What is the strangest thing you believe to be true?

Posted by Spocko on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 at 06:47 AM. Read 4867 times. Tags:
{name} pic

The guys at MemeTherapy have been running a series of interesting threads about Strange Beliefs over the last few weeks. It’s a fun read. I thought the kind folks here at the Bastard’s might like to give it a try.

Their question:
“What is the strangest thing you believe to be true?”

My response…

At first glance this question appears simple enough. I can think of many fascinating subjects I have read about over the years; nanotech, “gray goo”, 11-dimensional space, relativity, the possibility of time travel, quantum entanglement, wave particle duality, virtual reality. There flows a never ending stream of ideas that wells up from the spring that is the Mind of Man. I could have selected any item from this list, or more, and would have provided a reasonably interesting response. How does one choose from such a fantastical array of knowledge? Technology can indeed appear strange or magical to one unfamiliar with a particular field of study. Some feel that medical wonders, from stem-cell research and genetic engineering to face transplants, are the definition of the word “strange”. Others may perceive the political and ideological mindset of their “enemies” to be the pinnacle of the eldritch.

But to ask an atheist what he “believes” to be true introduces quite a different “texture” to the question posed. The meaning of the word “believe” may easily be misconstrued. I am often bewildered by the multiple usage of some words from the English language. To some, “belief” is only given to that which has overwhelming evidence to support it, such evidence that there is no point to even use the word “believe”. Does one say: “I believe the sky is blue”? No. We say: “The sky is blue”. We can test this statement through many types of observation, experimentation, and verification. We know the sky is blue. Some use the word “believe” in the same manner that they use the word “think”, e.g. “I believe I’ll have another beer!” - the two words are interchangeable here. Then we come, of course, to the most common meaning of the word “believe”, that equivalent to “faith”; acceptance of a proposition without any need, or desire, for supporting evidence whatsoever.

I avoid the use of the words “believe” and “belief” because of their imprecise usage. There are, however, certain words I’ll use in spite of their misuse. For example, I have no qualms stating that I’m an “atheist” even though that word has been intentionally misused and demonized, perhaps since its inception. An atheist is simply one who does not believe. To be an atheist one need only answer “no” to the question “Do you believe [in god(s)]?” No further assertion is made.

I prefer to use the verb “know” instead of “believe” and, like Great Lady Science, accept that knowledge can be transitory and must evolve as new evidence is discovered. Ironically, my answer to the question “What is the strangest thing you know to be true?” would bring me back to the issue of faith.

The strangest thing I know of is the ability of the human mind to accept the most incredible of statements by the simple application of the magic word “faith”. How is it that, in the 21st century, we still have people that believe the world is only 6000 years old in light of the evidence from various fields of science in support of its vastly older age? How can one ignore mounds of fossil evidence for the progression of evolution and only see the “gaps”. What is it that allows the brilliant scientist who, otherwise, demands empirical data to advance his theories, to assert that there is a god when no one has presented any evidence to corroborate the existence of said deity? Is it a mental blind spot, a type of intellectual laziness used to avoid investigating fully the reason one believes one fable over another?

This strange thing called faith intrigues me. I have studied several of the mythologies of various civilizations throughout history and I find the subject fascinating. The majority of us appear to be so desperate for answers that we will accept any concept of reality that we are subjected to at an early age. We indoctrinate our children into a system of thought handed down by our progenitors and our children will usually teach their own children the same vision; the meme propagates. The evolution of religion presents the prime example of this strange ability to close the mind to healthy skepticism and reason. I wonder if we have herein evidence for the existence of a parasitic meme, one that propagates from the pulpit and lives in symbiosis with those that hunger for its anesthetic affects.

I look forward to a future where such strange ideas as faith and belief have faded into obscurity and disrepute as have the gods of old. A future where the unknown is regarded as an opportunity, not an enemy to be feared and obscured by the blinders of myth.

What’s the strangest thing you “believe”?

Comments:

Page 4 of 9 pages « First  <  2 3 4 5 6 >  Last »

Webs United States Posted on 09/29/2006 at 12:10 PM

Webs pic

YOu guys can wag your dicks amoungst yourselves

Sorry to double dip but Consi I gotta ask, how big is yours? LOL

 Signature 

Brother Spikey Mace of Patience

Unitarian Jihad Name: Get Yours
Unitarian Jihad Background

Consigliere United States Posted on 09/29/2006 at 01:15 PM

Consigliere pic

If alphabet soup is the metaphorical equivalent of inches, then I’m a porn star.

 Signature 

To die one’s self is a thing that must be easy, & light of consequence; but to lose a part of one’s self--well, we know how deep that pang goes, we who have suffered that disaster, received that wound which cannot heal.
Mark Twain- Letter to Will Bowen, 11/4/1888

Godless Raven Canada Posted on 09/29/2006 at 02:17 PM

Godless Raven pic

You are mixing up two very basic things. You are so emotional about 911 that you say yourself you stopped thinking part way through the video and were over come by emotions. Nothing you said refuted a single scientific fact pointed out in the movie. I am very passionate about truth and scientific evidence.

It’s as if you guys can’t seperate what I’m saying from someone implicating people for 911. I am saying nothing about that here.

Listen to your own explanation of how the structure failed. If you had paid any attention to that video, you’d know it was scientifically not possible. If you had watched the video with your brains in tact you would have seen the blatant diaginal slice in the beams that can only be done by controlled explosives. Re-examine your explanation for the science of those towers. You have NONE. Have you ever done an experiment with thermite? I have. I was to my knowledge the first person that proposed the posiblity that thermite was used in an email to a university professor at UCLA. He responded saying that thermite in combination with other chimicals could have theoretically done the job. Now there is evidence of such chemicals. You would have seen this had you actually paid attention to the film. You focused on things like people in the buildings. You miss the point. That has nothing to do with science. Nothing at all.

I was not under the impression you were attacking me personally with the exception of the remark telling me to basically get a life. If you had made personal attacks on me, I couldn’t have given a sh*t less. What you did was attack something I do hold very important...evidence, proof, science, truth and the value of my opinions. You went about ignorantly insulting all of those things, and THAT is why you were so offensive. You have no backing and no right.

I have a great dislike for people that tell other people what to think and what not to pay attention to.

Whatever, if this is the scientific method you use, then you are of no use to a serious debate. If this is how you treat others ideas, then you are of no use to the debate. If this is your logic, then you are of no use to the debate. If you can admit you didn’t pay attention to something and then tell others not to view it, then you are of no use to the debate. If you think the way you just treated me is “okay” then you are not somebody worth conversing with.

Thank you for fcking with something you clearly are unable of comprehending.

Anyone else that thinks that what he just did is “okay” are equally a disgrace to actual investigation and science.

I am simply sorry I recommended this place to anybody.

Les United States Posted on 09/29/2006 at 02:19 PM

Les pic

GR, might I suggest you slow down a bit and allow people to consider your challenge before writing all of us off with comments like…

I am completely embarassed that I just recommended this website to 4 of my very intelligent well meaning atheist friends. If I had known…

First off most of us here are average Joes with a wide range of backgrounds and interests, but I doubt any of us would qualify as anything more than amature scientists at best. Yes most of us have an interest in and good understanding of science, but that doesn’t make us scientists so much as science enthusiasts.

Secondly I’d like to think that SEB attracts people of higher than average intelligence, but I have nothing concrete to back that up. Being of higher intelligence than average, however, doesn’t change the fact that we’re human and thus fallable and vunerable to the same potential pitfalls of thinking anyone else is. Really smart people can still believe in really stupid things and logic is a tool that can be misused like any other. At best you can hope that the more intelligent someone is the more open they may be to reasoned discourse.

Lastly the age range here is pretty diverse and many members who are younger often demonstrate the quality known as the “brashness of youth.” I’m not saying that some folks aren’t unnecessairly rude at times—I can be such myself when confronted with some types of people—but it’s something to keep in mind when considering a reasponse.

You’ve had two replies to your challenge so far and yet you’re ready to write off everyone on the site as ignorant fucks because one of them ripped the video you linked to. Don’t you think you’re jumping to conclusions about the rest of us awfully quickly?

As I said earlier I don’t have time at the moment to look at the video and respond to the challenge you’ve presented and, if I am to be completely honest, I’ve been challenged in a similar fashion on this topic enough times in the past that I’m not eager to take it on. However, because it did seem you wanted an honest discussion of the video and had asked relatively nicely for us to check it out, I was planning on devoting the time to watching it and researching the claims it makes and then writing an entry about it. 

I’ll tell you now that I am skeptical that it will contain any new arguments I’ve not already heard and I doubt it’ll change my mind on the issue, but I’m willing to give it the benefit of the doubt because you asked. If you feel that I and SEB are just ignorant, though, then let me know and I won’t bother taking the time.

 Signature 

Gods dont kill people. People with Gods kill people. - David Viaene

DWangerin United States Posted on 09/29/2006 at 02:41 PM

DWangerin pic

GR, I’ve watched that video before and I must say that it’s one of the weaker “explinations” I’ve seen.  Webs does a pretty good takedown; I’d add to his critique but I’m short on time for the next few weeks.  The only part of the film that could have been convincing is the squibs.  If they timed out the squibs to show when the building first started falling internally vs when the squibs appreared, and then proved that the squibs really were ahead of the falling floors, then they’d have a powerful argument.  As is, I don’t see anything in the video as convincing.

Webs, I must say that I’m impressed.  When you first started posting here, you really bought into the arguments from videos like the 9/11 conspiracy ones and the Middle East propoganda films.  You’ve really become a more critical thinker.

Zilch, I strongly disagree with this:

Of course, lots of unanswered/unanswerable questions are exactly what one should expect in an event of this magnitude.

The investigation into why the towers collapsed was really a joke compared to other engineering disasters.  For example, look into the investigations of airplane crashes, where the investigators can pin down specific causes like aluminum window frames cracking under repeated stress or ice forming on control surfaces.  Of course it’s too late to do anything now, but that lack of a real investigation is what fuels conspiracy theories and pisses off engineering/scientific types (because the brushing off of an investigation smells of political interference/incompetence).

Webs United States Posted on 09/29/2006 at 03:16 PM

Webs pic

You are so emotional about 911 that you say yourself you stopped thinking part way through the video and were over come by emotions.

