Self selection in conspiracy theorists

[_Maksutov]

There is a huge tension in right-wing conspiracy thinking (which in today's world reduces to plain vanilla right-wing thinking). On the one hand, right-wingers are all about personal freedom and belief that the government is hugely inefficient and wasteful, and government workers are stupid, and government can't solve problems only free enterprise and so on. On the other hand, they believe in these far-reaching conspiratorial plots by government that include everything from rigging economic collapse, to FEMA, to global warming conspiracy, and all of this stuff ties back in to a plot for a one-world government and we're getting played like puppets. If the government really could pull all this stuff off -- if it's all going right to plan, then government is frighteningly intelligent and efficient, and nearly godlike. There is absolutely no argument for market vs. government, government wins hands down. The argument left on the table would be to get a better government, and use it's magic-like abilities for better ends that they agree with.

Brilliant.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

So, instead of god-of-the-gaps, we have conspiracy-of-the-gaps... Hrm.

- Doc

[_Res Ipsa]

So, instead of god-of-the-gaps, we have conspiracy-of-the-gaps... Hrm.

- Doc

Yep, like that. And then look at how the burden of proof shifts around. Markk present some evidence based on experience and expertise, concluding the best fit explanation is the airplanes. Shades seized on a gap in what Markk said, and appears to take the position that unless that gap is filled with evidence proving that a conspiracy is impossible, it was a conspiracy.

Sound familiar? Prove to me that it is impossible for God to guide evolution...

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Dr. Shades,

I’d like you to share your view on WTC 7 now that we’ve had a chance to address your demolition theory.

Can we also get your thoughts on what happened to Flight 93?

- Doc

[_mikwut]

I'd be interested in what Markk would say in response to the following;

https://www.ae911truth.org/images/Beyon ... n-2015.pdf

mikwut

[_Chap]

I'd be interested in what Markk would say in response to the following;

https://www.ae911truth.org/images/Beyon ... n-2015.pdf

mikwut

Before Markk spends any of his valuable time on the task of evaluating and responding to the lengthy document you post, why don't you tell us in a few paragraphs what you have concluded from your reading of it it, in the context of the discussion that has so far taken place on this thread?

I have noticed, in watching the religion-oriented parts of this board over a number of years, that when Mormons find themselves in difficulty because of the repeated exposure of obvious implausibilities in their historical claims, they resort to the ploy of slapping a large text on the table and saying "But have you read this?" - the implication being that if you haven't, then the very obvious and damaging points you have made previously have thus been rendered moot. That tactic is used by many other groups advocating improbable explanations of known facts. Early on in a controversy, it can have a certain impact, because their opponents feel it would be unreasonable to refuse to respond to what might, after all, be relevant argument or evidence.

But after a while, the discussion of a conspiracy theory reaches a point where those who advocate the non-conspiracy explanation of events are no longer obliged to respond to every latest document their opponents produce, or else admit that there is any serious doubt about the main lines of what happened. That certainly applies to discussions of the fate of European Jews at the hands of the Nazis and their collaborators in the later part of WWII, as evidenced in another thread in this forum. The stream of writing by 'Jewish conspiracy' theorists is endless and reflexively self-generating: it feeds a deep need in its readers and writers, and has nothing to do with the real historical enquiry that it mimics for protective colouring. It can nowadays be ignored by those who are interested in finding out what happened, as opposed to those who have an academic interest in the psychopathology of Jew hating.

We have now reached that point in relation to those who want to suggest that there is serious doubt whether, in September 2001 some terrorists made buildings collapse by crashing aircraft into them. No, Mikwut, you don't get to set homework for Markk, or for anybody else. And if Markk ignores your posting, that does not detract in the slightest from the fact that you are the one who has to prove something (if you want to), not him.

[_mikwut]

The document goes over the history of FEMA and NISTS hypothesis of the three towers. It appears to me the hypothesis that Markk presented previously up thread (weight of the upper building pancaking down) has been ruled out even by NIST.

It references the most current scientific papers. It presents the history of the last 100 years of steel framed buildings and fire. It presents the fact that the only steel frame buildings in history to completely collapse due to fire are WTC 1, 2 and 7 on 911.

It presents the fact that the trade centers were built to withstand the impact of an airliner and the gas and ensuing fires from it.

It presents the principle that since fire is an unprecedented cause of steel frame buildings totally collapsing it shouldn't be posited prior to proper investigation of the familiar occurrence when we know the cause of familiar occurrences, i.e. total collapse of steel frame buildings.

It presents a table of the features of fire induced failure and controlled demolition and finds the world trade centers collapses evidentially are not in line with fire induced failure.

It presents the NIST produced facts that the fires were not hot enough to melt steel for it to weaken like Markk's horseshoe example.

It presents the science concerning the sudden onset of collapse, the constant acceleration through the path of greatest resistance and such not being consistent with fire induced failure.

It shows how fire induced failure or partial collapse would be asymmetrical not straight down symmetrical.

It discusses that gravitational amount of giga-joules present in the collapses and the necessary amount to completely pulverize to dust all the cement that occurred in the collapse wouldn't be present.

It discusses a few other things as well. It actually doesn't take that long to read, about the same as the links Doc posted that you had no objection to. And it has pictures for readers like you Chap.

mikwut

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

So, Mikwut. What caused the collapse if NIST is wrong?

- Doc

[_Markk]

From the article Mikwut linked...

every total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise building during that period of time has been caused by controlled demolition. In comparison, fires have never caused the total col-lapse of a steel-framed high-rise building

Okay...

So then your position is it was a controlled demolition...masked by the hijacking of four airliners by foriegn national feigning to be terrorists, but were actually working for a Bush/Cheney backed operation to collapse the towers, damage the pentagon, and attack the White House.

Is it your position a airliner hit the pentagon, or a missile? I have heard this in the past. I will read through your link when I get a chance, maybe it explains this theory also.

Is that fair?

My position is that the airliners full of fuel severed main support columns, dumped burning fuel into the core shafts, heating steel supports, and softening them to the point of complete failure due to with gravity load.

Your theory demands these, and other, questions answered.

1. what team engineered the controlled demolition. The pentagon? Private engineers? Did Bush just make a phone call to these men and say (using your best Bush impersonation)" Hey, I need a war, I want to blow up the Twin Towers and ram high jacked planes into the White House and the Pentagon. Get on it boys, but don't let anyone find out...if you have any further questions just ask Dick, by the way...see if you can find some dumb foriegn nationals that will fly the planes into the buildings."
2. who performed, and how, the preparation work involved for a sequenced implosion, with the airliners. And where were the charges placed?
3. who recruited the so called terrorists, and why would they give their lives for a goverment operation. Or...were they really terrorists tricked into the operation? If the latter who did this, who set it up?
4. controlled demolition would take 1000's of feet of sequencing wires, from charge to charge to a central command center and control board...where was that and where were the wires ran? Underground? In the subway? overhead? If so was there a clean up crew removing all this evidence, and I have to ask..."who were these guys?"
5. How long did it take Bush, from inception to the end, plan and execute the operation?

[_honorentheos]

every total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise building during that period of time has been caused by controlled demolition. In comparison, fires have never caused the total col-lapse of a steel-framed high-rise building

You could probably safely say fire still hasn't caused the total collapse of a steel framed high rise building.

What one can't say is that the impact of an accelerating jetliner with a full fuel load slamming into a steel-framed high-rise building causing massive internal fire has never caused the total collapse of said building.

ETA: Key points related to the above from the NIST investigation report:

First, in the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001 likely would not have led to the collapse of a WTC tower. Second, the towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the subsequent multi-floor fires encountered on September 11, 2001 if the insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.

"...in the absence of structural and insulation damage,..."