January 25, 2008

I'm assailed in the local paper for failing to take the 9/11 truthers seriously.

Oh, the pain! The pain that UW-Oshkosh emeritus biology professor Bill Willers imagines he's inflicting!
On Jan. 21, University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse wrote on her blog, “I don’t know why the University of Wisconsin has not rehired 9/11 conspiracy believer Kevin Barrett to teach a course on the history of Islam. But if we know a person believes something truly nutty, are we not entitled to use that as evidence of his intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness?”
Here's the blog post in which I set aside the facts I don't know and raise a question designed to help readers work toward a general principle that would distinguish between the discrimination against a political viewpoint and the proper use of evidence of a person's qualities of mind.
This is an amazing statement coming from a professor of law — a position that presupposes a respect for carefully considered evidence.
Presumably, by "position" he means that the position of professor of law presupposes respect for evidence. But it could more aptly mean that the position I took in my statement is, in fact, a recommendation that we ascertain the value of the evidence that a job applicant creates through speaking and thus a position that entails respect for evidence.
Her assault on Mr. Barrett, in which she makes no effort to consider the countless facts backing the so-called Truth Movement, is shamefully flippant — her word choice of “truly nutty” — and unworthy of an academic intent on attacking another.
Professor Willers, calm down and reread. I put to the side the case of Kevin Barrett and said I did not know the facts. Moving to the level of abstraction, I asked a neutral question that was intended to facilitate thinking about what to do in the case of a job applicant who takes a truly nutty position. By the way, it's the work of a law professor to propose hypotheticals to assist students in thinking about legal problems outside of the context of a particular case.
Without going into details easily found on the Internet...
Oh, my! It's on the Internet!
....a considerable army of architects, engineers, physicists, logicians, commercial and military pilots, first responders, military figures all the way to general officer, and government personnel including FBI and CIA agents has amassed a solid case countering the official story. That army is all the greater for the addition of similar experts from countries all over the world.
So, apparently Willers is himself a 9/11 truther. Sigh.
Ms. Althouse has refused to debate the issue in public forum. That being so, how does the objective observer avoid a conclusion of moral cowardice on her part? As a professional, is she not obligated to present evidence rather than indulging in personal attack?
Why would I debate about physics when I'm a law professor? Being "a professional" doesn't mean you're an expert in everything.

And again, I didn't make a personal attack.

By the way, Professor Willers, aren't you making a personal attack? Do you think you had the obligation to read my post with basic understanding before writing a letter like this to the newspaper?
There is irony surrounding Ms. Althouse’s questioning of Mr. Barrett’s intelligence...
Oh, irony! That's really... ironic... because I was just pointing out the irony of your absurd little letter to the student newspaper.
....judgment and trustworthiness, because it leads one to the question, “If we know that a law professor is willing to attack someone for no reason that she could defend in a courtroom situation, would we not be entitled to question her intelligence, judgment and trustworthiness?” And there is little doubt that in a courtroom, in which she would face that army of experts and their facts, she would be reduced to dust on the floor.
In answer to your hypothetical, of course you could take into account that the law professor attacked someone for no reason. I didn't do that, however, so that doesn't refer to me.

Nevertheless, I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness.

117 comments:

Fen said...

Please invite him here to present his Truther "facts". Should be very entertaining. As someone who witnessed the attack on the Pentagon, I would love to debate him.

Zeb Quinn said...

Diss on the troofers, or just give that appearance, and they'll make you pay.

Pogo said...

Professor emeritus Willers said "...the countless facts backing the so-called Truth Movement"

Really now. Even Bill Clinton thinks the Truthers are nutty, sir. "How dare you. How dare you. It was not an inside job," and all that.

Is it the Oshkosh location that did this to you?

Can your students get a refund from the UW system for your classes, given that this letter, and your belief in absolute cloud cuckoo land stupidity, indicates that you are not a scientist at all, but a poseur?

Roger said...

Geez--and this guy is a biology professor. He must be applying the notion that being a professor gives you the right to "profess," although the right to profess is, I think, assumed to have to be backed up by evidence. Is there something in that Wisconsin cheese?

peter hoh said...

Zing.

Some of us love to see you on your high horse.

Ride on!

Simon said...

It's interesting to consider incentives here. If he wanted to disagree with you, he could simply have posted a comment to your original post, so the decision to write a letter to the editor instead of commenting is at least as meaningful as the content of that letter. He's insulting upwards: the attack on you isn't the end, its the means. The end is to publicize his conspiracy theory about 9/11. He's using feigned offense to your post as a springboard to justify inserting these nutty views into the paper and to make them seem relevant to some immediate event and context, without which his letter might not make it into print.

George said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
joated said...

Jaw-dropping assininity on display. The man must be in fear of his job.

George said...

I can understand why Prof. Willers is in a ticked off mood. He was a supporter....

"It is understandable that “The System” would consider Kucinich a threat and seek to make him invisible. Simply look at his platform...."

The System was against Fred, too...

George said...

Rrrrr....

MIssing link above....

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/the-invisible-man-our-chance-for-dramatic-change-by-bill-willers/

Meade said...

"...she would be reduced to dust on the floor."

Just plain dust?

Big whoop.

Joan said...

A lot of people can't read. Fortunately, most of them resolve to seethe in silence, but every so often you get one that has to kick up a fuss. I enjoyed your take-down of this particular idiot, but I wonder if engaging with this will do any good at all. I mean, it's entertaining for us -- thanks! -- but Willers and his crowd aren't exactly open to constructive criticism.

Pogo said...

And there is little doubt that in a courtroom,
Since when does a biology professor yield to law what is the provenace of science?

in which she would face
Just Althouse?
No one else?
All of science is behind the truthers?

that army of experts and their facts
Good God. This is going to be just like the JFK conspiracy nuts, wasting bookshelves of paper on sheer idiocy.

she would be reduced to dust on the floor.
Bill Willers, emeritus dustless black pepper, UW Oshkosh.

Simon said...

Meade - quite. She'd be kept out of black pepper, too.

It's really quite an unfortunate metaphor since "dust on the floor" is what Al Queda reduced 2,974 Americans to during the September 11th Attacks. Lincoln once said that whenever he sees a man arguing for slavery he had an urge to see it tried on that man, and I find myself having much the same reaction to 9/11 conspiracy theorists. They should all be loaded into the top floors of a skyscraper with identical construction to the World Trade Center, and then a remote-controlled plane should be flown into the building, fully-laden with fuel. Don't worry, ladies and gentlemen: I know it sounds sadistic, but you must understand, if their theory is correct, they will be quite safe and have nothing to fear.

rhhardin said...

logicians,

I always loved Southwest Radio Church back in the 80s, for their now-emasculated Bible in the News segment, explaining how the day's news fulfills various Biblical verses. The Russians were huge at the time, as was Artificial Intelligence, or ``A One'' as they always called it.

The Savings and Loans were in crisis, and there was the line ``The Savings and Loan industry, once a leading economic indicator, now lies in ruins.''

Well, that's just fond memories.

More to the point, there is an interview segment, and one of the interviews was with an author who had determined, ``by the process of logical elimination,'' that UFO's were piloted by fallen angels trying to get the attention of the media.

So let's hear it for truther logicians, an occupation that can always be called on in the service of truth.

michael said...

Oshkosh? Dude teaches at Oshkosh? That's more like high shcool with ash trays than a university.

Original Mike said...

Ann asks: Why would I debate about physics when I'm a law professor?

Biology "Professor" Willers isn't afraid to discuss physics, and mythology lecturer Barrett isn't afraid to discuss physics, so what's wrong with you, Ann? [/snark]

Middle Class Guy said...

Your rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory demonstrates you are an intelligent person, use good judgment, and are trustworthy; you are normal.

Mr. Willers seems to accept the truth teller version of events or at least is willing to keep an open mind about nutty ideas. Of course, he has not learned how to read. Had he read your post, he would have understood exactly what you were doing. I think he is offended and worried that a new movie may be made and it would embarrass UW and all professors; Nutty Professor 9/11.

ricpic said...

Half the fun in life is being a blowhard. But I guess if you're a professor you can't just throw stuff out there. You have to have back up. Evidence. What a drag.

Alan said...

Popular Mechanics has an excellent special report debunking the 9/11 myths. That's somewhat tangential to Ann's main argument about her hypothetical, which is totally sound. But here it is:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Alan said...

Geez, I don't know how to link using HTML tags. If someone could put up my Popular Mechanics link (see above) as a clickable link, I'd appreciate it.

Critical Badger said...

UW-Madison student blogger response:

http://thecriticalbadger.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/earth-to-bill-willers-ann-althouse-editorial/

Simon said...

Pogo said...
"Good God. This is going to be just like the JFK conspiracy nuts, wasting bookshelves of paper on sheer idiocy."

The JFK theorists, at least, have credible evidence of a conspiracy. the 9/11 troof mob are all the worse for the complete vacuity of their arguments, and the total lack of any credible evidence.

"Bill Willers, emeritus dustless black pepper, UW Oshkosh."

Heh, we had the same joke in mind!

rhhardin said...

This isn't exactly about being a law professor, but merely uses it launch a comeback.

Arguing with fools, contrary to received wisdom, is always entertaining, provided it's in public.

AJ Lynch said...

Smart people like Bill (Willie) Willers should give us the willies.

Is he frustrated because his life has been ordinary and unheralded? Has that made him a ripe candidate to believe and support an idiotic idea with no scientific support?

Dare I say it? These fringe goups seem to be comprised of America-hating libs.

peter hoh said...

Alan, here is your Popular Mechanics link.

peter hoh said...

And here's a helpful guide to inserting links.

Tibore said...

Christ! I have really lost much respect for academia. For every decent professor like Althouse here or Glenn Reynolds, I keep seeing lesser intellects like Bill Willers, Steven Jones, or David Ray Griffin bend over backwards to find ways to be wrong.

Barrett, as I said before, supports demonstrably incorrect claims. Factually incorrect claims. Claims where mere iteration of facts demonstrates their total lack of validity. And Willers wants to defend him? What ever happened to Veritas? Do professors no longer believe in that?

Professor, I'm not including you in that description, but I do have to say that I'm terribly disappointed with the quality of many faculty members in higher education today. If Willers is a biology professor, he should know better than to be taken in by the handwaving necessary to fall for 9/11 conspiracy theory.

Lawgiver said...

Nobody can fisk like Ann Althouse. That’s why I read this blog.

Freder Frederson said...

But if we know a person believes something truly nutty, are we not entitled to use that as evidence of his intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness?”

But Ann, of course was not referring to Barrett, just a hypothetical person who believes something truly nutty.

Alan said...

Thanks, Peter!

Revenant said...

The JFK theorists, at least, have credible evidence of a conspiracy.

They do?

Smilin' Jack said...

Her assault on Mr. Barrett, in which she makes no effort to consider the countless facts backing the so-called Truth Movement, is shamefully flippant — her word choice of “truly nutty” — and unworthy of an academic intent on attacking another.

Professor Willers, calm down and reread. I put to the side the case of Kevin Barrett and said I did not know the facts.


Well, that's a little disingenuous. What you put aside was the question of whether Barrett wasn't hired because he is truly nutty, not whether he is in fact truly nutty. You clearly inply that he is, so it's legitimate to regard your post as an attack on him, even though that wasn't your main purpose. Of course, the attack aspect isn't very interesting to sane readers of normal intelligence, since they will all agree with you that he is truly nutty.

former law student said...

By proximity, Ann's words could be taken to mean she thought Kevin Barrett was truly nutty. She could have put this a bit more tactfully. To me the issue is, does his belief make it difficult or impossible to do his job?

I once worked for a very competent manager, with excellent people skills, who believed the world was created in seven literal days. This "truly nutty" belief did not reflect poorly on his intelligence, judgment, or trustworthiness, because his job had nothing to do with biology, geology, etc.

So, as long as holding a particular belief does not conflict with one's job, I would say it's irrelevant. I would say a lot of people have blind spots that don't affect their i, j, or t. My grandmother believed that handling frogs would give you warts; she was a very competent homemaker all the same.

Like the various JFK assassination theories, the 9/11 Truther movement is a reasonable response to an unreasonable occurrence: the destruction of the World Trade Center was shocking, unimaginable. Some people trying to process what happened are likely not to be satisfied by pat answers, especially now, given the Administration's track record on telling the truth about war in the Middle East. Certainly, trying to identify who benefited from the attacks makes sense as a starting point. Despite the lack of evidence to support the Truther movement, other responses, like "All Muslims are terrorists," are less reasonable.

Pastafarian said...

There seems to be a lot of truthers on campus these days. And that guys up there right job-wise right? So just whats wrong with you people?

Is it really that insular a world in college? I never went to college so I don't know.

I didn't need me no book larnin' no how.

Pogo said...

When vetting prospective teachers for a University, I can see how hard it would be to uncover the truly froot loopian teachers. If the escapee from Arkham Asylum is but able to hold it together for a few papers, teaching at a community college, and an interview, he slips in undetected.

But once they're in, they lose all moorings and drift into what Sir Archy calls the Lunaticks from Bedlam. Then the University has to scrape the guy off their shoe and hope none of it stains their pants, as it were.

Google seems a godsend for this. Then only the quiet dements get in.

Pogo said...

the 9/11 Truther movement is a reasonable response to an unreasonable occurrence

Conspiracy theorizing is a common response to an unreasonable occurrence, but not reasonable at all. It's wholly irrational, but entirely human.

Tibore said...

Just an FYI - Created a thread on this subject at the JREF (James Randi Educational Forum):

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104540

Not sure if a lot of people there will add much commentary to it; references to "... a considerable army of architects, engineers, physicists, logicians, commercial and military pilots, first responders, military figures all the way to general officer, and government personnel including FBI and CIA agents..." is a not-so-subtle pitch for the various conspiracy advocacy sites Patriots Question 9/11, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, etc., and that's not exactly "cutting edge woo" as far as folks who've been locking horns with truthers are concerned. But still, the post is there, and sometimes interesting commentary pops up.

Beth said...

Pogo, they slip through, but that's why there are several years between hiring and the tenure or retention processes. It's hard to keep your weirdness tamped down with a full teaching load for three or four years.

Original Mike said...

Sure, people can hold nutty believes and still perform admirably in all sorts of jobs, but when that job is teaching at a university, the very fact that they hold nutty believes is relevant. Extremely relevant.

AllenS said...

former law student--

Frogs don't give you warts, toads do.

Doyle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tibore said...

"... the 9/11 Truther movement is a reasonable response to an unreasonable occurrence..."

I have to agree with Pogo here, and expand on what he said. It is not reasonable to resort to superstition when confronted with extreme circumstances. So many claims are demonstrably false; others are complete misrepresentations. Regardless of one's opinion of the current administration, said administration cannot violate physical laws, nor can they accomplish impossible chemical or engineering feats. On top of that, what people like professor Willers calls the "official story" is hardly from the administration alone; another veritable "army of architects, engineers, physicists" etc. have contributed their own specific works to the picture of what happened that day, and have published them in many different places. There's hardly a single "official story", yet that's what fantasy believers like Willers wants you to believe.

I urge people to visit sites like 9/11 Myths.com, Debunking 9/11, the Journal of Debunking 9/11, and the JREF Conspiracy theory subforum to see just how far so many details of that day have been misrepresented by that "considerable army" Willers refers to.

Like Sagan has taught me: Superstition is not an enlightenment value, and for all their pseudoscientific research and cargo-cult peer review methodologies, the 9/11 conspiracy theory at heart offers little else but superstition. Regardless of what an emeritus professor thinks on the matter.

Simon said...

Tibore said...
"Barrett ... supports demonstrably incorrect claims. Factually incorrect claims. Claims where mere iteration of facts demonstrates their total lack of validity. And Willers wants to defend him? What ever happened to Veritas?"

Whatever has happened to "sifting and winnowing" for that matter...

nansealinks said...

I would not trust a lawyer on many matters. Lawyers are schooled in fooling people by means of language. On the internet and in newpaper print they have the advantage.

Take for instance Ann's recent comment on royal blue. The answer lies in her mind's eye.

Science will explain this as Newton tried and was challenged.

from wikipedia:

Newton denoted by the name of "indigo" the tint of the spectrum lying between "blue" and "violet." Von Bezold, in his work on color, rejects the term, justifying his objection by observing that the pigment indigo is a much darker hue than the spectrum tint. Prof. O. N. Rood, who follows Von Bezold in rejecting the term, brings forward the further objection that the tint of the pigment indigo more nearly corresponds in hue (though it is darker) with the cyan-blue region lying between green and blue. By comparing the tints of indigo pigment, both dry and wet, with the spectrum, and by means of Maxwell’s disks, it appears that the hue of indigo is almost identical with that of Prussian blue, and certainly does not lie on the violet side of "blue." Indigo in the dry lump, if scraped, has, however, a more violet tint; but if fractured or powdered, or dissolved, its tint is distinctly greenish. Prof. Rood considers that artificial ultramarine corresponds much more nearly to the true tint of the spectrum at the point usually termed "indigo," and he therefore proposes to substitute the term "ultramarine" in its place, the color of the artificial pigment being thereby intended.

Ann, I know you don't acknowlege my existence. You seem to be similar to some MSN chick I knew in a previous internet life from Wisconsin who always told the truth right down to her first and last name.

Anyway, it's all in the light and depth of beautiful brown eyed girls.

Middle Class Guy said...

Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

"The world is full of idiots, and someone needs to point it out to them or they will never know." - Dr. John Becker

EnigmatiCore said...

It may not be polite to call a nut a nut, but it remains factual and can sometimes be a net positive in that it can assist in preventing the asinine from becoming socially acceptable.

Freder Frederson said...

Regardless of one's opinion of the current administration, said administration cannot violate physical laws, nor can they accomplish impossible chemical or engineering feats.

While the "9/11 truthers" have invented a ridiculous conspiracy (just the demonstrated incompetence of the administration of the past 6 years proves they couldn't have pulled 9/11 off and then covered it up), the physics, chemistry and engineering behind their theories is not that off the wall. Although how anyone could have wired the WTC to implode, which would have required placing charges on the outside walls, without any of the occupants noticing, is beyond me.

Pat said...

Barrett has given many other reasons why he should not be teaching at a university with a reputation for academic integrity. Just the other day, he stated that he considers Hamas and Hezbollah to be heroes:

http://911blogger.com/node/13485

"Alten casts Hamas and Hezbullah as among the villains, while for me--as for virtually all of the planet's 1.5 billion Muslims, and everyone else who supports the right to resist illegal occupation and aggression, a right granted by international law--those groups are heroes."

Although he groans about how his freedom of speech has been taken away, he indulges himself in frequent fantasies about his enemies being hanged:

http://911blogger.com/node/12413

"Any Representatives who do not support impeachment are themselves complicit in Cheney's crimes, and will be judged so by history and by future Nuremburg-style tribunals."

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/05/kevin-barrett-calls-for-mass-execution.html

"My response to that was, you know, I think that anybody who has drawn a paycheck from the major mainstream journalistic outlets in the past should be up on the scaffold for the crimes of high treason and crimes against humanity."

Then we could get into his Holocaust Denial:

http://www.oilempire.us/mujca.html

"As a rational person who is not a specialist in the subject of WWII, but who has studied the history of Zionist Big Lies vis-a-vis Palestine, I cannot possibly dismiss the arguments of people like Green, Irving, and even Zundel. And even if the 6-million-deliberately-murdered-for-purely-ethnic-reasons figure is correct--which it very well may be; I have grown agnostic on that after studying the Big Lies of Zionism-- I would still have to characterize the Holocaust as it is taught in the US as a hideously destructive myth."

Stephen Snell said...

Enjoyable post, PA, well done.

I'm sure it happens to me much less than to most people for obvious reasons, but sometimes it's fun to eviscerate with argument someone who lacks the wattage and self-awareness to understand.

To wit, I have completely silenced a "well-educated" enviro dude simply by demanding a rebuttal to Kozinski's review of The Skeptical Environmentalist. The initial responses boiled down to, "We're fundamentally wrong in all of our predictions, but under the broken clock theory you better start listening to us."

Simon said...

former law student said...
"[T]he 9/11 Truther movement is a reasonable response to an unreasonable occurrence: the destruction of the World Trade Center...."

I share Pogo's skepticism of this claim, but I'm willing to grant that in the first few weeks after 9/11 this might have been a valid response. The data wasn't yet available and the human mind tends to try to rationalize events based on available information. But to still maintain such an outlandish theory more than six years later, after every intellectually defensible basis for a conspiracy theory has been soundly repudiated again and again calls into question someone's higher brain functions. You say it's not relevant to some jobs, but if my dentist was a 9/11 truther, I'd change dentists, because people that dense shouldn't be trusted with sharp objects.

Freder Frederson said...

To wit, I have completely silenced a "well-educated" enviro dude simply by demanding a rebuttal to Kozinski's review of The Skeptical Environmentalist.

I'm glad you put "well-educated" in quotes since rebutting The Skeptical Environmentalist is pathetically easy.

Freder Frederson said...

But to still maintain such an outlandish theory more than six years later, after every intellectually defensible basis for a conspiracy theory has been soundly repudiated again and again calls into question someone's higher brain functions.

Kind of like insisting global warming theory is flawed unless some non-existent lead-lag problem can be explained.

Simon said...

Pat, with regard to Barrett's talk of the scaffold, you shouldn't eally be so surprised to see such things coming from the left - one doesn't need to spend much time in left blogistan before someone wishes violence on someone. Violence, threats, ad baculum, non sequitur and profanity are all their stock-in-trade. To give just one example, when I was searching for the link for "insulting upwards" above, I noticed a link to the blog "whiskey fire" came up in google's search at number four or similar, and out of morbid curiosity clicked in. And if you visit http://whiskeyfire.typepad.com/whiskey_fire/2007/03/arts_corner.html, what you'll see is that the main poster doesn't just dislike My Fair Lady but thinks that it raped Pygmalion and one off the commenters opines that it'd be nice if Jane Galt (Megan McArdle) were cast in MFL with the minor change that at the end she be beaten to death with a 2x4. This instinctive urge to violence is spattered all over the leftosphere.

Sigivald said...

To echo Tibor's point - one shouldn't bother using mere facts against Truthers; in my experience they automatically filter them out.

An "army" of people including "engineers" have presented a "solid case" against the "official story", they say

But when one looks at the details of that "case", it never seems to be more than a farrago of speculation, unsupported assertion, repetition of third-party quotes (often ones that are provably wrong or provably removed from context that changes the meaning they want to apply to them), and often the "engineers" involved are... the wrong kind, speaking outside their area of professional expertise - like the high-energy physics professor at whichever Utah school it was, pretending to be a structural or materials scientist.

When one counters them with, for instance, the published analysis of actual structural and materials engineers at JOM, a professional publication of the materials and metals field, oddly they never count that as anything but "disinformation".

And of course, the actual claims of the "official story" are always misrepresented; truthers tell us that the fires weren't hot enough to melt steel ... but the "official story" doesn't claim they melted!

An literally irrational worldview cannot be argued with.

Tibore said...

"While the "9/11 truthers" have invented a ridiculous conspiracy... the physics, chemistry and engineering behind their theories is not that off the wall."


With all due respect, I can't really agree with that. But I don't want to pick a fight. I'll agree that on first glance their assertions aren't "that off the wall", especially because one such assertion was what brought me into the whole topic to being with (Jet fuel and molten steel). But upon study, those "theories" do reveal their weaknesses.

You're right about the charges. I agree 100%. But, we all got to keep in mind that the Truther worldview concentrates on the "anomalies", and leaves it to others to put together cohesive stories (no kidding! That's the very argument many at the JREF forum and other places, like the Screw Loose Change blog, put forth). It doesn't matter of anomalies contradict or lead to absurd conclusions, the point is they exist, and that's all that the truther cares about.

Revenant said...

I'm glad you put "well-educated" in quotes since rebutting The Skeptical Environmentalist is pathetically easy.

Odd that it hasn't been done yet, then. :)

AJ Lynch said...

Yeah Freder, if it's so easy, then it should be kid's play for you on a Friday afternoon. Bring it on.

paul a'barge said...

What is it with academics in Wisconsin? Do you people have deliberate threshold of tolerance for truther mutts? Have you (not Althouse, Wisconsin adademics) no shame?

Need we change the name of your state from Wisconsin to Muttdom?

Geez. Have a half a brain and do the right thing by running these Truthers out of your academies.

How long do we have to wait before the state legislature of Wisconsin outlaws tenure?

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... the 9/11 Truther movement is a reasonable response to an unreasonable occurrence..."

Well it was as reasonable as those Middle Age folks who thought the Black Plague was Satan's doing. Many had the grand idea of killing every cat they found as cats were equated with the devil and witchcraft.

What those medieval truthers didnt' know is that the plague was being carried by rats and by killing off the rats main enemy, certainly didn't help the situation.

These nutballs are a dime a dozen and are no different than those who thought Hitler was living alive and well in Argentina in the
1960s, faked moon landing, dead aliens in Roswell, JFK assasination conspiracy and Bigfoot running around the Sierras.

Original Mike said...

paul a'barge said: What is it with academics in Wisconsin? Do you people have deliberate threshold of tolerance for truther mutts? Have you (not Althouse, Wisconsin adademics) no shame?

Need we change the name of your state from Wisconsin to Muttdom?

Geez. Have a half a brain and do the right thing by running these Truthers out of your academies.


Yes, it's embarrassing, but I suggest you use half of your brain and realize it's a small, vocal minority. And how do you suggest we run them out? Willers is emeritus and Barrett has no UW affiliation at all, so how, exactly, do we run them out of something they're not in?

Eli Blake said...

Geez--and this guy is a biology professor.

You know, I've always taken it as a basic assumption that any self-respecting Biology department would immediately toss any application from a creationist.

But, I may be too hasty in that. If nothing else, it might not be a bad idea for UW-Oshkosh to hire a creationist for their biology department just so Professor Willers can get a dose of what he is making life like for the rest of us who know good and well that he is just trying to get a headline and doesn't care what facts he has to trash in order to do so.

Stephen Snell said...

Freder,

I guess you're "well-educated" as well because you thought up a response (accompanied by smarmy self-satisfaction, I'd wager) based on an incorrect reading of a very simply constructed sentence.

I referred to rebutting Kozinski's review of The Skeptical Environmentalist, not Lomborg's book itself.

Rebutting you is "pathetically easy" because you evidently have the reading skills of an Oshkoshian Troofer.

Anyway, most of the attacks on Lomborg are non-sequiturs. His point, that the environmentalists push their agenda by manipulating and dishonestly presenting statistics and in doing so cause substantial harm, is sound.

Just recently, my "well educated" (moreso than Freder if I had to guess) friend sent me a list of statistics to support his forecast of imminent Western collapse.

First one I checked: Forestry, 1990to 2005. The odd sample period was no coincidence, and the underlying data indicated that all of the change was outside the West (a serious problem, still, but not the one he was pushing).

All this troofing makes me wonder: what % of troofers would view a return to the 7th century as an improvement?

Anthony said...

I once worked for a very competent manager, with excellent people skills, who believed the world was created in seven literal days.

I have a friend like this, too. Smart, smart guy. Excelled in electrical and computer engineering. But he was also a Creationist and eventually has turned into something like Truthers, except that he goes after everything regardless of political affiliation.

Much of what drives conspiracists is ego. They desperately want to be viewed and view themselves as the Smart Ones. The ones who see behind the subterfuge at the true reality. Trouble is, they're also intellectually lazy, which should not be confused with physically lazy; they'll spend hours and hours reading and writing but do so without any real intellectual vigor. Any opposition just fuels their sense of righteous persecution.

Kind of like the guy who claims his love interest's restraining order is just a test of his love.

Roger said...

The Skeptical Environmentalist also pointed out some basic facts. Across several important measures, developed nations have done an excellent job of cleaning up the environment (rivers, lakes, and air) since the 1950s. One of Lomborg's theses is that the technologies that made the cleanup possible are fairly easily transferable to Africa and Asia.
The Skeptical Environmentalist doesnt spend all that much time talking about global warming--its was published in 2001 while much of the support for global warming was still circulating in universities and had not reached the mainstream press.

Freder Frederson said...

Yeah Freder, if it's so easy, then it should be kid's play for you on a Friday afternoon. Bring it on.

This article is a good start, but there are entire websites devoted to pointing out the flaws in Lomborg's book, from the sloppy use of statistics (e.g., the numbers he uses to show a net gain in forests worldwide are completely bogus) to the conclusions drawn from those sloppy statistics.

reader_iam said...

Fen: Haven't seen you around here in a while and had been wondering what was up. Welcome back!

Revenant said...

This article is a good start

Except that the Scientific American article you cite was debunked years ago. As anyone reading it can see, it consists of little more than ad hominem attacks on Lomborg and Appeal to Authority fallacies. The only actual flaws it manages to point out are relatively minor and represent only a small part of the book.

but there are entire websites devoted to pointing out the flaws in Lomborg's book

There are entire websites devoted to "pointing out" that creationism is true, too. We asked *you* to debunk the book, Fred. Go for it. You said it was easy.

Tibore said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tibore said...

"... But when one looks at the details of that "case", it never seems to be more than a farrago of speculation, unsupported assertion, repetition of third-party quotes (often ones that are provably wrong or provably removed from context that changes the meaning they want to apply to them), and often the "engineers" involved are... the wrong kind, speaking outside their area of professional expertise - like the high-energy physics professor at whichever Utah school it was, pretending to be a structural or materials scientist."

I'm less concerned with their "wrong" expertise than I am with their misrepresentations. Richard Gage, for example, still harps issues including "path of greatest resistance", and "no precedent for steel-framed building collapse", despite long existing work showing those arguments as faulty (that last especially, as various fires, including the Windsor Tower fire gives lie to his argument). Thing is, his "expertise" is supposedly in the proper field for his pronouncements: He's an architect. So he should be one sort of reliable expert on the topic. Problem is, he's not; his credentials don't save him from being demonstrably wrong.

Perhaps he's fooling himself? I guess I can accept that, but if he's really fooling himself, you'd have to either accept that he's ignoring contradictory data, or that he's shockingly incompetent and cannot evaluate information relevant to his own field.

And on the other side of the coin: The best informed 9/11 myth debunker I've seen online is just a Ground Zero tour guide. The best informed myth debunker I've seen in print is Popular Mechanics editor James Meigs. Both of these folks have zero expertise in aeronautics, structural engineering, demolitions, or any of the sciences behind 9/11, but both are incredibly informed on the topic of 9/11 myths, so well so that I consider them a basic resource, despite their lack of credentials in the fields applicable to the subject.

At any rate, the problem is less that people are talking outside their fields of expertise, and more that they're perpetuating canards and misrepresentations. In my mind, it's all right for non-experts to participate in the pursuit of knowledge in this subject, but they must be willing to submit to the rule of accuracy and modify their own conclusions according to facts and valid data.

Middle Class Guy said...

Freder Frederson said...
This article is a good start, but there are entire websites devoted to pointing out…


There are entire websites devoted to prove or disprove anything you want to beleive in; or not. There are entire websites devoted to prove that UFOs exist? Are we to beleive in UFOs?

Larry said...

"Nevertheless, I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness."

That is going to sting.

If the reader is bright enough to understand it. Troofers don't seem to be.

Fen said...

reader_iam: Haven't seen you around here in a while and had been wondering what was up. Welcome back

Thanks. Been busy. Was hired onto Fred's campaign to rev it up. How did it look from out there?

[j/k]

reader_iam said...

Was hired onto Fred's campaign to rev it up.

Huh. Heh. That's funny--I was wondering if maybe you'd been hired on to campaign for someone, somewhere.

Don't take this the wrong way, but it seems to me that Fred got revved up a little too late, or maybe he didn't rev himself up enough from the start. (It seems to me your insight into that would be more valuable than mine, and more interesting, under the circumstances.)

A shame, really.

So, any tales from the trail? Inside(r) scoop? Grisly gossip? Delicious dish? I mean generally, not specifically Fred so much.

Please tell!!!!!!!!

reader_iam said...

Ah, j.k. Just kidding?

You got me! Good one!

Fen said...

Roger: One of Lomborg's theses is that the technologies that made the cleanup possible are fairly easily transferable to Africa and Asia.

And thats the key to the whole problem of Global Warming. Redistribution of energy wealth and consumption [socialism] is a static solution, like trying to tax the country out of national debt. Wind/solar farms and carbon trades and more efficient light bulbs are likewise as useful to solving climate change as is asking everyone to donate their spare pennies to pay off the national debt. The only purpose it serves to grant moral authority to those who crave it.

Innovation. We need to discover a new energy source and then quickly hand that tech over to China and India. Of course, the Global Warming fanatics won't follow that path [or even consider nuclear energy] because their goal is not to solve Climate Change, its to redistribute energy consumption and production away from Evil America.

Fen said...

You got me! Good one!

Hah. And I was trying to make fun of myself with that post.

I was wondering if maybe you'd been hired on to campaign for someone, somewhere.

Nope. I left the GOP over their enabling of illegal immigration. Independent now and really don't have the spirit left to toil away for any of my former party's noms. Maybe I should write you in on the ballot come November?

reader_iam said...

**shudder***

---

You might like this (in response to your remark about immigration).

Simon said...

Fen said...
"We need to discover a new energy source...."

Indeed - and not merely a new way of storing it, which is all hydrogen is good for. Or at least, find a way to extract an order of magnitude from known renewable sources. Solar and geothermal energy are both good in the sense that they're clean, renewable and relatively constant, but they're very inefficient so far as technology now stands (wind energy is even more problematic - it has even bigger efficiency problems than solar power and can't be as consistent in terms of throughput). So it's reasonable to inquire whether we can squeeze more energy out of these sources and how. I'd be interested in any theories - space age or otherwise - that address how we can do this.

Hoosier Daddy said...

There are entire websites devoted to prove that UFOs exist? Are we to beleive in UFOs?

Hell yes we should. Hot Rods of the Gods man. Government's known about em for years. Got a spaceship over there in Nevada somewhere along with those dead aliens, Elvis and I heard the actual melted steel from the WTC.

The troof is out there.

Pogo said...

"We need to discover a new energy source...."
Bill Clinton's energy for satisfying his ego and libido seems boundless.

Can't we put his testicles on some sort of hamster wheel and light up Cleveland?

Can't we stick a wind generator in front of Mr. Gore, of Nobel fame for a few extra bloviation gigawatts?

A tensometer applied to Joe Bidens lips, given the high frequency wolf-smile that blinks on and off, is a reliable source of recoverable waste energy.

Tibore said...

Wow... Chris Bowers with the obnoxious comment.

"If you should choose to remain stubborn-proud with "eyes wide shut" without performing due diligence concerning your charges, as a steward of quality education and professional academic disciplines you are displaying complete and utter disregard for the heart and soul of the institution you presumably stand and live to represent! If you do plan on taking a closer look into the evidence concerning Sept.11, feel free to contact me concerning any of the subject matter you have questions about or are just looking for documented evidence to verify specific claims. And if you can stump me, I will provide you with links to websites and individuals much more learned than I. But really, you should either retract what you said or be willing to debate Professor Barrett."

Talk about only seeing one side of the issue.

Professor, if I may give advice: Keep doing what you've been doing. Don't rise to the bait offered by Barrett or any other truther like this Bowers fellow. I'm certain you have the intellectual acumen to handle these folks, but I'm also willing to guess you don't have the time necessary to devote to all the minutiae necessary to counter their distortions. Just say what you've already said - "I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" - and let 'em stew.

Synova said...

"...has amassed a solid case countering the official story."

This is, of course, a lie. At least to the extent that it implies that there is a solid alternative to the official story.

There is none.

There can't be, because all of the little "what if's" and all of the supposing and all of the "what really happened" are applied to individual points only. None of them fit together in a coherent whole and there is not even any real attempt to make them fit into a coherent whole.

When an attempt is made the result quickly becomes ridiculous.

The pat answer is always, "We don't KNOOWWW what really happened."

That's because not even the Truthers can come up with a story that makes any sort of sense.

Chip Ahoy said...

These arrogant nuts are teaching our children -- hopefully, how to be good at loon-detection.

Revenant said...

Solar and geothermal energy are both good in the sense that they're clean, renewable and relatively constant, but they're very inefficient so far as technology now stands (wind energy is even more problematic - it has even bigger efficiency problems than solar power and can't be as consistent in terms of throughput).

The Skeptical Environmentalist comes down pretty firmly on the side of using solar power, inefficiencies and all.

John Hillery said...

Has Professor Willers offered to debate Lysenkoism or spontaneous generation recently? Why not? There are pages supporting both theories on the Internet!

Mr. Forward said...

"Oshkoshian Troofer"

tip of the hat to Stephen Snell

David said...

the entire crux of this debate is the simple fact that althouse absolutely refuses to debate kevin barrett on the most crucial issue of our time. if she actually were a competent, critical-minded professor on the side of truth, she would completely wipe up the floor with dr. kevin barrett, right? her victory would gain her local, and quite probably, nationwide notoriety, and she would no doubt be dubbed a hero of folkloric proportions.

so why doesn't she?

because she instead prefers to hide behind an egomaniacal, sneering pomposity devoid of all reason, logic, and facts.

and the laughable "position" that it is just too far out there of a topic to discuss is so shameless, weak, absurd, and baseless that it is an insult to ALL parties involved. a Scripps-Howard poll puts 37% of the US as believing that the US government may have known in advance of the attacks and refused to act, while a CNN poll placed that number at 89%. quoting these very polls, even FOX commentator bill o'reilly said, "this is not a fringe group -- this is a mainstream reality."

yet althouse simply rests on her throne of ignorance and ego, snidely deriding anyone who dares question the MOUNTAIN of increasing measurable and factual discrepancies that call into dispute the entire official story.

for anyone who has such intelligent questions, google and watch "Loose Change 2nd edition," or "9/11 Mysteries," both of which can be found and watched for free on the internet.

and yes, there ARE incredibly dubious sites devoted to "debunking" these films, but they are all filled with little substance, using logical fallacy, hyperbole, hypotheses, speculation, random guesswork, and the like. in short, they provide NO reasonable answers, despite claiming to "debunk" these films.

the most important thing to understand is that the huge, global 9/11 truth movement, is based on a massive body of measurable, demonstrable, physical evidence that was simply ignored by the only official investigating body. even the 9/11 families, without whom there would be no investigation, estimated that 90% of their questions - questions they were told would be answered - were simply IGNORED. and along those lines, why on earth did bush and cheney FIGHT the formation of an investigative commission for so long??

this is not an "if i hate bush so much, then he must be responsible for 9/11" statement. to this day, i have yet to meet anyone who thinks he was personally involved. this is based on measurable, factual discrepancies that SIMPLY DO NOT ADD UP.

i bought into the official story too, putting a flag in the planter near my front door. my girlfriend's father had to avoid falling bodies on his way out of WTC 1. i almost lost a friend in the second tower and i cried my heart out that day, swearing to avenge his death from "islamic radicals."

then, one day, i saw a picture of the pentagon immediately after the impact and just could not get my head around how a jetliner so large could leave a hole so small. in essence, my entire journey began with measured observation and common sense. of course, i had no idea then how far down the rabbit-hole this would go, but five years later, it just becomes increasingly obvious and i even wonder how those who denounce this comical story manage to even tie their shoes in the morning. the emperor wears no clothes? try the emperor never even existed.

finally, for those who believe this is something the government would never do, google "operation northwoods," and learn of a recently declassifed plan, signed off on by EVERY member of the joint chiefs of staff, to stage terrorist attacks in miami and washington d.c. to set the stage for an invasion of cuba in 1963. it is time to wake up. your government is NOT all that you think it is.

google and watch "Loose Change, 2nd edition" and "9/11 Mysteries." even check out the bogus "debunking" sites. i believe the truth will hold, and any intelligent, critical mind will easily see a far different reality from the one we have been told.

Pogo said...

"then, one day, i saw a picture of the pentagon immediately after the impact and just could not get my head around how a jetliner so large could leave a hole so small."

Criminey. Think of a really large bullet.

Face it, son, you're just not very bright. I suspect there are myriad things that you cannot get your head around. That doesn't mean the rest of us have to debate it.

Free advice: don't fall down the fake moon launch rabbit hole.

David said...

"pogo,"

since you are obviously such a clever old man, then please enlighten us by answering some of the following questions:

how is that three of the four indestructible black boxes, simply destruct and/or disappear - yet a "hijacker's" passport, made of paper, and ostensibly at the center of the explosion, magically appears completely intact on the street outside one of the buildings?

how is it that - according to the LA Times, chicago tribune, washington post, and saudi arabian embassy - at least nine of the nineteen "hijackers" have come forward stating that the picture, bio, and entire identity is identical to theirs, yet they are clearly STILL ALIVE?

why, in the "evidence" of the "hijackers" being in the airport on the day of the crime, do the time and date stamps NOT match up to 9/11/2001?

why is it that, despite put options (bets that a stock will fall) placed on boeing, united airlines, and american airlines being ELEVEN times the usual amount in the immediate days preceding 9/11, the 9/11 commission REFUSED to investigate this - essentially failing to obviously "follow the money?"

why did condoleezza rice, president bush, dick cheney, and robert meuller all state that "no one could have predicted" anyone would ever fly an airplane into the world trade center or pentagon, when NUMEROUS pentagon and military exercises had been conducted in recent years based ON EXACTLY such an attack?

why did cheney circumvent the official chain of command and order the fighters at andrews air force base - a base specifically designed to defend from an air attack - to stand down? and why has he refused to explain this to this day?

of course, i could go on and on, but i suspect it's all a bit over your head.

after all, why would they give us a real investigation when it's SO EASY to convince morons like you that that nineteen hijackers (under surveillance by the FBI and none of whom could fly a cessna), led by by a guy on kidney dialysis in a cave in afghanistan, somehow outsmarted the world's greatest on-alert military and intelligence machine, to fly suicide missions into skyscrapers, while somehow managing to survive?

it's because people like you, lacking any semblance of critical thinking skills, much less common sense, are embarrassingly THAT easy to fool. and we wonder the rest of the world hates us.

bottom line is, similar to your stupid leader althouse, nimrods like you prefer baseless insults to an actual review of the FACTS. unfortunately, "pogo," it is you who is not very bright.

Pogo said...

Did I mention you're gullible?

This debate has been hashed out innumerable times, and in each your side loses every contest.

1. Your persistent inability to grasp reality doesn't inhere a demand that I explain every shiny object you find, thinking you have found gold rather than pyrite.

2. Debating true believers is always a pointless exercise. To what end? I won't convince you and you cannot tell me anything I haven't heard before to alter my opinion.

3.nimrods like you prefer baseless insults
Nimrod was a warrior, an ancient ruler and builder of many cities. He has traditionally been said to be the one who led his people to build the Tower of Babel.

Is that what you meant?
Or does "nimrod" mean something else to you, much as facts regarding 9/11 do?

4. And what's with the e e cummings bit?

Pogo said...

of course, i could go on and on

My experience is that you will.

David said...

i find it incredibly (as in "non" credible) convenient that, rather than answer any of my questions, you suddenly deem the entire argument as pointless.

of course it is. if you can't answer even the most basic of questions, then clearly you have effectively demonstrated your ignorance and we will get nowhere.

yes, nimrod probably built the tower of "babel" (quite fitting already) to reach heaven. brilliant fellow, i'd imagine.

as a professional editor, i find my personal discourse to be far more lucid when ignoring proper capitalization.

Tibore said...

Ahh, there's the truther.

"i saw a picture of the pentagon immediately after the impact and just could not get my head around how a jetliner so large could leave a hole so small."

Before I go on, note that this myth is over 2 years old. And he still hasn't found the answer.

From http://911guide.googlepages.com/pentagon:

"Claim: The hole in Pentagon is too small to be caused by a Plane.

Discussed here:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=6

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/bu...PDF/b03017.pdf

http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-photos.html


In Brief: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed a little less than 40 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings. Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building."


"finally, for those who believe this is something the government would never do, google "operation northwoods," and learn of a recently declassifed plan, signed off on by EVERY member of the joint chiefs of staff, to stage terrorist attacks in miami and washington d.c. to set the stage for an invasion of cuba in 1963. it is time to wake up. your government is NOT all that you think it is. "

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66214

http://cointelprotool.blogspot.com/2002_12_01_cointelprotool_archive.html#86199191

(From the first link)
"Claim #1:
Northwoods was drafted, signed and presented, this proves the governments willingness to use false flag terror to get what it wants.

It was written up by military personnel and appointed officials, they do not hold the same responsibility to the public as elected officials do (this is why plans such as Northwoods but be approved by elected civilian officials before being carried out)

Northwoods was rejected by Kennedy, proving the unwillingness of elected officials to use false flag terror"

"Claim #3
It still proves that there are people in the government willing to attack their own people to get what they want.

Apparently missing the "false" part of false flag, Northwoods was never intended to kill people (and injuries were listed as a possible "extreme" scenario)"


"google and watch "Loose Change, 2nd edition" and "9/11 Mysteries." even check out the bogus "debunking" sites. i believe the truth will hold, and any intelligent, critical mind will easily see a far different reality from the one we have been told."


For the distortions and myths published in the video Loose Change", view the following links:

http://emptv.com/research/loose-change

http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64 (Click the "sticky" links at the top of the page titled "Loose Change", "... Part II", and "... Part III".

Not very impressive, David. Your myths are years out of date. The latest conspiroids have been going on about Dr. Jones spheroids and paint chips. Why are you so behind?

Pogo said...

as a professional editor,
And I thought Highlights went out of print years ago.

i find my personal discourse to be far more lucid when ignoring proper capitalization.
Would that you had similar aims for your 9/11 theorizing, which ignores proper science.

rather than answer any of my questions,
Your 'questions' make assumptions that are false, so do not warrant answers. Besides, Truthers aren't seeking debate, just capitulation. All in all, it's like trying to convince schizophrenics there are no voices; largely a waste of time when antipsychotics are far more effective.

Pogo said...

And go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.

David said...

Pogo said...

"of course, i could go on and on"

My experience is that you will.

no, probably not with you.

your obvious ignorance, as reflected in your inability to answer even the most rudimentary of questions, clearly illustrates your lack of credibility here.

good luck.

Tibore said...

"how is that three of the four indestructible black boxes, simply destruct and/or disappear - yet a "hijacker's" passport, made of paper, and ostensibly at the center of the explosion, magically appears completely intact on the street outside one of the buildings?"

Come on, "David". You're just parroting Avery et. al. from "Loose Change".
http://emptv.com/research/loose-change-4#black-boxes-and-passports

"While black boxes are designed to withstand extreme stresses, they're certainly not indestructible. The flight data recorder of American Airlines Flight 587" (a crash that had nothing to do with 9/11) "was damaged in the crash...

... As well as the flight data recorder of Lauda Air Flight 004" (another incident having nothing to do with 9/11)

"... Avery expresses disbelief that the CVRs and FDRs of Flights 11 and 175 were destroyed, but hijacker Satam al-Suqami's passport survived the impact and explosion and was found on the streets of Manhattan. However, debris was ejected from the sides of the towers during the impacts, including pieces of landing gear and bone fragments. An ID card with the name ALHAZMI, as in hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Salem al-Hazmi, was found at the Pentagon crash site..."


And, from http://911guide.googlepages.com/hijackers:


"... Lots of things from the planes ended up on the streets below before the collapses. Amongst them was a hijacker’s passport.

http://www.pbase.com/peteburke73/september_11&page=1...

And:

"It’s a card rather than paper, and wasn’t ejected from the building, but this does demonstrate that not everything was incinerated. And it’s not alone. There are similar reports from the other crash scenes, including a drivers licence and luggage tag recovered from Flight 77 and even more from Flight 93...

... consider this story from the Columbia Space Shuttle disaster. The craft broke up on re-entry, 40 miles about the earth, and debris fell over a wide area. Amongst this was one of the experiments involving tiny worms.

The worms and moss were in the same nine-pound locker located in the mid-deck of the space shuttle. The worms were placed in six canisters, each holding eight petri dishes.

... Remarkably, not only were the canisters retrieved, but the worms were still alive (the above link tells you more). Who would have believed that?"

From http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html

More to come... but please note that all that you need to do to find the facts behind the myths David peddles is just to look them up. All I've done is use the following sites:
http://911myths.com/index.html
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
http://emptv.com/research/loose-change
http://911guide.googlepages.com/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
http://911guide.googlepages.com/

David's not pushing anything new here.

David said...

tibore:

the majority of the claims on the website you sent me are demonstrably false. operation northwoods WAS designed to kill people. what does "stage a terror campaign in miami and washington d.c." mean to you anyway?? that they were going to put on clown suits and scare all the children?

"Northwoods was rejected by Kennedy, proving the unwillingness of elected officials to use false flag terror."

that proves nothing. besides, JFK was killed soon after rejecting it, thus further substantiating claims of precedent to 9/11.

of course, the website then responds with: "Oswald didn't know, let alone care, about Northwoods, so i doubt it was a motive."

all right, enough is enough. the guy who defends and mimimizes operation northwoods - suprise, suprise - also believes
that JFK was killed by a lone gunman. case closed.

you also write; ""Claim #3
It still proves that there are people in the government willing to attack their own people to get what they want.

Apparently missing the "false" part of false flag, Northwoods was never intended to kill people (and injuries were listed as a possible "extreme" scenario)"

read this logically and you can see that it makes NO sense.

for example, the original claim is written as, "It still proves that there are people in the government willing to ATTACK their own people to get what they want."

yet, the answer, again using a form of logical fallacy, changes the question entirely, but first by trying to deflect logic with an absurd preamble: "Apparently missing the "false" part of false flag,"

HUH? what is THAT supposed to mean?? (by the way, this is a VERY common "technique" of "debunking" sites - simply say something that supposedly sounds intelligent, but really means nothing at all at first, to throw everything off. cheney actually does that a lot, though usually using legalese, and a lot more effectively)

followed by...

"...Northwoods was never intended to kill people (and injuries were listed as a possible "extreme" scenario)"

a few obviously points here: notice how, even though the question refers to "attacks" americans, the answer conveniently changes this to "kill," americans thus changing the entire argument. logical fallacy, and another VERY common "technique" of "debunkers."

additionally, the site you sent me splits hairs to a very disturbing degree. it is tantamount to saying that hitler was actually a good man because he turned the german economy around.

why on earth would ANYONE defend operation northwoods?? are you even listening to yourself? this was a diabolical plan by the joint chiefs of staff to stage a TERROR campaign in major american cities, blow up a US military base, and do obviously twisted things to the american people to set the stage for WAR! this was sick stuff and you send me a website claiming that it's all okay somehow because of a few minor details that you minimize and are an apologist for? disturbing, indeed.

second, i have read all of the websites you sent me dozens of times before. as i just pointed out above (and only citing a FEW examples), they all serve to twist truth, distort facts, minimize, theorize, and again, use numerous forms of logical fallacy to state their points.

as far as the hole in the pentagon goes, that hole was NOT 75-feet wide. not even close. it was sixteen feet in diameter at most, and there was NO hole where the several-ton engines allegedly hit the building. this is obvious from the initial pictures.

so where did they go? they didn't go in, and they didn't appear anywhere outside the building. did they bounce off? did they vaporize? where did they go?

http://www.911lies.org/911_pentagon_attack_damage.jpg

second, the nose of a jet would be demolished and would NEVER make an exit hole like this one after blasting through over SIXTEEN feet of concrete:

http://www.moslem.com/why/Pentagon/Pentagon-6last-hole.jpg

a missile fired from a plane would, however.

also, in response to the magical passport that was found, you state that other remnants were found, thus implying that the passport had just as likely of a chance of turning up as anything else.

but you know what the big difference is? these other items were NOT at the VERY CENTER of the explosion and impact. that is a pretty big difference. of course, remnants of items away from the center of impact and near the windows will appear from time to time, but a piece of paper, in the pocket of a pilot, at the very CENTR of the impact? quite unlikely, if not entirely impossible.

finally, again, tibore, i have read every single one of your websites dozens of times. i have been researching years before i had even heard of anyone else suspecting as much - early 2002, to be exact. they all make incredibly baseless claims, make sweeping generalizations, ignore the most obvious common sense, stretch arguments to unrealistic proportions, and made illogical conclusions from the very evidence they present.

case in point: read the so-called "debunking: of hani hanjour's obvious inability to commandeer a 757 into the pentagon. they spend the entire time presenting all the evidence as to why this is true, and then, at the very end, they present a few tiny pieces of additional evidence to the opposite effect to make it seem as though there has been a dramatic, last-minute upset, when in truth, the argument is weak and flimsy at best.

http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html

in essence, they just discuss the subject, adding in every possible theory (stress, "theory"), and guesstimation, completely reaching for an answer that ends up being more ridiculous and implausible than anything they could be debunking. and this DEFINITELY includes all the loose change debunking websites.

if you want more fact-based truth, go to http://www.911blogger.com
http://www.911truth.org/

also, if you want to see a list of highly-qualified military officers, federal attorneys, demolition experts, physicists, former cabinet members of both bush administrations and the reagan administration, pilots, engineers, professors, architects, news media professionals, survivors, family members and the like, all of whom believe 9/11 was an inside job, then go to:

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

you will learn a lot.

tibore, you state that i am adding "nothing new" here, but that is far from the point.

and if anything, that point supports my arguments: is the fact that it's going on six years, and we STILL have not seen a picture of a plane hitting the pentagon mean that it no longer matters? of course not. again, if anything, it just supports the argument that they have had all the time in the world to give us an answer and they still have NOTHING. (why is this, anyway? why ARE there no pictures of a plane hitting the pentagon?)

as for me, it is 2:40am melbourne time, so i am over and out for now.

peace.

SFC B said...

Patrick Smith, the author of "Ask the Pilot", and an occasional contributor to Salon.com for a column of the same name, addresses the whole "Hani Najour couldn't hit the Pentagon" lie here.

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/

An excerpt:

"As I've explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour's flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation's capital revealed him to be exactly the shitty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757's autopilot. Striking a stationary object -- even a large one like the Pentagon -- at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon's lawn."

Mr. Smith spends three pages adressing the various claims about the skills necessary to pilot a plane the way the hijackers did on 9-11.

Tibore said...

I will deal with the claims out of order, so as to highlight the fact that physical evidence contradicts David's claims. I will post the Northwoods rebuttal last, as that is only related to 9/11 conspiracy fantasy in that some use it as "proof" that the US Government committed 9/11.

Also, I need to do this in spurts. A single rebuttal post would be painfully long; the individual ones are too damn long as they are. On top of that, I'm not going to be able to do this all at once. He's packed together too much fantasy to counter in one sitting.

"as far as the hole in the pentagon goes, that hole was NOT 75-feet wide. not even close. it was sixteen feet in diameter at most, and there was NO hole where the several-ton engines allegedly hit the building. this is obvious from the initial pictures."

Incorrect. First of all, you're confusing your holes, and making the same mistakes Thierry Meyssan and Dylan Avery did. The primary hole at the point of impact was indeed 75 feet. View the photomontage of the damage for proof: http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2007/12/pentagon-hole-revealed-by-composite.html

There are multiple holes, so you must specify which "16 foot hole" you're referring to. Are you referring to the one mentioned in a military press release? The one that release says was caused by an engine (and by the way, was only 12 feet)?

"On the inside wall of the second ring of the Pentagon, a nearly circular hole, about 12-feet wide, allows light to pour into the building... An aircraft engine punched the hole out on its last flight after being broken loose from its moorings on the plane."
(Source: Army press release and Popular Mechanics)

Or are you referring to the Ring C hole? Internet Detectives says it might have been made by the landing gear.

Could you be referring to the hole Dylan Avery highlighted in Loose Change? That one was also not made by the fuselage. And it was on the second floor of the Pentagon to boot. (Internet Detective's Loose Change Guide)

So, which one of the holes was it? You imply there was only one. There were several, as shown above. The main hole was indeed quite large, much larger than 16 feet. The accompanying photo proves this. Other holes were made by other parts of the aircraft.


"there was NO hole where the several-ton engines allegedly hit the building. this is obvious from the initial pictures.

so where did they go? they didn't go in, and they didn't appear anywhere outside the building. did they bounce off? did they vaporize? where did they go?"


As noted above, one hole referenced by the military was presumably made by one of the engines, or some piece(s) of it. Another photo of an engine part, which apparently did not penetrate the walls, is visible here:
http://emptv.com/research/loose-change-2#the-engines

You can clearly see the compressor stage next to a couple of rescue workers. That may be part of the engine responsible for the hole mentioned above. Or it may be the other one. The point is, engine debris was recovered. The crash was not so simply you can reduce it to "there was NO hole... where did they go?". They're there. Along with the rest of the plane debris. More pictures are available here: http://911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

Trying to imply that there is no 757 wreckage at the Pentagon is the epitome of fantasy. The evidence is there, in plain sight. And none of the above are "incredibly baseless claims", "sweeping generalizations", they are not ignoring "the most obvious common sense" or stretching "arguments to unrealistic proportions", and they most certainly are not "illogical conclusions from the very evidence" I presented. But your arguments are. Trying to represent one of the smaller holes created by other parts of the aircraft as the main one created by the fuselage is such an extreme distortion, it brings into question your credibility, especially given the length of time the rebuttals have been available. It shows that, despite your claim, you have not researched 9/11 events properly. Reading and rereading fantasy sites is not research.

(To be continued)

Tibore said...

"second, the nose of a jet would be demolished and would NEVER make an exit hole like this one after blasting through over SIXTEEN feet of concrete:

http://www.moslem.com/why/Pentagon/Pentagon-6last-hole.jpg

a missile fired from a plane would, however."


Yes, I'm familiar with that hole too. I referenced it above:
http://emptv.com/research/loose-change-2#ring-c-and-the-nose

Read the info at that link for more information. But whatever it was that caused the hole, it didn't have to go through "SIXTEEN" feet of concrete, as noted by the diagrams at that site. Even Loose Change only claims it was 9 feet, and even that is an exaggeration. Whatever caused that hole at best had to go through the external, outer-facing wall of Ring E, the interior wall of Ring C and any office contents (desks, cabinets, etc.) that were in the way.

The walls of Ring E and C are not 8 feet thick. According to http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/pentagon/what-hit-it.htm:

"... the outer Pentagon wall comprised a framework (grid) of 10 inch reinforced concrete members with the intervening space filed with 8 inch thick brickwork. Over this was placed about 6 inches of decorative limestone. So, the (outer) wall was at most, 16 inches thick, and was not particularly strong (contrary to media reports)."

Not Sixteen Feet.

What caused the hole? Was it the nose? As noted by the Internet Detectives page: "After the nose was damaged, there would still be a substantial amount of the plane behind it that isn't made of lightweight carbon. For example, its nose gear".

The authors of the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report say that the hole in question was made by the landing gear

But no matter how you cut it, that hole was not made by a missile. That statement is a "baseless claim", ignoring "the most obvious common sense", and stretches the argument "to unrealistic proportions". It flies in the face of all the wreckage that was gathered:
http://911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

Here's an aerial shot of the damage to the Pentagon: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53102

It flies in the face of all witness testimony. Here is a page with links to such, as well as other evidence refuting the myth that a missile hit the Pentagon:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

"From the lists above, 136 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon, and

104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.


2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

And of course,

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon"


Given the overwhelming amount of evidence that proves the impact was made by a 757, and the complete and total lack of any testimony or physical evidence that one was used, which one of us here is making an "incredibly baseless claim", a "sweeping generalization", ignoring "the most obvious common sense", stretching "arguments to unrealistic proportions", and making "illogical conclusions from the very evidence" we're presenting?

Not me. I'm not the one claiming missile use in contradiction to all evidence.

(To be continued)

David said...

gotta take my girl to the beach now, but let me point out one simple question, tibore.

in a typical shopping mall, counting those in every store as well as in the general walking area, you will find a camera, on average, every ten to twenty feet. in fact, it is estimated that, on any given day, we are photographed by surveillance cameras up to well over a hundred times a day.

now, the pentagon is the very CENTER of US intelligence. it is one of, if not THE, most heavily fortified and secure building in the entire world - filled with, and surrounded by, cameras.

so why, then, is there not a SINGLE, SOLITARY image of ANY plane hitting the pentagon? this makes absolutely no sense, UNLESS, of course, there was NO plane.

furthermore, why - when the government claimed to release video of the plane hitting the building after so much outcry - does the video STILL not show a plane??

furthermore, why did the FBI confiscate the videotapes of the nearby hotel and gas station (both more heavily surveilled than the pentagon???) within minutes, and NO one has been allowed to see them to this very day??

if a boeing 757 hit the pentagon, there would be NUMEROUS photographs and videos of the evidence as it occurred, yet there is none. no amount of rationalizing will EVER be believable until we are shown the obvious.

Tibore said...

"also, in response to the magical passport that was found, you state that other remnants were found, thus implying that the passport had just as likely of a chance of turning up as anything else.

but you know what the big difference is? these other items were NOT at the VERY CENTER of the explosion and impact. that is a pretty big difference. of course, remnants of items away from the center of impact and near the windows will appear from time to time, but a piece of paper, in the pocket of a pilot, at the very CENTR of the impact? quite unlikely, if not entirely impossible."


The drivers licenses were not at the very center of the explosion and impact? The worms on the Challenger were not at the very center of the shuttle's explosion? At the nearly 500 MPH speed the jet in question was traveling at, you think the difference in feet from the cockpit to the passenger seats mattered? The length of a 757 is around 155 feet. Flight 175 hit the South tower at around 470 MPH. That's 689 feet per second. Whatever was near the tail of that jet impacted in only a fraction of a second after the front. You think the deceleration difference at that speed at anywhere from 10 feet to 150-some feet behind the cockpit is that significant? That's a poor hand-wave, sir. The fact is, it is unpredictable what gets ejected in any jetliner crash, and what survives. As noted at http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html, unpredictable things survive:

"But could the passport have escaped destruction? Explosions are unpredictable things, it’s surprising what can survive, and there are accounts of personal effects being retrieved from other passengers. Here’s one from Flight 175.

"...
(the parents of a passenger) got word they'd found her United Airlines Mileage Plus card. It was found very near where they'd found a piece of her right hip. We imagine that she used the card early on the morning of Sept. 11 to get on the plane and just stuck it in her back pocket, probably her right back pocket, instead of in her purse. They have found no other personal effects".
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:tI2PQRqfJiIJ:www.msnbc.com/local/MYOC/M324557.asp"


The passport was found. If this was a conspiracy, why weren't all the hijackers identifying documents "found"? The truth of the matter is, some items were destroyed, and some weren't. That's simply a fact. Your hand-wave changes nothing about that.

"case in point: read the so-called "debunking: of hani hanjour's obvious inability to commandeer a 757 into the pentagon. they spend the entire time presenting all the evidence as to why this is true, and then, at the very end, they present a few tiny pieces of additional evidence to the opposite effect to make it seem as though there has been a dramatic, last-minute upset, when in truth, the argument is weak and flimsy at best.

http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html

in essence, they just discuss the subject, adding in every possible theory (stress, "theory"), and guesstimation, completely reaching for an answer that ends up being more ridiculous and implausible than anything they could be debunking. and this DEFINITELY includes all the loose change debunking websites."


SFC B above has already posted a fine entry rebutting your assertion about Hanjour; I'll start by pointing at that. Everyone: Read the Ask the Pilot" article at Salon.com and see what an airline pilot has to say on the subject. And also see what the instructor who taught Hani Hanjour thought he had the ability to do. (thank you, SFC B, for the link).

And yes, go ahead and read the 911myths.com link and see for yourself whether this argument is "weak and flimsy". See if you agree that they were "completely reaching for an answer" or if they first took the trouble to explain the myth, then laid out why it was wrong.

More?

"Hani Hanjour did have a commercial pilots license, as well as instrument rating. Many concerns expressed about his ability had to do with his poor English language skills. The FAA requires commercial pilots to be able to speak and write fluently in English.

... The New York Daily News spoke with an expert who said, "steering a large jet into a huge building wouldn't require a great deal of skill because taking off and landing are the most difficult maneuvers. A few hours in a twin-engine plane or a decent simulator could get you there.""

(From http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Hani_Hanjour)

Obvious inability to commandeer a 757 into the Pentagon... you need to explain what that "obvious inability" was, sir. You do not. You merely state without evidence or sources. You merely claim without support. Try again. What was his "obvious inability"? I don't really think his noted English deficiency prevented him from steering the jet towards a big, unmoving building.

Some more pilot opinion regarding Hanjour, from two ex AF pilots on the JREF forum::

"An AF Pilot gets in the vicinity of about 200 hours of flying time prior to receiving AF Wings (graduation)...

If Hanjour actually had 600 hrs of flying time in anything he would have been very easily capable of doing what he did. He would have been very capable even with less hours as the others were. What he did was crash an aircraft into a building, not fly it safely within FAA standards!

Don't attempt to equate what the instructors said about his ability to fly a small aircraft which he likely intended to rent as that did not directly correlation to what he actually did on 911. The instructors were determining if he was safe and could fly to acceptable FAA type standards. You must remember that he was not required to meet FAA standards on 911 - he crashed. Fortunately, that's not an FAA standard.

he only made two turns and they were not level turns. He had studied the cockpit layout of a 757 and was motivated enough not to be intimidated by the numerous instruments, tits, and knobs."
.

And:

"At pilot training in the USAF in 1974 we would get 200 hours of flight time and come out fully trained. It took 5 or 10 flights in a big jet and you could land and fly under the Captains supervision. By 600 to 1000 hours you would be ready to fly in all weather and be real safe as the Captain. The guy in the left seat.

But you could get in a 757/767 and take the plane in flight and hit a building as big as the WTC, and the Pentagon is way too big to miss.

600 hours is over kill to do 9/11. The terrorist were over trained...

I have talked to some 757/767 Captains who are also in the AF Reserves, who worked with me while I was on active duty, and after 9/11 they agreed it would be an easy task to do the flying seen on 9/11. If you hear the truth movement lies, you must remember there are thousands if not millions of pilots who do not agree with the handful of pilots in the truth movement."


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2830793#post2830793

Say what you want about Hani Hanjour, but trying to deny he flew a plane into the Pentagon contradicts all known evidence. It, too is an "incredibly baseless claim", a "sweeping generalization", which ignores "the most obvious common sense" and "stretchs an argument to unrealistic proportions", yadda yadda.

(More to come)

Tibore said...

HAHA! You now want images of the impact??

Look at this man, everyone. Look at his posts. He's not even trying to argue against the considerable evidence that the wreckage was present anymore! He's trying to dodge! Pictures and testimony of the wreckage was given, the fact it was the wreckage of a 757 was established... and now he wants pictures of the impact itself!

Before I start:

"in a typical shopping mall, counting those in every store as well as in the general walking area, you will find a camera, on average, every ten to twenty feet. in fact, it is estimated that, on any given day, we are photographed by surveillance cameras up to well over a hundred times a day.

now, the pentagon is the very CENTER of US intelligence. it is one of, if not THE, most heavily fortified and secure building in the entire world - filled with, and surrounded by, cameras."


First of all, how many cameras are there at any given military installation? Do you know? If so, give us a concrete example. If not, tell us why you're making this claim. I don't know too many military installations, but from what I understand, they aren't guarded remotely by people in offices watching cameras. They're guarded actively and directly by patrolling guards:

"3. Why isn't there more video? Without telling too much of what I know of Pentagon security, you would be suprised how few cameras there are outside the building. Humans actively patrolling a building's perimeter are a tad more effective than dozens of monitors which may or may not be watched at any given moment. Given the limited number of entrances to the facility (all highly controlled areas), cameras are generally only needed in high traffic areas like vehicle control points (such as the one this video came from). What about the surrounding buildings. I've been to the AFFEES gas station on the hill more than a hundred times and can honestly tell you I never noticed a camera pointed towards the Pentagon... that doesn't mean there isn't one, but the filling stations don't seem to be arrainged in such a way as to provide camera coverage of the pumps and the Pentagon."
(Source: BAUT forum, "Pentagon releases AA77 video"

I don't know about you, but I'd rather hope that "one of, if not THE, most heavily fortified and secure building in the entire world" would be guarded better than the average shopping mall! Especially given the surfeit of military personnel and arms they can dedicate to the task.

Now, to images of the impact:

One video was released.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8v8ai2-S0Q

... and boy, does it stink. Low frame rates, low resolution.

Another video:
The "Doubletree Hotel video.

Low frame rates, low resolution, and it's distant. It's all the way across a multilane freeway and the Pentagon's parking lot. It definitely shows the impact of something, but there's no way to make out a plane from just that video.

But wait, that's exactly what security cameras record! So, knowing that the video evidence on it's own proves nothing - which, of course, David would know, having researched this for years now - most people then accept that it showed some sort of impact plus fireball, and then move on to accept the logical argument that the videos plus the wreckage plus the witness testimony are all part of the story.

Everyone except David. He wants some 1 frame-per-second cameras - like in the first link - to capture an object moving at over 400 MPH clearly and unambiguously.

The security videos, plus the wreckage plus the witness testimony, plus many other pieces of evidence all add up to a 757 hitting the Pentagon. Not a missile. David has provided zero - ZERO - evidence that a 757 was not involved. He merely is making claims, not showing, not demonstrating his point. He's unable to substantiate any of his claims about the Flight 77 wreckage, the plane impact... the fact that cameras are not, in fact, "every ten to twenty feet" (note how he tries to pass off a "baseless claim", in fact a "sweeping generalization" about cameras as evidence, how he "ignored the most obvious common sense" - the Pentagon would be patrolled, not merely surveilled - "stretched the argument to unrealistic proportions", and "made an illogical conclusion from the very evidence he presented"). He's trying to prove by making charges (disguised as questions), then when proof is provided, he moves on to other claims. The wreckage was shown, so now he wants impact images. Well here they are... what next?

(More to come... will return to his other items (hijackers supposedly alive, "Put Options", "Foreknowledge", "Stand Down"... in other words, all the classics of the 9/11 Conspiracy Fantasy) soon)

David said...

“HAHA! You now want images of the impact??”

oh gee, what a completely unreasonable request! imagine – wanting images of the plane *actually hitting* the pentagon! what a ridiculous request – especially when the US government claims TO HAVE THEM.

“Look at this man, everyone. Look at his posts. He's not even trying to argue against the considerable evidence that the wreckage was present anymore! He's trying to dodge! Pictures and testimony of the wreckage was given, the fact it was the wreckage of a 757 was established... and now he wants pictures of the impact itself!”

a little tip: you make yourself seem bombastic, immature, and silly when you write this way.

secondly, i am dodging NOTHING. i looked at ALL your supposed “pictures” of the plane crash and you know what? i am more convinced than EVER that there was NO plane!

every single image you sent shows NO EVIDENCE of a 757, much less a plane crash! even that precious photo montage you sent indicates CLEARLY that NO plane hit that building! looking at the photos, one can see that this is just BASIC COMMON SENSE! in NO way do ANY of these photos indicate that a gigantic 757 came swooping down, COMPLETELY MANAGING TO AVOID HITTING THE LAWN and striking the pentagon perfectly, leaving NO trace of an enormously massive hole that somehow swallowed up an entire passenger jet!

additionally, the very odd placement of very random pieces that just seem to have “fallen off” the plane into the middle of the lawn (APU door, lettered debris) REEKS of planted evidence. and those “engine remains”? a spokesperson for the company that BUILT the 757 engine said unequivocally that they DO NOT resemble ANY engine they have ever built for a 757 – obviously, PLANTED EVIDENCE. oh, but NO, you say – that could never be! after all, passports in the pockets of hijackers at the very center of explosions and impacts magically appear intact all the time – just like worms!

are you even listening to yourself??

you are SO reaching and rationalizing that i seriously question what on earth your motives could possibly be!

for instance, you began this entire discussion DEFENDING operation northwoods, quibbling over the difference between american “casualties” and “fatalities,” – as if it makes any difference, given that the US government was determined to STAGE TERROR ATTACKS IN MAJOR AMERICAN CITIES!

just stop and think for second how twisted that is!

what, are you some sort of freelance government apologist extraordinaire? even when presented of evidence that the US government planned to KILL, INJURE, OR MAIM ITS OWN CITIZENS in 1963, you sit and find ways to defend them on this??? WHO do work for???

and now you are reaching for the most ludicrous possible pentagon scenarios, showing pictures of imaginary planes and holes in walls that resemble NOTHING of a plane hitting them! you’ve had every chance in the world to defend your points and you have come up empty handed. not ONE of your pictures indicates to me that a plane hit this building, yet you’ve had every chance to prove otherwise!

sorry, man. your credibility is absolutely shot with me. and on top of that, through your TWISTED and SHAMELESS defense of operation northwoods – a nearly identical plan to 9/11 that was fortunately never carried out – I can now see how easy it actually is to get americans TO TURN AGAINST THEIR OWN PEOPLE. what would you say about 9/11 if it was revealed that, although it never happened, the plans were nonetheless drawn up by our government, reaching the very highest levels of powers before being shot down? would you defend that too?? you need help, buddy.

i may come back to this conversation; i may not. for some reason, i suddenly just realized how sick at least one of the people on this forum truly are. after realizing your approach to operation northwoods, in addition to your abysmal failure to reveal ANY convincing photographs surrounding the pentagon, i have suddenly lost nearly all desire to continue dialogue with someone of your dubious moral standing. sorry it took me until just now to figure that out.

reader_iam said...

David: Good job. Given the opportunity here--among all the onlookers, lurkers and even regular participants who, notably, haven't been--you've steadily managed to make yourself, and (which ought to be more important, given your passion and vehemence) the position you're supposed to be championing, increasingly ridiculous and oriented toward personal axe-grinding and a desperate search for personal validation.

I assume you believe all that you're writing. My question, then, is this: If you believe it that much, why not do a better job of presenting and defending it? Presentation 101, in context of the topic you've selected, would suggest that you a) eschew ALL name-calling, directly or indirectly, without exception, regardless of what you think is justification and regardless of provocation, and stick only, again without exception, to presenting of the information and facts that you think you have to bring forth; b) exhibit patience, rather than combativeness, in the face of push-back; and, in the flowering of that patience, calmly present ever more compelling evidence for your position; and c) ruthlessly demand of yourself a shedding of (or at least burying from view) the need for personal validation, desperate or otherwise.

In short: What, really, are you trying to accomplish? Wherein lies your treasure?

David said...

first of all, before i read your post, i was going to write another one, apologizing for the excessive caps. second, you are right in that i was obviously a bit more impassioned than i might have intended. third, I don’t care at all about ‘personal’ validation, if that’s what you are implying. if i did, I wouldn’t post on an anonymous forum where no real identity is forthright beyond the scribbling of opinions, thoughts, and arguments - I would simply have my own blog.

and no, that wasn’t my best post, as I usually tend to be much more level-headed. at some point, however, I just realized the futility of trying to have a reasonable discussion with someone who begins their argument by defending a plan to stage terror attacks on major American cities and quibbles over the difference between american “casualties” and “fatalities.” (out of curiosity, by the way, does that seem a bit wrong-headed to you at all? just a bit?)

then, after researching tibore’s photographs, used as “evidence” of a plane hitting the pentagon, and finding absolutely nothing, I realized I had been wasting precious hours of my weekend, making my girl wait to go to the beach today, and overall, co-obsessing with someone whose views (i should have caught them in the beginning – referring to his defense of operation northwoods) disgust me, I guess I just lost my patience.

of course, you are right, patience does tend to have a greater effect in the long run, but my god, after putting in three hours of typing with this issue over the past day and a half and realizing who my foil is, i guess i just lost that precious patience a bit.

but you know what? excepting the excessive caps, i regret little of what i actually wrote.

so to answer your question of what i am trying to accomplish: although my main objective is to awaken people up from their slumber in the light of the so many obvious discrepancies surrounding the official story of 9/11, in the last posting, i realized that sometimes there is a place for reasoned, measured argument, and sometimes there is a time to just state the obvious and let one’s passions reign a but more free.

sorry if i offended anyone with my curt dialogue, but after seeing his failed attempt to present photos of a plane crash at the pentagon, his mockery of my asking the most obvious of questions, and the realization that this guy started out his entire argument by defending an act of treason by the US government in a terror campaign on its own citizens, I decided it was that time to speak a bit more freely.

now. going to the beach. for real.

Tibore said...

"every single image you sent shows NO EVIDENCE of a 757, much less a plane crash! even that precious photo montage you sent indicates CLEARLY that NO plane hit that building! looking at the photos, one can see that this is just BASIC COMMON SENSE!"

Wrong.

Everyone else: You can see for yourselves. Look at the pictures at the links, and decide for yourselves what all that wreckage is.

"NO way do ANY of these photos indicate that a gigantic 757 came swooping down, COMPLETELY MANAGING TO AVOID HITTING THE LAWN and striking the pentagon perfectly, leaving NO trace of an enormously massive hole that somehow swallowed up an entire passenger jet!"

Except for the photo I posted, clearly showing the hole. And not, it did not "swallow up an entire passenger jet". Look at the photos. The debris scattered everywhere, as you'd expect from a 400+ MPH crash.

"additionally, the very odd placement of very random pieces that just seem to have “fallen off” the plane into the middle of the lawn (APU door, lettered debris) REEKS of planted evidence"

An incredibly baseless claim. David here is making sweeping generalizations, and ignoring the most obvious common sense, not to mention he's stretching arguments to unrealistic proportions. Read that again: "it REEKS of planted evidence"

Please provide proof that it was planted. Proof that the 136 witnesses who saw the plane approach, out of which 104 saw the impact directly, were fooled or lied would be nice too. And no, simply complaining about a piece being in "the middle of the lawn" doesn't cut it. Where's it supposed to go? What's it supposed to do? End up in a single pile inside the hole? Sorry, but it was not planted. You must provide proof of this to make it a serious claim.

" a spokesperson for the company that BUILT the 757 engine said unequivocally that they DO NOT resemble ANY engine they have ever built for a 757 – obviously, PLANTED EVIDENCE"

Wrong. That spokesman said that he did not recognize the part. Big difference. And hardly "unequivocal".

Everyone: To understand that argument, you must understand the original distortion. The movie Loose Change says that 757's have Pratt & Whitney engines. Problem is, that's only correct for some airlines. American Airlines - the parent airline of the Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon - uses Rolls Royce engines.

(Also see: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml)

The truther - Chris Bollyn - contacted Rolls Royce's Indianapolis branch, and was told "It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I'm familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy."

Problem is, that plant does not manufacture the engine installed on Flight 77 (a Rolls Royce RB211 series turbofan). And that Rolls Royce spokesman does admit that he's not familiar with the engine:

"Asked again if the disc in the photo is a piece of a Rolls Royce RB211-535, or from the AE 3007 Brown said he could not answer.

AFP then asked Brown if he was actually familiar with the parts of an AE 3007H, which is made at the Indiana plant: "No," Brown said. "I don't build the engines. I am a spokesman for the company. I speak for the company."


Hardly "unequivocal".

We know AA uses Rolls Royce. We know that Flight 77 was a Boeing 757. We know the engine series is the RB211. And given the photographic evidence, matching individual pieces of debris to the known physical features of the engine series (http://911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html, scroll down to the "Rolls-Royce RB211-535 High Pressure System" graphic matching those individual pieces), we know it was a Boeing 757 using Rolls Royce RB211's that crashed into the Pentagon, because that's the debris that was recovered. That by itself is proof enough. Note that witness testimony, DNA results from the bodies, etc. hasn't even been invoked yet. We already know what we need to just from the debris alone.

So, David wants to base his analysis on a mistake by Chris Bollyn and Dylan Avery in claiming that the engine was never on a 757. And he wants to try and claim that this assertion is correct.

David cannot defend his claim about the Pentagon events. I gave him the impact images, and note how he dodges the explanation. Yes, he IS dodging; he merely laughs at them and tries to provide a weak rebuttal, one he cannot back up. On top of that, I gave him links to witness testimony, and he doesn't even acknowledge it. I refuted his claim about Hanjour's "Obvious inability", and he doesn't try to touch it. He has no proof.

And he ends by attacking my "moral standing". Note the personal attack; he has failed to argue on facts.

Fact: Wreckage at the Pentagon is clearly that of a 757. David's personal incredulity, inability to view images, inability to acknowledge witness testimony, and empty claims to the contrary. Damage was not caused by a missile; David has provided zero evidence of this. Zero. Do I even need to address his "Alive hijackers", "Stand down", "Put Options", and "Foreknowledge" claims anymore?

reader_iam said...

Do I even need to address his "Alive hijackers", "Stand down", "Put Options", and "Foreknowledge" claims anymore?

Um, no. Unless you, like he, perpetually requires the last word, as above the value of making your case and letting it stand on its merits.

(I gave him some unsolicited advice. Now I'll give you some: a) Learn to quit when you're ahead; and b) [and this should be instantly familiar] What, really, are you trying to accomplish? Wherein lies your treasure?

Sheesh.)

Tibore said...

My apologies, if I've been overbearing, reader_iam.

My treasure lies in people like Mikey Metz, and others who've gone to the JREF forums and come away seeing the distortions in the conspiracy fantasies. When they are unanswered, where do people get the information?

That's where my treasure lies. I have little hope or care of whether David ever sees the light. But for people who honestly don't know the truths, I provide the information. It's hard for me to let distortions stand, and yes, that often does lead to me continuing the argument. Sorry if that exasperates you, reader_iam, but it's what I do.

reader_iam said...

Tibore: The soul of a reasonable response, and in terms of all factors, not just reason.

Point taken, Tibore.

Synova said...

Next time they should hire me to plan the gig and plant the evidence. I mean, I'd at least to a credible job of it and there would *be* recordings in high def of the plane hitting the Pentagon and there would be "realistic" debris at the Pentagon and in the PA field because even though it's easily proven that *in fact* aircraft run into reinforced concrete do *in fact* disintegrate to dust and aircraft that nose dive into fields or everglades do *in fact* pulverize to little bits of scrap, I would realize that planting evidence that was realistic was not a good plan and that the evidence planted should be unrealistic, that if my evil plot should be believable, it needed to have big old chunks of fuselage intact and video evidence like people expect from movies.

I'm sure if none of the evil minions wiring the world trade center to blow spilled the beans that the techno-nerds at ILM would be every bit as able to keep the secret.

(Which isn't the very good argument Tibor gave but still ought to illustrate the essential problem with claiming a hoax.)

Synova said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Mz_zGJmgc

There it is.

And what do you suppose the walls of the Pentagon were made of?

Synova said...

Not, if you read the comments, does it make any difference to the impervious fantasy life of Truthers.

Tibore said...

Hi Synova!

Yes, that is the Sandia National Lab's test done in 1988 (more info here, but you got to scroll down to find it: Canadian Nuclear FAQ), where they were basically trying to study how the energy from an aircraft impact acts along a reinforced concrete structure.

Now, unfortunately this doesn't really model what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. The wall in the Sandia test is far thicker, for one. But, it is a reasonable guide to show that high speed impacts tend to leave only very small fragments. You see, too many people think "airplane debris" and immediately think of that sad, painfully iconic image of the Lockerbie tragedy, and that forms the only (or at least the most memorable) reference most people have for aircraft crashes. So conspiracy peddlers take advantage of that and try to imply the Pentagon and Shanksville crashes are anomalous because of the lack of large pieces. But, Pan Am 103 exploded in midair, and was already in pieces when it impacted the ground, so it's reasonable to believe that the size of the debris fragments would be defined by that event rather than by ground impact. However, AA 77 was driven at 400+ MPH into a building, so it's reasonable to believe that collision forces would define fragment size in that case. Make sense?

At any rate, it's crashes like the Sandia crash test, or American Eagle 4184 crash in 1994 that more closely resemble what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 than the Lockerbie explosion. In the AE 4184 photo, note how there are very, very few "large" i.e. easily recognizable pieces. It's reasonable to assume that a controlled flight into a building would result in similar level of destruction. But, none of that prevents proper identification of the flight, as many other details are involved with such a determination, such as witness testimony (Flight 77), or radar, CVR (cockpit voice recorder), FDR (flight data recorder), and air traffic controller testimony (Flight 4184).

b. j. edwards said...

David wrote:

"...if a boeing 757 hit the pentagon, there would be NUMEROUS photographs and videos of the evidence as it occurred, yet there is none. no amount of rationalizing will EVER be believable until we are shown the obvious."

Obviously, you have no basis for making that claim, David. Just because you think there should be is irrelevant.

But there IS a way you can confirm that AA 77, a Boeing 757, hit the Pentagon or not, David.

You know that there were numerous independent eyewitnesses to the crash itself, completely unknown to each other, in separate locations, whose testimony substantiates a large, twin-engine passenger jet, with American Airlines markings crashed into the Pentagon. Some, who know airplane models, were able to identify it as a Boeing 757.

Now, we also know that the 9/11 Truth Movement likes to dismiss this testimony. So let's leave it out of the equation, OK? Let's pretend no one witnessed the crash.

But we also have wreckage inside the Pentagon, wreckage from some catastrophic event. There are also photographs of this wreckage but the 9/11 Truth Movement discounts these photographs, so we won't consider them either.

But there is something that the 9/11 Truth Movement has evaded for the last six years, and elicited nothing but silence from those who claim no 757 hit the Pentagon. You see, the 9/11 Truth Movement does not want to account for the statements of over 1,000 people who saw, walked through, and/or recovered the wreckage and bodies in the hours, days, and weeks after the event.

Why should the 9/11 Truth Movement evade the statements of these people? These people, from fireman, rescue personnel, Pentagon employees, Red Cross personnel, forensic investigators, FBI agents, and more.

These people can describe just exactly what was the wreckage they recovered. Yet every 9/11 Truth Movement member from Jim Fetzer, Dick Eastman, and Gerard Holmgren, has refused to answer any question concerning what all these people saw and recovered.

Shouldn't YOU be suspicious of these evasions over the last six years, David? Doesn't the 9/11 Truth Movement WANT to know what the wreckage recovered from the Pentagon was?

So, I will pose the question to you, David. Just WHAT wreckage did all those people see and/or recover from the Pentagon?