umm … wasn’t this actually confirmed by the building owner? It’s not a secret that nothing crashed into it, and for reasons unknown it was decided to evacuate and demolish the building.
WTC 7? No. It collapsed.
1 Like
Here we go again.
2 Likes
I suppose, then, it’s a semantic question: where does theory end and bullshit begin? Not interested in splitting that hair today, thanks. 
Well, these days, if the manufacturer includes a microphone as a feature of the “smart fridge” then it’s inherently bugged, and the question of whether or not it’s been bugged is replaced by the question of whether or not it’s been hacked. Just sayin’.
2 Likes
Of course there is – naivete. Not saying it’s true in any particular case, just saying that it’s an explanation.
Not to provoke another rant, but… why not? You’ve never seen extremely naive (in some ways) people in positions of authority?
[quote=“tempogain, post:36, topic:84924, full:true”]
You don’t understand what logic is, do you? Let me enlighten you. It’s a philosophical concept used to deduce a conclusion. It’s a powerful reasoning tool if you know how to do it. Perfectly valid. The simplest form (expounded by Indian Nyaya school) is: Where there’s smoke, there’s fire
In this case, the smoke is billowing up. We have the world’s top scientists:
- insisting China is “open & transparent”
- employing over-the-top, emotional vilification of anyone even asking questions about the official origin of Covid
- using their immense power to have such people banned from media platforms
Now, to keep it simple, lets look at the first smoke (happy to go thru the others later if you still need) - lauding the CCP as “open & transparent”.
Can we agree that the CCP is a totalitarian regime? Hopefully yes.
Can we agree that totalitarian regimes are not “open & transparent”? Yes? (if you need examples, let me know)
Great. We’ve established our principle: totalitarian regimes are not open & transparent Which then brings us to the question: Why are the world’s top scientists shrilly insisting on something that is clearly a lie? Why are they putting their reputations on the line to defend a totalitarian, fascist regime?
Now, this is the point where your intellectual analysis falls off a cliff - you answer: I don’t have to do that (supply a plausible reason). … If you don’t like that, I’m fine with leaving it there.
I’m sure you are, coz you feel insecure about where logic might lead you, right? That’s fine, you can lead a horse to water etc, but, your position is anti-logic. You can’t shut-down a logical enquiry, then claim to be pro-logic. That would be … illogical.
Here are the logical answers that we can deduce from the world’s leading experts telling us a verifiable whopper. Remember, it’s quite extremist to be lauding an extremist regime - there must be a powerful motivation behind it. Which is where logic comes to the rescue. There are only two possible conclusions:
- The world’s leading science experts are all so mind-boggling dumb that they didn’t know the CCP is a totalitarian regime
- They’re consciously spreading the lie that the CCP is “open & transparent” re the origin of Covid in order to cover-up the true origin of Covid
There is no other explanation. I asked you for one, you couldn’t give it. I’ll give you another chance, but i’m betting you still can’t supply another plausible reason.
Now, using logic, which of the above two answers is the most plausible? Sure, scientists do some dumb things, but we’re talking about the world’s top scientists from the top universities - it stretches credibility they could be so ignorant as to not know the CCP is a totalitarian regime.
Which leaves us with the second conclusion: they spread the lie that the CCP is “open & transparent” re the origin of Covid in order to cover-up the true origin of Covid
Now, that’s the conclusion we arrive at by purely employing logic, it’s as valid as 1+1=2, but if you still want the slam-dunk evidence, straight from the horses’ mouths, then i refer you back to my 3rd point from the original post, which was:
The FOI emails from the scientists who wrote the Pangolin Paper reveal that all of them thought it was lab-engineered!
The Pangolin Paper (aka Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV2), & The Lancet Statement (not a paper, merely a collection of top scientists embarrassing themselves on a signed statement of support for the CCP) is what your entire belief that Covid was natural origin is based on. But here’s the thing - even those who wrote Proximal Origin, didn’t believe a word of it at the time they wrote it. The paper was purpose-written to cover-up the origin of Covid, in order to save their own arses & THE Science community.
In their minds, they’re cynically laughing at you as one of the millions of useful idiots that fell for it, participated in disseminating their disinformation.
Refs are here: Jan 31: Looks Engineered | Dulan Drift (FOI email) & The Authors | Dulan Drift (purpose-written quote)
I only see conspirators; this simple worldview, like social justice, is very handy because it can explain anything with a minimum amount of thought.
