Quote: Vaccine-autism claims, "Frankenfood" bans, the herbal cure craze: All point to the public's growing fear (and, often, outright denial) of science and reason, says Michael Specter. He warns the trend spells disaster for human progress.
__________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 13 Apr 2010 03:53
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
See, I would say Michael Specter is an ignorance alarmist.
Simply put, ludites have been with us since before we called them ludites.
Change is worrisome and frieghtening, and people do worry, however, progress keeps on.
Posted: 13 Apr 2010 20:04
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
I believe people do what they think is best with the information they have, the experiences they've had and whatever they believe to be their range of options. Unfortunately each of these is shaped by individuals and groups who profit off people making bad choices. Just to be clear, by bad choices I mean things where peopl are not acting in their best interest or even strictly counter to it. Yes, people should be aware of what is being done to them and what all their options are; self responsibility. However, at some point, these people that alter and subvert information (which results in people making those bad decisions) should have to be held accountable. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 16 Apr 2010 04:08
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
Of course one issue with all this is that there is sort of a complex comparison with regard to knowledge.
You can have people saying that chemical A causes cancer. You can have company B (who produces Chemical A) say that it is merely hysteria, and because of the slow release of actual facts, it's hard to know. You then get Advocacy group C saying that Chemical A is a carcenogen, and not to believe Corporation B, to which Corporation B says that Advocaty group C is just looking for attention and market share, etc. etc.
The problem is who do you really trust? The world is full of stories of Advocacy groups overreacting, and corporations lying.
The problem is people assume most eveyrone is lying and so they embrace their own observations. There was a time when government and the academy were trusted implicitly. Then, not so much.
So in that you can ask is it better that we trust those who tell us what is best for us, or that we make our own decisions based on our own logic and observation.
As always should you trust the people or the powerful? To me there is no easy answer to that question. So I fear both, and trust neither.
Posted: 16 Apr 2010 11:55
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: As always should you trust the people or the powerful? To me there is no easy answer to that question. So I fear both, and trust neither.
I am in exactly the midst of this conundrum myself, right now, as I am re-examining the claims and evidence(such that it is) for both sides of the 9/11 truther/denier debate. Not someplace I wanted to go(again) but was provoked by someone I subscribe to on YouTube and am informing myself as fully as possible for the proper response. The outlook is not good for him at this juncture.
Back to topic... I see alot of that evident in the tea party movement where the mob mentality prevails but the entire mob is not on the same page. It's kinda amusing and sad at the same time. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 16 Apr 2010 15:34
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
At the end of the day the hardest part is just approaching anything with an open mind.
If you are prone to believe group a or b you are going to find their arguments the most persuasive since you come in with some ammount of agreement.
The best idea I think is just to give no one the benefit of the doubt, and just say prove it. The more outlandish the claim (such as the Federal Government engineered 9/11) the greater demand there should be for proof.
For lesser claims (such as the FEderal Government was complicit in 9/11) you can have a lower bar, but still should have something other than theory to support it.
Personally, from my own study of that issue, it seems like there was neither conspiracy nor even gross incompetence (except perhaps on Gulliani's part with putting his command center in the World Trade Center).
The physics seem sound for the airline crash explaination, and I don't think that warnings were ignored so much as they were part of the back ground din.
You know, there is the argument that the FBI could have investigated Person A or B better, but then I always how many other people on their desk were in similar situations as those persons. How many red flags were out there that weren't part of 9/11. In retrospect its always easier to see who the threat was, prior to that however, the Arab student on an expired visa who just signed up fro microbiology at the community college is perhaps as suspect as the one who signs up for flight training.
There are always holes in any net, and something will slip through. Sometimes it's something small that you don't notice, sometimes that something small grows into a shark and bites your head off.
No way to know, untill it's too late.
Posted: 16 Apr 2010 21:23
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: At the end of the day the hardest part is just approaching anything with an open mind.
Huge problem. Especially with emotionally charged events.
Quote: The more outlandish the claim (such as the Federal Government engineered 9/11) the greater demand there should be for proof.
Proofs are for math. Evidence is necessary and yes, the greater the claim, the greater the evidence needed to support it. With the case of 9/11 though, most of the evidence available is not so much actual 'evidence' such as black boxes and crash photos as the interviews and discrepencies between them. Even a good deal of the actual science is questionable because of the computer programs and models involved and how they are either inconclusive, or the results can't be duplicated or the models are not made public and so on.
Quote: it seems like there was neither conspiracy nor even gross incompetence
On the one hand, whatever story you might prefer with whatever plotlines, there was more than one person required to pull off the whole rotten chain of events- that's a conspiracy. The fact that four commercial airlines were stolen and used in a horrific terror plot to defeat one of the most sophisticated security systems ever devised within the confines of one of the heaviest guarded airspaces on this planet screams for incompetance to be labeled on it. If that's not incompetance, you do have a greater conspiracy. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 17 Apr 2010 04:03
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
I think I would disagree with you about the phot evidence with regard to 9/11.
At least with WTC, the ammount of cameras turned on that building at all times of the day at all times of the week (it was one of the most photographed spots in NYC) we were "treated" to dozens of frames of the event from multiple angles.
I remember very vividly watching them over and overagain at the time.
There was of course less photographic evidence of the Pentagon, but it's kind of a silly idea to think that after the planes crashed into WTC, the the government decided, oh heck just shoot a missle at the pentagon.
You know one of the biggest problems with the eyewitness accounts of the event is that the scale of buildings involved. At the time of the first reports of the crash of the jet at the WTC were that of a small prop plane or privet jet hitting the building.
The reason for that was that the building was larger than the plane, and it was just hard for eyewitnesses to wrap their minds around the idea that the building was that large.
With the Pentagon, you actually had a building with a face large than the WTC. and so when the plane hit there again no one really imagined that it was a jumbo jet.
Eyewitness accounts are actually fairly unreliable, so I find it's best to go to the video tape, of which with WTC we have a lot of.
Though personnally I could go my whole life without seeing another frame of that stuff.
Posted: 17 Apr 2010 12:28
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: I think I would disagree with you about the phot evidence with regard to 9/11.
I'm not clear what our disagreement here is. Please clarify.
Quote: it's kind of a silly idea to think that after the planes crashed into WTC, the the government decided, oh heck just shoot a missle at the pentagon.
NOBODY was thinking that.
Quote: Though personnally I could go my whole life without seeing another frame of that stuff.
It's a sore subject for many. I can go through the details of things like the Pentagon strike and issues involved with WTC if you like(all of the events that day and some that led up to them actually), but won't start the discussion any further than we already have unless that is in fact what you want. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 19 Apr 2010 02:52
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote: most of the evidence available is not so much actual 'evidence' such as black boxes and crash photos as the interviews and discrepencies between them.
See I read you saying that as you saying that there was limited photo evidence of the 9/11 attacks.
As to the missile into the pentagon statement, while you aren't saying that, a good deal of 9/11 truthers are saying that or at least have said it in the past.
So please take my response not so much to be directed at you and your personal opinions on the subject, but my feelings towards to the overall ideas put forth by those who have an opinion other than the southpark explaination of 9/11 (a bunch of crazy arabs did it).
Posted: 19 Apr 2010 12:13
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: See I read you saying that as you saying that there was limited photo evidence of the 9/11 attacks.
To clarify that statement, we have more testimony type evidence than physical evidence to work with.
Quote: a good deal of 9/11 truthers are saying that or at least have said it in the past.
There are people who believe that and say so but we do have a large number of eyewitnesses who swear it was a plane. The main issue for truthers in regards to the Pentagon are the withheld video evidence(allegedly 85 or so sources of such), the inability of the pilot to pull off the maneuvers necessary for the strike, the contradictory or flatout missing evidence at the crash site and the poor choice of where the plane struck as opposed to what an informed or organized terrorist should have done with a plane there.
Quote: So please take my response...
I'm not clear on what you were trying to say here so I can't respond. Sorry. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 19 Apr 2010 15:03
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
Well, I would say that given the ammount of photographic evidence of WTC, I would put more stock in that than any "eye witness" accounts, as has been shown greatly in recent years, eye witnesses are not particularly reliable.
As to the Pentagon, without knowing the exact nature of your criticism of the standard account, I don't think it wise to comment, however as I said before, since the WTC story is not particularly in doubt, there seems little cause for the crash at the Pentagon to be a seperate event.
Posted: 19 Apr 2010 22:04
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
When you've got numerous people who don't know each other and have nothing in the way of personal gain to be had and their stories corroborate, you pay attention. At the very least, in a formal investigation, you investigate their claims. Especially if their stories line up.
My criticisms of the official accounts of that day(namely the 911 Commission Report, the FEMA and NIST reports, and Popular Mechanics), run deep and are extensive. You see we're opening up a discussion on this yes? I think it probably better to stem this off now if these are topics you'd rather not examine again, but I will continue as long as you like.
I have to ask this now. We saw the planes hit, there was a lot of smoke, and then they each basically disintegrated. These buildings, at least according to the truthers, should not have fallen at all, much less in a universal and straight down motion at the speeds which occurred. The mainstream story is that the original plane strikes and resulting fires weakened the steel causing collapse in them and debris from one of the towers struck building 7 causing structural damage and it's own set of fires which also caused universal collapse.
>Based on the photographic evidence, what conclusions have you come to(if any) with the towers and building 7 and how did you come to them exactly? __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 20 Apr 2010 20:40
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
Well, I will say this. The World Trade Center when built was actually designed that in the event of a catastrophic failure to pancake in.
This was done, because it was realized that due to it's size and mass, if it were not to pancake in just as it did, it could take out a number of other nearby buildings with it.
At the time of the design of the World Trade Center there was actually great concern about the question of what happens if it falls down, and the answer devised by the archatect was to build it so that it would collabse strait down, exactly as it did.
You don't build a building like the World Trade Center without asking yourself how you will take it down, and what happens if it collapses.
That's my take on that, and I have yet to see any evidence that this feature of the world trade center was not designed in at the very begining of the project, so I see no reason to abandon it.
And again as to eye witnesses, the credibility of the account drops off percipitously the further away from the moment you get. In the moment people don't look for details, they look for escape routes, and after wards their minds begin to fabricate information to fill in the gaps in their memory.
I trust the video evidence I've seen, and the architectural evidence I've seen. I don't trust anything anyone says about what they saw, heard, or experieinced that day. I know my own recolections of that day are cloudy at best, and I live in Newark.
Posted: 20 Apr 2010 21:20
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: The World Trade Center when built was actually designed that in the event of a catastrophic failure to pancake in.
Source? I have heard this before, but noone can seem to recall exactly where they heard it. Not to be smart alecky or anything but I understand buildings are designed to stay standing not to fold up.
Something like the collapse of these buildings can't be figured out by eyewitnesses. I should say disintegration actually as they didn't just fall down, give in or give up. A reminder: the official account is that the impacts of the planes and the resultant fires are being cited as the cause for universal collapse in towers 1 and 2, and falling debris gouging a huge hole in building 7 resulted in fires in this building which also concluded in universal collapse. With that, I offer you some evidence to look over:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheW ... __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 21 Apr 2010 02:06
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
Eye witnesses?
Someone stood around as the buildings collapsed raining glass, dust and smoke down on the street bellow?
Anyone claiming to be an eye witness of 9/11 is either a liar or someone who is claiming that watching the video makes them an eye witness.
Given that people schooled in structural engineering who have watched the videos and seem to agree with the physics involved, is something that I would put over some crank who is giving false statements about their knowledge of the event.
And saying buildings are designed to stand up and not fall down just shows how little you understand about the putting up of buildings.
Posted: 21 Apr 2010 07:36
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
I asked for a source of that piece of common wisdom about what it was designed in mind with and posted a link from Steven Jones. No more, no less. I don't understand your reaction at all.
Do you have a source for this:
Quote: The World Trade Center when built was actually designed that in the event of a catastrophic failure to pancake in.
or no?
Did you look at the Dr's paper or no? __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 21 Apr 2010 15:26
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
I don't have a cite other than the early news reports to that effect at the time of the event. At the moment the intenet is rather clogged by the nonesense of gentlemen such as "doctor" Jones. And I have neither interest nor time to track down a cite for this fact, if it is false, it is irrelevent. The collapse of the building is fact, and the cause is selfevident. Even if the building were not designed for inward collapse, it is a likely method of collapse given the broad floor design of the building.
Since radiocarbon dating isn't particularly relevent to this study, his listing of his credential as an Archaeometrist is fairly suspect. His lack of an engineering background likewise makes any assessments he reaches suspect.
Again, if you have a paper from a structural engineer who after reviewing the evidence holds that a controlled explosion was required to bring it down, then I would say it were interesting.
Instead, much like with global warming, you have people whose field of expertise is not what they are expounding on, and as such is often missing key points of order with regard to the facts on the ground.
As to my anger, it was directed at anyone claiming to be an "eye witness". I'm sorry anyone who watched the towers fall with their eyes did it either from New Jersey or from many blocks away from the actual event. If you they are basing it on the video play of the event that's fine, but as the face on mars has shown, angle and shadow play heavily in what is seen, and it is only through viewing of the event from many angles that a real outcome can be vouched for.
In the end, what we are discussing here is science, which is peer reviewed. I know of no pro detination study that has been published in a legitimate peer reviewed publication, as such, tieing into the original topic, it should not be considered science.
Essentially, the global warming deniers have a far stronger case than the 9/11 deniers, at least on scientific grounds. And the anti global warming crowd isn't on too solid of ground at that.
Posted: 21 Apr 2010 20:29
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
First off, this isn't personal. It isn't about you and me. There is absolutely no cause for anger. Anger has a tendency to cloud the judgment. If you find yourself developing an emotional response of any sort to this, it would probably be best to put this to rest. In response to the rest:
Quote: I don't have a cite other than the early news reports to that effect at the time of the event.
You could probably find a source easier if you just looked up skyscrapers in general, bypassing all the 9/11 stuff altogether. The thing is, I don't think it's out there to be found. Consider that on a similar note, almost all news commentators that day remarked how they looked just like controlled demolitions; how authoritative was that information?
Quote: if it is false, it is irrelevent.
This is sour grapes on your part. It mattered enough to post as a given fact on your part. Now that it might not be a fact, it doesn't matter?
Quote: Even if the building were not designed for inward collapse, it is a likely method of collapse given the broad floor design of the building.
You haven't stated exactly what was likely or not for me to comment on. To my understanding the towers were built to withstand multiple aircraft impacts (paraphrasing)'like pencils through a screen door' and a burning time of up to six hours. What was actually likely is for the tops of those buildings to pay attention to the law of conservation of energy and fall off the tops of the intact structures left below the impact points, if the tops of those buildings should have fallen off in the first place.
Quote: "doctor" Jones.
Real doctor. No quotes necessary.
Quote: his listing of his credential as an Archaeometrist is fairly suspect.
If you completely ignore the Physicist part it probably is.
Quote: if you have a paper from a structural engineer
Nope, I don't. You can't be seriously telling me that absolutely noone else is allowed or qualified to speak on this subject? I'd also like to know how you'd like a proper conclusion without a sufficient investigation having taken place.
