I still say that these particular planes did exist and were just cover for the explosives.
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (29)
sorted by:
I quote: "Imagine you knew people who come back to life from being dead for 12 hours..." (and on) I guess you don't read what you write. Any reference to an imaginary situation is a hypothetical situation.
In epistemology, facts reign supreme. I am inclined to take someone's word for it, if they have no apparent "tells" or motives for dishonesty. If someone is known to be dishonest, I move any claims into the "maybe, I'll see" category. How do I know what they cannot know? That is asserting a negative, very hard to substantiate.
We agree on having experience with people who claim things were fake that they had no way of knowing were fake.
As someone trained in science and technology, I am inclined to give a lot of weight to any objective evidence, such as photographs. There was one video of one of the planes on its fatal run past intervening buildings, and hitting the Twin Towers. It had been deplored as "fake" because of the seeming dimensional mismatch of how distant the airplane was, relative to the buildings. One wingtip seemed to be in front of a building when it (seemingly) should have been behind. "Aha! Proof it was fake!" Well, it turned out that a very diligent anon plotted the alleged track of the airplane on a map of the buildings, along with building heights, and concluded that the video was factual. What was happening was the complete loss of monocular depth perception resulting from telephoto lenses, through the suppression of perspective. (I used to marvel at this, watching televised football games in the 1950s. Somehow the fans on the far side of the field seemed larger than the players in mid-field. For a telephoto lens at a distant target, everything in view was at the "same" focal ratio and thus at the same magnification. We EXPECT people who are truly farther away to be smaller. When they are not, we think they are larger.)
We are not far apart. I think I took your point mistakenly.
No need for aggression. As you noted at the end, we aren’t far apart, but even without that, no need.
“I guess you don't read what you write. Any reference to an imaginary situation is a hypothetical situation.”
Oh.
No, I read it, but that wasn’t a hypothetical situation.
As to your comments on epistemology, it doesn’t deal primarily in facts, but in the nature of facts, their presuppositions, validity, how they are known, and to what extent they can be applied.
We just got out of a presidency where a significant chunk of us think that the “Faux Biden” we just saw for 5+ years was faked, somehow, in spite of copious amounts of images and video.
You may have better lenses through which to evaluate faked footage and evidence of what precisely happened on 9/11, but someone else is going to evaluate what they know about it through the lenses they have, at which point you simply need to meet them where they’re at… is really the main gist of the point I was getting at, and it can’t always be done, which was where my example of the dead person coming back to life came in.
There are plenty of people who will not accept that, though I know it happened, and if they do, they will try and rationalize it to some mechanical, physical fluke.
It just is what it is.