Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10
OverSword

O.D.D. obsessive debunking disorder

247 posts in this topic

Mikko

I agree with you completely on these points. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Actually that particular belief was pretty much limited to Western Christendom and its churches. Most of the world's people have had other ideas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Precisely the point Frank--Western Civilization's "experts" believed and promulgated the error that earth was the center of the universe.

Rather like today's experts promulgate all manner of error and misconception and untruth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect there are things you once believed but do not believe any longer. Using your reasoning here, this would imply that nothing you believe now could be true.

I think some people would like to believe things that the advance of knowledge has debunked, and so they resort to thinking like you just exhibited to believe what they want to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a strange line of reasoning Frank. Yes, I've changed my mind and my position many times in my life, and I suspect I will again before it's all over.

But going from that simple fact to "nothing you believe now could be true" is so bizarre. I cannot follow your reasoning, I do not see your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That people were wrong about something in the past is not proof that they are wrong now. Bring up past errors is just simply a logical fallacy -- something that will get points taken away in formal debate contests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so tempted that I can no longer resist that these errors about the place of the earth in the universe and the short time the universe has existed were Christian teachings, not scientific findings, and that Asian religions like those of China and Hinduism and Buddhism never taught such things.

Aristotle was mislead from the fact that he could not detect parallax to conclude that the earth was the center of things, and the Christians churches for a long time took anything Aristotle said as being infallible. This was a mistake of a great scientist, but not usable with regard to modern science as he had no access to modern equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not say it was "proof" of anything Frank.

What I'm saying is that it is part of the human condition and experience and history that self-proclaimed experts are frequently wrong, as they are only human.

However as long as you've introduced the term "proof", the historical record is "proof" that human experts are frequently in error. Knowledge and science are ALWAYS evolving.

What we knew, or thought we knew, 11 years ago could be very different today, as new facts become apparent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the word "proof" is a bad word. I slap my wrists. "Persuasive evidence" is a better approach. The fact that people can and have been wrong about anything in the past is not persuasive evidence that any particular conspiracy theory is true. There, now more clearly stated.

The so-called "evolution" of knowledge and science is not quite the way you describe it. It is not an edifice that periodically must be torn down and rebuilt. It is instead an edifice that occasionally needs a little remodeling but for the most part is constantly being enlarged.

The press so often has it that this or that knowledge has been "overthrown," as part of their standard exaggerative fare, when the reality is that this or that knowledge has been expanded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

And I'm talking about it too, because they connect, rational discussion and history. In the light of history, it's just rational to be able to think yourself as a possibly not know-it-all. Rational mind wants to know and be sure, but there's just many things in the world about which you can't be sure with. It's just whether you want to keep looking at the other direction or not. Where you look at there, your point of observation in mental level, is what matters, especially that you can turn it from one point to another. From rational to hypothetical to hunch, and vice versa.

Frank, before you ask me to look at anything in the dictionary, maybe you should look at "pragmatism" first.

That people were wrong about something in the past is not proof that they are wrong now.

I didn't say it was proof either, but that letting yourself think that there'd be nothing left for us to discover about any subject of interest, like nothing to discover about a conspiracy theory or about why universe works the way it seems to work... that. I took history because it has shown and even the modern science seems to show, that there's still things for us to discover in all fields and many subjects. Thinking outside the "I know" -box.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be using past error as an excuse for things you would like to believe. That just does not follow. At any rate that is the best I can make of what you say.

Please however drop the straw man that I think there's nothing left to discover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome aboard Mikko! :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Babe :D

Strawman -.- it's just a simple truth as far as I'm concerned, something that seems to be ignored at times, less and less so though in here.

I'm just saying there's other thought processes than the logical-deductive one and that they too can provide. Maybe they dont provide solid things like the more worldly rationalism does so much, but they can be good roadsigns. Listening your hunch, how you feel about things and all that. And sharing them. We're not just bloody calculators.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 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.

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.

Q, I agree with what swan says here; I understand full well your point here but as swan said, it's essentially unfalsifiable.

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?

It’s not my fault that evidence to support the flimsy official theory, and in doing so falsify other theories, is unavailable or, never existed [wink wink]. And that’s an area official theorists really should think about more, lack of evidence to their own theory. Anyhow, this does not mean the demolition theory is unfalsifiable theoretically speaking, you got that wrong, it’s just that you guys, for one reason or another, fail to produce the necessary evidence that would do so. Which in fact, along with other supportive evidence, puts the demolition theory in a very strong position for consideration.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

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

Why of course fire was responsible, which explains why after more than 11 years, 911 Truthers have failed to provide a shred of evidence that explosives were used.

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

Are you implying that secret agents place mufflers on bombs so no one could hear the explosions? There were no bomb explosions seen, nor heard, nor detected by seismic monitors nor was evidence of explosives found on the steel columns or even within the rubble at ground zero.

The demolition is absolutely possible to refute in theory, I even told you how.

Actually, what you told and proved to us is that you have no working knowledge of explosives and the proof is what you've posted.

There is no evidence against the covert demolition.

There is no evidence of explosives of any kind, and that, after more than 11 years since the 911 attacks.

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”

Well, let's take do a review because I think you missed it before.

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse

of the World Trade Center Buildings

Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

"Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall." - NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says

Photographic evidence proves beyond a doubt that floors sagged, pulling perimeter columns in. An event some conspiracy sites suggest never happened.

With the fire proofing blown off, the fire only needed as little as 600 degrees C to deform the naked truss steel.

http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm

WTC1 Inward Bowing of the S Perimeter

Inward bowing (IB) of the perimeter was observed on WTC1 and WTC2.

http://www.sharpprin...osition=499:499

So once again, where is your evidence that explosives were used? Without such evidence, you have no case.

Edited by skyeagle409
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, every thread in Conspiracies & Secret Societies turns into one before long.

And JFK before that.

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

Conspiratorial gravity.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.