Why the 9-11 conspiracies won't go away...

[Blotan Hunka]

Qui-bono. That's why. But, you could be right, too. Who knows.

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

Epistemic bias?

It is possible that certain basic human epistemic biases are projected onto the material under scrutiny. According to one study humans apply a 'rule of thumb' by which we expect a significant event to have a significant cause. The study offered subjects four versions of events, in which a foreign president was (a) successfully assassinated, (b) wounded but survived, (c) survived with wounds but died of a heart attack at a later date, and (d) was unharmed. Subjects were significantly more likely to suspect conspiracy in the case of the 'major events'—in which the president died—than in the other cases, despite all other evidence available to them being equal.
Another epistemic 'rule of thumb' that can be misapplied to a mystery involving other humans is cui bono? (who stands to gain?). This sensitivity to the hidden motives of other people might be either an evolved or an encultured feature of human consciousness, but either way it appears to be universal. If the inquirer lacks access to the relevant facts of the case, or if there are structural interests rather than personal motives involved, this method of inquiry will tend to produce a falsely conspiratorial account of an impersonal event. The direct corollary of this epistemic bias in pre-scientific cultures is the tendency to imagine the world in terms of animism. Inanimate objects or substances of significance to humans are fetishised and supposed to harbor benign or malignant spirits.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Then who are they?

http://www.raptureready.com/photo/tulsa2/z56.jpg

The first thing to know about scholars is that they are almost invariably the dumbest people on earth. Or, rather, outside of their fields of study (and oftentimes even in their fields) they are idiots. I would trust the average idiot on the street to fix my car than the entire collective of tenured professors on my campus. But, lucky for me, the scholars behind Scholars for 9/11 Truth have absolutely no expertise in any field relevant to 9/11. There is one exception: notable crackpot Robert Bowman who, like Ramsey Clark, uses previous government positions to validate their outrageous claims. Let us take a look at a few of the members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Here I will list a scholar's name, followed by their central area of scholarship. In some cases, their inherent bias is shamelessly obvious:

Kevin Barrett, Folklore (no kidding?) at UW-Madison
Tracy Blevins, Bioengineering at Rice University
William Cook, Professor of English and author of "Tracking Deception: Bush Mid-east Policy"
Richard Curtis, Philosophy at Seattle University
A.K. Dewdney, Mathematician at University of Western Ontario
Daniele Glanser, Historian at Basel University
Richard McGinn, Professor of Linguistics and Southeast Asian studies
Raymond Munro, Professor of Theater at Clark University (Isn't it all theater?)

The real jokes, as pertaining to 9/11, are further at the bottom:

Chris Poate, carpenter
E. Martin Schotz, citizen historian
Harry Stottle, philosopher, author, and inventor
Erik Champenois, student
Noguns Sheehan, artist, rainbow woman, counter-cultural beader. Really: WTF?

And finally, some artists and musicians thrown in for good measure. I have not seen a group more unqualified for any given project since the US Congress. This ensemble of half-headed morons is a self-deprecating joke and should be grounds for committal to an asylum.

 

[Makalakumu]

This is nonsense. Anyone whose served a single day in uniform knows that large scale conspiracies are impossible to carry out. Occam's Razor. This does not mean that folks didn't take political advantage of this - but it does mean that an "inside job" is unlikely.

The problem with this assumption is that it puts the cart before the horse. When people make this argument, they are basically using the question "how could this happen?" and their own unfounded assumptions about its possible answer to ignore whether or not it did happen. Look at the evidence. Figure out what happened. Then figure out how it happened.

 

[Makalakumu]

http://www.raptureready.com/photo/tulsa2/z56.jpg

Except the physicists, structural engineers and other scientists who are publishing their studies. Look, you can make ad hominem attacks all day, but it does nothing to actually address the arguments these people are making.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51858

Physics prof calls 9/11 conspiracist 'fruitcake'
'Since he can't evaluate the evidence presented, he shouldn't have an opinion'

A University of Wisconsin professor who works with 9-11 conspiracist Kevin Barrett says he's a "fruitcake" who is too biased in favor of Islam to teach a class on the subject.

Barrett, a Muslim convert, was recently cleared by the college to teach a course this fall titled, "Islam: Religion and Culture." Like many Muslims, he contends the 9-11 attacks were an "inside job" carried out by Bush administration officials and not Islamic terrorists.
Specifically, Barrett argues Bush officials rigged the World Trade Center with incendiary devices to bring it down and start a war against Islam.

"He's a fruitcake," says Marshall F. Onellion, a physics professor at the University of Wisconsin. "He has no education in any engineering or science area pertinent to how, or whether, buildings fall down when hit by airplanes. Since he can't evaluate the evidence presented, he shouldn't have an opinion" that will influence students.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Except the physicists, structural engineers and other scientists who are publishing their studies. Look, you can make ad hominem attacks all day, but it does nothing to actually address the arguments these people are making.

"So you're suggesting that a history of ridiculous claims, isn't relavent to further ridiculous claims? Can you say 'Spinning'?" -SgtMac

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Except the physicists, structural engineers and other scientists who are publishing their studies. Look, you can make ad hominem attacks all day, but it does nothing to actually address the arguments these people are making.

There are no structural engineers listed as members of the group, and note that the engineers involved with the scholars have little relevant work with the appropriate disciplines related to structural engineering or controlled demolitions, and also note that none of the research by the group members has yet to be published in any peer reviewed science journal. More recently, former members Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds resigned from the association on August 23, 2006 criticizing both Prof. Jones and the Journal for 9/11 Studies. Critics also note that of the 139,000 members of the American Society of Civil Engineers, not one is a member of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/who-are-scholars-for-911-truth.html

Their most famous member, and co-founder, is Steven Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University. He has become famous for publishing a paper on the WTC collapse. Thus far this paper though, has only been reviewed, not in a journal on physics, or structural engineering, but in a Marxist journal of political economy. BYU itself has rejected his work. Dr. Jones primary research has been, not in structural engineering or the reaction of metals to heat, but in cold fusion, which even in the physics community is regarded as bordering on alchemy. Even more bizarrely, his other famous published work was one right out of the World Weekly News, claiming that Jesus visited Central America based on ancient Indian artwork.

Jesus visited Central America based on ancient Indian artwork???

Out of the 76 "experts" the most common academic discipline was philosophy, with 9 members, including a co-founder. Since 7 members did not even list an academic discipline, this was 1/7 of their credentialed membership. English/literature and psychology came in next with 5 members each. Even theology and "humanities" came in with 4 and 3 members respectively. Among actual scientific fields, physics was way in front, with 5 members, including the aforementioned Dr. Jones. I am not sure as to their academic credentials though, at least one of the "physicists", Jeffrey Farrer, isn't even a professor, he is a lab manager at BYU. One has to wonder whether Steven Jones' janitor is also listed as an associate member?

So how many engineers do they have? Out of the 76, a grand total of 2. Jean-Pierre Petit, a French aeronautical engineer, who despite the obvious handicap of being French actually seems to have a relevant qualification. Curiously enough though, he doesn't seem to have written a single word on 9/11. He has written though, on a mysterious plot by the US military to bomb Jupiter with anti-matter weapons! (BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!!)

The second engineer is Judy Wood, who has been mentioned in the comments here for her bizarre billiard ball from the top of the World Trade Center theory. OK, Ms. Wood is an actual Mechanical Engineer at Clemson, but thus far her work has been primarily focused on the stresses of dentistry. A fascinating field no doubt, but hardly relevant to planes crashing into buildings.

So how many structural engineers are listed? Absolutely zero. How many experts in Middle Eastern studies, or the Arabic language? Also zero. But they do have a professor of social work!

 

[Makalakumu]

So, when are you going to defend NIST and stop making fallacious ad hominems?

I love how Dr. Jones is criticised for being a Morman. Isn't bigotry wonderful!

 

[hongkongfooey]

This site should be investigated!

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

 

[hongkongfooey]

 

[Makalakumu]

This site should be investigated!

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

Most people who claim that certain phenomenon occur despite the fact that their explanation for said phenomenon violates the laws of physics are considered quacks, nuts, and conspiracy theorists.

 

[bustr]

For those who believe the governement:

 

[Makalakumu]

One of the problems with conspiracy theorists is that they try to limit the dissembling of the theory to their Gatekeepers. In effect, what they are telling anyone who dares question their theory is that they are too dumb or ignorant to understand the finer points (usually esoteric and meaningless) of their theory. This Gatekeeping does not take into an individuals education or the fact they may have done alot of work in order to understand the phenomenon in question. This, in my opinion, is the ultimate tragedy regarding conspiracy theorists...the assumption that the masses are too stupid to decide for themselves, even if they've seen the relevant information.

The government's conspiracy theorists are no different then any others.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Dont you have a different tune?

Whats the frequency Kenneth?!?!

 

[Blotan Hunka]

So, when are you going to defend NIST and stop making fallacious ad hominems?

I love how Dr. Jones is criticised for being a Morman. Isn't bigotry wonderful!

Must be convenient being able to use the opinions of nut jobs as "scientific facts". If there was a congressional committee studying say Bush that had evangelist christians in it youd be leading the charge. Im not the one holding up an obviously biased group of acedemics as the banner holder of my cause here. So we just have to believe what they say and their history/experience and bias cant enter into it? Give me a break...theyre nuts! And theyre UNQUALIFIED. If pointing that out is an attack to you I think that says more about you than me.

His religious beliefs dont bother me. The fact that one of his most noteworthy academic works is this bizzare paper, and his cold fusion fiasco, leads me to doubt anything he has to say about 9/11.

Ill believe the guys that actually know things about buildings and demolitions thank you very much.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

This site should be investigated!

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

BEWARE OF COMMERCIAL AFDBS: Since you should trust no one, always construct your AFDB yourself to avoid the risk of subversion and mental enslavement. Sometimes, AFDBs will be sold on places like eBay. Do not purchase these pre-made AFDBs, even if the seller seems trustworthy. They may contain backdoors, pinholes, integrated psychotronic circuitry or other methods that actually promote mind control.

:rofl::rofl:

 

[Blotan Hunka]

This is a PDF file from the definitive voice in the demolition industry and what they think of the silly “controlled demolition” at the WTC theory Also titled: "Another smack in the head for the stupid people."

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC9-6-06.pdf

 

[Makalakumu]

Must be convenient being able to use the opinions of nut jobs as "scientific facts". If there was a congressional committee studying say Bush that had evangelist christians in it youd be leading the charge. Im not the one holding up an obviously biased group of acedemics as the banner holder of my cause here. So we just have to believe what they say and their history/experience and bias cant enter into it? Give me a break...theyre nuts! And theyre UNQUALIFIED. If pointing that out is an attack to you I think that says more about you than me.

His religious beliefs dont bother me. The fact that one of his most noteworthy academic works is this bizzare paper, and his cold fusion fiasco leads me to doubt anything he has to say about 9/11.

Digging up a bunch of crap to avoid talking about the actual points and facts that people bring up is typical of conspiracy theorists. And so is screaming about peices of paper and other asanine red herrings. The simple fact of the matter is that a person with HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS and the will to read the facts in this case can debunk the government's conspiracy theory.

All of this is just the typical conspiracy theorist gatekeeping. They want to portray it so that no one, no matter how much work they do to understand the evidence, is ever capable of entering an opinion that disagrees with their little theory.

 

[hongkongfooey]

Charlie Sheen supports it so it must be true.

http://http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=JON20060322&articleId=2153