• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
bill smith said:
I'm not yet well up enough on this stuff to take a stand. No doubt about it being interesting though.
Click to expand...

I'll save you some time. This is nothing. It's interesting from sociological and psychological perspective with regard to delusions and the study of counter cultures. There's some value in understanding how individuals and groups get to a point where this sort of delusion makes sense.

My own hypothesis is that the internet creates the illusion that these beliefs are if not normal at least valid. Say someone, despite evidence believed that there were no victims in the WTC. Well, obviously this is false and a view shared by an insignificant (both in the sense of numbers and influence) subset of the population. If one went to internet forums where this idea is discussed, one's irrational beliefs are reinforced by virtue of the fact the rational is not discussed or if it is discussed ridiculed. The reality though is outside of some fringe forums these ideas are treated with the disdain they deserve. This reinforces the delusion when what such a person needs to hear is that this belief is irrational.

As far as the ideas presented being a logical line of inquiry there's nothing any serious person should be bothered with.
 
Craig4 said:
I'll save you some time. This is nothing. It's interesting from sociological and psychological perspective with regard to delusions and the study of counter cultures. There's some value in understanding how individuals and groups get to a point where this sort of delusion makes sense.

My own hypothesis is that the internet creates the illusion that these beliefs are if not normal at least valid. Say someone, despite evidence believed that there were no victims in the WTC. Well, obviously this is false and a view shared by an insignificant (both in the sense of numbers and influence) subset of the population. If one went to internet forums where this idea is discussed, one's irrational beliefs are reinforced by virtue of the fact the rational is not discussed or if it is discussed ridiculed. The reality though is outside of some fringe forums these ideas are treated with the disdain they deserve. This reinforces the delusion when what such a person needs to hear is that this belief is irrational.

As far as the ideas presented being a logical line of inquiry there's nothing any serious person should be bothered with.
Click to expand...

You're not interested in the electronic data that was retrieved from some of the 9/11 photo's for instance- that predated 9/11 ? The telephone number that Jayhan paid 1,99 for some service to get one of the air hostesses phone numbers which came with her birthdate attached as confirmation and when they called it they were connected to the Pentagon ? That her address turned out to be an empty lot ? Lots more like that.

True or not I don't know. But interesting ?....definitely.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
You're not interested in the electronic data that was retrieved from some of the 9/11 photo's for instance- that predated 9/11 ? The telephone number that Jayhan paid 1,99 for some service to get one of the air hostesses phone number which came with her birthdate attached as confirmation and when they called it they were connected to the Pentagon ? That her address turned out to be an empty lot ? Lot's more like that.

True or not I don't know. But interesting ?....definitely.
Click to expand...

I have three digital cameras. One's a video camera, one for stills, and an underwater camera. I've never set the dates on any of them. So no, not interested. Because we know from vast amounts of data about the numbers of people in the buildings the problem has to be with the data on the cameras.

I'm interested in how people get to a point in their lives where they're impervious to the rational though.
 
Craig4 said:
I have three digital cameras. One's a video camera, one for stills, and an underwater camera. I've never set the dates on any of them. So no, not interested. Because we know from vast amounts of data about the numbers of people in the buildings the problem has to be with the data on the cameras.

I'm interested in how people get to a point in their lives where they're impervious to the rational though.
Click to expand...

The dates WERE set on the cameras concerned.

As regards people of rational thought. I belong to the 95% of people who believe in the CD os the Twin Towers and WTC7 on 9/11. You belong to the other 5%. Whose belief is irrational now ?

Unless you are saying that the 100-plus engineers and architects and engineers who attended Richard Gage''s presentations are all irrational ? See (table)


Cumulative results by show of hands before and after Richard Gage's
june 2011 presentations in Amsterdam,Rotterdam,Bristol,London,Cork
Dublin and Dundalk. 1017 attendees total.

Totals: before : after
I Believe fires brought down the buildings 47 : 2
I am Unsure 148 : 64
I Believe in explosive Controlled Demolition 747 : 951

http://www2.ae911truth.org/speakings.php
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
The dates WERE set on the cameras concerned.

As regards people of rational thought. I belong to the 95% of people who believe in the CD os the Twin Towers and WTC7 on 9/11. You belong to the other 5%. Whose belief is irrational now ?

Unless you are saying that the 100-plus engineers and architects and engineers who attended Richard Gage''s presentations are all irrational ? See (table)


Cumulative results by show of hands before and after Richard Gage's
june 2011 presentations in Amsterdam,Rotterdam,Bristol,London,Cork
Dublin and Dundalk. 1017 attendees total.
Totals: before : after
I Believe fires brought down the buildings 47 : 2
I am Unsure 148 : 64
I Believe in explosive Controlled Demolition 747 : 951

http://www2.ae911truth.org/speakings.php
Click to expand...

I would suggest if you're serious about this you learn a bit about social science research. I'm not even sure where to begin with the problems here. You've got a real lunatics running the asylum sort of problem here. You're polling a bunch of irrational people to see if they have irrational beliefs. Your population sample isn't even close an accurate representation. People who would attend this event would likely be predisposed to irrational beliefs.

Next, your first question is designed to skew. Since you're not going to be asking engineers or fire scientists these questions the first option should be "Do you believe the WTC collapsed as a result of airplanes being crashed into the buildings".

As for the cameras, we know about how many people were in the buildings from other sources of data so we don't need to look at the cameras. The camera data simply cannot be correct.
 
bill smith said:
The dates WERE set on the cameras concerned.

As regards people of rational thought. I belong to the 95% of people who believe in the CD os the Twin Towers and WTC7 on 9/11. You belong to the other 5%. Whose belief is irrational now ?
Click to expand...
:dl:

Apart from it being an appeal to popularity fallacy I think your figures are out by a tad.

Come back in 20 years when you still haven't achieved anything!
 
Sunstealer said:
:dl:

Apart from it being an appeal to popularity fallacy I think your figures are out by a tad.

Come back in 20 years when you still haven't achieved anything!
Click to expand...

Check the link I thoughtfully provided and take out your calculator then. It's easily tested.
 
Craig4 said:
I would suggest if you're serious about this you learn a bit about social science research. I'm not even sure where to begin with the problems here. You've got a real lunatics running the asylum sort of problem here. You're polling a bunch of irrational people to see if they have irrational beliefs. Your population sample isn't even close an accurate representation. People who would attend this event would likely be predisposed to irrational beliefs.

Next, your first question is designed to skew. Since you're not going to be asking engineers or fire scientists these questions the first option should be "Do you believe the WTC collapsed as a result of airplanes being crashed into the buildings".

As for the cameras, we know about how many people were in the buildings from other sources of data so we don't need to look at the cameras. The camera data simply cannot be correct.
Click to expand...

You are saying that the architects from the Royal Institute of British Architacts in London who attended the presentation are irrational then ?
You will notice that all bar one do not believe that fire brought down the Towers, Personally I suspect that the journalist David Aaronovitz (a rabid debunker) who also attended the lecture is that one. If so the the bottom line is that NO attending architact at the prestigious RIBA accepts the OCT.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
You are saying that the architects from the Royal Institute of British Architacts in London who attended the presentation are irrational then ?
You will notice that all bar one do not believe that fire brought down the Towers, Personally I suspect that the journalist David Aaronovitz (a rabid debunker) who also attended the lecture is that one. If so the the bottom line is that NO attending architact at the prestigeous RIBA accepts the OCT.
Click to expand...

Yes, the belief in a controlled demolition is irrational. So if a person believes it regardless of occupation or memberships the have an irrational belief.

Out of all the members of the Royal Institute of British Architects today how many share this belief?
 
Craig4 said:
Yes, the belief in a controlled demolition is irrational. So if a person believes it regardless of occupation or memberships the have an irrational belief.

Out of all the members of the Royal Institute of British Architects today how many share this belief?
Click to expand...

Any who have examined the issue, not all of whom are willing to put their careers at risk. The others have not examined the facts and believe what they saw on TV and were told by the talking heads as was intended.

NOT to believe in controlled demolition is irrational as is borne out in the figures shown above.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Any who have examined the issue, not all of whom are willing to put their careers at risk. The others have not examined the facts and believe what they saw on TV and were told by the talikng heads as was intended.

NOT to believe in controlled demolition is irrational as is borne out in the figures shown above.
Click to expand...

No and obviously that last sentence is untrue based on the problems with the polling data. It's equally obvious that your assertion in the first paragraph is untrue absent polling data indicating such. The claim that "these people believe me but they're afraid to talk", isn't really worth considering.
 
You are saying that the architects from the Royal Institute of British Architacts in London who attended the presentation are irrational then ?
Click to expand...

They're either irrational, or went there for a good laugh. The latter were probably within walking distance, as it's unlikely they'd want to waste the gas it takes to get there.
 
Craig4 said:
No and obviously that last sentence is untrue based on the problems with the polling data. It's equally obvious that your assertion in the first paragraph is untrue absent polling data indicating such. The claim that "these people believe me but they're afraid to talk", isn't really worth considering.
Click to expand...

Well,you have your opinion and the readers will have theirs..
 
bill smith said:
Well,you have your opinion and the readers will have theirs..
Click to expand...

You've seen first hand what usually comes from appealing to lurkers and "readers", bill. I know it helps you keep from feeling how much in the abject minority on the 9-11 issue you are, but no matter what your beliefs you need to understand what you're up against.

The vast majority of people on this board, and as well the world, rightfully think you folks' ideas are nuts.
 
bill smith said:
Well,you have your opinion and the readers will have theirs..
Click to expand...

Here's your other problem. You act as if your understanding of the events is equal to mine. Everyone is entitled to have "their side" but not all sides deserve the same level of consideration. You side is irrational based on a lack of evidence, sloppy data collection, a lack of rigor and a poor grasp of the basic facts. My view is better than yours because it's not plagued by these problems. You can't expect that your view is going to be treated as being as valid as mine when you can't support it.

Going back to your numbers, if your view held true for the general population you "side" wouldn't be so ineffectual. Let's face, it this world view of yours has no success stories. There are no new investigations. There are no candidates calling for new investigations. No one has been voted out of office for telling the "official story". If this belief was so rampant you'd have some trophy to hang on the wall.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom