Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Thanks for replying, Jeff. I meant to ruffle back, I admit:) And it wasn't too much. Just too typical. My feeling is simply that it's not honest to lump ALL of these conspiracy theories together with the 9/11 questions while crying "Occam's Razor!," as if any other reaction is uninformed idiocy from folks who will no doubt have to go look up what "Awkum" means anyway. I don't have any axe to grind re: 9/11, except that I've watched a few videos about all the contradictory evidence and the one thing that is obvious is that not all doubters are crackpots or are even taking either a left-wing or a right-wing POV. They're talking seriously and from an engineer's POV about such apparent facts as that not a single steel-frame skyscraper in history has ever collapsed due to fire, even though many have burned much hotter than the Twin Towers did, or could have if it was only a jet- fuel fire. And no such buildings that HAVE collapsed by accident have ever fallen so precisely in upon themselves. Etc. Etc. How does Occam apply here, then? I don't know, but I defer to engineers over Official Explainers. It's certainly intellectually cheap, if not dishonest, to invoke Elvis and Roswell and bail, when you're simply unwilling to even admit that there are seriously disturbing questions about the whole sorry affair. History, even very clearly American History, is replete with ignominious behavior by very powerful, very duplicitous and quite heedlessly self-serving folks, and it's not enough for me to trump any possibility of criminality of this sort by simply pointing at terrorists, who by definition MUST be more "evil" than any American in Power, while throwing in a bit of "Crack-pot" name-calling for good measure. I find it insulting, actually, as well as clear evidence of no stronger arguments being available from, or any actual inquiring having been done by, the thrower. That's all... dc On Aug 3, 2008, at 5:34 PM, Jeff Shirkey wrote: > > >> I suppose this kind of comment is meant to be funny, right? > > I suppose. > >> >> Sort of an elbow in the ribs for all the heads-on-straight skeptics >> to chuckle knowingly over while gazing down upon all the credulous >> ignoramuses...? > > There's some of that involved, yes. > >> >> Or is it more of a "Let's all just have a good giggle and admit >> this is silly!" kind of thing, meant to stem a growing discord? > > But more of this. > >> >> Whatever the motive, it seems like either the most insulting kind >> of argumentative dishonesty > > I don't see how it's dishonest. I believe Elvis is dead, the earth > is round, that no one has been abducted by aliens, and that Jesus > and the Virgin Mary have never appeared in the clouds, or on the > sides of interstate overpasses, let alone in grilled cheese > sandwiches. I also believe that extremist Islamic religious groups > who are very, very angry about US imperialist policies in the area > of the world in which they live flew two airplanes into the WTC--and > another one into the Pentagon. The full "truth" about what (or > perhaps how it) happened may be a bit hazy, but it's not completely > opaque. In short, apply Occam's razor, folks. > >> or the most simplistic possible refusal to question any Official >> Story. > > Questioning official stories is one thing. Crackpot left wing (or > right wing, for that matter) conspiracy theories are quite another. > >> Care to take it back, Jeff? Otherwise, what WAS the point? > > No, it's out there, so I can't take it back. Let's just say I fully > support and agree with Harry, and I chose to express that point of > view in a different fashion. > > Sorry if it ruffled your feathers too much. > > Jeff >