111 replies to this topic

[Babe Ruth]

JGirl, on 27 November 2012 - 10:12 PM, said:

i think it goes like this
the gullible
the heartfelt believers
the fence sitters
the skeptical
the debunkers

at UM we have an abundance of all of these types, but the debunkers are often mistaken for skeptics and the heartfelt believers are often accused of being gullible (usually by the debunkers)
i sit between fence sitter and skeptic usually.
ok if none of that made sense, sorry. it did when i typed it lol

You forgot one important category--the free thinkers.  Yes, if strict definitions were used they might be included with skeptics, but the way the language has been butchered in today's political environment, some describe themselves as skeptics even though they believe every press release issued by the government.

[JGirl]

Babe Ruth, on 28 November 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

You forgot one important category--the free thinkers.  Yes, if strict definitions were used they might be included with skeptics, but the way the language has been butchered in today's political environment, some describe themselves as skeptics even though they believe every press release issued by the government.

i'm not familiar with what a 'freethinker' is.

[Babe Ruth]

JGirl, on 28 November 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

i'm not familiar with what a 'freethinker' is.

At the beginning of the last century, a free thinker was a person who did not practice organized religion.  He or she did not buy into all the superstition and dogma of organized religion.  Susan Jacoby wrote a book about it, subtitled A History Of American Secularism, in 2004, and it was quite good.

A freethinker is a person who thinks for herself or himself.  He does not have others do his thinking for him, whether "others" be the church and its priests, or the government and its priests.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 28 November 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

A freethinker is a person who thinks for herself or himself.  He does not have others do his thinking for him, whether "others" be the church and its priests, or the government and its priests.

You are excluded as a "freethinker" because you allowed yourself to be duped by conspiracy websites whose main purpose is to spew lies, misinformation, and disinformation.

[Insaniac]

skyeagle409, on 28 November 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

You are excluded as a "freethinker" because you allowed yourself to be duped by conspiracy websites whose main purpose is to spew lies, misinformation, and disinformation.

Exact same thing goes for you. Just replace "conspiracy websites" with " world government" and there you have it.

Anyway, what has Babe lied about?

[Hasina]

I'm skeptical of all the points raised and made in this thread...

[skyeagle409]

Insaniac, on 28 November 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

Exact same thing goes for you. Just replace "conspiracy websites" with " world government" and there you have it.

Anyway, what has Babe lied about?

That doesn't work with me because I have used references with no connections with the government in order to support my case.

Edited by skyeagle409, 28 November 2012 - 09:31 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Insaniac, on 28 November 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

Exact same thing goes for you. Just replace "conspiracy websites" with " world government" and there you have it.

Anyway, what has Babe lied about?

We can start with his claim as a pilot. He has shown a lack of knowledge on aerodynamics and aeronautics and has posted errors regarding the "Hani maneuver." He is not familiar with pilot associations, which was evident when he posted a message regarding the AOPA and overlooking the ALPA and the APA.

We can now move on where he claimed that "no Boeings" crashed into the Pentagon or near Shanksville despite the overwhelming evidence presented to him.

I  should add his blunder regarding an P700 anti-ship missile striking the Pentagon. How about his comments regarding nukes and 9/11? How about explosives as responsible for the downing of light poles, which clearly depicted impact damage and nothing to do with explosives?

The list goes on and on!

Edited by skyeagle409, 28 November 2012 - 09:28 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

You light up my life Sky, you really do.

[JGirl]

Babe Ruth, on 28 November 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

A freethinker is a person who thinks for herself or himself.  He does not have others do his thinking for him, whether "others" be the church and its priests, or the government and its priests.

so according to this definition a free thinker could be either a believer or a skeptic as well.
(edit to add they could even be fence sitters)
not necessarily a category on its own

Edited by JGirl, 28 November 2012 - 10:12 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 28 November 2012 - 10:01 PM, said:

You light up my life Sky, you really do.

I've noticed your comments were gathered from Internet references rather than from a platform of flying experience. In other words, you were placing pieces of the puzzle in the wrong order because you didn't possess the knowledge to know the difference.

[Obviousman]

A "free thinker" can tend to be a person who applies neither logic nor critical thinking nor evidence to what they choose to believe.

Sky - can you direct me to where claims have been made of being a pilot? I want to explore that but this is not the place.

Edited by Obviousman, 29 November 2012 - 06:56 AM.

[Babe Ruth]

JGirl, on 28 November 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:

so according to this definition a free thinker could be either a believer or a skeptic as well.
(edit to add they could even be fence sitters)
not necessarily a category on its own

Yes, "fence sitter" might work very well.

I use "freethinker" because the term was commonly used in the United States about a century ago.

[skyeagle409]

Obviousman, on 29 November 2012 - 06:39 AM, said:

Sky - can you direct me to where claims have been made of being a pilot? I want to explore that but this is not the place.

Here are just a few.


9/11: The Flight 77 Eyewitnesses

Babe Ruth, on 28 February 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

No sir, crop dusting DOES NOT qualify one to fly jets, but for the record I'm typed in the Learjet, and am currently flying right seat on a Falcon 10.

Babe Ruth, on 26 February 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

Whether you understand, believe, or care about what flying experience I have influences me not at all.

Babe Ruth, on 24 February 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

With 10 years of fixed-wing crop dusting sir, it is most likely that I have spent more time in ground effect than you have. And I assure you that coming out of a 4000FPM descent and attempting to transition to terrain following flight is a sure recipe for disaster.

Edited by skyeagle409, 29 November 2012 - 09:30 PM.

[turbonium]

flyingswan, on 28 November 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

I am not back-pedalling from a statement, or defending anything. I asked a question of Turbs.  I have not had an answer from either him or you.

This is my last try at getting you to understand my point:  Given that the steel from ground zero contained incriminating evidence, why should it be shipped to a foreign country rather than melted down in the US?

Why not just melt all the steel in the US? Why would - and did - they ship it away overseas?

What is the best option for disposing of the evidence?

Which is the faster option? Overseas is much faster, obviously. It's all gone in a few days. At most.

Melting the steel is done afterwards - in China. There's no hurry to melt it in China.

But if the steel remained in the US, it can't be metled fast enough. Because it's within our reach, you have a cousin who works there and tells you about it. Many people are soon protesting the facility to return all evidence they've illegally obtained from a crime scene.

Not if it's all in China.