Skeptic Michael Shermer has fallen for the most outlandish conspiracy theory of them all: the official conspiracy theory for which there is not a shred of evidence.
Shermer has bought into an official lie. Fallaciously, Shermer simply discounts as untrue anything that contradicts his pre-conceived notion, an elementary breach of logic. Shermer should know better. If he knows better and persists in spite of it, he is dishonest. Jean-Paul Sartre termed this behavior -- "bad faith". Bertolt Brecht was more blunt: "A man who does not know the truth is just an idiot but a man who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a crook!" Shermer, which one are you?
Shermer's recent attempt to "debunk the 911" truth movement is flawed at the outset. His very headline on the Huffington Post is an ad hominem --the 911 movement, he says, are "liars". The bulk of his article is a strawman. Shermer chooses to zero in on Alex Jones, hardly the founder and most certainly not the "leader" of what is, in fact, a world-wide grassroots movement, a fact that must be terribly inconvenient for top-down, authoritarians who insist upon attacking a symbol or a figure-head. The pursuit of pure truth has no need of either. Shermer, I suspect, wanted an easy target, a fuhrer and finding none settled for a strawman.
Why Jones? Many folk dislike Jones and/or his style. Would Shermer have chosenJones in order to inject personality and emotion into an issue that is difficult enough to discuss rationally? Certainly --Shermer's tactic does not illuminate but obscures with personality and emotion. Until the events of 911 are discussed critically and dispassionately, there is little hope that the truth about this crime against the American people will ever be attained. If I wished to demagogue an issue, I might be tempted to choose the most visible, the easiest target. I had hoped Shermer would not have taken this low road.
If I wished to advance a fallacious argument, I might wish to choose someone upon which I might pin a strawman. Is this what Shermer has done? I leave that to you. If I were going to "debunk" a bogus campaign of pure propaganda, I would certainly not choose an easy target, as Shermer has done.
The official theory is a fire theory. If the "fires" did not bring about the collapse, then the official theory is bunkum! I challenge Michael Shermer to cite a single case in which fire has been determined decisively, authoritatively to have been the cause of the collapse of a large steel-frame building. Cite it! There are no such cases --until 911 that is. As David Ray Griffin accurately pointed out: Steel does not even begin to melt until it reaches almost 2800° Fahrenheit. Nor did the towers collapse because the fire had weakened the steel because the fires could not have burned long enough or hot enough for even that to have happened.
I have covered many fires in my day. A fire is considered spent when the smoke turns black. On 911 --the jet fuel, as to be expected, burned up quickly in enormous fireballs and were coughing up black smoke within minutes. They most certainly did not and could not have burned hot enough or long enough to have melted or weakened the steel! It is highly doubtful that even aluminum ( melting point 1220.666 °F)) would have utterly melted under 911 conditions and even if it had, it would not have affected the core known to have been made of steel --not aluminum. The implication that molten aluminum had been mistaken for aluminum is baseless and begs the question. It's a cover story proposed ex post facto as a result of 911 movement criticism, an attempt to paper over the glaring inadequacies of the official conspiracy theory. Additionally, it is put forward disingenuously by those who understand that the mere presence of molten steel, by itself, utterly discredits Bush's official conspiracy theory of 911.
Lesser known "debunkers" than Shermer have claimed that emergency responders mistook molten aluminum for steel. There is simply no compelling reason, and certainly no evidence to suspect that that is the case. See the papers by Professor Steven Jones that I have cited in this post. The truth of all this might have been known if only there had been an investigation. Only a tiny portion of the steel columns were available for scrutiny; government officials --most certainly under orders from the Bush administration --ordered the steel sold and shipped off. The willful concealment or destruction of evidence from a crime scene is a felony!
"We start with the fact that large quantities of molten steel were observed in basement areas under rubble piles in all three building: the Twin Towers and WTC7. ...The photographs ...by Frank Silecchia show chunks of the hotel metal being removed from the North Tower on September 27, 2001 (according to the photographer's aid). Notice the color of the lower portion of the extracted metal --this tells us much about the temperature of the metal and provides important clues regarding its composition, as we shall see." ..."On the basis of photographic and video evidence as well as related data and analyses, I have provide thirteen reasons for rejecting the official hypothesis, according to which fire and impact damage caused the collapse of the Twin Tower and WTC7, in favor of the controlled-demolition hypothesis. The goal of this paper is to promote further scrutiny of the official government-sponsored reports as well as serious investigation of the controlled-demotion hypothesis. (No rebuttal of my arguments for an in-depth investigation can be complete, of course, unless it addresses all of these points.)"
--Dr, Steven E. Jones, Physicist and Archeometrist. [Prof. Jones' peer-reviewed paper is available as a PDF file here.]
Shermer's "rebuttal" of Jones consists of quoting Jones and contradicting him. But Shermer's practiced fallacies are not confined to Jones. For those who believe that Building 7 fell due to controlled demolition, some of the most powerful "evidence" seemingly comes from WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein's alleged "confession" that he authorized the tower's destruction. The quote in question comes from a September, 2002 PBS Special called America Rebuilds, in which Silverstein says:
I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.
To conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones at prisonplanet.com, this quote seems to be a "smoking gun" because they interpret the phrase "pull it" tobe "industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives."15 Silverstein seems to be saying that he and the firefighters decided to pull (destroy) Building 7, and watched it fall after authorizing the demolition. No building could be controllably demolished so quickly, the conspiracy theorists go onto argue, so WTC 7 must have been prepared for demolition long in advance.
On closer inspection, this supposedly devastating evidence does not seem to mean what the 9/11 Truth Movement thinks it means. There is far from unanimous industry agreement that the phrase "pull it" always signifies a controlled demolition with explosives - more specific phrases such as "pull away" would be used to designate the specific operation to be performed.16 And of course, "pull" has many common language uses quite separate from demolition lingo. But if Silverstein wasn't describing a decision to destroy WTC 7, what could the words "pull it" mean?
If I may address this reply to Shermer: well, Michael, apply Occam's Razor. Did it ever occur to you that that is, in fact, precisely what Silverstein meant? The term 'pull' is, indeed, industry jargon for"controlled demolition". I submit that the word "pull" means precisely what it means to those who "pull" buildings for a living and I would suggest that Shermer conduct some field research to include interviews of people who make a living doing this kind of thing. Shermer goes on to posit that the word "pull" was used to mean "pull out" as in "pulling out the firefighters" still at work on Building 7. That is an illogical and unnecessary complication of a simple, straight forward explanation to be found in the very meaning of the word "pull" as it is, in fact, used by experts. Besides --why would firefighters have pulled out? What was the sudden urgency? The 'Twin Towers' had already collapsed and the fires in Building 7 were certainly insignificant by comparison if not already under control. There was simply no compelling reason to conclude anything other than Silverstein authorized the "controlled demolition" of the building.
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
If Silverstein had been referring to the "firefighters" themselves, he might have said "pull them" or "pull them out! But he didn't! He said "pull it" and, in the jargon of the trade "it" was Building 7. Since when do even callous people begin referring to other people (plural) as "it"? Not even Silverstein would have done that! People are a "them". A building is an "it"!
According to Debunking911, Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
Compare the "clarification" with Silverstin's actual words! The "clarification" hardly supports either the Debunking site or Shermer. It is the work of a PR flack. In other respects, Shermer's argument in this respect is not really Shermer's. It belongs to 911 Research.net, what Shermer would fallaciously "label" a conspiracy site, who plays a better "devil's advocate" than Shermer plays the devil himself. (In other words, Michael, we've heard all your stuff before and are even less than impressed with them now)
However, there are several problems with this explanation.
Len Hart is a Houston based film/video producer specializing in shorts and full-length documentaries. He is a former major market and network correspondent; credits include CBS, ABC-TV and UPI. He maintains the progressive blog: The Existentialist Cowboy
It's been obvious to me that Shermer is a plant. CIA Director, William Colby, told us that all major US media is controlled by the CIA.
What better to subvert than "Skeptics Magazine"?? What's sad is how many self-styled "skeptics" out there worship this guy, rather than relying on their own radar.
No one who is a real skeptic could be as naive as Shermer pretends to be about government lies.
by
Bill Douglas (68 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments)
on Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 1:34:00 PM
These truth perverts never thought they'd actually be challenged on their brazen lies regarding 9/11.
Frum and Shermer are being outted for the disinfo prostitutes they are, and me thinks they are not enjoying the relentless nature truth has of outting itself.
by
Bill Douglas (68 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments)
on Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 1:39:09 PM
You wrote: "What better to subvert than "Skeptics Magazine"?? What's sad is how many self-styled "skeptics" out there worship this guy, rather than relying on their own radar."
I agree completely. No one who swallows the official conspiracy theory can claim with any credibility to be a skeptic. Real skeptics should have been on the front lines --demanding evidence if not proof of Bush's assertions. We should have been swarming Washington DEMANDING a proper, Federal Grand Jury investigation. A Grand Jury should have subpoenaed Cheney, who was in charge of running the the whol show. They called it "excercises". The best explanation was that Cheney himself orchestrated and supervised the entire attack.
Investigate, Indict, and imprison the traitors who have waged war on the people of the US!
by
Len Hart (131 articles, 172 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 546 comments)
on Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 2:46:54 PM
I have no question that Bush and co have no limits to their criminal activity.
But, lots of stuff the conspiracy theorists talk about are bullshit and lots they don’t what they're talking about.
While it is a hallowed tradtion that one American life is worth millions of undermench.
If you are not an American, you still are a human being and have a worthwhile life.
3000 deaths are terrible, but millions are worse.
Even if it was all true you, it would be hard to prove in a court of law, unlike the continued war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.
No one rational can doubt US policies in Afghanistan and Iraq are not clear violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Law of Land Warfare.
Don’t forget about 911, but work on stopping the war crimes which are killing people now.
by
tombaxter (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments)
on Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 8:39:14 PM
So long as the 9/11 lie stands, America remains under a hypnotic spell of unreality.
The GOP and the Democrats just play the "terrorist" fear card to make obscene profits for the military industrial complex.
So long as the 9/11 lies stands, our militarism will continue worldwide, and our national coffers will be looted for foriegn military intervention worldwide.
9/11 truth is the key to breaking the militarist spell. The wars will end, when the lies are exposed.
by
Bill Douglas (68 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments)
on Monday, February 4, 2008 at 1:35:17 AM
"On the night of the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House Medical Office dispensed Cipro to staff accompanying Vice President Dick Cheney as he was secreted off to the safety of Camp David, and told them it was "a precaution," according to one person directly involved."
So on 9/11 Cheney & Co are given Cipro. A month later US weapons-grade anthrax (trillion spores per gram) is mailed to Daschle, Leahy and media in a false-flag WMD attack framing muslims ("Death to America, Death to Israel") that kills five innocent people. Cheney and Bush both personally call Daschle to "strongly urge" no investigation of 9/11. The FBI all but drops the investigation and to this day no one has been indicted.
Only a true lunatic would be alarmed by that.
by
Michael Fury (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 47 comments)
on Monday, February 4, 2008 at 6:57:24 AM
"They" could not have been more transparent --Daschle and Leahy had, as I recall, opposed key portions of the Bush's Enabling Act, otherwise known as the Patriot Act. None of this might have happend, if only history had been taught in American schools. Hitler cannot said to have pioneered these techniques, Nero probably beat him to it by almost 2,000 years. Yet ---millions have fallen for it.
by
Len Hart (131 articles, 172 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 546 comments)
on Monday, February 4, 2008 at 7:12:14 AM
ABCNEWS sources identify another hijacker as Satan Suqami, a Saudi national on American Airlines Flight 11, whose passport was recovered in the rubble.
"'Truthers' claim the WTC collapses look like controlled demolitions, but all controlled demolitions are from the bottom up".
When I have more time, I will go through the TRIPE that he has posted on his site --the Skeptic --and that that vertiable list of lies and fallacies apart one by one.
Shermer has proven himself a total idiot.
by
Len Hart (131 articles, 172 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 546 comments)
on Monday, February 4, 2008 at 7:48:52 AM
And Shemer is wrong when he says that all controlled demolitions are from the bottom up. That simply is NOT true...if Shermer passes that off knowingly, that makes him a goddamned liar.
by
Len Hart (131 articles, 172 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 546 comments)
on Monday, February 4, 2008 at 7:50:43 AM
13 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
