What is a "conspiracy theory?"

[vox_monitor]

What is a conspiracy theory, and why is such a theory of questionable rationality?

(I'm not disputing that such a theory is likely of questionable rationality, I just want to establish definitively why, and what characteristics one call look for in identifying such theories.)

[docsnavely]

from wikipedia..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

i would identify an idea as a conspiracy theory if it goes against the standard thought process of the average citizen.

i know that seems vague, but hell, i'm not sure exactly how i would personally define an idea as such. maybe if it were an idea so far out in right field for me, that i would never be able to view the possibility of it being reality.....

or, if the means to classify such theory as fact uses too many non-quantifiable statements.......

[FOSCO]

Uh oh!

Before this gets ugly I should probably put on the cap!

http://www.hallucinaut.com/foilhats/taptap.jpg

Fosco

*Sorry for the old picture!* :lol:

[jimk]

Regardless of dictionary definitions, I feel a conspiracy theory is any explanation for an event that fits the following criteria:

1. Makes very little logical, rational sense unless you are already inclined to believe certain things about the people you are accusing of conspiring
2. Requires the participation of large numbers of people and the secrecy thereof after the fact
3. Has no actual physical proof to back up claims made
4. Flies in the face of experts, witnesses and first responders who were at the scene of any particular event (as these theories usually surround tragedies)
5. Often requires secondary and tertiary conspiracies to support the validity of the main conspiracy, which of course flies in the face of the average person's experience with humanity...since no group can keep a secret in a group for more than five minutes, and no group can keep some other group's secret for a half a second. :)
6. Often completely contradicts other theories about the person or persons being accused of conspiring. Example: All Republicans are uneducated, NASCAR-loving redneck theocrats...yet they are behind every major conspiracy since Kennedy and have managed to hide all the evidence of every crime.

The reason they are so questionable is ...uhh...1-6.

Most conspiracy theories don't pass a common sense, or a "smell test." Almost all of them fall apart under scrutiny. If the response to any questioning of any part of a conspiracy theory involves deflection by saying anything like "Well, that's how THEY operate" or "They're good at hiding evidence" or "They control the media, police, courts" etc...odds are you're dealing with nothing more than a paranoid person who wants your attention more than they want to know that the truth is almost always simple and makes logical sense if you set aside predisposition and bias.

Love the question though. You made me sit and think about it for awhile!

[docsnavely]

jim, i would have to disagree with you......

most of your criterion are strictly subjective i.e #'s.... 1, 2, 5, and 6

where are your valid examples of #5 and #6?

i don't know much about conspiracy theories or theorists, but it just seems like you are stating opinion.....

at least i posted the wiki for it :P

[jimk]

Sorry in advance if this comes out harshly. I'm agitated at your words, not you as a person. Remember that...now:

Did you miss the part where I said "I feel ?" This is my opinion, not Wikipedia or anyone else's. I did not state this as absolute fact. I offered my opinion on what *I* feel makes a conspiracy theory.

Good god, whatever happened to people being able to use their own thoughts and logic to construct an argument? It seems like every swinging dick on the internet screams for LINKS LINKS LINKS whenever anything comes up, and everyone turns to subjective sources as "proof."

We're losing the ability to debate logically from our own wellspring of knowledge and experience. Online debating seems, to me, to be turning people into those who just regurgitate the thoughts and writings of others. I offered *my* thoughts.

[dcolanduno]

jim, i would have to disagree with you......

most of your criterion are strictly subjective i.e #'s.... 1, 2, 5, and 6

where are your valid examples of #5 and #6?

i don't know much about conspiracy theories or theorists, but it just seems like you are stating opinion.....

at least i posted the wiki for it :P

Isn't the Wiki just a place where everyone else put in their thoughts as well? I thought everyone could essentially edit the thing to death with opinion anyway.

<just clarifying>

[vox_monitor]

Here's my answer:

1. Regarding it's common usage, "conspiracy theory" is simply the modern day equivalent of "blasphemy!" Which is to say that it is a "catch all" dismissive for ideas that people don't like to consider, or that are fringe in any way.

In other words, if Galeleo had suggested that the earth circled around the sun nowadays, the catholic church would have screamed, "conspiracy theory!" at him.


2. There is however a legitimate use of the term. "Conspiracy theories" strain credibility when they require a large number of conspirators to hold logical water, and when there is a much simpler explanation that makes sense.

"There was no moon landing" is a conspiracy theory in the legimate sense of the term. Why? Because it requires that a bunch of scientists at nasa be in on it, basically. The participants in the moon landing were very publicly known. We can ask them what happened. We can gauge their reactions. We can look at the notes of scientists who did the work in preparing for it. We can see teh equipment, and if we research it hard enough, understand the math and even the systems themselves.

It is hard to believe that all those very public and accessible figures were all in on a big lie that served no understandable purpose, and that all those people remained silent and convince-ing about the lie for all these years.
...............................


Now here's the thing. Conspiracies do happen, don't they. Organized crime gets convicted of conspiracy charges fairly often. Governments, throughout history, have often come to power by way of criminal conspiracies.

The Reichstag fire is an obvious example, but there have been plenty of well documented examples in this country as well.

Bay of Pigs, anyone?

Watergate?

The thing is this. What do you think the CIA does? They have lots of money, operate entirely in secret, with almost no oversight, and are explicitly there to do cloak and dagger ****. They've been guilty of many criminal conspiracies throughout the years. They've toppled governments illegally and covertly in South America. They've assassinated people.

All they do, it would seem to me, is conspire. They research, and make plans for, all sorts of covert **** all the time. The plan massive operations and small operations. And the organization is comprised of a number of factions and power groups, just like any beauracracy.

Think about this. If you spent your entire career dealing in contingencies and plans for covert operations, wouldn't you want to see some of them implemented? And given that the CIA operates in a moral and legal grey area, at best, don't you imagine that at least a small faction might become corrupted by that fact? The CIA, right out of the starting gates, has to take on an "end justifies the means" attitude. It has to because the means that it is using are often immoral. CIA agents kill people, after all, at least occasionally, right? I mean even the mainstream media agrees that the CIA was involved in extradicting prisoners to countries that used torture. Italy indicted something like 7 CIA agents for illegally abducting a man from the street in broad daylight. How? By pulling up next to him in a van, grabbing him, stuffing him in the van, and then squeeling away like common thugs.

..........................................

Now those are things that we know about. Things for which there is such substantial proof that no reasonable person will deny the truth of them. Are they criminal conspiracies? Yes. Are they conspiracy theories? No. Why not? Because they involve a secret organization that does nothing but conspire and act in secret. Sometimes in ways we'd consider "good." Sure. Let's even say most of the time, for argument's sake. But only a fool would believe that the CIA always secretly conspires in ways that we think are "good." It boils down to this. Given that the organization is built upon an end justifies means philosophy, and that it is an organization, like any, comprised of factions, and that it operates always in secret, often so much so that the right hand has no idea what the left hand is doing, it follows that sometimes, factions will not represent your idea of good, or my idea of good, even if the faction itself believes its own idea of good.

............................................

So history and common sense show us that conspiracies do happen, that often people get away with crazy ****, and that often it is decades before the truth comes out. We can conclude that there have likely been many such occasions about which we will never know the truth.

Power corrupts, and seeks itself. Those who seek power, do so because they love power, and create all kinds of justifications to wield it. After all, there is no fun in having power if you aren't going to use it.
.............................................

Now, a lot of people say that 9/11 was a conspiracy by islamic terrorists. Others say it was a conspiracy by the government. Nobody says it wasn't a conspiracy at all.
............................................

And I'm not saying who it was a conspiracy by at all. What I'm saying is that the official story regarding the events of that day, and particularly the complete collapse/destruction of three steel frame skyscrapers, one of which had been hit by no plane at all, and had only very scattered small fires in it, makes no sense. It is absolutely absurd.

Seriously. I mean I'm not going to even get into any of the science of the matter right now. I'm just going to ask you to think about it.

Imagine you are in a skyscraper, and a few small fires break out a lower floor - a few large-ish objects from, lets say a gas line explosion across the street hit your building, knock out some windows, and start a few small fires.

Are you going to have any concern at all that the whole building is going to collapse? A massive steel framed building? Think hard about this. There is a fire a few floors down. No plane has hit the building. Just a few couple of spotty fires, and some broken windows. You are being evacuated. You are worried about gettin caught in the fire, sure. But are you worried that the whole building will just abrubtly enter into a freefall collapse? Of course not. Don't be rediculous. You are in a new - less than 20 years old - Steel Frame massive office building. It is built to withstand a hell of a lot. Earthquakes, fires, all kinds of ****. If the whole building was a roaring inferno, the ****ing thing still wouldn't collapse.

We have ample evidence of that.

There have been skyscaper infernos before.
Never has there been complete structural failure as a result.
Never has there been a collapse.

It's totally ****ing unthinkable.

On 9/11 it happened THREE TIMES.

Three buildings just collapsed in their own footprints. Building seven had been hit by no plane.

It was across the street from WTC 1 and 2.
WTC 6 was between 7 and the two big ones.
It was ACROSS THE STREET. THERE WAS ANOTHER TALL BUILDING BETWEEN IT and the other two.

It just collapsed? Why? The explanations that the official reports offer resemble the extremely convoluted astrophysics that scientists came up with to explain how the sun revolved around the earth.

Really. They do. It is like, Ok. The church says the sun revolves around us. This contradicts our data, apparently, but we have to come up with some mathematics that explains the motions of the planets and the sun across the sky that fits that position.

And that's what they do. And if a scientist has the guts to say, bullshit! The answer is so much simpler than all that. The EARTH REVOLVES AROUND THE SUN!!!!! The church and most of the parishoners just scream "Conspiracy Theory," at him.
......................................
.............................................

[dcolanduno]

And I'm not saying who it was a conspiracy by at all. What I'm saying is that the official story regarding the events of that day, and particularly the complete collapse/destruction of three steel frame skyscrapers, one of which had been hit by no plane at all, and had only very scattered small fires in it, makes no sense. It is absolutely absurd.

The problem with that statement is that... taken out of context it sounds reasonable.

BUT, there have been several, separate, research documents and analyses of the events by many, many highly respected engineering firms, and other individuals that are structural or civil engineering experts.

Not only have they come up with complimentary conclusions that it is completely feasible for it to have happened three times. They have even shown several different scenarios where it could have happened. It's not even a matter of something rare and specific happening, there have been several reviewed and respected proofs for how the towers could have fallen under the conditions of the day.

I would say, given the work that has been done by people that know, understand, and work in the field of structural engineering daily... it is absurd to continue to doubt that could have easily occured in the obvious manner.

What we have now is people dismissing MANY, MANY, well respected researchers and engineers... and just going with gut feeling, and the words of several individuals trying to advocate some form of collusion that required upward of 1,000 people or more.

Watergate, and those other referenced REAL conspiracies... were not multi-corporation, multi-media outlet, multi-government agency conspiracies, with additional needs of support from demolition companies, and other experts with the ability to pull off such a coordinated stunt.

It may not LOOK like it could happen to a lay person. But well respected 'scientist/engineers' have shown in multiple research efforts, that it CAN happen the way you saw it happen.

There have been skyscaper infernos before.
Never has there been complete structural failure as a result.
Never has there been a collapse.

It's totally ****ing unthinkable.

You are leaving out the fact that... it wasn't JUST a fire... it was a fire that started with a major impact from an object traveling at an incredible speed, with a huge mass... that punched through the structure, past the center supporting infrastructure.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html#authors

Leaving out such 'small' details is not unimportant.

[docsnavely]

jim, i wasn't saying you were wrong, i said.......

jim, i would have to disagree with you......

wasn't trying to slam you man.....

oh, and derek, the :P was supposed to be a sign informing you of sarcasm on the point of my wiki post..... i hate the way sarcasm never comes across on boards.....

[jimk]

I can't believe that seemingly intelligent humans believe that the government blew up the Trades.

I can't EVER take a person like that seriously on *any* subject. Ever again. In the back of my mind, no matter how rational the argument they are making on some unrelated topic, I think "Jesus Christ, this guy actually believes that the WTC collapse was a controlled explosion set by our own government on purpose. How can I even talk to someone like that? I have NOTHING in common with a person who would choose to believe that."

That's just my opinion and I know it matters not...but there it is.

[vox_monitor]

And I'm not saying who it was a conspiracy by at all. What I'm saying is that the official story regarding the events of that day, and particularly the complete collapse/destruction of three steel frame skyscrapers, one of which had been hit by no plane at all, and had only very scattered small fires in it, makes no sense. It is absolutely absurd.

The problem with that statement is that... taken out of context it sounds reasonable.

BUT, there have been several, separate, research documents and analyses of the events by many, many highly respected engineering firms, and other individuals that are structural or civil engineering experts.

Not only have they come up with complimentary conclusions that it is completely feasible for it to have happened three times. They have even shown several different scenarios where it could have happened. It's not even a matter of something rare and specific happening, there have been several reviewed and respected proofs for how the towers could have fallen under the conditions of the day.

I would say, given the work that has been done by people that know, understand, and work in the field of structural engineering daily... it is absurd to continue to doubt that could have easily occured in the obvious manner.

What we have now is people dismissing MANY, MANY, well respected researchers and engineers... and just going with gut feeling, and the words of several individuals trying to advocate some form of collusion that required upward of 1,000 people or more.

Watergate, and those other referenced REAL conspiracies... were not multi-corporation, multi-media outlet, multi-government agency conspiracies, with additional needs of support from demolition companies, and other experts with the ability to pull off such a coordinated stunt.

It may not LOOK like it could happen to a lay person. But well respected 'scientist/engineers' have shown in multiple research efforts, that it CAN happen the way you saw it happen.

There have been skyscaper infernos before.
Never has there been complete structural failure as a result.
Never has there been a collapse.

It's totally ****ing unthinkable.

You are leaving out the fact that... it wasn't JUST a fire... it was a fire that started with a major impact from an object traveling at an incredible speed, with a huge mass... that punched through the structure, past the center supporting infrastructure.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html#authors

Leaving out such 'small' details is not unimportant.

Leaving out "small" details is precisely the problem indeed, Derek.

Building seven wasn't hit by a plane. You left that out.

were not multi-corporation, multi-media outlet, multi-government agency conspiracies,

I named precisely one agency. You are guilty of a straw man here.

advocate some form of collusion that required upward of 1,000 people or more.

Support this. The reality is that the number of people in the know would not have to be nearly this many. I certainly don't think that any media outlet has knowingly colluded to cover anything up. The forces by which the media goes along with the conventional wisdom is much less sinister.

You are a perfect example. You are a smart guy. You consider yourself a critical thinker. But when presented with data on this subject, you become, by your own admission, angered. You don't like to hear "conspiracy theories," especially when they are as disconcerting as this one. You apparently don't recognize that the official story is, if nothing else, a conspiracy theory - one that requires a series of wild coincidences and improbabilities to support it.

It is one that asks you to believe in an utterly incompetent military that can't shoot down a single one of 4 hijacked planes, even given well over an hour between the crash of the first and the crash of the last, despite the fact that a well funded, well manned and well armed NORAD existed precisely for that purpose, and despite the fact that the planes flew around in the precise area where NORAD was implemented to execute that purpose.

It is one that asks you to believe despite the fact that all evidence that might corroborate the official story has been made secret or has been destroyed. Where are the cockpit recordings from the black boxes? Why can't we see the surveillance footage from the gas station near the pentagon? Why was the rubble from the "collapses" hurriedly shipped overseas to be melted down, given that, if the buildings did collapse, it was surely useful in understanding how and why those buildings - especially building 7, which WAS HIT BY NO PLANE, fell.

...........................

Ok. The experts. This is your most convincing point. At least it appears like it is at first. But in reality, it is less convincing than one might think.

Let's think about it this way. You are a structural engineer, let's say. And you get asked to do a study into how or and why the world trade center builidings collapsed. Great. Except it doesn't work quite like that, really. Instead you get asked to explain why the floors collapsed. So you come up with the truss theory. Another colleagure comes up with the zipper theory. They don't exactly hold water, but they sort of make sense, and they're the best that you can come up with. I mean, after all, you are starting from the assumption that no explosives were used. You are attempting to explain how the seemingly impossible event of total structural failure resulted from a cause that the buildings were explicitly built to be able to withstand.

So you do your best. And like any decent american, you really, really don't want to believe your leaders could possibly be complicit in this horror. So you come up with what you come up with.

Meanwhile, some other scientist is asked to explain the near freefall speed of the collapse - another anomoly that suggest very strongly that the official story is BS. And he does his best to explain that aspect. And he comes up with a mathematical model involving a near-frictionless collapse that sort of, with a bit of stretching maybe, and a number of qualifiers along the lines of "more data is needed to fully explain this thing here", explains how the collapse could be that fast without demolition.

Then a third scientist is asked to explain the clearly visible squibs, and the massive dust cloud expansion. And with the convoluted logic of the astronomer trying to make the Sun circle the Earth, he finds a mathematics that works.

The problem is two-fold. 1. The ideas were generated to prove a pre-set condition. 2. When you put them together, you find that they are mutally exclusive. If the collapse occurred via the truss or zipper theory, then the near-freefall speed is out of the question. If the speed is explained, via the near frictionless collapse, then the dust expansion is out of the question. If the dust expansion is expained, then the laws of physics are out of the question.

This is very much like Geocentric Astrophysics. The explainations required to make the collapse notion work become increasingly rediculous.

The planets do not move along the ecliptic at a constant speed as predicted by Aristotle's model. Instead they speed up and slow down in a regular pattern. Hipparchus introduced a new geometric device called the eccentric in an attempt to explain this behavior. He displaced the earth from the center of the cosmos by a small amount. The deferent spins about the center at a constant speed but since the distance to the planet varies it appears to speed up and slow down as it approaches and recedes from the earth.

This still did not completely solve the problem of non-uniform motion. About 250 years after Hipparchus, Claudius Ptolemy introduced another geometric device called the equant to help with this problem. It is an imaginary point from which the motion of the deferent appears uniform. If the motion appears uniform from the equant, however, it will not be uniform about the center.

The combination of all three of these devices by Ptolemy led to a model that explained the motions of the planets reasonably well. It was accurate to about ± 5°.

The Church at this time interpreted several passages in the Bible as meaning that the Earth stood still. Therefore they were pleased by this model and tried to suppress any competitors. The complexity of the model and its deviation from pure Aristotlelian ideals led some thinkers to attempt a replacement model with the sun at the center of the universe.

Eventually, we have to just consider the possibility that the sun is at the center of things, instead of the earth, no matter how much that violates our assumptions regarding "the way things work."

.................

Last point. The thing about experts is that everyone has one. And they tend to disagree with one another. How many experts must support heliocenticism before you are willing to consider it a viable possiblity? Of course, the demolition camp doesn't have millions of dollars of taxpayer money to hire experts to make presentations arguing their case, but there have been a few specific experts who have voiced the idea that collapse is impossible. I can think of two, specifically. One an expert on structural steel, and one an expert on demolition who later recanted his statement. Don't want to find the links, though, at the moment.


Additionally, you are flat out wrong when you say that MANY MANY experts are in agreement about this. In reality, there is very little consensus about the matter. True, there are a fair number of people proposing assorted theories regarding how the Earth might reasonably be thought to be the center of the solar system, but there is little consensus about which convoluted explaination is best.

But most importantly, aren't we all tired of this division between "expert" and "lay person." God knows I am. I'm a smart guy with a college degree. I can look at data. I can look at arguments. I can evaluate both. I may not have the specialized training needed to design and build these buildings, but that is not what is being asked of me here.

Nevertheless, I conceed that the paucity of experts challenging the official story is a very strong argument on the side of the official story. And honestly, it is one that I can't wholly explain.

But I also assert that it is, really, your only argument. And I further assert, that history will prove the official story false here. When one or two big name researchers in this field become courageous enough to risk their professional reputations on this issue, I suspect the rest will follow.

Until then, you take your cues from the experts if you like. All the priests are in agreement about one thing - the earth is the center of the universe. There is huge disagreement about how or why, but the one thing they all agree upon is that earth is at the center.

You keep checking with the clergy for permission to look at the actual data.

Meanwhile, I'll be busy over here with the truth.

[vox_monitor]

I can't believe that seemingly intelligent humans believe that the government blew up the Trades.

I can't EVER take a person like that seriously on *any* subject. Ever again. In the back of my mind, no matter how rational the argument they are making on some unrelated topic, I think "Jesus Christ, this guy actually believes that the WTC collapse was a controlled explosion set by our own government on purpose. How can I even talk to someone like that? I have NOTHING in common with a person who would choose to believe that."

That's just my opinion and I know it matters not...but there it is.

Will you still feel that way if the official story is proven false?

I mean, to react so strongly about the proposal, what will you do if the LA Times has a headline screaming "9/11 an Inside JOB!!!"

Seriously, let's just play 'what if?' What would you do?

[jimk]

Sorry. I leave the fantasy conspiracy crap to those better suited for it. I won't debate the "veracity" of this utterly ridiculous theory nor will I play what if with you. I know too many people involved both in NY and DC, and I refuse to desecrate certain people or memories that way. The very idea is repulsive to me.

But you go ahead and play games with it. It's your right, and I would never presume to tell you to stop.

[vox_monitor]

Sorry. I leave the fantasy conspiracy crap to those better suited for it. I won't debate the "veracity" of this utterly ridiculous theory nor will I play what if with you. I know too many people involved both in NY and DC, and I refuse to desecrate certain people or memories that way. The very idea is repulsive to me.

But you go ahead and play games with it. It's your right, and I would never presume to tell you to stop.

Well, I guess the question then, which frankly, I don't expect you to answer, is "what would it take to convince you?" Is it possible at all, in any set of conceivable circumstances, for you to be convinced?

And why and how is this dishonoring the victims of the crime? I assure you I feel nothing but respect for the dead, compassion for their loved ones, and righteous indignation towards the perpetrators of the crime.

[dcolanduno]

Well, I guess the question then, which frankly, I don't expect you to answer, is "what would it take to convince you?" Is it possible at all, in any set of conceivable circumstances, for you to be convinced?

Proof or Evidence that overwhelms the already staggering amount of proof and evidence that has been detailed by many, many, respected research groups.

I still have yet to find any 9-11 'our own government did it' sites that aren't all just layman observations or half-understood commentary developed by people who are not structural engineers, or are just an individual with no peer backing.

All the places where the information covering the hypothesis that the WTC towers fell due to a 'possible' inside job by the government... have blatant overtones of anti-government, anti-corporation, Illuminati type commentary littered through the entire discussion.

The few 'big' proponents of this are folks that, throughout the history of conspiracy theory woo-woo, have always capitalized and tried to make money off of convincing people to 'question everything' in that radical grand-conspiracy manner. Folks like Alex Jones, and Jim Marrs. These guys make their living by being 'experts' on topics ranging from Mind Control to the 9-11 tragedy. So, it is in their interest to try to keep 'serious' doubts alive about any big event. It fits their con-game nicely.

My question is then, "Why are YOU convinced that 9-11 is a mass governmental conspiracy?"

And think hard about that one, clear your head for a moment. Because, no matter what your layman eyes THINK about how structural engineering works or how convincing a few radicals are on the internet, SEPARATE research groups from many universities; MIT, Cal Tech, CM, etc... and several private firms; CH2MHill, Black and Veatch, etc., several respected publications; JOM/TMS, ASCE, etc... not to mention every science magazine; Scientific American, Popular Mechanics, Popular Science, Discover, National Geographic, etc, etc... they ALL have concluded that how the towers fell, was not only possible, but quite likely given what occurred that day. WITHOUT the need for a 'shadow' explanation.

And why and how is this dishonoring the victims of the crime? I assure you I feel nothing but respect for the dead, compassion for their loved ones, and righteous indignation towards the perpetrators of the crime.

Because, when standing in the face of such a mountain of evidence and explanation given by such a large number of folks in the engineering and research community. To believe folks that have a track record of deception and that generate counter arguments just for monetary and publicity purposes... IS disrespectful.

Don't get me wrong it wouldn't be disrespectful at all, if there was some set of information, or a serious multi-person peer-reviewed set of research going on that was drawing some of these conclusions, and asking a ton of questions that directly support those claims.

