Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?
You don't get it Kat. The only thing I criticize you for is your failure to declare, one way or another.
Fine, then you'll just have to keep criticizing me.
I don't criticize your fascination with arcane details, because I do the same thing about aviation matters.
There's a difference between 'arcane' and 'germane' and you should consider that distinction. When these details form the crux of someone's conclusion, and these details range from disputable to blatantly false, what does that say about the resulting conclusion?
Premises->Conclusion
You'd like to gloss over the fact that the premises fail and yet retain the conclusion. Then criticize me for not "declaring" one way or another. I do declare that some of what I see written around here is bull****.
Every single argument I've seen for CD falls into a spectrum ranging from curious and perhaps meaningful at one extreme to complete bull**** at the other. Most of it is fallacious, none of it is compelling. The people who say they've proven a natural collapse are impossible have done no such thing, and betray their lack of understanding of what constitutes rules of evidence and rigorous logic to process the facts.
I criticize you for your failure to come to a conclusion, that's all.
You're faulting me for NOT coming to a conclusion when MY analysis shows the evidence is inconclusive. Most, if not all, of the reasons/details you can cite for why you believe the tower collapses were not natural are bull****. On subjects other than CD, where it is more a matter of forensics/intelligence/politics and other forms of subjective drama and grossly inadequate information, I prefer not to speculate in public because lay speculation in these subjects isn't worth a bucket of spit. But, take away CD and what do you have? Speculation, for the most part.
As an amateur psychologist I am fascinated by that behavior.
As a human being who strives to be upwardly evolved, I'm appalled at the behavior I see by you and others. I cringe at the thought that you can vote. I become strangely sympathetic with the elite in ther loathing of the masses (though all they are is more of the same born with silver spoons).
I think after 11 frigging years it's pretty obvious what happened because we know alot more today than we did 11 years ago.
I see mostly the same bull**** peddled year after year. No progression, not even coherence. No rhyme or reason. One member of a organization claims acceleration of WTC1 of 5.11 m/s^2 and other members of the very same organization claim freefall. Neither seems to even notice the discrepancy, let alone care.
Tony Szamboti is on record saying essentially "it's all good" so long as the false claims aren't too over the top. And, by false claims over the top, he means **** YOU believe - no planes, CGI, DEW, nukes:
T_Szamboti said:
There is nothing wrong with trying to pin down what happened in an accurate way. However, short of someone making outrageously false claims, like no planes hit the towers or space beams or mini-nukes were used, the real bottom line here is not whether they provide a perfect explanation for how the twin towers and bldg. 7 actually came down, but that the overall evidence shows these collapses could not possibly have been due to natural causes, and that a new investigation is necessary.
From that general perspective I think AE911Truth is doing the right thing, while a number of people, including myself, would show them where they might be off-base and could be more accurate if given the opportunity. I personally don't agree that columns being ejected laterally and landing several hundred feet away is proof of controlled demolition, when the buildings were over 1360 feet tall and a natural horizontal push which could cause it was easily possible.
But that's all fine and well in the fraternity of trutherdom, isn't it? Truth takes a backseat to the cause. All claims, true or false or contradictory, lead to a preponderance of evidence for the conclusion! :lamo
Tony does not criticize you, and you do not criticize him, and Tony won't point out where psikeyhackr is dead wrong on the simplest aspects of physics, and it's all one big, happy family. Except for psikeyhackr. I'll say one thing about psikeyhackr: he won't hesitate to unleash both barrels on anyone - CTer or otherwise - who conflicts with his position. He'd throw ALL of you under the short bus in a heartbeat if he felt you were undermining his perspective on the world.
You can all take that anti-intellectual medieval sense of anti-logic and shove it up your ass.
eace
