I know what you mean but a) it happened and b) rational analysis is by definition reason independent of emotion. Reason distinguishes us from most animals. It is worth nurturing.
Not at all true if you understand better.
Not true either. People that aren't already institutionalized (and some who are!) are quite perfectly capable of adjusting their mindset. It would just be a matter of time.
Everybody lies. Quite often when it's not their intention at all. Belief is not to be encouraged. UNDERSTANDING is.
Theories are of no interest. Nor are beliefs. The facts, and how those facts are understood, are what one should concern one's self with.
As Mick has suggested to you, these estimates are approximate. They depend and vary according to things like:
We suggest several policy responsesthat can dampen the supply of conspiracy theorizing, in part by introducing diverse
viewpoints and new factual assumptions into the hard-core groups that produce such
theories. Our principal claim here involves the potential value of cognitive infiltration of
extremist groups, designed to introduce informational diversity into such groups and to
expose indefensible conspiracy theories as such.
Our main suggestion isjust that, whatever the tactical details, there would seem to be ample reason for
government efforts to introduce some cognitive diversity into the groups that generate
conspiracy theories. Social cascades are sometimes quite fragile, precisely because they
are based on small slivers of information. Once corrective information is introduced,
large numbers of people can be shifted to different views. If government is able to have
credibility, or to act through credible agents, it might well be successful in dislodging
beliefs that are held only because no one contradicts them. Likewise, polarization tends
to decrease when divergent views are voiced within the group. Introducing a measure
of cognitive diversity can break up the epistemological networks and clusters that supply
conspiracy theories.
Second, we suggest adistinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy
theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their
allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will
undermine the crippled epistemology of those who subscribe to such theories. They do so
by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups,
thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity
It seems basically he's suggesting that governments engage in debunking. He does NOT seem to be saying just make stuff up. The above sounds like the theorists have very limited understanding of what is going on (a crippled epistemology), and by introducing new factual information (not made-up information), their minds can be changed.Recall that extremist networks and groups,including the groups that purvey conspiracy theories, typically suffer from a kind of
crippled epistemology. Hearing only conspiratorial accounts of government behavior,
their members become ever more prone to believe and generate such accounts.
Informational and reputational cascades, group polarization, and selection effects suggest
that the generation of ever-more-extreme views within these groups can be dampened or
reversed by the introduction of cognitive diversity. We suggest a role for government
efforts, and agents, in introducing such diversity. Government agents (and their allies)
might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to
undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises,
causal logic or implications for political action.
/soapbox(I was).......a vocal 911 conspiracy supporter circa loose change days. every day this lil voice eating at me. saying "you know you cant discern speed in video with that method" and "you know if a fundy christian used that argument youd be laughing"
then i realized i just wanted the stuff in the vids to be true because i already decided it was true...
then i got a job and realized just how often everyone makes mistakes or is lazy etc. now i imagine a secret nwo trying to scheme like that and i crack up. i cant believe i thought gw bush was that smart....or that dumb. nothing works 100% of the time.
now look at the "facts" and youtube quality "tests" used in loose change etc, its just blatant crap. laughably dismiss able. "video proof no airplane hits pentagon" omg omg proof! then ya watch it and not only can you not see the pentagon but the thing they point out as a missile is OBVIOUSLY a white suv on the highway going the same speed as the car infront and behind it.... lol but if you WANT it to be true, the highway looks like the pentagon, and you dont even notice the other 20 cars on the highway with the 'missile'.
It's interesting that a forum which claims strict rules against insults is alright with folks making comments/submitting content that state/suggest truthers are miserable wastes of time and breath.
You are not the only person that has problems with "the accepted story" . . . the chance that we had 3 out of 4 hits on the assumed targets is difficult to accept under the circumstances . . . the collapse of three steel structured buildings within hours of being damaged, the lack of air defense reaction especially since similar scenarios had been or should have been known since the Philippines' terrorist plan was uncovered . . . http://articles.cnn.com/2003-07-26/...t-plot-ramzi-yousef-philippines?_s=PM:asiapcf
Seems heat fatigue lead to three highly unlikely failures in the space of just a few hours . . . something that has never to my knowledge happened before in steel reinforced high rise structures nor has it happened since . . .
The CrashAt 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.
Some debris from the crash fell to the streets below, sending pedestrians scurrying for cover, but most fell onto the buildings setbacks at the fifth floor. Still, a bulk of the wreckage remained stuck in the side of the building. After the flames were extinguished and the remains of the victims removed, the rest of the wreckage was removed through the building.
The plane crash killed 14 people (11 office workers and the three crewmen) plus injured 26 others. Though the integrity of the Empire State Building was not affected, the cost of the damage done by the crash was $1 million.
http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm
Guess it was just luck this one didn't pancake into dust.
I wonder what the scientists say as to why it didn't collapse? Must have had a knee support or something.
[FONT=.HelveticaNeueUI]http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0311.shtml[/FONT]
Even so, the impact alone does not fully explain what doomed the World Trade Center towers. A fatal contributing factor was the fires ignited by the exploding fuel tanks. A 767 has a maximum fuel capacity 35 times greater than that of a B-25D. The aircraft that struck the Empire State Building was nearly out of fuel when it crashed while each 767 still carried approximately half of its maximum fuel load at impact. The Empire State Building fire exhausted its supply of fuel rapidly while that at the World Trade Center ignited the office contents across several floors and burned much longer. The type of fuel carried may also be a significant factor. The B-25 burned avgas, a high-octane version of gasoline still used aboard piston engine aircraft today. The 767 instead uses Jet-A, a derivative of kerosene that fuels all commercial jetliners. Jet fuel tends to reach higher temperatures than gasoline causing the fires in the WTC to burn more intensely than that in the Empire State Building.
Guess it was just luck this one didn't pancake into dust.
I wonder what the scientists say as to why it didn't collapse? Must have had a knee support or something.
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...d-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html
In addition, investigators from NIST who examined the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers told The New York Times in 2007 that newly disclosed documents from the 1960s show that the new York Port Authority, the original owners of Twin Towers, also considered aircraft moving at 600 mph,slightly faster and therefore more destructive than the ones that did hit the towers.
"I found photostat images of WTC designer John Skilling's 3 page 1964 White Paper on a German website and posted the links over on the UK911 board.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/WTC.html
I think they planned for almost the identical impact . . .
The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.In the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001, likely would not have led to the collapse of a WTC tower.
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm
The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.
In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.
http://www.nist.gov/el/wtc7final_112508.cfm
Please read #748 and 752 above . . . also NIST disagrees somewhat . . . it was the loss of the insulation on the beams from the impact . . . not simply the size and force of impact . . . the fuel and impact alone would not have cause the collapse . . .
