How conspiracy theorist think.

Discussion in '9/11' started by Bluespade, Sep 19, 2015.

  1. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    17,105
    Likes Received:
    787
    Trophy Points:
    113
    thats not what confirmation bias is, and trying to apply it to truthers frankly is funny, since it applies to gubmint dupes according to the psychologists who coined it in the first place. seriously, its pretty silly if all the gubmint side can do is post bottom of the barrel flim flam and sleight of hand.
     
  2. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Against the individual man,shorty...:roll:
     
  3. robini123

    robini123 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    12,825
    Likes Received:
    920
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A function of confirmation bias is that all info from a single source is false without evidence to prove the claim. Claiming that the government lied is not the same as proving that the government lied. Interpreting evidence as a lie is not synonymous with the evidence being an actual lie. If the credibility of the evidence requires that the government lied then I question the validity of the evidence. Two sides interpreting the same evidence in diametrically opposing ways is not proof of a lie... its proof of differing perspectives. The inability to prove the negative is not proof of the positive and vice versa.
     
  4. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Uh, it is.
     
  5. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    17,105
    Likes Received:
    787
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have it backwards.

    It has nothing to so with; all info from a single source is false without evidence to prove the claim.

    The gubmint has an obligation to prove up the claim as trustees of the offices they hold. We got exactly the opposite. Oh you need proof? Sure: 'they never bothered to check for explosives' [but then neither would I if I wanted to cover precisely that up.]

    Proof the gubmint lied is easy, they cant provide us with evidence in support of their claims. Its all speculation and a few posers who do not know the difference between speculation and fact. They are out here every day pretending the gubmints speculation is fact.

    Interpreting evidence as a lie is not synonymous with the evidence being an actual lie.
    <- that doesnt make sense? Unless your point is that you want it to be proven its a lie. Truthers want it to be proven its not a lie.

    Two sides interpreting the same evidence in diametrically opposing ways is not proof of a lie... It most certainly can be and has been shown to be with virtually every aspect of the official 'story'. perfect title for it too I might add.

    Most of the issues da gubmint violates are procedural and fraudulent presentation of the data, things posers are clueless about as they have no background despite claiming to be experts.

    no poser claiming to be an engineer, or demo person, or fireman, etc etc etc has been able to stand up to cross examination.

    The gubmints story is confirmation bias and those who support it have to follow in suit. :cool:

    oh and btw, for the most part its quite easy to prove 'most' negatives, btdt, in court no less, and proving a negative can be proof of a positive, just depends.

    Here want some more proof?

    This:

    [​IMG]

    is what a column looks like that failed from fire, (in fact it did not fail, just compressed a little, no where near enough to drop a building).

    I have been asking the posers for evidence of that for over 10 years. Its the point they jump off the bus and starting slinging ad homs. [​IMG]

    The moral of the story; if ijn fact the columns failed due to heat from fire that is what we HAVE TO SEE! I just proved a negative in the sense you used it.
     
  6. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sophistry.
     
  7. Casper

    Casper Banned at Members Request Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2012
    Messages:
    12,540
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    48
    How conspiracy theorist think.

    The problem with your question is that they do not think, if they did they would not be who they are.
     
  8. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    17,105
    Likes Received:
    787
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have it backwards.

    It has nothing to so with; all info from a single source is false without evidence to prove the claim.

    The gubmint has an obligation to prove up the claim as trustees of the offices they hold. We got exactly the opposite. Oh you need proof? Sure: 'they never bothered to check for explosives' [but then neither would I if I wanted to cover precisely that up.]

    Proof the gubmint lied is easy, they cant provide us with evidence in support of their claims. Its all speculation and a few posers who do not know the difference between speculation and fact. They are out here every day pretending the gubmints speculation is fact.

    Interpreting evidence as a lie is not synonymous with the evidence being an actual lie.
    <- that doesnt make sense? Unless your point is that you want it to be proven its a lie. Truthers want it to be proven its not a lie.

    Two sides interpreting the same evidence in diametrically opposing ways is not proof of a lie... It most certainly can be and has been shown to be with virtually every aspect of the official 'story'. perfect title for it too I might add.

    Most of the issues da gubmint violates are procedural and fraudulent presentation of the data, things posers are clueless about as they have no background despite claiming to be experts.

    no poser claiming to be an engineer, or demo person, or fireman, etc etc etc has been able to stand up to cross examination.

    The gubmints story is confirmation bias and those who support it have to follow in suit. :cool:

    oh and btw, for the most part its quite easy to prove 'most' negatives, btdt, in court no less, and proving a negative can be proof of a positive, just depends.

    Here want some more proof?

    This:

    [​IMG]

    is what a column looks like that failed from fire, (in fact it did not fail, just compressed a little, no where near enough to drop a building).

    I have been asking the posers for evidence of that for over 10 years. Its the point they jump off the bus and starting slinging ad homs. :wall:

    The moral of the story; if in fact the columns failed due to heat from fire that is what we HAVE TO SEE! I just proved a negative in the sense you used it.

    the prosecution rests!
     
  9. robini123

    robini123 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    12,825
    Likes Received:
    920
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually you have proven nothing as the pic lacks context and source citation. Proving something to yourself is not the same as proving it to me.
     
  10. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    17,105
    Likes Received:
    787
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My purpose is not to prove anything what so ever to 'you'.
    I know nothing about you or your back ground, nor do I care frankly.
    I have shown everyone here a photo of what compression distortion from overheating looks like, for show n tell only.
    There are other varieties that are not shown, the one posted above is an example.
    If you have some pics of compression damage I will recognize them.

    So meantime I await your photos of the wtc iron with compression distortion that caused the initial failure.

    See this is not confimation bias, this is SOP for the validation of evidence.
    They say fire then we should see things consistent with heat.



     
  11. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0

    The title is somewhat 'oxymoronic'. LOL
     
  12. Independant thinker

    Independant thinker Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,196
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Most conspiracy theories are true. I think the only way to theoriz on a conspiracy is to link up all the coincidences and all the holes. It's really just a form of investigative thinking that some people get addicted to.

    The one thing they all have in common is that they are not "people people".

    One of my all time favorites was "Super conspiracy theorist" Bill hooper. He'd died in a shoot out in his home with county police when they came to arrest him for tax evasion. Champion.

    While I believe in conspiracies, I'm not sure about super conspiracy theories. But he's great to listen to.
     
  13. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    87,228
    Likes Received:
    11,264
    Trophy Points:
    113

    lol!!!!!!

    no.
     
  14. Artie

    Artie New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Compression distortion.

    That isn't what happened in WTC 7. Not even similar.

    In your photo you have heavy beams going from one column to another. Where are the floor trusses that connect some the central core columns to the outer wall columns? Especially the critical central core column. Why is this column only a single story tall? This column has no where near the same loading thus it would not be expected to react the same way.

    Now maybe an "engineer" who would expect a steel framed building to react the same as a solid block of ice he might expect this column to react exactly the same way.
     
  15. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    17,105
    Likes Received:
    787
    Trophy Points:
    113
    if the gubmint is involved and it can be used for profit in any way shape or manner thats right on target.

    That has been proven time and time again. Posers trolls and shills dishonestly pretend that is not the case despite the 800 pound gorilla sitting on theirs heads LOL
     
  16. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    17,105
    Likes Received:
    787
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok great, So then we agree

    1) that it did not fail due to heat weakening from fire

    and since it continued to stand after the alleged impact

    2) the impact damage was not the cause of failure either,

    So, since we agree that it neither collapsed due to physical damage nor heat then what was the cause of the failure?
     
  17. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,651
    Likes Received:
    13,762
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Great article.... Thanks for posting. :clapping:
     
  18. Bluespade

    Bluespade Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    194
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're welcome Miss Margot.
     
  19. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    17,105
    Likes Received:
    787
    Trophy Points:
    113
    for someone who is a statist and incapable of arguing the factual inconsistencies fraud within the event and its nothing short of awesome. Aside from that no so much.

    There are several counter arguments none of which have been addressed by proponents of the OP.
     
  20. robini123

    robini123 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    12,825
    Likes Received:
    920
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And that will prove what? Is the lack of a photo proof that your theory is correct? If so I would call that confirmation bias. The lack of a photo is not proof to the positive nor the negative from my perspective. Are there alternative explanations to the failure of the structure? If so why do you reject them?

    Is all fire consistent in its heat, volume, intensity, cause and do all structures react to heat in exactly the same way? If not then what does the pic prove to you?

    When I look up "wtc iron with compression distortion" I find nothing but truther sites which is a red flag to me as the findings are one sided. So why is this stuff not being reported in the world media, like the CBC, BBC, Al Jezera etc.?
     
  21. Artie

    Artie New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wait so those towers were one or two or three stories tall? Is that what you are trying to tell me now?

    You show one type of failure as proof another type of failure did not occur? What appears to be a single story failure to prove that a multi story failure didn't happen?

    If you don't understand the difference in how the structures were constructed from the picture you posted there is no possible way you have a clue what could or could not happen.
     
  22. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    17,105
    Likes Received:
    787
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you do not understand the argument I am very sorry since it cannot be reduced any more than I have reduced it.

    The argument is about HEAT and plane DAMAGE,

    not stories, or any regurgitated dishonest restatement of what I said to change the argument subject matter.

    If you are unable to engage me in argument then simply ignore my posts and spare me and everyone else the dishonest red herrings.
     
  23. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    17,105
    Likes Received:
    787
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is a lot of text to simply say you have no evidence what so ever to VALIDATE the gubmints claim. Claim validation is NOT confirmation bias, unless you want to extend that to every court and scientific experiment on the planet, past present and future.

    As for the plethora of questions feel free to make any 'claim' you wish to argue.
     
  24. robini123

    robini123 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    12,825
    Likes Received:
    920
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nor do I see evidence to irrevocably prove their claim wrong. I am not trying to validate the governments or the truthers claim. I am just examining the evidence with an open mind and will let the evidence lead me to a yet to be determined conclusion.

    Nor have I claimed otherwise. Confirmation bias is starting from a conclusion and accepting only the evidence that supports the preconceived conclusion.

    Questions are not claims and your dodge is noted.
     
  25. Artie

    Artie New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I believe I understand the argument just fine. However some guy claiming that because he can drop a solid chunk of ice on anoither solsid chunk of ice and the solid chunk that was on the bottom didn't collapse proves that the WTC buildings couldn't have collapsed as they did is a fruitless argument, but apparently you believe that a steel framed building would behave the same as a solid chunk of ice.

    You posted a picture of what appears to be a single story column that didn't totally collapse due to fire and apparently assume that a single story column would react the same as a 100 story one. The structure is different.
     

Share This Page