New Victim Added to 9/11 Death Toll, and Sadly, More to Follow

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm not even from the same country as you, genius...

[Dinner]

Stop pretending to be French and admit you live in a totally forgetable town in the mid-west.

[Drake Tungsten]

Stop pretending to be French and admit you live in a totally forgetable town in the mid-west.

I don't know what "forgetable" means. I also don't understand why you hyphenated "Midwest".

[Dinner]

I see. Drake's case of Boring Midwestern Town Delirium is worse then we thought. Spending so many years living in a town where there is nothing more to do then drink watery urine tasting beer and go cow tipping has completely addled his brain. Drake has come to believe that pretending to live any where else is better then admitting he is from the Midwest. Even if it meaning pretending to be... French.

[Alexander I]

Re: New Victim Added to 9/11 Death Toll, and Sadly, More to Follow

Originally posted by Slaughtermeyer
You can hear BYU professor Steven Jones discuss the deliberate downplaying by the government of the danger the toxic dust posed at the 58.5 minute point of this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...34652002408586

I've met Steven Jones. I roomed with his son at college for a while. Doesn't mean I agree with his ideas. Or his son's.

[Patroklos]

I say the same about John Ashcroft...

[Slaughtermeyer]

Originally posted by Asmodean Perhaps so, but we acknowledge them as the crap they are, and give no voice to them.

The Winnipeg media hasn't exactly acknowledged the truth about 9/11 as "crap." Here's a report from a Winnipeg television station from this morning:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/8983

[Kuciwalker]

Who the **** cares about Winnipeg?

[Ecthy]

Talk about clutching a strawman

[MightyTiny]

The tired, tired, endlessly refuted conspiracy theories surfacing again.

Here's a pretty good article that deals with the silly claims of the 911 conspiracy theorists, and exposes the sort of selective reporting that they use to give false impressions to support the "great conspiracy":

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html

I'll copy paste a few relevant messages I posted on another forum, on a discussion over conspiracy theories:

The whole conspiracy claim has so many points in it where common sense should chime in a warning: Why fly planes into the buildings AND demolish them with explosives - why not just blow them up? And how do you rig a busy building like a WTC tower with explosives to achieve a controlled demolition without anyone noticing? And why so many targets? Wouldn't just ONE tower, or say, just the Pentagon been enough to justify a response, to give fuel to the Bush administration's actions that they undertook after the attack? And why not attack targets with less of an impact on the operation of the financial markets? What would have been wrong with demolishing a few bridges at rush our in a couple of cities, or blowing up a bomb in rush hour trafic - MUCH easier to stage, fewer people needed to be in the know, and less chance of getting caught. And still the same effect of frightening America into a sense of insecurity, and gaining the sympathy of the world to initiate "war on terror".

And how on earth do you keep a conspiracy of this scale, which must have had hundreds or thousands of individuals "in the know" together and under control, with no-one breaking rank, no one speaking out in warning or carelessly slipping information to their lover who runs up to the nearest tabloid before the event?

And to top it off, this enormous, inexplicably intricate, stunningly well planned and executed, unnecessarily complicated conspiracy would have been accomplished by arguably one of the most inept administrations in US history, an administration that has got caught in a number of scandals, and that couldn't even keep an orders of magnitude simpler conspiracy a secret: the fact that they had set up secret detention centers didn't stay secret from the rest of the world for very long.

This very intricacy of the conspiracies of conspiracy theorists, and the inexplicable super-human skill needed to carry them out and keep them hidden is the main thing that makes them such unrealistic fantasy.

Conspiracy theorists are very much like religious fundamentalists, I've found - mainly, that they are very sceptical.... very selectively.

Anything with "the government" even marginally associated with it will immediately be subject to the closest scrutiny to look for any signs of conspiracy - even an appearance of something unusual (even if that's an appearance that would evaporate with 5 minutes of thought or study) will be presented as proof of a conspiracy.

