An argument for the creation of a new sub forum

[scott3x]

I think no one is arguing that bunching up all 9/11 threads into one makes it might messy. I can also imagine, however, that if all the different threads for 9/11 were allowed to run free in this forum, people might wonder if the forum should be called 'conspiracy theories, and other unproven theories'.

Because of this, I move that a new forum is created specifically for conspiracy theories, so that both that both conspiracy theories and other types of theories can have more breathing space.

Otherwise, I'll continue to believe that it may be that the moderators of sciforums are generally if not exclusively official story believers and would prefer the 9/11 thread to continue to choke on its ridiculous 37 page length (and climbing), while other threads are split off at almost half of that, presumably to not have such a mighty tangle.

Yes, sometimes the same arguments are made. I would argue, however, that putting everything in one thread discourages people to find out if something has already been mentioned, thus wasting people's time and making the thread even longer. By cutting the thread up into manageable pieces, I would argue that people would be much more inclined to search through the shorter threads to see if their ideas were already addressed.

From the top of my mind, I envision a WTC Collapse thread and a main thread; from the main thread, subthreads could branch off into new threads. Since I already had a WTC Collapse theory thread and a 'how explosives were put into the building' theory thread, perhaps these could be branched out again (if not I could do it manually).

Anyway, I may not participate much anymore due to what happened and the fact that my life is becoming busier, but at the very least, the conspiracy thread should be split at the 20 page mark. I personally think that 10 pages is more then enough for a thread; if it gets that long, I think a new thread should be made, synthesizing the main arguments and starting over, also perhaps splitting elements of the thread as I am suggesting is redone for the 9/11 threads.

 

[James R]

The current Pseudoscience forum has always made a home for nutty conspiracy theories.

 

[Read-Only]

You completely failed to list enough choices in your poll so it's not even worth bothering with.

For example, one choice should be:

Nutty conspiracy theories should not be allowed to be posted.

(I'd immediately vote for THAT one.)

 

[shaman_]

The poll choices are an example of the CT approach to debating. If you are not with them then you worship the government and refuse to accept that they could lie.

 

[Read-Only]

The poll choices are an example of the CT approach to debating. If you are not with them then you worship the government and refuse to accept that they could lie.

Yep, that's exactly the way ALL these nutters think.

 

[scott3x]

The current Pseudoscience forum has always made a home for nutty conspiracy theories.

Show me your evidence that the main 9/11 conspiracies are 'nutty' and you'd have a case. I guess you too think that all the 9/11 posts should be in a 'mighty tangle' so that people can rehash the same points indefinitely instead of making progress towards resolving the issues by breaking it down into a few main 9/11 theories with one thread for posts that aren't part of those main theories.

 

[scott3x]

The poll choices are an example of the CT approach to debating. If you are not with them then you worship the government and refuse to accept that they could lie.

Well it's comforting to know that you don't think the government is always playing straight with you. I must admit I am curious: just how much lying do you believe they're capable of and why no further? Show me your boundaries and I think I'd understand you better.

 

[James R]

Show me your evidence that the main 9/11 conspiracies are 'nutty' and you'd have a case.

The conspiracy theories are nonsense on the face of them.

How old were you in 2001? If I had to guess, I'd say you were probably still a child - maybe 10 or 11.

I watched 9/11 unfold as it happened, live on TV. I carefully followed the explanations of the building collapses as they came to light. I have a semi-professional interest in how the buildings collapsed. The scientific explanations explain quite clearly what happened and why it happened.

It's now 7 years on from 9/11. If the conspiracy theories had any substance, the conspiracy would have been well and truly uncovered by now. The number of people involved simply could not keep that kind of secret.

9/11 conspiracies are just plain stupid.

 

[quantum_wave]

Even though the questions are ///slanted , I vote yes so that Pseudoscience will be left for us serious whackos.

 

[scott3x]

The conspiracy theories are nonsense on the face of them.

Why do you believe that?

How old were you in 2001? If I had to guess, I'd say you were probably still a child - maybe 10 or 11.

Try 25.

I watched 9/11 unfold as it happened, live on TV.

So did I.

I carefully followed the explanations of the building collapses as they came to light.

While I had other things on my mind at the time, in later years I read books on it. I've now also read articles online talking of the various building collapse theories.

I have a semi-professional interest in how the buildings collapsed.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'semi-professional interest', but I'm certainly quite interested in how the buildings collapsed.

The scientific explanations explain quite clearly what happened and why it happened.

I agree, but the scientists I rely on are not the scientists you rely on.

It's now 7 years on from 9/11. If the conspiracy theories had any substance, the conspiracy would have been well and truly uncovered by now.

Not if you have a government who has the ability to fire experts who don't tow the party line, while at the same time financing others to come up with creative lies.

The number of people involved simply could not keep that kind of secret.

You're right. However, it seems to be doing a fairly good job for some.

9/11 conspiracies are just plain stupid.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. All I was trying to argue in this thread is that there are many different theories for different parts of 9/11. Putting them all together in a mighty tangle only makes it harder to get to the truth; people can repeat the same points for a very long time because most people aren't going to want to have to read through 40+ pages to see if what they've said has been said before. If we had different threads with different parts of the theory, however, it would be different; a person might be amenable to read through a 10 page thread, for instance.

Put simply, even if you're right, don't you think people would realize it quicker if they could get to the relevant information with more ease?

 

[scott3x]

Even though the questions are ///slanted , I vote yes so that Pseudoscience will be left for us serious whackos.

Sounds good to me, laugh ;-)

 

[SkinWalker]

The poll is as flawed as scott3x's arguments and thinking. Most conspiracy nut theories do, indeed, belong in pseudoscience. Particularly nutjob "theories" about 9/11 that are based completely in pseudoscientific thinking, poor critical thinking or rational processes.

For the most part, even including the word "theory" in the moniker "conspiracy theory" is an insult to genuine theories, which are comprised of tested hypotheses and physical laws. So-called "conspiracy theories" are wild speculations at best.

That's not to say that conspiracies don't exist. But merely speculating on them doesn't give them existence.

 

[James R]

scott3x:

The conspiracy theories are nonsense on the face of them.

Why do you believe that?

Because the real scientific explanations are compelling and the conspiracy theories don't add up. The conspiracists take witness statements out of context. They rely on faulty scientific analyses. Most of them have no expertise in the matters they comment on, nor any inside information. And the concept of any government keeping that kind of secret for 7 years, given the thousands of people who would have to know the truth, is just absurd.

How old were you in 2001? If I had to guess, I'd say you were probably still a child - maybe 10 or 11.

Try 25.

Maybe it is time to grow up now.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'semi-professional interest', but I'm certainly quite interested in how the buildings collapsed.

By "semi-professional interest", I mean that my job means that I have some understanding of the factors involved in the building collapses, and an interest in the best explanations for them.

Not if you have a government who has the ability to fire experts who don't tow the party line, while at the same time financing others to come up with creative lies.

So, you're claiming the government can somehow trust thousands of people to keep what might be the biggest secret in US history, are you?

I guess it takes a huge amount of faith on the part of the conspiracy theorist to actually believe this kind of rubbish.

Put simply, even if you're right, don't you think people would realize it quicker if they could get to the relevant information with more ease?

There are already whole sites dedicated to all aspects of 9/11. There are the conspiracy nutball sites and there are sites that effectively debunk the conspiracy theories.

I think what you really want is to move a dead discussion to a new forum where you don't have to confront so much expert opinion against your views.

 

[scott3x]

The poll is as flawed as scott3x's arguments and thinking. Most conspiracy nut theories do, indeed, belong in pseudoscience. Particularly nutjob "theories" about 9/11 that are based completely in pseudoscientific thinking, poor critical thinking or rational processes.

