It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Concerning 9-11 "Truth": Irreducible Delusion & the Inflationary Model

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 12:52 PM
I liken the OP's 'whitepapers' to the NIST report on 9/11:

They include a lot of words but dont actually say anything..

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 12:59 PM
reply to post by Nonchalant

Exactly. Lots of words that say nothing.

Typical of this particular OP.

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 01:06 PM

Originally posted by billybob
by the 'logic' of debunkers like the bogey man, slightlyabovepar, nazi germany is impossible, because it also was founded by a conspiracy and a massive propaganda campaign.

Yeah, I have to wonder how many eye-rollers there were in Germany all during that period, until US forces showed up and started forcing civilian Germans to shovel out their dead in the concentration camps themselves. I bet that was an eye-opener to a lot of people.

To this day, Germans don't like talking about that part of their history.

How many people were "in" on that, SAP? And how many more were just plain stupid to it all, thus allowing it to happen? If you're ignorant of something, you're most certainly not going to be able to control it, and the Germans are your living testament to that.

Not even going to mention all the total BS rhetoric the Nazis and their ignorant sympathizers published to justify themselves.

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 01:17 PM
The OS has one single example of the scientific method applied to proving its case. In that example the experiment was run 9 times, and 8 of the times it was run did not support the OS. Also, the experiment did not support the entire OS, but only the initiation of collapse of wtc1 and 2.

So yeah, no wonder 'us truthers' are hard to debate.

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 01:22 PM
At the risk of engaging the Op or other sympathizers into the standard "You have nothing to contribute" reserved for resistance to the "Irreducible Delusion" and "Inflationary Model" subject:

This almost seems target specific 'techno-jargon' developed specifically for the application to those yet questioning the events surrounding 9/11. The focus is on the inherent weakness present in conjecture and inference, two methods of inquiry which the authors must believe are not valid in such subjects.

The actual affliction of ID and IM can be applied to any position based upon theory. Unfortunately for all those interested in the apparent rift between what is commonly held as the 'official' story and circumstantial (or even anecdotal) accounts and assertions in the case.

There is no arguing with the atheist that there is a god. There is no arguing with the debater who persists in asking for proof that is not available to provide, and conjecture is anathema to them. This is an interesting 'label' or 'object' to bring into the discussion, if only because it deflects from the substance of the debate and focuses on the opponent at his weakest point - the inability to post some magical link or photo that can circumvent stereotypical objections like "not an expert," or "biased source," or "liberal agenda," or other such objections to conjecture based on the kind of evidence that is available on the internet.

This was a good trap. The bait being the 9-11 verbiage, the hook being the closed aspect of the tag "Irreducible Delusion" and "Inflationary Model" each of which reflects and targets argument weakness, not the subject matter itself.

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 01:31 PM
Okay, so you have nothing of substance to add to the discourse concerning The Irreducible Delusion nor the Inflationary Model?

If you'll take the time to read through the white papers, I would be happy to discuss any counter point you would like to make.

Again, do you have anything of substance to say regarding the Irreducible Delusion or the Inflationary Model? Anything at all?

If not, you're disapproval is noted and with that, please move on.

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 01:39 PM
reply to post by Maxmars

Thank you for your reply!

Awesome read.

I agree, somewhat, with your position. I agree that conspiracies at large suffer from ID and IM. Shoot, I think ID/IM could be applied to many different theories. However, that doesn't mean either the IM or ID model (or the conclusions drawn from applying them) are wrong.

I agree with you - these models were directly developed (as explained and applied in this post) from observations of the "truth movement". Again, the limited scope of the white paper(s), alone, should not serve as the basis for rejecting them.

I also believe, like the author, that the "truth movement" seems (purely anecdotal, no "evidence" so to speak) particularly willing to engage in IM/ID. Personally, I believe this is for two reasons:

(1) At the end of the day, that's all they have to fall back on, and
(2) Skeptics have never been as engaged in the debate as they are with 9-11 myths.

I really appreciate your views and thank you for sharing them.

EDIT: For clarification, I didn't (at all) intend for this post, or it's subject matter to be any kind of trap. Personally, I think the paper(s) bring the glare of truth to the "truth movements" actions - and a understanding of "why". But, that's just me. One man's opinion. I posted to see what others, like you, had to say.

[edit on 14-7-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 01:52 PM
reply to post by bsbray11

Again, deflection.

Do you have anything of substance, anything at all, concerning either model?

And - as is par for the truth movement - you have your analogy backwards. I'll leave it to you to figure that one out.

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 01:55 PM

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by Nonchalant

Exactly. Lots of words that say nothing.

Typical of this particular OP.

And refusal to actually read the substance of the post, but yet form a steadfast opinion that you think is fact is yours.

A man should know his limits. I am glad you know yours.

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 02:00 PM
reply to post by Nonchalant

Unfortunately, you are wrong.

It's a long read - no doubt - and apparently beyond the grasp of some to comprehend but, it's a good read.

Your post is a good example of the juxtapose position the truth movement is in. That is, they claim to be diligent researchers but yet reject anything that doesn't support their beliefs. What's worse, as your post illustrates, you have no problem forming an opinion about something you wont even take the time to read.

If your final, informed opinion is that the white papers are a "bunch of words that don't say anything" that's fine and I appreciate your input. However, take the time and actually read what's contained within them.

Honest question: what are you so afraid of learning?

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 02:09 PM

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
That is, they claim to be diligent researchers but yet reject anything that doesn't support their beliefs.

Whats so ironic about that statement is that people like you still believe the official media story with no official reports or actual evidence to support it.

Also most people like you who still believe the official story are afraid to do research, they live in a fantasy world and will not accept any type of facts and evidence that do not go along with thier believe.

If you did any actual research you would find there is more evidence that questions the official story then supports it.

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 02:15 PM
reply to post by ULTIMA1

Thanks for your (nasty) reply Ultima.

In the other thread I started you claimed/parroted almost the exact same thought. For the sake of brevity, let me quote my reply there:

Thanks for your reply Ultima.

Do you have anything to add concerning this thread and the subject it's about?

I know you like to say "there are no official reports" in every thread you enter but, this isn't a thread about "official reports". Please start a thread with "Official Reports" in it's title somewhere and I will be happy to discuss those myths with you there.

[edit on 14-7-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 02:26 PM

Originally posted by SlightlyAboveParima
In the other thread I started you claimed/parroted almost the exact same thought. For the sake of brevity, let me quote my reply there:

I have to keep stating the same type of statements so the closed minded can finally get it.

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 02:31 PM

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
It's a long read - no doubt - and apparently beyond the grasp of some to comprehend but, it's a good read.

Your post is a good example of the juxtapose position the truth movement is in. That is, they claim to be diligent researchers but yet reject anything that doesn't support their beliefs.

this is true of official story protectors who won't admit that a passport surviving is weird, drills mimicking the attack while the attack is going on, emergency command bunkers being built for 15 million on the 23rd floor of a building overlooking the site(that same building going into freefalllater, after being reported on BBC as having fallen already 20 minutes earlier), FEMA workers admitting they arrived a day early, criminal destruction of evidence, a scientific inquiry with no teeth due to this lack of evidence(as an alibi, there was enough evidence for a VERIFIABLE theory of collapse, and not some GIGO simulation).

debunkers are really starting to tick me off.
every single thing that mackey says about 'truth' conspiracy theory is directly applicable to official conspiracy theory(ie. 19 saudi terrorists from saddam al bin laden afghanistan, durka) that debunkers so senselessly defend.

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 03:17 PM
reply to post by billybob

BB - I will respond to you and your thoughts. It's almost dinner time here and my family gets my attention now.

When I respond, I will edit out this comment and use this space.

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 03:51 PM
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar

I just wanted to add, that when I make use of the term 'trap' I in no way mean that to be construed as 'sinister'. I mean that in the exercise of debate, it is often necessary to verbally negotiate premises and axioms in such a manner as to bring focus on the untenable nature of an opponent's position - or at least the nature of the opponent's choice of verbiage and delivery. That practice, to my mind is a 'trap'. It has a constructive purpose, which is to confine your opponent's response within the frame of your position. When contending with ID or IM it becomes a very strong tool. Unfortunately for some, there is a natural tendency to become 'married' to an argumentative style, and like many other things, many people parrot debate style without understanding the objections they are facing. Hence the reduction or deflection becomes a knee-jerk defensive measure.

Anyway thanks for NOT being offended by my statement.
I suppose I should have expected you wouldn't, but I have encountered some of those who agree with your position (presumably) that the 9/11 event should be taken substantially 'as is' so to speak; and they weren't quite willing to accept that it is possible to dissent from that stance without relying on holographic reptilian overlords, or miniature nuclear cutting beams.

[edit on 14-7-2008 by Maxmars]

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 03:52 PM

Originally posted by billybob
drills mimicking the attack while the attack is going on,

Is all grabage this post is. But The 9/11 Truthers are sticking to our guns.. Good work guys..

I want to make a point of what you stated Billybob.

add to your sig the same exact thing happened in London 7/7

One chance in 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

I wonder the odds of this.. 2 attacks happening the same exact way... I wonder what the numbers are..

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 04:17 PM
Irreducible Delusion and The Inflationary Model.????

who the H comes up with this stuff...

lets invent some new words and useless procedures..

its like reading a big study that that comes to the conclusion
that breathing might be good for you.....

your doing a great job of dealing with this
don`t let them sway you in your views.

just for the sake of argument ,lets say the official store is
basically a LIE...

now unless someone comes and GIVES us the TRUTH..
there is going to be A LOT OF THEORIES...both wrong and right
and everywhere in between...
what else would one expect , given that there is no
"official" data to go on.

and now , factor in some dis-information...and now we have a full
blown CLUSTER-FU(k
and now the truth movement looks even crazier than the Official story..

all the paper shows is that stories get blown out of proportion,..

its COMMON SENSE.. not a scientific study...
the Author is so far off the mark that is just silly....

take a few steps back...look at the bigger picture..

who owns what? and who gains from these actions..


Now lets say(for the sake of argument) that the Official story is true...

is half the WORLD insane with conspiracies.......
doctors , lawyers, scientist, teachers, engineers, physicists,
musicians , politicians, and people from every walk of life ??
(i don`t think so)

Ivan and myself and sooooooo many others are not de-railed
when we see this kind of"STUDY"

it only strengthens our position.
and it shows just how desperate some are to
hide the truth.

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 05:06 PM
I'll add my take on this whole issue, and this one comes from the gut:

There are two types of people that are against the truth movement:

1) The deluded coward. These poor souls are too scared to change their world view by admitting even the remotest possibility (which is actually far remoter than the actual evidence...) of 911 having been a false flag. As such they just bury their head in the sand and discard the whole movement as nonsense, while filtering out any information they don't want to hear, which is easy because the media is biased against 911 truth.

2) The cynical patriot. These people probably suspect or even know 911 was a false flag, but they see themselves as realists and either accept it because they think it dosen't effect them directly or actually try and hide it because they profit from it. These people will poop on the 911 truth movement whenever they can and this mentality is behind the media.

There is of course a third group, the criminals behind 911 and other such crimes against humanity.

I can relate to the first group, because when I realise just how bad the reality behind 911 was, what it was designed to do, how low these people intend to take mankind, I too was in pain. But, for whatever it's worth, I have swarn allegiance to truth, over everything else.

911 was a false flag. Research for yourself, and if you're intelectualy honest then you deal with it.

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 05:22 PM
The most obvious conspiracy theories based around 9/11 are the ones regarding the official story. The official story only adds up (to some degree) with disregard to simple facts and information that remains hidden by the administration.

Why did the the current administrations wait so long to initiate an investigation?

Why was the Commission's request for information met with such staunch resistance from this administration?

Why was it one of the lowest funded Commissions compared with it's scale and repercussions in the the history of the world?

Why wouldn't Bush or Cheney agree to testify without the other being present?

Those questions alone are peculiar in themselves. And those are just questions regarding the Commission ... having nothing to do with technicalities such as the stress/load capacity and melting point of structural steel, the response of NORAD or the ignorance of prior warnings regarding the attacks, all of which have been argued against by industry experts and scholars.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in