Self selection in conspiracy theorists

[_Res Ipsa]

Oh yeah, well explain THIS. (just channeling my inner conspiracy theorist)

How does one avoid the "wrong conspiracy thinking" you seem to be describing without analyzing whatever evidence there is? Blindly trust our leaders, the media? The collapse of building 7 looked like other controlled demolitions but that doesn't mean it was one. Hence, it seems to show how a conspiracy theory can gain traction if the thinking stops there. However, there is more to it and that is why the devil is in the details of these things.

I'm not saying don't analyze the evidence. I've never said don't analyze the evidence. Probably the most important thing I think I've said is that we cannot expect to ever have a perfect collection of all the evidence relevant to a complex event. Some facts will be observed and reported incorrectly by an eyewitness. Some facts will simply never be observed or recorded. If we had a perfect collection of facts, we could reconstruct every fact involved and there would never be anomalies. But because we never have a perfect collection of facts, anomalies are inevitable. So, what do we do?

What we normally do is gather all the relevant evidence we can, and then adopt the explanation that is the best fit taking into account all of the evidence.

Conspiratorial thinking demands that all anomalies be resolved and then invents a story to explain them, generally assuming the existence of a conspiracy as the evidence.

To suggest that the cause of the collapse of buildings on 9-11 hasn't been investigated would be ludicrous. Mikwut listed what he thought was persuasive about the paper. Around a third of them involve obviously flawed reasoning. I showed why one of the "scientific" analyses was ludicrous after just reading the relevant section of the NIST report. Others have shown the claims about heat and steel to be dead wrong. Given that it is very unlikely that the CTers will change their minds based on additional investigation, what's the point of chasing down dozens of rabbit holes? Especially when there is no evidence of the conspiracy itself?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well, I'm not convinced that a satisfying answer has been given. Let me concede Markk's hypothesis of the fuel weakened the steel initiating a collapse. How does that make a symmetrical free fall collapse? How does that larger building below provide no resistance to smaller mass above?

mikwut

I suppose I can't really debunk the debris pattern thing because you are, after all, talking about 110 stories of building plus all the crap that's inside bearing down on destroyed columns and a severely weakened metal framework due to damage and extreme heat. It's gotta go somewhere. However, let me make a couple of points, if you will.

1) The what, 80+k tons of structural steel? It slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall. The core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last. According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

(2)
flipper online

10. Some people have said that a failure at one column should not have produced a symmetrical fall like this one. What is NIST's answer to those assertions?

WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-fa ... estigation

- Doc

[_Dr Exiled]

I'm not saying don't analyze the evidence. I've never said don't analyze the evidence. Probably the most important thing I think I've said is that we cannot expect to ever have a perfect collection of all the evidence relevant to a complex event. Some facts will be observed and reported incorrectly by an eyewitness. Some facts will simply never be observed or recorded. If we had a perfect collection of facts, we could reconstruct every fact involved and there would never be anomalies. But because we never have a perfect collection of facts, anomalies are inevitable. So, what do we do?

What we normally do is gather all the relevant evidence we can, and then adopt the explanation that is the best fit taking into account all of the evidence.

Conspiratorial thinking demands that all anomalies be resolved and then invents a story to explain them, generally assuming the existence of a conspiracy as the evidence.

To suggest that the cause of the collapse of buildings on 9-11 hasn't been investigated would be ludicrous. Mikwut listed what he thought was persuasive about the paper. Around a third of them involve obviously flawed reasoning. I showed why one of the "scientific" analyses was ludicrous after just reading the relevant section of the NIST report. Others have shown the claims about heat and steel to be dead wrong. Given that it is very unlikely that the CTers will change their minds based on additional investigation, what's the point of chasing down dozens of rabbit holes? Especially when there is no evidence of the conspiracy itself?

I agree that the above is what makes conspiracy theories fail. Too many jump to conclusions that aren't there. But that also begs the question of further investigation being needed, if there is still some meat, to whatever conspiracy theory is under scrutiny, after initial investigation. Sure, at a certain point an investigation won't yield anything new or becomes a cold case. However, cold cases get solved sometimes and historians continually find new ways to interpret events and witnesses may eventually crack like "deep throat" did prior to his death.

[_Chap]

[This post is complementary to that of DrC above]

[...] How does that larger building below provide no resistance to smaller mass above?

Let's divide the building into two bits, X and Y. X is the upper part of the building that you call 'the smaller mass above', and Y is the part below it 'the larger building below'. Let the masses of the two bits be M(x) and M(y). So their weights will be M(x)g and M(y)g, where g is the strength of the gravitational field.

In a static situation, the steel frame of Y is designed to support M(x)g + M(y)g, the total weight of both sections.

Now suppose that you destroy a whole slice of the building between X and Y, of vertical thickness H. Let's simplify by assuming that it is suddenly completely taken out. X will then freely accelerate downwards, and will arrive on the upper surface of Y at a speed of

v = SQRT(2gH).

So the momentum of X at impact with the upper surface of Y will be M(x).SQRT(2gH)

Suppose that the impact with Y slows X to a halt in a time t. Then the force exerted between X and Y during that impact will be M(x)g + M(x).(SQRT(2gH))/t

The larger H is, and the smaller t is, the greater will be the extra force M(x).(SQRT(2gH))/t exerted during the impact. That extra force, if H/t is large enough, will collapse the structure of the lower half of the building.


TL;DR:

The lower part of the building is designed to be strong enough to support the upper part when it statically rests on the lower part. It is NOT designed to have the upper part dropped on itself from a height of several meters.

[_Res Ipsa]

I'm not saying don't analyze the evidence. I've never said don't analyze the evidence. Probably the most important thing I think I've said is that we cannot expect to ever have a perfect collection of all the evidence relevant to a complex event. Some facts will be observed and reported incorrectly by an eyewitness. Some facts will simply never be observed or recorded. If we had a perfect collection of facts, we could reconstruct every fact involved and there would never be anomalies. But because we never have a perfect collection of facts, anomalies are inevitable. So, what do we do?

What we normally do is gather all the relevant evidence we can, and then adopt the explanation that is the best fit taking into account all of the evidence.

Conspiratorial thinking demands that all anomalies be resolved and then invents a story to explain them, generally assuming the existence of a conspiracy as the evidence.

To suggest that the cause of the collapse of buildings on 9-11 hasn't been investigated would be ludicrous. Mikwut listed what he thought was persuasive about the paper. Around a third of them involve obviously flawed reasoning. I showed why one of the "scientific" analyses was ludicrous after just reading the relevant section of the NIST report. Others have shown the claims about heat and steel to be dead wrong. Given that it is very unlikely that the CTers will change their minds based on additional investigation, what's the point of chasing down dozens of rabbit holes? Especially when there is no evidence of the conspiracy itself?

I agree that the above is what makes conspiracy theories fail. Too many jump to conclusions that aren't there. But that also begs the question of further investigation being needed, if there is still some meat, to whatever conspiracy theory is under scrutiny, after initial investigation. Sure, at a certain point an investigation won't yield anything new or becomes a cold case. However, cold cases get solved sometimes and historians continually find new ways to interpret events and witnesses may eventually crack like "deep throat" did prior to his death.

Well, sure, every investigation involves having to decide when enough evidence has been gathered. But the examples you've given aren't analogous to conspiratorial thinking. DNA analysis comes along, and we have access to information we've never had before. That's just ordinary, plain old evidence. That's also how cold cases get solved -- actual evidence. Neither of them are the inference that a conspiracy is responsible based on the existence of alleged anomalies. I hate to speak in absolute terms, but I don't think that the fact that someone proposes a conspiracy theory based on a given set of facts is a sufficient reason to conduct further investigation.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

The lower part of the building is designed to be strong enough to support the upper part when it statically rests on the lower part. It is NOT designed to have the upper part dropped on itself from a height of several meters.

Or have missing support columns, or have damaged support columns, or have any number of columns be weakened not only by jet fuel, but massive amounts of crap people load up each floor with burning with the passion of a 9/11 Truther's belief mechanism.

- Doc

[Guest]

The lower part of the building is designed to be strong enough to support the upper part when it statically rests on the lower part. It is NOT designed to have the upper part dropped on itself from a height of several meters.

Exactly. And there was also an assumption by the building designers that the upper part would rest on the lower part by aligning the vertical beams on the upper part with the vertical beams on the lower part. I doubt they tested placing the upper part on top of the lower part without aligning and connecting the vertical beams, since those beams are what held everything up.

[_mikwut]

Hi Exiled,

Markk pointed out that a lot of people would have had to have had access for some time to wire the building for the 9/11 controlled demolition to have worked. Are you aware of any investigation into who had access to the building prior to 9/11? ]Also, wouldn't the operation require a lot of people who would have been noticed by others who worked in those buildings?

The architects present some anomalies prior to the attacks like alarms placed on test:

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/479-sec ... efore-9-11

How do you respond to the fact that people generally can't keep secrets like the 9/11 inside job seemingly required?

