9/11 NORAD tapes released... by Dayve

FremDfirm, in response to your question about Usama, i thought you might want to know...

the FBI has ADMITTED that it has no HARD evidences tying Usama to 9/11.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13664.htm

and in response to the other fellows questions about the buildings and explosives:
the building was most likely pre exposed to incendiary devices, by elements within our government, to cover their own tracks RE: their complicity in the events, and to compound and further dramatize the spectacle beyond what people could mentally disseminate. if an investigation could have been performed, they risked being exposed, and if the event were any less polarizing, the "War on Terror" would have no shot of remaining in the forefront of Americans minds 5 years later.

here is the link of BYU tests confirming thermate samples being recovered
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/200606scientificanalysis
.htm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 7:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Who set the charges? When were they set? Why were they set? ...Who else could've done it?

Good questions. But first things first. We need to determine if the evidence supports such a theory, as opposed to other explanations. Did a demolition even happen? Does the physical evidence support this as the best fit for the data? If not, we don't have to worry about suspects and motives and opportunities.

It is like a forensic investigation. First we have to decide that someone was indeed murdered. Then we determine how the murder occurred. Until we have a body and cause of death, all finger pointing is conjecture.

I think the biggest difference between us, no matter what issue we are arguing, is that expert opinion is meaningful to you because they come from experts. It isn't to me. Authority and credentials mean little to nothing to me. I'm sort of authority-blind that way. A lot of my arguments with you, SignyM, and Rue come down to this defect of mine, I believe.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 7:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
i for one appreciate your openmindedness.

Thank you.

Quote:
Bush told everyone after 9/11 "and let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concering the events of september 11" and that "your either with us, or your with the terrorists".....we were constantly told "support our troops, support the war", anything else is un-patriotic and anti-American.

I am very uncomfortable with this forced dichotomy as well. It probably played a role in why Americans aren't very open to dialogue on anything related to the War on Terror.

And Antimason, I'm glad you've calmed down some. You were starting to give us conspiracy theorists a bad name.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 7:55 PM

SOUPCATCHER

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I think the biggest difference between us, no matter what issue we are arguing, is that expert opinion is meaningful to you because they come from experts. It isn't to me. Authority and credentials mean little to nothing to me. I'm sort of authority-blind that way. A lot of my arguments with you, SignyM, and Rue come down to this defect of mine, I believe.

I think that sums it up quite nicely. (eta: Although I'm not sure I would label it a defect)

At the end of the day my goal is to design something that works and can be manufactured, sold, serviced and retired while still making a company ducats. To accomplish that goal I oftimes need to rely on the opinions of experts. So it's probably not too surprising that I may overextend that to areas outside of mechanical engineering design.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 8:09 PM

Quote:
And Antimason, I'm glad you've calmed down some. You were starting to give us conspiracy theorists a bad name. :

no your right..i agree. my language becomes stronger the more i articulate my thoughts. i dont mean be so condescending, or offensive, i believe i begin to feel as if im talking into the wind, when i offer known contradictions, and then am given a standard talking point, straight from the presidents mouth it seems...

im sure youll agree, if there is indeed a conspiracy, the nature of the coverup is so extensive that we're in a whole load of $hit if indeed it is true! especially given the nature of the proponants of the official theory and their media mouthpieces which propogate their story. if this is the real deal, as i believe it is, everyone and their grand mother ought to know whats happening...

and if its not true, we still need people constantly criticizing our officials, its the nature of an effective democracy, to prevent complacency and corruption. better to be overzealous than non-existant

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 4, 2006 12:09 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Dear God! Dear God in heaven!! Citizen said something I agree with !!

Somebody check the roation of the Earth, see if its spun off its axis!

I'm speechless!

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 4, 2006 4:05 AM

DAYVE

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
...what I was taught to do in my many science classes. Be open-minded to new evidence. Be open to correction. Look for the theory providing the best fit for the data, ALL the data. Even data that's inconvenient.

If only our commander in chief had such common sense.

I think most of you here know how I feel about this administration. Not a big fan. I’ve never given the Allian…er ah, government credit for a lot of intelligence, however, I believe there are factions involved in the ‘brain trust’ of this administration that seldom show their true selves to the public.

I don’t discount conspiracy theories out of hand; they are worthwhile, IMHO, to spur debate and find truth, (truth being something that our current leaders seem to think we, as citizens, are better off not knowing).

And, as well as these theories play in the movies or in mystery novels, I, as well as some others here, find it hard to believe that something like this could be orchestrated to the degree necessary to cover all the tracks. Not saying I’m right, just saying.

In the final analysis, (if we ever get there), it is my opinion that several factors will be determined to have played an important role in this tragedy. Outdated equipment, negligence, complacency, and (I know this sounds trite), but blind luck on the part of the hijackers. They caught us with our pants down around our ankles, and we tripped on the way to the gun cabinet.

"endeavor to persevere..." Chief Dan George as Lone Waite, Indian chief

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 4, 2006 5:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
what I was taught to do in my many science classes. Be open-minded to new evidence. Be open to correction. Look for the theory providing the best fit for the data, ALL the data. Even data that's inconvenient.

Not even scientists do that consistently! It's hard not to be swayed by bias, especially unconscious bias (Mismeasure of Man Steven Jay Gould).

I do have one posisble answer for your Bldg 7 insurance fraud question. Heavily damaged buidlings pose a risk to other buildings and are demolished just for that reason. Not knowing the timeline of Bldg 7's demise I can't say whether it was possible to demolsih in the time alloted but it was certainly a normal- even responsible and proactive- thing to do.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 4, 2006 5:48 AM

RAZZA

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
:hand sheepishly raised: I was just wondering - does anyone know if the atc tapes were confiscated and destroyed, and, does anyone know why building 7 came down?

Rue:

Not a civil engineer by any means, but I found some links that might help explain the Building 7 collapse for you.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norman.html
This one is an interview with Battalion Chief John Norman of the FDNY. Relevant passages as follows:

Quote:
"From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged."

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html
This one is an interview with Captain Chris Boyle of the FDNY. Relevent passages as follows:

Quote:
"Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day."

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
This one is an interview with Deputy Chief Peter Hayden of the FDNY. Relevant passages as follows:

Quote:
"...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety. "

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Ban
aciski_Richard.txt
This is an interveiw with Richard Banaciski and FDNY fireman. Relative passages as follows:

Quote:
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on.

Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there.

Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down. That's when they let the guys go in. I just remember we started searching around all the rigs."

These eyewitness accounts seem to support the "official" version of events, but I'm sure it can be argued that these men didn't know everything that was going on, only what they were able to observe in a very chaotic situation. Hope this helps!

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 4, 2006 6:30 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

CTS,

--------------------------------------------------

"CTS does seem to be a contrarian at heart ..."

--------------------------------------------------

"All I did was ask some questions."
"... expert opinion is meaningful to you because they come from experts ..."

--------------------------------------------------

I was personally convinced of only 1 thing about 9/11 - that GWB didn't know ahead of time. And after reading the transcript, if there was a conspiracy, the military was in the dark.

Given the Twin Towers' unusual construction and what I know of what kinds of buildings pancake (perimeter support), I think it's possible they came down on their own. At the time there was also considerable news focus on the other buildings that were damaged. Bldg 7 is the more interesting to me b/c it's so much more ambiguous.

As to either of our personal approachs, the possibility that you're contrarian is a pattern I've been noticing. 9/11, medical treatment, global warming, anarchy - just off the top of my head - they come down to a consistent bias against anything that comes with some authority. (Not necessarily that you don't go along with what millions of others do, b/c that doesn't come with authority.) And it's not that you just 'ask some questions', it's that you consistently discredit anything coming from one side (from which you demand iron-clad proof of veracity) but accept as credible anything coming from the other (until completely proven wrong).

I personally don't feel the need to either bow to or oppose authority. And being a scientist, I understand that the real world comes in hues and shades and is rarely (if ever) black and white. You will be hard pressed to find data that's absolutely true, or false. One decides on the 'preponderance of evidence'. Further, in science you're expected to change to fit new data. So while I may say that global warming (for example) is the best science we have, it means that's where the data trends (ie not iron-clad) and with the understanding that it is only for now.

I firmly stand for my wishy-washy opinions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 4, 2006 6:49 AM

RAZZA

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

im sure youll agree, if there is indeed a conspiracy, the nature of the coverup is so extensive that we're in a whole load of $hit if indeed it is true! especially given the nature of the proponants of the official theory and their media mouthpieces which propogate their story. if this is the real deal, as i believe it is, everyone and their grand mother ought to know whats happening...QUOTE]

Antimason:

I would agree that if there is indeed a conspiracy everyone should be concerned, but I just don't see it more plausible than the accepted official version of events. Why do I believe that? Well, frankly, I don't think George W. Bush or anyone who works for him could convince a naked eskimo in a blizzard to buy a jacket from then, much less persuade hundreds of american citizens to murder thousands of their fellow americans to further his political career. It just doesn't make sense unless you believe W and his administation are about 1000 times more capable than they appear. For God's sake, there are more leaks in that administration than in my pasta strainer at home.

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 4, 2006 6:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And it's not that you just 'ask some questions', it's that you consistently discredit anything coming from one side (from which you demand iron-clad proof of veracity) but accept as credible anything coming from the other (until completely proven wrong).

I take exception to that.

I acknowledge that I am "authority-blind," in that authority is meaningless to me perhaps in the same way that "blue" might be meaningless to a color-blind person. But that doesn't mean I automatically "discredit" anything from one side and jump witlessly onto any bandwagon from the other. As a matter of fact, since I am "authority-blind," BOTH establishment authority AND alternative authority are meaningless to me. I treat both sides with equal skepticism. You just haven't seen me argue against "the other side" yet.

I believe other people PERCEIVE me as discrediting their side and accepting the other side without reservations. Probably because people are so emotionally invested in their ideas that any kind of challenge is seen as discreditation and an endorsement of the opposition.

For example, have I ever said, "The towers didn't fall on their own, but were demolished?" Or, "Global warming doesn't exist, it is all hogwash?" No. But that is exactly what people hear, even though all I say is, "I question the evidence, or there is insufficient evidence..."

Think about it. If I really were discrediting one side and fully accepting of the other side, I'd sound a lot more like Antimason, wouldn't I?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 4, 2006 7:03 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
For example, have I ever said, "The towers didn't fall on their own, but were demolished?" Or, "Global warming doesn't exist, it is all hogwash?" No. But that is exactly what people hear, even though all I say is, "I question the evidence, or there is insufficient evidence..."

You said that demolition is more likely, and when I tried to point out it wasn't you accused me of calling you a conspiracy nut and spewing propeganda, as well as not being capable of following a logical thought process. I have nothing against you answering questions, I have at least tried to answer yours, what I have a problem with is being portrayed as the bad guy because my answers don't rubbish the offical story.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 4, 2006 7:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You said that demolition is more likely,

That is a far cry from discrediting one side and accepting the other without question.

Quote:
you accused me of calling you a conspiracy nut and spewing propeganda,

I believe, in so many words, that is what happened. You accused me of embracing conspiracy theories, so I accused you of embracing propaganda.

Quote:
as well as not being capable of following a logical thought process.

I said your logic in that instance was flawed.

Quote:
have a problem with is being portrayed as the bad guy because my answers don't rubbish the offical story.

It goes both ways, buddy.

[Edited to add: I have doubts about the official story, but I don't have a problem with people who support it. In fact, they are the ones who can help explain inconsistencies and answer my questions. What I do have a problem with is being ridiculed when I asked questions. In this instance, I snapped and ridiculed back. It wasn't my finest moment, and I apologize.]

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 4, 2006 7:27 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I believe, in so many words, that is what happened. You accused me of embracing conspiracy theories, so I accused you of embracing propaganda.

No I didn't.

Quote:
I said your logic in that instance was flawed.

No you implied I couldn't follow a logical thought process.

