- Joined
- Apr 21, 2005
- Sythe Gold
- 5,470
- Messages
- 8,076
Sorry for the late response.
I'm going end my stay on this thread without going through the old cycle of arguments that we had before. I realize that it is unlikely that we will ever fundamentally agree, as we follow different forms of general rationality. You express a belief in the ideals of symmetric rationality, whereas I favor rational choice theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory
As such, the burden of proof I require is according to your standards, "irrationally high", while I consider the implications of this conspiracy to require such evidence. In reality, neither of us practice perfect symmetry in our beliefs (you fundamentally distrust the government), but my strong personal judgement may "cloud" my views. Ultimately, the exlusivity of this event would be nearly impossible to prove given the standards I require (perfect modeling, documented nitrates, official notice by the conspirators).
You'll probably disagree, but I've considered this to be one of the more quality/educational debates as of late in the SFA.
I don't necessarily agree with your position as to why we disagree, but I do agree that the 9/11 topic is a waste of time. It is of no consequence; The government is a criminal organization either way; I only argue from the strict physics viewpoint in the same way one might argue what caused the accident on the freeway, not because I want to take sides in the specific collision, but because the official record is physically incorrect and this is perfectly obvious to me and yet people still widely believe it.
























