A key factor as I see it is that as they evolve in the LIHOP direction there are also enough people "our side of the polarisation" who will readily accept LIHOOI*. Include me in them - Read my post further up this page to get where I am coming from.
And I have been wrong before. 
)
Generally, I trumps P when speaking government, but it's all conjecture on our part. Maybe they go somewhere with the Saudi Arabia angle and get some hearings, but I doubt any Bush White House folks would spill the beans on a purposeful neglect of the AQ intelligence warnings, except as a deathbed confessional.A key factor as I see it is that as they evolve in the LIHOP direction there are also enough people "our side of the polarisation" who will readily accept LIHOOI*. Include me in them - Read my post further up this page to get where I am coming from.
Debate so far has been dominated by the "big three" technical issues which are undeniably false. BUT we have managed ten years total and (say) 7 years intense Internet discussion mainly on technical claims which are easily seen to be false. So if we move to the middle ground between their LIHOP and my (our??) "lots of bits of LIHOOI" the distinction between true and false becomes much foggier. The technical stuff is essentially "black and white" but the socio political area is murky grey. So discussions in that setting will be even more frustrating than they have been so far.
And the discussion will be getting a lot closer to "their" real concerns. That is the reality that a lot of Government and multi agency decision making is not and cannot be pure even if all intentions are positive. The reality is there will be dirty washing. So that is "our" side. "their" side will lay bare their political ideological position that Government is totally corrupt. And moving them of that position will be infinitely harder than getting them to admit "there was no CD, yes it was that plane and no shootdown at Shanksville".
but I still sense the coming tide change.
* LIHOOI = "let it happen out of incompetence" (We don't use that acronym often
My gut feeling is similar to yours.
Put it in context:
There have been concerns about 911 events which we can separate into "technical" and "socio-political"
The claims in the technical domain have been the "big three" of "CD at WTC"; "Not that Plane" at Pentagon AND "It was shot down" at Shanksville. Most other technical claims are subsets or subordinate to those three. Despite our willingness for many years to entertain those claims they are all false and most truthers sooner or later will have to deal with the falseness.
Claims in the "socio-political" domain include "MIHOP"; "LIHOP" and "LIHOOI" (Let it happen out of incompetence). Those claims almost always refer to "it" as if "it" was a single homogeneous entity. There is a structural error there - more of that a bit later.
BUT the self evident truths are probably:
- It is (almost??) certain there was no MIHOP in the sense of a deliberate overall plan under Government control;
- Ditto no overall LIHOP plan;
- There was probably a lot of LIHOOI among all the agencies involved;
- There was probably a lot of bits of LIHOP including arse covering among the agencies.
And what I just wrote has pointed to the structural issue. "It", whether made to happen, let happen or just happened by itself through incompetence, "it" was never and never could be one single homogeneous entity. There was not and could not have been one "master plan". It was lots of little bits which added up to the overall setting.
And each of those bits could independent of all the others be made to happen, let happen or happened all by its little self because of incompetence.
So I suggest we are seeing a groundswell or a tide change -- pick your own metaphor.
There is in my opinion little doubt that quite a lot of bits did in fact happen which were not in the overall best community interest. AND again IMNSHO those bits may be worth further investigation and some of them undoubtedly would be worth further investigation.
So the tide change we may be correct in sensing will probably:
A)Abandon loser technical claims like the "big three" (as a side benefit that should see the death of the current trolling interests in thermXte, iron microspheres etc - but don't underestimate the survival instinct of trolls)
B) Abandon non-specific claims as to either MIHOP or LIHOP at the overall level of one "it" which is a single presumed homogeneous entity including a "master plan".
AND
C) A probable shift of interest to legitimate concerns about lesser elements of LIHOP and LIHOOI
Let's see as the trend continues. I've been wrong before.....
PS: We would need new acronyms to change the "it" to "them" LTHOP or similar? [qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/scratch.gif[/qimg]
A key factor as I see it is that as they evolve in the LIHOP direction there are also enough people "our side of the polarisation" who will readily accept LIHOOI*. Include me in them - Read my post further up this page to get where I am coming from.
Debate so far has been dominated by the "big three" technical issues which are undeniably false. BUT we have managed ten years total and (say) 7 years intense Internet discussion mainly on technical claims which are easily seen to be false. So if we move to the middle ground between their LIHOP and my (our??) "lots of bits of LIHOOI" the distinction between true and false becomes much foggier. The technical stuff is essentially "black and white" but the socio political area is murky grey. So discussions in that setting will be even more frustrating than they have been so far.
And the discussion will be getting a lot closer to "their" real concerns. That is the reality that a lot of Government and multi agency decision making is not and cannot be pure even if all intentions are positive. The reality is there will be dirty washing. So that is "our" side. "their" side will lay bare their political ideological position that Government is totally corrupt. And moving them of that position will be infinitely harder than getting them to admit "there was no CD, yes it was that plane and no shootdown at Shanksville".
but I still sense the coming tide change.
* LIHOOI = "let it happen out of incompetence" (We don't use that acronym often
Sigh, now I'll go and check out truthaction.org and see whether they've given me any reason to take them seriously. I may not post there again. It seems they don't want to discuss their evidence. They'd rather take potshots at debunkers.
Cheers, Brainster.
Thank you Orphia
I've started but "piked out"* at the heart throb/tear jerker chapter -- till I gather courage. (Despite my philistine engineer stance my kids reckon I'm an old softie) It should be a good read. Meanwhile I'm reading old favourites Miss Marple et al...
Yes you remind me of that shameful and best not repeated low point in the history of this sub-forum.
It was unequivocal only in its false conclusions which don't follow from the data.SnowCrash said:
Yes. He is capable of very clear thinking BUT his "disturbed" characteristic overrules too often.
Thanks.
Agreed.
Understood. My own focus tends to be on the technical engineering issues rather than the socio-political. Hence I would not notice the nuance "frustrating" versus "unproductive," - in hindsight I agree with you.