But all I see right now is information spewed out by established con-men attempting to wedge doubt into peoples heads. They use a foundation of hate for corporations and the Bush administration, or government in general as the starting point to build an argument that sounds decent enough to have a lot of people jump on board.

As much as you might love/hate government, Bush, mega-corps...

Which I DO have some distain for all of the above...

I am not just going to buy into non-scientific, un-researched, badly developed concepts. Especially when they have been throughly explained, over and over, by so many well respected groups that KNOW how the engineering and science behind the event works.

Like I said, still doesn't mean someone couldn't bring me some evidence and ideas that counter the mainstream. But it has to have some element of respect and peer-review to it for anyone to take it seriously.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think YOU personally are disrespecting the people that died, or their families. You probably haven't followed the careers of the folks behind the 9-11 'conspiracy' pushers. It is also possible that you didn't realize that the reference materials that all these folks use when they are trying to de-bunk the many engineering studies are all books written by other non-engineers that just wrote books on how they THINK it is a conspiracy as well. I haven't found a well respected engineer among them.

So, it is VERY easy for people to just casually read stuff like the 911research type sites and begin to believe them. These guys are well versed in how to make the illogical sound perfectly reasonable. It is a time-honored trade going back hundreds of years.

[Kil]

There is something very satisfying about conspiracy theories. On face value they often confirm our misgivings about the government. Or large corporations that we believe only care about the bottom line. A medical industry that will not profit if a cure for cancer is found is one justification for a popular conspiracy theory. One theory holds that shape shifting alien lizards are running our worlds governments. New world order theories abound. Beware of the Illuminati!

It doesn’t take much to subscribe in such goings on. We are sometimes justifiably concerned about those powers that have some authority over us and yet we have little or no control over how they operate. That there really are secrets out there feeds into our suspicions that evil stuff is going on. The table has been set.

We would all like to do something about something that we feel powerless to control. And sometimes there is some justification for feeling that way. How then do we discern what is reasonable to question and what crosses the line over to outright paranoia? Crazy becomes a matter of degree.

A juicy conspiracy theory may be the way some people take back the control that they feel, rightly or wrongly, they have lost, or never had. At the same time it shifts to those who absolutely believe that they have discovered the real truth hidden from the rest of us, the satisfaction of out witting those who are hiding the truth and the rest of us who believe the accepted version of the truth. In other words, they now get to be smarter than all of us. Again, which of us would not like to bask in that fantasy? As tempting as that kind of thinking may be, most of us must satisfy ourselves with the knowledge that there is always someone smarter than we are. But again, crazy is a matter of degree. And some people must be the smartest, even if it is in their own mind.

I have noticed in debates with conspiracy theorists that no amount of reasonable criticism of whatever the cherished theory is ever really gets through. It is my guess that letting go would mean a realization of not being the smartest and having to face a scary loss of control over events that are (real or imagined) beyond our control. You know, the real world…

[vox_monitor]

Are you people even reading my posts?

Please try to notice what you are doing.

Consistently, you refuse to respond on point. Why?

The answer you will give, no doubt, is "well the experts say..."

Look at my last long post. Read it very carefully. Then read it again.

[dcolanduno]

Are you people even reading my posts?

Please try to notice what you are doing.

Consistently, you refuse to respond on point. Why?

The answer you will give, no doubt, is "well the experts say..."

Look at my last long post. Read it very carefully. Then read it again.

I have, and again, I will say that several, several, several, several, peer-reviewed studies have given answers for the points you bring up. It would be a bit tiresome to look-up answers easily retrieved by going and picking up a few copies of the different studies.

I WILL, however, respond on point... if you can quote some contrary evidence from a respected research group that refutes, or has claims that line up against the information already presented over and over again by many independent studies.

On the topic of 9-11 I am not going to play the footsie 'stump the chump' game with just anyone with fancy sounding questions, unless there is some respected clinical evidence against the already well-established research findings.

Just repeating the questions that folks that produce sites like 911research over and over, don't mean anything to me, or anyone else that takes the time to actually look at the landscape of research, and says...

"There are over 30 well documented, peer-reviewed independent studies on this subject. Conducted by over 90 different respected engineering firms, and leaders in the industries of physics, engineering, and science... and they all have produced not one, but multiple reasons why, without the need for additional explosions or collusion, that the WTC buildings could have fallen the way they did."

So, in that light... you have to do something MUCH better than just pointing to non-engineering, agenda driven, references, and expect anyone to take them seriously.

Just re-asking the same questions that are only discussed on those same sites, on in that same literature... doesn't make those questions valid either.

Again, you haven't read my posts...

Just point me to a peer-reviewed body of research, completed by respected, licensed engineers, and other experts qualified to question and make statements about, and can be qualified to perform research on the subject matter, that has come to the same conclusions as the folks that have a track record of doing this same parlor trick for major events dating back to the 70's and 80's.

Until then, you are basically saying that you, and known snake-oil charlantains know more about structural engineering, physics, and the science behind the events. Than well over 1,000 researchers from places like MIT, Cal-Tech, BV, CH2MHILL, and the list goes on.

OR, you are claiming that all these different institutions, publications, and companies, none of whom directly benefitted from the event. Have all been convinced to provide false evidence.

The second claim requires no 'scientific' evidence, but it DOES require some evidence to indicate that this happened. Memos, Recordings, Records of some sort, money trails, etc, etc... SOMETHING.

You can't just make wild claims against a huge body of scientific and respected researchers. OR against pretty much the entire community of scientific publications, and expect any respect or answers without some form of convincing evidence.

And laymen questions based on visual tricks, doesn't cut it as 'real' skeptical thought when you apply the knowledge that there has been such a huge body of research on the topic.

[mental-escher]

Some much text, so little time.

You boys and girls have been busy indeed!

Maybe it would be helpful (IMNSHO) to step away from the specifics of whether a certain building fell due to CIA demolition or simply as an integral physical result of a greater raw and tragic event (9/11 suicide plane attacks). Focusing on this specific event (even in the hypothetical) raises the cringe factor to quickly in most.

I would recommend thinking in the larger context of whether subtle manipulations (conspiracies until proven or disproven) can consciously modulate for gain a general vector such as:
The rise of Islamic fundamentalism, what part did rumsfeld have in arming the taliban and sadam to destabilize both regions, the former to drive out the soviets and the latter to potentially/eventually provide a military excuse for us to invade and thus to gain a foothold in the oil rich middle east at the key pivot point called Peak Oil,
The rise of the republican/corp right- of which watergate is agruably a specific example of a tactical conspiracy, which would have remained a conspiracy theory except for a high level FBI whistle blower, and with a number of known participants

Now, what is a conspiracy theory- any one that some people believe to be true despite either a lack of publicly know information, or a bulk of apparently valid contradictory evidence.

Another interesting example might be to think of the tobacco-cancer "myth". Sequentially, Big tobacco tried to hide, then deny, then cast doubt, then finally admit, that smoking results in a dramatic increase in the risk of getting lung cancer and heart disease.

Every Business is a conspiracy- to make money. Each conspires against the others for advantage. If you've ever worked in large corporation, you know full well that corporate secrets (shhhhhhh!) are pretty well kept indeed, why not the same way in the executive office of any government, let alone the bowels of the CIA, NSA, DHS, FBI, etc...

Really Mulder, Is that so very hard for one to accept?

[dcolanduno]

Another interesting example might be to think of the tobacco-cancer "myth". Sequentially, Big tobacco tried to hide, then deny, then cast doubt, then finally admit, that smoking results in a dramatic increase in the risk of getting lung cancer and heart disease.

Ahhh,

But in that case, and in almost every other you may bring up...

There WAS evidence and research to show, completed by well respected GROUPS of medical professionals and scientists.

So, there was a platform for discussion and debate on the issue. The reason Big-Tobacco had such an easy time covering it all up, was that they had the expendable cash to push their message louder. Then, like you said, they reverted to 'we didn't know', etc, etc...

But, until there was EVIDENCE to point at, people didn't just get to make anything up. Even if the 'made up' stuff sounded good, OR, proved to be true.

In the case we are speaking of... there has already been much open, and well documented research, even by groups OUTSIDE the U.S.. Many, many groups.

In the cases you mention, that wasn't the case. The research, when done by respected groups, proved that the tobacco companies had something to answer for.

Although, keep in mind, the actual research findings are not what people THINK they are. It is not the actual tobacco smoking that is the issue, it is the additives that cause addiction that are the point of contention. Within those additives are also elements that can increase the cases of SOME forms of cancer, but not by the levels commonly believed by the public.

In any case, I agree with your statement. Which supports what I KEEP saying. Show me some research by respected individuals, WITH expertise in the subject, and that has been reviewed by peers in the field. If that research can show we have a situation where a conspiracy might be happening, then we have a discussion.

THAT is exactly what happened in the case of Big Tobacco, and that is all I am asking for in this situation.

The ramblings of known charlatans and their followers do not a conspiracy, or vague truth make.

Maybe it would be helpful (IMNSHO) to step away from the specifics of whether a certain building fell due to CIA demolition or simply as an integral physical result of a greater raw and tragic event (9/11 suicide plane attacks). Focusing on this specific event (even in the hypothetical) raises the cringe factor to quickly in most.

I clearly stated that in my first response to this issue, maybe in a different thread. Until there is some level of evidence supporting the CIA or any internal element in our government or country has done anything as foul as what those websites, and books as referenced claim... Then focusing on that element alone, or using it as a wedge to support other claims is pretty despicable.

Before you even make the slightest conjecture that something as evil as a grand conspiracy by our government, or the 'mega-corporations', or media, to kill over 2,000 innocent people... you better come to the table with something more than a bunch of known lairs ramblings and some half-baked questions that they want you to ask.

The current body of evidence points to there being NO need for any additional explosives or 'funny business' for ANY of those buildings to fall.

So, until there is some evidence that shows otherwise, NOT snide questions that rely on peoples misunderstanding of physics and engineering. I am asking for research evidence, OR evidence that shows a conspiracy by those being pointed at, or blamed, then sorry, the whole thing holds no water by anyone with a critical thought process.

Every Business is a conspiracy- to make money. Each conspires against the others for advantage. If you've ever worked in large corporation, you know full well that corporate secrets (shhhhhhh!) are pretty well kept indeed, why not the same way in the executive office of any government, let alone the bowels of the CIA, NSA, DHS, FBI, etc...

We aren't talking about a claim that a few Businesses are trying to 'cover' something up. Or keep something secret.

The claim here is that a large number of organizations, private AND government, had to all line up to make an event happen, JUST for a particular outcome that *might* come to light down the road, after you kill off a few thousand people.

We are talking over 6 large government agencies, the White House, several large mega-corporations, the news media, half of the research universities in the U.S. and over 20 others world wide, and not to mention an incredible number of science and engineering publications and Associations, oh, and quite a few entire engineering FIRMS as well...

Sorry, but the ability to cover up the secret recipe for Coke is one thing, but equating even the largest cover-up we have discovered to this day, pales in comparison to the claims made in just the simple statement of; "The Towers Fell With Help From an Inside Job".

Really Mulder, Is that so very hard for one to accept?

Cute, but... ineffective in this case.

[Hittman]

I mean, to react so strongly about the proposal, what will you do if the LA Times has a headline screaming "9/11 an Inside JOB!!!"

Seriously, let's just play 'what if?' What would you do?

Too easy. Since the LA Times is only slightly less wacky than the Weekly World News, I’d consider that further proof that the whole idea is ludicrous.

Interesting that you bring up the Tobacco/Cancer connection, as this is something I’ve spent a lot of time researching myself. No reasonable person can deny that smoking cigarettes increases your risk of lung cancer. The accurate phrase here is “increases your risk� of a specific type of cancer, as opposed to the inaccurate claim “tobacco causes cancer.�

Yes, big tobacco did try to cover it up, but failed. Hell, it was no secret – O’Henry referred to cigarettes as “coffin nails� around the turn of the century. He didn’t invent the term – it was common back then. People have always known that tobacco was bad for you.

Which brings us to Second Hand Smoke, the biggest medical myth since homeopathy. This is a conspiracy, eagerly joined in by “experts� across the board, who all make enormous amounts of money prorogating the myth. (The tobacco settlement provides billions of dollars a year to organizations and individuals who promote it.) One of these experts is The American Cancer Society. They funded a 39 year, 100,000 person study, but pulled their funding toward the end of it when it became obvious the results were going to contradict their dogma. The researcher discovered that there is no difference in the morbidity of non-smoking spouses that spend their lives with a smoking spouse. None. On one page of their site they attack the study (never mentioning their own involvement) and then go on to praise the Helena study, one of the worst pieces of **** since the 1993 EPA study that started this whole jihad. The Helena study lasted for six months, was conduced by anti-smoking activists, covered a mere 50 people, and was flawed in a dozen different ways. Yet they sing the praises of that piece of garbage, while demonizing a four decades, huge sample study that they themselves funded!

I don’t know if you’d call it a conspiracy – these people have been telling the lie so long and so loud that they believe it themselves, despite the complete lack of evidence to support it and strong evidence to discredit it. But it is essentially a religious battle, a righteous jihad to force people to quit by any means possible. And religion is impervious to facts.

Conspiracy? Yes, but one that’s right out in the open. Any honest, sane individual can, with only a slight bit of time and research, see through the lie. But The Big Lie technique works very, very well, especially when presented to a nation of sheep who are delighted to have someone new to hate, now that racism and homophobia have become unfashionable.

[mental-escher]

Quote:
Maybe it would be helpful (IMNSHO) to step away from the specifics of whether a certain building fell due to CIA demolition or simply as an integral physical result of a greater raw and tragic event (9/11 suicide plane attacks). Focusing on this specific event (even in the hypothetical) raises the cringe factor to quickly in most.


I clearly stated that in my first response to this issue, maybe in a different thread. Until there is some level of evidence supporting the CIA or any internal element in our government or country has done anything as foul as what those websites, and books as referenced claim... Then focusing on that element alone, or using it as a wedge to support other claims is pretty despicable.

Thats why I said one should step away from that, so WTF are you talking about?

I tried to steer this back to general conspiracy theory and away from 9/11 specifically, and I never claimed that 9/11 was anything other than a suicide plane attack. The real conspiracy there IMO would be in why it happened, not that it (9/11) did happen, or that Saudi Nationals carried out the actual attack in the name of radical Islam. So what's your point again, that conspiracies don't happen in your world because any conspiracy would somehow deminish or negate 9/11!? Or do you, for some reason, have it in your mind that I believe in some grand 9/11 conspiracy?

Put some cold water on it.

[mental-escher]

Which brings us to Second Hand Smoke, the biggest medical myth since homeopathy.

Well, logic dictates that if tobacco smoke increases your risk of getting lung cancer, then it does not really matter whether you are the smoker or just being exposed "second hand", you're still increasing your risk of getting lung cancer, just to different degrees. There real difference between smokers and "second hand smokers" is the former willingly exposes themselves to the risk (albiet higher risk) while the latter is being exposed to known carcinogens unwillingly. Seems to me that I'd rather err on the side of caution there, and try to minimize my exposure to second hand smoke if I am not in fact a smoker.

Back to my original point though- Big Tobacco used a lot of misdirection to muddy the public's opinion on the dangers of smoking for many years and long enough to make many billions of $$ in profits from an unsafe product.

They did this via subtle and not so subtle manipulation of the publics perception towards the risks of smoking. This manipulation technique (muddying the science, confusing the public) has become a staple technique for manipulation of public opinion.

Conspiracy? I think one needs to look past the trees and see the forest. What larger forces drive politics, corporations, and society? That is a more fertile area for conspiracy theorists ... and approaches an historical, rather than 'he said she said', discussion.

[dcolanduno]

Thats why I said one should step away from that, so WTF are you talking about?

I tried to steer this back to general conspiracy theory and away from 9/11 specifically, and I never claimed that 9/11 was anything other than a suicide plane attack.

Not to sound dense or rude. But, you did start the post with what seemed to be the intention to say that the 'grand conspiracy' concept was off-base. But, then proceeded to discuss how big conspiracies could exist. Which, since the only conspiracy we were discussing was about the details of how the towers collapsed.

So, putting two and two together, it seemed that you could *only* be defending the idea that it is reasonable to believe that a mass conspiracy about the destruction of the towers can/is true.

Do you see the confusion? Since the only 'conspiracy' we were discussing was the towers until that point, a post defending how they are true in many cases, can only seem as if it is referencing the topic at hand. :)

The real conspiracy there IMO would be in why it happened, not that it (9/11) did happen, or that Saudi Nationals carried out the actual attack in the name of radical Islam. So what's your point again, that conspiracies don't happen in your world because any conspiracy would somehow deminish or negate 9/11!?

No, since I am specifically discussing the details brought up by Vox in relation to the supposed 'conspiracy' about how the towers fell.

It is actually quite obvious that there was a conspiracy going on between many people in the Islamic world. And I have seen, what seems to be, evidence that supports open discussion about the connections to factions inside the Saudi Empire.

But, that is a whole different issue... probably needs its own thread, to avoid confusion like this. Since my thoughts on Saudi Arabia, to put it lightly, are not kind in most matters.

Or do you, for some reason, have it in your mind that I believe in some grand 9/11 conspiracy?

Well, like I said, there was a mis-communication since your descriptions of how conspiracies 'do' happen seemed to only be defending the current discussion topic. :)

[/code]

[dcolanduno]

They did this via subtle and not so subtle manipulation of the publics perception towards the risks of smoking. This manipulation technique (muddying the science, confusing the public) has become a staple technique for manipulation of public opinion.

Conspiracy? I think one needs to look past the trees and see the forest. What larger forces drive politics, corporations, and society? That is a more fertile area for conspiracy theorists ... and approaches an historical, rather than 'he said she said', discussion.

I actually had to go to some 'ethics' training when I did work with the CDC. They had this requirement as fall-out from some of the poor handling of the tobacco research.

Mostly not centered around a 'conspiracy' element as much as the release of data in ONLY pre-manipulated formats, as requested by tobacco industry folks.

It actually isn't 'bad' to order statistics in particular formats. But it is bad to release them in ONLY that format and only to specific people. Since the funding for the research was paid for by big-tobacco industry folks, the researchers felt the need to 'protect' the data by never coming to a 'full conclusion' but releasing data to the industry during the research.

Of course, over time, IF they ever had 'ended' the research, it would have had a full results presentation to the public. The question was more about why they were holding up data that was complete in some tests, because they weren't 'finished' with other, un-related data.

The landslide was when someone leaked information to a reporter, and, one of the tobacco execs did the same once the reporter began digging into the 'real' story.

This is a perfect example of a 'real' conspiracy. But, it shows that even a small conspiracy between 2-3 organizations, and only small numbers of individuals in each one... can't hold it together for too long.

I actually enjoy the background of those types of situations.

[Hittman]

Which brings us to Second Hand Smoke, the biggest medical myth since homeopathy.

Well, logic dictates that if tobacco smoke increases your risk of getting lung cancer, then it does not really matter whether you are the smoker or just being exposed "second hand", you're still increasing your risk of getting lung cancer, just to different degrees. There real difference between smokers and "second hand smokers" is the former willingly exposes themselves to the risk (albiet higher risk) while the latter is being exposed to known carcinogens unwillingly. Seems to me that I'd rather err on the side of caution there, and try to minimize my exposure to second hand smoke if I am not in fact a smoker.

The logical fallacy here is ignoring the #1 rule of toxicology: The Dose Is The Poison. We know, from actual measurements, not statistical fiddling, that people surrounded by smokers inhale the smoke of six cigarettes PER YEAR. The odds of being harmed by, say, the smoke in a bar is far less than the odds of being hurt crossing the street to get there.


DC: And now the CDC, EPA, and TLAs go the other way, holding back or belittling information that doesn’t support the idea that a whiff of smoke will kill you, and promoting the most shoddy “research� that suggests it does.

It seems obvious that either approach is dishonest and doesn’t serve the public well.

[Hittman]

Which brings us to Second Hand Smoke, the biggest medical myth since homeopathy.

Well, logic dictates that if tobacco smoke increases your risk of getting lung cancer, then it does not really matter whether you are the smoker or just being exposed "second hand", you're still increasing your risk of getting lung cancer, just to different degrees. There real difference between smokers and "second hand smokers" is the former willingly exposes themselves to the risk (albiet higher risk) while the latter is being exposed to known carcinogens unwillingly. Seems to me that I'd rather err on the side of caution there, and try to minimize my exposure to second hand smoke if I am not in fact a smoker.

The logical fallacy here is ignoring the #1 rule of toxicology: The Dose Is The Poison. We know, from actual measurements, not statistical fiddling, that people constantly surrounded by smokers inhale the smoke of six cigarettes PER YEAR. The odds of being harmed by, say, the smoke in a bar is far less than the odds of being hurt crossing the street to get there.

The fact that directly sucking down ciggrettes at the rate of 14,000 – 30,000 a year makes a quarter of the smokers sick after a couple of decades is being used to confuse people into thinking an occasional whiff of the stuff is going to immediately give them a heart attack.


DC: And now the CDC, EPA, and TLAs go the other way, holding back or belittling information that doesn’t support the idea that a whiff of smoke will kill you, and promoting the most shoddy “research� that suggests it does. Consider the WHO. They did one of the most extensive studies on SHS ever done. It featured a big sample size, verified data, varied populations, and they found NO statistically signifigant increase in anything. In fact, the only statistically significant number from the study was that non-smoking adults whose parents smoked were 22% less likely to get lung cancer.

They responded by attempting to bury the report. The British press hounded them into releasing it. When they did, they admitted in the body of their press release that they found no link between SHS and illness, but the headline of the press release was “Do not Let them fool you – second hand smoke causes cancer.�

Most of the press ignored that study. So the WHO waited a couple of years, and then did a meta-analysis of the subject. (Meta-analysis usually consists of tossing cherry picked studies into a blender, pressing “spin,� then extracting whatever numbers the “researchers� want.) It, of course, said SHS was horrible, deadly stuff.

[mental-escher]

Well, since I actually have a PhD in Toxicology... I feel quite comfortable in standing by my original statement regarding second hand tobacco smoke and it's inherent risk, based on my scientific understanding of carcinogens and the mechanisms of induction/promotion of tumor formation by polycyclics, nitroso compounds, and other volitile constituents of burning tobacco.

BTW- Do you feel it's appropriate to expose children to second hand smoke, even if there is no "conclusive" proof that as to the absolute level of increase in risk that it poses? Based on the science (which overwhelmingly points to the obvious potential risk), I certainly don't.

[dcolanduno]

Well, since I actually have a PhD in ToxicologyWell, since I actually have a PhD in Toxicology...

Very cool... what is your specialty, or current work? Are you doing any current research, etc? Maybe that is for a different thread, or PM's. Always like to find folks I can tap for commentary and knowledge on different things we put on our show.

Heck, if we can come up with a reason for you to be ON the show, you can promote M-E on there.

[vox_monitor]

I find this just so depressing.

But let me address a couple of things before I let the whole thing drop.

1. Derek, I don't know what those *some* shows are that you are talking about, but I'd appreciate it if you'd make it clear that you are not talking about Vox Monitor. Because that's the implication that I read into that, and I bet a lot of others have the same reaction, given the thread that the post is in.

2. Let me reason by analogy again. It is what I do best, after all.

Recently the supreme court ruled that it is ok for the Federal Government to make laws about medical marijuana, even if the pot is grown in your back yard and is never bought or sold.

They said it is ok because such a situation constitutes interstate commerce.

Now we have two choices. We can take it on faith that they are right. After all, they are the experts. They understand law best. They represent the official story. They have the training and the experience.

We can say, I refuse to even address the legal issues, I refuse to even read the statute or the ruling or even consider the perspectives of those who disagree with the government. I insist on maintaining my faith in the "authorities" on the matter. I believe the experts. They know best.

But you know what? They are totally wrong. The lay people are right and the experts are wrong. Common sense is right, and complicated legal reasoning is wrong.

................................................

Now granted, the situations are not entirely analogous.

But the issue is fundamentally the same. Are you going to have faith, or are you going to use reason?

Hittman, et tu Hittman? I have so much respect for your reasoning, your rationality... et tu?

Look. This is the situation. We have been asked to believe a conspiracy theory. I am asking you to question that conspiracy theory. I propose that a different group of criminals might be responsible, or at least complicit, in the crime.

And one more thing...

The experts on this - They are attempting to show that the official story is physically possible. That's all they claim to do. They come up with theories that might explain how the inconceivable fact of three skyscrapers collapsing might possibly have occurred in a way that is consistent with the official story.

Nobody has any doubt at all that the buildings might have fallen that way with demolition. That is a simple fact. That is not in any dispute.

What is being argued by experts here is: The inconceivable is possible - growing pot in your back yard is interstate commerce, and here's the convoluted reason why.

or

The supreme court is wrong. Growing pot for your head is not interstate commerce. Steel skyscrapers don't collapse in their own footprint, except via demolition. Ergo, they nabbed the wrong guys for this crime.

....................................

What is so horrible about that? Why is there so much resistance to me challengeing the official story? I'm not even accusing anybody specifically. I'm just calling bullshit on bullshit.

It ain't interstate commerce. Period.

.....................................

And in response, you guys won't even look at the ruling. You won't even ask the question, well, is it interstate commerce? Is it possible those THREE buildings fell without the aid of explosives?

When all the most probable explanations prove impossible, the improbable is all we are left with.
..................................

It's really, really sad when the host of a show called "skepticality" embraces blind faith so vigorously that he won't even address the points.


So far, Derek, your answers have been:

1. This kind of "conspiracy theory" talk is stupid.
2. Penn and Teller also dismiss this kind of talk as stupid.
3. The experts say that the official story is physically possible.
4. I refuse to answer any specific points that indicate the opposite.
5. This kind of conspiracy talk is sad.
6. What's wrong with this country when people can believe crazy nonsense?
7. These baseless accusations have already all been addressed.
8. Here, I found this inflamatory language. See how crazy this kind of talk is?
9. I don't need to look at any of the science. Experts have come up with explanations.
10. I won't dignify your actual points with a response.


Yeah. Real skeptical.

Nothing more from me on the subject. I'm done.
I'll be mourning the country over here, quietly.

[dcolanduno]

1. Derek, I don't know what those *some* shows are that you are talking about, but I'd appreciate it if you'd make it clear that you are not talking about Vox Monitor. Because that's the implication that I read into that, and I bet a lot of others have the same reaction, given the thread that the post is in.

Well, if you didn't do it, I wouldn't be worried that I was inferring it was you. But for the record, no, it's not. And... good to know you think it is a crappy thing to do... so later on, if anyone decides to call someone out on it. I know where you stand.

Sorry, if you thought I meant you on that one.

[Hittman]

What science? All we have is studies that show RRs that are ridiculously low, funded almost exclusively by the anti-smoking factions, and most of them using questionable methodology (and that’s being charitable.)

Here’s some actual science: http://www.davehitt.com/facts/howmany.html

How risky is it to sit downwind from a campfire?

[vox_monitor]

1. Derek, I don't know what those *some* shows are that you are talking about, but I'd appreciate it if you'd make it clear that you are not talking about Vox Monitor. Because that's the implication that I read into that, and I bet a lot of others have the same reaction, given the thread that the post is in.

Well, if you didn't do it, I wouldn't be worried that I was inferring it was you. But for the record, no, it's not. And... good to know you think it is a crappy thing to do... so later on, if anyone decides to call someone out on it. I know where you stand.

Sorry, if you thought I meant you on that one.

There is no reason to conclude that I think anything about it all, other than that I wanted it clarified that you weren't talking about my show doing it.

"Well, if you didn't do it, I wouldn't be worried that I was inferring it was you."

My concern was that a third party might draw the conclusion that you were inferring that it was me. I don't like to misrepesented to third parties, regardless of how I feel about the behavior that is being incorrectly attributed to me via inference, because their behavior might be influenced by what you infer.

[dcolanduno]

1. Derek, I don't know what those *some* shows are that you are talking about, but I'd appreciate it if you'd make it clear that you are not talking about Vox Monitor. Because that's the implication that I read into that, and I bet a lot of others have the same reaction, given the thread that the post is in.

Well, if you didn't do it, I wouldn't be worried that I was inferring it was you. But for the record, no, it's not. And... good to know you think it is a crappy thing to do... so later on, if anyone decides to call someone out on it. I know where you stand.

Sorry, if you thought I meant you on that one.

There is no reason to conclude that I think anything about it all, other than that I wanted it clarified that you weren't talking about my show doing it.

Cool, then you think it's all just 'cool' to do that to other podcasters?

Just want to be clear.

[dcolanduno]

So far, Derek, your answers have been:

1. This kind of "conspiracy theory" talk is stupid.
2. Penn and Teller also dismiss this kind of talk as stupid.
3. The experts say that the official story is physically possible.
4. I refuse to answer any specific points that indicate the opposite.
5. This kind of conspiracy talk is sad.
6. What's wrong with this country when people can believe crazy nonsense?
7. These baseless accusations have already all been addressed.
8. Here, I found this inflamatory language. See how crazy this kind of talk is?
9. I don't need to look at any of the science. Experts have come up with explanations.
10. I won't dignify your actual points with a response.


Quote me saying any of those 'bullet points'. I like how you resorted to putting words in my mouth. Real cool... thanks, shows where you are on this one.

Yeah. Real skeptical.

Yes, it is skeptical to not just believe something that has no proof AT ALL. I've repeatedly asked for some evidence, a research paper, SOMETHING that indicates any of what you 'believe' as true.

I have a mountain of non-partisan studies, independent studies, research, respected publications to point to, etc, etc, etc...

All I am asking for is some evidence, any evidence at all. That DOESN'T come from the minds of people already known to use mental manipulation to sell books, and advance their own personal-power agendas.

What you are saying is that... you can just make stuff up, without evidence of any sort, and people are supposed to take you seriously. Even IF it's someone else's made up stuff... it's still made up, until there is SOME evidence that points to it being feasible.

Even in that very poor analogy above... there are dissenting opinions on the issue by RESPECTED sociologists. But, you can't even compare that to 9-11, because one has physical evidence, the other is all opinions.

And, due to the sheer number of groups and people it would take to pull off something like what all your references infer about 9-11... there would be evidence to show it.

Could it be there... waiting? Maybe... but sheer 4th grade logic will tell you it is a long shot when you look at all the current known evidence and facts.

So, I don't know what 'country' you are mourning, but I'd hope that this one doesn't have a ton of people just jumping to long-shot conclusions without asking for SOME form of evidence on the matter.

If they were... THAT would be a day to mourn. The one that would give evidence that we have all lost our ability to think critically about a topic.

Nobody has any doubt at all that the buildings might have fallen that way with demolition. That is a simple fact. That is not in any dispute.

Wait, hold on... Then why did you start this whole thread with a bunch of references that primarily were saying that it COULDN'T have happened without assisted demolition? You even asked me to respond to the 'science' in those documents that said that.

So, now you aren't talking about that 'science'?

Now, it's about the mass-conspiracy?

Ok... again... no problem, I'll respond on point to whatever evidence you have that a conspiracy between the over 100 agencies, groups, media outlets, engineering firms, and publications took place.

And when I say evidence, I don't mean nice sounding movie-plot type stuff, I'm talking evidence. Memos, phone calls, recordings, records, etc, etc... something that points to the fact that it *could* have happened.

Until then, it's still just a fun story. Might make a good movie, but... holds no water here outside the theater... yet...

An 'open' mind, shouldn't be a gullible one. I am 'open' to evidence... I don't just believe a story because it sounds good.

[mental-escher]

How risky is it to sit downwind from a campfire?

That depends on how far down wind you are of course.

There used to be an old saying, "dilution is the solution to pollution". This is supported by the still valid generalization that "the dose makes the poison".

However, have you checked the health of our oceans recently, even they are not big enough to take continuos pollution without showing some ill. Even the ocean is not big enough to make "dilution ... the solution to pollution".

Why did I use the ocean metaphor- well, smoking is the same way my friend. You inhale enough and you're gunna have increased deleterious health risks. How far from a constant source of smoke do you feel comfortable living?

