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.


* * * - - 5 votes

O.D.D. obsessive debunking disorder


  • Please log in to reply
246 replies to this topic

#211    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,706 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 04 May 2013 - 03:57 PM

View PostQ24, on 04 May 2013 - 03:46 PM, said:

No, I’ve said this many times, features that do not resemble conventional demolition (i.e. lack of prior chain of explosions) are simply congruent with the expectations of covert demolition.

But, there is no such evidence. No explosive evidence is seen on video, nor heard on audio or even detected on seismic monitors in the area. In fact, not one shred of explosive evidence was ever found at the Fresh Kills landfill or even at ground zero, which simply means that zero explosive evidence means zero evidence that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#212    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 04 May 2013 - 04:04 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 02 May 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

Q

Am I understanding your post above correctly?  You believe that the perpetrators and planners of this event would leave the strike at the Pentagon in the hands, literally, of Hani Hanjour, flying a Boeing for the first time in his life?

May I ask what new found information brought you to this 'total acceptance?'

No, you misunderstand my post, read it again - I never mentioned Hanjour.

Indications are that the airliner which impacted the Pentagon was under remote guidance.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#213    Mikko-kun

Mikko-kun

    Naked Judgement

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,527 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Under sky, for now

  • Mercy is a more complete observance

Posted 04 May 2013 - 04:54 PM

View PostColonel Rhuairidh, on 04 May 2013 - 03:25 PM, said:

and people who believe in Flags of Falseness do seem to have an extraordinary faith in the competence of Governments and the Military to organise such enormous plots and execute them with ruthless efficiency and cover them up for a decade or more afterwards. None of which are traditionally characteristics typically associated with governments, or indeed the Military, at high level at least.

You make a good point. They didn't even manage to silence the conspiracy of silence but the afro-guy was convicted for 20 years if I remember right, despite the attemps. They didn't convict mr. Bush senior though, or was it Rumsfeld or someone else... the document was an eye-opener for me what they can be capable of and how low they can sink. In WTC case it was a clear target that didn't run nor hide, a big building, but witnesses hiding may be actually a harder target. If they're comfortable drugging and sexually assaulting and torturing a lot of young males in a systematic fashion, I doubt they could give a toss if a 100 ir 1000 or maybe even a few thousand people died. Boystown.

I think they'd in any case have more capability to cause damage than to cover it up. And that if they did do 9/11, your goverment or others like israelis, they sure didn't cover it up well if half your own population suspected it. A joke cover-up wise, apart from the evidence handling perhaps, if it was done by them.

Can you imagine? Can you choose?

#214    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,962 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 04 May 2013 - 06:48 PM

View PostQ24, on 04 May 2013 - 03:46 PM, said:

No, I've said this many times, features that do not resemble conventional demolition (i.e. lack of prior chain of explosions) are simply congruent with the expectations of covert demolition.
You obviously miss the objection I have to this argument.  Perhaps I can try an analogy.  Young-Earth creationists argue that the world is only a few thousand years old.  However, there is plenty of evidence for an older earth.  They could get around this by saying that God cunningly created the world with this evidence in place, in other words a covert young earth made to look like an old one.  Thus, any features that do not resemble a young earth are simply congruent with the expectations of a cunning creator.

This argument is obviously impossible to refute, it is unfalsifiable, but that does not mean that it is true.  It merely means that the person who puts it forward has a different idea of what is plausible than the average geologist.  You have to believe in such a cunning creator before you can argue that fossils are evidence for a covert young earth. In the same way, you have to believe that a covert demolition took place before you can argue that the evidence against a controlled demolition is simply evidence of how cunning the perpetrators of the covert demolition were.  

Quote

Viewed in detail, there are no features that look like a collapse due to impacts or fires.
Keeping this thread clear of the specifics, lets just say that you are free to believe this if it makes you happy, but that doesn't make you right. You have a different idea of what is plausible than the average engineer.

"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- )

#215    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,800 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 04 May 2013 - 11:22 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 04 May 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

You obviously miss the objection I have to this argument.  

Q, I agree with what swan says here; I understand full well your point here but as swan said, it's essentially unfalsifiable.  To use a specific point as an analogy: squibs can be caused by demolitions, and squibs can be caused by compressed air from the WTC collapse.  There are squibs that would be highly inconsistent with a building collapse: squibs of the size seen in a real demolition, squibs that aren't really 'squibs' they are more like explosions of smoke and flame, a sequence of multiple whole floors expelling outward.  There are no squibs that are inconsistent with your demolition hypothesis, the squibs that are visible from the WTC are inarguably on the very small side.  Oh it is theoretically possible that certain observed squibs could be inconsistent, but that would require you to actually define with some specificity where the demolitions were placed and why you think that (while avoiding the circular reasoning of, 'the demolitions were where the squibs were'), what the demolitions were composed of and how much explosive/thermite/whatever was involved, etc.  We could then say, for example, ah, Q says this large amount of explosive was used yet we only see this tiny squib, thus Q must be wrong on that point.

But you unfortunately cannot do that, so you are left with, again, a very malleable, general, and thereby largely unfalsifiable theory.  And to me, the degree to which your theory is unprovable/unsupported is directly proportional to the degree to which your theory is unfalsifiable.  This is not really your fault, it's just a natural consequence of a general 'covert' theory; what is out of whack is your rhetoric of certainty surrounding your general CT.  Every piece of evidence that supports a non-demolition collapse and gives no direct evidence of a demolition is still entirely consistent with a demolition, that piece of evidence was just part of the 'covert' part.  You've set it up so that nearly every possible piece of evidence is entirely compatible with your general covert demolition theory, so the only thing that can exist is evidence that may not appear to be consistent with a building collapse theory, which is constrained by what we know of the WTC construction, how buildings collapse, etc.  Heads you win...

I can construct an argument also using your approach which is a far better 'match' than your demolition theory: aliens.  Aliens with advanced technology who brought down the towers invisibly in a way that is indistinguishable from a natural building collapse; that already gives me a big leg up on your theory as I now have a far better explanation than you have as to why so many experts disagree with a demolition, why the WTC demolition hypothesis is largely ignored today by the people with the proficiency and expertise to evaluate it, etc.  You have no more shown that your govt conspirators exist than I have that aliens exist; I'll see your Northwoods and raise you one Roswell.  The only advantage you have is that we know that demolitions exist and we don't know if alien advanced technology exists, but that needs to be balanced against the fact that the 'aliens theory' is still a 'better match'.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#216    Mikko-kun

Mikko-kun

    Naked Judgement

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,527 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Under sky, for now

  • Mercy is a more complete observance

Posted 05 May 2013 - 12:10 AM

So many experts... you know, in middle ages "so many experts" agreed that the world was flat.

Can you imagine? Can you choose?

#217    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,706 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 05 May 2013 - 01:27 AM

View PostQ24, on 04 May 2013 - 04:04 PM, said:

Indications are that the airliner which impacted the Pentagon was under remote guidance.

No way!!

First of all, the B-757 is not a fly-by-wire aircraft, which means the pilots would have been able to override and disable any such modifications from inside the cockpit.

Secondly, American Airlines would not have grounded  its B-757 for months in order for its aircraft to be illegally modified, which would have required complete redesign of the flight control system and the installation of dedicated  remote control system. Question is: How would such modifications be carried out under the noses of the mechanics and inspectors of American Airlines and of the FAA, and done so for many months?

Thirdly, the flight data gathered on American 77 firmly indicated that American 77 was not flown under remote control. The data shows that the autopilot was disconnected and reconnected on multiple occasions, which should told you that American 77 was NOT flown under remote control at any time and when the autopilot was disconnected, the sloppy flying technique of the terrorist pilot became clearly evident. In other words, at no time was American 77 flown under remote control by a professional pilot and the flight data proved that fact beyond a shadow of a doubt..

