would argue that the common theory of 9/11 "that 19 Saudi hijackers using box-cutters hijacked 4 airliners, orchestrated by a guy living in a cave on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border" is the actual non-scientific theory and that we should try and be "open-minded" to the said theory.

[SDuderstadt]

62. how, exactly, are they ''apples and oranges''?

are you claiming critical thinking and probabilty have no application to 9/11?

[spiritual_gunfighter]

63. actually I am claiming the opposite

What I am saying is your video about the critical thinking when it comes to the "supernatural" does not apply. Those that don't believe the official story of 9/11 should not be equated with the "supernatural" or those that think irrationaly.

[SDuderstadt]

64. and i didn't...

the author of the video was addressing critical thinking as it applies to those who belive in the supernatural, but the concept is equally applicable to flawed thinking of any type.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

67. Then I think that is the problem with your position

You are automatically assuming that any theory other than the official story of 9/11 is flawed thinking. I am still waiting for the evidence that Osama Bin Laden is responsible for orchestrating 9/11. Maybe that would be included in your "flawed thinking" theory as well, I am not sure what you think about that. But making blanket assumptions that any other theory other than the offical story of 9/11 is "flawed thinking" sort of outs you as to what your intentions were with your OP.

[SDuderstadt]

68. Bullshit...I said nothing of the sort...

your strawman argument is silly. I stipulated the next time a truther tells you to be more open-minded when you don't embrace their GOOFY conspiracy. Please show me where I said all such theories are goofy. I don't know about you, but my take is that the theories that postulates no planes crashed into buildings or into the ground on 9/11 qualify as goofy. Similarly, alleging that the WTC twoers were destroyed by "mini-nukes" is beyond goofy.

Please show me where I ever said anything remotely like what you're saying. Please be specific.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

70. Wow

Seriously??? In your second sentence you state that "I stipulated the next time a truther tells you to be more open-minded when you don't embrace their GOOFY conspiracy", then in the next sentence you say "Please show me where I said all such theories are goofy." I guess you just shot your own defense to shit with THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE. I am done with you, I like to have healthy debate with people that aren't completely outlandish. You got ignored.

[SDuderstadt]

71. can you read?

do you understand how adjectives work? i meant exactly what i said and i never, ever stated that every theory put forth by a ''truther'' is goofy. you've chosen to read that into it. do you honestly deny that some theories put forth by ''truthers'' are goofy? if you admit that some of them are, does that mean you believe that all of them are? have you ever studied set theory?

i really believe this is how many of the knock-down, drag-out arguments here get started...by people putting the worst possible spin on something, turning it into something no one ever said (essentially a strawman), then expressing faux outrage and castigating the speaker. if you can't reason any better than this, then it's probably not much of a loss if you put me on ignore. just quit misrepresenting what i said.

[BeFree]

58. Well

We are in the dungeon, ya know. Why is this the dungeon? Is it because it is the last place on DU where Bushco's actions and incompetence are allowed to be defended?

[NowHearThis]

65. Untruthers will do that every time! EOM

nt

[SDuderstadt]

66. yet, you can't seem to point...

to an actual example of us trying to ''stifle'' discussion. amazing. sounds more like a post hoc rationalization to me.

[NowHearThis]

35. There might be a more accurate descriptor

Some CGI-planers do use bullying tactics, but that doesn't seem to be their main "thing". OCTruthers, anyone?

[SDuderstadt]

37. if you believe you're being ''bullied''...

du has a mechanism to deal with that. it's called a moderator. take it up with them. if, on the other hand, you find yourself being bested in a vigorous debate, you might, as the adage suggests, consider getting out of the ''kitchen''.

[MrMickeysMom]

48. I heard about that mechanism...

The moderator here leaves a lot to be desired in follow up, unless they whine like you do. I think it's just better to use the "ignore". I think the moderator would agree with that, too.

Bye-bye, dude :hi:

[MrMickeysMom]

46. Hiya JuniperLea

I still want a tee shirt with your peace logo.

I agree with everything you've said. I already have one of "them" on "ignore"! :hi:

[MrMickeysMom]

20. And you can't answer a simple question...

You never read Bug's book, and you won't admit it.

[SDuderstadt]

23. how many times must i state that i read it?

i also still don't understand what the sales of the book have to do with its accuracy.

[MrMickeysMom]

19. Well, now that's just it, NHT!

Dude looks like a lady when it comes to being a serious student of the JFK assassination.

Why even bother with some of the 911 ganster comments from a gang who doesn't shoot straight?

[SDuderstadt]

24. translation:

you can only be a ''serious student'' of the assassination if you don't believe oswald killed kennedy.

[MrMickeysMom]

28. That's your translation, Dude-

Like many other things, you make it up as you go along, while missing out on some decent dialog on the subject.

Good luck with your efforts to be objective on this subject. It' probably the most important thing we could be discussing here, should we ever get to that point.

[SDuderstadt]

33. then get to that point!

is that so hard?

[NowHearThis]

80. Goofy UNtruthers --- if they can't refute it, they try to get it deleted.

And if that doesn't work - though it seems to do so pretty well for 'em, they have plenty of other methods, as you've noticed:
ridicule, insults, change the subject, ask stupid questions, call you an anti-whatever, protest their ignorance as being a good faith
opinion, proclaim their fidelity to the liberal cause (without once snickering), deny reality but when cornered inject an adjective as though doing so somehow mitigates their "crime" (e.g. "goofy" is a good one they frequently use), and how could we forget that
in their DU cyberworld where the truth often is forced to struggle against "hands" that want to strangle, there is no such thing as
a conspiracy --- no matter how many tens of thousands of conspiracy charges are brought by District Attorneys all across the country each day.

[SDuderstadt]

81. "Truther Logic"

If you don't embrace goofy conspiracy theories, you can't be a liberal. BTW, I'd love for you to point to anyone on "our side" who has ever denied the reality of conspiracies. Please be specific.

[PufPuf23]

6. Speaking of supernatural and science

Science is a method that is empirical: predictable results are found by experiment and later used in applied science/technology.

Sometimes or rather quite frequently empirical science is stochastic (probabilistic). Often what appears fixed is actually stochastic but our senses or level of resolution do not perceive a stochastic process nor is it meaningful in the applied technology.

We live in a world full of technological wonders that would appear magic not so many years ago and in practice are magical for most of us, technological black boxes. There are many empirical models that work and are in common usage but scientists do not know why and over time research will find new models. This is scientific progress.

For example the mathematical concept of the fractal. Pointcarre 100 years ago played with them but they were unstable and weird and of no practical value. Fractal image compression is the efficient way to compress graphics for transfer over the internet. The same jpeg repeatedly viewed appears identical to our senses but in fact the images are like snowflakes, never exactly the same. Fractal geometry is in known cases much more useful (and "modern") than Euclidean geometry with applications increasing in number. Some of the rocket scientists/masters of the universe in the finance sector use a fractal equation in designing investment portfolios. SLAD posted an interview with Benoit Mandelbrot, the greatest mathematician IMO of the 20th century, and Taleb, the hedge fund manager, where one message was that one of the problems is that the investment managers do not fully understand or poorly use the technology. Myron Scholes received a Nobel in economics for the Black-Scholes Option Pricing Model, an applied fractal equation. Mandelbrot made fractals useful.

Fractals are interesting equations. The most useful fractals are stochastic and form shapes that are statistical in their regularities and irregularities. Many are self-similar or scaling at all orders of magnitude (more on this later about astrology. Fractals exist between the dimensions of Euclidean geometry; 0.8, 1.2223, 2.97 rather than 1, 2, 3 (the 3-dimensional world we perceive to inhabit). Stochastic fractals have infinite variance. A common statistical distribution of a stochastic fractal appears as a normal distribution but with extremely long and volatile tails; hence they are very predictable usually but will blow up.

The market meltdown of 1987 was in most part blamed on portfolio insurance and program trading. Portfolio insurance was re-branded as hedge funds. Finance engineers use Black-Scholes to design and value many derivatives(synthetic securities), identify arbitrage opportunity, and value any option or one-sided contract in general. The problem is the portfolio models are part art and judgment and there are unknowns in formulation. The hedge funds gain from stock market volatility not share value. Big gains or losses, mean hedge fund profits.

Astrology in practice is ridiculous but fun to me. But the moon effects tides and women's menstruation. The sun effects biological life as well. The geometry of the natural world and the known universe is fractal. Recall the scaling and self-similarity at all orders of magnitude. The scaling goes down to the cellular and atomic and so forth as well. So there might be something to the ancient art of astrology deeper than the primitive models. I don't expect humans will ever know.

Dr. John Dee was the court astrologer for Queen Elizabeth. He was the author of the common algebra and geometry texts of the time. He designed the navigating instruments that enabled the British navy to explore the Earth. It is said that Dee stood on a tower in Eire and proclaimed the British Empire to initiate its existence. Dee also used a seer and a rather complex system of channeling and talked to "Angels" in what he called the Enochian language. Modern linguists say Enochian has all the attributes of a real language. Later in life he fell into disrepute and his library burned, the greatest library in Elizabethan England.

Aleister Crowley said a short book by Dr. John Dee called the Hieroglyphic Monad, a simple glyph, was the key to astrology. Frankly, upon reading I could not find any connection. During WWI Crowley lived in the USA and ghost wrote for pay the astrology books of Evangeline Adams. Ms. Adams was the first legal and popular astrologer published in newspapers in the USA. Many have been entertained and aided in meditation in the 80 odd years since Adams became acceptable and popular. Crowley was pals with the mathematician Pointcarre in the cafe scene of Paris. He may also have been Barbra Bush's father as an aside.

I find magical thinking and disrespect for science dysfunctional and even dangerous. I group religious and really any type of stiff dogma "Believer" a magical thinker. Also I think our meat packages and senses perceive a small slice of reality so there is much for the scientific method to learn and apply. What if non-locality exists and empirical models can be built? Tell a Pentecostal (or many Christians) that there is absolutely no archaeological evidence of a Jewish First Temple and watch their head explode. There is no such evidence to date in fact and the one supposed artifact was deemed a fake several years ago. How does this compare to 9-11 theories (to be on topic)?

PufPuf was one of twelve immortals in Karuk stories of Creation. He was a pal of Coyote. He specialized in harassing young women looking for luck in love and it all had to do with their method of digging certain roots. PufPuf is the Karuk name for the Pacific Giant Salamander in their language. The shamanic Karuk believed PufPuf created clean water and was good luck. Last Spring in a low spot that collects water just to the right of my front door a Pacific Giant Salamander was with me for about a week. Obama was elected. Other events happened that improved my personal security vastly and I accomplished a major life goal. I hope my friend PufPuf stops by as this next month is their migrating season. Modern watershed scientists consider the Pacific Giant Salamander an indicator species of pure water rather than creator of the clean water in the shamanic perspective. Different time, different perspective, different technology.

I didn't watch the statistics video.

[achtung_circus]

7. Interesting post.

You are no doubt familiar with Clarke's 3rd Law "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

[MrMickeysMom]

10. Wow....

That must have been some pretty good shit, PufPuf...

Happy post 420!

:rofl:

[JuniperLea]

29. Killer post:)

I remember the first time I watched the movie "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" and thought how easily people could be duped when they don't understand the world around them. There is, without question, a scientific explanation for everything. Absolutely everything. That said, I've always found the simple, even the magical explanations for some things very entertaining and a lot of fun. Human beings can justify just about anything with a parable, and animistic story, or ancient lore. The fierce desire to understand led us to making things up for centuries.

Nothing much has changed, really.

[PufPuf23]

38. You summarized my world view ;o) -- Thank you

There is another post by you about the bullies and nature of this forum that share my opinion.

There is a thread started the other day about jumbo jets into skyscrapers.

For some reason, SDude and Bolo quit responding to me.

I find DU a difficult forum to chat so mostly parachute post.

I have thought about posting an OP Geithner/Palin/Summer/Wolves and the Ecological Fallacy of Trickle Down Economics on one of the main forums (no metaphysics). Most of my few thoughtful posts are ignored. lol.

[Bolo Boffin]

39. "SDude and Bolo quit responding to me."

After you sent suck-up personal messages blowing smoke up my ass, I didn't feel like you were worth the time.

[SDuderstadt]

41. dang...i didn't get any suck-up personal messages...

i take back what i said about my lack or response not being intentional.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

40. i didn't realize that i had stopped responding to you...

it certainly wasn't intentional.

[JuniperLea]

45. I call it "hit and run" when I do it

Bullies are fun to watch, and even more fun to ignore. I don't mean by hitting the ignore button, that would be no fun at all. Better still to watch them writhe in angst with multiple posts to one simple comment in attempt to get a response.

Am I a bad person for toying with them?

[SDuderstadt]

53. No, you don't seem to want to engage in actual debate...

and I can easily understand why.

[whatchamacallit]

18. Erroneous application of the 1st video

I don't disagree with the premise, the problem is SDuderstadt's assumption that the varied, often improbable, theories employed to explain 9/11 phenomena are de facto sound science.

[SDuderstadt]

25. i'm not assuming anything...

and it's silly to keep attacking the methodology of the 9/11 investigation when there is little, if any, challenge to it from other than the ct community. maybe you should call asce and ask them why they aren't exposing nist.

[whatchamacallit]

26. Not the asce nonsense again

Maybe *you* should call them and ask why, before adapting their lack of activism to support your theory. Extra big:eyes: on this one.

[SDuderstadt]

34. maybe you should read the asce bpat, dude...

asce has already weighed in on this, even though you pretend they haven't.

[SDuderstadt]

82. Have you actually read the ASCE BPAT?

Have you?

[procopia]

36. So...

those who believe the official theory don't challenge the 9/11 investigations.

Got it. :eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

69. Thanks for a totally incoherent post...n/t

[PufPuf23]

42. SDude - Did you read my thoughtful post?

I called you (indirectly, not by name) a magical thinker as there is no gray in your responses just black/white dogma.

Both you and Bolo quit responding to me in the Jumbo Jet into Skyscraper thread. Bolo reduced his kinetic energy chart size so one could no longer read the detail and assumptions. Cowards?

Some of the dungeon denizens consider James Randi credible and apparently have pride in your skepticism but you have no skepticism, just knee jerk responses and personal insults.

By nature I am coldly rational and fact-based analytic but woo for my own amusement. Skepticism and prove it to me is my middle name regards to science.

Lets return to LIHOP/MIHOP in the other thread.

[SDuderstadt]

44. you're calling me a ''magical thinker''?

please provide evidence of my ''magical thinking''. i label my opinions as such and make sure that assertions are backed by documented facts. if you can identify one ''faith-based''' statement i have made, please share it with all of us.

[NowHearThis]

72. You ridicule people that you call "truthers", so isn't it fair to call

you a truth denier? Seems reasonable to me. Some are interested in the truth. Others deny it.

[SDuderstadt]

73. what i ''deny'' is stupid supposition...

if you actually had concrete proof of your claims, you could convince people. you don't.

[NowHearThis]

74. What, if anything do you AFFIRM? I've yet to see anything exceopt

UNtruthisms, ANTItruthisms, TRUTHskepticisms, Feints, Dodges (all models), lack of respect for others, claims of being against
the very kind of suppositions that reek of truth and support of suppositions that reek of BS or worse.

Is it your position that the videos which show planes melting into buildings are genuine and not doctored? Explain why you
don't believe what any fool can plainly see. Explain how a plane can crash into a building, carve an outline of itself as it enters the building, and disintegrate at the same time. Muslim physics? Magical reality? INSIDE JOB.

[achtung_circus]

75. Well

Explain how a plane can crash into a building, carve an outline of itself as it enters the building, and disintegrate at the same time.

Here's a thought.

A bullet enters a body, leaving an outline of itself as it enters. It causes incredible damage to the body. Absent a full metal jacket, it fragments and tumbles, causing more damage.

Hence the old saying that they go in clean and come out dirty.

As I say, just a thought; similar process? I would suggest so.

ETA: exit wounds are nasty.

[SDuderstadt]

76. The planes are not "melting" into the buildings, dude...

it's a monumentally stupid claim and I'm not wasting any more keystrokes on it.

[NowHearThis]

77. It's a monumentally stupid claim that the videos show...

a real large tin can slice thru steel, create a cartoon cutout image of an airliner, and then enter the building, only to there and then break into billions and billions of little bitty pieces. Only a CGI plane could do that - unless you now want to claim that the building was constructed of whipped cream and glass - a claim which I believe some Untruther actually made once.

Anyone who isn't visually impaired can plainly see that the videos shown on television were doctored.

[SDuderstadt]

78. DONE...

D...O...N...E...with you and your goofiness.

[SDuderstadt]

79. Kick for NHT...

you REALLY need to watch both videos.

[jberryhill]

54. "Some of the dungeon denizens consider James Randi credible"

What has James Randi said of significance to 9/11?

I've never seen him cited on the subject at all.

Could you identify the argument that hinges on James Randi's credibility?

[SDuderstadt]

55. kick for befree...n/t

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

84. Kicked for Spooked....n/t

[pushbutton]

85. 9/11 events cannot be explained by probability

That video on probability and coincidences is quite interesting and makes some good points.

However I cannot see how it explains all of the many highly suspicious things about 9/11, such as:
- Why the 2 world trade centre towers collapsed at freefall speed as if there was no resistance beneath each floor as it collapsed onto the one below
- Why building 7 collapsed even though no plane collided with it and no jet fuel was involved in the fires in it
- Why the hole in the Pentagon was far too small for a commercial airliner to fit
- Why hardly any remains of the the plane that hit the pentagon were found
- Why Multiple explosions can be clearly seen and heard on all publicly available videos of the world trade centre WELL BEFORE the buildings collapsed, and during their collapse, and why numerous presumably intelligent and respectable people reported hearing and seeing these explosions and some of them can be seen to have sustained serious injury from them.
- Why the 3 buildings of the world trade centre collapsed so neatly and so quickly into their own footprint, rather than toppling over or only partially collapsing
- or many other strange and highly suspicious things that happened before, during, and after 9/11

That's because most of these things are not coincidences or random events that happened by chance. They are well documented facts and happened for fairly obvious reasons which any intelligent person can easily observe for themselves.

Having said that, I don't claim to know all the facts about who actually masterminded 9/11 or why. I could only speculate about that. But I do certainly know that the official story simply does not make sense, and there are a lot of unanswered questions. Questions about things which unfortunately cannot be explained by probability of coincidence!

[Bolo Boffin]

86. Your "highly suspicious things about 9/11" are factually inaccurate.

"- Why the 2 world trade centre towers collapsed at freefall speed as if there was no resistance beneath each floor as it collapsed onto the one below"

They didn't. You can see debris falling out to the sides and falling at ACTUAL freefall acceleration. The collapses themselve do not.

- Why building 7 collapsed even though no plane collided with it and no jet fuel was involved in the fires in it

Technically correct. However, other things were wrong with that building. Consult the NIST report on Building 7 to find out what.

- Why the hole in the Pentagon was far too small for a commercial airliner to fit

Dearie me, the oldies are still goodies. The hole was about 90' wide, right around the measurement from engine to engine at the angle Flight 77 hit. People watched this plane fly into the Pentagon.

- Why hardly any remains of the the plane that hit the pentagon were found

This is very wrong. The vast majority of debris (including all the passengers) was inside the Pentagon. This statement relies on the few pictures available of the debris found outside.

- Why Multiple explosions can be clearly seen and heard on all publicly available videos of the world trade centre WELL BEFORE the buildings collapsed, and during their collapse, and why numerous presumably intelligent and respectable people reported hearing and seeing these explosions and some of them can be seen to have sustained serious injury from them.

No, multiple explosions can not be clearly seen and heard on all publicly available video of the collapses. Produce all these recorded sounds of explosions. You do understand that the explosive required for your personal theory would have been deafening for great distances through the echo chamber of Manhattan buildings and streets? There's a video of Building 7 falling, recorded a couple of block away, and the reporter and interviewee don't notice the building's collapse until it actually starts to fall. There are no huge explosions hurling debris and glass everywhere. There's no deafening sound of explosives EASILY RECOGNIZABLE on any other actual video of controlled demoltion.

Produce the reports of "sustained serious injury" from explosives. You have none.

- Why the 3 buildings of the world trade centre collapsed so neatly and so quickly into their own footprint, rather than toppling over or only partially collapsing

If you think the collapses of the WTC buildings was neat, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. There wasn't enough resistance to the dynamic force of the falling sections in the structures below. And that is not because the supports were blown by explosives, it's because the supports couldn't have arrested the collapse at all. There was no other direction for those sections to fall but down.

[pushbutton]

92. Making assumptions perhaps?

No offence but you seem to be assuming that I have not seen hard evidence to support the claims I made there. I have!

Sorry but I just don't have time right now to find and post all of that evidence but it's out there to be seen by anyone who cares to look. Just go on youtube and search for 9/11. I'm not using lack of time as a cop-out. I just don't have time right now. Maybe I will do that later.

If you watch a wide variety of videos from multiple sources, read multiple different websites for and against conspiracy theories, watch the official news stories from CNN, BBC Fox etc, read newspaper articles and read books about 9/11 by various authors, and if you then think critically about all the claims made and all the things you've seen and heard, and you come to the conclusion after doing that that I am wrong, then that is your right.

[Bolo Boffin]

93. "Sorry but I just don't have time right now..."

Doo whacka doo whacka doo.

[pushbutton]

104. doo wacka

What does that mean?

[duphase]

87. "I don't claim to know all the facts about who actually masterminded 9/11..."

Neither do I, but having said that, I think you've posted some of the more important reasons why the official account cannot be
an honest explanation for what happened on 9/11.

Here's what one former insider had to say about official explanations:

"Look, if you think any American official is going to tell you the truth, then you're stupid. Did you hear that? - stupid." - Arthur Sylvester, Assistant Sec. of Defense for Public Affairs, 1965

And, for what it's worth, I am personally well acquainted with the son of a man who was selected not very many years ago to be Secretary for one our nation's armed force services, and I believe he (the son) would concur with the sentiment expressed by Mr. Sylvester. His father probably wouldn't agree. In fact, I'm real sure he wouldn't agree.

[pushbutton]

105. The government tells lies

Well I guess all that means is that the government sometimes tells us lies.

I would hope that everyone knows that already, although I'm not quite sure everyone does!

[duphase]

106. Yes, if it's only "SOMETIMES", no big deal. Is that your point?

Seems to me like a rather naive understanding about how power is played and projected by those in high government positions.

Most gullible people believe anything and everything that people in authority tell them.

It's more than just "sometimes", pushbutton. Deception is the essence of lying. And Gov't lies are usually a little more subtle than
it sounds like what you are talking about here.

[pushbutton]

107. sometimes

I think you may have read a bit too much into my definition of sometimes.

All I meant was simply that governments sometimes lie. That is, not everything they tell us is a lie, but some of it is!

[pushbutton]

89. More things that cannot be explained by coincidence or probability

Oh, and probability also doesn't explain why the melting point of steel is much higher than the temperature that the steel in the world trade centre would have reached during the very brief period in which the jet fuel burned.

Probability also doesn't explain why supposedly ALL the structural supports throughout the entire buildind (in all 3 world trade centre buildings that collapsed) ALL reached that critical melting temperature AT THE PRECISE same moment, and hence the entire building collapsed instantaneously in all 3 buildings (even though building 7 had not even been exposed to any jet fuel and even though no other steel framed building in history had ever collapsed in this way, except by controlled demolition).

As I said, it's got nothing to do with coincidence or probability.

[Bolo Boffin]

90. Straw men contribute nothing to the discussion.

No one claims the steel melted to make the buildings collapse. It didn't need to get to that temperature. You're beating a straw man.

So that makes your second point (reliant on melting point strawman) a straw man itself. Also, no one claims all the supports failed at the precise same moment. Another straw man.

[pushbutton]

95. Ok, all the steel didnt reach melting point then

Ok so I'm not quite 100% clear on exactly how the buildings are officially supposed to have collapsed.

I have seen and read several official accounts of why the buildings collapsed but all I heard of was a so-called "pancake theory".

As far as I can gather the pancake theory is that SOME of the steel beams reached a temperature at which they began to weaken or melt, which basically caused one level to collapse. That level collapsed onto the one below and the weight of the impact caused the level below to collapse and so on until the entire building collapsed.

This theory as far as I am aware holds true for both buildings 1 and 2. I actually haven't been able to find any official explanation for why building 7 collapsed, other than that there were small fires in it caused by impact of burning debris from buildings 1 and 2, and that there was explosives stored within building 7.

So building 7 as far as I can gather wasn't supposed to be the subject of pancake theory collapse, but it still somehow collapsed at freefall speed onto it's own footprint.

Ignoring building 7 for now though, the pancake theory doesn't make sense to me because surely as each level of the twin towers collapsed onto the floor below, it would have to meet with some resistance from the floor below. Logically this would at least slow down the collapse to well below freefall speed, and at some point one would think that the debris would begin to fly out all over the place and the rest of the towers (I don't know how much of them but certainly a high proportion) would remain standing, albeit with serious damage.

The fact that the towers (and building 7 but I'm putting that aside for now) collapsed pretty much completely, and at very close to freefall speed, tells me that the pancake theory does not stack up (no pun intended).

Therefore the most logical explanation I can think of is that floors below were blown out by some sort of explosives, as happens in controlled demolitions. I have seen plenty of evidence to support this idea too so it's not just my theory, but as I said it makes a lot more sense to me than the pancake theory.

[Bolo Boffin]

98. If you want to "get clear" on how the buildings collapsed

Why don't you read the NIST reports on the building collapses instead of relying on what people tell you the NIST reports say?

For example, the "pancake theory" was rejected by NIST at least five years ago. Collapse initiation was not because floor assemblies pulled loose from perimeters and began falling down. Collapse initiation was because the floor assemblies stayed connected while sagging under the extreme heat, pulling the perimeter columns in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJbGm7GE1tA

It's going to be better if you just get the "official story" from the official source, don't you think?

All of the reports are available here:

http://wtc.nist.gov

[pushbutton]

99. Thanks

Now we're having a proper debate. This is good.

I don't think I've seen those particular sources, but I'll take a look right now!

[Make7]

102. ROTFLMAO! ( n/t )

[pushbutton]

103. funny?

I didnt think it was all that funny myself, but I'm glad if you got a laugh out of it!

[SDuderstadt]

108. The fundamental mistake you are making is...

assuming the floors fell on each other one at a time. Now look at a picture of both towers and note where the impact zone was in each. Count the number of floors above. Now realize that initially, all the floors above that zone collapsed on the first floor below the impact zone and all those floors PLUS the newly collapsed floor then collapsed the floor below that. Now tell us what resistance a single floor could have offered to all the floors above the impact zone.

[pushbutton]

110. You may have a point there

I haven't yet read the NIST report on the collapse of buildings 1 and 2 admittedly (and maybe I should have before now!!!) but I'm in the process of digesting the NIST report on building 7 and then I'll work my way through the ones on buildings 1 and 2.

You may have a point about the weight of the building above the impact point hitting the floors below. On the other hand, I'd probably be more inclined to think that upon hitting the floors below, the top part of the building would be more likely to sort of topple off the lower part of the building and fall to the ground independantly.

Wouldn't it be unlikely that it would happen to hit the floors below symetrically and evenly enough to make them collapse in the way they did?

Anyway that's mere speculation on my part because as I said I have yet to read the NIST report. I'm honestly hoping that once I have done so, it will make more sense and remove the cause of some of my suspicions about 9/11.

I will post my thoughts on the reports once I have read, understood and thought about them.

[SDuderstadt]

112. Well, the issue of "symmetry" is a total red herring unless...

you can provide some math to demonstrate how a single floor could provide enough resistance to the enormous mass above it to cause the upper section to topple off the side. You should really ask a structural engineer why that makes little sense. It would also help to understand gravity more fully.

[SDuderstadt]

94. Why don't you go back and re-read the OP...

and show where it says anything about probability "explaining" anything. What I said was "truthers" who claim there were "too many coincidences" don't understand probability very well. And, I know of no one who claims the building collapsed because the "steel melted". Another "truther strawman".

[pushbutton]

96. Yes, point taken

Sorry maybe I should have used a different title or wording for my post.

I wasn't claiming that your original post was incorrect.

I agree completely that there are too many 'truthers' out there who say there were too many coincidences. I'm not disuputing that at all.

The point I was trying to make though is that not all 9/11 conspiracy theories are based on there being too many coincidences. Some of them are based on sound logic, common sense, science, and first hand witness accounts / videos.

As for the coincidences, that's a whole different debate and my guess is that some of them really were just coincidences, others were possibly (note I only say POSSIBLY) something more sinister.

[pushbutton]

88. Open-mindedness

I've come across quite a few people who are not open minded about 9/11, and it can be very frustrating.

These close-minded people lie on both sides of the debate. Some of them are 100% certain that 9/11 was an inside job, and others are 100% certain that the official story is totally true.

The trouble is, neither of these people should really be so certain of their ideas.

My own view is that I DO NOT KNOW all the facts about 9/11.

I only know that there are a lot of unanswered questions about it, and that from evidence and ideas that I have seen from multiple sources, there are a lot of things about 9/11 that are highly suspicious.

If I were to say that I know for sure that it was an inside job, I'd be close minded. I'd be equally close-minded if I were to say that I know for certain that the official story is totally true, and I will not consider anything that contradicts it.

