Are conspiracy theorists wrong about almost everything?

#61
I was shocked to discover a few years ago that even Mathematics can only provide Degrees of Certainty.

At the extreme edges of the Math regarding things like quantum physics, the math becomes so convoluted and esoteric it devolves into airy-fairy philosophical opinions of quibbling Physicists, no more reliable than our speculations regarding who or what the heck sits at the apex of power over our Prison Planet.

If you've never absorbed this lecture, Dr. David Harriman's The Philosophical Corruption of Physics it is a must-know.

He comes from the Ayn Rand / Leonard Peikoff school of azzhole Uber-materialism, but his perspective is one every educated man like yourself should be familiar with.


I will convert this to .mp3 for listening on your phone if you wish. I focus best while I'm in the mud pulling weeds in my garden for hours with my phone in my pocket and earbuds in. :)
Here is the playlist containing all parts of the aforementioned lecture (and some additions):

https: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIQ99zaO7RE&list=PLtPAcvJ-f93-TTaU4SKpy3gkWRRdMnI9S&index=1

Have to confess, a praise to Ayn Rand was an immediate disclaimer to me. But, knowing that listening to the opponents, and understanding them, is a vital necessity for a free thinker (especially if your opponent shares with you the fundamental positive characteristic - fringeness), I think it will be worthy of time spent.
 
Last edited:
#62
...a praise to Ayn Rand was an immediate disclaimer to me.
I included that disclaimer so people wouldn't be turned off and quit when he mentioned them.

In the 2000's I was an Anarcho-Capitalist, so I spent a lot of time on Stefan Molyneux's forums. I even took Stef out to dinner at an expensive Italian restaurant one time.

Imagine my surprise when I realized Objectivist Randians are as closed-minded and immune to Reason and Evidence as the navel-gazing Consciousness Hippies they hate with a passion. :)
 
Last edited:
#63
Imagine my surprise when I realized Objectivist Randians are as closed-minded and immune to Reason and Evidence as the navel-gazing Consciousness Hippies they hate with a passion. :)
Did you ever tried to introduce them to the empirical evidence of psychic phenomena? Due to their praise to the observation and experiment, they must have been soooo interested and excited...

But I somehow suspect they wasn't. :eek:
 
#64
Did you ever tried to introduce them to the empirical evidence of psychic phenomena?
I did not because I was uneducated about psychic phenomena back then.

My fights with them had to do with Conspiracy Theories.

They did the same thing the Professional Skeptics do, attack the evidence with absurd levels of pilpul, hair-splitting, and goal post moving, then claim it deboonked.

They are as committed to their religion as the most fundie-nutter backwoods bible-thumping Pentecostal snake-handler.
 
#65
Thanks for sharing that lecture, looks very interesting. It's quite a commitment though, wish there was a Ted Talk version ha ha
You're welcome. Bookmark that lecture and save it for later when you have time.

If you want to get your Conspiracy Feet wet on something more digestible and concrete, this new 9/11 documentary is only 45 minutes and really good.

"SEVEN" from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth featuring Dr. Leroy Hulsey and his Ph.D. students at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (2020)

TL;DW = Ph.D's prove the World Trade Center building 7 collapse was a controlled demolition.

Full Documentary: https://www.bitchute.com/video/8CeRGYK20GLO/

Trailer
 
#66
this is just his estimate and I can’t speak to the quality of this work but common sense would indicate that this is eminently plausible. Applying this logic to the 911 conspiracy theory, if it were true could it really have remained intact for the past 19+ years?
It is not intact. In fact the architects and engineers for 911 truth has debunked it many times. It just does not seem to get mainstream attention:

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth | WTC Twin Towers and Building 7 (ae911truth.org)

And don't even look it up on wikipedia for obvious reasons (Guerilla Skeptics).
 
#68
You're welcome. Bookmark that lecture and save it for later when you have time.

