When does the Freedom of Info Act take effect? 25 years? — frank

I don't know the status of the 9/11 files. Thousands of government documents on the JFK assassination are still sealed after 57 years. Funny they'd still have so many secrets when it was just a lone nut.

Thinking for yourself and healthy skepticism is important. But notice the italics. Letting your imagination run wild and questioning everything always, under the guise of simply being a "contrarian" (a very self-serving view), is completely hopeless. But you're welcome to it. — Xtrix

You didn't answer my question. Do you think we know the full truth of 9/11, despite the commission's own co-chairs telling us that we don't? Or do you just not care? I'm curious to understand. Myself I'd like to know the truth. And for that you said I'm not worth talking to. I'd like to understand that too. That's like a physicist saying they want to know the truth about nature, and you go, "Oh, a nature truther! I don't want to talk to YOU anymore!"

As Plato said: “No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth.”

And you hate people who even ASK about the truth. How bad is that?

A profound propensity to postulate poorly? Nice alliteration.

I alliterated with alacrity.

Physicists know how space, time and matter work together. They don't have an answer to what it is. General Relativity works but what the hell is spacetime? The Big Bang explains expansion but where did this crazy singularity come from?

I want to know what things are, not just how they work. But, to find out, you need to look deeply into physics. Then you get to the point of realising that the best answer physics has to what we are actually made of, the essence of matter and energy, is "stuff". Something.

In short, physics doesn't have the answers but you can't say a thing about any of it unless you are one, or you get attacked.

Maybe all the ex theists, having discarded their religious views are now all struggling with all sorts of new existential problems which used to be accepted under the blanket of having been simply created or carried out by God?

Does science want to be the arbiter of the truth?

Really dangerous, and this thread is Exhibit A. Observe totalitarian in the making.

Again -- when it comes to science, and I'm neither an expert nor have time to reach an even intermediate level of knowledge, I go with the consensus view. — Xtrix

I agree with you that consensus is what's important. I sometimes say that truth is what you can convince people of. That's not quite right. It's more that truth is useless unless you can convince the people who are making real-life decisions. In situations like that, the scientific consensus reinforced by an understanding of uncertainty and the consequences of failure is the best we can do.

You didn't answer my question. Do you think we know the full truth of 9/11, despite the commission's own co-chairs telling us that we don't? Or do you just not care? I'm curious to understand. — fishfry

No, you're transparently attempting to make a point which you believe supports your call to question things. Nevertheless: what exactly would the "full truth" be? It's a ridiculous phrase. Am I certain that the WTC was hit by airplanes that were hijacked by Islamist extremists plotted by Al Qaeda? Yes, I am. But that's not what's important here.

What's important, as I mentioned before, is the reason why people like you want to enter into "debate" about it in the first place and not, say, about the assassination attempt on Reagan. There's a reason we learn from psychology: with big events (just look around during this pandemic), especially very emotional ones, people want to look for special explanations of why it happened. They also want to appear like they have "special knowledge." So suddenly they become cheap skeptics -- even when otherwise they couldn't think themselves out of a paper bag -- and get drawn into the sophistry of conspiracy theorists and other quacks, who of course are just "questioning" and "thinking for themselves" (what could be wrong with that?).

You're clearly of this cloth. And no amount of explanation by me or anyone else can convince you of where you're going wrong. But you are. You go way too far towards one extreme, then want to justify it with the standard arguments about "free thought," while of course invoking Galileo and the Church, how "everyone believed" the earth was flat at one point (straight out of Men in Black, if I recall), sapere aude, etc. etc. etc. Been there, done that.

So yes, to answer your question: I'm fairly certain, given the evidence -- and common sense (uh oh -- that controversial term! Have a field day with that one!). But this doesn't have anything to do with physics, which was the OP. With the sciences, I'm even more certain. (It's like gambling, where I win time and time again because I know how to bet on winners -- i.e., the scientists.)

Again, if you want to waste your time chasing every claim that literally anyone can conjure up, have at it. I've got one for you now: the WTC was brought down by space lasers. All the video footage of the planes was CGI. Behind it was a secret deal involving the Business Roundtable, George Soros, and Dick Cheney.

