Let's get started with a link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_th...logical_origins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience...al_explanations
Ok, now the things which is missing from that link that jumps out at me (a former conspiracy theorist/pseudoscience advocate who is still on speaking terms with many conspiracy theorists/pseudoscience advocates) about all conspiracy theories and many pseudoscience claims is their sensationalism. I mean, we're talking about cold fusion, false flag operations, alien abductions, monsters, high crimes and devious secret societies. Almost any conspiracy theory plays out like the plot of a science fiction movie. All it's lacking is the incorruptible hero and a plucky female love interest. Although this gets little attention in the above links, I honestly think that many true believers subscribe to these ideas for the same reasons the more skeptical among us watch sci-fi or technothriller movies. It's not just entertainment, it's the feeling we get from putting ourselves in the protagonist's shoes, saving the galaxy, the nation or some innocent civilians.
Now here's the sad part: Some of these true believers are really smart. They come up with elaborate conspiracies, research and add to other conspiracies and think up imaginative new 'theories.' So what would happen if these people actually used their gifts to better themselves?
A pseudoscientist can make claims about free energy, cold fusion or anti-gravity from now till the cows come home, but no matter how imaginative or well-modeled an idea they produce, they'll never get any recognition because their ideas are based on their own imaginations, not hard science. The conspiracy theorist can think up new and imaginative plots and schemes all day long, but will never be vindicated because their ideas are based on their own imagination, not actual events.
Here's the catch: Scientists use their imagination. So do spymasters and public officials. Someone had to think up General Relativity before it could be modeled and tested. Someone has to think up elaborate plots to garner intelligence from foreign powers.
So some of these pseudoscientists could actually win the acclaim and respect they so desperately seek. Some of these conspiracy theorists could actually be the men in black. They just need to put all that effort and imagination into doing something constructive, instead of sitting around naval gazing.
Did you know that there are ways to get your college almost completely paid for by the government and private charities? Did you know that the US Army advertises slots in the Operational Detachment Delta selection course (That's delta force, by the way) in Stars and Stripes? Wouldn't all you true believers out there be much happier actually doing the things you dream about all day?
I think so. I think the world would be a better place if people spent less time daydreaming about grand adventures and monumental achievements and started actually working towards those things. But that's just me.
The preceding was a paid announcement from the American Association of People Who Want You to Shut the Hell Up and Do Something With Your Worthless Lives.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 27 2009, 11:54 PM)
Here's the catch: Scientists use their imagination. So do spymasters and public officials. Someone had to think up General Relativity before it could be modeled and tested. Someone has to think up elaborate plots to garner intelligence from foreign powers.
So some of these pseudoscientists could actually win the acclaim and respect they so desperately seek. Some of these conspiracy theorists could actually be the men in black. They just need to put all that effort and imagination into doing something constructive, instead of sitting around naval gazing.
A person with a flame thrower is more likely to destroy a target in the dark than someone with a water gun. By this I mean that maybe great minds are indistinguishable from total crackpots in level of bravery of charting new territory where few or none have dared or known to go before. However, as one develops better tools and the other just keeps going with UFOs and "Elvis is alive and incognito," the one with the better conceptual tools and factual basis is more likely to hit something relevant. Once oil is struck, it's the pumps and tankers and refineries that turn it into something valuable.
The thing I hate about conspiracy theory (and of course this is going to be itself a conspiracy theory on my part!) is that when there are so many sensational ones hyped up in the media, that it produces an everyday culture of labeling any innovative theory about power or social control as a ridiculous conspiracy theory. Then, anything described using the language of conspiracy theory becomes suspect as insanity so, for example, if your boss talks to your colleagues to get an idea of how you work, and asks them specifically to pay attention to your performance in specific situations, you could say there is a conspiracy to spy on you - especially if your boss tells your colleagues not to tell you he asked them to monitor your performance in this way. Still, if you discover this and tell them that they were conspiring to spy on your secretly, they will tell you that you're exaggerating and making normal everyday work activities into conspiracy theory.
So even though I agree that conspiracy theory usually is ridiculously sensational, the flip-side of this coin is that people assume that anything that is normal in everyday life is not a conspiracy, even though people secretly watching each other informally all the time and talk about each other behind each other's backs. It almost makes you wonder if the whole sensationalism of conspiracy theories isn't a conspiracy to normalize spying and conspiring activities with low-level consequences among people in everyday situations.
But since that's a conspiracy theory, it can't possibly be realistic, right? Or am I just twisting language?
So some of these pseudoscientists could actually win the acclaim and respect they so desperately seek. Some of these conspiracy theorists could actually be the men in black. They just need to put all that effort and imagination into doing something constructive, instead of sitting around naval gazing.
A person with a flame thrower is more likely to destroy a target in the dark than someone with a water gun. By this I mean that maybe great minds are indistinguishable from total crackpots in level of bravery of charting new territory where few or none have dared or known to go before. However, as one develops better tools and the other just keeps going with UFOs and "Elvis is alive and incognito," the one with the better conceptual tools and factual basis is more likely to hit something relevant. Once oil is struck, it's the pumps and tankers and refineries that turn it into something valuable.
The thing I hate about conspiracy theory (and of course this is going to be itself a conspiracy theory on my part!) is that when there are so many sensational ones hyped up in the media, that it produces an everyday culture of labeling any innovative theory about power or social control as a ridiculous conspiracy theory. Then, anything described using the language of conspiracy theory becomes suspect as insanity so, for example, if your boss talks to your colleagues to get an idea of how you work, and asks them specifically to pay attention to your performance in specific situations, you could say there is a conspiracy to spy on you - especially if your boss tells your colleagues not to tell you he asked them to monitor your performance in this way. Still, if you discover this and tell them that they were conspiring to spy on your secretly, they will tell you that you're exaggerating and making normal everyday work activities into conspiracy theory.
So even though I agree that conspiracy theory usually is ridiculously sensational, the flip-side of this coin is that people assume that anything that is normal in everyday life is not a conspiracy, even though people secretly watching each other informally all the time and talk about each other behind each other's backs. It almost makes you wonder if the whole sensationalism of conspiracy theories isn't a conspiracy to normalize spying and conspiring activities with low-level consequences among people in everyday situations.
But since that's a conspiracy theory, it can't possibly be realistic, right? Or am I just twisting language?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 27 2009, 09:25 PM)
A person with a flame thrower is more likely to destroy a target in the dark than someone with a water gun.
A person with a flame thrower stands more chance of destroying almost anything, under almost any conditions than a person with a water gun. Your analogy is incredibly flawed, likely due to some bias.
QUOTE
By this I mean that maybe great minds are indistinguishable from total crackpots in level of bravery of charting new territory where few or none have dared or known to go before.
It takes absolutely no bravery to sit around imagining things. Whether this takes place in an intelligence strategy conference, in front of a computer with a conspiracy theory website open, in front of a whiteboard in a university office or in an armchair with a pop science book open. "Charting new territory," only requires bravery when there is some personal danger involved.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| By this I mean that maybe great minds are indistinguishable from total crackpots in level of bravery of charting new territory where few or none have dared or known to go before. |
It takes absolutely no bravery to sit around imagining things. Whether this takes place in an intelligence strategy conference, in front of a computer with a conspiracy theory website open, in front of a whiteboard in a university office or in an armchair with a pop science book open. "Charting new territory," only requires bravery when there is some personal danger involved.
However, as one develops better tools and the other just keeps going with UFOs and "Elvis is alive and incognito," the one with the better conceptual tools and factual basis is more likely to hit something relevant. Once oil is struck, it's the pumps and tankers and refineries that turn it into something valuable.
However, as one develops better tools and the other just keeps going with UFOs and "Elvis is alive and incognito," the one with the better conceptual tools and factual basis is more likely to hit something relevant. Once oil is struck, it's the pumps and tankers and refineries that turn it into something valuable.
It is important not to underestimate this increase in likelihood. A conspiracy theorist with no working knowledge of tradecraft stands virtually no chance of uncovering a real conspiracy. Similarly, a pseudoscientist with no scientific expertise to speak of in their area of interest stands almost no chance of making any new discoveries. Even Tesla (the hero of pseudoscientists), who had no formal degrees, had an incredible level of expertise in his field, thanks to years spent studying the subject of electricity and engineering.
QUOTE
The thing I hate about conspiracy theory (and of course this is going to be itself a conspiracy theory on my part!) is that when there are so many sensational ones hyped up in the media, that it produces an everyday culture of labeling any innovative theory about power or social control as a ridiculous conspiracy theory.
Yet "shocking new discoveries" are announced every day on the news as actual science or political intrigue. This simply isn't true. While the word "conspiracy" carries negative connotations, new ideas about conspiracies and pseudoscience are very rarely accurately categorized by the mass media and general public.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The thing I hate about conspiracy theory (and of course this is going to be itself a conspiracy theory on my part!) is that when there are so many sensational ones hyped up in the media, that it produces an everyday culture of labeling any innovative theory about power or social control as a ridiculous conspiracy theory. |
Yet "shocking new discoveries" are announced every day on the news as actual science or political intrigue. This simply isn't true. While the word "conspiracy" carries negative connotations, new ideas about conspiracies and pseudoscience are very rarely accurately categorized by the mass media and general public.
Then, anything described using the language of conspiracy theory becomes suspect as insanity so, for example, if your boss talks to your colleagues to get an idea of how you work, and asks them specifically to pay attention to your performance in specific situations, you could say there is a conspiracy to spy on you - especially if your boss tells your colleagues not to tell you he asked them to monitor your performance in this way. Still, if you discover this and tell them that they were conspiring to spy on your secretly, they will tell you that you're exaggerating and making normal everyday work activities into conspiracy theory.
Then, anything described using the language of conspiracy theory becomes suspect as insanity so, for example, if your boss talks to your colleagues to get an idea of how you work, and asks them specifically to pay attention to your performance in specific situations, you could say there is a conspiracy to spy on you - especially if your boss tells your colleagues not to tell you he asked them to monitor your performance in this way. Still, if you discover this and tell them that they were conspiring to spy on your secretly, they will tell you that you're exaggerating and making normal everyday work activities into conspiracy theory.
The situation you describe is, in fact a conspiracy. A conspiracy is any agreement (especially a secretive one) between two people.
QUOTE
So even though I agree that conspiracy theory usually is ridiculously sensational, the flip-side of this coin is that people assume that anything that is normal in everyday life is not a conspiracy, even though people secretly watching each other informally all the time and talk about each other behind each other's backs.
Gossip is not a conspiracy.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So even though I agree that conspiracy theory usually is ridiculously sensational, the flip-side of this coin is that people assume that anything that is normal in everyday life is not a conspiracy, even though people secretly watching each other informally all the time and talk about each other behind each other's backs. |
Gossip is not a conspiracy.
It almost makes you wonder if the whole sensationalism of conspiracy theories isn't a conspiracy to normalize spying and conspiring activities with low-level consequences among people in everyday situations.
It almost makes you wonder if the whole sensationalism of conspiracy theories isn't a conspiracy to normalize spying and conspiring activities with low-level consequences among people in everyday situations.
