We’re not doing that any more. Care to answer the questions I’ve asked you?
I think that is a good point, but I also think this issue is a little bit complex.
I do think that politics (and the hate some people have for a political opponent) can be an important item that feeds a CT, in the matter at hand an article in a Phoenix New Times noted that a good number of 911 Truthers come from the left of the spectrum. Then George the lesser was the president.
When the TWA800 explosion happened it took place when Clinton was in office, and as you can guess it the majority of the believers of a conspiracy came from the right side of the isle, it was no coincidence that when a “new”* documentary released early in the year it was pumped more than the deserved comment in passing it should had in conservative sites and FOX “news”.
The Benghazi conspiracy and the climate change one that the vast majority of conservatives in the USA believe about the climate scientists “doing it for the money” follows that pattern.
*Actually, the “new” TWA documentary was virtually all reheated baloney.
The 2 main CT I come into contact with [or so it seems] is the old classic US trip to the moon was a hoax, and Obama is variously muslim, Kenyan or both.
My general response to the first one is “And if it was a hoax, do you not think that the Soviet Union would have jumped all over us in the world press announcing the fraud?” Because if you stop and think about it, they would have had absolutely no reason to keep quiet about it back in 1969 and every reason to trumpet the fraudery to the skies.
My response to anything about Obama is generally “And if he is Muslim, who the fuck cares - he hasn’t done anything to overturn the constitution and change to sharia law.” And “If he was Kenyan, he doesn’t seem to have changed anything towards turning us all into Masai herdsmen, wandering around with lots of cows yet, has he?” Because to be honest, I really haven’t seen much in the way of muslim or kenyan crap going on in Washington yet …
Is there a name for the logical fallacy that conspiracy theorists make that governments lie all the time, or act secretly (which is true), so therefore no lie or secret is too large to be impossible (which does not logically follow, nor is it true)?
sciurophobic: (I had to look up your name, by the way. Cool name!)
It sounds to me like an “appeal to ignorance.”
“Everything is a lie! No one can know the truth! So my opinion is right, because nobody can possibly disprove it.”
I really don’t give a damn about any Conspiracy Theories.
It is just that Truthers get called Conspiracy Theorists.
But I won’t discuss the No Planes business at all. And since I really do not care who did 9/11 approaching it from the conspiracy direction is pointless. The government cannot change the Laws of Physics. How many hundreds of tons were involved in the JFK assassination? What is there that is massively strange to figure out about it?
9/11 is massively strange no matter who did it.
Of course it is even stranger from a sociological standpoint if proven physically impossible for the top of the north tower to destroy the rest. Because it means a lot of people claiming to understand physics should have explained that in 2002.
How could they now account for not explaining it? 9/11 will never go away.
A physical model could be done of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in 1940 but it can’t be done for the north tower? That makes so much sense. :smack:
psik
You not understanding it doesn’t mean it can’t be understood.
Yes. And you, as a truther, are giving us grade-A example after grade-A example of why we consider truthers Conspiracy Theorists. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and thinks like a duck…
You’ve given no explanation for why the official theory works beyond “the evidence is not good enough for me”. You have set incredible standards of evidence which you then waive for your own personal pet theory. You’re clearly unaware of the information we have, the methods used to determine what happened, and why the major reputable organizations which have examined it have universally come to the same conclusions. You’re uneducated in civil engineering, physics, and math. You seem to ignore or shunt aside many objections to your statements. You say blatantly false things that anyone with even the slightest understanding of the available evidence can fact-check in seconds. And yet you still think we should be convinced.
No. It’s not. Even without direct physical models, we have very strong frameworks in place to determine what happened, how it happened, and why it happened. As I said earlier in the thread, a plane flew into each of the twin towers, causing extensive fires and stripping the insulation away from the steel columns and floors. The heat caused the floor trusses to fall, which in turn led to the supporting columns bending and snapping, as they relied on the floor trusses to remain stable. The floors pancaked down, their weight collapsing quickly, but not at free fall speed, as you claimed earlier in the thread. The explanation is simple, explains all available evidence, is contradicted by none, and basically fulfills everything we needed.
If. If every scientific authority which spent time examining it was wrong. If the calculations they used were wrong. If. But you know what? If you can’t show the error, or provide an explanation that fits the evidence better, then there’s no bloody point talking about it. And I can tell you right now which “if” I find more reasonable.
Yep. Just like the Kennedy Assassination, the Moon Landing, ancient aliens, big pharma, the illuminati… It’s never going away. Not because it has merit, but because cranks will never give it a rest. Bryan nailed it:
You are a conspiracy theorist. As are all 9/11 “truthers”.
Yeah, I like how statements that start with “If” are later taken as fact.
Another classic conspiracy theorist trope. Also: a sure sign that you’re wrong. Newsflash: we did explain it in 2002. And again in 2006. And our explanations do not match your preconceptions, pk.
Why did I write pk… I meant PH.
So you do have a “razor” to separate the believable (to you) from the not believable (to you). How do you define that razor? What makes one story believable but not another? Where do you draw the line and why?
The evidence (please familiarize yourself with that term) at hand proves (please familiarize yourself with that term) otherwise.
Truthers are CTs.
Nor can you. Again, stop pretending you know what Science is. The evidence at hand proves you haven’t a clue about any actual scientific issue.
How many tons of what? The only thing involved in the assassination of President Kennedy was a lone nutter with a rifle and ammunition.
For those who understand Science, it’s not all that strange.
Sociology isn’t Physics.
Sadly, neither will you CTs.
psikeyhackr, here’s an idea. Make a new thread about 9/11 and present your best evidence that the official theory is false, and then present your best evidence for whichever alternative theory you consider convincing. Because this is quite fun, despite the mods putting the kibosh on specific discussion of 9/11.
Aside from the obvious that you’re spending rather an amount of effort on something you apparently don’t care about - why on earth don’t you care?
It seems kinda important who did it.
This already happened last year.
I wholeheartedly agree that it would be one of the strangest things I could imagine if what we saw happen in 2001 was physically impossible and the overwhelming majority of physicists and engineers knowingly lied about it. That would be so strange that I pretty much have to conclude that the hypothetical it depends on is false and what happened was not, in fact, impossible.
That is how non-conspiracy theorists reason and that is how we know that this variant of trutherism is a conspiracy theory. Only conspiracy theorists could derive absurdity from their premises and then see that very absurdity as evidence for those premises.
Sorry but I want to back off on this. psikeyhackr did point out the strangeness of the conclusion but didn’t present it as evidence of conspiracy. I was too in love with my own rhetoric and I succumbed to the siren call of strawmanry. I apologize.
But I didn’t say they lied about. It is the phenomenal silence that is so interesting.
Niel DeGrasse Tyson sent out a public email on 9/12/01 saying he was a witness to 9/11 and that his home was 4 blocks from Ground Zero.
Since then he has publicly complained about errors in the movie Titanic. He has publicly complained about scientific errors in the movie Gravity. What has he said about 9/11 since 9/12/01?
NOTHING!
He has not supported the official story. He has not denied the official story.
How many scientists have done the exact same thing? Been totally silent on the subject?
But if the official story was scientifically sound why shouldn’t the overwhelming majority of scientists publicly support it? What would be the problem?
psik
That may be what is important to you.
It is scientists NOT SOLVING a simple physics problem that is important to me.
This goes to the core of science education. 7th and 8th graders should have been pointing out peculiar things about the supposed collapses within weeks of 9/11. And engineering schools not doing experiments for 12 years.
psik