Monday, October 21, 2013

I better save this, on the pseudo-science and simulations of investigations surrounding WTC 7.

But since you've opened the door I'm going to ramble too, to note that it's unlikely that any "big" or "critical errors" can be found within Mick's vivid imagination and theories that could include anything from: "It was just multiple failures.. due to fire... and damage... due to office fires... but the antenna that just fell too...  or maybe it was just the explosive properties of donuts too.  Or maybe a bird flew by and just pooped on the whole thing, which put it over the edge and caused a progressive collapse in the interior that was only seen later on the exterior.  It was just the scale of the buckling involved after the initiating event of bird poop put the whole thing over the edge... plus a problem of scale...  or just something."  Etc.  It might be easier to work backward, as perhaps the only specification to the theory is what it is not:  "It was anything but a demolition.  It could have been anything and pretty much everything but that."

The only possible specification/falsification I could get with respect to his rather imaginative theories originally was "...anything not in the NIST report."  Whatever that means.  (I have numerous falsifications/verifications in mind for my own theories.  But most of them involve people following standard operating procedures and doing their jobs instead of trying to create unfalsifiable simulations of investigations.)   I doubt that Mick's falsifications are critical or are actually rooted in the technical details of the report or what's not in the report, whatever they are. 

Maybe it's semantically "critical" to understand language and any pseudo-scientific use of "Prove, analytically, it's not everything else I can imagine!" mental illusions linked to the spelling/spells of magick in debates like this about "central conclusions" within the Right/Left paradigm of our brains?  I like Mick, he seems to have some sort of integrity.   I'm just not sure about the whole idea of trying to program about half of all reason out of existence and then turning to claim that you're "just"/actually dealing with reality as a whole or know that the occult "just" does or does not exist and so forth when you clearly don't know much about it.  And it's probably inevitable that people will notice the foregone central conclusions of Metabunk's programming, even it's subconscious.  Something along the lines of:  "I can't quite articulate it but it seems like something is wrong with the programming here."  And subconsciously, many Metabunkers seem to know that if they admit that intelligence was involved in bringing down WTC 7 then significant parts of their worldview might collapse at near free fall speeds too.  And that is more "critical" than the technical details and the unfalsifiable/unverifiable theories and simulations that they're using to maintain their central conclusions and over all worldview.     

No comments: