Self selection in conspiracy theorists

[_Markk]

Shades,

From a construction point of view, and knowing somewhat what it might take to plant the charges to bring down a building/s the size of the Twin Towers...how did they pull off the destructive demo required to plant the timed charges?

In other words... were crews removing furniture (desks, cubicles, file cabinets, fixed millwork), lined duct shafts, fixtures, drywall, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, tee bar, glazing, and misc finishes...in order to get access to the key structural members required to bring down the building in a perfect timed implosion.

Also to do this work the fire alarm system would absolutely, without question, need to be put in test mode, or dust or smoke from the demo and cutting would set off the alarm every hour, without question. In order to do this you have to call the fire department and let them know you will be doing work and they will put the system in test mode, and they will in turn ask for a permit number. There would be a record of this.

What about the banks and other high security areas in the towers...people just came in at night and tore walls apart and had them back together before anyone noticed? Were the explosive experts also carpenters, drywallers, and painters?

The reality is, it is not like in the movies where Stallone take a chunk of plastic explosive and sticks it to the the side of a wide flange beam and sets a timer and runs.

The steel support beams have to be prepped first...in other words once exposed, after engineer observation...engineered slots would be cut with a torch at key critical locations throughout the building, and then charges planted at these key locations with measured explosives to break the weakened beams and columns... with 1000's upon 1000's of feet of lead wires sequencing the charges.

I am currently doing a seismic retrofit of a 13 story occupied building in downtown LA...and over 9 months into it we are only at the 4th floor on half the foot print. At least half the time is because it is a occupied building...people (tenants and employees) don't like their spaces messed with, it cost them money.

The planning, engineering, manpower, equipment and materials required to bring two of the largest buildings in the world down in a perfect sequenced implosion would be enormous and time consuming. Let alone the amount of tearing apart the building and putting it back before anyone noticed the next day (assuming they did this at night).

While your wife is asleep, tear out a kitchen cabinet, cut a whole in the drywall, bring equipment and manpower in and plant a explosive device in the wall, and then have it all put back together before she wakes up.

From a construction point of view, I view this as being impossible as explained, and this does not even address the mustache of blaming it on the terrorists.

[_Maksutov]

Shades,

From a construction point of view, and knowing somewhat what it might take to plant the charges to bring down a building/s the size of the Twin Towers...how did they pull off the destructive demo required to plant the timed charges?

[SNIP!]

From a construction point of view, I view this as being impossible as explained, and this does not even address the mustache of blaming it on the terrorists.

+1,000

[_Icarus]

So in other words, the truther theory raises far more questions than it proposes to answer.

[_Res Ipsa]

Cui bono (who benefits) is a good question to ask when investigating crime. Motive seems to point to the universe of possible perps and investigators use this fact to aid in their investigations. Conspiracies happen all the time and your local court is filled with them. Even the elites dabble in conspiracies like Enron when they are taking time off from ruling us and giving back, allegedly. Prince Andrew seems to have been involved with Epstein and his recent BBC interview seems to have led to his supposed banishment from public life. Further, and more importantly, calling/dismissing someone a conspiracy theorist seems to be a great way to silence criticism. If I were defending a client in the media, I would accuse the accusers of being illogical conspiracy theorists and try to paint them as crazies in my attempt to gaslight them.

Misuse of Cui Bono is one of the hallmarks of CT. Cui Bono is a good tool for identifying possible suspects when you have good reason to believe that someone has committed a crime. CTers use it exactly backwards. They use it as proof that a crime was committed in the first place. For example, the claim that lots of people made money as a consequence of 9/11 is not evidence that they caused 9/11. People trade on stock exchange for all kinds of reasons. And within that set of people, there are winners and losers each time the value of a stock changes. The fact that some people made money off the behavior of the stock market after 9/11 is not an anomaly — it’s exactly what we should expect to happen.

This is an example of the paternity bias and the intentionality bias at work. I see what I think is an anomalous pattern — certain people made money in the stock market off of 9/11. The pattern cannot be a coincidence. Therefore, those people must have caused 9/11.

That’s what conspiracy thinking looks like. It assumes, without any evidence that the mere existence of a pattern means some intentional agent caused the pattern. It never stops to think about whether coincidence is a better explanation (the volume of trading means that every change of price means there are winners and losers.) And it jumps to the conclusion that benefiting from an event equals causing an event.

Finally, Exiled gave a great example of one of the hallmarks off the CT. The mere fact that I correctly label the reasoning as CT means that I’m in on the conspiracy! Again, parallel to mopologetics, the conspiracy becomes an all-powerful Swiss Army knife that can be deployed to reject any evidence or reasoned argument just like a mopologist used God.

Please remember that I’m not dismissing you as a nutter. I view CT thinking as the product of biases hardwired in the brain.

[_Dr. Shades]

What's your take on Flight 93?

I'm undecided.

From a construction point of view, and knowing somewhat what it might take to plant the charges to bring down a building/s the size of the Twin Towers...how did they pull off the destructive demo required to plant the timed charges?

I'm not an expert, of course. According to the towers' schematics, was there maintenance access to the structural supports, or were the latter always directly behind the drywall?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Why are you asking him to figure out your CT for you? You ought to be able to explain in detail; how it was demo’d because it’s YOUR theory.

- Doc

[_Res Ipsa]

Why are you asking him to figure out your CT for you? You ought to be able to explain in detail; how it was demo’d because it’s YOUR theory.

- Doc

Exactly. The CT explanation is that the conspirators are smart enough and powerful enough to get it done.

And, again, notice the resemblance to mopologetic reasoning: all the CT’er does is find a theoretically possible explanation, without trying to figure out whether that explanation is actually the best fit explanation for all the evidence. Shades, you’ve argued with mopologists for years. CT reasoning suffers from the exact same flaws.

One picture is worth a thousand words, but not a thousand true words.

[_Dr. Shades]

Why are you asking him to figure out your CT for you? You ought to be able to explain in detail; how it was demo’d because it’s YOUR theory.

Do I have to "explain in detail" how Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon before I'm allowed to conclude that the official story is a lie?

'Cause that sounds like FAIR and Sic et Non-caliber reasoning to me.

[_Xenophon]

Do I have to "explain in detail" how Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon before I'm allowed to conclude that the official story is a lie?

'Cause that sounds like FAIR and Sic et Non-caliber reasoning to me.

Your analogy is entirely backwards though. The general consensus held by the majority of the population (or what I would label the "official story") is that the Book of Mormon is not what the LDS church claims it is.

In this 9/11 truther scenario you are acting the part of apologist for a bizarre, non-supported claim. Would you allow an apologist to skate by on such a flimsy defense?

[_Dr. Shades]

In this 9/11 truther scenario you are acting the part of apologist for a bizarre, non-supported claim.

"Non-supported?" The support is in the video and audio footage.

Would you allow an apologist to skate by on such a flimsy defense?

I don't consider multiple, overlapping video and audio footage as "flimsy." If the Mopologists had anything even close to that, I'd take them far more seriously.