Have fun with that one. Could be true, after all. Where do you draw the line, exactly? Because wherever you do draw the line, it needs to be re-calibrated. But as Bob Dylan once said, "I can't teach you how to weed it out."

Myself I'd like to know the truth. And for that you said I'm not worth talking to. I'd like to understand that too. That's like a physicist saying they want to know the truth about nature, and you go, "Oh, a nature truther! I don't want to talk to YOU anymore!"

As Plato said: “No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth.”

And you hate people who even ASK about the truth. How bad is that? — fishfry

:lol: Exactly. Something Donald Trump could say, too.


* I'm fully vaccinated, as well. I was the first one at my job to sign up. No hesitation whatsoever, despite all the BS surrounding it and some of the concerns of my co-workers. Did I have to refute every one of their claims beforehand? No. Did I have to go through every internet theory and debunk them all? No. I had a friend who is a very bright anti-vaxxer try to convince me not to do it -- and she had a mountain of information about it, too. Information that I would have had to spend months unraveling. I took it anyway, and I've been absolutely fine -- no surprise whatsoever. Why? Why was I so certain it would turn out that way, given all this "controversy"? It's a matter of common sense, critical thinking, probability, BS detector, etc. But mainly it's just going with what the consensus of experts say. I do this same thing with all kinds of issues in life and, as I said before, I come out looking super smaht, when in reality it's just extending what we do all the time -- going to a doctor, a mechanic, a lawyer, etc. It's trusting in expertise, and not getting sucked up into the vortex of bullshit that always surrounds "big" issues (and which gets amplified with social media these days). It's picking your battles and weighing probabilities.

space lasers — Xtrix

You forgot - that's Jewish space lasers.

A good well-thought out response.

No, no. Those people have it wrong. In my theory, it's Ethiopian space lasers.

Nice response - common sense defended. The National Enquirer magazine's slogan used to be, 'Enquiring minds want to know.' Dressing up yellow journalism as a virtue. Having known a lot of folks who enjoy a conspiracy theory (and I think this the right verb), a lot of blarney is wrapped up in the old, "I'm just asking questions here."

a lot of blarney is wrapped up in the old, "I'm just asking questions here." — Tom Storm

Yes -- a common defense for all quacks, charlatans, and bad faith actors. Knowing the difference between honest, healthy skepticism/questioning and quackery? That's what I meant by "weeding it out." There's no algorithm to do so. "Or you got it, or you ain't."

Nice response - common sense defended. The National Enquirer magazine's slogan used to be, 'Enquiring minds want to know.' Dressing up yellow journalism as a virtue. Having known a lot of folks who enjoy a conspiracy theory (and I think this the right verb), a lot of blarney is wrapped up in the old, "I'm just asking questions here." — Tom Storm

I have been thinking about starting a discussion on how, sometimes, it makes more sense to pay attention to the questions people ask than to the answers they give. That's you're most likely to find where bias, prejudice, and goofy thinking are hiding. So far, I haven't been able to get an intellectual handle on how to think about it.

↪Xtrix Nice response - common sense defended. The National Enquirer magazine's slogan used to be, 'Enquiring minds want to know.' Dressing up yellow journalism as a virtue. Having known a lot of folks who enjoy a conspiracy theory (and I think this the right verb), a lot of blarney is wrapped up in the old, "I'm just asking questions here." — Tom Storm

These are useful distractions for those in position of power. You get people going down the rabbit hole, and they'll never emerge. Focus on JFK, 9/11 and the like and you can forget about Yemen, Taiwan, Russia and all the other states where issues are at stake.

But there are actual conspiracies' people could look at that are useful: just open The Wall Street Journal or The Financial Times, you'll learn how money moves and shapes interest. Or try Foreign affairs to see how the military thinks the US should treat China. It's enough to send chills down your spine. Apparently these things aren't interesting...

"The"? There's only one?

So bad physics is a result of contempt for science.

I have been thinking about starting a discussion on how, sometimes, it makes more sense to pay attention to the questions people ask than to the answers they give. — T Clark

That resonates with me. A great way to make a statement is to disguise it with a question. And naturally, the presuppositions people reveal with their questions often means answering that question is impossible until a whole lot of other detritus is dealt with.

:100:

No, you're transparently attempting to make a point which you believe supports your call to question things. — Xtrix

But we all have a right to question everything. I don't follow your claim that there are subjects that we have no right to question.

I'll try to keep my responses brief, since we can surely agree to disagree on a number of things. (Addendum: The brief thing didn't work out).

Nevertheless: what exactly would the "full truth" be? — Xtrix

* A full, fair, and comprehensive criminal investigation. The kind that the 9/11 commission didn't do, by its own co-chairs' admission.

* Full responses to the questions of the families of the victims. The families sent a long list of questions to the commission, very few of which have ever been answered.

* And so forth. Surely it's perfectly clear, beyond dispute, that the commission didn't do a thorough investigation. So why shouldn't one be done?

It's a ridiculous phrase. Am I certain that the WTC was hit by airplanes that were hijacked by Islamist extremists plotted by Al Qaeda? Yes, I am. But that's not what's important here. — Xtrix

No, it's not. Who paid for it? Who planned it? Who knew ahead of time? Why was there an air defence stand down? How did three steel-framed buildings collapse, the first, last, and only such collapses of steel-framed buildings in history? How does it happen that the PNAC document laid out the framework for a succession of Middle East wars that are now coming to pass? And that the PNAC signatories all ended up in the Bush admin? It's like you suspect a guy of robbing a bank, and you don't have any hard evidence, but you DO find in his home a project plan for robbing that bank. That's a clue, even if it's not conclusive.

Look I am not interested in debating 9/11 here. You brought up 9/11 as a subject that cant even legitimately be discussed. I just don't get this at all.

What's important, as I mentioned before, is the reason why people like you want to enter into "debate" about it in the first place and not, say, about the assassination attempt on Reagan. — Xtrix

In the case of Reagan there was no investigating board whose obvious purpose was to cover up and bury the truth rather than reveal it.

There's a reason we learn from psychology: with big events (just look around during this pandemic), especially very emotional ones, people want to look for special explanations of why it happened. — Xtrix

I hear this about JFK all the time. "Conspiracy theorists don't want to believe that a lone nut nobody like Oswald could have killed a great man like JFK." This may well be true. But it doesn't put Oswald on the sixth floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository at 12:30pm Dallas time on November 22, 1963, with a rifle in his hands. You may well have proof of this. But your psychological theory isn't it, and therefore isn't relevant to determining what actually happened.

People got emotional after a group of Roman Senators killed Caesar on March 15, 44BC. But their emotionalism does not somehow magically prove that Caesar was stabbed by a lone knifeman.

Psychological theories aren't evidence.

They also want to appear like they have "special knowledge." So suddenly they become cheap skeptics -- even when otherwise they couldn't think themselves out of a paper bag -- and get drawn into the sophistry of conspiracy theorists and other quacks, who of course are just "questioning" and "thinking for themselves" (what could be wrong with that?). — Xtrix

Again, what of it? it's a great pop psychology theory of zero evidentiary value in a criminal conspiracy. And say what you will, 9/11 was a conspiracy. Unless you think it was all done by a lone planeman.

You're clearly of this cloth. And no amount of explanation by me or anyone else can convince you of where you're going wrong. But you are. You go way too far towards one extreme, then want to justify it with the standard arguments about "free thought," while of course invoking Galileo and the Church, how "everyone believed" the earth was flat at one point (straight out of Men in Black, if I recall), sapere aude, etc. etc. etc. Been there, done that. — Xtrix

Ok. But notice how you have zero interest in the facts of the case, or of the clear implications of the statements by Keane and Hamilton that their investigation was barely deserving of the name. You want to talk about me, you want to talk about the psychological proclivities of people "like me," and on an on. Tell me how you think the buildings collapsed at freefall speed in defiance of the laws of physics. That we can talk about (in some other thread, please). The rest of this is irrelevant nonsense.