Would you want your child/wife/dog/neighbor to have to breath in your campfire smoke 24 hrs a day (just for an extreme example)? Is it ok if they are 5 ft away from the smoke, 10 ft, 100 ft, 1 mile? Where do you draw the line for acceptable risk? Maybe the old maxim from medicine should be considered: "First and Foremost, Do No Harm".


http://www.mental-escher.net/images/campfire.jpg

[dcolanduno]

http://www.mental-escher.net/images/campfire.jpg

Why does this picture remind me of Bards Tale...

[mental-escher]

Why does this picture remind me of Bards Tale...

...er... 'cause your a geek?! :wink:

Who else would make that connection :lol:

[PupuStudios]

Derek, could you please post a few links for me. I'm having trouble finding these expert structural engineering analyses of the building attacks. Thanks.

(I found something on PBS, but how about the third building? Was it #7?)

[dcolanduno]

Derek, could you please post a few links for me. I'm having trouble finding these expert structural engineering analyses of the building attacks. Thanks.

(I found something on PBS, but how about the third building? Was it #7?)

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
(That one has also references to OTHER reports completed by MIT, and others)

http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/ENR/20021025b.asp

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Briefing_040505_final.pdf

http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm
(That was actually a report done by the ASCE that was presented to FEMA for their distribution)

http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/report.php
(lots)

http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf
(if you want to see how they conducted the engineering response plan)

http://mceer.buffalo.edu/publications/wtc/WTCReports/default.asp
(Hell, ENGINEERS are so dismissive of the 'conspiracy' crap that they are actually using the findings for OTHER types of research that has panned out to be useful)

http://www.nceplus.co.uk/k_bank/wtc/
(You might need a login...)

http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/wtc/wtctragedy.html
(might have to weed through a ton of junk)

http://mceer.buffalo.edu/publications/wtc/default.asp

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-12/su-sed120301.php
(I might have duped that one)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/
(This might be the one you found. But it does a decent job of clearly explaining how expert engineers figure things out in a forensic manner.)

http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?iid=3721&isa=Category
(MIT, I knew anyone that geeky had to be a part of the Illuminati)

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B7FEB-A88C-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

Ok... my cut and paste is tired...

All of those links are/have significant evidence all outlined by actual structural engineers, scientists, and respected forensic analysts.

I still haven't found one peer reviewed, or other type of report where a respected engineer states that additional 'explosives' were used in the disaster.

Not only that... I saw a reply on one of the conspiracy theory sites to the question:

Q: "So, why can't you get an engineer to look at and agree with your evidence?"

A: "Because the government has made it clear to engineers and others researching the accident, that dissension from the message will not be tolerated. They have the pressure of the government, and that is enough to scare anyone to lie."

HOLY CRAP... <sigh> Well, now those folks have to prove TWO conspiratorial ideas... they made it worse on themselves.

[Marilynfan]

Wow, my eyes hurt from staring at my screen so long reading this freak'n thread. Very interesting commentary. But come on the greatest conspiracy theory of all time is the Kennedy's killing Marilyn Monroe :)

[Hittman]

Would you want your child/wife/dog/neighbor to have to breath in your campfire smoke 24 hrs a day (just for an extreme example)? Is it ok if they are 5 ft away from the smoke, 10 ft, 100 ft, 1 mile? Where do you draw the line for acceptable risk? Maybe the old maxim from medicine should be considered: "First and Foremost, Do No Harm".

I would say that when the harm is too small to measure, then you can safely say you’re doing no harm.

Everyone’s line for acceptable risk is different. I don’t ride motorcycles, because they’re too risky, for me. I smoke cigars, because I’m comfortable with the risk/reward ratio. I used to smoke cigarettes, but gave them up because, among other reasons, they’re too risky.

The problem comes in when other people demand to make the decision for you, because of a risk they claim is there. And when you look into SHS, the risk is a joke. But it’s being used to vilify smokers, put business out of business (and they lie about those numbers too), and spread hate and fear. I’ve seen parents across the street and upwind from a smoker reward their child’s histrionics over catching a glance of the evil, evil smoker. And its not just smoking – the same tactics perfected by the nicotine nannies are now being used for on the obesity “epidemic.� And they’re bragging about that fact. One of the leaders of the Grease Police never misses a chance to compare Ronald McDonald to Joe Camel.

Their pontifications and bloviations would be harmless if we could just shrug them off. But they are increasingly getting their nonsense made into law, either directly, or via lawsuits. They are relentless, well funded, and entirely free of morals or common sense, and they are becoming an increasingly potent force in our society.

You didn’t address my points about SHS studies. Nearly all of them show an RR in the low teens, often with Cis that come very close to straddling 1.0. (Note for those unfamiliar with statistics: The RR is the Risk Ratio, the increase in X resulting from behavior/exposure Y. An RR of 1.15 is a 15% increase. The CI is the confidence interval, which is roughly equalivent to the margin of error. It’s a range that the RR could be in. For instance, an RR of 1.15 with a CI if 1.05 and 1.25 means the real number could be anywhere from a 5% increase to a 25% increase. If the CI includes 1.0, which is no risk, the RR is not statistically significant, because the RR could be 1.0.) Add to that they usually use questionable methodology and are funded by organizations with a very strong agenda, factor in that coloration does not equal causation and epidemiologists like to see RRs of 2.0 or better before they get excited, and the proof goes poof. There simply isn’t any.

Hittman, et tu Hittman? I have so much respect for your reasoning, your rationality... et tu?

Yeah. Real skeptical.

I’ve always considered being skeptical little more than saying “Prove it.� Whoever makes the claim gets to prove the claim. If someone says the earth is flat, they have to prove it to me.

But if someone made that claim, I wouldn’t spend any time on it, because it’s ridiculous and a waste of my time. I’ve seen ships come over the horizon with my own eyes, with the mast showing first, so I know the earth is round. It’s also foolish to think that everyone else in the world is wrong on this issue – it would require an impossibly vast conspricy, involving far too many people, for the flat earth claim to be plausible.

Likewise, the idea that the falling of the towers was a vast, carefully controlled conspiracy doesn’t seem even remotely plausible, for the exact same reason. It would take too many people doing too many things for too long for them to set it up, and covering it up afterwards would be equally impossible.

I don’t see how any of this compares to the Supremes continuing in their series of stupid, ridiculous decisions. We’re talking laws of man, not laws of physics. And yes, that decision was stupid and indefensible, and tends to lend credibility to my personally theory that none of those dicks have ever taken the time to read the constitution, much less understand it.

[quote] But come on the greatest conspiracy theory of all time is the Kennedy's killing Marilyn Monroe.[quote]

It goes much deeper than that. He was assassinated by the people he hired to murder MM, because they were afraid the truth would come out. (I work with a guy who actually believes this.)

[PupuStudios]

Awesome work Derek. I'll have reading material for days now! Thanks a lot. Now I have one last conspiracy theory for anyone to clear up.
Hunter S. Thompson, was he 'suicided' by CIA operatives? or was it a suicide?
(It's kinda funny, some people think he was murdered because he knew a secret about the World Trade Center, and we was writing a book on it)

-Benjamin

[cdoelle]

I know this wasn't intended to be a "bring up your wild theories" thread, but everyone has ignored the biggest conspiracy theory in podcasting....

"Big business and Adam Curry are conspiring to take over the podcasting world and squeeze out the little guy."

The funny part is that when it was brought up several months ago, it was a conspiracy theory - as time goes on it is becoming a "business model." haha

[vox_monitor]

1. Derek, I don't know what those *some* shows are that you are talking about, but I'd appreciate it if you'd make it clear that you are not talking about Vox Monitor. Because that's the implication that I read into that, and I bet a lot of others have the same reaction, given the thread that the post is in.

Well, if you didn't do it, I wouldn't be worried that I was inferring it was you. But for the record, no, it's not. And... good to know you think it is a crappy thing to do... so later on, if anyone decides to call someone out on it. I know where you stand.

Sorry, if you thought I meant you on that one.

There is no reason to conclude that I think anything about it all, other than that I wanted it clarified that you weren't talking about my show doing it.

Cool, then you think it's all just 'cool' to do that to other podcasters?

Just want to be clear.

Let's have a little test here Derek.

What is wrong with that question? Why is it the very worst sort of rhetoric?