BS: New Study - Conspiracy Theorists Sane

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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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
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,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,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: Bobert
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 08:53 AM

Pass the tin foil...

B;~)

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: 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,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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 12:40 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