Why can't most people come to a logical conclusion?

Discussion in '9/11' started by Scott, Mar 5, 2018.

  1. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,798
    Likes Received:
    157
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I'm putting this in the Science section because it's about psychology.

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/911-a...elieve-in-their-own-brand-of-miracles/5630813
    (excerpt)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Interestingly, Griffin divides the world into three types of people:
    • Those guided by evidence
    • Those guided by their paradigms of how the world is thus if 9/11 being a false flag does not fit into their paradigms of how the world works they simply will not consider the evidence
    • Those guided by wishful-and-fearful thinking thus if the idea of their own government perpetrating an horrific crime on their own people is too awful to bear they simply will not believe the evidence
      Shouldn’t self-styled skeptics, by definition, be of the first type? Apparently, not a one is. They seem to be all of the second type or possibly third.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    People who don't use the scientific method* when analyzing a situation usually come to erroneous conclusions. I'm using the 9/11 attacks** as an example. I have trouble just getting people to look at the proof that it was an inside job. If I can get people to look at it, they usually say the government would never do such a thing and ignore the proof. They don't seem to understand that facts trump opinion.

    Documentary about Cognitive Dissonance and 9/11


    *
    https://www.google.es/search?q=scie.....69i57j0l5.5982j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

    **
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...orted-9-11-terrorists.456423/#post-1066183060
     
  2. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,503
    Likes Received:
    3,731
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well here is the rub, I was present at Ground Zero at the World Trade Center, people that were not there try and educate me, I was at the briefings, inner circle stuff.

    People with zero expertise are going to educate me about Firearms, and I have vast experience with Firearms.

    I just can't be bothered with uptight self anointed experts, they have few facts and insults a plenty when cornered.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  3. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,798
    Likes Received:
    157
    Trophy Points:
    63
    How much of this info have you looked at?
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...orted-9-11-terrorists.456423/#post-1066183060
     
  4. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,223
    Likes Received:
    1,720
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I’ve never seen anyone follow scientific method when promoting any form of “inside job” idea regarding 9/11. There’s lots of scatter-gun ideas picking out individual aspects, sometimes even contradictory ones, but I’ve never seen a single consistent hypothesis covering a full beginning-to-end sequence of events. After all “false flag” or “inside job” could still cover a vast range of different possibilities, everything from a handful of individuals in government or the military being away of the potential attack but choosing not to do everything possible prevent it right through to a complex scheme to entirely fake the terrorist attack and cause all the loss and damage by other means.

    Maybe you’re not quite as above the psychological flaws you describe as you might like to imagine you are (which would be an element of the flaws in the first place). :)
     
  5. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,798
    Likes Received:
    157
    Trophy Points:
    63
  6. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,223
    Likes Received:
    1,720
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A little, though I’ve no real interest in trawling through hours of videos with no prospect of anything clear or consistent.

    As I mentioned in my post, can you point to any source (preferably written rather than video) that actually presents a clear and concise hypothesis for the events of 9/11. Because that would be the only way for it to be relevant to this thread and consistent with your otherwise perfectly reasonable point about applying scientific method.
     
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your post was reported for insults that are not part of this discussion.

    That makes you an authority on nothing. I (and others) have posted many documents and videos of people who were present on 9/11 and contradict/dispute the official narrative. Some of them are relevant experts. It doesn't make them "conspiracy theorists" (that catchall all purpose cognitive dissonant term OCT defenders just love to toss out as an excuse for wearing their blinders), it makes them realists.
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This study uses the scientific method rigorously and disproves NIST's theory (as well as 2 other theories - ARUP and Weidlinger) on the collapse of WTC7.

    https://www.911tap.org/557-news-rel...y-s-interim-report-undercuts-nist-wtc-7-study

    It provides no theory on what actually happened to WTC7 on 9/11, however it's my understanding that the next phase of the study will examine various theories.
     
  9. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    16,858
    Likes Received:
    5,809
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think that we will never see a collapse again as we saw with the twin towers and bld. 7 that occurred from a localized fire and structural damage as in the twin towers. Something is wrong about this collapse. It defies common sense and that is much of the problem. Add to that the plethora of coincidences in our response to the attacks and it sure has a dead fish smell about it.

    But we will never know the truth. The official story is not the truth, IMO. Those that think it is are the tin foil hatters.
     
  10. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,223
    Likes Received:
    1,720
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That supports my point to the OP, that you can’t claim to be following scientific process if you assert that 9/11 was “an inside job” since no complete hypothesis appears to have ever been presented in any kind of serious or formal manner.

    Picking at the details of how and why WTC7 collapsed alone doesn’t really say anything other than “we don’t know”. I doubt many building fires have been analysed in anything like as much detail so ironically there probably is much precedent to base any assessment on. I don’t think it’s legitimate to say the NIST conclusions are definitively wrong if they’re not willing to propose any alternative.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2018
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're contradicting yourself. You answered your own question(s) with the above and don't even realize it. The fact is the US government has not only failed to prove its own theories about 9/11 but science and the scientific method has proven the government's theories are impossible, the details of the study say EVERYTHING, despite your denial. The fact is the US government has done everything in its power to coverup and obfuscate the events of 9/11 and that alone is an "inside job". No one needs any theory about what actually happened on 9/11 to know the government version is a host of lies. You're looking for theories while denying the science and the facts.
     
  12. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,798
    Likes Received:
    157
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2018
  13. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,223
    Likes Received:
    1,720
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Even if that’s true, a cover-up wouldn’t automatically mean the attack itself was an “inside job” and even if it was, would say absolutely nothing about what kind of “inside job” (and, more significantly, if there is an ongoing threat). Disagreements about what caused WTC7 to collapse certainly doesn’t prove anything of the sort. Those disagreeing could be wrong or there could be a perfectly mundane cause for the collapse nobody has come up with. Without a “smoking gun” for direct intervention though, that remains just an open debate about how and why a burning building collapsed.

    You would think that people who honestly believe there are large numbers of people in the highest offices of government who would conspire to murder thousands of people for some political motive, would be much more proactive in presenting a direct and specific case against those people, not slowly picking away at side technicalities.
     
  14. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,798
    Likes Received:
    157
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Any objective truth-seeker would simply look at the info. I put that info forward as proof that the the government played a mojor role in the attacks. Only a sophist would try to avoid looking at it and analyzing it and maintain the attitude that he has the upper hand in a debate. Your behavior would get you laughed out of the debating hall.

    This video says it all and anyone interested in getting at the truth would not hesitate to watch it.

    September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL)
     
  15. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,223
    Likes Received:
    1,720
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I’m not really interested in the specifics of the 9/11 debate, I was more interested in your comments about people applying scientific method and the contradiction I saw in the approach to 9/11. Basic scientific method is observation, hypothesis, evidence, theory. We obviously all observed the event and the aftermath so the next step should be hypothesis.
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's correct, a coverup doesn't mean the attack itself was an inside job. However, there is only one reason to coverup a crime of this magnitude or any crime, it's to protect the criminals.

    The problem is you're looking at it from a point of view that it's merely a "disagreement". In the first place, the NIST "investigation" and resulting theory was nothing of the sort. It was a deliberate coverup as was the rest of the official "investigation". The approach taken by Dr. Hulsey's team is strictly science using the scientific method. Therefore, it's not merely a disagreement, it's a detailed analysis PROVING NIST's theory is impossible. Furthermore it proves NIST's approach was anything but scientific and therefore a coverup. Once the official published study is peer reviewed, it means it is fully accepted by the scientific community. It also means that the NIST "investigation" and resulting theory is null and void. In turn, that also means that the "collapse" of WTC7 on 9/11 was never legitimately investigated. At the same time, it calls into question the NIST "investigation" of the "collapse" of the twin towers. If NIST didn't get the destruction of WTC7 right in any way, why would anyone conclude they got it right for the twin towers? This has huge implications and I don't understand why you fail to recognize that and merely dismiss these highly significant issues as "disagreements".

    It's not relevant to an unbiased legitimate investigation what anyone "thinks" about what actually happened. What the real concern is, what actually happened, who was responsible and who were involved and why.
     
  17. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So your being at ground zero means that the billions of people who could not possibly be there should not expect that experiments be conducted to explain the collapses of the Twin Towers?

    Did you measure the weights and thicknesses of the thousands of horizontal beams that were in the core while you were there?

    Your emotional response to the event is irrelevant.

    psik
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  18. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    52,610
    Likes Received:
    4,635
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please refrain from posting this bullshit anywhere but where it belongs, which is the conspiracy forum.
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A perfect example of the science described by the OP. And I'll hazard an educated guess that the poster never even bothered to examine the contents.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2018
  20. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    52,610
    Likes Received:
    4,635
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Huh? Truthers are retarded, like every other conspiracy theorist. This stupidity has no business being in a science forum. It belongs down in the conspiracy forum.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I added more to my post but thanks for confirming yet again.
     
  22. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    52,610
    Likes Received:
    4,635
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Always happy to point out stupidity when I see it.

    9/11 was not an inside job, nor was it faked. The earth is not flat, and man has walked on the moon. This is all demonstrable fact.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2018
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes you sure demonstrated it, twice no less.

    What is demonstrable fact, affirmed by science and the scientific method, is that the official US government conspiracy theory is a coverup filled with lies and impossible scientific theories. The lies and coverups are confirmed by those on the Senate Intelligence Committee and the 9/11 Commission. The impossible official 9/11 theories are confirmed by legitimate scientific research and analysis. That's the only thing that matters in this context. 9/11 was very real, over 3,000 people were massacred thanks to the fact that the US government did NOTHING prior to or on 9/11 to prevent that massacre.
     
  24. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    52,610
    Likes Received:
    4,635
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lol, truthers.
     
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the other indoctrinated label used by those who mindlessly grovel to the official conspiracy theory, that dreaded word "truther". It's fitting because the opposite of "truther" is of course "liar". It's also fitting because they usually have nothing intelligent to offer as an argument to defend their deity, just plain old denial of facts and history inconvenient to their world view. But thanks for the reminder. You're the poster child for the subject presented in the OP's video.
     

Share This Page