randallsquared comments on The 9/11 Meta-Truther Conspiracy Theory - Less Wrong

43 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 22 December 2009 06:59PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (178)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: randallsquared 23 December 2009 05:13:18PM 19 points [-]

There is no non-conspiracy hypothesis regarding 9/11. No one thinks it was an accident. :)

Comment author: christopherj 26 November 2013 03:38:31AM *  0 points [-]

As Napoleon reportedly said, P(incompetence was the cause | bad things happen) > P(conspiracy was the cause | bad things happen).

There is no non-conspiracy hypothesis regarding 9/11. No one thinks it was an accident. :)

Actually a lot of people think that the non-prevention of 9/11 was an accident due to incompetence and specifically a lack of data-sharing among intelligence agencies. Of curse, there was a lot of guilt-induced hindsight bias at the time. Meanwhile, some of the conspiracy theorists were claiming that the government could have stopped the attack but decided not to. In this case, incompetence seems the likelier cause, like Napoleon said.

Comment author: Lumifer 26 November 2013 03:46:47PM 3 points [-]

the non-prevention of 9/11 was an accident due to incompetence and specifically a lack of data-sharing among intelligence agencies.

The name for that is "expected consequences", not "an accident".

Comment author: Technologos 23 December 2009 05:58:27PM 5 points [-]

Ha, touche. Now there would be quite the prospiracy-Truther position--advocating the view that it was all just an accident...