9 QUESTIONS FOR THE 9/11 COMMISSION | Jesse Ventura Off The Grid

[Brant Gaede]

How was the scale wrong? That's an interesting statement.

A...

They were way too big for lower Manhattan esthetically and part and parcel philosophically of all that building Rockefeller did in Albany when he was governor. Big-ego governmentiasis. It was generally understood in the 1960s that the office space was not needed and that the tenant-vacuuming effect would discourage rational private office development in lower Manhattan for years. I personally always considered them dangerous for being accidentally hit by airplanes. I used to fly a small plane up and down the Hudson occasionally. I had to twist my neck to look up to see the tops of the towers hundreds of feet above me. It was incredibly impressive and I had come to admire the buildings.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

William has proven he can very graciously give an apology if he changes his mind or comes to a different understand of another pov. Though we disagree on many things I think William is a class act. He does have a temper but he doesn't try to be cruel, I don't see that in him at all. I think most of OL represents the top 1% of humanity, even with the wildly different opinions about things.

...

I probably pissed off both Jonathon and William by talking about them publicly but not directly to them. Oh well.

Thanks for the kind and thoughtful words about me, Mike. I think I am less of a jerk now then when I first posted to Objectivish boards (oh my, can it be) nine years ago. and probably a lot less funny, less entertaining.

I can't speak for Jonathan, but I do know that on at least one subject we have deeply differing views (climate argy bargy). I am fine with his rhetorical upper-range, though it may break delicate glass. I'm not ready to conclude he means harm, though. I don't think he has an ugly heart, but a passionate one, a principled one. I can't condemn every angry outburst without fettering my own.

Your words of analysis and your general conclusions are also welcome. I do hope Dean reads and responds, and can entertain objections to his reasoning. I am disappointed that he skipped my last comments entirely, but he doesn't owe me anything.

Please don't think I carry any 'pissed-offedness' forward from our encounters here. I forgive almost anyone their tone and tartness if the core of their arguments is sound.

Edited October 4, 2014 by william.scherk

[Selene]

How was the scale wrong? That's an interesting statement.

A...

They were way too big for lower Manhattan esthetically and part and parcel philosophically of all that building Rockefeller did in Albany when he was governor. Big-ego governmentiasis. It was generally understood in the 1960s that the office space was not needed and that the tenant-vacuuming effect would discourage rational private office development in lower Manhattan for years. I personally always considered them dangerous for being accidentally hit by airplanes. I used to fly a small plane up and down the Hudson occasionally. I had to twist my neck to look up to see the tops of the towers hundreds of feet above me. It was incredibly impressive and I had come to admire the buildings.

--Brant

Got it and I agree. I also did not like the "bar graph like" visuals. Reflected a lack of vision to me.

The Flatiron building which was the tallest building at the time it was proposed drew the ridicule of "experts" that it would be blown over.

It was also a matter of scale.

A...

[deanwins]

I gather from a couple posts above that both Mike E and William Scherk are satisfied with NIST's explanation of the timespan over which building 7 fell at freefall acceleration. Here is NIST's explanation of the free fall:

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

• Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
• Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
• Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

I made the relevant text discussing the free fall bold and red.

Here's my criticism:

"indicating negligible support from the structure below"

Indeed. Freefall means NO support whatsoever, as if nothing was below it supporting it whatsoever.

"This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above."

"consistent with the structural analysis model"... ok what is the structural analysis model? Here's NIST's response: we can't tell you because it "might jeopardize public safety". That's a joke. I would think it would be important for engineers to know how steel supports can completely and utterly lose all of their upward support and allow whatever is above them to freefall. Isn't it more of a public safety hazard to have existing and new buildings be built that might have the same kind of flaw in their structural steel that would allow the upper portion of the building to freefall for 2.25 seconds?

"the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above"... I accept that exterior columns bucking could cause them to lose thier ability to support the loads from the structure above. What I don't accept is that they would completely and utterly lose all of their ability to support the loads, where their support is non-existant, allowing the stucture above to fall at freefall.

It almost seems like this sentence (starting with "This is consistent") isn't referring to the sentence right before it ("During Stage 2, the"). Instead maybe referring to the first sentence in the paragraph. Here we are just guessing at the intent of the author. Maybe its a little misleading, but I'm guessing such an excuse could pass in lawyerspeak/law. But whatever.

As Far As I Know, we don't have access to their model, because again it "might jeopardize public safety". Instead, they only give us images and videos of their model's output of the initial portion of the collapse. And the funny thing is, their model isn't even consistent with what is shown on video. And more funny, but you'd have to take the engineer's word for it, but he says the NIST model's next move would have been to fall over to the side, and hence that is why they only give us the initial portion of the collapse and stop there.

ae911thruth.org Engineer's response to NIST models and NIST freefall response.

====================

Its just plain and simple: steel structures do not allow their top portions to fall at freefall accelleration for 2.25 seconds. Somehow the building's steel structure was demolished, not by slow bending, but by instantaneous & simultaneos "cuts" accross all of the steel supports in a floor at a time. There's nothing that does that except for well timed & controlled explosive demolitions.

[Brant Gaede]

But why bother with that building at all? The WTC towers coming down was enough for any purpose I can imagine. I suggest re-examining--I've not done this--the footage of the Towers collapse in slo-mo. Do the collapses start near the points of impact or elsewhere? Near where the airplanes hit strongly suggest that's what brought them down, not some sabotage-espionage agents planting explosives in each building.

Why bring this here? OL is not really the place for this type of technical and structural-engineering discussion. There must be such elsewhere, full of structural engineers and experts in photographic analysis. It looks like only OL's Jonathan fits that bill.

If it's your intention to validate conspiracy theories generally, you will not succeed with what you've come up with so far.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

Ventura's nine questions:

This is the most trenchant of Ventura's criticisms. As Sheldon Richman has written, "Despite all its guarantees -- contrary to its ideological justification for existing -- the state can't protect us -- even from a ragtag group of hijackers. Trillions of dollars spent over many years built a "national security apparatus" that could not stop attacks on the two most prominent buildings in the most prominent city in the country -- or its own headquarters. That says a lot. No. That says it all. The state is a fraud. We have been duped."

Who is he criticizing, the state or its citizens? It can't be the former for it can't be criticized for what it cannot do.

If the Department of Defense cannot defend, it should be renamed the Department of Cannot Do.

[Mikee]

It used to be called the Department of War. Renaming it that might give the enemies of the United States pause...

[Jonathan]

I just did a Google image search and found this photo:

Notice that the background has been hastily removed. But why? What are they trying to hide?!!!

If you look closely at the jaggy edges of the cutout (the jaggy edges look like the type of shoddy automated imaging technology that aliens are known to use), you can see warm gray remnant pixels of what was the original background. They're the same exact color of gray that interiors of alien ships have been said to have in every abduction case that has ever been reported!!!

Now look at the eyes. They're flat/matte. They have no highlights or other reflections. They're not human!!! When the aliens cut out the ship's interior in the background, in their haste they forgot to give the eyes human characteristics!

And look at the alien symbols/lettering on the tie!

Man, they really screwed up on this image and gave themselves away!

J

[Brant Gaede]

I just did a Google image search and found this photo:

Notice that the background has been hastily removed. But why? What are they trying to hide?!!!

If you look closely at the jaggy edges of the cutout (the jaggy edges look like the type of shoddy automated imaging technology that aliens are known to use), you can see warm gray remnant pixels of what was the original background. They're the same exact color of gray that interiors of alien ships have been said to have in every abduction case that has ever been reported!!!

Now look at the eyes. They're flat/matte. They have no highlights or other reflections. They're not human!!! When the aliens cut out the ship's interior in the background, in their haste they forgot to give the eyes human characteristics!

And look at the alien symbols/lettering on the tie!

Man, they really screwed up on this image and gave themselves away!

J

He can marry my daughter!

--Brant

[Mikee]

Sorry you got so much flak from some of the OL denizens citizens.

Believe me, as bad as it is when you're wrong, it's much worse when you're right.

A great example is the amount of flak that I'm getting for being right on this thread!

BTW, an apology is hard to miss if you say "I apologize" i.e. for the off color remarks made in the heat of anger. I intend to apologize to Jonathon for characterizing him as "ugly inside", hopefully after he apologizes to you for his shitbag or whatever remarks.

Why would I apologize? I'm giving Vulnerable Dean exactly what he wants! He's trolling. He craves the reactions that he's getting. He wants to shock, and to be cruel and vulgar. I wouldn't be surprised if he ramps it up even further in the future, and finds a way to be an even bigger douchebag in pissing on victims of atrocities, just to get his next fix.

It'll be fun to see if you have a limit in putting up with it.

Whatever it is that allows him to create paintings with the extraordinary detail and beauty that he is capable of may predispose him to intolerance in other circumstances. I think he would like to remake OL in his own image....

Heh. You're not thinking clearly. You're reacting purely emotionally. My history on OL and elsewhere is that of opposing gurus who want to tell everyone what they should think and like.

If you want to believe in fairies or leprechauns or manbearpig or alien abductions, go for it. I'll probably laugh at you for it, but knock yourself out. If you want to entertain nonsense theories and make a fool of yourself, have a ball. But, if, in doing so, you want to piss on victims of atrocities, I'm going to tell you in no uncertain terms that it's time for you to rein in the crazy. And that maybe it's time to get some professional help. Same with killing kittens and puppies for the fun of it. So please stop with the lame attempts at spin. Stop trying to pretend that this is about my wanting to have control over everyone. Start focusing on the behavior of your friend, rather than excusing it, overlooking it, and trying to deflect recognition of the cause to elsewhere.

He does have a temper but he doesn't try to be cruel, I don't see that in him at all.

You're complaining about cruelty while coddling Vulnerable Dean and trying to protect him from criticism of his cruelty? It sounds to be a lot like what Rand said about "psychologizing": "...excusing specific individuals on the grounds of their psychological problems." Is that what's going on here? That's what it sounds like.

J

You are seriously mistaken if you think that I think Dean is "vulnerable" or has psychological problems. Dean processes information differently that you do, you would be well advised to understand this if you seriously want to understand the world the way it is rather than the fantasy you have inside your head where Jonathon is the center of the universe. Dean is definitely not trying to be cruel, that would be totally irrelevant to him and pointless. You are the 'guru' who is intolerant of every view that differs from your own, I've seen it repeatedly, I've seen your attempts to embarrass, discredit, anger others through insults and mis-characterizations over and over which is why I don't read you very often. You have made yourself an expert at bullying people and making them angry. This worked with Dean, he hasn't spent any mental energy practicing these tactics. He really terrible at it obviously missing the mark by a large margin to his own embarrassment. But he recognized this an apologized for it. I have not been offended by any of Deans hypothetical remarks or his defending of them. He gives me pause for thought on a subject I had lost interest in. I think his conclusions are a far overreach but I don't fault him for reaching and understand the motivation: our own government does despicable things in secret, conspires against the citizens of this country in a thousands ways, steals our wealth, attempts to micromanage our lives, treats us like cattle, sends our children off to wars they have no intention of winning and lies continuously about all of it. Consider Dean a canary in the mine. I personally don't want to hear he's stopped singing.

[deanwins]

Jonathan & Brant,

sarcasm: I was in the WTC 7 stairwell when it was blown apart by explosives minutes before the building was demolished! Above is the photographic evidence! You guys offended me so much!

Post #79 was my last post in this debate, of which is yet to be debunked. It uses high school physics to prove that World Trade Center building 7 was demolished using a controlled demolition.

[Brant Gaede]

But you can marry my daughter--if I had one.

Since you used only high school physics your conclusion must be now widely accepted.

Bringing technical arguments to a non-technical forum in support of a generalized position on conspiracies--it can only be for that for we cannot effectively agree or disagree--at least I can't--with your "high school physics"--regarding a building collapse--is a very questionable undertaking no matter how innocent you are because of any psycho-epistemological eccentricities or scientific ignorance, for, you see, science doesn't "prove" anything, scientists merely come up with a range of probability with what is seemingly absolutely true the most likely to be reality congruent in all respects, usually out of the bare-boned simplicity of the propositional statement--something like, "water is wet."

--Brant

[Mikee]

William has proven he can very graciously give an apology if he changes his mind or comes to a different understand of another pov. Though we disagree on many things I think William is a class act. He does have a temper but he doesn't try to be cruel, I don't see that in him at all. I think most of OL represents the top 1% of humanity, even with the wildly different opinions about things.

...

I probably pissed off both Jonathon and William by talking about them publicly but not directly to them. Oh well.

Thanks for the kind and thoughtful words about me, Mike. I think I am less of a jerk now then when I first posted to Objectivish boards (oh my, can it be) nine years ago. and probably a lot less funny, less entertaining.

I can't speak for Jonathan, but I do know that on at least one subject we have deeply differing views (climate argy bargy). I am fine with his rhetorical upper-range, though it may break delicate glass. I'm not ready to conclude he means harm, though. I don't think he has an ugly heart, but a passionate one, a principled one. I can't condemn every angry outburst without fettering my own.

Your words of analysis and your general conclusions are also welcome. I do hope Dean reads and responds, and can entertain objections to his reasoning. I am disappointed that he skipped my last comments entirely, but he doesn't owe me anything.

Please don't think I carry any 'pissed-offedness' forward from our encounters here. I forgive almost anyone their tone and tartness if the core of their arguments is sound.

Thank you William. We all have views that are our own that are literally impossible to "prove". Everyone's internal and external environment and experience is different. We don't experience words, language the same way, we process information through different filters. Even with the admonition to "check premises" when the going gets tough we abandon ship: too many nuances. I hope to always have a cordial relationship with you William from now on. Given the state of the world and the difficulty in being optimistic about the near future I will endeavor to at least maintain cordial relationships with those who share my basic views to a very large degree even if not 100%. Individualism, liberty, reason, love of life, love of our mind and the freedom to use it to our own ends while respecting our fellows. I will maintain civility regardless of the disagreement. I will defend my friends but in a civil manner.

[Mikee]

Post #79 was my last post in this debate, of which is yet to be debunked. It uses high school physics to prove that World Trade Center building 7 was demolished using a controlled demolition.

As interesting as the evidence is there is not enough information to prove the conclusion. There are unknowns, the evidence is circumstantial. We have to look elsewhere, in my case experience with people over the last 66 years, some if it quite bad, much good. It tells me that a conspiracy of this complexity would be impossible to pull off. It would require too many people in positions of power and control who cooperated with each other (not a characteristic of psychopaths) to pull off this magnitude of evil. I can't disprove your hypothesis through physical evidence, there are missing variables and I don't have the technical knowledge and expertise. You would have to provide clear evidence of motive and gain that requires an evil of this magnitude. It would have to be well planned and secret. No leaks. I don't think government agents are smart enough to pull it off.

I visited Manhattan in the summer of 2002. We went to the site of the WTC. It amazed me how large and deep the hole in the ground was, perhaps 3-4 stories. I imagine the underground structure of the buildings, including building 7, were interconnected. If this underground structure were massively damaged by the collapse of #1 and #2 could this have led to the sudden structural failure of #7 in a way not described by NIST? Perhaps their model is wrong, perhaps purposely. I could see a purpose for being deceptive with building engineering details it they have revealed a design weakness that could result in similar buildings becoming easy targets.

[Jonathan]

You are seriously mistaken if you think that I think Dean is "vulnerable" or has psychological problems.

Um, you're the one who complained on this thread that in criticizing Dean I was picking on vulnerable people. Remember?!!!

Dean processes information differently that you do...

Yes, on this thread he's been processing information illogically and irrationally.

...you would be well advised to understand this if you seriously want to understand the world the way it is rather than the fantasy you have inside your head where Jonathon is the center of the universe.

I have no such fantasy. That's just more if your unimaginative spin doctoring.

Dean is definitely not trying to be cruel, that would be totally irrelevant to him and pointless.

Are you saying that you and he are so socially backward that you don't understand the concept of cruelty and that you're incapable of recognizing it in yourselves? It sounds to me as if you're unknowingly describing, excusing and defending some type of severe neurosis or psychosis. You sound as if you're describing some sort of robot whose program code you've read, and that you can therefore vouch that the program doesn't include the ability to be cruel.

You are the 'guru' who is intolerant of every view that differs from your own, I've seen it repeatedly, I've seen your attempts to embarrass, discredit, anger others through insults and mis-characterizations over and over which is why I don't read you very often. You have made yourself an expert at bullying people and making them angry.

The link that you provided doesn't go to any comments of mine.

I have not been offended by any of Deans hypothetical remarks or his defending of them.

Oh, well if YOU haven't been offended by something, then it's not offensive! Heh. And you accuse me of thinking that I'm the "center of the universe"?

He gives me pause for thought on a subject I had lost interest in. I think his conclusions are a far overreach but I don't fault him for reaching and understand the motivation: our own government does despicable things in secret, conspires against the citizens of this country in a thousands ways, steals our wealth, attempts to micromanage our lives, treats us like cattle, sends our children off to wars they have no intention of winning and lies continuously about all of it.

That's an illogical motivation. Beginning with the desire to blame and condemn government, and then twisting and distorting the facts for the purpose of making them fit the desired outcome -- and just making up stupid shit and pissing on victims of non-governmental aggression -- is irrational, and it's very conterproductive: it makes government look very calm and reasonable in comparison, it makes people suspicious of the sanity of even those who are legitimately critical of government, it makes it easy for defenders of illegitimate government to smear the mindsets of critics of government.

J

[Mikee]

You are seriously mistaken if you think that I think Dean is "vulnerable" or has psychological problems.

Um, you're the one who complained on this thread that in criticizing Dean I was picking on vulnerable people. Remember?!!!

Dean processes information differently that you do...

Yes, on this thread he's been processing information illogically and irrationally.

...you would be well advised to understand this if you seriously want to understand the world the way it is rather than the fantasy you have inside your head where Jonathon is the center of the universe.

I have no such fantasy. That's just more if your unimaginative spin doctoring.

Dean is definitely not trying to be cruel, that would be totally irrelevant to him and pointless.

Are you saying that you and he are so socially backward that you don't understand the concept of cruelty and that you're incapable of recognizing it in yourselves? It sounds to me as if you're unknowingly describing, excusing and defending some type of severe neurosis or psychosis. You sound as if you're describing some sort of robot whose program code you've read, and that you can therefore vouch that the program doesn't include the ability to be cruel.

You are the 'guru' who is intolerant of every view that differs from your own, I've seen it repeatedly, I've seen your attempts to embarrass, discredit, anger others through insults and mis-characterizations over and over which is why I don't read you very often. You have made yourself an expert at bullying people and making them angry.

The link that you provided doesn't go to any comments of mine.

I have not been offended by any of Deans hypothetical remarks or his defending of them.

Oh, well if YOU haven't been offended by something, then it's not offensive! Heh. And you accuse me of thinking that I'm the "center of the universe"?

He gives me pause for thought on a subject I had lost interest in. I think his conclusions are a far overreach but I don't fault him for reaching and understand the motivation: our own government does despicable things in secret, conspires against the citizens of this country in a thousands ways, steals our wealth, attempts to micromanage our lives, treats us like cattle, sends our children off to wars they have no intention of winning and lies continuously about all of it.

That's an illogical motivation. Beginning with the desire to blame and condemn government, and then twisting and distorting the facts for the purpose of making them fit the desired outcome -- and just making up stupid shit and pissing on victims of non-governmental aggression -- is irrational, and it's very conterproductive: it makes government look very calm and reasonable in comparison, it makes people suspicious of the sanity of even those who are legitimately critical of government, it makes it easy for defenders of illegitimate government to smear the mindsets of critics of government.

J

I meant vulnerable from the point of view of dealing emotionally with people purposely baiting and insulting him. To his credit he's not practiced in your kind of bullying tactics. Of course, you knew perfectly well what I meant. In another setting Dean would be picking his teeth with shards of your bones after having eaten the marrow. So, no, not vulnerable in other respects.

Dean has been far more rational and logical in this thread than you have. That's really funny that you would suggest otherwise.

So, you're not the center of the universe. I'm surprised to hear it, you must be crushed.

The link goes to an article you might be interested in reading as it describes what I think seems to motivate you sometimes. Oops, did I just psychologize? Oh, darn.

For there to be cruelty there has to be intent and an intended victim. You have neither. There are no victims on this website from any of the events, and Dean's premise is that the Boston Marathon bombing was a hoax (I don't believe he's arguing that anymore). From his point of view there are no living victims, this is a discussion site, he's arguing a hypothetical and defending his arguments. You're ascribing "cruelty" to him is pure fabrication trying to shut him up and drive him off the site. Or are you trying to 'protect' the children on the board? You're not turning into a liberal social engineer are you? Oh, you are offended? And your feelings reign supreme, gee I thought you weren't the center of the universe?

I'm such a dullard I appreciate wildly speculative ideas because it forces me to try to think creatively. Or, other people make me think all the time. Unless some dullard manages to shut them up.

[Jonathan]

I meant vulnerable from the point of view of dealing emotionally with people purposely baiting and insulting him. To his credit he's not practiced in your kind of bullying tactics. Of course, you knew perfectly well what I meant.

No, I didn't know what you meant, and YOU don't seem to know what you meant. You seem to want to believe that your darling Dean is an invincible hero and at the same time a delicate little victim who needs your incompetent protection.

In another setting Dean would be picking his teeth with shards of your bones after having eaten the marrow.

The only setting in which that would be true is one in which I were a bombing victim. In that setting I could indeed see ghoulish Dean literally picking his teeth with shards of my bones. And I could see him doing so coldly, or "emotionally emptily" (to borrow your term once again), or perhaps even cheerily while making jokes about blow jobs and insanely explaining that he had convinced himself that I was just an actor or a mannequin.

Dean has been far more rational and logical in this thread than you have. That's really funny that you would suggest otherwise.

You appear to be confusing style with substance. Dean is just being cold and emotionally blank, which you seem to take to be the style of rationality. That's not the way that it works. Logic and rationality are not a style or a pose, but a specific method of cognition. Dean is not following that method. He is producing non sequiturs. Your own comments on his "bizarre" positions whose "plausibility is zero" are admissions of the illogic and irrationality of his statements.

So, you're not the center of the universe. I'm surprised to hear it, you must be crushed.

Dean appears to be the center of your universe. Why else would you be so devastated by others criticizing his nutty ideas and his cruelty? I mean, seriously, WTF? Are you in love with him? Your contradictory views are that Dean is being super fucking logical, yet he's ending up with conclusions whose plausibility are zero, he's an intellectual giant, yet he needs the bumbling assistance of a dullard like you against his critics, he's tough as nails and will eat my bone marrow, yet he's vulnerable to being "bullied" about his callousness. You've got some really fucked up loyalties and extremely cluttered thinking going on there.

The link goes to an article you might be interested in reading as it describes what I think seems to motivate you sometimes. Oops, did I just psychologize? Oh, darn.

You didn't psychologize so much as project. You're accusing me of social metaphysics while making darling Dean the center of your universe and rating his logic as superb while at the same time rating it as an absolute failure. Dude, you should quit while your behind. Stop digging the hole that you're in. Stop scoring own-goals.

For there to be cruelty there has to be intent and an intended victim.

The idea here isn't to just make shit up that you want to believe. Intent is not relevant. Cruelty is "callous indifference to pain and suffering," regardless of whether or not the person practicing the cruelty intended to be cruel or not.

You have neither. There are no victims on this website from any of the events, and Dean's premise is that the Boston Marathon bombing was a hoax (I don't believe he's arguing that anymore).

There doesn't have to be a victim on this website for Dean's statements to be callously indifferent to pain and suffering. If Dean were to beat kittens to death (kittens who are not on this website), not because he intended to be cruel to them but because he just enjoyed exploring what happens to kittens when they're beaten, or because he insanely believed that they were not real or that they were evil government actors who morally deserved to be beaten, his actions would still be callously indifferent to pain and suffering. See, being grossly illogical in one's judgments, or being coldly insane, doesn't make one's cruelty any less cruel, but in fact makes it more so.

From his point of view there are no living victims, this is a discussion site, he's arguing a hypothetical and defending his arguments.

His personal point of view is irrelevant. Reality is the only relevant point if view. Saying, "But he's coming from the perspective of being illogical, having zero plausibility, and refusing to believe reality" is not a rational or effective defense against the argument that he is being cruel/callous.

Anyway, no, he's not defending his "arguments." He's not offering actual arguments. He's making illogical assertions, declaring arbitrary expectations about what he whimsically thinks should be in the images from a position of ignorance, he's making predetermined conclusions, and willfully ignoring reality, and all because he wants to blame every evil in the world on government.

You're ascribing "cruelty" to him is pure fabrication trying to shut him up and drive him off the site.

You're incompetent at divining motives. I used the word "cruelty" because it applies to Dean's comments in reality (as opposed to the arbitrary meaning and criteria that you attach to the word for the purpose of exempting your darling Dean from reality).

I'm such a dullard I appreciate wildly speculative ideas because it forces me to try to think creatively. Or, other people make me think all the time. Unless some dullard manages to shut them up.

Yes, you are a dullard, especially when it comes to spin. You keep thinking that you're going to fool people into believing that I'm opposing imagination, creativity and speculation by opposing ghoulish cruelty. You're laughably bad at it, yet you keep on trying it over and over again. Dullard indeed.

J

[Mikee]

I meant vulnerable from the point of view of dealing emotionally with people purposely baiting and insulting him. To his credit he's not practiced in your kind of bullying tactics. Of course, you knew perfectly well what I meant.

No, I didn't know what you meant, and YOU don't seem to know what you meant. You seem to want to believe that your darling Dean is an invincible hero and at the same time a delicate little victim who needs your incompetent protection.

In another setting Dean would be picking his teeth with shards of your bones after having eaten the marrow.

The only setting in which that would be true is one in which I were a bombing victim. In that setting I could indeed see ghoulish Dean literally picking his teeth with shards of my bones. And I could see him doing so coldly, or "emotionally emptily" (to borrow your term once again), or perhaps even cheerily while making jokes about blow jobs and insanely explaining that he had convinced himself that I was just an actor or a mannequin.

Dean has been far more rational and logical in this thread than you have. That's really funny that you would suggest otherwise.

You appear to be confusing style with substance. Dean is just being cold and emotionally blank, which you seem to take to be the style of rationality. That's not the way that it works. Logic and rationality are not a style or a pose, but a specific method of cognition. Dean is not following that method. He is producing non sequiturs. Your own comments on his "bizarre" positions whose "plausibility is zero" are admissions of the illogic and irrationality of his statements.

So, you're not the center of the universe. I'm surprised to hear it, you must be crushed.

Dean appears to be the center of your universe. Why else would you be so devastated by others criticizing his nutty ideas and his cruelty? I mean, seriously, WTF? Are you in love with him? Your contradictory views are that Dean is being super fucking logical, yet he's ending up with conclusions whose plausibility are zero, he's an intellectual giant, yet he needs the bumbling assistance of a dullard like you against his critics, he's tough as nails and will eat my bone marrow, yet he's vulnerable to being "bullied" about his callousness. You've got some really fucked up loyalties and extremely cluttered thinking going on there.

The link goes to an article you might be interested in reading as it describes what I think seems to motivate you sometimes. Oops, did I just psychologize? Oh, darn.

You didn't psychologize so much as project. You're accusing me of social metaphysics while making darling Dean the center of your universe and rating his logic as superb while at the same time rating it as an absolute failure. Dude, you should quit while your behind. Stop digging the hole that you're in. Stop scoring own-goals.

For there to be cruelty there has to be intent and an intended victim.

The idea here isn't to just make shit up that you want to believe. Intent is not relevant. Cruelty is "callous indifference to pain and suffering," regardless of whether or not the person practicing the cruelty intended to be cruel or not.

You have neither. There are no victims on this website from any of the events, and Dean's premise is that the Boston Marathon bombing was a hoax (I don't believe he's arguing that anymore).

There doesn't have to be a victim on this website for Dean's statements to be callously indifferent to pain and suffering. If Dean were to beat kittens to death (kittens who are not on this website), not because he intended to be cruel to them but because he just enjoyed exploring what happens to kittens when they're beaten, or because he insanely believed that they were not real or that they were evil government actors who morally deserved to be beaten, his actions would still be callously indifferent to pain and suffering. See, being grossly illogical in one's judgments, or being coldly insane, doesn't make one's cruelty any less cruel, but in fact makes it more so.

From his point of view there are no living victims, this is a discussion site, he's arguing a hypothetical and defending his arguments.

His personal point of view is irrelevant. Reality is the only relevant point if view. Saying, "But he's coming from the perspective of being illogical, having zero plausibility, and refusing to believe reality" is not a rational or effective defense against the argument that he is being cruel/callous.

Anyway, no, he's not defending his "arguments." He's not offering actual arguments. He's making illogical assertions, declaring arbitrary expectations about what he whimsically thinks should be in the images from a position of ignorance, he's making predetermined conclusions, and willfully ignoring reality, and all because he wants to blame every evil in the world on government.

You're ascribing "cruelty" to him is pure fabrication trying to shut him up and drive him off the site.

You're incompetent at divining motives. I used the word "cruelty" because it applies to Dean's comments in reality (as opposed to the arbitrary meaning and criteria that you attach to the word for the purpose of exempting your darling Dean from reality).

I'm such a dullard I appreciate wildly speculative ideas because it forces me to try to think creatively. Or, other people make me think all the time. Unless some dullard manages to shut them up.

Yes, you are a dullard, especially when it comes to spin. You keep thinking that you're going to fool people into believing that I'm opposing imagination, creativity and speculation by opposing ghoulish cruelty. You're laughably bad at it, yet you keep on trying it over and over again. Dullard indeed.

J

More lies, smears and gratuitous insults. You are a waste of time.

[Jonathan]

Yeah. Go have a good cry on Dean's shoulder. Snuggle up and have him whisper sweet nutty conspiracy theories in your ear, and listen in adoration as he pisses on victims of atrocities so that you can jump start your dullard "imagination." That'll cheer you up and make you feel like you're being "creative" and "intelligent."

J

[Mikee]

Yeah. Go have a good cry on Dean's shoulder. Snuggle up and have him whisper sweet nutty conspiracy theories in your ear, and listen in adoration as he pisses on victims of atrocities so that you can jump start your dullard "imagination." That'll cheer you up and make you feel like you're being "creative" and "intelligent."

J

Oh! Do look at you go on. Did you know your life is a work of art? Every moment another brush stroke.

[Brant Gaede]

For there to be cruelty there has to be intent and an intended victim. You have neither. There are no victims on this website from any of the events, and Dean's premise is that the Boston Marathon bombing was a hoax (I don't believe he's arguing that anymore). From his point of view there are no living victims, this is a discussion site, he's arguing a hypothetical and defending his arguments. You're ascribing "cruelty" to him is pure fabrication trying to shut him up and drive him off the site. Or are you trying to 'protect' the children on the board? You're not turning into a liberal social engineer are you? Oh, you are offended? And your feelings reign supreme, gee I thought you weren't the center of the universe?

I'm kinda victimized--I suppose, but don't think about me being a victim very much--of those horrible photos Dean put up though I can't figure if that should count for this discussion. As for any other victims or non-victims here of these events, I don't see any hands going up claiming one or the other. There is the matter, however, of all the unsigned in non-posting readers who come here (hoping to read about my sexual exploits?).

Jonathan seems to be being criticized for style and Dean for substance all mixed in with back and forth ad hominem. But if that ad h. is scrapped off we are left with Dean's substance which isn't substantial and strikes me as a little looney. Some may think substantially looney for substantial reasons. I'd go with substantially looney for insubstantial reasons if I had to choose between those two, which I don't.

I don't think anyone is trying to drive Dean off this site. I'm looking forward to what's his next subject of interest.

I am interested in how Jonathan manages to come out on top of these arguments time and again in spite of his frequent bad manners. He doesn't use the "marshmallow glove" over a "rusty claw" (to invoke Rand). It's just bare-knuckling. If I ran this joint I'd tell him to knock off some of it, but the site would have been shut down years ago. The reins are loose unless you kick one or two or three buttons MSK has tattooed on his backside. In the last eight years I've pissed him off a few times that I discerned (who knows about me and the undiscerned?--He Does!). Unfortunately, I can't remember which buttons or button did that trick, so every time I post on OL it's with a sense of trepidation and dread. (Can't you tell?)

--Brant

coward of the forum

[Mikee]

For there to be cruelty there has to be intent and an intended victim. You have neither. There are no victims on this website from any of the events, and Dean's premise is that the Boston Marathon bombing was a hoax (I don't believe he's arguing that anymore). From his point of view there are no living victims, this is a discussion site, he's arguing a hypothetical and defending his arguments. You're ascribing "cruelty" to him is pure fabrication trying to shut him up and drive him off the site. Or are you trying to 'protect' the children on the board? You're not turning into a liberal social engineer are you? Oh, you are offended? And your feelings reign supreme, gee I thought you weren't the center of the universe?

I'm kinda victimized--I suppose, but don't think about me being a victim very much--of those horrible photos Dean put up though I can't figure if that should count for this discussion. As for any other victims or non-victims here of these events, I don't see any hands going up claiming one or the other. There is the matter, however, of all the unsigned in non-posting readers who come here (hoping to read about my sexual exploits?).

Jonathan seems to be being criticized for style and Dean for substance all mixed in with back and forth ad hominem. But if that ad h. is scrapped off we are left with Dean's substance which isn't substantial and strikes me as a little looney. Some may think substantially looney for substantial reasons. I'd go with substantially looney for insubstantial reasons if I had to choose between those two, which I don't.

I don't think anyone is trying to drive Dean off this site. I'm looking forward to what's his next subject of interest.

I am interested in how Jonathan manages to come out on top of these arguments time and again in spite of his frequent bad manners. He doesn't use the "marshmallow glove" over a "rusty claw" (to invoke Rand). It's just bare-knuckling. If I ran this joint I'd tell him to knock off some of it, but the site would have been shut down years ago. The reins are loose unless you kick one or two or three buttons MSK has tattooed on his backside. In the last eight years I've pissed him off a few times that I discerned (who knows about me and the undiscerned?--He Does!). Unfortunately, I can't remember which buttons or button did that trick, so every time I post on OL it's with a sense of trepidation and dread. (Can't you tell?)

--Brant

coward of the forum

Jonathon is obsessive and won't give an inch and has a twelve hour time delay. It just becomes too tedious. Not like bare knuckling, more like a no time limit dance contest. He makes me understand why people wait until some artists die until buying their work. Interesting, his obsessiveness explains the extraordinary detail of his painting. I'm tired of people being baited and then banned or driven off the site. It's unnecessary and uncivil. I don't agree with Dean but I like to hear what he has to say. His research is better than mine. I don't agree with his conclusions but I also don't think the powers that be in our govt are straight with us about anything, ever. Dean is like the canary in the coal mine (I think I already said that). I also like Dean, he grew up on these forums and is very bright. He's married now and has a child I believe. I hope he gets uber rich while I'm still alive and I can say "Hey, I knew that guy!"

You'll never get banned Brant, you're loved by too many people. Let'er rip!

[Brant Gaede]

No one can ban you from OL, Mike e, except the owner--and I can guarantee you he won't (unless you say something to me that isn't nicey, nicey, nicey).

--Brant

love?--I don't need no stinkin' love!--I need stinkin' money!

oh, well, Ayn Rand would hate me; I can take comfort in that ("But I don't think of you" and "I don't hate anybody"--sigh)

love is a bunch of feel-good mush; hate has that nice hard edge and is very sexy like NASCAR driving at 200mph (what woman could resist every inch of my that love hate --uh, whatever?)

next time you tell me to "Let'er rip!" Think Twice!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm tired of people being baited and then banned or driven off the site.

Mike,

Since all of you are good people who have posted together for years, I'm letting you all work this disagreement out. If this were going on with newbies, I would have stopped it.

But, I would appreciate you doing a little introspecting and answer the following honestly.

Would you like it if I banned Jonathan?

Would that please you?

I won't do that, but think about your inner reaction. If you felt, "Yes!", when you read it, then I, in your shoes, would check your fairness premise and accept your own partisanship.

btw - Nothing wrong with that. Heh. I have seen you bait people at times. I've even seen you come out of the blue and call someone the foulest of names without provocation because you disagree with his or her post. I've seen that several times and if I put in the time looking it up, I can quote a string of your posts where you do just that.

So are you really "tired of people being baited and then banned or driven off the site," meaning all people, or do you think some people--the ones you disapprove of--should be "baited and then banned or driven off the site"?

And how about some people--like Keer whose absence you constantly complain about--just leaving on their own because they are control freaks and I don't let them play their control games here? He's not banned. He stays away because he wants to.

Why doesn't a dude like that generate an audience for his own stuff? He has a blog and Facebook account last I heard. Both are just sitting there dying, monuments to nobody showing up. Not even you show up. (Think about that one.)

I know why he can't generate an audience, not even of stupid people, much less intelligent.

Do you?

I can apply that same standard to the others no longer on OL whose absence you sometimes complain about. Where are they now? Why don't they have an audience of their own? Why do I have to provide the audience they can't just to please you?

So be tired.

My top value on OL is the health of this forum, not your personal likes and dislikes of different people. If you want more excitement, try running a forum of your own and see what happens. It's a barrel of laughs.

All that said, I like you. I think you're a good person whom I am honored to know.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

About Jonathan: the man has a logical, knowledgeable, incisive mind plus frequent bad manners for anything that seemingly goes against that grain. Thus his obsessiveness.

When it comes to esthetics the only possible objectification is esthetic description, not (moral) prescription and proscription. Otherwise you end up with esthetic fascism and, boy, wait until that gets mixed up with politics (Soviet and Nazi Man)!

The David is a statue of an incredibly beautiful naked young man, only then a shepherd, wrapped up in his moral destiny as a warrior and future king--as near a perfect work of art as could be made recognized immediately as a masterpiece for the ages. That Michelangelo created it and people loved and appreciated it said as much about them as it did about the statue but nothing about what it should be or ought to have been qua moral objective suasion, but that didn't stop Mary Ann Sures in The Objectivist from complaining about the worry depicted in his brow. She would have destroyed the humanity depicted and a masterpiece qua masterpiece and turned it into Renaissance artistic quiche divorced from real human appreciation qua humanity. (It's technically much harder to depict a woman in marble because of great subtlety in form and psychology needed and the more completeness of being for a female than the male--so much more needs to be done.)

--Brant