Scientist Lambastes Radio Gatekeeper

[petgoat]

A friend in California forwarded this to me:

by Dana Carson

Dear Mr. Bensky:

As a long-time listener to your Sunday Salon program
(I try to catch at least the first hour most Sundays),
and previously to your Living Room program, I'm
writing this missive in the hopes that you will read
it before air time on Sunday.

My degrees are in Geology (BS & MS), and I've always
been accustomed to questioning and sifting large
amounts of data and reading papers whose conclusions
turn out to be wrong. Of necessity, geology requires
a healthy combination of the "scientific method" with
an active imagination. Everyone familiar with geology
has heard of the tragic story of meteorologist Alfred
Weggener, who first postulated that the continents
"drifted" about on the face of the planet. His
opinion was derived from matching shapes of the
continents, as well as a highly improbable age,
fossil, and lithologic correlation: mountains, rock
types, and evidence of glaciation that seemed to match
quite well when the continents were lined up the way
they appeared to match.

When Weggener presented his theory, he was universally
condemned and ridiculed by the geological and
geophysical establishment. In particular, geophysists
said there could be no possible mechanical mechanism
to explain the apparent drift He died an early death
while on a polar expedition. The eulogy for him
praised his accomplishments as a meteorologist, but
completely ignored his ideas about continental drift
(largely out of collective embarassment).

Fast forward several decades, when magnetic ocean
stripes, deep trenches and high mountain ranges were
discovered in the oceans; when the fluid nature of the
uppermost earth's mantle was revealed, and virtually
100 percent of earth scientists accept continental
drift (now referred to as "Plate Tectonics"). Mr.
Weggener is now revered as the father of plate
tectonics. Mr. Weggener based his theory (and I use
that word advisedly) on observations he could easily
prove, and which had obvious relevance to the subject
matter. But his establishment peers insisted that he
should "stick to his own field".

Those who call themselves “9/11 Truth activists” are
in many ways in an analogous position: they are
personally disparaged by people (often remarkably
uneducated on the actual issues) who will not listen
to their arguments, but instead prefer to dismiss them
as “Conspiracy Theorists”. As a long time student and
practitioner of science, I submit that the term
conspiracy theorist is an utterly meaningless
pejorative. It only tells me that the name caller
does not know the meaning of either word (conspiracy
or theory). A much better term would be
“Paranoid-Nut-Case-With-Too-Much-Time-on-his-Hands.”
While this term is no more accurate than conspiracy
theorist, at least it accurately conveys the intent of
the name caller: to belittle the person rather than
deal with the information he wishes to present.

So as an unapologetic critic of the official 9/11
story (based on what I perceive to be logical,
evidenced-based arguments), I ask you, Larry Bensky,
to please be respectful of both listeners and callers.
By all means refute their arguments if you think it’s
appropriate. But remember there are many of us out
here who are not Paranoid-Nut-Cases, who know that
governments (EVEN THIS GOVERNMENT!!!) do lie, and that
many of the facts JUST DON’T ADD UP.

One final note: I believe I want the same things as
you: an America that practices a sane foreign and
domestic policy and that cares about its citizens and
its environment. But the saddest and most dreadful
future I can think of is this: If the government is
lying and covering up the truth about those attacks,
it is an unspeakable horror to think of the entire
future history of mankind suffocating under that lie.

Thank you sincerely,

Dana Carson

[Catamount]

1. Thank You! Great post! K&R

Hopefully it won't take several decades to find out what really happened on 9/11, (it seems pretty clear to me as a tin-hatter)but that Americans will punish the 'real terrorists' in the next election.
Wishful thinking of course.

[longship]

2. Wegener is in no way similar to the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Since you claim credentials as a geologist you must be aware of the procedures of "normal science" (others see Thomas Kuhn). You must also know that standards require that scientific pronouncements be submitted for peer review.

Alfred Wegener (pls note correct spelling) did publish papers. They are cited all over the Net, and in journals. In spite of the cold reception to his theory, Wegener persisted and continued publishing. This is how normal science occurs. Your letter stands the historic record on its head by implying the contrary. The facts are that Wegener's theory could not get strong support until a time came that his facts could be verified. Initial resistance gave way to overwhelming evidence, all of it published in traditional refereed journals.

