Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Don't worry Ron, we'll get to this point of fact. I am just trying to walk through Ace's logic chain to see if in fact it does match what you hypothesized in your OP. Patience. Baby steps.
On Experiencing Jim Fetzer
- Thread starter pomeroo
- Start date
Don't worry Ron, we'll get to this point of fact. I am just trying to walk through Ace's logic chain to see if in fact it does match what you hypothesized in your OP. Patience. Baby steps.
Don't worry Ron, we'll get to this point of fact. I am just trying to walk through Ace's logic chain to see if in fact it does match what you hypothesized in your OP. Patience. Baby steps.
Hokulele, my friend, when you talk about the need for patience, you have no idea what you're letting yourself in for. Putting a thought into Ace's head (here comes the Great Simile Contest) is like hitting a ping-pong ball into the teeth of a strong wind and driving it onto a selected pin four hundred yards away.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Oh I totally agree. Mostly this is an exercise in testing your OP to see where the disconnect between logic, facts, and conclusions occurs during a discussion with someone like Ace. If he and I can work entirely through the logic chain regarding one point in his theory (estimating steel amounts from photographic evidence), I might actually learn something about how this thought process works, and can use it to guide how I discuss things with people like this in the future. Disclaimer, I have no experience at all with psychiatry/psychology, but your OP and some of Stellafane's responses got me interested.
I'm not qualified to discuss the psychology of crazy beliefs, but my guess would be something along these lines: The crank, for emotional reasons, has a compulsion to oppose the conventional view. He invents his theory out of whole cloth and is careless to the point of indifference with details. Eventually, he crashes headlong into reality. For a sane person, this would be the moment when the theory has to be abandoned. The crank is incapable of abandoning the theory--if he could, he wouldn't be a crank. The only option is to ignore reality completely, a la Ace Baker. It's not possible to pretend that 80% of the steel was "dustified" given the existence of enormous piles of steel, thousands of tons of it, so he banishes the evidence from his thoughts. He just closes his eyes and keeps repeating, it isn't there--it isn't there.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Sure, I am just trying to find the point where that happens. Is it at the beginning of the logic chain (assumption), middle (facts and testing), or the end (conclusion). If I can find out that point, I know where to focus arguments. I don't think this will have any affect on Ace's claims, but it is an interesting case study that could apply to someone less stubborn. (OK, calling him stubborn may be giving him the benefit of the doubt.
)jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
"The far-fetched Jones thermite theory"? Are you kidding me!? You think laser beams destroyed the Twin Towers, and "dustified" the buildings!
Whenever I see that word I hear Madonna singing "Dustify My Love".
Sure, I am just trying to find the point where that happens. Is it at the beginning of the logic chain (assumption), middle (facts and testing), or the end (conclusion). If I can find out that point, I know where to focus arguments. I don't think this will have any affect on Ace's claims, but it is an interesting case study that could apply to someone less stubborn. (OK, calling him stubborn may be giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Ace isn't stubborn. Confront a stubborn person with the observation that his fantasy, that 80% of the steel was "dustified," is destroyed by the existence of so much recovered steel and he will make excuses. He'll blow smoke and qualify his original statement a dozen different ways. He will dance around the inconvenient reality. In the terms of my original post, he will select a2. Ace is different. Confronted with the reality that destroys his fantasy, his brain produces a loud buzzing noise and ZIPS him right back to, 80% of the steel was "dustified." There's no process. I think calling it a short-circuit sums up what's happening pretty well.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Yup, I agree, I was just trying to be nice.
What I am trying to learn is which process is taking place:
1) Assumption -> Hear fact -> ZIP!
2) Assumption -> Hear fact -> Understand fact -> ZIP!
3) Assumption -> Hear fact -> Understand fact -> See conclusion -> ZIP!
4) . . .
Well, you get the point. I am kind of strange in that I will sometimes enter a discussion where I don't plan on "winning" anything, but I might learn something in the process. I can see how hosting a debate program can make you more capable of winning than me.
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
FUNCTION dustified(p_counter_claim_in IN VARCHAR2(255))Yup, I agree, I was just trying to be nice.
What I am trying to learn is which process is taking place:
1) Assumption -> Hear fact -> ZIP!
2) Assumption -> Hear fact -> Understand fact -> ZIP!
3) Assumption -> Hear fact -> Understand fact -> See conclusion -> ZIP!
4) . . .
Well, you get the point. I am kind of strange in that I will sometimes enter a discussion where I don't plan on "winning" anything, but I might learn something in the process. I can see how hosting a debate program can make you more capable of winning than me.