1) It's funny in the whistleblower threads on impeachment I asked EAllusion an analogy to this question. I asked if everything was so damn obvious; that what the president was asking for was not only inappropriate but actually criminal and impeachable why weren't there more whistleblowers? I was told how human nature is to not come forward. I say that where I agree with much of what EAllusion said. That was said in more benign setting like everyday work life.

2) I was a criminal defense lawyer. Although not a perfect analogy. I did a lot of work for drug clients. Usually lower down the chain type of dealers and such. It was common that I could get my client a better deal if we could provide bigger fish up the chain. When my clients were working in such a chain I couldn't get my clients to say, they'd rather suffer worse consequence. So it isn't some kind of impossible human thing for large numbers of people to keep the workings of a criminal enterprise silent.

3) Military keeps top secret secrets within a group all the time.

4) I think of when I was Mormon, again not a perfect analogy, but all these give hints, no one could get me to just talk about what happens in the temple all based on a spiritual fear and bonding within the group.

4) Why would someone from the inside come forward? They got away with it. No one would believe them. What would anyone have to gain?

mikwut

[_Dr. Shades]

I'd be interested in you explaining your 9/11 CT positions more than you asking other posters to explain their emotional reactions to the terrorist attacks. You've gone essentially silent, and it'd be nice to see someone that most of us respect actually engage the topic thoughtfully so we can have a decent conversation about the incident and your beliefs vis a vis what occurred.

Well, in light of the further light and knowledge posted within this thread, I may have to update my opinion about the controlled demolition theory. Even so, I can't stop myself from doing what Res Ipsa advised against: Focusing on the anomalies, especially since they are so well documented by video footage. For example, I can't seem to ignore the melted thermite pouring out of the side of one of the towers, nor can I bring myself to ignore the individuals inside the towers reporting hearing multiple explosions after the planes had impacted.

Markk pointed out that a lot of people would have had to have had access for some time to wire the building for the 9/11 controlled demolition to have worked. Are you aware of any investigation into who had access to the building prior to 9/11? Also, wouldn't the operation require a lot of people who would have been noticed by others who worked in those buildings?

It's been over 18 years, and of course you can't believe everything you read on the Internet, but I thought I did read about workers noticing such things.

How do you respond to the fact that people generally can't keep secrets like the 9/11 inside job seemingly required?

For the same reason that tens of thousands of people worked on the Manhattan Project but not a single one of them spilled the beans prior to the morning Hiroshima was bombed.

Why would someone from the inside come forward? They got away with it. No one would believe them. What would anyone have to gain?

That, plus if anyone was inclined to break the secret, they know they'd be labeled a conspiracy theorist.

[_Res Ipsa]

Hi Exiled,

Markk pointed out that a lot of people would have had to have had access for some time to wire the building for the 9/11 controlled demolition to have worked. Are you aware of any investigation into who had access to the building prior to 9/11? ]Also, wouldn't the operation require a lot of people who would have been noticed by others who worked in those buildings?

The architects present some anomalies prior to the attacks like alarms placed on test:

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/479-sec ... efore-9-11

How do you respond to the fact that people generally can't keep secrets like the 9/11 inside job seemingly required?

1) It's funny in the whistleblower threads on impeachment I asked EAllusion an analogy to this question. I asked if everything was so damn obvious; that what the president was asking for was not only inappropriate but actually criminal and impeachable why weren't there more whistleblowers? I was told how human nature is to not come forward. I say that where I agree with much of what EAllusion said. That was said in more benign setting like everyday work life.

2) I was a criminal defense lawyer. Although not a perfect analogy. I did a lot of work for drug clients. Usually lower down the chain type of dealers and such. It was common that I could get my client a better deal if we could provide bigger fish up the chain. When my clients were working in such a chain I couldn't get my clients to say, they'd rather suffer worse consequence. So it isn't some kind of impossible human thing for large numbers of people to keep the workings of a criminal enterprise silent.

3) Military keeps top secret secrets within a group all the time.

4) I think of when I was Mormon, again not a perfect analogy, but all these give hints, no one could get me to just talk about what happens in the temple all based on a spiritual fear and bonding within the group.

4) Why would someone from the inside come forward? They got away with it. No one would believe them. What would anyone have to gain?

mikwut

Don't you think there is a difference between the kind of secret-keeping you are talking about and mass murder of American citizens by their own government? Look how many witnesses have come forward to testify about Trump and Ukraine. Yet, not one shred of evidence of a conspiracy, of any prepping of three buildings for demolition, of the placing of any explosives. No evidence at all. Just anomalies. Not to mention a highly speculative motive.