Comment: Man, this multiple posts thing... ugh.

(See in situ)

In post: .
In reply to comment: Response VI to Eric Hoffer (see in situ)

Man, this multiple posts thing... ugh.

So let me get this straight. On the one hand you say that because I am "forcibly ignorant of physics and materials science "(LOL)....on the other hand you admit the government may "have paid them to do it".

Let me reaffirm the forceful ignorance bit. But yes, I can conceive of someone in the government, say a CIA operative or a military guy on our side gave a briefcase full of cash to Osama Bin Laden and said, "Hey, get some of these guys to ram some planes into buildings will ya?" Do I think it's likely? Not really. I think they severely pissed them off with our foreign policy mucking around in their Holy Land.

But then you level a "bottom line": You said: " The planes took out the towers and WTC7 was pure gravy for them."


So...if I as an informed layman as well as of hundreds of the thousands of others... and thousands of other architects and engineers are "forcibly ignorant of physics and materials science" much more "forcibly ignorant" is a statement like this one?:

Uh... guy, at one point they thought the world was flat. That didn't make them right. If you want to play the, "A ton of people think I'm right!!" game with me, I'm obviously going to win as the VAST majority of architects, structural engineers, and demolitions experts disagree with you.

Does anybody see a problem with the circular reasoning of the above clause??

Yes, because it's not reasoning, it was a statement. Reasoning would've followed after the, "I believe x because, (insert reasoning here)" format.

Eric Hoffer