Common Sense

[uk_dave]

We've heard it again and again from the 'truthers':

"Common sense tells us......"

You know the drill: Present them with facts which are contrary to their view of the world and they start on about common sense being just as good as expertise.

So I started to wonder, what other examples of the real world can we present which are counter intuitive to common sense?

My favourites would be:

1. Speed of light

How can something have a constant speed regardless of how fast I am moving in relation to it? Surely common sense tells us that if I am travelling 'very fast' while carrying a torch, then the speed of the light coming out of that torch will be c + 'very fast', right? Just common sense.

2. Flying objects

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/lifting_bodies/Tech29G1.htm

How can these 'planes' fly when the wings are so short? Surely common sense tells us that the wings would have to be bigger to provide lift?

3. Strange Creatures

http://www.ocean.udel.edu/kiosk/bsmoker.html

How can creatures live in complete darkness and temperatures of 400 deg centigrade? Common sense tells us this is impossible, right?

Have at it

[R.Mackey]

My personal favorite, as one versed in statistics and probability, is the Monty Hall Problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_hall_problem).

Common sense would dictate that the odds are 50/50, since how can the doors know whether or not you changed your mind? Nonetheless, play it by the rules of common sense, and you'll probably go home with a new Pet Goat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pet_Goat).

[CHF]

Twoofers love to appeal to what they call common sense yet they then turn around and make some retarded statement about "free fall" collapses while debris is clearly seen falling faster than the collapse itself.

These people live in an alternate reality - one where words can mean the exact opposite to what most people think they mean.

[defaultdotxbe]

universities are cheating everyone, you dont need a degree in engineering, or chemistry, or medicine or physics, you just need a degree in common sense then you can do anythign you want

Pet Goat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pet_Goat).
i find it very amusing the wiki entry for that has a plot section with a spoiler warning, lol

[uk_dave]

Balloons and people in dodgy shorts......

http://www.abc.net.au/science/experimentals/experiments/episode15_2.htm


What you need:
. 2 balloons
. a piece of rubber hose about 15cm long and wide enough for the balloon mouth to fit around snugly (you can get this from a hardware shop - don't go cutting up the good garden hose!)
. someone to help you hold the balloons

What to do:
. blow one of the balloons up to normal size, and get your friend to hold the neck of it tightly while you blow the other one up to half that size
. don't tie the balloons off!
. put the mouth of the balloons onto the ends of the rubber tubing without letting too much air escape, and without letting go of the neck of the balloon
. once both balloons are attached to the tubing, let go of their necks at the same time and watch what happens!

What's going on:
Crikey - that is counterintuitive!

You'd expect the big balloon to force air into the little balloon, because the big one's got much more air in it. But the exact opposite happens!

Air always moves from high pressure to low pressure. When the balloon's fully blown up its skin is a lot thinner, so it exerts less pressure on the air inside. But a balloon that's only half blown up has a much thicker skin. So the air inside the part-inflated balloon is under higher pressure.

When you connect the air in both balloons, the air from high pressure moves into the low pressure balloon until the pressure is the same in both - when both balloons are the same size!

Crikey!

[ConspiRaider]

Good one, UK_Dave.

Docking In Earth Orbit:
If 2 vehicles are in the same orbit, and the guy 5 miles behind needs to dock with the guy up ahead, common sense says that the trailing guy hits the accelerator so he can catch up. But it's the opposite. He actually has to slow down to catch up. Slowing down drops him into a lower orbit, causing him to move faster around the earth.

[Firestone]

The Mpemba effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpemba_effect): in some circumstances, hotter water freezes faster than colder water.

[ConspiRaider]

The Mpemba effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpemba_effect): in some circumstances, hotter water freezes faster than colder water.
And related:
Since things tend to get denser when they get colder, common sense indicates that when water freezes into ice, that ice, presumably being denser, should sink. But it floats instead.

[Quad4_72]

I have had a lot of CTs tell me to use common "sence" to figure things out. But since I have never heard of the word "sence" I was not sure what exactly they wanted me to do.:p

[clarsct]

Common sense is simply a guised appeal to authority. In this case the authority is so guised that we cannot ask it by direct appeal. It is the perfect bulletproof argument......or maybe not.


At one time everyone knew that frog came from mud. It was common sense.

Everyone knew that dieases were caused by spirits and/or a jealous or angry god. It was common sense.

Everyone knew that women were meant to be men's property. Says it right here in Genesis. Besides, it's common sense.

Common sense is what you say when you want to sound authoritive, but have not a damned blasted thing to hang your ideas upon.

[28th Kingdom]

Oh Lord... you can tell when someone doesn't have any common sense by the way they try to apply it (common sense) to other scenarios. Firstly, common sense doesn't (necessarily) tell us how the WTC Towers fell. What common sense does tell us - is that NIST's Theory (of how the collapses occurred) is physically impossible.

Here is an essential action in the processing of common sense:

Main Entry: con·ceive http://m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:popWin%28%27/cgi-bin/audio.pl?concei07.wav=conceive%27%29)
Pronunciation: k&n-'sEv
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): con·ceived; con·ceiv·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French conceivre, from Latin concipere to take in, conceive, from com- + capere to take -- more at HEAVE (http://m-w.com/dictionary/heave)
transitive verb

2 a : to take into one's mind <conceive a prejudice> b : to form a conception (http://m-w.com/dictionary/conception) of : IMAGINE (http://m-w.com/dictionary/imagine) <a badly conceived design>
3 : to apprehend by reason or imagination : UNDERSTAND (http://m-w.com/dictionary/understand) <unable to conceive his reasons>

The reason none of you left-brain radicals have any common sense, is because you lack imagination, which is at the heart of functioning common sense. (sadly, for you guys/gals - this creative component of imaginary lives in the right-side of the brain)

I have said before... that it's very interesting how NIST failed to show us a computer simulation of the entire collapses. It's very suspicious that they only focus on the initiation point of the collapse... i.e. sagging trusses, and the bowing outer columns, and not the actual collapses.

Why didn't NIST (in their 3+ years of reporting) take the time to show us something as critical and important as how the falling upper mass caused the core columns to break and fall within the symmetrical progression of the collapse? And, by show us... I am, of course, referring to imaginary - and not a mesh of complex and contradictory terms (linguistic symbols) that only serve to dilute our thoughts (minds) down into a dark abyss of disillusionment... well beyond the light and sounds of a sensory experience i.e. REALITY

Why? Because common sense tells us that what they are saying is impossible. How do we know this without a PHD in physics? Well, how do I know that I can't pass my hand through a steel door? I really don't know the physics behind this event... but that doesn't mean I can't proclaim with 100% certainty that it's impossible according to the laws of physics. I don't need a degree in order to ascertain this simple factoid... just common sense.

The reason this animation (of the entire collapse) is so important is because it would help us all conceive of exactly what their theory is and how they are saying the entire structure crumbled floor by floor - top to bottom... all the way to the ground. And how all the floors blew outward several hundred feet - and what happened to the core columns, and how this progressive top to bottom - floor by floor collapse differs from a pancake collapse.

The reason they didn't do this is because - their final theory still describes a pancake collapse... BECAUSE that's the only type of collapse it could have been.

(minus explosives...with explosives - the "collapse" still appears (visually) to progress top to bottom...but there is no pancaking - the floors are actually being blown up one by one in a downward sequence, which creates the illusion of a collapse...when in reality nothing is collapsing...it's just exploding)

Why? Because we saw the way the buildings collapsed floor by floor - top to bottom... did WTC 7 fall like this? Nope. There are a lot of ways a building can collapse, but if it happens like the WTC Towers i.e. floor by floor - top to bottom (which, my god... has never happened and would never happen on buildings like these) than it would be classified as a pancake collapse.

NIST manages to pull off the beguiling task of explaining this contradiction (impossible pancake collapse - as seen in video footage - made possible) by slipping into some classic Doublethink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink), in order to disguise the fact, that they admit a progression top to bottom pancake collapse isn't possible because of the unique way the WTC Towers are built, yet we all saw (with our own eyes) the way the buildings fell progressively - top to bottom, floor by floor... so now what we have (minus any explosive variables) is a paradoxical conundrum which can only be articulated with Doublethink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink). Which, oh by the way... is very easy to detect - when armed with a little device known as common sense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonsense).

No Common Sense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonsense) = Intellectual Blind Spot

[uk_dave]

The reason none of you left-brain radicals have any common sense, is because you lack imagination, which is at the heart of functioning common sense.


Wrong!

Common sense is contrary to imagination, because common sense tells you that an object emitting light and travelling at speed will result in that light travelling at it's constant speed plus the speed of the moving object, relative to an observer.

Imagination is where we can put aside or preconceptions produced by our common sense view of the world and grasp concepts which appear to be contrary to common sense.

And you spent so long writing it too.

[Firestone]

When someone posts claims and accusations on a forum, and always changes subject or runs away when asked for evidence for these claims, common sense tells me that these claims and accusations are bogus.

[slingblade]

I have just done some research on the origins and meaning of the term "common sense."

28th, you don't have a clue. Sorry. My right-brained imaginative side is laughing at you, and having cheesecake.

[28th Kingdom]

"The Dork Side of the Farce"

Yea... real right-brained... you 3747474. So what do you do for a living? Computer programming?

[MetalPig]

I have had a lot of CTs tell me to use common "sence" to figure things out. But since I have never heard of the word "sence" I was not sure what exactly they wanted me to do.:p
Probably a typo. Have you tried using common scents?

[uk_dave]

"The Dork Side of the Farce"

Yea... real right-brained... you 3747474 moron. So what do you do for a living? Computer programming?

Well you see, yet again, the use of "The Dork Side of the Farce" shows great imagination and is contrary to common sense which would, of course, have had it read "The Dark Side of the Force", and would not have been funny, but would have been a sensible rendition of a well known catchphrase.

So one suspects that your imagination function is impaired and all you are left with is your own 'common sense' view of the world which is severely warped.

Oh and I came very close to reporting your use of 'moron', but decided not to as I suspect that I may well be using some imaginative epithets about you in the not too distant future.

[28th Kingdom]

Wrong!

Common sense is contrary to imagination, because common sense tells you that an object emitting light and travelling at speed will result in that light travelling at it's constant speed plus the speed of the moving object, relative to an observer.

Common sense ideas tend to relate to events within human experience, and thus commensurate with human scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_scale). Thus there is no commonsense intuition of, for example, the behavior of the universe at subatomic distances or speeds approaching that of light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonsense

Two philosophers are most famous for advocating the other meaning of "common sense", the view (to state it imprecisely) that common sense beliefs are true and form a foundation for philosophical inquiry: Thomas Reid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Reid), G. E. Moore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._E._Moore). Both Reid and Moore, individually, are famous for appealing to common sense to refute skepticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism).

Isn't that interesting.

Activist skeptics, self-described "debunkers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunker)" are a subset of scientific skeptics who aim to expose in public what they see as the truth behind specific extraordinary claims. Debunkers may publish books, air TV programs, create websites, or use other means to advocate their message. In some cases they may challenge claimants outright or even stage elaborate hoaxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoax) to prove their point, such as Project Alpha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Alpha).

Because debunkers often challenge popular ideas, many are not strangers to controversy. Critics of debunkers sometimes accuse them of robbing others of hope. Debunkers frequently reply that it is the claimant, whom they many times accuse of exploiting public gullibility, who is guilty of abuse.

Habitual debunkers are sometimes called pseudoskeptics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskeptic) or pathological skeptics and accused of intentionally relying on pseudoscience masquerading as empirical skepticism.

According to Truzzi, pseudoskeptics show the following characteristics:
The tendency to deny, rather than doubt
Double standards in the application of criticism
The making of judgements without full inquiry
Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate
Use of ridicule or ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attacks
Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
Pejorative labelling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.'
Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it
Tendency to dismiss all evidenceAww, and you all thought you were unique snowflakes.

[maccy]

Oh Lord... you can tell when someone doesn't have any common sense by the way they try to apply it (common sense) to other scenarios. Firstly, common sense doesn't (necessarily) tell us how the WTC Towers fell. What common sense does tell us - is that NIST's Theory (of how the collapses occurred) is physically impossible.

The world is a complicated place, it takes knowledge, study and work to comprehend it. With this statement you just show your ignorance and the value of your common sense.

To put it simply: people who work with large buildings see nothing strange about the collapse once it had initiated. They see no need to attempt to model it.

I'll go further: of the millions of people who have seen the images of the collapse only a handful of people on massages boards are making a fuss.

If it's so obvious why can only a few people (and no experts of note) see it?

Why can't these people so endowed with "common sense" come up with a coherent story of what did happen. Why can't they back this up with calculations?

I presume that you would have been on the side of The Inquisition against Gallileo, after all what he said went against common sense.

Likewise, surely common sense tells us that the Earth is flat?

I'll say this again, if your common sense is so powerful, take it to the world:


28K you're obviously not making much progress in convincing people here, but I don't understand why you're even trying. If what you're saying is, as you say, both obvious and scientific why aren't you making an effort to get this information out to the world? The world is has many media outlets, technical journals and engineering departments - why not send your information to people involved with these? If you don't manage to get the word out this way, I would say that you are ultimately insignificant.

Remember, this isn't about us convincing you, it's about you convincing the world. At the moment, the world says you are wrong. What are you going to do to change its mind?

There are lots and lots of people you can contact about this, here are a few suggestions of places you might want to start:

science magazines:

http://www.ejse.org/EdBoard.htm
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/st.html
http://www.sciam.com/
http://research.yale.edu/ysm/
http://www.sciencemag.org/
http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html
http://www.stanford.edu/~dgermain/index.htm (http://www.stanford.edu/%7Edgermain/index.htm)
http://www.newscientist.com/home.ns
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/

Demolition Publications

http://www.implosionworld.com/

Fire Engineering Magazine:

http://fe.pennnet.com/

Architecture Magazines:

http://www.arplus.com/home.htm
http://www.architectmagazine.com/
http://architectstore.com/magazine.html

Engineering Departments

http://www.shef.ac.uk/civil/
http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/
http://www.eng.ox.ac.uk/
http://www.engg.le.ac.uk/
http://www.eng.abdn.ac.uk/
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/esbe/about/depeng.shtml
http://www.liv.ac.uk/engdept/
http://www.swan.ac.uk/engineering/
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/civileng/

http://www.enfp.umd.edu/
http://www.ce.ksu.edu/
http://www.matsceng.ohio-state.edu/
http://www.ce.jhu.edu/
http://ase.tufts.edu/cee/
http://www.ce.clemson.edu/
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/
http://cee.mit.edu/
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/

Science Correspondents of Media outlets:

http://www.cnn.com/
http://www.nytimes.com/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage

There's a whole list of newspapers around the world here:

http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/

[Firestone]

Common sense ideas tend to relate to events within human experience, and thus commensurate with human scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_scale). Thus there is no commonsense intuition of, for example, the behavior of the universe at subatomic distances or speeds approaching that of light.Well, I have no experience with 417 meter buildings collapsing. Except, sadly, with the two WTC-towers. How then can common sense be enough to understand their collapse?

We need computations, formulas, models, computer simulations, you know, the weird things produced by left-brainers that you don't like because you don't understand them. :)

Why didn't NIST (in their 3+ years of reporting) take the time to show us something as critical and important as how the falling upper mass caused the core columns to break and fall within the symmetrical progression of the collapse? And, by show us... I am, of course, referring to imaginary - and not a mesh of complex and contradictory terminology (linguistic symbols) that only serve to dilute our thoughts (minds) down into a dark abyss of disillusionment... well beyond the light and sounds of a sensory experience i.e. REALITY (bolding mine)

[clarsct]

Oh Lord... you can tell when someone doesn't have any common sense by the way they try to apply it (common sense) to other scenarios. Firstly, common sense doesn't (necessarily) tell us how the WTC Towers fell. What common sense does tell us - is that NIST's Theory (of how the collapses occurred) is physically impossible.

