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: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
I would invite you to actually read what you are now discussing. You'll have much more credibility that way and will be able to create your own thoughts, rather than cut and pasting a huge amount of work from others.

[edit on 14-7-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]


Which of course raises the question of exactly how much of these "others"' work is actually their own original thoughts and not cut and pasted from someone else still... The number of "original" thinkers who created the conspiracy theory may be very small indeed.




posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 

that is alot of beautiful psycho-pseudo-scientific nothing. it is really pretty, without saying anything of any substance. mainly the point that everyone is a conspiracy theorist
if you belive that 19 hijackers took down the buildings with planes...
that would still be a conspircy.
think we have been lied to and it was something else...
the obvious conspiracy.
so given the definition of the word "conspiracy" and that i expect people with degrees in psychology to at least have a fundamental understanding of the english language, i say wow. that is a whole lot of nothing right there.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana
reply to post by Boone 870
 


I was wondering when the other resident pseudo skeptic debunker was going to come here and say some silly thing.

Typical and empty.

Running out of ammo guys? Sinking ship?


So that's what all these "debates" are about, then? Not trying to discover truth or reality, but to "sink" the other person's "ship". It's a "battle" and the purpose is to win.

Let's look at this from a viewpoint more in line with discovering truth and reality. One thing I have noticed in these "debates" is that oftentimes there is truth in both sides of it, not one or the other. For example, I think "Slightlyabovepar" has a good point -- throwing on ad-hoc contrivances ("inflation effect") to try and shore up a failing theory only goes to show that it is indeed that, a failure, and it is devoid of all logic and reason. However, the "pro-conspiracy" side also has something right: the USA is not entirely the innocent victim here insofar as 9/11 goes. 9/11, I believe, was likely retribution for decades of interventionism and imperial meddling around the globe -- interventionism and imperialism wrought by America's own hands. Elaborate "conspiracy theories" that must be propped up with dozens of ad-hoc contrivances are not required.

You may discuss this if you want, but remember: it's only a useful discussion if it is geared to finding truth, not to "sink" the "ship" and feel good that you "won".



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You know, when Copernicus suggested the Earth revolved around the Sun, it literally took until that entire generation of people died, and a fresh one could approach the problem in an unbiased nature, for people to start realizing that Copernicus was right, despite all the "experts." There were a ton of them that "debunked" Copernicus. They all died before ever realizing they were completely wrong.

So I have a theory, too: this guy is just another one of history's examples of people not being able to cope with evidence that suggests things in major contradiction with the way they already see and understand their world.


Ah yes, you trot out the old "Galileo argument" (although you use Copernicus instead of Galileo, but same idea.). There's a problem here: Copernicus had logic and facts to back up his theory. Your theory does not have such a backing.

Many of the things pointed out as "evidence" of this are not truly inexplicable by the "orthodox" theory. In addition, the "alternative" theory, or what I also call the "9/11 Truth" theory, makes some predictions that fail. One blatant example involves the claims of explosives. What do explosives do, other than just break things? They make a loud sound. Very, very loud. You can hear demolition charges from a very long way off. Yet even with dozens of cameras and microphones trained on this thing from all over the place, the telltale noise of high explosives -- an effect predicted by the 9/11 Truth Theory -- is conspicuously absent. Furthermore, even if you assumed all the videos are unreliable for some reason, why didn't the thousands and thousands of people around the towers report hearing all these explosions? Therefore, this is a failed prediction. Failed predictions are one of the things that discredit a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. There's other problems with the 9/11 Truth Theory, but I will not elaborate on them here.

I can tell you straight off the bat that my reason for rejecting the 9/11 Truth Theory has nothing to do with denial of truths that would be too far outside my "preferred" world-view. First off, I think the US government is atrocious. If there was real proof it did something like this I'd have no "emotional" inhibitions to accepting it at all. The problem is that no such proof exists. Second off, there was a time when I once really did believe these theories myself. Yes, you read that right. I once bought in to the 9/11 Truth Theory. But as I studied and learned more, and acquired more facts, I found it to beharder and harder a position to maintain. Holes appeared and there were too many things nagging that didn't seem to fit right with controlled demolition. So I gave it a run for its money. It lost.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by mike3
Ah yes, you trot out the old "Galileo argument" (although you use Copernicus instead of Galileo, but same idea.). There's a problem here: Copernicus had logic and facts to back up his theory. Your theory does not have such a backing.


You aren't paying attention.

Copernicus was completely dismissed out-of-hand and ridiculed in his day by all the establishment, because he was NOT seen to have logic or facts on his side. Ok? If you were alive back then, you would hear that he DID NOT have ANY logic or facts backing him up, but on the contrary, everything back then seemed to contradict him. He defied common sense, something that everybody already knew: the Earth is the center of the universe and the Sun and Moon revolve around it. That was a FACT back then because EVERYONE AGREED ON IT. You can't look back through the telescope of time and history and arbitrarily take the position of millions of dead people and think it makes a damned rat's ass difference now, because it doesn't. Copernicus was a quack to them and they died believing that. Chances are, you would have been one of those people. At least I see no reason to believe you would've been one of the exceptional few out-of-the-box thinkers, when it's so easy just to float along down the tubes with everyone else headed your way, right?

My point, the reason I post about Copernicus, is because I am TIRED of people copping out and simply asserting that all the experts disagree with the conspiracy theorists (which is not true) and therefore mass consensus wins out. History has proven time and time again that mass mentalities are stubborn and stupid, and they tend to move only when they have to, and especially not when it is painful for them. So if I am going to be convinced of something it IS going to be with facts and logic, and I'm not talking about using the words "facts" and "logic" in tired, repetitive rants, but some damned documented scientific processes and reasoning. You will all die before your sense of mass consensus ever reaches the clarity that good reasoning does. Reasoning does not include appeal to authority or ad hom.

[edit on 24-7-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Well then it's a good thing I don't argue from mass consensus, but from logic...



posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Nola213
 


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.

So the truth is to be determined by popular vote?

By members of a conspiracy web site?

Haha.

Let me offer a counterproposal.

Number of posts on thread (up to the one I'm replying to) actually addressing the subject of the OP: two. One from Maxmars, one from Sumerian Goddess.

Number of posts attacking the OP, flogging irrelevant hobbyhorses or merely dripping poison from full fangs: all the rest, except from SAP's own posts, of course.

Therefore, degree of logical engagement shown by 'truthers' on this thread: minimal.

This allows me, at any rate, to regard the OP contention as proved.

My felicitations to SAP, a voice of reason in the midst of an ocean of illogic.

And a very merry Christmas to all.



posted on Dec, 25 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana
Its just a matter of details.


This is so true.

You can blame it on the deterioration of the school system, the media, entertainment, bad parenting, or whatever you want, but one thing I have learned when trying to show people what happened on 9/11 is...

PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE TO READ!

It is a matter of details, and when you really analyze, investigate, and research the material the conclusions is so blatantly obvious.

But people are intellectually lazy, and that is why 9/11 was able to happen, because it doesn't have to be a perfect plan when the people are too ignorant to see the mistakes.

We need to find to find a way to make 9/11 truth easier to comprehend, because the problem is it is too complicated for the average American.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join