"They" are doing nothing.

Even if I grant you the mildest interpretation of the "chaff" biz, that is still SOMETHING and it is happening all over this country (and overseas).  As for the rest, forget about it...we will just have to agree to disagree.  I have work to do and have spent too much time on this today... Cheerio!

MoW,

As far as 9/11 goes, you might want to look into what happened to Building Seven.  Take care, bro :)

I wasn't saying that because an NO priest says they exist means that they exist. My point was, given how naive and wimpy NO priests tend to be, it speaks volume when one says they exist.

I know what you meant. I was just trying to inject some levity into a debate that has become disturblingly personal.

I'm guessing you don't believe in the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. That being the case, how do you explain George Bush Sr, "Pope" Paul VI, and the United Nations all calling for one?

Do you really want to open that can of worms? Suffice it to say that I am not the sort of person you take me for.

Look, you really do not know all that much about my life. You don't know what I might have dealt with or thought about in the past. I'm very saddened by everybody's willingness to simply assign me to a camp, to conclude that I'm naive, a neocon, a NWO stooge, or just plain ignorant. You cluck your tongues and mutter, "There are none so blind as those who will not see," or words to that effect, and then you think you have me fixed in your mind -- all figured out. But it's not that simple.

That is not the approach that I've taken with any of you. It's plain that we disagree, but I have resisted any temptation to reduce you to a shallow stereotype of yourself and then to criticize that, as if that encompassed the whole of your being. On the contrary, I know you have good reasons for believing what you believe: personal reasons, reasons close to the heart, reasons rooted in much reflection and involvment. It is not my intention to come in and savage somebody's whole emotional sensorium, even when they are wrong. I think it wiser to show understanding, but many people do not seem to recognize when someone is trying to be their friend. I have not even resorted to polemics, except against Eamon (because he dishes it out so regularly I just assumed he could take it, too). However, except for s2srea and ora pro me (thanks you guys), I have met with nothing but scoffing on this thread.

As for your question, I think it's safe to conclude that I do not believe in what you think the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr is. You and I do not use those words to refer to the same thing. That doesn't mean that I'm oblivious to the whole subject. In this case, quite the opposite is true. But apparently it is too much of blow to others' pride to entertain the proposition that I might know a bit more about these things than they do. A case in point:

MoW,

As far as 9/11 goes, you might want to look into what happened to Building Seven. Take care, bro :)

I have "looked into it," thank you very much. I did so long ago. I reached a different conclusion than you did. It is a strange way of setting up a disjunction that Eamon employs here. He is in effect saying, "Either you have never looked into Building Seven, or I am right about the conspiracy." Heads I win, tails you lose. Without pressing the point, I will only say that those who argue in this manner are prescinding from the case at hand and making themselves the issue. "What, you don't agree that Bulding Seven was a controlled demolition" quickly becomes a shorthand for "What, you don't agree with me." This is how arguments turn into fights. And I am entirely sympathetic, by the way. In most life situations it is almost impossible to draw a fine line between arguing and fighting. Power and fiat inevitably come into the fray, and I'm okay with that. It's the way of the world, and a man who didn't fight for his position would probably lack the blood and spirit necessary to be much good for anything. But when the desired outcome is truth, we have to put our own blood aside recognizing that it has nothing to do with the matter, and embrace that pure Apollonian reason which is so foreign to our fallen natures.

Now which is easier to believe: that I have never looked into Building Seven, that I am entirely ignorant of the whole controversy surrounding it; or that maybe the matter isn't as cut and dried as you've made it out to be? Actually, I shouldn't have said "which is easier." The first is undoubtably easier to believe, but the second is right, and that is the one to which we owe our allegiance if we are to call ourselves friends of truth and charity.

MoW, what is your conclusion regarding Building 7?

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Man of the West

If the jets to which Caminus referred in the original post had been military, or otherwise suspicious, I’m sure he would have identified them as such,

I don't know about anyone else, but I find it difficult to identify specific types of aircraft when they are flying overhead at 30,000 feet.

Ditto.

Then you would find it especially difficult to to accurately identify and discriminate between atmospheric phenomena of which you've shown no comprehension. Proof positive that you ought to learn a bit more about these subjects before making wild accusations.