Mmm said 'I'm an engineer'. You believed DoDo WAS an engineer. Do you not understand how that comes out? MMm had been an aeronautics engineer, but DoDo was another type of enginer. And these equate? Do you have no respect for alternative positions? Or is it just 'intuition'? My 'intuition' says different.
I am NOT playing around. Your lack of success in translating your obvious intellect and compassion into action is FOR A REASON. When you understand that we can move forward.
Call me silly, but ET is not a Holy Site. It is just one of the efforts on the way to real change. It will be superceded - it is a stepping stone to real change. That is how it works. That is how it has always worked. You deserve it, but don't expect to be lionized. It is too mythological. You can't be me, I'm taken
It was mmmm who brought up expertise, her own. I tried to get her to make expert arguments, and whether you elieve me or not, out of genuine interest for expert arguments. But those didn't came, we wouldn't understand it came instead, so I argued that I could follow her expert arguments with the basic technical knowledge of a trained physicist. No one equated expertises, and no one tried to compete in expertise with her, though I do remember her making such a misinterpretation.
If you want to continue this, we'll have to dig up that thread and make quotes verbatim. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I do not want to argue several cogent alternative engineering views of what happened at the Pentagon, 9/11. We are not allowed; as I understand the situation.
I maybe made my case too vociferously, such that it appeared conspiratorial. My point was that, talking about 911, there appear to be a number of engineerng anomalies that have yet to be officially explained. These anomalies have been proposed by professonal pilots of long experience, as well as believable senior military representatives. There is no doubt in my mind that an alternative exists, and that a failure to understand that view renders arguments one sided.
While I accept that the notion of a 911 (neocon) conspiracy is probably bizarre, I nevertheless think that, as good detectives, we follow the evidence where it leads..
But if you have already made up your minds, then you are not a client that I'd like to work wiih You can't be me, I'm taken
We are not allowed; as I understand the situation.
And that 9/11 thread you refer to demonstrates why: the people that bring up the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and those that are willing to believe them will never be convinced by any argument, however well based on facts, evidence and physics. Thus it is an absolute waste of time to make the arguments. Like I said, DoDo, stormy and others provided massive amounts of evidence to debunk the various points raised by mmmm (with new ones coming up each time).
But you seem to think that no argument has been provided, and you use the thread as an example to whine about how the poor hoi polloi are oppressed, censored and not taken seriously on ET. Well, you're 100% wrong on this.
If that thread did not change your mind on 9/11, nothing will, and that's a real case of "if you have already made up your minds,..."
These anomalies have been proposed by professonal pilots of long experience, as well as believable senior military representatives.
Just FYI - this is again the argument by authority, not by facts.
There is no doubt in my mind that an alternative exists, and that a failure to understand that view renders arguments one sided.
"no doubt in my mind" - that supposedly open mind of yours? "an alternative exists" - all the version that have been proposed are, each time, a lot more absurd and bizarre than the version they purport to debunk.
you are not a client that I'd like to work wiih
Is that meant as an insult? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
And that 9/11 thread you refer to demonstrates why
You just exposed yourself to more allegations of suppressing multiple views...
To make the argument to Sven a bit differently and hopefully in a way perceived less confrontatively: Had it been not allowed, I and later stormy wouldn't have made detailed counter-arguments. But in fact it seems that for you, it is the real or claimed expertise of the claim-maker that counts, and you are less inclined to consider the arguments itself, as I have done. It is true that you as a non-technical person, you are justified to bow out of judging the technical validity of the arguments itself. However,
A lot of people here have experience, professional or other expertise. You bring yours up often in support of your ideas as a kind of higher claim to consideration.
But, if you're now posing as a consultant to ET... Remember that no one called you to ask for a quote.
I am walking thin ground here, but that's something I could even agree could on some way be validly argued. However, you chose a completely wrong example for that. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
John Crook was elected a fellow of the British Academy in 1970, but resigned in 1980 over the academy's failure to expel the art historian and traitor, Anthony Blunt.
Emphasis mine.
mmmm wrote "I'm an engineer, you should listen to me claims". Dodo provided arguments, links, photographs - and took a lot of time to debunk mmmm's obviously absurd claims. She was taken seriously, a lot more thna she deserved, in fact. If you cannot tell the difference, there's very little I can do for you.
Your lack of success in translating your obvious intellect and compassion into action is FOR A REASON.
If this is lack of success, I'm very much looking forward to success, you know.
Call me silly, but ET is not a Holy Site.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Which you'll say is precisely my problem, allowing you to feel smug and superior. Go ahead. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I will note that I won't characterise the claims of m and other 9/11 anomalists' on ET (which also included in one way or another Sven, Migeru, UpstateNY, Fran, and many others) as "obviously absurd". At least not all of them. Maybe not properly checked against all the available evidence is the word. (E.g. I didn't pull out the counter-argument photos out of thin air or produced them with my endless IQ, just went searching and found them.) Though less so in manon's case, where I was hoping for specifics to her claims that didn't came. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
