BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane

Subject: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sand
From: Songwronger
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 12:57 AM

Excellent article.

New studies: 'Conspiracy theorists' sane, government dupes crazy and hostile

Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled "conspiracy theorists" appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.

The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled "What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories," the study compared "conspiracist" (pro-conspiracy theory) and "conventionalist" (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.

The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: "Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist." In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority....

Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 – a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan – was indisputably true....

In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist – a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it....

Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed "conspiracy theory" label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief.

In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong "confirmation bias" – that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the "conspiracy theory" label) to avoid conflicting information.

The extreme irrationality of those who attack "conspiracy theories" has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled "Dangerous Machinery: 'Conspiracy Theorist' as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion," they wrote:

"If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur."

But now, thanks to the internet, people who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public conversation; the CIA's 44-year-old campaign to stifle debate using the "conspiracy theory" smear is nearly worn-out. In academic studies, as in comments on news articles, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous – and more rational – than anti-conspiracy ones.

No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sand
From: Songwronger
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 01:03 AM

Oops. Titling problem. The article says they're "sane," not sand. lol. I think I was laughing too hard thinking about you crazy conventionalists when I typed that. It's such a beautiful article. So funny.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sand
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 01:21 AM

Naturally that website, 21st Century Wire, would say that, since they are one of the biggest purveyors of conspiracy theories there are.

That suggests to me, Songwronger, that rather than some kind of self-appointed crusader, you're just incredibly gullible.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sand
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 04:03 AM

The self-selection skewing involved in studying posters on those topics renders the alleged conclusion wholly valueless. Or, ding-dong, do you understand NOTHING about statistical sampling (quite likely that)?

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sand
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 04:32 AM

the alleged conclusion. Alleged indeed!

If you bothered to read the original University of Kent paper, you would would find it's conclusions entirly different to Kevin Barrett's interpretation of them.

The article is so stuffed full of logical fallacies, I could spend the whole day refuting them. I have better things to do.

Utter, utter drivel.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 04:33 AM

And you, Songwronger, are Mudcat's very favorite conspiracy theorist. Think of that!

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 11:15 AM

No surprise to me, Songwronger. Conventional minds have been dulling human progress, burning witches, subjecting people to quack medicine, and obfuscating real thought since long before Socrates was made to drink hemlock to satisfy the conventional morons of his day.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 11:44 AM

Oh, dear Jesus. Not again. Oh, the pain.........

No more, ShitWringer! I can't stand it! I'll talk.....

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Iain
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 01:33 PM

The following statement cribbed from the first post seems a very concise summary of the accepted government version of events.

'19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan'

This crime was also the first recorded collapse of a skyscraper due to fire damage-A freefall collapse that apparently powdered a very high percentage of the concrete.
    Anyone who will not acknowledge the truth of the government explanations is labelled a conspiracy theorist.
    My take on it is that as a realist I find the explanations given rather hard to accept, and obviously I am not alone. You can label me whatever you like but I believe in what I believe.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 01:37 PM

IF more people "concluded" than "believed" we might all be able to go home nights.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 01:51 PM

Little Hawk, Socrates was not "made to drink hemlock to satisfy the conventional morons of his day."

Athens was a democracy. Socrates, along with Plato (who followed him around and wrote down everything he said), was opposed to democracy, maintaining that ordinary citizens were not intelligent enough to govern themselves. He advocated an authoritarian government by "philosopher kings" (read Plato's Republic).

The charge against Socrates was, among other things, "corrupting the youth of Athens," along with other charges, because he was, essentially, preaching treason and advocating the overthrow of a functioning democratic government.

There are those who might take a different view of it today, but the maintenance of a viable and properly functioning democracy was deemed pretty important back then.

There were things wrong with Athenian democracy, such as allowing voting by men only, which, even at the time, many said was a mistake, because by not including women in their deliberations and decisions, they were wasting half of the intellectual power of Athens. But there were many things right with it, that we could profit from by adopting today. Such as choosing our representatives by lottery from the general citizenship, and making deliberating bodies much too large for anyone to bribe.

Socrates wanted to trade democracy for an all-powerful oligarchy of "philosopher kings," he being one of them.

Athenian democracy functioned well for over 300 years, and didn't come to an end until Athens was invaded from the north by Philip of Macedonia, the father of Alexander the Great, who went on to conquer and subjugate the known world.

Athenians valued democracy even more than we do today, apparently, and Socrates was preaching sedition.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Iain
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 02:06 PM

If all contributors "concluded" these threads would be extremely brief

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 02:28 PM

Ah, jeez, Don, Hawk never lets facts get in the way of a good story. Give him a break.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 04:03 PM

Interesting viewpoint, Don. It doesn't seem to jibe with what I usually hear about Socrates at all, and I very much doubt he was corrupting anyone's mind, I think he was opening their minds, but we could look into it further. I read an article by George Bernard Shaw which spoke about it, and his opinion was that Socrates was executed by dullards because they were offended by the fact that he was a lot smarter than they were. Perhaps Shaw was also a fellow who doesn't like facts to get in the way of a good story... ;-)

Or maybe he had a point.

Mrzzy - "IF more people "concluded" than "believed" we might all be able to go home nights."

You mean "sleep nights", don't you? However, I agree with your point, Mrzzy. It's a good one. People are far too quick to just "believe" stuff, simply because it's what they already want to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 04:41 PM

Don't worry, there will be a different study tomorrow to support the opposite conclusion.

And enough people to believe each one.   Who just possibly have a vested interest.


By the way, congratulations on the straw man.    Very few people claim that most conspiracy theorists are insane;   just that they don't bother to consider anything outside their tunnel vision:   decide what conclusion you want and gather data to support it, while ignoring everything else.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 05:47 PM

For some reason the term "conspiracy theory" gets used only for the theories that are not the officially approved conspiracy theory.

And yet surely all theories about conspiracies are by definition conspiracy theories. The Boston Bombings, 911, Oklahoma, the Iraq War, all undeniably were conspiracies. They involved a number of people collaborating in secret to cause lethal violence.

The point always is, which theory about conspiracies is the correct one, and is it the whole story.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 06:14 PM

Little Hawk, there has been a lot of blather written about Socrates by people who are impressed with him. Had they been less impressed by his reputation and been a bit more critically analytical, they might think twice about what they've written.

Socrates was a brilliant man, no doubt about that, but he did have some pretty cockamamie ideas (at least as transcribed by his student, Plato), not the least of which was his providing the basis for much of what was to become Christian theology a few centuries later. For example, compare the concepts enunciated in the "Plato's Cave" scenario with some of the ideas that became the Christian concept of heaven.

Politically, Socrates openly objected to the democracy that was the system governing Athens at the time. Socrates found short of ideal any government that did not conform to his idea of a perfect regime ruled by philosophers, and Athenian government was ruled by the citizens, who were aware that they would have to live with the laws they made. It WAS a well-functioning democracy (in many ways, better than our own!). He compounded the felony by finding Sparta, the arch-rival and oftentimes military enemy of Athens, most admirable. Sparta had an autocratic government.

After the trial, he was given a chance to escape and flee to Sparta, but feeling that he could sell his ideas by becoming a martyr, he refused to take it.

He did believe in an afterlife, many planes above this life, so did he think giving up this life was that much of a sacrifice?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 06:29 PM

Jeez, Don, don't go resorting to the facts, willya??? You're givin me a migraine headache.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 07:15 PM

Sorry, Greg. Mainly responding to Little Hawk's assertion that the citizens of Athens were "morons."

Far from it. WE should be so moronic!

Some fat cat who showed up at Congress with a briefcase full of money, thinking to bribe a few Congressmen, would find a Congress that numbered around 6,000, made up of common citizens who were interest enough to show up that day. That represented a fair percentage of the citizenry compared to OUR Congress. When the number reached 6,000, the path to the area where they met would be closed.

And the officials--who were elected by lottery--were evaluated at the end of their terms by a jury of 501 citizens, also chosen by lottery, and if they did a very good job, were rewarded (laurel wreath and many honors), and those who screwed up could be banished.

Like I say, we really ought to borrow of few ideas from the ancient Athenians!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Songwronger
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 08:17 PM

You are insane, Mr. Firth. You believe the government's version of the events of September 11, therefore, you are crazy. Put on your tin foil hat, take your meds, and turn on Gilligan's Island. The same goes for the rest of you lunatic conventionalists. Your insanity has been tolerated by us more level headed people up to this point, but our patience is wearing thin.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 09:03 PM

George W ignored the intelligence reports that said the al qeada was planning on using airliners as weapons... George W also had no interest in taking seriously the things that Richard Clark and the intelligence community were telling him...

Does that make George W a conspirator or a moron???

I'm leaning toward moron...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 09:38 PM

Yeah, yeah.

After 9/11, when the loonies crawled out of the woodwork and the conspiracy stories started, I had a long conversation with a friend of mine—who happened to be an architect—and had worked for a firm that designed tall buildings. And he had NO connection with the U. S. Government.

We went over some of the videos that were appearing on the conspiracy theory web sites, for example, the one that shows small explosions that appeared to be happening all over one of the buildings that a C. T. advocate claimed was evidence that the building was being demolished by planted shaped charges rather than collapsing because of structural damage caused by aircraft impact and the subsequent fire from the plane's full fuel tanks.

He said that the small explosions were transformers shorting out. That there were transformers all over the building, like the things that hang on telephone poles that look like garbage cans and occasionally short out with an explosion and blow the lights for a whole neighborhood.

Why, I asked, did the buildings fall into their own footprint as another C. T. insisted was a sign of controlled demolition? He informed me that tall buildings do that when collapsing, and would hardly fall over like a felled tree as the C. T. was insisting.

HE had wondered when the conspiracy theories started coming out, but he examined the films and all was consistent with the news reports.

Also, I watched the film footage of the planes hitting the towers, and the claim that these were special effects films done in secret by—the various C. T.'s couldn't agree as to whether they were done by Disney Studios or LucasFilm (same with the moon landings)—was obviously somebody's sick fantasy.

Also, there were eye-witnesses in and around New York who SAW the planes fly into the buildings.

Besides, a government conspiracy that big, which would have had to involve a substantial number of people would have produced verification if there were anything to the idea that the U. S. Government did it rather than terrorists.

"Your insanity has been tolerated by us more level headed people up to this point, but our patience is wearing thin."

Who is "us?" And who's patience is wearing thin?

Yes, our patience is wearing thin, but it is with all the freak-out threads that you are starting.

No, Songwronger. Go get help. You're one sick puppy!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Songwronger
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 11:35 PM

Ah, there's that anger and hostility the article at the beginning of the thread talks about. Conventionalists frustrate easily and evince hotheadedness.

I'll try to penetrate your tin foil hat with this, Mr. Firth--the concept of "poisoning the well." It's an ancient technique used in government disinformation campaigns.

The towers falling on 9/11 obviously weren't brought down by simple plane strikes followed by fires in the wastebaskets. So how do you draw people's attention away from that fact? You (the government) put out some farfetched story (NO planes hit the buildings). After that, the conventionalists will point to that story and use it to discredit all other arguments. In their minds, at least.

Seek professional help, Mr. Firth. 2/3rds of people online do not believe the official 9/11 story. I fear that you will soon be institutionalized for your aberrant thinking. Go to your nearest mental health professional and ask to be cured of your government programming. Caution: it may require you to Rense and repeat, Rense and repeat.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 12:40 AM

Don Firth: "Mainly responding to Little Hawk's assertion that the citizens of Athens were "morons."
Far from it. WE should be so moronic!"

Only a moron would think we're not!
Only a moron would think anyone outside of the two moronic parties is insane!
Only a moron would believe their party's leaders, over their own common sense!
It's AMAZING how many morons are out there....and how many are reading this right now!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 12:40 AM

"Fires in wastebaskets," Songwronger?

Do you have any idea how many thousands of gallons of fuel those planes were carrying when they hit the buildings? And that it burns hot enough to melt the rivets that hold the buildings' girders together? And that burning fuel poured down the elevator shafts?

No, of course not. You know nothing and you haven't even applied thought to the matter. You just accept the conspiracy theory without applying any thought to the matter.

You WANT it to have been a government conspiracy.

I neither have nor need a tinfoil hat. But YOU--

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 12:47 AM

Firth: "I neither have nor need a tinfoil hat. But YOU--"

Yeah, you were chewing it while shaving your head with a cheese grater!
Now we have to hear it speak!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 01:23 AM

I don't respond to barking dogs.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 02:40 AM

You just tried..but there were no barking dogs...just you!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Iain
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 05:09 AM

As the mainstream media in the english speaking world is in the control of very few people, with a very specific agenda to follow, then the following conclusions can be drawn.
1)News publicised is very selective
2)News is massaged to emphasise a particular viewpoint.
3) many reporters lack complete freedom of action.
This list could go on, but a person can get the drift.
   If the above is accepted it could be deduced that the MSM is nothing but a propaganda tool wielded by a group of people secretly selecting and massaging the events to be publicised. ie conspiracies.
    Having now gone full circle it would be fair to ask again who is sane and insane and who are the real conspiracists?

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 06:16 AM

Iain - all right as far as "publicised."

Many lawyers are somewhat similar to each other too.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 07:42 AM

Not so fast. Socrates true opinion of democracy is still a matter of controversy.

http://www.friesian.com/socrates.htm

The problem in pinpointing Socrates' true stand on democracy is that Socrates' whole mission in life was to question. He was always engaged in arguement which, in many cases, would likely involve playing devil's advocate. You cannot go by this or that quote attributed to him. Personally, I think Socrates was a bit of an anarchist.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 08:53 AM

Pass the tin foil...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 09:57 AM

Bobert: "Pass the tin foil..."

Chewing gum isn't so rough.
Need the cheese grater, too?

Ask Don. to let you borrow one!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Musket sans con theory
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 11:31 AM

Don!

Do you want the good professor to have a chat with Goofus? He might be able to work out what he is on.

Wouldn't you boy?

Woof!

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 11:46 AM

One 2013 gathering of conspiracy folkies:)

The Bilderberg Fringe Festival 2013

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 11:47 AM

It is no conspiracy, the last post was me>

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 11:58 AM

"Conspiracies existed, to be sure; many of them, and many were dark indeed. But fiendish? Fiendishness required brains. Nine times out of ten, conspirators behaved like buffoons and wound up exposing themselves out of sheer, bumbling incompetence."
― Eric Flint, 1636: The Saxon Uprising

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 12:04 PM

What's the point? Psychiatrists don't like the word "insane": it's too vague. Most mentally ill people seem pretty normal much of the time, and conspiracy theorists are just hung up on conspiraies. You can be perfectly sane in almost every way but still be a kook in one particular irrational way.

Nazis and Mongol hordes weren't "insane" either. Just really dangerous.

Despite what the researchers seem to believe, a conspiracy theory supported by incontrovertible facts (like 9/11 and the Lincoln assassination) is rather different from a conspiracy theory supported by ignorance, illogic, wishful thinking, and the simple conviction that if it weren't true you wouldn't have thought of it. (Take your pick of those....)

And the first kind of conspiracy isn't a "theory." It's a conspiracy.

What's more, the research method, as described above, was incredibly flawed. The "antis" who bother to post to a website in response to a senseless theory are almost certainly more likely to be impatient about the craziness they're reading than the far, far larger group of "antis" who don't care what the "conspiracists" think and are leading real lives instead of posting online like I'm doing now.

Not to mention that for every conspiracy theory there's likely to be an equal an opposite conspiracy theory. The CIA killed Kennedy! No, it was the Mob! No, it was the Military-Industrial Complex! No, it was Castro Cubans! No, it was anti-Castro Cubans! No, it was all of them!

Fact: it was Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone. Don't believe it? Read the meticulously researched books by Gerald Posner and Vincent Bugliosi and get back to me. You can listen to the CDs if you prefer.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 12:17 PM

Lighter: "What's the point? Psychiatrists don't like the word "insane": it's too vague."

Not exactly, but close. 'Insane' is a legal term, not a clinical one, nor is it a term of diagnosis.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 01:16 PM

What's more, the research method, as described above, was incredibly flawed.

Lighter,

In defence of the University of Kent researchers, they have been entirely misrepresented by Kevin Barrett (the author of the article in Songwronger's initial post).

For example, Barrett states that "The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments"

They say nothing of the sort.

Additionally, Barrett 'interprets' the research in terms of:
"among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom

However the researchers actually comment that:
"The self-selective nature of online communication allows for the collection of a great deal of data regarding opinions that may be held by only a minority of people"

I could go on, but you get the idea...

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 01:51 PM

All we know of Socrates is attribution, from writings of Xenophon and Plato.

What did he have to do with "cloud 47 conspiracy theory," as apart from conspiracy and conspiracy theory?

We all like tall tales, mostly we are not considered insane.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 02:51 PM

Thanks, 1:16 Guest.

I don't think many people believe that conspiracists are legally insane anyway.

Some may be, but from other causes.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 03:46 PM

GUEST, SJL:   "You cannot go by this or that quote attributed to him. Personally, I think Socrates was a bit of an anarchist."

SJL, I am not going by "this or that quote," I'm going by what was discussed in an entire quarter of classes in the Philosophy Department at the University of Washington, a large part of which was listening to a discussion between two philosophy professors. Very detailed and very erudite.

By the way, who here has actually read Xenophon and Plato?

I have.

And was Socrates a bit of an anarchist? Definitely not. But definitely an iconoclast and a bit of a gadfly. He advocated a strong central government ruled by what he termed "philosopher kings" (he being one of them), with the idea that "the common man" was too stupid and ignorant to make important decisions regarding governing, despite the fact that public education standards for Athenian citizens were quite high, even—especially—compared to our own. After all, it behooved a man to keep up on things if he could be drafted for office at any time, and if he screwed up, he could be banished.

There are people today who believe that governing should be limited to "the elite." They're usually called "conservatives," who, when you boil it down to its basics, means government by an aristocracy, either hereditary as in the "old days" or by the wealthiest, as is the case now.

By the way, are there conspiracies? Damned straight there are! But you aren't going to find them on blogs and web sites, where Songwronger and the other loonies here go gleaning. If you keep your eyes open and your brain in gear, they're right out there in plain sight. A small example is the fat cat with a valise full of money buttonholing a vulnerable Congressman or Senator and having a quite chat with him while petting the valise.

THAT's a conspiracy.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 03:50 PM

> By the way, who here has actually read Xenophon and Plato?

Me too! Small world!

(But not in Greek.)

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 04:43 PM

Nor I. English translation.

My copy of Plato's Republic is sitting on my bookshelves, along with my other college textbooks.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 07:56 PM

It was very impressive the way those towers collapsed so incredibly neatly when struck by airplanes.

It would be good to know that in the years since no more buildings with the same ingenious qualities have been put up, and that any already existing will have been demolished. However I have my doubts.

Bernard Shaw wrote "all professions are conspiracies against the laity". That would definitely include architects. I suppose. That makes Shaw a conspiracy theorist.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 08:55 PM

My architect friend said that the buildings were strong enough to survive the initial impact of the aircraft, but it was primarily the resultant fire spread by the burst fuel tanks (the planes had taken off from a nearby airport when hijacked, and had full fuel tanks). When the rivets holding the girders together melted and let go, the floors of the buildings started "pancaking," and once that started, it was like a chain reaction.

Tall buildings tend to fall straight down, essentially into their own "footprint."

Some people who are enamored with the conspiracy theory claim that the buildings should have fallen sideways like felled trees, but tall buildings simply don't do that.

My friend isn't into conspiracy theories, he just knows a lot about architecture and the design and construction of tall buildings.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 09:18 PM

Funny thing how the 9/11 conspiracy theory buffs never seem to pick up on the peculiar fact that when al Qaeda, headed by Osama bin Laden, were identified as the responsible parties, the Bush Administration declared war on Iraq (Saddam Hussein) instead of going into Afghanistan after bin Laden.

Saddam Hussein was an S.O.B., but he and Osama bin Laden hated each other's guts!

Our going to war with Iraq was as if, when Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese, we had invaded Brazil!

But puppeteers Dick Cheney and Karl Rove—and the oil companies—had their hands up George W. Bush's ass. Afghanistan has opium poppies. Iraq has oil.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Songwronger
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 09:46 PM

A glimmer of sanity from Mr. Firth? He has doubts. Good. Now if he could just ask why Obama and Hillary Clinton armed al Qeada in Syria, I would say he's on the road to recovering his senses.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 10:19 PM

And where's your proof for that allegation, Songwronger?

And don't try to snow me with some cockamamie blog. I'm not THAT insane.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 11:06 PM

I read Plato's Republic. I have read Aristotle. Plato is a jerk. Aristotle is our "Golden Boy," philosopher king of Recreation and Leisure Studies. Socrates is an anarchist. He didn't like any of 'em. He wasn't playing. Actions speak louder that words - attributed.

http://home.wlu.edu/~mahonj/Ancient_Philosophers/Socrates.htm

Forget your professors Don. Universities are full of crackpots. Except Dr. Stormann, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: LadyJean
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 12:06 AM

Lincoln's assassination was the result of a conspiracy. The actual conspiracy didn't work. Booth and his associates conspired to kill the president, the vice president, and the cabinet. Lincoln was the only one killed. Seward survived an attempt to stab him. The rest of the conspirators chickened out. But we know who they were. There are a couple of open ended questions. Was Mary Surratt involved? What did Dr. Mudd know? But it's hard to keep something like that quiet.

It is hard to conceal a conspiracy. The more people involved, the harder it is. If 9/11 was a conspiracy, one of the conspirators would have told the tale by now. Nobody has.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 12:11 AM

There was nothing wrong with my two professors or the other guest lecturers in the course. And this was not the only course I took. I quite a number of courses in the Philosophy department. Not to mention my own reading.

I'm sorry, SJL, but the account given on the site you linked to is pretty sketchy and misses a lot of points.

More later.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 12:17 AM

Very much to the point, LadyJean. Conspiracies rarely remain secret for very long, and the most people involved in the conspiracy, the greater the chance of exposure.

The alleged 9/11 conspiracy would have had to involve a lot of people.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 12:26 AM

And Lighter, don't you dare help him. If you do, I will subject you to the British Industrial Revolution until the end of time. That will be your punishment.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Red Queen
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 03:50 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SASnF0S6NpE&sns=em

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 06:35 AM

""That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority....""

Or maybe then truly sane are sick to death of trying to educate the tinfoil hat brigade, such that only the most determine bother to waste time on the idiocies of people like Shitflinger.

Don T,

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 07:04 AM

Hell no. For the British? Who knows? Kooky people.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?sns=em&v=3j8LDZreZ7M&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D3j8LDZreZ7M%26sns%3Dem

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 07:12 AM

SJL "I have read Aristotle."

What, all of it? I bought the complete works only last week, and it is some 2500 pages in my edition ... I may not be able to comment for some time. But I have read the Plato's Republic and Xenophon's 'Apology' so add me to your list.

My knowledge of Philosophy is, by the way, strictly in the amateur league.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 08:04 AM

> the Bush Administration declared war on Iraq (Saddam Hussein) instead of going into Afghanistan after bin Laden.

Whoa! Alternative history strikes again!

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 08:06 AM

> If 9/11 was a conspiracy, one of the conspirators would have told the tale by now. Nobody has.

In fact he has. Bin Laden took complete credit for it on a video not too long afterwards.

But you knew that.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 10:29 AM

"When the rivets holding the girders together melted and let go, the floors of the buildings started "pancaking," and once that started, it was like a chain reaction"

Precisely. A building which hadn't put up with such misplaced ingenuity wouldn't have collapsed like that. And yet the possibility of a commercial aeroplane crashing into it, accidentally or intentionally, was always there. Crashes happen.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 11:04 AM

When the rivets holding the girders together melted and let go

The rivets being of the same material as the girders, they would not have melted before the girders did.

Try again.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Iain
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 12:57 PM

There is a school of thought that Jet A1 fuel cannot reach the temperatures required to melt steel unless supplied with excess oxygen.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 05:54 PM

There are different kinds of rivets, some of which have to be of soft enough material to deform and lock them into place. That doesn't mean they are "soft," it means that they are not made of the same kind of steel as the girders.

The burning jet fuel did not melt rivets and girders all by itself. It ignited fires in all kinds of material in the buildings (NOT just a few wastebaskets!!). And when the first few rivets and other fasteners let go, some of the girders on upper floors started to sag, adding further stress, then eventually let go, starting the "pancaking effect."

In any case, a 65 ton airliner carrying as much as 10,000 gallons of fuel impacting a tall building at some 300 mph or more is going to do a bit more damage than just leaving a bruise!

The impact was such that parts of the aircraft went clear through the buildings and out the other side. At least one engine was found several blocks away.

There is a helluva lot of detail available for anyone who wants to spend a little time researching it. I'm too busy today to try to see to peoples' education. I suggest that you Google "World Trade Center Destruction" and look over what comes up. There's a LOT of information there, much of it highly detailed.

In any case, the conspiracy theory version of the thing simply doesn't hold water for a host of reason.

As most conspiracy theories don't when closely examined.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 06:07 PM

some of which have to be of soft enough material to deform and lock them into place.

Yes. But they are mild steel rivets, and the girders are mild steel- and as far as the melting temperature, within a couple of degrees F they are the same.

Try again.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 06:20 PM

You don't think the impact maybe popped a few rivets?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 06:31 PM

Greg, you seem to have zeroed in on "melting rivets." Rivets letting go for whatever reason were only one of the factors in the destruction of the buildings.

That's the kind of nit-picking that conspiracy theorists love to engage in:   fasten on one thing when there are many factors involved.

Gotta go right now.

"I'll be back!"
         --The Terminator

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 21 Jul 13 - 12:07 PM

In my opinion, just because a conspiricacy theorist talks rubbish it doesn't mean he/she is insane.

Of course there is one way to disprove the 9/11 conspiracy theorists -to deliberately fly a passenger jet, fully fuelled with accelerant into the side of a tall building under strictly controlled conditions.

So any qualified pilots prepared to give it a go? and do any airlines have a spare airliner they won't miss, and does any city have a skyscaper they are a bit fed up of?

The point about this is that it is much easier for a conspiracy theorist to argue the plausibility of his or her idea, whereas the real world has to make do with empirical evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Lighter
Date: 21 Jul 13 - 12:31 PM

Hey, I got a *great* theory!

An al-Qaeda mole alerted Bin Laden to the CIA plot to destroy the towers! Bin Laden then sent the planes in on the same day to escape notice! The perfect crime!

You don't think so? Next you'll be doubting the 60-minute special I just saw on the History Channel showing that Nazi secret weapons, like the V-2 missile and the Nazi flying saucers, were created with the help of alien technology, and possibly fascist aliens themselves.

Martin Bormann may have escaped in a bell-shaped Nazi-alien space-time vehicle launched from their research site in Poland.

I'm not making it up because it's all too true.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Iain
Date: 21 Jul 13 - 12:58 PM

When the day dawns that I believe all politicians are as pure as driven snow and that the mainstream media reports the news without any selectivity, bias and massage, and that Bilderbergers meet for the good of humanity, then I might no longer have a belief in certain conspiracy theories. But I suspect that for as long as slugs live under stones I will continue to believe in some conspiracies.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Lighter
Date: 21 Jul 13 - 01:41 PM

Serious question.

Why cling to a widely discredited conspiracy theory? The discrediting sources are usually held to be more or less trustworthy at other times. For example, most important news from CNN, Fox, the BBC, etc., is more or less true; the engineers who insist that no inside job was needed to bring down WTC are real engineers; and the New York, Washington, and Federal law enforcement agencies do a pretty good job of investigating crimes. It would be pretty spectacular for them all to be either in cahoots or else unbelievably gullible, wouldn't it?

If the sources are right, the conspiracists are deluding themselves and wasting their time. If the sources are wrong and/or lying, how does that affect the conspiracists' daily lives? Or does it?

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Iain
Date: 21 Jul 13 - 01:50 PM

More or less true does not cut it.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jul 13 - 01:58 PM

I'm of the opinion that the chronic conspiracy theory buff has an ego problem.

By buying into the conspiracy theory, they can feel that they are in the know. They "know" what really happened, and are so much smarter than all those other sheep out there.

No matter how asinine the conspiracy theory sounds in the face of the verifiable evidence, they cling all the harder to the conspiracy idea rather than admit that things really are exactly as they've been reported.

Sort of an adult (?) version of "Nyah, nyah, nyah, I'm smarter than you are!!" when, in actuality, they are the gullible ones.

They'll never admit it, though. They're delicate egos are at stake.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Lighter
Date: 21 Jul 13 - 02:14 PM

Iain, you mean a conspiracy theory can be 100% per cent factual while ordinary media information is not?

I learned about Barack Obama and Sarah Palin solely through the media. I assume they're real. I don't see why not, though a vast enough conspiracy could fool anybody.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Wesley S
Date: 21 Jul 13 - 02:48 PM

"There is a school of thought that Jet A1 fuel cannot reach the temperatures required to melt steel unless supplied with excess oxygen."

Please realize that steel fails long before it melts. The melting temp is not a factor at all. What needs to be looked at is the temp at which the steel fails to perform under the load that is required. I sold industrial metals for 16 years and I doubt that anyone ever asked what the melting temp of a metal was that I sold. Performance during stress tests - yes. Melting - no.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Wesley S
Date: 21 Jul 13 - 02:56 PM

Aside from that it's about time that we admitted that all of the conspiracies are true. Oswald didn't act alone. Nessie and Big Foot are real. UFO's exist. 9/11 was an inside job. Paul is dead and Jim Morrison is alive. The Pope is Catholic. Diana is alive. Wild bears shit in the woods. The government is coming for your guns. And Obama is a Muslim, the Antichrist and he really was born in Kenya.

It's just too much work to go on fooling them any longer. They're just too smart for us. It's time to admit they are right and start rounding them up for the concentration camps.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Iain
Date: 21 Jul 13 - 04:05 PM

I do not believe conspiracy theories are factual, any more than I believe the MSM are factual. Both offer a version of perceived reality.
Some conspiracy theories I find ridiculous, elements of others I find have merit. With mainstream media I have problems with items being censored and events reported frequently having an element of spin added.
In summary I find some MSM news reasonably accurate and some conspiracy theories quite believable.
      I have the box of cookies in front of me, how I select to partake of them is my choice, based on my powers of logic and reasoning. I may be right, I may be wrong but to accept blindly everything on offer, is an insult to a rational being.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Songwronger
Date: 21 Jul 13 - 11:38 PM

I am sorry, Mr. Firth, but your girder argument fails to convince. Firefighters reported the fires were virtually out. They only needed a couple more hoses to complete the job, and then the buildings began falling. How could fires melt steel but not firefighters?

And who changed Newton's laws of physics to stop the top of WTC 2 from continuing over in its sideways fall?

http://beyondpoliticsand911.com/photogallery/albums/userpics/10001/WTC_2_collapse_2.jpg

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/docs/wtc2_tilt_plannorth.png

There is also the matter of the BBC reporting on the fall of WTC7 a half hour before it collapsed:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7Bqr1I5gzyk/S9MZ0BDA2MI/AAAAAAAAEYA/DSJS-XXSGac/s400/a352361_po-1.jpg

It seems you never heard a government lie you didn't like.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 12:03 AM

I don't have the time to answer your questions in detail at the moment, Songwronger, but the melting of girders and rivets was NOT what brought down the buildings. There were many factors involved. But shaped charges were not among them.

Let me ask you this: are you an architect?

I didn't thing so.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,DMG
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 03:10 AM

For any conspiracy, it is worth thinking about the planning session right at the start. Ask the questions what were the aims and of the literally thousands of possibilities, does this stand out as the safest/lost effective/least risk ... In short, the front runner. Now it seems to me that the twin towers from the terrorist view was low risk in terms of detection and set-up, since relatively little needed to take place on US soil. However, back then, there were lots of other possible targets where the effect was more predictable. The destruction of the Lincoln Memorial for example, would strike at a major symbol of what in means to be American in a way that a couple of banking offices might not. I'm not at all convinced that someone unconstrained by the risk of detection would have made the same choice

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Lighter
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 08:33 AM

Don't forget, DMG, that they also hit the Pentagon and the fourth plane was evidently head toward the Capitol or the White House.

Had the fourth plane hit Congress in session, the destruction of the WTC would have seemed almost like an afterthought.

Which raises the question, once the alleged Bushite plotters had decided to blow the Pentagon, why even bother with an immensely more complicated plan to destroy the WTC as well? ('Spiracists also claim that the fourth plane was just additional "cover." Why would they need that? Of course, some say it was just a coincidental crash that the evil ones pounced on for added publicity.)

The Pentagon alone would have given plenty of justification to attack al-Qaeda, and as DMG suggests, a lesser plot would have meant a far smaller chance of detection. (No demolition experts secretly placing shaped charges that "investigators" could later suss out, etc., etc.)

'Spiracists may not be "insane," but their 9/11 theories certainly are.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 01:39 PM

Once again all the accounts of what happened with 911 are conspiracy theories, including the officially accepted one.

It makes sense to denounce particular theories as junk, but we shouldn't ever use the term " conspiracy theory" as if it meant the same thing as junk.

Much of the time the offcial theory may well be the closest to the truth. But not always. Often it happens when secret papers are published years later it turns out that in very important aspects the official account was significantly misleading. We should always be open to the possibility that we are being told lies.

For example in England, it is now clear that the official account of the Hillsborough Disaster was a tissue of lies, signed up to by the highest authorities, involving large numbers of police officers knowingly cooperating in backing up the lies.

Misusing the term "conspiracy theory" in this way just makes it too easy for the authorities to avoid dealing seriously with serious misgivings.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Lighter
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 03:33 PM

Technically you're right, McGrath.

If you can think of a more appropriate two-word phrase, we should try to promote it.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 03:50 PM

Skepticism?

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 05:30 PM

Don, I'm sure you know more about the Greek philosophers than I do. I certainly have not read all of Aristotle.

And I'm sure you all remember what astounding international success Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 911 was. What was that about, huh? I think more than anything else, it spoke to a profound mistrust of the Bush Administration. Has anyone ever heard of a "think tank" called Project for a New American Century? Founded by Dick Cheney. These are the people who crafted the Bush Administration's foreign policy.

Do I, after reading up on that crew, conclude that they would allow 911 to happen in order to gain the pretext to implement as much of their radical agenda as possible? Sure. Could they have even have had a hand in it? Again, sure. Because they a callous group of war mongering bastards. If this means I have to wear a tin foil hat, then oh well.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9sg_NRC8ozk&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D9sg_NRC8ozk

Songwronger, I'm very crafty. I'll make one for you too :-)

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 05:45 PM

If a theory about conspiracy seems daft t you, call t a daft thory theory". If it seems credible you call it a "credible theoory". If it seems demonstrablyt false theory call it a "false theory". And so forth. Seems pretty simple to me, Lighter.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 05:45 PM

Hillsborough was a cover-up to hide incompetence. That isn't a consiparcy theoryn - if it was then the deaths occurred because of some insiduous purpose that someone wanted to achieve. iei SOmeone conspired to cause the deaths.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 05:46 PM

If a theory about conspiracy seems daft to you, call it a daft theory". If it seems credible you call it a "credible theory". If it seems demonstrably false call it a "false theory". And so forth. Seems pretty simple to me, Lighter.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 05:51 PM

Covers up are evidently conspiracies. Often the cover up is a lot more significant than the original reason for it. Watergate was a case in point.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 06:49 PM

Songwronger, firefighters reported that the fires were virtually out? And when did they report this?

When the buildings started to collapse, they were still are emitting huge clouds of smoke and flame, so the fires were still going strong. And people were jumping out of windows, preferring to die quickly by falling to the street below rather that die painfully in a burning building. A Godawful choice to have to make, but there it is!!

And I have already explained that it wasn't a matter of melting rivets or girders, it was that many rivets and girders broke on impact. Several tons of airliner hitting the sides of the buildings at high speed can—and did—wreak a tremendous amount of damage. Some girders began to buckle and sag, as I've already explained (if you'd ever learn how to read), then let go, starting the "pancaking" effect.

And no laws of physics need be rescinded when the top section of one of the buildings heeled over. The bottom section OF that top section moved inward because the structure failed first on one side, then the whole top section fell vertically. To have done otherwise would have defied the Law of Gravity.

This is plainly visible in the videos of that building's collapse.

And again, the smaller "explosions" (flashes) that began further down AS the buildings collapsed were transformers inside the buildings shorting out—which DO produce a small explosion and an electric flash. This I already explained, again if you had bothered to read it (break out your first grade "Dick and Jane" reader and bone up a bit). Large buildings have many transformers inside of them. Transformers of that same type are all over city neighborhoods, and if you look up, you can see them, looking a bit like garbage cans, attached near the tops of power poles. Sometimes one of these transformers shorts out with a flash and a loud "BANG!" during a thunderstorm, cutting power to a whole string of houses. The electrical needs of buildings the size of those at the World Trade Center are much like those of several neighborhoods, hence the transformers.

Basic!

No, the buildings at the World Trade Center collapsed as a result of being impacted by large aircraft flying into them. Sufficient cause in and of itself.

And there is matter of the plane hitting the Pentagon, and the fourth plane that a bunch of courageous passengers brought down by attacking the highjackers (this was reported by those receiving cell phone calls from those passengers), otherwise the Capitol Building or the White House might ALSO have fallen victim to a similar fate as the WTC.

But what the hell's the use of trying to explain these basic things to YOU, Songwronger, when you WANT to believe the conspiracy baloney?

Don Firth

P. S. And yes, SJL, I am familiar with the Project for the New American Century. And yes, they were influential in Bush's responding to an attack by al Qaeda under Osama bin Laden by blaming Saddam Hussein for it, despite the fact that Hussein and bin Laden were enemies (which, above, I likened to responding to Pearl Harbor by invading Brazil).

The PNAC was composed of Bush's puppet masters. BUT, the attack on the WTC was an al Qaeda operation. The fact that there was possibly some knowledge of the planned attack which was ignored makes the Bush administration culpable in the attacks, but they didn't DO it, they would be guilty of letting it happen.

'Scuse me, Commander Bzplxtpfng is telling me that our flying saucer is taking off to return to Arturus 12 and I have to get back on board.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 07:13 PM

We can't discount the possibility that Archimedes of Syracuse conspired with the Bush Admininstration when he forumulated centre of mass.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 07:34 PM

Wasn't Archimedes famous for screwing things up?

CLICKY

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Lighter
Date: 22 Jul 13 - 08:31 PM

> We can't discount the possibility that Archimedes of Syracuse conspired with the Bush Administration.

Nah, that one would be crazy.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Lighter
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 08:13 AM

A "skeptic" merely doubts.

A "conspiracist" actively seeks to prove an unlikely conspiracy theory through false logic and cherry-picking of evidence.

Assuming, of course, that there's anybody left who can tell the difference between sound and false logic, and relevant, irrelevant, manufactured, and distorted evidence.

Mudcat calls that assumption into question daily.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 10:30 AM

"There is also the matter of the BBC reporting on the fall of WTC7 a half hour before it collapsed:"


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies_iii.html

Several years ago, we went thru all the theories.... I posted till I was tired many clear explanations of the ANSWERS to conspiracies.

Put "building 7" into the forum search box and spend a few hours reading. As I said in one of those threads, it took me 2 minutes to find the answer to the BBC 'early report'.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Songwronger
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 05:42 PM

The fact that there was possibly some knowledge of the planned attack which was ignored makes the Bush administration culpable in the attacks, but they didn't DO it, they would be guilty of letting it happen.

Do you know how CRAZY that statement is, Mr. Firth? They let it happen but they didn't do it? Letting it happen IS doing it.

I know that you'll support the government no matter what it does, but at least you're willing to expose your insanity, and that's something in your favor. Delusions such as yours need to be seen to be believed.

An hour-long audio thing on Youtube. Shouldn't eat up as much bandwidth as moving pictures. Worth a listen:

9/11 Free Fall 7/18/13: Dr. deHaven-Smith and "conspiracy theory"

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 05:57 PM

Songwronger, do I need to educate you to the simple fact that letting someone else do something is NOT doing it yourself? One might be considered equally culpable, but as much as I disliked the Bush Administration, they did not plan or carry out the act themselves, they let others do it!

And NO, I do NOT support the government in everything as you claim, especially many of the decisions of the Bush Administration.

Are you incapable of trying to make your points without LYING about what other people say?

The sign of a very weak position.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Songwronger
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 06:08 PM

You're just afraid. That's only human.

Countering Criticism of the Warren Report

That's a link to the memo that deHaven-Smith mentions, where the CIA begins its campaign to label dissenters as "conspiracy theorists."

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jul 13 - 07:05 PM

Songwronger, just what am I supposed to be afraid of?

You counter my comments by posting yet another supposed conspiracy.

Why don't you try some other kinds of fantasy fiction. Maybe Roger Zelazny? I know a few people who are fantasy buffs and they seem to think Zelazny is real cool.

Don't say I never did anything for you.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: mayomick
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 10:55 AM

"the Bush Administration, they did not plan or carry out the act themselves, they let others do it!" Wouldn't that be a conspiracy, Don? It sounds like something out of The Manchurian Candidate! Here's my very own personal and speculative 9/11 conspiracy theory .

With relocation of industrial production to China ,far-sighted US intelligence analysts who hadn't formed their opinions from watching Fox News knew that the real US economy was collapsing - despite all the overblown stock bubbles and the soaring house prices .There was a political need to justify internal US repression and resource wars abroad .So something was planned to go off that day that would allow the Bush admin to announce war for abroad and draconian measures at home along the lines of the Homeland Security Act. The CIA thought that they had various Al Qaida operators - people they were working with at the time - onside for three plane hijackings . The deaths of say three hundred innocent passengers would be a small price to pay for a right-wing law and order and war agenda. The CIA have had a lot of experience in doing such things outside of the US -in Italy for instance when they blew up a train station and blamed the carnage on left wing terrorists. So the CIA thought they would give the same sort of thing a try in the US ,but the Al Qaida operatives were working to their own agenda on 9/11.They tricked the CIA by going along with the plans up to a point , but when the planes got into the air the hijackers flew them into the Twin Towers.


Songwronger: Is the defence of the Warren Report thing you linked to the first known use of the term "conspiracy theorist" ?

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 11:52 AM

mayomick.. Is that paragraph YOUR writing & opinion? If so, where did you find any justification for it? If not, it needs quotation marks and more explanation.

I ask because it feels to me like nothing more than 'opinionated speculation'.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 12:59 PM

""There is a school of thought that Jet A1 fuel cannot reach the temperatures required to melt steel unless supplied with excess oxygen.""

Do you have a credible source for that?.....Even if true, there is plenty of extra oxygen in the high speed winds which blow around buildings that tall.

No matter, it doesn't have to.

It only needs to soften girders until they sag (well below melting point under the load they carried), shortening the horizontal length and parting company with the supports. Once the first floor drops it bursts the rivets on the floor below and thereafter each floor is hit by a load greater than the one before. That chain is unstoppable and is the reason why the building collapses into its own footprint.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Lighter
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 01:11 PM

I like it because it's got a conspiracy *and* a doublecross!

Can you fit in an AK-47 car chase and some bikini babes?

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 02:10 PM

Mayomick's post is the biggest load of dingo's kidneys I've read in a long time, and there have been some real doozies on this thread alone!

Some folks get their jollies by running in circles and screaming, "Ain't it awful!? Ain't it awful!?"

We've got enough problems without these would-be Paul Reveres caterwauling at their computers. They tend to distract from paying attention to the REAL problems.

(Hmm! Maybe that's why their doing it!)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: mayomick
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 03:45 PM

Yes, just my very own 'opinionated speculation'. If I were to start from there and spin a theory out of it that I'd expect people with different opinions to my own to believe ,and were I to be only open to such evidence that supported my opinionated speculation then I'd be a conspiracy theorist.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Lighter
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 03:48 PM

No babes?

Guess I'll stick with the 9/11 Commission.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 06:47 AM

No wait Lighter. We really need your expertise on this project. We'll get you some babes. What do you want? Blondes? Redheads?

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: mayomick
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 07:39 AM

I guess you're sort of stuck with it

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 08:01 AM

Anyway I though everyone knew that 9/11 was caused by Bush paying Elvis Presley to fly his biplane which he kept on the moon into the side of the building to create the illusion of the two airliners.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Red Queen
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 09:05 AM

OMG SPB! I thought I was the only one who knew that!

And don't forget how JFK was co-piloting with Marilyn Monroe on his lap.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: mayomick
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 09:22 AM

Next minute these conspiracy loons will be telling you the government's reading all your emails ! What next , exploding cigars? It's not a new madness we're dealing with here either. Even before the various Castro and Kennedy conspiracy theories came out, way back in the nineteen fifties some old wierdo guy was spouting on about there being what he termed a military/industrial complex trying to take over control of America. Imagine how embarrassing it would have been if the Martians had landed and said take me to your leader and you had to tell 'em that this whako Ike was the leader!

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: mayomick
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 09:30 AM

One of these conspiracy nuts tried to tell me last week that "they" were listening in on all cross Atlantic telephone conversations. It just goes to show how deranged these 'spiracists really are!