So yes, to answer your question: I'm fairly certain, given the evidence -- and common sense (uh oh -- that controversial term! Have a field day with that one!). But this doesn't have anything to do with physics, which was the OP. With the sciences, I'm even more certain. (It's like gambling, where I win time and time again because I know how to bet on winners -- i.e., the scientists.) — Xtrix

Actually science has a hell of a lot to do with 9/11 The government's description of the collapse of the buildings violates the laws of physics. Especially the infamous building 7, which collapsed perfectly symmetrically at freefall speed into its own footprint from "office fires" without ever being hit by a plane.

I see you've never actually taken the trouble to study the case.

But how can you say I have no right to question these things? I have every right. Look at what's been done in the name of 9/11, from the Middle East wars abroad to the suppression of civil liberties at home. All going back to the government's account of 9/11. I would say that every American has a civic and patriotic duty to study and question this case.

Again, if you want to waste your time chasing every claim that literally anyone can conjure up, have at it. — Xtrix

But I don't. 9/11 is not a research interest of mine, nor do I know much about it beyond the basics. I'm simply questioning your belief that I am somehow beyond the pale as a human being for even daring to question the government's account or to even remind you that the commissions OWN CO-CHAIRs questioned their own account.

I've got one for you now: the WTC was brought down by space lasers. All the video footage of the planes was CGI. Behind it was a secret deal involving the Business Roundtable, George Soros, and Dick Cheney. — Xtrix

You say this to marginalize someone wanting to know what's behind Keane and Hamilton's remarks? That's a very puzzling turn of mind you have.

Have fun with that one. Could be true, after all. Where do you draw the line, exactly? Because wherever you do draw the line, it needs to be re-calibrated. But as Bob Dylan once said, "I can't teach you how to weed it out." — Xtrix

Your remarks are so irrelevant as to border on unhinged. Keane and Hamilton. They are the ONLY SOURCES I'VE QUOTED. They co-chaired the commission. But your mind can't deal with that, so you flail about wildly.

:lol: Exactly. Something Donald Trump could say, too. — Xtrix

Again. That's all you've got. Not a single acknowledgement from you that the only sources on 9/11 I've quoted are Keane and Hamilton, Hamilton and Keane. The co-chairs of the commission. They literally told us not to believe a word of their fraudulent report. You can't handle that and don't even seem to be able to mentally process it. So you throw out psychological theories and slurs and jokes instead.

* I'm fully vaccinated, as well. — Xtrix

I'm happy for you. By the way, why did most of Congress stay home, and the ones that did show up social-distanced and wore masks at Biden's speech the other night? I'm not the only one who noticed that. Someone called it the greatest anti-vax add ever. Can you explain this to me. Why do they need to stay home, socially distance, and wear masks if every single one of them is vaxed?

I was the first one at my job to sign up. No hesitation whatsoever, despite all the BS surrounding it and some of the concerns of my co-workers. — Xtrix

I'm happy for you. You and I have different personality types.

Did I have to refute every one of their claims beforehand? No. Did I have to go through every internet theory and debunk them all? No. I had a friend who is a very bright anti-vaxxer try to convince me not to do it -- and she had a mountain of information about it, too. Information that I would have had to spend months unraveling. I took it anyway, and I've been absolutely fine -- no surprise whatsoever. — Xtrix

I'm happy for you. What point are you making? I would say that if we draw a continuum between "natural born rebel" and "natural born conformer," I'm closer to the former and you to the latter. It's ok. Some like chocolate and some like vanilla. it's a great big world out there. I'm a pluralist. I accept that there are people different from me.

Why? Why was I so certain it would turn out that way, given all this "controversy"? It's a matter of common sense, critical thinking, probability, BS detector, etc. — Xtrix

And personality, one's degree of conformity. Psychologists have studied this for years. You may have heard of the famous Milgram experiment, in which normal people were induced to subject others to fatal doses of electrical shock when told to by authorities. It's a frightening experiment.

