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

Marokkaan said:
Its nice you call festinger.

This guy also use festinger, maybe he can explain it better than me. Skip to 3:36

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67AzgIpxwco
Click to expand...

Who cares what Barry Zwicker says about psychology? Why would you cite a journalist as an authority on cognitive bias? Really, why don't you go read some psychology and I'll talk about it with you. Otherwise, this is just looking like Truthers making up sources.
 
Marokkaan said:
So you think, demartini and the other made a fault in their statement?
Click to expand...

DeMartini, Skilling and Robertson all referred in their statements to the results of an analysis done in 1964. They stated accurately their beliefs based on the results of that very brief and, in hindsight, inadequate analysis. To assign to that analysis a greater weight than the incomparably more thorough analysis done by NIST, as so many conspiracy theorists appear to do, is quite bizarre.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
No, I think that your descriptions of the personal motivations of debunkers are a fantasy, given that they disagree with my own understanding of my own motivations. It turns out, on inspection, that every piece of evidence that is claimed to contradict the generally understood narrative of 9/11 is a misinterpretation, a misrepresentation or an outright fantasy, but that is a conclusion, not an assumption. Some day, I may see something that actually stands up to critical analysis, but so far nothing has come close.
Click to expand...

Hmmm you believe in the official story, even when you do not have the 100% evidence.

And everything that could debunk the official story you dont believe.



It is a fantasy on your part that a lot of debunkers reason from the starting point that the government would not do such a thing as carry out a false flag attack on its own citizens. I have never seen that argument presented other than as a strawman argument by conspiracy theorists.
Click to expand...

It have to, or else you could not deny the experts and deny the mistakes of the nist reports.

The funny thing is, a lot of debunkers didnt read the nist report, but thanks to truthers, they read it.

And another funny thing is, they know NIST has no physicial evidence, and their data is not validated, and there report is not peer reviewed. etc etce.

If you dont understand scientific research, than i understand it, but if you do understand it, than its clearly cognitive dissonance.
 
Scott Sommers said:
Who cares what Barry Zwicker says about psychology? Why would you cite a journalist as an authority on cognitive bias? Really, why don't you go read some psychology and I'll talk about it with you. Otherwise, this is just looking like Truthers making up sources.
Click to expand...

I smell some cognitive dissonance:rolleyes:
 
Dave Rogers said:
DeMartini, Skilling and Robertson all referred in their statements to the results of an analysis done in 1964. They stated accurately their beliefs based on the results of that very brief and, in hindsight, inadequate analysis. To assign to that analysis a greater weight than the incomparably more thorough analysis done by NIST, as so many conspiracy theorists appear to do, is quite bizarre.

Dave
Click to expand...

Just answer the question, do you believe demartini and skilling yes or no?
 
Marokkaan said:
I smell some cognitive dissonance:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That's pretty impressive. You can cite as an expert a man off the street talking about something he has no knowledge of and claim I should listen to him because he agrees with you. Or is it that it's a Youtube video and I'm citing technical research journals?

Why would you think I'm going to continue talking about this?
 
Scott Sommers said:
That's pretty impressive. You can cite as an expert a man off the street talking about something he has no knowledge of and claim I should listen to him because he agrees with you. Or is it that it's a Youtube video and I'm citing technical research journals?

Why would you think I'm going to continue talking about this?
Click to expand...

Than stop citing commercial organisations like NIST.

And begin to start citing experts who totally explain the real cause of the collapse of the wtc towers
 
Marokkaan said:
Hmmm you believe in the official story, even when you do not have the 100% evidence.

And everything that could debunk the official story you dont believe.
Click to expand...

That's right, keep on obeying your compulsion to repeat fantasies. I take Scott Sommers' point that emotional discomfort isn't a factor in your behaviour, but it certainly seems remarkable that your response to counter-arguments is simple repetition. I reserve judgement on everything that could contradict the generally accepted narrative until I've studied the evidence; as it turns out, in every case so far I've found that the argument has been worthless.

Marokkaan said:
It have to, or else you could not deny the experts and deny the mistakes of the nist reports.
Click to expand...

These "experts" are, by and large, another truther fantasy; the vast majority of people with relevant expertise have no truck with the 9/11 conspiracy theories, the truth movement's "experts" are almost invariably speaking outside their areas of expertise, and their statements are in general demonstrably false.

Marokkaan said:
The funny thing is, a lot of debunkers didnt read the nist report, but thanks to truthers, they read it.

And another funny thing is, they know NIST has no physicial evidence, and their data is not validated, and there report is not peer reviewed. etc etce.
Click to expand...

Again, truther fantasies and misrepresentations. The truther obsession with "NIST has no physical evidence" is a classic example of the appeal to perfection; truthers have created a spurious requirement of the NIST study after the fact. The study has been peer reviewed extensively through inviting public comment and responding to it. Truthers never tire of pointing out that NIST modified its description of the collapse rate in response to David Chandler's comments, and yet at the same time claim that there was no peer review; another behaviour strongly indicative of cognitive dissonance, in that it displays the holding of two beliefs that are clearly contradictory. And, of course, there are other engineering studies, such as those by Purdue and Edinburgh Universities and Ove Arup, whose conclusions agree with those of NIST, which in effect also validate their conclusions.

Marokkaan said:
If you dont understand scientific research, than i understand it, but if you do understand it, than its clearly cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...

Given that I have understood all the arguments I have so far seen from the truth movement and found them all to be fallacious, I have no need of cognitive dissonance. It's clear to me that those who support 9/11 conspiracy theories are, quite simply, wrong; given that conclusion, everything else is consistent.

And, having said that, I feel no compulsion to explain it further.

Dave
 
Marokkaan said:
Than stop citing commercial organisations like NIST.

And begin to start citing experts who totally explain the real cause of the collapse of the wtc towers
Click to expand...

Now this is an hallucination. Or maybe it's a reading problem or a language problem. I have never cited NIST. IN fact, I have never talked about fire science or engineering. Why would I? I'm not an expert in any of this stuff. I know that Truther knowledge is widely based on this idea of making things up or citing the pretend expert, but I'm a real researcher.

I'll tell you what, I'll become a Truther if you show me where I was talking about NIST. But really, I think you should apologize and admit you're throwing crap around and making things up.
 
Dave Rogers said:
As it's a stupid question and I've already provided far more information than it requests, I see no need to answer it.

Dave
Click to expand...

And you had a stupid answer:D But i will take it as a no.

And im not going to debate, why its crazy to believe a commercial organisaton, rather the people who had a big interest in building the wtc towers.
 
Scott Sommers said:
Now this is an hallucination. Or maybe it's a reading problem or a language problem. I have never cited NIST. IN fact, I have never talked about fire science or engineering. Why would I? I'm not an expert in any of this stuff. I know that Truther knowledge is widely based on this idea of making things up or citing the pretend expert, but I'm a real researcher.

I'll tell you what, I'll become a Truther if you show me where I was talking about NIST. But really, I think you should apologize and admit you're throwing crap around and making things up.
Click to expand...

Ok i will apologize if you are going to tell me, what the evidence is for supporting the official theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom