on e@ffecting change in thinking...

[Dionysus]

(06-04-2012 03:00 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  But she doesn't MAKE arguments, she simply lays out the data and shows what is congruent with current scientific knowledge and that which is not. How you can claim that this is an argument seems at the least disingenuous.

Sorry-- I should have said her "case," not her "argument." Surely you admit that she's presenting some sort of case (otherwise why would she even bother writing anything?). Since this thread is in serious danger of being hijacked, I'll just say this and end it (for me):

"directed energy weapon"

"nanothermite"

Which one has the more established science behind it? I like to stick with what I can prove.

ETA: And does it really matter how the buildings were demolished? Can't we just agree that they were demolished and that the official government conspiracy theory is nothing but a tissue of lies? Why split hairs?

[eye2i2hear]

arrr, the OPer might as well get in on the jack, aye m8ies?!

(06-04-2012 05:35 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  "directed energy weapon"

...the more established science behind it? I like to stick with what I can prove.

ETA: ...the official government conspiracy theory is nothing but a tissue of lies?

Would it be rational/reasonable to say if (since?) there can be such an elaborate, complex conspiracy about an event, there equally could be a conspiracy about complex science/tech that was used for said event?

(i certainly dunno; i'm just sayin', ya know? fwiw my probability meter pegs way more on the conspiratorial DEW than the conspiratorial thermite --mostly because thermite doesn't explain enough of the peculiar/unique evidence; but i plead 'novice' and will leave you big doGs to run with it)

[NonEntity]

(06-04-2012 05:35 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  "directed energy weapon"

"nanothermite"

Which one has the more established science behind it? I like to stick with what I can prove.

ETA: And does it really matter how the buildings were demolished? Can't we just agree that they were demolished and that the official government conspiracy theory is nothing but a tissue of lies? Why split hairs?

I agree that we can agree that it wasn't the government approved conspiracy theory. We're cool on that.

As to "why split hairs?" I'd have to say - because it is just part of human nature to try and understand our world. Why do we do anything?

But you're still not seeing my point (I don't think.) What if it is NEITHER? Why is it that you have to have a theory that you can pin it on? I KNOW that it wasn't nano-thermite. I don't know that it was directed energy weapons, although the current evidence seems more congruent with the currently known/publicly-revealed science of directed energy than any other explanation. So... we don't know. It could be something else. But WHY tell yourself that it is "nano thermite" just because a bunch of people claim that it is that (just like a bunch of people claimed that there was a "magic bullet" which killed Kennedy and Connally) when the more honest thing to do is simply say, I don't know. Why is it so hard to say "I don't know." Why do people have to make up a magical being called god rather than simply saying, I don't know where we came from or if life has any inherent meaing?

It's like the joke about how a man will drive around until he runs out of gas rather than stop and ask someone directions? WTF???

You say that you "like to stick with what I can prove," but while science may understand more about nano-thermite than directed energy at this point, that has nothing to do with whether that knowledge aligns with the FACTS in the case. I know a lot about photography, but I don't use that knowledge to try and claim that I have the answer to cancer. My knowledge about photography is completely irrelevant in regards to cancer, no matter HOW much I may know about it. Same here. The facts in evidence prove that nano-thermites could not have caused the disappearance/destruction/dustification/whatever of the twin towers. Isn't that all you need to know? I could say the buildings disappeared because someone used too fast of a shutter speed. That doesn't make it true, no matter how much I know about photography and shutter speeds. The shutter speed of some local photographer is totally irrelevant to the twin towers, as is nano-thermite.

I don't have to make any claims about any other form of demolition process to say that. I don't have to know what caused it to know what DIDN'T cause it. I KNOW that too fast of a shutter speed was not the cause of the twin towers event. Do I need to know WHAT caused the event to rule out the too-fast-of-a-shutter-speed theory?

Am I not making any sense here?

- NonE1

- NonE2

- NonE3


(When are we going to get our :brickbat: smilie back, Marc??????)

[Dionysus]

I refer back to my daffynitions in the Huh? WTF? thread. Do I know nanothermite was used? Absolutely not. Do I believe nanothermite was used? Yeah, I guess so. But that belief (like any belief) is subject to revision based on new information. I have to confess, I haven’t really looked all that closely into Judy Wood’s work (she came out with her stuff after I had “given up the ghost” on 9/11). And at this point, I never really intend to look into it much more. Like I’ve said numerous times before, I’ve moved on from 9/11 and am more interested in improving the world (or what’s left of it). That includes bringing about a “voluntary society.” You can keep studying 9/11 if you like. Think of it as an intellectual exercise and a game, but that’s all. The JFK researchers have been at it for almost half a century, and they’ve pretty much gotten no place fast. 9/11 will meet with the same fate. It’s past history. Let the dead bury the dead and all that rot. I think Rush said it best:

