O.D.D. obsessive debunking disorder

[Babe Ruth]

Because I was wrong, not for the first or last time in my life. I was wrong in thinking that it was stainless. Brain fart. Whatever you want to call it.

But it's not important, in the proverbial big picture, which is where I roll.

For you it's an easily checked fact. For me, not so much. I type well but am not a good researcher.

The overarching fact, the Number One Fact is that the OCT is a lie. You can't deal with that, because you can't find it somewhere on the computer. You do not have the intuition to comprehend it, because nobody has told you, nobody you like, I should say.

Thanks for asking, but I am being most honest about it. Brutally honest, one might say. Remember, I crossed over.

[Space Commander Travis]

is it another spin-off effect of either ODD or OCTD that any discussion about conspiracy theories, however general, always turns into another thread about 9/11?

[ChrLzs]

...Because I was wrong, not for the first or last time in my life...

But it's not important, in the proverbial big picture, which is where I roll.

For you it's an easily checked fact. For me, not so much. I type well but am not a good researcher.

The overarching fact, the Number One Fact is that the OCT is a lie. You can't deal with that, because you can't find it somewhere on the computer. You do not have the intuition to comprehend it, because nobody has told you, nobody you like, I should say.

Thanks for asking, but I am being most honest about it. Brutally honest, one might say. Remember, I crossed over.

Addressing the bolded segments:

"or last time" - No, it certainly isn't the only time you have been wrong, and it very obviously won't be the last, as long as you don't/won't improve those research skills..

"it's not important" - to you, and you have poor research skills? Don't you see the problem there - you got a REALLY important topic wrong, in fact fought it tooth and nail, which means..

"in the proverbial big picture", which is where I roll.- there's your main problem, you focus on the 'proverbial big picture' as portrayed by conspiracy sites, and you ignore any detail, not just the small ones, that doesn't support your desired world-view - Confirmation Bias.

"overarching fact, the Number One Fact .. You can't deal with that" - emotive words like this show you NEED the conspiracy to be true, and to be superior to other lesser mortals not in on the CT - that's the worst form of confirmation bias.

"nobody you like" - and there it is again - you only listen to those who agree with you.

The scammers love folks like this..

[lightly]

[quote name='flyingswan' timestamp='1367139248' post='4752329'

Basically what's happening in Basically what's happening in any conspiracy theory is that people have a need or a motivation to believe in this theory, and it's psychologically different from evidence-based thinking. A conspiracy theory is immune to evidence, and that can pretty well serve as the definition of one. If you reject evidence, or reinterpret the evidence to be confirmation of your theory, or you ignore mountains of evidence to focus on just one thing, you're probably a conspiracy theorist. We call that a self-sealing nature of reasoning.

http://www.salon.com...iracy_theories/

But.. what IF the conspiracy theory is true... and a conspiracy exists or has transpired ?

Edited April 29, 2013 by lightly

[Babe Ruth]

is it another spin-off effect of either ODD or OCTD that any discussion about conspiracy theories, however general, always turns into another thread about 9/11?

Good point, but I would say what you are observing is simply a natural process. That is, the events of 11 September were certainly the major events in the contemporary society of ours. It is only natural that discussions of conspiracy theories should sooner or later include that major event.

[No Censorship]

One would think that if the case were only that certain officials failed to act in a responsible manner and ignored warnings, that those same people would be interested in conducting a proper investigation as to why the buildings came down. And thus preserve the scene as much as possible, and analyze the forensic evidence.

But that did not happen. Indeed, Fire Engineering Magazine pointed out quickly that the destruction of the site and sweeping away of the evidence was not only ILLEGAL under state laws, but also very stupid for future design and construction concerns.

I won't argue or debate the case in this thread. I agree with you, though. There are more red flags than a May Day parade. I doubt that we'll get the full story any time soon.

[flyingswan]

     But.. what IF the conspiracy theory is true... and a conspiracy exists or has transpired ?

In that case, there won't be the mountain of contrary evidence to reject. However, very few conspiracy theories have eventually been shown to be true. The only one that comes to mind is that the USSR were accused of funding organised labour and left-wing opposition groups in Western nations during the Cold War. These groups all denied the accusations, but come glasnost, the USSR admitted it.

[Q24]

In that case, there won't be the mountain of contrary evidence to reject.

Then the 9/11 false flag operation, lacking any ‘mountain of contrary evidence’ is on good footing. It so happens it is the official 9/11 conspiracy theory which ignores huge volumes of damaging evidence. There are a hundred points that could be mentioned, but take the numerous evidence of Bush/bin Laden family business links for one simple to discern fact. Surely this and much more is relevant of consideration to understand what one side knew of the other and grasp the full backdrop of 9/11, yet it is to be found nowhere in the official report. And topics ever more compelling, such as the official investigation declining to address the specific intelligence failure which led directly to 9/11 - heck, in the midst of a CIA operation surrounding two hijackers before 9/11, an operation which prevented the FBI following normal law enforcement procedure against the hijackers, we have a Saudi government agent providing direct funding and assistance. I know you agreed that more investigation was warranted there. How about ignoring the greater probability, as determined by NIST, that the towers would not collapse, to favour the lesser probability that the towers would collapse? Yes, your comment would indicate the official story of 9/11 to be a conspiracy theory in this case. It is only the 9/11 false flag operation which can undaunted incorporate the complete mountain of evidence.

In that case, there won't be the mountain of contrary evidence to reject. However, very few conspiracy theories have eventually been shown to be true. The only one that comes to mind is that the USSR were accused of funding organised labour and left-wing opposition groups in Western nations during the Cold War. These groups all denied the accusations, but come glasnost, the USSR admitted it.

Of course, the fact that not all theories are proven true, does not mean that they are not true. It’s more that underhand covert operations are only fully revealed either 1) when something goes wrong, e.g. the Lavon Affair or 2) when the perpetrators are defeated, e.g. Operation Himmler. Therefore a successful operation and follow-up will mean that a quite true theory can go unproven, to pseudoskeptics, at least.

[Frank Merton]

Good point, but I would say what you are observing is simply a natural process. That is, the events of 11 September were certainly the major events in the contemporary society of ours. It is only natural that discussions of conspiracy theories should sooner or later include that major event.

It seems pretty obvious that no major event takes place in the world without voices raising conspiracy challenges, and, inevitably, inconsistencies are found in the evidence, testimonies, timelines, and so on, and even if they don't exist they are "found."This has the overall effect to most people (except a few who thrive on the excitement of this sort of thing) to make such theories suspect going in and keeps them from getting any real hearing. The advocates do their theories no good with their hysterics and exaggerations and accusations of incredible political and economic plots that people who know how things really function readily dismiss.

[DONTEATUS]

Whats the letters Im looking for here ? "WTF"

[Q24]

The advocates do their theories no good with their hysterics and exaggerations and accusations of incredible political and economic plots that people who know how things really function readily dismiss.

The quote you responded to was in regard to 9/11. But you must be talking more generally. Because “people who know how things really function” certainly doubt the 9/11 official story: -

It [the 9/11 Commission Report] was a 580-page avoidance of any serious explanation. The official investigative report says the US has never been able to find the sources of financing for 9/11. And then they say this "That after all is a matter of no great importance." I find that astonishing. It is a matter of absolutely central importance. So there was a very great deal of evidence. And it seems to me extraordinary that the United States with its stupendous military capabilities and the most technologically advanced country in the world completely and totally failed to follow up on these leads."

~Michael Meacher, UK member of Parliament

This whole behavior of government after 9/11 shows me that there must be these people which brought it about. It must be very, very high up. ... I think so. It's a covert operation, a typical covert operation where you have patsies, false flag, where you prepare everything to blame different people from the people which really did the things. But they are able to influence the public opinion in order to say, 'Well, the Muslims are our real foes, which we have to fight.'

~Andreas Von Buelow, German member of Parliament

World Trade

Center

7 also collapsed--in a way that was inconsistent with the common experience of engineers. The final NIST report claimed that the plane strikes against

the twin

towers were responsible for all three building collapses: WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. All three buildings collapsed completely, but Building 7 was not hit by a plane. WTC7’s collapse violated common experience and was unprecedented.

~Ferdinando Imposimato, President of the Supreme Court of Italy

I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government and that we have been derelict in our duty to track that down, make the further case, or find the evidence that would indicate that that is not true and we can look for other reasons why the terrorists were able to function so effectively in the United States. It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now. And, we need to have this information now because it's relevant to the threat that the people of the United States are facing today.

~Bob Graham, U.S. Senator

Citizens in many countries are waging a war on the cover-up of the basis for the so-called war on terror–this basis being the official interpretation of the 9/11 attacks. Along with the Internet, which has equipped both public figures and ordinary citizens to wage this war on the cover-up, David Ray Griffin has revealed dozens of omissions, distortions, and contradictions in the official story in a way that provides undeniable evidence of its falsity. The New Pearl Harbor Revisited presents a powerful exposé of the false narrative that has been driving the mainstream political agenda since 9/11. It is now up to politicians and journalists around the world to expose this truth to our peoples.

~Yukihisa Fujita, Japan House of Councillors

How much did they actually know? And you get into very deep territory because it's the same kind of thing as we saw with Pearl Harbor. Did the President know, or didn't he know? I don't know. But, it's a very good question.There is some evidence to suggest that he may have and it was a deliberate decision on his part to let the attack happen because he wanted to get the United States into World War II. And otherwise it was going to be difficult to get Congressional approval. I would like to see someone in a position of authority ask these questions and insist on getting answers? ... At least to why some of the things happened that seem to be, for an ordinary person, inexplicable. ... I'm very disturbed about a lack of transparency. Everyone talks about it, and no one is willing to come clean, as it were. ... But, we have to try and get the truth. Because unless we do, as the good book says, "seek the truth and the truth will set you free." And I think that's what we've got to try to do and I hope that somebody has the courage and the persistence to keep at it until we can get it.

~Paul Hellyer, Canada former Defense and Deputy Prime Minster

These are just a sample of the world political leaders who back 9/11 truth and numerous more can be found at the following link, along with professionals from engineers to pilots to intelligence agents, all backed by many victims’ family members and a considerable portion of the general public: -

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Anyhow, as mentioned, obviously you must have been talking more broadly than 9/11.

[Frank Merton]

I remember Bush sitting in that classroom in Oklahoma or Texas or wherever and the managers were trying to get him to safety, and he was obviously completely out of the loop. It was no way to show a President "In charge."

I think Bush may have improperly taken advantage of the mood to do what he felt needed doing -- remove Saddam -- without sticking to legal niceties, but that is what leaders are supposed to do. It's like Lincoln seizing the Maryland legislature illegally to keep them from seceding.

After the fact of the collapse of those two buildings (and there is a lot fishy about that -- they should not have collapsed that way, so I figure there were illegal shortcuts taken in the construction) somebody managed to keep there from being a complete investigation (albeit in such a chaotic situation they probably would not have been able to reach any firm conclusions anyway).

None of this pertains to the main issue of who was responsible for those planes going into those buildings. The best that can be said is that if the bureaucrats had been more on the ball and not so protective of their turf their plot might -- I repeat, might -- have been uncovered.

So there are three areas where the US government can be criticized and valid questions raised. Now we see these questions being taken out of context for some to my mind pretty ugly and outrageous assertions.

[Space Commander Travis]

The quote you responded to was in regard to 9/11. But you must be talking more generally. Because “people who know how things really function” certainly doubt the 9/11 official story: -

Anyhow, as mentioned, obviously you must have been talking more broadly than 9/11.

I think he was probably talking about the ability of Governments to organise such enormous plots on such an enormous scale, and then to cover them up ever since. I'm sure any of those luminaries would know all about that from personal experience.

[flyingswan]

Then the 9/11 false flag operation, lacking any 'mountain of contrary evidence' is on good footing. It so happens it is the official 9/11 conspiracy theory which ignores huge volumes of damaging evidence. There are a hundred points that could be mentioned, but take the numerous evidence of Bush/bin Laden family business links for one simple to discern fact. Surely this and much more is relevant of consideration to understand what one side knew of the other and grasp the full backdrop of 9/11, yet it is to be found nowhere in the official report. And topics ever more compelling, such as the official investigation declining to address the specific intelligence failure which led directly to 9/11 - heck, in the midst of a CIA operation surrounding two hijackers before 9/11, an operation which prevented the FBI following normal law enforcement procedure against the hijackers, we have a Saudi government agent providing direct funding and assistance. I know you agreed that more investigation was warranted there. How about ignoring the greater probability, as determined by NIST, that the towers would not collapse, to favour the lesser probability that the towers would collapse? Yes, your comment would indicate the official story of 9/11 to be a conspiracy theory in this case. It is only the 9/11 false flag operation which can undaunted incorporate the complete mountain of evidence.