Quote:
It goes both ways, buddy.

Accept you're the one making accusations and saying "poor me, all I'm doing is asking questions and I'm attacked."

Well you aren't just asking questions, and you aren't prepared to accept or listen to the answers unless they say what you want, so how about you get off the "I'm the only one who can look at evidence in an unbiased way here" trip.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 4, 2006 7:41 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

CTS,

Here is where we part company, close to your entry into the topic:

Guy may not have time to put together the links, but here is a good starting point for looking at the inconsistencies.

What about CONSISTENCIES?

It isn't the first time that the official story doesn't make sense. Read what a military explosives expert had to say about the OK City bombing.

What about times where the official story DOES MAKE SENSE?

If it looked like a demolition job, acted like a demolition job, and sounded like a demolition job, we should consider the possibility that maybe there were demolition explosives involved, eh? It doesn't automatically mean Bush put them there--but would indicate the plane terrorists had some help. Who from is another question.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

It's not that you 'ask questions'. It's that you ask biased questions from biased assumptions. If you were evenhandedly looking at the data, you'd be looking at both data in support of and contra to. I don't see that.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 4, 2006 7:52 AM

SOUPCATCHER

It helps me to think about what happened in this thread, and other threads, as a tension between divergence and convergence.

In working on design projects it is extremely valuable to have people on the team who prefer to diverge. Most importantly early on in the project when the team is trying to expand the problem space and the solution space. For team members who prefer to converge this is a stressful time because they are operating outside of their comfort zone.

But a team cannot diverge indefinitely. At a certain point the team needs to start converging towards a few potential solutions. This is where those who prefer to converge need to start taking the lead. And this is also where those who prefer to diverge start feeling the stress of operating outside of their comfort zone.

Both preferences are valuable and necessary. If a team converges too early they may be working on the wrong problem or towards a less effective solution. If a team diverges too long they may be wasting resources and are in danger of not having a deliverable in an acceptable amount of time.

I see CTS as someone who prefers to diverge. I may be wrong but it kind of helps put things in perspective for me and explain some of the tension. I prefer to converge. The divergent portion of the design process is quite often the most stressful time for me and I really have to work at it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 4, 2006 8:11 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Another way of looking at it is simplex optimization. By taking initial points too close together, you may end up at a local maximum rather than the true optimum.

There are times when I diverge - strongly - and from a vast, vast majority, or from authority or custom. As examples, I was one of the few people saying dubya was evil both before AND AFTER 9/11. In my union duties, I have to bring up unpleasant, contrary facts that people would rather ignore - on both sides. But I like to think of myself as open to FACTS no matter where they come from. And I frequently change my position with the weight of facts as they develop.

On this particular topic, I really have no strong inclination either way, so I don't think of myself as toady to authority or as a rebel - a converger or diverger. All I'd like is some even handed consideration of both pros and cons from people who portray themselves as open-minded.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 4, 2006 8:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I see CTS as someone who prefers to diverge. I may be wrong but it kind of helps put things in perspective for me and explain some of the tension. I prefer to converge. The divergent portion of the design process is quite often the most stressful time for me and I really have to work at it.

Very insightful. Yes, I am definitely a divergent thinker. Thank you!

(I can't believe I forgot all about the convergence-divergence dichotomy.)

Although I see myself as a wishy-washy and on-the-fence, I tend to end up talking about ideas that are not mainstream. From my perspective, I don't need to present mainstream views because there are plenty of people who will provide that balance. There is no need for me to be redundant.

I can see why that seems biased to Rue and Citizen. But not presenting the other side doesn't mean I dismiss that side altogether. I would present both sides if I were the only voice heard, as in a journalistic piece. But with all the other voices on an internet forum, I just make sure the divergent side gets represented.

Thanks again, Soup.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 4, 2006 8:20 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"But with all the other voices on an internet forum, I just make sure the divergent side gets represented."

No CTS - it goes further than that. But that would get into a 'what did you say when' posting that would take more time than I have.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 4, 2006 8:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Soup- I like what you said about convergence and divergence- and I now understand my "usual" role in collective decision-making. It turns out I'm about 50/50. When people start narrowing down on a decision and it feels "too early" I do another intergalatic search for unthought factors or solutions. I stop when I see the same data "coming" and "going"* bc at that point I feel that we have a fairly comprehensive picture. (*I don't know how else to describe the process, but maybe you'll have a word for that too.)

Now I know why I sometimes drive people nuts.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 4, 2006 8:59 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

nevermind

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 4, 2006 9:28 AM

MIMA

wow. this is all... wow. ya know, i'm a good little recovering catholic school teacher. but about a year after 9/11 i began to get the heebie jeebies about the amount of re-direction and outright silence involving the whole thing. in the shrine of the tragedy, no one peeped.

the heebie jeebies turned into hives when afghanistan morphed into iraq, and then an "axis of evil" that jumped to asia. i was like... "ummm, hitler much?" there-were-no-WMD! why has bush not been called to the carpet for this? no one thinks it's outrageous that the president only appears to handpicked, planned friendly audiences? he gave himself the power to listen and label... the republicans do social security, flag burning, gay marriage... that little yapdog colter comes out with "godless." dems are silent silent silent about our numerous torture facilities around the globe the UN has demanded we close. whispering exit strategy and getting b*slapped. we support israel as they pick up a war on the other side of iran... i'm thinking to myself, "this is the start of ww3 and i'm watching it unfold."

i don't know boo about the science. antimason's ideas of months long preplanning to demolish the wtc make me giggle. but... no jets were scrambled to stop the planes. no agency stopped the pilots. the republicans squeaked in a fishy election when binladen was free, afghanistan was in shambles, and we'd started a second war under false pretenses based on lies.

i can *not* believe how complacent this country is. rue is saying (i'm reading between the lines) quit trying to find inconsistencies. all those details about 9/11 aside, if you put it together with everyyyyyything else, i might start to think "conspiracy."

i'm seeing a government increasingly secretive, power hungry, controlling, spewing religion and overstepping the constitution. it's all quite chilling. trace it back... oh, 9/11. it's their entire foundation. something so heinous it would shock the opposition into silence.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 4, 2006 9:30 AM

FREMDFIRMA

For me it's all about boiling a whole issue down to the complete bedrock, if at all possible, just one question which, if answered truthfully and completely, would resolve the matter instantly.

Some folks fish with a net, some with a line and sinker...

I use a stick of dynamite and a pole net.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 4, 2006 9:40 AM

SOUPCATCHER

Okay. Multiple response smush post.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Very insightful. Yes, I am definitely a divergent thinker. Thank you! (I can't believe I forgot all about the convergence-divergence dichotomy.)

Wheeeee! Thanks and you're welcome. Nice to know I wasn't shooting too far in the dark on that one.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Another way of looking at it is simplex optimization. By taking initial points too close together, you may end up at a local maximum rather than the true optimum.

I like that. Although it's rare, in my field, that the solution is a true optimum. It's more often the case there is a twinge of, "We could've made it better if we had more time or resources" even when you're wrapping up a project. We're often just shooting for "good enough."

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
There are times when I diverge - strongly - and from a vast, vast majority, or from authority or custom. ...

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Soup- I like what you said about convergence and divergence- and I now understand my "usual" role in collective decision-making. It turns out I'm about 50/50. ...

Thanks. Yeah. Both these raise the point that it's more of a continuum rather than a binary thing. Strong moderate mild either way mild moderate strong. To go a bit further, my personal belief is that it is as important to know your preference as to occasionally exercise outside of that preference. Which is a pointed reminder to myself. I'm pretty much anti proscriptive uses of profiling. I'm much more on the descriptive side of the debate where I see the information as valuable to inform and identify areas that might need work.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
On this particular topic, I really have no strong inclination either way, so I don't think of myself as toady to authority or as a rebel - a converger or diverger. All I'd like is some even handed consideration of both pros and cons from people who portray themselves as open-minded.

I'm not sure I would categorize it as toady to authority = converger and rebel = diverger. I see it more as a person who is strongly divergent will most always be expanding. I've worked with people who are always asking, "Well what about this?" Early on there's a lot of value to those questions. But once the space starts to fill up the, "this" in the "Well what about this?" gets more and more unrealistic.

And thanks, HK, for serving as the alarm clock.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 4, 2006 9:42 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hey Mima-

We're not as far apart as this discusison might seem. Believe it or not, there are very few pro-Bush ppl in this thread. I think MOST of us think that Bush has planned SEVERAL conspiracies... the only thing we're discussing is "which ones?" and "how big?"

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 4, 2006 10:12 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi Soupcatcher -

This has nothing to do with your posts - I'm just ranting -

--------------------------------------------------

The whole 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq thing ....

On 9/12 I was saying Bush was scared but Cheney was suspiciously out of sight, and later, that he remained so for a strangely long time.

When the Bush admin said they had proof it was bin Laden but couldn't say what it was, I withheld opinion. But when they accidentally let slip that, among the other things they were looking for in Afghanistan, evidence of bin Laden's involvement was primary, I was crying foul. If they actually had evidence they said they did to invade Afghanistan, why were they looking for it later?

When Bush segued from Afghanistan to Iraq, I was vocal - talk about bait and switch. During the drum-up to the Iraq invasion I was pointing out how Bush either lied straight out (Saddam kicked the UN out of Iraq and wouldn't let them back in) or implied lies (Saddam = 9/11). I was pointing out that Bush kept upping the ante every time Iraq complied with yet another timetable - to the point where the last DEMAND Bush made was that Hussein and cohorts had leave Iraq as a condition to avoid war (whatever happened to the UN resolution at that point?).

--------------------------------------------------

I get extremely frustrated - even angry - at being addressed like a lackey because I don't discount every single thing that comes from an authoritative source. And I'm equally tired of being called a Bush-hater because I don’t agree with everything that comes out of the administration's 'mouth'. I'm tired of having to make the same damn arguments from both sides over and over again in different threads on different topics - look at the evidence equitably and see where it leads. I'm just very, very irked.

--------------------------------------------------

RANT OVER

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 4, 2006 10:24 AM

CITIZEN

I always thought convergent thinkers pulled in outside data to make a scientific analysis, converging their thoughts.

Divergent thinkers sort of work the other way, more imagination than science study, so you start with a 'seed' idea which diverges.

In this way I'd say Einstien was a divergent thinker, he almost lept to the end and then worked backwards to see if he was right for instance.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 4, 2006 10:30 AM

Did you guys watch Foxs Oreilly factor yesterday, when they discussed the new poll that came out which says 36% of americans believe the government was involved in a conspiracy re: 9/11? now think about this..almost 100 million Americans, according to this poll, share these sentiments...

so the anchor brings 2 guests on, a republican and democratic strategist, and not only do they avoid the arguements in our favor, or any discussion of the facts or details, but they didnt even discuss the poll! they called it wacky, loopy conspiracy nutjob antics, and then did a complete 180 and began talking about Israel and the "war on terror". this was supposed to be a complete segment!

so much for fair and balanced! its not as if this was the first time after all, that Fox, or some other agency has ommitted unique perspectives...

this is becoming incredibly disturbing to me, when we cant even get prominant news agencies to cover angles outside the official versions of events

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 4, 2006 11:06 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Anti- this is one area where you and I totally and thoroughly agree.

What people don't realize is that "the press" get 90%+ news material from "news releases". Government officials- from the WH Press Scy to the head of the local dog pound- issue a statement, release a report, or hold a press conference and the press dutifully "reports" "the news". If anyone doesn't believe me, just grab the next newspaper or website and start looking at/ for the source. "According to highly placed officials/ WH staff/ the police blotter..."

"The government" isn't about to tell you it f*cked up. It's going to tell you exactly what it thinks you need to hear in order to incite action or escape disapproval. The timing and tempo is a reliable indicator of what the government is planning to do- or trying to escape... and turning the public on and off is almost as easy as flicking a switch.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 4, 2006 12:23 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Well said.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 4, 2006 12:29 PM