scott wrote:

galanter wrote:*Somebody* was a suicide pilot on that flight.

That is an assumption you are apparently comfortable making. There is absolutely no way you can say this with any certainty, or ever prove it to be true. But if you like this assumption, then you can use it.

And here I thought you weren't one of those "maybe we are all just brains in jars" kind of guys.

I mean, the wreckage *was* there. People saw it happen. There's a bunch of people who were all scheduled to be on the plane who haven't been seen since.

Maybe your point was more limited...e.g. perhaps the plane was remotely controlled.

time for dinner anyway...

clocker bob wrote:

greg wrote:

clocker bob wrote:9-11 scenario

Don't take this the wrong way,
It is your links like these that make you look like a, 17 year old pulling too many all-nighters on the computer.

Don't take this the wrong way, but now that your entire input into this thread consists of infrequent ad hominem attack posts, it makes you look like an exhausted audio engineer with little energy left to provide any constructive support for the official story.

That much is certain.
I don't feel up to the task. To put down some utterly retarded theories like the plastic explosive-coated rebar one is beneath me.
Taking witless shots at you isn't however.
Why refer to a site like that if you think it's flawed? Pictures or not. The credibility of the site, and all that is in it, is shrunken by the comic book logic. Links like that act as the punctuation/punch-line to your statements.
I am open to all sorts of ideas. When I am asked to 'check something out' and the something is an essay by someone with photoshop and no sense of reason, I turn away. As you pointed out, I don’t have the time or energy to tell you why you can’t compare a shade of blue paint from an airline advertisement photo, to the blue on the sheet metal found at the pentagon. I can’t trust people who include these stories into their reality, and repeat it without pause.

galanter wrote:

scott wrote:

galanter wrote:*Somebody* was a suicide pilot on that flight.

That is an assumption you are apparently comfortable making. There is absolutely no way you can say this with any certainty, or ever prove it to be true. But if you like this assumption, then you can use it.

And here I thought you weren't one of those "maybe we are all just brains in jars" kind of guys.

I like to make jokes to that effect, and while I cannot prove that the allegory of the cave isn't reality, I don't have any strong opinion one way or another about the true nature of reality. I think anyone who has a strong opinion about it is fooling themself. It is absolutely unknowable.

galanter wrote:I mean, the wreckage *was* there. People saw it happen. There's a bunch of people who were all scheduled to be on the plane who haven't been seen since.

Did you see what I suggested, that one possibility is that these people may have been CIA operatives? Another possibility, one that people naively think is an impossibility, is that these people were sacrificial lambs. The number of Americans who died in the pentagon crash is small potatoes compared to all the shit that uncle sam has undertaken since 9/11. The number of people that uncle sam has killed since 9/11 dwarfs the number of people killed on 9/11. So yeah, they coulda been CIA folks, they coulda been sacrifical lambs, they coulda been disappeared to somewhere when planes were switched, there are just so many possibilities if you put any effort into thinking about it.

galanter wrote:Maybe your point was more limited...e.g. perhaps the plane was remotely controlled.

Yes, that is what I was suggesting when I pointed out to you that your statement (the one at the top of this message) is pure conjecture, and the reality of the situation is something you could never possibly know.

clocker bob wrote:

greg wrote:Not to mention the 100s of people on the ground and highway who watched the plane fly into the pentagon.
They were shills, or brainwashed within the 5 minutes it took to get their interviews?

Are you equally frustrated by the embargo on supporting Pentagon video as you are by the continued questions? And are you as supportive of eyewitness testimony of explosions in the basements of WTC 1 and 2 and eyewitness testimony of squibs in the upper floors in the towers and around WTC7 being valuable to the history of those events?

Yes. There is no good reason for them to keep us from seeing it (other than it being a national embarrassment).

scott wrote: I don't have any strong opinion one way or another about the true nature of reality. I think anyone who has a strong opinion about it is fooling themself. It is absolutely unknowable.

But somehow you choose to speak to me. On this very topic in this disembodied medium no less.

This is what is called a performative contradiction. What you say is contradicted by the very act of bothering to say it.

Within in the very limited domain of "the true nature of reality...is absolutely unknowable" you managed to find a way to contradict yourself.

OK Nihilist-boy, but you be careful playing in the street now...those cars are real...

galanter wrote:

scott wrote: I don't have any strong opinion one way or another about the true nature of reality. I think anyone who has a strong opinion about it is fooling themself. It is absolutely unknowable.

But somehow you choose to speak to me. On this very topic in this disembodied medium no less.

This is what is called a performative contradiction. What you say is contradicted by the very act of bothering to say it.

Within in the very limited domain of "the true nature of reality...is absolutely unknowable" you managed to find a way to contradict yourself.

OK Nihilist-boy, but you be careful playing in the street now...those cars are real...

Hey, Galanter, if you really think you can say with any degree of certainty that humans are or are not "just brains in jars", then knock yourself out. It will just make me think your whole "I'm mister math/science guy" thing is a little less valid than I currently hold it to be.

Oh, and apparently I have no idea what nihilism is... I thought I stopped thinking that notion was cool about 10 years ago. Who knew!??!

I'll jusst say this...

first, any port in a storm they say...

and I hope you are an agnostic and not an atheist.

(I am a science and math guy. But not just that.)

galanter wrote:...I hope you are an agnostic and not an atheist.

Christian, actually. Not so great at it, a lot of the time anyway. And I think this place tends to bring out the worst in me, too.

galanter wrote:(I am a science and math guy. But not just that.)

You're also an ocelot botherer?

scott wrote:

galanter wrote:...I hope you are an agnostic and not an atheist.

Christian, actually. Not so great at it, a lot of the time anyway. And I think this place tends to bring out the worst in me, too.

galanter wrote:(I am a science and math guy. But not just that.)

You're also an ocelot botherer?

There was a time when I was really interested in getting ocelots, but the reality of their being wild animals made that seem not only impractical but not fair to the ocelots.

If your of a mind to I'd be interested to hear sometime how you reconcile nihilism with Christianity. But only if you want to obviously. (I am also a philosophy and art and music guy).

( removed pending reorganization )