Whats the non-conspiracy theory of the JFK assassination anyway? Was Oswald just a nut?

Yes.  Freind of mine says of course Oswald did it, its just that if you are the most powerful nation on earth, its hard to absorb the fact that the CinC is vunerable to a nut with a WW2 rifle.

Reading only one pro JFK conspiracy theory book is pointless, as there are multiple conspiracy theories, all of which disagree on multiple points with each other.  Jim Garrison for example is considered a flake by much of the pro JFK conspiracy camp.

Pictures say a thousand words…

When the towers collapsed, the floors above impact were intact, at least until they disappeared behind the smoke. When the first (I believe) collapsed, it slightly twisted at the point of impact. I watched a lot of footage, some slow motion, because I was also grabbed by this conspiracy theory. I agree with comments made about the allure of conspiracy theories, but a lack of education (or knowledge) is very fertile ground for these things.

9/11 occurred during my anti-television years, so I didn’t see the towers fall until two days later – after the shock. I also saw them fall one immediately after the other (footage). It looked odd to me, that they both fell straight down, and I had no understanding of how that would happen. Shortly thereafter, I heard demolition theories, and understand, my President was claiming it happened because some really evil people “hate freedom.” ( ?!! ) It felt a little twilight zone… ish.

I wanted a better response to the conspiracy theory than “Well, surely not,” and so I went looking for information. It took a lot of time because I had to stop quite often to look up information offered as “fact.” It was tedious. Had I not been so driven by a need to understand, I might very well have walked away believing there was something very wrong about how those towers fell.

Just a note, considering the link left by Webs: I recall some firefighters and at least one civilian survived the collapse of the North Tower, in stairwell B. About a year ago, I mentioned that to a Demolition Believer, a guy who was once the biggest skeptic I knew, “Wouldn’t they have heard the explosions?” (It seemed reasonable to me.)

His response, “They could have been paid.”

9/11 could’ve been avoided if ground control had the ability to override manual commands via a hidded box, alternatively an automatic system could do so when a plane strays too far off path

That would be terribly convenient...If I wanted to crash a plane all I’d have to do is find the signal needed and radio it in. No more suicide attacks, just bored high school students with the proper equipment and programs could manage it. Yay.

My thoughts exactly MisterMook.  The problem with an event like 9/11 committed by terrorists is that there is usually not a quick fix solution.  If people want to bring down a tower, they will find something to get the job done.

Most terrorist attacks don’t take intelligence or special knowledge, but creativity.

I recall some firefighters and at least one civilian survived the collapse of the North Tower, in stairwell B. About a year ago, I mentioned that to a Demolition Believer, a guy who was once the biggest skeptic I knew, “Wouldn’t they have heard the explosions?” (It seemed reasonable to me.)

His response, “They could have been paid.”

Indeed, Justice.  This is the conspiracy theorist equivalent to the “goddidit” argument.  Whenever discrepancies threaten the inviable Word, why examine the evidence?  Just invoke the all-powerful Designer- or Conspirator.

MM+Webs - could try encrypting the signal, besides radio control doesn’t achieve martydom

You could try encrypting the signal, but I think even a modest look at the various DRM/media industries would be enough to give up the ghost on the concept that encrypting anything is surefire.

Look at this way, no matter what the decryption/acting signal would more or less have to be “flying free” where anyone in the world could look at it and then you’d just have to watch to see what the plane did in response. Half of your encryption BS down the drain, wasted because even a directed laser can be intercepted and read with the right equipment.

A lot of military equipment that operates on the same principles works best because it assumes that signal intelligence on a battlefield is spotty and that you get to blow up people when you see that they’re listening to you. You probably can’t manage that much control in a civilian environment, and even if you could you’re still running into the whole “civilian control of technology” issue.

So you’ve got these ground controls over your aircraft, do they only work in your country or do the rest of the world get to use them too? If the rest of the world doesn’t get the tech, what happens when our planes fly overseas? Well, someone climbs onboard and steals the tech for security reasons. Wouldn’t want the Americans to crash a plane into a military base and blame it on the terrorists cracking the code, would we?. Say you give it to everyone. Then Bill calls up his brother Tom who calls up his cousin Ted, and everyone gets to take a look at the tech and soon everyone knows exactly how it works and it’s useless because you’ve got to turn it off for security reasons.

...

If you must have this sort of technology, I’d make it a sealed computer over some sort that ran a program which merely told the plane where it was allowed to “go down.” Going down outside a flight path inside the city, as declared by a set map that exists on the hard drive? The plane can’t do it and locks controls out until you aim it for the suburbs or Farmer Ned’s fields.

That way you’d still have some trainable options for the pilots in the course of a failure, there wouldn’t be any option for interfering with a signal, and hopefully it wouldn’t be anymore visible in daily use than the fly-by-wires that prevent pilots from stressing out the plane and snapping it in half on take-off. It wouldn’t prevent someone from causing fatalities, but at least it would hopefully limit them except in cases of plane failure. It might even serve to limit pilot error crashes...or it might cause them. I know a few acquaintances that fly passenger jets, but that’s really my experience limit for what piloting them actually entails.

Maybe not perfection but if encryption makes it more difficult and an autopilot also intervened when straying too far then it’s an improvement - the auto could just be a self-righting thing, doing what it needed to to get back along the original vector, and if necessary, land. With a telescope you might see how the plane was responding but you would need someone close to your intended target to signal to the plane in time to direct it (assuming you had figured out the encryption at an earlier stage of flight). The pilot might also be able to signal if he notices unexpected signals and switch to an alternative encryption that was pre-set on the ground before flight, there could be many of these. In addition you could use satelites so that only signal that has authorisation to use a satelite, coming in from an angle that couldn’t happen from the ground, for ground control’s part in this.

It may look sometimes that things can be gotten around but there is sometimes a way if the resources are available - which you are correct in that a civilian environment probably couldn’t maintain.

Regarding which country gets control - each country could have their own encryption set, the plane could automatically switch to the one applicable, and it could be just in the interests of protecting homeland targets. It could be part of the deal that if you fly into that country, that country has the right to intervene should it need to under the eyes of international law - as soon as the plane left the airspace it would come under another country’s control. International airspace wouldn’t matter providing it’s targetless.

Just like nuclear missile silo’s, their use is entirely in the hands of the government, secret services and military - I would expect this system to be much the same. Sure, you have little option but to trust them, but same goes for nukes and same goes for human pilots (who could be very hidden terrorists themselves)

An auto system may well be a consideration, but one final option (that I can think of) is for the plane to send a distress signal saying essentially ‘please shoot me down if you see me getting too close to those buildings’ to the air force if it looked necessary, certainly it could be escorted so the military if it sends a distress signal so they can shoot it down if they really needed to

give up the ghost on the concept that encrypting anything is surefire.

You know something the online payment providers don’t.  If you could crack any encryption you wouldnt need to kill people.  You’d just have to let Wall Street know- bang goes the Globalised Economy.

Never thought of that - imagine the shift in world power there could be if insanely large amounts of money were shifted from the US to, say, iran. Also citizens will have interests in manipulating the market

Which is why you are supposed to report finding large Prime numbers to the CIA (they are used in encryption).  Watched a programme about Primes- one theory on plotting them is a little shaky. If it ever proves to be wrong then PayPal is out of business.

Conspiracy theories - you mean like Al Queida?  That’s a wacky conspiracy theory if I ever heard one - that a major world religion plots to fly airplanes into buildings in countries clear across the world from their sphere of influence. 

Or the Republican party - do you know there’s people who belive that a gigantic organization exists, funded by the United States, that conspires to rewriteAmerican laws, undermine the Constitution, and fill political offices with wacky “true believers”.  Bizarre, isn’t it?

My irony meter is out of whack, Frank, so I don’t know if you’re serious.

That’s a wacky conspiracy theory if I ever heard one - that a major world religion plots to fly airplanes into buildings in countries clear across the world from their sphere of influence.

