Qs for the CTs

[RandFan]

Senator McCarthy's theory was that there were commies in the government, the fact that were commie's was later confirmed. doesn't that confirm the theory? just because he was nuts and started grabbing innocent people, destroyed thousands of lives and just about turned the country into a police state, shouldn't be relevant. I can remember those days, first time that sort of thing was televised, the country was tense.

What McCarthy did was wrong. That he abused his power does not mean that he just about turned the country into a police state.

Relevant to what?

 

[UrsulaV]

McCarthy's position that there were commies in the government were later confirmed by reliable independent sources, your anal probing aliens will not be.

*sigh*

You have missed the point of my post so completely that I think you would probably be better served simply to re-read it, again, rather than having me re-state it. However, I'll try.

McCarthy's position was NOT just that there were commies in the government. It was that there were commies, and they were persons X, Y, Z, ad infinitum. He was correct that there were communists, but he was incorrect about who and what they were. In that sense, he would be like the people who believed in aliens--they may someday be proved correct that there are, indeed, life forms on other planets, but they will almost certainly be incorrect about who and what they are.

In that sense, it is intellectually dishonest to say that McCarthy's theories were proved right. If I have a theory that Chinese people are eighteen feet tall and have green skin, it is intellectually dishonest to call my theory "correct" merely because it can be proved that Chinese people exist.

 

[lostnick3]

What McCarthy did was wrong. That he abused his power does not mean that he just about turned the country into a police state.

Relevant to what?

my point is that once in a while a conspiracy theorist gets most of his theory right. thats all it takes for the country to go sideways. i know that personal testimonials are not proof's but i offer this, when i was about 10 +or- during the hearings i called an adult a communist, I was hauled outback and vigorously told in no uncertain terms that not only could i ruin this man's reputation FOR LIFE he could wind up in JAIL. the public was terrified.

Relevant to what ? after 9/11 anyone who looked middle eastern or wore a turban automatically became suspect. it takes no time at all to setup a concentration camp, a little razor wire and a couple of machine guns and your good to go. can't happen here, just ask the Japanese-Americans old enough to remember WWII.

i just wanted to through this in so you might think a little while your bagging on the other woo-woo's

 

[delphi_ote]

i just wanted to through this in so you might think a little while your bagging on the other woo-woo's

So basically, you threw out something totally irrelevant to derail the thread. Got it. Do we have your permission to return to our adult conversation now?

 

[lostnick3]

So basically, you threw out something totally irrelevant to derail the thread. Got it. Do we have your permission to return to our adult conversation now?

read the bottom line did ya? I thought we were talking about conspiracy theorists. guess your gonna have to go over to some other adult chat thread.

 

[delphi_ote]

guess your gonna have to go over to some other adult chat thread.

Oh, snap!

 

[Gravy]

UFO anal-probe dog and pony show

My grandfather was a barker for that show in Coney Island in the '20s.

 

[CptColumbo]

I've been going to other forums around the web, including imdb.com. It's funny that outside their own forums they have a heck of a time convincing anyone. They sometimes are joined by others of their ilk, who proceed to parrot what they are saying. Most of the other posters disagree and ask them to prove their cases with evidence other than a biased documentary, and other articles that site the documentary as a source. Some show great critical thinking skills. Somethings I have learned about the CT's arguements from the other sites.

1. The Popular Mechanics article that debunks most if not the entire CT is a fabrication, because the editor is related to the Secretary of Homeland Security. Whom they often refer to as the "Homeland Security Czar." I personally have never heard anyone in the US Gov't, outside of the DEA head, refered to as a regular alternatative to their real title. Apparently calling them as "Czar" makes them sound more sinister. This however does not explain the researchers of the article being influenced by him or not speaking up (whistleblowing) if the facts were changed before publication, or that the facts could be independently checked (if you ask nicely in a non-accusatory manner they may send you some raw data). I've read articles where I suspected the writer's credibility, I merely double-checked the data. I rarely talk to my cousins even though we live near each other, so being someone's cousin doesn't mean you are at their mercy, or will do their bidding no matter what.

2. They are unable to explain why, the gov't was able to pull off such a massive conspiracy, so carefully planned and covered-up that everyone, except for them, believes it. Yet the gov't was unable to plant WMD's in Iraq, or handle the Katrina disaster more efficiently.

3. They have very few sources for information (less than 10). But site many links to sites that parrot the same sources, and they see this as multiple sources. And (as usual) provide no data to back up their "evidence."

4. Everyone who doesn't see their truth is an "idiot, moron, shill." But we knew this.

Check out the forums at the official United 93 movie site, and the forums at IMDB.com for United 93 and 9/11 (the documentary about the firefighters).

 

[delphi_ote]

I've been going to other forums around the web, including imdb.com. It's funny that outside their own forums they have a heck of a time convincing anyone. They sometimes are joined by others of their ilk, who proceed to parrot what they are saying. Most of the other posters disagree and ask them to prove their cases with evidence other than a biased documentary, and other articles that site the documentary as a source. Some show great critical thinking skills. Somethings I have learned about the CT's arguements from the other sites.

1. The Popular Mechanics article that debunks most if not the entire CT is a fabrication, because the editor is related to the Secretary of Homeland Security. Whom they often refer to as the "Homeland Security Czar." I personally have never heard anyone in the US Gov't, outside of the DEA head, refered to as a regular alternatative to their real title. Apparently calling them as "Czar" makes them sound more sinister. This however does not explain the researchers of the article being influenced by him or not speaking up (whistleblowing) if the facts were changed before publication, or that the facts could be independently checked (if you ask nicely in a non-accusatory manner they may send you some raw data). I've read articles where I suspected the writer's credibility, I merely double-checked the data. I rarely talk to my cousins even though we live near each other, so being someone's cousin doesn't mean you are at their mercy, or will do their bidding no matter what.

2. They are unable to explain why, the gov't was able to pull off such a massive conspiracy, so carefully planned and covered-up that everyone, except for them, believes it. Yet the gov't was unable to plant WMD's in Iraq, or handle the Katrina disaster more efficiently.

3. They have very few sources for information (less than 10). But site many links to sites that parrot the same sources, and they see this as multiple sources. And (as usual) provide no data to back up their "evidence."

4. Everyone who doesn't see their truth is an "idiot, moron, shill." But we knew this.

Check out the forums at the official United 93 movie site, and the forums at IMDB.com for United 93 and 9/11 (the documentary about the firefighters).

Interesting insight, Columbo. You've definitely got a good journalistic eye for detail. Neutral external links might be the best way to keep these guys in check. I'll have to look into that myself...

Compiling the names of the original sources you mentioned in your third point might be a good idea.

 

[RandFan]

my point is that once in a while a conspiracy theorist gets most of his theory right.

As a thesis I can accept this. Sadly McCarthy got very little right.

...thats all it takes for the country to go sideways.

Ok.

i know that personal testimonials are not proof's but i offer this, when i was about 10 +or- during the hearings i called an adult a communist, I was hauled outback and vigorously told in no uncertain terms that not only could i ruin this man's reputation FOR LIFE he could wind up in JAIL. the public was terrified.

Your right. Your anecdote proves conclusively that we were on the verge of a police state. Damn was I stupid. Thanks. I owe you for opening my eyes with such demonstrable data.

Relevant to what ? after 9/11 anyone who looked middle eastern or wore a turban automatically became suspect. it takes no time at all to setup a concentration camp, a little razor wire and a couple of machine guns and your good to go. can't happen here, just ask the Japanese-Americans old enough to remember WWII.

Which proves our country is capable of extreme measures in time of war. I don't deny that it is possible for us to become a police state. The mechanisms are in place in the event of war (real or imagined). However I think you are confusing your examples. Get back to me on that one.

i just wanted to through this in so you might think a little while your bagging on the other woo-woo's

Well I appreciate the thought experiment. However, where you're trying to take me, I've been, had a beer and came back. But thanks just the same.

 

[lostnick3]

As a thesis I can accept this. Sadly McCarthy got very little right.

Ok.

Your right. Your anecdote proves conclusively that we were on the verge of a police state. Damn was I stupid. Thanks. I owe you for opening my eyes with such demonstrable data.

Which proves our country is capable of extreme measures in time of war. I don't deny that it is possible for us to become a police state. The mechanisms are in place in the event of war (real or imagined). However I think you are confusing your examples. Get back to me on that one.

Well I appreciate the thought experiment. However, where you're trying to take me, I've been, had a beer and came back. But thanks just the same.

my pleasure. well I'll tell you the truth since the discussion was about conspiracy theorists and no one else would take the bait i thought I would give it a try. i think that CptColombo had the best fact sheet going.

 

[westphalia]

I always wonder what the underlying motivation for a CT's beliefs might be. Placing uncomfortable and unanswerable details aside, what is it about a CT that makes a believer favor that explanation over one backed by evidence, science and rationality? What need does a CT assuage by believing in nonsense?

I've never understood people who are more comfortable believing that their government murdered 3,000+ of its own citizens to start an unpopular war, drive gas prices through the roof and end up with egg on its face when pre-war intelligence didn't pan out. I don't understand someone who believes aliens are landing in Idaho to steal cattle parts and probe humans instead of understanding that imaginations, sleep disorders and mental problems influence human experience. I don't understand someone who thinks that there is always a nefarious organization behind everything that happens in their daily lives. I don't understand someone who allows media outlets to exploit them by feeding their belief that someone else is out there exploiting them.

I don't know what causes people to believe in these things. Did we lose our trust of government after Watergate and Vietnam? Maybe. But how did we lose our faith in science? What check did science bounce? Where did rationality and evidence fall short?

Media outlets like C2C and Rense aren't helping, but there has to be a better explanation for people's willingness to believe anything these days.

 

[Euromutt]

[...] the editor is related to the Secretary of Homeland Security. Whom they often refer to as the "Homeland Security Czar." I personally have never heard anyone in the US Gov't, outside of the DEA head, refered to as a regular alternatative to their real title. Apparently calling them as "Czar" makes them sound more sinister.

In US government terms, a "czar" is someone responsible for formulating policy on a particular topic which touches on the work of multiple formal departments, but who does not head a department himself. The work of the "drug czar" involves the Departments of Justice, Health and Social Services, Education, State and sometimes Defense, while the work of erstwhile "energy czars" involved the Departments of Energy, the Interior, State, Commerce, Transportation, etc. By contrast, there is no "foreign policy czar" or "defense czar," say, since such functions are already covered by the Secretaries of State and Defense, respectively. The term "homeland security czar" was briefly appropriate, prior to the formal establishment of the Department of Homeland Security. Once the DHS was formed, the term "homeland security czar" was superseded by the post of "Secretary of Homeland Security."

my point is that once in a while a conspiracy theorist gets most of his theory right. thats all it takes for the country to go sideways. i know that personal testimonials are not proof's but i offer this, when i was about 10 +or- during the hearings i called an adult a communist, I was hauled outback and vigorously told in no uncertain terms that not only could i ruin this man's reputation FOR LIFE he could wind up in JAIL. the public was terrified.

Uh, what's the conspiracy here? The actual activities of Soviet agents, or the activities of McCarthy and the HUAC? Strikes me that in your example, the adults in question were more concerned with the treatment they might receive from their own government and fellow citizens than what the Sovs might do to them.

And frankly, McCarthy is hardly an example of "a conspiracy theorist who gets most of his theory right." Fuchs, the Rosenbergs and Greenglass were rumbled prior to McCarthy starting his activities. Thus, by 1950, the presence of Sov agents in US government organizations was not merely hypothetical, it was a known fact. Thus, one cannot credit McCarthy with being the first to come up with a correct hypothesis on that score. In the case of people whom McCarthy hounded who actually did turn out to be Soviet spies, it seems unlikely that McCarthy had wittingly identified them as such, witness the fact that it took other sources, often much later, to show that said individuals had indeed been Sov spies. More plausibly, McCarthy was, figuratively speaking, throwing handfuls of darts at a dartboard while blindfolded; that some of the darts were (much) later revealed as having struck home was a matter of dumb luck rather than accuracy.

 

[CptColumbo]

Compiling the names of the original sources you mentioned in your third point might be a good idea.

Well I have a couple of days off work, you know that silly waste of time that keeps us from writing on forums (at least that's the impression I got from your interaction on loose change, I mean WTF). I was just going to sit and contemplate the meaning of seperation of church and state, but maybe I should do some research into how many actual sources they have. Again I have only dial-up, so I can't watch the movies, and I hate going to White Supremecist sites (I'm not saying Loose Change is one). I'll read about the sources and the editor of the PM article to, and see if any of them are available for an informal interview by phone (I like going right to the source (see my call to the ATF in the OKC thread)).

 

[CptColumbo]

Here's a link to one of the outside forums.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0475276/board/nest/39049241

One person mentioned that he's a private pilot, and was able to make cell calls from 3500 ft in 2002.

The only response from the CT camp was to call him a liar.

I personally will not take the man at his word, but I will not dismiss this evidence simply because it disagrees with my view point. I would look for confirmation or ask the pilot if he has other pilots who report the same and if we may contact them.

 

[CptColumbo]

Most of the links on the forums lead back to two credible sources. After reading them I formed these opinions.

The Dr. Steven Jones' (a BYU Physics Professor) paper

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

was well written, and interesting. He used good sources, video and photos, to back them up. He met every standard that I would expect for an argumentative paper. I was unable to reach him for comment, but did e-mail him.

The Morgan Reynold's essay

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

was not quite this same caliber. First, his status as a former government economist is irrelevant to the argument since it adds nothing to his expertise. Second, I tried to follow up on his sources and they frequently led me to amazon.com. If I want to check on his sources I have to buy his book, I went to the library and local book store and neither had it. I could order it, but will keep trying a way to read it for free. I am not saying that Mr. Reynolds argument is poorly written or ineffective; I am saying that I, personally, will not accept it unless I can verify it.

With the Eagar/Musso paper

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html#authors

(which the Steven Jones' paper is trying to rebut), on the one hand, you have a professor of engineering and metallurgy teaming up with another physics professor to argue in favor of fire-induced collapse, on the other you have a physics professor (Jones) arguing in favor of controlled demolition. An easily referenced, clear and logical debate between two experts. It is interesting to read them both, and refreshing.

After reading both, and keep in mind I am not a professor of any of the disciplines mentioned (including economics), I am not persuaded by either to change my view on what happened. These are not the only sources sited by the CT crowd, but they are the ones with the most verifiable data. Please, check them out for yourselves.

Edited to correct "able to contact" to "unable to contact."

 

[delphi_ote]

Most of the links on the forums lead back to two credible sources. After reading them I formed these opinions.

The Dr. Steven Jones' (a BYU Physics Professor) paper

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

was well written, and interesting. He used good sources, video and photos, to back them up. He met every standard that I would expect for an argumentative paper. I was able to reach him for comment, but did e-mail him.

The Morgan Reynold's essay

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

was not quite this same caliber. First, his status as a former government economist is irrelevant to the argument since it adds nothing to his expertise. Second, I tried to follow up on his sources and they frequently led me to amazon.com. If I want to check on his sources I have to buy his book, I went to the library and local book store and neither had it. I could order it, but will keep trying a way to read it for free. I am not saying that Mr. Reynolds argument is poorly written or ineffective; I am saying that I, personally, will not accept it unless I can verify it.

With the Eagar/Musso paper

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html#authors

(which the Steven Jones' paper is trying to rebut), on the one hand, you have a professor of engineering and metallurgy teaming up with another physics professor to argue in favor of fire-induced collapse, on the other you have a physics professor (Jones) arguing in favor of controlled demolition. An easily referenced, clear and logical debate between two experts. It is interesting to read them both, and refreshing.

After reading both, and keep in mind I am not a professor of any of the disciplines mentioned (including economics), I am not persuaded by either to change my view on what happened. These are not the only sources sited by the CT crowd, but they are the ones with the most verifiable data. Please, check them out for yourselves.

Having someone with a journalist's brain around here is nice. Your posts have been educational both from the information you're providing and the perspective you bring. Thanks, Columbo.

My experience backs up your assesment of the Jones paper. The CTs seem to throw out Jones' paper everywhere. They all reference it over and over again.

The sad part is, Jones' work seems scholarly, but it's not. That paper was not peer reviewed, it's rife with mistakes, and Jones is not an expert in the subject he's writing about. It's very much like the intelligent design debate, where faux research is coming out from groups of "scholars" to rebut the mainstream view, but they're doing it without even the slightest hint of academic honesty.

These "researchers" are simply appealing to their own authority. Rather than picking on someone their own size (so to speak) they're picking fights with people who don't have the expertise to critically evaluate their arguments.

Now that I think about this... maybe our perspectives (mine from academic and government research and yours from journalism) on Jones' work are highlighting something important and different about the way our fields do business. I think that "something" is confusing the public at large.

 

[CptColumbo]

Having someone with a journalist's brain around here is nice. Your posts have been educational both from the information you're providing and the perspective you bring. Thanks, Columbo.

My experience backs up your assesment of the Jones paper. The CTs seem to throw out Jones' paper everywhere. They all reference it over and over again.

The sad part is, Jones' work seems scholarly, but it's not. That paper was not peer reviewed, it's rife with mistakes, and Jones is not an expert in the subject he's writing about. It's very much like the intelligent design debate, where faux research is coming out from groups of "scholars" to rebut the mainstream view, but they're doing it without even the slightest hint of academic honesty.

These "researchers" are simply appealing to their own authority. Rather than picking on someone their own size (so to speak) they're picking fights with people who don't have the expertise to critically evaluate their arguments.

Now that I think about this... maybe our perspectives (mine from academic and government research and yours from journalism) on Jones' work are highlighting something important and different about the way our fields do business. I think that "something" is confusing the public at large.

My academic background is actually in Theatre. I took journalism courses to fill my electives, but I also have experience researching roles to get the right perspective on a performance (historical and psychological).

I can see the "seems scholary" angle you write about. I remember Michael Shermer writing about this, in regards to Holocaust Deniers seeming to have the historical evidence to back up their case. I just moved and my books are packed in 9 different boxes right now, so I can't look up the exact page for you, assuming you have the book to begin with. This paper is the golden calf to the 9-11 CTers, because it is one of the few that has decent credibility. Of course, those of us on this page know many academics that believe in woo theories, so tenure doesn't necessarily equal correct.

One of the cool things about this site is that it brings together people of various disciplines. Which we can call upon if needed.

 

[CptColumbo]

Having someone with a journalist's brain around here is nice. Your posts have been educational both from the information you're providing and the perspective you bring. Thanks, Columbo.

My experience backs up your assesment of the Jones paper. The CTs seem to throw out Jones' paper everywhere. They all reference it over and over again.

The sad part is, Jones' work seems scholarly, but it's not. That paper was not peer reviewed, it's rife with mistakes, and Jones is not an expert in the subject he's writing about. It's very much like the intelligent design debate, where faux research is coming out from groups of "scholars" to rebut the mainstream view, but they're doing it without even the slightest hint of academic honesty.

These "researchers" are simply appealing to their own authority. Rather than picking on someone their own size (so to speak) they're picking fights with people who don't have the expertise to critically evaluate their arguments.

Now that I think about this... maybe our perspectives (mine from academic and government research and yours from journalism) on Jones' work are highlighting something important and different about the way our fields do business. I think that "something" is confusing the public at large.

My academic background is actually in Theatre. I took journalism courses to fill my electives, but I also have experience researching roles to get the right perspective on a performance (historical and psychological).

I can see the "seems scholary" angle you write about. I remember Michael Shermer writing about this, in regards to Holocaust Deniers seeming to have the historical evidence to back up their case. I just moved and my books are packed in 9 different boxes right now, so I can't look up the exact page for you, assuming you have the book to begin with. This paper is the golden calf to the 9-11 CTers, because it is one of the few that has decent credibility. Of course, those of us on this page know many academics that believe in woo theories, so tenure doesn't necessarily equal correct.

One of the cool things about this site is that it brings together people of various disciplines. Which we can call upon if needed.

 

[CptColumbo]

Removed, due to double posting.