An angle of the WTC collapse I'd never seen

[Grumman]

@ivan_astikov

So, the question is, does it have negative connotations comparable to calling somebody mentally challenged, and the answer appears to be “Yes”

Do we agree?

The next question is, is it being used disparagingly against me, or is it being used to describe a positive attribute of mine?

Get off the damn cross already. Getting called out on your tactics here doesn’t mean you’re being insulted.

[Marley23]

@ivan_astikov

@Marley23

@ivan_astikov

I hope you are also going to apply that ruling to anyone who continues to refer to me as a “truther”, with all that description implies?

ps. I don’t mind anybody calling me a “Questioner”.

Absolutely not. “Truther” is not equivalent to “mentally challenged” as an insult.

Actually, the common understanding of it is someone who is a complete crank, has no grasp of logical thinking, cannot distinguish between truth and lie, hates the USA, is a traitor to all those who died that day, and supports those who want to blow up civilians for no good reason.

Kinda makes a “mentally-challenged” aimed at nobody in particular look a little bit like a compliment.

YMMV. Whatever!

“Truther” means a person who thinks the truth about the September 11th attacks has been covered up. Some of these people call themselves Truthers, and for that reason I am especially disinclined to treat the word as a banned insult. I’ve been asked to treat “woo woo” and “denier” (referring to climate change) as personal insults by other people. I realize “Truther” is usually a compliment and “Twoofer” never is, but that doesn’t reach the level of an insult that deserves moderating as far as I’m concerned. I’m not going to go around carving out special words to give extra protection to people who have trouble making their case on its own merits. If “Truther” is associated with people who are illogical and gullible, that’s the result of what these people have said and argued over the last nine years. I can’t protect them from their own reputation and even if I could, I have no interest in doing so. Besides, ivan astikov, you haven’t hesitated to make up your own terms like “derbunker” for your opponents.

I hope that puts this tangent to bed. Any other comments about this should go in ATMB, where I expect they’ll get the same response as the “woo woo” and “denier” requests I mentioned.

[Indistinguishable]

@ivan_astikov

Of course it has negative connotations. It’s discussing something that if true would turn all the skeptic’s worldviews upside down and would likely divide your country irreparably. I understand why it might be upsetting to even contemplate, so leave it to people who don’t mind facing such a nightmare scenario and carry on in your WOW threads.

You know what would be awful to contemplate and whose discovery would cause mass havoc? That the government has been placing a secret poison in tap water for nine years now, the results of which will be to cause all African-American men to die of liver disease by the end of the decade.

However, there is a very good reason few people take this position seriously: there is no worthwhile evidence for it, and an awful lot of worthwhile evidence against it.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@ivan astikov

Of course it has negative connotations. It’s discussing something that if true would turn all the skeptic’s worldviews upside down and would likely divide your country irreparably. I understand why it might be upsetting to even contemplate, so leave it to people who don’t mind facing such a nightmare scenario and carry on in your WOW threads.

Actually, I’m inclined to think the U.S. would respond to hard evidence of government involvement much the same way they responded to Watergate, although at a much higher scale. I wouldn’t expect any presidential pardons, either. Even in those remotely unlikely circumstances, I’m confident the country would survive.

I don’t get the impression anybody has any trouble contemplating the idea - they just dismiss it as stupid and without foundation, mostly. If you have some foundation, ivan, some actual evidence… please don’t hesitate to share. I’m sure the SDMB can handle it.

[Skywatcher]

@ivan_astikov

Of course it has negative connotations. It’s discussing something that if true would turn all the skeptic’s worldviews upside down and would likely divide your country irreparably. I understand why it might be upsetting to even contemplate, so leave it to people who don’t mind facing such a nightmare scenario and carry on in your WOW threads.

Toke up, man. You’ll feel better.

[begbert2]

@ivan_astikov

Of course it has negative connotations. It’s discussing something that if true would turn all the skeptic’s worldviews upside down and would likely divide your country irreparably. I understand why it might be upsetting to even contemplate, so leave it to people who don’t mind facing such a nightmare scenario and carry on in your WOW threads.

Which upside-down worldviews are you speaking of? I can think of two possibilities:

1. That the laws of physics aren’t real. I do admit that to learn that suddenly steel doesn’t soften when heated, explosives are silent, or that gravity can’t pull down a structurally compromised building without the help of explosives but instead pulls thermite sideways would disturb me greatly. I rely on the certainty of the laws of physics, because if they go upside down on me then my left half might spontaneously turn into a Volvo at any moment, with a high probability of direct negative side effects.

2. That sometimes politicians and governments, possibly including neocon ones, don’t have their constituent’s well-being at the forefront of their minds. Oh, wow, gee what a shock. Okay, I might be a little suprised if one of them actually had dynamited the trade towers and framed Saudis for it, especially if they did it by employing the services of evil incorporeal howler monkeys and their magic monkey explosives, but honestly learning that not all men are perfect paragons of morality is a shock that I could recover from.
   See, your main problem here is that you think that we’re disagreeing with you because we like(d) the Bush regime. This is kind of divorced from reality; I would have been happy if Bush had been impeached and imprisoned. But the mere fact I didn’t like the guy doesn’t mean that he magicked the towers down.

[ivan_astikov]

@Indistinguishable

what would be awful to contemplate and whose discovery would cause mass havoc? That the government has been placing a secret poison in tap water for nine years now, the results of which will be to cause all African-American men to die of liver disease by the end of the decade.

I thought about something similar years ago. I imagined a scenario whereby one government was threatening to put a biological agent in another country’s water supply, and the other country replies that they’ve already done the same to theirs and it’d just take a phone call if they ever released theirs.

[begbert2]

@ivan_astikov

I thought about something similar years ago. I imagined a scenario whereby one government was threatening to put a biological agent in another country’s water supply, and the other country replies that they’ve already done the same to theirs and it’d just take a phone call if they ever released theirs.

So why aren’t you trying to convince us that this happened?

[ivan_astikov]

@Bryan_Ekers

@ivan astikov

Of course it has negative connotations. It’s discussing something that if true would turn all the skeptic’s worldviews upside down and would likely divide your country irreparably. I understand why it might be upsetting to even contemplate, so leave it to people who don’t mind facing such a nightmare scenario and carry on in your WOW threads.

Actually, I’m inclined to think the U.S. would respond to hard evidence of government involvement much the same way they responded to Watergate, although at a much higher scale. I wouldn’t expect any presidential pardons, either. Even in those remotely unlikely circumstances, I’m confident the country would survive.

I don’t get the impression anybody has any trouble contemplating the idea - they just dismiss it as stupid and without foundation, mostly. If you have some foundation, ivan, some actual evidence… please don’t hesitate to share. I’m sure the SDMB can handle it.

Seriously? You think if evidence came to light that members of this and previous administrations were involved in such an atrocity, they’d just have a press conference about it at the earliest opportunity? Seriously?

[Indistinguishable]

@ivan_astikov

@Indistinguishable

what would be awful to contemplate and whose discovery would cause mass havoc? That the government has been placing a secret poison in tap water for nine years now, the results of which will be to cause all African-American men to die of liver disease by the end of the decade.

I thought about something similar years ago. I imagined a scenario whereby one government was threatening to put a biological agent in another country’s water supply, and the other country replies that they’ve already done the same to theirs and it’d just take a phone call if they ever released theirs.

I had a dream once where I was stuck in a cereal factory and I had to eat my way out of a mountain of Smacks, only after a while I was on an airplane instead of in a factory, but I still had to eat a lot of Smacks, and I think Winnie the Pooh was involved too.

[begbert2]

@ivan_astikov

@Bryan_Ekers

@ivan astikov

Of course it has negative connotations. It’s discussing something that if true would turn all the skeptic’s worldviews upside down and would likely divide your country irreparably. I understand why it might be upsetting to even contemplate, so leave it to people who don’t mind facing such a nightmare scenario and carry on in your WOW threads.

Actually, I’m inclined to think the U.S. would respond to hard evidence of government involvement much the same way they responded to Watergate, although at a much higher scale. I wouldn’t expect any presidential pardons, either. Even in those remotely unlikely circumstances, I’m confident the country would survive.

I don’t get the impression anybody has any trouble contemplating the idea - they just dismiss it as stupid and without foundation, mostly. If you have some foundation, ivan, some actual evidence… please don’t hesitate to share. I’m sure the SDMB can handle it.

Seriously? You think if evidence came to light that members of this and previous administrations were involved in such an atrocity, they’d just have a press conference about it at the earliest opportunity? Seriously?

And then put them in jail, yeah. What do you think would happen, that everyone’s heads would (literally) explode?

[ivan_astikov]

@begbert2

@ivan_astikov

I thought about something similar years ago. I imagined a scenario whereby one government was threatening to put a biological agent in another country’s water supply, and the other country replies that they’ve already done the same to theirs and it’d just take a phone call if they ever released theirs.

So why aren’t you trying to convince us that this happened?

Because the only thing I’ve got to go on in this case is my imagination and the shadiness of governments in general.

Whereas, I’m far from alone in my doubts about what happened on 9/11. I believe at the very least those terrorists were allowed to board those planes to allow a great big money-making scheme to begin, which the profiteers knew would never come back on them. It’s called “plausible denial”; look it up.

[sparky_1]

Man, that press conference would be a mess after that. Bleh.

This country goes through turmoil now and then. Political parties are embraced or rejected all the time. Basically that would happen, but with lots of court action and jail sentences.

[Indistinguishable]

@ivan_astikov

@begbert2

So why aren’t you trying to convince us that this happened?

Because the only thing I’ve got to go on in this case is my imagination and the shadiness of governments in general.

Whereas, I’m far from alone in my doubts about what happened on 9/11. I believe at the very least those terrorists were allowed to board those planes to allow a great big money-making scheme to begin, which the profiteers knew would never come back on them. It’s called “plausible denial”; look it up.

So now what you’ve got to go on is a bunch of people’s imagination and the shadiness of governments in general?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@ivan_astikov

Seriously? You think if evidence came to light that members of this and previous administrations were involved in such an atrocity, they’d just have a press conference about it at the earliest opportunity? Seriously?

Well, let’s not be silly - they wouldn’t just have a press conference. I daresay many of the conspirators (and this is me making the hugely generous concession for the sake of argument that such a conspiracy might exist) would end up facing the same fate as Tim McVeigh.

For a guy that likes to accuse others of building strawmen, what do you think about what you just did, suggesting that I honestly believed a timely press conference would be the total response? Heck, that wasn’t the total response to Watergate, and I speculated the response would be far greater than that to Watergate.

[Skywatcher]

@ivan_astikov

I believe at the very least those terrorists were allowed to board those planes to allow a great big money-making scheme to begin, which the profiteers knew would never come back on them.

Much more likely that the various intelligence agencies who knew about them weren’t sharing with each other. As usual.

[sparky_1]

@ivan_astikov

@begbert2

@ivan_astikov

I thought about something similar years ago. I imagined a scenario whereby one government was threatening to put a biological agent in another country’s water supply, and the other country replies that they’ve already done the same to theirs and it’d just take a phone call if they ever released theirs.

So why aren’t you trying to convince us that this happened?

Because the only thing I’ve got to go on in this case is my imagination and the shadiness of governments in general.

Whereas, I’m far from alone in my doubts about what happened on 9/11. I believe at the very least those terrorists were allowed to board those planes to allow a great big money-making scheme to begin, which the profiteers knew would never come back on them. It’s called “plausible denial”; look it up.

Ok, fine. Personally I think our intelligence agencies screwed up royal. I think they did know something was in the works (possibly even knew the scale of it). Unfortunately the various branches of intelligence did not discuss amongst themselves due to childish chest thumping and what not.

BUT… both towers were brought down by the two airlines. The pentagon was hit by an airliner. Lastly, some pretty quick thinking people retook their airline and crashed into a field.

[thirdname]

What really astounds me is that the conspiracy theorists fixate on this notion of explosives being used. Isn’t it simple enough to believe that the government ran airliners into the buildings? Why did they have to use bombs too? It’s like some sort of Rube Goldberg machine.

[Cisco]

@Indistinguishable

So now what you’ve got to go on is a bunch of people’s imagination and the shadiness of governments in general?

For this millisecond. He’ll be back to bombs and thermite and conspiratory firefighters before you know it. TRUST ME.

[Indistinguishable]

Oh, I know, Cisco, and I know that nothing will ever change ivan astikov’s position an iota. I know that this is all a waste of time. So why have I been posting in here? Well, that, I don’t know…