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Lighter
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 09:34 AM

Ike didn't say it was a conspiracy.

He just said it was happening, basically because of the industrial demand for senior ex-military officers, who knew how to manage, lead, organize, and lobby.

A worrisome trend is not a conspiracy.

In general, everybody has a right to his own opinion, but not to his own so-called facts.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: mayomick
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 10:46 AM

So in general I have the right to hold an opinion -thanks for reassurance on that Lighter .Am I allowed speculate on the basis of my opinions? Defenders of the ABC news version of whatever happens or doesn't happen should use the hybrid word "opspec" to denote dangerous speculation by people whose opinions do not concur with objective news reporting on US news media.

ABC ,Fox and other US news channels are sources of objective reporting. If there had been any sort of a 9/11 cover-up,they would have told us about it. Does any sane person really think that the NYT would have said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was intent on using against the American way of life unless the editors at the NYT had carefully checked all the evidence out? Was Colin Powell lying when he said that stuff about the yellowcake uranium powder from Niger or do the wack jobs think that the evidence he produced for its existence was based on some sort of a forgery ? Only a conspiracy theorist would think such a thing but one fact that the loons always conveniently chose to ignore is that the head of the CIA at the time George Tenet also said that this uranium existed ! Who else do they want to drag into their sad fantasies -George Bush , Tony Blair?

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: mayomick
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 11:03 AM

It should be obvious to anyone who isn't sat in front of a computer screen all night every night dreaming up reasons to hate the United States that the Saddam yellow cake did exist . It was there all along, it's just that it was very well hidden so we couldn't find it . Which just goes to show how clever saddam was and why it was right to go in and kill a million Iraqis to save them from the likes of Saddam and his yellowcake uranium wmd . Moreover evidence points strongly to the fact that Saddam had saved some of his WMDs to give to his fellow freed-hater, Bashir Assad.It's all part of the same terrorism wmd nexus business , but please note I didn't once use the word "conspiracy" . I'm no whack job .

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 11:47 AM

"So in general I have the right to hold an opinion ...... .Am I allowed speculate on the basis of my opinions?"

Ummm...sure. But your speculations and opinions are couched in that type of semi-reasoning and rhetorical questions that make it difficult to discern whether they are half sarcasm or total piss-take. Yellowcake? Sure... hidden away like the 100 MPH carburetor. Everyone knows it must exist because it IS so well hidden.
I suspect that because there have been some famous conspiracies, it has become a knee-jerk reaction for many to attribute ANY major incident to a conspiracy..... makes a better story, and they get press by continuing to counter facts by inventing even MORE complex stories to re-explain the inconvenient facts. When that fails, they just revert to restating the same assertions they began with... which shows how "melting beams" and "early BBC reports" and "missles at the Pentagon" continue to pop up long after they have been refuted. They seem to hope...or count on... folks just getting tired of RE-refuting the same theory for the 27th time.

Ah well... it's a hobby......

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Lighter
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 12:26 PM

A conspiracy can be dreamed up to explain *anything.*

9/11? My vote is with the Gods of Olympus.

That's how the Greeks would have explained it. Proof? Look what they did to Troy.

It's obvious. Don't believe in the Gods of Olympus? *Your* problem.

First the WTC, then Hurricane Sandy. When we will ever learn? When will we ever learn?

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 02:50 PM

The whole idea that 9/11 was an "inside job" so that Bush could start two wars, pass the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act, and a host of other "anti-American" things doesn't take into account that the US Government does things all the time that are against the will of the American people without resorting to killing of civilians. All Bush had to do was go on TV and claim whatever he wanted to support whatever agenda he wanted to execute. It didn't take the deaths of 3000 people to garner support for the invasion of Iraq - all it took was him ( and Colin Powell) saying Hussein had yellowcake and voila, Iraq war here we come. Actually, as all this terrorist stuff is "top secret," the government can make up anything to support whatever agenda and the citizens have no option other than to accept it as truth because it can't be verified ostensibly one way or the other due to its "classification." That's a handy little tool to have in one's arsenal whenever an especially attractive or lucrative agenda rears its head.

Or, more recently, the US government doesn't have to do anything if it wants to quash action on a popular notion. The majority of Americans support stricter gun legislation but Congress seems unable to respond. But mention the word "terrorist" or "terrorism" and the Pentagon and the NSA and the CIA get whatever lethal toys are on their Christmas list, regardless of budget concerns or party philosophy.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: GUEST,Red Queen
Date: 26 Jul 13 - 01:51 PM

GUEST, before starting any war, public opinion must be considered and swayed if all possible. Don't get me wrong, if they're going to do it, they'll do it, but they like to have the support of the public. Fascists, what can I say?

Lighter, a "worrisome trend" becomes conspiratorial when the Military-Industrial Complex becomes more and more powerful and more secretive. They will of course claim that what they are doing is for our benefit, naturally. They are protecting us and our interests. Not true. What they are doing is for their OWN benefit. They are doing THEIR thing- war mongering, manipulating, policing and dominating within and without the US, not to mention making a killing on weapons technology- all at our expense.

Be real. What would anyone need with "facts" at this point? All you need to know at this point is that they are spying, lying and in general turning us into the Evil Empire whether we like it or not. Every once in a while you get an insider, a whistle blower to tell you what you already knew. So why would you waste your time speculating on details? No matter who is responsible for 911, the government seized the moment to transform itself into a tyranny. You are not experiencing that just yet but the framework is solidly in place. The unconstitutional powers are there. They wouldn't be there if they didn't plan to use them at some point in the future...

So don't worry about planes and girders and rivets, ok? It's not important. The important thing is that you understand what kind of people are in charge and why that means we're fucked. That's all you need to know. Now go have fun while you still can.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jul 13 - 03:45 PM

ahh.. the "Red Queen syndrome" personified! (Thru the Looking Glass)

One 'needs' to assume the worst possible scenario for anything any government or representative of it does or 'power' they seem to have...so one invents stories, facts and adds hypotheses based on those assumptions... then "runs ever so fast, just to stay in the same place" and interprets ALL subsequent laws, edicts, bureaus and decisions to fit their prior reasoning. Never mind that sometimes we get lucky and manage to elect someone who is trying to reverse stupid trends.... that must just mean they are cleverer at hiding their evil intent!

(why do doomsday prophets suddenly come to my mind? ;>))

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 26 Jul 13 - 04:38 PM

True. There were after all 206 votes for reform of the NSA. Only out voted by 11.

Subject: RE: BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane
From: Lighter
Date: 26 Jul 13 - 05:02 PM

Bill, same thing with Zimmerman.