It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I have nothing constuctive to add to this so I will go elsewhere.
See, I also know my limitations. (the word pompus comes to mind)




posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar


"There's a fine line in the Scientific Method, one that you have crossed. I refer to the fine line between refining a hypothesis and making excuses." - R. Mackey 06FEB07


This quote is good. Thanks SAP.

I'd like to ask Mr. Mackey a few questions.

Would this be "refining your hypothesis" or "making excuses"?

Picture this. NIST takes a few floors worth of modeling and ignites them. Burns them for longer and hotter than in real life. Very little deflection. This should be the point to refine hypothesis correct?

www.eas.slu.edu...

Under "test with experiment" it gives 2 options. Second one is the failed experiment which loops back to refining the hypothesis.

But no. NIST "makes excuses" and says the fire tests don't mean anything.

Then they try computer simulations. Only to find that the most severe and unlikely case could have started collapse. Another point where the hypothesis should have been "refined" eh?

But nope. They "make excuses" again and say that it was the perfect storm and the buildings were made of string cheese.

I find it interesting that someone who works for NASA (who could have a huge vested interest in all this) goes so much out of his way to discredit and "debunk" truthers. Mr. Mackey is a "systems safety manager" at NASA.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   

9/11 conspiracies in particular are not logical

Well that's about as ILlogical as it gets! There is plenty wrong with 9/11, beyond the typical government screw-ups.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


this whole thrread is a joke. your a joke. sure you wrote the papers. are you going to write a book? try to make your part of the pie?

why must you talk down to everyone, even those who try to answer your question?

Whatis your point of the thread?

What is yout true relation to these papers? honestly...

does anyone know the whole story? will we ever? were there errors? were they intentional? did something that never happened before occur?
who did it? who benefited? who profitted? who is still cashing in?

IM or ID



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   
From what I could gather after a trip to wikipedia, and a quick google, the only source for this particular theory or model is the forum post you listed. The references I found to "Inflationary model" all apply to cosmology and astronomy.

I read the "whitepaper". I think it's guilty of a few things - in particular, extreme bias, and an irreducible delusion of its own.

The non-permutable truth at the heart of this is that the author assumes that the motive behind every person who does not believe the official story with regards to 9/11 is the same, and that the beliefs of each one of those people are identical, and thus, all points that those people make are reducible to delusion - because the non-permutable truth the author assigns to those people is that they all believe that the official story is wrong in it's entirety, and they all therefore believe a fallacy, and everything else they believe is therefore a fallacy..

The logic behind this sounds pretty when couched in long words and complicated sentences, but is clearly delusional itself. Broad sweeping generalizations are almost always consistently wrong for about 50% of the people you're generalizing about, since most people don't actually live in the center of the bell curve on every issue.

I believe there were suspicious events related to 9/11. I believe that the physical collapses of three buildings are inadequately explained by physics (a field I understand well). I would like to see an independent and non-political investigation. In fact, this sort of opinion is, according to the writer of this "report", a strong delusion


The delusion at the root of many calls for a new investigation is not that we do not know who was responsible for September 11th, but instead that nobody can know on the basis of existing information. This is a Strong Irreducible Delusion. Anyone who bothers to read the major reports, such as the 9/11 Commission and NIST, will realize that the conclusions are quite definitive. Therefore, either the Government is telling the truth, or the Government is part of the plot, and this fact can be discerned simply by either confirming or disproving the reports themselves. No “new investigation” is needed.


Clearly, the only actual information available is that given by the major reports. When one controls the majority of information, it is very hard for someone else to 'debunk' those official reports, regardless of what the OP thinks. There is little or no access to the vast quantities of information NIST and the 9/11 commission had available to them, no access to the information that they did not include in their reports. No access to such things as the steel used in the buildings, so no way for the average person to take measurements, do tests, look at things under an electron microscope to see what sort of 'collapse' those girders suffered - you'd be amazed at just how much information you could gather from that sort of observation alone. I would love to see such information, but the likelyhood of that becoming available without a new independent investigation is pretty much nil. According to the person who posted, therefore, I'm delusional for wanting more evidence than we've been presented with, and for not realizing that I should be able to prove or disprove NIST's reports solely using the material they themselves chose to include.

This is clearly ridiculous - just think for a moment about the accepted scientific peer review process. To prove a theory, I must, in a paper, include all of the information on my theory, the tests and materials I used to prove it, and anything else necessary to allow someone else to duplicate my results independently.

To prove the Official story, therefore, a scientific peer review process should include all the materials available to the 9/11 commission and NIST, and would allow someone else to come to the same conclusions independently. The desire for this to happen is simple not delusional, and cannot logically be considered so, and cannot be used as a basis for proving that all 'truthers' are delusional, and every point they raise therefore, is 'inflationary delusion'

I think that's quite enough time spent now on psuedoscientific delusionary slander.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Quick run down.

Stars for posts in favor of the Original Poster and this thread in general = 7

Stars for posts against the Original Poster and this thread in gGeneral = 78

Stars that are somewhat on the fence = 5

Good job shooting yourself in the foot again SAP.

78 to 7, that in my book is a rout.

This has been the trend lately over the last 2 months. It seems the truth movement has been gaining steam, as the "liar" movement has been loseing steam, I wonder why?

Because it's damn frigging hard to lie, telling the truth is easy, you just say what you saw and what happened. No slips of the tounge (ie Rumsfeld/Bush/Rice), no Propaganda, no need for Derailment and Disinformation.

For the love of your country, c'mon man, look at where we are headed.

You my friend are facilitating your own demise by helping those behind the scenes that are actually in power. How do you look at yourself in the mirror?

Unless of course you are one of those men, but since you are not, That I am Positive of, you might think your thier little helper, but you'll be in the same sinking ship, i.e. detainment camps with all of us truthers. I bet then you won't say a damn thing about "your beliefs" then, will you?

Your threads, are becomeing more and more desperate, and I am enjoying watching it, and keeping track of it.

Because right now, people are opening thier eyes, and wakeing up......

That scares this piss out of you, but even moreso your "handlers".

Be true to yourself, and be good and respectful to others, and do not knowingly lie, and you will have little to regret when the end days come. This you can count on. You may also be able to look at yourself in the mirror before all is said and done, and say, well, at least I woke up, and tried my hardest. It's never too late to change.

[edit on 15-7-2008 by Nola213]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Nola213
 


So you'd have to say the stars have it! Motion Closed.


Z



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 12:49 AM
link   
I think the inflationary model makes a certain amount of sense. But it only goes to show that the official story is in fact, a conspiracy theory! The original theory was that it was an accident, remember? Then the second plane crashed... Oh it must be terrorists! Then the plane crashed in Pennsylvania... Oh the heroic passengers must have had an epic struggle in the cockpit!!! Then they decided that Al Qaeda was involved, then Iraq!!! Saddam was supposed to have some kind of aircraft fuselage sitting in the desert that he used to train the terrorists. Remember??? I won't be surprised if the official story goes through yet another inflationary stage.


[edit on 15-7-2008 by Distractions4Nothing]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 06:37 AM
link   
Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar



It's better to just find the root mistake, point it out for everyone, and let it go." - R. Mackey 12JULY08

The GOP claimed that Islamic terrorists conspired to attack the USA. A conspiracy.
Perhaps R. Mackey should include the Root mistake(s) in the Official Story given by the GOP. As many of these "conspiracy theories" are derived from pointing out root mistakes, the many inconsistencies in the "truth" offered by the Bush Administration, Intelligence Agencies etc. Perhaps because people simply won't move on or "let it go", this renders them a model for pithy studies on inflation while ignoring the content of the truths gathered.



Once inflation occurs, more basic, logic based questions are asked and in response the theory grows ("inflates") yet again which results in more questions and more inflation until the conspiracy involves virtually everyone and everything.

This has not happened with 9/11 Conspiracy, the bulk of theories i have come across consistently reference the Govt. as the real source behind these attacks. Although, given the nature of 9/11, it appears it does involve us all as it has led to war in other parts of the world with many global consequences. A war also rooted in mistakes(lies).


OP, thank you for the links, good post, very interesting.




[edit on 15-7-2008 by atlasastro]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


So what exactly did crash? The answer already lies within most of you according to the site you belong to, which is ATS.


This spirit relm is beginning to turn me onto life and reality again. The reality that I lost long ago but beginning to remember in this moment.


Sounds pretty schizophrenic doesnt it?
I'm sure



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


I am sorry, but I have to comment off topic. What are you doing here? I am going off topic because well, you seem like a paid for dis-info agent, and that bothers me. What is your intention fellow ATS member?



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Inannamute

The delusion at the root of many calls for a new investigation is not that we do not know who was responsible for September 11th, but instead that nobody can know on the basis of existing information. This is a Strong Irreducible Delusion. Anyone who bothers to read the major reports, such as the 9/11 Commission and NIST, will realize that the conclusions are quite definitive. Therefore, either the Government is telling the truth, or the Government is part of the plot, and this fact can be discerned simply by either confirming or disproving the reports themselves. No “new investigation” is needed.


Clearly, the only actual information available is that given by the major reports. When one controls the majority of information, it is very hard for someone else to 'debunk' those official reports, regardless of what the OP thinks.


For some reason "debunkers" have a hard time understanding this. They tell us that we can "reverse engineer" the buildings from the NIST report. I say BS because even NIST tells us they don't know the extent of the fireproofing on the core columns and outer perimeter columns. They guessed at it from reports of other accessible columns. Real scientific eh?

But, we're the "delusional" ones right?



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   
A white paper that suggests those who believe in conspiracies are weak mentally?



Well the issue of 9/11 has been brought up in Canadian and Japanese parliament and has spurned numerous law suits. The evidence is glaring, and will not go away, no matter how much propaganda you spray on it. It certainly is no news to me that the official stance is to treat all those who believe in anything more than the media relayed truth as insane. We are to believe whatever mainstream media has been told to make us believe, media is the number one way to attain what they wish to achieve by stealth.


"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." ---David Rockefeller from his memoirs



I can think of another who must, by the white paper, possess an equally weak mind:


"For we are opposed, around the world, by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy, that relies primarily on covet means for expanding it's fear of influence,

on infiltration instead of invasion,
on subversion instead of elections,
on intimidation, instead of free choice,
on guerrillas by night, instead of armies by day,

It is a system which has conscripted, vast material and human resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published.
It's mistakes are buried, not headlined.
Its dissenters silenced, not praised.

No expenditure is questioned. No rumor is printed. No secret is revealed.

No president should fear public scrutiny of his program.

Because from that scrutiny comes understanding. And from that understanding comes support or opposition, and both are necessary.

I am not asking your newspaper to support an administration.. But I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people..

For I have complete confidence in the response and the dedication of our citizens when they are fully informed. ---John F. Kennedy Speech, April 27, 1961



www.freezone.de...


Too much attention is being cast on 9/11. The incredibly substandard investigation, in which evidence was destroyed, will not stand up to the investigation other countries wish to do.


[edit on 15-7-2008 by mystiq]

[edit on 15-7-2008 by mystiq]

[edit on 15-7-2008 by mystiq]

[edit on 15-7-2008 by mystiq]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   
I am a conspiracy theorist, but the 9/11 conspiracy makes all of us seem like crazy people. Geeks on the internet pretending to be physicists and thermodynamics experts. Thanks for discrediting all of us.
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Inannamute
 


Awesome post and I thank you for sharing your opinions and criticisms.

Great read and thank you, again, for putting so much time into your response!



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Asmus
 


Inflationary Model in action!

Back at'cha. I think you're a paid dis-info agent trying to cast dispersions on me trying to cast dispersions on someone else, thereby causing complete "disnifo".

You're the disinfo agent and are obviously trying to protect your role and ninch in the disinfo community.

Of course, I am kidding and your question is (sorry) absurd.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Griff, thank you for your contributions here and in the other thread. I appreciate and enjoy reading what you have to say.

Thanks!



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Nola213
 


Good job for thinking that "stars" in an internet forum are indications of anything other than those who have the time. But yet, in the post that doesn't matter, there you are making comments, tallying up "stars", patting yourself on the back and completely unable to see the forest for the trees.

So in a thread that doesn't matter, from a poster who doesn't matter, with comments that don't matter there you are! Spending your time counting "stars" in an internet forum thinking your a "winner".

Epic fail.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


Dude, you do know what an opinion poll is don't you? These stars are serving the same purpose... Now, sometimes the popular opinion can be wrong, I won't dispute that, but a lot of the times it's an indication that things have to change. It's not irrelevant data.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
I am a conspiracy theorist, but the 9/11 conspiracy makes all of us seem like crazy people. Geeks on the internet pretending to be physicists and thermodynamics experts. Thanks for discrediting all of us.
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 




I'm not a thermodynamics expert, but I am a physicist, promise.. King's College London, physics w/ astrophysics major.. Home of James Clerk Maxwell and Arthur C Clarke, amongst others.. (I just like the pairing of those two alumni together, it amuses me).



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join