Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

In terms of governments using the Conspirasphere to mask shenanigans?

That’s quite possible.

I mean, I as an individual am know amongst my friendship and professional circle for Never Lying. I won’t go into the reasons for my dedication to the truth (or at least opinions based on evidence).

Yet? Such a reputation has allowed me to tell absolute whoppers and get away with it.

It’s a power earned through trust, and very sparingly used, lest it all bugger itself up!

So I suspect governments have indeed pointed to wacky Conspiracy Theories to discredit genuine claims of bad behaviour.

 TheMeanDM wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:


People need to be far less concerned with the insidious shadow government controlling their lives

Spoken like a member of the shadow government! You've outsed yourself and your shadowy shenanigans!

Release the DAKKA!

Or at least turn the Weather Dominator down.
Seriously, whoever has it, dial it back from 'broil.'

Well the USA did once play with weather control. They dropped dry ice in the high atmosphere in the pathway of hurricanes in a hope it would stop them. I believe that they had some success in influencing them, but instead of killing them or deflecting it pushed them onto the islands instead.

That said that info comes from a TV show I poorly remember from years back. It might well have been that any influence was purely marginal or unproven and that the hurricanes would have gone that way originally.

I haven't heard much about stopping or steering storms.

But cloud seeding is an actual thing. They started with dry ice and moved to silver iodide (on the basis that its not harmful enough to not use it)
https://www.sciencealert.com/cloud-seeding-produces-just-enough-snow-to-dust-your-eyelashes

But.. its not very effective.

If we ever do develop weather control, I’d hope we use it responsibly.

We know the ecosystem needs certain weather patterns, and I’m not entirely convinced making say, the Sahara a wetland would be desirable.

But, to make weather events more reliable, such as being used to end unusual droughts? That could have benefits.

The problem is that we are only really just coming to terms with the idea that there are natural cycles that last beyond a one year duration.

Simplistic understanding is that we've a year and things happen within that year in a cycle and pattern year in year out. Which fits with how we humans live our lives. Thing is natural cycles can be many years, decades or longer in operation. Many species actually require periods of short term instability in order to thrive.

We've also issues with understanding the concept of "disasters". Fires in the USA forests are classed as a disaster and are shut down, which is resulting in multiple species suffering population loss because they specifically require the fires to clear areas of woodland, with some plants not even starting germination until after a fire.
Meanwhile even in systems we have artificially created we don't understand we made them. Take most savanna ecosystems - conservation groups shut down many native people slash-burning areas of the woodland in them. The result years later is that many of the savanna systems started breaking down. It took the breakdown to realise that the whole system was basically manmade on a vast scale. Because it had operated for so long the ecosystem had adapted so all our understanding of the "stable ideal" was based on an artificial construct to start with.

How do you even come to manage that with an ecological view - do you allow the system to advance and operate without human interference or do you maintain the interference at a historically accurate level and if so over what scale? Accepting that either way you will likely lose some species - often as not exacerbated by the fact that many ecosystems are now isolated by roads, cities, farms, fences, minefields etc... all of which mean that the natural spread of species is significantly hindered.



So yeah weather adjustment, if we had it I'm not sure if we've enough accurate long term weather data to actually be able to make any changes without creating disasters either for ourselves or for ecology.


For ourselves the issue would be that small changes in area A would result in big changes in area B on the other side of the world. The weather system is vastly complex and chances are modelling it at an accurate level, whilst it has improved over the years, is still many computer advances away from being a reliable well understood system.

Yup.

Which of course brings us to Climate Change.

I’m not for even a nano- second pretend to be educated enough as to whether it’s man made, natural, or a combination of the two.

But it is happening. And frankly, reducing CO2 and other emissions is hardly going to make anything worse, is it? To quote that cartoon I can’t find.....”what if we’re making a better, cleaner world for nothing”.

Once again it comes back to the Internet, and humankind’s natural confirmation bias. So. Much. Information. And a decent slice of it absolute nonsense.

Weather or not, our understanding of the maths is grammatically incorrect.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yup.

Which of course brings us to Climate Change.

I’m not for even a nano- second pretend to be educated enough as to whether it’s man made, natural, or a combination of the two.

But it is happening. And frankly, reducing CO2 and other emissions is hardly going to make anything worse, is it? To quote that cartoon I can’t find.....”what if we’re making a better, cleaner world for nothing”.

Once again it comes back to the Internet, and humankind’s natural confirmation bias. So. Much. Information. And a decent slice of it absolute nonsense.

Speaking of climate change as a conspiracy, and i think they may be something to it, there is a scientifically valid method to dealing with it that shows potential in reducing co2 levels. The response of major governments has been to ban its implementation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dukeofstuff wrote:
Weather or not, our understanding of the maths is grammatically incorrect.

Can you show evidence for this assertion?

 Matt Swain wrote:

Speaking of climate change as a conspiracy, and i think they may be something to it, there is a scientifically valid method to dealing with it that shows potential in reducing co2 levels. The response of major governments has been to ban its implementation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

The problem is the knock-on-effects. Consider that algae blooms have destroyed river ecosystems as a result of rapid growth due to runoff of fertilisers from fields. Yes the oceans is big, but if everyone started doing it or you do it enough to kick off a self supporting feedback loop you could end up solving one problem and creating a new one. So basically if you do enough of it to impact the atmosphere you might well be causing vast damage to the ocean ecosystem. The sea already has issues with plastic, rubbish, heavy metals and overfishing.

Yup.

We know ecosystems are super fragile, being as they are the result of millions of years of evolution, where each species has found its own niche, or died off.

We see this with alien species out competing native species, such as species of Crayfish from the Americas running riot in British river systems.

Now, us as humans reducing our output of CO2 and other gases and nasties. Whilst doing what we can to replant forests and jungles? That helps the ecosystem rebalance itself of its own accord.

But it needs to be done with extreme care, less we solve one problem by creating another.

And this is the thing that irks me about climate change deniers. We’re only risking our own species, really. The planet doesn’t need us. Yes we’ll take more than a few other species with us due to our stupidity - but the planet will continue all the same. We just won’t be there to see it if we don’t act now.

 Matt Swain wrote:

Dukeofstuff wrote:
Weather or not, our understanding of the maths is grammatically incorrect.

Can you show evidence for this assertion?

How about explaining it first? I can not make sense of this sentence.

It is a pune, or a play on words. (Or rather, they are punes)

https://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Pune

A good pun is its own reword

Yeah, I got the weather/whether thing. It's the rest of the sentence that I can't figure out.

Bran Dawri wrote:
Yeah, I got the weather/whether thing. It's the rest of the sentence that I can't figure out.

Its an American English vs. British English thing.

Maths vs math, and if maths were used, it'd be 'maths are' not 'maths is.' The latter being.. grammatically incorrect.

Alas, poor joke, gonne before its thyme.

I've watched quite a few video's in regards to 9/11 again recently.

Building 7 makes such little sense still, and I don't know how I hadn't before, must be a mandela effect or something but I absolutely only watched footage of the building collapsing for the first time in the last few weeks. I'd love to know the odds of it collapsing in such a way without the use of a controlled demolition. In addition to this, I've seen some camera angles of the fire in building 7... If the severity of the fire was enough to impact the structure of a skyscraper, none would ever be built again.

I need to investigate further and read some of the documents that certain theorists cite in regards to this, just to verify if they are making things up.

One example is that David Icke suggests the official reported reason for the fire and thus the collapse of building 7 is due to a 'furnishing fire', so just the office furniture.

David Icke saying that is a problem though, namely due to his other theories on the lizard elite, and his ridiculous 5G causing covid rantings of late. He isn't the most credible of sources.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I've watched quite a few video's in regards to 9/11 again recently.

Building 7 makes such little sense still, and I don't know how I hadn't before, must be a mandela effect or something but I absolutely only watched footage of the building collapsing for the first time in the last few weeks. I'd love to know the odds of it collapsing in such a way without the use of a controlled demolition. In addition to this, I've seen some camera angles of the fire in building 7... If the severity of the fire was enough to impact the structure of a skyscraper, none would ever be built again.