You appear to have difficulty with the concept of contrary evidence, just as you have the difficulty demonstrated here with the theory of probability as it applies in engineering. It's very strange, as you seem OK with contrary evidence against some aspect of the 9/11 conspiracy theory that you don't accept, like the Pentagon "no plane" theory. It's just the evidence contrary to your own beliefs that you can happily ignore, while spinning any trivial irrelevance into confirmation of those beliefs. We've all seen over the years how you argue that if it looks like a controlled demolition, then that's what it is, but any evidence that conflicts with a controlled demolition just means that it was a covert controlled demolition. Edited May 2, 2013 by flyingswan

[Babe Ruth]

Such nonsense you offer Swanny!

[Q24]

I think Bush may have improperly taken advantage of the mood to do what he felt needed doing -- remove Saddam -- without sticking to legal niceties, but that is what leaders are supposed to do. It's like Lincoln seizing the Maryland legislature illegally to keep them from seceding.

It appears to be a little more than taking advantage.

Bush positively rammed demonstrable propaganda down our throats to enhance the public fear: -

• “…there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq.”
  
• “We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade”
  
• “… there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.”
  
• “… a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America… ”
  
• “… Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.”
  
• “Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained.”
  
• “Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.”
  
• “The regime has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq... ”
  
• “The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding.”
  
• “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001… ”
  

These are all Bush quotes lies that anyone can lookup.

Is that really what good and honest leaders are supposed to do?

I would say that Bush was a bad and dishonest leader.

And given the above level of treachery shown to the American people, resulting in full scale war and the deaths of hundreds of thousands, both Iraqi, American and others, it would appear within Bush’s moral bounds to be complicit in success of the lesser destructive and costly 9/11 operation in the first place.

So there are three areas where the US government can be criticized and valid questions raised. Now we see these questions being taken out of context for some to my mind pretty ugly and outrageous assertions.

I agree there have been some ugly and outrageous assertions surrounding 9/11. Apart from those mentioned by Bush above, perhaps the greatest is that one man in Afghanistan be held most responsible, despite the type of evidence that would be laughed out of a court of law, and that somehow justified a full scale war to keep us safe. Though I’m sure you were actually referring to theories which oppose the official 9/11 story, and there you would also be correct. However, the gist of the truth movement theory – that the Bush administration were complicit in and furthered their pre-stated geopolitical agenda on basis of 9/11 – is only a logical conclusion based upon the complete body of evidence.

[Q24]

You appear to have difficulty with the concept of contrary evidence, just as you have the difficulty demonstrated here with the theory of probability as it applies in engineering. It's very strange, as you seem OK with contrary evidence against some aspect of the 9/11 conspiracy theory that you don't accept, like the Pentagon "no plane" theory. It's just the evidence contrary to your own beliefs that you can happily ignore, while spinning any trivial irrelevance into confirmation of those beliefs. We've all seen over the years how you argue that if it looks like a controlled demolition, then that's what it is, but any evidence that conflicts with a controlled demolition just means that it was a covert controlled demolition.

There is no evidence contrary to extent of my personal theory; all evidence is incorporated and congruent. Rest assured if there really was any evidence unearthed, contradictory to my theory, then I would adapt my view in light of the new information. Of course, it is that ability to adapt based on further evidence that led me to slowly move from acceptance of the official 9/11 story to conclusion of a false flag operation in the first place; a process which took around four years of incessant research and analysis.

Your final comment suggests you are still confused over the nature of the demolitions on 9/11. Naturally a covert demolition will share only some features of conventional demolition. In the covert demolition it is necessary that those more blatant indicators, like prior safety works and string of loud explosions preceding collapse for example, be removed or substituted for other methods. It would be no form of covert demolition otherwise.

The above is only meant to assist understanding, not because I want to get into another long discussion of the building collapse mechanics here.

[Spinebreaker]

I'm still astonished by the progression of events.

9/11 happens.

9/11 is believed (by the majority) to be down to Bin Laden/Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda is a group that has, historically been based in the mountains of Afghanistan/Pakistan.

Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia and his house is/was in Afghanistan.

Bush declares the "central front of the war on terror" is Iraq...

Now, I know Americans get a lot of abuse for general geographical knowledge... But after declaring war on several other countries who were not even marginally involved... (The phillipines, really?) Bin Laden is found and killed, in his house.

You know where I might have looked for him to begin with? Where he actually lived.

I don't even believe there's a question of whether 9/11 was manipulated to the ends of the government at the time.

[flyingswan]

Rest assured if there really was any evidence unearthed, contradictory to my theory, then I would adapt my view in light of the new information.

Yeah, sure you would.

Your final comment suggests you are still confused over the nature of the demolitions on 9/11. Naturally a covert demolition will share only some features of conventional demolition. In the covert demolition it is necessary that those more blatant indicators, like prior safety works and string of loud explosions preceding collapse for example, be removed or substituted for other methods. It would be no form of covert demolition otherwise.

I'm not in the least confused. I understand all too well that any evidence whatsoever that doesn't fit in with a controlled demolition becomes in your theory exactly what you think would be a feature of a covert demolition. In covert demolition, you have an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and we all know what those are worth.

[Q24]

Rest assured if there really was any evidence unearthed, contradictory to my theory, then I would adapt my view in light of the new information. Of course, it is that ability to adapt based on further evidence that led me to slowly move from acceptance of the official 9/11 story to conclusion of a false flag operation in the first place; a process which took around four years of incessant research and analysis.

Yeah, sure you would.

If you take into account my full quote [above] instead of responding to a snippet of your choosing, then the example I provided makes clear not only that I would adapt my view to incorporate new information but that I did.

I’ll provide another example – my moving from the possibility of ‘no plane’ at the Pentagon (as my earliest posts on this forum demonstrate), to now fully accepting a airliner impact at the Pentagon - entirely based on further evidence that was presented to me.

I’m afraid that your attempt to claim I am impervious to evidence does not fit at all.

I'm not in the least confused. I understand all too well that any evidence whatsoever that doesn't fit in with a controlled demolition becomes in your theory exactly what you think would be a feature of a covert demolition. In covert demolition, you have an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and we all know what those are worth.

If you are not confused, then how is it you don’t understand that a covert demolition will never be a replica of a conventional demolition? Why do you expect a complete matching set of data should be present in each type of demolition?

Also, the covert demolition is not unfalsifiable at all. Evidence that demonstrates a fire based collapse could falsify the theory. This could include anything from pre-collapse features that match only fire based collapse, i.e. large structural deformations seen to be caused by fire, asymmetrical and partial collapses (all as in the Madrid building), or it could include physical evidence, e.g. steelwork exhibiting sufficient fire temperature exposure that would lead to failure. So the theory could be falsified very easily given a competent investigation and if natural collapse were the case. It is only unfortunate for the official story that such evidence is conspicuous by its absence. And that in fact, a whole separate and huge body of evidence exists, ignored by the official investigation, which indicates something else entirely; deliberate demolition of the WTC buildings.

You are clutching at straws here attempting to discredit my objectivity or logic. The demolition conclusion, reached by almost 2,000 architects and engineers with large support in the general public, is of evidence and scientific based thinking: -

http://www.ae911truth.org/

May I just add my opinion that you (and you LG ) are a prime example of exhibiting the O.D.D. this thread refers to.

[+Liquid Gardens]

May I just add my opinion that you (and you LG ) are a prime example of exhibiting the O.D.D. this thread refers to.

Ha! Swan, would you like to buy Q a mirror or shall I?

Since we're just talking at the meta-level:

There is evidence supporting a fire-based collapse and you know it, which is why you continually invoke the 'best match' standard, as weighed by you, a non-expert, and the handful (I'm being really generous with that word) of experts that agree with you to some extent. Whether or not you accept, or have the expertise to evaluate, said evidence, is a separate question.

Your 'huge' body of evidence is composed largely of a vast array of little snippets of greatly varying relevancy and validity, all of which in my experience are held to various standards (this point shows there was a demolition, and this other point just shows we need more investigation so don't think you're actually saying that what this other point implies actually happened). You try to assert some kind of nebulous vague probability argument to the fact that because there are all these snippets that you find that suspicious, without performing any analysis of how many of these 'odd' things you should expect to find; I would expect you should find tons of odd coincidences given that you are trolling (like in fishing, not an internet troll) your 'false flag' fishing line through an event that affected thousands of people, spans a large amount of time (you invoke documents from the early 60's for chrissakes), and different places. Demonstrating that you have validly separated the signal from the noise seems to be anathema to you.