That is quite an interpretation.

Listen to your own explanation of how the structure failed. If you had paid any attention to that video, you’d know it was scientifically not possible.

Actually what your saying here depends on the interpretation of the film.  You seem to swear by it as being scientific evidence, and making the claim that the film is infallible.  Not only is this the same claim that true-believers and conspirists make, but you are making an assumption that what you are watching is the truth.  In other words, how can anyone ever prove you wrong?  The movie is infallible.  So please tell me how that mentality leads to a nice reasonable discussion?

If you had watched the video with your brains in tact you would have seen the blatant diaginal slice in the beams that can only be done by controlled explosives. Re-examine your explanation for the science of those towers.

Okay, for one second lets assume you and the film are 100% correct.  Just explain to us what happened that day?  Because my explanation will obviously have no part in your world, so fill us in.

I was not under the impression you were attacking me personally with the exception of the remark telling me to basically get a life.

Me telling you to get a life is one way to interpret what I said.  And since we are typing there is no way to infer tone into these conversations.  If you felt that was my message I am sorry, but as I already explained that was not the case.  As I stated I was trying to truly do you a favor. 

As far as the personal attacks are concerned perhaps you should re-read what you typed back to me before I did my movie review.  There you will find enough verbal abuse against me for the entire thread, written by you.

But don’t worry about, I am the emotional one here. oh oh

 Signature 

Brother Spikey Mace of Patience

Unitarian Jihad Name: Get Yours
Unitarian Jihad Background

zilch Austria Posted on 09/29/2006 at 03:20 PM

zilch pic

Raven- I really don’t have time now to watch the long video, but I watched the clip of the fireman again.  How something like this can even be considered the slightest indication of a possibility of an inside job is beyond me.  Okay- perhaps it was taken at the WTC on 9/11, and the tower came down a minute afterwards.  None of this is proven, but we’ll assume it is for the sake of argument.  So what? The fireman probably didn’t know the tower had been hit by a plane, but assumed it was a bomb (a somewhat more likely occurence, especially considering that the WTC had already been bombed in 1993).  Waste of time.

Another thing- if a nearly fully fueled jetliner hits a building at several hundred mile per hour, it is a bomb.  And yes, it is sufficient to take down a steel skyscraper.  If I get time, I’ll check out the longer video.  But at the moment, I’m hounding the Eighth Elijah and his cohorts (in a nice way, of course), and their delusion is, frankly, more entertaining.

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

Sadie Jane United States Posted on 09/29/2006 at 03:39 PM

Sadie Jane pic

GR, I haven’t watched the video (nor do I intend to), so I am not qualified to comment on it. However, you appear to be trying awfully hard to sell us whatever it is that is being presented in the film. Yet you steadfastly claim that you have no agenda and that you only want to focus on “the facts.” That seems a little suspect to me.

Take, for example, this:

You are so emotional about 911 that you say yourself you stopped thinking part way through the video and were over come by emotions. Nothing you said refuted a single scientific fact pointed out in the movie. I am very passionate about truth and scientific evidence.

I’m sorry, GR, but you are the one that is getting extremely emotional here, not Webs or anyone else. Also, it appears to me that, in this particular instance, you are very passionate not so much about truth and scientific evidence but rather about what is being presented in this film.

Lastly, your general attitude in your last few posts seems to reveal more about yourself than about any of us at this website.

 Signature 

Thinking is the best way to travel.

zilch Austria Posted on 09/29/2006 at 04:07 PM

zilch pic

DWangerin: Zilch, I strongly disagree with this:

zilch: Of course, lots of unanswered/unanswerable questions are exactly what one should expect in an event of this magnitude.

Perhaps I should make that more precise. Of course, I agree with you that the investigation of such catastrophes should be as thorough as possible. I’m not in a position to judge whether or not the 9/11 investigation could reasonably have been done much better.  It’s true that airplane crashes can often be precisely adduced to the fatigue failure, say, of one actuator.  But there is at least one differences here: many airplane crashes have been analyzed and much has been learned about their causes.  Up until 9/11, no steel skyscraper had been taken down by an airplane, so the analysis of causes had to include events that had never been observed and were thus poorly understood.

In any case, what I was thinking of when I said “unansered/unanswerable questions” was more along the lines of firemen saying stuff about bombs, people remembering empty floors, strange sounds, stuff like that.  Any cataclysmic event involving thousands of people is certain to throw up a large number of such riddles by chance, because there were so many things happening in great confusion.

In this case, I’m afraid it wouldn’t have mattered how thorough the investigation was: the conspiracy nuts are quite willing to ingnore any number of engineers, and twist and spin and color until their favorite baddie is made responsible for the badness.

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

Godless Raven Canada Posted on 09/29/2006 at 04:16 PM

Godless Raven pic

LMFAO!

Ummm no. Sorry if I gave that impression.

I have nothing to “sell”.

I’m just incredibly dissapointed. I guess that would be the best description of how I’m feeling right now.

Part of it is my own fault. After witnessing and participating in the discussions on evolution and atheism on this web board, I misled myself in to thinking that it most likely meant the people that regular on here have a very strong science background.