If you want to get your Conspiracy Feet wet on something more digestible and concrete, this new 9/11 documentary is only 45 minutes and really good.

"SEVEN" from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth featuring Dr. Leroy Hulsey and his Ph.D. students at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (2020)

TL;DW = Ph.D's prove the World Trade Center building 7 collapse was a controlled demolition.

Full Documentary: https://www.bitchute.com/video/8CeRGYK20GLO/

Trailer
I've seen the rebuttals to that video and others like it and they convince me that building 7 fell due to natural causes once uncontrolled fires raged through the building all day. There is 0 proof that explosives were involved and there is 0 reason to think they would have to be or were.

One problem these conspiracy theories have is that they cherry pick "scientists" and data. So you say, "These are structural engineers saying it was controlled demolition. They are experts!". Sure, but there are also experts who disagree with them. Then the conspiracy advocates just accuse the disagreeing experts as being part of the conspiracy. Suddenly the conspiracy involves thousands of people with no obvious motive to perpetuate a horrible criminal conspiracy.

People start with a premise that arises from their psychological predisposition and/or profit motive, find "evidence" and "experts" to support the premise and discard what doesn't support it. That is human nature. We are emotional story tellers much much more than we are rational analysts. You have to work hard to overcome that tendency and most people don't even try.

IMO, the controlled demolition story is silly. Even if it happened in Building 7, and I do not believe it did, what does it prove? That airplanes hijacked by Islamic terrorists didn't attack the US on 9/11/01? Well, you'd have discard mountains of incontrovertible evidence to arrive at that conclusion. If airplanes were used by terrorists, then what is the point of wiring a building to explode and collapse? Why would such a conspiratorial genius wire the building to collapse in a way that resembled a controlled demolition? That would call unwanted attention. Why not have it collapse in some more uncontrolled manner so as to avoid accusations of conspiracy? It would actually be a lot easier - as well as smarter - to cause an uncontrolled collapse. Also, a genius conspirator that could set the whole thing up without a leak and without being otherwise caught would greatly increase his risk of being found out by creating the unnecessary redundancy of using explosives? That makes 0 sense and, anyhow, again, there is 0 evidence for such a thing beyond the opinion of a few engineers; most of whom have no experience with demolitions or that type of building.

I've seen fools that insist that it must have been a missile that hit the Pentagon. They have all manner of stupid reasons and they ignore that dozens of witnesses actually saw the airplane fly into the building and their testimony is on record. I personally know someone who was in the Naval Annex building across the street and saw it and testified as to what he saw. I guess they are all in on the conspiracy too. I guess I'm on it as well. Sheesh. But but but .....how does an airplane make such a small hole? It's called high velocity aluminum meets very thick reinforced concrete designed to withstand a nuclear blast. For Chrissakes there is photo evidence of bits of airplane on the lawn and inside the Pentagon. The photo evidence (along with DNA from scraps of human remains from passengers and crew, inside the building) are a matter of record. But ignore all of that if you like and pretend to have the inside scoop that it was a missile. For crying out loud.

The US govt assisted the terrorists on an incredibly destructive and deadly operation? Now you're into the realm of blatant ignorance about a lot of matters, but especially demolitions, military operations, US military personnel - and maybe achieving clinical paranoia, in my opinion. I freaking hate these 9/11 truther videos. They are fundamentally dishonest. Always ignoring key facts and realities to score a conspiratorial point......sorry.

It's one thing to take political advantage of a virus; the virus is real, but the media exaggerates its danger because that is what the media always does to get more views/clicks. Politicians exaggerate the threat to score points against an opponent and gain power - or fear the consequences of down-playing it if it really is going to be that bad (i.e.playing it safe). People like Fauci get to enjoying their 15 minutes of fame and say irresponsible things; probably politically motivated as well. Then dummies make stupid social, economic and political decisions that they can't easily go back on once it is clear that the plague isn't so bad after all and that it should be handled differently, and the whole thing further organically snowballs into more societal disaster from there. At this point, the CDC website even contains fairly accurate data and anyone looking can see that there is a 99.99% survival rate for those under 75 and in reasonably good health. So the government isn't exactly hiding the truth as they would have to do in a true plot (like 9/11 is supposed to be, according to "Truthers"). It's just the usual media and politicians making stupid noise and stupid sheep buying into the noise because they are too stupid to understand basic statistics and contexts - and voices of reason being drowned out for reasons outlined above. This is an important point. The "govt" is not really hiding the truth. It's right there on the CDC website. The politicians and media are just being non-responsive to the truth.

In the case of 9/11 the media and politicians accurately referred to the evidence. However, then went on to fabricate - or misconstrue, actually - any threats involving Iraq. Again, standard fair. There's a school shooting and that gets leveraged into cries for massive anti-gun legislation that they wanted anyhow on ideological grounds. The evidence is right there on the FBI website and other govt sources. The truth is not being conspiratorially hidden. Around 11K people murdered each year with guns, but the vast majority of that is related to people involved in criminal activity in a few zip codes in the country and only a very tiny amount of that done with the type of guns that they want to ban first. Nothing is hidden! The evidence is available to all. The spinning of 9/11 into a vague cause for an Iraq war is just more political opportunism like that applied to the Covid situation and school shootings. It is incorrect to infer that the govt caused 9/11 just because they used it after the fact. As I always say, just because you find vultures on road kill doesn't mean the vultures are conspiring with automobile drivers. Never underestimate the craven banality of politicians and the media. Character flaws and incompetence explain vastly more than 4D conspiracy theories. Anyone directing an agency is also a politician.

Bilderburgs, Davos et al? Hardly a secret conspiracy to take over the world and establish a one world government. Their ambitions can be read and understood in a number of readily available publications that they, themselves, release. The World Economic Forum is just one example. Yes, they want to take over the world, but they are up-front about it. Yes, China wants to weaken the US and become the world manufacturing and economic power center. This is also available in established publications, even the World Bank's. Just because the MSM and your politicians don't talk about it, doesn't make it a conspiracy with all of the connotations of secrecy that implies. It's all right out in the open. Now compare that to what 9/11 "Truthers" want us to believe.

MK-ULTRA? So what? Proves what exactly? A handful of operatives working in a small intelligence program compartment did some bad things. Yep. That is true. Guess what? They got caught and were sanctioned. We know all know about it. Every organization has some bad actors. The key here is that we have the evidence. It was heard in Congress. So, again, no conspiratorial hiding of facts. There was no massive cover-up. You know why? Because once three or more living people are involved in a conspiracy, sooner or later one or more spill the beans. The nature of people is to fight and compete with each other. People are self-interested. Cooperation is rare and only temporary when it does occur. A conspiracy is an incredibly difficult thing to keep hidden.

The only challenge left is to be able to sift the wheat from the chaff when people come forward claiming to be a bean spiller. People fabricate stories for all kinds of reasons. People also have imperfect/incomplete information and imperfect memories, but that rarely stops them from speaking with authority. IMO, a lot of Alex's guests are trying to make themselves appear more relevant and knowledgeable than they really. They should be heard, but caution is advised.

Rant over.
 
Last edited:
#70
https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/www.popularmechanics.com/military/amp6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/


WTC 7 Collapse


Claim: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."





Fire Storm: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse. (Photograph by New York Office of Emergency Management)
FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom—approximately 10 stories—about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse. to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors—along with the building's unusual construction—were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
 
#71
Please post a link to the rebuttals of the video I posted.

Part of being a good Conspiracy Researcher is giving both sides of any issue a fair hearing.

Did you watch the video I posted from beginning to end?
Tell you what. I'll post the rebuttal if you first tell me why on God's Green Earth it would be necessary to plant bombs in buildings you're attacking with big airplanes full of fuel and why anyone, other than Islamic terrorists, would do something like that.

And answer this - do you think that airplanes hit the two big towers, the Pentagon and crashed in Shanksville?

If your answer is "no", then we're done discussing this. I won't waste either of our time.

If your answer is "yes", then your conspiracy theory about building 7 is even shakier because crashing four airplanes, killing a few thousand people all to what? Cover-up blowing up building 7? is, let's say, stretching things a bit farther than I'm willing to. It's not like someone could run in and set explosives in a few hours in the midst of the 9/11 chaos, fires and destruction.

So when do you think the explosives were set? By whom? Why?

Why not just blow up all of the buildings and the Pentagon too and blame the explosions on terrorists? Why the airplanes? Terrorists already tried to blow up the towers in 1993. It would be a plausible story (from a conspiratorial stand point).

See? None of the demolition theories make sense from an over all conspiracy perspective. All you got is "Well I don't see how building fall down". It's been explained repeatedly, but you don't accept the answer because you don't want to. I'm no structural engineer. I'm not an architect. I'm not a metallurgy guy. I bet you aren't either. I'm satisfied with the official/NIST answer as to how it happened. It makes sense based on the little I know. You're not satisfied and you're aligning with some alternative that you don't have the knowledge to evaluate - but then you have to answer my questions because they are essential elements of your alternative theory. You can't just say, "Explosives definitely did it" and then avoid the implications of that very complicated theory. And it is just a theory because none of these models, etc are based on an actual experiment of bringing - or not bringing - a building down in the way described by either side of the arguments.

"As the North Tower collapsed, considerable amounts of debris smashed into the south face of WTC 7, effectively scooping out 25% of the building from the ground to the tenth floor, thus massively weakening the building’s structural integrity. Multiple fires also started as a result of the collapse. One, on the fifth floor, raged for seven solid hours. It was only a matter of time before the structural damage caused by the North Tower’s collapse added to steel weakened by hours and hours of fire brought the building down. That the building’s collapse looked suspiciously like a controlled demolition can be explained by the fact that with the middle of the building severely compromised, first the east and then the west sides of the building collapsed in on themselves before pancaking to the ground, thus giving off the impression of a controlled demolition of the type often seen on the news and YouTube" - This, contrary to conspiracy theories about explosives, is simple and makes sense.

Btw, Steel frame buildings have collapsed due to fire since 9/11. There's a video of one doing just that in Iran. That said, it's a meaningless statement because not all steel frame buildings are the same, nor are the circumstances. There would have to be examples of exactly the same design and material (i.e. replicas) with exactly the same fires for the statement to mean anything.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
#72
I just got back from a trip to Top Golf with my college/high school age kids (and my daughter's boyfriend) and a subsequent trip to a BBQ Wings joint. Everyone was wearing masks and following common sense distancing rules. When we were in our golf "bay" we dropped the masks. When we were at our table in the Wings joint we dropped our masks.

Literally, cost us nothing. No freedoms, no destruction of our lives, no nothing. Just a simple act no different than putting on a seat belt in terms of thought or inconvenience.

It seems that is what Mike Daw was suggesting.

Can we dispense with the melodramatics regarding such trivial things?
You have no idea what it's like to live under lockdown with curfews then. The day you just described could get you arrested here, or at the very least you would pay a huge fine.

No leaving your house without a valid reason (essential worker, groceries, medical appointment). No extended family gatherings, even in your home. No more than 5 people in a group outside. No restaurants, except take-out food.

No opportunities to see family. My parents are quite elderly, and I haven't seen them for more than a year and probably won't be allowed to for at least another year.

All this while the scientific evidence shows that job-killing lockdowns are not saving people, and have led to increased suicides, overdoses, and poverty.

https://archive.vn/QGyET

I guess Trump did a pretty good job, seeing as you are not suffering the same kinds of extended house arrest many others are dealing with.
 
#73
The published paper (and the documentary) reaches the conclusion that fire damage/heat (on its own) could not have collapsed building 7.

I don’t think anyone is now disputing that (see my post above).
 
#74
You have no idea what it's like to live under lockdown with curfews then. The day you just described could get you arrested here, or at the very least you would pay a huge fine.

No leaving your house without a valid reason (essential worker, groceries, medical appointment). No extended family gatherings, even in your home. No more than 5 people in a group outside. No restaurants, except take-out food.

No opportunities to see family. My parents are quite elderly, and I haven't seen them for more than a year and probably won't be allowed to for at least another year.
I have great sympathy for the situation you describe. I believe you indicated you're in Canada? Here in the Midwest of the U.S. we haven't been under those types of policies since, I think, May/June. I'm especially sorry to hear about your inability to see your parents. That's really hard.
 
#75
I have great sympathy for the situation you describe. I believe you indicated you're in Canada? Here in the Midwest of the U.S. we haven't been under those types of policies since, I think, May/June. I'm especially sorry to hear about your inability to see your parents. That's really hard.
The Canadian government had months to prepare for a second wave. They haven't. They could have made additional hospital beds and ventilators available. They didn't. They could have gotten enough vaccine to vaccinate Canadians. They didn't do that.

This is what living under socialism is like. Every year during flu season, our medical facilities are overwhelmed.
 
#76
https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/www.popularmechanics.com/military/amp6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/


WTC 7 Collapse

Claim: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."





Fire Storm: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse. (Photograph by New York Office of Emergency Management)
FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom—approximately 10 stories—about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse. to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors—along with the building's unusual construction—were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
Excellent a solid honest view
 
#77
"As the North Tower collapsed, considerable amounts of debris smashed into the south face of WTC 7, effectively scooping out 25% of the building from the ground to the tenth floor...
If you watched the video I posted, you would know this whole paragraph you posted is false.

Contemplate how it came to be that what you believe about 9/11 is false.

I hope you will begin the process of eliminating contradictions.
 
#78
If you watched the video I posted, you would know this whole paragraph you posted is false.

Contemplate how it came to be that what you believe about 9/11 is false.

I hope you will begin the process of eliminating contradictions.
Charlie,
I did watch it. Same old subtle innuendos of something sinister - like they quickly removed the remains of building, "normally" in an airplane crash they look for every last bit.....in a normal crime investigation.......none of which is truly representing what was done by investigators.

The rest is the same tired opinions and sound bites, albeit repackaged, that have been debunked years ago.

Sorry. I'm not in the least convinced. There is 0 proof.

You haven't responded to any of my questions. When all you have is a theory and circumstantial evidence, motive and opportunity become paramount in making the case. So let's hear it. Who planted the alleged bombs? When? How? Why?
 
Last edited:
#79
If you did watch it, you know that this statement you copy/pasted from history.co.uk is false...

"As the North Tower collapsed, considerable amounts of debris smashed into the south face of WTC 7, effectively scooping out 25% of the building from the ground to the tenth floor, thus massively weakening the building’s structural integrity."

Do you acknowledge what you posted is false?
 
#80
If you did watch it, you know that this statement you copy/pasted from history.co.uk is false...

"As the North Tower collapsed, considerable amounts of debris smashed into the south face of WTC 7, effectively scooping out 25% of the building from the ground to the tenth floor, thus massively weakening the building’s structural integrity."

Do you acknowledge what you posted is false?
I do not acknowledge that it is false. Just because the video - and the handful of people who created it - say so, doesn't make it so.

What convinces you that it is false, other than the video?

And you know what's funny? The video keeps trotting out the tire trope that no steel building had ever collapsed due to fire. Well that is obviously false. Earlier that day, two big buildings collapsed due to fire (+ structural damage). Maybe they got tunnel vision and forgot about the two main towers.
 
Last edited:
Top