I think what Czarcasm is trying to get at is even CTers find some theories too ridiculous to believe. The next question is, why? Is there a criterion you use to differentiate, and what is it? Where do you draw the line and why? Is there a “CTer’s Razor” we can all agree upon?
Exactly.
So psikeyhackr has a computer simulation of some kind that will take as input the exact weight of concrete and steel for each floor? Or have I misunderstood?
How about “the British Royal Family are all lizard people” one?
Did you want to discuss the theory, or the type of people that believe in the theory?
Please tell us what you hope to accomplish with the data you are requesting.
Let’s say that you can prove that all “official” calculations are wrong, and the towers didn’t fall at the speeds in the “official” report. Can you substantiate an alternate explanation, and what is that? Is your alternate explanation consistent with ALL facts, or just some, and if only some, how do you decide which ones to retain and which ones to discard? How do you decide which “witnesses” to believe and which ones were merely confused and caught up in the chaos? Surely not all witnesses were 100% accurate. Could some of them be mistaken; which ones, and why?
The problem is if the numbers aren’t accurate to a 1/10th of an ounce, it doesn’t give the answer he’s looking for.
Well, what’s the acceptable range, i.e. a floor-weight greater than X but less than Y behaves acceptably, while less than X or greater than Y, given the results, indicates shenanigans?
Well yes, “shenanigans”, but the question that has been ducked repeatedly is “what does ‘shenanigans’ mean to psikeyhackr?”
For creationists, the answer is simple. They are under the impression that if they undermine evolution, the only other option is creationism.
If you undermine the idea of a couple planes full of fuel being able to bring down skyscrapers, what exactly is the theory 9/11 truthers (or just this particular truther) have in mind?
The discussion of the WTC attack and related issues will now stop in this thread.
Open a new thread to examine the nonsense surrounding the CT enthusiasts’ claims.
This thread was intended to explore whether CT adherents are mentally or psychologically ill. Examining their specific delusions is not really part of the discussion.
[ /Moderating ]
Coming back to the OP:
I think that some CTers are definitely mentally ill in the sense of being psychotic. We should note however that it’s possible that some of them only give that impression because they are, while not crazy, axe-grinding venting bastards.
Do you remember in high school when someone said something mean about a kid they disliked? Sometimes, it was true but often, it wasn’t. It was either a severe distortion or outright false (e.g.: “John’s a fag.” Mary’s a slut." The point of saying that wasn’t to say establish something as true, it was to express hostility and hopefully hurt that person directly or indirectly.
So it may be that for many CTers, whether what they’re saying is true or false isn’t the point; The point is to say something plausible to express hostility toward an entity they dislike and hopefully hurt it.
For example: A Birther may not care where Obama was born. But he knows that it’s kinda-on-its-face-plausible that he wasn’t born in the US. Therefore, going on about how Obama wasn’t born in the US enables him to express hostility toward Obama and, if it’s believed by enough people, hurt him.
So, a fundamental mistake many may be making when engaging a Birther is thinking that the Birther argues that position because he thinks it’s true. He’s likely doing it because it enables him to vent about Obama. Arguing with him only gives him more opportunity to grind that particular axe.
The type of people who believe that kind of nonsense.
I dunno. I mostly hear that kind of criticism in the form of hyperbole, not in the form of a conspiracy fantasy. You know, “Using drones against American citizens,” or “The NSA is listening to my every phone call” or the like. Taking essentially valid points and expressing them in ways that are perhaps a bit exaggerated. As you say, “Mary’s a slut.”
Conspiracy Fantasies have a kind of life of their own. “The NSA is using commercial jet aircraft to disperse cadmium into the atmosphere via chemtrails in order to control the weather and cause hurricanes and…” It goes beyond ordinary hyperbole, and enters into “system building.”
The former takes something real, and demonizes it. The latter makes up something completely fictional. Not “Mary’s a slut” but “Mary sacrifices goats to Satan at midnight black masses.”
I wonder if CTers refuse to badmouth other CTers for the same reason some supernatural/psychic woosters won’t badmouth other supernatural/psychic woosters: It’s a fragile network, and if the followers are pointed towards faults in the stories of other CTers, they might see the same faults in the CTs that they have been fed.
This may be so. They recognize their own vulnerability.
This is one way you know it isn’t real “science.” In a real fact-based exploration of truth, people make the effort to point out flaws in other people’s ideas. If Astrology were a real science, for instance, it would have changed more over the millennia, as improvements and innovations were tried and shown to work…or not work.
A real working science conference is filled with respectful disagreement. But at a UFO conference, for example, rejection of other people’s sightings are almost never heard. It is a very strange form of honor among thieves.
A self-reinforcing mechanism to feel superior? I can see the temptation.
I suspect its primarily aesthetic. I’ve got a friend who buys into almost any CT or pseduo-scientific woo you put in front of him. But there’s two notable exceptions: the moon landing, and the Holocaust. He likes science fiction, so he wants us to have gone to the moon. And he doesn’t like fascists, and isn’t anti-Semitic. So, he rejects those two CTs, essentially, because he doesn’t think they’re good fiction. But a secret government plot by George Bush to destroy the WTC so we have an excuse to invade Iraq? That’s right up his ally, so that one must be true.
If I could inteject a small digression instead of making a thread on a related subject :
My nephew is an intelligent man in his late 30s, a computer programmer. He has started to buy into the CTs, which distresses me. Can anyone recommend a good book that I could give him for christmas that would expose him to critical ways of looking at thm without being patronizing? Because that would be rejected outright.
Something similar to “Bad Science”
It may be a little outdated, but I like Shermer’s 'Why People Believe Weird Things"
And your “evidence” for that?
psik