|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Conspiracy Theories: It's all in your mind! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
And what, exactly, is the conspiracy theory? From what you're implying, it seems that you think: * The Pentagon did have CCTV with a higher frame rate back in 2001. I am only saying that it seems odd that of the 85 cameras the one that captured a blur is the best picture available. That is all I am saying.
The more heavily guarded your property is guarded around the clock by actual guards, armed with guns and trained to kill, the less need you have for mere security cameras. Tell me, do you think that you could have walked up to the Pentagon from any direction on that day without an identifiable picture being taken of your face? How close do you think you would have to get before they could take that picture?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Right. The one person you've found who makes any claim claims that there was one that she knows of. Rather than 85. There's a difference. The one person that I found is the FBI agent who filed the legal document stating that there were 85 cameras that could have been 'potentially responsive' to the FOIA request. Upon reviewing 29 of them she says that she found one that did. So if the thought occurs to me that it seems odd that there is no better picture of the event and then I see that there are indeed 85 cameras that could have captured the event this information reinforces the thought that it is odd that there is no better picture of the event or even another blurry picture of the event. I do not understand why she only reviewed 29 of the tapes.
Yes, the things you don't know about claims for which you can produce no primary source are awfully suspicious. Well this is where I read it. National Geographic but you are right, I can not produce Mr Velasquez to testify.
The fact remains that the hole it made in the building was less than one-third the size of its wingspan, suggesting that when planes crash into things they don't behave like you think they should. Nor the way that you think they should if you thought that a plane with a 185ft wingspan left a 20ft hole. It is mostly irrelevant though.
What I'm mainly seeing in the middle of the impact hole is fire. That's nice but doesn't answer the question. Don't you find it incongruous for a window to remain in the area that the tail section of a 757 has just passed through? Blast proof or not. Isn't just one case of failing to adhere to the law of cause and effect enough to give you pause?
But he did have a commercial pilot's license. So the quibble seems irrelevant. "How could he have driven the car? Sure, he had a driver's license, but he was never a chauffeur!" The relevant part is that he couldn't even convince someone to rent him a little plane. Your comparison is just ludicrous. It is more like you jumping in an F1 car for the first time and being capable of winning the race.
Here is a pilots description of what Hanjour acheived. quote: Now try to keep your imagination in check. I really have no idea how hard that would be to do and neither do you. All I am saying is isn't it remarkable.This doesn't mean that I think that flight 77 is still flying around somewhere. This doesn't mean that I think that it wasn't a jet or that GW is the antichrist.
Something else which you apparently can't even imagine, done for reasons you can't conceive of, as supported by the fact that you don't know how long it took for investigators to collect evidence from the Citgo gas station? I would imagine that you would like to prevail in this discussion using logic and facts instead of misrepresentation and exaggeration. You should stow your accusations. I have not said one thing about there being a conspiracy. I have only pointed out things that seem to be inconsistent like a window still hanging directly in the spot where a big plane has just been or the FBI showing up 'within minutes', while the bodies of their comrades still burned, to collect the gas station video.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
I don't see the point of trying to convince Prototypical there wasn't a conspiracy Nor do I. I do see the point of trying to address the particular questions with something more than
DA writes: What I'm mainly seeing in the middle of the impact hole is fire. I mean, I see a window there don't you? How can that window be there? I am not asking this because I think that Donald Rumsfeld is a sociopath.
Proto seems much more useful as a test subject or example of the pathology to see if he conforms to the hypothesis put forth by the psychological research briefly described in Message 1. is he "cynical about the world in general"? I don't think that I would qualify as being overly cynical. If I recognize correctly that some people are motivated by self interest does that make me cynical?
Does he have "low self-worth, especially with regard to their sense of agency in the world at large"? I am a nobody with very close to no agency in the world at large. This doesn't particularly bother me. I am regarded with some affection by a handful of people and that is plenty for me. At the same time, I likely have more power and agency than 2/3 of the people in the world.
Does he appear to be reacting to a sense of "uncertainty and powerlessness"? Well I am certainly uncertain about a great many things and essentially powerless over almost everything. I ask questions so as to become more certain and I have little concern for my own amount of power but it does concern me if power is being abused.
Has he performed "repeated reassessments of information in an attempt to create a coherent and understandable narrative"? That is what I am doing right now. To be honest, I would rather not revisit 9/11 so much as I usually end up saddened and depressed. Again, I would not describe myself as a conspiracy theorist. I am simply aware of some things that seem to be inconsistent.
How come they don't continue the "repeated reassessments of information" in light of the lack of emerging evidence? I tend to reassess my evaluations when new evidence does emerge not when it fails to emerge. Let me offer some more study material. Take the Kennedy assassination. I have a vague understanding of the events of that day and as I understand it there is some controversy about whether LHO could have fired those three shots by himself. I have no clue as to who was behind the deed but I suspect that all of the information has not been made public. Does that make me a cynical conspiracy theorist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
What you have is evidence that Flight 77 isn't what hit the Pentagon. Where is the evidence of what did actually hit the Pentagon? Where did Flight 77 go, and where are all the people who were on it? Why should I consider those questions when trying to explain the presence of the intact windows in the middle of the impact hole in the Pentagon? If I observe evidence for genetic evolution does that mean that I also have to address concerns about how the Jews managed to cross the Red Sea? I am trying to remain fixed on any apparent inconsistencies in the physical evidence. It has not been me introducing wild theories about what some inconsistency might imply. While the fact that some physical evidence causes difficulties for the rest of the explanation is good reason to closely examine that evidence it should not be used as a reason to dismiss that evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
So, just to check, you no longer claim that "The FBI admits to having 83 videos that captured the event." Obviously, as I provided the clarification. Do you still maintain that there is nothing odd about only getting one fuzzy picture from 85 cameras that could have potentially captured the event? You know, the cameras that you had no reason to believe were there.
So, minutes (but we don't know how many) after he reported the biggest crime of the century, the police turned up and collected potential evidence. This is very suspicious, because I agree that Velasquez's choice of words is pretty thin grounds for suspicion. If I had used that expression it would mean that the FBI were there within 15 minutes or so. If the FBI were there within 15 minutes I would say that that was odd. If it was an hour later then it was not so odd.
Why did you bring it up, then? You brought it up Doc.
What, where? I'm seeing glass above the hole, not in it. The absence of stuff in the hole is kinda what makes it a hole. The bottom of the two windows are no more than 20 ft off of the ground. I find it astounding that a plane that big went into that hole. I suppose that is an argument from incredulity but the incredulousness of an event must have a threshold beyond which it becomes a valid reason for doubt.
Well, as we've seen, its alleged "failure to adhere to the law of cause and effect" gives no pause to the guy who supplied the glass. Maybe he knows more about it than both of us. No doubt that he does. Must be some pretty good stuff. They should have built the rest of the wall out of it.
No it isn't. What he did is more like what he actually did. But if you like analogies, let's hear from some pilots: Here is a list of pilots who support the summary that I quoted up thread. Are your references somehow more valid than mine?
Do you still claim that it looks like a conspiracy? It was a question. What magnitude of discrepancy would it take for you to reassess your position that all of the facts have been laid bare and that no one is concealing anything? When Slick Willy was denying his oral interactions in the oval orifice at what point did you wonder if he was telling the truth?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
You will never change your mind about Flight 77 not hitting the Pentagon. Not ever. You are already convinced. You may even have locked on to an alternative scenario that is way more poorly evidenced than is the official version. You see I never claimed that it didn't. Isn't this an example of you jumping to conclusions in the same way that you are accusing the CTists of? Making inferences, failing to observe all the evidence and approaching the situation with prejudice? I am a little curious if I do fall under the description outlined in the OP study. Any psychologists here who have read a bunch of my 1000 posts care to comment?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
I had heard that the Bermuda Triangle had mysteriously disappeared.... Triangular is the aquatic manifestation of the phenomenon. Can you guess what shape it is on land?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Just to imply that the missing Bermuda Triangle has been found disguised as the Pentagon. Not so funny really.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Why did I have no reason to believe that they were there, and what do you mean by "potentially"? Were they all pointing in the right direction? Well you seemed to be arguing that a building with lots of soldiers had no use for cameras and that I had no reason to think that there was more than a couple of parking lot cameras filming at 1fps. Did you not make those points? If I said that a camera was 'potentially responsive' to a request for film that captured an event it would mean that the camera was pointed in the right direction as opposed to being on the other side of the building. I guess that I can not say what the FBI meant by 'potentially responsive'.
Indeed, especially as you haven't said what it would make you suspect and why. Proto writes: If I had used that expression it would mean that the FBI were there within 15 minutes or so. If the FBI were there within 15 minutes I would say that that was odd. If it was an hour later then it was not so odd. How many minutes would strike you as odd? Anything less than one?
Three reasons. Firstly, they are experienced commercial pilots, rather than (for example) someone who's spent a few hours in a light private plane. Or a flight attendant. Or a chemist. Or someone whose qualifications are given as "liar". When I look at these first few names on the list I would have to say that they do not match your description of them. What is that? 80,000 hrs of flight time between them? I will certainly concede that they could all be fictitious as I did not take the time to vet them. Assuming then that they are actual people with the listed experience I guess that I am also assuming that they wouldn't join an organization that promoted things that they did not agree with.
quote: Who said that that was my position? Well if anything is concealed there must be a conspiracy right? If you question anything regarding the official account you must be a batshit crazy CTist who thinks that we didn't land on the moon.
I am always open to new evidence. But based on the evidence we have, Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11. Do you disagree? No I do not disagree. Does this mean that I should not question the submission of the one blurry photo produced by 85 cameras? If I question that submission does that mean that I think the planes that hit the towers were holographic projections? Apparently, the FDR on flight 77 recorded an altitude of 480ft one second before impact. Should I conclude that because it is obvious that the plane hit the Pentagon then the FDR must have been in error? Does that happen often? Can I not make the point that just because someone questions the official narrative this does not mean that they are a paranoid, delusional cave dweller?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
No. So....anyway. Would you say that the population at large is prone to having opinions that they have no evidenced reason for having? Or is it just those that have low self esteem? Is a CTer more likely to suspect that their spouse is cheating on them? It seems to me that there is no essential difference in the process that people use to form their opinions only a critical difference in the threshold at which they accept something as fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
It's a cognitive trap. Yes, I see that pitfall. It sounds similar to my addiction to nicotine. Would you go so far as to say that it is the same process at work that leads to the formation of religious beliefs? What about the choice of your favourite and therefore the best sports team? Is this trap exploited by marketers trying to sell us deodorant and teeth whiteners? Are we not all susceptible to this kind of trap and most of us are in fact ensnared in some way with regard to some issue?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
But someone trying to sell me deodorant, for example, really has nothing he can do if it makes me smell like a cess-pit. Not like that. The deodorant company launches an ad campaign to convince us that we already smell like a cess-pit. Our insecurity and vanity kicks in and a few decades later it is an $18 billion/yr industry. Now this is not a conspiracy but just an example of how the formation of opinions can be easily manipulated. Not just the opinions of CTs but just about everybody's opinion. I am thankful for the presence of personal deodorants but it has gotten to the point where I encounter many more offensively perfumed people than I do people with offensive b.o. If you are still interested in the topic I am curious about your take on the latest revelations about the NSA's surveillance program. At the beginning of this thread it was listed as one of the many ridiculous CTs. How should the rational mind consider Edward Snowden's accusations about the NSA? Edited by Prototypical, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
However, it's not an unfalsifiable theory. Hence the part where I said that it wasn't a conspiracy and irrelevant to the point about the general fallibility of the process that people use to form their opinions.
Where? If you mean where are the revelations then I read about them in the Washington Post and The Guardian. The idea that it might be a conspiracy was mentioned in messages 2, 5, 6, 11, 31 and 52 of this thread. My question is how can we tell the difference between unfounded suspicions and what looks like evidence that supports them. The theory that the govt is monitoring all communications is not unfalsifiable in principle but it may as well be as far as the average citizen is concerned. What capacity do I have to vet Mr Snowden? Should I refrain from forming an opinion about the subject?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Right you are. Message 31 doesn't belong on the list. Message 52 mentions the internet as being controlled by some shadowy group. I believe that Straggler was mocking the idea.
But is this the salient point? Are you saying that the idea that the govt was monitoring all communications was a valid unsupported conspiracy theory? My point is that speculation is an integral part of the way that a normally functioning brain works. We speculate and then we confirm. The mistaken CTist fails to confirm their speculations. Are they psychotic then or just inept?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024