Are All Conspiracy Theories False?

TruthSeeker1234 said:
You make an excellent point David. Social science is always complex. This is why Occam's razor does not apply to social science, only physical science. With social science, I could give a hundred examples where the simplist plausible explanation is not the correct one.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that is entirely true. I would say that in many more cases of social science, than physical science, Occam's razor does not hold true. It is not an all or nothing thing.

TruthSeeker1234 said:
I believe Occam's razor is an excellent test for 9/11, or an awful one, depending on how you frame it. I wholeheartedly conceed that the conspiracy of Osama and the hijackers is smaller and simpler than the conspiracy of Cheney, NORAD, the demolition team, Silverstein, NIST and everybody else. But that's social science.
Click to expand...

Ahh, but the evidence to date clearly favors the 19 hijacker/OBl plot, so when it is the simpler of the two, and has the most solid evidence behind it, I think we can reasonably say it is the more likely scenario.

TruthSeeker1234 said:
On the physical science by itself, Occam's razor clearly slices in favor of controlled demolition. This is because we know that controlled demolitions can occur, they have occured many times in the past. It requires no new theory to explain it. Thus controlled demolition is a far simpler explanation than the brand-new "gravity disintegrates the quarter mile high skyscraper" hypothesis.
Click to expand...

This is faulty logic. You are over simplifying. Yes, we know that Controlled Demolition is a physical possibility, a frame of reference we have. The absence of such a frame of reference with respect to the impact/fireproofing removal/fires scenario for the collapse does not make it any less likely. If that were the case, than the very first Controlled Demolition would suffer the same problem you are saying the official scenario suffers now, but it didn't.

How I see it, the official story is not only more reasonable, but is much less complex.

Official Scenario:
Jet airplanes, very large ones, with 10,000 Gallons of fuel, crash into relatively hollow steel framed skyscrapers. they sever many of the steel columns required to give support to the weight of the buildings. The impact removes 60% or more of the fireproofing, exposing the steel underneath. The jet fuel from the planes spreads over many floors, igniting fires that span 8-10 floors. These fires, now with combustables that burn at much higher temps than the jet fuel itself, cause the remaining steel supports, trusses and columns to significantly weaken, the bow, bend, and eventually give way, initiating the collapse of the building(s). Once set into motion, the collapse produces enough energy and acceleration to render any resistance below it minimal, allowing the collapse to occur at NEAR free fall time.

CT Theory of CD:
A team is hired to plant explosives, namely thermite, an explosive never before used in controlled demolition, in every floor of two 110 storey skyscrapers. They must do this in secret, so they must be in on it, and must do it on weekends, late nights, and during any brief shut downs of the buildings (rare). Most experts, including the best in europe, say to rig a 110 storey building with unlimited access would take nearly a year, so to do it this way, in secret, would require many years of access for planting.
Also, the explosives were to be rigged, not in a standard manner, for Demolition from the bottom, as was EVERY OTHER CONTROLLED DEMOLITION IN HISTORY, but rather the Demolition would have to occur at the floors of impact. This means that the team of Demolitionists would have to plant explosives of equal amounts on near every floor, as accuracy of the "drone" planes would be poor, in terms of the exact floor of impact. Also, for this theory to hold, it would mean that not one single bomb sniffing dog or security guard picked up on the planting of the explosives, or else they were also in on it. Also, nobody of the THOUSANDS of workers in the WTC at any time discovered any of the demolitionists or their work.

I mean I could go on with the complexity of the scenario...if you wish.

TAM
 
I used to hate forums where the moderators were sticklers for making threads stay "on topic" but you can see why they do it. Look at how this thread has wound up IDENTICAL to every other thread he starts. And I don't mean in tone, I mean IT'S WORD FOR WORD THE SAME FREAKING POSTS.

If you see TS1234's name on a thread, it's covering the EXACT same ground. He could start a thread about the Bermuda Triangle, and by the second page it would be, "...pulverization of the concrete impossible with only the jet fuel from..."

Like a dog chasing its tail. This was a good thread idea, and a good question. But it turned out to be one more excuse to have the SAME CONVERSATION he's had over and over and over and over and over, without one milimeter of progress, for many months now. At what point is it just spamming?
 
David Wong said:
I used to hate forums where the moderators were sticklers for making threads stay "on topic" but you can see why they do it. Look at how this thread has wound up IDENTICAL to every other thread he starts. And I don't mean in tone, I mean IT'S WORD FOR WORD THE SAME FREAKING POSTS.

If you see TS1234's name on a thread, it's covering the EXACT same ground. He could start a thread about the Bermuda Triangle, and by the second page it would be, "...pulverization of the concrete impossible with only the jet fuel from..."

Like a dog chasing its tail. This was a good thread idea, and a good question. But it turned out to be one more excuse to have the SAME CONVERSATION he's had over and over and over and over and over, without one milimeter of progress, for many months now. At what point is it just spamming?
Click to expand...

Welcome to Antichrist-ophera´s world. The admins seem to love it... :D
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Indeed, back to the title. Any conspiracies you guys think are true? gulf of Tonkin? Rieshtag (sp?) fire? Remember the Maine? CIA overthrow of Iran? Iran Contra? Tuskegee experiment? Anything?
Click to expand...

The USS Maine wasn't a conspiracy. It exploded in Havana Harbor, and due to irresponsible "yellow" journalists like WR Hearst, public outcry was drawn against the Spanish who were blamed for "sabotage" or a mine, I'm not sure which. Now we know that it was almost certainly a coal dust explosion which was seized upon by the hawkish press.

The explosion of the USS Maine was never a US government false flag act, and I don't think anyone (except the Nation of Islam) claims it was. Sure it was seized on to grab some turf, but only after a massive groundswell of anti-Spanish sentiment by the newspapers.

MRegan said:
The movie "Conspiracy" (I think it is an HBO movie) is about a meeting several key Nazi's had to decide how they will carry out the Holocaust.
During a tense period of the "debate" one of the members of this panel (a lawyer) brings up this exact point. He says what about Germans married to Jews? If you have all these widows thats obvious. If you grant divorces then you have a paper trail, and on and on.

I know its just a movie and I dont know how many Germans were married to Jews, but it seems a legitimate point.

I would think its hard to make 6+ million human beings just disappear. Police state or no. Stalin failed to do it.

Anyway great movie and sorry for the derail.
Click to expand...

I didn't see Conspiracy (yes, an HBO movie starring Stanley Tucci) because I was afraid, Hollywood being Hollywood, that they'd add unnecessary drama to the story. There's an older movie called The Wansee Conference (1984) which showed the exact same event, and took the lines straight from the minutes of the meeting. If the portrayal was anything like the way it went down in reality, there was a very blase, anti-climactic feel, except for Freissler who seemed to enjoy the prospect more openly than the rest. If the subject hadn't been genocide it would have looked normal in any board room. They discussed all manners of this stuff, half-Jews, children of mixed-marriages, widows/widowers who were non-Jews - mostly these details were left to Eichmann.
 
T.A.M. said:
<snip> Also, for this theory to hold, it would mean that not one single bomb sniffing dog or security guard picked up on the planting of the explosives, or else they were also in on it. <snip>
Click to expand...

How do you pay off a bomb-sniffing dog? They're trained to bark when they smell explosives. "Oh, never mind the bomb dog going ape(rule8), I've got Snausages in my pocket...."

And there WERE bomb dogs there, at least part of the time. This whole thing is making my head hurt. I'm going back to bed.
 
I mentioned Gulf of Tonkin upthread, I don't think any of them want to comment. How about Remember the Maine? This was the false flag op going all the way back to the Spanish American War, the U.S. little test drive into the idea of empire.
 
I interpret this response as you are not able to explain how and why the penthouse collapsed.
Click to expand...

The penthouse of WTC7 collapsed because the explosives on the columns which support it were detonated first. Being on one side of the roof, I suspect the engineers needed to get it out of the way first in order to maintain the symmetrical collapse of the whole building.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
...which just happens to look exactly like the well understood explanation.
Click to expand...

By "the well understood explanation" you mean controlled demolition, right?


So, in what way does this (WTC) "look exactly" like this (CD)?

Or by "look exactly like", do you mean this (WTC) looks like this (CD)?

Or this this or this?

Or even this or this?

Can you, in fact, show me any known case of a controlled demolition that looks anything like the WTC? It doesn't even have to be exactly like, although that would be nice. Any video anywhere of a CD that starts from the top, and goes down?

If not, please stop saying this sort of thing.

"X looks like Y, therefore X is Y" is just about the only argument any of you CTists have, and even that lame argument falls apart if X doesn't even look like Y
 
Killtown said:
I wonder how Jrefers would classify the Gulf of Tonkin incident?
Click to expand...

We happen to have a poster here who was on one of the vessels involved in the Gulf of Tonkin incident. I'd imagine he's pretty well qualified to answer.

With my very limited understanding of the incident, I'd call it a big CYA that went political. I doubt it was carefully orchestrated, and therefore falls short of any classic conspiracy theory.

This is all academic. You cannot compare any of these events to September 11th because, simply, none of you have produced a theory that is even physically possible or self-consistent. Nor have you shown any flaws in the official report. Thus, any speculation about its underlying orchestration is moot. Come back when you've got a credible theory.
 
R.Mackey said:
With my very limited understanding of the incident, I'd call it a big CYA that went political. I doubt it was carefully orchestrated, and therefore falls short of any classic conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...
If the military knew there was no attack, but said there was knowing that it may lead to their reasons as to why they said there was when there really wasn't, wouldn't that be considered a gov't conspiracy?
 
Killtown said:
If the military knew there was no attack, but said there was knowing that it may lead to their reasons as to why they said there was when there really wasn't, wouldn't that be considered a gov't conspiracy?
Click to expand...

It seems that you are conspiring to make no sense.
 
This bears repeating:

R.Mackey said:
This is all academic. You cannot compare any of these events to September 11th because, simply, none of you have produced a theory that is even physically possible or self-consistent. Nor have you shown any flaws in the official report. Thus, any speculation about its underlying orchestration is moot. Come back when you've got a credible theory.
Click to expand...
 
TS1234, you can compress your ideas easily: Argument through either denial or incredulity, or both. You either can't believe the truth, or won't believe the truth. So you are either an ignoramus or a troll. Please strike out whichever one is not applicable, but not both.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Yes, back to the topic. Do you guys think conspiracies ever happen?
Click to expand...
Yes. And they usually fall flat on their face before crossing the starting line, and almost invariably get more publicity more quickly than they ever counted on.

In short, yes, but they all fail miserably at being secrets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom