Science vs Teleology: Which lens is best for viewing 911?

[~enigma~]

10 pages to ask a question that can be rewritten as...Science vs Teleology: Which lens is best for viewing a crime scene?

Does it really take 10 pages to answer? The bowel movement is impotent and this thread title should be all the evidence one needs.

 

[Clippy]

10 pages to ask a question that can be rewritten as...Science vs Teleology: Which lens is best for viewing a crime scene?

Does it really take 10 pages to answer? The bowel movement is impotent and this thread title should be all the evidence one needs.

Much of this is due to our furry Torquemada.

 

[Major_Tom]

By the way, painters also fit in the category with magicians. Da Vinci would destroy his notes so that others would not figure out how he created a given painting.

Essential to destroy the tracability of the act, process.

Totally different than science focusing on reproducible experiments.

Here you try to destroy the reproducibility. You hide the traces.

 

[Clippy]

And who, by the year 2000, was the most active intelligence operative inside al Qaeda - a confidant of OBL and Ayman al-Zawahiri no less - who simultaneously supplied intelligence to the DIA and the Able Danger unit? None other than Ali Mohamed ….. And who ordered 2.5 terabytes of data gathered by the Able Danger operation to be destroyed in April 2000? The CIA of course!

When dealing with a magician, the key to the trick will lie in whatever is not permitted examination.

 

[pomeroo]

For the record, you must be older than me.....what's an aging hippie?


(Oh, and by the way.....what's a record?)

You are a broken record. To learn what a record is, try to remember yourself before you broke.

 

[applecorped]

Speaking of filters, Beachnut's posts alway remind me of Charlie Brown's teacher.

One could never figure out what the adults were saying in Peanuts, could they?
You're a good man, Charlie Brown.

 

[beachnut]

Speaking of filters, Beachnut's posts alway remind me of Charlie Brown's teacher.

You as a cartoon character, accusing others for the actions of 19 terrorists; what is the philosophical penalty for making false witness? What is the philosophical mumbo jumbo you use to come up with your false ideas on 9/11; teleology or meth?

You use and manufacture false information to view 9/11; does that match teleology, or science?

2.47 minutes wasted reading and posting to the MILDEC false witness; 9/11 truth's cartoon character, Max.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Maxthoerim

Who perpetrated 911?
Just between you and me,
Is this a question for science
Or of teleology?

Max what lens are you using here?;

Thermite - an incendiary - was used to heat-weaken WTC steel connections, to initiate collapse. Jets served as ambiguity-reducing deception to make all of the experts certain, decisive and wrong that the WTC fires were solely jet-induced. The experts were so bewildered by deception planners' use of feedback - of hiding fire in fire - that no one thought to investigate for arson. That is how the WTC demolitions-by-heat-weakening were - and still are - hidden in plain view.

Perhaps this can be considered an ambiguous use of both?

 

[Apollo20]

Pomeroo:

You are clearly headed down the rocky road to solipsism.

Please try to get over yourself!

And remember, all I am saying is:

Bin Laden ............ forgotten (?), ............ but not gone?

How strange the neo-CON-logic is!

 

[RedIbis]

It's also an indicator of what lens the accuser is looking through.

Um, by the way, Red - (that's a communist name isn't it?) - just what are you insinuating with that big nose in your avatar?

I just caught this. Thanks for giving me a chuckle when scarcely few are to be found.

 

[1337m4n]

Teleological false positives

Max, this is the definition we're working off of:

Teleology (Greek: telos: end, purpose) is the philosophical study of design and purpose. A teleological school of thought is one that holds all things to be designed for or directed toward a final result, that there is an inherent purpose or final cause for all that exists.

Hypothetically, suppose for the sake of argument that there is no "inside job", no government conspiracy of any sort, surrounding 9/11. Would one be able to uncover that fact using teleology?

It seems to me that you would get a lot of "false positives" when relying on teleology--seeing conspiracy and malice where there is only coincidence and human error/incompetence. For instance, what if the Bush administration did in fact benefit greatly from 9/11, but the deeper truth of the matter was that they had no actual involvement in it? In that instance, wouldn't using teleology give you a false positive?

 

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo:

You are clearly headed down the rocky road to solipsism.

Frank, the problem is that some of us know what the word "solipsism" means.

Please try to get over yourself!

I did that--years ago. How about you?

And remember, all I am saying is:

Bin Laden ............ forgotten (?), ............ but not gone?

How strange the neo-CON-logic is!

Yeah, it's amazing that those all-powerful neocons just forgot to kill off a guy who doesn't even exist. Must have slipped their minds. Yup, people who try to lose elections are certainly strange. Let us know if you ever encounter such a creature.

 

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo:

You are clearly headed down the rocky road to solipsism.

Please try to get over yourself!

And remember, all I am saying is:

Bin Laden ............ forgotten (?), ............ but not gone?

How strange the neo-CON-logic is!

Hey, Frank, I have come up with the perfect way for you to celebrate your conversion to the fantasy side. You can employ pseudo-science, a few distorted quotes, and dozens of outright falsehoods to debunk your own work!

Wheeeeee!!!!

 

[Apollo20]

Pomeroo:

My work is undebunkable without a meta-narrative...

Do you have one?

 

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo:

My work is undebunkable without a meta-narrative...

Do you have one?