Disinformation almost certainly exists. Government officials were instructed by their superiors to lend credence to alien visitation theories and reports of experimentation with alien artifacts in order to maintain the secrecy of actual government projects, most notable at the Groom Lake facility (Area 51).
QUOTE
But since that's a conspiracy theory, it can't possibly be realistic, right? Or am I just twisting language?
You are twisting language, but no, it is not likely that there exists a massive conspiracy to undermine the believability of conspiracy theories. For the most part, any effort taken by the government with regards to conspiracy theories is either to debunk them outright by making secret information public (and this generally only occurs with regards to theories which could produce harm), or to encourage them in order to avoid attention being drawn to actual clandestine activities.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 28 2009, 02:01 PM)
A person with a flame thrower stands more chance of destroying almost anything, under almost any conditions than a person with a water gun. Your analogy is incredibly flawed, likely due to some bias.
I didn't use "flamethrower" to refer to destructiveness. I was meaning that a person with a stronger tool is more likely to hit "pay dirt." Maybe I should have said that digging randomly with a massive hydraulic digging machine is more likely to uncover valuable minerals than digging with a shovel. Of course, digging with geological insight is even more effective than the hydraulic machine. This is the same thing you are saying about working with or without "tradecraft."
It might be easier to make up random theories when your career isn't on the line, but don't ignore the fact that many people won't even bother to think for themselves because they don't fear the social marginalization that will come from their friends for doing so. Any degree or step in the direction of independent creative thought takes bravery, and persisting with it long enough to learn from your mistakes and hone some degree of refinement takes more. I think you're unfairly discounting the labor of cultivating organic intellect.
It might be easier to make up random theories when your career isn't on the line, but don't ignore the fact that many people won't even bother to think for themselves because they don't fear the social marginalization that will come from their friends for doing so. Any degree or step in the direction of independent creative thought takes bravery, and persisting with it long enough to learn from your mistakes and hone some degree of refinement takes more. I think you're unfairly discounting the labor of cultivating organic intellect.
Yet "shocking new discoveries" are announced every day on the news as actual science or political intrigue. This simply isn't true. While the word "conspiracy" carries negative connotations, new ideas about conspiracies and pseudoscience are very rarely accurately categorized by the mass media and general public.
I agree that the media is full of communications artists competing to manipulate viewers/listeners/readers. Advertising is the most honest form of manipulation, because at least the business paying for the spot identifies itself, albeit as a seductive brand name, and rarely with the explicit statement of purpose and technique. Ads rarely start with an abstract that explains, "the following commercial advertisement is intended to make you think about feeling embarrassed for having a stinky toilet so that you will boost our sales." It's obvious to anyone who understands it, but they don't state it explicitly for some reason.
Still, the fact that so many people are quick to label anyone a conspiracy theorist for any kind of critical analysis of anything suggests that the media is promoting that ideology as well. I think it probably comes from the personality-training shows like sitcoms and dramatic series where you are given characters to admire and seek to emulate in your own behavior. If House calls someone a "conspiracy idiot," everyone who aspires to be as wittily clever and sardonic as House will look for opportunities to call someone around them "a conspiracy idiot."
The the question which kinds of knowledge are able to safely pass without the risk of being labeled a conspiracy theory. People who play it safe socially will constrain their minds to thinking and expressing thoughts and ideas that avoid that risk. This separates everyday talk according to classification of how taboo it is. Conspiracy theory is taboo, so it is a social risk to say anything that might be labeled as such, especially repeatedly because you get branded for it.
Personally, I don't constrain things I post on this forum based on social worries of being called "crackpot" because I believe that freedom of expression and freedom of thought should be a stronger interest in my actions than social conformity. I see social-interests as interfering with value-neutrality, and thus anti-scientific. But, luckily, I am somewhat older and wiser than when anti-conformity would motivate me to mindlessly rebel against anything without thinking critically about the content.
That's funny. Why doesn't the second statement contradict the first to you?
That's funny. Why doesn't the second statement contradict the first to you?
Disinformation almost certainly exists. Government officials were instructed by their superiors to lend credence to alien visitation theories and reports of experimentation with alien artifacts in order to maintain the secrecy of actual government projects, most notable at the Groom Lake facility (Area 51).
Yes, I first suspected official disinformation once when I was watching CSpan during the War on Terror and people were going on and on endlessly about every possible detail about nuclear regulations. It occurred to me that this might be an intentional strategy of inundating with data anyone trying to get information on nuclear anything.
I don't think it's a conscious conspiracy, and I don't think the purpose is to undermine the believability of conspiracy theories. I think the purpose is to generate widespread fear of non-conformist thought. I think that the reason it's not conscious is because social-control occurs largely as a natural byproduct of emotional social relations. People want social approval and love, and they stoop to manipulating their appearances, behavior, and even their personalities to make friends. So people who worry about losing friendship because they talk about things that could be labeled "conspiracy theories" also think they will gain social status and make friends by putting down people as being "conspiracy theorists." It's sheeple in wolves clothing.
I don't think it's a conscious conspiracy, and I don't think the purpose is to undermine the believability of conspiracy theories. I think the purpose is to generate widespread fear of non-conformist thought. I think that the reason it's not conscious is because social-control occurs largely as a natural byproduct of emotional social relations. People want social approval and love, and they stoop to manipulating their appearances, behavior, and even their personalities to make friends. So people who worry about losing friendship because they talk about things that could be labeled "conspiracy theories" also think they will gain social status and make friends by putting down people as being "conspiracy theorists." It's sheeple in wolves clothing.
For the most part, any effort taken by the government with regards to conspiracy theories is either to debunk them outright by making secret information public (and this generally only occurs with regards to theories which could produce harm), or to encourage them in order to avoid attention being drawn to actual clandestine activities.
Anyone wanting to protect such clandestine activities from coming to light would call your entire idea a conspiracy theory to dissuade anyone from even thinking about it, let alone pursuing it.
And you must admit that putting lots of energy and time into pursuing conspiracies can be an awful waste of time. After all, if people are really committed to keeping a secret, there's not much that could persuade them to own up to it besides a direct confrontation with God Himself. So I think that spreading light to every deep dark corner of people's minds and hearts is more effective than trying to unearth a conspiracy. If their consciences are impure than let them burn, no? The truth will set them free.
I didn't use "flamethrower" to refer to destructiveness. I was meaning that a person with a stronger tool is more likely to hit "pay dirt." Maybe I should have said that digging randomly with a massive hydraulic digging machine is more likely to uncover valuable minerals than digging with a shovel. Of course, digging with geological insight is even more effective than the hydraulic machine. This is the same thing you are saying about working with or without "tradecraft."
QUOTE
It takes absolutely no bravery to sit around imagining things. Whether this takes place in an intelligence strategy conference, in front of a computer with a conspiracy theory website open, in front of a whiteboard in a university office or in an armchair with a pop science book open. "Charting new territory," only requires bravery when there is some personal danger involved.
It might be easier to make up random theories when your career isn't on the line, but don't ignore the fact that many people won't even bother to think for themselves because they don't fear the social marginalization that will come from their friends for doing so. Any degree or step in the direction of independent creative thought takes bravery, and persisting with it long enough to learn from your mistakes and hone some degree of refinement takes more. I think you're unfairly discounting the labor of cultivating organic intellect.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It takes absolutely no bravery to sit around imagining things. Whether this takes place in an intelligence strategy conference, in front of a computer with a conspiracy theory website open, in front of a whiteboard in a university office or in an armchair with a pop science book open. "Charting new territory," only requires bravery when there is some personal danger involved. |
It might be easier to make up random theories when your career isn't on the line, but don't ignore the fact that many people won't even bother to think for themselves because they don't fear the social marginalization that will come from their friends for doing so. Any degree or step in the direction of independent creative thought takes bravery, and persisting with it long enough to learn from your mistakes and hone some degree of refinement takes more. I think you're unfairly discounting the labor of cultivating organic intellect.
Yet "shocking new discoveries" are announced every day on the news as actual science or political intrigue. This simply isn't true. While the word "conspiracy" carries negative connotations, new ideas about conspiracies and pseudoscience are very rarely accurately categorized by the mass media and general public.
I agree that the media is full of communications artists competing to manipulate viewers/listeners/readers. Advertising is the most honest form of manipulation, because at least the business paying for the spot identifies itself, albeit as a seductive brand name, and rarely with the explicit statement of purpose and technique. Ads rarely start with an abstract that explains, "the following commercial advertisement is intended to make you think about feeling embarrassed for having a stinky toilet so that you will boost our sales." It's obvious to anyone who understands it, but they don't state it explicitly for some reason.
Still, the fact that so many people are quick to label anyone a conspiracy theorist for any kind of critical analysis of anything suggests that the media is promoting that ideology as well. I think it probably comes from the personality-training shows like sitcoms and dramatic series where you are given characters to admire and seek to emulate in your own behavior. If House calls someone a "conspiracy idiot," everyone who aspires to be as wittily clever and sardonic as House will look for opportunities to call someone around them "a conspiracy idiot."
The the question which kinds of knowledge are able to safely pass without the risk of being labeled a conspiracy theory. People who play it safe socially will constrain their minds to thinking and expressing thoughts and ideas that avoid that risk. This separates everyday talk according to classification of how taboo it is. Conspiracy theory is taboo, so it is a social risk to say anything that might be labeled as such, especially repeatedly because you get branded for it.
Personally, I don't constrain things I post on this forum based on social worries of being called "crackpot" because I believe that freedom of expression and freedom of thought should be a stronger interest in my actions than social conformity. I see social-interests as interfering with value-neutrality, and thus anti-scientific. But, luckily, I am somewhat older and wiser than when anti-conformity would motivate me to mindlessly rebel against anything without thinking critically about the content.
QUOTE
The situation you describe is, in fact a conspiracy. A conspiracy is any agreement (especially a secretive one) between two people.
Gossip is not a conspiracy.
Gossip is not a conspiracy.
That's funny. Why doesn't the second statement contradict the first to you?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The situation you describe is, in fact a conspiracy. A conspiracy is any agreement (especially a secretive one) between two people. Gossip is not a conspiracy. |
That's funny. Why doesn't the second statement contradict the first to you?
Disinformation almost certainly exists. Government officials were instructed by their superiors to lend credence to alien visitation theories and reports of experimentation with alien artifacts in order to maintain the secrecy of actual government projects, most notable at the Groom Lake facility (Area 51).
Yes, I first suspected official disinformation once when I was watching CSpan during the War on Terror and people were going on and on endlessly about every possible detail about nuclear regulations. It occurred to me that this might be an intentional strategy of inundating with data anyone trying to get information on nuclear anything.
QUOTE
You are twisting language, but no, it is not likely that there exists a massive conspiracy to undermine the believability of conspiracy theories.
I don't think it's a conscious conspiracy, and I don't think the purpose is to undermine the believability of conspiracy theories. I think the purpose is to generate widespread fear of non-conformist thought. I think that the reason it's not conscious is because social-control occurs largely as a natural byproduct of emotional social relations. People want social approval and love, and they stoop to manipulating their appearances, behavior, and even their personalities to make friends. So people who worry about losing friendship because they talk about things that could be labeled "conspiracy theories" also think they will gain social status and make friends by putting down people as being "conspiracy theorists." It's sheeple in wolves clothing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You are twisting language, but no, it is not likely that there exists a massive conspiracy to undermine the believability of conspiracy theories. |
I don't think it's a conscious conspiracy, and I don't think the purpose is to undermine the believability of conspiracy theories. I think the purpose is to generate widespread fear of non-conformist thought. I think that the reason it's not conscious is because social-control occurs largely as a natural byproduct of emotional social relations. People want social approval and love, and they stoop to manipulating their appearances, behavior, and even their personalities to make friends. So people who worry about losing friendship because they talk about things that could be labeled "conspiracy theories" also think they will gain social status and make friends by putting down people as being "conspiracy theorists." It's sheeple in wolves clothing.
For the most part, any effort taken by the government with regards to conspiracy theories is either to debunk them outright by making secret information public (and this generally only occurs with regards to theories which could produce harm), or to encourage them in order to avoid attention being drawn to actual clandestine activities.
Anyone wanting to protect such clandestine activities from coming to light would call your entire idea a conspiracy theory to dissuade anyone from even thinking about it, let alone pursuing it.
And you must admit that putting lots of energy and time into pursuing conspiracies can be an awful waste of time. After all, if people are really committed to keeping a secret, there's not much that could persuade them to own up to it besides a direct confrontation with God Himself. So I think that spreading light to every deep dark corner of people's minds and hearts is more effective than trying to unearth a conspiracy. If their consciences are impure than let them burn, no? The truth will set them free.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 28 2009, 11:01 AM)
Yes, I first suspected official disinformation once when I was watching CSpan during the War on Terror and people were going on and on endlessly about every possible detail about nuclear regulations. It occurred to me that this might be an intentional strategy of inundating with data anyone trying to get information on nuclear anything.
Wow, you were overwhelmed by information while watching television? Your brain must have a very limited capacity.
I can't tell you WHO you were watching on CSPAN, but I can tell you that if they were going into great detail then they are DOING THEIR JOBS. Glossing over details is an invitation for abuse. That's why the USA PATRIOT Act passed; not everyone read it through before they signed it.
Wow, you were overwhelmed by information while watching television? Your brain must have a very limited capacity.
I can't tell you WHO you were watching on CSPAN, but I can tell you that if they were going into great detail then they are DOING THEIR JOBS. Glossing over details is an invitation for abuse. That's why the USA PATRIOT Act passed; not everyone read it through before they signed it.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 28 2009, 03:12 PM)
Wow, you were overwhelmed by information while watching television? Your brain must have a very limited capacity.
A picture's worth 1000 words, and TV has, what, 30 pictures per second? You must have an uncanny ability to filter all information but that which suits you. And my impression of you is that very little in fact suits you, so voluminous flows of information must do little more than fuel your sense that what you see on your side of the filter is the scarcest gems of truth.
Maybe, but you don't think that disinformation is built into the language of bills themselves? It's not a conspiracy. It's the product of a legal culture that traded in fidelity to the crucible of truth some time ago for the pursuit of the ability to manipulate and win legal battles and contractual negotiations. But, then again, does it seem that far fetched that the CIA would ask congress to help them spread disinformation and counterintelligence during wartime? It strikes me as highly probably that many congressional representatives would be honored to serve the war effort in this way.
A picture's worth 1000 words, and TV has, what, 30 pictures per second? You must have an uncanny ability to filter all information but that which suits you. And my impression of you is that very little in fact suits you, so voluminous flows of information must do little more than fuel your sense that what you see on your side of the filter is the scarcest gems of truth.
QUOTE
I can't tell you WHO you were watching on CSPAN, but I can tell you that if they were going into great detail then they are DOING THEIR JOBS. Glossing over details is an invitation for abuse. That's why the USA PATRIOT Act passed; not everyone read it through before they signed it.
Maybe, but you don't think that disinformation is built into the language of bills themselves? It's not a conspiracy. It's the product of a legal culture that traded in fidelity to the crucible of truth some time ago for the pursuit of the ability to manipulate and win legal battles and contractual negotiations. But, then again, does it seem that far fetched that the CIA would ask congress to help them spread disinformation and counterintelligence during wartime? It strikes me as highly probably that many congressional representatives would be honored to serve the war effort in this way.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 28 2009, 11:33 AM)
A picture's worth 1000 words, and TV has, what, 30 pictures per second? You must have an uncanny ability to filter all information but that which suits you. And my impression of you is that very little in fact suits you, so voluminous flows of information must do little more than fuel your sense that what you see on your side of the filter is the scarcest gems of truth.
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but a video clip is definitely not. I watch television for entertainment purposes, and I think that it is a mistake to use it for information-gathering purposes. Look at the channels "devoted" to educational purposes:
History Channel: Devotes most of its time to finding mythical creatures and biblical archaeology. Most educational show is "Modern Marvels"
Discovery Channel: Same Story. Most educational show is "Mythbusters," sad.
Science Channel: Not half bad.
Legal documents are necessarily verbose because of the inadequacy of the English language. When you state something in simple terms, you often leave loopholes that must be closed with further detail. A gaping loophole could undermine the entire purpose of a bill. Even then, loopholes are discovered later, and exploited until the hole can be "patched," which seldom happens.
If you want to accuse the CIA of getting congress to spread disinformation, then give examples.
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but a video clip is definitely not. I watch television for entertainment purposes, and I think that it is a mistake to use it for information-gathering purposes. Look at the channels "devoted" to educational purposes:
History Channel: Devotes most of its time to finding mythical creatures and biblical archaeology. Most educational show is "Modern Marvels"
Discovery Channel: Same Story. Most educational show is "Mythbusters," sad.
Science Channel: Not half bad.
QUOTE
Maybe, but you don't think that disinformation is built into the language of bills themselves? It's not a conspiracy. It's the product of a legal culture that traded in fidelity to the crucible of truth some time ago for the pursuit of the ability to manipulate and win legal battles and contractual negotiations. But, then again, does it seem that far fetched that the CIA would ask congress to help them spread disinformation and counterintelligence during wartime? It strikes me as highly probably that many congressional representatives would be honored to serve the war effort in this way.
Legal documents are necessarily verbose because of the inadequacy of the English language. When you state something in simple terms, you often leave loopholes that must be closed with further detail. A gaping loophole could undermine the entire purpose of a bill. Even then, loopholes are discovered later, and exploited until the hole can be "patched," which seldom happens.
If you want to accuse the CIA of getting congress to spread disinformation, then give examples.
Well.. I am going to disagree with Flyingbuttressman on a few things. I am sure he will kick my rear end for it. 
Much like the internet and even books, television is a great source of information. The trick is to learn how to discern which information is correct and which information is false.
Let me tell you a short story to illustrate.
One of my fourth year (BA) thesis was on the papacy. Specifically it was on so called "Bad Popes". You would not believe some of the horrible and sometimes hilarious stuff that Popes have done. When your sex life is too raunchy even for Italians, you know you have gone too far. Anyway, one of the harder tasks however was finding authors on the Papacy that are not apologists. Winnowing out the correct information from the false is quite a challenge when the authors from that period have every possible motive to lie. However, there are a number of techniques to do so. If you want a great example of that, look up "Pope Joan" someday.
It's like that for every media. I just got a chain email about how Captain Kangaroo had been a decorated war hero and so was Mr Rogers.
All BS of course, but such emails are very popular. Especially the creationism ones.
Every media can lie. However, every media gives you some information, even among the lies.
BTW... actually I like "Mythbusters". I don't pretend it's a science show but it's entertaining and quite a lot of good science can be found on it. You just have to filter out the error quotient and the sensationalism.
Like with everything.
Much like the internet and even books, television is a great source of information. The trick is to learn how to discern which information is correct and which information is false.
Let me tell you a short story to illustrate.
One of my fourth year (BA) thesis was on the papacy. Specifically it was on so called "Bad Popes". You would not believe some of the horrible and sometimes hilarious stuff that Popes have done. When your sex life is too raunchy even for Italians, you know you have gone too far. Anyway, one of the harder tasks however was finding authors on the Papacy that are not apologists. Winnowing out the correct information from the false is quite a challenge when the authors from that period have every possible motive to lie. However, there are a number of techniques to do so. If you want a great example of that, look up "Pope Joan" someday.
It's like that for every media. I just got a chain email about how Captain Kangaroo had been a decorated war hero and so was Mr Rogers.
All BS of course, but such emails are very popular. Especially the creationism ones.
Every media can lie. However, every media gives you some information, even among the lies.
BTW... actually I like "Mythbusters". I don't pretend it's a science show but it's entertaining and quite a lot of good science can be found on it. You just have to filter out the error quotient and the sensationalism.
Like with everything.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 28 2009, 03:42 PM)
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but a video clip is definitely not. I watch television for entertainment purposes, and I think that it is a mistake to use it for information-gathering purposes. Look at the channels "devoted" to educational purposes:
I would say that you should distinguish between information, knowledge, and wisdom. Pixels are information. Good camera work produces good visual information conveyance. Knowledge can be obtained through information, but you don't necessary have to accept the knowledge that the program-makers are expressing. You can make your own knowledge with critical reference to the information and knowledge they send you. Wisdom, imo, is never received. Or better said, "received wisdom" is just a form of received knowledge to the unenlightened receiver. Wisdom has to be deeply understood for it to truly function as wisdom, otherwise it may be known but not comprehended wisely.
I get the impression that there is a pretty strict correlation between education and orthodox transfer of knowledge in your mind. Do you believe in learner-directed, emergent, or research-based learning/education at all?
I don't think this is due to the inadequacy of English or any other language, although it surely facilitates it. I think the real cause is the will of some people to use rules and policies as obstacles to work around instead of as guidelines or parameters for how to function. If there's a rule like "no eating in class" and a kid chewing gum says that chewing gum isn't eating, the kid may have sincerely thought about the rule and believed the intention was to prevent crumbs and spills and thought that gum wouldn't be a problem. On the other hand, the kid might know that the rule is to prevent distracting activities, like chewing and tasting, but he might still try to argue about the technical language of the rule to avoid having to comply with the spirit of the policy.
I don't think this is due to the inadequacy of English or any other language, although it surely facilitates it. I think the real cause is the will of some people to use rules and policies as obstacles to work around instead of as guidelines or parameters for how to function. If there's a rule like "no eating in class" and a kid chewing gum says that chewing gum isn't eating, the kid may have sincerely thought about the rule and believed the intention was to prevent crumbs and spills and thought that gum wouldn't be a problem. On the other hand, the kid might know that the rule is to prevent distracting activities, like chewing and tasting, but he might still try to argue about the technical language of the rule to avoid having to comply with the spirit of the policy.
If you want to accuse the CIA of getting congress to spread disinformation, then give examples.
All I know is that I think that many congresspeople would gladly subordinate free public democratic representation and discussion for the opportunity to act as agents of centralized propaganda if they believed it was in the interest of security or possibly even economic benefit.
If you want to claim that congresspeople are saints who are publicly open about every interest and intent that goes through their minds and administrations, can YOU give examples? The only example I can think of is when that one legislator talked about selling Obama's congressional seat and got fired. That didn't set a very good precedent for encouraging public openness about the role of financial interests in congressional politics, did it?
You miss out entirely on what the law actually is.
The law has nothing directly to do with truth or justice. It has to do with order.
The law of a country is a social compact, agreed by the majority, with the intent of arbitrating disputes. The basic idea is to keep people from killing each other whenever they happen to disagree.
You have a dispute.. a judge says you are right.. he is wrong.. or vice versa. These are the rules we have agreed upon. Same goes with disputes against the state. It's not about who's actually right or wrong... it's about rules and order. The alternative is quite a bit bloodier.
I would say that you should distinguish between information, knowledge, and wisdom. Pixels are information. Good camera work produces good visual information conveyance. Knowledge can be obtained through information, but you don't necessary have to accept the knowledge that the program-makers are expressing. You can make your own knowledge with critical reference to the information and knowledge they send you. Wisdom, imo, is never received. Or better said, "received wisdom" is just a form of received knowledge to the unenlightened receiver. Wisdom has to be deeply understood for it to truly function as wisdom, otherwise it may be known but not comprehended wisely.
I get the impression that there is a pretty strict correlation between education and orthodox transfer of knowledge in your mind. Do you believe in learner-directed, emergent, or research-based learning/education at all?
QUOTE
Legal documents are necessarily verbose because of the inadequacy of the English language. When you state something in simple terms, you often leave loopholes that must be closed with further detail. A gaping loophole could undermine the entire purpose of a bill. Even then, loopholes are discovered later, and exploited until the hole can be "patched," which seldom happens.
I don't think this is due to the inadequacy of English or any other language, although it surely facilitates it. I think the real cause is the will of some people to use rules and policies as obstacles to work around instead of as guidelines or parameters for how to function. If there's a rule like "no eating in class" and a kid chewing gum says that chewing gum isn't eating, the kid may have sincerely thought about the rule and believed the intention was to prevent crumbs and spills and thought that gum wouldn't be a problem. On the other hand, the kid might know that the rule is to prevent distracting activities, like chewing and tasting, but he might still try to argue about the technical language of the rule to avoid having to comply with the spirit of the policy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Legal documents are necessarily verbose because of the inadequacy of the English language. When you state something in simple terms, you often leave loopholes that must be closed with further detail. A gaping loophole could undermine the entire purpose of a bill. Even then, loopholes are discovered later, and exploited until the hole can be "patched," which seldom happens. |
I don't think this is due to the inadequacy of English or any other language, although it surely facilitates it. I think the real cause is the will of some people to use rules and policies as obstacles to work around instead of as guidelines or parameters for how to function. If there's a rule like "no eating in class" and a kid chewing gum says that chewing gum isn't eating, the kid may have sincerely thought about the rule and believed the intention was to prevent crumbs and spills and thought that gum wouldn't be a problem. On the other hand, the kid might know that the rule is to prevent distracting activities, like chewing and tasting, but he might still try to argue about the technical language of the rule to avoid having to comply with the spirit of the policy.
If you want to accuse the CIA of getting congress to spread disinformation, then give examples.
All I know is that I think that many congresspeople would gladly subordinate free public democratic representation and discussion for the opportunity to act as agents of centralized propaganda if they believed it was in the interest of security or possibly even economic benefit.
If you want to claim that congresspeople are saints who are publicly open about every interest and intent that goes through their minds and administrations, can YOU give examples? The only example I can think of is when that one legislator talked about selling Obama's congressional seat and got fired. That didn't set a very good precedent for encouraging public openness about the role of financial interests in congressional politics, did it?
QUOTE
I think the real cause is the will of some people to use rules and policies as obstacles to work around instead of as guidelines or parameters for how to function.
You miss out entirely on what the law actually is.
The law has nothing directly to do with truth or justice. It has to do with order.
The law of a country is a social compact, agreed by the majority, with the intent of arbitrating disputes. The basic idea is to keep people from killing each other whenever they happen to disagree.
You have a dispute.. a judge says you are right.. he is wrong.. or vice versa. These are the rules we have agreed upon. Same goes with disputes against the state. It's not about who's actually right or wrong... it's about rules and order. The alternative is quite a bit bloodier.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Oct 28 2009, 12:01 PM)
Much like the internet and even books, television is a great source of information. The trick is to learn how to discern which information is correct and which information is false.
The problem is that many people don't ever learn how to discern correct vs incorrect information. On the other hand, much of the information that seems to be correct isn't, or is an oversimplification of the facts.
Good article on Christians and chain emails
On several occasions, I have replied to chain emails with a link to the appropriate Snopes.com article. This usually causes one of two things: they reply with a retraction, or they stop sending me chain emails
Good article on Christians and chain emails
On several occasions, I have replied to chain emails with a link to the appropriate Snopes.com article. This usually causes one of two things: they reply with a retraction, or they stop sending me chain emails
BTW... actually I like "Mythbusters". I don't pretend it's a science show but it's entertaining and quite a lot of good science can be found on it. You just have to filter out the error quotient and the sensationalism.
I love Mythbusters, but I wish they would do a little more thinking before they try their "myths." One time, they spent half an episode trying to curve a bullet (a la Wanted) without thinking about or mentioning the fact that this is a physical impossibility without some kind of guidance mechanism.
The problem is that many people don't ever learn how to discern correct vs incorrect information. On the other hand, much of the information that seems to be correct isn't, or is an oversimplification of the facts.
QUOTE
It's like that for every media. I just got a chain email about how Captain Kangaroo had been a decorated war hero and so was Mr Rogers.
All BS of course, but such emails are very popular. Especially the creationism ones.
All BS of course, but such emails are very popular. Especially the creationism ones.
Good article on Christians and chain emails
On several occasions, I have replied to chain emails with a link to the appropriate Snopes.com article. This usually causes one of two things: they reply with a retraction, or they stop sending me chain emails
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It's like that for every media. I just got a chain email about how Captain Kangaroo had been a decorated war hero and so was Mr Rogers. All BS of course, but such emails are very popular. Especially the creationism ones. |
Good article on Christians and chain emails
On several occasions, I have replied to chain emails with a link to the appropriate Snopes.com article. This usually causes one of two things: they reply with a retraction, or they stop sending me chain emails
BTW... actually I like "Mythbusters". I don't pretend it's a science show but it's entertaining and quite a lot of good science can be found on it. You just have to filter out the error quotient and the sensationalism.
I love Mythbusters, but I wish they would do a little more thinking before they try their "myths." One time, they spent half an episode trying to curve a bullet (a la Wanted) without thinking about or mentioning the fact that this is a physical impossibility without some kind of guidance mechanism.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 28 2009, 10:01 AM)
I didn't use "flamethrower" to refer to destructiveness.
I wasn't insinuating that you were claiming that science, pseudoscience, rationalism or conspiracy theories were destructive.
QUOTE
I was meaning that a person with a stronger tool is more likely to hit "pay dirt." Maybe I should have said that digging randomly with a massive hydraulic digging machine is more likely to uncover valuable minerals than digging with a shovel.
That is an incredibly better analogy. It's clear what you mean, and it doesn't contain aspects which are blatantly in contradiction with the subject being analogized.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I was meaning that a person with a stronger tool is more likely to hit "pay dirt." Maybe I should have said that digging randomly with a massive hydraulic digging machine is more likely to uncover valuable minerals than digging with a shovel. |
That is an incredibly better analogy. It's clear what you mean, and it doesn't contain aspects which are blatantly in contradiction with the subject being analogized.
Of course, digging with geological insight is even more effective than the hydraulic machine. This is the same thing you are saying about working with or without "tradecraft."
Of course, digging with geological insight is even more effective than the hydraulic machine. This is the same thing you are saying about working with or without "tradecraft."
I don't know if it's the same thing, but it's a workable analogy. For the record, 'tradecraft' refers specifically to the skill set a spymaster or spy employs.
QUOTE
It might be easier to make up random theories when your career isn't on the line, but don't ignore the fact that many people won't even bother to think for themselves because they don't fear the social marginalization that will come from their friends for doing so.
A common sentiment, but one which I've never seen echoed in reality. People think for themselves on a near constant basis, the only social stigma lies against vociferously espousing your bizarre ideas as true when they are patently false, and even then, there are likely as many people who ignore this stigma as there are who follow it.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It might be easier to make up random theories when your career isn't on the line, but don't ignore the fact that many people won't even bother to think for themselves because they don't fear the social marginalization that will come from their friends for doing so. |
A common sentiment, but one which I've never seen echoed in reality. People think for themselves on a near constant basis, the only social stigma lies against vociferously espousing your bizarre ideas as true when they are patently false, and even then, there are likely as many people who ignore this stigma as there are who follow it.
Any degree or step in the direction of independent creative thought takes bravery, and persisting with it long enough to learn from your mistakes and hone some degree of refinement takes more. I think you're unfairly discounting the labor of cultivating organic intellect.
Any degree or step in the direction of independent creative thought takes bravery, and persisting with it long enough to learn from your mistakes and hone some degree of refinement takes more. I think you're unfairly discounting the labor of cultivating organic intellect.
Have you ever seen a movie? What about television? Ever read a book? Western society prizes and praises those who think for themselves and come up with new ideas. Your argument assumes that we're living in a conformist society, which is ridiculous at best.
QUOTE
I agree that the media is full of communications artists competing to manipulate viewers/listeners/readers. Advertising is the most honest form of manipulation, because at least the business paying for the spot identifies itself, albeit as a seductive brand name, and rarely with the explicit statement of purpose and technique. Ads rarely start with an abstract that explains, "the following commercial advertisement is intended to make you think about feeling embarrassed for having a stinky toilet so that you will boost our sales." It's obvious to anyone who understands it, but they don't state it explicitly for some reason.
They don't state it explicitly because they know that stating it explicitly would nullify the subliminal effects, which occur even in those to whom it's obvious.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I agree that the media is full of communications artists competing to manipulate viewers/listeners/readers. Advertising is the most honest form of manipulation, because at least the business paying for the spot identifies itself, albeit as a seductive brand name, and rarely with the explicit statement of purpose and technique. Ads rarely start with an abstract that explains, "the following commercial advertisement is intended to make you think about feeling embarrassed for having a stinky toilet so that you will boost our sales." It's obvious to anyone who understands it, but they don't state it explicitly for some reason. |
They don't state it explicitly because they know that stating it explicitly would nullify the subliminal effects, which occur even in those to whom it's obvious.
Still, the fact that so many people are quick to label anyone a conspiracy theorist for any kind of critical analysis of anything suggests that the media is promoting that ideology as well.
Still, the fact that so many people are quick to label anyone a conspiracy theorist for any kind of critical analysis of anything suggests that the media is promoting that ideology as well.
That's just not true. Have you ever seen a depiction of a conspiracy theorist in popular culture? They're shown to be a fringe of society, not the integrated and well adapted individuals they are in real life.
QUOTE
I think it probably comes from the personality-training shows like sitcoms and dramatic series where you are given characters to admire and seek to emulate in your own behavior.
