Self selection in conspiracy theorists

[_mikwut]

I hereby renounce my previous opinion and accept the official narrative.

Me too.

[_Dr Exiled]

This thread is fun. We should do JFK next.

What else do we have to do? Also, I don't think there is any shame in questioning official narratives. Bush claiming Sadam had something to do with 9/11 should have been questioned more as well as his Sadam still having weapons of mass destruction invention. We just saw a coup in Bolivia that has mining interests at its center. Trump also wants to topple the Venezuelan government for its oil. Both of these operations seem to have a CIA connection, but don't hold your breath regarding having the official narrative include that. It took until recently for the CIA to admit having a role in the Iranian coup back in 1953.

[_Dantana]

Well, it looks like the party is over but, I will add anyway. The chances that the buildings were covertly wired for demo to the extent it would require, is about as physically possible as 'raking the forests' to prevent forest fires.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I hereby renounce my previous opinion and accept the official narrative.

Me too.

Mikwut and Dr. Shades,

REALLY? It was because subgenius threw in with you guys, wasn't it? :D j/k. Just in case you still want to discuss any particular points I was enjoying reading the pros and then finding the cons to support my position... So... You know... Just sayin'...

- Doc

[_Dr. Shades]

Just in case you still want to discuss any particular points I was enjoying reading the pros and then finding the cons to support my position... So... You know... Just sayin''...

Here's a particular point I'd like to discuss: The original point. Res Ipsa claimed, and rightfully so, that conspiracy theorists self-select PRIOR to going to reddit.com; they aren't converted there.

To me, this is sort of like claiming that people are dry BEFORE they get wet--hardly a surprise to anyone. In my strong opinion, EVERYONE self-selects prior to going to reddit and aren't converted once there. Non-conspiracy theorists, official narrative apologists, Mormons, Catholics, ex-Mormons, Nazis, white supremacists, Communists, black supremacists, pacifists, students, retirees, etc. all self-select PRIOR to congregating.

So, I think the opening post could've selected literally ANY group of human beings (not merely conspiracy theorists) and it would've been equally applicable.

[_canpakes]

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

It wasn't symmetrical. From the quotes I provided:

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

Given this fact about the delay in core destruction, and the fact that the building collapsed from near the top and on down, it's difficult to understand how a few folks in this conversation are still believing that the building should have 'pivoted' during a collapse (if said collapse was indeed not intentional), or why they cannot make sense of the 'pancaking' action that occurred.

Perhaps if anyone holding an alternate or conspiratorial theory could offer an explanation regarding either, it would help to either advance their alternate theory, or help them to rethink it.

[_canpakes]

The exterior "tube" provides the structures rigidity against wind etc, but it also shares support of the floor plates with the interior core columns. Which would lead one to conclude that the "hole" would cause an asymmetrical failure of the floor supports...not so much a symmetrical "pancake" fall of those floors.

What is the measure of 'symmetrical' to you?

If a significant loss of load-bearing structure on any given floor in the WTC were to allow the building to collapse down on only that side while staying unchanged on the opposing side, how far does the building travel before contacting the floor below?

Answer: 12 feet.

And at that point, how does the opposing side resist the pull of structural members due to gravity, initiating a collapse on the far side?

Answer: it does not. The trusses will be compromised at this point.

Will the compromised trusses, now in a failure state and subjected to the gravitational force of millions of tons of materials directly atop them, (a) somehow unwrap and eject themselves laterally off to any side of the building, or (b) detach and continue to fall straight downward, given that the central core they were attached to is not collapsing at the same rate of speed or at the same time?

It is clear that an 'asymmetrical' failure can occur, but given the relatively small ratio of that measure (12 foot head start on one side before triggering collapse at all other points) in comparison to the overall height of the building (over 1300 ft in height), then 'symmetrical' and 'asymmetrical' become relative terms. To the casual observer watching a quarter-mile-high building collapse, what should your terms translate into?

[_Markk]

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.

https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2014/08/m ... ect-leaks/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_spies

https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Japanese- ... eing-built

[_Res Ipsa]

Just in case you still want to discuss any particular points I was enjoying reading the pros and then finding the cons to support my position... So... You know... Just sayin'''...

Here's a particular point I'd like to discuss: The original point. Res Ipsa claimed, and rightfully so, that conspiracy theorists self-select PRIOR to going to reddit.com; they aren't converted there.

To me, this is sort of like claiming that people are dry BEFORE they get wet--hardly a surprise to anyone. In my strong opinion, EVERYONE self-selects prior to going to reddit and aren't converted once there. Non-conspiracy theorists, official narrative apologists, Mormons, Catholics, ex-Mormons, Nazis, white supremacists, Communists, black supremacists, pacifists, students, retirees, etc. all self-select PRIOR to congregating.

So, I think the opening post could've selected literally ANY group of human beings (not merely conspiracy theorists) and it would've been equally applicable.

Well, to avoid taking undue credit, the claim was made in the article. I was just reporting what the article said.

I have heard people talk about how conspiracy sites are "dangerous" because innocent people wander into places like r/conspiracy and get sucked into conspiracy theories. The analysis took that claim as a hypothesis and tested it. And it backs up your intuition, Shades.

Take r/exmormon as an analogy. What percentage of folks who end up posting there are believing Mormons who wandered in and were reconverted, as opposed to doubters or ex-believers who sought out r/exmormon. Do the faithful go there and lose their testimony? Or do they seek it out because they're losing or have lost their testimony? I dunno. But the study of r/conspiracy was done to examine a similar question.

[_Chap]

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.

https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2014/08/m ... ect-leaks/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_spies

https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Japanese- ... eing-built

So even in the intensely secret and highly motivated wartime atmosphere of the Manhattan project, leaks DID occur.

And we are supposed to believe that, out of the very large number of people from top politicians down to construction workers required to set up what '9/11 truthers' believe to have occurred, not a single one has blabbed since then? When, unlike the Manhattan project, there is an active group of people who devote huge amounts of time to nurturing and expounding the conspiracy story?

And there are people who find it easier to accept that there was such a huge and immensely well concealed 'controlled demolition' conspiracy, rather than accept that there will always be some aspects of the unique event of a fuel loaded plane impacting a skyscraper at high speed that involve complex collapse processes?

Oh well, Mormonism is alive and well. So anything is possible.