Comment: Pro Hominem

(See in situ)

In post: I'm a Skeptic
In reply to comment: There is a lot in this (see in situ)

Pro Hominem

Of course I understand such frustration. Yet this excellent thread, which I thank you for instigating, is so far relatively uncluttered by purposeful misdirection and distracting antagonisms. I imagine your skeptical mind recognizes such contrived designs occur to marginalize rational discussion while exasperating honest inquiry. Sure there is at times merely drunken snippiness from impatient partitans who forget the function of decorum in the orderly expression of ideas. Still, until the disinfo agents of distortion arrive, this thread can serve as a forward link ( like a frequently asked questions page ) to any intelligent witness ready to consider the issue with an open mind.

I mean this without any hint of patronizing -- I respect your intelligence, and presume your sincerity; accordingly, I won't do-see-do with you over particulars of physical evidence, or even ostensibly alligned motivations of lap dog media, all of which realities often square with divergent explanations of ultimate facts and conclusions. Some scenarios are sinister, some are solely pernicious, unfortunate or stupid. But can we agree prejudices can effect the perceptions of both conventional and unconventional thinkers? ... And can we agree that such prejudices are subject to manipulation by persons with agendas to distort the discernment and discovery of truth?

I agree with the negative characterization of many so-called conspiracy theorists who give Truth a bad name. Yet I'm not bothered by these side bars because I recognize their enthusiasm is most often well meaning (and happily anti-state); and I suspect much of the most extreme ad hominem red herring taunts is the work of ( at least inspired by) psy-op provocateurs ( and some of those provocateurs acting independent of those behind the actual deeds of concerted bad acts and it's immediate aftermath).

For me the Pentagon event points inescapably to a sinister bottom line: The official account of 9/11 is prima facia false; therefore, the official “investigations” have really been cover-up operations. Thus, it will be the questions any skeptic will ask that proves high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who is responsible. What inferences must be drawn from that reality?

But now I see, that with a slight bit of investigation, the answers actually establish much more particular internal complicity than I expected could be proven by the evidence. I hope you and others haven't been put off by some of the sass here to avoid the links posted by Christopher Gadsden and Trapfive, for example. This was the first time I saw these compilations and I found them to be quite compelling and well presented.

Again, thank you for your forbearance and skepticism.

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewforum.php?f=16

Sisyphus Victorious

The man proved tougher than the stone.
A million and more uphill battles
built muscle, sinew and rage.
The rock, worn down to a missile,
forced skywards by triceps, deltoids
and adrenaline, struck,
and skittled indolent Olympians
from their hill.
The man remained
http://sites.google.com/site/skepticalpoetry/