Please point out for us by using the following chart  where at any point that American 77 flown under remote control by a professional pilot and pay close attention to what is depicted at points; "E" and "F."

Posted Image


As you can plainly see from the data above, at no time was American 77 flown under remote control. So, the question is: Who was responsible for misleading people that American 77 was flown under remote control when in fact, that story was totally false and proven as such by the data?

Edited by skyeagle409, 05 May 2013 - 01:39 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#218    Insaniac

Insaniac

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,073 posts
  • Joined:11 Dec 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 05 May 2013 - 06:32 AM

Good article, and true as far as I understand.


#219    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,625 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 05 May 2013 - 06:38 AM

View PostMikko-kun, on 05 May 2013 - 12:10 AM, said:

So many experts... you know, in middle ages "so many experts" agreed that the world was flat.
That is just about the oldest scientific fallacy in the books.  It is even called that -- "old belief fallacy."  Because false things were believed in the past has utterly nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of today's beliefs, and those who resort to such arguments only demonstrate how weak their position is.


#220    Mikko-kun

Mikko-kun

    Naked Judgement

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,527 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Under sky, for now

  • Mercy is a more complete observance

Posted 05 May 2013 - 09:02 AM

Frank, okay. But how can you say we've now overcome that fallacy, if that's what you're saying?

Can you imagine? Can you choose?

#221    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,625 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 05 May 2013 - 12:30 PM

View PostMikko-kun, on 05 May 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

Frank, okay. But how can you say we've now overcome that fallacy, if that's what you're saying?
Just remember that in the past both true and false things were believed.  Therefore, no such belief has any relevance whatever to what may or may not be believed today.  Anyone who brings up an old belief is therefore doing nothing but show how weak a case they have.  (The "flat earth" example is really bad because the fact is, informed people have known the earth is round since ancient times, and it really is irrelevant what ignorant people may have thought).

Edited by Frank Merton, 05 May 2013 - 12:31 PM.


#222    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,714 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 05 May 2013 - 12:42 PM

View PostQ24, on 04 May 2013 - 04:04 PM, said:

No, you misunderstand my post, read it again - I never mentioned Hanjour.

Indications are that the airliner which impacted the Pentagon was under remote guidance.

May I ask what those indications are?


#223    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,714 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 05 May 2013 - 12:44 PM

View PostMikko-kun, on 05 May 2013 - 12:10 AM, said:

So many experts... you know, in middle ages "so many experts" agreed that the world was flat.

Yes, and for the longest time, the 'experts' also believed the earth was the center of the universe.


#224    Mikko-kun

Mikko-kun

    Naked Judgement

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,527 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Under sky, for now

  • Mercy is a more complete observance

Posted 05 May 2013 - 12:52 PM

But I dont understand. Do you really think what we believe today is flawless? We may just be more accurate in what we believe in through science, than what we were before.

And my main point with that comment wasn't that we'd be so much hung up on old believes, but that we're hung up agreeing to what a majority of people (in any field) agrees to and take it as a justification even though history and even scientists themselves today admit they dont know it all yet. That's the extreme of it. Put it to relation with what we're talking about here, I'm saying that a hundred experts saying there were no explosives used on the scene doesn't have to make it so, but simply arguments themselves. The best argument should prevail, even if it's not the one that's voted by majority, if you want the truth.

Think how people will look at this part of history from this perspective in a 100, 200 or 500 years after now. I think they look at us (themselves if reincarnation exists) and say "they only knew/saw so much". But will they say "they did listen to their hunch that there might've been more to things than what they had discovered"? The same way we look at people before us? I dont know my place in history that fully because I dont know the future (or at least I dont know I know it if I do lol), but I think it's a worthy thing to think about.

Can you imagine? Can you choose?

#225    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,625 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 05 May 2013 - 12:56 PM

I'm talking about rational debate, not what the ancients may or may not have believed.  It is what is called a logical fallacy.  Maybe you should look up the term.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users