Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Conspiracy Theories: It's all in your mind!
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 58 of 137 (700293)
05-31-2013 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Dr Adequate
05-31-2013 2:02 PM


Re: How can you tell?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-31-2013 2:02 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-01-2013 1:27 AM Dogmafood has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 64 of 137 (700328)
06-02-2013 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Dr Adequate
06-01-2013 1:04 AM


Re: How can you tell?
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:
So, to sum up. Hani Hanjour, took a 757, with zero time in type, did the maneuver described above, a 400 knot 330 degree sprialing dive at 2500 fpm, only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power, with a very steady hand as to not overshoot or hit the lawn, inside ground effect, at 460 knots impact speed, but was refused to rent a 172 cause he couldnt land it at 65 knots? C'mon... sounds like a bad B movie...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-01-2013 1:04 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2013 10:48 AM Dogmafood has replied
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-03-2013 6:32 PM Dogmafood has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 65 of 137 (700329)
06-02-2013 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Percy
06-01-2013 6:34 AM


Re: A Test Subject
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 06-01-2013 6:34 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 06-02-2013 7:10 AM Dogmafood has replied
 Message 68 by NoNukes, posted 06-02-2013 10:41 AM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 70 of 137 (700343)
06-02-2013 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Percy
06-02-2013 7:10 AM


Re: A Test Subject
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 06-02-2013 7:10 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2013 12:52 PM Dogmafood has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 74 of 137 (700371)
06-02-2013 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Dr Adequate
06-02-2013 10:48 AM


Re: How can you tell?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2013 10:48 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2013 8:15 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 75 of 137 (700375)
06-02-2013 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by NoNukes
06-02-2013 10:41 AM


Re: A Test Subject
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by NoNukes, posted 06-02-2013 10:41 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by NoNukes, posted 06-02-2013 6:01 PM Dogmafood has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 76 of 137 (700379)
06-02-2013 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Panda
06-02-2013 1:27 PM


Re: A Test Subject
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Panda, posted 06-02-2013 1:27 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Panda, posted 06-02-2013 5:32 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 78 of 137 (700386)
06-02-2013 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Panda
06-02-2013 5:32 PM


Re: A Test Subject
Just to imply that the missing Bermuda Triangle has been found disguised as the Pentagon. Not so funny really.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Panda, posted 06-02-2013 5:32 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 82 of 137 (700437)
06-03-2013 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Dr Adequate
06-02-2013 8:15 PM


Re: How can you tell?
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:
Robert Balsamo
4000TT Commercial, Instrument, Multi, CFI II MEI
Corporate Chief Pilot
135 Capt
121 FO Independence Air/Atlantic Coast Airlines
King Air C-90/200, Dornier 328JET
Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret)
30,000+ Total Flight Time
707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, DC-8, L-1049, Learjet 24/25, L-188
Ground Instructor, Advanced Ground Instructor, Instrument Instructor, Flight Engineer Turbojet
Aircraft Dispatcher
Pan Am, United
United States Air Force (ret)
Over 100 Combat Missions Flown
Command time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)
Captain Ross Aimer
United Airlines, Retired
B-777/767/757/747/737/727/720/707, DC-10/-9/-8 Type ratings
Command time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)
Commander Ralph Rotten Kolstad
23,000 hours
27 years in the airlines
B757/767 for 13 years mostly international Captain with American Airlines.
20 years US Navy flying fighters off aircraft carriers, TopGun twice
civilian pilot flying gliders, light airplanes and warbirds
Command time in:
- N644AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 77)
- N334AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 11)
John Lear
Son of Bill Lear
(Founder, creator of the Lear Jet Corporation)
More than 40 years of Flying
19,000+ TT
23 Type ratings
Flight experience includes 707, DC-8, 727, L10-11
Jeff Latas
-Over 20 years in the USAF
--USAF Accident investigation Board President
--Flew the F-111, T38, and F-15E
--Combat experience in the F-15E includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch
--Weapons Requirements Officer, USAF HQ, Pentagon
--Standard and Evaluations Flight Examiner, Command level
-Currently Captain for JetBlue Airways
Guy S. Razer, LtCol, USAF (Ret)
3,500+ Hours Total Flight Time
F-15E/C, F-111A/D/E/F/EF, F-16, F-18, B-1, Mig-29, SU-22, T-37/38, Various Cvilian Prop
Combat Time: Operation Northern Watch
USAF Fighter Weapons School Instructor
NATO Tactical Leadership Program Instructor/Mission Coordinator
USAF Material Command Weapons Development Test Pilot
Combat Support Coordination Team 2 Airpower Coordinator, South Korea
All Service Combat Identification Evaluation Team Operations Officer
Boeing F-22 Pilot Instructor
MS Aeronautical Studies, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2013 8:15 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 06-03-2013 8:20 AM Dogmafood has not replied
 Message 85 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-03-2013 10:47 AM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 87 of 137 (700553)
06-04-2013 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Dr Adequate
06-03-2013 10:47 AM


Re: How can you tell?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-03-2013 10:47 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Taq, posted 06-04-2013 1:12 PM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied
 Message 89 by Percy, posted 06-04-2013 1:13 PM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied
 Message 90 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-04-2013 1:21 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 94 of 137 (700770)
06-07-2013 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dr Adequate
06-04-2013 1:21 PM


Cognitive trap
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-04-2013 1:21 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-07-2013 12:19 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 96 of 137 (700975)
06-10-2013 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Dr Adequate
06-07-2013 12:19 PM


Re: Cognitive trap
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-07-2013 12:19 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2013 2:37 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 99 of 137 (701022)
06-10-2013 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Dr Adequate
06-10-2013 2:37 PM


Re: Cognitive trap
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2013 2:37 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by caffeine, posted 06-13-2013 7:47 AM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 101 of 137 (701219)
06-14-2013 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by caffeine
06-13-2013 7:47 AM


Re: Cognitive trap
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by caffeine, posted 06-13-2013 7:47 AM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by caffeine, posted 06-14-2013 10:25 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024