O.D.D. obsessive debunking disorder

[Mikko-kun]

I dont understand why the size of the evidence or the amount of experts nor even their authority matters so much. Ok, authority to some extent, but if you dont can't translate your expertise to layman level then how can you have a discussion with a layman, let alone convince a layman of your case?

WTC for one... if the iron support can melt by plane fuel burning to the extent that it'd cut through them, then it can. If it can be exploded by any less conventional but possible method that would be available for the claimed perpetrators, israeli or united states perpetrators, then it can. Motives are money, power and bringing-forth of your ideological causes. All sides seem to have them, that's my view.

One thing I dont understand, why do people feel a need to attach a "proven" or "debunked" label to things instead of just finding out the true state of things. I think that's a drive we have that's directing these conversations to a bad direction a lot of times.

[Babe Ruth]

Q

I'm certain that they DO understand the concept and nature of a false flag, but understanding it does not necessarily mean that a person is able to accept that one happened that day. They accept that the military can do such planning as in Northwoods, but they reject and deny that the events of 11 September had any military flavor at all.

And they are certainly not alone that way.

[flyingswan]

It'd be nice to know that you each understand the nature of a false flag attack to begin, whereby an attempt to conceal the nature of the event must necessarily exist. At the moment it appears you are claiming the WTC demolitions cannot have taken place if they stray from the conventional method, which is nonsensical and could explain why you fail to grasp the rest of the arguments.

Of course I understand your position that the collapses were caused by unconventional and covert controlled demolitions rather than the results of aircraft impacts and fires. What I am taking issue with is your claim that any feature of the collapse that doesn't resemble a conventional controlled demolition is instead evidence for a covert demolition. This means that you can ignore all the features that look like a collapse due to impacts or fires by claiming that your covert demolition mimics these features.

Instead of looking at each piece of evidence and asking yourself whether it looks like something caused by a demolition set-up or something caused by impact or fire and coming to a decision based on how plausibly each explanation fits the evidence, you start from the "covert demolition" explanation and fit all the evidence into it with no regard whatever for plausibility.

[Babe Ruth]

Swanny

Cannot speak for Q of course, but I started from the premise that the official story regarding the towers was true. I did accept that, though I did agree with Peter Jennings' observation, however anecdotal, and I actually defended the story online, employing all the standard talking points such as "cascading collapse" and such. Did that for about 4 years before I discovered that WTC7 had come down.

At that time I had to examine my position, and whether it was actually correct, all things considered.

So I did not start from the "covert demolition" position, I started from the same position you still hold.

Trouble was, the more I looked, the closer scrutiny, the more the "covert demolition" became the only possible conclusion. Overwhelming evidence to support it.

[flyingswan]

Swanny

Cannot speak for Q of course, but I started from the premise that the official story regarding the towers was true. I did accept that, though I did agree with Peter Jennings' observation, however anecdotal, and I actually defended the story online, employing all the standard talking points such as "cascading collapse" and such. Did that for about 4 years before I discovered that WTC7 had come down.

At that time I had to examine my position, and whether it was actually correct, all things considered.

So I did not start from the "covert demolition" position, I started from the same position you still hold.

Trouble was, the more I looked, the closer scrutiny, the more the "covert demolition" became the only possible conclusion. Overwhelming evidence to support it.

Did the NIST report showing in detail how fires caused the WTC7 collapse had any effect on your views? Have you even read it?

Edited May 4, 2013 by flyingswan

[Space Commander Travis]

Q

I'm certain that they DO understand the concept and nature of a false flag, but understanding it does not necessarily mean that a person is able to accept that one happened that day. They accept that the military can do such planning as in Northwoods, but they reject and deny that the events of 11 September had any military flavor at all.

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.

[Q24]

One thing I dont understand, why do people feel a need to attach a "proven" or "debunked" label to things instead of just finding out the true state of things.

That would work if so many were not prepared to create excuses for the true state of things.

I'm certain that they DO understand the concept and nature of a false flag, but understanding it does not necessarily mean that a person is able to accept that one happened that day.

I would have hoped so but I’m not sure - Swanny strangely doesn’t seem to understand that a covert demolition cannot match conventional demolition.

Of course I understand your position that the collapses were caused by unconventional and covert controlled demolitions rather than the results of aircraft impacts and fires.

You didn’t answer the question, again.

What I am taking issue with is your claim that any feature of the collapse that doesn't resemble a conventional controlled demolition is instead evidence for a covert demolition.

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.

This means that you can ignore all the features that look like a collapse due to impacts or fires by claiming that your covert demolition mimics these features.

Viewed in detail, there are no features that look like a collapse due to impacts or fires.

In particular I know you are confused about the bowing external walls shortly prior collapse, and suggest this type of deformation is the result of fire. But the fact is this relatively minor deformation (compared to precedent, for example, the Windsor building fire) could not be replicated by NIST’s state of the art fire simulations. No, NIST could not achieve a match to the real world observation so had to rely on human inputs to provide a match and simply attributed that to the preconceived conclusion of fire. So the official theory at that vital point in the study consists of an animation, rather than a simulation or fire science. A clear example of fitting a square peg to a round hole to achieve the desired result.

Of course we discussed how thermite weakening the core structure could possibly cause the bowing witnessed. Indeed the bowing increased greatly 7 minutes prior to collapse which just so happens to be when the thermite flow became visible from WTC2. How convenient for us demolition theorists.

Why should anyone accept NIST’s ‘fixed’ answer and a nonsensical ‘battery-bomb’ theory to disregard two pieces of evidence – the bowing and the thermite flow - when each feature, and every other feature of collapse, fit together so well and are explained in one answer; demolition?

I’m not getting into all that with you again though, suffice to repeat that your above quote shows only further confusion of the demolition theory.

[skyeagle409]

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.

The government couldn't even coverup the Watergate scandal.

[skyeagle409]

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.

[Q24]

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.

[Mikko-kun]

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.

[flyingswan]

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.

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.

[+Liquid Gardens]

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'.

[Mikko-kun]

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

[skyeagle409]

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."

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 May 5, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Insaniac]

Good article, and true as far as I understand.

[Frank Merton]

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.

[Mikko-kun]

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

[Frank Merton]

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 May 5, 2013 by Frank Merton

[Babe Ruth]

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?

[Babe Ruth]

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.

[Mikko-kun]

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.

[Frank Merton]

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.

[Babe Ruth]

Mikko

I agree with you completely on these points.

[Frank Merton]

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