Main Menu

“Truth? You can't handle the truth!”

Started by The Legendary Shark, 18 March, 2011, 06:52:29 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mikey

Quote from: pops1983 on 30 March, 2011, 08:52:12 PM
I'm from Northern Ireland, so, I think, for the sake of this here thread, I'll sit this one out. ;)

Yeah, pops! There's few people who want to hear about things that actually happened on UK soil for years - where's the fun in that?It only affected a few people. Sure, what would I know about real issues, like micro-chips in me bin?

On balance, I decided it was worth posting that. I'm tired and feeling reactionary, ok?!

M.
To tell the truth, you can all get screwed.

The Legendary Shark

Peter Power Radio 5 Interview:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEbUQiYOGjU

Channel 4 doesn't agree: http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/coincidence%2Bof%2Bbomb%2Bexercises/109010.html

Quote from: Dandontdare on 31 March, 2011, 01:53:23 PM

I'm tempted to say "what does this prove" but that would be meaningless to most conspiracty theorists, who seem to think that raising hypothetical questions and pointing out coincidences is the same thing as answering them or proving malfeasance. A whole lot of bollox could be saved if every time they asked "Why did x and y do z" or "Can it be a coincidence that x and y happened" were forced to actually provide an answer these questions that we can judge as more or less plausible than the 'official' facts. When challenged however, they tend to back off claiming they don't actually KNOW anything, they're just raising the question, as if they're doing it in some kind of scientifically neutral way and not dealing in supposition and inference.

(PS - longer post about 9/11 and "truth" vs "cosnpiracy theory" to follow as promised, when I can summon the energy!)

Have you noticed how the word "theory" is always placed after the word "conspiracy" these days? It's as if conspiracies never happen and is as suspicious as coining phrases like disease theory, happiness myth or marriage trap. Very curious. Would public reaction to questions such as "what happened on 9/11 or 7/7" be treated more levelly if they were labelled as, say, independent amateur investigation instead of conspiracy theory? The very phrase is almost Orwellian doublespeak, carrying with it the overt implication that difficult or unanswered questions should never under any circumstances be asked, especially of the government. If the BBC doesn't ask the questions, then the questions are not only not worth asking but downright bad manners. (This is not an accusation, merely something that I find curious in modern attitudes.)

George Orwell said "Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." Maybe freedom is also the right to ask questions that nobody wants to think about. I, for one, am glad that there are people out there willing to put their reputations, livelihoods and even lives on the line to ask these questions. When their voices die out it will mean one of only two things: Complete tyranny or complete Utopia - and I don't believe either scenario is possible.

I have one question - why does asking questions or pointing out "inconsistencies" regarding 9/11 or 7/7 (for example) engender such a knee-jerk, angry response in so many people?
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Mikey

Probably because of the signal to noise ratio in many cases isn't favourable. Plus, a lot of 'net sites covering such things also can give credence to what is patently and provably bollocks, meaning they might just be on the credulous side, which doesn't necessarily inspire confidence.

I mentioned this before I think, and this is my personal take of course, but I see a similar thing with religous fundamentalists; there's no answer you can give that will satisfy them because they, and they only, are capable of knowing and understanding the real truth. So you really should be like them to be right.

Or, people don't like being told how to interpret things by strangers.

On the flip of that, I like this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxV3_bG1EHA

Right, I'm off out of this thread!

M.
To tell the truth, you can all get screwed.

Dandontdare

I'll stop using the word THEORY when they stop using the word TRUTH  :D

The Legendary Shark

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Emperor

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 31 March, 2011, 02:28:33 PMHave you noticed how the word "theory" is always placed after the word "conspiracy" these days?

Because it is a theory about a conspiracy?

When did "theory" become a dirty word? Theories and hypotheses are what science if built on, you test them with evidence, then retest them when new evidence emerges. Of course, if it fails to withstand such tests (against all the evidence, so no cherry picking and no "look at that! Makes you think doesn't it?"), you also have to discard it.
if I went 'round saying I was an Emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

Fractal Friction | Tumblr | Google+

The Legendary Shark

Quote from: Mikey on 31 March, 2011, 03:09:37 PM
On the flip of that, I like this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxV3_bG1EHA

Right, I'm off out of this thread!

M.

Before you go, you should watch Curtis' series "The Power of Nightmares." Excellent stuff!
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




The Legendary Shark

Quote from: Emperor on 31 March, 2011, 03:33:08 PM
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 31 March, 2011, 02:28:33 PMHave you noticed how the word "theory" is always placed after the word "conspiracy" these days?

Because it is a theory about a conspiracy?

When did "theory" become a dirty word? Theories and hypotheses are what science if built on, you test them with evidence, then retest them when new evidence emerges. Of course, if it fails to withstand such tests (against all the evidence, so no cherry picking and no "look at that! Makes you think doesn't it?"), you also have to discard it.

All true.

However, let us (for arguments' sake) say that a terrorist's paper passport cannot actually survive a fireball caused by an exploding aeroplane and a catastrophic building collapse, yet the passport is found relatively undamaged anyway when no other passports, papers, luggage, seats etc. appear to survive. If the only plausible way that passport can be found is for it to have been be placed in the rubble after the event, we have a conspiracy theory with the word "theory" removed. See how powerful that little "theory" word becomes then? Justifiable questions become merely theories, all lumped together with the wilder claims.

A bridge collapsed today, investigators blame cheap materials but a government spokesman dismissed these claims as baseless.

A bridge collapsed today, conspiracy theorists blame cheap materials but a government spokesman dismissed these claims as baseless.

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Mikey

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 31 March, 2011, 03:34:33 PM
Before you go, you should watch Curtis' series "The Power of Nightmares." Excellent stuff!

Yeah - it was excellent I thought...

M.
To tell the truth, you can all get screwed.

TordelBack

#129
Without wanting to be a knob (Too late!  Too often!), a conspiracy theory is a theory at best:  even if the facts of a given conspiracy are irrefutably established, the interpretation, explanation and understanding of those facts remains a theory.  Take gravity - its effects are real, measurable, predictable and largely undisputed (at the medium scale anyway), but the interpretation of those facts, the explanation of how they come to be and how they operate, remains a theory (and these days a number of theories).  Theories about how the things we observe function are the basis for how we interact with the world in any sort of deliberate way.  They're not to be sneezed at.

In TLS' example, the observed fact is the passport's existence, the theory is the explanation of its presence.

In the case of many alleged conspiracies the facts of the situation are far from established, and in any scientific sense the structure and content of the explanation is seldom anything close to defined, testable or parsimonious, so in reality the use of the term 'theory' is frequently an undeserved compliment.


Dandontdare

#131
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 31 March, 2011, 03:49:28 PM
A bridge collapsed today, (experienced professional bridge-engineer) investigators (who have actually examined the scene) blame cheap materials but a government spokesman dismissed these claims as baseless.

This happens all the time in the outside world but it's simple corruption, not conspiracy.


Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 31 March, 2011, 03:49:28 PMA bridge collapsed today, (untrained amateur) investigators (with no access to the evidence) blame cheap materials (and out of the whoooooole internet have managed to find a few "sources" who concur with their theory) but a government spokesman dismissed these claims as baseless.

This happens all the time on the internet and it's nigh on impossible to sort the wheat from the mentally unbalanced chaff. Best treat it all with heaps of scepticism.

Neither scenario applies 100% of the time, but it's all a matter of perception, and none of us will ever truly know why the feckin' bridge fell down. Usually it turns out to be a mixture of both explanations.

Passports at Ground Zero? Sounds like dodgy evidence planting of the 'perp's gun' variety, just so there's no argument.  Does it mean the govt blew 'em up with demolition explosives? Of course not, nor does it even suggest it.

uncle fester

Quote from: Dandontdare on 31 March, 2011, 05:29:23 PM
Passports at Ground Zero? Sounds like dodgy evidence planting of the 'perp's gun' variety, just so there's no argument.  Does it mean the govt blew 'em up with demolition explosives? Of course not, nor does it even suggest it.

If indeed it was planted, that in itself suggests some degree of foul play though, doesn't it?

Emperor

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 31 March, 2011, 03:49:28 PM
Quote from: Emperor on 31 March, 2011, 03:33:08 PM
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 31 March, 2011, 02:28:33 PMHave you noticed how the word "theory" is always placed after the word "conspiracy" these days?

Because it is a theory about a conspiracy?

When did "theory" become a dirty word? Theories and hypotheses are what science if built on, you test them with evidence, then retest them when new evidence emerges. Of course, if it fails to withstand such tests (against all the evidence, so no cherry picking and no "look at that! Makes you think doesn't it?"), you also have to discard it.

All true.

However, let us (for arguments' sake) say that a terrorist's paper passport cannot actually survive a fireball caused by an exploding aeroplane and a catastrophic building collapse, yet the passport is found relatively undamaged anyway when no other passports, papers, luggage, seats etc. appear to survive. If the only plausible way that passport can be found is for it to have been be placed in the rubble after the event, we have a conspiracy theory with the word "theory" removed. See how powerful that little "theory" word becomes then? Justifiable questions become merely theories, all lumped together with the wilder claims.

No, you just have an item of evidence. You still need to test your theory against the evidence and this could support any range of theories.

Unfortunately, before we even get to that point, we have to deal with the assumptions, which you subconsciously acknowledged by starting it with "if": "If the only plausible way that passport can be found is for it to have been be placed in the rubble after the event." So, there is your initial problem, you'd have to demonstrate that it couldn't have survived the explosion which would have thrown items all over the place (see the debris field at Lockerbie for example - explosions tend not to annihilate everything, this side of using anti-matter). I don't have a problem with some luggage being blown out from the explosion and the only way you can make it work is to deploy an argument from impossibility - "this can't have happened naturally, so this is the only explanation that works" but that is the underpinning of a whole range of pseudoscience from Intelligent Design onwards, so best not to go there.

The actual story about the finding of the passport seems to have been a bit muddled, early reports are along the lines of:

QuoteThe passport of a suspected hijacker was discovered near the ruins of the World Trade Center, authorities said Saturday as exhausted rescue workers clawed through the wreckage, searching unsuccessfully for signs of life.

The report also goes on to say:

QuoteBack at the trade center, details of rescuers' grisly finds since Tuesday began to emerge. Among them were a pair of hands, bound together, found on a rooftop, authorities said.

The New York Times reported Saturday that one rescuer found the body of a flight attendant, whose hands were also bound. Another worker told the paper he had found the remains of people strapped to what seemed to be airplane seats.

Which would tend to invalidate "when no other passports, papers, luggage, seats etc. appear to survive."

The official report clarifies the the story of the finding of the passport:

QuoteThe passport was recovered by NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin from a male passerby in a business suit, about 30 years old. The passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from WTC 2. The tower collapsed shortly thereafter. The detective then gave the passport to the FBI on 9/11. See FBI report, interview of Detective Chin, Sept. 12, 2001.

www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Ch2.pdf

So it was found before WTC 2 collapsed, so the streets would have been relatively clear in some directions, other than the debris from the crash itself.

A quick further Google finds a whole range of these points addressed (with links to the various sources):

www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html

From what was reported it seems a whole range of debris was found from large chunks of planes, to passengers, to equally fragile bits of paper and documentation.

So while I was leaning towards it being of the "ooo look at this, makes you think" variety of argument, I don't think it even qualifies for that. It only becomes remarkable (and evidence) if nothing else survived from the planes that hit the Twin Towers (as you claim), but plenty of things did, as you might expect from an explosion (by its very name). There doesn't even seem like anything to explain here.
if I went 'round saying I was an Emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

Fractal Friction | Tumblr | Google+

Dandontdare

Quote from: uncle fester on 31 March, 2011, 05:41:32 PM
Quote from: Dandontdare on 31 March, 2011, 05:29:23 PM
Passports at Ground Zero? Sounds like dodgy evidence planting of the 'perp's gun' variety, just so there's no argument.  Does it mean the govt blew 'em up with demolition explosives? Of course not, nor does it even suggest it.

If indeed it was planted, that in itself suggests some degree of foul play though, doesn't it?

From the forensic investigator not washing his hands properly to George Bush and Osama Bin Laden being clone brothers who staged the whole thing ... that's all "some degree". My point is that if the world is shown not to be squeaky clean, if there's any incompetence or corruption at all, people leap to all kinds of baseless and implausible conclusions.

I watched an interesting BBC doc once about the assassination of Bobby Kennedy which found lots of suspicious examples of witnesses not interviewed and evidence quickly destroyed or lost. After sifting through all that was known, it came to the conclusion that nothing sinister had actually happened, Sirhan Sirhan WAS just a random nutter, but that several agencies had instinctively started covering each other's asses on the assumption that somebody else may have been up to something!