The first official account was from FEMA, which blamed the tops of those building acting as pistons and crushing the floors beneath them. NIST came along and demolished this theory(pardon the term). If the tops of the buildings had acted as pistons then there would have been the resulting piles of 20 and 25 floors sitting atop the rubble and dust. Pancaking is out. Let's see what we know about NIST and their investigation and report. First off, they never tested for explosives-noone did. We have a crime scene where two buildings were demolished(three really with bldg 7) and standard procedure for FDNY is to check for explosives in such a case. Even with a large amount of recorded evidence, seismic spikes and personal testimony or people who saw flashes and heard explosive blasts and some who saw the lobbies blasted to kingdom come, they never investigated. NIST's excuse for not investigating a demolition theory was that they basically knew the impacts and resultant fires were enough to cause collapse so they didn't look for alternatives. They already knew what did it so there was no need to look further. Don't take my word for it. Sort through their BS yourself at least on the FAQ page, if not the report itself:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
What we also know about NIST is that it is a divison of the Department of Commerce, the first name on the report is Carlos Guttierez who happened to be Bush's Secretary of Commerce and all of NIST's director were appointed by Bush. How could this have possibly been an impartial investigation?
Furthermore, we have one of the structural engineers that participated in the NIST investigation showing exactly how questionable NIST's investigation was. It's hardly conclusive, but you judge for yourself.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/hamburger.html __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 21 Apr 2010 20:50
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
Look, 9/11 deniers are about as interesting to me as holocaust deniers. They can formulate any theory they like, but the evidence and rational thought suggest something differnt than their conclusion.
There no evidence for what they claim other than their own half baked theories and conjectures.
AND YES! only a structural engineer is qualified to speak abotu structural engineering. That's just basic intelegence. If it's not your specialty don't disagree with the specialists!
That is what this whole science denial topic is about. People saying well, I may not be a big city lawyer but I think X when all those big city lawyers who spent years studying this exact topic say it's Y.
I'm sorry, I don't think this is going to be a positive line of discussion. Make what ever final statment you like, but as I am not an expert, I am going to side with the actual experts on this subject and not the ramblings of persons who are not expert in the subject on which they are expounding.
Posted: 21 Apr 2010 21:34
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
So, never mind the points I brought up, this is just a bore to you and the case is already virtually closed. Got it. On to the final statements then.
Quote: If it's not your specialty don't disagree with the specialists!
I do have to know this. Exactly what specialists are you agreeing with? NIST, the 911 Comission, Popular Mechanics, your neighbors, your coworkers...who?
If the buildings and what happened to them were *only* a matter of structural engineering, then yes, you only listen to structural engineers. Go ahead and see if the NIST team was only comprised of structural engineers. Aside from their own members, the 200+ experts they consulted for the initial investigation came from a wide range of fields and disciplines.
(since I was just looking at it)Another point of interest here in reference to what I was speaking about earlier, is that the experts they consulted with(exact quote) "performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse." This again shows that they didn't do a full investigation. If the investigation was to determine why the towers fully collapsed, why have the experts stop their involvement in the investigation at the initiaion of collapse? My answer is to utilize tweaked computer models. You can post a seperate answer if you disagree.
Just as a point of further understanding, if it were only the twin towers that raised issues, there would not be a 'truth movement'. There are legitimate questions and concerns to be had with the formal investigation of these buildings; moreso because of all the other contradictions, distortions, omissions and oddities of the rest of the events of that day. There's a long list of these, not just a handful.
Quote: There no evidence for what they claim
When you've decided beforehand that the subject is already closed and you know everything you need to know, it's not a surprise to not be even willing to look at or hear an opposing view, never mind determining if it's evidence or not or whether it is accurate or not. This is also part of science denial. You decided Dr Jones was a 'crank' before even looking at what he offered, simply based on? - you already know he's wrong? you already know his subject is irrelevant and nonrelated? I'm curious toward this as well. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 22 Apr 2010 15:40
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
No interest in the subject. have a nice day.
Posted: 22 Apr 2010 18:59
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
No problem. You too. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Evidence is necessary and yes, the greater the claim, the greater the evidence needed to support it. With the case of 9/11 though, most of the evidence available is not so much actual 'evidence' such as black boxes and crash photos as the interviews and discrepencies between them. Even a good deal of the actual science is questionable because of the computer programs and models involved and how they are either inconclusive, or the results can't be duplicated or the models are not made public and so on.
