| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jsut_peopel
Minor Poster
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 82
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:11 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| John White wrote: | | jsut_peopel wrote: | | John White wrote: | | jsut_peopel wrote: | | John White wrote: | | aggle-rithm wrote: | | John White wrote: | | The need for 2) makes 1) imposssible without speculation, |
So speculate. Come up with a hypothesis. See if it hold water. If it doesn't, try again. |
Where's my motivation to speculate with you? I have Illusions to speculate into infinity with
| Quote: | | which advocates of 2) would then distort the debate with. 3) is fully reversable |
you dont pull me up on 2) I notice
| Quote: | | What do you mean by "reversable"? |
Now are you seriously telling me the Offical Story doesnt contain massive extrapolations? there's "fully reversable" for you: and theres deeper levels of that too
| Quote: | | Quote: | | and 4) is always relative |
I suppose so...what is "common sense" to a qualified structural engineer is closer to reality than "common sense" to, say, a college film student, at least when it comes to structural design and tolerances. That's why I tend to trust people when what they are commenting on is part of THEIR everyday lives. |
Your in the "cult of experts" if you seriously believe that. The findings and theories of experts have to stand up as practical answers that answer the balance of probabilites before they should be accepted as credible. They rarely do: and with 9/11 the whoppers from the "experts" have been huge indeed. Why should I defer to an "expert" with a theory that doesnt make sense of all my questions? No reason at all, unless I want my thinking done for me: and in many areas of life I do. I dont question what consitiutes expert healthy eating advice for example. But I know that is me giving permission to that expert to give me their advice: I have the power of my own mind, and I give or recind it at my own whim. I owe the expert nothing automatically
Not the first time I've come across people like yourself though aggle-rythm. Bias towards accepting the pronouncments of experts over one's own sense of judgement is a typical product of the university indoctrination system. This instills a logical left-brain reality model that its utterly inadequate for really grasping the nature of the psyche and the motivating factors that shape the world...which is why left brain thinking is so easy to manipulate, and so prefered by the system... deference to authority is a valued characteristic in those selected to administer on behalf of that authority
Which is why yesterday I commented that the JREF members show little ability for critical thinking (with at least one notable exception)... but a great ability in thinking critical of anything that threatens the pronouncements of the status quo...its a conditioned reflex btw. Randi has led you all up a blind alley as far as I'm concerned. The Tibetans call it "the error of the intellect" |
Well, that's just all kinds of stupid. |
Prove it: or is that just a "statement of faith?" |
Get your own house in order. |
Uh-huh. Well theres a fella out of his depth without a flotation device |
I can swim just fine thanks. Do you want to prove any of the things you wrote in your screed up there? or are they just "statements of faith?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
That reply was some well deserved mockery of critics trying to bait members into declaring "its a conspiracy" over the fact that the date of the small plane crash in new York (10/11/06) is the symbolic reverse of 9/11 and that its an interesting co-incidence!
| John White wrote: | Thats why I call critics co-incidence theorists. The number of co-incidences required to defend the offical story are enormous...the co-incidences required for the freak failure of so much of the structure all at the same time, for example
|
Gosh how hard was that!
Unless I am to conclude you are so wrapped up in your internal dialogue you didnt even notice?
|
Why would I notice? I can't even find where that quote came from. It certainly wasn't an answer to my question.
| Quote: |
Its you who appears to be "losing it" dear Aggle Rythm: as your pathetic attempts to claim pyroclastic flow is not associated with controlled demolition show
|
Can you find ANY pre-911 source that defines a pyroclastic flow as anything other than a geological phenomenon? Sure, it's been used to describe the dust cloud from the tower collapse, but only by conspiracy theorists, as far as I can tell.
Perhaps, in time, this common mis-use of the term will result in its meaning being changed to accommodate the usage. This is the way languages commonly evolve.
| Quote: |
Equally pathetic is your failure to acknowledge the obvious whitewash of the 9/11 commission and your aparent delusion that it "asked the tough questions": together with the implied insult into the integrity of the Jersy Girls, without which even that flawed investigation would undoubtably been denied the public
|
You have claimed that the 9/11 commission did not ask the tough questions. What are these tough questions? "Press for Truth" doesn't say what they are, only that they exist.
How much of a kickback do you get from the sale of this book? (Because, you know, if money is involved, it means you're evil and are hiding the truth...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's the book description from the Amazon site:
| Quote: |
With US political leaders - Democrat and Republican alike - embracing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and an eager media receiving the Commission's 567 page report as the whole story, everyone who cares about the fate of American democracy will want to know something about what those pages actually say.
