Parting Shot

[aggle-rithm]

I'm going to stop contributing to this forum, now, although I'll probably continue to lurk. I'd like to say that I have appreciated the level of intelligence shown here, which is much higher than I've come to expect of a lot of CT forums. Also, I appreciate the mod/admins' willingness to allow us to present our viewpoint.

My central problem with the CT viewpoint is not that it conflicts with the government's "official story". It's that the type of logic used to come to the "inside job" conclusion can be used to prove or disprove anything -- essentially making it meaningless and useless.

Take the example of the geo-centric universe. Using the same sort of logic I have seen used on this forum, I could state that the Sun and all the planets revolve around the Earth. If you countered that scientists have known for years that this is not the case, I could simply say, "That is the official story. It's flawed. I can tell by looking up in the sky that everything orbits the Earth".

When you say that scientists have worked out the mathematics of the various heliocentric orbits to great precision, I can say, "that's just a mathematical model. Do you have a link to a video SHOWING the Earth revolving around the Sun?"

If you say that Newton and Einstein were able to make extremely accurate predictions from this mathematical model, I can say, "They were obviously shills. They were working from invalid assumptions."

And so on, and so on.

I believe that conspiracy theories spring forth from the belief that any momentous event is caused by an equally momentous intent. It's scary to think that terrible chains of events can be set in motion by very small deviations from the norm.

Eight years ago my wife's aunt died when she slipped and fell down in the shower. The thought that an entire lifetime of experiences can be snuffed out by a single misstep is disturbing, to say the least. I don't blame people for trying to find more meaning in such events than the evidence warrents...it's human nature. But, at some point, we have to return to reality.

A few years back I visited NASA and purchased a video describing the investigation into the Challenger disaster in 1986. I finished the video with the same knowledge that I had before -- that the horrible incident was caused by a faulty O-ring -- but felt strangely comforted. That's because the investigators were able to piece together EXACTLY what had happened. They now knew what went wrong and how to prevent it in the future. It's that knowledge that gave the incident meaning.

Conspiracy theorists ask, "How can a bunch of guys sitting in a cave half a world away outmaneuver the entire US military?" You may as well ask, "How can a piece of rubber kill seven astronauts and bring the entire US space program to a screeching halt?" The answer is simple: Relatively small events can have grave consequences. It's happened before, and it will happen again. All we can do when this happened is try to find out what went wrong, and try to prevent further carnage in the future.

That's what the various entities who have investigated 9/11 have tried to do. Sure, the conclusions are not as cut-and-dried as they were in the space shuttle investigation, which was essentially a technical problem. With 9/11, however, there were social and political forces at work, too. We may never know the "correct" answers to some of these questions, but we do have an astonishingly accurate picture of the physics of what happened.

What we critics take issue with is the rejection of this picture based soley on incredulity. Logically, there are several ways to go: You can accept the conclusion of the experts at face value, you can become an expert yourself and analyze their conclusions, or you can reject any expert opinion and take the view that we cannot know what happened.

Conspiracy theorists take a fourth option: Reject the expert's conclusions, and substitute their own opinions. This is absolute rubbish.

So, then...goodbye, and I wish you all luck with your rich fantasy life!

[chek]

Well AR, I would also like to comment that you have been one of the more reasoned of our band of critics - although obviously we have had our differences on this central issue.

While your supposition of the human need to find sense in a chaotic universe is but a single possibility out of many, I can only say that I think the events discussed will prove differently, to the benefit of us all.

So until next time - keep an open mind.

[Bushwacker]

Good post, as always, aggle-rithm. You will be missed!

[James C]

Hi aggle-rithm,

It will be a shame to see you go and I thank you for raising more questions than I would care to do. I genuinely hope that you do find time to come back. One of the ideas behind forums is to extend the debate in question. Any opinion is a necessary part of the equation.

I don't know how old you are, maybe young, maybe old, but I find as I get older that I question what the so called 'experts' say a lot more. In fact, I've come to realize that there are very few experts in the world and yet everyone will claim to be one at some stage in their life. Just be wary of taking any advice at face value from such people, especially those in power.

Hope to speak to you again in the future, perhaps when the truth comes out.

[blackcat]

Bye bye Aggle - go take up smoking. Loads of experts testified that it is harmless so it must be the case. They weren't paid by vested interests to enable evil people to keep making billions of dollars in profits while millions died - no sir - it doesn't happen. Experts can be trusted just like governments. So when things are blatantly NOT what experts say just suspend disbelief and stop thinking altogether. Now go have a nice puff - move along now - nothing to see here.

[Patrick Brown]

Ironic that you're off AR as I was just having one of those “sense of doubt” moments while reading this PDF: http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf

But alas building 7 comes back to haunt us all and not just that but all those little inconsistencies and coincidences. As I said a while back when asked “what was your smoking gun” I just find the inconsistencies and coincidences too much and too many to be rationally accepted. Yes Jung's synchronicity may have a grain of truth in it but lets not get carried a way.

Without simple stark evidence proving the OCT many of us will continue to pursue the truth of 911. I'm still at 99% and remain open minded. The only problem is as time passes the truth may be blurred into a comedy of errors but I doubt it will be amusing.

Any way good luck fluffy.

But remember the foot will always be here if you get the urge!

[Ignatz]

See you around aggle, and thanks for all the good sense you've posted here

[scubadiver]

[James C]

[Anti-sophist]

[James C]

[Anti-sophist]

[scubadiver]

[John White]

Aww go on AS, link us some threads so we could have a look at you purging the heretically non scientific, it would be cool

Sorry to see you go Aggle-Rythm, we were just getting to understand each other

Would you say you have gained anything from your time posting here?

[Anti-sophist]

[scubadiver]

I would add I am against Intelligent Design.

[Johnny Pixels]

So why did NIST bother using computer models, if they could get everything they needed from videos? Even if they were making the whole thing up to support the "OCT", they could make it up using video evidence.

Except video guesstimation isn't valid in engineering, so they have to use maths and physics. So video guesstimation is valid for use as a criticism, so get those text books out.

[James C]

[conspiracy analyst]

Rummie been given the boot and all the rats are leaving the sinking ship.

Shame. They should stay on board and face the music.

Charlatans.

[Anti-sophist]

[James C]

[Anti-sophist]

[scubadiver]

[Patrick Brown]

[Anti-sophist]

[scubadiver]

[ian neal]

I appreciate the sentiment and the civility of your posting.

I suspect you leave us still with some misapprehensions over what 'we' are really saying (not that we all speak with one message), but some of the responsibility for this probably lies with 'us' as much as you. Feel free to return. I believe we are far more rational and evidence based than your post suggests, but no matter

Best wishes

Ian

[Anti-sophist]

[scubadiver]

WHAT evidence is there for the OCT, may I ask?

Maybe hundreds of thousands of stories? Can you kindly tell me what you are referring to?

[Anti-sophist]