This is totally dissimilar to 9/11 conspiracy theories which have already been falsified on basis. Certainly there is no substantive, published research which backs up their kooky claims.

Please answer the following question:

** Are there any scientific papers published in a recognized refereed journal (engineering, physics, materials science, etc.) which profess any of the following conclusions?

a. That the WTC towers' collapse required anything like controlled demolition?
b. That the WTC 7 collapse required something like controlled demolition?
c. That the Pentagon was not hit by a large airliner?
d. That the site near Shanksville, PA was not an airliner crash site?

If such papers exist, I certainly have not seen any. And it's not for lack of looking. No, "Loose Change" and its ilk are not acceptable. I want to see actual science, not Net scratchings.

[DemInDistress]

3. you just want the bushies to admit it...they did 911.. that's all you'll

accept. Forget the Official 911 Omissions Report, that don't seem to count. No matter how hard the BFEE tries to spin the attacks it "Just Doesn't Wash" you can't explain away WT7, additionally I've seen enough video to support uncontrolled demolition. If I post it here kiss this thread goodbye, off to the dungeon.


I've seen you before longship and you calls for absolute proof is all you dream of. Demand from the BFEE they turn over the 7,000 photo's,hundreds of hours of videotapes and thousands of documents for public inspection and while your at it sign the petition to "Reopen 911"...

[petgoat]

4. Longship, have you signed the Scholars' petition for the

release of suppressed evidence? If not, why not?

I also wonder about your reasoning in your proposition that only peer review can
provide legitimacy.

Suppose another world long ago and far away where scientific publications were
reluctant to challenge the official respresentations of a powerful, vindictive,
and petty tyrant. Obviously under those circumstances, your linking of
peer review and legitimacy would be, er.... illegitimate.

Now move to our world today. How do you know that such factors are not present,
resulting in a degree of self-censorship in scientific publications today?

[longship]

6. Yes. Peer review is the normal procedure.

Peer review is *everything* in science. It's how scientists communicate theories with one another. You cannot make authoritative scientific pronouncements without at minimum citing peer reviewed literature. Yet that's precisely what the 9/11 conspiracy theorists do. The reason why they don't cite or publish is because almost all their science is either total rubbish or is irrelevant to their conclusions (straw man, etc.).

Concerning Scholar's signature: Please provide link to where I can sign. If it is based on sound science, I will gladly sign it.

[DemInDistress]

9. thanks petgoat.. for supporting me. so few meaningful people

here at DU looking for the truth. I also noticed an influx of new debunker's, shameful people willing to turn a blind eye toward 911 and not confront the discrepancies in the official story.


Your ok my friend its my pleasure knowing you and miranda.

[longship]

22. Please petgoat, demindistress...

This is what makes me really sick. The people on board those flights died a horrible, but thankfully quick, death. But that was zero comfort for their loved ones who suffered through the phone calls which these lunatics say didn't occur. Their families' suffering hasn't ended even today. The conspiracy kooks should all be made to sit in front of those loved ones so that they can explain to the kooks the facts of the day.

There is absolutely no evidence for controlled demolition. Even demolition experts say so. None of the so-called evidence presented by the conspiracy kooks is credible or definitive. Much of it is cherry-picked and out of context quotes by participants, or witnesses who were ignorant of what they were really seeing, or used metaphorical descriptions which the kooks take as literal. All the words of the experts on the scene, including police, firemen, and volunteer rescue workers are consitent *only* with catastrophic collapse, and not controlled demo.

And all of it is unnecessary. The kinetic energy of the collision was sufficient to damage the building to a point where the potential energy takes over and the building fails. All the published science says so, and not a single paper says otherwise. Not a single one. If these clowns have any actual evidence to support their claims, why in the Sam Hell haven't they taken the trouble to put their money where their mouths are? If the science supports the kooks, why haven't they published a single word in any of the science journals?

I'll tell you why. Because they don't give a shit about the truth. They only care about their pet conspiracies, all for their fifteen minutes of fame.

[petgoat]

32. "absolutely no evidence "

I guess eyewitness testimony of explosions, TV news reports of
secondary devices, eyewitness testimony (Palmer and Clark) that
the fires were small, molten metal pouring out of the building,
energetic expulsion of dust, molten metal in the basements,
squibs, near-freefall speed, and symmetrical collapses from
asymmetrical damage are not evidence to you.

You're blind. They're evidence to me.

[longship]

37. All debunked. All of it.

Explosions in a burning office building? I'm shocked, utterly shocked. Must be planted explosives, eh? BZZZZZZZZ.
I'm sorry, Mr PetGoat. There are many, many sources for explosions in a large office building which are not controlled demolition. First of all, catastrophic failure is almost *always* accompanied by very large bangs which anybody who's seen it happen would only describe as an "explosive" failure. But I guess you've never been around an engineering test laboratory so you might not know that. Second, there are many other sources in an office building which explode when heated, like in a fire. Electrical transformers are a notable example, but there are many others.

TV news reports? Yes, CNN reported that Flight 11 was a small airplane before what really happened sank in. So much for TV news reports. They are not definitive evidence.

Eyewitness testimony? Talk to the firemen on the scene about WTC 7. Small fires? Bullshit. And talk to all the witnesses, not just the cherry picked ones. And quote their entire statements, not just out-of-context snippets. And don't forget your fifth grade English class lesson on simile and metaphor.

Squibs? More bollocks. When a floor collapses, the air is squeezed out and is forced through any available openings. It carries the dust and debris from the collapse with it. This would happen if it were controlled demolition or not. So you *CANNOT* use these puffs of debris as evidence for controlled demolition.

None of the buildings fell in free-fall. None of them. Look at the debris cascading down around the falling towers when they collapsed. The debris, which looks like an umbrella shape, is falling in free fall and is falling faster than the floors are collapsing. So your claim that the buildings fell in near-free fall is debunked. Scientists at the seismic station whose data is usually cited by conspiracy theorists have said quite clearly that their data is being misused and misinterpreted, that the towers fell slower than free fall by a significant enough amount that the data could only have been deliberately misinterpreted!

Symmetric collapse from asymmetrical damage. And you would expect what from a 110 story building? Or even a 47 story building? The only way a building that tall can collapse is into its own footprint. Simple physics and freshman engineering. Really! This is another example of bad science from the conspiracy lunatics.

But all you kooks have been told this before. But it won't stop you from making the same stupid responses again, and again, and again, and again.

I'm done with you idiots.

[Nozebro]

41. The Reality-Based 9/11 Truth Seekers here couldn't be more greatful.

"I'm done with you idiots."

Having one less arrogant blow-hard here is always good news.

[petgoat]

42. According to your Jury-of-One all the evidence is debunked.

But the statement to which I was responding was your claim
that "there is absolutely no evidence."

That statement is complete hogwash. Another jury might find
the evidence credible.

Someone who believes that "the evidence is debunked" equals
"absolutely no evidence" inspires little confidence in his
analytical skills.

[Ezlivin]

47. A brief deconstruction of your comments is in order

"This is what makes me really sick. The people on board those flights died a horrible, but thankfully quick, death. But that was zero comfort for their loved ones who suffered through the phone calls which these lunatics say didn't occur.

Why do you label as "lunatics" those who dispute the veracity of the phone calls? Name calling is the first sign of a weak or non-existent argument.

Their families' suffering hasn't ended even today. The conspiracy kooks should all be made to sit in front of those loved ones so that they can explain to the kooks the facts of the day.

Watch "9/11 Press for Truth" and get back to us on how the survivor's families really feel about the 9/11 Truth Movement. Perhaps then you'd refrain from using "conspiracy kooks" in a poor attempt to smear the messenger rather than address the message.

There is absolutely no evidence for controlled demolition. Even demolition experts say so. None of the so-called evidence presented by the conspiracy kooks is credible or definitive. Much of it is cherry-picked and out of context quotes by participants, or witnesses who were ignorant of what they were really seeing, or used metaphorical descriptions which the kooks take as literal. All the words of the experts on the scene, including police, firemen, and volunteer rescue workers are consitent *only* with catastrophic collapse, and not controlled demo.

There is a lot of evidence for controlled demolition, starting with the very collapse of all three buildings (1,2 and 7). Demolition experts initially said that it did look like CD; later they changed their stories. On-air news reporters said it looked like controlled demolition. Firefighters and police have said that it looked (and sounded) like controlled demolition. (Hear first responders talk of the explosions, smell of explosives and the resulting "hot" pile here: http://aud1.kpfa.org:80//data/20060920-Wed1300.mp3). Many of the first-responders believe the buildings were purposely imploded. You dismiss these eye witnesses as "ignorant".

And all of it is unnecessary. The kinetic energy of the collision was sufficient to damage the building to a point where the potential energy takes over and the building fails.

Wrong. If what you say is true, the building would have fallen immediately. And can you explain how damaged limited to 4-5 floors is sufficient to cause the complete failure of 80+ undamaged floors? Can you explain how every other building apart from WTC 1, 2 and 7 experienced severe, heavy damage and yet did not fall?

All the published science says so, and not a single paper says otherwise.

There is no peer-reviewed published scientific studies that I am aware of that support the "pancake theory" of collapse.

Not a single one. If these clowns have any actual evidence to support their claims, why in the Sam Hell haven't they taken the trouble to put their money where their mouths are? If the science supports the kooks, why haven't they published a single word in any of the science journals?

Galileo had evidence that the earth was not the center of the universe. But the Catholic Church suppressed this information because it did not fit in with their pre-existing theory (Aristotelean cosmology).

If you do not believe that our government has the power to suppress scientific data, you must be blissfully unaware of global warming and the EPA reports of air quality at ground zero.

I'll tell you why. Because they don't give a shit about the truth. They only care about their pet conspiracies, all for their fifteen minutes of fame.

We care passionately about the truth; so much so that we will spend time with those who call us names, smear us and try to besmirch our reputation. We care nothing of conspiracies, but only seek to find the truth.

And I doubt seriously that you will ever see anyone on this board gain "fame" from this. If I were seeking fame there are dozens of easier avenues.

Peace out.

[petgoat]

48. Nice job, EZ. And Hringhorni drifts out to sea. nt

[mirandapriestly]

50. actually, Kristin Breitweiser said in the Vanity Fair article

On "conspiracy theorists" that the only people who seemed to care about them are the (so-call)"conspiracy theorists". Additionally, in a recent documentary put together by families of the victims, it sounds like many of the families have questions which go beyond "incompetence", but you probably haven't watched that, have you? So who is the one who doesn't care about the victim's families?

[mirandapriestly]

26. They should be ashamed of themselves..

hi DiD!

[petgoat]

33. Thanks for your kind words, Dem.

Aw shucks. :blush:

[longship]

5. Not true. I want solid science, not specious speculation.

There is no absolute proof in science. However, science does require following certain recognized procedures. If a person makes scientific pronouncements, there are rules. The extent to which you do not follow those rules is the extent to which you are not making scientific pronouncements. Alfred Wegener knew this, so he followed those rules. His page in history is secure because of it.

I have seen zero published papers espousing 9/11 conspiracy theories. Therefore, I must presume that there is no scientific basis for their rubbishy claims. If I am wrong about this, I will gladly retract my statements. I feel comfortable that I will not have to do so. A list of abstracts would suffice.

BTW, I would gladly sign any petition to re-open the investigation... as long as the petition itself draws no conclusions.

[DemInDistress]

7. I'll say it again longship.... DEMAND THE RELEASE

OF THE 7,000 PHOTO'S, HUNDREDS OF HOURS OF VIDEOTAPES, THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF DOCUMENTS AND THE BLUEPRINTS FOR THE WTC.. what are they hiding longship?

I've come to learn from this crime family if it's exculpable they rush it to faux tv/cnn... if it can damage them they hide it behind "classified" sort of like john asscroft in July 2001, remember he stopped flying
commercial jets instead using private jets and when asked why,he replied,"threat assessment" can't/wont tell you more. shameful murderers and thieves in our WHITEHOUSE.

go to reopen 911 and sign the petition and the scholars for truth and elliot spitzer also has a petition.

join the crusade for truth.

[longship]

8. My friend, I've been with you all along.

I just cannot support the specious claims of the conspiracy kooks.

I'll gladly support anything that does not specifically support the kooks. I've never said I wouldn't.

I want the truth. That's why I am so strongly against these conspiracies. They are most definitely *not* the truth.

[DemInDistress]

10. what is the truth longship? the OCT? if not then join the march

to find the truth. there are just 2 possibilities, 1. the OCT/911 report or every other possibility that the
OCT is wrong therefore the BFEE has covered up the most horrific attacks ever committed against innocent people.

[longship]

15. Here's one for you.

I do *NOT* accept the 9/11 Commission Report.

*AND*

I still think the conspiracy theories are rubbish!!

So much for your fucking inane artificial dichotomy.

[bagrman]

13. Longship,sir, here are your peers. www.st911.org

This web site is for Scholars for truth. There is more there then I have got time to go through, everything for an analysis of the seismic records, to videos showing the first sign of collapse 10 stories below the impact zone.
The most chilling part of this is that there was a plane that they claim hit the pentagon and was completely consumed by flames. Then they ID'd the bodies using fingerprints.
This is one thing that I would never like to say "I told you so" about because it would mean that our country has sunk into to a cesspool that it can't get back out of.

Latr
chris

[longship]

18. Not consumed in flames.

That's yet another conspiracy theory straw man.

Get this. The conspiracy theory crowd is *lying*.

They make shit up. They cherry pick data. They quote witnesses out of context and interpret metaphorical statements as fact. They get their science completely bass-ackwards.

And they do one thing which is absolutely unforgivable. They set up an artificial dichotomy that one either has to believe the 9/11 Commission Report in total, *OR* one has to believe their lunatic ravings.

I reject both of them. Furthermore, of the two, the conspiracy theories are far, far worse. Because they make it impossible for people who are really serious about finding the truth about 9/11 to argue our case without being tagged with the label of lunatic. And when anybody brings up the topic of 9/11, they suck the fucking air out of the conversation with their screeching. Thanks alot, conspiracy kooks.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[longship]

21. I'm sick and fucking tired of all this conspiracy bullshit.

All of it--the made-up shit, the bad science, the outright lies, and the baiting bullshit posts. It all makes me sick that people who putatively have a brain in their skulls can fall for every fucking propaganda trick in the book from these lunatics. I've been fighting the same damned thing for years on the evolution vs. creationist forums. It's no different with this.

The MIHOP conspiracies are garbage. I've not seen one of them that stands up to anything more than cursory inspection. "Loose Change" is a pack of outright lies. Even a grade schooler could debunk it in total.

The question remains. Why would anybody deliberately foment such a ridiculous conspiracy as these lunatics espouse? What's their agenda? It certainly can't be the truth.

I want the truth. Not some made-up cock-and-bull story.

The most important issue of all is that the existence of this crap allows those who would like to smother the truth credibly say that we're all a bunch of lunatics.

Just maybe it's some kind of Rovian trick. And you guys are all falling right into it.
:evilgrin:

[bagrman]

39. Nothing better then name calling? Give us anything solid, that your con

job is better then our con job. We are exposed to believe at face value, a bunch of flight school drop outs hijacked 4 planes mid flight and found their way back to New York and Washington DC with no support from the ground. (just for starts)
Please point me to the picture on the web that shows the yard of the Pentagon where the jet hit that has some kind of wreckage scattered about. Seats, luggage, the wings, anything.
What is your back ground Long?



latr
Chris

[Bryan Sacks]

45. cursory inspection this, longship

Explain how Pakistan has kept from being bombed, longship. Explain it, since there is indisputable evidence that their top intelligence official (Mahmud Ahmed) helped to fund the plot. The same fellow who was visitng NSA officials in Washington at the time.

Explain how that can possibly square with the public posturing of the Bush administration that either you are 'with us or against us.'

Here is a man that by ANYONE's logic was clearly against us, and a GUEST OF THE ADMINISTRATION while the attacks were taking place. Yet both he, and the country for which he was a top intelligence official, have escaped official responsibility. This same country has, many times, for many years, acted as a US proxy for covert actions and also been the driving force behind the creation of the Taliban and radical Islam in Afghanistan. So in case i lost you there, the guy who was VISITING us and who was AGAINST US on 9/11, was the head of an organization that WITH US and our PROXY lots of times before 9/11.

This fact of circumstance, even if the Administration knew nothing of his involvement at the time, makes the administration guilty of the attacks (in accessory fashion). They created, then sought to obscure and deny, the existence of a radical terrorist group bent on destroying its creators - an entirely foreseeable consequence of covert actions.

Rather than having to prove that US military/intelligence had something to do with 9/11, the burden of proof is on US military/intelligence to prove it did not, AS IT HOSTED A FUNDER OF THE PLOT WHILE THE PLOT WAS UNFOLDING! What do you want, a signed confession? He's still living freely in Afghanistan!

In case I have to point it out to you: the Administration must now be viewed as treasonous, whether or not they knew beforehand, by virtue of the fact that Ahmed is still free. They have not sought his capture. He funded the fucking plot! They don't seem to care, nor did the 9/11 Commmission (see page 172 of the Commission Report.

Your condescending attitude is really ironic. Your too goddamn blind yourself to see that you are just as incorrigible as the creationists with your liberal totalizing. The uninitiated are not scared off by demolition theory (and I don't buy demolition, by the way); they are scared off by the screaming of frightened liberals like yourself who are so goddamn worried about their reputations that they'll do anything to smear those near them on the political spectrum. It's YOU who have no faith in the ordinary person to ignore what they find to be nonsense, and instead focus on the strongest evidence for US involvement in some fashion. You're so goddamn scared of looking like a kook that you come off looking like a kook, screaming down those who have more of an open mind than you do, and who aren't so worried about how they might smell to others.

There is plenty reason to doubt the official story and plenty of reason to believe that high officials are complicit in 9/11. Howard Zinn has said so; Richard Falk has said so; Mark Crispin Miller has said so; Peter Phillips has said so; Peter Dale Scott has said so; plenty of others of impeccable credentials, too. Accept it. And then tell me how the above information does not stand up to even a cursory inspection.

Thanks.

[petgoat]

49. "a GUEST OF THE ADMINISTRATION "

This may be too speculative for you, Bryan, but I'm beginning to think
he was a hostage of this administration.

On or before 9/11 a number of people engaged in rather hostage-like behaviors
suggesting a very complicated deal among multiple parties.

Osama in Rawalpindi, Mohammed Atta in Portland, W in Sarasota, Mahmood Ahmed
at the Capitol, and Shafig bin Laden all fit the profile. If anyone can think
of any more, I'd appreciate it.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[longship]

30. You really do like the "argument from incredulity" don't you?

The only problem is that is a fatuous technique which holds absolutely no value.

It doesn't matter whether you are incredulous. In fact, in any investigation there are always facts which seem to go against common sense. That's precisely why investigators know not to let common sense lead them down the wrong path. Instead, there must be a trail of evidence.

Your arguments about 1940's aircraft is complete and utter bullshit. Or are you really that ignorant that you think that there was no advancement in avionics since 1940? Navigating is simple these days. Also, did you forget that these guys were trained pilots?

You're going to have to do much, much better than that if you are going to make a credible argument, my friend. Actually, your argument is quite typical of the tin foil hat crowd--illogical and without basis or substance.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

20. I looked at the site. It is junk science, propaganda, and outright lies.

It is not by real scholars, and it isn't scientific peer review.

[GAspnes]

11. you know what I hate about this argument?

Some people who espoused theories that were rejected by the mainstream were called fools but were eventually found to be correct.

I espouse a theory that is rejected by the mainstream, and I am called a fool.

Therefore my theory is correct.


"Pfuie" -- Nero Wolfe

[petgoat]

12. What you hate is a straw man of your own devising.

Mr. Carson does not assert any theories. Note in his rousing summation
he says "If the government is lying and covering up the truth about those
attacks."

The strongest he gets in that regard is to claim that governments do lie,
and to offer his opinion that the official "facts" of the case to not add up.

It seems to me his argument goes like this:

Dr. Wegener was ridiculed and he turned out to be right.

9/11 activists are ridiculed, most often by people who dismiss them without
even beginning to familiarize themselves with the facts of the issues, by
the most transparent and simple-minded of the as hominem attacks: name-calling.

Because the 9/11 activists may themselves turn out to be right, it would be
well to treat them respectfully and to engage in polite dialogue.

[GAspnes]

17. re-asserting the fallacy doesn't make it stronger (n/t)

[petgoat]

31. Reasserting the straw man characterization makes it no more

apt.

The argument is not "he was ridiculed and was right; I am ridiculed therefore
I am right."

The argument is "he was ridiculed and was right, therefore ridicule is an
illegitimate counter-argument."

[GAspnes]

51. good one!

Let's take a look at it:

You assert that ridicule proves you're right.

You're being ridiculed.

Therefore, you're right.



Well, you're half-right. You're being ridiculed.

[petgoat]

52. You're re-re-asserting the straw man, now.

You assert that ridicule proves you're right.

Only an idiot would assert such a thing, and neither I nor Mr. Carson
are idiots.

Whether a person who continues to assert that I am asserting what only
an idiot would assert is himself an idiot I will leave to wiser minds
than mine to determine.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

14. And real science is also full of scientists that chased dead ends.

You are like the guy who buys a lottery ticket because someone won big, and things that it is proof that everyone wins big.

In this case, the various MIHOP theories all fly in the face of real science. MIHOPers are not visionaries, but are like Creationists trying to deny evolution. Silliest of all of the MIHOPers are the "no-plane" idiots.

[tenseconds]

16. losing

You're chasing a dead end with your sheeple theories right now. Sorry...no prize at the window.

Lets hope you have enough intelligence and humility to come to know that you are gonna lose big on this one...dude..because you are losing big time.You just don't know it yet..apparently.

[mirandapriestly]

27. Of course they know. That is why there are 10 times

the number of them that there were a year ago on this forum. While, strangely, the number who disbelieve the official MYTH has gone up

[FoxOnTheRun]

23. Why does the US have so many people on Ritalin and Prozac?

In Europe it's not the case.

Is it because the medical establishment cares about the health of the people and about adverse effects and longterm effects?
Or is it just a big money machine?

[mirandapriestly]

24. Your science is "Bush Science"

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-02-20-bush-science_x.htm

"Experts decry Bush science policies"
WASHINGTON (AP) —
"The voice of science is being stifled in the Bush administration, with fewer scientists heard in policy discussions and money for research and advanced training being cut, according to panelists at a national science meeting.
Speakers at the national meeting of the American Association for Advancement of Science expressed concern Sunday that some scientists in key federal agencies are being ignored or even pressured to change study conclusions that don't support policy positions. ..."


The head of NIST was appointed by Bush and is well ensconced in the military industrial complex. A lopt of this "science" also comes out of MIT which is funded by Raytheon. Raytheon is deeply entrenched in the DoD (and 9-11, imo).
Why don't any of your "scientists" say anything about the core? or wtc7? hmmm?

[wildbilln864]

28. Bush science!?

Great phrase Miranda!
Bush science=science+lies

The natives are getting restless me thinks.

[longship]

29. Bush science doesn't get published.

Just like the creationist stuff. Just like the intelligent design stuff. Just like the Apollo moon hoax bull. Just like the 9/11 conspiracy theory stuff. None of it rises to the level required by real science or by real investigations. Yet that is precisely where the debate is taking place about the failure modes of the WTC towers (1, 2, and 7). There are papers debating these things in academic journals all over the many relevant disciplines with more being published all the time.

You would think that the conspiracy theorists, with all their screeching, would be publishing like crazy--getting their so-called theories some substantive credibility that only a refereed journal can bestow. Yet all we hear is the chirping of crickets, and ever more screeching here at DU.

These people want the credibility that only science and standard investigatory methodologies can give. However, for some strange reason they never, ever play by the only rules which would give them credibility. Instead, the conspiracy kooks use the liberal media to spew their crap. There, they find a few people who are regrettably ignorant of the science and investigatory requirements. And there, they are able to apply their dysfunctional logic to a favorable audience who are more than willing to give them comfort.

Why? Because there is already a disposition in places like DU to distrust ChimpCo. So the kooks' conspiracies find easy purchase here. People want to believe that 9/11 was part of a huge government conspiracy--the entire thing planned and executed by the Chimp himself. Or, was it Cheney?

However, there has to be evidence. Unfortunately, what the conspiracy theory crowd has is not evidence. It's a contrived hoax meant to inflame, not to find the truth.

That's why, when they are seriously challenged, they dodge any and all substantive issues and spew their silly dichotomy: it's either the entire 9/11 commission report or the grand conspiracy. Bull-pucky. This is one of the more easily recognized techniques used by all the most Rovian tacticians. To anybody falling for that silly ploy I've got a bridge for sale. No wonder ChimpCo was elected twice. People are ignorant enough and naive enough to fall for the bull.

That's why I defend the path to truth so vigorously here. If we ever let the path to truth be sodden with such tripe as is spewed in "Loose Change", we'll never get to the end of the path. This is also precisely why giving these theories comfort in absense of skepticism is very wrong.

I would love to debate the issues on the substance, and have tried to do so on many occasions. However, the conspiracy crowd here seems to only know "The Big Dichotomy" as a response.

Bullshit.

[petgoat]

34. The NIST report is Bush Science. The FEMA/ASCE report is

Bush Science.

You act as if the challengers to the OCT are wilfully refusing to submit to
peer review. The fact is, they can't get peer review and can't get published.

Your silly dichotomy is to invoke "Loose Change," which no one in this forum
will defend.

[longship]

36. Bollocks, petgoat. Bollocks.

You claim that the conspiracy theorists can't get published in peer-reviewed journals?
Fine. I'll wait while you supply a list of articles which have been turned down. Abstracts will do fine.

The NIST report was done, not by the government but by independent investigators who work for various concerns, like airlines and airplane manufacturers. I've known a few of these folks and worked with a couple of them when I was employed as an engineer at Boeing. They care very much about their roles as investigators and about the many families whose lives are ripped asunder by such a horrific event as an airliner crash. When called in on an accident, they are very professional, extremely thorough, and fiercely independent. Your suggestion that they would collectively be part of some huge conspiracy against our own country is not just ridiculous, it's neurotically delusional. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to supply evidence that the NIST reports exhibit malfeasance of any form.

It's time to put up, or shut up.

And you are right. "Loose Change" *is* indefensible.

[FoxOnTheRun]

40. Have you seen LC 1, LC2 or LC2 recut?

By the way 911 myteries is a good movie

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911+mysteries&hl=en

[petgoat]

43. Straw Man Bollocks

I never claimed there was a vast NIST conspiracy.

Most of the people involved in the NIST research did their
compartmentalized jobs conscientiously, honestly, and competently.

It was in the "Big Picture" that the lying came in. First was
in its charge. The purpose of the report was to improve fire
safety, was it not? Thus the report was predicated on the notion
that fires brought the towers down. The lying was done in
setting the parameters of the computer simulation, in truncating
the simulation in space and time and so assuming that collapse
intitiation equals total progressive collapse, in designing the
experiments, and such like.

The majority of the honest researchers are to be faulted only in
associating with such a blatant piece of dishonest crap.

Evidence of NIST malfeasance is easily available for anyone who
will bother to research it.

Jim Hoffman's "Building a Better Mirage" is a good place to
start. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

Kevin Ryan's presentation in Chicago is also good.

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/06/presentation-by-kevin-ryan-from.html

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Norrin Radd]

35. Well played, MP! n/t

[quickesst]

38. Longship said...

"Because they make it impossible for people who are really serious about finding the truth about 9/11 to argue our case without being tagged with the label of lunatic."

Uh, where exactly can I find a statement by an OCTer that shows the slightest desire for a new independent investigation? You know, the whys, wheres, whos, and such that your "finding the truth" entails. The only thing I see is a pathetic attempt to make illogical statements logical, sprinkled with a dash or two of paste and copy pschyop crap to help us cters to "understand why we are wrong". Of course anyone with a working brain can see it only as an attempt to add credibility to an incredulous statement. Plus he calls cters straight-out "idiots". My, my, getting awfully desperate aren't they?

Petgoat, Miranda, Demi, and other truthseekers. Keep up the good work here. The oct is failing miserably to bring anything credible to the board, and they are making it easier, because of desperation I suppose, for people like you all to spank them like stepchildren. The truth is in good hands. Thanks.
quickesst

[Bryan Sacks]

46. a kick for the suddenly-reticent longship (see post 45)

And don't miss this thread, longship. Funny how it's eluded your attention thus far.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x121000