“I can learn to resist
Anything but temptation
I can learn to co-exist
With anything but pain
I can learn to compromise
Anything but my desires
I can learn to get along
With all the things I can't explain“

[NonEntity]

(06-05-2012 02:21 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  I refer back to my daffynitions in the Huh? WTF? thread. Do I know nanothermite was used? Absolutely not. Do I believe nanothermite was used? Yeah, I guess so. But that belief (like any belief) is subject to revision based on new information. I have to confess, I haven’t really looked all that closely into Judy Wood’s work (she came out with her stuff after I had “given up the ghost” on 9/11). And at this point, I never really intend to look into it much more. Like I’ve said numerous times before, I’ve moved on from 9/11 and am more interested in improving the world (or what’s left of it). That includes bringing about a “voluntary society.” You can keep studying 9/11 if you like. Think of it as an intellectual exercise and a game, but that’s all. The JFK researchers have been at it for almost half a century, and they’ve pretty much gotten no place fast. 9/11 will meet with the same fate. It’s past history. Let the dead bury the dead and all that rot. I think Rush said it best:

“I can learn to resist
Anything but temptation
I can learn to co-exist
With anything but pain
I can learn to compromise
Anything but my desires
I can learn to get along
With all the things I can't explain“

Fair enough. I was just really appalled when you slandered Judy Wood who is the most competent and least biased of all of the researchers into 9/11 that I've come across. This I found highly offensive.

Actually I'm not really researching it, I occasionally dip in to see if there is new information, but there is so much bullshit and hate and mudslinging in the "community" that I have no desire to be a part of that. Information, on the other hand, I find interesting.

- NonE

[Dionysus]

^^ Well, if it's any consolation, you're in good company. I've offended a great many people in my time, mostly unintentionally, but sometimes on purpose. In fact, some people need to be offended sometimes to snap them out of their lethargy, and I'm more than happy to oblige.

[NonEntity]

(06-05-2012 05:00 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  ^^ Well, if it's any consolation, you're in good company. I've offended a great many people in my time, mostly unintentionally, but sometimes on purpose. In fact, some people need to be offended sometimes to snap them out of their lethargy, and I'm more than happy to oblige.

So am I reading you correctly that slander is just a fun way of amusing yourself and everyone should just get a big laugh out of it and let it go at that? If that's so then I'd assume you might find torture to be a barrel full of laughs.

- NonE

[Dionysus]

^^ "Slander?" Really? Aren't you being a tad melodramatic?? You've never insulted anybody? Highly dubious. I need to look no further than eye2 I'll bet. Look, I've admitted that she may be right and I regret insulting her. Do you want my blood? Do you want my tears? What do you want?

[NonEntity]

(06-05-2012 05:54 PM)Dionysus Wrote:  ^^ "Slander?" Really? Aren't you being a tad melodramatic?? You've never insulted anybody? Highly dubious. I need to look no further than eye2 I'll bet. Look, I've admitted that she may be right and I regret insulting her. Do you want my blood? Do you want my tears? What do you want?

Quote:slander - definition

noun /ˈslændər/
Related dictionary definitions
slander verb
1
[countable/uncountable] something bad that you say about someone that is not true and may damage their reputation
What you said about Barbara is cruel and vicious slander.

2
[uncountable] legal the crime of saying something about someone that is not true and is likely to damage their reputation
Thesaurus entry for this meaning of slander

It's interesting that someone who has singlehandedly mounted the only forensic investigation into 9/11 to date and who has lost her job and about everything she had in the process and you feel no sense of concern over assisting those who have set out to destroy her. That's all. It's a bit callous, that's all. You seem to have no empathy regarding your participation in her destruction.

Some of us, when we've f***ed up take the time to say we're sorry. I'm just amazed, that's all. I shouldn't be, of course, but I am and I'm not too chickenshit to point it out when I see it.

I was hoping maybe that I could find a reason with this dialog to raise my poor level of respect for you. I have not found such a reason. So be it.

This has nothing to do with 9/11. It has to do with integrity.

- NonE

[Dionysus]

Dude, I think you may have finally flipped your lid completely-- seriously. I was trying to apologize... and you basically just told me to go f*ck myself. What's up with that? To bring this thread full-circle:

Phil Plait Wrote:Don't be a dick.

P.S.-- If I'm such a slug/worm/rat, maybe you should just ignore my posts from now on. Or better yet, maybe I just won't post here anymore. I get plenty of abuse in my "real" life. I don't need any more here in fantasyland. I saw Marc reading this thread earlier tonight. I'd like to know what he thinks, if anything. Then again, maybe I don't give a crap. You never can tell with me, lacking "integrity" the way I do.

Thhhhhhat's all, bitches.