9/11 - What convinced you?

[Muktar al-Portlandi]

Now, now, you just bring up good points the evidence supports. Shiva is an America hating film director who has helped make dozens of b rated straight to DVD films.

Wasn't one about some "tart?"

[Spartacus]

Why would he spend 30+ minutes flying all the way back to Washington when he could have hit Cincinnati in minutes? Now, I don't know why he chose to circle down as opposed to nosing over. But you're making this enormous logical leap that because he didn't, therefore he MUST have known that he wouldn't be shot down and therefore CONSPIRACY.

Sorry, but I'm only trying to establish the facts dispassionately and identify assumptions as assumptions rather than facts. It's you that keeps jumping to hysterically emotional declarations (see bolded section) of what my conclusions supposedly are, even though I have stated over and over again that for my overall conclusion to be valid, I am not required to come to valid conclusions about every individual event. But "Why Washington rather than Cincinnati?" Why not try being serious rather than stupidly facetious just to be argumentative? Jesus. Idiocy like that would get you booted out of Bushco AND Al Qaeda.

Jesus, discussing this with you is like arguing with a goldfish. Every time I have to restate the same things. Do we know the Pentagon was his primary target? I haven't seen anything to suggest that. So he goes lower looking for something like the White House, sees the Pentagon, and goes for it instead.

Once again you are trying to derail the discussion through deductionist sophistry. Of course we don't "know" that the Pentagon was his primary target, but it's size, symbolism, and the fact that it WAS the building he hit supports the contention that there is a higher probability of the Pentagon being the primary target than some other building or landmark. Please don't make me do this again, it's boring and tells me you're just dicking around.

Based on utterly nothing. So you think that even though they had control of Flight 77, they would land it and replace it with a completely different plane? And there would be no evidence of Flight 77 anywhere else? And then they would plant all the evidence at the Pentagon? That's plausible?

You are jumping to conclusions again. The fact is the plane became untraceable, as did they all, without a highjacking code punched in or a "Help, we're being hijacked" radioed by the crew. Fact. Was it the same plane that reappeared? Maybe, but one cannot say for sure. Could something else have happened? It can't be ignored. Now, are you going to start quibbling about the meaning of "plausible"?

Why the hell would they do that? it accomplishes absolutely nothing.

You don't know that. Could be technical issues. And it "accomplished" the attack on the Pentagon.

You can't have it both ways, Shiva. Either the turn was a steep, high-speed difficult maneuver, or it was a slow looping descent that the pilot made without fear of interception. Again, you're just throwing crap at the wall.

Once again, you're bashing a strawman. "... it was a slow looping descent that the pilot made without fear of interception." was, and is, not my characterization, it was gameboy's confused description.

Based on?

Please. What is fly-by-wire, other than remote control? The pilot/controller gives the machine instructions, the machine carries them out. Easy. How do you think cruise missiles hit their targets? Jesus.

20 pages into a thread where you've insulted all comers, you tell me to tone down the schoolyard taunts. You love playing the victim. "Why won't these racist dumbasses have a honest conversation with meeeeeeeeee?"

This is what I said - "After all, since you're obviously not trying to impress me and gameboy is already on board so no use trying to impress him, don't you think you should try to tone down the schoolyard taunts in an effort to impress the others that are on the fence? They're the jury and generally juries aren't impressed by bully-boy tactics."

I didn't TELL you to do anything. I suggested a different pattern of behavior that would be to your benefit. It's called advice. Take it or leave it as you wish but at least go the effort of understanding it.

Has it occurred to me? Of course. I can't know what was in each individual hijacker's head. But I haven't seen any evidence that could be explained by the official story followed by Bush seizing the opportunity to get his war on.

I wasn't asking you what was in each hijacker's head or jump to a conclusion. So, if the possibility of Bin Laden working for someone else occurred to you, did you dismiss it right away or did you think about it?

First they didn't participate, they were just mouth pieces. Now they didn't participate enough. smh. Why don't you ask them who actually did the testing then?

I never said they didn't "participate", now did I? Nor did I claim they didn't participate enough. I pointed out the weasel wording. You know why they're called weasel words? Because weasels use them.

Planting hundreds of DNA samples clean enough to fool all these professionals spread between two separate crash sites hundreds of miles apart? Yes, that is thoroughly unprecedented. And even back off your claim that they are being threatened or conspiring, you're accusing them of being staggeringly negligent at their jobs.

Huh? Dude, we're only talking about the Pentagon crash site. I don't know what other ****ing crash site you think we're talking about. You're really not paying attention, are you?

[Spartacus]

But that's not your contention, is it? Aren't you insisting that the round-a-bout flight path wasn't the quickest and most efficient?

I'm not "insisting" on anything other than the difference between universally acknowledged facts and baseless assertions, keeping in mind, of course, that just because assertions are baseless doesn't mean they aren't facts.

What I am asking is why, if the Pentagon was the target, did he not just fly straight into it? All sorts of possible explanations, including maybe he was aiming for a specific section of the Pentagon.

[Spartacus]

Anyway, as you point out, the Pentagon is very large. What it absolutely is not, is tall.
In fact, is is quite "short."
Approaching from the west, which he did, you pass over suburbs with much taller buildings. If you look at the altitude profile, it would be very, very difficult to see the Pentagon until you were very nearly over it. In fact, probably not possible.

And yet Illum's map makes it clear he starts his descending turn LONG before he is over, or even very nearly over, the Pentagon. In other words, this is BS.

(More evidence that it wasn't an electronic/autopilot/remote control attack by the way. Those use gps, ground mapping and a host of very advanced navigation techniques, and they don't make unnecessary turns).

All of which could have been used, as well as computer programs and homing beacons. And as for the turn being "unnecessary?", well we're just assuming that. It may well have been necessary, but it certainly wasn't necessary to hit the Pentagon.

What he did, is he flew far enough east until he saw it, finally being in a line of sight where the much taller buildings n the western suburbs were no longer obscuring it.
At that point it was too late to simply dive at it. He would have overshot, even if he knew what he was doing, which he didn't based on the FDR data-the thing is flown very sloppily.

You don't know that until you verify the largest office building in the world would be camouflaged from the air by "tall buildings".

Anyway, to solve the "can't get there from here problem," he turned right, reacquired it in the turn, then lowered the nose and rammed the thrust levers forward.

Huh? It's only your assertion that it's a "problem".

What you keep posting are false premises based on a lack of knowledge with the area, the physics involved, and the techniques required, and that's the problem.

Yawn. Here's the old "what aviation school did YOU go to?" BS.

Pleasing you means educating you. But even that isn't possible, because it is not possible to get through your ill informed conclusions. You are too corrupted, and far too stubborn.
Your issue.

If educating me means teaching me stuff, you have done a fine job. I just don't think it's stuff you intended to teach.

[gameboy]

I've got to admit. I never quite know what general mistake in judgement you are going to make as you continue to reveal your fantasy.
They are always funny though.

1. "Biggest office building," is completely irrelevant. The Atlantic ocean is a darn big body of water.
You can't see it from West Virginia, but you don't have to be over the shore to see it.
Camouflaged is a really silly way of describing something blocking your line of site.
He flew the airplane east, actually, I think the nav system was programmed to fly to a certain point, that's how they work, until he saw the Pentagon, not too far west of it. He then turned the airplane to slam into it.

The can't get there from here issue is very significant, regardless of your view, and its one of your problems, not someone else s.

2. Of course he descended long before he was in the area. Do you know how long it takes to descend from 35000', 7000', 5000' when you really don't know what you're doing?

3. "Homing beacons," and "computer programs?" Lions and tigers and bears. Oh My!
Sure. evidently there is no limit to the amount of people that must have been involved in this as your speculations expand.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Sorry, but I'm only trying to establish the facts dispassionately and identify assumptions as assumptions rather than facts....
Why not try being serious rather than stupidly facetious just to be argumentative? Jesus. Idiocy like that would get you booted out of Bushco AND Al Qaeda.

You literally claimed you are trying to discuss "dispassionately" and then ended the paragraph with an insult. The same paragraph. The cognitive dissonance is staggering.

It's you that keeps jumping to hysterically emotional declarations (see bolded section) of what my conclusions supposedly are, even though I have stated over and over again that for my overall conclusion to be valid, I am not required to come to valid conclusions about every individual event.

But the utter lack of any plausible means of getting from Point A to C is the gaping hole in your conclusion. As I've said over and over again, there's nothing about the day of that can't be explained by the terrorists doing what they are accused of doing, and nothing about the post-9/11 period that can't be explained by Bush and his cronies exploiting a tragedy for their own purposes. You have made the enormous unfounded leap that because they benefited, they must have planned.

But "Why Washington rather than Cincinnati?"

Because that's where the high value targets are, like I said. If all he wanted to do was kill people, he could have hit any office tower in Cincinnati. They wanted to hit something big and recognizable, as you said. Which, to my mind, acts as a legitimate reason for him to take his time looping around rather than nosing over into an uncontrollable suicide dive.

You are jumping to conclusions again. The fact is the plane became untraceable, as did they all,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_175

At 08:47, the plane's transponder signal changed once, and a second time within a minute, and the aircraft began deviating from its assigned course.^[11][14] But, the air traffic controller in charge of the flight did not notice until minutes later at 08:51.^[2] Unlike Flight 11, which had turned its transponder off, Flight 175's flight data could still be properly monitored.^[14] Also, at 08:51, Flight 175 changed altitude. Over the next three minutes, the controller made five unsuccessful attempts to contact Flight 175, and worked to move other aircraft in the vicinity away from Flight 175.^[2]

without a highjacking code punched in or a "Help, we're being hijacked" radioed by the crew.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_93

The hijacking on Flight 93 began at 09:28.^[32] By this time, Flights 11 and 175 had already crashed into the World Trade Center and Flight 77 was within 9 minutes of striking the Pentagon. The hijackers on those flights had waited no more than 30 minutes to commandeer the aircraft, most likely striking after the seat-belt sign had been turned off and cabin service had begun.^[21] It is unknown why the hijackers on Flight 93 waited approximately 46 minutes to begin their assault. The flight suddenly dropped 685 feet (209 m) in half a minute.^[21] At 09:28:17, Captain Jason Dahl began shouting, "Mayday! Mayday! Mayday!" over the radio amidst sounds of violence.^[33] A Cleveland Air Traffic Controller replied, "Somebody call Cleveland?" but received no reply.^[21]
Thirty-five seconds after the first Mayday call, the crew made another transmission. Someone in the cockpit shouted, "Mayday! Get out of here! Get out of here!"

And look, a link to the radio call:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mayday1.ogg

Fact.

Nope.

Was it the same plane that reappeared? Maybe, but one cannot say for sure. Could something else have happened? It can't be ignored. Now, are you going to start quibbling about the meaning of "plausible"?

How ridiculously remote does the probability of some event have to be before you dismiss it? 1 in 100,000? 1 in 1,000,000? 1 in 10,000,000? The possibility that a plane disappeared off radar and was never seen again, happening at the same time they merge its path with another aircraft that subsequently struck the Pentagon, only no evidence of this latter aircraft was recovered while evidence of the former was planted in the wreckage? Where do you rate that?

You don't know that. Could be technical issues. And it "accomplished" the attack on the Pentagon.

Good thing they had a spare 757 in flight on standby for these "technical issues."

Once again, you're bashing a strawman. "... it was a slow looping descent that the pilot made without fear of interception." was, and is, not my characterization, it was gameboy's confused description.

The fact is that gameboy is claiming that all the pilot had to do was "aim" the plane at the Pentagon. But he didn't, he did a big descending turn when the easiest thing for him to do was point the nose of the plane at the Pentagon and fly straight in. There was NOTHING preventing him from doing so. The anomaly is not some question about whether he came in from the west or the north, the question is WHY did he make an unnecessary maneuver which could have risked his objective, ie. hitting the Pentagon?

You're arguing "ease"? Please. It would be much easier to **** up doing what he did rather than just aiming the plane at the building as gameboy said. It would also be faster, since he would be worried about being intercepted. Unless he wasn't.

Again, you back off a point and claim you never said it.

Please. What is fly-by-wire, other than remote control? The pilot/controller gives the machine instructions, the machine carries them out. Easy.

Because it's not "remote" for one thing. The "wire" in fly by wire is a big clue. The mechanics are connected by direct connections, not radio waves controlling them from offsite. For another, none of the planes involved in 9/11 had the true Fly-By-Wire systems installed.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...craft/b767.htm

Boeing's conservative approach was illustrated in the 1970s and 1980s when it decided not to include in its 767 more advanced systems such as fly-by-wire, fly-by-light, flat panel video displays, and advanced propulsion systems (Holtby, 1986). Even though the technology existed, Boeing did not believe it was mature enough for the 767. Boeing also used what Gansler defines as a design-to-cost constraint. After Boeing defines a program it evaluates cost before going into production. Its cost evaluations include trade offs of performance, technology, and manufacturing investments.

The 757 and 767 had electronically assisted controls, not on par with the digital fly-by-wire system that Boeing installed in the 777. The difference is what means you can't just take control of the aircraft, the pilots still have manual overrides they can employ. Even the 777 has them.

How do you think cruise missiles hit their targets? Jesus.

Cruise missile guidance systems aren't trying to jury-rig their system into an existing control setup without anyone noticing. Big difference.

I wasn't asking you what was in each hijacker's head or jump to a conclusion. So, if the possibility of Bin Laden working for someone else occurred to you, did you dismiss it right away or did you think about it?

I thought about it, read about it, found no evidence for it, and dismissed it accordingly.

Huh? Dude, we're only talking about the Pentagon crash site. I don't know what other ****ing crash site you think we're talking about. You're really not paying attention, are you?

Those same people worked on Flight 93's remains, which were partially processed at the AFIP lab in Maryland.
http://old.post-gazette.com/headline...ht931027p5.asp

[gameboy]

I don't read all of his posts, but since you quoted this one, I'll comment.

I flew the 757/757, (they under the same "type" rating, which means an individual certified in one is certified in the other), for 15 years.

I have flown the airplane I now fly, the 777 for four

I am extremely knowledgeable about their flight controls, as well as the flight controls of other airliners.

Though a complete red herring, it is one of the mythologists favorite BS lines.

Their isn't a plane in service anywhere whose autopilot cannot be disconnected, by any number of means. It is not only a certification regulation, there isn't a single human who would agree to fly it. Autopilots are turned on well after takeoff, and well before landing. Occasionally the autoland function is used, but only in very specific circumstances and with very significant restrictions. Most airlines are not certified for it. It takes a lot of training and a lot of maintenance. These two were.

There is nothing about the 757/767 flight controls that has anything to do with this.

Regarding the transponder operation, that would be the last thing one would do in such a situation. The thing was very likely manipulated by the hijackers, as they did in the other situations.

[Spartacus]

1. "Biggest office building," is completely irrelevant. The Atlantic ocean is a darn big body of water.
You can't see it from West Virginia, but you don't have to be over the shore to see it.

From 5000', you can see the Atlantic Ocean, like the Pentagon, in plenty of time to aim the plane straight at the shore. You're trying to say it's like "Oh my God, look down, it's the Atlantic Ocean! Where did that come from? It snuck up on me!" Pretty silly, wouldn't you say?

The can't get there from here issue is very significant, regardless of your view, and its one of your problems, not someone else s.

You're the one claiming it's a problem while providing no coherent explanation why. That makes it your problem.

2. Of course he descended long before he was in the area. Do you know how long it takes to descend from 35000', 7000', 5000' when you really don't know what you're doing?

Uh, 7 miles at 8 miles per minute = take a guess. That's the lower limit. Till you run out of gas and fall from the sky is the upper limit. Everything else is in between. So, what's your point?

3. "Homing beacons," and "computer programs?" Lions and tigers and bears. Oh My!
Sure. evidently there is no limit to the amount of people that must have been involved in this as your speculations expand.

There are millions of murderously crazy Americans to choose from. Just look at all the people that voted for Bush, McCain and Romney.

[Spartacus]

You literally claimed you are trying to discuss "dispassionately" and then ended the paragraph with an insult. The same paragraph. The cognitive dissonance is staggering.

It was a dispassionate statement of fact. If you think it's insulting, maybe you should consider changing your behavior.

But the utter lack of any plausible means of getting from Point A to C is the gaping hole in your conclusion. As I've said over and over again, there's nothing about the day of that can't be explained by the terrorists doing what they are accused of doing, and nothing about the post-9/11 period that can't be explained by Bush and his cronies exploiting a tragedy for their own purposes. You have made the enormous unfounded leap that because they benefited, they must have planned.

Just because you refuse to recognize B does not mean it's not there. And as I'VE said over and over again, there is nothing about the terrorists doing what they were accused of doing that negates the possibility of Bushco ordering it. And the suspicion that because they benefited, they might have planned, is neither a leap nor enormously unfounded just because you can't wrap your head around it.

Because that's where the high value targets are, like I said. If all he wanted to do was kill people, he could have hit any office tower in Cincinnati. They wanted to hit something big and recognizable, as you said. Which, to my mind, acts as a legitimate reason for him to take his time looping around rather than nosing over into an uncontrollable suicide dive.

Of course he, or his handlers, wanted to hit something symbolic and the Pentagon fits the bill practically and metaphorically. However, supposedly he had no idea of how long it would be before he was intercepted, making time of the essence, so taking his time when totally unnecessary is illogical.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_175

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_93

And look, a link to the radio call:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mayday1.ogg

1. Unsupported assertion.
2. Mayday could refer to a number of different scenarios other than a highjacking.

Nope.

Yup.

How ridiculously remote does the probability of some event have to be before you dismiss it? 1 in 100,000? 1 in 1,000,000? 1 in 10,000,000? The possibility that a plane disappeared off radar and was never seen again, happening at the same time they merge its path with another aircraft that subsequently struck the Pentagon, only no evidence of this latter aircraft was recovered while evidence of the former was planted in the wreckage? Where do you rate that?

See, I knew you were going to quibble about the meaning of "plausible", which is why YOU introduced it as a supposedly acceptable value judgment. LOL! Sophists think that because they can fool the stupid, they can fool everyone, and that's why they're foolish.

Good thing they had a spare 757 in flight on standby for these "technical issues."

Gee, it sure would be hard to get another or four of those babies. They're so RARE and everyone that's ever been built is still in service, nyuck nyuck nyuck!

Again, you back off a point and claim you never said it.

Again, you are disappointed I didn't say things you wish I'd said.

Because it's not "remote" for one thing. The "wire" in fly by wire is a big clue. The mechanics are connected by direct connections, not radio waves controlling them from offsite. For another, none of the planes involved in 9/11 had the true Fly-By-Wire systems installed.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...craft/b767.htm

Oh gee, now we're going to quibble over the meaning of "remote control"?

And nyuck nyuck, I guess it would be unthinkable to install one. Totally impossible. What was I thinking?

The 757 and 767 had electronically assisted controls, not on par with the digital fly-by-wire system that Boeing installed in the 777. The difference is what means you can't just take control of the aircraft, the pilots still have manual overrides they can employ. Even the 777 has them.

Once again, you seem to think customizing these planes and then switching them is impossible. Do you REALLY have such a low opinion of your countrymens' competence?

Cruise missile guidance systems aren't trying to jury-rig their system into an existing control setup without anyone noticing. Big difference.

Thank you for admitting the only thing preventing customizing the planes was the danger of someone noticing.

I thought about it, read about it, found no evidence for it, and dismissed it accordingly.

Show me evidence! That's not evidence!

Here we go again.

Those same people worked on Flight 93's remains, which were partially processed at the AFIP lab in Maryland.
http://old.post-gazette.com/headline...ht931027p5.asp

Very good. Fewer people needed for the cover-up, huh? Do I really need to explain to you how the DNA could be faked. Really?

But, as I keep saying, it doesn't matter anyway whether or not the people were in the plane or not or if they were alive or dead at the moment of impact. The question of who ordered it still remains.

And the fact still remains that it was supposedly ordered by the scion of a hyper-wealthy Saudi family with a long history of involvement with the CIA for no reason other than he was supposedly pissed about American troops on Saudi soil.

And the fact still remains that ALL of Al Qaeda's major operations benefited the right-wing and the MIC's of the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

And, of course, right-wing Israelis.

But, somehow THOSE facts carry no weight to you to the point you won't even acknowledge them as evidence.

LOL!

[Spartacus]

I don't read all of his posts, but since you quoted this one, I'll comment.

I flew the 757/757, (they under the same "type" rating, which means an individual certified in one is certified in the other), for 15 years.

I have flown the airplane I now fly, the 777 for four

I am extremely knowledgeable about their flight controls, as well as the flight controls of other airliners.

Though a complete red herring, it is one of the mythologists favorite BS lines.

Their isn't a plane in service anywhere whose autopilot cannot be disconnected, by any number of means. It is not only a certification regulation, there isn't a single human who would agree to fly it. Autopilots are turned on well after takeoff, and well before landing. Occasionally the autoland function is used, but only in very specific circumstances and with very significant restrictions. Most airlines are not certified for it. It takes a lot of training and a lot of maintenance. These two were.

