Mormon History and Mormon Belief

[_RayAgostini]

Apropos my previous post, it would seem that Mopologists and 911 conspiracy theorists have something in common besides Steven E. Jones. This from the Wikipedia article on 9/11 Scholars for Truth:

For your earnest (or maybe not so earnest) consideration:

Architects & Engineers on 911

[_Corpsegrinder]

Thank you for posting this!

This video offers many many fascinating parallels between Mormon Apologetics and 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Hey Dan, are you a Truther, too?

[_DrW]

I note Dr. Peterson has been back to this thread, but has failed to own up to the misstatement above on which he was called out.

He is probably too busy to worry about patching up the holes in his credibility such as the one he punched earlier on this thread.

[_Simon Belmont]

There's nothing "defamatory" in pointing out that MST is a part of your Mopologetic crusade, nor it it really "diversionary." This latest entry is frankly apologetic in nature; you are guilty of taking things out of context; you are guilty of manipulating the words of deceased LDS scholars on MST.

Now, wait a second... which "faction" began all of these "crusades?" It was the critics and criticisms to which apologetics is a response. If they don't like the apologetic response, they have only themselves to blame, right?

So instead of attacking apologetics, wouldn't it make more sense to be a voice for a better, nicer, less crusading critic community?

I know it's a bit off topic, but I am seriously interested in your answer here.


Edit: I'm not generalizing all critics here, because I know there are some that are respectful.

[_Nightlion]

Interesting. Can't wait to see him on MST!

I'm active LDS too.

Good, then lighten up on that avatar man.

[_Nightlion]

Apropos my previous post, it would seem that Mopologists and 911 conspiracy theorists have something in common besides Steven E. Jones. This from the Wikipedia article on 9/11 Scholars for Truth:

For your earnest (or maybe not so earnest) consideration:

Architects & Engineers on 911

I have always thought that EVERY high rise building is pre-wired to be able to bring any one of them down instantly if and when a building threatens its surroundings. This is the fact that I think public safety demands that people NOT know. Even the engineers and architects signing on to this phony work up of feigned concern would HAVE to know this and the fact that they are NOT talking about it is a smoke screen to keep people from the obvious realization. How could cities function if all the people realized that they live and work in structures that can be brought down in seven seconds when need be? Think of the psychological impact! So these science people are just another layer of the mandated cover-up. 'shrug' In fact they are the ones who are liable, legally, fantastic!

[Guest]

Good, then lighten up on that avatar man.

Hi, Nightlion.

‘Corpsegrinder’ is an exercise in irony, kind of like that ‘seething cauldron of hate’ thing.

I was, however, thinking of swapping out the evil clown for something a bit more ethereal, like this...

[_Nightlion]

Good, then lighten up on that avatar man.

Hi, Nightlion.

‘Corpsegrinder’ is an exercise in irony, kind of like that ‘seething cauldron of hate’ thing.

I was, however, thinking of swapping out the evil clown for something a bit more ethereal, like this...

Mooch Beddar

[_Doctor Scratch]

The problem with your inquiry, Simon, is that you're assuming that the polemical nastiness of Hamblin, Midgley, Gee, et al. is somehow a necessary response to criticism. But it's not. The fact that apologists (as opposed to Mopologists) like Richard Bushman and David Bokovoy are capable of behaving with courtesy and professionalism totally undermines your argument. No one is forcing, e.g., John Gee to accuse Mike Reed of sloppy scholarship. No one twisted Will Schryver's arm in order to get him to let loose a slew of misogynist insults. No one coerced Louis Midgley into uttering homophobic slurs at the UTLM bookstore. The fact of the matter is that you cannot blame the critics for the apologists' bad behavior, regardless of what kind of propter hoc argument you try to cobble together.

[_Corpsegrinder]

Nightlion said:

I have always thought that EVERY high rise building is pre-wired to be able to bring any one of them down instantly if and when a building threatens its surroundings. This is the fact that I think public safety demands that people NOT know. Even the engineers and architects signing on to this phony work up of feigned concern would HAVE to know this and the fact that they are NOT talking about it is a smoke screen to keep people from the obvious realization. How could cities function if all the people realized that they live and work in structures that can be brought down in seven seconds when need be? Think of the psychological impact! So these science people are just another layer of the mandated cover-up. 'shrug' In fact they are the ones who are liable, legally, fantastic!

Very interesting.

From 2003 to very recently I worked at the US Army’s Yuma Proving Ground where I participated in the development and testing of combat automotive systems, both wheeled and tracked. As was required by my former occupation, I was (and technically still am) certified to handle high explosives, both weapons- and demolitions-grade.

Not having examined the various high-rise structures to which you post refers, I cannot say with certainty that they are not wired with high explosives to allow for instant demolition. However, as an aficionado of gigantic, tooth-rattling, gut-wrenching, voice-of-god-sized explosions, I can definitely say that the scenario you describe would be very very impractical.

High explosives are not sufficiently stable to allow for permanent installation in structures whose service life is measured in decades…if not centuries. At YPG (Yuma Proving Ground) it was necessarily to periodically dispose of (i.e. detonate) explosives that had reached the end of their shelf life, at which point their explosive yield would have deteriorated beyond acceptable limits. This is because the chemical composition of explosives tends to change over time.

However, I’m still very interested to learn what leads you to believe that high-rise buildings are pre-wired for instant demolition…if I understand your post correcty.