Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Extradimensional Prelude to 9/11?


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#16    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,090 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Wayne, IN

Posted 24 June 2008 - 03:30 AM

Common sense would tell you that if your plan is to tell people that a 757 crashed into the building and there is a 757 that will go missing that you crash a freaking 757 into the building.

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

#17    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,734 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Coast, NSW, Australia

  • "Truth needs no defence. Nobody - NOBODY - can ever take the footsteps I made on the surface of the Moon away from me."
    Gene Cernan, Apollo 17

Posted 24 June 2008 - 09:21 AM

Noteaph on Jun 24 2008, 12:02 AM, said:

To all commenters doubting the reliability of the inside job account surrounding 911, and ESPECIALLY the one called Obviousman:
There indeed are a load of highly educated and capable people confirming the irregularities and (physical) non- possibilities in the 'official' 911 story
(and thats just what it is, a story) for as far a regular, logical thinking person cannot do so for him/herself. I would advise you to check out "scholars for 911 truth".

I must say I doubt either the intelligence or sincerity of the people who claim they have researched the facts and still declare it is an 'conspiracy nut kinda concept' (meaning the inside job aspect; a rogue kabbal inside the US government orchastrating the whole thing with outside, dare I say it, Mossad assistance). Again; check out the Scholars for 911 truth movement and get your educated, factual information.

Excuse any grammar faults as Im a Dutchy, dont really write in English that much ;-)

Godspeed to all

Salus populi suprema lex


I'm unsure why you especially pick me out, but I feel honoured. Thank you!

There are indeed capable and / or qualified people who profess doubts regarding various aspects of 9/11. They do indeed voice their doubts - sometimes quite strongly.

Why should we believe them?

Well, firstly, they are qualified. That means they should have their opinions listened to and evaluated. Should they automatically have their opinions taken as fact? NO. It means they should be listened to, because they have qualifications in the subject area. You should then seek the opinion of more people in the subject area, continuing until a clear consensus is obtained. Once this is obtained, you can be in a position to decide the veracity of various claims.

If, however, the claims by one (or a minority of qualified people) are refuted by the majority of qualified people, then those claims or opinions should be disregarded or treated with a degree of suspicion with respect to their veracity.

Another aspect to consider is the qualification of people who make the claims. What are they qualified in? A professor in philosophy is indeed a learned person... but their opinions regarding technical matters in a field such as physics or mechanical engineering or aeronautics is no more valid than anyone else's unless they are supported by a consensus of professionals qualified in that field.

I urge people to always consider these facts when evaluating the various 9/11 claims.


#18    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,966 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 24 June 2008 - 11:44 AM

Noteaph on Jun 23 2008, 03:02 PM, said:

To all commenters doubting the reliability of the inside job account surrounding 911, and ESPECIALLY the one called Obviousman:
There indeed are a load of highly educated and capable people confirming the irregularities and (physical) non- possibilities in the 'official' 911 story
(and thats just what it is, a story) for as far a regular, logical thinking person cannot do so for him/herself. I would advise you to check out "scholars for 911 truth".

I must say I doubt either the intelligence or sincerity of the people who claim they have researched the facts and still declare it is an 'conspiracy nut kinda concept' (meaning the inside job aspect; a rogue kabbal inside the US government orchastrating the whole thing with outside, dare I say it, Mossad assistance). Again; check out the Scholars for 911 truth movement and get your educated, factual information.

Have you read Michael Shermer's book "Why People Believe Weird Things"?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/People-Believe-Wei...7125&sr=8-1
He includes a chapter "Why Smart People Believe Weird Things" which addresses the question you raise, and his answer is that, all too often, intelligent people use their intelligence to confirm their beliefs rather than to test them.  You only have to look at the posts of the more intelligent conspiracy believers on this forum to see this in action.  When confronted with evidence that their theory is wrong, their reaction is to look for reasons to disregard that evidence, and being intelligent, they can always come up with something, however unlikely.
Here's another link on this unscientific way of testing a theory:
http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#19    SphericalMiracle

SphericalMiracle

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 88 posts
  • Joined:24 Mar 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NW Louisiana

  • "Living in a world of joy, we build a ship of new alloy for next year's vacation to Jupiter." (from ALEXIS, one of my songs)

Posted 24 June 2008 - 12:16 PM

Flyingswan, Shermer is a pseudoskeptic.  The vast majority of those who call themselves skeptics or "debunkers" have preconceived notions of mundane explanations to EVERYTHING.  They're as biased as the blind believers they berate... That's not saying I'm convinced of the invisible beings hypothesis pre-9/11, but I'd like to know more about it, if possible.


#20    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,966 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 24 June 2008 - 02:22 PM

SphericalMiracle on Jun 24 2008, 01:16 PM, said:

Flyingswan, Shermer is a pseudoskeptic.  The vast majority of those who call themselves skeptics or "debunkers" have preconceived notions of mundane explanations to EVERYTHING.  They're as biased as the blind believers they berate... That's not saying I'm convinced of the invisible beings hypothesis pre-9/11, but I'd like to know more about it, if possible.

Pseudo? Having "mundane explanations to EVERYTHING" is a pretty good definition of a sceptic.  A sceptic only looks for an extraordinary explanation if a mundane one doesn't apply.  Ever heard of Occam's razor?

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#21    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,734 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Coast, NSW, Australia

  • "Truth needs no defence. Nobody - NOBODY - can ever take the footsteps I made on the surface of the Moon away from me."
    Gene Cernan, Apollo 17

Posted 25 June 2008 - 07:22 AM

Noteaph,

If you look at my last post and apply those principles to the "Scholars for 9-11 Truth", I believe you'll find that:

- A number of the members are not scholars in the normal meaning of the word;

- Those that are scholars mainly come from fields not directly applicable to 9/11 (philosophy, etc); and

- Those scholars that are in the related fields espouse theories that are NOT supported by the large majority of their peers.

Hope this helps.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users