I don't agree with a lot of what you say, but I have no problem with a conspiracy theories subforum within pseudoscience.

For the most part, even including the word "theory" in the moniker "conspiracy theory" is an insult to genuine theories, which are comprised of tested hypotheses and physical laws.

I would argue that some elements of 9/11 have been tested; I'd advise you to pay some attention to the research that Steven Jones did when he was a professor at BYU.

 

[scott3x]

scott3x:

Because the real scientific explanations are compelling and the conspiracy theories don't add up.

There are many experts who disagree with you there. In fact, I think it would be very interesting to poll experts and see where they fall on this.

The conspiracists take witness statements out of context.

Perhaps they do at times, but I believe that many do no such thing. I would also argue that many official theory people take things out of context. I'm remembering the way William Rodriguez was portrayed, saying that he added to his story, when in fact CNN simply edited out a lot of it initially.

They rely on faulty scientific analyses.

I would argue that the main people using faulty scientific analyses are those who espouse the official theory. I certainly believe this when it comes to the WTC collapses, with many experts pointing out the flaws in their analyses.

Most of them have no expertise in the matters they comment on, nor any inside information.

There are many experts who do have quite a bit of expertise. As to inside information, I certainly believe it's ironic that some of the NIST people who are so actively engaged in cooking up any theory other then explosives for the WTC buildings are the very people who have been developing thermite.

And the concept of any government keeping that kind of secret for 7 years, given the thousands of people who would have to know the truth, is just absurd.

Why does it have to be thousands of people? From what I can tell, only a few people need to know; a few NIST experts to keep on coming up with creative lies, a few high placed government officials. One day there will perhaps be more studies on just how many people would need to know in order to carry off such an operation, but up until now, there are no hard figures. What I do think is much more common, however, is that a lot of people are averse to getting into trouble; seriously, who wants to be put on indefinite leave (Steven Jones) or outright fired (Kevin Ryan), never mind being called a crackpot? Much easier to simply add your support anonymously on a web page or not even do that, so as to even further avoid the possibility of unwelcome repercussions.

Maybe it is time to grow up now.

Comments like this are unhelpful as they contribute nothing to the arguments at hand. I too could say that you need to 'grow up', but I fail to see how that would contribute to the discussion. I find it dissapointing that even an administrator of this place resorts to such tactics.

By "semi-professional interest", I mean that my job means that I have some understanding of the factors involved in the building collapses, and an interest in the best explanations for them.

What do you do? And do you really believe that a physicist such as Steven Jones or a lab director in the place where they tested the safety of the WTC steel are people who don't have some 'understanding of the factors involved in the building collapses'?

So, you're claiming the government can somehow trust thousands of people to keep what might be the biggest secret in US history, are you?

Not at all. I'm saying that (1) so many people may well not be necessary to do something of this nature and (2) while many may not outright know, they may suspect, but for those intimidation by creating some examples (Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan) can do wonders.

There are already whole sites dedicated to all aspects of 9/11.

Yes, but as a general rule, they're slanted either one way or another; I myself wouldn't trust an 'official story' site (what would they do with the information I'm giving them just by writing in their forum; I don't want to be an object of intimidation, thank you). And as to the truth movement sites, it seems that there is little opposition to the truth movement side. This is by far the most lively forum I've found on the subject at any rate.

I think what you really want is to move a dead discussion to a new forum where you don't have to confront so much expert opinion against your views.

Not at all. I welcome expert opinion. What I don't welcome is having this whole thread in a 'mighty tangle'. This might tangle, aka mess, makes it so that it's hard to find out what's already been said on any particular 9/11 conspiracy theory. If we could just separate out the most important conspiracy theories and have one main thread for any other 9/11 conspiracy theory, I think that we could do much better.

 

[shaman_]

Not at all. I welcome expert opinion.

It certainly does not appear that way Scott. You don't seem too interested in expert opinion that is critical of the conspiracy theory.

Back on topic. I don't think a sub forum is required for conspiracy theories. However I wouldn't mind if there was a thread for WTC1+2 and one for the Pentagon, WTC7 ect and only those subjects were discussed in those threads.

 

[scott3x]

It certainly does not appear that way Scott. You don't seem too interested in expert opinion that is critical of the conspiracy theory.

When experts such as the NIST ones claim things which any layman, given the evidence, can see are full of holes, then yes I am highly critical. And you seem to forget that the official story is also a conspiracy theory, if a very flawed one. I really don't understand why so many official story believers can't realize this simple fact. Another point is that there are many conspiracy theories regarding 9/11. The field I myself am most knowledgeable on is the WTC collapses.

Back on topic. I don't think a sub forum is required for conspiracy theories. However I wouldn't mind if there was a thread for WTC1+2 and one for the Pentagon, WTC7 ect and only those subjects were discussed in those threads.

That's what I had started to do, before they were all submerged into the mighty tangle. I think the argument was that all these threads were taking up too much space in this forum. And the truth is, I tend to agree. What if you don't want to see a bunch of conspiracy threads but would rather discuss UFOs or questions on time. And don't get me wrong, I like those topics, but for now I've been very focused on 9/11. Conversely, if you only want to discuss conspiracies, you don't want to see the latest on aforementioned topics.

So basically what I'm saying is, I think a sub forum might be best, but at the very least, I wholeheartedly agree with you that we should have different threads for different elements of 9/11 so that we can more easily reference points that have already been discussed on one of said elements.

 

[KennyJC]

When experts such as the NIST ones claim things which any layman, given the evidence, can see are full of holes, then yes I am highly critical. And you seem to forget that the official story is also a conspiracy theory, if a very flawed one. I really don't understand why so many official story believers can't realize this simple fact. Another point is that there are many conspiracy theories regarding 9/11. The field I myself am most knowledgeable on is the WTC collapses.

This isn't the first time I've heard you say the NIST report is full of holes. Perhaps it is... I don't know... I never claimed it to be infallible, but I've yet to hear you detail what these holes are. Since I am a layman, according to you I should easily be able to understand this. With so many experts in the relevant fields, it would surely be a travesty to let blatant evidence slip them by.

But since I have a good understanding of how science works, I can pretty much assume right off the bat that there are no holes to the extent that paint the picture of a conspiracy. Independent experts everywhere can not all simultaneously be ignorant of it. Word would spread, it would be increasingly investigated when the initial concerns would be shown to have merit... but looking at any truther website quickly shows that the "experts" who have pointed out concerns are talking out of their arse. Those websites, my friend, are where the laymen can spot holes.

It's simply embarrassing for the truth movements most popular websites to lend credibility to bizarre theories of nuclear weapons or Star Wars style death rays aiding the towers destruction.

Truthers should heed the tactics of creationists and totally rebrand themselves like they did with the I.D. movement so that they do not stand out as being so kooky.

The experts you speak of are few and far between, and it just goes to show that no matter how impressive your education, you can still be a woo-woo. There are many parallels in this debate with the creation vs evolution "controversy". Evolution enjoys the support of the vast majority of experts with little controversy between them, whilst creationists can cite a few Ph.D's that agree with them. Creationists will of course make the excuse for the embarrassing lack of experts on their side by claiming that the experts would be fired if they come out in support of creationism... a tactic you've used many times.

So from this point forward, you have to stop making the claim that you have "many" experts on your side. You also have to stop making the excuse that there aren't more because they would be fired. Sure, they probably would be fired and replaced with someone a little less Woo, but that doesn't mean the silence coming from experts is for this reason... more due to the fact that there is no evidence to warrant their support of a conspiracy theory.

As for your statement that you are knowledgeable in the field of the WTC collapse; perhaps you missed this video, but I'd like you to watch it more than once and tell me what makes you think it couldn't have been plane and fire that initiated the collapse. Considering Loose Change creators Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas agreed that it was fire that initiated the collapse (and perhaps unwittingly agreeing with the NIST report), I'd like to see how you can debunk them, and the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBYnUyx4kw8

 

[scott3x]

This isn't the first time I've heard you say the NIST report is full of holes. Perhaps it is... I don't know... I never claimed it to be infallible, but I've yet to hear you detail what these holes are.

I've done it multiple times (the most recent time being to Sockpuppy here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1996248&postcount=683) but I've written many posts and perhaps you haven't seen those ones. From what I've seen, american physicist Steven Jones has said it best. I will quote once more from his article "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" his explanation of NIST's argument regarding the WTC collapses, wherein he shows that fire experts have criticized their theory as well:

They [NIST] require that the connections of the floor pans to vertical columns do NOT fail (contrary to FEMA’s model), but rather that the floor pans “pull” with enormous force, sufficient to cause the perimeter columns to significantly pull in, leading to final failure (contrary to objections of ARUP Fire experts, discussed above). Also, NIST constructs a computer model — but realistic cases do not actually lead to building collapse. So they “adjust” inputs until the model finally shows collapse initiation for the most severe cases. The details of these “adjustments” are hidden from us, in their computerized hypotheticals, but “the hypothesis is saved.” NIST also has Underwriters Laboratories construct models of the WTC trusses, but the models withstand all fires in tests and do NOT collapse. (See above for details.)

We are left without a compelling fire/damage model, unless one blindly accepts the NIST computer simulation while ignoring the model fire-tests, which I’m not willing to do. And none of the “official” models outlined above accounts for what happens to the buildings AFTER the building is “poised for collapse” (NIST, 2005, p. 142) — namely the rapid and symmetrical and complete (no tall-standing central core) collapses. Reports of explosions, heard and seen, are not discussed. And they ignore the squibs seen ejected from floors far from where the jets hit — particularly seen in WTC 7 (where no jet hit at all). Finally, what about that molten metal under the rubble piles of all three WTC skyscrapers?

He then offers a far more plausible cause of the WTC collapses:

Remarkably, the explosive demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors are cut using explosives, near-simultaneously, along with explosives detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now-unsupported floors helps bring down the buildings quickly. The collapses are thus symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs — really very standard stuff for demolition experts. Thermite (whose end product is molten iron) used on some of the steel beams readily accounts for the molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles.

I believe this is a straightforward hypothesis, much more probable than the official hypothesis. It deserves scientific scrutiny, beyond what I have been able to outline in this treatise.

http://physics911.net/stevenjones

I have not yet read the following link, but it shows a lot of potential. It is essentially a list of linked articles criticizing various NIST literature:

http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=62

Since I am a layman, according to you I should easily be able to understand this. With so many experts in the relevant fields, it would surely be a travesty to let blatant evidence slip them by.

Indeed.

But since I have a good understanding of how science works, I can pretty much assume right off the bat that there are no holes to the extent that paint the picture of a conspiracy.

No one is debating whether there was a conspiracy. The only debate is who the conspirators were and what methods they used to accomplish what they did on 9/11.

Independent experts everywhere can not all simultaneously be ignorant of it.

I couldn't agree more. Thousands disagree with the official theory and I've posted about this somewhere in the 'mighty tangle'.

Word would spread, it would be increasingly investigated when the initial concerns would be shown to have merit...

Yep.

but looking at any truther website quickly shows that the "experts" who have pointed out concerns are talking out of their arse. Those websites, my friend, are where the laymen can spot holes.

I'm sure there are messed up conspiracy theories, but I highly respect what Steven Jones has to say.

It's simply embarrassing for the truth movements most popular websites to lend credibility to bizarre theories of nuclear weapons or Star Wars style death rays aiding the towers destruction.

I'm not sure about most popular, but there are a lot of theories out there with little supporting evidence. I would include the official story on the WTC collapses, although they've certainly written tons of spurious stuff (they're getting paid to do it, after all).

Truthers should heed the tactics of creationists and totally rebrand themselves like they did with the I.D. movement so that they do not stand out as being so kooky.

I like to consider myself a part of the truth movement, but my arguments are my own. I'm not going to adhere to anyone's particular viewpoint simply because they're in my 'group'.

The experts you speak of are few and far between, and it just goes to show that no matter how impressive your education, you can still be a woo-woo.

If one expert says something well, I don't see why a whole bunch have to say the same thing. A lot of experts have anonymously signed on to theories such as that of Steven Jones but I can understand that most don't want to be put on paid leave with views towards being fired (Steven Jones) or being fired outright (Kevin Ryan), so they may want to limit their exposure to criticism.

There are many parallels in this debate with the creation vs evolution "controversy". Evolution enjoys the support of the vast majority of experts with little controversy between them, whilst creationists can cite a few Ph.D's that agree with them.

I'm an evolutionist. In the ending, I look at the arguments myself. If it were simply a matter of having a PH.D on side, I wouldn't be able to decide which side to choose on many issues, since many big issues have PH.Ds supporting both sides.

Creationists will of course make the excuse for the embarrassing lack of experts on their side by claiming that the experts would be fired if they come out in support of creationism... a tactic you've used many times.

I use logic. And like the NIST literature, I'd say the creationist side is the side full of holes.

So from this point forward, you have to stop making the claim that you have "many" experts on your side.

I need do no such thing. Most official story supporters revel in the fact that they have some experts. I see no harm in saying that alternate story supporters have many experts as well. However, I think the most important thing is to examine the evidence oneself. If we let experts do all our thinking for us, they become the new priesthood, to whom we should bow down before their 'superior' knowledge.

You also have to stop making the excuse that there aren't more because they would be fired. Sure, they probably would be fired and replaced with someone a little less Woo, but that doesn't mean the silence coming from experts is for this reason...

Look, I don't know what you mean by 'woo'. I mention that I think there may not be more because they'd be fired because people keep on bringing up the question of 'why aren't there more experts siding with the alternate theory?'. So I respond to them. But my preferred focus is on the evidence itself.

As for your statement that you are knowledgeable in the field of the WTC collapse; perhaps you missed this video, but I'd like you to watch it more than once and tell me what makes you think it couldn't have been plane and fire that initiated the collapse.

Watching the video more isn't going to change the arguments that have already been made by experts such as Steven Jones. Arguments that I've quoted and that I wholeheartedly believe in.

Considering Loose Change creators Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas agreed that it was fire that initiated the collapse (and perhaps unwittingly agreeing with the NIST report), I'd like to see how you can debunk them, and the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBYnUyx4kw8

That video actually provides evidence for the controlled demolition scenario.

 

[shaman_]

When experts such as the NIST ones claim things which any layman, given the evidence, can see are full of holes,

So you say but when we actually get to the details you don't appear to have anything at all. Over and over again you bring up out of context witness testimony, incorrect claims of 'rapid removal', allegations that everyone is too scared speak up (even though many are) and regular appeals to the authority of a crackpot physicist who's work has been debunked.

then yes I am highly critical. And you seem to forget that the official story is also a conspiracy theory, if a very flawed one. I really don't understand why so many official story believers can't realize this simple fact.

What do you mean?

Another point is that there are many conspiracy theories regarding 9/11.

There are many urban myths as well but that doesn't imply that they are real. That is the reason why these debates can continue. There isn't one or two completely stupid claims, there are dozens of them. The conspiracy theorist who wants to believe will be impressed by this. This same conspiracy theorist will spend hours reading the conspiracy sites while carefully avoiding the skeptical sites which debunk the claims.