The Commission's account, has made an impression with its size, its endnotes, its detail, its narrative finesse. Yet under the magnifying glass of eminent theologian David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor (a book that explores questions that reporters, eyewitnesses, and political observers have raised about the 9/11 attacks), the report appears much shabbier. In fact, there are holes in the places where detail ought to be abundant: Is it possible that Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld has given three different stories of what he was doing the morning of September 11, and that the Commission combines two of them and ignores eyewitness reports to the contrary? Is it possible that the man in charge of the military that day, Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers, saw the first tower hit on TV, and then went into a meeting, where he remained unaware of what was happening for the next 40 minutes? Is it possible, as the Commission reports, that the FA!
A did not inform the military that the fourth aeroplane appeared to have been hijacked, contrary to both common sense and the word of FAA employees?
David Ray Griffin's critique of the Commission's report makes clear that America's highest leaders have told tales that wear extremely thin when held up to the light of other eyewitness reports, research, and the dictates of common sense, and that the Commission charged with the task of investigating all of the facts surrounding 9/11 has succeeded in obscuring, rather than unearthing, the truth.
|
Is this an accurate description? Anything major left out? Because the questions asked here don't appear to be very substantive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: |
Here's the book description from the Amazon site:
| Quote: |
With US political leaders - Democrat and Republican alike - embracing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and an eager media receiving the Commission's 567 page report as the whole story, everyone who cares about the fate of American democracy will want to know something about what those pages actually say.
The Commission's account, has made an impression with its size, its endnotes, its detail, its narrative finesse. Yet under the magnifying glass of eminent theologian David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor (a book that explores questions that reporters, eyewitnesses, and political observers have raised about the 9/11 attacks), the report appears much shabbier. In fact, there are holes in the places where detail ought to be abundant: Is it possible that Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld has given three different stories of what he was doing the morning of September 11, and that the Commission combines two of them and ignores eyewitness reports to the contrary? Is it possible that the man in charge of the military that day, Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers, saw the first tower hit on TV, and then went into a meeting, where he remained unaware of what was happening for the next 40 minutes? Is it possible, as the Commission reports, that the FA!
A did not inform the military that the fourth aeroplane appeared to have been hijacked, contrary to both common sense and the word of FAA employees?
David Ray Griffin's critique of the Commission's report makes clear that America's highest leaders have told tales that wear extremely thin when held up to the light of other eyewitness reports, research, and the dictates of common sense, and that the Commission charged with the task of investigating all of the facts surrounding 9/11 has succeeded in obscuring, rather than unearthing, the truth.
|
Is this an accurate description? Anything major left out? Because the questions asked here don't appear to be very substantive. |
AR, just out of interest and not in a confrontational way, are you really saying that you can see nothing untoward even in that short description from Amazon?
I can't tell if you're being flippant or if that's what you really mean. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | AR, just out of interest and not in a confrontational way, are you really saying that you can see nothing untoward even in that short description from Amazon?
I can't tell if you're being flippant or if that's what you really mean. |
There may be something untoward about them, but I couldn't say without more evidence. Either way, if these are the "tough questions" everyone is complaining the 9/11 Commission didn't answer, I don't see what the big deal is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
That of JREF critics arguing against what they hav'nt even researched |
I commented only on the book description I found on Amazon, on the assumption that the description would summarize the major points made in the book. I made it clear that this was an assumption, and I asked if this was indeed an accurate description of the book. In no way did I make any assumptions about the content of the book itself.
Therefore I have not made any argument against anything I haven't researched. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | chek wrote: | AR, just out of interest and not in a confrontational way, are you really saying that you can see nothing untoward even in that short description from Amazon?
I can't tell if you're being flippant or if that's what you really mean. |
There may be something untoward about them, but I couldn't say without more evidence. Either way, if these are the "tough questions" everyone is complaining the 9/11 Commission didn't answer, I don't see what the big deal is. |
Well, don't forget that's only the Amazon blurb of a small portion, but you might find the book itself to have more substance as it goes into far greater detail in what may be termed perjoratively called by some 'a cover-up'.
Not that I'm biased, you understand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
Well, don't forget that's only the Amazon blurb of a small portion, but you might find the book itself to have more substance as it goes into far greater detail in what may be termed perjoratively called by some 'a cover-up'.
Not that I'm biased, you understand. |
That's why I asked if this was an accurate summary of the book. It doesn't seem logical to summarize it by bringing up only minor points and leaving out the good stuff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | chek wrote: |
Well, don't forget that's only the Amazon blurb of a small portion, but you might find the book itself to have more substance as it goes into far greater detail in what may be termed perjoratively called by some 'a cover-up'.
Not that I'm biased, you understand. |
That's why I asked if this was an accurate summary of the book. It doesn't seem logical to summarize it by bringing up only minor points and leaving out the good stuff. |
If you can bear to set aside 59 minutes of time,
DRG talks about a range of the issues himself here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6837001821567284154e |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