Here is an essential action in the processing of common sense:

Main Entry: con·ceive http://m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:popWin%28%27/cgi-bin/audio.pl?concei07.wav=conceive%27%29)
Pronunciation: k&n-'sEv
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): con·ceived; con·ceiv·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French conceivre, from Latin concipere to take in, conceive, from com- + capere to take -- more at HEAVE (http://m-w.com/dictionary/heave)
transitive verb

2 a : to take into one's mind <conceive a prejudice> b : to form a conception (http://m-w.com/dictionary/conception) of : IMAGINE (http://m-w.com/dictionary/imagine) <a badly conceived design>
3 : to apprehend by reason or imagination : UNDERSTAND (http://m-w.com/dictionary/understand) <unable to conceive his reasons>

The reason none of you left-brain radicals have any common sense, is because you lack imagination, which is at the heart of functioning common sense. (sadly, for you guys/gals - this creative component of imaginary lives in the right-side of the brain)

I have said before... that it's very interesting how NIST failed to show us a computer simulation of the entire collapses. It's very suspicious that they only focus on the initiation point of the collapse... i.e. sagging trusses, and the bowing outer columns, and not the actual collapses.

Why didn't NIST (in their 3+ years of reporting) take the time to show us something as critical and important as how the falling upper mass caused the core columns to break and fall within the symmetrical progression of the collapse? And, by show us... I am, of course, referring to imaginary - and not a mesh of complex and contradictory terminology (linguistic symbols) that only serve to dilute our thoughts (minds) down into a dark abyss of disillusionment... well beyond the light and sounds of a sensory experience i.e. REALITY

Why? Because common sense tells us that what they are saying is impossible. How do we know this without a PHD in physics? Well, how do I know that I can't pass my hand through a steel door? I really don't know the physics behind this event... but that doesn't mean I can't proclaim with 100% certainty that it's impossible according to the laws of physics. I don't need a degree in order to ascertain this simple factoid... just common sense.

The reason this animation (of the entire collapse) is so important is because it would help us all conceive of exactly what their theory is and how they are saying the entire structure crumbled floor by floor - top to bottom... all the way to the ground. And how all the floors blew outward several hundred feet - and what happened to the core columns, and how this progressive top to bottom - floor by floor collapse differs from a pancake collapse.

The reason they didn't do this is because - their final theory still describes a pancake collapse... BECAUSE that's the only type of collapse it could have been.

(minus explosives...with explosives - the "collapse" still appears (visually) to progress top to bottom...but there is no pancaking - the floors are actually being blown up one by one in a downward sequence, which creates the illusion of a collapse...when in reality nothing is collapsing...it's just exploding)

Why? Because we saw the way the buildings collapsed floor by floor - top to bottom... did WTC 7 fall like this? Nope. There are a lot of ways a building can collapse, but if it happens like the WTC Towers i.e. floor by floor - top to bottom (which, my god... has never happened and would never happen on buildings like these) than it would be classified as a pancake collapse.

NIST manages to pull off the beguiling task of explaining this contradiction (impossible pancake collapse - as seen in video footage - made possible) by slipping into some classic Doublethink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink), in order to disguise the fact, that they admit a progression top to bottom pancake collapse isn't possible because of the unique way the WTC Towers are built, yet we all saw with our own two eyes, that the buildings came down progressively - top to bottom, floor by floor... so now what we have (minus any explosive variables) is a paradoxical conundrum which can only be articulated with Doublethink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink). Which, oh by the way... is very easy to detect - when armed with a little device known as common sense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonsense).

No Common Sense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonsense) = Intellectual Blind Spot


Common sense is simply a guised appeal to authority. In this case the authority is so guised that we cannot ask it by direct appeal. It is the perfect bulletproof argument......or maybe not.


At one time everyone knew that frog came from mud. It was common sense.

Everyone knew that dieases were caused by spirits and/or a jealous or angry god. It was common sense.

Everyone knew that women were meant to be men's property. Says it right here in Genesis. Besides, it's common sense.

Common sense is what you say when you want to sound authoritive, but have not a damned blasted thing to hang your ideas upon.

Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.

[maccy]

Two philosophers are most famous for advocating the other meaning of "common sense", the view (to state it imprecisely) that common sense beliefs are true and form a foundation for philosophical inquiry: Thomas Reid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Reid), G. E. Moore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._E._Moore). Both Reid and Moore, individually, are famous for appealing to common sense to refute skepticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism).

Isn't that interesting.

You are misrepresenting both Reid and Moore and their ideas as well as specific philosophical versions of "common sense" and "skepticism". In the extreme, skepticism can doubt everything including what we have some to know via empirical verification. For example, just because objects have always fallen to the earth, it doesn't mean they will continue to do so. Another example: how do we know that the world hasn't just come into existence a second ago? How do you know that you're not a robot programmed with your memories that has just been switched on?

The idea of common sense in this context is that there are certain things that we cannot avoid believing about the world and it is better to assume that these are true. In other words there is a sense of the world that we all hold in common. These esssentials are specific and limited and do not presume that we instinctively understand everything (or even very much) about the world. They gives us a foundation from which to build empirical knowledge and the scientific method. What it fundamental does not do is reject experiment and testing in favour of quick instinctive judgements or undermine the principles of learning and expertise in understanding the world.

There's some information about Moore's essay "A Defence of Common Sense" in these links:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moore/#6
http://philosophy.wisc.edu/streiffer/PresentationsFolder/Moore_Def_of_Common_HO.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defence_of_Common_Sense
http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos/bibliog/moore25.htm

[einsteen]

Monty Hall is indeed a good one! There are a lot of those statistical things that might confuse people, if for example a family has two kids and one of them is a girl what is the chance the other is a girl.

The problem with the speed of light is that it is counterintuitive, the same for the features in quantum world.

[28th Kingdom]

Habitual debunkers are sometimes called pseudoskeptics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskeptic) or pathological skeptics and accused of intentionally relying on pseudoscience masquerading as empirical skepticism.

According to Truzzi, pseudoskeptics show the following characteristics:
The tendency to deny, rather than doubt
Double standards in the application of criticism
The making of judgements without full inquiry
Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate
Use of ridicule or ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attacks
Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
Pejorative labelling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.'
Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it
Tendency to dismiss all evidenceAww, and you all thought you were unique snowflakes.

Isn't psychology fascinating? I made a very keen observation some time back... about how I didn't think all of you were acting like real skeptics because you weren't skeptical of the official story when it has a million holes in it.

I love when I have an original idea or notion that is beautifully echoed with other research and analysis. Pseudoskeptics - yes, what a perfect nomenclature for this bunch of habitual debunkers.

[uk_dave]

And you completely fail to see that the list you posted perfectly describes you, 28th Kingdom Psuedoskeptic.

Oh the irony.

[28th Kingdom]

And you completely fail to see that the list you posted perfectly describes you, 28th Kingdom Psuedoskeptic.

Oh the irony.

I'm not the one doing the habitual debunking, ole chap. Nor am I a self-professed skeptic.

[MortFurd]

"Common Sense."

Snork.

Take a good look at a Stirling motor. "Common sense" goes "WTF?!?!?!"

I'm putting one together from a kit right now (Astromedia (http://www.astromedia.de/shop/csc_fullview.php?Artikelnummer=228.STM&VID=LJDihpwMLjUcL7Dx),) and there's nothing freakier than that first time you heat the displacer cylinder and move it by hand, and the power piston moves in response. Freaky, because exactly NOTHING happens if the displacer cylinder is not heated.

Counter intuitive as all hell.

Common sense works for common situations - and even then, be suspicious of what it tells you. Outside of that, forget it.

[Curnir]

I'm not the one doing the habitual debunking, ole chap. this is correct, what you are doing are falling into the 'blind faith' and 'la-la-la-lalalalalala-I'm-not-listening-to you-lalalala' categories

Nor am I a self-professed skeptic.

So. What are you?

Besides cute as a button.

*Curnir tickles 28ths tummy*

[28th Kingdom]

So. What are you?

Besides cute as a button.

*Curnir tickles 28ths tummy*

I prefer to have me ears tickled. Thanks in advance.

[Brainache]

According to Truzzi, pseudoskeptics show the following characteristics:
The tendency to deny, rather than doubt
Double standards in the application of criticism
The making of judgements without full inquiry
Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate
Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks
Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
Pejorative labelling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.'
Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it
Tendency to dismiss all evidence


Yep that's 28K alright.

[PerryLogan]

The definition of "Pseudoskeptics" looks like a point-by-point breakdown of the Truther mind. Thank you 28th Kingdom!

[28th Kingdom]

The definition of "Pseudoskeptics" looks like a point-by-point breakdown of the Truther mind. Thank you 28th Kingdom!

Hello Mr. Wonderful,

In psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology), psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_mechanism) in which one attributes ("projects") to others, one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxiety) by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them. The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud) and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Freud).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

[Curnir]

Hello Mr. Wonderful,

In psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology), psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_mechanism) in which one attributes ("projects") to others, one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxiety) by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them. The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud) and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Freud).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
*curnir sighs*
Oh the irony.

[Axiom_Blade]

Hello Mr. Wonderful,

In psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology), psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_mechanism) in which one attributes ("projects") to others, one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxiety) by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them. The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud) and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Freud).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Exactly. So, you "projected" your pseudoskeptical habits onto us, when they were really yours all along.

Freud's been debunked a lot, though. I don't think he's very credible any more.

[Firestone]

28th Kingdom, while I appreciate (and I'm clearly not the only one) you giving us a clear description of the standard CTist, don't you think it is time you start answering questions and providing evidence for you claims in the threads you fled from?
Don't you think you should also apologize for making fun (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2216246&postcount=67) of the last known words of Mark Bingham?

[PerryLogan]

A Truther apologizing! I'm holding my breath here...

[eeyore1954]

28th kingdom you say
Why? Because common sense tells us that what they are saying is impossible. How do we know this without a PHD in physics? Well, how do I know that I can't pass my hand through a steel door? I really don't know the physics behind this event... but that doesn't mean I can't proclaim with 100% certainty that it's impossible according to the laws of physics. I don't need a degree in order to ascertain this simple factoid... just common sense.

This is a fact that is learned through experience. what experience you you have with how buildings collapse.

Plus my common sense tells me there was nothing unusual about the collapse. My common sense tells me the so called squibs are caused by the air pressure. My common sense tells me there is nothing unusual about hearing explosions during a large fire. ( I hear loud pops in my fireplace does this mean the termites have rigged the logs with explosives). My common sense tells me it would have been next to impossible to set up the explosives in the buildings without being discovered. My common sense tells me it is very unlikely the so called planners of the attack would have risked discovery by planting explosives. My common sense tells me an explosion in the basement an hour before the collapse and at the time of impact would not be indicative of a controlled demolition. My common sense tells me that when an airplane hits the ground at over 500 mph most of it will be broken into tiny pieces but not vaporized. My common sense tells if the collapse violated the laws of physics many engineers and physicists would notice this fact. This hasn't happened so my common sense tells me the laws of physic were not suspended.

There must be literally hundreds of common sense reasons to doubt the CT view of the events on 9/11. Of course this is only my common sense but it has been reinforced with the opinions with experts in the fields.

[28th Kingdom]

28th Kingdom, while I appreciate (and I'm clearly not the only one) you giving us a clear description of the standard CTist, don't you think it is time you start answering questions and providing evidence for you claims in the threads you fled from?

Here's what you don't understand. There is no evidence that will convince you 9/11 is an inside job... because in order to espy the truth about 9/11 you need the ability to piece together information in a way that forms a big picture. You all like to take things (evidence) one by one in a linear fashion, proceed to "debunk" them, which in your pseudo world really just means "deny" them (burden of proof - who needs that) and then move along to the next thing.

See, nothing ever adds up with you guys, because you are constantly working from ground zero i.e. square one, the beginning

[uk_dave]

It's also a matter of imagination.

The likes of 28K like to accuse skeptics of having no imagination, when in fact it is the CTers who lack the imagination to appreciate events which exceed their common sense.

One particular poster on the LC forum, let's call him Tillwonk, cannot understand the actual debris fields left from the pentagon and shanksville crashes because he lacks the imagination to understand how these huge aircraft can so completely disintegrate in a high speed impact.

For Tillwonk, if a plane crashes his common sense tells him that there should be easily identifiable wing and tail sections because his common sense will not allow him to imagine the forces involved in tearing apart those planes.

Likewise, certain CTers can only relate the collapse of the WTC towers to videos of demolitions they have seen because they lack the imagination to understand the power of gravity and the forces acting upon the buildings.

Common sense tells them that the buildings had to have been brought down by explosives because that is how you bring down buildings, and to accept the official account of events is to imagine just how relatively fragile these tall structures are and that is something their closed view of the world will not allow them to do.

[eeyore1954]

Why? Because common sense tells us that what they are saying is impossible. How do we know this without a PHD in physics? Well, how do I know that I can't pass my hand through a steel door? I really don't know the physics behind this event... but that doesn't mean I can't proclaim with 100% certainty that it's impossible according to the laws of physics. I don't need a degree in order to ascertain this simple factoid... just common sense.


common sense tells me there are no empty areas in that steel door but it is made up of mostly empty space.

[PerryLogan]

The Truthers are claiming that the most incompetent administration in American history brought off the trickiest hoax in world history, leaving tons of obvious clues...and fooled everyone in the world but them.

Sounds more like nonsense than common sense.

[eeyore1954]

Here's what you don't understand. There is no evidence that will convince you 9/11 is not an inside job... because in order to espy the truth about 9/11 you need the ability to piece together information in a way that forms a big picture. You all like to take things (evidence) one by one in a linear fashion, proceed to "debunk" them, which in your pseudo world really just means "deny" them (burden of proof - who needs that) and then move along to the next thing.

did it ever occur to you that you are actually describing yourself if you place the word not after the first 9/11 is.

[Ratatoskr]

When I think of "common sense", I think of things that are easily understandable for me, because I have previous experience with other things on the same subject. Like it's common sense that when I flip the bottle upside down the contents will fall out because I know that gravity will do the job.

The problem with common sense is that people don't always understand things due to lack of knowledge, or just ignorance. People who had problems with other peoples "common sense" are for instance Galileo Galilei and Kepler.

So when people says that this or that could not happen because "common sense" tell them it will not happen, it's because they don't have any (or little) experience on the subject.

Your common sense isn't necessarily the same as my common sense.

And that's the reason my skeptic-blog project was renamed from "common sense" :)

Or put in other words: If your common sense tell you something, and evidence shows otherwise, you've (hopefully) learned something.

[slingblade]

"The Dork Side of the Farce"

Yea... real right-brained... you 3747474. So what do you do for a living? Computer programming?

That would be an ad hominem argument, dear boy. What I do for a living has no bearing on the origins and meaning of the term "common sense."

Do try to stick to the arguments you start.

The term common sense does not mean what you think it means. It should not be used in the manner in which you use it, which is to say, as an insult.
Stop and compare the following two concepts: "knowledge which is common, which just about everyone knows," and "questioning lifelong assumptions."

If you do this succesfully, you will understand your misuse of the term "common sense."

[28th Kingdom]

The Truthers are claiming that the most incompetent administration in American history brought off the trickiest hoax in world history, leaving tons of obvious clues...and fooled everyone in the world but them.

Sounds more like nonsense than common sense.

Show me proof that the group of men and women who are the highest elected officials in the richest and most powerful nation in the world are incompetent. What, because W. is a lousy speaker?

Maybe they just play dumb on t.v. - maybe they know that people expect less from those who they view as incompetent and so they play that up, in order to use it (incompetence) as a get-out-of-jail-free-card.

[Architect]

What common sense does tell us - is that NIST's Theory (of how the collapses occurred) is physically impossible.


And yet he refuses to post any evidence to this effect and puts anyone who starts to beat him in an argument on Ignore.

Hmmmmm

[Firestone]

28th Kingdom, while I appreciate (and I'm clearly not the only one) you giving us a clear description of the standard CTist, don't you think it is time you start answering questions and providing evidence for you claims in the threads you fled from?Here's what you don't understand. There is no evidence that will convince you 9/11 is an inside job... because in order to espy the truth about 9/11 you need the ability to piece together information in a way that forms a big picture. You all like to take things (evidence) one by one in a linear fashion, proceed to "debunk" them, which in your pseudo world really just means "deny" them (burden of proof - who needs that) and then move along to the next thing.

See, nothing ever adds up with you guys, because you are constantly working from ground zero i.e. square one, the beginningMy (assumed :)) deficiencies are no excuse for you not to provide evidence for your claims and accusations.

If I'm too stupid or too half-brained to understand your evidence, that is my problem, not yours.

So, please go back to the threads you fled from, and start giving your evidence! Don't let my stupidity hold you back!

[slingblade]

Stop derailing, 28, and get back on topic.

Before you can state this:
Here is an essential action in the processing of common sense

you must define your terms. Define "common sense."

[Curnir]

Here's what you don't understand. There is no evidence that will convince you 9/11 is an inside job...Bovine Manuer, if there were evidence that held up to a review, I'd believe. But you know what? There is not a shred, nothing, bubkiss, zip, zero, nada, nichts to support your wild assed guesses (I am not going to call them theories because doing so would sully the word) because in order to espy the truth about 9/11 you need the ability to piece together information in a way that forms a big picture. 1.And you have that ability?
2.Big picture? Please, dingbat CTist wouldn't know a big picture if it was painted purple dancing naked ontop of a harpsicord singing 'Big Pictures are here again' You all like to take things (evidence) one by one in a linear fashion, proceed to "debunk" them, which in your pseudo world really just means "deny" them (burden of proof - who needs that) and then move along to the next thing. Ah but that is the beauty of it. If you make an assertion about something you had better be prepared to show evidence that supports it.
If PersonX make a claim, like "the towers fell in freefall due to a controlled detonation" or "there is a Jumping Purple Kangaroo living in my attic", the burden of evidence is on that PersonX. And it had better be better than some googled pics and lame conjectures. See, nothing ever adds up with you guys, because you are constantly working from ground zero i.e. square one, the beginning Bovine manuer!
I'll tell you something that adds up.
Highly motivated terrorists flew planes that were filled with aviation fuel into WTC1 and 2, the resulting fires of fuel, paper, plastic, wood and other flamable materials resulted in a structural weakening of the remaining steel structure. Which led to a collapse and fall of the structure above the point of impact and the subsequent pancaking of the floors below (slower than freefall I might add) one of the buildings tumbled into WTC7 and tore a mother of a big hole in it, caused structual damage and started fires, resulting in the collapse of this building.

[JimBenArm]

you must define your terms. Define "common sense."


Here, allow me! Common sense is anything that doesn't adequately explain why something happens, but doesn't make 28IQ's head hurt when he thinks about it.

[28th Kingdom]

Highly motivated terrorists flew planes that were filled with aviation fuel into WTC1 and 2, the resulting fires of fuel, paper, plastic, wood and other flamable materials resulted in a structural weakening of the remaining steel structure. Which led to a collapse and fall of the structure above the point of impact and the subsequent pancaking of the floors below (slower than freefall I might add) one of the buildings tumbled into WTC7 and tore a mother of a big hole in it, caused structual damage and started fires, resulting in the collapse of this building.

So flying a two seater and flying a commercial airliner...hey, pretty much the same thing right? I mean if a kid can drive a go-cart than surely they can drive an 18-wheeler.

Surely the Pentagon i.e. the headquarters for the world's most elite military defense is a sitting duck and incapable of defending itself without, what - about a three hour heads up? Surely, they knew that a plane was heading straight for them... surely at this point they knew that other planes had already been hijacked....surely they were just poor sitting ducks...surely, I would get banned if I really told you how low my opinion is of you, and so I will just add you to my ignore list.

Surely... you are one hopeless individual.

[maccy]

So flying a two seater and flying a commercial airliner...hey, pretty much the same thing right? I mean if a kid can drive a go-cart than surely they can drive an 18-wheeler.

Surely the Pentagon i.e. the headquarters for the world's most elite military defense is a sitting duck and incapable of defending itself without, what - about a three hour heads up? Surely, they knew that a plane was heading straight for them... surely at this point they knew that other planes had already been hijacked....surely they were just poor sitting ducks...surely, I would get banned if I really told you how low my opinion is of you, and so I will just add you to my ignore list.

Surely... you are one hopeless individual.

Your speculation only shows your ignorance of the facts of the matter.

[Curnir]

So flying a two seater and flying a commercial airliner...hey, pretty much the same thing right? I mean if a kid can drive a go-cart than surely they can drive an 18-wheeler.
I think this is a poor attempt at sarcasm... but you never know.

Would a kid be able to drive a 18-wheeler at high speed into a building? Heck yeah!

Surely the Pentagon i.e. the headquarters for the world's most elite military defense is a sitting duck and incapable of defending itself without, what - about a three hour heads up? Surely, they knew that a plane was heading straight for them... surely at this point they knew that other planes had already been hijacked....surely they were just poor sitting ducks...surely, I would get banned if I really told you how low my opinion is of you, and so I will just add you to my ignore list.
oh that's a lot of surely. And I get to be on your prestigious ignore list! Oh joy!
Surely... you are one hopeless individual.
Heh... you're projecting.

[Psiload]

Common sense...

Roses smell better than cabbage, therefore they make a better soup.

[aggle-rithm]

"The Dork Side of the Farce"

Yea... real right-brained... you 3747474. So what do you do for a living? Computer programming?

I'm a programmer. Programming requires a great deal of imagination. You would know that if you had ever done it.

My first major was in music composition. Do you think that requires imagination?

[MortFurd]

So flying a two seater and flying a commercial airliner...hey, pretty much the same thing right? I mean if a kid can drive a go-cart than surely they can drive an 18-wheeler.
Actually, yes. A kid could drive an 18 wheeler. Not well, and would probably cause accidents and a lot of damage, but yes.

Surely the Pentagon i.e. the headquarters for the world's most elite military defense is a sitting duck and incapable of defending itself without, what - about a three hour heads up? Surely, they knew that a plane was heading straight for them... surely at this point they knew that other planes had already been hijacked....surely they were just poor sitting ducks...surely, I would get banned if I really told you how low my opinion is of you, and so I will just add you to my ignore list.

Surely... you are one hopeless individual.
They did not know that a plane was headed for them until just before it hit. You have no proof that anyone (except the hijackers) knew where the planes were going once they were hijacked.


Until the plane actually was in its descent, mere minutes (or seconds) from impact, there was no way to tell wher it wsa really going to hit.

To push you further in a hole:
Even if it were known that one of the planes was headed for Washington DC, do you suppose that it should have been shot down because it had been hijacked and was flying in a direction not given in its flight plan?

[Skibum]

So flying a two seater and flying a commercial airliner...hey, pretty much the same thing right? I mean if a kid can drive a go-cart than surely they can drive an 18-wheeler.

Surely the Pentagon i.e. the headquarters for the world's most elite military defense is a sitting duck and incapable of defending itself without, what - about a three hour heads up? Surely, they knew that a plane was heading straight for them... surely at this point they knew that other planes had already been hijacked....surely they were just poor sitting ducks...surely, I would get banned if I really told you how low my opinion is of you, and so I will just add you to my ignore list.

Surely... you are one hopeless individual.

I submit this post as proof you lack common sense and imagination.

[JimBenArm]

and so I will just add you to my ignore list.


We're going to need a new badge. One that says "NOT On 28th's Ignore List". It'll be much smaller group.

[bonavada]

i counted right watching this:-

SGgnCU7YGk8

but the outcome is still a big surprise and defies common sense....
gender differences........HAH!

:-]

BV

[aggle-rithm]

One definition of common sense (and I've brought this up in another thread) is the instinctual reasoning required to survive in the environment we evolved in -- the plains of Africa. Much of what we experience in today's world is nothing like what our ancestors would have experienced then, so we lack the wiring to really comprehend it without a mathematical model. This is particularly true of relativity and quantum physics, but is also relevant to more mundane subjects.

One of my calculus teachers used to laugh at our incredulity when we came up with HUGE numbers solving word problems to determine the energy released by moving water. It's so hard to believe that this harmless stuff that we bathe and shower in could, in sufficient quantities, rip a building off its foundation.

It's fortunate for us that mathematics happens to be so useful in modelling reality, because our common sense doesn't do so well at this task.

[Calcas]

So flying a two seater and flying a commercial airliner...hey, pretty much the same thing right? I mean if a kid can drive a go-cart than surely they can drive an 18-wheeler.


How many pilots and aviation experts need to explain this to you?

If one has had simulator training, it is NOT difficult to "drive" an airliner that is already airborne. In fact, it's pretty simple.

Why is that hard for you to comprehend?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>
Common sense works for common situations - and even then, be suspicious of what it tells you. Outside of that, forget it.
Well said! Bravo!

Here's what you don't understand. There is no evidence that will convince you 9/11 is an inside job... because in order to espy the truth about 9/11 you need the ability to piece together information in a way that forms a big picture. You all like to take things (evidence) one by one in a linear fashion, proceed to "debunk" them, which in your pseudo world really just means "deny" them (burden of proof - who needs that) and then move along to the next thing.

See, nothing ever adds up with you guys, because you are constantly working from ground zero i.e. square one, the beginning
Odd, I remember at least two different threads where skeptics outlined what would consistute evidence of an inside job. Whereas, every time the question of what would change the CTists position has been posed to them, they have remained steadfastly silent on the issue.

[Architect]

Common sense once told me that I'd be safe if I didn't climb at the edge of the snowfield, then I found out what a cornice-induced slab avalanche was......

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

One definition of common sense (and I've brought this up in another thread) is the instinctual reasoning required to survive in the environment we evolved in -- the plains of Africa. Much of what we experience in today's world is nothing like what our ancestors would have experienced then, so we lack the wiring to really comprehend it without a mathematical model. This is particularly true of relativity and quantum physics, but is also relevant to more mundane subjects.
<snip>

Quite true, and this touches on what M. Shermer discusses in Why People Believe Weird Things in the chapter dealing with hits, misses, false hits, and false misses and how these affect our interpretation of events.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Common sense once told me that I'd be safe if I didn't climb at the edge of the snowfield, then I found out what a cornice-induced slab avalanche was......
Speaking hypothetically I hope.

[maccy]

One of my calculus teachers used to laugh at our incredulity when we came up with HUGE numbers solving word problems to determine the energy released by moving water. It's so hard to believe that this harmless stuff that we bathe and shower in could, in sufficient quantities, rip a building off its foundation.

It's fortunate for us that mathematics happens to be so useful in modelling reality, because our common sense doesn't do so well at this task.

If common sense tells you that an aluminium plane cannot make a hole in a steel building because steel is stronger than aluminium, then consider how its possible to cut steel with water (http://science.howstuffworks.com/question553.htm).

Ultimately, I don't think we would have made much scientific progress, as a species, if we hadn't been inspired to keep questioning and testing what our common sense tells us.

[Tirdun]

Surely the Pentagon i.e. the headquarters for the world's most elite military defense is a sitting duck and incapable of defending itself without, what - about a three hour heads up?

You have absolutely no clue what goes on at The Pentagon.

It's a big office building.
It has no military capabilities or facilities.
It's where the military interacts with contractors and congress, not where the Green Berets or Delta Force hang out.

[JimBenArm]

If common sense tells you that an aluminium plane cannot make a hole in a steel building because steel is stronger than aluminium, then consider how its possible to cut steel with water (http://science.howstuffworks.com/question553.htm).

Ultimately, I don't think we would have made much scientific progress, as a species, if we hadn't been inspired to keep questioning and testing what our common sense tells us.

Cut steel with water? Next, you'll be telling me that steel can float on water!

Madness!

[JimBenArm]

You have absolutely no clue what goes on at The Pentagon.

It's a big office building.
It has no military capabilities or facilities.
It's where the military interacts with contractors and congress, not where the Green Berets or Delta Force hang out.

But he saw this documentary once, and they had missiles, space lasers, tanks and even mutant space lizards guarding it. It was the same one that ChristopherA saw that showed the concrete cores and C4-coated rebar!

It's for true, honest!

[JonnyFive]

You have absolutely no clue what goes on at The Pentagon.

It's a big office building.
It has no military capabilities or facilities.
It's where the military interacts with contractors and congress, not where the Green Berets or Delta Force hang out.

Next you'll be telling me that the White House doesn't have a super guided laser defense array in the roof, and the capital building doesn't have a nuke hidden in that crazy dome!

28th K, could you please provide evidence for your theories and stop ignoring everyone that questions you?

[maccy]

You have absolutely no clue what goes on at The Pentagon.

It's a big office building.
It has no military capabilities or facilities.
It's where the military interacts with contractors and congress, not where the Green Berets or Delta Force hang out.

It doesn't matter what the evidence is - that comes from the government anyway so it must be wrong.

In the absence of any actual knowledge about the Pentagon 28th imagines (using his right brain, apparently, and his common sense) that it must have been possible to shoot down Flight 77 before it hit. If he imagines it, it must be true, he doesn't need to produce any evidence.

Any evidence that runs counter to 28th's imagination must be disinformation or doublethink. Thus, nothing can convince him.

[uk_dave]

In the absence of any actual knowledge about the Pentagon 28th imagines (using his right brain, apparently, and his common sense) that it must have been possible to shoot down Flight 77 before it hit. If he imagines it, it must be true, he doesn't need to produce any evidence.

Any evidence that runs counter to 28th's imagination must be disinformation or doublethink. Thus, nothing can convince him.

And to take that a step further, he imagines it that way because he is unable to imagine the pentagon being unable to shoot down an incoming plane.

The majority of people on this forum can imagine a huge number of scenarios from 9/11 and that makes it possible for us to imagine and understand the true scenario presented in the official account.

But for those who cannot imagine the towers collapsing through imapct damage and fire, their own 'common sense' tells them it must have had another cause because their imaginations cannot cope with the scenario presented.

[Larry Lovage]

Well, how do I know that I can't pass my hand through a steel door?The point about common sense here perfectly demonstrated. 28th uses "common sense" to tell us that his hand can't pass through a steel door. I've actually seen a truther video which used someone walking through a door as some kind of illustration of how it's "impossible" to be on the other side of the door without opening it. Somehow both the movie makers and 28th have forgotten that with sufficient force, his hand could easily pass through the door. There wouldn't be anything left of his hand, but there doesn't need to be. The answer to his considerations of what NIST should have determined is simply that he does not have the imagination to understand that sufficient forces were more than available in a half-a-million ton building. As calcuated by NIST and by other independent bodies. It is very far from physically impossible for the core to have been crushed down with the rest of the building, seeing as it wasn't made of neutronium but the same stuff as the rest of the building.

Common sense may be telling 28th that a box cutter can't be used as a threatening weapon. Common sense tells me that they bloody well can (in fact I've been scared of Stanley knives my whole life). Common sense tells 28th that a big plane is difficult to fly. Common sense tells me that the hardest parts of learning to fly - takeoff, landing and communications - were not part of what the hijackers needed to do. Incidentally, common sense also tells me that you cannot simultaneously complain that the iggerent ay-rabs couldn't have known how to fly an airplane and at the same time blame the authorities who didn't stop Atta etc from taking flying lessons.

[maccy]

Cut steel with water? Next, you'll be telling me that steel can float on water!

Madness!

Common sense tells me that so-called "steel" ships are just wooden ships painted silver by the military-industrial complex. They've paid off the shipbuilders to build steel ships in yards but those are never floated - a wooden ship, painted silver, is substituted secretly, overnight, on launch day. The dummy steel ship is then dismantled so it can be reused for another shipbuilding deception.

Because I'm a proper science type with a 150 IQ, though, I've tested this theory by trying to float a steel fork in a bucket of water. It sank.

[maccy]

TcBXuFxMYd0

[Curnir]

You have absolutely no clue what goes on at The Pentagon.

It's a big office building.
It has no military capabilities or facilities.
It's where the military interacts with contractors and congress, not where the Green Berets or Delta Force hang out.

Actually the Green Barrets and Delta Force go to one the cafeterias in order to hang out, drink coffee and eat donuts. Every other tuesdays... unless the preceding saturday or sunday had a full moon. In that case they go to hooters.

[Regnad Kcin]

Here's what you don't understand. There is no evidence that will convince you 9/11 is an inside job... because in order to espy the truth about 9/11 you need the ability to piece together information in a way that forms a big picture.Sometimes something comes along that produces fits of giggles. Many thanks for that!

You all like to take things (evidence) one by one in a linear fashion, proceed to "debunk" them, which in your pseudo world really just means "deny" them (burden of proof - who needs that) and then move along to the next thing.

See, nothing ever adds up with you guys, because you are constantly working from ground zero i.e. square one, the beginning9/11 happened the way it happened. And no amount of fulmination on your or anyone else's part is going to change that.

[DavidJames]

Common sense is simply a guised appeal to authority.
The reason many CTist appeal to common sense is pretty simple. What's the alternative? The alternative requires in depth knowledge, gained through education and practical experience of math, physics, engineering, science, etc. of which those CTist have none. How do they combat that deficiency, by replacing knowledge with common sense as the ultimate scale with which to judge the events.

This is where clarsct quote comes into play. The authority to which CTists are appealing is themselves.

[Architect]

Speaking hypothetically I hope.


Nope. Scottish Sports Coucil Glenmore Lodge Winter Mountain Rescue Training Course (oh, the irony). We were 3m back from the edge of the cornice, i.e. over rock, when it sheared back at 45 degrees instead of the usual 90 degrees. Took all of the party with it.

All survived (and limped off under our own steam) because we were falling just behind the slab avalance which ensued, but it was still a good 10-15m drop roped to guys with crampons and ice axes.

But hey, snow is soft - common sense says an avalanche couldn't hurt you any more than a snowball!!




Lumps of snow the size of houses, btw. Scary as feck.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Sometimes something comes along that produces fits of giggles. Many thanks for that!

9/11 happened the way it happened. And no amount of fulmination on your or anyone else's part is going to change that.

Thanks for quoting that one RK, I didn't catch it the first time around. It certainly seems with this statement
<snip>See, nothing ever adds up with you guys, because you are constantly working from ground zero i.e. square one, the beginning that 28th is arguing if you do not utilitize confirmational bias and start from an assumption that science doesn't work. Quick someone alert the media!

[Architect]

But he saw this documentary once, and they had missiles, space lasers, tanks and even mutant space lizards guarding it.



Sounds like a normal night out in Glasgow.....;)

[Regnad Kcin]

So flying a two seater and flying a commercial airliner...hey, pretty much the same thing right? I mean if a kid can drive a go-cart than surely they can drive an 18-wheeler.Stop! Please! You're killing me here!

Surely the Pentagon i.e. the headquarters for the world's most elite military defense is a sitting duck and incapable of defending itself without, what - about a three hour heads up?It's an office building. Not Dr. Evil's secret underground lair.

Surely, they knew that a plane was heading straight for them...Really? How did they know a plane was "heading straight for them?"

surely at this point they knew that other planes had already been hijacked....surely they were just poor sitting ducks...BTW, the office building is very strongly built. Probably saved some lives.

surely, I would get banned if I really told you how low my opinion is of you, and so I will just add you to my ignore list.He gets to join me on Ignore? I shall prepare the rites of initiation.

Surely... you are one hopeless individual.You're wrong about 9/11, friend. Pity you will journey through life in such a way. I for one wouldn't want to.

[Belz...]

Common sense ideas tend to relate to events within human experience, and thus commensurate with human scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_scale). Thus there is no commonsense intuition of, for example, the behavior of the universe at subatomic distances or speeds approaching that of light.

Just like there isn't for large, chaotic events like a 110-storey skyscraper falling.

Two philosophers are most famous for advocating the other meaning of "common sense", the view (to state it imprecisely) that common sense beliefs are true and form a foundation for philosophical inquiry: Thomas Reid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Reid), G. E. Moore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._E._Moore). Both Reid and Moore, individually, are famous for appealing to common sense to refute skepticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism).

Isn't that interesting.

No, it really isn't.

[Belz...]

Isn't psychology fascinating? I made a very keen observation some time back... about how I didn't think all of you were acting like real skeptics because you weren't skeptical of the official story when it has a million holes in it.

I love when I have an original idea or notion that is beautifully echoed with other research and analysis. Pseudoskeptics - yes, what a perfect nomenclature for this bunch of habitual debunkers.

Are you a psychologist, 28th ? I've been asking this from you for weeks, now.

If not, please stop trying to diagnose other people.

Less prognosis and more evidence, if you will.

[Horatius]

Here's what you don't understand. There is no evidence that will convince you 9/11 is an inside job... because in order to espy the truth about 9/11 you need the ability to piece together information in a way that forms a big picture.

And once again, 28th Lie of the Day ignores the fact that several of us have told him what evidence would make us re-consider the Inside Job hypothesis.

In fact, there's a whole thread on the question:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71616


Where I linked some of our answers to his first challenge to ID evidence we would acept:

You could also point him to the various answers we gave 28th Kingdom when he made the same challenge.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2167477#post2167477

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2167446#post2167446

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2167529#post2167529

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2167735#post2167735



And yet, weeks later, he hasn't shown us any of that, but he is still denying (Look! That word he likes!) that such evidence could even possibly exist.

Keep up the lying, 28th! You're doing more damage to your side than any of us ever could!

[Horatius]

But he saw this documentary once, and they had missiles, space lasers, tanks and even mutant space lizards guarding it. It was the same one that ChristopherA saw that showed the concrete cores and C4-coated rebar!

It's for true, honest!

And don't doubt for a minute that the mutant space lizards didn't get an ass chewing on the 12th! I mean, we feed them all those virgins, and then they completely dropped the ball!

[Horatius]

2.Big picture? Please, dingbat CTist wouldn't know a big picture if it was painted purple dancing naked on top of a harpsicord singing 'Big Pictures are here again'

And he says we have no imagination. It's the harpsicord that really does it :)

[JimBenArm]

And don't doubt for a minute that the mutant space lizards didn't get an ass chewing on the 12th! I mean, we feed them all those virgins, and then they completely dropped the ball!

Well, I've been meaning to tell you guys. One of them wasn't a virgin any more. Sorry!

[Hellbound]

Just a side note on "could a kid drive an 18-wheeler":

A better analogy would be:

My kid knows how to drie a go-cart. Could he drive an 18-wheeler if someone who was a professional truck driver started the vehicle and put it into gear for him first?

[valis]

My personal favorite, as one versed in statistics and probability, is the Monty Hall Problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_hall_problem).

Common sense would dictate that the odds are 50/50, since how can the doors know whether or not you changed your mind? Nonetheless, play it by the rules of common sense, and you'll probably go home with a new Pet Goat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pet_Goat).

I don't think the problem is all that counter intuitive if it is made clear that the host knows what is behind each door. Most of the presentations of the problem I have read don't really make that crystal clear.

[aggle-rithm]

Just a side note on "could a kid drive an 18-wheeler":

A better analogy would be:

My kid knows how to drie a go-cart. Could he drive an 18-wheeler if someone who was a professional truck driver started the vehicle and put it into gear for him first?

...plus he didn't have to stay on the roads?

...and could he hit a building with it?

[valis]

Wrong!

Common sense is contrary to imagination, because common sense tells you that an object emitting light and travelling at speed will result in that light travelling at it's constant speed plus the speed of the moving object, relative to an observer.



Actually that part isn't the problem. The problem is when you refuse to test what 'common sense' told you or to look at any evidence to the contrary.

[aggle-rithm]

Show me proof that the group of men and women who are the highest elected officials in the richest and most powerful nation in the world are incompetent. What, because W. is a lousy speaker?

Maybe they just play dumb on t.v. - maybe they know that people expect less from those who they view as incompetent and so they play that up, in order to use it (incompetence) as a get-out-of-jail-free-card.

Philisophical question: If I call 28k an idiot, and he has me on ignore, have I violated forum rules?

[uk_dave]

Philisophical question: If I call 28k an idiot, and he has me on ignore, have I violated forum rules?

No, because it's actually obligatory.

[aggle-rithm]

Surely the Pentagon i.e. the headquarters for the world's most elite military defense is a sitting duck and incapable of defending itself without, what - about a three hour heads up? Surely, they knew that a plane was heading straight for them...


Maybe, in the few seconds that it WAS headed straight for them after making a 180-degree turn.

[Tirdun]

Philisophical question: If I call 28k an idiot, and he has me on ignore, have I violated forum rules?

That's like a koan, man.
Deeeeep.

[Horatius]

Just a side note on "could a kid drive an 18-wheeler":

A better analogy would be:

My kid knows how to drie a go-cart. Could he drive an 18-wheeler if someone who was a professional truck driver started the vehicle and put it into gear for him first?

....and all he needed to do with it was to drive it into the side of the house.

[Belz...]

Here's what you don't understand. There is no evidence that will convince you 9/11 is an inside job... because in order to espy the truth about 9/11 you need the ability to piece together information in a way that forms a big picture.

Beign able to assemble evidence to form a coherent theory is one thing (that none of the truthers have managed to pull off), but each piece of evidence MUST stand on its own.

You all like to take things (evidence) one by one in a linear fashion, proceed to "debunk" them, which in your pseudo world really just means "deny" them (burden of proof - who needs that) and then move along to the next thing.

Yes, because only the evidence that is solid can be used to form a theory.

You might also need to look up the phrase "burden of proof" and "justice system".

[Belz...]

So flying a two seater and flying a commercial airliner...hey, pretty much the same thing right? I mean if a kid can drive a go-cart than surely they can drive an 18-wheeler.

False equivocation. It would be more akin to me trying to drive an 18 wheeler when I'm used to my electric-blue Mazda Protégé.

Surely the Pentagon i.e. the headquarters for the world's most elite military defense is a sitting duck and incapable of defending itself without, what - about a three hour heads up?

Defending itself ? Is it a Transformer, or something ?

Surely, they knew that a plane was heading straight for them...

Radar isn't that precise. They knew a plane was heading for DC.

surely at this point they knew that other planes had already been hijacked....

Yes, yes they did.

surely, I would get banned if I really told you how low my opinion is of you, and so I will just add you to my ignore list.

There is no one on my ignore list, except poor Oliver, because as long as someone posts things relevant to the topic, it doesn't matter how wrong or different their opinions are. Of course, you could never find out if YOU're wrong because you silence all opposition.

[Architect]

Defending itself ? Is it a Transformer, or something ?


La-da-dee....>Transformers>......Pentagon in Disguise......Dum Dah

[drum roll, titles roll]

[Tirdun]

Here, 28K, let me help.

Let's take a different event and reveal how it was an inside job. I'm sick of the 9/11 nonsense, so let's take something in which there are now no living survivors.

For this example, I claim the sinking of the RMS Titanic was a conspiracy.

The current Troother system is to make endless lists of either unsupported claims or so-called questions that attack a million tiny bits of the official story. A) isn't big enough. Why is B) ten degrees off center. I heard that C) said such and such. There's no coherence and often contradiction in their questions. Not enough body parts versus no plane at all versus drone/missile in your current gruesome example.

Instead, form a logical argument that takes all evidence into account.

I claim that the discovered wreck of the Titanic shows unmistakable signs of a torpedo hit. I present pictures of that hole and compare it to other torpedo holes in that era. I find experts in iceberg and torpedo damage. I do not entertain the possibility that it was a magic torpedo or a German beam weapon designed to create a hole that looks like a torpedo. I do not make claims that it cannot be an iceberg if the vast consensus of experts say it was an iceberg. I do not claim later that by "torpedo" I meant "mine" or "bomb" or "guy in steerage with a pickaxe". I do not attack the iceberg believers or experts and claim they've been paid off by the bottled water industry. I do not create long lists of vaguely iceberg related questions. I do not bring the motives of the Captain into question when he's dead and has nothing to say on the matter. I do not mention the movie Titanic, the stage play or the book written by Cussler.

Even if this, just this is all you can prove (not who shot the torpedo or why) then you've successfully shown a flaw in the official theory. The problem with every Truther I've been exposed to is that they stop at the first sentence of the above paragraph.

[uk_dave]

And in trooferville, the woowoos take one fact, such as the claim that the titanic was unsinkable and use their common sense to deduce that for an unsinkable ship to sink there must have been more damage than that caused by an iceberg.

The actual design of the ship is of no interest to them, because the designers have stated that it was unsinkable.

A working hypothesis for the damage caused by the iceberg is of no interest to them because it doesn't fit in with their common sense belief that if the ship is said to be unsinkable then that is what it is.

Even precedents showing that other ships, structures and machines which have previously been claimed by their designers or inventors to posses some quality which is subsequently found to be lacking, is of no interest to the troofers common sense.

So, if one person from the design team of the WTC towers makes an ill judged comment regarding the belief that the structures could survive multiple aircraft strikes, so long as this statement conforms to the troofers common sense world view, they will discount all other testimony and evidence to the contrary.

Now, back to counter intuitive examples...come on people, we need lots to throw at the next troofer to come here full of it.... common sense, that it.

[maccy]

It's an old post, but:

I've just seen a video of a game called "snooker". Now this game at its "professional" level supposedly involves a precisely made balls, and rigorously scrutinized level surface to play on.

Surely the balls in these conditions would behave in the way that we would expect them to, according to Newtonian physics?

Watch this video

HxJht-tWYSI

This so-called snooker "player" is hitting the white ball with a cue and causing that ball to hit coloured balls into the pockets around the table. In this video he gets a maximum score of 147 without missing a single shot! Surely the odds against this happening make it impossible?

Also, after the white ball hits a coloured ball, it very rarely continues in the direction it was travelling, as you would expect from common sense and physics (physics being how you would expect things to happen, from common sense). Sometimes the white ball goes off at an angle when it hits the coloured ball, sometimes it stops dead and sometimes it even goes backwards!

Don't tell me that the white ball is spinning. I can see no evidence that it is spinning.

Worse than all this, go to 6 minutes 40 seconds: the player hits the black ball towards one of the pockets, it rebounds off the corners of the pocket, goes all the way across the table and bounces back into the same pocket!

The player even has the cheek to grin as if he wasn't expecting it to happen!

If a controlled Newtonian environment like a snooker table can throw up oddities and flukes such as this one then I'd be forced to concede that's its possible that such things could occur elsewhere.

It must all be faked, the anomalies prove it.

I suspect that the balls are either magnetised and controlled from under the table or they are not there at all - they are simply holograms.

My own eyes tell me that this simply can't be real.

[Architect]

My own eyes tell me that this simply can't be real.


My own eyes told me that snooker was even more boring to watch than cricket.......:p

[aggle-rithm]

Defending itself ? Is it a Transformer, or something ?




That would be TOTALLY cool! But, please don't let Dubya hear about this idea, or our tax dollars would soon be hard at work...

[ConspiRaider]

"The Dork Side of the Farce"

Yea... real right-brained... you 3747474. So what do you do for a living? Computer programming?
You, 28 IQ, have again advertised your hard won score on the IQ test (28) by illustrating your total lack of understanding in the area of computer programming and software development.

Which is exactly what I do for a living, and have done for more than 20 years.

Did you know that a very fertile imagination is required if an individual ever hopes to achieve a level of success in the design of software?

But not only that: It requires an abstract imagination. Many concepts in software design have no parallel in the so-called real world. Therefore, language, structure, modular design and object interdependencies have to be imagined inside a separate dimension of reality. Imagining a blue giraffe wearing a pink hat and smoking a purple cigar is one thing. Imagining the branching and looping and analytical logic that is required for a data deduplication module is quite another.

Try it sometime. You might change your mind about software developers. Imagine that!

[uk_dave]

I couldn't resist.......


miragememories declares:

My point is that you don't always need an expert to tell you when something doesn't stand up to the 'light of reason'.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2076

So it's the 'light of reason' now..... fare thee well common sense.

[Horatius]

Imagining a blue giraffe wearing a pink hat and smoking a purple cigar is one thing. Imagining the branching and looping and analytical logic that is required for a data deduplication module is quite another.

Try it sometime. You might change your mind about software developers. Imagine that!

And this right here is a good example of why you shouldn't trust "common sense" when dealing with something you don't know much about. When I first read this, I thought "deduplication" was just a typo. Then I decided to Google the term, because it seemed an odd sort of typo.

D'oh! (http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/D/data_deduplication.html)

So if I'd just gone with my "common sense" reaction and posted a snarky typo-comment post, I'd have ended up looking foolish. Instead, I learned sonething new. Whodathunkit?

[Keerax]

Darn. I was so enjoying learning neat new things about oddities of the real world vs. how we think things should happen. (The balloons and garden hose was particulalry enjoyable for me.)

But then 28th Kingdom popped in and I feel the thread got kind of derailed. Couldn't we all just ignore him this once and go back to showing me how crazy the real world really is? :p

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2006/12/stuff-of-dreams.html (http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2006/12/stuff-of-dreams.html)
Dilatants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilatant)
Auxetic materials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxetic)
Superfluids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superliquid)
Ferrofluids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrofluid)
Dry ice

[aggle-rithm]

And this right here is a good example of why you shouldn't trust "common sense" when dealing with something you don't know much about. When I first read this, I thought "deduplication" was just a typo. Then I decided to Google the term, because it seemed an odd sort of typo.

D'oh! (http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/D/data_deduplication.html)

So if I'd just gone with my "common sense" reaction and posted a snarky typo-comment post, I'd have ended up looking foolish. Instead, I learned sonething new. Whodathunkit?

One of the interesting things about programming is that, the more efficient an algorithm is, the less sense it appears to make. That's because one or more programmers were able to look at the algorithm and realize that a step or two, which common sense might tell us is necessary, is not necessary at all. Over time the code becomes increasingly terse, but it still ends up doing the job it was designed to do.

I came across a line of code like this once, and the programmer had written in his comments: "Good luck figuring this one out!"

[Keerax]

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2006/12/stuff-of-dreams.html (http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2006/12/stuff-of-dreams.html)
Dilatants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilatant)
Auxetic materials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxetic)
Superfluids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superliquid)
Ferrofluids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrofluid)
Dry ice

Ask and ye shall receive. I love you guys/gals!

[Horatius]

And common sense tells you that a guy who made his money selling books wouldn't be the one to get a new type of rocket built, but hey, look what happened!

http://public.blueorigin.com/index.html


This reminds me of the DC-X (pbuh). A rocket that takes off and lands vertically, "The way god and Robert Heinlein intended them to!"

I think I'll go shopping on Amazon this evening.....

ETA: And they're hiring. Anyone in school now looking for a cool job, check them out. I'd do it if I was younger.

[Spindrift]

Common sense has been the bane of scientific progess since time immemorial.

Common sense would dictate:

...that the sun rotates around the earth.

...that if I drop a 1 lb iron ball and a 10 lb iron ball from the same height at the same time, that the 10 lb would hit the ground first.

...that the earth is flat.

...nothing could live at the bottom of the ocean

...that the seasons are caused by the shape of earth's orbit around the sun

...rockets can't work in space because there's nothing to push against

Common sense should never be used in any type of scientific investigation because it leads to false assumptions which invalidate the investigation.

[Dr Adequate]

Wason's Four-card Task

Logic: 1; Common Sense: 0.

---

Some more common sense (http://www.westvegas.com/bad_techno_predictions.html). Including the famous New York Times editorial about how rockets are impossible.

[HeyLeroy]

If common sense tells you that an aluminium plane cannot make a hole in a steel building because steel is stronger than aluminium, then consider how its possible to cut steel with water (http://science.howstuffworks.com/question553.htm).

Ultimately, I don't think we would have made much scientific progress, as a species, if we hadn't been inspired to keep questioning and testing what our common sense tells us.

I have personally blasted a hole through 1/4" plywood with a potato, hairspray and some PVC pipe, yet common 'sence' should say that's not possible.
Next you'll be telling me that the White House doesn't have a super guided laser defense array in the roof, and the capital building doesn't have a nuke hidden in that crazy dome!

28th K, could you please provide evidence for your theories and stop ignoring everyone that questions you?

Don't hold your breath.

[JonnyFive]

Don't hold your breath.

Fortunately, that wasn't part of the deal. :)

[Dave_46]

If only common sense was as common as its name suggests.

Dave

[ConspiRaider]

One of the interesting things about programming is that, the more efficient an algorithm is, the less sense it appears to make. That's because one or more programmers were able to look at the algorithm and realize that a step or two, which common sense might tell us is necessary, is not necessary at all. Over time the code becomes increasingly terse, but it still ends up doing the job it was designed to do.

I came across a line of code like this once, and the programmer had written in his comments: "Good luck figuring this one out!"
Yepper! Lost count the number of times I've been humbled by insisting that something in a module was necessary when it wasn't. In fact it was redundant, and was a speed drag as well.

Destroying code in a module, while having that module perform the same job, is one of the great thrills in life for a software developer.

Or the other thing: I write something, everything looks fine, it doesn't work. After beating my brains out for hours, I'll yell out: "BUT IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE! IT HAS TO WORK!"

Nope. It doesn't work because it's wrong.

[negativ]

Common sense is what you say when you want to sound authoritive, but have not a damned blasted thing to hang your ideas upon.

"One's own original ideas are invariably more readily accepted without due scrutiny when they are attributed to a person of esteemed historical significance." -- Thomas Jefferson

;)

[negativ]

Edit - bleh, duplicate post.

[ktesibios]

They got mesmerized
By lullabies
And limbo danced
In pairs
Please lock that door
It don't make much sense
That common sense
Don't make no sense
No more

-John Prine

[GlennB]

Now, back to counter intuitive examples...come on people, we need lots to throw at the next troofer to come here full of it.... common sense, that it.

Well, clearly a big strong animal like an elephant will cope with a 6' drop much better than a feeble little cat eh? Common sense, innit?

[Darth Rotor]

Isn't psychology fascinating? I made a very keen observation some time back... about how I didn't think all of you were acting like real skeptics because you weren't skeptical of the official story when it has a million holes in it.

I love when I have an original idea or notion that is beautifully echoed with other research and analysis. Pseudoskeptics - yes, what a perfect nomenclature for this bunch of habitual debunkers.
What strawman official story line do you assume I, for example, ascribe to?

DR

[28th Kingdom]

Common sense would dictate:

...that the sun rotates around the earth.

What commonly known information are you applying to this situation - that would lead you to believe this?


...that if I drop a 1 lb iron ball and a 10 lb iron ball from the same height at the same time, that the 10 lb would hit the ground first.

What pertinent common knowledge about the world are you applying to this event? i.e. If a is like b...than a must be like c.


...that the earth is flat.

Common Sense is not about believing what your eyes tell you. Common Sense is a sense beyond your five senses... although it uses certain information from those (5) senses in order to form a higher intuitive-like sense.


...nothing could live at the bottom of the ocean

What are you applying to this scenario? The common belief that humans need oxygen to live, thus everything must need oxygen to live? But, fish aren't human...and neither are deep-sea creatures. Humans, can't breathe underwater, but we know fish can... You are so far from reality.


...that the seasons are caused by the shape of earth's orbit around the sun

Do huh? Dude, get yer head out of Uranus.


...rockets can't work in space because there's nothing to push against

Oh boy...


Common sense should never be used in any type of scientific investigation because it leads to false assumptions which invalidate the investigation.

Common sense ideas tend to relate to events within human experience, and thus commensurate with human scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_scale). Thus there is no commonsense intuition of, for example, the behavior of the universe at subatomic distances or speeds approaching that of light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/commonsense

[Darth Rotor]

I think this is a poor attempt at sarcasm... but you never know.

Would a kid be able to drive a 18-wheeler at high speed into a building? Heck yeah!
oh that's a lot of surely. And I get to be on your prestigious ignore list! Oh joy!
Heh... you're projecting.
The word you seek in describing 28thKlutzdom is "manure" not "maneur." Just thought I'd help out, given the multiple iterations.

I offer you my condolences, no, my congratulations, that 28thKumStain has put you on ignore. Lucky you. :)

DR

[slingblade]

Common sense ideas tend to relate to events within human experience, and thus commensurate with human scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_scale). Thus there is no commonsense intuition of, for example, the behavior of the universe at subatomic distances or speeds approaching that of light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/commonsense

I see you read it, but could not comprehend it. I am not surprised.

Now, look at what is bolded and please tell me how you apply commmon sense to an event which had never happened before.

[ConspiRaider]

In the Northern Hemisphere, since it's warm in the summer and cold in the winter, then the Earth must be closer to the Sun in the summer than it is in the winter. Common sense, dude!

[uk_dave]

When I die.. I shall soar with angels. And, when I die to the angels.. what I shall become - you cannot imagine.

Oh yes I can ;)

[Kochanski]

Isn't psychology fascinating? I made a very keen observation some time back... about how I didn't think all of you were acting like real skeptics because you weren't skeptical of the official story when it has a million holes in it.

I love when I have an original idea or notion that is beautifully echoed with other research and analysis. Pseudoskeptics - yes, what a perfect nomenclature for this bunch of habitual debunkers.

I am very glad I wasn't drinking my coffee at the moment I read this or I would have sprayed my monitor while I was LMAO.

[Curnir]

The word you seek in describing 28thKlutzdom is "manure" not "maneur." Just thought I'd help out, given the multiple iterations.

Actually I was not trying to describe 28, I was looking for a synonym for the title of Penn & Tellers tv show. Come to think of it I could have used 'Humbug'.
*Curnir sighs*
Hindsight is 20/20.


Thanks anyway. :D

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Actually I was not trying to describe 28, I was looking for a synonym for the title of Penn & Tellers tv show. Come to think of it I could have used 'Humbug'.
*Curnir sighs*
Hindsight is 20/20.


Thanks anyway. :D

P&T Bulls Hit

[Darth Rotor]

Actually I was not trying to describe 28, I was looking for a synonym for the title of Penn & Tellers tv show. Come to think of it I could have used 'Humbug'.
*Curnir sighs*
Hindsight is 20/20.


Thanks anyway. :D

Well, much of what 28thKowDung posts is a steaming pile of manure.

You could use "bullspit." A number of others use that.

DR

[defaultdotxbe]

What commonly known information are you applying to this situation - that would lead you to believe this?
and what commonly known information lets you understand how 110 story skyscrapers collapse? is it s common enough evoent to apply common sense?

[CHF]

....in order to espy the truth about 9/11 you need the ability to piece together information in a way that forms a big picture.

Oh boy! Does this mean that you're the first twoofer EVER to take all his 9/11 "proof" and tally it all up into a logical narrative?

This I gotta hear!

[Gravy]

Common Sense is not about believing what your eyes tell you. Common Sense is a sense beyond your five senses... although it uses certain information from those (5) senses in order to form a higher intuitive-like sense.Do try not to babble.

[aggle-rithm]

Common Sense is not about believing what your eyes tell you. Common Sense is a sense beyond your five senses... although it uses certain information from those (5) senses in order to form a higher intuitive-like sense.


Equivocation. This is like saying, "I've got lots of sense; in fact, I've got 50 cents in my pocket right now."


What are you applying to this scenario? The common belief that humans need oxygen to live, thus everything must need oxygen to live? But, fish aren't human...and neither are deep-sea creatures. Humans, can't breathe underwater, but we know fish can... You are so far from reality.


It is not common sense that humans need oxygen to live; we know that from study and experimentation. Common sense tells us that we need AIR to live, and that fish need WATER to live. It is science that tells us that we both need OXYGEN to live.


Common sense ideas tend to relate to events within human experience, and thus commensurate with human scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_scale). Thus there is no commonsense intuition of, for example, the behavior of the universe at subatomic distances or speeds approaching that of light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/commonsense

Nor of millions of pounds of concrete and steel falling onto an immense man-made structure.

[Gravy]

Here, 28K, let me help.

Let's take a different event and reveal how it was an inside job. I'm sick of the 9/11 nonsense, so let's take something in which there are now no living survivors.

For this example, I claim the sinking of the RMS Titanic was a conspiracy.

The current Troother system is to make endless lists of either unsupported claims or so-called questions that attack a million tiny bits of the official story. A) isn't big enough. Why is B) ten degrees off center. I heard that C) said such and such. There's no coherence and often contradiction in their questions. Not enough body parts versus no plane at all versus drone/missile in your current gruesome example.

Instead, form a logical argument that takes all evidence into account.

I claim that the discovered wreck of the Titanic shows unmistakable signs of a torpedo hit. I present pictures of that hole and compare it to other torpedo holes in that era. I find experts in iceberg and torpedo damage. I do not entertain the possibility that it was a magic torpedo or a German beam weapon designed to create a hole that looks like a torpedo. I do not make claims that it cannot be an iceberg if the vast consensus of experts say it was an iceberg. I do not claim later that by "torpedo" I meant "mine" or "bomb" or "guy in steerage with a pickaxe". I do not attack the iceberg believers or experts and claim they've been paid off by the bottled water industry. I do not create long lists of vaguely iceberg related questions. I do not bring the motives of the Captain into question when he's dead and has nothing to say on the matter. I do not mention the movie Titanic, the stage play or the book written by Cussler.

Even if this, just this is all you can prove (not who shot the torpedo or why) then you've successfully shown a flaw in the official theory. The problem with every Truther I've been exposed to is that they stop at the first sentence of the above paragraph.Tirdun, I appreciate this post and have nominated it for The Language Award. (Although the bottled water lobby is stronger than you know.)

[28th Kingdom]

Has a false flag operation ever happened in the world? Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag


Has a country ever killed it's own people as a pretext to fight an external enemy? Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukden_incident


Has Israel ever engaged in any false-flag operations? Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_Bombing


Any of those against the US? Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair


Has the US ever been involved in any false-flag operations? Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladio


Has the US ever considered engaging in false-flag operations against its own people? Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods


Now, does everyone (CTist and/or Gov Shills) believe that planted explosives could have brought down the towers? Yes. Had explosives ever brought down a steel structured high-rise pre 9/11? Yes. Had a plane impact ever brought down a steel structured high-rise pre 9/11? No. Had a fire ever brought down a steel-structured high-rise pre 9/11? No. Had hurricane-like (debris) exterior damage ever made a steel-structured high-rise totally collapse in a symmetrical fashion at quasi-free fall speeds? No.

What are the odds that 19 amateur pilots with box cutters and plastic knives could have hijacked four commercial airliners with a 100% success rate, and then proceeded to maneuver these aircraft (past the world's most elite and advanced military defense system) to three exact destinations while hitting 100% of their targets? 1 in an inconceivable number

What are the odds that Israel, backed with the fourth largest funded military in the world, could have had some agents plant explosives in a privately owned building complex, that is owned by a Zionist? 1 in 1

What are the odds that elements (the highest ranking officials) within the USG government could hand down orders that effectively disarm NORAD? 1 in 1

What are the odds that a commercial size airliner can be hijacked via remote control and flown to exact locations. 1 in 1

Another technology devised by the U.S. military for remote control of huge airplanes is named Global Hawk. On April 24, 2001, four months before "'9/11,'" Britain's International Television News reported: "A robot plane has made aviation history by becoming the first unmanned aircraft to fly across the Pacific Ocean."

The former Minister of Technology said: '"The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting."'

http://www.911review.com/means/remotecontrol.html


Now... start piecing everything together... and then tell me which theory is more far fetched.

[Gravy]

Good one, UK_Dave.

Docking In Earth Orbit:
If 2 vehicles are in the same orbit, and the guy 5 miles behind needs to dock with the guy up ahead, common sense says that the trailing guy hits the accelerator so he can catch up. But it's the opposite. He actually has to slow down to catch up. Slowing down drops him into a lower orbit, causing him to move faster around the earth.Now that's just crazy talk. Are you some sort of Warlock?

[Gravy]

What are the odds that a commercial size airliner can be hijacked via remote control and flown to exact locations. 1 in 1

Another technology devised by the U.S. military for remote control of huge airplanes is named Global Hawk. On April 24, 2001, four months before "'9/11,'" Britain's International Television News reported: "A robot plane has made aviation history by becoming the first unmanned aircraft to fly across the Pacific Ocean."

The former Minister of Technology said: '"The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting."'

http://www.911review.com/means/remotecontrol.html


Now... start piecing everything together... and then tell me which theory is more far fetched.Piece this together, Einstein: http://www.911myths.com/Remote_Takeover.pdf

[Architect]

It's easy, really:

Evidence, evidence, evidence.

And it has to be unequivocal, none of this "looks like, if you squint a bit" rubbish.....

[CHF]

Has a false flag operation ever happened in the world? Yes.
Has a country ever killed it's own people as a pretext to fight an external enemy? Yes.
Has Israel ever engaged in any false-flag operations? Yes.
Any of those against the US? Yes.


And have Islamic militants ever hijacked planes? Yup.

Oh dear. Now what?

[DavidJames]

28IQ:

I'll paraphrase something I said to you before. I would love to sit on a jury watching a DA present a criminal case against you using the same logic you have presented here. Now here's the rub, loser, I would not vote guilty, yes even for you, if that was all the DA had.

[Architect]

Jings, crivens, help ma'boab.



Now, does everyone (CTist and/or Gov Shills) believe that planted explosives could have brought down the towers? Yes.

Whoah! What do you mean "could have"? That's an awfully big statement! Do you mean:

"In principle, given clear access and regardless of whether discovered or not, could explosives per se have been used to demolish a building such as WTC. "

But so what? Just because it is theoretically possible in no way proves it happened in the absence of EVIDENCE.

Had explosives ever brought down a steel structured high-rise pre 9/11? Yes.

Yes, and concrete too. Always after extensive preparatory works covering weeks, if not months.

Had a plane impact ever brought down a steel structured high-rise pre 9/11? No.

Had an aircraft ever hit one at that speed, in those circumstances? Yes

Had a fire ever brought down a steel-structured high-rise pre 9/11? No.

Had any steel structured high rise building even been hit by this combination of aircraft impact and fire? No.

Have steel framed structures failed due to fire? Yes.

Is the risk of this acknowledged in Buildings Standards and Codes worldwide, all prior to 11/9? Yes.

Had hurricane-like (debris) exterior damage ever made a steel-structured high-rise totally collapse in a symmetrical fashion at quasi-free fall speeds? No.

Did the towers suffer hurricane like exterior damage. No.

Did the tower collapse symmetrically? No.

Did the towers collapse at quasi free-fall speeds? No.

What are the odds that 19 amateur pilots with box cutters and plastic knives

19 armed pilots with stanley knives, weapon of choice for your average Glasgow gang and responsible for several murders in that fair city every year? Yes.


could have hijacked four commercial airliners with a 100% success rate, and then proceeded to maneuver these aircraft

Arguably 75 % success rate.

And using autopilot/GPS they flew them. Yes.

(past the world's most elite and advanced military defense system)

Which hadn't scrambled because it wasn't in a position to respond to internal threats. No.

to three exact destinations while hitting 100% of their targets?

75%. You're not very good at this maths thing?

What are the odds that Israel, backed with the fourth largest funded military in the world, could have had some agents plant explosives in a privately owned building complex, that is owned by a Zionist?

Aha, it was the nasty Joos that did it. Proof?

What are the odds that elements (the highest ranking officials) within the USG government could hand down orders that effectively disarm NORAD?

Proof?

What are the odds that a commercial size airliner can be hijacked via remote control and flown to exact locations.

Proof?


Now... start piecing everything together... and then tell me which theory is more far fetched.


You don't have a theory, or even a hypothesis. You have vague and wooly, half formed accusations with no substantive evidence.

Try harder. Eejit. I'm fair scunnered with your pathetic attempts.

[negativ]

Since Wikipedia is apparently the only source apart from prisonplanet that matters to any CTist, I suppose I might as well post this:

Is there ample reason to shy away from using Wikipedia as a primary source? Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia


Has Wikipedia ever been found to be utterly fraudulent? Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controve rsy


Is that why parodies of Wikipedia are frequently funny? Yes.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UnNews:Saddam%27s_tomb_found_empty_after_3_days%3B _resurrected_leader_appears_to_followers

[Pardalis]

Now... start piecing everything together...

...while doing drugs and listening to Tool.

You forgot the most important steps to start seeing conspiracies.

[28th Kingdom]

Piece this together, Einstein: http://www.911myths.com/Remote_Takeover.pdf

I want you one on one in our own thread... and if you choose to decline my challenge, than you concede defeat by virtue of cowardice.

I need not qualify to debate you by answering any one particular question. If you want something addressed, than bring it into the thread.

My 600+ posts, speak for themselves.

[Architect]

My 600+ posts, speak for themselves.


Yup, but not in the way you think you mean!


Mes amis americanes, the new Scots word for today is Keech. A perfect description for 28th's spurious arguments.

[uk_dave]

My 600+ posts, speak for themselves.

Louder than words.

[Firestone]

What are the odds that Israel, backed with the fourth largest funded military in the world, could have had some agents plant explosives in a privately owned building complex, that is owned by a Zionist? 1 in 1This is at least the third time that you accuse the "zionists" of carrying out the attacks of 9/11 !

When will you start giving EVIDENCE for your evil and baseless accusations?
When will you apologize for making fun with Mark Bingham?

When will you address the many questions you have cowardly evaded until now by running away from threads?

When?

[Firestone]

I want you one on one in our own thread... Apparently that is the wet dream of every CTist: one on one with Gravy!

What has Gravy done wrong? :)

[DavidJames]

My 600+ posts, speak for themselves.I wouldn't say speak so much as mumble incoherently.

[28th Kingdom]

Since Wikipedia is apparently the only source apart from prisonplanet that matters to any CTist, I suppose I might as well post this:

Is there ample reason to shy away from using Wikipedia as a primary source? Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia


Has Wikipedia ever been found to be utterly fraudulent? Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controve rsy


Is that why parodies of Wikipedia are frequently funny? Yes.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UnNews:Saddam%27s_tomb_found_empty_after_3_days%3B _resurrected_leader_appears_to_followers

Go verify all of the information from my post through other sites and resources. Those are all well documented events.

[Gravy]

I want you one on one in our own thread... and if you choose to decline my challenge, than you concede defeat by virtue of cowardice.

I need not qualify to debate you by answering any one particular question. If you want something addressed, than bring it into the thread.

My 600+ posts, speak for themselves.First, please read Apathoid's analysis of the feasibility of remote takeover of the Boeing 757/767 and let us know what you think.

Second, are you forgetting that I already accepted your gunslingin' challenge? All you had to do was provide evidence for what we were discussing.

You chose that time to take a vacation from the JREF forum.

Yes, your 600+ posts certainly do speak for themselves.

[Quad4_72]

Probably a typo. Have you tried using common scents?

Haha. You would think that it was a typo, but when it is the title of the thread and used throughout their post, typo goes right out the window.

[Horatius]

Now that's just crazy talk. Are you some sort of Warlock?

Nope, just the Tribe Scientist. Always remember:

East takes you In,
In takes you West,
West takes you Out,
Out takes you East,
North and South bring you back.


With all due respect to Larry Niven (http://www.amazon.com/Integral-Trees-Larry-Niven/dp/0345460367/sr=8-1/qid=1167952761/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-9725673-9459667?ie=UTF8&s=books).

[CHF]

28th Kingdom,

You claim to be able to piece together evidence and see the big picture.

So put all your proof together and give me a logical narrative of what you think happened on 9/11.

You'll be the first twoofer to do this so you should be quite excited by the opportunity.

No more "just asking questions." I want to see a logical narrative.

Batter up!

[fuelair]

"The Dork Side of the Farce"

Yea... real right-brained... you 3747474. So what do you do for a living? Computer programming?

And where do you flip hamburgers, little troll?:)
Stop insulting your betters and go earn your HS degree. Thanks!!:)

[negativ]

Not bloody likely. I'm still waiting (well, not really) for him to tell us what sort of evidence he would expect to find if 9/11 really happened pretty much as described in the Commission report. He also will not say what evidence could hypothetically be found that would cause him to change his mind.

(unless I missed it, in which case... my bad)

[Gravy]

No more "just asking questions." I want to see a logical narrative.
Batter up!:popcorn1 I bolded a word so 28th wouldn't miss it.

[Horatius]

Yup, but not in the way you think you mean!


Mes amis americanes, the new Scots word for today is Keech. A perfect description for 28th's spurious arguments.

There you go, making me learn stuff again.....Okay, Google.....paste......

First hit, Keech Castings (http://www.keechcastings.com.au/). Australian, though, so that's not it.....

Scots Dictionary (http://www.britannia.org/scotland/scotsdictionary/k.shtml)...That sounds promising...

keech (pronounced keeCH):

Keech is excrement.



Yep, I think we have a winner! Just make sure 28th doesn't give you a keeker, you internet keelie!









keeker:

A keeker is a black eye.
I had a right keeker the next morning. The word is from keek.

keelie (rhymes with steely):

1. A keelie is a young working-class male from a city or large town. The term is generally derogatory and implies that the person is rough, tough, and a potential hooligan. In Glasgow, however, it is sometimes used more neutrally. Also, in Glasgow girls can be called keelies.
a Glesca keelie The word comes from the Gaelic gille a lad.

[CHF]

Mark,

how are things on Saturdays at GZ these days?

Any changes in numbers, reactions, claims etc?

Here in Toronto we have no visible twoof movement (yeah - it's THAT big).

[Architect]

Yep, I think we have a winner! Just make sure 28th doesn't give you a keeker, you internet keelie!


Whit, a wee bachle (or bochle) like him? He's just a nyaff.

Incidentally, it might be me that gives him the shiner......





See? It's an education on this site!

[Horatius]

I want you one on one in our own thread... and if you choose to decline my challenge, than you concede defeat by virtue of cowardice.

I need not qualify to debate you by answering any one particular question. If you want something addressed, than bring it into the thread.

My 600+ posts, speak for themselves.

So where does this keelie get off issuing challenges and accusing people of cowardice, when he won't even address our simple challenge (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2227451#post2227451) to provide the proof we require, when he himself asked us to challenge him thusly?

Cowardice, thy name is 28th Kingdom. Thy middle name probably rhymes with "cupid".

[Horatius]

Whit, a wee bachle (or bochle) like him? He's just a nyaff.

Incidentally, it might be me that gives him the shiner......





See? It's an education on this site!

Well, yeah, that's the way I'd bet, but I didn't want to be accused of promoting violence :)

I'm thinking of challenging him to a Kendo match, and accusing him of cowardice if he refuses. And if he accepts, it means I'd get to hit him in the head with a big stick. Either way, it's good.

[Architect]

Nice use of Keelie. :)

[Architect]

I'm thinking of challenging him to a Kendo match, and accusing him of cowardice if he refuses. And if he accepts, it means I'd get to hit him in the head with a big stick. Either way, it's good.


Baggses me a shot with him at epee first; more chance to cause injuries before a final death blow.

[Horatius]

Nice use of Keelie. :)

It's not every day you learn a new insult!

[NotJesus]

My own eyes told me that snooker was even more boring to watch than cricket.......:p

But not as boring as darts.

[Horatius]

Baggses me a shot with him at epee first; more chance to cause injuries before a final death blow.

Unfortunately, it's tough to kill someone in Kendo. I could make him see stars for sure, and a few well-placed wrist stikes could have his mouse-hand laid up for a few day.

Add in a bit of tai-atari (http://www.kendo-world.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-1878.html) for the fun of it, and it's a full day.

[28th Kingdom]

So what makes the - 9/11 is an Inside Job Belief - such an unbelievable one? Tell me... logistically - why it was impossible for Israel and the US to pull off 9/11.

We're not talking about the specifics of the execution of operation 9/11 i.e. star wars beams and holographic wings.

I am asking what makes it impossible for professionally trained military agents to plant explosives in buildings...

What makes it impossible for explosives to bring down high-rise buildings...

What makes it impossible for corrupt entities to pull off false-flag attacks...

What makes it impossible for the US to fly commercial size airliners... either by remote or with (hired) suicide pilots....

Please, shed yer ego and remove that red, white and blue war paint from yer face - and tell me specifically why it was impossible for 9/11 to be an inside job.

[CHF]

So what makes the - 9/11 is an Inside Job Belief - such an unbelievable one? Tell me... logistically - why it was impossible for Israel and the US to pull off 9/11 i.e. because the US would never harm its own people.

We're not talking about the specifics of the execution of operation 9/11 i.e. star wars beams and holographic wings.

I am asking what makes it impossible for professionally trained military agents to plant explosives in buildings...

What makes it impossible for explosives to bring down high-rise buildings...

What makes it impossible for corrupt entities to pull off false-flag attacks...

What makes it impossible for the US to fly commercial size airliners... either by remote or with (hired) suicide pilots....

Please, shed yer ego and remove that red, white and blue war paint from yer face - and tell me specifically why it was impossible for 9/11 to be an inside job.

Narrative, narrative...looking for a narrative....

Nope, didn't see one that time. Strike one.

Try again.

[Scientologist]

The point about common sense here perfectly demonstrated. 28th uses "common sense" to tell us that his hand can't pass through a steel door. I've actually seen a truther video which used someone walking through a door as some kind of illustration of how it's "impossible" to be on the other side of the door without opening it. Somehow both the movie makers and 28th have forgotten that with sufficient force, his hand could easily pass through the door. There wouldn't be anything left of his hand, but there doesn't need to be. The answer to his considerations of what NIST should have determined is simply that he does not have the imagination to understand that sufficient forces were more than available in a half-a-million ton building. As calcuated by NIST and by other independent bodies. It is very far from physically impossible for the core to have been crushed down with the rest of the building, seeing as it wasn't made of neutronium but the same stuff as the rest of the building.

Common sense may be telling 28th that a box cutter can't be used as a threatening weapon. Common sense tells me that they bloody well can (in fact I've been scared of Stanley knives my whole life). Common sense tells 28th that a big plane is difficult to fly. Common sense tells me that the hardest parts of learning to fly - takeoff, landing and communications - were not part of what the hijackers needed to do. Incidentally, common sense also tells me that you cannot simultaneously complain that the iggerent ay-rabs couldn't have known how to fly an airplane and at the same time blame the authorities who didn't stop Atta etc from taking flying lessons.


Interesting post. Boxcutters are basically just razors with a retractable shield, no?

Good to know "truthers" can't understand how RAZORS might be able to cut through human flesh.
Unreal.

[Architect]

Voila, 1 no. boxcutter. Looks pretty dangerous to me.

[CHF]

I am asking what makes it impossible for professionally trained military agents to plant explosives in buildings...

What makes it impossible for explosives to bring down high-rise buildings...

What makes it impossible for corrupt entities to pull off false-flag attacks...

What makes it impossible for the US to fly commercial size airliners... either by remote or with (hired) suicide pilots....

Quiet explosives, agents planting bombs with no one noticng the prep work, no whistleblowers, and no structural engineers noticing what happened. Sure - let's pretend this is all possible.

Do you at some point plan on proving that it's what actually happened?

[Firestone]

:words:

I am asking what makes it impossible :words:

What makes it impossible :words:

What makes it impossible :words:

What makes it impossible :words:

What makes it impossible for you to give a clear narrative of what happened on 9/11?
What makes it impossible for you to provide EVIDENCE for the baseless claims you make?
What makes it impossible for you to answer the questions put to you?