First of all: it wasn’t “a major world religion”, but rather members of Al-Qaeda, who did the plotting.  Secondly: the “sphere of influence” of terrorists is wherever they can buy plane tickets to- the whole world.  And this particular “wacky” conspiracy theory is well supported by the facts.

Ditto for the Republicans:  as much as I’d like to think that there are no Republicans, I’m afraid there’s ample evidence for their existence, their funding, and their intentions.  Hard to believe, I know, but then there are people who think that the world is six thousand years old.

I too had trouble telling if there was sarcasm there.

Given sufficient time for technological advance, encryption of any sort could be broken in a relatively short period of time. A single attempt at reverse engineering could force an upgrade of the system.

The reality is, we had safety measures in place. Lots of them. But all of them failed. Most of them failed due to inaction and a breakdown of the chain of command.

It was unlikely to happen the first time. I’d like to think the US is safer now, but I’d be lying to myself.

Webs’s article: Which is why I have disgust and udder disdain for conspiracy theories.  They have and do ruin careers of scientists and good people.  And it’s just a shame because it means there will be less and less individuals who will be willing to take on these crackpot theories in the future for fear of having a ruined career

That is emotional bias, it doesn’t change the past and so doesn’t affect what happened, whatever that may be. I do agree though that it’s wrong to exploit someone at their cost, that’s just the people making the theories though, it’s not connected to those events.

The debunking article linked to clearly had bias and that undermines my trust, but regardless of that I couldn’t be bothered to analyse details, and so I’m not going to draw any conclusions on the subject out of laziness, but I will point out bias

They were scoffing at nearly every counter-point the Popular Mechanics guys offered and even laughed at a couple points as well

Which undermines my trust of those particular theorists too, because it’s not an explanation

But if this is the case, why do conspiracy theories leave out evidence, misquote experts, dismiss evidence presented by experts, and just flat out lie?  If their theories are as strong as they claim then there is no need for this right?

Agreed, it should fit in 100% and make sense through engineering and science, but there can be disagreement even within the people of a field, and concencus doesn’t necesserily guarantee reality, because scientists can also be vulnerable to popular mind virii, as you already know. Ultimately concencus or common recognition of an unknown should also occur if everyone knew everything, but know that concencus can occur on a common assumption/misconception (generally speaking)

I do agree though that it’s wrong to exploit someone at their cost, that’s just the people making the theories though, it’s not connected to those events.

Actually it is connected, if I understand what you are saying.  One main reason why conspiracy theories are bullshit is because they quote mine.  And the theory is based around the mined quotes.  As is the case with the 9/11 conspiracy.  So the fact that scientists lives get ruined by these bullshit theories is a direct result of the conspiracy theory.  Not some innocent little side reaction.  Please don’t trivialize this impact, it’s a little more serious than you may think, but maybe you have to work in education to realize this.

The debunking article linked to clearly had bias

If you are referring to Maddox’s website, that was kinda the point.  He is just being an hilarious ass.  It’s what he does.  But the funny thing is, he’s right…

but there can be disagreement even within the people of a field, and concencus doesn’t necesserily guarantee reality

The problem with the 9/11 conspiracy is there is no disagreement of scientists.  People claiming to be scientists are trying to present evidence otherwise, but they are all shown to be full of crap.  If people actually read the literature on the issue rather than a 23 year old’s website, they could easily see the evidence for themselves. 

But the reason why they don’t read the literature on the issue is because psychology plays a HUGE role in conspiracy theories.  It creates a situation where someone has a large emotional investment and this makes it hard for people to see or believe or understand the other side.

because scientists can also be vulnerable to popular mind virii

I know what your getting at here, but if the scientist has a bias then he simply is not a scientist.  The reason why some scientists appear to have a bias is because they have spent plenty of time analyzing a specific topic only to have crackpots say their life’s work is BS.  Or to have the media completely ignore their research (which is the case with Global Warming).

Ultimately concencus or common recognition of an unknown should also occur if everyone knew everything, but know that concencus can occur on a common assumption/misconception (generally speaking)

Agreed but in the case of 9/11 conspiracies, this is not the case.  And no one is asking everyone to know everything.  In fact all I ask is that people read the literature and look at the evidence without saying, “Bullshit, this came from the same government that committed these atrocious acts!”

Webs: Actually it is connected, if I understand what you are saying

I mean whatever the theorists say, doesn’t in itself change what actually happened, whether that happens to agree with the theory or not.

I can hate the theorists and what they do to people, but that doesn’t change my approach to their proposal because the same proposal could’ve come from anyone and would just be as true/untrue regardless of who said it

He is just being an hilarious ass. It’s what he does. But the funny thing is, he’s right…

Maybe so, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. I admit I don’t know him and ‘twas just first impressions

The problem with the 9/11 conspiracy is there is no disagreement of scientists

Maybe so, I havn’t looked into it, but it’s a general point because as you know you still get anti-evolution and anti-climate change scientists

is because psychology plays a HUGE role in conspiracy theories. It creates a situation where someone has a large emotional investment and this makes it hard for people to see or believe or understand the other side

I can see how they are vulnerable to exploitation, not knowing any better and having needs that lead to bias towards the theory that explains all and eases the pain, at least to start with (granted, they may not bother to look at the truth later when brain huunger wears off). I agree people need to be wary of the theorists so as to spot manipulation, but all ideas need fair consideration. Perhaps being a victim to a manipulation trap is one of those mistakes that people are determined to make before they’ll learn.

but if the scientist has a bias then he simply is not a scientist.  The reason why some scientists appear to have a bias is because they have spent plenty of time analyzing a specific topic only to have crackpots say their life’s work is BS

At least not in the mindframe of scientist at that time on that issue. I know people who slip the net and, on issues outside their field retain silly views through determination or who lack emotional knowledge.

Throughout history there have often been common views that would seem absurd to question even within science, such as the world being flat, everything being classical physics, atoms not being splittable, etc. I wouldn’t be surprised if the same applied in a different way, that might be hard to identify whilst we’re still within it. Some thought is avoided today through the excuse of suppposed meaninglessness (time before BB or existence of imaginary multiverse, etc), or the supposed meaningless of questioning the fundamentals, the point where reason appears to break as the hierarchy/string reaches an end, it merely exists

ps. I was generally speaking, as you know

but all ideas need fair consideration

9/11 Conspirators were given consideration and all points they have ever made have been debunked and proven to be scientifically wrong.  Popular Mechanics did a good job at that.

Throughout history there have often been common views that would seem absurd to question even within science, such as the world being flat, everything being classical physics, atoms not being splittable, etc. I wouldn’t be surprised if the same applied in a different way, that might be hard to identify whilst we’re still within it. Some thought is avoided today through the excuse of suppposed meaninglessness (time before BB or existence of imaginary multiverse, etc), or the supposed meaningless of questioning the fundamentals, the point where reason appears to break as the hierarchy/string reaches an end, it merely exists

You are right, however ulcers are a much better example than the “World is Flat” story.  Most historians agree that only a select few would of believed the world is flat as there was little to no evidence to believe it was flat.  Anyways, 9/11 conspirators and conspirators on other theories have been well debunked and shown their ideas are scientifically wrong.  So why do we need to give their ideas anymore consideration?  How does giving their theories a forum help the scientific process any?  How does it help the healing process for the victims?  How does it help bring closure to the issue?

And yes I do understand you are speaking generally.  I just wanted to make it clear that 9/11 conspiracy theorists have no leg to stand on.  And we don’t need to give them anymore forums to present their ideas.

Without looking into the details myself I cannot say, but interesting is the human need for closure you mentioned - it’s a common need, but why? People cannot seem to withstand permanent unknown, which I admit has driven me somewhat, to escape the hell of confusion and unpreparedness.

If anyone wants to know what it feels like to drop a pre-existing belief, American History X does a good job showing the emotion involved. I just got another chance to see this film and the hole part where Edward Norton’s character explains his jail experience pretty much sums up the emotion involved to a “T”.

If nothing else, it’s just a phenomenal flick…

Read The Road to 9/11 by Peter Dale Scott. It will give you an entirely new view of 9/11 and it can’t be debunked.