Frank, your published work is real science. Your refusal to trouble yourself to listen to what the jihadists are telling us is an example of someone's emotions overriding his intellect. You KNOW that the conspiracy liars are fools and frauds--you can prove it and, indeed, you have done just that. You want desperately to believe that America was not the victim of an unprovoked attack. Unfortunately, all the evidence says otherwise.

 

[Max Photon]

Trust me, I'm totally false positive.

Hypothetically, suppose for the sake of argument that there is no "inside job", no government conspiracy of any sort, surrounding 9/11. Would one be able to uncover that fact using teleology?

It seems to me that you would get a lot of "false positives" when relying on teleology--seeing conspiracy and malice where there is only coincidence and human error/incompetence. For instance, what if the Bush administration did in fact benefit greatly from 9/11, but the deeper truth of the matter was that they had no actual involvement in it? In that instance, wouldn't using teleology give you a false positive?

Not necessarily. For example, if a women is murdered, who's the first suspect, even if it is not explicitly expressed? The husband! Why? Because it has happened in the past that husbands have killed wives. So it is standard to investigate the husband.

While I am sure this teleological lens has - unfortunately - produced some false positives in the past, I suspect most of the time it doesn't.

Similarly, if a warehouse full of old goods burns, fire investigators will consider the possibility of arson with intent to get rid of inventory and collect insurance. Again, is there any reason to expect significant false positives?

Max

 

[Max Photon]

Frank, your published work is real science. Your refusal to trouble yourself to listen to what the jihadists are telling us is an example of someone's emotions overriding his intellect. You KNOW that the conspiracy liars are fools and frauds--you can prove it and, indeed, you have done just that. You want desperately to believe that America was not the victim of an unprovoked attack. Unfortunately, all the evidence says otherwise.

Victim Dictum

 

[pomeroo]

Not necessarily. For example, if a women is murdered, who's the first suspect, even if it is not explicitly expressed? The husband! Why? Because it has happened in the past that husbands have killed wives. So it is standard to investigate the husband.

While I am sure this teleological lens has - unfortunately - produced some false positives in the past, I suspect most of the time it doesn't.

Similarly, if a warehouse full of old goods burns, fire investigators will consider the possibility of arson with intent to get rid of inventory and collect insurance. Again, is there any reason to expect significant false positives?

Max

Hold it! Wait--this is hard for me. I'm not sure, but are you saying that if Osama bin Laden declares war on the U.S. in 1996 and his group proceeds to launch attacks that target Americans--the Khobar Towers, the African embassies, the USS Cole... just a second--I lost the thought. Okay, Osama declares war on America and attacks it relentlessly. For this reason, some people think he had something to with the attacks of 9/11/01, the attacks he took responsibility for? I don't get it. Why shouldn't we blame Richard Simmons, to give one obvious example? Let me try to get clear on this. We blame Osama because we think he's attacked us so many other times. But, it could just as easily have been Richard Simmons all along. Am I right so far? So, Osama--again, because he claims responsibility for all those attacks--was a positive expectation. But the fantasy movement, by producing absolutely nothing, has shown that he is a false positive. So it really was Richard Simmons, or am I missing something?

 

[tanabear]

Funny that the jihadists are so clear about their aims and muddle-headed Westerners simply refuse to hear what they're saying. The name Sayyid Qutb means nothing to you, but our enemies have read him closely and understand his message.

When I used to post at townhall the Bush Cultists and neo-con propagandists always used the word the "enemy". David Limbaugh was probably the worse. He, like Ron Wieck, dwells in a place called neo-con propaganda land. This is a made-up world just like Middle-Earth or Wonderland. The people that live in this world do not live in reality. They believe that there is a war on terror, Iraq had WMD; ties to Al-Qaeda; the neo-cons are the guardians of peace and justice in the republic; and Jorge Bush is a superhero terrorist fighter who never falters or fails in his struggle against the evil-doers. He always stands tall against those who seek to thwart him. This is all a fantastic delusion. Somebody watching from the reality-based community can only sit and smile.

David Limbaugh, "pray the president will have the strength and support to overcome his domestic opponents so that he can continue to lead us effectively against our terrorist enemy...After all, the enemy recruits radical Muslims from the general Muslim population, and so we must go out of our way to prove how much we care to deter further terrorist recruitment."

Mona Charen, "Within the past several weeks, presidential aspirant Barack Obama has announced that he would meet with America's enemies and attack America's friends."

So who are these enemies? Why can't they be named? During WWII we could name our enemies, the Nazis and the Japanese. During the Cold War we could name our enemies, the Soviets and their Communist supporters. Why can't we name this enemy?

Now what terrorist enemy are the neo-cons referring to? Maybe Saddam? His favorite author was Ernest Hemingway and his favorite movie was The Godfather.

Bush invited Ibrahim al-Jaafari(of the al-Dawa Party) to the White House when he was the interim Prime Minister of Iraq. This is a man who laid a wreathe at the tomb of the Ayatollah Khomeini. He also invited Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of SCIRI(Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, now SIIC)to the White House. This party basically represents the ideals of Khoemini and the Iranian Revolution. Their seat of power was in Tehran. The Dawa Party and SCIRI were both considered terrorist organizations in the 1980's. So why did Bush invite these Islamic radicals to the White House?

Because there is no War on Terror, only a War for Empire.

 

[pomeroo]

Victim Dictum

Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi.