Conspiracy theories vs. mindset.

[Bullseye]

One reason that still surprises me is that some do it for attention(!) Imagine choosing falsity based on wanting attention...boggles the mind!
Some have an entire worldview (Dems bad, Republicans good), and they simply filter everything through it. Evidence becomes irrelevant if it doesn't match up with that. (brainwashed by propaganda/culture)
Some are just believers in fiction, some have strong mythological beliefs and having a few more non-evidence based beliefs is no big deal to them.
Some act this way just to push their party's agenda..they know better, they just choose to ignore it for political points.

I'm sure there are more, that's just the ones I am use to seeing.

But your "Dems good, Republicans bad" is based on solid logic?

 

[psikeyhackr]

It could be that you are simply fanning the flames of ignorance. However, the scientific method allows us to "see the work" of people we haven't met, gauge how large a consensus there is between people we haven't met who nonetheless have the credentials to be considered an authority on a subject, and come to conclusions that might not correspond to the "common knowledge" of the very small fraction of a fraction of a percent of people that we have met personally.

The "scientific method" depends on "credentials"?

Does physics depend on credentials? Maybe the distribution of steel in 1360 ft skyscrapers depends on credentials. Curious how that data doesn't appear in the reports by people with credentials.

 

[psikeyhackr]

In 1940 it only took 4 months to build a physical model of the Tacoma Narrows bridge in a wind tunnel to study the oscillations that caused the bridge to collapse. They did not have electronic computers. And yet in 20 years how many American engineering schools have even tried to make physical or virtual models of the North Tower collapse?

Tacoma video with model


The modern scientific method hasn't worked for 20 years.

 

[ecofarm]

In 1940 it only took 4 months to build a physical model of the Tacoma Narrows bridge in a wind tunnel to study the oscillations. They didn't have electronic computers. Now we can supposedly simulate the climate of the planet for the next 80 years but not the collapse of a 1360ft skyscraper.

There are thousands of models of the Towers' collapse. Every major university and research institution in the world produced several. You might as well claim cars do not exist.

 

[ecofarm]

In 1940 it only took 4 months to build a physical model of the Tacoma Narrows bridge in a wind tunnel to study the oscillations that caused the bridge to collapse. They did not have electronic computers. And yet in 20 years how many American engineering schools have even tried to make physical or virtual models of the North Tower collapse?

Tacoma video with model


The modern scientific method hasn't worked for 20 years.

Every university and research institution in the world produced several models. There are literally tens of thousands of models. Within a month after 9/11, thousands of models already existed and were being tested in peer review.

 

[Torus34]

That is also a system that is prone to mislead you. If everyone you have met personally believes a thing, that doesn't necessarily make that thing likely to be true. It could be that you are simply fanning the flames of ignorance. However, the scientific method allows us to "see the work" of people we haven't met, gauge how large a consensus there is between people we haven't met who nonetheless have the credentials to be considered an authority on a subject, and come to conclusions that might not correspond to the "common knowledge" of the very small fraction of a fraction of a percent of people that we have met personally.

Hi again, lwf.

Thank you for the response. I believe you might have taken me a tad too literately.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

 

[jpevans]

You keep talking about being an iron worker but apparently didn't know how much steel was in the core after 20 years implying that the building was supported by the perimeter.

Why don't you want to know how the steel had to be distributed in a 1360 ft skyscraper? Is the conservation of momentum too difficult for steel workers?

Why haven't scientists and engineers been asking about modelling? Raise the top 20 stories of the North Tower 60 feet and drop it on the bottom 90 stories. What would happen?

Americans are like the Russians. Most believe what authority tells them. Turn their brains off and don't think for t
Electrical not structural but we are all stuffed with Newtonian physics in freshman year.

I would think the straight down collapse of a 1360 foot self supporting structure would be very interesting. But it seems schools produce chicken shits.

So the psychology of nonconformists is more important than the stupidity of conformists. The steel worker must excuse his ignorance of the core.

Have a nice life.

 

[lwf]

The "scientific method" depends on "credentials"?

Does physics depend on credentials? Maybe the distribution of steel in 1360 ft skyscrapers depends on credentials. Curious how that data doesn't appear in the reports by people with credentials.

No, of course not. But for laymen who don't understand the science, credentials are a north star. If 300 people with academic and scientific credentials write papers that all come to the same conclusion and one person without any credentials writes a paper that contradicts the others, it is not rational for a layman without credentials who doesn't understand the science to assume that the person without credentials must be correct. It is POSSIBLE, but it is highly improbable.

 

[psikeyhackr]

There are thousands of models of the Towers' collapse. Every major university and research institution in the world produced several. You might as well claim cars do not exist.

Provide links to 2. Thousands? If there were that many how could you even know?

How could a decent model be built without accurate steel distribution data? My model is a physics demonstration not a WTC model.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Every university and research institution in the world produced several models. There are literally tens of thousands of models. Within a month after 9/11, thousands of models already existed and were being tested in peer review.

So provide links to 2 and explain how they did it without accurate steel distribution data?

 

[psikeyhackr]

No, of course not. But for laymen who don't understand the science, credentials are a north star.

This layman and laity crap came from the Catholic church.

Laity - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The Catholic church resisted having the bible translated into modern languages to keep people ignorant. That is part of what the Reformation was about.

You can trust a lot of "experts" to make things unnecessarily complicated to make themselves look smart. IBM hired John von Neumann as a consultant in 1951. When I worked for IBM I never heard any mention of him. They didn't use the word benchmark either. I had to write my own to test 2 machines. I am not very trusting.

Do you think middle school kids can't understand that a skyscraper must have more steel toward the bottom? Why can't you? If you do then why don't you expect to be told the distribution of steel down the Twin Towers?

Doubt your own mind and be proud of it all you want!

 

[psikeyhackr]

Niel deGrasse Tyson sent out a letter the day after 9/11.

[Text] Neil deGrasse Tyson Remembers 'the Horror' of 9/11 | Witnify

Share on Facebook Tweet Add My Story “I will never be the same after yesterday, in ways that I cannot foresee…” THE HORROR, THE HORROR From: Neil deGrasse Tyson VIA E-MAIL WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2001, 10:00 AM Firsthand account of the WTC attacks and subsequent evacuation from Lower Manhattan...

witnify.com

A few years ago he made a video about water towers in New York City.



At 3 minutes into the video he starts talking about the metal bands needing to be closer together towards the bottom because of the weight of the water.

But where has this astrophysicist who experienced 9/11 personally ever discussed the distribution of steel in skyscrapers and how it had to relate to the collapse of the towers. When has he ever discussed the physics of 9/11?

 

[jpevans]

Niel deGrasse Tyson sent out a letter the day after 9/11.

[Text] Neil deGrasse Tyson Remembers 'the Horror' of 9/11 | Witnify

Share on Facebook Tweet Add My Story “I will never be the same after yesterday, in ways that I cannot foresee…” THE HORROR, THE HORROR From: Neil deGrasse Tyson VIA E-MAIL WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2001, 10:00 AM Firsthand account of the WTC attacks and subsequent evacuation from Lower Manhattan...

witnify.com

A few years ago he made a video about water towers in New York City.



At 3 minutes into the video he starts talking about the metal bands needing to be closer together towards the bottom because of the weight of the water.

But where has this astrophysicist who experienced 9/11 personally ever discussed the distribution of steel in skyscrapers and how it had to relate to the collapse of the towers. When has he ever discussed the physics of 9/11?

Cool.If you come up with any evidence proving that common knowledge of the WTC collapse is wrong, please post it here.

 

[lwf]

This layman and laity crap came from the Catholic church.

Laity - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The Catholic church resisted having the bible translated into modern languages to keep people ignorant. That is part of what the Reformation was about.

You can trust a lot of "experts" to make things unnecessarily complicated to make themselves look smart. IBM hired John von Neumann as a consultant in 1951. When I worked for IBM I never heard any mention of him. They didn't use the word benchmark either. I had to write my own to test 2 machines. I am not very trusting.

Do you think middle school kids can't understand that a skyscraper must have more steel toward the bottom? Why can't you? If you do then why don't you expect to be told the distribution of steel down the Twin Towers?

Doubt your own mind and be proud of it all you want!

While it is always possible that the majority is wrong, it is also always statistically unlikely. Conspiracy theorists like to collect together and point out examples of brilliant scientists of the past whose strange-at-the-time theories that bucked the scientific consensus turned out to be right, and who actually changed the scientific consensus. This is, of course, proof that current oddball pseudoscientific theories cannot be dismissed solely because they are in the minority. Conspiracy theorists also like to point out the truth that those who do dismiss their conspiracy theories based on the consensus of the authorities are guilty of the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority."

The fact that a conspiracy theory cannot be logically disproven by an appeal to authority is not, however, evidence that these conspiracy theories are in any way accurate. What these conspiracy theorists ALL fail to see, (ALL of them, to a person,) is the number of oddball theories that have ultimately been proven wrong throughout history. It is somewhere in the neighborhood of 99.99%. Conspiracy theorists are ALL statistically challenged in this way. They ignore (or are simply ignorant of) all the other wacky conspiracy theories that were proven to be bunk and think that because the authorities have been wrong in the past, that it is likely that they are wrong in this particular case, when in fact the opposite is the case. Even though the authorities could be wrong, it is highly unlikely that they are, on the order of less than 0.1% in most cases. People who understand statistical perspective know that this will be a bad bet 99.99% of the time, and it is foolish to assume any one conspiracy theory is an exception to this.

So for a layman to put his money on a conspiracy theory is a foolish bet. While an appeal to authority can't disprove a conspiracy theory, is does inform a person who is otherwise ignorant of the subject exactly how likely it is: so unlikely at to be not even worth considering.

 

[washunut]

I'm a retired scientist. That professional lifetime, itself the result of a desire to become a chemist first felt at the age of 6, has defined my patterns of thought to a large degree. In other words, I tend to seek to rationally understand things through demonstrable fact as opposed to 'common sense'. This provides me with what may be a built-in resistance to conspiracy theories.

Take, for example, the flat earth theory. I live near the Atlantic coast of the US. I've watched ships go hull-down over the horizon. 'Nuf said.

Conspiracy theories, more often than not, are not rooted in demonstrable fact but, rather, in what some person or group of people have stated to be true. They're based in an acceptance of the authority of a person or group. If, for instance, you accept what well-known Democrats are saying, you are in danger of accepting falsities, Exchange Republicans or liberals or conservatives for Democrats and the same caveat applies.

Adopting a mindset of "Show me through solid evidence" can do much to keep junk from accumulating on the shelves of our minds.

Another useful addition to one's thinking toolkit is a good knowledge of, and ability to recognize, logical fallacies.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

Using your logic are all theories conspiracy theories until proven correct? Was Einstein a conspiracy theorist?

 

[Torus34]

Using your logic are all theories conspiracy theories until proven correct? Was Einstein a conspiracy theorist?

Hi, washunut!

Hardly. Conspiracy theories have characteristics which set them aside from scientific theories. [Ed.: or from theories in general.]

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

 

[washunut]

Hi, washunut!

Hardly. Conspiracy theories have characteristics which set them aside from scientific theories. [Ed.: or from theories in general.]

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

Poor example on my part. Are there any theories you would not conspiracy theories in your view. If so, how do you differentiate.

On a different note. Decades ago while in the army reserves my base was Fort Wadsworth, Staten Island.

 

[Torus34]

Poor example on my part. Are there any theories you would not conspiracy theories in your view. If so, how do you differentiate.

On a different note. Decades ago while in the army reserves my base was Fort Wadsworth, Staten Island.

Hi again, washunut!

How 'bout the theory of evolution? Fact is, it's no more a 'theory' in the common sense of the word than, say, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. Both are in agreement with observations and are considered solid explanations.

Fort Wadsworth is still here. I believe the primary mission is a chaplain training center. Staten Island, and I, abide.

Regards, best to you and yours.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Cool.If you come up with any evidence proving that common knowledge of the WTC collapse is wrong, please post it here.

You don't think it is WRONG to not have the data on how the steel must have been distributed down a 1360 foot skyscraper and for "experts" to not talk about that distribution for 20 years even though it supposedly collapsed straight down though it was designed to hold itself up.

You don't see anything contradictory about that which should have made it very scientifically interesting?

But a "scientist" can make a video about water towers even though he personally experienced the collapses of the Twin Towers.

Maybe there should be a thread on the mindset of self-righteous stupidity.

ROFLMBAO

 

[psikeyhackr]

While it is always possible that the majority is wrong, it is also always statistically unlikely. Conspiracy theorists like to collect together and point out examples of brilliant scientists of the past whose strange-at-the-time theories that bucked the scientific consensus turned out to be right, and who actually changed the scientific consensus. This is, of course, proof that current oddball pseudoscientific theories cannot be dismissed solely because they are in the minority. Conspiracy theorists also like to point out the truth that those who do dismiss their conspiracy theories based on the consensus of the authorities are guilty of the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority."

The majority of people have IQs of less than 111. Check the statistics and ask a psychologist.

I talk about physics and the data necessary to do the physics and the intellectually handicapped keep talking about conspiracy theories.

Real conspiracies are result human behavior. The Laws of Physics are not changed by human behavior. I am saying that the physics must be correctly analyzed before any possible conspiracies can be figured out.

19 Arabs hijacking 4 airliners on the same day had to be a conspiracy. 1360 foot skyscrapers collapsing straight down in less than 30 seconds must be something that could be analyzed with physics.

Ask the "scientist" who started the thread.

 

[WIGDViking]

If you tell a lie enough times people will believe it's true.

That’s why they give away bibles…

 

[jpevans]

So provide links to 2 and explain how they did it without accurate steel distribution data?

The blue prints have the structural shapes. Columns are depicted by dimension & weight, as for example W8 35, is an 8” column at 35 lbs per foot.

 

[psikeyhackr]

The blue prints have the structural shapes. Columns are depicted by dimension & weight, as for example W8 35, is an 8” column at 35 lbs per foot.

And:



And in 20 years the experts could not figure that out for all of the column variations all of the way down the buildings. The NCSTAR1 report was only 10,000 pages at $2,000 per page.

The lack of important information is certainly expensive.

 

[Arlette]

Their mindset. I don't know. It's a sort of escapism from a word that's too confusing. With their theory they got the riddle solved. Something like that

 

[jpevans]

And:

View attachment 67384977

And in 20 years the experts could not figure that out for all of the column variations all of the way down the buildings. The NCSTAR1 report was only 10,000 pages at $2,000 per page.

The lack of important information is certainly expensive.

My original comment was that thrutherism (the belief that the WTC collapse on 9/11 was an inside job) was an easily disproved theory. That doesn't mean you aren't welcome to ask questions & not believe common evidence, as well as your eyes. I don't believe it warrants more of my time. I'm fine believing that no explosives were planted in the structure & that the crash of the planes knocking fire proofing off beams & columns, the high heat of the aviation fuel fire, the propensity of steel to expand under high heat, all contributed to the outcome forever etched in the memories of most adults who witnessed it in real time.
I'll be interested to hear your new evidence when you're done with you investigation.