WTF has happened to 'skepticism' - Page 6

tanabear · 1st July 2019, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by Paul2

The WMD theory in the Iraq War is a pretty weak conspiracy theory, as it really didn't violate much background knowledge - it was just a scam perpetrated on the world.

What exactly is a weak conspiracy theory? Is this a new Skeptic term? It was not only the lies about WMD, but it also included falsehoods about Saddam's links to Osama and Al-Qaeda. This false narrative was widely believed by the American people. This would seem like a strong conspiracy theory to me. Plus, it led to the complete decimation of an entire country. This seems a lot more consequential than someone wondering if the moon landings were faked.

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

CTs are perpetuated by statements which appear convincing, but are erroneous or rebutted by adding context, such as "the WTC collapsed even though it was designed to withstand collisions with airplanes", neglecting to mention that the planes the archictects had in mind were smaller and that they would be flying far more slowly and without much fuel left in their tanks. When corrected on this, CTers tend to ignore the contrary evidence, or try to smear the as "in on it" or corrupt or ignorant in some other way.

Is this really what they had in mind?

"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".
Frank DeMartini, WTC Project Manager

A white paper in the files of the Port Authority state,

"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."

So "fully loaded", "large jetliner" and "600mph" implies small planes, not fully loaded and traveling slow. Skeptics are best at semantics.

Of course, to say that the buildings "collapsed" is really a misnomer. The official explanation is "crush-down crush-up."

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

"Conspiracy theory" seems to mostly or only be used about private actors, so no, the WMD mess wouldn't be called a CT. Which makes sense. A CT is, pretty much by definition, an alternative narrative that challenges what you love to call "the official story"..

So you are admitting that the highly loaded term "conspiracy theory" is meant only to apply to people questioning official narratives. Thus a "conspiracy theory" is not necessarily a false belief, it is just a contrary one to the powers that be.

BobTheCoward · 2nd July 2019, 06:26 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Q.E.D.

Is skepticism meant to have a purpose? And if you desire to solve problems, you should be on a problem solving forum and not a skepticism forum.

JoeMorgue · 2nd July 2019, 06:32 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Is skepticism meant to have a purpose?

You don't think anything has a purpose. So nobody cares about your opinion of skepticism's purpose.

Roboramma · 2nd July 2019, 06:37 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Is skepticism meant to have a purpose? And if you desire to solve problems, you should be on a problem solving forum and not a skepticism forum.

Of course. Otherwise why engage in it?

theprestige · 2nd July 2019, 06:50 AM

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Of course. Otherwise why engage in it?

Because your axioms demand that you engage in purposeless activities. This is how you know they're good axioms.

BobTheCoward · 2nd July 2019, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Of course. Otherwise why engage in it?

I'm not saying you should or shouldn't engage in skepticism. But that doesn't answer if it has a purpose.

I see it as a tool. Which means this is the hammer forum. And yes, there are jobs a hammer isn't appropriate. But if you want to know how to best do a job, go to the fix-it forum. This is the hammer forum. And don't act like the hammer fetishists are out of place on the hammer forum .

Paul2 · 2nd July 2019, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by tanabear

What exactly is a weak conspiracy theory?

I don’t know what it is exactly, because it’s not an exact thing. It’s a general concept made by applying the general idea of weakness to the general idea of a conspiracy theory.

Originally Posted by tanabear

Is this a new Skeptic term?

This is not a new skeptic term, it’s just an adjective modifying a noun.

Originally Posted by tanabear

It was not only the lies about WMD, but it also included falsehoods about Saddam's links to Osama and Al-Qaeda. This false narrative was widely believed by the American people. This would seem like a strong conspiracy theory to me. Plus, it led to the complete decimation of an entire country. This seems a lot more consequential than someone wondering if the moon landings were faked.

A conspiracy theory is not just any theory that is false. There has to be a conspiratorial element to it in the imaginations of those holding to the conspiracy theory (although it's possible to have a conspiracy theory in which the conspiracy actually exists, but it would have to be labeled as such - "a true conspiracy theory" - because the generally accepted meaning of the term is that the conspiracy doesn't exist). This is especially true in the skeptical community which understands the vast odds against, for instance, the conspiracy theories behind chemtrails, anti-vaccine, etc.

The conspiracy behind the US government's attempt to prove that Saddam had WMD, that conspiracy, however, actually did exist. The government really was trying to pull a fast one. So it's not a conspiracy theory in the classic sense. Normally, in a conspiracy theory, the conspiracy doesn't really exist. That's why I called it a weak conspiracy theory.

Thor 2 · 2nd July 2019, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

The manner in which she uses it is mean-spirited.

The entire British concept of class is kind of gross. The conflation of "low" class with low morals and low intelligence is hateful and bigoted.

I'm not sure why you'd want to use the term the way Mrs. Slocombe does, but I guess at least we're clear about how you're using it.

The things that give you concern are a source of wonder to me.

theprestige · 2nd July 2019, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

The things that give you concern are a source of wonder to me. : confused :

Expressions of bigotry and hate are concerning. Why does this concept confuse you?

TragicMonkey · 2nd July 2019, 06:35 PM

I am surprised to find the ancient tradition of "comedy of manners" is such unfamiliar territory that it counts as "general skepticism and the paranormal"!

Mrs Slocombe, although a great personality, is not to be taken seriously. Or without buying her a few drinks first.

theprestige · 2nd July 2019, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I am surprised to find the ancient tradition of "comedy of manners" is such unfamiliar territory that it counts as "general skepticism and the paranormal"!

Mrs Slocombe, although a great personality, is not to be taken seriously. Or without buying her a few drinks first.

Oh, I agree about Mrs Slocombe. The reason she's funny is because she's a well-drawn caricature.

As far as I can tell, Thor actually does think "lower class" people have lower intelligence.

Roger Ramjets · 2nd July 2019, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I don't see why it is regarded as nigh impossible.

It isn't. But that was how you described it. And the way you argue suggests you want to make it so.

Roger Ramjets · 2nd July 2019, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Even atheists get more reluctant the closer you get to the date of delivery.

Not this atheist. I'm OK with abortion up to and after birth.

Roger Ramjets · 2nd July 2019, 09:00 PM

Originally Posted by tanabear

What exactly is a weak conspiracy theory?

Conspiracy theory

Quote:

A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable.

So a 'weak' conspiracy theory is one which actually is probable. The more likely the conspiracy the weaker the 'theory', and a conspiracy which is known fact is not a theory at all.

Quote:

"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".
Frank DeMartini, WTC Project Manager

Engineer shilling for construction company gets sums wrong. Who'd have thunk it! Was he the same guy who swore the Tacoma Narrows bridge could handle 40mph winds?

Just because someone in authority swears something can't happen doesn't mean it's a conspiracy theory when it does. Even the best scientists, engineers, and policy makers don't always account for everything - and everyone knows it. We expect things to not go exactly according to plan. As for the actual 9/11 conspirators, I bet even they (the surviving ones at least) were surprised by how successful they were. But to suggest that the event could not have happened because some engineer previously said the buildings were airliner-proof - that is a conspiracy theory.

Quote:

So you are admitting that the highly loaded term "conspiracy theory" is meant only to apply to people questioning official narratives. Thus a "conspiracy theory" is not necessarily a false belief, it is just a contrary one to the powers that be.

Wrong. A conspiracy theory is a belief that is contrary to facts and logic. When the 'official narrative' is highly suspect, believing otherwise is not a conspiracy theory. But if the 'otherwise' is "aliens did it" - then it is.

Yes, the term "conspiracy theory" is highly loaded - but for good reason. When a 'theory' isn't a true scientific theory but just wild-assed speculation, and when the 'conspiracy' has to involve more and more people to keep ahead of the facts, neither word is being used correctly. But that's how they use them, so...

Venom · 2nd July 2019, 09:27 PM

My working definition of conspiracy theory:

An unverified or discredited alternate account or narrative of an event involving conspiring parties

grammar could maybe use some work.

Roboramma · 3rd July 2019, 12:59 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I'm not saying you should or shouldn't engage in skepticism. But that doesn't answer if it has a purpose.

I didn't claim you were.

But when you do engage in skepticism you are doing so for a reason. That's pretty much true by definition.

Quote:

I see it as a tool. Which means this is the hammer forum. And yes, there are jobs a hammer isn't appropriate. But if you want to know how to best do a job, go to the fix-it forum. This is the hammer forum. And don't act like the hammer fetishists are out of place on the hammer forum .

This doesn't make any sense. If it's a tool then it serves some purpose and it's meaningful to point out when you are using it counter to that purpose.

arthwollipot · 3rd July 2019, 01:10 AM

The purpose of skepticism is to serve as a bridge between scientific literacy and consumer protection.

BobTheCoward · 3rd July 2019, 05:08 AM

Originally Posted by Roboramma

I didn't claim you were.

But when you do engage in skepticism you are doing so for a reason. That's pretty much true by definition.

This doesn't make any sense. If it's a tool then it serves some purpose and it's meaningful to point out when you are using it counter to that purpose.

I thought we were using purpose in the same way. Let me clarify.Back to the hammer analogy. A hammer's purpose is to hammer things. It's purpose isn't to fix or build things. So when I hammer the crap out of the thing you brought to the hammer forum and it isn't closer to being fixed, it is your fault for bringing it to the hammer forum.

Safe-Keeper · 3rd July 2019, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by tanabear

Is this really what they had in mind?

If your source is correct, I stand corrected on the loaded part. My point still stands, obviously: the WTC wasn't just "built to withstand planes!!!!", but specifically smaller planes that got lost in the fog and hit the building as it came in for landing. It was just an example anyways, I could think of countless others.

Quote:

Skeptics are best at semantics.

Are we really. You seem to be much better at it than me.

Quote:

Of course, to say that the buildings "collapsed" is really a misnomer. The official explanation is "crush-down crush-up."

Speaking of...

Quote:

So you are admitting that...

No, you just made a gigantic strawman, like all the videos I see on YouTube where "x ADMITS that y" when if you watch the video they've just said something ordinary and innocuous

.

Safe-Keeper · 3rd July 2019, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Engineer shilling for construction company gets sums wrong. Who'd have thunk it! Was he the same guy who swore the Tacoma Narrows bridge could handle 40mph winds?

Just because someone in authority swears something can't happen doesn't mean it's a conspiracy theory when it does.

For some reason next to no one seems to think something sinister happened when the Titanic sank, even though it was built to withstand impacts with ice bergs. I love how CTers selectively apply logic and reason.

Quote:

Yes, the term "conspiracy theory" is highly loaded - but for good reason.

It's like "liar", "scammer", and "adulterer". No scammer likes to be told they are a scammer, because, well, it's a bad thing to begin with. Like conspiracy theories.

TragicMonkey · 3rd July 2019, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I thought we were using purpose in the same way. Let me clarify.Back to the hammer analogy. A hammer's purpose is to hammer things. It's purpose isn't to fix or build things. So when I hammer the crap out of the thing you brought to the hammer forum and it isn't closer to being fixed, it is your fault for bringing it to the hammer forum.

A hammer is an inanimate collection of matter. It has no purpose. The purpose dwells in the intent of the user, presumably a human but possibly an animal. Chimps might use a hammer, but probably not for anything we'd welcome them doing. They should be discouraged from hammers.

BobTheCoward · 3rd July 2019, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

A hammer is an inanimate collection of matter. It has no purpose. The purpose dwells in the intent of the user, presumably a human but possibly an animal. Chimps might use a hammer, but probably not for anything we'd welcome them doing. They should be discouraged from hammers.

There are about three different uses of "purpose" going on here and I'm shaping my posts around specific users. For your needs, please respond to the post where I say skepticism has no purpose

TragicMonkey · 3rd July 2019, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

There are about three different uses of "purpose" going on here and I'm shaping my posts around specific users. For your needs, please respond to the post where I say skepticism has no purpose

I fear I cannot respond to posts not infused with recognizable purpose. Posts which are pounded out by brute instinct, like a chimp with a hammer, can neither generate nor receive proper meaning.

ArchSas · 3rd July 2019, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

For some reason next to no one seems to think something sinister happened when the Titanic sank, even though it was built to withstand impacts with ice bergs. I love how CTers selectively apply logic and reason.

You underestimate the CTers. I've run into several Titanic-related conspiracy theories in the past. IIRC, the main ones are: 1) That the Titanic never actually sank; White Star was committing insurance fraud by sinking the Olympic, which had already been damaged, and 2) That J.P. Morgan intentionally had the ship sunk to kill business rivals; I think that one is actually part of the Qanon CT now, so it might be somewhat popular now, considering how that crapshow has grown.

dann · 3rd July 2019, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Now clowns like Jordan Peterson, Milo Whathisface, and Ben Shapiro claiming to be skeptics? Yeah those guys are not skeptics. They are attention-whore contrarians whose arguments do not hold water. Their Gish-galloping alone should tip off any good critical thinker that they are not honest intellectuals.

You'll love this one:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Sideroxylon · 3rd July 2019, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by dann

You'll love this one:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Gets pretty salty when his ******** is called out by an old school journalist.

Red Baron Farms · 3rd July 2019, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Excuse me, but I won't be sat sitting here while people are slagging off on Mrs Slocombe! She was a great lady, of extreme refinement, and I am unanimous in that!

If by unanimous you mean alone.

Sideroxylon · 3rd July 2019, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

If by unanimous you mean alone.

Does every post of playful irony or sarcasm require a smiley like some exaggerated laughter track?

Thor 2 · 3rd July 2019, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Oh, I agree about Mrs Slocombe. The reason she's funny is because she's a well-drawn caricature.

As far as I can tell, Thor actually does think "lower class" people have lower intelligence.

You certainly draw a long bow in your most ineffective attempts to score a bullseye theprestige.

I say - "The more common a person is the less sense is evident." as a humorous observation regarding the word "common sense"

You then, claiming ignorance of the use of the word "common" in this context, ask for illustration.

I suggest the character of Mrs Slocombe uses the word in a derogatory manner and you jump on this, because she is cast as pretentious bigot with delusions of grandeur, as proof of my low opinion of so called "lower class" people. Oh boy!

arthwollipot · 3rd July 2019, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

I suggest the character of Mrs Slocombe uses the word in a derogatory manner and you jump on this, because she is cast as pretentious bigot with delusions of grandeur, as proof of my low opinion of so called "lower class" people. Oh boy!

Your use of a derogatory term that is famously used by a pretentious bigot with delusions of grandeur make you look like a pretentious bigot with delusions of grandeur.

Sideroxylon · 3rd July 2019, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

You certainly draw a long bow in your most ineffective attempts to score a bullseye theprestige.

I say - "The more common a person is the less sense is evident." as a humorous observation regarding the word "common sense"

You then, claiming ignorance of the use of the word "common" in this context, ask for illustration.

I suggest the character of Mrs Slocombe uses the word in a derogatory manner and you jump on this, because she is cast as pretentious bigot with delusions of grandeur, as proof of my low opinion of so called "lower class" people. Oh boy!

TragicMonkey · 3rd July 2019, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Your use of a derogatory term that is famously used by a pretentious bigot with delusions of grandeur make you look like a pretentious bigot with delusions of grandeur.

Mrs Slocombe was a very nice lady and doesn't deserve to be called such horrible things. And because apparently so many people are lacking a sense of humor and need things explained to them the joke was that Mrs Slocombe was herself dead common, she just didn't realize it.

If you cannot refrain from being rude about senior staff such as the head of the Ladies Department then you can eat your dinner -- I mean, lunch! -- at another table.

Juniors these days!

Roboramma · 4th July 2019, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

There are about three different uses of "purpose" going on here and I'm shaping my posts around specific users. For your needs, please respond to the post where I say skepticism has no purpose

I think TM understands the point I was making better than you seem to.

When people engage in skepticism they are doing so to achieve some ends. The success of their skepticism can they be measured against those ends.

I don't think anything has purpose in any sense other than this.

BobTheCoward · 4th July 2019, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by Roboramma

I think TM understands the point I was making better than you seem to.

When people engage in skepticism they are doing so to achieve some ends. The success of their skepticism can they be measured against those ends.

I don't think anything has purpose in any sense other than this.

If something can't be solved with skepticism, don't get upset when people use skepticism on it at the skepticism forum. This is a forum devoted to the means, and not about achieving some end.

Butter! · 4th July 2019, 09:09 AM

Nothing has a purpose. Nothing at all. We're all going to die and then the sun will explode.

/thread

EDIT: I'm being tongue-in-cheek. I felt I should clarify.

tanabear · 4th July 2019, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by Paul2

The conspiracy behind the US government's attempt to prove that Saddam had WMD, that conspiracy, however, actually did exist. The government really was trying to pull a fast one. So it's not a conspiracy theory in the classic sense. Normally, in a conspiracy theory, the conspiracy doesn't really exist. That's why I called it a weak conspiracy theory.

This is quite a convoluted explanation. There are two things here. One, there was a conspiracy, if you wish to use that term, by high-ranking officials in the US government and elsewhere to sell the Iraq war to the American people. Two, what they were selling was a conspiracy theory about Iraq, WMD and links to Al-Qaeda. It is this conspiracy theory that I am referring too. This conspiracy did not exist. Saddam Hussein was not in league with Osama bin Laden to transfer WMD which could lead to mushroom clouds over American cities.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Just because someone in authority swears something can't happen doesn't mean it's a conspiracy theory when it does. Even the best scientists, engineers, and policy makers don't always account for everything - and everyone knows it. We expect things to not go exactly according to plan...But to suggest that the event could not have happened because some engineer previously said the buildings were airliner-proof - that is a conspiracy theory.

I was specifically responding to Safe-Keeper who stated that all the architects assumed it would be a small plane, flying slowly and low on fuel. I was showing that not all of them stated this.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Wrong. A conspiracy theory is a belief that is contrary to facts and logic. When the 'official narrative' is highly suspect, believing otherwise is not a conspiracy theory. But if the 'otherwise' is "aliens did it" - then it is.

This might be your definition, but I am referring to how the term is used in practice. In practice, it is primarily used to indicate that someone has outlandish beliefs and is paranoid or insane. The term simply exists as a pejorative to avoid debate.

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

If your source is correct, I stand corrected on the loaded part. My point still stands, obviously: the WTC wasn't just "built to withstand planes!!!!", but specifically smaller planes that got lost in the fog and hit the building as it came in for landing. It was just an example anyways, I could think of countless others.

So a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600mph is a small plane flying slow?

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

Speaking of....

This is the explanation given Zdenek Bazant and others. "The gravity-driven progressive collapse of a tower consists of two phases—the crush-down, followed by crush-up."

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

No, you just made a gigantic strawman, like all the videos I see on YouTube where "x ADMITS that y" when if you watch the video they've just said something ordinary and innocuous

.

You wrote: "Conspiracy theory" seems to mostly or only be used about private actors, so no, the WMD mess wouldn't be called a CT. Which makes sense. A CT is, pretty much by definition, an alternative narrative that challenges what you love to call "the official story."

So can the official story ever be a conspiracy theory?

Thor 2 · 4th July 2019, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Mrs Slocombe was a very nice lady and doesn't deserve to be called such horrible things. And because apparently so many people are lacking a sense of humor and need things explained to them the joke was that Mrs Slocombe was herself dead common, she just didn't realize it.

If you cannot refrain from being rude about senior staff such as the head of the Ladies Department then you can eat your dinner -- I mean, lunch! -- at another table.

Juniors these days!

Well said TragicMonkey and thanks. The lack of humour of some is troublesome.

There is a tendency for some, to want to pick a fight with another poster they may see as foe. In a desperate effort to pick up crumbs, they may see as potential weapons to make a strike, they sometimes pretend ignorance that something was said in jest.

Red Baron Farms · 4th July 2019, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

Does every post of playful irony or sarcasm require a smiley like some exaggerated laughter track?

TragicMonkey · 4th July 2019, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Well said TragicMonkey and thanks. The lack of humour of some is troublesome.

There is a tendency for some, to want to pick a fight with another poster they may see as foe. In a desperate effort to pick up crumbs, they may see as potential weapons to make a strike, they sometimes pretend ignorance that something was said in jest.

Oh, I don't care about any of that. I just really like Are You Being Served. Mrs Slocombe is my spirit animal. When I did the sacrament of Confirmation in the Catholic Church I told them I chose the name Stephen after the sainted king of Hungary but actually it was for Captain Peacock.

Roger Ramjets · 4th July 2019, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by tanabear

This might be your definition, but I am referring to how the term is used in practice. In practice, it is primarily used to indicate that someone has outlandish beliefs and is paranoid or insane.

The term simply exists as a pejorative to avoid debate.

I have seen it used that way, but not by skeptics.

We have a whole sub-forum here devoted to conspiracy theories, and we are constantly engaging in debate with the 'theorists'. The patience of skeptics when dealing with people with outlandish, paranoid or completely insane beliefs is amazing. And in the end it's almost always the conspiracy theorists themselves who try to avoid debate.

Logically Fallacious: Conspiracy Theory

Quote:

(also known as: canceling hypothesis, canceling hypotheses, cover-ups)

Description: Explaining that your claim cannot be proven or verified because the truth is being hidden and/or evidence destroyed by a group of two or more people. When that reason is challenged as not being true or accurate, the challenge is often presented as just another attempt to cover up the truth and presented as further evidence that the original claim is true.

1st July 2019, 10:14 PM	#201
tanabear Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: The Lion's Den Posts: 435	Originally Posted by Paul2 The WMD theory in the Iraq War is a pretty weak conspiracy theory, as it really didn't violate much background knowledge - it was just a scam perpetrated on the world. What exactly is a weak conspiracy theory? Is this a new Skeptic term? It was not only the lies about WMD, but it also included falsehoods about Saddam's links to Osama and Al-Qaeda. This false narrative was widely believed by the American people. This would seem like a strong conspiracy theory to me. Plus, it led to the complete decimation of an entire country. This seems a lot more consequential than someone wondering if the moon landings were faked. Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper CTs are perpetuated by statements which appear convincing, but are erroneous or rebutted by adding context, such as "the WTC collapsed even though it was designed to withstand collisions with airplanes", neglecting to mention that the planes the archictects had in mind were smaller and that they would be flying far more slowly and without much fuel left in their tanks. When corrected on this, CTers tend to ignore the contrary evidence, or try to smear the as "in on it" or corrupt or ignorant in some other way. Is this really what they had in mind? "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". Frank DeMartini, WTC Project Manager A white paper in the files of the Port Authority state, "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." So "fully loaded", "large jetliner" and "600mph" implies small planes, not fully loaded and traveling slow. Skeptics are best at semantics. Of course, to say that the buildings "collapsed" is really a misnomer. The official explanation is "crush-down crush-up." Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper "Conspiracy theory" seems to mostly or only be used about private actors, so no, the WMD mess wouldn't be called a CT. Which makes sense. A CT is, pretty much by definition, an alternative narrative that challenges what you love to call "the official story".. So you are admitting that the highly loaded term "conspiracy theory" is meant only to apply to people questioning official narratives. Thus a "conspiracy theory" is not necessarily a false belief, it is just a contrary one to the powers that be.
	__________________ pomeroo: "Mark, where did this guy get the idea that you talked about holding aluminum in your hand?" Undesired Walrus: "Why, Ron, Mark mentioned this on your very own show!"

2nd July 2019, 06:32 AM	#203
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,721	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward Is skepticism meant to have a purpose? You don't think anything has a purpose. So nobody cares about your opinion of skepticism's purpose.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

2nd July 2019, 06:37 AM	#204
Roboramma Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shanghai Posts: 14,299	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward Is skepticism meant to have a purpose? And if you desire to solve problems, you should be on a problem solving forum and not a skepticism forum. Of course. Otherwise why engage in it?
	__________________ "... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov

2nd July 2019, 07:39 AM	#206
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,259	Originally Posted by Roboramma Of course. Otherwise why engage in it? I'm not saying you should or shouldn't engage in skepticism. But that doesn't answer if it has a purpose. I see it as a tool. Which means this is the hammer forum. And yes, there are jobs a hammer isn't appropriate. But if you want to know how to best do a job, go to the fix-it forum. This is the hammer forum. And don't act like the hammer fetishists are out of place on the hammer forum .
	Last edited by BobTheCoward; 2nd July 2019 at 07:41 AM.

2nd July 2019, 09:40 AM	#207
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,594	Originally Posted by tanabear What exactly is a weak conspiracy theory? I don’t know what it is exactly, because it’s not an exact thing. It’s a general concept made by applying the general idea of weakness to the general idea of a conspiracy theory. Originally Posted by tanabear Is this a new Skeptic term? This is not a new skeptic term, it’s just an adjective modifying a noun. Originally Posted by tanabear It was not only the lies about WMD, but it also included falsehoods about Saddam's links to Osama and Al-Qaeda. This false narrative was widely believed by the American people. This would seem like a strong conspiracy theory to me. Plus, it led to the complete decimation of an entire country. This seems a lot more consequential than someone wondering if the moon landings were faked. A conspiracy theory is not just any theory that is false. There has to be a conspiratorial element to it in the imaginations of those holding to the conspiracy theory (although it's possible to have a conspiracy theory in which the conspiracy actually exists, but it would have to be labeled as such - "a true conspiracy theory" - because the generally accepted meaning of the term is that the conspiracy doesn't exist). This is especially true in the skeptical community which understands the vast odds against, for instance, the conspiracy theories behind chemtrails, anti-vaccine, etc. The conspiracy behind the US government's attempt to prove that Saddam had WMD, that conspiracy, however, actually did exist. The government really was trying to pull a fast one. So it's not a conspiracy theory in the classic sense. Normally, in a conspiracy theory, the conspiracy doesn't really exist. That's why I called it a weak conspiracy theory.
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,594	__________________ It's nice to be nice to the nice. Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell

2nd July 2019, 06:26 AM	#202
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,259	Originally Posted by theprestige Q.E.D. Is skepticism meant to have a purpose? And if you desire to solve problems, you should be on a problem solving forum and not a skepticism forum.

2nd July 2019, 06:50 AM	#205
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,693	Originally Posted by Roboramma Of course. Otherwise why engage in it? Because your axioms demand that you engage in purposeless activities. This is how you know they're good axioms.

2nd July 2019, 02:33 PM	#208
Thor 2 Philosopher Join Date: May 2016 Location: Brisbane, Aust. Posts: 6,611	Originally Posted by theprestige The manner in which she uses it is mean-spirited. The entire British concept of class is kind of gross. The conflation of "low" class with low morals and low intelligence is hateful and bigoted. I'm not sure why you'd want to use the term the way Mrs. Slocombe does, but I guess at least we're clear about how you're using it. The things that give you concern are a source of wonder to me.
	__________________ Thinking is a faith hazard.

2nd July 2019, 02:38 PM	#209
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,693	Originally Posted by Thor 2 The things that give you concern are a source of wonder to me. : confused : Expressions of bigotry and hate are concerning. Why does this concept confuse you?

2nd July 2019, 06:35 PM	#210
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 59,523	I am surprised to find the ancient tradition of "comedy of manners" is such unfamiliar territory that it counts as "general skepticism and the paranormal"! Mrs Slocombe, although a great personality, is not to be taken seriously. Or without buying her a few drinks first.
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

2nd July 2019, 07:08 PM	#211
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,693	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey I am surprised to find the ancient tradition of "comedy of manners" is such unfamiliar territory that it counts as "general skepticism and the paranormal"! Mrs Slocombe, although a great personality, is not to be taken seriously. Or without buying her a few drinks first. Oh, I agree about Mrs Slocombe. The reason she's funny is because she's a well-drawn caricature. As far as I can tell, Thor actually does think "lower class" people have lower intelligence.

2nd July 2019, 07:57 PM	#212
Roger Ramjets Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 5,344	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward I don't see why it is regarded as nigh impossible. It isn't. But that was how you described it. And the way you argue suggests you want to make it so.
	__________________ We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

2nd July 2019, 08:02 PM	#213
Roger Ramjets Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 5,344	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward Even atheists get more reluctant the closer you get to the date of delivery. Not this atheist. I'm OK with abortion up to and after birth.
	__________________ We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

2nd July 2019, 09:00 PM	#214
Roger Ramjets Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 5,344	Originally Posted by tanabear What exactly is a weak conspiracy theory? Conspiracy theory Quote: A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. So a 'weak' conspiracy theory is one which actually is probable. The more likely the conspiracy the weaker the 'theory', and a conspiracy which is known fact is not a theory at all. Quote: "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". Frank DeMartini, WTC Project Manager Engineer shilling for construction company gets sums wrong. Who'd have thunk it! Was he the same guy who swore the Tacoma Narrows bridge could handle 40mph winds? Just because someone in authority swears something can't happen doesn't mean it's a conspiracy theory when it does. Even the best scientists, engineers, and policy makers don't always account for everything - and everyone knows it. We expect things to not go exactly according to plan. As for the actual 9/11 conspirators, I bet even they (the surviving ones at least) were surprised by how successful they were. But to suggest that the event could not have happened because some engineer previously said the buildings were airliner-proof - that is a conspiracy theory. Quote: So you are admitting that the highly loaded term "conspiracy theory" is meant only to apply to people questioning official narratives. Thus a "conspiracy theory" is not necessarily a false belief, it is just a contrary one to the powers that be. Wrong. A conspiracy theory is a belief that is contrary to facts and logic. When the 'official narrative' is highly suspect, believing otherwise is not a conspiracy theory. But if the 'otherwise' is "aliens did it" - then it is. Yes, the term "conspiracy theory" is highly loaded - but for good reason. When a 'theory' isn't a true scientific theory but just wild-assed speculation, and when the 'conspiracy' has to involve more and more people to keep ahead of the facts, neither word is being used correctly. But that's how they use them, so...
	__________________ We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

2nd July 2019, 09:27 PM	#215
Venom Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: United States Posts: 4,905	My working definition of conspiracy theory: An unverified or discredited alternate account or narrative of an event involving conspiring parties grammar could maybe use some work.

3rd July 2019, 12:59 AM	#216
Roboramma Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shanghai Posts: 14,299	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward I'm not saying you should or shouldn't engage in skepticism. But that doesn't answer if it has a purpose. I didn't claim you were. But when you do engage in skepticism you are doing so for a reason. That's pretty much true by definition. Quote: I see it as a tool. Which means this is the hammer forum. And yes, there are jobs a hammer isn't appropriate. But if you want to know how to best do a job, go to the fix-it forum. This is the hammer forum. And don't act like the hammer fetishists are out of place on the hammer forum . This doesn't make any sense. If it's a tool then it serves some purpose and it's meaningful to point out when you are using it counter to that purpose.
	__________________ "... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov

3rd July 2019, 01:10 AM	#217
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 70,321	The purpose of skepticism is to serve as a bridge between scientific literacy and consumer protection.
	__________________ Please scream inside your heart.

3rd July 2019, 05:08 AM	#218
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,259	Originally Posted by Roboramma I didn't claim you were. But when you do engage in skepticism you are doing so for a reason. That's pretty much true by definition. This doesn't make any sense. If it's a tool then it serves some purpose and it's meaningful to point out when you are using it counter to that purpose. I thought we were using purpose in the same way. Let me clarify.Back to the hammer analogy. A hammer's purpose is to hammer things. It's purpose isn't to fix or build things. So when I hammer the crap out of the thing you brought to the hammer forum and it isn't closer to being fixed, it is your fault for bringing it to the hammer forum.

3rd July 2019, 08:59 AM	#219
Safe-Keeper Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Norway Posts: 10,395	Originally Posted by tanabear Is this really what they had in mind? If your source is correct, I stand corrected on the loaded part. My point still stands, obviously: the WTC wasn't just "built to withstand planes!!!!", but specifically smaller planes that got lost in the fog and hit the building as it came in for landing. It was just an example anyways, I could think of countless others. Quote: Skeptics are best at semantics. Are we really. You seem to be much better at it than me. Quote: Of course, to say that the buildings "collapsed" is really a misnomer. The official explanation is "crush-down crush-up." Speaking of... Quote: So you are admitting that... No, you just made a gigantic strawman, like all the videos I see on YouTube where "x ADMITS that y" when if you watch the video they've just said something ordinary and innocuous .
	__________________ "He's like a drunk being given a sobriety test by the police after being pulled over. Just as a drunk can't walk a straight line, Trump can't think in a straight line. He's all over the place."--Stacyhs "If you are still hung up on that whole words-have-meaning thing, then 2020 is going to be a long year for you." --Ladewig

3rd July 2019, 09:02 AM	#220
Safe-Keeper Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Norway Posts: 10,395	Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets Engineer shilling for construction company gets sums wrong. Who'd have thunk it! Was he the same guy who swore the Tacoma Narrows bridge could handle 40mph winds? Just because someone in authority swears something can't happen doesn't mean it's a conspiracy theory when it does. For some reason next to no one seems to think something sinister happened when the Titanic sank, even though it was built to withstand impacts with ice bergs. I love how CTers selectively apply logic and reason. Quote: Yes, the term "conspiracy theory" is highly loaded - but for good reason. It's like "liar", "scammer", and "adulterer". No scammer likes to be told they are a scammer, because, well, it's a bad thing to begin with. Like conspiracy theories.
	__________________ "He's like a drunk being given a sobriety test by the police after being pulled over. Just as a drunk can't walk a straight line, Trump can't think in a straight line. He's all over the place."--Stacyhs "If you are still hung up on that whole words-have-meaning thing, then 2020 is going to be a long year for you." --Ladewig

3rd July 2019, 09:41 AM	#221
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 59,523	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward I thought we were using purpose in the same way. Let me clarify.Back to the hammer analogy. A hammer's purpose is to hammer things. It's purpose isn't to fix or build things. So when I hammer the crap out of the thing you brought to the hammer forum and it isn't closer to being fixed, it is your fault for bringing it to the hammer forum. A hammer is an inanimate collection of matter. It has no purpose. The purpose dwells in the intent of the user, presumably a human but possibly an animal. Chimps might use a hammer, but probably not for anything we'd welcome them doing. They should be discouraged from hammers.
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

3rd July 2019, 11:15 AM	#222
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,259	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey A hammer is an inanimate collection of matter. It has no purpose. The purpose dwells in the intent of the user, presumably a human but possibly an animal. Chimps might use a hammer, but probably not for anything we'd welcome them doing. They should be discouraged from hammers. There are about three different uses of "purpose" going on here and I'm shaping my posts around specific users. For your needs, please respond to the post where I say skepticism has no purpose

3rd July 2019, 11:23 AM	#223
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 59,523	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward There are about three different uses of "purpose" going on here and I'm shaping my posts around specific users. For your needs, please respond to the post where I say skepticism has no purpose I fear I cannot respond to posts not infused with recognizable purpose. Posts which are pounded out by brute instinct, like a chimp with a hammer, can neither generate nor receive proper meaning.
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

3rd July 2019, 11:36 AM	#224
ArchSas Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 274	Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper For some reason next to no one seems to think something sinister happened when the Titanic sank, even though it was built to withstand impacts with ice bergs. I love how CTers selectively apply logic and reason. You underestimate the CTers. I've run into several Titanic-related conspiracy theories in the past. IIRC, the main ones are: 1) That the Titanic never actually sank; White Star was committing insurance fraud by sinking the Olympic, which had already been damaged, and 2) That J.P. Morgan intentionally had the ship sunk to kill business rivals; I think that one is actually part of the Qanon CT now, so it might be somewhat popular now, considering how that crapshow has grown.
ArchSas Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 274

3rd July 2019, 02:44 PM	#227
Red Baron Farms Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 5,178	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey Excuse me, but I won't be sat sitting here while people are slagging off on Mrs Slocombe! She was a great lady, of extreme refinement, and I am unanimous in that! If by unanimous you mean alone.
	__________________ Scott "Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison Biome Carbon Cycle Management

3rd July 2019, 02:59 PM	#228
Sideroxylon Featherless biped Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Aporia Posts: 24,334	Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms If by unanimous you mean alone. Does every post of playful irony or sarcasm require a smiley like some exaggerated laughter track?

3rd July 2019, 03:14 PM	#229
Thor 2 Philosopher Join Date: May 2016 Location: Brisbane, Aust. Posts: 6,611	Originally Posted by theprestige Oh, I agree about Mrs Slocombe. The reason she's funny is because she's a well-drawn caricature. As far as I can tell, Thor actually does think "lower class" people have lower intelligence. You certainly draw a long bow in your most ineffective attempts to score a bullseye theprestige. I say - "The more common a person is the less sense is evident." as a humorous observation regarding the word "common sense" You then, claiming ignorance of the use of the word "common" in this context, ask for illustration. I suggest the character of Mrs Slocombe uses the word in a derogatory manner and you jump on this, because she is cast as pretentious bigot with delusions of grandeur, as proof of my low opinion of so called "lower class" people. Oh boy!
	__________________ Thinking is a faith hazard.

3rd July 2019, 07:35 PM	#230
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 70,321	Originally Posted by Thor 2 I suggest the character of Mrs Slocombe uses the word in a derogatory manner and you jump on this, because she is cast as pretentious bigot with delusions of grandeur, as proof of my low opinion of so called "lower class" people. Oh boy! Your use of a derogatory term that is famously used by a pretentious bigot with delusions of grandeur make you look like a pretentious bigot with delusions of grandeur.
	__________________ Please scream inside your heart.

3rd July 2019, 08:45 PM	#231
Sideroxylon Featherless biped Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Aporia Posts: 24,334	Originally Posted by Thor 2 You certainly draw a long bow in your most ineffective attempts to score a bullseye theprestige. I say - "The more common a person is the less sense is evident." as a humorous observation regarding the word "common sense" You then, claiming ignorance of the use of the word "common" in this context, ask for illustration. I suggest the character of Mrs Slocombe uses the word in a derogatory manner and you jump on this, because she is cast as pretentious bigot with delusions of grandeur, as proof of my low opinion of so called "lower class" people. Oh boy!

3rd July 2019, 10:38 PM	#232
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 59,523	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Your use of a derogatory term that is famously used by a pretentious bigot with delusions of grandeur make you look like a pretentious bigot with delusions of grandeur. Mrs Slocombe was a very nice lady and doesn't deserve to be called such horrible things. And because apparently so many people are lacking a sense of humor and need things explained to them the joke was that Mrs Slocombe was herself dead common, she just didn't realize it. If you cannot refrain from being rude about senior staff such as the head of the Ladies Department then you can eat your dinner -- I mean, lunch! -- at another table. Juniors these days!
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

4th July 2019, 07:35 AM	#233
Roboramma Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shanghai Posts: 14,299	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward There are about three different uses of "purpose" going on here and I'm shaping my posts around specific users. For your needs, please respond to the post where I say skepticism has no purpose I think TM understands the point I was making better than you seem to. When people engage in skepticism they are doing so to achieve some ends. The success of their skepticism can they be measured against those ends. I don't think anything has purpose in any sense other than this.
	__________________ "... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov

4th July 2019, 08:38 AM	#234
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,259	Originally Posted by Roboramma I think TM understands the point I was making better than you seem to. When people engage in skepticism they are doing so to achieve some ends. The success of their skepticism can they be measured against those ends. I don't think anything has purpose in any sense other than this. If something can't be solved with skepticism, don't get upset when people use skepticism on it at the skepticism forum. This is a forum devoted to the means, and not about achieving some end.

4th July 2019, 09:09 AM	#235
Butter! Rough Around the Edges Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Deep Storage Posts: 7,277	Nothing has a purpose. Nothing at all. We're all going to die and then the sun will explode. /thread EDIT: I'm being tongue-in-cheek. I felt I should clarify.
	Last edited by Butter!; 4th July 2019 at 09:28 AM.

4th July 2019, 01:03 PM	#236
tanabear Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: The Lion's Den Posts: 435	Originally Posted by Paul2 The conspiracy behind the US government's attempt to prove that Saddam had WMD, that conspiracy, however, actually did exist. The government really was trying to pull a fast one. So it's not a conspiracy theory in the classic sense. Normally, in a conspiracy theory, the conspiracy doesn't really exist. That's why I called it a weak conspiracy theory. This is quite a convoluted explanation. There are two things here. One, there was a conspiracy, if you wish to use that term, by high-ranking officials in the US government and elsewhere to sell the Iraq war to the American people. Two, what they were selling was a conspiracy theory about Iraq, WMD and links to Al-Qaeda. It is this conspiracy theory that I am referring too. This conspiracy did not exist. Saddam Hussein was not in league with Osama bin Laden to transfer WMD which could lead to mushroom clouds over American cities. Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets Just because someone in authority swears something can't happen doesn't mean it's a conspiracy theory when it does. Even the best scientists, engineers, and policy makers don't always account for everything - and everyone knows it. We expect things to not go exactly according to plan...But to suggest that the event could not have happened because some engineer previously said the buildings were airliner-proof - that is a conspiracy theory. I was specifically responding to Safe-Keeper who stated that all the architects assumed it would be a small plane, flying slowly and low on fuel. I was showing that not all of them stated this. Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets Wrong. A conspiracy theory is a belief that is contrary to facts and logic. When the 'official narrative' is highly suspect, believing otherwise is not a conspiracy theory. But if the 'otherwise' is "aliens did it" - then it is. This might be your definition, but I am referring to how the term is used in practice. In practice, it is primarily used to indicate that someone has outlandish beliefs and is paranoid or insane. The term simply exists as a pejorative to avoid debate. Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper If your source is correct, I stand corrected on the loaded part. My point still stands, obviously: the WTC wasn't just "built to withstand planes!!!!", but specifically smaller planes that got lost in the fog and hit the building as it came in for landing. It was just an example anyways, I could think of countless others. So a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600mph is a small plane flying slow? Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper Speaking of.... This is the explanation given Zdenek Bazant and others. "The gravity-driven progressive collapse of a tower consists of two phases—the crush-down, followed by crush-up." Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper No, you just made a gigantic strawman, like all the videos I see on YouTube where "x ADMITS that y" when if you watch the video they've just said something ordinary and innocuous . You wrote: "Conspiracy theory" seems to mostly or only be used about private actors, so no, the WMD mess wouldn't be called a CT. Which makes sense. A CT is, pretty much by definition, an alternative narrative that challenges what you love to call "the official story." So can the official story ever be a conspiracy theory?
	__________________ pomeroo: "Mark, where did this guy get the idea that you talked about holding aluminum in your hand?" Undesired Walrus: "Why, Ron, Mark mentioned this on your very own show!"

4th July 2019, 02:45 PM	#237
Thor 2 Philosopher Join Date: May 2016 Location: Brisbane, Aust. Posts: 6,611	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey Mrs Slocombe was a very nice lady and doesn't deserve to be called such horrible things. And because apparently so many people are lacking a sense of humor and need things explained to them the joke was that Mrs Slocombe was herself dead common, she just didn't realize it. If you cannot refrain from being rude about senior staff such as the head of the Ladies Department then you can eat your dinner -- I mean, lunch! -- at another table. Juniors these days! Well said TragicMonkey and thanks. The lack of humour of some is troublesome. There is a tendency for some, to want to pick a fight with another poster they may see as foe. In a desperate effort to pick up crumbs, they may see as potential weapons to make a strike, they sometimes pretend ignorance that something was said in jest.
	__________________ Thinking is a faith hazard. Last edited by Thor 2; 4th July 2019 at 02:46 PM.