[ExI] trutherism: was RE: Social aim for Transhumanism: Better thinking about issues

samantha sjatkins at mac.com
Thu May 20 00:35:29 UTC 2010


Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:35 PM, samantha <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>   
>> It does not burn hot enough to melt
>>     
>
> Yes.
>
>   
>> or significantly weaken skyscraper  still.
>>     
>
> Wrong.  It does, it did, the columns deformed, the buildings came down.
>   
That is theory, not proven fact.
>   
>>  That is a fact.
>>     
>
> No, that is your overconfident misinformed notion .  The collapse of
> the towers and building seven, that is fact.
>
>   
Nope.  See melting point of steel.

>>  It has been proven
>>     
>
> Unsourced misinformed overconfidence.
>
>   
>> even in fires that burned much
>> longer for 24 hours.
>>     
>
> Building seven came down before the end of the day.  Historical empirical fact.
>
>   
It was not even hit by any plane so that is even more odd.

> My g*d, your not a "truther" are you Samantha?!!!
>
>   
I will not even discuss what my views are on the topic in a forum that 
is throwing such terms on pre-sliming of possible positions around.  The 
issue on all sides has been very well covered on the net.  It is not at 
all clear that the official story is believable at the end of a honest 
examination.   


>>  Steel does not become like warm butter at those temperatures.
>>     
>
> No, it becomes like hot steel: softer, weaker.
>   

Nope.  Not enough soon enough.  I note know proof for your contention 
either.

> You need to read the article, Samantha.
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.100-living-in-denial-why-sensible-people-reject-the-truth.html?full=true
>
>   
I do not read articles attempting to smear people more than examine 
particular evidence for and against.  From examining arguments about 
what likely happened my conclusion is that the buildings did not come 
down in my opinion as the result of the fires or the impact. 

> You're over -the-top unwarranted certitude is a prime symptom of the
> phenomenon the article addresses.
>
>   
I did not come to that opinion lightly.  I didn't not want to reach that 
conclusion and was not at all happy when I did.  

I would expect people that pride themselves on rationality would not be 
so easily impressed with some puff piece on a popular science site 
lumping various opinions many readers may not hold together and tarring 
them all with the same brush no matter what their individual merits.     

- samantha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100519/01c2a2d9/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list