Now I would say in the case of the vax, you are being perfectly prudent. I do wonder why you're going on about it. When told to jump, you say "How high?" and I say, "Why should I?" We both know this about ourselves and each other. You're belaboring the obvious.

But mainly it's just going with what the consensus of experts say. I do this same thing with all kinds of issues in life and, as I said before, I come out looking super smaht, when in reality it's just extending what we do all the time -- going to a doctor, a mechanic, a lawyer, etc. It's trusting in expertise, and not getting sucked up into the vortex of bullshit that always surrounds "big" issues (and which gets amplified with social media these days). It's picking your battles and weighing probabilities. — Xtrix

You're just trying to say that your personality type is "right" and mine is "wrong." I know that one loses the debate when they bring up the H-word, but you'd have made a fine Nazi. Conformity and not wanting to be out of step is exactly how one lunatic brought an entire great nation to insanity and ruin.

Not that I have anything against the free speech rights of Nazis!! LOL. Only the Nazis themselves.

Well I blew it when I said i'd keep it brief.

You and I are different. The fact that you have an anti-vax friend tells me that in real life you must at least be a little tolerant of those with different opinions and personalities.

Also FWIW I have always been interested in cranks and crazies. I spend a lot of time online correcting and clarifying bad math; but I myself am a lifelong student of math crankery. I am interested in math cranks. That doesn't mean I agree with them. I find alternate takes on things to be interesting. I just don't see why you think that makes me a bad person.

And finally I must note for the third time, with respect to all the irrelevant nonsense you spouted in this post, that regarding 9/11 I never put forth any alternative theory or quoted ANYONE other than Keane and Hamilton, the co-chairs of the 9/11 commission, who told the world that their investigation did not get to the bottom of the incident. You won't even respond to the point.

Peace, brother. And remember to stay home, wear your mask and social distance even when you go out, and cower in fear at all times even though you're vaxed, because your Leaders told you to. Heil Fauci.

Sorry I just can't help needling people like you.

Q is in the building... :sweat:

But there are actual conspiracies' people could look at that are useful: just open The Wall Street Journal or The Financial Times, you'll learn how money moves and shapes interest. Or try Foreign affairs to see how the military thinks the US should treat China. It's enough to send chills down your spine. Apparently these things aren't interesting... — Manuel

This is an important point. Very important.

I don't follow your claim that there are subjects that we have no right to question. — fishfry

I never once said that.

And so forth. Surely it's perfectly clear, beyond dispute, that the commission didn't do a thorough investigation. So why shouldn't one be done? — fishfry

I'm talking about 9/11 truthers -- those who believe the towers were an "inside job," brought down by the government -- through use of remote control planes or dynamite installed in the buildings, etc. The "Building 7" crowd. If you're talking about something else, fine -- yeah, there are holes in all kinds of commissions. But the evidence isn't restricted to one official governmental commission.

How did three steel-framed buildings collapse, the first, last, and only such collapses of steel-framed buildings in history? — fishfry

:roll: Ask a civil engineer.

Yes, it was the first time in history. It was also the first time in history the US was attacked in such a way on its own soil (besides Pearl Harbor). So what? It happened: the planes flew into the buildings, and the buildings collapsed. If you want to learn about it, there's plenty of credible information out there. The NIST comes to mind. Direct your very free-thinking questions to them. While your at it, direct your skepticism towards electromagnetism -- isn't THAT theory a little funny?

Look I am not interested in debating 9/11 here. You brought up 9/11 as a subject that cant even legitimately be discussed. I just don't get this at all. — fishfry

Actually you seem rather neck-deep in conspiracy bullshit. You're not even hiding it well.

But I've never said things can't be legitimately discussed. Some things can, some things can't. I don't consider 9/11 "questions" to be legitimate ones -- they're not after "truth," they -- like Creationists and Holocaust deniers before them -- start with an idea that's been planted into their heads and they try to poke holes, distort and exaggerate every word and every detail, use false arguments and sophisticated sophistry to confirm their gut feelings. All with either no alternatives, or stories that are so ludicrous as to be embarrassing. Flat earthers do the same thing -- are their questions "legitimate"? Maybe to you -- not to me. 9/11 truthers are in the same group, in my judgment. Again, your circle of legitimacy needs to be shrunk -- by a lot.

