Skeptic Magazine Debunks 9/11 Movement

[isachar]

Sunny, precisely. <p></p><i></i>

[MASONIC PLOT]

:o

[yesferatu]

Modern, faux neo-skepticism is a religion filled with neutered dullards worshipping at the altar of their attention starved egos. <p></p><i></i>

[bvonahsen]

It's a brilliantly reasoned article that fairly represents the proponents for conspiracy and debunks them. Bravo to Skeptic Magazine. <br><br>Notice how quiet Jeff is, they gave him precious little room. <p></p><i></i>

[orz]

...sarcasm? <p></p><i></i>

[Rigorous Intuition]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"Notice how quiet Jeff is, they gave him precious little room."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>The body of the article is 7,154 words.<br><br>159 words are devoted to the few millions of "put options," ignoring the billions worth in insider trading (including one $5 billion transation); the sudden resignation on Sept 12, 2001, "effective immediately" and without reason given, of Mayo Shattuck III, head of the Alex Brown unit of Deutsche Bank, which was the principal institution involved in the trades; and the more than $100 million in suspicious transactions on WTC computers during the attacks, and the subsequent supression of their data recovery.<br><br>247 words are taken to debunk the "FEMA arrived early" story, ignoring Giuliani's unpublished testimony before the 9/11 commission which confirmed that hundreds of FEMA employees were already on site with equipment for a scheduled bioweapons drill.<br><br>334 words are used to say that Flight 93 didn't land at Cleveland. It didn't.<br><br>351 words are spent on "stand down," when it's properly understood as a failure to "stand up," since on June 1 2001 discretion to shoot down was taken away from field command and entrusted solely to the Secretary of Defense. An order rescinded shortly after the attacks. The article mentions none of this.<br><br>535 words are given to a history lesson in Middle East terror, ignoring the role of the CIA and its ISI proxy in funding and training and "stirring up" Muslim extremists.<br><br>816 words are spent on the fallacious Pentagon missile strike theory.<br><br>1,117 words are devoted to the shallow psychobabble that conspiracy theories are "comforting."<br><br>And 3,595 words - half of the total - are spent on demolition theory, attention to which, I've repeatedly said, is a waste of our energies.<br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rigorousintuition>Rigorous Intuition</A> at: 9/21/06 9:17 am<br></i>

[sunny]

Thank you Jeff. I'm beginning to think someone snatched bvonashen's body. <p></p><i></i>

[bvonahsen]

Not sarcasm, no one snatched my body or my mind. Everything is cool over here.<br><br>I am a skeptic and I always have been and I have repeatedly said I am. One of my first discoveries as a young adult was Skeptic Magazine, it helped me to resolve my conflicts with Christainity at the time. It can be dry and pendantic though, the truth usually is isn't it? Not nearly as exciting as UFOs and space aliens and skull duggery in the halls of power. I'd like to believe in some of these things but I can't get there. I don't believe our government is benevolent though, far from it. And we are paying the price for our past sins today.<br><br>I'm looking forward to that article by Jeff that refutes Skeptic magazines' debunking. I'm sure that he will submit it to them for publication and that he and they will have a closely reasoned debate centering on the issues and not the emotions surrounding 9/11. Such an exchange would do tremendous service to both parties.<br><br>--<br><br>Just so no one gets confused, I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am not a true believer of any sort. I think my own thoughts and reach my own conclusions on these matters. The truth of the matter is that there really is no good evidence for UFOs, aliens, multidimensional portals or other such things. There is slightly more for the Free Masons, the Illuminati, the CIA and others since these organizations actually exist. The rest is highly debatable but giving human organizations super human powers is just not realistic. None the less, there are conspiracies in this world, but they are made by people, real people who do not have infinte knowledge or powers. People who make mistakes and get caught. Jeff knows this, that is why he focuses on pedo cases. Compared to UFOs and the rest, making the case for pedo rings among the powerful and in politics is fairly mundane.<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Back to the article.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> It does a good job of debunking the majority of theories surrounding 9-11. This in itself is a tremendous service to the world but you won't hear about this article much in the media since it is after all Skeptic Magazine. On top of that it does this without making snide pr belittling remarks, the opposing side is represented fairly and that I think is something. Maybe they don't address the particular flavor that Jeff promotes but I am sure if he engaged them they would reply.<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>About conspiracy.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> I remember in the movie "Signs" the father, played by Mel Gibson, says "There are no coincidences." This is where conspiracy theorists and religion meet. Both see a world where there are no accidents, no coincidences. The other end of that dialectic is scientific positivism where nothing relates to anything else. The truth of course lies somewhere in the middle. Finding it takes hard work and it is so much easier to give in to either side but I maintain that the truth is a greater reward. That is a choice everyone makes. I have made mine. <p></p><i></i>

[JD]

quote]Back to the article. It does a good job of debunking the majority of theories surrounding 9-11. [/quote]<br><br>Really? I don't have time to pick this whole thing apart, so will pick apart one paragraph in which every sentence is WRONG. Please keep in mind my earlier post on this thread expressing disapointment with the "truth" movement. You are not dealing with a "true believer" in me but someone who has a lot of questions that have been not answered to satisfaction.<br><br>For an example of a piss poor debunking:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>What about the “melted steel” that 9/11 conspiracy theorists claim was at Ground Zero? Dr. Steven Jones’ popular article cites several anecdotal sources speaking about flowing or pooled samples of melted steel found at Ground Zero.8 However, the sources in question are informal observations of “steel” at Ground Zero, not laboratory results.9 To many people, any grayish metal looks sufficiently like steel to call it “steel” when speaking informally. To actually establish that the substance in question is steel, we need analytical laboratory results using atomic absorption (AA) or another suitable test. It seems far more likely that the metal seen by the contractors was aluminum, a component of the WTC structural material that melts at a much lower temperature than steel and can look superficially similar to it.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Jones’ shows pictures and doesn’t rely on only “anecdotal sources” for red hot melted steel at Ground Zero. <br><br>Skeptic Magazine 1 penalty point.<br><br>Second, an observation of colour of steel via photography buttressed by eyewitness accounts is a direct observation, not an “informal observation”. The temperature of melted steel can be accurately estimated based on its colour. Laboratory results are not required. I guess Mr Mole (gotta laugh at the name!) ever been in a foundry and seen how foundry workers use observations of steel colours to assess the temperatures in their work? <br><br>Skeptic Magazine 2 penalty points; no make it 3 because he’s an asshole in sounding “scientific” by invoking the word “laboratory”<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>To many people, any grayish metal looks sufficiently like steel to call it “steel” when speaking informally. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><br>Skeptic magazine loses another penalty point as he obviously did not notice Jones’ photographs of ORANGE steel from ground zero. Did he even read Jones’ article?<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>To actually establish that the substance in question is steel, we need analytical laboratory results using atomic absorption (AA) or another suitable test. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>What the fuck is this ass saying? (hmmm – Mole-ass’s. Mr. Mole is slow as molasses in February) I invite Mr. Mole and anyone else to a scrapyard. We can walk around; suck back a few brews and identify metal without the use of “analytic laboratory results using atomic absorption”. Aluminum LOOKS different than steel. Cast iron LOOKS different than mild steel. Stainless steel looks different again…. Uhhhhh – you think that people in the metal industry run AA on every bit of metal that crosses the yard? <br><br>Skeptic magazine loses two more penalty points for general stupidity.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>It seems far more likely that the metal seen by the contractors was aluminum, a component of the WTC structural material that melts at a much lower temperature <br>than steel and can look superficially similar to it<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Mr Molasses strikes again – melted aluminum is grey; doesn’t change colour when melted. Or didn’t he notice that in the content of Jones’ paper? But hey, do the direct experience thing. Take the kids out for a late night hot dog roast. Throw a beer can in a camp fire. What colour does it turn as it burns? Then throw a coat hanger in a fire. What colour does it turn? Orange/red. What colour is the metal in the photographs of ground zero in Jones’ article? Orange/red. This means it cannot be aluminum. <br><br>Mr Moleasses = Mr Pretentious Shit for Brains. And another 3 penalty points with the extra because he got it perfect; every sentence in the paragraph is fucked in terms of facts.<br><br>How is this credible debunking? If I was Mole-ass’s editor I’d fire his ass foe embarrassing me. ( I can do that just fine on my own lol!)<br><br>Now don’t get me into debunking Jones paper. He has made some obvious and critical errors BUT also has some very good questions raised. Overall Jones’ effort is flawed but far, far, better than any of the efforts I’ve yet seen to debunk it.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[orz]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Back to the article. It does a good job of debunking the majority of theories surrounding 9-11.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->No, it does a terrible job. I agree with a lot of the conclusions of the article, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a badly written, badly researched piece of work. I mean... THE WRITER REPRESENTS "PANCAKE THEORY" AS PART OF THE CD CONSPIRICY! <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :eek --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eek.gif ALT=":eek"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> come on...<br><br>Just because you agree with the writers opinions doesn't make it a worthwhile article. For a magazine dedicated to scepticism, this is pretty poor to say the least. Just rehashing of old hat debunking fandom memes that are as worthless as the conspiricy fandom memes it's pitted against... <p></p><i></i>

[bvonahsen]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>What the fuck is this ass saying?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>And this gets minus 10 points for you. Makes you look real smart don't it? <p></p><i></i>

[orz]

so to summarise, you enjoy surface style over factual accuracy? <p></p><i></i>

[JD]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>And this gets minus 10 points for you. Makes you look real smart don't it?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>You are really being substantive about this, hey?<br><br>My editor would have caught that before publication.<br><br>I LOVED your spirited defence of Mr. Mole. Lots of intellectual vigour! <br><br>Someone says something you agree with, and however badly they do it and misrepresent reality, it doesn't matter. In fact this means to you they have done an excellent job.<br><br>I'm rolling on the floor laughing!<br><br>Minus 20 for you! And I'm now silent on this issue; I don't have time to argue with foolish people. <p></p><i></i>