People who overestimate their political knowledge are more likely to believe conspiracy theories

Sorry I didn’t follow the thread. It sounds like you are saying the 9/11 attack was carried out by the US government?

Here’s the thing I don’t understand about proponents of grand conspiracy theories. They just take it for granted that it is viable to think hundreds of people could be “in on it” without any of them leaking evidence. And more than that, in this case, that the people in charge were completely confident that none of those people would leak that evidence despite the murderous nature of the plan.

 

I'm probably sticking my nose into an argument I don't want to be in, but if I'm understanding @sirbaihu correctly (and I am not sure that I am), he is simply making a logical point about evidence--similar to the distinction in law between direct and circumstantial evidence. see for example

https://www.authorhouse.com/bookstore/bookdetail.aspx?bookid=SKU-000460042

"Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk." (Henry David Thoreau) There are two great branches of evidence in a Criminal Case. They are direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. The meaning of direct evidence is as plain as the nose on your face. A first grader can easily grasp the concept. Whatever a person perceives with any of his physical senses is direct evidence. If you see a crime happen that is direct evidence. And if you smell it or touch it or taste it or hear it as it happens -- that is also direct evidence. Everything else is circumstantial. Therefore, the meaning of circumstantial evidence is easily comprehended and just as easily categorized. If it isn't direct evidence it's circumstantial evidence. And if there's a trout in a can of milk, we know the farmer has dipped his can into a stream of water. We didn't see him do it, but we know the squiggly rainbow didn't come from a cow's udder. The finned scrapper getting his first taste of milk is irrefutable circumstantial evidence of dairy farmer duplicity!
​

Beyond that I suspect @sirbaihu is engaging in a bit of fun-filled trolling given his tone, but not knowing the personalities or histories here, that's just a guess.

 

I couldn't think of a better visual representation of this thread if I tried. Well done.

 

No, really, thousands, or hundreds of thousands for things like the Moon landing. It's an odd bug in the software of the human mind, TBH.

 

Oh, so sirbaihu is back. Lovely.

 

Like you said, you didn't follow the thread. If I said the US government did it, please quote me. Otherwise, you are correct that you are not following this thread.

 

U r a naughty troublemaker, aren't you, bad boy. That's not me.

 

I read the thread and still can’t make out what you’re trying to say regarding 9/11.

 

I suppose this is the crux of the disagreement. My response would be no. If we wanted to punish those 19 guys, the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt would be on the government in a court of law. That's not what we're doing. We did want to know as a nation what happened, so Congress formed a commission that researched it and gave an answer. The threshold for that is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt because we're not trying to get a conviction, we just want to have a national understanding of what happened. It is satisfactory for me. I'm convinced. You obviously are not convinced, and that's fine by me because I don't want to bother to persuade you otherwise. But I do object to the idea that there is something I need to prove or that I must require proof beyond a reasonable doubt in order to accept that those 19 guys took down the WTC. That's not the bar.

Sounded like B-Bob had a personal connection to Sandy Hook and is therefore particularly sensitive on that subject. To keep disagreements from getting too personal, I suggest you drop it.

 

I said it quite clearly. I'll quote it for you: "Stephen Paddock would never be convicted in a court of law, not even close. Neither would the 9/11 hijackers."

I am also saying: if you think this building fell like this because of fire, you are the crackpot:

 

Thanks and that's right. I apologized to that poster, for my tone, and edited that post of mine on page two. Hope he saw that.

 

You have revealed your trolling qualities to me. Sandy Hook is your baby in this thread, not mine.

Yeah, I looked at the NIST report. I love this part which you quoted (above). Do you see what it says? No one heard a really loud bang of 130dB or more. Case closed!

NIST tested for explosives! Do you know how they did it? No you don't. I do. Get ready! This is top American science here!
How would YOU test for explosives?

Well, that's not how NIST did it. This takes up two whole pages of their report.
Step 1: Think of what to do. (Not joking.)
Step 2: Do a computer model to see which windows would break due to an explosion. Use two different floor plans in your test. (Why? Whatever.) Pick some random explosive charges like C4 of two different weights. Look at some photos to see if the windows were broken like the computer model predicts. Nope, at 4:00 no windows were broken! (But the building fell after 5:00).
Step 3: Do a computer model to see how loud an explosion is. Don't put any surrounding buildings in the computer model. (Why? Whatever.) OK, an explosion would be really loud! Ask anyone if they heard some really loud bangs. Nope! Case closed!

NIST did not do chemical tests for explosives. Great American science. They forgot to check for witnesses on youtube:

 

8. Why didn't NIST consider a "controlled demolition" hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation like it did for the "pancake theory" hypothesis?

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation that included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the WTC towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests, and created sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed according to the scenario detailed in the response to Question 6.

NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel "trusses" integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.


Diagram of the Composite WTC Floor System Credit: NIST
NIST's findings also do not support the "controlled demolition" theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

• the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
• the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST or by the New York City Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department, or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view

 

Yeah, let's look at this.

First of all, realize this is not about WTC 7. This is about the twin towers.

Proves nothing. Explosives could start at the impact floor and go downward.

Irrelevant. Just do the detonation after 56 minutes.

Don't tell me they're looking at Youtube videos! How about doing some chemical tests?

OK, so they didn't collect evidence. Actually they were loading it onto dump trucks as fast as possible.

Jesus, they really did rely on looking at Youtube videos. No chemical tests, huh? Pathetic.

 

I will not engage with people who believe in conspiracy theories.
I will not engage with people who believe in conspiracy theories.
I will not engage with people who believe in conspiracy theories.
I will not engage with people who believe in conspiracy theories.
I will not engage with people who believe in conspiracy theories.
I will not engage with people who believe in conspiracy theories.

 

Ran out of evidence already?

 

Say what you will about sirbaihu, but he has caused posters of the left and right to unite, amirite?