Open-mindedness and pseudoscientific beliefs

114 posts / 0 new
Last post

@ jrootham

You just asked the wrong question, because now he's going to repeat it all at you again.

If I found the subject mildly interesting (if pointless) before, this kind of behaviour has convinced me that if I want to find out any more about it I'll go someplace other than the perennial 9-11 thread here. I think I can make my mind up on this stuff myself without being force-fed.


jrootham wrote:


Why do you persist in the foolishness that says the aircraft collisions did not cause the buildings to collapse?

The issue here is WHY you believe this stuff,   It's not necessary.

- the question would be, esp on a thread talking about pseudoscience, how anybody could possibly believe, after getting the facts, how a 100 ton plane could do any serious damage to a 500,000 ton building? Just look at those numbers, and think about it - a 100 ton plane, a 500,000 ton building. The plane caused localized damage, nothing more. The fires were also small and localized, and nowhere near hot enough for long enough to weaken any significant amount of steel. It's not just 'gullibility' that makes people believe those factors brought down the WTC buildings, it is a complete inability to engage with the most basic characteristics of building construction and material strengths, combined, I suppose, with a well-planted susceptibility to believe what you are told by 'the authorities' who speak daily from your media. They've been dumbing down society for years - and the number of people who cannot see through this blatant nonsense is sad proof of how effective the dumbing down has been.

A longer look at the 100 ton plane and 500,000 ton building here, for 'lurkers' who may be new to such ideas -


The collisions did not cause two trade towers to collapse because they were still standing after the collisions as they were designed to withstand.

There were all kinds of clues and events after those collisions though which defied Newtonian laws of nature. They are saying that 80 percent of a massive 200,000 ton steel structure was annihilated by just one-fifth of itself.

And wrt WTC7, fires have never caused any modern steel frame office or apartment building to collapse,  before or after 9/11.

The FBI themselves said they have no proof of the identities of any of the hijackers. The slip-shod FBI still has photos of the alleged hijackers on their web site, and some of them are alive and well today. How can we take the FBI seriously when they continue to smear innocent people like that?

They have no hard proof of anything. You don't have to believe the 9/11 Commission cover-up if you don't want to. I certainly do not. In fact, at least two of the hand-picked 9/11 chair people are telling you there was a concerted cover-up of the facts and access to the alleged evidence has been denied. That means it's bullshit! IN fact, there is no evidence! No evidence? I have no alternative than to believe they've been lying to the public constantly.


@ jrootham


Yeah, just try to take it back and make it not happen.

(on the other hand, it doesn't matter what you talk about, because they are just going to keep at it)

Me, I am just hoping this thread doesn't go to 180 or so like that other one did. Or if it does, they should probably just rename it "THe 9-11 Thread".


Well if you have no supporting evidence, no hard proof for the crazy George II side of things, we're done with this particular strand of the conversation, 6079. You see? - it was painless. Carry on with your very scientific discussion.


@ Fidel

Sorry, but so far as that discussion is concerned you are talking to yourself. I don't care, and that's not what I am talking about here.

And nice time to announce that you are done, since this thread is just about finished. You started this strand of yours at post #3. It would have been a bit more painless if you had wrapped it up 80 posts or so ago.


And thanks for being open minded and tolerating those of us still demanding real proof after all these years. We would like to have the same leap of faith in crazy George's government lies, but we just can't. We wish the rest of you well in your continuing quest to spot Elvis bin Laden and turn him in to the FBI, CIA,US Milit..., er well, we can be sure he's wanted by someone really important. Luck.


There's a good section in that video starting round the 4:30 mark on the subject of misinterpreting and misrepresenting the positions of others.



Misinterpreting? When would that ever happen? Is that like when governments and phony opposition, pro-war parties all ignore the evidence and even place gag orders on whistleblowers? I suppose that could be interpreted as deliberate misrepresentation of the facts and even breaking the law in some instances.

google wrote:
[url= openness or transparency, a term most frequently heard to describe a new openess and leniency in the Soviet Union under Gorbachev...

"Every successful revolution is the kicking in of a rotten door" - Galbraith

This is what non-truthers and other pseudoscientific armchair debunkerists, politically motivated hacks on the right etc are really worried about - that more and more people will figure out that the whole structure is rotten.


According to the evidence, the security forces of America knew the pilots were in the country way before hand. They may not have known what they were up to but probable knew they were up to something.


The inside job I think is that they let these people go about their business, willingily.


There was a Qaeda visa program happenin' with the CIA in Riyadh since the 1980s. Some of the anticommunist jihadis had more frequent US flyer points than the average American citizen for sure. They were in the US for training in terrorism for decades. Americans are lied to constantly. Sibel Edmonds says they continue to conceal from the public information about an entire organizational layer of Qaeda still there in the good ol' USA. al-CIA'duh? Absolutely. Lies all the time.


[url= facts backfire[/url] Researchers discover a surprising threat to democracy: our brains

"The general idea is that it's absolutely threatening to admit you're wrong," says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on the Michigan study. The phenomenon - known as "backfire" - is "a natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance."

These findings open a long-running argument about the political ignorance of American citizens to broader questions about the interplay between the nature of human intelligence and our democratic ideals. Most of us like to believe that our opinions have been formed over time by careful, rational consideration of facts and ideas, and that the decisions based on those opinions, therefore, have the ring of soundness and intelligence. In reality, we often base our opinions on our beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts. ...

What’s going on? How can we have things so wrong, and be so sure that we’re right? Part of the answer lies in the way our brains are wired. Generally, people tend to seek consistency. There is a substantial body of psychological research showing that people tend to interpret information with an eye toward reinforcing their preexisting views. If we believe something about the world, we are more likely to passively accept as truth any information that confirms our beliefs, and actively dismiss information that doesn’t. This is known as “motivated reasoning.” 

Spectrum Spectrum's picture