hey skepticality guy

[vox_monitor]

If you haven't already done so, I'd like to hear you tackle the 9/11 issue. If you want me to be more specific, I'd like you to address the building collapses of the 3 WTC builidings that came down that day.

Controlled demolition? Or structural failure?

[dcolanduno]

It was covered pretty extensively out in the major media. We've actually had a few requests to talk about this by listeners.

The 'controlled blast' conspiracies clearly ranks up there with all the other 'Illuminati', Roswell, Bohemian Grove type stuff. The issue has been pretty well de-bunked in a fairly recent issue of Scientific American, they explained the whole thing pretty thoroughly, how the buildings all would have collapsed from an engineering standpoint.

Hell, even Art Bell, the godfather of all things conspiracy, took the time to have 3 shows where he did nothing but attempt to convince his already conspiracy minded listeners to stop trying to turn something so tragic and easily explainable into a conspiracy.

But, alas... people love to believe weird things...

I'm trying to get one or two of the folks who wrote the article(s) in Scientific American on the show. They likely did more research on this topic than anyone else.

My PROBLEM with this issue is containing the vitriol I, and many people, have for folks that will try to take any issue and turn it into a grand conspiracy. Turning 9/11 into the same type of joke that those types of people did with Roswell and other woo-woo type topics is a bit sickening.

In any case... if I can get some folks on that have done the research... I'll cover it, mainly because I'll let someone else handle that aspect for the most part.

If you have ever seen the episode of Penn and Tellers Bullshit where they covered this, they had the same issue. An uncontrollable urge to just go for the throat in a big way. I know they usually make fun of and 'deal' with people in a cutsie way... but the 9/11 stuff they did was abnormally harsh and blunt. And, even though it distracted from their point, I'd be all too apt to slide into that same mentality when dealing with folks that want to play tin-foill hat warrior on something so devastating as 9/11.

[jeffbearer]

The brackets that connected the floor beams to the walls was a serious weak point. Once the first floor to collapse due to the weakening due to the fire, hit the second floor, the second floor gave out and collapsed to the third floor down, after that nothing was stopping the collapse.

At least that's what the illuminati funded discovery channel special told me to beleive :P

[vox_monitor]

The brackets that connected the floor beams to the walls was a serious weak point. Once the first floor to collapse due to the weakening due to the fire, hit the second floor, the second floor gave out and collapsed to the third floor down, after that nothing was stopping the collapse.

At least that's what the illuminati funded discovery channel special told me to beleive :P


I'll withhold responding to this "truss theory" argument for now, and simply ask..

And building seven?

[vox_monitor]

It was covered pretty extensively out in the major media. We've actually had a few requests to talk about this by listeners.

The 'controlled blast' conspiracies clearly ranks up there with all the other 'Illuminati', Roswell, Bohemian Grove type stuff. The issue has been pretty well de-bunked in a fairly recent issue of Scientific American, they explained the whole thing pretty thoroughly, how the buildings all would have collapsed from an engineering standpoint.

Hell, even Art Bell, the godfather of all things conspiracy, took the time to have 3 shows where he did nothing but attempt to convince his already conspiracy minded listeners to stop trying to turn something so tragic and easily explainable into a conspiracy.

But, alas... people love to believe weird things...

I'm trying to get one or two of the folks who wrote the article(s) in Scientific American on the show. They likely did more research on this topic than anyone else.

My PROBLEM with this issue is containing the vitriol I, and many people, have for folks that will try to take any issue and turn it into a grand conspiracy. Turning 9/11 into the same type of joke that those types of people did with Roswell and other woo-woo type topics is a bit sickening.

In any case... if I can get some folks on that have done the research... I'll cover it, mainly because I'll let someone else handle that aspect for the most part.

If you have ever seen the episode of Penn and Tellers Bullshit where they covered this, they had the same issue. An uncontrollable urge to just go for the throat in a big way. I know they usually make fun of and 'deal' with people in a cutsie way... but the 9/11 stuff they did was abnormally harsh and blunt. And, even though it distracted from their point, I'd be all too apt to slide into that same mentality when dealing with folks that want to play tin-foill hat warrior on something so devastating as 9/11.

Remember that as the host of a show called "skepticality" you have a responsibility to actually address the science. There is a lot of hogwash out there, absolutely.

I direct you here. It is the only site that is rigorous in apply the scientific method to analyzing the available data. It debunks as many theories as it supports. It is as rational, and above reproach in its logic and approach to the issue as you or I. I challenge you to find fallacious reasoning contained within this site anywhere.

http://911research.net

Read that site thoroughly, and fairly point to a few examples of "tin foil hat" logic, and I will drop the subject. If you haven't read the site before, I think you will be swayed. These people are not trying to find data to prove a conclusion. They are deducing conclusions from data.

I entreat you to actually look at the site, and its conclusions, and respond on point.

Here's an analysis of the scientific america article, point by point, by the way.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/sciam/index.html

Keep an open mind and be rigorously logical when responding to this site. Permit no emotion to cloud your judgement. Simply acknowledge the validity of the conclusions, or dismiss the conclusions as invalid, based on nothing but the facts and the reasoning you find at this site and this site only. http://911research.wtc7.net/. That's all I ask.

[dcolanduno]

The editors of Scientific American followed in the footsteps of Popular Mechanics in exploiting a trusted brand in order to protect the perpetrators of the mass murder of 9/11/01. The column by Michael Shermer in the June, 2005 issue of Scientific American, titled Fahrenheit 2777, is an attempt to deceive the magazine's readers into dismissing the overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was an inside job without ever looking at that evidence.

Right there is why I have to take everything I'm going to read on this site as a spin.

I don't believe anyone has ever 'protected' the people that we KNOW perpetrated the mass murder. When is the last time you read an article defending the airline hi-jackers in Popular Mechanics or Scientific American? Seriously? It is statements like that opening paragraph that make the entire body of commentary on the site completely suspect, and without merit.

Claiming that anyone else was involved beyond the hijackers, and the evidence that clearly points to the masterminds in Afghanistan, is just conjecture. And to make a claim like that right out of the gate... Proves that no information provided can be considered unbiased.

How was Shermer trying to 'deceive' the readers? To what ends do either SA, PM, or Shermer have in knowingly perpetuating, or covering up something about the event?

The entire basis for that opening volley is so full of typical tin-foil-hat attack spin that it renders the rest of their information impossible to look at with an open mind.

Now this circles me back to my original commentary. Yes, someone put a lot of time into this site. But the pure generation of questions and obvious disregard for common knowledge on the nature of the disaster does not mean it holds any water.

I actually had a hard time just getting through what I was reading without asking... "So, did they TALK to someone about how building demotion works?"

When all the old Casinos in Vegas were being blown down. I had the cool opportunity to be involved in filming some time lapse of the setup of the demolition charges they used to take down the Dunes.

That experience alone would put to rest any question about the WTC buildings being 'rigged' for controlled demolition. If you have ever seen the amount of work, planning, and people it takes, to do that job. You would without question just dismiss the claim that somehow people were able to 'secretly' rig such a large building for a known 'controlled demolition'.

========

And then again... a 'research' body of evidence inserts wild conjecture to wedge people further to their side:

At the time of its destruction, Building 7 housed documents relating to numerous SEC investigations. The files for approximately three to four thousand cases were destroyed. Among the destroyed documents were ones that may have demonstrated the relationship between Citigroup and the WorldCom bankruptcy.

You have to understand that, the only groups that present 'evidence' or 'hypothesis' that claim that 9/11 was some grand conspiracy... They all have to couch the discussion in weird snippets of coincidental information, like the 'Citigroup'/'WorldCom' connection to building 7.

It is basically like "Because someone got a positive side-effect from a tragedy, then it supports your evidence. That is the first sign that what you are reading is no research, or scientific... it is written with a pre-concieved agenda in mind. Even if there is some fact to what might be contained in the document. It now requires someone with expertise in the subject matter to discern the information, and exclude all the biased conjecture in the statements of evidence.

Whenever that type of research has been done, it always points away from the claims made by folks like those at the 911research center.

Can you point to a set of documentation that does start out with pre-judgement conjecture, and also, never uses coincidental claims to attempt to swing the analysis of the evidence?

I ask in ernest, because I haven't been able to find any... and this point is the reason I have a hard time with this topic.

These folks are leveraging the power of pre-concieved notion to get readers to believe their statements. Constantly putting in side-note information alluding to Corporate Greed and odd statements about a lack of evidence for things that clearly work to anyone that has attempted them:

The no-cell-phone-calls theory is difficult to evaluate because we lack verifiable data on the performance of cell phones on aircraft.

Yea, that *sounds* unbiased. But it is a smelly pile of horse manure. I've used my Blackberry to make calls on cargo jets and other aircraft before. Anyone that owns a private plane can back-up the fact that mobile phone DO work on aircraft of many types.

Ack, that was just all in my first 2-3 clicks around this site...

[vox_monitor]

The editors of Scientific American followed in the footsteps of Popular Mechanics in exploiting a trusted brand in order to protect the perpetrators of the mass murder of 9/11/01. The column by Michael Shermer in the June, 2005 issue of Scientific American, titled Fahrenheit 2777, is an attempt to deceive the magazine's readers into dismissing the overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was an inside job without ever looking at that evidence.

Right there is why I have to take everything I'm going to read on this site as a spin.

I don't believe anyone has ever 'protected' the people that we KNOW perpetrated the mass murder. When is the last time you read an article defending the airline hi-jackers in Popular Mechanics or Scientific American? Seriously? It is statements like that opening paragraph that make the entire body of commentary on the site completely suspect, and without merit.

Claiming that anyone else was involved beyond the hijackers, and the evidence that clearly points to the masterminds in Afghanistan, is just conjecture. And to make a claim like that right out of the gate... Proves that no information provided can be considered unbiased.

How was Shermer trying to 'deceive' the readers? To what ends do either SA, PM, or Shermer have in knowingly perpetuating, or covering up something about the event?

The entire basis for that opening volley is so full of typical tin-foil-hat attack spin that it renders the rest of their information impossible to look at with an open mind.

Now this circles me back to my original commentary. Yes, someone put a lot of time into this site. But the pure generation of questions and obvious disregard for common knowledge on the nature of the disaster does not mean it holds any water.

I actually had a hard time just getting through what I was reading without asking... "So, did they TALK to someone about how building demotion works?"

When all the old Casinos in Vegas were being blown down. I had the cool opportunity to be involved in filming some time lapse of the setup of the demolition charges they used to take down the Dunes.

That experience alone would put to rest any question about the WTC buildings being 'rigged' for controlled demolition. If you have ever seen the amount of work, planning, and people it takes, to do that job. You would without question just dismiss the claim that somehow people were able to 'secretly' rig such a large building for a known 'controlled demolition'.

========

And then again... a 'research' body of evidence inserts wild conjecture to wedge people further to their side:

At the time of its destruction, Building 7 housed documents relating to numerous SEC investigations. The files for approximately three to four thousand cases were destroyed. Among the destroyed documents were ones that may have demonstrated the relationship between Citigroup and the WorldCom bankruptcy.

You have to understand that, the only groups that present 'evidence' or 'hypothesis' that claim that 9/11 was some grand conspiracy... They all have to couch the discussion in weird snippets of coincidental information, like the 'Citigroup'/'WorldCom' connection to building 7.

It is basically like "Because someone got a positive side-effect from a tragedy, then it supports your evidence. That is the first sign that what you are reading is no research, or scientific... it is written with a pre-concieved agenda in mind. Even if there is some fact to what might be contained in the document. It now requires someone with expertise in the subject matter to discern the information, and exclude all the biased conjecture in the statements of evidence.

Whenever that type of research has been done, it always points away from the claims made by folks like those at the 911research center.

Can you point to a set of documentation that does start out with pre-judgement conjecture, and also, never uses coincidental claims to attempt to swing the analysis of the evidence?

I ask in ernest, because I haven't been able to find any... and this point is the reason I have a hard time with this topic.

These folks are leveraging the power of pre-concieved notion to get readers to believe their statements. Constantly putting in side-note information alluding to Corporate Greed and odd statements about a lack of evidence for things that clearly work to anyone that has attempted them:

The no-cell-phone-calls theory is difficult to evaluate because we lack verifiable data on the performance of cell phones on aircraft.

Yea, that *sounds* unbiased. But it is a smelly pile of horse manure. I've used my Blackberry to make calls on cargo jets and other aircraft before. Anyone that owns a private plane can back-up the fact that mobile phone DO work on aircraft of many types.

Ack, that was just all in my first 2-3 clicks around this site...

Honestly. Shame on you. Really, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Why do you not address any of the science? Address it.

The first quote from the site that you point to, fair enough. That's inflammatory langauge. The other quotes are perfectly reasonable.

Who here is starting with a conclusion and searching for data to support it?

Come on Derek. Address some of the science. Don't bring up the stuff they say that points to motive - quite reasonably, given the fact that a crime was committed. Don't address their analysis of things that they declare inconclusive, and conceed ignorance about. Which you shamefully dismiss as "horse manure."

Most of all, don't respond to the specifics by saying "This type of conspiracy thinking." That's a serious cop out. Critical thinkers don't do that. Real thinkers don't dismiss new ideas with a wave of the hand and a muttered "hogwash.".


RESPOND ON POINT. Here. I'll help you find the stuff to respond to. Respond to it. Why not? What's the harm in responding on point to science? How about you start here?


Both of the Twin Towers exploded into vast clouds of dust. That the clouds expanded to five times the volume of the towers within 30 seconds of the initiation of their collapses is a conservative estimate.

If the collapses were merely gravity-driven, then any clouds of debris produced in the immediate aftermath should have occupied about the same amount of space as the intact towers before they had time to singificantly mix into the surrounding air. The bulk of the clouds could only come from the expulsion of gases in the buildings as they collapsed, and the mixing of ambient air into the clouds. The contribution of mixing increases over time, and is unbounded. However, the dust clouds appear to expand more rapidly than can be accounted for by mixing. This implies that heat energy was being added to the clouds in order to cause the gases to expand, and/or water to vaporize.

Could the known energy sources have accounted for the pre-mixing expansion? This question is treated in some quantitative detail in the paper: The North Tower's Dust Cloud: Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center. This paper estimates the dust cloud volume of the North Tower and shows that, even allowing for expansion due to mixing, the heat sink is many times greater than the tower's gravitational energy. Even without such quantitative analysis, it is clear that the gravitational energy of the towers alone could not have driven the dust clouds' expansion, given limitations on conversion of that energy to heat and the apparent absence of extensive mixing early in the clouds' development.

The expansion of the dust clouds presents problems for the gravity collapse theory that are evident without qantitative analysis. Here we consider the role of the two main factors that could have worked to expand the dust clouds.

* Heating of the air due to friction of the collapse
* Mixing of the cloud's gases and suspended solids with ambient air

Did Friction Multiply the Clouds' Volumes?

Suppose that nearly all of the gravitational energy of the towers was converted into friction and therefore heat. Would that have been sufficient to expand the dust clouds? A clue is that in a typical demolition, the volume of the dust cloud grows to only slightly larger than the intact building's volume immediately following the collapse. Even if the gravitational potential energy of the towers was great enough to drive the expansion, it is highly doubtful that much of it would be converted into heat in the dust clouds, for several reasons.

* Rubble falling through the air would not generate much heat energy until it hit the ground, and then most of the energy would be converted to ground movement rather than heat.
* Rubble crushing the building would convert much of its kinetic energy to friction in the steel frame in the process of shredding it. The steel frame would not have enough surface area to transfer much heat to the gases during the split second in which the building around any given piece of steel was crushed, so most of the heat would have ended up in the rubble pile.
* If much of the gravitational energy was converted to heat through friction, it would have necessitated longer collapse times than were observed.

At least one academic paper has attempted to explain the rapidity of the collapses by promoting a questionably applicable mathematical model alleged to predict a nearly frictionless total collapse. Since that model has each tower neatly pulling itself down at near the speed of free-fall, there would be very little heat produced to drive the dust cloud expansion.

Did Mixing Expand the Clouds?

Mixing of building air with ambient air could not account for the rapidity of the expansion of the dust clouds, nor their appearance. Mixing of gases can occur through diffusion or convection. Diffusion is not relevant, since it is the space occupied by suspended particles that defines the volume of the cloud. Convection could only expand the cloud if there was a high degree of turbulence on the cloud's boundary, and would have produced a diffuse boundary. That does not appear to have occurred in the early stages of the Twin Towers' dust clouds. The clouds maintained well-defined interfaces as they expanded to many times the buildings' volumes. Moreover, features on the surface of the clouds evolved slowly relative to the movement of large portions of the cloud. The distinct boundaries and persistent shapes mean the clouds were expanding primarily by pushing aside the ambient air, not by assimilating it.

[Dr. Mabuse]

I didn't have the time nor the focus to do anything but make a cursory browse of the site.

I think it looks like a classic conspiracy theory, but I'm not in the position to address any points with expertese. I'm an electronics engineer, and have very limited knowledge of structural engineering. This will be aparent in my lack of "proper" terms for engineering abstractions. Note also that English is not my native language.

You may correct me if I'm mistaken, but to me it seems that one of the key points of the site is claiming that the engine fuel could never burn hot enough to melt the steel re-inforcement.

First, the steel does not have to be melted in order to be severly weakened. The same goes for concrete, however, concrete will not suffer as much as steel. You don't heat steel to the point of melting in order to fold it when you are forging a sword.

Then there's thermal distorsion: Concrete foundation's outer shell is heated, causing it to expand. This causes severe stress in the concrete. Experiment: take a glass-coffee-pot from the coffee-brewing-machine and put it on the edge of the stowe, half the pot on the hot plate. Watch it crack from the heat stress.

The inner core of steel reinforcement beams have a higher heat conductivity, and a different heat-expansion coefficient. This means two things: 1) Differences in heat expansion factors between concrete and steel adds more stress. 2) that even when the inner core of the concrete is starting to heat, the steel beams will dissipate that heat to higher and lower levels because of the higher heat conductivity, prolonging the stress in the concrete at the burning level, and then creating streess on levels that are not burning, but in this case heating the concrete from the core and not from the outer shell.

And then there's the fuel.
There's more than just the jet-fuel. It may be what started the fire, but there's plenty of materials in a building that can burn, besides jet-fuel. Once the heat is enough, there should be plenty of aluminium (door-frames, the grid that holds the aound-absorbing ceiling-tiles) that can start burning, wooden furnitures etc. Vertical verntilation shafts supplies oxygen.

For the record, I'm not a structural engineer, and I didn't browse the 911-site enough to see if these points above was addressed by them. Consider this post a brain-storm from me.

[vox_monitor]

I didn't have the time nor the focus to do anything but make a cursory browse of the site.

I think it looks like a classic conspiracy theory, but I'm not in the position to address any points with expertese. I'm an electronics engineer, and have very limited knowledge of structural engineering. This will be aparent in my lack of "proper" terms for engineering abstractions. Note also that English is not my native language.

You may correct me if I'm mistaken, but to me it seems that one of the key points of the site is claiming that the engine fuel could never burn hot enough to melt the steel re-inforcement.

First, the steel does not have to be melted in order to be severly weakened. The same goes for concrete, however, concrete will not suffer as much as steel. You don't heat steel to the point of melting in order to fold it when you are forging a sword.

Then there's thermal distorsion: Concrete foundation's outer shell is heated, causing it to expand. This causes severe stress in the concrete. Experiment: take a glass-coffee-pot from the coffee-brewing-machine and put it on the edge of the stowe, half the pot on the hot plate. Watch it crack from the heat stress.

The inner core of steel reinforcement beams have a higher heat conductivity, and a different heat-expansion coefficient. This means two things: 1) Differences in heat expansion factors between concrete and steel adds more stress. 2) that even when the inner core of the concrete is starting to heat, the steel beams will dissipate that heat to higher and lower levels because of the higher heat conductivity, prolonging the stress in the concrete at the burning level, and then creating streess on levels that are not burning, but in this case heating the concrete from the core and not from the outer shell.

And then there's the fuel.
There's more than just the jet-fuel. It may be what started the fire, but there's plenty of materials in a building that can burn, besides jet-fuel. Once the heat is enough, there should be plenty of aluminium (door-frames, the grid that holds the aound-absorbing ceiling-tiles) that can start burning, wooden furnitures etc. Vertical verntilation shafts supplies oxygen.

For the record, I'm not a structural engineer, and I didn't browse the 911-site enough to see if these points above was addressed by them. Consider this post a brain-storm from me.

Ok - I realized here that I need to start at the beginning of the road here. I know to do some "prep work" as they say. I will do so in a new topic in this forum...

[dcolanduno]

Ok - I realized here that I need to start at the beginning of the road here. I know to do some "prep work" as they say. I will do so in a new topic in this forum...

First, find a non-biased research study that contradicts the already established, and widely accepted multiple, yet, complimentary studies that have been conducted on this issue. Reference something other than a paper that relies on odd conjectures about 'Corporate Greed' and doesn't make blatant claims about 'not having evidence' for things commonly known to be true.

Come on Derek. Address some of the science. Don't bring up the stuff they say that points to motive - quite reasonably, given the fact that a crime was committed. Don't address their analysis of things that they declare inconclusive, and conceed ignorance about. Which you shamefully dismiss as "horse manure."

When someone 'claims' ignorance about something that sounds reasonable on the surface to some, but is commonly known to be factual. That is an often used mental trick, to give an air of 'fairness' to an argument. Sorry, but even the most armchair of 'researchers' would know that cell phones are known to work on aircraft of many kinds. Especially anyone that is generating 400 pages of supposed research on a topic that is littered with the heavy requirement for aviation knowledge. That *is* 'horse manure'... It's not shameful to point out a charlatan when you see/read one... it should probably be rewarded.

And since you brought up the 'crime' element. We already are fairly certain who hijacked and were flying the planes, that has been established through considerable evidence. And there is a good amount of evidence to show that OBL and his group was involved in the planning and execution of the attack.

So, are you trying to say that you have been convinced that someone else is at fault? And if so, who? And if you can't answer that, at least let me know what is/was the motive?

I ask because you certainly seem to be wrapped up around that point. And, for that matter, so does the entire 911research site. Lots of what they have in there requires you to believe that thousands of people coordinated a mass conspiracy event.

They reference over 40 newspapers that they indicate were 'on message' to cover up the truth. They outline whole concepts that require collusion from multiple large corporate entities, and several layers of government, in different departments.

Now, if someone has some evidence to support that THOSE things occurred, other than armchair, 'eyeball', type observations, with little engineering credit behind it. Then I am all ears.

Keep in mind what they are implying is that EVERY respected science and engineering publication is somehow covering up 'something' by showing how the towers fell, including #7, using their respected knowledge of structural and civil engineering.

You can't just toss out one group that has many flawed and biased statements and hold it out as if it should be taken seriously, just because someone put a lot of work into typing the words. There has to be a logical foundation to BELIEVE what the people are saying. There is none in the case of that site. It is a wedge bit, fully designed to support a statement that there is a MASSIVE cover up of the 'truth'. You can't allow conjecture to be held up as fact until someone can show evidence or research to help support it.

I just keep seeing inside that site... a NON Engineer... Dismissing off-handedly all the experts in the field. That doesn't cut it, does he have any credentials or research to back up his claims from as equally respected engineers as he is disputing?

If I wanted to be taken seriously by critically minded individuals. I would have an entire section of resumes and credentials that show that, somehow, these folks have the understanding to refute the claims of almost the entire community of respected structural and civil engineers.

The only references I see have little to do with the person making the claim, and only reference TWO book authors.

I ask in ernest, is there a true set of research documents that you can reference for some of the claims discussed on that site?

I'm going to be honest, it *seems* like this thread is a weak attempt at... 'stump the chump' type games. Especially since, as in another thread, you have been tending to attack me personally, by name... when all I did was state clearly what I saw in that site.

If you submitted a paper for peer-review in a science or other respected engineering journal, you would have it thrown out based on the first paragraph alone. That's all I pointed out... I just want to see something that doesn't have the obvious taint of pre-conceived notions.

[PupuStudios]

I think a much more interesting conspiracy theory is the one which states we never made it to the moon during the Apollo missions. What do you think of this lunar hoax?

[dcolanduno]

I think a much more interesting conspiracy theory is the one which states we never made it to the moon during the Apollo missions. What do you think of this lunar hoax?

Hey, we actually talked about that on our show with Phil Plait, the author of the book that tore that 'hoax' theory down.

http://libsyn.com/media/skepticality/skepticality04_5-19-2005.mp3

Also, for a lot of information on it, particularly if you don't want to put up with downloading our show, you can visit:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

The Moon Hoax crowd is another of those that can be looked at as a perfect example of 'reasonable' sounding arguments that have no basis in evidence or proof, and use the 'backward' thinking bias of 'we only went to SAY we did to Russia' type belief.

Here's a good movie of some of their best charlatan work in action:

http://www.moonmovie.com/

[kickasspodcast]

As far as controlled demolition- I dunno- I wouldn't put it beyond the evil Rove Administration.

Derek asked me in another thread how it could have been a simple matter of people just doing their jobs.

The 9/11 Timeline RE: NORAD and the FAA have been at the heart of scrutiny.

Senator Mark Dayton (D-MN) testified regarding the timeline. I happend to find the copy on a site that may or may not be slanted- however its the statement Sen Dayton made that matters. Not the source.


"At 10:03 United Flight 93 crashed into the Pennsylvania farm soil and nobody from the FAA headquarters had contacted the military. NORAD didn't know that this fourth plane was hijacked until after it crashed 35 minutes later. The fighter planes that reached Washington seven minutes after that crash they were told by the Mission Commander, "negative clearance to shoot the aircraft" over the Nation's Capitol."

It really is sad when you begin to look at what actually happened.

If anyone is open minded enough to read the rest without dismissing it because the sight may be biased- here is the link.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040805095600503

I also felt this paragraph was especially telling. Keep in mind- everything he says is documented fact according to the FAA and NORAD and the military Themselves.

"It doesn't matter whether they were Republicans, Democrats or neither, it matters what they did or did not do. According to your findings, FAA authorities failed to the inform military command, NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defense Command, about three of the four hijackings until after the planes had crashed into their targets at the second World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the ground in Pennsylvania which was not their target."

What a shame.



My Brother-in-Law moved bodies for 5 days after 9/11. He's a Sherrif in New Haven, Conn. The stories he told in tears are enough to destroy someone.


Jack B.

ps- Vox good idea to bring this topic up- more people should examine what really happend.

[dcolanduno]

"At 10:03 United Flight 93 crashed into the Pennsylvania farm soil and nobody from the FAA headquarters had contacted the military. NORAD didn't know that this fourth plane was hijacked until after it crashed 35 minutes later. The fighter planes that reached Washington seven minutes after that crash they were told by the Mission Commander, "negative clearance to shoot the aircraft" over the Nation's Capitol."

It doesn't matter whether they were Republicans, Democrats or neither, it matters what they did or did not do. According to your findings, FAA authorities failed to the inform military command, NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defense Command, about three of the four hijackings until after the planes had crashed into their targets at the second World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the ground in Pennsylvania which was not their target.

Oh yes, this stuff is nuts. But, I think you can find these issues in other places that aren't full of so much weird mega-plot slant.

The first quote... wasn't someone 'not doing their job' though... it was a huge hole in the operating procedures of the entire FAA/Military at the time. There were A LOT of arguments about what level of force different levels of command were authorized to deliver in times such as that. It wasn't in the power of anyone in those seven minutes to command the destruction of an airplane carrying over 200 civilians.

The second quote, a display of the same type of problem. A lack of procedure and power at the time.

My Brother-in-Law moved bodies for 5 days after 9/11. He's a Sherrif in New Haven, Conn. The stories he told in tears are enough to destroy someone.

Yes, a family friend from NJ, a fireman, has told me a ton of stories that just make me angry and sad at the same time. Hard to explain really. Especially when on sites like the 911research site, they make claims about "Where were the bodies". Sorry, but I've heard enough stories to know they were finding them, in droves. DAYS and DAYS of removing corpses and body parts...

It is THAT type of stuff in sites like that, which make me want to only address and discuss seriously, research that has been done by folks from an engineering and respected source. It is not the kind of thing, like the moon hoax, that I think can be treated as if it deserves even more than a passing thought of distain.

If the evidence really DOES exist to support such claims, why is there a need for all of such information to be wrapped in the stench of grand conspiracy, or specific politically slanted conclusions?

I'd love to see something that did contradict almost all major engineering and laymen engineering publications and reports... that was done by a group of respected and knowledgeable engineers and researchers.

[Dr. Mabuse]

I think a much more interesting conspiracy theory is the one which states we never made it to the moon during the Apollo missions. What do you think of this lunar hoax?I think it's amazing how many people are prepared to believe it. :roll:

[Hittman]

Why do you not address any of the science? Address it.

I haven’t been to the site. Nor do I intend to go there.

It’s difficult to address science if there isn’t any. It’s like the ID clowns insisting no one will address their science.

The Vast Conspiracy idea fails the most basic test of logic: “Is it reasonable? Even just a little? This doesn’t pass the test.

Don't bring up the stuff they say that points to motive

Why not? It’s part of their claims.

For instance, the inference that the whole thing was orchrasteated to destroy documents in building 7 fails this simple question: Why not just destroy building 7? It would have been a lot easier.

I think it's amazing how many people are prepared to believe it.

After seeing Heaven’s gate, Scientology, etc, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s impossible to come up with something too stupid for the masses to believe. No matter how ridiculous, you’ll find followers who eagerly swallow and then promote your nonsense.

[T&TPat]

The editors of Scientific American followed in the footsteps of Popular Mechanics in exploiting a trusted brand in order to protect the perpetrators of the mass murder of 9/11/01. The column by Michael Shermer in the June, 2005 issue of Scientific American, titled Fahrenheit 2777, is an attempt to deceive the magazine's readers into dismissing the overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was an inside job without ever looking at that evidence.

Right there is why I have to take everything I'm going to read on this site as a spin.


When I read that paragraph, I had exactly the same reaction.

I would also add that I'm perplexed by Vox's intention here. Not being too familiar in the forums, I don't know folk's persuasions much, but I do know Derek is from the Skepticality show. I thought, at first, that Vox was simply asking to get Derek's analysis of the theory. Sort of like you might ask someone you know what they thought of a certain restaurant - especially if you thought it was well known that that person knew a lot about restaruants and eating and food.

But, I find it odd that Vox feels the need to entreat you to be logical and to look at the facts. Why would he do that? Doesn't he know that you espouse a thinking methodolgy based on the scientific method? Would all the sudden you NOT do that? Maybe today you are being lazy thinker?

Then it dawned on me that maybe he is baiting you and that's why he keeps reminding you to do certain things (and, well, actually commanding you, sort of suggesting that an order is necessary otherwise you'll slip into your normal slothful thinking approach). To me, he's implying that you aren't addressing facts, that you are not being open minded, that you don't understand science.

Why on earth would he care about what you thought if he can't trust you, without numerous entreaties and exhortations, to even be able to think logically?

And....

Why on earth would you waste your time addressing his question posed as he did? I would just expect his "entreaty" to be more, well earnest.

These boards have gotten so pugnacious lately. It's sort of sad, but maybe that's what happens when .....when it's just too hard to be nice. I dunno.

Derek, have you read "Demon-Haunted World - Science as a Candle in the Dark" or "Dragons of Eden" by Carl Sagan?

What do you think of those books?

And, maybe I'm wrong, maybe Vox really does want to know what you think and how you have analyzed the data in that website. And, if he really does, I apologize - but, I'm just telling you what I read into the words and how they were presented. Again, it's your free time and maybe its a fun way to spend your free time.

(I'll probably get in trouble for not staying on topic here...bringing up books by Sagan, even if one is about being a skeptic.)

[ferg]

Again, it's your free time and maybe its a fun way to spend your free time.


I'll tell you what's not a fun way to spend my time: readying Pat's post. Aside from the fun of her giant avitar boobies, all of the $1.50 words and such just make it too exhausting. Pat, do you think I have all day to sit up here looking up words so I can understand exactly what it is you're trying to say? For the love of Pete, throw me a bone. Life is too hard already. I don't come here for a workout :wink:

[dcolanduno]

These boards have gotten so pugnacious lately. It's sort of sad, but maybe that's what happens when .....when it's just too hard to be nice. I dunno.

It is also what happens when there have been *some* podcasters that have taken it upon themselves to send 'newsletters' with bonus shows attached that are nothing but opinion mixed with inaccuracies, to bash the hell out of other shows, completely unprovoked.

That, is more sad, in my opinion, that just posting something on the boards openly, or heck... even in your REGULAR show. So, yea, sad that the 'you can't be nice' thing has extended well into the actual shows themselves now. And in some cases has turned into 'in crowd' hidden discussions about how other folks are just plain 'sucky'.

Just plain juvinile, shows that some people haven't learned to use the brain they have been given. Or, at least they haven't learned how to act like a normal, socially adept, member of society.

Quite sad, I agree...

Derek, have you read "Demon-Haunted World - Science as a Candle in the Dark" or "Dragons of Eden" by Carl Sagan?

What do you think of those books?

Both are great books, I miss Sagan, he was a cornerstone in the Skeptic community because he re-enforced the bridge between skeptical thinkers and the 'hard' scientists.

If someone hasn't read those books, they should.

At D*C this year, I am on two panels specifically on Demon Haunted world. Basically helping spread the word about Skeptical/Critical Thought. Last year it had a huge turn out, so I hope people are still interested in the topic!

[Hittman]

Again, it's your free time and maybe its a fun way to spend your free time.


I'll tell you what's not a fun way to spend my time: readying Pat's post. Aside from the fun of her giant avitar boobies, all of the $1.50 words and such just make it too exhausting. Pat, do you think I have all day to sit up here looking up words so I can understand exactly what it is you're trying to say? For the love of Pete, throw me a bone. Life is too hard already. I don't come here for a workout :wink:

Yeah, Pat, how dare you write coherent sentences. You even used capitalization and punctuation properly. You’re mucking it up for (some of) the people here.

I like the words “slothful,� “entreaties,� “exhortations,� and get to use them myself from time to time. But I can’t remember the last time I used “pugnacious.� Great word, I’ll have to try to fit it in somewhere.

One of my favorite big words is “anencephalic,� but it only applies to one person on this board, and he wouldn’t understand what it means, because he’s, well, anencephalic.

[dcolanduno]

Why on earth would you waste your time addressing his question posed as he did? I would just expect his "entreaty" to be more, well earnest.

I ask myself that sometimes, "Why do I waste my time?"

Here's the short answer...

I feel it neccessary to make sure that someone that just 'trips' across a thread where there is no response to the claims made by folks at organizations such as the 911 research group, and find it reasonable. Someone could easily read that information, with no other counter arguement, and not realize the old snake-oil tricks used inside of it.

Even EXTREMELY smart people are conned now and then. Any magician or con-man will tell you that they have been, or know VERY adept members of those ranks that become fooled themselves by a really nice sounding arguement.

I guess I just feel that I can't let folks like that spread their message, and increase their power and wealth. If I can prevent even one person from falling into the trap, its worth it.

Maybe that makes sense, maybe I'm just too tired tonight! :)

[T&TPat]

Hey Derek, very good point. I hadn't thought of it that way. I guess I was thinking of it more like Jay Leno and his cars. I know Jay Leno is a big car person. I have a car. I'd love to have Jay tell me what he thought of my car. But, then, I remember, I have a crappy car and it's just not worth the time to ask Jay anything about my car. He's got better cars to look at. Then, of course, I might have to clean out my car first and that's quite the obstacle!

Hittman - you wrote: One of my favorite big words is “anencephalic,� but it only applies to one person on this board, and he wouldn’t understand what it means, because he’s, well, anencephalic.

That is a good word, it's just so medical, and even hard to say. More fun to say is encephalopathy. That poor poster, maybe he/she has a brain, just no heart? "ancardioic" - Wow, that's bound to be hard to say.

I think I learned most of the "less common" words I know in college. And, I'd have to say reading Carl Sagan's books contributed to that. If I didn't know a word he used in his books, even if I could figure it out in context, I wrote it down and looked it up in the dictionary. On top of being a distinguished scientist, Carl Sagan was a great writer, IMHO. His sentences were interesting from a science AND english perspective. I miss Carl Sagan, sigh.

Ferg, you need a work out pal. I hope you are getting ready for one in November!

[dcolanduno]

I think I learned most of the "less common" words I know in college. And, I'd have to say reading Carl Sagan's books contributed to that. If I didn't know a word he used in his books, even if I could figure it out in context, I wrote it down and looked it up in the dictionary. On top of being a distinguished scientist, Carl Sagan was a great writer, IMHO. His sentences were interesting from a science AND english perspective. I miss Carl Sagan, sigh.

Have you read any of the Shermer books? He might not be as 'elegant' but has the same feeling of solid understanding when he writes.

Science Friction, his new book, is really fun.

[T&TPat]

Hey Derek, thanks so much for the reading suggestion! I did a quick internet search and another one of my favorite science writers - Stephen Jay Gould - had good things to say about Shermer. Oh, and, I miss Gould alot too.

Thanks again,

[dcolanduno]

Hey Derek, thanks so much for the reading suggestion! I did a quick internet search and another one of my favorite science writers - Stephen Jay Gould - had good things to say about Shermer. Oh, and, I miss Gould alot too.

Thanks again,

Fortunately there have been a growing number of good skeptical author/scientists lately that have been filling in some of the gaps folks like Gould and Sagan's ...

I was soooo depressed when Sagan's solar sail experiment failed because the ROCKET launching it failed last month. <sigh>

I hear they are trying again...