On the other hand, their own conspiracy theories are not subjected to any sort of critical scrutiny - there's no standard the evidence is required to meet, provided that the evidence can be seen to support the conspiracy. Further, conspiracy theorists tend to trust their own arm-chair philosopher's judgements on subjects they have no expertice on, subjects which absolutely would require that expertice to fairly and realistically evaluate the matter.

The "experts" the conspiracy theorist cites for his case aren't scrutinized for their credentials, or actual level of expertise - these experts, if they publish their views for peer review (which is rare), tend to publish in obscure publications that aren't specialized to the relevant field. (This way, the "peers" that judge the publication, won't actually have any expertice in the subject, to tell whether it's good or a load of junk - thus defeating the purpose of peer review.)

Conspiracy theorists often also pick and choose camera angles and pictures which can be seen to support their case, and neglect to show those camera angels and pictures which would undermine it. They use quotes out of context, to make it appear that something was said that wasn't actually said.

And lastly, they protect the conspiracy from potential falsification - if you make too good arguments against the conspiracy, then you must be working for the government, and in on it, OR if the presented "evidence" can be undermined and argued against, or there's a lack of evidence, then that just goes to show how clever the conspiracy is. Thus it is impossible, even in principle, to convince a hard line conspiracy theorist of the fallacy of the conspiracy claim; simply because lack of evidence is just as much evidence for the conspiracy as actual evidence.

Compare all these tactics to the religious fundamentalist's tactics - the similarities are striking. Distortion or selective reporting of evidence, promotion of flimsy and thoroughly refuted "experts", recycling of arguments which have been refuted ad nauseum, quoting out of context, applying different evidentiary standards for their belief than for everything else, judging arm-chair philosophies and gut feelings as authorative, as if they'd come from an expert, and protecting the belief against any attempt to undermine it. (The religious fundamentalist's tactic only differs in detail - if an argument against the belief is too good, then it's the devil tempting you!)

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Stop pretending to be French and admit you live in a totally forgetable town in the mid-west.

Don't hyphenate Midwest!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Who the **** cares about Winnipeg?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Who the **** cares about Winnipeg?

I dunno. Winnipegleggians??

[DinoDoc]

I doubt it.

[Slaughtermeyer]

Originally posted by MightyTiny
Here's a pretty good article that deals with the silly claims of the 911 conspiracy theorists, and exposes the sort of selective reporting that they use to give false impressions to support the "great conspiracy":

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html

I've taken a look at that link and I found nothing surprising, it's typical of the deception and dishonesty found among so-called "debunkers." Here are a couple of examples:

What about the “melted steel” that 9/11 conspiracy theorists claim was at Ground Zero? Dr. Steven Jones’ popular article cites several anecdotal sources speaking about flowing or pooled samples of melted steel found at Ground Zero.8 However, the sources in question are informal observations of “steel” at Ground Zero, not laboratory results.9 To many people, any grayish metal looks sufficiently like steel to call it “steel” when speaking informally. To actually establish that the substance in question is steel, we need analytical laboratory results using atomic absorption (AA) or another suitable test. It seems far more likely that the metal seen by the contractors was aluminum, a component of the WTC structural material that melts at a much lower temperature than steel and can look superficially similar to it.

In other words, we are supposed to believe that the FEMA experts who investigated the rubble were incapable of determining whether the metal was steel or aluminum.
Although most of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence.
The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

Here's a link to Appendix C of the FEMA report:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

Since bin-Laden and al Qaeda have officially claimed responsibility for the attacks of 9/11, there is no point in seeking alternative theories.

Conveniently ignored is the fact that bin Laden actually denied any involvement in 9/11. And it ignores the overwhelming evidence that the bin Laden or bin Ladens who claimed responsibility are probably impostors. Even the FBI refuses to list 9/11 as one of the crimes for which Osama Bin Laden is wanted on the FBI's Most Wanted poster of Bin Laden, and its spokesman has gone on record stating that "there is no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”





And this debunker doesn't even try to debunk the fact that the source of the anthrax in the post-911 anthrax attacks was traced to the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, and that top Bush administration officials began taking the anti-anthrax drug Cipro one week before the first anthrax attack took place.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/1967.shtml