Sitcoms are meant to make you laugh. Dramatic series' are meant to make you think and emote. Only biographies make any effort whatsoever to get the audience to admire the characters. Try studying some English lit and creative writing before you actually attempt to critique those subjects.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I think it probably comes from the personality-training shows like sitcoms and dramatic series where you are given characters to admire and seek to emulate in your own behavior. |
Sitcoms are meant to make you laugh. Dramatic series' are meant to make you think and emote. Only biographies make any effort whatsoever to get the audience to admire the characters. Try studying some English lit and creative writing before you actually attempt to critique those subjects.
If House calls someone a "conspiracy idiot," everyone who aspires to be as wittily clever and sardonic as House will look for opportunities to call someone around them "a conspiracy idiot."
If House calls someone a "conspiracy idiot," everyone who aspires to be as wittily clever and sardonic as House will look for opportunities to call someone around them "a conspiracy idiot."
House's only redeeming qualities are his wit and his medical proficiency. How many people out there aspire to high functioning autism with idiot-savant qualities? Anyone who actually does is welcome to emulate House, in my book.
Personally, I don't constrain things I post on this forum based on social worries of being called "crackpot" because I believe that freedom of expression and freedom of thought should be a stronger interest in my actions than social conformity. I see social-interests as interfering with value-neutrality, and thus anti-scientific. But, luckily, I am somewhat older and wiser than when anti-conformity would motivate me to mindlessly rebel against anything without thinking critically about the content.
If you go into your fridge and find a container of yogurt that expired several months ago, do you eat it or throw it out?
If you throw it out, you do know you are still free to eat it, right?
And you have gone from mindlessly rejecting to not rejecting.
Hopefully soon you will clue in that sometimes (a lot of times) you can reject with reason.
Hopefully you are not addicted to false dichotomies like someone else on this forum.
Why would the Mythbusters intend to deceive people as to the power of thermite?
Thermite is a well understood material, easily tested and it's easy to calculate it's potential.
It's also fairly easy to figure out that bath tube thermite is likely to be less powerful than thermite made professionally.
I still don't see how the Mythbusters show is any less educational than any other... in fact it is likely more so.... and you have shown no reason to think otherwise.
I do not think you are hilarious.
Just predictable.
I do not think you are hilarious.
Just predictable.
I think he's hilarious. Sometimes.
Like when he accuses the Obama regime and the Bush regime of being one and the same. There's an entire branch of the government and and entire nation's worth of political journalists who'd think that's hilarious.
QUOTE
Conspiracy theory is taboo, so it is a social risk to say anything that might be labeled as such, especially repeatedly because you get branded for it.
Are you out of your mind? Fringe and The X Files are just two television shows which celebrate conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. Then there The Unit, Ghost Hunters and uncountable specials on the History and Discovery channels. Before you start pointing out that I've already said that popular culture demonizes conspiracy theorists, go check out the depiction of conspiracy theorists in popular culture and look into the things they believe. In addition to some of the more well-known and little-believe theories (such as the second gunman on the grassy knoll), they believe a wide variety of absolutely bizarre theories. They don't buy into the normal, run of the mill conspiracy theories that you find in real life, but rather they believe stories that even the Weekly World News would think twice about printing. Popular culture demonizes conspiracy theorists, yes, but conspiracy theories are often praised and glorified.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Conspiracy theory is taboo, so it is a social risk to say anything that might be labeled as such, especially repeatedly because you get branded for it. |
Are you out of your mind? Fringe and The X Files are just two television shows which celebrate conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. Then there The Unit, Ghost Hunters and uncountable specials on the History and Discovery channels. Before you start pointing out that I've already said that popular culture demonizes conspiracy theorists, go check out the depiction of conspiracy theorists in popular culture and look into the things they believe. In addition to some of the more well-known and little-believe theories (such as the second gunman on the grassy knoll), they believe a wide variety of absolutely bizarre theories. They don't buy into the normal, run of the mill conspiracy theories that you find in real life, but rather they believe stories that even the Weekly World News would think twice about printing. Popular culture demonizes conspiracy theorists, yes, but conspiracy theories are often praised and glorified.
That's funny. Why doesn't the second statement contradict the first to you?
That's funny. Why doesn't the second statement contradict the first to you?
Are you serious? There's no agreement in gossip. There's no decision to do something, which is a necessary component of a conspiracy. Jesus H Christ man, look something up and pay attention for once in your worthless life.
QUOTE
Anyone wanting to protect such clandestine activities from coming to light would call your entire idea a conspiracy theory to dissuade anyone from even thinking about it, let alone pursuing it.
Tell you what. Go look up disinformation efforts by the US government. When you find the reputable stories about it (as you certainly will) then explain to me how an organization which admits to doing something would say that me claiming they do it is a conspiracy theory.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 28 2009, 12:11 PM)
Good article on Christians and chain emails
On several occasions, I have replied to chain emails with a link to the appropriate Snopes.com article. This usually causes one of two things: they reply with a retraction, or they stop sending me chain emails
I do the same thing. Usually, I get a long winded spiel about how Snopes.com doesn't know what they're talking about and the person who sent it to me has a friend of a friend this happened to or some other such nonsense. Occasionally, I get an actual retraction, but no-one has ever had the decency to stop sending them to me. I think the people who'll listen to me get a kick out of seeing me debunk these things all their friends believe in, while the people who won't are just throwing as many rumors at me as they can, in the hopes I won't debunk one.
On several occasions, I have replied to chain emails with a link to the appropriate Snopes.com article. This usually causes one of two things: they reply with a retraction, or they stop sending me chain emails
I do the same thing. Usually, I get a long winded spiel about how Snopes.com doesn't know what they're talking about and the person who sent it to me has a friend of a friend this happened to or some other such nonsense. Occasionally, I get an actual retraction, but no-one has ever had the decency to stop sending them to me. I think the people who'll listen to me get a kick out of seeing me debunk these things all their friends believe in, while the people who won't are just throwing as many rumors at me as they can, in the hopes I won't debunk one.
QUOTE
I love Mythbusters, but I wish they would do a little more thinking before they try their "myths." One time, they spent half an episode trying to curve a bullet (a la Wanted) without thinking about or mentioning the fact that this is a physical impossibility without some kind of guidance mechanism.
I love the show as well. Did you know Adam Savage once expressed his desire to devote an entire season to debunking creationist myths? It was on a podcast (I believe it was the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe), and he pointed out how unlikely this is, since it wouldn't involve blowing anything up.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 28 2009, 01:49 PM)
I love the show as well. Did you know Adam Savage once expressed his desire to devote an entire season to debunking creationist myths? It was on a podcast (I believe it was the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe), and he pointed out how unlikely this is, since it wouldn't involve blowing anything up.
I vote that they devote an entire season to blowing up the Creation Museum and other Creationist theme parks. They could use a catapult to launch those human-riding-dinosaur sculptures through the air.
I vote that they devote an entire season to blowing up the Creation Museum and other Creationist theme parks. They could use a catapult to launch those human-riding-dinosaur sculptures through the air.
mythbusters ..... 1/2 ton of thermite
brainiacs ..... a flower pot of thermite
i have little respect for mythbusters. they can't even make decent thermite.
it's a conspiracy, of course.
brainiacs ..... a flower pot of thermite
i have little respect for mythbusters. they can't even make decent thermite.
it's a conspiracy, of course.
Well...uh.. that didn't prove anything other than that I have no idea what you are on about.
The Mythbusters made thermite... the Brainiacs bought some.
You think that makes them better somehow?
The Mythbusters made thermite... the Brainiacs bought some.
You think that makes them better somehow?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Oct 29 2009, 04:10 AM)
Well...uh.. that didn't prove anything other than that I have no idea what you are on about.
The Mythbusters made thermite... the Brainiacs bought some.
You think that makes them better somehow?
no, it just makes them better at science and education versus the misinformation and pseudoscience of the self proclaimed, "mythbusters".
The Mythbusters made thermite... the Brainiacs bought some.
You think that makes them better somehow?
no, it just makes them better at science and education versus the misinformation and pseudoscience of the self proclaimed, "mythbusters".
You haven't provided any examples of this pseudo science and misinformation.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 28 2009, 03:01 PM)
Personally, I don't constrain things I post on this forum based on social worries of being called "crackpot" because I believe that freedom of expression and freedom of thought should be a stronger interest in my actions than social conformity. I see social-interests as interfering with value-neutrality, and thus anti-scientific. But, luckily, I am somewhat older and wiser than when anti-conformity would motivate me to mindlessly rebel against anything without thinking critically about the content.
If you go into your fridge and find a container of yogurt that expired several months ago, do you eat it or throw it out?
If you throw it out, you do know you are still free to eat it, right?
And you have gone from mindlessly rejecting to not rejecting.
Hopefully soon you will clue in that sometimes (a lot of times) you can reject with reason.
Hopefully you are not addicted to false dichotomies like someone else on this forum.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 27 2009, 11:54 PM)
Let's get started with a link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_th...logical_origins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience...al_explanations
Ok, now the things which is missing from that link that jumps out at me (a former
Do wind turbines, or hydro electric generators, or solar batteries count as free energy? http://www.energex.com.au/switched_on/imag...ind_turbine.gif
Wikipedia probably isn't a good idea for a source?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_th...logical_origins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience...al_explanations
Ok, now the things which is missing from that link that jumps out at me (a former
Do wind turbines, or hydro electric generators, or solar batteries count as free energy? http://www.energex.com.au/switched_on/imag...ind_turbine.gif
Wikipedia probably isn't a good idea for a source?
QUOTE (TracerTong+Oct 29 2009, 11:25 AM)
Do wind turbines, or hydro electric generators, or solar batteries count as free energy? http://www.energex.com.au/switched_on/imag...ind_turbine.gif
Wikipedia probably isn't a good idea for a source?
Those are examples of renewable energy.
I do not know what you are referring to with "free energy."
Wikipedia probably isn't a good idea for a source?
Those are examples of renewable energy.
I do not know what you are referring to with "free energy."
QUOTE (TracerTong+Oct 29 2009, 10:25 AM)
Do wind turbines, or hydro electric generators, or solar batteries count as free energy? http://www.energex.com.au/switched_on/imag...ind_turbine.gif
No.
http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69844
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/11/8296.ars
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5055388
Not to mention the fact that wikipedia makes it's source available for verification on the very page they're used on.
From the first link, the following are cited sources:
From the second link, the following are cited sources:
So next time, you should actually think about what you're saying and look up your claims before you run off at the mouth. You won't end up looking so incredible stupid.
QUOTE
Wikipedia probably isn't a good idea for a source?
Wrong.http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69844
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/11/8296.ars
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5055388
Not to mention the fact that wikipedia makes it's source available for verification on the very page they're used on.
From the first link, the following are cited sources:
- http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/conspire.doc
- Karen Douglas and Robbie Sutton (in press). "The hidden impact of conspiracy theories: Perceived and actual influence of theories surrounding the death of Princess Diana". Journal of Social Psychology.
- Baigent, Michael; Leigh, Richard; Lincoln, Henry (1987). The Messianic Legacy. Henry Holt & Co. ISBN 0805005684.
From the second link, the following are cited sources:
- (Devilly 2005:439)
- http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/openurl?g...sue=4&spage=257
So next time, you should actually think about what you're saying and look up your claims before you run off at the mouth. You won't end up looking so incredible stupid.
I think what the mythbusters made was not thermite
QUOTE (giuseppe+Oct 31 2009, 10:10 AM)
I think what the mythbusters made was not thermite
Then what DID they make? Pseudo-thermite?
Then what DID they make? Pseudo-thermite?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 31 2009, 10:23 AM)
Then what DID they make? Pseudo-thermite?
No, that's just what they want you to think.
IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!
No, that's just what they want you to think.
IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!
QUOTE (TracerTong+Oct 29 2009, 03:25 PM)
Do wind turbines, or hydro electric generators, or solar batteries count as free energy?
TANSTAAFL.
TANSTAAFL.
obviously the mythbusters made thermite.
but, the thermite was not as potent as thermite can be.
it is all a matter of particle size, distribution, and catalytic additives.
the mythbuster's test is intended to deceive by understating the potential of thermite to do damage.
the brainiacs' thermite could have easily cut that truck in half without anywhere near the volume of thermite used by the mythmakers, er, busters. a few flower pots full would do the trick.
but, the thermite was not as potent as thermite can be.
it is all a matter of particle size, distribution, and catalytic additives.
the mythbuster's test is intended to deceive by understating the potential of thermite to do damage.
the brainiacs' thermite could have easily cut that truck in half without anywhere near the volume of thermite used by the mythmakers, er, busters. a few flower pots full would do the trick.
QUOTE
the mythbuster's test is intended to deceive by understating the potential of thermite to do damage.
Why would the Mythbusters intend to deceive people as to the power of thermite?
Thermite is a well understood material, easily tested and it's easy to calculate it's potential.
It's also fairly easy to figure out that bath tube thermite is likely to be less powerful than thermite made professionally.
I still don't see how the Mythbusters show is any less educational than any other... in fact it is likely more so.... and you have shown no reason to think otherwise.
Also, the flowerpot contained the thermite better than the bricks. Instead of puddling, a lot of the thermite seemed to flow down the channel.
QUOTE (newton+Nov 2 2009, 01:25 PM)
obviously the mythbusters made thermite.
but, the thermite was not as potent as thermite can be.
it is all a matter of particle size, distribution, and catalytic additives.
the mythbuster's test is intended to deceive by understating the potential of thermite to do damage.
the brainiacs' thermite could have easily cut that truck in half without anywhere near the volume of thermite used by the mythmakers, er, busters. a few flower pots full would do the trick.
The brainiac's didn't make theirs. Therefore, all they proved is that they know where to buy thermite. The Mythbusters made theirs. Therefore, they proved themselves knowledgeable and resourceful enough to make thermite.
DUH!!!
but, the thermite was not as potent as thermite can be.
it is all a matter of particle size, distribution, and catalytic additives.
the mythbuster's test is intended to deceive by understating the potential of thermite to do damage.
the brainiacs' thermite could have easily cut that truck in half without anywhere near the volume of thermite used by the mythmakers, er, busters. a few flower pots full would do the trick.
The brainiac's didn't make theirs. Therefore, all they proved is that they know where to buy thermite. The Mythbusters made theirs. Therefore, they proved themselves knowledgeable and resourceful enough to make thermite.
DUH!!!
newton is just upset that thermite turned out not to be explosive or damaging enough to match the disinformation he has spouted on this forum before. All the claims about how the Twin Towers and building 7 were cut down by thermite are shown to be garbage, another troother claim up in smoke along with explosions, melted steel, secret explosives and ray guns from space.
Grumpy
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Nov 2 2009, 10:21 PM)
newton is just upset that thermite turned out not to be explosive or damaging enough to match the disinformation he has spouted on this forum before. All the claims about how the Twin Towers and building 7 were cut down by thermite are shown to be garbage, another troother claim up in smoke along with explosions, melted steel, secret explosives and ray guns from space.
Grumpy
i really don't know where you get that idea.
the brainiac thermite was potent, indeed. only a flowerpot of it welted through 4 inches of steel and a pile of coins, lickety split.
yet, the mythbusters couldn't even cut the sheet metal of the roof of a truck in half with hundreds of pounds of thermite.
there is obviously a difference in potency.
and, i'm not upset. i think all you JREFers in physorg disguise are all pathetically hilarious.
Grumpy
i really don't know where you get that idea.
the brainiac thermite was potent, indeed. only a flowerpot of it welted through 4 inches of steel and a pile of coins, lickety split.
yet, the mythbusters couldn't even cut the sheet metal of the roof of a truck in half with hundreds of pounds of thermite.
there is obviously a difference in potency.
and, i'm not upset. i think all you JREFers in physorg disguise are all pathetically hilarious.
QUOTE
and, i'm not upset. i think all you JREFers in physorg disguise are all pathetically hilarious.
I do not think you are hilarious.
Just predictable.
newton
The point is that thermite melts it's way straight down(as seen by the inability of the uncontained thermite to even cut the sheet metal of the roof). It is not possible to cut a vertical beam with thermite without heavy fixtures, none of which were found at Ground Zero. The thermite they made was every bit as potent as that used in the Brainiacs clip, just uncontained. Even the Brainiacs could not cut the steel except straight down, useless for cutting heavy vertical beams. Those saying that thermite was used on 911 are just showing their total ignorance of what thermite will do.
If a thousand pounds of perfectly good thermite won't cut a sheetmetal car in two, how much thermite would it take to cut 8 inch thick vertical columns, hmmm???
Grumpy
The point is that thermite melts it's way straight down(as seen by the inability of the uncontained thermite to even cut the sheet metal of the roof). It is not possible to cut a vertical beam with thermite without heavy fixtures, none of which were found at Ground Zero. The thermite they made was every bit as potent as that used in the Brainiacs clip, just uncontained. Even the Brainiacs could not cut the steel except straight down, useless for cutting heavy vertical beams. Those saying that thermite was used on 911 are just showing their total ignorance of what thermite will do.
If a thousand pounds of perfectly good thermite won't cut a sheetmetal car in two, how much thermite would it take to cut 8 inch thick vertical columns, hmmm???
Grumpy
QUOTE (rpenner+Nov 5 2009, 11:12 PM)
XKCD on Mythbusters as science:
http://xkcd.com/397/
that would be funnier if experiments proved anything beyond what they are trying to prove.
http://xkcd.com/397/
that would be funnier if experiments proved anything beyond what they are trying to prove.
QUOTE (Grumpy+)
Even the Brainiacs could not cut the steel except straight down, useless for cutting heavy vertical beams.
Was it the floor plates or the vertical beams that failed? [I don't know - just asking]
-C2.
Was it the floor plates or the vertical beams that failed? [I don't know - just asking]
-C2.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Nov 2 2009, 11:07 PM)
I do not think you are hilarious.
Just predictable.
I think he's hilarious. Sometimes.
Like when he accuses the Obama regime and the Bush regime of being one and the same. There's an entire branch of the government and and entire nation's worth of political journalists who'd think that's hilarious.
QUOTE (Confused2+Nov 10 2009, 09:28 PM)
QUOTE (Grumpy+)
Even the Brainiacs could not cut the steel except straight down, useless for cutting heavy vertical beams.
Was it the floor plates or the vertical beams that failed? [I don't know - just asking]
-C2.
"failed" ? Realistically, buildings just aren't generally designed to withstand the impact (and subsequent incineration) of a 747 traveling in excess of 500 MPH (and loaded with fuel). Better designs will be built, but ultimately prevention is the only effective method of preserving lives.
Was it the floor plates or the vertical beams that failed? [I don't know - just asking]
-C2.
"failed" ? Realistically, buildings just aren't generally designed to withstand the impact (and subsequent incineration) of a 747 traveling in excess of 500 MPH (and loaded with fuel). Better designs will be built, but ultimately prevention is the only effective method of preserving lives.
Coughs!
WTC 7..... No plane hit that building!!
And...considering a 767 wasn't invented by the time the WTC were built, they were designed to withstand the largest passenger plane (Boeing 707/Douglas DC-8) at the time, hitting it at 600mph!
WTC 7.....
No plane hit that building!!And...considering a 767 wasn't invented by the time the WTC were built, they were designed to withstand the largest passenger plane (Boeing 707/Douglas DC-8) at the time, hitting it at 600mph!
QUOTE (John Skilling - Head Structual Engineer for the WTC+)
Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there.
QUOTE (Frank A. Demartini - On-site Construction Manager for the WTC+)
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
QUOTE (Leslie Earl Robertson - Chief Engineer+)
I designed it for a 707 to hit it."
The famous white paper...
The famous white paper...
QUOTE (White Paper - Released Feb 1964+)
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact
THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS......
....THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE...
Just like most structures including Skysca, the WTC were over engineered.
QUOTE (Richard Roth - Emery Roth & Sons - Architects designing the WTC+)
THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS......
....THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE...
Just like most structures including Skysca, the WTC were over engineered.
Empty weight 707: 103, 145 lbs.
Empty weight 747: 472, 900 lbs.
Empty weight 747: 472, 900 lbs.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Nov 11 2009, 01:19 PM)
Empty weight 707: 103, 145 lbs.
Empty weight 747: 472, 900 lbs.
More to the point:
Thrust of 707: 53.3 kN
Thrust of 767-200: 222 kN
And to get right down to the nitty gritty of it:
Kinetic energy of a fully loaded 707 at cruising speed:
617,117,792,256 TJ
Kinetic energy of a fully loaded 767 at cruising speed:
771,770,194,905.6 TJ.
Of course, this is assuming that both have their engines shut off. If I were a terrorist, I would have made damn sure to fire those engines up all the way right before impact.
Empty weight 747: 472, 900 lbs.
More to the point:
Thrust of 707: 53.3 kN
Thrust of 767-200: 222 kN
And to get right down to the nitty gritty of it:
Kinetic energy of a fully loaded 707 at cruising speed:
617,117,792,256 TJ
Kinetic energy of a fully loaded 767 at cruising speed:
771,770,194,905.6 TJ.
Of course, this is assuming that both have their engines shut off. If I were a terrorist, I would have made damn sure to fire those engines up all the way right before impact.
QUOTE (stundie+Nov 11 2009, 12:30 PM)
And...considering a 767 wasn't invented by the time the WTC were built, they were designed to withstand the largest passenger plane (Boeing 707/Douglas DC-8) at the time, hitting it at 600mph!
And what do you know, both buildings DID in fact survive these awesome impacts.
In fact, not counting the people on the impact floors, most got out of the buildings.
In fact, if it wasn't for the poor design of the fire escape routes (concentrated in the core) virtually all the people in WTC 2 above the fire would have gotten out.
The buildings were built and designed by hand (pre general availablility of computing power) so of course it was FAR BEYOND anyone's ability, at the time the towers were built, to model what would have happened to the buildings in the hour AFTER the impacts.
Its barely within our computational ability today.
Arthur
And what do you know, both buildings DID in fact survive these awesome impacts.
In fact, not counting the people on the impact floors, most got out of the buildings.
In fact, if it wasn't for the poor design of the fire escape routes (concentrated in the core) virtually all the people in WTC 2 above the fire would have gotten out.
The buildings were built and designed by hand (pre general availablility of computing power) so of course it was FAR BEYOND anyone's ability, at the time the towers were built, to model what would have happened to the buildings in the hour AFTER the impacts.
Its barely within our computational ability today.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+)
And what do you know, both buildings DID in fact survive these awesome impacts.
I know! lol
QUOTE (adoucette+)
In fact, not counting the people on the impact floors, most got out of the buildings.
I know!
QUOTE (adoucette+)
In fact, if it wasn't for the poor design of the fire escape routes (concentrated in the core) virtually all the people in WTC 2 above the fire would have gotten out.
Poor design of the fire escape routes in WTC2??
Is this your opinion or a fact??
Is this your opinion or a fact??
QUOTE (adoucette+)
The buildings were built and designed by hand (pre general availablility of computing power) so of course it was FAR BEYOND anyone's ability, at the time the towers were built, to model what would have happened to the buildings in the hour AFTER the impacts.
Well not according to Robertson, Demartini, Skilling and the calculations which covered 1,200 pages that Emery Roth & Sons mention they had seen.
And guess what? They were right, the buildings survived the impacts.
And guess what? They were right, the buildings survived the impacts.
QUOTE (adoucette+)
Its barely within our computational ability today.
That might explain why NIST failed to explain how the tower actually collapsed.
In fact, if it wasn't for the poor design of the fire escape routes (concentrated in the core) virtually all the people in WTC 2 above the fire would have gotten out.
Poor design of the fire escape routes in WTC2??
Is this your opinion or a fact??
My bad, I was talking about WTC 1 where people were trapped above the fire.
The design of the fire escapes were covered in the NIST report.
The problem is quite a bit of discretion was allowed by the building codes, and so they recognised that you needed multiple fire escape routes and that they shouldn't be bunched together, but in WTC they all were in the relatively small core area.
The 767 that hit WTC 1 hit it pretty much in the middle and thus managed to block all three fire escapes, trapping those above the impact floors. In WTC 2, it hit more on the corner of the core and so left one route out open.
Arthur
QUOTE (NIST FAQs+)
10. Why didn’t NIST fully model the collapse initiation and propagation of WTC Towers?
The first objective of the NIST Investigation included determining why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft (NIST NCSTAR 1). Determining the sequence of events leading up to collapse initiation was critical to fulfilling this objective. Once the collapse had begun, the propagation of the collapse was readily explained without the same complexity of modeling, as shown in the response to question #1 above.
The first objective of the NIST Investigation included determining why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft (NIST NCSTAR 1). Determining the sequence of events leading up to collapse initiation was critical to fulfilling this objective. Once the collapse had begun, the propagation of the collapse was readily explained without the same complexity of modeling, as shown in the response to question #1 above.
QUOTE (stundie+Nov 13 2009, 01:18 PM)
]That might explain why NIST failed to explain how the tower actually collapsed.
Your quote from the NIST FAQ contradicts your claim.
Your quote from the NIST FAQ contradicts your claim.
QUOTE (stundie+Nov 13 2009, 01:18 PM)
Well not according to Robertson, Demartini, Skilling and the calculations which covered 1,200 pages that Emery Roth & Sons mention they had seen.
I looked into this:
Here's what I found:
So what was being described by those 1,200 pages was the PRELIMINARY DESIGN of the building and had NOTHING to do with the impact of a 707.
IIRC either Skilling or Robertson said that the worst part of the collision was the fuel that would be the horrendous fire by the fuel dumped into the building but they never considered the impact of fire on the structure.
For a perfectly good reason, it was beyond anyone's ability to do so at the time.
Arthur
I looked into this:
Here's what I found:
QUOTE
On Feburary 13, 1965, real estate baron Lawrence Wien called reporters to his office to charge that the design of the Twin Towers was structurally unsound. Many suspected that his allegation was motivated by a desire to derail the planned World Trade Center skyscrapers to protect the value of his extensive holdings, which included the Empire State Building. In response to the charge, Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that was designing the Twin Towers, fired back with a three-page telegram containing the following details. 5
THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...
THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...
So what was being described by those 1,200 pages was the PRELIMINARY DESIGN of the building and had NOTHING to do with the impact of a 707.
IIRC either Skilling or Robertson said that the worst part of the collision was the fuel that would be the horrendous fire by the fuel dumped into the building but they never considered the impact of fire on the structure.
For a perfectly good reason, it was beyond anyone's ability to do so at the time.
Arthur
QUOTE (stundie+)
QUOTE (adoucette+)
In fact, if it wasn't for the poor design of the fire escape routes (concentrated in the core) virtually all the people in WTC 2 above the fire would have gotten out.
Poor design of the fire escape routes in WTC2??
Is this your opinion or a fact??
My bad, I was talking about WTC 1 where people were trapped above the fire.
The design of the fire escapes were covered in the NIST report.
The problem is quite a bit of discretion was allowed by the building codes, and so they recognised that you needed multiple fire escape routes and that they shouldn't be bunched together, but in WTC they all were in the relatively small core area.
The 767 that hit WTC 1 hit it pretty much in the middle and thus managed to block all three fire escapes, trapping those above the impact floors. In WTC 2, it hit more on the corner of the core and so left one route out open.
Arthur
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 13 2009, 07:08 PM)
Your quote from the NIST FAQ contradicts your claim.
How so??...lol
I never claimed they didn't model the collapse, the NIST admit it!
So read the FAQ again....It should explain your confusion!
Why didn’t NIST fully model the collapse initiation and propagation of WTC Towers?
How so??...lol
I never claimed they didn't model the collapse, the NIST admit it!
So read the FAQ again....It should explain your confusion!
Why didn’t NIST fully model the collapse initiation and propagation of WTC Towers?
QUOTE (stundie+Nov 16 2009, 01:08 PM)
How so??...lol
From your quote:
Oh, by the way: You have yet to offer any justification for why the conquest of Germany doesn't fit the legal or practical definition of a war of conquest. Have you ever heard of a bare assertion fallacy?
Probably not.
From your quote:
QUOTE
Once the collapse had begun, the propagation of the collapse was readily explained without the same complexity of modeling, as shown in the response to question #1 above.
Oh, by the way: You have yet to offer any justification for why the conquest of Germany doesn't fit the legal or practical definition of a war of conquest. Have you ever heard of a bare assertion fallacy?
Probably not.
QUOTE (adoucette+)
So what was being described by those 1,200 pages was the PRELIMINARY DESIGN of the building and had NOTHING to do with the impact of a 707.
We do not know what was being described by those 1,200 pages. So how can you conclude they had nothing about a 707 when you, nor I have ever seen them? lol
QUOTE (adoucette+)
IIRC either Skilling or Robertson said that the worst part of the collision was the fuel that would be the horrendous fire by the fuel dumped into the building but they never considered the impact of fire on the structure.
So they knew there would be a horrendous fire, but never considered it? 
Sorry Arthur but you are giving us your opinion that they never considered it, which is odd because they mention the horrendous fire from jet fuel, so they would have had to consider it.
Unless you are suggesting that they are incompetent?
And building codes have been around since the 1900's haven't they?? A plane hit the Empire States Building in 1945 and the fires were put out within 40 minutes because of good building codes. (IIRC)
So I wonder if the Empire States building were designed to with stand a plane impacting and the subsequent fires from the jet fuel?
Sorry Arthur but you are giving us your opinion that they never considered it, which is odd because they mention the horrendous fire from jet fuel, so they would have had to consider it.
Unless you are suggesting that they are incompetent?
And building codes have been around since the 1900's haven't they?? A plane hit the Empire States Building in 1945 and the fires were put out within 40 minutes because of good building codes. (IIRC)
So I wonder if the Empire States building were designed to with stand a plane impacting and the subsequent fires from the jet fuel?
QUOTE (adoucette+)
For a perfectly good reason, it was beyond anyone's ability to do so at the time.
So when did "anyone" get the ability to consider it? Or was it never considered until 2001?
Or was it never considered until 2001?
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Nov 16 2009, 06:36 PM)
From your quote:
Oh, by the way: You have yet to offer any justification for why the conquest of Germany doesn't fit the legal or practical definition of a war of conquest. Have you ever heard of a bare assertion fallacy?
Probably not.
Yes, I have heard of Bare Assertion Fallacy, but you are CHERRY PICKING the quote!!
Read the whole quote again.
Highlighted again for your viewing pleasure.
Oh, by the way: You have yet to offer any justification for why the conquest of Germany doesn't fit the legal or practical definition of a war of conquest. Have you ever heard of a bare assertion fallacy?
Probably not.
Yes, I have heard of Bare Assertion Fallacy, but you are CHERRY PICKING the quote!!
Read the whole quote again.
Highlighted again for your viewing pleasure.
QUOTE (NIST FAQs+)
Why didn’t NIST fully model the collapse initiation and propagation of WTC Towers?
Once the collapse had begun, the propagation of the collapse was readily explained without the same complexity of modeling, as shown in the response to question #1 above.
Once the collapse had begun, the propagation of the collapse was readily explained without the same complexity of modeling, as shown in the response to question #1 above.
QUOTE (stundie+Nov 16 2009, 02:14 PM)
Yes, I have heard of Bare Assertion Fallacy, but you are CHERRY PICKING the quote!!
Read the whole quote again.
Highlighted again for your viewing pleasure.
I mentioned the bare assertion fallacy in the context of your feedback to me, and I have yet to commit a cherry picking fallacy. You are now (for the second time) engaging in a dishonest straw man fallacy in order to try to defend your position.
Your claim was exactly what I said it was.
Read the whole quote again.
Highlighted again for your viewing pleasure.
I mentioned the bare assertion fallacy in the context of your feedback to me, and I have yet to commit a cherry picking fallacy. You are now (for the second time) engaging in a dishonest straw man fallacy in order to try to defend your position.
Your claim was exactly what I said it was.
QUOTE (You+)
That might explain why NIST failed to explain how the tower actually collapsed.
The fact that the answer given actually answers the completely different question asked is irrelevant to the fact that you made a specific claim and provided a quote in such a way as to imply that it corroborated your claim, when in fact the quote directly contradicted your claim. I never said nor implied that a full model had been developed, despite your dishonest claim to the contrary, which you've made twice now.
Want help moving those goalposts?
So what was being described by those 1,200 pages was the PRELIMINARY DESIGN of the building and had NOTHING to do with the impact of a 707.
We do not know what was being described by those 1,200 pages. So how can you conclude they had nothing about a 707 when you, nor I have ever seen them?
Because they were described as Strurctural Analysis documents, and standard building design doesn't include the impact of a plane.
More to the point, the designers specifically mention doing some calculations AFTER this issue was brought up, so that is after this work was completed.
The POINT stundie, is you used careful editing to IMPLY that they produced 1,200 pages worth of work on the impact of the plane and that is simply FALSE.
QUOTE (stundie+)
QUOTE (adoucette+)
So what was being described by those 1,200 pages was the PRELIMINARY DESIGN of the building and had NOTHING to do with the impact of a 707.
We do not know what was being described by those 1,200 pages. So how can you conclude they had nothing about a 707 when you, nor I have ever seen them?
Because they were described as Strurctural Analysis documents, and standard building design doesn't include the impact of a plane.
More to the point, the designers specifically mention doing some calculations AFTER this issue was brought up, so that is after this work was completed.
The POINT stundie, is you used careful editing to IMPLY that they produced 1,200 pages worth of work on the impact of the plane and that is simply FALSE.
QUOTE (stundie+)
So they knew there would be a horrendous fire, but never considered it?
Sorry Arthur but you are giving us your opinion that they never considered it, which is odd because they mention the horrendous fire from jet fuel, so they would have had to consider it.
Unless you are suggesting that they are incompetent?
NO, they said they didn't consider it from a STRUCTURAL STANDPOINT. Sure they knew it would be a horrendous fire, but they had no way, back in the 60s, of modeling the structural impacts of the resulting fire.
If you think they do, simply point us to some relevant matrerials from the period that explain the engineering requirements (and method) for doing so.
What you will find out is that engineers went the other way. They KNEW steel would weaken if exposed to a long fire, so the requirements were to insulate the steel such that everyone could be evacuated and the fire put out before the steel could weaken. Of course these insulation requirements presumed a fire started in the typical manner, with the normal office fuel load, NOT by an aircraft impact.
Sorry Arthur but you are giving us your opinion that they never considered it, which is odd because they mention the horrendous fire from jet fuel, so they would have had to consider it.
Unless you are suggesting that they are incompetent?
NO, they said they didn't consider it from a STRUCTURAL STANDPOINT. Sure they knew it would be a horrendous fire, but they had no way, back in the 60s, of modeling the structural impacts of the resulting fire.
If you think they do, simply point us to some relevant matrerials from the period that explain the engineering requirements (and method) for doing so.
What you will find out is that engineers went the other way. They KNEW steel would weaken if exposed to a long fire, so the requirements were to insulate the steel such that everyone could be evacuated and the fire put out before the steel could weaken. Of course these insulation requirements presumed a fire started in the typical manner, with the normal office fuel load, NOT by an aircraft impact.
QUOTE (stundie+)
So when did "anyone" get the ability to consider it? Or was it never considered until 2001?
They didn't have it in 2001. NIST had to develop quite a bit of new capability just to be able to do the modeling they did do on the Towers.
First they had to make several very detailed FEA models of the towers, one global and one that was particularly detailed at the floors near the impact areas that included not only the towers themselves but the contents of the towers.
Then they made a very detailed FEA model of the aircraft that hit each tower.
The models were at the limit of the capabilities of the FEA modeling systems available to them. The only way NIST could have improved the models would be to develop FEA model systems better than what was commercially available. Which would be a several year project at best.
Even so, the modeling analysis took 2 weeks on 12 computers to run one iteration of the model (remember they were modeling three variations on two towers, so one itteration took them 12 weeks) in as precise detail as we can simulate the effect of the impact on the planes on the towers (this was subsequently re-affirmed by independent research at Perdue Univ as to the overall magnitude of the impact with NIST's version being somewhat LESS damage then Purdue)
They then used a very sophisticated Fire Dynamics Simulator and a newly created Fire Structure interface model to determine the overall growth, spread, heat generation of the fire over time as well as the amount of heat absorbed by the various structural components over time.
They then took ALL of this and used the results in a global model to model the impact on the towers up to collapse initiation.
And it is THIS level of complexity of the aftermath of an aircraft impact that was FAR FAR beyond the abilites of the engineers back in the 60s to accomplish.
Arthur
They didn't have it in 2001. NIST had to develop quite a bit of new capability just to be able to do the modeling they did do on the Towers.
First they had to make several very detailed FEA models of the towers, one global and one that was particularly detailed at the floors near the impact areas that included not only the towers themselves but the contents of the towers.
Then they made a very detailed FEA model of the aircraft that hit each tower.
The models were at the limit of the capabilities of the FEA modeling systems available to them. The only way NIST could have improved the models would be to develop FEA model systems better than what was commercially available. Which would be a several year project at best.
Even so, the modeling analysis took 2 weeks on 12 computers to run one iteration of the model (remember they were modeling three variations on two towers, so one itteration took them 12 weeks) in as precise detail as we can simulate the effect of the impact on the planes on the towers (this was subsequently re-affirmed by independent research at Perdue Univ as to the overall magnitude of the impact with NIST's version being somewhat LESS damage then Purdue)
They then used a very sophisticated Fire Dynamics Simulator and a newly created Fire Structure interface model to determine the overall growth, spread, heat generation of the fire over time as well as the amount of heat absorbed by the various structural components over time.
They then took ALL of this and used the results in a global model to model the impact on the towers up to collapse initiation.
And it is THIS level of complexity of the aftermath of an aircraft impact that was FAR FAR beyond the abilites of the engineers back in the 60s to accomplish.
Arthur
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
I mentioned the bare assertion fallacy in the context of your feedback to me, and I have yet to commit a cherry picking fallacy.
2 things, the 1st which is off topic is in regards to your insistence that the allies are guilty of a war of aggression. You were wrong then, you are wrong now!
And 2nd as highlighted, you are cherry picking the NIST answer.
Denial and ignorance of these facts doesn't make it any less true! lol
And 2nd as highlighted, you are cherry picking the NIST answer.
Denial and ignorance of these facts doesn't make it any less true! lol
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
You are now (for the second time) engaging in a dishonest straw man fallacy in order to try to defend your position.
How have I built a strawman? lol
I didn't need to defend my position because as the NIST FAQs shows us. NIST failed to explain how the towers collapsed! They explain everything up until the initiation, they never modelled which they admit in their FAQs they never did highlights this.
So please get your arguments straight and stop with your false accusations and assumptions. lol
I didn't need to defend my position because as the NIST FAQs shows us. NIST failed to explain how the towers collapsed! They explain everything up until the initiation, they never modelled which they admit in their FAQs they never did highlights this.
So please get your arguments straight and stop with your false accusations and assumptions. lol
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
Your claim was exactly what I said it was.
You the answer contradicts it, which does if you CHERRY PICK what you want to see and ignore the rest of what they say!
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
The fact that the answer given actually answers the completely different question asked is irrelevant to the fact that you made a specific claim and provided a quote in such a way as to imply that it corroborated your claim, when in fact the quote directly contradicted your claim.
You have still not explained how other than cherry picking the quote!! lol
The NIST never modelled the collapse and they have never explained how it collapsed, other than essentially saying it was inevitable.
The NIST never modelled the collapse and they have never explained how it collapsed, other than essentially saying it was inevitable.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
I never said nor implied that a full model had been developed, despite your dishonest claim to the contrary, which you've made twice now.
And I never said you had implied that a full model had been developed.
Please find the quote where I accused you or implied that you said a full model have been developed.
Talk about your imagination running wild!!
So how can I be dishonest when I have never accused you or implied what you accuse me off?
Oh that's right, it's another strawman!!
Please find the quote where I accused you or implied that you said a full model have been developed.
Talk about your imagination running wild!!
So how can I be dishonest when I have never accused you or implied what you accuse me off?
Oh that's right, it's another strawman!!
QUOTE (stundie+Nov 17 2009, 01:47 PM)
2 things, the 1st which is off topic is in regards to your insistence that the allies are guilty of a war of aggression. You were wrong then, you are wrong now!
Bare Assertion Fallacy.
I made my case in the thread. You did nothing but disagree without providing a logical or empirical basis for your disagreement.
I made my case in the thread. You did nothing but disagree without providing a logical or empirical basis for your disagreement.
QUOTE
And 2nd as highlighted, you are cherry picking the NIST answer.
Bullshit. I have cherry picked nothing at all. I included the entire quote in the context in which it was given. It is you who are removing your own claims from the context in order to try and defend yourself. Unfortunately, you haven't got the intelligence to understand that it's that very claim which you must defend in order for me to be wrong.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And 2nd as highlighted, you are cherry picking the NIST answer. |
Bullshit. I have cherry picked nothing at all. I included the entire quote in the context in which it was given. It is you who are removing your own claims from the context in order to try and defend yourself. Unfortunately, you haven't got the intelligence to understand that it's that very claim which you must defend in order for me to be wrong.
How have I built a strawman? lol
How have I built a strawman? lol
Easy. You claimed explicitly that the NIST didn't explain the collapse. I pointed out that the quote you provided to support this claimed that the NIST had, in fact, explained the collapse. You then claimed that the NIST hadn't modeled the collapse, instead of addressing the fact that it had explained it sufficiently without the need for modeling it. That's a straw man.
QUOTE
I didn't need to defend my position because as the NIST FAQs shows us. NIST failed to explain how the towers collapsed!
The quote you provided explicitly claims otherwise. Denying this won't change it.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I didn't need to defend my position because as the NIST FAQs shows us. NIST failed to explain how the towers collapsed! |
The quote you provided explicitly claims otherwise. Denying this won't change it.
They explain everything up until the initiation, they never modelled which they admit in their FAQs they never did highlights this.
They explain everything up until the initiation, they never modelled which they admit in their FAQs they never did highlights this.
Modeling something and explaining it are two different things. I can explain the trajectory of a bullet without ever using any of the math which allows me to make predictions about it. Similarly, I can model the trajectory of a bullet, without ever providing an explanation of it.
QUOTE
So please get your arguments straight and stop with your false accusations and assumptions. lol
You have yet to give even the slightest hint of a reason why any of my accusations are "false," and I have made no assumptions, only drawn conclusions from the evidence in front of me. I dare you to prove otherwise.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So please get your arguments straight and stop with your false accusations and assumptions. lol |
You have yet to give even the slightest hint of a reason why any of my accusations are "false," and I have made no assumptions, only drawn conclusions from the evidence in front of me. I dare you to prove otherwise.
And I never said you had implied that a full model had been developed.
Please find the quote where I accused you or implied that you said a full model have been developed.
Talk about your imagination running wild!!
And I never said you had implied that a full model had been developed.
Please find the quote where I accused you or implied that you said a full model have been developed.
Talk about your imagination running wild!!
Right here:
QUOTE (you+)
QUOTE (me+)
Your quote from the NIST FAQ contradicts your claim.
How so??...lol
I never claimed they didn't model the collapse, the NIST admit it!
How so??...lol
I never claimed they didn't model the collapse, the NIST admit it!
QUOTE (you+)
The NIST never modelled the collapse and they have never explained how it collapsed, other than essentially saying it was inevitable.
QUOTE (you+)
they never modelled which they admit in their FAQs they never did highlights this.
You keep claiming that I'm wrong because they never modeled the collapse, which is only true if I claimed they modeled the collapse. Simply because you never said "You said they modeled the collapse" doesn't mean you're not ascribing positions to me which I haven't taken. Whether something untrue is inferred or claimed explicitly, it's still dishonest.
QUOTE
So how can I be dishonest when I have never accused you or implied what you accuse me off?
You have accused me of and implied what I've claimed you have. The evidence is right here in front of you. Refusing to accept it is only evidence of your further dishonesty.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So how can I be dishonest when I have never accused you or implied what you accuse me off? |
You have accused me of and implied what I've claimed you have. The evidence is right here in front of you. Refusing to accept it is only evidence of your further dishonesty.
Oh that's right, it's another strawman!!
Oh that's right, it's another strawman!!
You apparently don't have a clue what a strawman is...
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.