There is nothing about the 757/767 flight controls that has anything to do with this.

Regarding the transponder operation, that would be the last thing one would do in such a situation. The thing was very likely manipulated by the hijackers, as they did in the other situations.

All totally irrelevant to what we are discussing, but I'm sure your continuous hyping of your expertise is helpful in hornswoggling the rubes.

[jdaltroy5]

Is there anybody that is still on the fence about this?

I think you're huffing and puffing to no one Shiva.

[Spartacus]

Is there anybody that is still on the fence about this?

I think you're huffing and puffing to no one Shiva.

You've decided to speak for everyone, have you?

And as for huffing and puffing, it's not me getting bent out of shape about the subject.

Do you learn nothing from these little fencing contests? Do you not wonder why Americans behave the way they do?

[jdaltroy5]

You've decided to speak for everyone, have you?

And as for huffing and puffing, it's not me getting bent out of shape about the subject.

Do you learn nothing from these little fencing contests? Do you not wonder why Americans behave the way they do?

I guessed you missed the first part where I asked if anyone is still on the fence. This little thing -"?" indicates that I'm asking a question, not making a statement.

[Spartacus]

I guessed you missed the first part where I asked if anyone is still on the fence. This little thing -"?" indicates that I'm asking a question, not making a statement.

You didn't just ask a question, you answered it as well, thus rendering it rhetorical.

I don't need to explain to you what a rhetorical question is, do I?

[jdaltroy5]

You didn't just ask a question, you answered it as well, thus rendering it rhetorical.

I don't need to explain to you what a rhetorical question is, do I?

Yes, please do. It will give you an opportunity to be correct for once in this thread.

ANYWAY, I asked a serious question and then told you what I thought was happening.

"I THINK" isn't any sort of definitive statement that is answering for anyone.

I'll make it more clear.

Is there anybody that is still on the fence about this subject?

If so, are these arguments swaying your decision in any way?

[Spartacus]

ANYWAY, I asked a serious question and then told you what I thought was happening.

Apparently your question was so serious you decided to answer it yourself instead of waiting for a serious answer.

[jdaltroy5]

Apparently your question was so serious you decided to answer it yourself instead of waiting for a serious answer.

Sorry master, from now on I will refrain from giving my opinion when asking a question.

I beg forgiveness.

[Spartacus]

Sorry master, from now on I will refrain from giving my opinion when asking a question.

I beg forgiveness.

Rhetorical questions are absolutely fine as long as you don't pretend they're real questions.

And as for "Is anyone still on the fence", why do you presume the intent of the thread was to change people's minds?

It could be about peoples' unwillingness to be objective when subjective beliefs and gut feelings are questioned, and the lengths they are willing to go to to deny reality.

This applies to all sorts of different situations, so what happens is people will be objective when they know that objectivity will fill a subjective desire, but when it doesn't, they won't.

[gameboy]

All totally irrelevant to what we are discussing, but I'm sure your continuous hyping of your expertise is helpful in hornswoggling the rubes.

What I responded to was in a post by another, specifically referencing those items.

My expertise in this issue allows me to continuously refute what you provide nothing but ignorance about. You stuff has become equal, or even worse than, the craziest ill informed myth stuff, and the closer you get to actually guessing what happened, the worse you get.

Its the same stuff over and over.
Recently, its about switching transponder codes that you seem to be interested in or getting on the radio to alert people who can't do a damn thing for you about a situation they have no control over.

If you were getting mugged would you defend yourself or make a phone call?

The point is that you make many, many illogical assertions, and you make them over and over. Many, I haven't even commented on.

Knowing what its like, and knowing how things actually work, is a benefit you might enjoy in you pursuit of relentless guesses on world events.
This one, I do. Others, like movie making, I don't, so I don't talk about it.

[jdaltroy5]

Rhetorical questions are absolutely fine as long as you don't pretend they're real questions.

And as for "Is anyone still on the fence", why do you presume the intent of the thread was to change people's minds?

It could be about peoples' unwillingness to be objective when subjective beliefs and gut feelings are questioned, and the lengths they are willing to go to to deny reality.

This applies to all sorts of different situations, so what happens is people will be objective when they know that objectivity will fill a subjective desire, but when it doesn't, they won't.

So, no?

No one still on the fence?