Merged New video! Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of Building 7

[Marokkaan]

So, why do you think the illuminati, NWO, criminal cabal or whatever have you, selected to fly jetliners into buildings that were supposedly impervious to jetliners? Wouldn't it have been easier to fly jetliners into buildings that weren't impervious? Surely there are many around.

Even if not, why not scratch the jetliner idea and go with another? Do you think the illuminati, NWO, criminal cabal or whatever have you are insanely stupid and insanely clever a the same time?

Why you are talking about who did it?

I hope you know, i dont like to talk about conspiracies.

Its tempting, to talk with you about why they did it and who did it. But i dont like to do that, i just stick at what caused the collapse of the wtc towers.

This is the problem with debunkers and their cognitive dissonance (and also truthers), they prefer to link immediately with the questions why and who did this, instead rather look to the facts and the signals of facts.

 

[EventHorizon]

Why you are talking about who did it?

I hope you know, i dont like to talk about conspiracies.

Its tempting, to talk with you about why they did it and who did it. But i dont like to do that, i just stick at what caused the collapse of the wtc towers.

This is the problem with debunkers and their cognitive dissonance (and also truthers), they prefer to link immediately with the questions why and who did this, instead rather look to the facts and the signals of facts.

I get the distinct feeling that the part in bold doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[twinstead]

Why you are talking about who did it?

I hope you know, i dont like to talk about conspiracies.

Its tempting, to talk with you about why they did it and who did it. But i dont like to do that, i just stick at what caused the collapse of the wtc towers.

This is the problem with debunkers and their cognitive dissonance (and also truthers), they prefer to link immediately with the questions why and who did this, instead rather look to the facts and the signals of facts.

Even worse are truthers like you who jump to conclusions about the collapses by not understanding any of the facts, the "signals of facts", without any evidence at all to support their conclusions, and then lecture rational people who are skeptical of those conclusions.

 

[Dash80]

Why you are talking about who did it?

I hope you know, i dont like to talk about conspiracies.
Its tempting, to talk with you about why they did it and who did it. But i dont like to do that, i just stick at what caused the collapse of the wtc towers.

This is the problem with debunkers and their cognitive dissonance (and also truthers), they prefer to link immediately with the questions why and who did this, instead rather look to the facts and the signals of facts.

Funny that, your posts so far are all conspiracy theories. This is a CONSPIRACY forum afterall.

 

[Dave Rogers]

This is the problem with debunkers and their cognitive dissonance (and also truthers), they prefer to link immediately with the questions why and who did this, instead rather look to the facts and the signals of facts.

So it's cognitive dissonance to try to fit isolated events into a consistent theory rather than draw conclusions from them in isolation and regardless of context? Wow, you learn something new every day.

Dave

 

[twinstead]

So it's cognitive dissonance to try to fit isolated events into a consistent theory rather than draw conclusions from them in isolation and regardless of context? Wow, you learn something new every day.

And I think we're about to learn that he didn't understand a word you just said

 

[Marokkaan]

So it's cognitive dissonance to try to fit isolated events into a consistent theory rather than draw conclusions from them in isolation and regardless of context? Wow, you learn something new every day.

Dave

hmm maybe you should try to understand what cognitive dissonance means....

 

[DC]

Considering Maro's use of the words "Signals of evidence" it remembers me about my use of INdications rather than evidence like most other truthers did at the time. i knew there was no real evidence, but i did belief there were indications.

maybe not all hope is lost on Marokkaan.

 

[twinstead]

hmm maybe you should try to understand what cognitive dissonance means....

See? Told you Dave

 

[twinstead]

hmm maybe you should try to understand what cognitive dissonance means....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

 

[Scott Sommers]

Why you are talking about who did it?

I hope you know, i dont like to talk about conspiracies.

Its tempting, to talk with you about why they did it and who did it. But i dont like to do that, i just stick at what caused the collapse of the wtc towers.

This is the problem with debunkers and their cognitive dissonance (and also truthers), they prefer to link immediately with the questions why and who did this, instead rather look to the facts and the signals of facts.

I get the distinct feeling that the part in bold doesn't mean what you think it means.

hmm maybe you should try to understand what cognitive dissonance means....

Marokkaan, I have to agree with you for once. This is not what cognitive dissonance refers to. But then, I also have to agree with EventHorizon that your usage is also a mess.

In fact, I really wish members of this forum would stop referring to cognitive biases, such as cognitive dissonance or that thing that everyone calls the Kruger-Dunning Effect. I have yet to see anyone use these terms correctly -even once.

Marokkan, I am not saying you don't know what cognitive dissonance is. You may. But it is not at all clear from your usage that you have a clear understanding of the term. And given the incorrect and widespread informal use of the term (notably among you advocates for a 9/11 Truth), I am forced to conclude this is probably just a mistake.

 

[Dave Rogers]

See? Told you Dave

Is there a high-five smiley around here anywhere?

Dave

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Frankdemartini: I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1JxpVb2eU

Impact? yes I think it probably could have. especially if these were spaced multiple floors apart.

Now the resultant fires would be another matter...............clearly one was quite enough.

 

[Marokkaan]

Marokkaan, I have to agree with you for once. This is not what cognitive dissonance refers to. But then, I also have to agree with EventHorizon that your usage is also a mess.

In fact, I really wish members of this forum would stop referring to cognitive biases, such as cognitive dissonance or that thing that everyone calls the Kruger-Dunning Effect. I have yet to see anyone use these terms correctly -even once.

Marokkan, I am not saying you don't know what cognitive dissonance is. You may. But it is not at all clear from your usage that you have a clear understanding of the term. And given the incorrect and widespread informal use of the term (notably among you advocates for a 9/11 Truth), I am forced to conclude this is probably just a mistake.

An example of cognitive dissonance: Form your opinion by telling that "the collapse of the towers should have been brought by fire and structure failure.

Everybody who thinks it could be controlled demolition is crazy. Because our government would never do that and NIST tells also there is no evidence we can see."

So there are lot of emotions.

a lot of fallacies

and a lot of wrong assumptions.

And they also ignore people(conscious or unconscious) who might have an answer for questions they could not answer or contradict their assumptions.

and thanks to that all they formed their conclusion and thinks thats the truth.

 

[twinstead]

Marokkaan, I have to agree with you for once. This is not what cognitive dissonance refers to. But then, I also have to agree with EventHorizon that your usage is also a mess.

In fact, I really wish members of this forum would stop referring to cognitive biases, such as cognitive dissonance or that thing that everyone calls the Kruger-Dunning Effect. I have yet to see anyone use these terms correctly -even once.

Many of the more...shall we say eccentric...members of the truth movement wear cognitive dissonance as a badge of honor.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Better give one to the engineers then..

''

A white paper on the structure of the Twin Towers carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson contained eleven numbered points, including:

3. The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.''

Neither building collapsed when hit by the aircraft so what is your point? The fact that they made a huge error and did not consider the effect of fire seems to have escaped you.

 

[Scott Sommers]

An example of cognitive dissonance: Form your opinion by telling that "the collapse of the towers should have been brought by fire and structure failure.

Everybody who thinks it could be controlled demolition is crazy. Because our government would never do that and NIST tells also there is no evidence we can see."

So there are lot of emotions.

a lot of fallacies

and a lot of wrong assumptions.

And they also ignore people(conscious or unconscious) who might have an answer for questions they could not answer or contradict their assumptions.

and thanks to that all they formed their conclusion and thinks thats the truth.

You are wrong. You are confusing syllogism with cognitive dissonance. This is a very common mistake. In a sense, who cares? But this is wrong.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

You are wrong. You are confusing syllogism with cognitive dissonance. This is a very common mistake. In a sense, who cares? But this is wrong.

cognitive dissonance seems to fit Marokkan. pretty well. He "knows" the 911 was an inside job but also see that there is no plausible evidence for that belief.

He then is faced with the choice, either that his beliefs are wrong or the evidence is wrong......he takes the, easy, cowards route out and blames the evidence no matter how convoluted the claims against it become.

 

[Marokkaan]

Impact? yes I think it probably could have. especially if these were spaced multiple floors apart.

Now the resultant fires would be another matter...............clearly one was quite enough.

Great you admit it.

NOw only you have to make a link, with the answer of demartini and the answer of john skilling.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

 

[Dave Rogers]

An example of cognitive dissonance: Form your opinion by telling that "the collapse of the towers should have been brought by fire and structure failure.

Everybody who thinks it could be controlled demolition is crazy. Because our government would never do that and NIST tells also there is no evidence we can see."

If that had anything to do with how we formed that conclusion, then you'd have a point. As it is, we don't start from the presumption that everybody who thinks it was CD is crazy; rather, we assess the argument that has been put forward for collapse due to fire and structural damage, and find it to be compelling and consistent, and we assess the argument that has been put forward for collapse due to CD and find it to be riddled with internal contradictions, to contradict a large part of the available evidence, and to have wide-ranging implications which imply self-contradictory attributes on the part of the supposed conspirators. Nor do we start from the assumption that our, or somebody else's, government would never do such a thing; again, it is a conclusion, not an axiom, that the US government did not play a part in the collapses.

Cognitive dissonance is rather better displayed in a person who tries to reconcile a belief that 9/11 was an inside job with the incompatible knowledge that the majority of people do not agree with him, and is only able to do so by adopting the belief that the majority of people are easily led, unintelligent and incapable of critical thought. This forum presents a major difficulty to that particular form of cognitive dissonance, because it's frequented by people who are practised in critical thought, and indeed apply it very effectively to a wide range of subjects, including the wrongdoings of the US government. A common recourse is then to adopt the belief that the members of this forum are co-conspirators. Both of these are classic examples of an a belief being adopted without supporting evidence purely to reconcile two otherwise incompatible belief systems, which is more or less the definition of cognitive dissonance.

It is certainly not cognitive dissonance to say "This theory implies many other things which contradict the evidence, therefore it is a poor theory." It is, rather, another classic example of cognitive dissonance to say "This theory may or may not imply many other things that contradict the evidence, so I will refuse to make any attempt to understand the wider implications of the theory."

Dave