And why does every *** who accuses the "zionists" always believe he is "thinking out of the box" and has discovered hidden truths ???

[Foolmewunz]

We're going to need a new badge. One that says "NOT On 28th's Ignore List". It'll be much smaller group.

Oliver's running a sweatshop in Guatemala, so he can keep the seamstress working overtime.

Has anyone got an updated list?
28th... I'm sure you're anal retentive enough to have a complete list. Could you be a good little nutbar and send it. We're heading into the weekend, and I'd like to put the workorders through to OBW (Oliver Badgewerk GmbH)?

Oh, but I'm on ignore... Would someone not on the fabled list cite this post for 28K (is there anyone NOT ON the list?)......

[JimBenArm]

But not as boring as darts.

The only thing in this world more boring than playing golf is watching it on TV.

[Architect]

The only thing in this world more boring than playing golf is watching it on TV.


Sam Torrence's gowf ball once hit me while I was watching the Open at Royal Troon. Itruddy hurt, I can tell you, but on the other hand it cost him the hole.



And before anyone asks, it hit me on the leg.

[stateofgrace]

So what makes the - 9/11 is an Inside Job Belief - such an unbelievable one? Tell me... logistically - why it was impossible for Israel and the US to pull off 9/11.

We're not talking about the specifics of the execution of operation 9/11 i.e. star wars beams and holographic wings.

I am asking what makes it impossible for professionally trained military agents to plant explosives in buildings...

What makes it impossible for explosives to bring down high-rise buildings...

What makes it impossible for corrupt entities to pull off false-flag attacks...

What makes it impossible for the US to fly commercial size airliners... either by remote or with (hired) suicide pilots....

Please, shed yer ego and remove that red, white and blue war paint from yer face - and tell me specifically why it was impossible for 9/11 to be an inside job.

No you will not be allowed to turn it all around and put the burden of proof else where.

Now, what happened on 911?

Just a summary will do, a few sentences, to sum it all up.

[Foolmewunz]

Voila, 1 no. boxcutter. Looks pretty dangerous to me.

Which would be why it's one of the favored weapons for certain gangs in the barrios in the USA! A boxcutter is a razor blade with a nice handle so you can get leverage. If you've ever come close to slicing off a finger when using a single-blade razor (to clean putty off of glass, for instance), you know how deep they can cut.

The DA ballsy comment that he'd have laughed at them is such teenage macho that it's laughable. I've faced down a guy with a razor. The only thing on my mind was convincing him to put it away, while checking the path to the door to get as far away from him as possible!

[Firestone]

Oliver's running a sweatshop in Guatemala, so he can keep the seamstress working overtime.

Has anyone got an updated list?
28th... I'm sure you're anal retentive enough to have a complete list. Could you be a good little nutbar and send it. We're heading into the weekend, and I'd like to put the workorders through to OBW (Oliver Badgewerk GmbH)?

Oh, but I'm on ignore... Would someone not on the fabled list cite this post for 28K (is there anyone NOT ON the list?)......Here ...

Have fun with 28th Kingdom.

[apathoid]

The only thing in this world more boring than playing golf is watching it on TV.

I knew someone who used to say the exact same thing until I dragged him out to the links....now he plays more often than I do(and watches it on TV for good measure)
:golf:

Now fishing on the other hand....:slp:

[babazaroni]

I am asking what makes it impossible for professionally trained military agents to plant explosives in buildings...

...and not get caught.

What makes it impossible for explosives to bring down high-rise buildings...


...and not appear to be brought down by explosives.

What makes it impossible for corrupt entities to pull off false-flag attacks...

...and not get caught.

What makes it impossible for the US to fly commercial size airliners... either by remote or with (hired) suicide pilots....


...and not get caught.

[28th Kingdom]

Why does everyone always address my questions with questions, and then accuse me of avoiding their questions...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

[Architect]

Because your questions are keech and you're an eejit. We're all scunnered with you.

NEXT!

[Pardalis]

Nuts shouldn't read psychology literature.

[JimBenArm]

Why does everyone always address my questions with questions, and then accuse me of avoiding their questions...



Mostly because you're a wanker, with poor reasoning ability, manners, and a total inability to show your head is anything more than a hat rack with legs attached.

Other than that, I really don't know.

[Architect]

Hey it could be worse.....look at Non Believer and his amazing Philosophy degree (maybe)

[Architect]

Mostly because you're a wanker, with poor reasoning ability, manners, and a total inability to show your head is anything more than a hat rack with legs attached.



:D LoL (lots)

[babazaroni]

Why does everyone always address my questions with questions, and then accuse me of avoiding their questions...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

I was not asking questions, I was adding the proper qualifier to the end of your questions.

[apathoid]

Why does everyone always address my questions with questions, and then accuse me of avoiding their questions...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Because your questions have already been answered 100 times, start using the search function - it works quite well.

Now, why are YOU avoiding questions?

[stateofgrace]

Why does everyone always address my questions with questions, and then accuse me of avoiding their questions...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Because you are making the claims ( also you are an eejit).

Now what happened on 911 ?

[28th Kingdom]

...and not get caught.



...and not appear to be brought down by explosives.



...and not get caught.



...and not get caught.

Everyone thinks the WTC collapses look like explosives are being used... including the major news anchors who covered the events i.e. Dan Rather and Peter Jennings.

How does the supreme authority of a land "get caught?" How does Saddam Hussein "get caught" gassing his own people? How does the Chinese government "get caught" abusing its own people? Who are the ones responsible for catching them?

[babazaroni]

Everyone thinks the WTC collapses look like explosives are being used... including the major news anchors who covered the events i.e. Dan Rather and Peter Jennings.


Not the demolition experts.

How does the supreme authority of a land "get caught?" How does Saddam Hussein "get caught" gassing his own people? How does the Chinese government "get caught" abusing its own people? Who are the ones responsible for catching them?

Bay of Pigs.

Watergate.

[CHF]

28th Kingdom,

in case you still don't understand the difference between something being POSSIBLE and something HAPPENING....

It is entirely POSSIBLE that you are a vicious serial killer.

However, in the absence of hard evidence showing that you ARE in fact a serial killer, it is far more likely that you ARE NOT.

So - if I went to court claiming that you're a murderer, I would be required to PROVE that this charge is true. In other words, I would be told to advance my argument from "it's POSSIBLE" to "it's can be PROVEN."

If I couldn't PROVE your guilt then it's utterly irrelivant how POSSIBLE it is. If I only relied on how it's POSSIBLE that you are a murderer the case would be thrown out and the judge would curse at me for wasting his time.

So here we are....waiting for you to PROVE (there's that word again) your claims.

Oh yeah - and I'm still waiting on that narrative.

[Gravy]

Mark,

how are things on Saturdays at GZ these days?

Any changes in numbers, reactions, claims etc?

Here in Toronto we have no visible twoof movement (yeah - it's THAT big).I haven't been going every week, but during the holiday season it's nuts there with all the tourists. Last week there were more particularly loony troofers than normal. I'll be there this week. Also, I'm working on a little video production about the experience.

[JimBenArm]

Everyone thinks the WTC collapses look like explosives are being used... including the major news anchors who covered the events i.e. Dan Rather and Peter Jennings.

Now there's some experts! News anchors! I'm totally convinced it had to be explosives, because it "looked" like it to "everyone", and the reporters thought so!


How does the supreme authority of a land "get caught?" How does Saddam Hussein "get caught" gassing his own people? How does the Chinese government "get caught" abusing its own people? Who are the ones responsible for catching them?

Usually with supreme authority traps. We bait them with morons. Hmm, you're not doing anything tomorrow, are you?

[Pardalis]

Please, shed yer ego and remove that red, white and blue war paint from yer face

Please, remove that swastika off your arm.

[Foolmewunz]

So what makes the - 9/11 is an Inside Job Belief - such an unbelievable one? Tell me... logistically - why it was impossible for Israel and the US to pull off 9/11.
We're not talking about the specifics of the execution of operation 9/11 i.e. star wars beams and holographic wings.

I am asking what makes it impossible for professionally trained military agents to plant explosives in buildings...

What makes it impossible for explosives to bring down high-rise buildings...

What makes it impossible for corrupt entities to pull off false-flag attacks...

What makes it impossible for the US to fly commercial size airliners... either by remote or with (hired) suicide pilots....

Please, shed yer ego and remove that red, white and blue war paint from yer face - and tell me specifically why it was impossible for 9/11 to be an inside job.

Well, finally..... I'm over one thousand posts and someone asks a question about logistics! Send me the project specs, 28th! Bolded items only, please. The other stuff is just your usual drivel.

I do this all the time for major corporations, and I'd be happy to give you the requirements, logistically. You just need to give me a couple of details; details which I'm sure you have in the vast LCS (Library of Common Sense).

How many tons of what kind of explosive.
How packed.
Factory Location.
Will the packages be palletized or hand-loaded?
Please provide MSDS - need permits to move explosives over the road.

I can tell you how many truckloads, of what size, number of helpers, size of forklifts, and give you an estimation that is going to range in days(not hours) to get all of the explosives merely delivered to site.

Never mind, I'm on ignore, and besides, you don't have those figures, do you. You're just blowing smoke out your butt.

Here's a simple, common sense question for you. If the Israelis and Americans were going to fly remote controlled aircraft into the towers and pentagon, why would they need all those explosives in addition? Do you have any idea of the payload of a 757 or 767 converted for cargo? How about 175,000 lbs of C4? You think that plus the jet fuel might make a pretty big explosion?

And why bother flying it into a top floor. Approaching with military-like precision(it was the military, right? not the FDA?), they could've flown them into a much lower floor and taken the buildings down in the initial explosion!

Oh, but I'm on ignore, so you can't see this. That's okay. We're having cake and ice cream but you can't have any 'cuz "You can't see us... neener neener neener.....!"

:spjimlad: :spjimlad: :spjimlad:

[CHF]

Everyone thinks the WTC collapses look like explosives are being used... including the major news anchors who covered the events i.e. Dan Rather and Peter Jennings.

So if we have a new 9/11 investigation and Rather & Jennings are called to the stand and asked if they think the guv planted bombs in the towers....what do you think they'll say?

Wanna know why many people said it LOOKED like a demolition to them? CUZ THAT'S THE ONLY CIRCUMSTANCE IN WHICH MOST PEOPLE HAVE EVER SEEN A BUILDING FALL so naturally it's what popped into peoples' minds - even though the towers' top-down collapse looked NOTHING like a demolition job.

[stateofgrace]

Everyone thinks the WTC collapses look like explosives are being used.

No they do not. The Towers collapsed from the point of impact, the top not the bottom.

How does the supreme authority of a land "get caught?" How does Saddam Hussein "get caught" gassing his own people? How does the Chinese government "get caught" abusing its own people? Who are the ones responsible for catching them?


EVIDENCE, present some.

What happened on 911?

[Gravy]

So what makes the - 9/11 is an Inside Job Belief - such an unbelievable one? Tell me... logistically - why it was impossible for Israel and the US to pull off 9/11.

We're not talking about the specifics of the execution of operation 9/11 i.e. star wars beams and holographic wings.

I am asking what makes it impossible for professionally trained military agents to plant explosives in buildings...

What makes it impossible for explosives to bring down high-rise buildings...

What makes it impossible for corrupt entities to pull off false-flag attacks...

What makes it impossible for the US to fly commercial size airliners... either by remote or with (hired) suicide pilots....
What makes it impossible for you to read the reports that explain in detail what actually happened in the real world? Your childish rants are not evidence, 28th.

Now go! Read apathoid's paper and tell us that you know better.

[Pardalis]

So if we have a new 9/11 investigation and Rather & Jennings are called to the stand and asked if they think the guv planted bombs in the towers....what do you think they'll say?

pssst, Peter Jennings is deceased.

[28th Kingdom]

28th Kingdom,

in case you still don't understand the difference between something being POSSIBLE and something HAPPENING....

It is entirely POSSIBLE that you are a vicious serial killer.

However, in the absence of hard evidence showing that you ARE in fact a serial killer, it is far more likely that you ARE NOT.

So - if I went to court claiming that you're a murderer, I would be required to PROVE that this charge is true. In other words, I would be told to advance my argument from "it's POSSIBLE" to "it's can be PROVEN."

If I couldn't PROVE your guilt then it's utterly irrelivant how POSSIBLE it is. If I only relied on how it's POSSIBLE that you are a murderer the case would be thrown out and the judge would curse at me for wasting his time.

So here we are....waiting for you to PROVE (there's that word again) your claims.

Oh yeah - and I'm still waiting on that narrative.

Okay, documented history... the founders of America slaughtered innocent indians and stole their land. Americans have a history of terrorist activity... History shows us that great powers are invariably corrupt and evil. The US is the richest and most powerful nation in the history of the world... 1 + 1 =

[ihaunter]

How does the supreme authority of a land "get caught?" How does Saddam Hussein "get caught" gassing his own people?
You got us there. Saddam got away scot free with his crimes, didn't he?

[CHF]

pssst, Peter Jennings is deceased.

Ooooops. :(

[JimBenArm]

1 + 1 =
I know that math thing is hard for you, Macaroon. Usually you come up with "red", or "candy", but the answer is "2".

But this is the last time I give you the answer. You've been told it before. Remember your kindergarten class yesterday?

[Architect]

Okay, documented history... the founders of America slaughtered innocent indians and stole their land. Americans have a history of terrorist activity... History shows us that great powers are invariably corrupt and evil. The US is the richest and most powerful nation in the history of the world... 1 + 1 =

Great stuff.

So basically, like, we know George Bush did it because in the 17th and 18th centuries the BRITISH wiped out the American Indians.

By the way, it's now known that most of them died from infectious diseases, not warfare.

[CHF]

Okay, documented history... the founders of America slaughtered innocent indians and stole their land. Americans have a history of terrorist activity... History shows us that great powers are invariably corrupt and evil. The US is the richest and most powerful nation in the history of the world... 1 + 1 =

So.....the US slauightered natives in the 1800s.....so therefor 9/11 was an inside job. :confused:

Interesting "logic" you have there.

Still waiting on that narrative.....

[Pardalis]

Okay, documented history... the founders of America slaughtered innocent indians and stole their land. Americans have a history of terrorist activity... History shows us that great powers are invariably corrupt and evil. The US is the richest and most powerful nation in the history of the world... 1 + 1 =

Next thing you'll say is that the Jews killed the Christ?

:rolleyes:

[Gravy]

Nuts shouldn't read psychology literature.Man, that cracked me up. But it's so true.

[CHF]

Speaking of horrible crimes and slaughters....

The Spanish, Germans, French, Arabs, Russians and Aztecs have all done it at some point. In fact I think just about every group of people has.

So, using 28th logic, I guess everyone teamed up on 9/11 then.

Wow this thing is even bigger than I though....

[JimBenArm]

Speaking of horrible crimes and slaughters....

The Spanish, Germans, French, Arabs, Russians and Aztecs have all done it at some point. In fact I think just about every group of people has.

So, using 28th logic, I guess everyone teamed up on 9/11 then.

Wow this thing is even bigger than I though....

No, you don't understand. The US was behind all of those, too. They were all false flag ops, coordinated by GW's ancestors!

[Architect]

Wow this thing is even bigger than I though....


You do know that we've even set up our own secret society here, based on SMERSH?

The Sooper Sekrit 28th Legion.


We can offer you a very good rate on your first year's membership, but you do have to wear a red jersey.......

[JimBenArm]

You do know that we've even set up our own secret society here, based on SMERSH?

The Sooper Sekrit 28th Legion.


We can offer you a very good rate on your first year's membership, but you do have to wear a red jersey.......

Be careful when you wash it, though. All my underwear is pink now.

[Pardalis]

Damn, Architect and JimBenArm, you guys are hard to tell apart! :D

[natureboy]

UK dave said,

"Likewise, certain CTers can only relate the collapse of the WTC towers to videos of demolitions they have seen because they lack the imagination to understand the power of gravity and the forces acting upon the buildings."
and,
"Common sense tells them that the buildings had to have been brought down by explosives because that is how you bring down buildings,"

I say, no no!

Common sense tells ME that the buildings had to have been brought down by explosives because that is how THEY FELL DOWN! freefall speed!
not " because that is how you bring down buildings"

I say, having a fertile imagination is a good thing UK dave but,

no imagination is needed when analysing the collapse of any building collapse time! as a matter of fact....its bad.look what its done to you!

The Law of gravity is immutable!

when I was in high school I learned some basic physics....

Gallileo Gallileli? dropped a BIG BALL and a LITTLE BALL from the leaning tower of pizza....(he rolled em down a ramp) or "something of that sort" anyway.... from him we learned that gravity accelerates all objects downward (regardless of mass) at the same rate!.. 32ft/sec or so.

thusly, when we find out that the twin towers collapsed at freefall speed(at sea level atmospheric conditions) right down through 80 or 90 floors or so (that should have provided resistance even if they were just hanging there with skinny wires that would break if you dropped a feather on them) our common sense tells us....that something aint right.

why dont you use that wonderful imagination of yours...

imagine those world trade center floors,... 80-90 floors or so all held in place with glass truss brackets that would break if you jumped up and down too hard,... as fragile as you wanna make it(in your imaginitive little head)

then do the math (no imagining here though)

funny, when I do the math I keep coming up with a whole lot more than twelve seconds....a whole lot more!!!

you must have a really good imagination to have no questions about the world trade center collapses.

natureboy, please use the quote function, when quoting another person's post. Thanks.

[Architect]

Yea, but at least the guy in the Pink uniform never gots shot in the first 5 minutes of the adventure.


Any sign of that order of 200 white cats and gray, collarless suits yet?

[JimBenArm]

Damn, Architect and JimBenArm, you guys are hard to tell apart! :D
Thank you. That's about the best compliment I've ever received. Seriously.

[Architect]

Damn, Architect and JimBenArm, you guys are hard to tell apart! :D

Says the man from the home of William Shatner......

[apathoid]

UK dave said,

"Likewise, certain CTers can only relate the collapse of the WTC towers to videos of demolitions they have seen because they lack the imagination to understand the power of gravity and the forces acting upon the buildings."
and,
"Common sense tells them that the buildings had to have been brought down by explosives because that is how you bring down buildings,"

I say, no no!

Common sense tells ME that the buildings had to have been brought down by explosives because that is how THEY FELL DOWN! freefall speed!
not " because that is how you bring down buildings"

I say, having a fertile imagination is a good thing UK dave but,

no imagination is needed when analysing the collapse of any building collapse time! as a matter of fact....its bad.look what its done to you!

The Law of gravity is immutable!

when I was in high school I learned some basic physics....

Gallileo Gallileli? dropped a BIG BALL and a LITTLE BALL from the leaning tower of pizza....(he rolled em down a ramp) or "something of that sort" anyway.... from him we learned that gravity accelerates all objects downward (regardless of mass) at the same rate!.. 32ft/sec or so.

thusly, when we find out that the twin towers collapsed at freefall speed(at sea level atmospheric conditions) right down through 80 or 90 floors or so (that should have provided resistance even if they were just hanging there with skinny wires that would break if you dropped a feather on them) our common sense tells us....that something aint right.

why dont you use that wonderful imagination of yours...

imagine those world trade center floors,... 80-90 floors or so all held in place with glass truss brackets that would break if you jumped up and down too hard,... as fragile as you wanna make it(in your imaginitive little head)

then do the math (no imagining here though)

funny, when I do the math I keep coming up with a whole lot more than twelve seconds....a whole lot more!!!

you must have a really good imagination to have no questions about the world trade center collapses.

:socks:

[Pardalis]

The Law of gravity is immutable!

That's why the towers collapsed.

when I was in high school I learned some basic physics....

You see, the guys at the NIST learned a little more than that.

[Architect]

Thank you. That's about the best compliment I've ever received. Seriously.


You'd be so much cooler if your 28th badge was a Welsh weather forecast, though........;)

[JimBenArm]

thusly, when we find out that the twin towers collapsed at freefall speed(at sea level atmospheric conditions) right down through 80 or 90 floors or so (that should have provided resistance even if they were just hanging there with skinny wires that would break if you dropped a feather on them) our common sense tells us....that something aint right.

So, how did you time the collapse? Seriously, what did you use as the start point, and end point? How long did it take?

why dont you use that wonderful imagination of yours...

imagine those world trade center floors,... 80-90 floors or so all held in place with glass truss brackets that would break if you jumped up and down too hard,... as fragile as you wanna make it(in your imaginitive little head)

then do the math (no imagining here though)


funny, when I do the math I keep coming up with a whole lot more than twelve seconds....a whole lot more!!!



Let's see your calculations.

Also, why did the debris outside fall faster than the main body, if it fell at "free fall"?



you must have a really good imagination to have no questions about the world trade center collapses.

No, just a firm grasp on how it really happened.

[JimBenArm]

You'd be so much cooler if your 28th badge was a Welsh weather forecast, though........;)
Got me there! I never was one of the cool kids. Too much of a nerd.

[Architect]

It's just a plot to make people think I'm Welsh and search for our Sooper Sekrit base inside a dormant Volcano in the Rhonda.



That's why we've set Torchwood in Wales, too.........

[stateofgrace]

Okay, documented history... the founders of America slaughtered innocent indians and stole their land. Americans have a history of terrorist activity... History shows us that great powers are invariably corrupt and evil. The US is the richest and most powerful nation in the history of the world... 1 + 1 =

Classic stuff, been listening to your leader,Fetzer?

He is an idiot also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGWYyKNTPEc

I just like posting this to show you how stupid he really is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pDyB9BcKsA

[Architect]

StateofGrace

Does "jockland" refer to my home country or that weird term you guys use for sportsmen?

[Brainster]

The reason none of you left-brain radicals have any common sense, is because you lack imagination, which is at the heart of functioning common sense. (sadly, for you guys/gals - this creative component of imaginary lives in the right-side of the brain)

Hmmm, Kevin Barrett made a similar comment (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/12/kevin-barrett-artists-not-scientists.html) the other day:

Scientists aren't necessarily the best people to look at this footage and understand what they are seeing. Why? Because many scientists, especially engineers tend to be left hemisphere people. They're linear thinkers, they are very very good at following a linear path of logic, but it terms of looking at a picture and understand what they are seeing, that is a right brain and that is actually a function that artists are better at than scientists. For that reason, one would expect that engineers, subject to cognitive dissonance that we are all subject to, would in examining this event be very likely to fall into a linear track of thought that would be essentially trying to show that it could have happened the way the government said it did.

I found it similarly unconvincing. Indeed, it's akin to saying that those same engineers are more qualified to judge art than actual artists. Common sense, which you laud so much, tells us that engineers are more qualified to judge engineering questions and artists are more qualified to judge matters related to art.

[Regnad Kcin]

...Now, does everyone (CTist and/or Gov Shills) believe that planted explosives could have brought down the towers? Yes. Had explosives ever brought down a steel structured high-rise pre 9/11? Yes. Had a plane impact ever brought down a steel structured high-rise pre 9/11? No. Had a fire ever brought down a steel-structured high-rise pre 9/11? No. Had hurricane-like (debris) exterior damage ever made a steel-structured high-rise totally collapse in a symmetrical fashion at quasi-free fall speeds? No.

What are the odds that 19 amateur pilots with box cutters and plastic knives could have hijacked four commercial airliners with a 100% success rate, and then proceeded to maneuver these aircraft (past the world's most elite and advanced military defense system) to three exact destinations while hitting 100% of their targets? 1 in an inconceivable number

What are the odds that Israel, backed with the fourth largest funded military in the world, could have had some agents plant explosives in a privately owned building complex, that is owned by a Zionist? 1 in 1

What are the odds that elements (the highest ranking officials) within the USG government could hand down orders that effectively disarm NORAD? 1 in 1

What are the odds that a commercial size airliner can be hijacked via remote control and flown to exact locations. 1 in 1

Another technology devised by the U.S. military for remote control of huge airplanes is named Global Hawk. On April 24, 2001, four months before "'9/11,'" Britain's International Television News reported: "A robot plane has made aviation history by becoming the first unmanned aircraft to fly across the Pacific Ocean."

The former Minister of Technology said: '"The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting."'

http://www.911review.com/means/remotecontrol.html


Now... start piecing everything together... and then tell me which theory is more far fetched.Damn, you are entertaining!

[Regnad Kcin]

...My 600+ posts, speak for themselves.And they say, "I am 100% wrong in every regard."

[Architect]

I dunno. To me, they say "risible"

[Gravy]

funny, when I do the math I keep coming up with a whole lot more than twelve seconds....a whole lot more!!!Let's see your calculations. And wash your socks, please. They're stinky.

[Architect]

natureboy,

You might want to look at the comprehensive posts on the "Did Bush etc" thread in response to the claims Non-Believer made, then come back and speak to us again.

[Regnad Kcin]

So what makes the - 9/11 is an Inside Job Belief - such an unbelievable one? Tell me... logistically - why it was impossible for Israel and the US to pull off 9/11.

We're not talking about the specifics of the execution of operation 9/11 i.e. star wars beams and holographic wings.

I am asking what makes it impossible for professionally trained military agents to plant explosives in buildings...

What makes it impossible for explosives to bring down high-rise buildings...

What makes it impossible for corrupt entities to pull off false-flag attacks...

What makes it impossible for the US to fly commercial size airliners... either by remote or with (hired) suicide pilots....

Please, shed yer ego and remove that red, white and blue war paint from yer face - and tell me specifically why it was impossible for 9/11 to be an inside job.There is so much wrong with the above that it boggles the mind. Seriously. Not that you're paying attention, considering you've got me on...IGNORE!

But I bet you peek, you rascal.

[CHF]

Natureboy,

believe it or not, the WTC was NOT designed to handle 140,000 tons falling on it. When such a mass FALLS on the floor below it nothing will stop or so much as slow it down.

Why exactly do you think the structure would slow down such a massive force?

BTW, the "free fall" speed of collapse is because that's when the outter debris hit bottom....you know - the stuff that was in free fall. The actual collapse itself took longer.

[Regnad Kcin]

Okay, documented history... the founders of America slaughtered innocent indians and stole their land. Americans have a history of terrorist activity... History shows us that great powers are invariably corrupt and evil. The US is the richest and most powerful nation in the history of the world... 1 + 1 =It's like a gold mine o' fallacies with you!

[Architect]

Yup. Fools Gold.

[stateofgrace]

StateofGrace

Does "jockland" refer to my home country or that weird term you guys use for sportsmen?

I am from Scotland and live down in the borders.

I work over seas and get so used to being called jock or other variations that I simply am so happy to have spent Hogmanay here; I refer to my country as jockland.

I'm proud to be a jock and to be from jockland.:)

[Architect]

If you so much as call me a teuchter, then yer cruisin fur a wheen of grief!

North Uist, but work down south. Mainly Manchester, but also the Glasgow office.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

So what makes the - 9/11 is an Inside Job Belief - such an unbelievable one? Tell me... logistically - why it was impossible for 28th Kingdom and Alex Jones to pull off 9/11.

We're not talking about the specifics of the execution of operation 9/11 i.e. star wars beams and holographic wings.

I am asking what makes it impossible for people who have extensively studied professionally trained military agents and their tactics to plant explosives in buildings...

What makes it impossible for explosives to bring down high-rise buildings...

What makes it impossible for corrupt entities to pull off false-flag attacks...

What makes it impossible for the members of PrisonPlanet.com to fly commercial size airliners... either by remote or with (hired) suicide pilots....

Please, shed yer ego and remove that red, white and blue war paint from yer face - and tell me specifically why it was impossible for 9/11 to be an inside job.


There ya go, same level of justification as 28th has.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

So if we have a new 9/11 investigation and Rather & Jennings are called to the stand and asked if they think the guv planted bombs in the towers....what do you think they'll say?...

Probably, "Braaaaains", because they would have to be zombies. :boxedin:

[defaultdotxbe]

Probably, "Braaaaains", because they would have to be zombies. :boxedin:
jennings could be a vampire, he could feed on rather between testimonies

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

jennings could be a vampire, he could feed on rather between testimonies

Have you seeen Rather lately? I think he's already a mummy. Jennings would be sucking air.

[ktesibios]

28IQ and naturebonzo:

Please tell me that you're the kind of conspiraloon who are so alienated from the very idea of government that you neither vote nor show up for jury service- especially jury service.

The mere thought that the outcome of an election or the fate of a defendant could rest in the hands of people who are so clearly unfit for the task is enough to haunt my dreams with horror.

[stateofgrace]

If you so much as call me a teuchter, then yer cruisin fur a wheen of grief!

North Uist, but work down south. Mainly Manchester, but also the Glasgow office.

Ack us lowland boys would na call ya a teuchter.

Dunna give me grief,I'm nay cruising for a bruising, I like teuchters, I have many teuchter friends.

Work up North, mainly out of Aberdeen, but go through Glasgow often and spend a lot of time over at Helensborough, great place.

Ps Gretna was unlucky at Hamden.

[slingblade]

So what makes the - 9/11 is an Inside Job Belief - such an unbelievable one? Tell me... logistically - why it was impossible for Israel and the US to pull off 9/11.

It's unbelieveable because you have no proof this is what happened.



We're not talking about the specifics of the execution of operation 9/11 i.e. star wars beams and holographic wings.

I am asking what makes it impossible for professionally trained military agents to plant explosives in buildings...

Nothing makes it impossible. You have simply yet to prove this indeed took place on 9/11.

What makes it impossible for explosives to bring down high-rise buildings...

Nothing makes it impossible, as stated. You know that, and are being disingenuous and quite childish. Can't you do any better than all this?

What makes it impossible for corrupt entities to pull off false-flag attacks...

What makes it impossible for the US to fly commercial size airliners... either by remote or with (hired) suicide pilots....

Nothing makes these things impossible. You know this and are still being disingenous and childish. Doesn't your behavior ever get old to you? It gets old to us.

What makes it impossible for a man to jump from an airplane and fall 15,000 feet and survive? (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2514037,00.html)

Nothing. He did just that. Death, however, is far more likely. (http://dropzone.com/cgi-bin/fatalities/search.cgi?fatal_category=Malfunction)

Please, shed yer ego and remove that red, white and blue war paint from yer face - and tell me specifically why it was impossible for 9/11 to be an inside job.

It isn't impossible. It is astronomically unlikely. Yours is the burden of proof on this claim, so get to proving it. Stop asking questions and start answering them.

Step away from the computer and start protesting. You believe your government murdered thousands of your fellow citizens. Where is your outrage? Why aren't you doing something to protect us all? Are you really this selfish, this cowardly, this juvenile, that even though you say you know your government murdered thousands, you aren't saying anything?

What are you doing to hold your government accountable for the tragedy and the crimes it has inflicted on us? You say you know things, but you are willing to allow it to happen again? What kind of monster are you, that you can sit on such evidence as you have and do nothing?

Why are you farting around here, arguing with obvious morons, when lives have been taken and are still at stake? This is it? This is the very best you can do with what you know? You know some devastating things, man! Have a conscience! HELP US! Bring them to justice! Only you can do this!

I don't get you, man. I really don't. You'd rather sit here and argue with shills than actually make a difference.

And you call yourself an American. I am so ashamed, if this is the best example of honest, courageous young American manhood we can produce these days. Truly ashamed.

[28th Kingdom]

Dear Worthless Aging Hippie,

Is it possible to have a belief that differs from what the government says is true and not be a crazy person?

In your world... is there any such thing as a credible (non-crazy) whistleblower? And, if so... what are the credentials one must possess in order to qualify as a sane and reliable whistleblower?

Thank you.