I wanted to see if anybody could refute the scientific claims made in the film I posted. I thought it was going to be that sort of a discussion because, well, that’s exactly what I asked for and I was extremely, repeatatively specific. Until I just read Les’s post, I really felt like I was getting a bible belt reaction froma bunch of scientifically educated persons to scientific data, and if you can imagine what that felt like (pure shock), maybe you’d understand how I feel right now. I had no idea that for the most part it’s just a group of people with a very general science background. The comments that Les and Patness made regarding micro/macro evolution made my eyes light up. That’s not begginer stuff.

Instead the reaction I got was as follows:

One person who leaped to the conclusion that 911 was an inside job (which did not address any of the issues I tried to discuss). And I like Steve, from what I know. I think he’s genuine and I think the conclusion he jumped to is a fair hypothesis, but like I said several times...I don’t want to make any guesses with out evidence here. I want to leave speculation for another day.

Then I got some yahoo who tried to prevent everybody else from even looking at the thing and discredited it without even watching it. Again, not exactly the intellectual thought level I was looking for. *sigh*

Followed by someone else giving a “great job flaming” me. Again, not a single piece of science refuted with any sort of real evidence. I got a bunch of swear words thrown at the integrity of the video and again calls to not even look at it from someone who clearly has not studied either of the sciences I’m refering to in any depth, or he’d know just how ignorant it sounded.

Then another yahoo comes on and says bravo for treating me and the video with dissdain. This guy doesn’t have the time to prove it, but everything I’ve presented is false. ‘nuff said. Again, not a damn thing along the lines of what I was asking for. Not a single thing. The closet thing to it is jackass #1 saying what I guess are his theories but with no scientific bases whatsoever. You’d know what I’m talking about, but again, you aren’t going to watch the video.

If you can’t feel my dissapointment growing, then you aren’t catching on to what happened here.

Sure, I got upset. Really upset. I don’t like people dismissing something very reasonable that I’m trying to discuss. It ruined the entire climate of what could have been a very interesting exchange of ideas.

Even you, are now claiming that I’m trying to say everything in this video is 100% written in stone...I have only mentioned that I cannot personally refute any of the science presented in the video. Apparently, either can anybody on here (so far).

Yeah, I got pissed off. I’m human. I believe I had a right to get upset about this nonsense. Again...I’m not saying everything scientific in this video is TRUE. I’m saying based on the sciences, I cannot prove them incorrect and I DO have a fairly strong background in those sciences. So again, I would like somebody with some intelligence and some sort of knowledge in them to challenge this video (not me) and prove them wrong. But just saying “that’s bullshit” is NOT refuting them. I’m talking about using science to explain your alternate theory. That has NOT happened. If you guys are not capable, and I’ve simply over estimated my environment, then just friggin tell me. I was trying to take advantage of what I thought was an excellent environment of free thinkers with some sort of education background.

Les - Yeah, I’d like you to look at the video. It’s not like you are going in with a preconceived notion, right? Besides, you said to me that I blanketed everyone and was ready to drop my original idea because of something someone said, and if you just decided not to look at the video that’s exactly what you would now be doing. If you’re going to do the same thing and just say “I looked at it and it’s wrong, but I don’t have time for the next 2 weeks to prove it” and just use your name to back the claim up though...I guess don’t bother. I’ve had that “scientific” approach already.

I guess I should have started the conversation by saying “Calling all those with a minimum of 2 years in post secondary Chemistry and 2 years of post secondary physics for a scientific discussion about the ideas put forth in this video”. Maybe that would have worked better. My mistake.

The craziest thing about all of this is that you don’t need a science degree to support or refute the claims. All you need are text books or educational websites on things like melting points, laws of gravity etc etc. All you have to do is search for independant areas of expertise on things like controlled demoltion and what types of equipment you use etc.

If someone here can prove 1 thing in this video to be scientifically incorrect I would be HAPPY, because I could strike it off of the list and have a more accurate idea of what physically took place on that day. That IS the scientific method and it is ALL I’ve tried to do.

Man...thanks for the migraine and all for nothing.

Yeah, I have this big conspiracy hidden agenda to manipulate peoples minds all the way up here in Canada. It’s part of my evil plan to over run the Bush government and take over your country. Brilliant. *eye roll*

Les, Patness, I am interested in your honest opinions. At this point, I could care less what anybody else on here says until I see reason otherwise.

Thank you

GR

Webs United States Posted on 09/29/2006 at 04:50 PM

Webs pic

You know what GR if you were truly interested in our opinions than you wouldn’t have gone on a tirade against me for simply suggesting that you might not want to bring up the topic.  Why you freaked on me for that I still don’t know, but the fact that you still fail to refute or answer anything I have put forth is also another reason why people do not want to respond to you.

I guess I should have started the conversation by saying “Calling all those with a minimum of 2 years in post secondary Chemistry and 2 years of post secondary physics for a scientific discussion about the ideas put forth in this video”. Maybe that would have worked better. My mistake.

Actually a better idea would have been: Hey guys I saw this post was interested.  Does anyone want to check out these videos I saw them and thought they were interesting etc… Which is kinda how you started, but as soon as someone, namely me, suggested something else you went haywire.

And as soon as I tore through the video you also went haywire.  If you do not agree with everything in the film, then please explain to me what you disagree with, because you certainly haven’t shown us this objective opinion on the issue you say you have.

If someone here can prove 1 thing in this video to be scientifically incorrect I would be HAPPY, because I could strike it off of the list and have a more accurate idea of what physically took place on that day.

I refuted 42 items, but yet you assume that every item I refuted to be untrue since you already had a bias toward me for whatever reason.  Is that the scientific method at work?

So if you don’t have some hidden agenda why did you get so upset when I ripped apart the film?

Man...thanks for the migraine and all for nothing.

This is exactly what I was referring to when I recommended to you not to get into this topic on this website.  As I told you I have gone through this before.  And guess what?  The same thing happened to me.  And you know what?  It’s all for nothing.  If you want a rational conversation prove it, answer my question: What did you find to be misleading, false, or un-true about the film?

 Signature 

Brother Spikey Mace of Patience

Unitarian Jihad Name: Get Yours
Unitarian Jihad Background

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 09/29/2006 at 04:51 PM

decrepitoldfool pic

Spocko!!!  Yea!

Wow.  Nothing swells a thread like conspiracy jousting!  I am sorry I didn’t subscribe to this thread earlier because it’s quite too much to grasp in a single read.

Strangest thing I believe: like Les, that humans have the capacity for self-improvement.  The evidence is actually in favor of this conclusion.  We are a species that emerged from an arboreal existence, spread across a hot savannah, then came to prominence during an ice age.  We’ve travelled to the depths of the ocean and into space, conquered diseases, and can speak to each other all the way around the world in seconds from the comfort of an outdoor picnic table.  On top of that, art, music, and philosophy have begun to illuminate the idea that violence - as natural and common as rain - is a bad strategy.  While the idea is not universally accepted, it is not unreasonable to hope.

It’s a bit early to write off humanity. 

As for the 9/11 conspiracy subject, Les linked to a thread where it was covered in quite some detail.  I believe 9/11 was a conspiracy, but my assessment as to whose conspiracy is the conventional one.  (Webs, I applaud your patience)

Consi, if you are an average Joe, I am a Wisecracking Wabbit.

Another strange thing I believe is in the near-absolute freedom of expression.  Certainly arguable, and many disagree.  I also believe in the freedom of belief, bolstered by a confidence that the truth will eventually come out and be impossible to ignore, though not necessarily in my lifetime.

I don’t believe in God - many people consider that strange.  I do believe there are aliens out there, but for reasons of chronological and spatial alignment think it’s improbable they’ve visited us.  I believe the truth is inspiring and wonderfully liberating.

I believe I’ll go have some coffee.

KPatrickGlover United States Posted on 09/29/2006 at 05:32 PM

KPatrickGlover pic

Okay, deep breath everybody.

GR, you seem like a rational guy from your earlier posts and this whole thread has obviously upset you, so I’m going to take a step back and stay away from the arguement side of things. As a newcomer, you need to understand that this stuff HAS come up before over the years, and it has been THOROUGHLY debunked. Many of us have a problem with patience when it comes to new folks treading over old territory (you should see my responses when people come in claiming to have proff in ghosts).

Anyway, since you’re genuinly interested in the science, you should take a look at the recent expose Popular Mechanics ran, it covers pretty much all the science step by step. You can find it at http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1

Hope you find it useful and I hope this thread doesn’t discourage you from sticking around and debating various and sundries.

 Signature 

(Parenthetically Speaking)

MySpace

Sadie Jane United States Posted on 09/29/2006 at 05:46 PM

Sadie Jane pic

GR: Then I got some yahoo who tried to prevent everybody else from even looking at the thing and discredited it without even watching Again, not exactly the intellectual thought level I was looking for. *sigh*
it.

That “yahoo” was merely warning you that extreme conspiracy theories involving highly sensitive topics may not go over so well among commenters here. I’d hardly call that discrediting the video that you obviously regard highly or preventing everyone else from looking at it.

If you can’t feel my dissapointment growing, then you aren’t catching on to what happened here.

It’s obvious that you’re more than just disappointed--you’re downright seething. What’s not at all obvious is why you have reacted this way.

 Signature 

Thinking is the best way to travel.

Godless Raven Canada Posted on 09/29/2006 at 05:57 PM

Godless Raven pic

Webs - You attacked the IDEA of having the discussion. Right off the get go.

This is the response I got to what most of you are now saying started off as an honest attempt to have a dialogue about physics and chemistry:

Raven- I don’t have time at the moment to watch the “9/11 mysteries” video, but I did watch the short one of the fireman.  What does it show?  A fireman, somewhere, sometime, saying “there’s a bomb in the building- start clearing out”.  So what?  If that’s “evidence” for an inside job, then my grandmother is the Mayor of Chicago.

Webs on 9/29/06 at 07:44 AM wrote the following…
then my grandmother is the Mayor of Chicago.

HOLY SHIT!!!  Your grandmother is the mayor of Chicago.  Dude I live near Chicago can she hook a brother up?

Godless Raven; you might not want to get into this here.  You won’t find a lot of believers or sympathizers.

Webs: I no longer believe in stupid conspiracy theory bullshit cause after hoping over to this site I realized it was a waste of time and energy.  The irrational idea of the conspiracy theory seemed enticing at first because it attempts to explain the, well what seems to be, unexplainable of a really emotional event.  But in all actuality it is stupid, irrational, and really a slap in the face to those affected by the event the conspiracy theory attempts to explain.

Oh I don’t know WHERE I got the idea that I was being ridiculed or dismissed. Where could I have gotten that idea from? I must have just pulled it out of my ass. I don’t know what circles you all hang out in, but when I have a discussion of ideas with somebody about something analytical, you don’t start off that way. So...if you don’t care for the way I responded...I can’t say I really care. I treat people the way they treat me.

Consigliere United States Posted on 09/29/2006 at 06:07 PM

Consigliere pic

DR:

I was applauding his discounting the video.  He might have done so with less disdain, but its hard to get past the disdain for conspiracy theories. 

It’s also difficult when you don’t even know what the NIST’s report says.  Never does it say:

...such a ball of fire that all of the metal melted and collapsed

That is factually inaccurate.  The misrepresentation is important though if you want to make a false issue of melting points.

Here is what the report does say:

NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower…

...the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

I almost missed this point:

I was to my knowledge the first person that proposed the posiblity that thermite was used in an email to a university professor at UCLA.

Now its clear why you are so attached to this theory.

 Signature 

To die one’s self is a thing that must be easy, & light of consequence; but to lose a part of one’s self--well, we know how deep that pang goes, we who have suffered that disaster, received that wound which cannot heal.
Mark Twain- Letter to Will Bowen, 11/4/1888

Godless Raven Canada Posted on 09/29/2006 at 06:10 PM

Godless Raven pic

And Webs? You debated me on the basis of science? Huh? I’m not talking about quoting Popular Mechanics. They used some very nonsensical science when they went after the producers of Loose Change and if you didn’t just dissmiss everything because “you’ve done that before” you’d know that they recently had an open debate and Popular Mechanics got their @sses handed to them. I do not care for the makers of Loose Change, and if you mentioned me to them, I’m sure they would return the sentiment. I can’t believe your hypothesis is so lazy that you just say “well it’s popular mechanics”. Apparently I’ve mislead some of you on here and you are under the impression that I did the same thing. Watched this video, got a boner and then said “Eureka! Everything on this video is damn exactly what happened! I can die completed now” because that’s how some of you are acting towards me.

Web, you keep asking me what part of the movie I think was a lie. I never said ANY of it was a lie. This should be a very simple concept, but apparently a third option is completely lost on you. I do not stand behind things I cannot prove as facts. I can say I think they are likely, or not likely, but if I can’t prove them myself personally, I’m not going to say they are a fact or that I put my name behind them. You clearly do not have the same standard based on your “debunking” which has zero science. It’s a near word for word of the 911 commission report, and nothing more. You’d think you would be aware that several of those commissioners are now saying they disagree with their final assessment and that they were not provided the information they needed.

So I never said anything in this movie was a lie. But there are things that I cannot prove. That is NOT the same thing. There are also some spots on the film where they make conclusions based on circumstantial evidence, mostly near the end when they start to talk about some people that did some very peculiar things that may or may not implicate them in the exectution of 911. I’m not interested in debating or even discussing that. It would be pointless because it can’t be proven at this point in time, and hack job researchers would just say “conspiracy nut” (which by the way, several of you have liberally used in reference to anyone who believes differntly than you do, and that’s wrong. Especially considering none of you have actually investigated the science I am refering to. Or if you have, you haven’t shown it).

The only thing I did wrong here was let you piss me off when I should have known better. I shouldn’t have assumed the knowlege of any of you, or the laziness in investigating something you believe in. That was an error I now regret. If you’re going to go to Popular Mechanics website and say “that’s it! That’s how it happened” then you are actually doing what you incorrectly have accused me of doing (just viewing a video and making a conclusion).

Do any of you have any experience with controlled demolition? Are any of you mechanical engineers? Did any of you study chemistry or physics at a high level? I’m not asking this to be smart, I’m asking because I have already spoken to an engineer and a former professor of mine and they can’t refute the science on this video. I’ve never asked them about the conclusions, because I wouldn’t presume to. I can debate the politics of the Bush administration, and I do have opinions about them, but that’s politics and it has nothing to do with this. The fact that almost none of you can make that distinction is very revealing.

Since I came on this website, I debated someone who was spreading mistruths about evolution. I stood up for somebody who I thought was being picked on for their sex. I’ve agreed with somebody who supports the right of homosexuals because that’s a combination of what I know and what I believe in. I’ve never given anybody on here any reason to start accusing me of being in some conspiracy or having any alterior motives. To even start accusing me of horse shit like that shows that somebody is paranoid, and sure as hell isn’t me.

Sadie Jane United States Posted on 09/29/2006 at 06:10 PM

Sadie Jane pic

I don’t see anywhere in the above quotes anyone attributing to you the following names or phrases, which you have lavishly doled out to others, particularly Webs:

yahoo
numbskull
dickhead
ignorant P.O.S.
emotional tornado
rude idiot
fucking ignorant asshole

You are not treating people the way they’ve treated you. Frankly, you’re behaving like a little five-year-old. As it stands, I’m done with you.

 Signature 

Thinking is the best way to travel.

Webs United States Posted on 09/29/2006 at 06:11 PM

Webs pic

Wow dude, if you are crying because of that then you need to get a backbone seriously.

So if Zilch started things off on the wrong foot why am I the whipping boy? 

Caveat: Zilch do not feel inclined to be drawn into this.

You know GR the way you post that, it looks like I said all that shit at once.  But it really didn’t play out that way.  Here let me help you out.

GR: posted way too much off the bat, no need to quote it, just look up North a bit.

Webs: HOLY SHIT!!!  Your grandmother is the mayor of Chicago.  Dude I live near Chicago can she hook a brother up?

Godless Raven; you might not want to get into this here.  You won’t find a lot of believers or sympathizers.

GR: You won’t find a lot of believers or sympathizers.”

Thanks for having a very strong preconceived notion of what not only you, but what others will think. Nothing like free thinking! smile

If you think I’m looking for “sympathizers” then you clearly didn’t read what I’m writing and have a completely misguided idea about who I am and what I am about. You also haven’t paid attention what it is I am actually challenging. But that’s fine. As far as the comment about “believers”, don’t you think that’s a bit premature, considering you yourself just admitted you haven’t even watched the video and either has anybody else had the chance to?

Wow...now that is very interesting considering that all I did was ask for the science of the events to be evaluated by free thinkers. Your comment is very revealing, and I guess all I can hope is that others are not so dismissive and conclusive (without even a minimal look at the evidence I am asking to be debated!)

Did I say that the video had anything to do with 911 being an inside job, or that 911 being an inside job was what I wanted to discuss? If I did...please show me where? You are reading your own bias in to my words based on...whatever it is you based it on. Did I say anything about conclusions? Again...I said that I respected the intellect of this community, and that I wanted you to watch a video unlike any conspiracy video currently out there. One that deals with facts of science. And that I wanted to discuss it afterwards (does this sound like I’m some zealot trying to “convert” people?).

Anyway, perhaps this challenge isn’t for you, because I’m starting to get offended by your pretext and assumptions. They have nothing to do with anything I’ve said or asked. Feel free not to participate. I assure you I will not be offended.

Thank-you

Godless Raven

Me: movie review

GR:Les, you still expect me to back off and respect this $hit?

Webs, you are an rude idiot.

You completely disregarded everything I asked for and said and you are very nervy to go and tell people not to even watch this video for themselves. I can’t even believe that. Your ignorance is mindboggling. If refuting science is saying “fuck” every sentence, then I guess you have? Wow...I clearly made a mistake about the regulars on this website if you are a representative of the greater whole.

You completely missed the point of the scientific evidence and you seem to believe that anger refutes facts.

If you were in anyway a sound minded person, you wouldn’t be so ignorant as to tell everyone not to watch the video and make up THEIR minds for them.

Your logic based on science is as shoddy as the research on the “hitler diaries”.

Is this the intellectually honest discussion I was asking for?

I recall something about civility. You clearly are incapable.

If the rest of you react like this...fck it. I can’t recall the last time I’ve been treated so ignorantly.

Evidently the entire website isn’t filled with intellectuals.

Man, I’ve gotta step away, because you have really offended me and what I tried to accomplish in a very decent peaceful manner. Not to mention your attempt to dismiss scientific facts with ignorance and trying to undermine the entire thing by telling other people what to think.

Maybe I’ll come by later. I’ll have to think about it.

You sir, are a real dickhead.

GR

Take note people, not only was this response 14 minutes after my movie review, and GR likes to type a lot, so I would guess that it took him probably 7 minutes or so to type it up.  That leaves only 7 minutes to read my movie review and fully take it in.  Hmm… Also note that the movie review had nothing to do with him, but a conspiracy film.

So please GR enlighten us with your vast wisdom as to how I am treating you with dis-respect.

Oh and by the way you still have yet to answer a single question I put forth besides the one you answered before you went ballistic on Webs’ ass.

 Signature 

Brother Spikey Mace of Patience

Unitarian Jihad Name: Get Yours
Unitarian Jihad Background

Webs United States Posted on 09/29/2006 at 06:16 PM

Webs pic

That’s odd that suddenly I am a PM expert when I only opened it after KPG linked it.  I think someone else did earlier too, but I just now looked at it.  Huh…

 Signature 

Brother Spikey Mace of Patience

Unitarian Jihad Name: Get Yours
Unitarian Jihad Background

KPatrickGlover United States Posted on 09/29/2006 at 06:24 PM

KPatrickGlover pic

Wow. Give an inch....

First, GR, it was me that mentioned the Popular Mechanics site, not Webs. I brought it up, not as the end all and be all of science, but because it does a good job of pointing out all the straw man arguements used in the conspiracy propaganda films. Which is what you’ve provided.

A propaganda film.

As for giving you the benfit of the doubt, forget about it. You’re just too much hard work. Go right on believing in what you think is science (it’s not, it’s techno-babble designed to sound convincing.) I’ll waste no more time with it or you.

You’ve earned yourself a spot beside all the other fringe kooks, the doomsday theorists, the illuminati chasers and the flat earthers. Have a nice life.

 Signature 

(Parenthetically Speaking)

MySpace

Godless Raven Canada Posted on 09/29/2006 at 06:27 PM

Godless Raven pic

I said right from the get go that I acknowledged that it was a touchy subject, and that it wouldn’t be for some, and that I understood that and didn’t want those persons to get involved. I wanted a discussion about the science. I didn’t get that. I got the exact opposite. I don’t know what else I could do except maybe use sign language to say it clearer.

You’re free to team up on me, I’m a big boy and I can handle myself just fine. Even with the two having dink wars, or whatever it was they were talking about. But I DO know what I’m talking about, and I did do research. I didn’t just watch a video. I have some experiences in science fields, and I have a very close friend who has spent 45 years in the engineering business. I also have some very close friends who I consider extremely intelligent. None of us like videos like Loose Change or 911 Truth etc because they jump to some conclusions that cannot be proven, and at times border on the ludacris. That does not change the fact that you can see multiple charges going off in those buildings and that there were hundreds of reports saying the exact same thing. I watched these events unfold live on TV and I saw news reports about bombs and explosions as it was unfolding. They never replayed them because they were yanked after one play.

The momment I saw the first tower fall, the first thing I thought was “they got charges inside the building too?” and “did they load the plane with exlosives?” It wasn’t until after I thought about the improbabilities of hijackers busting security on the WTC’s for weeks in advance planting the charges that I dissmissed that idea. And the plane exploded just as it should have, most of the jet fuel went right through the building and expired in the fire ball that went out the other side. That’s why you don’t see massive fires inside the holes. That is science. Momentum, the chemistry of burning fuels. The decreasing temperatures of flammables over time. These are the things I want somebody to address and disprove. If you can disprove them, all the better because we can reduce this to the absolute facts and figure out just what happened. There is no way within the laws of physics or chemistry that the Popular Mechanics version of the story happened. Nore the 911 commission. If it did, then I have a whole ton of tuition money owed back to me for being lied to for almost a decade. And I have no reason to believe that the periodic table or Newton’s laws of motion are not constants.

I have not personally put forth my thesis on purpose. I wanted to see other peoples ideas first. That’s why I asked. I just wanted to make sure you were all educated on the actual science that took place that day, and this video contains a whole heck of a lot of it. Stuff that can be proven in a labratory.

It seems to me that the fact that you don’t see planes hit buildings every day has really done lot to excuse so many things such as these laws and chemical inprobabilities. It’s the same thing as when Christians debate me and can’t explain something. They revert to saying “because God said so”, or because “God willed it”. That is ignorance. Just because you can’t explain something or it’s foreign to you, does not excuse laziness or half baked hypothesis. Just say “I don’t know”. And it’s the same with this, when you just say “but we’ve never seen a plan hit this exact type of building”. Yeah...okay...so that means that a building over 100 stories can fall at free fall time (8 to 10 seconds) without any resistance below it because of a fire near the top? This is nonsensical, and if you do have some scientific evidence to prove me wrong please do. But I’d like you to watch the video first.

I’m always going to say what I think, and if you disrespect me, I won’t give 2 phucks how many people are doing it, I’m going to defend myself in-kind. If you expect something else, then I suggest you scroll through the posts on this website and judge yourselves with the same standard. Les admits that some people say things that get him angry and make him vent, and I’ve personally seen several of you do it too. In fact, that’s what has happened here. Don’t ever mistake me for someone who’s going to grab his ankles and take it. That is never going to happen.

So either you can refute the science with science and we can discuss that or...you can not. If you want to fight with me, I can do that too. It seems rather pointless considering what I was requesting was VERY reasonable to begin with.

I guess we’ll see.

I do ask however, if you have nothing in the way of scientific evidence to refute the scientific claims, that you keep your personal made up beliefs to yourself. It has no effect on what I’m trying to establish and thats your personal feelings. Not facts. I’m holding you to the exact same standard you hold religious zealots too (as I do too).

GR

Godless Raven Canada Posted on 09/29/2006 at 06:29 PM

Godless Raven pic

KP you have yet to back up this accusation you are throwing at me, and I’m getting pretty sick of it. Back it up without Popular Mechanics. Can you think for yourself? What is your science back ground or specialty? You are making a pretty serious accusation about what I’m saying and you need some pretty serious evidence to prove that. You mentioned Popular Mechanics, but he’s using arguements from it. I know that because I’ve read their thesis. See, I actually educated myself on ALL of the arguements regarding that day. I’ve only commited to the ones I can prove. What is your excuse? Don’t tell me how to speak or who to speak to thank you.

Godless Raven Canada Posted on 09/29/2006 at 06:31 PM

Godless Raven pic

Sadie - You aren’t here to discuss the video, you aren’t here to discuss science. You aren’t interested in any of that. I’m not really concerned about who your personal heros are. What exactly do you want?

Sadie Jane United States Posted on 09/29/2006 at 06:33 PM

Sadie Jane pic

GR: What exactly do you want?

Well, world peace would really be nice. A hot bath would hit the spot, and--OOH! A martini. I could really go for a martini right about now!

 Signature 

Thinking is the best way to travel.

Page 4 of 9 pages « First  <  2 3 4 5 6 >  Last »

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys


Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


<< Back to main

Stupid Evil Bastard