Skeptic Magazine involved in scientific fraud?

[Michael Fullerton]

I asked for an official statement from Dr. Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine as to why it is participating in perhaps the largest scientific fraud in US history as my article below clearly shows. Perhaps he will respond here.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/201 ... -on-fraud/

[angawawa]

Occams razor, when you hear hoofbeats don't think zebras.

[salomed]

That's a very clear and consist article.

I just don't get how anyone can be a skeptic without questioning.

Odd. Odd. Odd.

[Gravitycaptain]

Thought this was done years ago....

[OutOfBreath]

Occams razor, when you hear hoofbeats don't think zebras.

Unless you're on an african savannah of course.

@OP
There is a problem with over-simplification in any computer model, true. Reality is complex business, and we rarely have control over all the variables involved. An entertaining example is watching mythbusters testing small scale, and then full scale, and how often things are different because of factors that become more important when you scale it back up.

But that seems to be your only point, really.

Peace
Dan

[angawawa]

SInce I joined this discussion group a few months ago, one of the things that has struck me is how the groups from "the other side" i.e., ID believers, Holocaust deniers and now this strange group of 9/11 conspiracy people all seem to share one thing in common. They focus on tiny little weirdnesses, little bits of the whole that they glom onto and they seem to either ignore or downplay the story that the big picture tells.

Let's take the 9/11 thing.  I, like millions of people around the world, watched the news coverage from moments after the second crash until after the towers fell. Ten or fifteen minutes before the fall, both of the towers were listing ever so slightly toward each other (at least from my perspective), and I said to my mom, "They're going to fall." She shook her head and said "No way, they're built to withstand something like this." But it was clear to me. I am not a structural engineer, but from what I understand the reasoning behind the fall of the towers makes sense to me, and is relatively simple; the intense heat from the burning planes which were nearly full of fuel heated up the joists and the columns, when these started to bow from the heat they were longer able to support the weight of the floors above, and this had a cascading effect throughout the entire tower.

Now I read that 9/11 conspiracy theorists say that the way the towers fell was too symmetrical, they fell the way controlled demolitions fall. Really? So the planes hit the towers, but that's not what made them fall? Some secret government agency had planted explosives in EXACTLY the same place the planes hit (because that is where the tower started to collapse) so as to make us all think it was terrorism so the government could take away our freedoms?

[xouper]

Now I read that 9/11 conspiracy theorists say that the way the towers fell was too symmetrical, they fell the way controlled demolitions fall. Really?

I too have heard that many times. The problem is, the two towers did NOT fall the way controlled demolitions fall. There are significant differences that are not apparent to the casual observer.
.

[Austin Harper]

I've also heard that, but usually in an argument begging the questions; eg "How do you explain the two towers falling symmetrically like a controlled demolition?"  I can't explain why they did because first you have to show that they did.

[Dimebag]

Wtc 7 seemed to fall much more smoothly though. And seemingly caused by office fires.

[salomed]

SInce I joined this discussion group a few months ago, one of the things that has struck me is how the groups from "the other side"...  all seem to share one thing in common. They focus on tiny little weirdnesses, little bits of the whole that they glom onto and they seem to either ignore or downplay the story that the big picture tells.

You are absolutely right. But, be clear that there is a group in direct and proportional counter to conspiracy theorists which habitually and compulsively reacts against the need for open discussion.

This group is aggressive, arrogant, closed-minded and self-bolstering, but, they claim to be part of that most noblest of positions of thought; skepticism. They claim to be adept in reasoning skills, yet practice - and only seem to exercise - trivial refutation and fallacy spotting; rather than open and adaptive abstractions and discussions. They have as their mantra and clarion this idea of the scientific method, but do not see the methods that it emerged from.  

All who value openness and freedom of thought above the dogma-masquerade should strive to learn how to become a true skeptic; rather than a petty cynic.

It is uncomfortable, but so very easy to do.

[Pyrrho]

FWIW, Michael Shermer doesn't post on this forum, and I'm fairly certain he doesn't read anything on this forum either.

[Austin Harper]

FWIW, Michael Shermer doesn't post on this forum, and I'm fairly certain he doesn't read anything on this forum either.

