About the idea that conspiracies are all nonsense?

[Baruch]

Gawdzilla Sama ... and your response is in the frame of your politics.  You know in G-d terms, that FDR was innocent.  But that isn't what this is about ...

The Challenger stuff ... I read it to.  The intent was to exonerate NASA and Morton Thiokol ... it didn't happen, because the general suggested to Feynman, that result would be a shame, as well as false.  Feynman had to completely dumb things down to prove his point, and NASA and Morton Thiokol only sorta of got away with murder.  The head of NASA should have been executed, along with the managers at Morton Thiokol who overrode the engineers who knew better.

Similarly the Titanic ... reptilian overlords didn't ram the Titanic into the iceberg ... because they were playing with ships in the bathtub (as indeed I once did).  The investigation was to prevent any legal finding that Cunard Lines or the captain (who survived, but should have gone down with his ship) were liable for insurance claims or civil suites by the families of the deceased.  There is no evidence it was deliberately sunk ... but that isn't the point, the insurance/civil court are the point.  And Cunard Lines and the captain got off ... even more than NASA or Morton Thiokol.

If someone wants to believe that everyone is innocent ... fine.  If someone wants to believe that negligence isn't culpable ... fine.  If someone wants to believe that all tort law is wrong, that there should be no private lawsuits or class-action lawsuits ... fine.  If you want to believe that Santa Claus saved all the people on the Titanic, and no one drowned (other people already dead were substituted) ... fine ;-)

So if we can't know what someone thinks, now or in the past, even under cross-examination ... we can cancel all trials then?  Because if their intent was good (and we can't prove otherwise) then there is no need for punishment.  On the other hand, if we have a text like the PNAC ... which is prima facie treason and a war crime ... then we can't prosecute, right?  Freedom of speech means anything a criminal writes, before the crime, can't be used in evidence against him.

[Johan]

I don't know exactly what the Bush admin knew. Maybe Bush knew exactly what was going on, what time it was going to happen, etc. Maybe he knew less than that. I don't know.

They had a shitload of warnings that Bin Laden was determined to attack. I don't know if they knew all the specifics. The WTC and Washington should have been obvious targets though. Muslims went after the WTC before, so those buildings should have been protected if the government didn't want them to be hit. PNAC said shortly before 9/11 that there was consensus among those in power. They wanted to see a "transformation" with the US military. They said this transformation would be painfully slow without a Pearl Harbor like event. So, shortly before 9/11, PNAC is admitting that those in power can't accomplish what they want to accomplish as is. Something big needs to happen, they say. Shortly after that, Bush is elected, and something more than big happens. The neo-cons get their Pearl Harbor. Now, that doesn't show that they made it or let it happen, but what it shows is that those in power benefit from 9/11 in a big way, and this is why I say maybe, just maybe they let it happen.

Ok you so what you're saying is you've got absolutely zero evidence and really not even the slightest sort of indication or hint that any kind of conspiracy took place. But you choose to believe that such a conspiracy might have taken place simply because its theoretically possible. Fair enough.

So I guess my question then becomes why don't you believe in god? There's no evidence for god but it is possible that god exists. And lots of people most definitely would benefit from god being real. So why is the lack of evidence enough to make you reject the existence of god but not enough to make you reject the existence of whacko they're all out to get us conspiracy theories?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

CTers never change. Sox, underwear, whatever.

[Baruch]

Except ... even if Shrub came out and said he did it ... the deniers (like Islamic fellow travelers) would still find some excuse it was OK he did it?  There is no evidence for some people, that would be capable of proving to them that for example, global warming was real.  I would expect it was Cheney rather than Shrub, anyway.  One of those two is much more evil and more effective than the other, guess which one?

Just bantering for fun .. it seems that atheists are just as much into fantasy and reality denial ... as everyone else.

[Hakurei Reimu]

The Challenger stuff ... I read it to.  The intent was to exonerate NASA and Morton Thiokol ... it didn't happen, because the general suggested to Feynman, that result would be a shame, as well as false.  Feynman had to completely dumb things down to prove his point, and NASA and Morton Thiokol only sorta of got away with murder.  The head of NASA should have been executed, along with the managers at Morton Thiokol who overrode the engineers who knew better.

In your opinion. While there was certainly pressure from the head of NASA to get the Challenger off the ground that day, it is the Flight Director who bears the ultimate onus for what happens during the mission. It was up to him to decide whether to attempt to launch or scrub it. If he sincerely felt that it was not safe to launch, it would be his responsibility to say no. To my knowledge, the Flight Director was never told about Morton Thiokol's concerns about the temperature, or that the STS wasn't certified for the cold temperatures it flew in.

As to the Morton Thiokol overriding their own engineers? No. You have that exactly backwards. Morton Thiokol (spurred by their engineers) was the one who warned NASA about the launch because they had no data about how the O-rings would function at such low temperatures. Their concerns were, however, dismissed by NASA. It wasn't that Morton Thiokol had data that the O-rings would perform poorly at those temperatures, but that there was no data on the O-rings' performance at low temperatures, and their conference call to NASA wasn't convincing enough to dissuade NASA heads that there was a cause for concern.