RETURN VARCHAR2
IS
v_conclusion VARCHAR2(255):=NULL;
v_imright BOOLEAN:=TRUE;
BEGIN
v_conclusion := 'dustified steel';
LOOP
EXIT WHEN NOT(v_imright);
CASE test(p_counter_claim_in)
WHEN TRUE THEN v_imright := FALSE;
END;
v_imright:=TRUE;
END LOOP;
END dustified;
Yup, I agree, I was just trying to be nice.
What I am trying to learn is which process is taking place:
1) Assumption -> Hear fact -> ZIP!
2) Assumption -> Hear fact -> Understand fact -> ZIP!
3) Assumption -> Hear fact -> Understand fact -> See conclusion -> ZIP!
4) . . .
Well, you get the point. I am kind of strange in that I will sometimes enter a discussion where I don't plan on "winning" anything, but I might learn something in the process. I can see how hosting a debate program can make you more capable of winning than me.
No, in truth you are far ahead of me. I'm not feigning humility here--I'm serious. Hosting these debates has taught me that "winning" is nearly impossible. I used to think that being so much smarter than the twoofers gave the debunkers an advantage. I no longer believe that. If a scientific ignoramus claims, on the basis of nothing in particular, that the collapses of the Twin Towers are "physically impossible" or some such twaddle, it requires actual knowledge to understand that he's wrong.
Imagine you're debating a twoofer in a public forum: one member of the audience is thinking, Bush is a Christian--I hate Christians. Another is thinking, I favor unrestricted access to abortion--Bush must have been behind the attacks. More and more, I fear that rationalists are on the losing side. A book could be written on the subject, but I think that the revolution in education--making the kids feel good about themselves, rather than requiring that they learn--is at the heart of the problem. Maybe I'm going overboard, but consider a single example:
An Afrocentist at an academic conference charges Aristotle with stealing Egyptian knowledge from the library at Alexandria. The distinguished classical scholar Mary Lefkowitz observes that Aristotle died three years before the library opened. The Afrocentrist calls her a racist. SHE gets shunned by the academic community of the college and is criticized for her "insensitivity."
You want to champion reason with the general public when it's in full retreat in our institutions of "higher learning"? The loons could win--if not this time, then the next.
David Wong
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,773
Waaaaaait a second...
If the NWO cabal has an energy source that is 1) capable of producing enough juice to dustify three buildings from space 2) is compact enough to fit on a space platform and 3) reliable enough to function with precision even from the harsh environment of space....
Why not just market that energy source, and control its production, and gain world domination that way? Why use that laser to start an oil war in order to pump up oil profits? There's more money to be made off the thing powering this laser than they'll make off oil; you could convert the whole world to this technology for the next 500 years.
If the NWO cabal has an energy source that is 1) capable of producing enough juice to dustify three buildings from space 2) is compact enough to fit on a space platform and 3) reliable enough to function with precision even from the harsh environment of space....
Why not just market that energy source, and control its production, and gain world domination that way? Why use that laser to start an oil war in order to pump up oil profits? There's more money to be made off the thing powering this laser than they'll make off oil; you could convert the whole world to this technology for the next 500 years.
TruthSeeker1234
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,756
OK, Hokulele, I'll play.
Let's focus on the west wall of WTC1. Below are two photos. The ground level shot depicts perimeter steel laying in the westside highway. We observe that it is one layer deep. The second photo shows the entire area where we would expect perimeter steel from the west wall of WTC1. Again, it appears that the steel west of WTC1 was mostly one layer deep. The cranes have removed some of the steel from the second photo, but not very much, and certainly not very much from what once was the west wall of WTC1.
Since the steel laying in the Westside highway is one layer deep, it is reasonable to simply count the sections. One large area shows perimeter sections laying out almost perfectly as they stood. This represents about 12 stories, and appears to be about the full width of the tower. Count them. There are some perimeter sections in the Winter Garden. There are a few strewn about closer to the core.
In total, I can account for no more than about 20% of the perimeter sections from the west wall of WTC1, if that. An additional 90 stories of steel wheatchex would be enormous in the supplied picture.
People have analogized this problem to the "jar of jelly beans". Actually, it is more like the jelly beans are spread out on the floor. In such a case, the most accurate way to count the jelly beans, is to simply count the jelly beans.
Let's focus on the west wall of WTC1. Below are two photos. The ground level shot depicts perimeter steel laying in the westside highway. We observe that it is one layer deep. The second photo shows the entire area where we would expect perimeter steel from the west wall of WTC1. Again, it appears that the steel west of WTC1 was mostly one layer deep. The cranes have removed some of the steel from the second photo, but not very much, and certainly not very much from what once was the west wall of WTC1.
Since the steel laying in the Westside highway is one layer deep, it is reasonable to simply count the sections. One large area shows perimeter sections laying out almost perfectly as they stood. This represents about 12 stories, and appears to be about the full width of the tower. Count them. There are some perimeter sections in the Winter Garden. There are a few strewn about closer to the core.
In total, I can account for no more than about 20% of the perimeter sections from the west wall of WTC1, if that. An additional 90 stories of steel wheatchex would be enormous in the supplied picture.
People have analogized this problem to the "jar of jelly beans". Actually, it is more like the jelly beans are spread out on the floor. In such a case, the most accurate way to count the jelly beans, is to simply count the jelly beans.
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,756
First, nobody said the power supply is space-based.
Why not market the energy source? Better to take over the world first. Once you let the cat out of the bag, everyone will have access to it. Do you want China or Pakistan to have it? Scary enough they have nukes. Once upon a time, in the late 1940's, only the U.S. had nuclear technology. Did we rush around the world, marketing nuclear technology? No. Unfortunately, the Russians figured it out themselves. Today, a dozen countries have nukes, but the U.S. still takes great pains to try to stop anyone else from joining the list.
Better to take over the whole world, establish the prison planet, then perhaps let the slaves understand some of the now-ancient technology that had such an important role in enslaving them.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Thanks for being helpful. Whoops! You are jumping ahead again a bit with the steel photos. Here was my second question.
Would you please address the question in my first paragraph here? We will get to the actual steel calculations eventually, I would like to start at the beginning however. Thanks!
Hey, Ace, this should be easy for you. Looking at these photos, I'd guess that a huge amount of steel is shown, probably all of it. Of course, I'm quite incompetent to make such an estimation: probably, I'm only a little better than you. But that's not our question for the day.
Let's talk about Judy's Super Laser Beam. We know that it can destroy a whole building. We also know that in 2003, the military failed to destroy the buildings in Baghdad where it was believed that Saddam and his sons were hiding. The Super Laser could have been used to destroy those buildings, but that, of course, would have given away the grand secret of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy.
Now, here's what inquiring minds want to know. The military developed these futuristic weapons--weapons that won't exist on Earth for decades--at a staggering cost. The funds for R&D must show up somewhere. Wait, don't get excited. I wasn't going to ask you to find the place in the budget where those appropriations appear. We'll keep in mind that you're totally bonkers: EVERYONE in Congress is lying, and those appropriations have been hidden.
The military has this fantastic new weapon, but they can't use it in an actual war. Hmmm. It can only be used to promote a rather tawdry scheme to line the pockets of a few of Dick Cheney's cronies. Tell us how the Democrats in Congress signed off on the development of this rather specialized device. Be specific. Tell us why no Democrat in the military is upset at being unable to use the most powerful weapon on the planet for a, uh, military purpose. Countless billions of dollars to produce a weapon that won't exist for decades and it can only be used to destroy American buildings in America?! And no one is willing to complain? Who knocks them into line?
Why do we think you're out of your mind?
TruthSeeker1234
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,756
I did answer your question. I'll restate it.
In this case, the shallow depth of steel laying down on the ground allows us to use the simplest math of all: counting.
My initial assumptions are that a great majority of the WTC1 West wall is one-layer deep, that steel is opaque, that the photos are not fabricated.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
(Bolding mine.) Thanks for the clarification. Now, regarding these assumptions. Did you read somewhere about the one-layer deep, or does it just look that way to you? How thick would you say a layer of steel is? 2 feet? 40 feet?
One helluva idea! Now, why isn't there a single sane American anywhere arguing that we should do this? The Republicans are demoralized by the failure to introduce liberal democracy to the Middle East and the Democrats' solution to any foreign policy crisis is to bug-out. Where is the Imperial Party? Why aren't they ever on the ballot? Not that you're completely nuts, or anything...
TruthSeeker1234
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,756
I have supplied a photo indicating that on the westside highway, it was only one layer deep. Yes, the steel box columns were only 18" thick, or whatever. Yes, if they were stacked perfectly, you could fit a lot of them in a small height.
But they would not stack perfectly. The evidence for the north wall of WTC1 is even more compelling. At least with the west wall, we have something. Other than the part left standing, we have almost none of the north wall at all.
Anyway, go ahead.