Galaxian wrote:The saner members among us on RatSkep have been lambasted for years, here & on other forums such as RDF, & accused of being crazy 'tin foil hatter' 'conspiracy theorists'.
New research indicates that we who disbelieve the official account are infact in the majority, by over two-thirds, & by the metrics of psychology, are the level headed more rational people:
http://www.frontiersin.org/Personality_ ... 00409/full
http://therebel.org/index.php?option=co ... &id=666083
"Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.
"The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.
"The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.
"Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.”
"Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 - a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan - was indisputably true.
the_5th_ape wrote:... turn the laws of physics upside-down by making a steel-framed building collapse symmetrically through their own mass, at free-fall speed, for the first time EVER in history.
Weaver wrote:Doesn't mean you aren't totally fucking wrong, though. All that study says is that those of use who accept reality are more hostile toward those who don't - a reflection of lost patience with idiocy more than anything else, I'd say.
Agi Hammerthief wrote:
I guess you haven't been paying attention how (and how often) he got his butt handed to him.
Galaxian wrote:So YOU buy the f'in printer & do the experiment..
psikeyhackr wrote:Where is the problem with that?
the_5th_ape wrote:I know how. Its by computer simulation. Am i right?
Galaxian wrote:His name is psykeyhackr, it is not Pisk.
Galaxian wrote:All your posts were waffles with syrup
if people at the engineering schools already know a collapse is possible then why would they want to do the test?
psikeyhackr wrote:Actually if I had the money to play with I would.
Agi Hammerthief wrote:if you had studied physics or engineering you would have the money and also the education to not feel the need to use it for this.
His name is psykeyhackr (sic), it is not Pisk.
Psikey has already done the experiment, several times. You'd never accept ANYTHING against the official propaganda anyway: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/consp ... l#p1756728
So YOU buy the f'in printer & do the experiment... or ask NIST to give you a grant to do it & prove them right
Weaver wrote:Psikeyhackr's experiment shows nothing about the WTC. Continuing to bring it up as if it does is simply more lies and dishonesty from a CTer.
Weaver wrote:Does your model feature tube-in-tube construction like the WTC? No.
Does your model feature outer supports which are bypassed during the collapse, like happened in the WTC? No.
Does your model have ANY BEARING WHATSOEVER ON THE GODDAMN WTC? No.
Stop talking about your stupid model as if it matters at all - it doesn't. And nobody is obligated to provide a better model - if you insist on models to challenge the NIST report and the scientific consensus, build one yourself.
Users viewing this topic: Google [Bot] and 5 guests