Tweet
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
Plus the threat of constant terrorism is overblown too.
Plus the threat of constant terrorism is overblown too.
-
-
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
confirmation bias, say whut?Comment
-
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
So the IRA didnt blow up the British government in a hotel in Brighton ? The remembrance day parade in Belfast wasn't bombed? Airey Neave wasnt blown up by a car bomb outside the house of commons?
thats quite a statement - even for you RM!!....Freak in the morning, Freak in the evening, aint no other Freak like me thats breathing....
Comment
-
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
NeuroLogica Blog » Anomaly Hunting
One of the most common and insidious bits of cognitive self-deception is the process of anomaly hunting. A true anomaly is something that cannot be explained by our current model of nature – it doesn’t fit into existing theories. Anomalies are therefore very useful to scientific inquiry because they point to new knowledge, the potential to deepen or extend existing theories.
...
Pseudoscientists – those pretending to do science (maybe even sincerely believing they are doing science) but who get the process profoundly wrong, use anomalies in a different way. They often engage it what we call anomaly hunting – looking for apparent anomalies. They are not, however, looking for clues to a deeper understanding of reality. They are often hunting for anomalies in service to the overarching pseudoscientific process of reverse engineering scientific conclusions.
What this means is that pseudoscience almost always works backwards – that is its primary malfunction, starting with a desired conclusion and then looking for evidence and twisting logic to support that conclusion.
...
With regard to anomalies the logic often works like this: “If my pet theory is true then when I look at the data I will find anomalies.” The unstated major premise of this logic is that if their pet theory were not true then they would not find anomalies. This is naive, however. Another component of this line of argument is the broad definition of anomaly.
...
What pseudoscientists do is look for “apparent” anomalies – things that cannot be immediately explained, or (even worse) are just quirky coincidences. Often they also look at the edges of detectability where data becomes fuzzy and anomalies are easier to imagine. Think of the fuzzy pictures of Bigfoot or UFOs, with believers looking at details smaller than the resolution of the images and declaring the presence of anomalies.
They imagine that if they can find (broadly defined) anomalies in that data that would point to another phenomenon at work. They then commit a pair of logical fallacies. First, the confuse unexplained with unexplainable. This leads them to prematurely declare something a true anomaly, without first exhaustively trying to explain it with conventional means. Second they use the argument from ignorance, saying that because we cannot explain an anomaly that means their specific pet theory must be true. I don’t know what that fuzzy obect in the sky is – therefore it is an alien spacecraft.Comment
-
-
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
I shutter to think what other "forums" RM is a member of online
<-------Egad, this was post 21,666
It was fun while it lasted...
Comment
-
Comment
-
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
I for one am rather detached with conspiracy theories, but I only recently stumbled onto this documentary and it does highlight some interesting points. It's long and of course doesn't concretely prove squat but does make you wonder. Building 7 being the most glaring evidence of it, along with testimony of the janitor on the sub-levels that was never given the time of day by media outlets, nor included in the 9/11 report.
www.mjwebhosting.com
Jib says:
he isnt worth the water that splashes up into your asshole while you're shittingOriginally posted by ace_dlComment
-
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
^
2.5 hours of 9/11 hollywood conspiracy theories? Why don't we ask Tom Cruise his opinion, or better yet, call our local Scientology compounds and consult with them?
no offense of course brah
It was fun while it lasted...Comment
-
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
Have you seen the video? How does it suddenly rank up the conspiracy theory ladder when all it is, is a collection of interviews with actors simply asking, what seem to be, rather valid questions? Moreover, just because there isn't a "scientist" in there, you're suggesting that everyone from Hollywood (or anyone outside of the scientific community for that matter) is less qualified to even present a question?
The title of the thread is a question for cryin out loud. I don't get what Tom Cruise or Scientology have got to do with it.www.mjwebhosting.com
Jib says:
he isnt worth the water that splashes up into your asshole while you're shittingOriginally posted by ace_dlComment
-
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
Comment
-
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
Grammar police needs to get back to grammar school, a sarcastic question presented with 1 or 3 ? at the end, still is a question, but please go on
www.mjwebhosting.com
Jib says:
he isnt worth the water that splashes up into your asshole while you're shittingOriginally posted by ace_dlComment
-
Re: Building Doesn't Fall by Fire???
Why doesn't this building fall by fire? - This is a question.
Building doesn't fall by fire??? - This is not a question. It's barely even a sentence, although i'll be lenient and throw you a bone since the statement at least contains a subject and a verb. Sarcasm doesn't have anything to do with the proper use of a question mark or the proper formation of a question.
Feel free to review the rules for question marks- http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/gramm...s/question.htm
If you would like to get into a discussion about linguistics, prepare to get schooled.
Linguistics > 9/11 talkComment
Comment