Your objectivity is in question at times, as has been noted repeatedly. You invoke possibilities and what 'could be' as defenses for your points, but demand 'proof' of the OCT, and happily admit that you are biased in this regard under the 'rationale' that the OCT was used by the govt to justify wars. But of course the fact that the govt has always indulged in opportunism has nothing at all to do with what actually happened on 9/11; the fact that we went to war, when evaluated as a piece of evidence, is orthogonal to whether the WTC was demolished.

Of course the easiest point to make against your argument is that the certainty that you derive from it is far disconnected from the evidence you have for it. Four years of analysis you've done and you think it's pretty clearly a false flag although you can't explain who specifically was involved and what they did, what kind of specific demolitions were planted, where they were planted, when they were planted, by whom, etc. As I've noted countless times, the only reason you can appeal to what 'could be' and what is possible is because you don't really have much evidence for your false flag that any proposed possibility could conflict with. If we could prove Cheney had no knowledge of your false flag, is that fatal to your theory? I'd say no, that fact doesn't conflict with any concrete evidence we have showing he must have been involved, it just means someone else in the govt was behind it. But oddly, this lack of evidence and overall malleability of your case doesn't give you pause.

And yes, some red flags go up when you provide links to people's opinions that agree with yours that contains such sober, objective words like 'patriots' in the URL. Let alone when you provide scientific quotes from people who believe they know the 'truth', almost as if they don't understand that the whole tentative scientific enterprise doesn't deal in 'truth' and any scientist worth his salt wouldn't use that word to define their findings.

[Babe Ruth]

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?'

[flyingswan]

I'll provide another example – my moving from the possibility of 'no plane' at the Pentagon (as my earliest posts on this forum demonstrate), to now fully accepting a airliner impact at the Pentagon - <em>entirely based on further evidence that was presented to me.

In view of the overwhelming evidence for a plane at the Pentagon, it doesn't say much for your ability to evaluate evidence that you ever doubted it.

If you are not confused, then how is it you don't understand that a covert demolition will never be a replica of a conventional demolition? Why do you expect a complete matching set of data should be present in each type of demolition?

This could include anything from pre-collapse features that match only fire based collapse, i.e. large structural deformations seen to be caused by fire...

These are present, yet you indeed try, none too successfully, to incorporate them into your incredibly complicated demolition scenario.

You are clutching at straws here attempting to discredit my objectivity or logic. The demolition conclusion, reached by almost 2,000 architects and engineers with large support in the general public, is of evidence and scientific based thinking: -

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Yeah, the very impressive minds of AE911T who, several years on, have failed to answer a letter from one of their own that showed that none of their "evidence" was the demolition smoking gun that they claim.

http://www.cool-plac...RichardGage.pdf

May I just add my opinion that you (and you LG ) are a prime example of exhibiting the O.D.D. this thread refers to.

...and the usual insult that shows the weakness of your argument.

[karina_28]

i got directed to this by a friend.Wow. The problems surrounding these 'debunkers' is this: the debunkers need to check what they're saying, to make sure that what they're convinced of being truth, is actually the truth.

The other side of the problem are the skeptics, people who are relying on the fact that science 'is incompatible with the Bible' or that 'God doesn't exist'. You too need to check where the information you are relying on is coming from - to disagree with the debunkers, you feel you have hard evidence - check where it is coming from - is it really the truth.

I don't debunk and I'm not a skeptic. I can handle a debate to put it mildly. I just search for the truth and stick to it. End of.

[Q24]

I wrote responses to LG and flyingswan’s posts above, but before we go on I’d like a response to the last question I posed as result of the string of discussion below, to which each declined comment. LG included as he ‘liked’ flyingswan’s comments: -

We've all seen over the years how you argue that if it looks like a controlled demolition, then that's what it is, but any evidence that conflicts with a controlled demolition just means that it was a covert controlled demolition.

Your final comment suggests you are still confused over the nature of the demolitions on 9/11. Naturally a covert demolition will share only some features of conventional demolition. In the covert demolition it is necessary that those more blatant indicators, like prior safety works and string of loud explosions preceding collapse for example, be removed or substituted for other methods. It would be no form of covert demolition otherwise.

I'm not in the least confused. I understand all too well that any evidence whatsoever that doesn't fit in with a controlled demolition becomes in your theory exactly what you think would be a feature of a covert demolition. In covert demolition, you have an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and we all know what those are worth.

If you are not confused, then how is it you don’t understand that a covert demolition will never be a replica of a conventional demolition? Why do you expect a complete matching set of data should be present in each type of demolition?

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.