You mean he isn't hanging on my every word?!  Why do I even bother coming here?

[scrmbldggs]

[Donnageddon]

FWIW, Michael Shermer doesn't post on this forum, and I'm fairly certain he doesn't read anything on this forum either.

Smart man, that Shermer.

[angawawa]

That's a very clear and consist article.

I just don't get how anyone can be a skeptic without questioning.

Odd. Odd. Odd.

From the article:
Is there evidence that supports an alternative hypothesis to the official story of the WTC falls? There is actually considerable evidence supporting the hypothesis that all three buildings came down due to controlled demolition. All we need, though, is one piece of evidence to best the official story. The rapid fall times of all three buildings currently are only explainable by the use of some form of controlled demolition.

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/09/clarifying-collapse-time-of-wtc-7.html
In other words, government apologists will argue that alot was going on inside WTC 7 between the end of the collapse of the penthouse and the beginning of the collapse of the main building. They have provided no evidence for that argument. Indeed, if there had been significant movement inside the building after the collapse of the penthouse, this should have resulted in some movement or deformation of the building visible from outside.

But watch this video. There are many others to be found on Youtube as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8

and the NIST model
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elnfqCMjFS8

So, it seems to me this article is NOT clear and concise. It claims to have "considerable evidence", but does not cite any references or quotes from knowledgeable parties. If you watch the video of WTC7 falling, and then watch the NIST model ( I actually saw 2 models, the one I mean here is the one that DOES NOT fall inward, pulling the two sides into the middle) they are very consistent. You can clearly see windows being blown out as the floors inside begin to give way. There are eyewitnesses, fire and police personnel, who have stated very clearly that they heard sounds of collaspe "creaks and groans" at 2PM, 3 1/2 hours before the building fell. The area was evacuated at 3PM, because people on the ground knew it was only a matter of time before it went down. I discovered all this info in a search that took me maybe an hour.  

The article goes on to accuse those who not believe in their conspiracy theory to be using a fallacious "post hoc ergo propter hoc" argument. I would counter this by once again stating Occam's razor (from Wikipedia) (also written as Ockham's razor, Latin lex parsimoniae) is the law of parsimony, economy, or succinctness. It is a principle urging one to select from among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions.

[salomed]

I would counter this by once again stating Occam's razor (from Wikipedia) (also written as Ockham's razor, Latin lex parsimoniae) is the law of parsimony, economy, or succinctness. It is a principle urging one to select from among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions.

If you use this principle as if it is a fulcrum rather than a guidepost then you will be misusing it, I think.

It is not law, whatever Wikipedia may say.

It is a rule of thumb. Perhaps try to think of it not about the quantity of assumptions/entities, but about the explanatory path that is available through the available reasonable terrain.  Simplicity is a deep concept, especially when applied to the worlds of reality, reason and belief. I am not sure I have explained my point.

Sometimes, "It must have been a ghost," is the shortest and best path through the options to explain a phenomena, but that doesn't mean that it was a ghost.

[angawawa]

I guess I don't really understand what you are trying to say, salomed. In this discussion about the WTC buildings that collapsed, it seems elementary. The two towers were hit by planes. After burning at extremely high temps, they collapse. In the process, large chunks hit tower #7 and fires were started. These fires burned for many hours, becoming worse because of diesel generators located on the lower floors. People saw and heard signs that #7 was giving way hours before it fell. At 5:30 #7 fell. That is the simplest explanation. Saying that there was a vast and far-reaching government conspiracy to murder it's own citizens in order to have the backing of the American people in an invasion of Iraq, that is extremely complicated and involves keeping at least hundreds of people quite.

[Donnageddon]

Sometimes, "It must have been a ghost," is the shortest and best path through the options to explain a phenomena, but that doesn't mean that it was a ghost.

Do you have an example of that ever being the case?

[salomed]

I guess I don't really understand what you are trying to say, salomed.

I can understand that.

In this discussion about the WTC buildings that collapsed, it seems elementary.

That surely is the whole point of why there is this unresolved debate; many people are saying it is not obviously obvious. Many of these people even have letters after their names or wings on their lapels!

The two towers were hit by planes.

