It’s only a “religion” in the sense its “believers” are impervious to evidence in the material world. ... The truthers are equally divorced from reality but also do not have good intentions at all, so I don’t compare it to a formal religion.
Yes, indeed, I am a bit religiously fanatical about 9/11 Truth, but it is religious fanaticism to God-given mathematical truths of the universe of the form 2+3=5. Except that the cheerleaders for the official govt conspiracy theory (OGCT) continually tell us 2+3=4.7, which comes up short no matter how you measure it.
Football fanaticism and misguided American patriotism (mixed with perversions of Christ's Christianity) is what fuels proponents of the OGCT.
I will not admit that any anomalous aspect of 9/11 is contradictory to the govt's version, because the revelation of this fact unravels not just the crime, not just its "respected" culprits, but our very nation consisting for 50 States. Were I to let one wild seed of 9/11 truth germinate, it would mean that I'd have to be true to my oath regarding defending the Constitution from its enemies, both foreign and domestic. It would mean I might just have to muster up the courage akin to our founding fathers in wrestling our future from the oligarchs and corporations, and maybe to make new more manageable countries and territories out of fifty states.
Mr. ConsDemo wrote:
It is pointless to have a dialog with truthers because they are so narrow minded and wedded to their crackpot views but posts from blogs like yours come in handy when I run across some troofer bs in a public forum.
By crackpot views, do you mean 9/11 milli-nukes and computer generated imagery (CGI) for the commercial planes hitting the towers? Sorry to burst your bubble, but posts from blogs like Mr. Plumbers will not come in handy when you run across such troofer bs in a public forum (like this), because Mr. Plumber is incapable of addressing them. This isn't to fault Mr. Plumber, but the counter evidence and explanation just don't Occam Razor do it like 9/11 milli-nukes and CGI do.
Mr. ConsDemo? Is it because you cannot address the facts that you must attack the messengers, which this planning more or less amounts to? Mr. ConsDemo wrote:
One thing debunkers really need to deconstruct is the AE911troof membership numbers. I can think of a couple possible flaws
1) They are just numbers on a website, the host could put any “names” he wants on there.
2) Even if they are real people, who knows if they really work the claimed professions
and finally
3) Even if there are 1,300 real professionals who endorsed that garbage they are still a miniscule fraction of people in the fields broadly and they, like all other troofers, are simply masquerading their ideology behind their credentials.
Regarding #1 & #2: Both the names and their credentials have been certified as being engineers. AE911Truth look up that the person does exist, that they studied at the university they claim, and that they achieved the certification boasted. The one thing you should be aware of is that engineering schools have core courses in mathematics and physics that all engineering majors must take and pass.
Regarding #3: Shall we put this tiny fraction into perspective. It only took one Copernicus and one Galileo to unlock some truths of the heavens, despite an army of religious dogma in opposition.
Yes, 1,300 real professionals may seem like a small number. Why haven't more academic professionals and researchers lined up to sign? The answer to that becomes clearer when you answer: where does 99% of funding for academic research come from? They know which side their bread is buttered on. The Bush Administration showed its appreciation for loyalty to the fawning and complicit; they also showed their appreciation for the disloyal and the whistle-blowers that sent any would-be whistle-blowers the clear message what would befall them, their careers, their reputation, and their families.
"A coward is a hero with a wife, kids, and a mortgage." ~ Marvin Kitman
Mr. ConsDemo wrote:
However, it would be nice to see someone do a more systematic critique, because of all their bs claims this is one the few that otherwise sane people may fall for.
Lay's potato chips used to run a telly commercial with the jingle: "You can try, but you just can't do it ... (no one can do it)". They were referring to eating just one chip, while I refer to the task you propose.
When I claim that you can't do it, I mean no offense to your personal abilities, Mr. ConsDemo, or even to that of Mr. Plumber or Mr. Limey. I'm also not pleading with you in a winey voice: "no, don't do that; you just can't, you nasty brute, you." I'm saying that the math and physics, being what they are and God-given and inspired and all, cannot at the same time be right and wrong. If the math & physics of AE9/11 Truth could be debunked as being not true, it would have been in a systematic fashion and you could repeat it now. Only special pleadings with regards to the laws of physics and careful, purposeful, and dubious misdirection of stats can the critique you seek make any traction.
I enjoy your phrasing. Paraphrased: (otherwise) sane people fall for AE9/11 Truth. Why is that, Mr. ConsDemo? And does that mean that (otherwise) insane people may fall for the OGCT?
Senor El Once
No comments:
Post a Comment