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

#241    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,469 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

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

Posted 08 May 2013 - 12:12 AM

View PostQ24, on 07 May 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

You didn’t read my last post either?  Where I stated how the demolition theory is falsifiable?

One example of evidence that would falsify the theory:  steelwork from the collapse zone exhibiting exposure to fire temperatures in the 600-1,000oC range.  Then again, evidence that fire weakened the steelwork at all would do.  Here’s what NIST found from their analysis of the steel: -
  • “no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure.”
  • “Most perimeter panels (157 of 160 locations mapped) saw no temperature T > 250 °C”
  • “Paint analyses indicate both [core] columns < 250 °C”
I can come up with more examples that would in theory falsify the demolition if you like?

That won't be necessary since, despite many posts where you implored me to take into account your entire argument and how no one piece of your evidence is really that convincing and everything must be looked at as a whole to truly see the strength of it, you subsequently turn around and provide examples that ignore your very same 'big picture'.  What was the purpose of the discussion of the squibs then?  I thought those best matched a demolition and I thought it was you who got all incredulous about how those appeared as the result of the collapse, so how does a fire-based collapse falsify that point or have anything to do with it?  Why drag anyone through the tortured 'molten flow' argument, matching colors from a video to charts and pontificating about the effects of the destruction and fire in a room full of UPS units, again the cause of the actual collapse is irrelevant to that point?  If we can falsify the demolition by providing evidence of a fire-based collapse then apparently the squibs and flow aren't that convincing of arguments after all, if they can be falsified by something that is orthogonal to your argument for either of those points.  Way to weaken your own evidence.

Haven't you provided numerous quotes from experts about how they didn't expect that the plane crashes would be enough to cause the buildings to collapse, that the plotters needed a New Pearl Harbor and those buildings had to collapse so they planted demolitions to ensure that happened?   How does any of that change if we were to find out after the fact that there is evidence of a fire-based collapse?  Why wouldn't you be pointing out that it doesn't matter how it actually happened, it matters what the plotters thought?  If we found whatever evidence you require of a fire-based collapse, well of course you'll find features of a fire-based collapse, you do understand what a covert demolition requires don't you, it's obviously not just going to be big booms, I hear they can do some sneaky things with well-placed thermite shielded with black-box material.  Evidence of a fire-based collapse is 100% congruent with a covert demolition, this isn't just your average mom-and-pop demolition team setting this up.

Yea, you need to think a bit more on what really falsifies your argument because the above doesn't do it, I personally think you require a lot more.  In the past you've gotten sensitive when I've stated what I thought your argument would be if some piece of evidence was produced, you may have even asked for a retraction I don't recall specifically, but it's pretty bad that the alternative is that I have to temporarily assume your point of view and use your own argument against you.  You should be doing that.

"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

#242    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,768 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 08 May 2013 - 10:42 AM

View PostQ24, on 07 May 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

Your supposed analogy is not relevant to the 9/11 case one bit.





1.       There is no evidence specific to a fire based collapse.

2.       Demolition theories are not "cunningly created" but inherent in the covert nature of the operation.

3.       Why would God be "a cunning creator" anyway?  A covert creation theory is entirely fantasy to begin.  In other words, again it is not an analogy for 9/11 where solid precedent, motive and evidence exist.

4.       The demolition is absolutely possible to refute in theory, I even told you how.  It's simply that the evidence is not available to do so.  I wonder why.

5.       There is no evidence against the covert demolition.

In all you continue to show the lack of understanding which explains your overall views.

As  to your first point, without going too far into specifics, the following facts all favour a fire-based collapse:
The buildings were on fire at the time and the collapses initiated at the fire locations.
The gradual onset of collapse, as shown by the bowing of the tower walls at the fire locations and the penthouse collapse at WTC7.
NIST computer modelling of collapse initiation process, within the measurement error of the impact damage for the towers.
You can throw in the sheer implausibility of setting up covert demolition systems in occupied buildings, in the case of the towers at the exact floors where the aircraft hit, using two different demolition methods, both hitherto unknown and not involving high explosives, and having these systems survive a high-speed aircraft impact and/or an uncontrolled fire.

Your remaining points simply demonstrate again your self-delusion about your unfalsifiable hypothesis.

"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- )

#243    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 18,540 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 May 2013 - 12:19 PM

Guys, this isn't going to become yet another re-hashing of the 9/11 discussions, is it?  Please stick to the parts that connect this to the OP.

Speaking of the OP, I find it simewhat disingenuous that it limits itself to people who defend orthodoxy.  As Oversword pointed out, the definition offered here applies to people on both sides.

I would say that, more specifically, the definition here applies to people who have left behind skepticism and simply descended to the level of belief in their topic, as opposed to belief in their research.  It really doesn't matter which side of the fence that you are on; if you are defending something out of the belief that you are correct, as opposed to the knowledge that you are correct, you will tend toward more egoistic responses, as your foundation requires a much higher emotional investment with a correspondingly low amount of personal effort.

Alternatively, if you believe something because you have researched it and found it to be correct, your emotional investment tends to be much lower as, regardless of how emotionally invested you are, you have still justified your emotional investment with the amount of work you have done.  It still stings, to be sure, if you are wrong, however the sting is softened by the fact that you were honest and sincere in your effort and you didn't ride on anyone's coattails to arrive at your conclusion.

It isn't too different from an athlete training hour after hour, day after day, only to loose the final competition.  Sure, it hurts, but there is a certain satisfaction in the competition itself, and one can take pride that one came in third place, as opposed to lying about coming in first.  It is easier to accept a rightfully earned loss than a falsely claimed victory.

Edited by aquatus1, 08 May 2013 - 12:20 PM.


#244    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 08 May 2013 - 06:20 PM

View Postaquatus1, on 08 May 2013 - 12:19 PM, said:

Guys, this isn't going to become yet another re-hashing of the 9/11 discussions, is it?  Please stick to the parts that connect this to the OP.

Yeah come on guys [taps foot, shakes head].

Discussion transferred here: -

http://www.unexplain...90#entry4765553

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.

#245    Admiral Rhubarb

Admiral Rhubarb

    An Inspiration to Millions

  • Member
  • 23,275 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hammerfest

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 08 May 2013 - 07:37 PM

View Postaquatus1, on 08 May 2013 - 12:19 PM, said:

Guys, this isn't going to become yet another re-hashing of the 9/11 discussions, is it?  Please stick to the parts that connect this to the OP.


Well, every thread in Conspiracies & Secret Societies turns into one before long. It's one of the laws of physics, I think.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#246    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,871 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 08 May 2013 - 07:39 PM

....or laws of human behavior.... :yes:


#247    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 8,919 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 08 May 2013 - 07:42 PM

View PostColonel Rhuairidh, on 08 May 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

Well, every thread in Conspiracies &amp; Secret Societies turns into one before long.
And JFK before that.

Quote

It's one of the laws of physics, I think.
Conspiratorial gravity.


"What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" - Tiggs vs PA - Did Jesus Really exist? - The Formal Debate:
HERE
Posted Image





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users