Self selection in conspiracy theorists

[_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.

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.

Nope. Because, given all the facts, there’s nothing anomalous about Smith writing the Book. The exact mechanics are irrelevant. In fact, you have the analogy backwards. FAIR: explain in detail how Smith wrote the Book or I get to claim God did it. Truther: explain in detail how the jets caused the collapse or I get to claim conspiracy did it.

[_Res Ipsa]

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.

Shades, have you ever seen similar overlapping video and audio footage of a comparable incident? (Comparable Jets hitting comparable structures in a comparable manner?

[_Smokey]

Remember when the Director of the CIA at the time shorted UAL stock on Sept. 10 and made millions of dollars?

The “official explanation” for this is found on page 499 of the 9/11 Commission Report:

A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10.

Keep in mind that when the report says “single U.S based institutional investor” they mean the Director of the CIA at the time.

He did not have any “conceivable ties to al Qaeda” so just forget about it ok! It’s been debunked by Popular Mechanics!

[Guest]

So. A thought. I think many times a belief in a conspiracy theory boils down to anti- intellectualism - refusing to believe experts in their field over some lay person (or nutjob, whatever) on the internet.

How does one begin to test their theory for reliability? Well. You should use statistical analysis to critically analyze data presented. And yes, you should use common sense.

For example, if you go to:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9/11

Scroll down to the embedded video that shows the NIST demonstrating how and why WTC 7 imploded. After watching that video you’re left with a choice. Did the government or owner implement a complex and highly secretive scheme to demo that building along with the others, or did the building collapse due to being collaterally damaged?

And before you gish gallop to another tangential point, or to an irrelevant example, really just stick to the one issue until you’ve reasonably examined the evidence. Just stick to the logistics of a demolition versus the physics of a collaterally damaged building collapsing under its own weight.

I believe the reasonable man comes to the conclusion that physics wins out over theory, no?

Edit: In case someone is interested, this is one of the videos embedded in the rational wiki article that addresses steel strength when heated:

https://youtu.be/FzF1KySHmUA

It is well worth your two minutes to watch it.

- Doc

[_Res Ipsa]

Remember when the Director of the CIA at the time shorted UAL stock on Sept. 10 and made millions of dollars?

The “official explanation” for this is found on page 499 of the 9/11 Commission Report:

A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10.

Keep in mind that when the report says “single U.S based institutional investor” they mean the Director of the CIA at the time.

He did not have any “conceivable ties to al Qaeda” so just forget about it ok! It’s been debunked by Popular Mechanics!

Thanks for the perfect example of the fallacious use of Cui Bono.

[_Chap]

[...]

I believe the reasonable man comes to the conclusion that physics wins out over theory, no?

Edit: In case someone is interested, this is one of the videos embedded in the rational wiki article that addresses steel strength when heated:

https://youtu.be/FzF1KySHmUA

It is well worth your two minutes to watch it.

- Doc

That video makes good sense to me. The mechanisms involved in the WTC non-impacted tower collapse, and the non-collapse of differently constructed towers like the one that is still standing after the Grenfell fire, are clearly set out, based on clear mechanical and structural engineering principles. Nothing mysterious was going on, given that the WTC building involved was left to burn for seven hours before its collapse.

[_Smokey]

Thanks for the perfect example of the fallacious use of Cui Bono.

Anomalies that indicate foreknowledge is not Cui Bono, dude.

[_DarkHelmet]

It's been a few years since I've gone down the 9/11 truther rabbit hole. Is there a single beginning-to-end theory that explains everything better than the official report? I'm familiar with the main list of "How do you explain...?" questions from the 9/11 truthers, but I'm not aware of any particular alternative theory that explains who was involved, what the motive was, how they pulled it off step-by-step, how they covered up their involvement and put the blame on muslim hijackers, etc. in a way that explains things, and accounts for all the evidence, better than the official version of events.

[_Icarus]

Remember when the Director of the CIA at the time shorted UAL stock on Sept. 10 and made millions of dollars?

The “official explanation” for this is found on page 499 of the 9/11 Commission Report:

A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10.

Keep in mind that when the report says “single U.S based institutional investor” they mean the Director of the CIA at the time.

He did not have any “conceivable ties to al Qaeda” so just forget about it ok! It’s been debunked by Popular Mechanics!

You're relaying a debunked chain-email.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/put-paid/

Here is the context you left out:

"Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options — instruments that pay off only when a stock drops in price — surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 — highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous."

[_Smokey]

You're relaying a debunked chain-email.

Oof. It’s on page 499 of the Official 9/11 Commission Report, goofball.

https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf