Author Topic: Podcast #50  (Read 38285 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nick mallory

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Puzzle answer
« Reply #30 on: July 12, 2006, 11:21:02 AM »
If the answer to the new puzzle is phrenology then i agree with an earlier poster that it's definitely been done before on the show.

Offline Wonko the Sane

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1019
Podcast #50
« Reply #31 on: July 12, 2006, 01:29:26 PM »
Quote from: "zylark"


I do believe that as Americans the wool have pulled down your eyes by your corporate media. And as a result of this you are politically naive. Us Europeans are not so impaired. At least, not to such a degree.


 :shock: Wow and people call American's arrogant.

I have already seen the first of those documentaries, I will check out the second. I am confused though, you said that you though that the conspiracy was simply one not to act but this one says that it was planed by the government. This completely makes my point about anomaly hunting, you can reach any conclusion you want if you cherry pick the evidence, and read into the evidence the conclusions you want.

For example take this fact....It was reported in the media that many terror suspects were arrested shortly after 9/11, but then most were released with out charges and that was not reported.

From what I know from past experience with the media and government I seems to me like the government was desperately make it seem like it was doing something after the tragedy and did this something very incompetently (as they do most things) The media reported this because it is sensationalist but did not report their releases as much (but they were reported) as that does no sell papers. This has happened many time before on many different occasions and therefore based on past experience is a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence.

what does he say..."Isn't this a pattern of state-sponsored, media abetted deception here?"  Kind of a leap don’t you think, without other evidence.

You continue to change your story (which is to be expected I suppose) Were these people supposedly warned by people in the government or people overseas?

Anyway because you seem to ignore what we have to say bout how the buildings collapsed I suggest to find  a copy of the NOVA special, a lot of structural engineers explain in great detail exactly how it worked.

And please check you Logic http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp

And remember to use OCCAM”S RAZOR
'd rather have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question.

"People in bamboo houses should not throw pandas" -Jesus

Offline zylark

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Podcast #50
« Reply #32 on: July 12, 2006, 03:29:17 PM »
In response to mallory:

I'm not generalizing and claiming all terror is somehow linked to the Bush administration. I'm saying 9-11 is. And 9-11 only. The atrocities in London, Bali, Madrid et al was properly researched by criminal investigators and forensic experts, and the guilty parties have been identified to a greater or lesser degree.

Such criminal and forensic investigation did not happen after the 9-11. The evidense was scooped away, melted down, and the investigation was actively botched by the Bush administration.

to Wonko:

There's no hiding that the US mainstream media is everything but objective. Fox news beeing perhaps the worst offender. And most people believe what the media tells them. This is why we as skeptics actively try to refute some of the claims much media have with regards to pseudoscience and religion and such. But somehow politics is a no-go area for skeptical inquiry?

The US media, and all other large corporation media do have an agenda. To maintain corporate interest. The bottom line, making profits. Not fair and accurate reporting. For the (US) newsmedia to critisize the Bush administration is bad for business. Even now as support for the Bush administration is well down into 30% range, the lowest for any administration ever, with a majority of americans wanting to end the war (in Iraq) and impeach the administration, the US mainstream media is still favourable to the Bush regime. In any true democracy not in the hands of corporate interest but in the peoples interest, the press would be screaming for impeachment and removal of the administration.

There is a reason why americans bought wholesale into the lies for going into war with Iraq, whilst the rest of the world didn't. Our newsmedia was critical, asked questions, disassembled the lies. The american media by and large didn't. Most americans thought Saddam had WMD and was behind 9-11, doesn't that tell you all something? We know that is patently false.

But time is on the side of truth, and by now most americans have indeed woken up to smell the stink that reeks from the Whitehouse.

Quote
You continue to change your story (which is to be expected I suppose) Were these people supposedly warned by people in the government or people overseas?


No, I haven't changed my story. I might have been unclear though. It was apparent to at least half a dusin foreign intelligence agencies that an attack was to take place. Weeks if not months in advance. This is a matter of public record. German, Israeli, Pakistani, Egyptian and Russian intelligence all had gained knowledge of the Al-Quada plot and tried to their best ability to warn the US government. It even leaked into European  press, and was printed prior to 9-11 (that an attack was imminent, not the details). So many both in the US government and governments abroad knew something was afoot. They knew when, and where. As you'd expect, people beeing people, some would leak this to loved ones. "Don't take airtravel on 9-11" "Don't be in lower manhattan". Is that such a difficult concept to grasp? In succinct form:

- Knowledge was rampant in the intelligence community and governments that there was to be a terrorist attack.
- Some who knew this (whether they be US or other) warned friends, loved ones, business partners out of concern.

Quote
what does he say..."Isn't this a pattern of state-sponsored, media abetted deception here?" Kind of a leap don’t you think, without other evidence.


Where's the leap? He states a pattern exist in a retorical fashion. Are you saying there isn't a pattern? Media reports what government and other newsagencies inform them of. They do precious little investigative journalism on their own unfortunately. He doesn't say the media is in on whatever transpired, but functioned as a tool.

And there is no hiding that the media often function as a tool for various interests. It happens everywhere all the time. That is why we have PR agencies to influence media. That is why most organisations and governemnts got medianalysts and trained public relations officials. To get their version out into the mass media. The version that serves their interest.

As for your comment on reading the logical fallacies and using occams razor, well, I have and I do. Please point out my logical fallacies to me.

And what is more likely.

a: A small band of non-devout muslims carried out a well coordinated attack on the strongest country in the world with a 75% success rate without meeting anykind of resistance bar the passenger uprising in Flight 93. In all breach of standard FAA procedure regarding hijackings, with the Airforce confused and NORAD standing down all by a string of coincidences despite the US having received plenty of warning weeks in advance. (official story)

b: A small band of devout muslims carried out a well coordinated attack with a 75% success rate, facilitated by the administration conspirators having weeks (if not more) of warning as to what was to transpire. Making it easy for the terrorists by hindering and confusing the FAA, Airforce and NORAD to perform their duties as dictated by standard procedures. All this in order to advance their stated political PNAC agenda. Amongst them launching unprovoked preemptive wars. (the treason story)

Offline cyborganics

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 289
    • http://www.cyborganics.org
Podcast #50
« Reply #33 on: July 12, 2006, 05:00:59 PM »
Zylark,

Until you came along I was one of the most verbose members on this forum… where to start?

Perhaps you can simplify your outlook for some of us by answering a few questions please:


Q1:Do you agree that large multi layered governments have a strong historical tendency to be demonstratively incompetent and sluggish at dealing with imminent matters of state?
Yes || No

Q2: Would you agree there is no satisfactory solid body of physical evidence to support a 9/11 conspiracy involving GWB and or U.S. government?
Yes || No

Q3: Do you believe that political ambiguity and the tendency for government officials to hide information is appropriate evidence to support the accusation of conspiracy?
Yes || No

Q4: Do you see Bush as:
A/ intelligent, scheming and prudent.
B/ unwise, insular and overconfident.

Q5: Do you agree that the problems with a credulous population and a politically biased and profit motivated media is only evident in the United States of America?
Yes || No

Q6: GWB is and will continue to be a menace to the world for decades to come.
True || False

Q7: Do you believe that most Americans voted GWB in because…
A/ He’s an illustrious leader and an established diplomat.
B/ He evokes Christianity in his political rhetoric.


Q8: Fundamental Islamic rule is no threat to worldwide social diversity if allowed to grow.
True || False

Q9: The Clinton administration should be accused of conspiracy as well because they ignored the repeated threat and warnings of terrorism, specifically Bin Laden.
True || False
cientist: A man who knows nothing until there is nothing left to understand.

www.cyborganics.org

Offline zylark

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Podcast #50
« Reply #34 on: July 12, 2006, 05:20:41 PM »
Cyborganics: I'll get back to you. It will be a long post :)

But a small update, since getting into this discussion, I've contacted a friend of mine which is a structural engineer (just took his final exams a couple of months ago) and he did give me some insights I was previously not aware of (and in terms I could easily grasp).

He makes a very convincing argument for the pancake theory. Basically that due to localized stripping of the insulation material, and steel beeing a great heatconductor a gradual cascading weakening of the structure would be possible, even probable.

Also that looking at the max temperature of materials burning, is not entirely correct. I don't know quite to translate into correct english why. It's some combustion technical detail.

As for no other skyscrapers collapsing due to fire, he agreed to that one. But then lakonically added, "However, as far as we know, of the skyscrapers hit by huge aircraft, all skyscrapers have collapsed..."

So I'll have to retract my suspicions of a controlled demolition plot.

I still though maintain that the Bush administration conspired to let the event happen by the simple act of not heeding the warnings given to them, and possibly even actively making the job easy for the terrorists by hindering the appropriate authorities to handle the hijacksituation as per normal procedure.

Offline Erik

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 121
Podcast #50
« Reply #35 on: July 12, 2006, 05:21:42 PM »
Quote

Q7: Do you believe that most Americans voted GWB in because…
A/ He’s an illustrious leader and an established diplomat.
B/ He evokes Christianity in his political rhetoric.


Two problems with this question.

In his first election GWB lost the popular vote, so more Americans voted for his opponent. Most is too strong a word for the second election, he barely won the popular vote.

Also, I wouldn't choose either answer. My guess is that the majority of votes come from republicans voting for their team. Add in some single issue pro-life, anti-gay and gun control voters and you get enough votes. In the second election he also had the terrorism issue and the republicans have a strong pro-military message in combination with GWB being hawkish and that gave him the an edge.

Offline Erik

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 121
Podcast #50
« Reply #36 on: July 12, 2006, 05:32:52 PM »
Quote

I still though maintain that the Bush administration conspired to let the event happen by the simple act of not heeding the warnings given to them, and possibly even actively making the job easy for the terrorists by hindering the appropriate authorities to handle the hijacksituation as per normal procedure.


I think you have too much confidence in the Bush administration's competence.

I don't think you need a conspiracy, the Clinton administration missed opportunites to get Bin Laden before they woke up to the threat of Al Qaeda and almost did get him a couple of times and, in hindsight, didn't do enough. The Bush administration came in with their own agenda and terrorism wasn't part of it. The lack of focus on terrorism caused the pieces of the puzzle out there to never come together. Maybe if Gore was elected the continuity with the Clinton administration might have facilitated a better focus, but maybe not. It's easy to put the pieces together in hindsight.

Offline cyborganics

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 289
    • http://www.cyborganics.org
Podcast #50
« Reply #37 on: July 12, 2006, 06:42:21 PM »
Erik:
It is true, that question is completely a false dichotomy and I knew it when I wrote it but there is some sincere madness to my disingenuous methods.

Zylark:
it would be easier for us all to have some simple answers to the questions.

The problem with conspiracy constructs and the debate of these ideas is it always gets dragged into misrepresentation and misunderstanding of inconclusive and or fabricated data as the pro-conspiracy argument shuffles incessantly through speculation and supposition. I have found that conspiracy theorist start with a premise formulated around a personal bias that resulted in the confirmation of a conspiracy and adapted minute traces of any inconsistencies to support the predisposition then errantly expect others to agree. Not unlike the partiality found with self proclaimed cryptozoologist who find videos of hairy men; U.S. conspiracy constructors are being handed a juicy offering in the form of 9/11 to bite into for those who have an oppositional predisposition towards the likes of GWB and a cynicism for Americans in general.

Now with questions of science (or in debunking pseudo-psi non-sense) things can be predicted, tested and evaluated unlike political conspiracies which often fall outside of the testable or in some cases knowable. My questions are to help us understand your thinking about these matters because I believe you have a number of assumptions and political biases that readily lead you to a false affirmation for likelihood for certain conspiracies. You may be affected by a confirmation bias which may have impaired the detachment required for being appropriately skeptical on this matter.

I also suspect that your supposition of a conspiracy may also be more based on an unsuccessful appreciation for the probabilistic and indeterminate factors leading to such a theoretical scenario. In other words: you are putting too much faith into a remote villainy option which is less likely than the option of indolence when considering historical human behavior.
cientist: A man who knows nothing until there is nothing left to understand.

www.cyborganics.org

Offline Clintsc9

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 142
Podcast #50
« Reply #38 on: July 12, 2006, 06:58:03 PM »
Quote
I do it this way:

Assume behind ..

Door # 1 there is a goat

Door # 2 there is a goat

Door # 3 there is car

If the contestent picks Door #1 and switches the other goat is eliminated and they get the car

If the contestent picks Door #2 and switches, the other goat is eliminated and they get the car

If the contestent picks Door # 3 and switches, the other goat is eliminated and they get the goat

Twice as likely to get the car


Remember: it's not an OPTION that is eliminated. It's a GOAT.


This explanation convinced me as well, until I started to think about the timing.  
Monte Hall is always going to open one door with a goat.
Let's say he changes the timing a bit and opens a goat door BEFORE the contestant gets a pick.
The contestant picks one and is then given the opportunity to switch.

All the same things happen but in a slightly different order.

Surely in this scenario the contestant now only has a 50/50 chance of winning the car and switching would make no difference.

If that is correct, why would the odds change simply because of the timing of opening a goat door?

Looking at the above quote, remove either door 1 or 2 from the lists and the contestant is no longer twice as likely to get the car.

To my mind, with Monte knowing and always removing one of the "goat" doors, it was only ever a two-door game.
Clint Lovell
--------------
Why does confirmation bias always happen to me?

Offline zylark

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Podcast #50
« Reply #39 on: July 12, 2006, 07:33:26 PM »
First off, this is moving very much into a ideology discussion. Ideologies are based in interests for groups of people, not verifiable facts and objective truths. Also the questions are trying to find opinion, presumably to establish why I believe the Bush administration is capable of the crimes I believe them to have committed. That and attempt to make me think once more over my motivations for my point of view.

Oh, and reducing complex problems to polarized yes/no, black/white terms is not helpfull to the discussion if what your seeking is rational answers and not scoring potshots by simple dumbed down polemics.

But here we go :)

Quote
Q1:Do you agree that large multi layered governments have a strong historical tendency to be demonstratively incompetent and sluggish at dealing with imminent matters of state?


Yes and no. It depends entirely on the focus of the government as defined by its ideological agenda and other current events that may occupy the attention of the decisionmakers.

As pertaining to 9-11 nothing much was happening on the world scene at the time, it is thus highly suspicious that the US government did not act to prevent the 9-11 tragedy. Especially under the light of all the warnings they got from foreign intelligence services and foreign governments. Including the US long time ally Israel. Direct contact from Putin of Russia. High officials in the US government itself testified during the congressional hearing that "all warninglights were glowing red!". Putting the defenses on a higher alert would cost them nothing, and is a simple administrative decision. This was not done.

But ofcourse, one could argue that the Bush administration was asleep at the helm with no other alterior motifs.

However, procedures even under no extra alert, was in place to handle hijackingsituations. No political input should be necessary for the machinery to kick into gear. The only political input required under the standard procedures, is the decision of whether or not to shoot down an intercepted hijacked plane.

Quote
Q2: Would you agree there is no satisfactory solid body of physical evidence to support a 9/11 conspiracy involving GWB and or U.S. government?


No. Beyond a shadow of any doubt, with piles of documentation on public record and admissions by keyplayers in the administration and government agencies themselves, they did have ample warning of who, when and where terrorists would attack. The decisionmakers was well informed. They conspired to ignore the warnings, eventhough they were pressured from just about every angle to do something, anything.

Quote
Q3: Do you believe that political ambiguity and the tendency for government officials to hide information is appropriate evidence to support the accusation of conspiracy?


Generally speaking, no.

Quote
Q4: Do you see Bush as: intelligent, scheming and prudent or unwise, insular and overconfident.


Unwise sure. But basically I see Bush as a tool for Rove, Cheney, Ashcroft and other prominent PNAC neo-cons. Bush is just too stupid to assemble a coherent thought, much less policy by himself. Bush is a charming figurehead with appeal to "common folks".

Quote
Q5: Do you agree that the problems with a credulous population and a politically biased and profit motivated media is only evident in the United States of America?


No, but it is much more prevalent in the US. However this is very much a transient situation. Soon massmedia will loose their position as the main opinionmaker, and distributed localized and specialized non corporate (but still private) media outlets will take over. Much due to the internet and the possibilities for distributed publishing at minimum cost it offers. Media will then be watched and judged based upon their credibility, not their monetary strength to push a message through.

By necessity, this will also educate people to be more skeptical of what they are fed by media, seeing as more points of view will be presented. So I'm optimistic on that account.

Quote
Q6: GWB is and will continue to be a menace to the world for decades to come.


Bush only got what? 2,5 more years in office? But, yes, at present the Bush administration is the single largest threat to world political stability and the US economy. Already he's launched two unprovoked preemptive wars against two countries that proved absolutely no threat to neither the USA or any other country. And the retoric used against countries like Iran (Cheney: "We'll consider using tactical nuclear weapons on Teheran if they do not comply") are not what I'd call reassuring.

As for the decades to come, that is up to you, the American people. Chase the neo-cons out of office and into jail. Vote in whomever else. It's the only way you can save your tumbling economy and disasterous plunge in the standing of the international community.

Quote
Q7: Do you believe that most Americans voted GWB in because he’s an illustrious leader and an established diplomat or he evokes Christianity in his political rhetoric.


Erik already touched on this. But in essence, Bush won neither election. Both were the result of election fraud. And it didn't help much that his opponents (Gore/Kerry) was such unimaginative dullards with zero popular issues of their own and no charm to sway the american public.

Quote
Q8: Fundamental Islamic rule is no threat to worldwide social diversity if allowed to grow.


Any fundamentalist religious rule is always a threat to any society. I do not care if it's muslim, christian, mosaic, hindu or whatever else. In addition I'd argue that any fundamentalist political rule is an equal threat, be it communist, fascist or  corporatist. The only stable and prosperous rule or form of government, is one of a participating democracy with multiple political parties, seperation and distribution of powers, an active critical free press and freedom of speech. A system that works for the wellbeeing of all the people, by the people. Not special interest, whatever those interests may be.

Quote
Q9: The Clinton administration should be accused of conspiracy as well because they ignored the repeated threat and warnings of terrorism, specifically Bin Laden.


Are you speaking of the USS Cole incident? Where two men in a rubber dingy filled with explosives blew a hole in an Aegis Destroyer whilst at harbour in Yemen, a very Muslim country where the populace is everything but favourable to the US. Talk about dangling a carrot infront of the donkey. I cannot see the conspiracy (with regards to Clinton) link here. Grave incompetence at the hand of the ships Captain for not providing an adequate security perimiter, yes. Besides, under U.S. law, an attack against a military target does not meet the legal definition of terrorism. And in any case, Clinton did what Bush should have done. Treat the attack as a criminal act. The planners were hunted down, tried and later executed. Several other Al-Quada suspects were also arrested, tried and sentenced to jail. Clinton did not start wars using terrorist attacks as an excuse. In short, Clinton had nothing to gain by ignoring vague warnings of some attack, whilst Bush had everything to gain by ignoring specific, intense and repeated warnings.

Offline JD

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
Podcast #50
« Reply #40 on: July 12, 2006, 07:50:16 PM »
Quote from: "Clintsc9"

This explanation convinced me as well, until I started to think about the timing.  
Monte Hall is always going to open one door with a goat.
Let's say he changes the timing a bit and opens a goat door BEFORE the contestant gets a pick.
The contestant picks one and is then given the opportunity to switch.

All the same things happen but in a slightly different order.

Surely in this scenario the contestant now only has a 50/50 chance of winning the car and switching would make no difference.

If that is correct, why would the odds change simply because of the timing of opening a goat door?

Looking at the above quote, remove either door 1 or 2 from the lists and the contestant is no longer twice as likely to get the car.

To my mind, with Monte knowing and always removing one of the "goat" doors, it was only ever a two-door game.

That's not changing the timing 'a little bit', it's changing the entire game.  If he picks first, yes, you're just left with the two doors and it's a 50-50 shot.  I might be wrong on this, but if the random part comes first, then the consistent part relies on the random part.  In your situation, the random pick doesn't affect his decision.  You could do without Monty Hall and the third door altogether.  Your game is entirely unrelated.
roblem with the forum?  email me: leykial *at* yahoo *dot* com
Turn on, tune in, drop out, and shut the hell up, hippie.
"I'm a pretty good researcher ." - Neal Adams

Offline Clintsc9

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 142
Podcast #50
« Reply #41 on: July 12, 2006, 08:12:38 PM »
Quote
Your game is entirely unrelated

Simply by changing the timing of opening the door?
Wow!!
No wonder people have trouble coming to terms with odds.

Seems to me that Monte Hall would have been better off playing the game by opening a goat door first.  Then he would have had a 1 in 2 chance of keeping the car.
If every player was wise to the original game and always switched, he only had a 1 in 3 chance of keeping it.

Of course we don't know Monte Hall's goals - he may have wanted to give away the car two out of three times.  Also the human factor may have improved his odds somewhat, as I guess many contestants didn't switch.
Clint Lovell
--------------
Why does confirmation bias always happen to me?

Offline gost

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 301
Podcast #50
« Reply #42 on: July 13, 2006, 01:27:40 AM »
This whole 9/11 conspiracy garbage smells about as fishy as a pile of rotting lutefisk. First off, if GWB and his cronies were behind it all to have an excuse to go to war with Iraq, why not use Iraq terrorists to hijack the planes? I guess we Americans are too stupid to tell the difference. Secondly, who cares how well cell phones work in a Cessna? The fact is, either calls were made, or all the spouses and friends receiving calls were lying. (As an aside, most Cessnas have a service ceiling of well over 8,000 feet and oxygen masks are readily available for civilian aircraft when flying at altitudes of over 10,000 ft. A single engine Cessna 182, for example, has a service ceiling of 18,100 feet. I've flown one over the top of Mt. Rainier, 14,410 ft, while easily maintaining the required 500 ft min altitude.)

All these so called "coincidents" amount to nothing more than bureaucracy, overworked air traffic controllers, and the fact that the hijackers turned off the plane's transponders, making tracking difficult at best. The collapse of the buildings has been more than adequately explained in minute detail by a host of engineers and scientists.

As far as *** "I do believe that as Americans the wool have pulled down your eyes by your corporate media.  And as a result of this you are politically naive. Us Europeans are not so impaired. At least, not to such a degree. " ***

What a load of lame, euro-centric, anti-American fish spittle! Such an obviously biased and spiteful perspective isn't even worthy of a serious comment and only manages to illuminate the real motives (not "motifs") behind a willingness to buy into this asinine conspiracy. Why not spend your time doing something constructive like investigating the Hessdalen lights out in your neck of the woods? I'm sure those will turn out to be nothing more than Dick Chenney and other members of the Bush neo-cons hiding in the bushes and igniting their flatulence with matches in order to give GWB a reason to invade while claiming that Norway is developing WMDs.

Offline mxracer652

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 7
Podcast #50
« Reply #43 on: July 13, 2006, 08:59:12 AM »
I'd also like to point out the "column" in the earlier picture clearly shows a buckling load failure, like what would happen when when floors of a building start collapsing on each other.  

A little thumbing through the pages of my mechanics of materials texts shows a uniform cross section beam fails @ an approximate 45 degree angle when buckled.  The beam in the picture is near uniform through the cross section, and the break is near 45 degrees, no conspiracy theory needed.  

Besides, if you were going to cut a column, why in the hell would you cut it at a 45 degree angle?????  To increase the amount of time to cut by a factor of the square root of 2????  

It makes zero sense.

Offline Erik

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 121
Podcast #50
« Reply #44 on: July 13, 2006, 01:42:51 PM »
Quote

Simply by changing the timing of opening the door?
Wow!!
No wonder people have trouble coming to terms with odds.


I had to write a little program to really get it. Once I saw that the revealed door just dropped out when determining the odds I saw that it's picking one door out of three vs. picking two doors out of three if you switch.

 

personate-rain
personate-rain