Most of the July/August issue of Skeptical Inquirer is devoted to analyses and discussion of 9/11 Truth and 9/11 conspiracy theories. Excellent research, and some great articles.
Here's the skinny on these amazing individuals. http://dprogram.net/2011/01/13/skep...ment-avoids-vast-body-of-scientific-evidence/
Wrong issue, wrong author. Perhaps you could address the topic? The link you posted has nothing to with the current article, except for being published in the same periodical. Can you find fault with the current issue and if so, please show us your rebuttal.
More facts in this publication than in all of DRG's works combined. But don't take my word for it, folks - read it yourself and weigh the claims.
LOL... And this is based on what, other than your pathological need to dismiss any evidence that doesn't agree with your predetermined belief of what happened?
You do it whenever you represent the "official" BS story. You've made a conclusion based on what you THINK is correct. You don't even consider the possibility that you could be wrong, and wouldn't believe it if you were. Predetermined. Dismissed. Admit at least that much.
You don't know me. I started out suspicious a long time ago, because my libertarian leanings made me instantly suspicious of the government in such a situation. However, as I researched the topic, I realized that the 9/11 Deniers had no evidence, no scientific support, and were just plain wacky. The eureka moment will be when you make that same transition. Doubtful, though, because anyone still vested in 9/11 denial at this point shares the same psychological flaw common to conspiracy theorists.
You mean you can't find one piece of anything that seems, maybe a bit off, throughout the entire "official" BS story? Cell phones working perfectly at 35000 feet, or WTC7 was perfectly normal to you? You don't think the confiscation of the Pentagon photos from everywhere within 5 minutes is a bit strange? How bout the fact that these highly skilled, super smart terrorists, flew right past a nuclear facility on the way to the Pentagon? Seems to me super smart terrorists could have inflicted much more damage and disaster had they simply crashed into the facility. They even (if you believe the BS story) crashed into a newly renovated part of the Pentagon. (and they flew around the other parts to do it). No Brass there..just accountant types that were investigating guess what, the missing trillions Rummy announced the day before. Not strange either that Flight 93 was supposedly buried underground, but no proof of that either (in the form of photos, film). Considering they were recovering bodies (supposedly) you would have thought somebody "official" would have documented it in some visually recorded fashion. But nope. None on that. You don't think it's a bit strange the war games (that were pushed up to 9/11 from a later date) were going on simultaneously (running simulations of guess what..PLANES CRASHING INTO BUILDINGS!!). I could go on and on, but, what would be the point, right? You have concluded that it's all perfectly acceptable, perfectly reasonable...nothing smells fishy to you. All "official" is to be hailed, right? To say you investigated and found everything on the up and up, makes you incredibly (I don't mean this in a bad way) stupid if you really did investigate, as you claim. I can see you're not stupid though, so the only other possible conclusion I can come up with is that it must be in your best interest to align yourself with the "official" BS story. Bottom line, is that there holes all over the place in just about every phase of that fiasco...so many in fact, that it would be impossible for anybody (that truly researched the BS honestly) to NOT find flaws throughout. Flaws? None according to you and your team. Can't you see how disingenuous that makes you all look? (I know, I know...you're not allowed to publicly endorse anything that stands in contradiction to the "official" BS story). Just try and realize that everyone (other than the shill team) can see very clearly what you're all up.
