Science of Conspiracy Theories.

@joe-shmo said
Actually, I cant even say that it would need a large cooperation across agencies. Id imagine any one of the top secret agencies could set and trigger a domino ( the US domestic attack ), and the rest would be handled naturally among the other governing bodies unwittingly. So it doesn't need to be any cross cooperation at all. The number of 911 conspirators could actually be quite small, and loyal to the cause.

@DeepThought

That type of conspiracy is still a conspiracy...no less damning.

But before this spirals into 911 stuff, do you agree that a reasonable model of conspiratorial exposure time should account for the things I mentioned in my previous reply. What do you agree with, disagree with in that post?

@joe-shmo said
@DeepThought

That type of conspiracy is still a conspiracy...no less damning.

But before this spirals into 911 stuff, do you agree that a reasonable model of conspiratorial exposure time should account for the things I mentioned in my previous reply. What do you agree with, disagree with in that post?

A conspiracy theory is either true or false. Those claiming that conspiracy theories are all nonsense usually have something to hide and are probably involved in a conspiracy. As for propaganda, it's alive and well, and more evolved than ever before. And the finest type of propaganda is mixing a huge lie with a bunch of small, insignificant truths. I hear those on the news every day.

@deepthought said

India? What does that have to do with the British Empire?

You say that and expect to be taken seriously? You do realize that it's pretty much why the British Empire was called an Empire? Think about what you're writing.

@soothfast said
Well, India was known as the "jewel of the British Empire" once upon a time.

@metal-brain said
It was a colony, not the UK. The British empire did not have an emperor during WW2, thus proving an emperor is not required for a nation to be an empire. deepthought is full of crap.

@soothfast said
Any "empire" must have a sovereign of some sort. Who is the sovereign of this hypothetical US-UK "empire" you speak of?

Remember when I said you turn to semantic quibbling as a last resort in an argument?
https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/science/sea-level-rise.179816/page-31

@metal-brain said
No, but if I did I didn't notice it on that page. I did notice this quote from you though:

"I am not the one dismissing every scientific study released by climatologists that does not conform to my preconceptions as being wrong or fake. To wit, I don't have to be a climatologist to read what climatologists have to say, but if you're going to say they're wrong then you ...[text shortened]... eviewed article to back up your gossip based belief system. You cannot even meet your own standards.

@soothfast said
This is more a matter of limited time; as in, I do not have unlimited time to argue nonsense with the likes of you all day every day. That link looks familiar, though, and I think I addressed it in the debate forum a couple weeks ago.

But now you're deflecting. Another one of your tactics is misdirection, as I also pointed out at https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum ...[text shortened]... the sovereign of your hypothetical US-UK "empire"...? The Illuminati? Nancy Pelosi? Out with it.

@metal-brain said
"That link looks familiar, though, and I think I addressed it in the debate forum a couple weeks ago."

No, you never addressed it at all. You had nothing before and you have nothing now.

You said you stated something on that page you didn't. Try to post something relevant next time.

Deflecting what? Name a single thing I deflected. The only person deflecting is you. Your last post was not relevant to anything we were talking about.

@DeepThought

I'm looking at the Grimes paper that was cited currently. As far as I can tell it does not account for any of the things I mentioned directly. I think what I'm talking about is relatable to the free parameter "p" the probability of an intrinsic leak or failure. From what I am understanding they use "exposed conspiracies" to empirically estimate the parameter for a certain type of conspiracy. They admit this may introduce some bias. I do not believe the presented conspiracies adequately represent potential parameters for 911 actors. Forensics fraud, spying, and medical testing, are no where near mass homicide on the scale of heinousness.

So as far as I can tell we could have a relatively small group N(t_0) = 100 or less actors rigging explosives throughout the WTC complex for who knows how long. (Many floors were vacant, and some were intelligence offices in the first place). For which most of the initial conspirators could have been killed during the attack itself ( perhaps in the buildings, or even the many aircraft). Leaving a handful of top level intel for the initial event remaining for a leak. Those remaining from the "meta conspiracy" would be highly invested, with a very low "p" parameter, for obvious reasons. Then it is simply a one time event, with the remaining number N(t) of conspirators experiencing natural decay. It stands to reason, in that scenario it could be indefinitely kept secret.

That is until extrinsic analysis actors "Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth" pointed to a well documented smoking gun, the WTC 7 collapse. However, the trail is growing cold, and most Americans actually would probably prefer not to know the truth of that particularly cold event if it had been a conspiracy. Even if 911 Truth gains momentum, to succeed it would have to be some World Wide Tribunal for War crimes that investigates. In short, even if they demonstrate controlled demolition, its simply to big a monster.

@joe-shmo said
@DeepThought

I'm looking at the Grimes paper that was cited currently. As far as I can tell it does not account for any of the things I mentioned directly. I think what I'm talking about is relatable to the free parameter "p" the probability of an intrinsic leak or failure. From what I am understanding they use "exposed conspiracies" to empirically estimate the paramet ...[text shortened]... nvestigates. In short, even if they demonstrate controlled demolition, its simply to big a monster.

For which most of the initial conspirators could have been killed during the attack itself ( perhaps in the buildings, or even the many aircraft).