It's actually a common ailment among flying types called "get-there-itis" â€" a psychological need for a pilot (or flight crew, as the case may be) to get a crate to its destination even if the conditions are dangerous, especially for a flight that has been delayed multiple times.

The purpose of the Challenger accident investigation was to find out what went wrong. It was never to assign blame or absolve anyone of blame, but to expose inadequacies in procedure or equipment so that they may be fixed. That is the purpose of any accident investigation, your conspiracy thinking notwithstanding.

Similarly the Titanic ... reptilian overlords didn't ram the Titanic into the iceberg ... because they were playing with ships in the bathtub (as indeed I once did).  The investigation was to prevent any legal finding that Cunard Lines or the captain (who survived, but should have gone down with his ship) were liable for insurance claims or civil suites by the families of the deceased.  There is no evidence it was deliberately sunk ... but that isn't the point, the insurance/civil court are the point.  And Cunard Lines and the captain got off ... even more than NASA or Morton Thiokol.

They weren't found legally liable because... they weren't legally liable. Cunard Lines had done everything that the law required them to do, it's just that it wasn't adequate. Given that they were advertising, and probably sincerely believing, that the Titanic was unsinkable, such as the arrogance of Edwardian technology at the time, they probably expected that Titanic could simply wait out any foreseeable disaster. Even the passengers didn't believe that the Titanic could really sink.

You have to remember that there existed no maritime law that standardized safety equipment and procedures in the case of sinking ships. Indeed, such laws came about partially because Titanic sank with great loss of life it did.

If someone wants to believe that everyone is innocent ... fine.  If someone wants to believe that negligence isn't culpable ... fine.  If someone wants to believe that all tort law is wrong, that there should be no private lawsuits or class-action lawsuits ... fine.  If you want to believe that Santa Claus saved all the people on the Titanic, and no one drowned (other people already dead were substituted) ... fine ;-)

What a strawman! Nobody is arguing to dump tort law or that nobody is to be sued for negligence. The problem is that nothing you have pointed out is negligence. The Challenger disaster was the result of a complicated morass of conflicting goals and mixed signals, but with an undeserved confidence that they could handle anything thrown at them (these are the same people who safely brought Appolo 13 back). The Titanic was the result of Edwardian arrogance in the robustness of their own technology.

Negligence depends on a reasonable standard of what constitutes adequate preparedness for disasters. If you fail to prepare for what was not foreseen, your behavior was not negligent no matter what the benefit of hindsight presents. What constitutes adequate preparedness is always going to be a work-in-progress, and it is manifestly unfair to judge someone guilty of negligence in the light of present knowledge that was not available at the time. We'd never get anything done if that were the case, always hiding under our beds and sucking our thumbs. We're not wired like that.

[Baruch]

Legal?  Convicted?  But "the law is an ass".  Getting out of jail free, or being sent to the gas chamber ... is a political act ... which means I don't care what exact judicial bullshit was used.

I used to work with NASA.  Of course no one deliberately chose for the Challenger to explode.  But there are commercial situations, where people make money off of failure (they even take out life insurance policies on employees, that the company benefits from, not the family).  Then negligence is ... part of the plan, plausible deniability (see most governments) ... and ka-ching in their Cayman Islands bank account.

On the other hand, not everyone sees reality as deeply unredeemable evil as I do.

[josephpalazzo]

It's one of those things where crackpot theory uses crackpot evidence. Hard to penetrate through...

Just pay attention to the speakers. Are they there to get the facts or are they there to attack someone or some group? Are they impervious to fatal flaws in their theory? Do they claim that anybody who uses the term conspiracy theorist is a tool of some shadowy force you've probably never heard of before?

I agree with that. But it doesn't answer my point. CT'ers use crackpot evidence to support their crackpot theory. Unless you can dismantle that crackpot evidence, they will not demur from their position.  And dismantling crackpot evidence is harder than dismantling crackpot theory, as the CTers are using different interpretation of what constitute real evidence. You say that evidence A means X, while they say evidence A means Y. Both are using the same evidence, but differing interpretation.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

There are all kinds of ways we're mislead by people who stand to gain in ways we often don't even know about. The WOD is an example. You know, the war on drugs.. Even though there is very little harm from smoking marijuana it's still illegal in most places and get caught with a joint in your car in most places and you'll do at least a night or two in the slammer,but eho stands to gain from marijuana prohibition? There's quite a long list starting with police to politicians to the people who train dogs to detect it.
Of course we're told that it's a matter of health and safety and all that nonsense, but the truth is someone, actually a bunch of someone's made a shitload of money from marijuana laws. They even went to such lengths as to tell people that smoking marijuana would make you take an ax to movie goers which by the way is one of my favorite past times..
Look at substances such as kratom. Ir was outlawed in Thailand not because it actually harmed anyone, but it interfered with the opium trade and the governments ability to collect taxes from the opium dens when the Thai government found out people could chew the leaves to keep from going through withdrawal from opium..
Does that rise to the level of a conspiracy?  Sure, but how many people are going to call it that? The Thai government still makes kratom illegal even though there is far more harm from smoking opium than from chewing kratom leaves. Now both are outlawed.. Just follow the money trail on just about anything and you may just uncover a conspiracy.  Chances are though that you'll be called a crackpot and nobody will listen.

[Baruch]

The continuing faith in our reptilian overlords makes me hiss like a Gorn in glee.

There is crackpot evidence.  But the idea that any evidence contrary to what amounts to a political ideology ... isn't crackpot.

It is a fact that the captain of the Titanic couldn't share out the binoculars ... because when they left Ireland, they left the key at home.  Those binoculars, had they been out of their locked cabinet ... would have been useful.  If a passenger jet took off, without getting enough fuel ... would the airline be liable for criminal stupidity, if the airplane crashed when it ran out of fuel?

[AllPurposeAtheist]

There are all kinds of conspracies to consider from the stuff of legend in high government office to little stuff that stays under the radar that most of us have experienced at some point in our lives  such as in school when your 'friends' conspire to knock you out of the loop with the in crowd. Sometimes that happens, sometimes not. We often imagine it happening and sometimes it really does happen. If I had to guess probably 90% of it is benign and fairly harmless, but occasionally it can destroy a life and even drive someone to suicide.
Whenever I hear the word conspiracy I get a bit cautious. It's not always real,but the few times it's happened to me it was real and the people perpetuating it always denied it.. Just a cheating spouse can be a conspiracy..

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I agree with that. But it doesn't answer my point. CT'ers use crackpot evidence to support their crackpot theory. Unless you can dismantle that crackpot evidence, they will not demur from their position.  And dismantling crackpot evidence is harder than dismantling crackpot theory, as the CTers are using different interpretation of what constitute real evidence. You say that evidence A means X, while they say evidence A means Y. Both are using the same evidence, but differing interpretation.

As mentioned above, they don't care if there are fatal flaws in their theories, they know some people will pick up the ideas they put out and repeat them. This furthers their mission.

As for actually punching holes in their theories, I noted that I've read the Congressional Hearings on Pearl Harbor, but I didn't say that I'd done so more than once. It's been years since I ran into a CTer who said something I hadn't already debunked.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There are all kinds of conspracies to consider from the stuff of legend in high government office to little stuff that stays under the radar that most of us have experienced at some point in our lives  such as in school when your 'friends' conspire to knock you out of the loop with the in crowd. Sometimes that happens, sometimes not. We often imagine it happening and sometimes it really does happen. If I had to guess probably 90% of it is benign and fairly harmless, but occasionally it can destroy a life and even drive someone to suicide.
Whenever I hear the word conspiracy I get a bit cautious. It's not always real,but the few times it's happened to me it was real and the people perpetuating it always denied it.. Just a cheating spouse can be a conspiracy..

The easy way to tell them apart is to look at who broke them. Woodward and Bernstein broke Watergate. David Icke didn't break anything.

[josephpalazzo]

As mentioned above, they don't care if there are fatal flaws in their theories, they know some people will pick up the ideas they put out and repeat them. This furthers their mission.

You're assuming they are deliberately trying to deceive you, but that's not the case for many of them. Most CTers believe in their crackpot theory, sincerely. Sure, they are always trying to convince you in order to get more people to support their case. That goes with the territory. But saying they don't care if there are fatal flaws in their theories is missing the boat as they think that you have fatal flaws in your theories. It's your interpretation of the facts versus theirs.

[FaithIsFilth]

Ok you so what you're saying is you've got absolutely zero evidence and really not even the slightest sort of indication or hint that any kind of conspiracy took place. But you choose to believe that such a conspiracy might have taken place simply because its theoretically possible. Fair enough.

So I guess my question then becomes why don't you believe in god? There's no evidence for god but it is possible that god exists. And lots of people most definitely would benefit from god being real. So why is the lack of evidence enough to make you reject the existence of god but not enough to make you reject the existence of whacko they're all out to get us conspiracy theories?

They are out to get you and take away your rights and freedoms, whether they had anything to with 9/11 or not, so luckily them being involved in 9/11 means next to nothing to me and I don't care about the answer. The answer matters very little. If Hitler killed 3000 less people than he did, would that make him a Saint? When the number of deaths you have caused is in seven figures, a couple thousand more deaths don't make much of a difference.

Why would I believe in a god? What a silly question. To you, evil people allowing evil things to happen is as unlikely as a god existing? Really? I can't completely prove it, therefore the idea is as dumb as god... Ok. If you say so. We can't prove there are exta-terrestrials, therefore that idea is as dumb as god. We can't prove there is a multiverse, therefore scientists should STFU and just accept that they don't have the evidence, right? This is what you sound like.

[josephpalazzo]

We can't prove there is a multiverse, therefore scientists should STFU and just accept that they don't have the evidence, right?

I generally don't agree with your position, but on this one, I agree. There is no evidence of a multiverse. And every time I have a chance to say it to scientists, I do.