|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Conspiracy Theories: It's all in your mind! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 377 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Prototypical writes:
*puzzled* Triangular is the aquatic manifestation of the phenomenon. Can you guess what shape it is on land?There appears to be a sub-text to this, but the underlying meaning eludes me. "There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 377 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
You see I never claimed that it didn't. Yes, you've been quite coy about that. On the other hand, we are talking about an event witnessed by about a dozen people, the witnesses including at least a few people who saw the AA markings on the plane. So if you think there is some doubt about whether a plane hit the Pentagon, then you are talking about a conspiracy. I don't have to wait for you to say those words directly.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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. 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?
I agree that Velasquez's choice of words is pretty thin grounds for suspicion. Indeed, especially as you haven't said what it would make you suspect and why.
You brought it up Doc. No, this size of the hole was in fact your point. But we now know that the size of the hole a plane makes when it hits a building is less than the wingspan of the plane.
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. No doubt that he does. Must be some pretty good stuff. They should have built the rest of the wall out of it. Well, as I point out, whatever made the hole left intact the windows which were in fact left intact. Unless you propose that the hole was made by a gentle process such as the nibbling of a highly trained team of mice, the glass that survived the formation of the hole was indeed good at surviving catastrophic events. I guess that's why they call it "blast-proof".
Here is a list of pilots who support the summary that I quoted up thread. * They don't say that they do. Those are members of an organization, not signatories to a statement.* I note that a lot of them aren't actually pilots. * Of those that do claim to have flown, and give their flight time, about 40 claim to have logged less flight time than Hanjour. * Do you want me to make a list of pilots who don't support the summary and are called Steve? Are your references somehow more valid than mine? Yes. 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". Second, they made actual statements that what Hanjour did was perfectly practicable, rather than having danced with a girl who danced with a man who said it wasn't. Third, because the debris, DNA evidence, eyewitness accounts, etc, show that a plane did hit the Pentagon. So faced with a choice between people who say this could have happened, and people who say that it couldn't, I would listen to the former.
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? Who said that that was my position? 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? 'Cos on the one hand, we have: * The eyewitness accounts.* The debris found by first responders, including the black box. * The phone calls from the hijacked plane. * The DNA evidence. * The evidence that a bunch of radical Islamists boarded the plane, including one with a commercial pilot's license. * Al Qaida claiming responsibility for 9/11. * The otherwise inexplicable disappearance of flight 77 and everyone on it. On the other hand, I'm presented with "discrepancies" of such "magnitude" as: * Policemen collected evidence of a crime.* The plane didn't obey the laws of cartoon physics as taught by Professor Wile E. Coyote. * Blast-proof windows behaved just like their supplier thought they would. * Hanjour performed a maneuver which experienced commercial pilots describe as "fairly easy". * Despite merely having a commercial pilot's license, Hanjour was able to crash into something ten times wider than the runways that commercial pilots land on. ... etc, etc. I am not familiar with any scale for the "magnitude" of discrepancies, but these would rate a 0 on any sensible scale.
When Slick Willy was denying his oral interactions in the oval orifice at what point did you wonder if he was telling the truth? I don't know. It was some time ago, and I didn't take notes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
More yucks from the Pilots For Truth List.
Not surprisingly many of them are not pilots.Also it seems anyone could sign the list. Even fictional characters. quote:I guess this could be a real person but it is also the exact name of the main character in some of the books from Isaac Asimov's Robot Series. quote:Well heck he flys alot. I am sure he can tell us all about the ability to fly into the Pentagon. 14 flight attendants, 6 air traffic controllers. How is their opinion relevant? Here is the kicker. Anyone with a remote connection to the aviation industry can join and have their name added to this prestigious list.
quote:Join Pilots For 9/11 Truth Come on. Does anyone actually think these guys have some legitimate argument to stand on? They are misrepresenting themselves form the get go. Yup. When I want to know the intricacies about flying a commercial jet, I make sure I talk to those ramp attendants and ticket agents.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 377 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I don't think anyone is arguing that you're alone in your conspiracy beliefs. In fact, it is the regularity with which conspiracy-style beliefs are accepted that makes it a fertile area of psychological study.
So of course there are many others who share your pathology, some of whom are experienced armed forces and commercial pilots. They also share your lack of evidence for "what really happened." --Percy Edited by Percy, : Improve clarity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Theodoric writes:
But he was an excellent detective! quote:I guess this could be a real person but it is also the exact name of the main character in some of the books from Isaac Asimov's Robot Series. If anyone could find out what really happened, he could. But there are some inconsistencies with his past that could be indicative of a cover-up.I am not sure we can trust him. "There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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? No.
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'. No, you can't. But if, for example, there was a filing cabinet labelled "Pentagon Footage, 9/11/01", then the tapes in that would be potentially responsive until you looked at the tapes, or the labels on the individual tapes.
How many minutes would strike you as odd? Anything less than one? That would certainly be odd.
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. I wasn't describing the first few names on the list, I was describing the list.
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. But that's not an official standpoint of their organization. Officially they don't have one! Look at their homepage. It says "We do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time [...] we ask for a true, new independent investigation into the events of 9/11." No-one's asked to sign up to every bit of nonsense that Truthers have ever written about 9/11.
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 didn't say that either.
No I do not disagree. Splendid.
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. Great Galloping Gish, here's another CT argument! No, it didn't.
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? I don't know that any more than you do; but I know that the CTs who fed you this stuff can be in error, 'cos that does happen often. However, if they were right about what the altimeter showed, then you would of course conclude that the altimeter must have been in error. Because you have agreed that based on the evidence we have, Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon; so this would lead you to identify instrumental readings suggesting that it didn't as being erroneous. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Here is a pilots description of what Hanjour acheived. BTW, looking back, the post you refer me to is unsigned. As we now know, people who post on that website don't have to be pilots. Am I missing something, or is there any reason whatsoever to think that the author of that screed was a pilot? That particular blog post begins:
First let me say i offer no theory or speculation. I definitely do NOT offer that is was a missle, global hawk or otherwise. All the following will be facts (according to reports) and questions. So, i started with NTSB, since they are the "go-to" guys when you want a report.. right? This is what i get... Call me a snob, but I would not like to be flown around the sky by someone who writes like that. But this aside, why do you say that he's a pilot at all? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 377 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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. For conspiracy theorists, that threshold seems very, very low to non-existent for things that they want to be true. Can you imagine the work it would take to fake the impact? It would be much easier just to crash the damn plane into the Pentagon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Prototypical writes: 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. I think the key issue is when resort is made to unseen or unknown forces or agents for which there is no evidence. So when you ask, "Is a CTer more likely to suspect that their spouse is cheating on them?" the answer is that whenever they do suspect things of going awry, they're more likely to assign blame to unseen or unknown forces or agents. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Would you say that the population at large is prone to having opinions that they have no evidenced reason for having? Well, now and then. I used to believe that baby giraffes don't have spots, I have no idea how that got into my head. We're all prone to picking up false information. A CT is a different sort of thing. It's a cognitive trap. You see, having entered into a CT, then all the evidence one doesn't like can have been faked. And any tiny apparent anomaly (which may not be an anomaly at all, but a result of one's misunderstanding of the subject on the lines of "why are there still monkeys" or "why doesn't the hole in the Pentagon correspond to the wingspan of the plane") is a demonstration of a crack in the facade. (To this the CT-ist can add the normal human faults of confirmation bias and laziness.) A CT-ist, in short, constructs an unfalsifiable hypothesis. No amount of disconfirmatory evidence can shoot it down; and it has in fact no predictive power --- the hypothesis does not predict that such-and-such a guy at the FAA should be having his first day on the job, or that police should have collected evidence from the Citgo gas station within (some unspecified number of) minutes rather than hours, but they seem ... odd ... which is sufficient. And it is doubly unfalsifiable because the CT doesn't have to construct a hypothesis as such --- nothing further than that THEY are not telling us the truth, that a conspiracy happened, but not any particular conspiracy. He doesn't have to put up any particular hypothesis that one can examine, he just has to say: "Larry Silverstein used the word "pull", isn't that ... odd?" With respect to expert testimony, if experts say he's wrong, then they are lying, or brainwashed, or afraid to confront the truth, or would lose their jobs if they speak out ... whereas the handful of cranks on his side are brave fighters for truth, and not the statistically expected bunch of nuts that you always get. And so on and so forth. As I say, it's a cognitive trap --- once you start thinking like that, there is no evidence that will talk you out of it. The trick is not to get into it. As to whether there are fundamental differences in psychology, I would guess that these would be purely statistical in nature. The reason why CTs succeed as memes is, as I've tried to explain, because of the nature of the proposition itself. Are there psychological factors, inclinations of character, that make people more likely to accept CTs? Probably. I have formed no opinions as to what they are, but the OP contains some research on this issue. But we should remember that correlation is not cause. For example, other research shows that conservatives are tidier and more punctual than liberals, but surely that doesn't make them conservatives. I think the essential reason people become CTs is that they are confidently offered "evidence" that they don't know how to refute. It overwhelms them. For example, with 9/11, they are told: "The collapse of the Twin Towers looks just like a controlled demolition, and the Towers fell perfectly into their own footprints", and so they get argued into CT-ism. There's evidence, y'see, albeit completely made-up evidence. They get this statement from a trusted source, they start being CT-ists. Six months later, when you show them what a controlled demolition looks like and that bits of the Towers fell all over the damn place, they'll say: "Well of course They took great care to make sure that it didn't look in any way like a controlled demolition". Because now they are CT-ists, they've got themselves into an unfalsifiable position. Having entered into the cognitive trap, they can't be talked out of it by refuting the evidence that talked them into it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024