For the record - now that it's the weekend (as I said I probably would), and I no longer have the stress of trying to finalize an 80 page report that falls into the grey area where law enforcement, environmental science, and environmental policy meet, and now that I'm no longer trying to get 5 days worth of work (according to the manager of the resource science unit anyway - mostly just changing the order things are presented in) done in three (I'm on annual leave for a week and it goes to the politicians on the 3rd of september) I've had the opportunity this morning to sit down and watch the video from start to finish.
Having done so has not changed my opinion of it, nor does it change the questions I asked of Arne. They still remain, they still remain unanswered, and they're as pertinent now as they were when I asked them.
I thought we had agreed to let this rest, but you have had two other moderators publicly chastise me, one calling me an 'asshole' and another saying I would appear to be a "9/11 truther" if I went on the way I am. I've never heard the term 9/11 truther before. And I think I should remind anyone who is following this "discussion" once more that I did not originate the OP question of whether this video is valuable, and I do not even necessarily agree with the videos conclusions - my only beef is with you, Trippy, a moderator and supposedly 'scientifically' minded person dismissing it out of hand.
Now you say you have watched the video, but as we both predicted watching it would in no way change your mind. All right. You're entitled to an opinion, but really isn't that a bit thick? Seventy minutes of new information and you have not budged a centimeter? Strikes me as rather hard-headed really.
Again then, you say:
Having done so has not changed my opinion of it, nor does it change the questions I asked of Arne. They still remain, they still remain unanswered, and they're as pertinent now as they were when I asked them.
So I have reviewed this entire thread and here are all of the questions you have asked me (pertinent and otherwise).
Are you actually serious???
This is the way the word is commonly used, the way the word is commonly used by laypeople is not necessarily correct. It is precisely this kind of mis-use of the word theory that leads to creationists making statements like "Well, evolution is only a theory, right?" Yeah, so is gravity, but you don't see people acting that way when deciding whether to leave their third floor apartment by the door or by the window do you?
Let me give you an example. In theory, if I purchase a raffle ticket, I could win a prize.
This is precisely the abuse I am referring to. It's not a theory that you might win a prize, it's a 'fact'. If the draw is random, every ticket has an equal opportunity to win a prize. That's not to say that it's a gauranteed outcome - if there are three million combinations of numbers available for your raffle ticket, and only one of those produces a price, then there is one outcome that leads to a prize and 2,999,999 that will not.
Now as long as I don't purchase a raffle ticket my win is theoretical
What win? If you never by a ticket you never have a chance of winning. What you have here, at best, is hypothetical winnings not theoretical winnings. And that's the point, when most people say "Theoretically speaking" what they actually mean is "Hypothetically speaking".
ANY hypothesis dealing with the events of 9/11 is automatically a conspiracy because of the nature of the events. The question being asked is who executed the hypothesis, was it a group of muslim religious extremists? Or was it the American government?
Troll much?
Right... So, at a limit of three photos per post, how many photos do you want to see?
I Posted a selection of the photos I found. You understand the law of the conservation of momentum don't you?
Where do you think most of the debris should have ended up?
Quote Originally Posted by Arne Saknussemm:
And I don't really want to see them, but where are the bodies?
If you don't want to see them then why ask?
Quote Originally Posted by Arne Saknussemm:
P.S. I don't appreciate your attitude. it's accusatory. I am already biased against your arguments and you have only yourself to blame - because of the way you speak to me. Browbeating is no way to explain, convince and teach.
Attitude? The only thing that's remotely personal in that post is the reference to your insipid whining.
No, I didn't, I said that what I had watched up to that point was crap. Get it?.
You asked me if I "was serious (three question marks) because I had asked:
The word 'theory' has more than one meaning: all of them rather similar. It is not for you to say which dictionary definition is correct, or even suits you best. How can you be a moderator when you don't even know how language works or what it is for? You don't get to decide what words mean unless you want to go live by yourself in a cave in the hills somewhere. One correct definition of the word 'theory' is literally spelt out in a sub-text. If you had been listening and understanding, you would know that the term in question is not even 'theory', but 'conspiracy theory'. Moreover, the speaker concludes at 3:58,"It will be up to you to decide if this is a conspiracy theory or indeed a 'conspiracy." What else do you want?
You and Fraggle have already given your take on the meaning of theory and it appears above, and here you see mine, so let's not go over all that again. Notice, however, my question in bold at the end of the quote. If we're exhaustively answering unanswered questions, here's one of mine you haven't addressed.
Oh, and to answer yours: Yes!!! I am serious!!!
Your next two questions about evolution and gravity are rhetorical, but yes, I agree they are theories.
Your next question is,"What win?" This is badly phrased somehow, but I guess I get what you mean. You are asking how I (or someone) could have won the lottery if we didn't play. So again, a rhetorical question really. So your whole monolog on gravity, evolution and lottery tickets are what I mean about you being condescending. You over-explain and do it in a rather tedious manner.
Next question:
The question being asked is who executed the hypothesis, was it a group of muslim religious extremists? Or was it the American government?
Read your question carefully. You don't ask who is responsible for 9/11 (who carried the attacks out). You merely ask: "who executed the hypothesis?" Either way, of course my answer is that I don't know. Why all this endless talk in the world if anyone knew the answer? I suppose the actual perpetrators know, but they're not saying.
Your next question is:
Another rhetorical question apparently, but I'll answer: No, never. Can't imagine why you would suddenly become so hostile.
Next: "
Right... So, at a limit of three photos per post, how many photos do you want to see?"
Rhetorical, and just plain dumb, and I have answered this already earlier. You can scroll back and search if you like. I am not going to do everything for you.
Next:
"I Posted a selection of the photos I found. You understand the law of the conservation of momentum don't you?"
We discussed this. I do understand, and you seemed to have backed down from the aggressive tone I originally sensed in it. So, enough said.
Then:
"Where do you think most of the debris should have ended up?"
At last a
real question! My answer is all over the ground and in the building, of course, and tons of it. Now, the presenter in the video says there was an entire film made in France about this, and his own group's investigation thought the French must be wrong about their conclusion that there isn't enough debris if what the government and mainstream media claimed had happened on 9/11 actually occurred. However, when they looked at all the publicly available photos, they tended to agree with the French.
What do I think? I think two teams of investigator that I know of (I suppose there were other teams) find strangely little debris. In the
Plane Site video we are discussing, they suggested it was a missile or some government conspiracy ordered 'other' plane that hit the Pentagon. I don't think it was in this video, but some other article that perhaps YOU led me to, mentions that on 9/10 the news out of the Pentagon that 2.5 billion dollars had gone missing. The source though t it rather 'convenient' that something occurred the very next day to distract the public from
that news. So two teams of investigators have their suspicions. I think I have few as well then.
Quote Originally Posted by Arne Saknussemm:
And I don't really want to see them, but where are the bodies?
Trippy:If you don't want to see them then why ask?
We've discussed this. Brilliant waffling on your part there.
Next:
Quote Originally Posted by Arne Saknussemm:
P.S. I don't appreciate your attitude. It's accusatory. I am already biased against your arguments and you have only yourself to blame - because of the way you speak to me. Browbeating is no way to explain, convince and teach.
Trippy: Attitude? The only thing that's remotely personal in that post is the reference to your insipid whining.
Tsk tsk. Temper, temper. And Fraggle wants me to apologize to
you?
And finally:
No, I didn't, I said that what I had watched up to that point was crap. Get it?.
Which comes from:
Quote Originally Posted by Arne Saknussemm:
And what discussion? You said it was interesting, Trippy said it was crap, and then I told Trippy to get a clue.
Trippy: No, I didn't, I said that what I had watched up to that point was crap. Get it?
This is really not worth discussing. It's you getting all confused. I was talking to Russ W and you got confused and thought I was talking to you. You actually mixed up a post I wrote to you with another to Russ. No big deal. You must have been tired.
To conclude, you actually had very few questions that you asked me, and only one of them something like pertinent, but actually not since I admit that I can't know more than two teams of investigators (when I haven't even seen their complete conclusion). I only know what I saw on TV like every one else.
Now that we have reviewed your false perception that you had asked me many pertinent questions, I have to say that all this supports my view that your not much of a moderator. You certainly are not a very objective or fair-minded man. I can't find it now, but I seem to recall you or your little friend Russ calling me a liar. I do not care to review his questions to me because among other things he accused me of having not read the links you and he posted to refute me. I have explained that he made this accusations so quickly after the postings that I simply had not seen them yet because I was writing to defend myself from earlier nonsense. He hasn't yet admitted that he was wrong to do that. So, whatever...
You have called me a whiner, a liar and a troll simply because I have said you should watch a film before commenting on it. I was rather aggressive, but that's because you are right when you say I "don't like the color of your name." (Hmm. I have never heard that expression before) but yes. In the past I often have found your posts overbearing, short-tempered and self-satisfied - you often assume that you know everything before you have even really investigated it properly.
Apparently you agreed that you should have because now you have watched it. We both knew you wouldnt change your mind, and you have said nothing since watching it to explain why you think it is a bad film with wrong conclusions. But really, don't bother. I'm not interested in your opinion anymore.
Our disagreement was never about if the film is correct in its assertions or not. It was never about what really happened on 9/11/2001. The video's producers, you or me or anyone we know is likely to find out the real and complete truth about 9/11/. Our 'discussion' has been about you jumping to conclusions, and then getting mad about it when I call you out. Everything you have written has been long-winded explanations of your opinions that I never asked about, or refutations of opinions that you only assumed I had without ever bothering to find out what my opinions, if I had any on this topic, were. You just talked and talked about 9/11 and talked down to me because you thought you knew what a video you hadn't seen was all about, and you thought you know who and what I was based on nothing in particular.
