Fahrenheit2777: Scientific American Debunks 9/11
Click Here
There are a million things to say about this, but I'd like to hear everyone else's thoughts...
Fahrenheit2777: Scientific American Debunks 9/11
Click Here
There are a million things to say about this, but I'd like to hear everyone else's thoughts...
BTW... I spent $5 on this piece of crapola, so you'd better comment on it.
I started out writing something very sarcastic. But it doesn't help so...
Never mind.
Where'd you get that kind of money?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gold9472
Yeah, thats crap. The statement:
scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry.
Is exactly what were telling everyone. The preponderance of evidence in 9/11 can only mean one thing.
Then he goes on spouting off the pancake collapse theory of the towers as if its even possible.
This guy is the publisher of "Skeptic", so its his job not to believe anything but what he's been told.
as for me, people can go off all they want one way or the other, but I have yet to hear the answer to a few simple questions:
1. If they US was being attacked by an unknown enemy, of unknown strenght what the fuck was Bush doing sitting in the classroom for another 30 minutes, and why didn't the secret service get him out?
2. What happened to the air force? The hijacked planes were in the air for almost TWO FREAKING HOURS??!!! If the air force cannot handle that with their supersonic jets and spy sateliites then why are we spending this much money on the military?
I'm not going to go any farther - we've all been there with the rest of the questions. But these two questions particularly irk me, and I'm still waiting for an answer.
Any of these attempted debunkings of the "9/11 Truth Movement", NEVER discuss the questions that really mean something...
The Insider Trading
The Warnings
The Whistleblowers
The Wargames
The Money Laundering
The Drug Trafficking
The PNAC
The Perjury Committed during the 9/11 Commission Hearings
The NORAD/FAA Response Times
The P-Tech Scandal
And so on...
i would say this is dishonest journalism.. ill give you some examples:
here the author associates those that beleive in a 9/11 conspiracy to those that deny the Holocaust.. this type of association is absurd and intentionally meant to vilify those that beleive in 9/11 conspiracies, not by way of disproving or arguing a point, but meerly by associating it with those that dont beleive in the holocost.Quote:
The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the 'evidence' for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy.
his words 'a handful of unexplained anomalies .. lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking' just as equally applies to the overly exagerated need for national security, removal of our rights, and unbeleivable spending budgets for military purposes.. just yesterday tom ridge admitted his warning levels were in general over-exagerrated.. this same sentence applies to the 'offficial story' of 9/11 as well since the majority of evidence found about the highjackers are 'unexplained anomalies', like how devout muslims went to strip clubs and drank highly leaving business cards, how a passport flew from out of a highjackers pocket, through the walls of a plane, through the fireball, and ended up being found unburned while the largest peice of office debris found was nothing larger than half the size of a telephone number pad.. those 'unexplained anomalies' are treated as fact while other 'unexplained anomalies' are lies beleived by those who should be compared to those that deny the holocaust.
i would assume his 'crank theories of physics' should apply only to those that question the freefall speed of collapse and its relationship to galileo's law of falling bodies, not the official story of the 'pancake collapse' which is based upon a floor falling onto another causing it to fall, etc. which is impossible to have occurred if the fall was at freefall speeds.
this comment is not only a bold faced lie, but an attempt to avoid the fact that the lower 70+ floors of the buildings were mostly undamaged and unaffected by the fires, this can be seen in any video or photographic evidence from 9/11.. by avoiding the fact that the majority of the buildings were unaffected by the fire the author further ignores the massive amounts of resistance and structural integrity which would have again related to the freefall collapse speeds as mentioned above..Quote:
and spreading the inferno throughout each building
the author further underminds his knowledge of the subject by being completely unaware of Sibel Edmonds as well as the 50+ other whistleblowers who are begging to be able to tell their stories of corruption and dealings related to Gold Oil and Drugs, which he directly mentions in the first paragraph.. www.justacitizen.comQuote:
Do you mean to tell me that not one of the thousands of conspirators needed to pull all this off is a whistle-blower who would go on TV or write a tell-all book?"
in general this article does little more than attack specific conspiracy theories and then continue on to serve as a mouthpeice for the pancake-theory.. obviously this author is not qualified to understand and verify the physical evidence himself, so he does little to make is arguement other than to spout off what his government has to say.. perhaps he should balance his viewpoint with the opinion of Jeff King, an MIT graduate, and beleiver in the theories of demolition, you can view his segment of the recent free DVD from reopen911.org here:
http://www.reopen911.org/video/cte_07.mov
bump
I mean what can you say about this really? You can't fix stupid. I am still sitting here flabergasted almost beyond words. I hate that I get this urge to find these people, tie them to a chair, and yank fingernails until they get it already.
You can learn a lot from Ghandi.
convienently ignored building 7.
I can think of an anomaly that undermined a well-established theory. It was once thought that the planets travelled around the Earth. But it was also known that about every 25 months, Mars appears to change directions for a short time. The idea that the Sun instead was the center of Mars' orbit was met with resistance, but today it is mainstream.Quote:
The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory ... All the 'evidence' for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrogr...rograde_motion
When people talk about the Pancake theory I show them this...
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup.../dustspire.gif
and this
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif
I was in a debate on a forum visited by people I know.
One of them asked me "why do you constantly bring up WTC 7?, no one even knows it collapsed"
Its statements and questions like this that re-affirm why Im out there spreading the truth.
I'll get back to you with comments.
But it might be nice to peak in the next couple of issues on the newstands to see if this article generates any feedback letters that get published.
I suspect they'll be getting an earful. The question is, will they publish those letters?
It’s just the usual MSM propaganda machine. It must be hard work having to lie so much.
This guy is seriously lacking in credentials to be spouting off on this topic in this magazine.
My suggestion would be to ask Professor Jones to write a 1 page rebuttal.
And if SA is not willing to publish it there are others that will. Maybe Rolling Stone would do it. Not to mention that the blogosphere would have a field day with this one.
Who owns SA?
I’ve been meaning to address this remarkable myth that is put forward at the end of this article.Quote:
“Do you mean to tell me that not one of the thousands of conspirators needed to pull all this off,” I retorted, “is a whistle-blower who would go on TV or write a tell-all book?” My rejoinder was met with the same grim response I get from UFOlogists when I ask them for concrete evidence: Men in Black silence witnesses, and dead men tell no tales.
It is in the first part of this passage perpetuating the myth that criminal networks could never be that complicated or else they would give themselves away. If that is the case then please explain all the sophisticated software that agencies like the Secret Service use to discover these networks. (And still they can not find the organized criminals all that effectively, etc.? I’ll even speculate that the NSA has even better software, etc. and has very likely directed it at other government agencies and maybe even at itself to keep tabs on all that “they” can.) It is simple: these networks can be and are really quite sophisticated and complex in their structure. The same will be even truer for the largest and most powerful gathering of criminals that must obviously exist in our government and corporations, etc. at this moment in history.
The second part of this passage is the usual ‘swift boating’-like argument, like putting a cherry on the top of your Shirley Temple or an olive in your martini, it is purely gratuitous and an unfounded association. I mean, a lot of people believe in god and they don’t get labeled as believing in “crank theories of physics.”
This guy clearly would not know a scientific theory if it came up and bit him on the ass.
Jon,
I mean... I hate to break this to you but you may have jsut wasted your hard-earned $5. What am I expected to say - same thing, lots of judgement calls, nothing on the merits, appeal to authority (such as Dr Eagar who work is useless, I'll comment on him more when I find time)... Nothing new here, recently.
Try an urge to educate people for a change. I think that's a better approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by AuGmENTor