In the case of Reagan there was no investigating board whose obvious purpose was to cover up and bury the truth rather than reveal it. — fishfry

No -- that's just an excuse you tell yourself. The real reason -- and obvious to anyone with any historical or psychological sense -- is that Reagan didn't die. Had he died, it would have been another JFK moment, and people like you would be defending bogus theories about Hinckley being a CIA operative or something.

There's plenty of problems with that assassination attempt I could conjure up right now. How did this guy get so close to the President? Did you know there were warning signs that were ignored by the FBI? Full documentation is still classified. Reagan's stint in the hospital was odd -- no reporters, no pictures. Many people think that he really died but a look-alike was put in his place from then on -- plenty of video evidence that suggests this. Etc. I'm not saying any of it is true -- but how can you not question? Don't you want to find out the truth? If you want to sit and idly believe the standard narrative, that's on you. Why are you so conforming?

Psychological theories aren't evidence. — fishfry

Again, not a surprise you miss the point. What psychology does do is show why people like you even care about evidence in the first place.

You're clearly of this cloth. And no amount of explanation by me or anyone else can convince you of where you're going wrong. But you are. You go way too far towards one extreme, then want to justify it with the standard arguments about "free thought," while of course invoking Galileo and the Church, how "everyone believed" the earth was flat at one point (straight out of Men in Black, if I recall), sapere aude, etc. etc. etc. Been there, done that.
— Xtrix

Ok. But notice how you have zero interest in the facts of the case — fishfry

you want to talk about the psychological proclivities of people "like me," — fishfry

Indeed. I do the same with Creationists and Flat Earthers as well. Normally I don't even bother with the claims about "facts" or "evidence" at all -- so you're an exception in that case!

But still ultimately another deluded individual. And again, me saying so won't sway you. I already know that. I'm writing mainly for others -- you're a good demonstration of thinking gone awry.

The government's description of the collapse of the buildings violates the laws of physics. — fishfry

Especially the infamous building 7, which collapsed perfectly symmetrically at freefall speed into its own footprint from "office fires" without ever being hit by a plane. — fishfry

:lol:

Guess I caught a real one here. Funny I anticipated the building 7 thing above -- without having read further. Shocker.

I see you've never actually take the trouble to study the case. — fishfry

Another typical response. Actually in the 9/11 case I have, a little. But I regret spending even a second on it -- the most it deserved was 0 seconds, like the claims of flat earthers. Of course I could be wrong about them too! But that's a risk I'm happy to take. I trust my bullshit-detector.

But how can you say I have no right to question these things? I have every right — fishfry

I would say that every American has a civic and patriotic duty to study and question this case. — fishfry

I'm simply questioning your belief that I am somehow beyond the pale as a human being for even daring to question the government's account or to even remind you that the commissions OWN CO-CHAIRs questioned their own account. — fishfry

Calm down...

Why do they need to stay home, socially distance, and wear masks if every single one of them is vaxed? — fishfry

Why? WHY?

You and I have different personality types. — fishfry

Yes. You have poor judgment and I don't. That's the difference.

I would say that if we draw a continuum between "natural born rebel" and "natural born conformer," I'm closer to the former and you to the latter. — fishfry

I actually did laugh at this one. You rebel you! Just a natural born rebel!

Or naturally born deluded. But go with whichever is more psychologically pleasing.

You may have heard of the famous Milgram experiment, in which normal people were induced to subject others to fatal doses of electrical shock when told to by authorities. It's a frightening experiment. — fishfry

Yes, and I suspect you'd go right to the end of that experiment -- if the experimenter was a 9/11 truther, of course.

When told to jump, you say "How high?" and I say, "Why should I?" — fishfry

Yes, nailed it. That's what's happening here. :lol:

I know that one loses the debate when they bring up the H-word, but you'd have made a fine Nazi. — fishfry

Sorry I just can't help needling people like you. — fishfry

Yeah...that's definitely what's happening. I'm totally being needled by you.

I am interested in math cranks. That doesn't mean I agree with them. I find alternate takes on things to be interesting. I just don't see why you think that makes me a bad person. — fishfry

Calm down. I never said you're a bad person. I take interest in cranks like you just as you take interest in math cranks. Do many of the math cranks you encounter readily admit that they're cranks? Probably not....

But then again, for a super-conforming Nazi like me, it's hard to know unless some expert tells me. :kiss:

Q is in the building... — Manuel

Don't you mean the natural born rebel, you conforming Nazi you?

You can mock Q all you want, but what about the EVIDENCE? Why don't you want to talk about the EVIDENCE instead of just ridiculing?

This is an important point. Very important. — Xtrix

You would know of all people. Even taking a straightforward case as the following is instructive. Take a more or less democratic state that is actually quite serious about security matters: Israel. They managed to fool, lie and distort there nuclear weapons program to other powerful states. Sure, some states knew a bit about it, but not much, at least not much in the beginning of the program.

What happened? One conscientious scientist, Mordechai Vanunu, managed to blow the whistle and let the world know that Israel had nukes. Of course, he's now under arrest, can't leave the country, labeled as a traitor, etc. Yet, if in such a secretive country, with relatively few people in the know about such a delicate subject could not keep such a secret, how in the world would an inside job, involving hundreds of people, if not more, possibly commit 9/11 without anyone saying something substantial about it?

Then there's the whole mess of what happened after the attacks. The main goal was always Iraq, not Afghanistan and the hijackers were Saudi. A very clumsy plan to go to war in Iraq.

In short, these "theories" are nonsense.

You can mock Q all you want, but what about the EVIDENCE? Why don't you want to talk about the EVIDENCE instead of just ridiculing? — Xtrix

Evidence is experiential. Essentially a private affair. I cannot say, only show. But I can only show if you want to see.

It's about looking at the obvious. Keep a (very very very very) open mind about it, and you'll get there. :wink:

That was a delightful romp, X. :cheer:

What happened? One conscientious scientist, Mordechai Vanunu, managed to blow the whistle and let the world know that Israel had nukes. Of course, he's now under arrest, can't leave the country, labeled as a traitor, etc. Yet, if in such a secretive country, with relatively few people in the know about such a delicate subject could not keep such a secret, how in the world would an inside job, involving hundreds of people, if not more, possibly commit 9/11 without anyone saying something substantial about it? — Manuel

Yes, this and a thousand other reasons. But to quote Strangelove: “There’s nothing to figure out—the man’s obviously psychotic.”

To bring it back to “bad physics,” it should come as no surprise that people with terrible judgment and delusions of grandeur are attracted to such claims— it further supports the self-serving picture they’ve created for themselves of being “contrarian.”

This is the same crew who glibly parrot jingoist slogans about American exceptionalism and vote for Donald Trump. Skepticism and questioning about everything except what matters in the real world, because the latter would mean you may have to actually do something. And that’s hard work. Better to sit and get your feeling of superiority from self-created labels like “dissenter” and “nonconformist.”

Easy, cheap, predictable, and common. But can also be quite amusing. It’s almost too easy, and I know I shouldn’t ridicule— but I can’t help myself.

That was a delightful romp, X. :cheer: — Tom Storm

I really was laughing through most of it.

But remember: in alternative world, he’s the one “needling” ME. Classic Trump mentality: “No, you’re the puppet.” Patterns of similarity are emerging.

It's about looking at the obvious. Keep a (very very very very) open mind about it, and you'll get there. :wink: — Manuel

Yes— not open minded enough. Exactly. That’s my problem. After all, it’s about facts and evidence... nothing about conspiracies!

In short, these "theories" are nonsense. — Manuel

And it should take a person about 15 seconds to come to that conclusion, without even hearing “the pitch.” To tweak Hitchens: delusions can be dismissed without evidence.

How do we tell? I’m beginning to think it can’t be formally taught. You have it or you don’t.

it should come as no surprise that people with terrible judgment and delusions of grandeur are attracted to such claims— it further supports the self-serving picture they’ve created for themselves of being “contrarian.” — Xtrix

This is baloney - self-righteous, passive-aggressive crap. I agree with you that conspiracy theories are almost always wrong and wrong-headed. At the same time, I've known smart, perceptive people who believe some of them. They're just wrong. Questioning their judgement on this particular issue is reasonable, questioning their psychological motivation is irrelevant. Argue the question.

You didn’t come close to understanding what I wrote.

I've known smart, perceptive people who believe some of them. They're just wrong. — T Clark

Give me a break. If they’re “smart and perceptive” and yet buy into what a 10 year old could recognize as complete bullshit, I question more your judgment of their “perception” than anything else.

You didn’t come close to understanding what I wrote. — Xtrix

You were straight-forward and clear in what you had to say. I've complimented the clarity of your writing before.

So the idea that people with terrible judgment also are more likely to make armchair claims about physics being “bad” is “baloney” to you? Seems almost like a truism to me.

(Notice this says nothing whatever about debate within physics.)

To bring it back to “bad physics,” it should come as no surprise that people with terrible judgment and delusions of grandeur are attracted to such claims— it further supports the self-serving picture they’ve created for themselves of being “contrarian.” — Xtrix

This and simply charlatanry. You get people like Deepak Chopra making a killing from bamboozling people. As is often said, studying consciousness is spooky and hard as is modern physics, so they must be connected in these very respects.

Plus these physicist's get rewards, recognition and respect for what they do. If they can do it, why can't I? Tough luck.

Which is not to say that one can't be skeptical of certain claims made by such people. but one should be careful.

How do we tell? I’m beginning to think it can’t be formally taught. You have it or you don’t. — Xtrix

It's hard to articulate how one should "think" about these topics. A portion of it is simply probability, as is "what is more likely to be true" an inside job or what happened?

But yeah, "teaching" this to certain people is super difficult and rarely rewarding for the people involved.

So bad physics is a result of contempt for science. — Banno

Perpetrated by scientists who want to rule over other people.

Or, to be more charitable: Bad physics is the result of the proletarization/plebeification of education.
The students are not to blame, but those making the curricula and the education policies. It's the idea that everyone could or even should become a Renaissance man/woman that is so horribly amiss. If you set for yourself the goal that even some poor semi-literate kids who don't even get a proper meal every day should be taught science and art, then of course you have to dumb things down so that even they can get the impression that they understand it.

Which is not to say that one can't be skeptical of certain claims made by such people. but one should be careful. — Manuel

Indeed. Much more careful than most people are, in fact. It's very tempting to have opinions about everything, rather than constantly saying "I really don't know enough to have a real opinion about that," so I get the urge. In today's landscape especially, where everyone thinks they're experts about whatever their media tells them is an "issue" -- masks, vaccines, epidemiology, medicine -- it's an almost unavoidable pitfall.

A portion of it is simply probability, as is "what is more likely to be true" an inside job or what happened? — Manuel

I tend to agree, but it's like playing poker: there's incomplete information, so you have to use your judgment about probabilities (is the likelihood that this person's range beats me here greater than my hand's strength?) -- but determining that probability is "subjective," dependent on how the person gathers information and assesses the situation.

Like poker, like life. Some are winners; most are losers. But the losers attribute their losses to bad luck, never improve, and never learn exactly where they go wrong. So it goes with conspiracy theorists as well: they're convinced they're doing God's work, that they're of Galileo's cloth. Yet their conclusions are so absurd it's almost shocking. What I love the most is when they make predictions based on their beliefs. Then it becomes as apparent as poker: they're always wrong. Look no further than the Q-anon people. It's such stupid nonsense that they actually make predictions -- smarter charlatans never do that, for good reason.

Watching the day come and go when Trump was supposed to re-take office and watching them scramble for explanations was hilarious. As hilarious as the "end of the world" people. The date comes and goes and nothing happens -- of course.