Are All Conspiracy Theories False?

ktesibios said:
Umm, a point I think is being missed here:

The Holocaust was the direct result of a paranoid conspiracy theory, the Nazi belief that there was a vast Jewish conspiracy aimed at world domination and that all of humanity's problems could be explained by the existence of that conspiracy.

The same principle applied to the Stalinist witch-hunts against "kulaks", "wreckers" and "counterrevolutionaries", and to the persecutions perpetrated by the Cultural Revolution in China.

The conspiracist belief that all the trouble in the world is caused by some shadowy cabal of evildoers leads logically to the belief that the world's troubles can be ended by eliminating the evildoing group.

That, in turn, supports the commission of atrocities against whatever real-world group is unlucky enough to be chosen to represent the nonexistent Great Big Eeevil Conspiracy.

The conspiracist mode of thought starts by assigning blame to a chosen hate-object, to which near-supernatural powers of control, manipulation, deception and concealment are attributed as needed to fill the holes in the conspiracy narrative. It goes on to try to hammer and file the evidence into fitting this ideologically predetermined conclusion, while allowing no possibility of the conclusion being falsified. It also attempts to misdirect people's real discontents and resentments into aggression against the hate-object.

It's that way of thinking that leads to the KZ and the Gulag, not reality-based skepticism.
Click to expand...

I didn't miss that point, I just failed to present it propely. Well said.
 
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...
Too bad you didn't use your time away to read up on logic, engineering, physics, etc. Your arguments are stone-cold idiotic.
 
Gravy said:
Too bad you didn't use your time away to read up on logic, engineering, physics, etc. Your arguments are stone-cold idiotic.
Click to expand...

TS1234 kind of hoped you would do the reading for him.
 
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...

Occam's razor doesn't say that "new theories" aren't to be preferred. Otherwise, we wouldn't ever have any new theories. It also doesn't say the simplest theory is best. It says that, all other things being equal, the simplest theory is to be preferred.

The problem is, all other things aren't equal. There is no evidence of a controlled demolition. Controlled demolitions have happened before.. but never from the top-down, on a building 3x higher than other building that has ever been CD'd. Pretending all CDs are the same is as stupid as pretending all fires are the same. And you are doing both.
 
qarnos said:
Hey, I do!

And I save about $AU40 a week by doing so!
Click to expand...

You should ask the NWO if you can work at home, so you don't have to ride your bike anymore through rain, snow, blizzards and frogs and all other kinds of nasty weather you've got down under.
 
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...
Welcome back, TruthSeeker1234.

This statement is ignorant. There is no "new science" required to explain the destruction of WTC 1, 2, or even 7 without explosives.

Anyone in demolitions will tell you that the amount of energy imparted by explosives is a miniscule fraction of the total release. Surely you already knew this. Thus, no "brand new gravity theory."

You are, therefore, misusing Occam's Razor. Try not to get cut.
 
Bell said:
You should ask the NWO if you can work at home, so you don't have to ride your bike anymore through rain, snow, blizzards and frogs and all other kinds of nasty weather you've got down under.
Click to expand...

Frogs? :D

In any case, cycling to work sure beats the preferred mode of transportation around here - those Kangaroo pouches are all wet and slimey... not to mention the stink.
 
Welcome back from your hiatus TS1234. Kindly go debate Chipmunk Stew in the debate thread he created, or shut the hell up.
 
I will respond to Chimpmuck's thread, despite his utter lack of evidence. I was hoping for something more challenging. In terms of the original challenge, Chimpmuck does not qualify. Triterope does, and he will let you know how it is going.

There is no "new science" required to explain the destruction of WTC 1, 2, or even 7 without explosives.
Click to expand...

Sure there is. All sorts of people have come out with all sorts of theories attempting to explain it. First there was fire-melts-steel. That didn't fly.

Then there was pancake. That lasted for a couple of years.

Now there is column-pull, crush-down crush-up self-disintegrating along with pancake-when-it's-convenient or whatever you want to call it. But obviously new theories have been trotted out, repeatedly. This in and of itself is not sinister, but is indicative of a phenomenon which is not understood.

Occam's razor slices on the side of an explanation which is currently well understood, not a brand-new never-before-seen phenomenon which just happens to look exactly like the well understood explanation.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I will respond to Chimpmuck's thread, despite his utter lack of evidence. I was hoping for something more challenging. In terms of the original challenge, Chimpmuck does not qualify. Triterope does, and he will let you know how it is going.



Sure there is. All sorts of people have come out with all sorts of theories attempting to explain it. First there was fire-melts-steel. That didn't fly.

Then there was pancake. That lasted for a couple of years.

Now there is column-pull, crush-down crush-up self-disintegrating along with pancake-when-it's-convenient or whatever you want to call it. But obviously new theories have been trotted out, repeatedly. This in and of itself is not sinister, but is indicative of a phenomenon which is not understood.

Occam's razor slices on the side of an explanation which is currently well understood, not a brand-new never-before-seen phenomenon which just happens to look exactly like the well understood explanation.
Click to expand...

What a strawman. There's a BIG difference between tweaking and perfecting theories and coming up with off the wall stuff.

The official story is based on well-understood science, and is supported by loads of evidence. Just because you expected them to understand every minute detail from day one without further study doesn't mean that's what reality is.

The CD theory has no supporting evidence. I challenge you to provide one piece of REAL evidence above and beyond "it looks like CD" that it was indeed CD.

Better yet, provide it on the thread you SHOULD be on right now.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Sure there is. All sorts of people have come out with all sorts of theories attempting to explain it. First there was fire-melts-steel. That didn't fly.
Click to expand...
other than you truthers, no one else ever claimed the steel melted

Then there was pancake. That lasted for a couple of years.

Now there is column-pull, crush-down crush-up self-disintegrating along with pancake-when-it's-convenient or whatever you want to call it. But obviously new theories have been trotted out, repeatedly. This in and of itself is not sinister, but is indicative of a phenomenon which is not understood.
Click to expand...
see, this is how science works, as new evidence comes to light, the explanations have to change the match the evidence, this is the opposite of how members of the truth movement operate, which is to cherry-pick evidence that matches their theories

Occam's razor slices on the side of an explanation which is currently well understood, not a brand-new never-before-seen phenomenon which just happens to look exactly like the well understood explanation.
Click to expand...
you are incorrectly applying ockhams razor, it states that you could not add something to a theory unless it is necessary (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem) and investigate the simplest explanation first

in the case of the WTC we see planes hit the towers, we see the towers on fire, we see the towers fall, therefore the simplest explanation is the towers sustained damage from the plane impacts and the fires, and that resulted in the collapse, so thats what NIST investigate, NIST found that the damage from the impacts and fires was sufficient to destroy the towers, they also found no evidence of explosives, so explosives are an unncessary entity in this case, and ockhams razor states they should not be investigated
 
I challenge you to provide one piece of REAL evidence above and beyond "it looks like CD" that it was indeed CD.
Click to expand...

OK. Evidence one. Collapse times.

It is physically impossible for these buildings to "collapse" as rapidly as they did unless lower floors are moving out of the way prior to being impacted by upper floors. Kuttler has calculated that for the roofline of WTC7 to go from motionless to on the ground would take a minimum of 8.3 seconds, assuming zero resistance from the vertical columns. Adding the resistance from the columns could only slow things down.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
If you and I had been hanging around Germany in the 1930's, and I would have said there was huge government conspiracy brewing, one that involved false-flag terror, mass-murder of German citizens, the suspension of elections, a police state, and plans for global conquest; would you have questioned my sanity?

Have there never been any government conspiracies, ever? I just want to understand the mindset of the JREFs. Do you dismiss conspiracies out of hand, or take them on a case by case basis? Are there any alleged conspiracies that you accept as the truth?
Click to expand...

Good questions.

Also keep in mind that a lot of folks psychologically sort into 2 camps: those that prefer to align with power and criticize the fringe, and those that prefer to criticize who they perceive to be the powerful.

A lot of members here sort into the 1st group, and you and those who follow the loose change crowd (as well as folks like Chomsky) probably sort into the 2nd group.

But I do think it's an interesting thought experiment: at what point would folks tend to realize that a fascist conspiracy is occuring in America? Probably, like with nazi germany, many would never realize. Others, like in nazi germany, would realize in cascading waves, but perhaps not in time and in waves too dispersed to effect change.

It is certainly disturbing the ease with which U.S. govt. torture has been legalized and normalized. The lackluster half-heartedness of the war-protest community in America is also interesting. It's like a reverse-vietnam: the longer the war goes on and the more Americans die, the less people (including young people) care. It's surreal, but there are far more people playing multiplayer war games online on their pc's and watching bondage and s & m porn than protesting much of anything in 2006
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
OK. Evidence one. Collapse times.

It is physically impossible for these buildings to "collapse" as rapidly as they did unless lower floors are moving out of the way prior to being impacted by upper floors. Kuttler has calculated that for the roofline of WTC7 to go from motionless to on the ground would take a minimum of 8.3 seconds, assuming zero resistance from the vertical columns. Adding the resistance from the columns could only slow things down.
Click to expand...
how did kuttler arrive at his 8.3 second conclusion? i calculate free fall for WTC7 as being less than 6 seconds, i doubt simple air resistance will slow it down that much

also, seismic records show internal collapses as much as 20 seconds before visible exterior movement, so if the internal support structure was collapsing for 20 seconds, then the roof fell, how does that figure in to the 8.3 second calculations?
 
also, seismic records show internal collapses as much as 20 seconds before visible exterior movement, so if the internal support structure was collapsing for 20 seconds, then the roof fell, how does that figure in to the 8.3 second calculations?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. The penthouse collapse is irrelevant. Any internal machinations that may have occurred before the roofline moves are irrelevant.

Kuttler is saying that when the roofline begins to fall, for whateve reason, it takes 6.5 seconds. He assumes the floors are just hanging in the air, waiting to be impacted, with no vertical columns. Even so, just transferring momentum and continuing the collapse will require 8.3 seconds. Any resitance offered by the structure will increase this time. Any destruction wrought along the way must slow it down further.
 
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.

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.

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...

Occam's Razor does not slice in favor of controlled demolition, because the events on 9/11/2001, show no evidence of controlled demolition.
Occam's Razor Slices in favor of planes hitting two very tall buildings and debris from that building falling onto another building and all three buildings collapsing, from natural causes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom