blamebrampton (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
blamebrampton) wrote2008-09-08 09:17 pm
blamebrampton) wrote2008-09-08 09:17 pm
Conspiracies and their debunking
Wonderful BBC documentary on World Trade Centre Tower 7 shown tonight on the ABC (Australian version thereof). I still cannot watch any of that footage without deep sorrow, especially for the emergency workers who worked there on that day. The emergency workers interviewed in the doco regarding the many conspiracy theories were respectful and considerate of the theorists' positions, but all gave clear and unambiguous statements about the sequence of events they saw on that day, which utterly debunked the conspiracies.
Of the other interviewees, Richard Clarke, White House counter-terrorism coordinator during the Clinton and first W. Bush administrations, was particularly sane. He argued that anyone who believes that government is capable of a conspiracy on this scale has simply never worked in government. Governments are not competent enough, nor secretive enough, to accomplish a conspiracy on any broad scale. Even their pissweak conspiracies (ah Nixon ...) are soon uncovered.
It reminded me of one of my friends who took up with the naturopathic version of Amway and seriously informed me that there were several cures for cancer available, but that pharmaceutical companies kept them quiet for the money they earn on ongoing treatments.
I looked at her askance, and said, "But ... science doesn't work that way. Scientists who discovered real and easy cures for cancer, of the sort you're talking about, would first of all have been subject to peer review for years, so it wouldn't be a secret, and secondly would prefer the Nobel Prize for Medicine to any amount of money."
"They could be bought off!" she assured me.
"Have you ever met a scientist?" I asked, then reminded her the Nobel comes with a reasonable amount of cash.
In a far more banal, but similar vein, the Times online is spitting over the fact that race stewards penalised Lewis Hamilton 25 seconds in yesterday's F1 Grand Prix, relegating him to third and handing the win to Ferrari's Massa. They describe the race as one of Hamilton's 'most daring performances' and claim that it's a conspiracy against Lewis. I watched that race. The stewards were right. And Lewis drove a safe and contained race and was perfectly happy settling for second before unexpected rain handed him a massive tyre advantage on the final four laps. But that's not as exciting as the published version.
And, to end on the conspiracy theme, I do not believe the world will end on Wednesday when the Large Hadron Collider is switched on. But I do believe Professor Brian Cox is astonishingly hot for a physicist.
Of the other interviewees, Richard Clarke, White House counter-terrorism coordinator during the Clinton and first W. Bush administrations, was particularly sane. He argued that anyone who believes that government is capable of a conspiracy on this scale has simply never worked in government. Governments are not competent enough, nor secretive enough, to accomplish a conspiracy on any broad scale. Even their pissweak conspiracies (ah Nixon ...) are soon uncovered.
It reminded me of one of my friends who took up with the naturopathic version of Amway and seriously informed me that there were several cures for cancer available, but that pharmaceutical companies kept them quiet for the money they earn on ongoing treatments.
I looked at her askance, and said, "But ... science doesn't work that way. Scientists who discovered real and easy cures for cancer, of the sort you're talking about, would first of all have been subject to peer review for years, so it wouldn't be a secret, and secondly would prefer the Nobel Prize for Medicine to any amount of money."
"They could be bought off!" she assured me.
"Have you ever met a scientist?" I asked, then reminded her the Nobel comes with a reasonable amount of cash.
In a far more banal, but similar vein, the Times online is spitting over the fact that race stewards penalised Lewis Hamilton 25 seconds in yesterday's F1 Grand Prix, relegating him to third and handing the win to Ferrari's Massa. They describe the race as one of Hamilton's 'most daring performances' and claim that it's a conspiracy against Lewis. I watched that race. The stewards were right. And Lewis drove a safe and contained race and was perfectly happy settling for second before unexpected rain handed him a massive tyre advantage on the final four laps. But that's not as exciting as the published version.
And, to end on the conspiracy theme, I do not believe the world will end on Wednesday when the Large Hadron Collider is switched on. But I do believe Professor Brian Cox is astonishingly hot for a physicist.
no subject
He didn't cede his advantage, he merely put himself in an excellent position for the next corner, it's not the same!
no subject
I don't have a preference for one driver over the other. But I am plerplexed about the decision making process when what I saw looked fine to me.
:-/
no subject