No I do. You should look it up sometime 
1 Like
Your illogical conclusion of insecurity here comes across as emotional, and could lead to a tit-for-tat. Perspectives different from your own might be challenging, but please make an effort to post respectfully.
People who are naive do get a bit upset if their lack of expertise is pointed out to them. Politicians, though, by the nature of their job, understand that they need to take advice from others. Sticking with the narrow problem of censorship, I have never seen the level of vitriol that was thrown at people who dared to point out some rather obvious flaws in the narrative. They were forcefully and deliberately shut down. They were pilloried in order to make an example to others. A lot of money was spent on ensuring that the media, celebrities, and influencers stayed on-message. That sort of vicious, directed attack is not driven by naivete.
If they were merely naive, then you would expect a 50-50 coin-toss of outcomes. They would be as equally likely to listen to the doctors giving a sober assessment of the problem, and a much simpler potential solution. Instead, they all went for the most expensive possible non-solution … simultaneously. The subsequent doubling-down is more easily explicable (once caught up in something, humans are overwhelmingly likely to keep doing it). But the initial assault on the truth and the construction of an approved web of lies … much less so.
Of course I have. But it is very rare that a whole bunch of naive people construct what amounts to a conspiracy theory and hold onto it with such fervour. The only comparable event would have been the McCarthy communist witchhunt - and that was not naivete.
I will also add that some authority-figures play-act at naivete. Policemen do it, for example. It’s a way of getting your opponent to underestimate you, drop their guard, and reveal vulnerabilities.
1 Like
Why is that statement illogical?
It’s reasonable to deduce that if someone refuses to answer a basic question on a discussion that they’ve elected to participate in, then they’re acting out of insecurity.
Can you please stick to discussing the details? It’s all referenced. If you want to question any of those reffeed details then that’s great, simply say which details. But for a moderator to keep writing ‘NO, YOU ARE!!!’, with no details, drags the level down to a school-yard bully.
Good post. The question then is: why did they do that?
That’s where logic comes in. Only plausible reason is that they felt insecure about their position & were implementing a cover-up.
If anyone has another explanation, i’d love to hear it.
I could say “who’s they?” and so on…
The problem is, as usual, you’re talking in absolutes. Like this:
Try this: Chicken Little (Henny Penny) is not naive. She secretly knows the falling acorn does not portend the apocalypse, or in an extra dark version of this story, she faked the acorn, or she designed the acorn hoping it would bring the sky down and then decided to keep going even when it was clear to her that the first plan had failed. Bottom line, she’s a criminal mastermind.
Question: How many of the other animals does she need to be “in on it” with her in order for her mass hysteria plan to achieve whatever goal(s) she has?
Variation: Chicken Little is naive, but somewhere along the line (probably early on), a criminal mastermind realizes the panic can be useful. The question remains the same, mutatis mutandis.
The point of the original story was that they were all naive, which is often true in real life, though then again there are many people who understand this phenomenon and love to take advantage of it, so in any big panic you can count on some of the people involved to be consciously manipulative.
But it seems the way you would tell the story, all of them (or at least all the ones in positions of power) need to be in on it, because otherwise it can’t possibly make sense to you. My faith in the smartness of humans (scientifically trained or not) was never so high that I would see it that way, or even 50-50 like you suggested.
Are we strictly talking 1950’s onwards? 
Even then, there’s no shortage of cults for comparison…
In any case, see my animal analogy above.
Oh, one more thing:
That’s a matter of life experience. Some people have more familiarity with arbitrary vitriol (in various contexts) than others and shape their expectations accordingly. 
I’m asserting what cannot be, not what is. We’ve been through this many times before. I do not claim to know what is going on in the minds of the great and the good. But I can infer several things that cannot be true. You can repurpose the scientific method to these questions - if that weren’t true, the whole basis of sociology would evaporate.
What you’re claiming here is that the every leader on the planet independently decided to choose a path that they knew for a fact would destroy their country and sow division and strife. And they rejected -with extreme prejudice, not with “meh, not really interested” - a very level-headed plan of action that would have bought them through unscathed. I think this merits a more complex explanation than “politicians are all too stupid to understand how the world works”.
Politicians might be stupid in some ways, but they’re not blithering idiots. You don’t get to be the leader of a country if you can’t intuit connections between cause and effect; you need a certain level of real-world shrewdness.
Give me some examples. If you’re thinking of - for example - the Cultural Revolution, then again “naivete” is not sufficient explanation.
[quote=“dulan_drift, post:46, topic:84924, full:true”]
You’d need a starting point of the WHO being “leading science experts” for this theory.
Or sometimes, they believe whatever they hear that fits the narrative. Both the mainstream and the fringe have a lot, most people are like this
Here we go again…
It’s not true, first of all, that every leader (whether in the broad sense or the narrow sense) on the planet acted in concert. Not even close. Those that did were mostly playing monkey see monkey do, anyway.
It’s also not true that that’s what I said. For you, apparently, the opposite of everyone acted in concert is no-one acted in concert, whereas what I’ve been saying all along is not everyone is acting in concert. As the ancient proverb goes, 不一樣！
Didn’t I make it blindingly clear in the analogy?
The Chairman was not naive*. That doesn’t mean every follower of his was on the wavelength he projected. His most famous and high-ranking follower wasn’t naive either, but what he’s famous for today is that he tried to be a moderating influence on the guy and occasionally succeeded, despite the outward appearance (at the time) that they were on the same page. Take some random follower in a position of authority, and you can bet the person doesn’t know much about what’s going on at the top and may even be too naive to guess. And so on, and so on… Go as far back in history as you like.
(*No-one ever completely conquers naivete. For example, it has been said that a key element of the problem in the 50’s was that people kept sending him positive reports of local conditions out of fear of his wrath if they told him the truth, which meant he didn’t realize how bad things were getting, and the resulting disaster was essentially the cause of him being forced into the background until his next big thing.)
Firstly, WHO conducted an investigation into the origin, on behalf of the world, employing the world’s leading bio-science experts. They came back with the conclusion that a lab-exit was extremely unlikely. There’s dispute about their conclusion - there’s no dispute that they are world leading experts - they’ve got the salaries/academia positions to prove it.
Secondly, i’m not arguing that the cover-up was limited to WHO experts. There were plenty of others involved, though remembering it’s THE Science Community, so it’s tight-knit at the top - most of them are connected to WHO in some way.
For example, W. Ian Lipkin, who co-authored the Pangolin Paper: employed by Columbia Uni, operates a joint lab in China, has been awarded 2 medals by the CCP, head of a global data-centralizing platform funded by the CCP, works as a WHO advisor - though wasn’t on the WHO origin investigation panel.
One thing they all have in common - they’re globalists - so makes sense that they’re connected to globalist power orgs such as WHO.
More on Lipkin here for anyone interested.
1 Like
I know all of this.
I don’t care whether they acted “in concert” or not. It would hardly be surprising if they did, since the WHO exists for the explicit purpose of getting leaders acting in concert. However, the fact remains that they all took the same path, and caused an unprecedented level of damage in the process. This is a clearly-observable fact. There are a multitude of possible explanations, but you’re not making a good case for “they didn’t know any better and thought they were doing it for the best reasons”.
I’m distinguishing observations from hypotheses about motivation, and making some attempt to discuss them separately.
I don’t much like analogies. I would much prefer to discuss the situation as it presents itself. There have been far too many “it’s like…” equivalences posited during the past few years. “It’s just like any other vaccine, why are you so opposed to it!?”. And so on.
OK. Now we’re getting somewhere. There are - perhaps? - some people pulling the puppet-strings who know exactly what they’re doing, and a whole bunch of other people below them who just do as they’re told, without questioning the whys and wherefores.
I recall reading somewhere that the art of persuasion is not to convince people to do something they’d rather not, but to give them a reason to do something they already want to do.
It turns out a lot of journalists like telling lies and pretending that they’re clever. A lot of petty officials like harassing innocent members of the public or bashing them over the head. A lot of people like making money from dodgy scams. All they needed was the excuse to do it. Who would have guessed?
I don’t buy this at all. It strikes me as an attempt to portray Mao as merely misguided rather than as the evil bastard that he was. This argument certainly doesn’t translate well to the modern climate because information is so readily available. You can bring up YouTube and find out pretty much anything that’s happening anywhere.
Any leader who instituted lockdowns and all the rest of it could not possibly have been completely insulated from the consequences. He would have heard rumours of people losing their jobs en masse, economic hardship, loneliness, fear, and despair. Any normal person would react to that by seeking a way out: you would look for people who could offer you an alternative to the terrible things that were happening. What you would not do is arrange for those people offering solutions to be fired, or vilified in the newspapers. You wouldn’t take steps to ensure that nobody even discussed those (potential) solutions. To observe that you are hurting millions of people as a direct result of your actions without even the slightest twinge of empathy requires either a psychopathic level of narcissism and lack of concern for others, or the deliberate intent to harm.