Unfortunately a lot of "conspiracy theorists" seem to believe that everything they have seen in conspiracy theories about 9/11 is unquestionably true. For example they might have seen "Loose Change 2nd edition" and absolutely know that everything in that video is true.

Why is it then that more recently, the people who made that video have admitted that a lot of it was made up or exaggerated?

What an open-minded person should do is (as the video you pointed to explains very well) consider all available evidence and think about it critically and logically, then for each claim of evidence made they should decide their attitude towards it, which should be one of 3 things.

Either decide that:
1. On the balance of probability the claim seems to be true, so therefore you'll believe it until such time as you're presented with MORE CONVINCING evidence that it's not true.
2. On the balance of probability the claim is not sufficiently shown to be true, or is shown to be untrue. In this case you're going to believe it is FALSE, until such time as youre presented with evidence that persuades you otherwise.
or 3. That there's not enough evidence for you to decide one way or the other whether the claim is true or false.

It's this 3rd option that a lot of people on both sides of the debate seem to be afraid to choose. However, 'sitting on the fence' is SOMETIMES the most logical and sensible position to take!

If more people thought things through in this way, and admitted that they don't know what they don't know, then we could have a much more worthwhile and productive debate about a lot of things, including 9/11.

For the record, there's a lot of things I do not know about 9/11. I only know there's a lot of unanswered questions and highly suspicious circumstances that I feel need to be further investigated or explained.

One of the few things I am pretty well certain of (until such time as someone can persuade me otherwise) is that the 3 buildings which collapsed on 9/11 were brought down using some kind of explosives in controlled demolitions. I am certain of that much because I have seen a lot of of very convincing evidence for myself, and because my own rudimentary knowledge of basic physics tells me that it is by far the most likely explanation for why the buildings collapsed.

As I said though, I'm open to anyone who cares to show me convincingly that I am wrong about that!

[Bolo Boffin]

91. You can't be open-minded about 2+2=4.

That's how Big Brother gets you.

[pushbutton]

97. 2+2=4

I'm not sure if there was a particular point you were making there, but yes of course 2+2=4.

That's an example of where logic and basic knowledge of maths tells you that the statement is certain to be true, and therefore nearly everyone with any common sense is likely to accept it as true (unless someone can prove otherwise, which is unlikely in this example!)

[Bolo Boffin]

100. No one can prove that 2+2 equals anything else other than 4.

That is a priori knowledge.

My point is that open-mindedness itself becomes a flaw if your mind never closes around anything at all, such as things like 2+2=4. Asking questions is fine, but there are answers as well, answers that can be found and understood. And just because they are not the answers you'd like doesn't mean they are not true.

[pushbutton]

101. True

Well in the case of 2+2=4, you are undoubtably correct!

[SDuderstadt]

109. You can start with Brent Blanchard's paper debunking the idea of...

"controlled demolition"on 9/11. After that, you need to do a search of all the controlled demolition experts who claim that the three buildings came down in a "controlled demolition". The closest you'll come is Danny Jowenko, a Dutch expert who thinks WTC 7 was a CD (but only after being shown a very misleading video by some "truthers"). However, Jowenko states clearly that WTC 1 & 2 did NOT look like a CD. So, ask yourself...why don't CD experts support the "towers were brought down by CD" claim?

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

[pushbutton]

111. not sure

I'm not sure about this. I'm currently in the process of reading the NIST reports on the collapses. At some point I'll try to find the time to look at the link you posted as well.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist or "truther" when it comes to 9/11. I'm a sceptic, and I regard it as sensible to be sceptical about things that appear suspicious.

I'm hoping to reduce my scepticism by increasing my knowledge as a result of information I can gather from people on this forum.

[SDuderstadt]

113. Kick for duphase...n/t

[SDuderstadt]

114. Kick

[SDuderstadt]

115. kick for relevance and timeliness n/t

[SDuderstadt]

116. kick for relevance and timeliness n/t

[SDuderstadt]

117. Kick for relevance to "mysterious deaths" n/t

[SDuderstadt]

118. Kick for EXTREME timeliness and relevance n/t

[Kalun D]

119. S L O W times

slow times in the dungeon for SDude, the OTC message is so one-tracked and monotonous, you can dredge up a year old post and it's just as good as any recent OCT material.

"kick for extreme slowness and irrelevance of the O-Post"