There are things that seem like once-in-a-lifetime events. But, unlike you, I can look at things in perspective: 9/11 was, in fact, a once-in-a-lifetime event, and so therefore, the fact that something seems unlikely to ever happen again is to be expected. The 9/11 Denier "problems" with the generally accepted account mostly occur from their (your) failure to look at things from a logical standpoint - to apply principles like Ockham's Razor and rules of logic. One BIG, BIG, misunderstanding 9/11 Deniers have is their failure to recognize that, in concocting these grandiose conspiracies involving government, they are making things far more complex than they need to be. A primary example of this is your type of 9/11 Denier - the "controlled demolition" theory. The logical question to ask is this - if WTC was going to be brought down using "controlled demolition", why bother with the planes??? If your "goal" is to create a dramatic attack and bring down WTC, the planes, in that scenario, add a RIDICULOUS amount of unneeded complexity, and THOUSANDS of additional chances for the plan to go wrong. Why bother? WTC was bombed using a truck in 1993. Why not simply blow up the buildings and say there was a bomb truck underneath? Far less complex and acheives the same result. This is a 9/11 Denier lie/obfuscation (that everyone's phone worked). Most of the calls placed from planes were using the seatback phones. And again... Why bother? If I believe your allegation of this big conspiracy, the conspirators had two goals: (1) Create a highly damaging attack, and (2) make sure the blame was placed on Middle Eastern terrorists. The bit about calls from the plane advances neither of those causes. Your theory again requires additional unnecessary "moving parts". A building fell on it. Yeah, I would expect WTC7 to fall down. No. Why? When police are investigating a crime, they collect evidence. Even if I accept your blatant exaggeration that the confiscation was within "5 minutes", so what? Once again, adding unneeded complexity. So they hijack Flight 93, take it somewhere secret, and??? Why not just do what actually happened - fly flight 93 into the Pentagon? Remember the two objectives I pointed out above. Adding all those moving parts, again, does nothing to advance those objectives. Well, if they were super smart, as you allege, they'd know that nuclear installations are fortified, and you could crash a million jet planes into them without doing any damage. But why would they be super smart? They were suicide attackers. That doesn't strike me as being particularly smart. The attackers weren't trying to create a high level of ACTUAL damage, they were trying to create a high level of symbolic damage. They didn't hope to take down the entire United States of America with 4 hijacked planes. The Pentagon is the symbol of America's military strength, as the WTC was a symbol of economic strength. Terrorism trades on symbolic, morale-damaging attacks. The Viet Cong are a powerful example of this. In overall military might, we could have turned that country into a sandlot. But the Viet Cong used carefully chosen guerilla attacks to eliminate our will to fight... A powerful symbolic victory that, for them, eventually accomplished their goals of getting the U.S. out of their war with the South. If they wanted to create actual military damage, they would have been better off crashing into (relatively) nearby Fort Drum, in upstate NY... That would have killed more troops and damaged more vehicles than hitting the Pentagon. They didn't fly around any other parts. Again - you're adding unnecessary moving parts to the conspiracy. Why would they fly around if they're just firing a missile? Why bother with the planes at all?????? This is another 9/11 Denier lie. It's completely fabricated. There's no evidence that's what was being worked on by anyone in that section. Disappointing - if your argument is so strong, why do you feel the need to lie? What are you talking about? Google Images for "Flight 93 Crash" yields millions of pictures, many of them in the form of emergency workers digging through piles of debris. And once again... Adding unneeded complexity. Why bother with flight 93 AT ALL??? Plane crashes happen all the time. Go back to those two goals I cited and think about how Flight 93 helped those goals - it didn't. A 9/11 Denier lie, seemingly as old as the attacks themselves. The "war games" thing has been so roundly debunked it's silly. And, once again... Why would it be necessary to their conspiracy? If the powers that be were in on this (like, as you alleged earlier, Donald Rumsfeld), why would they need to run war games to help their attacks work? Why not simply give the key people the day off? My logic is unassailable. Your conspiracy involves adding thousands of unnecessary moving parts, all of which increase the liklihood that something goes wrong and exposes the conspirators. Highly illogical to think that a group of conspirators would be so smart as to put something like this together and not take care to eliminate all except that which was needed to advance their goals. Meanwhile, you ignore the mountains of evidence that support the generally accepted account. See, this is where your "movement" looks ridiculous. You make blanket statements like this which are just nonsense. Show me where my logic is flawed. You can't. In ten years, no 9/11 Denier has been able to answer my logic. Instead, what you'll do is point me to some Youtube videos, or an Alex Jones article, or throw dozens more little perceived anomolies at the wall, hoping a few of them will stick. Answer the logical issues first. Explain the obvious flaws of logic in what you are alleging. Your thinking goes thusly: (1) This person is not stupid. (2) They disagree with my theory. (3) Therefore, they must be a paid co-conspirator. Because of your conspiracy theorist psychology, you fail to consider this much more likely scenario (and instead implicate me in your ever-growing list of co-conspirators): (1) This person is not stupid. (2) They disagree with my theory. (3) Therefore, perhaps my theory is incorrect. If I'm a paid co-conspirator, there must be thousands of us, to go around the internet and answer all these posts. Why has not one person come forward saying they were paid to post about 9/11? But there aren't flaws in the major tenets of the account. This is called missing the forest for the trees - you point to one small thing that you perceive as a "flaw", and conclude that, because you can't reconcile that one tiny piece, the entire story must be discarded. That's a failure of logic and reason. A reasonable person would instead conclude that their "flaw" is not really a "flaw" at all but a failure of understanding on their part. But 9/11 Denier psychology includes never admitting that anything you say is wrong. You exhibit this trait in spades. You're examining people through the fog of conspiracy theorist psychology, though. Please trust me when I say that, outside of your 9/11 denier group, the average person perceives you as the incorrect/crazy one.
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Organskeptics/index.html CSICOP was founded at the 1976 convention of the American Humanist Association. In an interview for Science magazine, Lee Nisbet, the CSICOP Executive Director, explained its position as follows: "[Belief in the paranormal is] a very dangerous phenomenon. Dangerous to science, dangerous to the basic fabric of our society…..We feel it is the duty of the scientific community to show that these beliefs are utterly screwball." However, like many of the leading figures in CSICOP, Nisbett himself is not a scientist and has no scientific qualifications. http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Organskeptics/index.html After the true skeptics had been purged from the committee, CSICOP and its magazine, the Skeptical Inquirer, degenerated into little more than a propaganda outlet for the systematic ridicule of anything unconventional. Led by a small, but highly aggressive group of fundamentalist pseudoskeptics such as chairman and humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz, science writer and magician Martin Gardner and magician James Randi, CSICOP sees science not as a dispassionate, objective search for the truth, whatever it might be, but as holy war of the ideology of materialism against "a rising tide of irrationality, superstition and nonsense". Kurtz and his fellows are fundamentalist materialists. They hold the nonexistence of paranormal phenomena as an article of faith, and they cling to that belief just as fervently and irrationally as a devout catholic believes in the Virgin Mary. They are fighting a no holds barred war against belief in the paranormal, and they see genuine research into such matters as a mortal threat to their belief system. Since genuine scientific study has the danger that the desired outcome is not guaranteed, CSICOP wisely no longer conducts scientific research of its own (such would be a waste of time and money for an entity that already has all the answers), and instead largely relies on the misrepresentation or intentional omission of existing research and the ad-hominem - smear, slander and ridicule. Eugene Mallove, editor of Infinite Energy Magazine, relates the following telling episode in issue 23, 1999 of his magazine: Just a bunch secular humanists pushing their anti GOD agenda.
Holocaust deniers use this same strategy to try and show that the holocaust never happened. They try to show that if one piece of evidence is false or misleading, then all the evidence must be false or misleading. This is a logical fallacy. The fallacy of the argument aside, here's the problem with your strategy. Your objective isn't to find one thing wrong with the official story. Your objective is to piece together what you think the real narrative is. A few unresolved details here and there don't invalidate a whole narrative. A few unresolved details here and there don't create a whole new narrative. The few unresolved details here and there that are actually valid, don't support your undefined narrative that the government was the cause of the event. That's the true issue with all the crap you've spouted all these years. You've never been able to define a lucid and credible narrative. This is due to the fact that your evidence has been collected from sources that haven't been honest with you or you aren't being honest with the evidence yourself. The official story doesn't claim that cellphones worked perfectly at 35,000 feet. The official story doesn't claim that WTC7 was perfectly normal. The official story doesn't claim that pentagon photos were confiscated from "everywhere" in 5 minutes. I mean, (*)(*)(*)(*). Think about that one for a second. Does that even make sense to you? How could any entity confiscate all the photos of an event from every source in 5 minutes? They flew past all sorts of targets. They could have chosen a stadium during the super bowl. They could have chosen the GW bridge during rush hour. They could have chosen grand central station or time's square. They didn't though. They were terrorists. They chose their targets for symbolic reasons. They attacked symbols of America's wealth and power. The death toll was an ancillary side effect. They care less about how many people they kill and more about how many people they demoralize.
Hey, look, it's a big ad hominem attack from a 9/11 Denier. How surprising and uncharacteristic. Now, do you have anything that amounts to a substantive refutation of their articles? I mean, if Jeffrey Dahmer says the sky is blue, does it make it any less true because he's a horrible person? You prove nothing by posting that. Thank you for wasting time.
Yes...PLEASE show us the proof! Simple request. Proof to follow....maybe 93 WASN'T a fraud. He's going to post some proof. We'll know soon. Can't wait to see some. Anything.
Nobody has you reading my posts. If you feel I am wasting time, then use the ignore feature. Those people associated with the periodical, have an agenda, just like the scientists who had answers before any research began on the 9/11 attacks, just like the Nazis, and Marxists. As is pointed out, they don't do any science, they like many others, take the side of the entities with the most money. It's the way the world works
They do it for money, I don't know why others do it, I just want the truth. The gov has lots of info classified, so anything they have published or reported about 9/11 is invalid. Why makes suporters of the "official" gov reports any different than mushrooms?
Huh? Was the purpose of that post to be as non sequitur as possible? The truth movement has lots of info taken directly from the government, so anything they have published or reported about 9/11 is invalid. What makes supporters of the truth movement any different from potted plants?