I need to investigate further and read some of the documents that certain theorists cite in regards to this, just to verify if they are making things up.

One example is that David Icke suggests the official reported reason for the fire and thus the collapse of building 7 is due to a 'furnishing fire', so just the office furniture.

David Icke saying that is a problem though, namely due to his other theories on the lizard elite, and his ridiculous 5G causing covid rantings of late. He isn't the most credible of sources.

Building 7 is pretty well understood as far as what caused its collapse - if you keep digging I'm sure you'll find the reasons. On the controlled demolitions side of things I strongly suggest you go and find some pictures of what a building that's been rigged for demolition looks like inside and research how much time and how many people it takes to set that up, then ask yourself what the likelihood of that being done in an occupied building is.

I still think a lot of conspiracy is born out of a need to assign a pattern or meaning to random horror, JFK and 9/11 being prime examples maybe Oswald and the hijackers just got lucky

As for Icke I keep swinging between unhinged fruitloop who fully beleives his own twaddle and peerless performance artist who knows exactly the buttons to press for that sweet attention shot, still a crappy footballer either way

on the weather thing, doesn't russia on the victory parade day that whole seeding thing?

Slipspace wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I've watched quite a few video's in regards to 9/11 again recently.

Building 7 makes such little sense still, and I don't know how I hadn't before, must be a mandela effect or something but I absolutely only watched footage of the building collapsing for the first time in the last few weeks. I'd love to know the odds of it collapsing in such a way without the use of a controlled demolition. In addition to this, I've seen some camera angles of the fire in building 7... If the severity of the fire was enough to impact the structure of a skyscraper, none would ever be built again.

I need to investigate further and read some of the documents that certain theorists cite in regards to this, just to verify if they are making things up.

One example is that David Icke suggests the official reported reason for the fire and thus the collapse of building 7 is due to a 'furnishing fire', so just the office furniture.

David Icke saying that is a problem though, namely due to his other theories on the lizard elite, and his ridiculous 5G causing covid rantings of late. He isn't the most credible of sources.

Building 7 is pretty well understood as far as what caused its collapse - if you keep digging I'm sure you'll find the reasons. On the controlled demolitions side of things I strongly suggest you go and find some pictures of what a building that's been rigged for demolition looks like inside and research how much time and how many people it takes to set that up, then ask yourself what the likelihood of that being done in an occupied building is.

I totally understand the points of view of counter arguments, rigging a building and the time taken being one of them (it's 6 weeks or so off the top of my head).

In regards to 'understanding' of its collapse. When experts are supporting counter arguments, I don't think it is actually clear that a definitive cause can be proved or disproved at this time, which is a problem in itself. I don't conclude that NIST is a defining and only credible source, and that its findings outweighs and discredits all other experts views due to a lack of independence from government.

Not Online!!! wrote:
on the weather thing, doesn't russia on the victory parade day that whole seeding thing?

China did for the olympics
https://www.businessinsider.com/china-sets-aside-millions-to-control-the-rain-2016-7

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I've watched quite a few video's in regards to 9/11 again recently.

Building 7 makes such little sense still, and I don't know how I hadn't before, must be a mandela effect or something but I absolutely only watched footage of the building collapsing for the first time in the last few weeks. I'd love to know the odds of it collapsing in such a way without the use of a controlled demolition. In addition to this, I've seen some camera angles of the fire in building 7... If the severity of the fire was enough to impact the structure of a skyscraper, none would ever be built again.

I need to investigate further and read some of the documents that certain theorists cite in regards to this, just to verify if they are making things up.

One example is that David Icke suggests the official reported reason for the fire and thus the collapse of building 7 is due to a 'furnishing fire', so just the office furniture.

David Icke saying that is a problem though, namely due to his other theories on the lizard elite, and his ridiculous 5G causing covid rantings of late. He isn't the most credible of sources.

Building 7 is pretty well understood as far as what caused its collapse - if you keep digging I'm sure you'll find the reasons. On the controlled demolitions side of things I strongly suggest you go and find some pictures of what a building that's been rigged for demolition looks like inside and research how much time and how many people it takes to set that up, then ask yourself what the likelihood of that being done in an occupied building is.

I totally understand the points of view of counter arguments, rigging a building and the time taken being one of them (it's 6 weeks or so off the top of my head).

In regards to 'understanding' of its collapse. When experts are supporting counter arguments, I don't think it is actually clear that a definitive cause can be proved or disproved at this time, which is a problem in itself. I don't conclude that NIST is a defining and only credible source, and that its findings outweighs and discredits all other experts views due to a lack of independence from government.

That core issue with Conspiracy Theorists, and indeed the overall conspirasphere is that any such contradictory report is proof of a cover up, and only the report they favour is to be trusted.

It’s the difference between ‘well, that confuses things. Are their other people knowledgable in the right field that can clarify?’ and ‘ahahahahahahaha I was right all along! This confirms it, everything else is a fraud, a fraud i tells ya!’

This is also seen in Cryptozoology (a subject I find really interesting in particular). A few years ago, an unusual and not readily identified clump of fur was found. This was of course claimed to be evidence of Bigfoot. DNA sequencing showed (if memory serves) to have been a hybrid between Polar and Grizzly Bear. An unusual breed to be sure, and potentially a Cryptid in itself if there’s a stable breeding population. But not Bigfoot. Naturally. Bigfoot hunters claim the DNA test was faked etc.

As for why I’m keen on Cryptozoology? Because of the concept that somebody saw something. And the research into just what that something might really have been is a good read. Take Globsters, a relatively common ‘Cryptid’ to be found washed up on beaches. They look really, really weird. So you can fully understand The Average Joe thinking it must be some unknown sea creature. (Link - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/sea-creature-globster-monster-beach-washed-up-philippines-whale-a8349336.html )

They’re not. They’re just decomposing Whales. But the science of how something like a Whale ends up looking like a big old furry mess is fascinating from a biological point of view.

That's a fair observation and something I completely agree with, I am fairly objective and considered in regards to conspiracy theories, in the sense that I think most are so ridiculous personally...

Some though, like 9/11, and actually JFK, the 'official' truth does not make complete sense.

In regards to my scepticism about tower 7, and it not just being conspiracy theorists and discounting NIST is that you have legit experts in their field like architects and engineers for 9/11 truth going against the findings, with studies funded by them (an issue, I agree) providing counter findings. In addition to this, these findings are research, conducted by universities and passing through ethics boards... If they thought it would be damaging to their reputation, it would not be published, but they have been, meaning the consensus is far apart.

There is legit disagreement in the field on what happened with tower 7. It's not like the world is flat theories where you do not have one single reputable expert arguing it is.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Some though, like 9/11, and actually JFK, the 'official' truth does not make complete sense.

When did real life ever make complete sense?

I wonder, especially in the case of JFK after literally decades of discussion, but also applicable to 9/11 due to the much greater volume and speed of such discourse nowadays, how much of the controversy is due to either the conspiracy theorists or people with something to gain -and those people do exist- either unintentionally or, (respectively) intentionally muddying the waters with acoustic noise designed to make it so the average no longer knows which way is up.

Also, as discussed earlier in the thread, a lot of conspiracy studies are inherently flawed - even published ones.

I just get tired of all the freaking Truthers, and their ever more BS scientific theories that "explain" things "obviously".

Bran Dawri wrote:
I wonder, especially in the case of JFK after literally decades of discussion, but also applicable to 9/11 due to the much greater volume and speed of such discourse nowadays, how much of the controversy is due to either the conspiracy theorists or people with something to gain -and those people do exist- either unintentionally or, (respectively) intentionally muddying the waters with acoustic noise designed to make it so the average no longer knows which way is up.

Also, as discussed earlier in the thread, a lot of conspiracy studies are inherently flawed - even published ones.

I'm fairly convinced Trutherism (at this point) is predominantly driven by scam artists and hucksters. Trutherism is an entire industry at this point. A tiny fringe industry, but one that much like Scientology has explicitly targeted the top and bottom of the income scale. The top gives it money and is already prone to wanting to cast the government as the villain anyway (because money). The bottom is full of people who don't understand engineering anymore than anyone else and is also already prone to distrusting the government for varieties of reasons. They give the whole thing a thin veneer of legitimacy via appeal of the people fallacy. That might have been a bit different when I was younger and the disaster new, but today I think it's pretty clear the entire thing is just a money making scheme that happens to be politically advantageous for some.

There is no mystery to the B7 collapse. Saying the NIST was government commissioned is all well and good, but if it was a crock of gak independent academics and engineers the world over would have lined up to cast doubt on it and that has never happened (at best individual aspects of the methodology have been called out, but never the overarching product). All there is is a tiny fringe of people, most of them with questionable academic qualification or with expertise in unrelated fields. To rehash an old example I used earlier, Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky (a whole two people) couldn't keep a BJ a secret, and we're supposed to believe the 'government' managed to brow beat over a thousand people into producing the NIST as part of a cover up? It's patently absurd.

 Vulcan wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Some though, like 9/11, and actually JFK, the 'official' truth does not make complete sense.

When did real life ever make complete sense?

Its one of those absurdities of life. . . . I'm currently reading a book on WW1 and the author kinda hints that the start of the war went the way it did because the various antagonistic factions couldn't decide what the word "is" is . . . . As in, one prime reason is because, diplomatically and internally, for Russia, the term "mobilize" meant to call up and prepare troops. For Germany, "mobilize" meant "Lets pre-emptively invade France by way of Belgium, crush them in a few weeks, then deal with Russia head on" . . . And diplomatically, the German ambassadors took Russian mobilization to mean "they are gonna invade the feth out of us", while the Russian diplomats took Germany's mobilization to mean "prep for a war while ultimately trying to prevent it turning into a shooting war"




But. . . that is far, far too messy for conspiracy theorists who have an absolute need for "control", or someone/thing that has it pitted against those who want it

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
That's a fair observation and something I completely agree with, I am fairly objective and considered in regards to conspiracy theories, in the sense that I think most are so ridiculous personally...

Some though, like 9/11, and actually JFK, the 'official' truth does not make complete sense.

In regards to my scepticism about tower 7, and it not just being conspiracy theorists and discounting NIST is that you have legit experts in their field like architects and engineers for 9/11 truth going against the findings, with studies funded by them (an issue, I agree) providing counter findings. In addition to this, these findings are research, conducted by universities and passing through ethics boards... If they thought it would be damaging to their reputation, it would not be published, but they have been, meaning the consensus is far apart.

There is legit disagreement in the field on what happened with tower 7. It's not like the world is flat theories where you do not have one single reputable expert arguing it is.

I'm not sure I'd call Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth reputable (even the "experts" tag may not be applicable) and there are serious problem with any supposedly scientific organisation that seems to pre-suppose a conclusion and rather suspiciously keeps getting reports they've funded to back up their conclusions, against the general consensus of the rest of the scientific and engineering community. That aside, I think one thing conspiracy theories try to exploit is that the real world is never as simple and controlled as a scientific experiment and we will legitimately have things we may not be able to explain once we've analysed all the data available. My problem with conspiracy theories is they usually use a "God of the gaps" style argument that says any unaccounted for variable or any outlier is proof of their chosen conspiracy.

In the case of WTC 7 it's highly unlikely we'll ever know precisely what happened because the collapse happened in the real world, not controlled laboratory conditions. All investigations into these kind of events will have gaps in their knowledge and disagreements about the exact details but I've yet to see a credible report or paper that suggests the collapse was due to anything other than the combination of fire and debris damage. It's not enough to point out gaps or errors in an investigation, you also need to provide credible evidence to back up any alternate theory that's put forward. That's often where conspiracy theories fall down, IME.