My hero Noam Chomsky says hurtful things about us Truthers! We need to enlighten and inform him!

Originally posted by bsbray11
A person is not proof of anything. (That's also why personal attacks are not "proof.")

Please, for the love of god, stop ranting. If you have evidence of something, it damned sure isn't pteridine. Drama queen.

Anything with more than 20 words without something you can't pick apart with scientific doubletalk you consider a rant.

If I'm a drama queen what do you call someone who is quick to responds to my messages, even tracks my presence on this board?

Think about that one.


M



[edit on 27-8-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by mmiichael

 

Here's the problem, mmiichael.

You say re-posting evidence is a waste of typing, practice that you don't need.

I say re-posting the same tired insults is an EVEN BIGGER waste of typing (that you don't need?), unless your ego is just that hungry and important to feed to you.

No one wants to log on just to read your bad attitude and string of sarcastic and miserable insults on others' intelligence. If you don't want to post any data or evidence, why do you want to post here at all? Why must it be part of your daily ritual to log on here and insult people?

I risk appearing defensive by replying to your questions. But I respect you intelligence and am always hoping we can exchange insights rather than try to find faults with each other.

I enjoy scientific discussions, but find those trying to drive a point outnumber those wanting to understand more. So you see my more hostile side. I have a great distate for bad science pushed down peoples throats. Part of my personal history.

Why you feel the need to track me is a real question. You challenge me to provide scientific data. It's obvious you want something to shoot down. Maybe pull out your Eutectic Reaction argument.

I notice you put pteridine on ignore, but I find he's one of the few contributors who actually offers solid science. So much for your alleged quest for scientific debate.

Most of us who frequent a site like this are fruitcakes. What kind of people go to bars in bad neighbourhoods where they get into fights?

I came here interested in finding out if there actually was any substance to all the stories about 9/11 floating around. The member have provided the answer resoundingly. It bunk.

But I stick around because it's intersting.


Mike



[edit on 27-8-2009 by mmiichael]

Cow flop is interesting also to folks that cannot backup what they attempt to peddle to others.
The key to respect in.any discussion is manifest in it's natural honesty.
Most folks can see beyond smoke and mirrors.
The 911 tragedies are not a trivial subject for the tax paying suffering American citizens.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Anything with more than 20 words without something you can't pick apart with scientific doubletalk you consider a rant.

"Scientific doubletalk," even if that's what it is, is better than just perpetually calling people stupid as an "argument."

If I'm a drama queen what do you call someone who is quick to responds to my messages, even tracks my presence on this board?

It's called using "MyATS" and I track all the threads I post on that way.

This kind of BS shouldn't be taking up the space here.

You are totally full of it. I send back invective when I'm have it sent my way.

You look for an argument when you're called out on their tactics.

Anyone claiming they want to discuss science on ATS is doing so right now. Hundreds of active threads, and you can start your own.

There are dozens of hard science forums online. But you only feel comfortable discussing things on a conspiracy forum. Where else would you find an audience.

Show some self-restraint for a change. Just don't bother replying.

If you do I'm going to have the mods on this.


M


[edit on 28-8-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by audas
reply to post by mmiichael

 

God you talk rubbish - you really do.

Your tone attempts to convey a demeanour if authority - yet everything you post is simply a lack of introspection and self questioning, self reassuring assumptions that are on the whole profoundly wrong and insidious.

Thank you for your insightful comments.

I'm flattered so many feel the need to analyze the contents of my messages and tone.

Any chance to getting back to the topic at hand?


M

Somebody has to stand up and object to the torrent of ignorant, paranoid, racist, idiotic crap that flows around here.

As soon as I've hit on the real dirt the heavy hitters of this stuff come out of the woodwork and start screaming foul.

For some the truth hurts.


M

Originally posted by mmiichael


Somebody has to stand up and object to the torrent of ignorant, paranoid, racist, idiotic crap that flows around here.

As soon as I've hit on the real dirt the heavy hitters of this stuff come out of the woodwork and start screaming foul.

For some the truth hurts.


M

I know - i read your posts - thats why I put the list together above - its clearly where you get your material...

The sad thing is people who pride themselves on independent thinking are the most susceptible to any con game that feeds their appetite for anger and resentment - and self loathing.

The defaut dismissal of criticism is to say the sources are trolls, disinformation agents, right wing extremists, whatever.

The close-minded are never aware of their own state.


M

I dont think this thread should be dragged into the debate as to what happened on 9/11. At the end of the day the only people who know the truth of what happened are the ones who carried out the attacks. All that remains to be said on that aspect is that the 9/11 commission should have addressed all the questions that have been raised in regards to that day and they didnt do a very good job of it. If anyone has taken the time to read it you'll know what I mean.
Now back on topic, I've followed Chomsky's work for a long time, I've read a number of books containing his essays and they have all helped me understand a little more of how the world works and the power structures that control it. I admire him a great deal but he is just a man and has his own opinions and agendas as we all do. He holds a very privileged position and has a family to worry about. If Chomsky were to say what he really thinks about 9/11 he would lose it all. I think he's just being very careful in his comments. Don't judge him too harshly.
The truth of what happened on that day will come out eventually. Be it Arab terrorists controlled from a cave in Afghanistan or the most violent and brutal empire man has ever known, you'll find the supporters of which ever side is wrong will disappear as quick as a fart in a gale. Don't let them bate you or try and condescend you on your lack of knowledge. Make your own mind up and prepare for the day of enlightenment.

Originally posted by audas

Originally posted by mmiichael


The sad thing is people who pride themselves on independent thinking are the most susceptible to any con game that feeds their appetite for anger and resentment - and self loathing.

The defaut dismissal of criticism is to say the sources are trolls, disinformation agents, right wing extremists, whatever.

The close-minded are never aware of their own state.


M

How Ironic that after several posts you are now simply quoting my own wisdom back to me - a refresher for any new comers -

Your tone attempts to convey a demeanour if authority - yet everything you post is simply a lack of introspection and self questioning, self reassuring assumptions that are on the whole profoundly wrong and insidious.

Now who looks like a silly solipstic, right wing sycophant ?

Great minds think alike.

I don't believe the US government has aliens hidden in an air force base, are spraying the air with biologicals, are spreading designer viruses, and a lot of other things I see claims for.

If a right winger is someone who doesn't immediately buy into a US govt cover-up explanation for everything imaginable - where do I sign up?

Thanks for the critiques. Keeps me on my toes.


M




[edit on 28-8-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by SOXMIS


Chomsky would have no trouble calling out any such conspiracy but would require extraordinary proof because, as you say, he has much to lose, starting with his personal pride and intellectual integrity.
The problem for truthers is that there is no proof of CD, whatsoever. There is conjecture, assumption, feelings, and suspicions but no evidence of any sort. People draw lines on video frames of the event, show debris fields of hundreds of feet and then talk about "collapse in its footprint," follow the bad science of Jones and crew, rant on about "eutectic reactions" at every opportunity, and generally behave like foil hat owners all the while wondering why Chomsky won't throw in with them. All the inmates are convinced of their sanity because they all tell each other how sane they are. Looking in, Chomsky sees all of this and is wise to stay disentangled.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by zerbot565
what are you talking about there is no "evidence", it was all sold before the value of steel went down the drain along with other things.

if its not thermite then you guys had very poor graded steel that is very rusty and brittle in the frame of that building ,

heck if the space shuttle goes up in flames and is scattered over a 100 square mile radius they piece it together as much as they can , on the wtc incident they sold every bit and piece they could find before any investigation even had been thougth of...

Your statements are conjecture. There is no evidence.

touché

Originally posted by mmiichael
I'm flattered so many feel the need to analyze the contents of my messages and tone.

Any chance to getting back to the topic at hand?

LMAO

That's what I kept trying to do on the last page, and you kept responding with more insults and rants about how everyone in the truth movement is stupid!

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mmiichael
I'm flattered so many feel the need to analyze the contents of my messages and tone.

Any chance to getting back to the topic at hand?

LMAO

That's what I kept trying to do on the last page, and you kept responding with more insults and rants about how everyone in the truth movement is stupid!

Never said everyone in the truth movement was stupid. You just think you read that. I did say they accept a lot of dumb notions from the agenda driven and the con artists out there.

Anyone can get blindsided.

I'd love to see a discussion of Chomsky. Brilliant guy. He is very strident in his criticism of imposing perceptions.

He has said:

"I think studying science is a good way to get into fields like history. The reason is, you learn what an argument means, you learn what evidence is, you learn what makes sense to postulate and when, what's going to be convincing. You internalize the modes of rational inquiry, which happen to be much more advanced in the sciences than anywhere."

Which is good starting point for all of us. It's a constant struggle to maintain objectivity. In controversal matters personal politics, peer group pressure, egotism, invade our perceptions.

We need be reductionists in whatever we tackle. Start with what we know for sure and build up on it. Not embrace an attractive conclusion and work backwards looking for things we hope will support a belief.


Mike





[edit on 28-8-2009 by mmiichael]

[edit on 28-8-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by mmiichael


Chomsky's academic literature includes a huge body of work revolving around media headlines and articles that demonstrates rigorously that mass media's reporting is shaped exclusively by US foreign policy. Ie no free press, rather it is determined by some relation to the military industry, for example GE both producing weapons and owning large chunks of mainstream media.

I actually bought one of Chomsky's books, "Manufacturing Consent," and it is about 2-3 inches thick and full of references to media headlines and articles from the 60s/70s on through today, showing nothing but lock-step alignment between military foreign policy and mass media reporting, even when directly contradicting independent sources and other news sources outside of the US. Even when they say they are reporting two sides of the issue, or that it's "fair and balanced," that's the true double-talk, because all the implications of their other words contradict that. And linguistics is Chomsky's expertise, remember; linguistic contributions to science are what he is best known for.

Imo Chomsky knows there are more "strings" attached to these events than are apparent to the public, and that this is done intentionally. Chomsky himself has never gotten into the 9/11 thing, and I've never read anything he had to say about it that was able to change my mind. He used to say he didn't even want to consider it or talk about it. He just has opinions like the rest of us.

Chomsky is interesting. One thing you have to watch for is which Chomsky you tune into. Chomsky today or what he wrote a couple decades back.

Something that's missed when quoting someone, people change their views over time.

I got into his neurolinguisitcs heavily as they were evolving. It was stunning. But the last few years he has gone back and done a revisionism that is an attempt to integrate his politics rather than refinement.

Not solely my opinion. The academic world has been distancing themselves from him, and it's painful to watch. Often great thinkers have a brief window when they make incredible breakthroughs, and then they lose it.

I really don't want to get into a rant, but Chomsky is caught up in being a vocal political critic more than an observer, now. He is breaking his own rules. You can't be a theatre critic when you're one of the actors.

More I'd like to say. But just pointing out the Chomsky of "Manufacturing Consent" isn't necessarily Chomsky 2009.


Mike

reply to post by mmiichael


What's great about science is that his work is still in that book, in all its glory. I actually read it so I know what's in it. I don't care if he changed his opinions, he better come out with a revised version of that book too if he wants to really set the record straight. Which isn't going to happen, because nothing in that book is fabricated. It's one of the most dry and rigorous books I've ever read. And honestly I don't even know that he changed his mind about it, you just seem to be implying that, and I know I'm not just going to take your word for it. But even if so, science is science, people are people, I don't care about people, I'm not a drama queen.