Most would agree with this, not all. Some would say holograms; which raises the conundrum ponderance, "If a hologram hits a structure can it really be said that the structure was hit?" (Please note I am being silly here, not trolling)

After burning at extremely high temps, they collapse.

This is one hypothesis. It is clearly a hypothesis that is contested by many.

There are also competing hypotheses, such as: explosions, subterranian nukes, space lasers (or masers) and I am sure in the years to come even more creative uses of the fertile imagination of the open mind.

That is the battle field of this debate.

Science and reason and openness are what is needed to fight it. Necessarily all of them together in consistent and impartial progress.

We do not have all three at the moment. Nor have we ever had. Nor do we have any smattering of impartiality.

It befuddles me why any skeptic would argue against an open and reasoned scientific debate.

In the process, large chunks hit tower #7 and fires were started.

This is one very plausible hypothesis. Its plausibility does not refute the completing WTC7 collapse hypotheses.

At 5:30 #7 fell.

We can all agree on that. It seems we cannot all agree on what was the sufficient cause of the falling... fires, bombs, ray guns....

That is the simplest explanation.

It is only simple amidst the assumption that no other explanation is plausible. This was my point in my previous point, really.

Suppose the people who made the tower say, "Look there is no explanation for how the tower collapsed from fires. It seems impossible!" Then the explanation would not be simple.

Suppose there were 10000 devices with accelerometers on every floor and they recorded, without dispute, a 100% pure freefall of every floor, your explanation would be made shoddy, not simple.

So you see that? Do you see how you have joined the mainstream bandwaggon by accepting that what you think is the right explanation of the hypothesis isnt warranted based on the evidence and reason alone. You make a critical mistake, I think. It is like circular reasoning, but submerged in a sea of reflexive authority and other such mind syrops:)

Saying that there was a vast and far-reaching government conspiracy to murder it's own citizens in order to have the backing of the American people in an invasion of Iraq, that is extremely complicated and involves keeping at least hundreds of people quite.

Sure, I agree. And I think that if you want to stay skeptical about this you just cant get into giving good weight to any such speculations.

Scientifically we will never be able to prove if it was or wasn't the little green men "wot done this".

But we should be able to prove, impartially, using reason and science and openness, about the mechanics, physics, chemistry, avionics ect  of that most important of days. I don't mean debunk the counter claims, I mean prove the hypothesis.

I shall leave you with this thought-question:

If there was a grand conspiracy of the type you just mentioned, and you were the plotter, would you make sure that the two types of people with the most chance of unravelling it, the paranoid theorists and the rational scientist, were kept as far apart in cooperation and direction as is possible?

PS haven't proofed,  soz

[salomed]

Sometimes, "It must have been a ghost," is the shortest and best path through the options to explain a phenomena, but that doesn't mean that it was a ghost.

Do you have an example of that ever being the case?

It was a an abstract statement about a philosophical principle. I also don't ever have an axample of the King of France being bald.

Please don't nitpick me don, its so tiresome. If you have critical comment or refutation to make, sure sure, but please stop with the so easy to do nitpicking. You could write a computer program to do that.

So... back at you, what do you think about the value of inductive explanation, with principles like OcksRaz, in cases of impoverished explanatory background, like 911 (But not like Nessie or Homeopathy)?

[OutOfBreath]

Sometimes, "It must have been a ghost," is the shortest and best path through the options to explain a phenomena, but that doesn't mean that it was a ghost.

Not really, because it would involve explaining ghosts as well. You might as well say that sometimes God is the shortest answer. Shortest yes. Simplest, no. Not at all. Simplest would mean assembling it from the most "known" parts, and every "unknown" is making it more complicated. The simplest and best theory is the one containing the fewest and least complicated unknowns. Ghosts and god are complicated. Magic is complicated.

Peace
Dan

[salomed]

Sometimes, "It must have been a ghost," is the shortest and best path through the options to explain a phenomena, but that doesn't mean that it was a ghost.

Not really, because it would involve explaining ghosts as well. You might as well say that sometimes God is the shortest answer. Shortest yes. Simplest, no. Not at all. Simplest would mean assembling it from the most "known" parts, and every "unknown" is making it more complicated. The simplest and best theory is the one containing the fewest and least complicated unknowns. Ghosts and god are complicated. Magic is complicated.

Peace
Dan

hey Dan

But you have to understand the framework of the explanation. In most cases the framework is established. But not all.

We could come up with a ghost narrative where the only explanation compatable with our world view was a ghost, even though the truth was not a ghost.

Perhaps 911 is like this - there really is a hyperbolic conspiracy. As conspiracy skeptic I must entertain that notion and include its possibility when considering other possibilities. I don't personally believe it, but that should be irrelevant to my thoughts about it.

Do you agree that if the hyperbolic conspiracy were true then things might be just as they seem to be now?

(This might not be true of all conspiracies, eg Reptillian overlords)

Cheers

[angawawa]

Salomed said:
space lasers (or masers)

I call them spasers

[OutOfBreath]

Sometimes, "It must have been a ghost," is the shortest and best path through the options to explain a phenomena, but that doesn't mean that it was a ghost.

Not really, because it would involve explaining ghosts as well. You might as well say that sometimes God is the shortest answer. Shortest yes. Simplest, no. Not at all. Simplest would mean assembling it from the most "known" parts, and every "unknown" is making it more complicated. The simplest and best theory is the one containing the fewest and least complicated unknowns. Ghosts and god are complicated. Magic is complicated.

Peace
Dan

hey Dan

But you have to understand the framework of the explanation. In most cases the framework is established. But not all.

We could come up with a ghost narrative where the only explanation compatable with our world view was a ghost, even though the truth was not a ghost.

Perhaps 911 is like this - there really is a hyperbolic conspiracy. As conspiracy skeptic I must entertain that notion and include its possibility when considering other possibilities. I don't personally believe it, but that should be irrelevant to my thoughts about it.

Do you agree that if the hyperbolic conspiracy were true then things might be just as they seem to be now?

(This might not be true of all conspiracies, eg Reptillian overlords)

Cheers

If you never are gonna close down highly unlikely possibilities until some serious evidence comes along, knowledge is impossible. When I get reason to revise my theories, I do. In the meantime, I don't think that much about the very unlikely ones. I may overlook a more complicated case, true. But you're leaving yourself open to the opposite mistake of not rejecting what should be. Type 1 and Type 2 errors can both occur and must be guarded against.

Which means you have to draw a middle ground between the two to navigate safely. My idea is still to reject the most unlikely cases UNLESS there appears something that can be viewed as evidence, aka a new data point. I do not go off speculating what may occur if something new might be found. (or I do, but prefer to read science fiction etc for such idle thoughts) Evidence first, then my theory can be revised. Not constructing thousands of potential theories given potentially found evidence.

Peace
Dan

[angawawa]

I really love this place. There is no where else in my life where I can learn new stuff and practice arguing and interact with such fascinating people. I am not trying to kiss ass, I just want you all to know how much I appreciate being able to come here and hang out.

[salomed]

If you never are gonna close down highly unlikely possibilities until some serious evidence comes along, knowledge is impossible.

I am a skeptic, knowledge is impossible, at least about vast swathes of reality. I thought you were too! And a philosophical one at that, I hazard a guess.

When I get reason to revise my theories, I do.

Absolutely. What reason do you have not to revise your theories about 911? Surely just that the vast incentive upon you and me and all is not to revise our theories.

In the meantime, I don't think that much about the very unlikely ones.

I think we have been here before about probability in evidence, na?

So in those terms how many university professors would it take to make you endorse this statement:

"I would like to see a new, impartial, open and scientific investigation  into 911."

Which means you have to draw a middle ground between the two to navigate safely.

I agree on the middle ground. Utterly. I think you will believe me on this. This is why I reject thinking about the majority of conspiarcies. But about some, that isn't the case. I personally cannot navigate between those two without  a new, impartial, open and scientific investigation  into 911. Until then, all I can do is doubt the all sides. This is an exemplary  skeptical position, is it not?

Evidence first, then my theory can be revised.

I am talking about investigating theories, not revising any specific theory.

Not constructing thousands of potential theories given potentially found evidence.

It is the most purely scientific of all pursuits to create theories. Then those theories are pruned by inductive reasoning, and what remains, we hope, is the truth.

We cannot prune this thorny 911 bush without  a new, impartial, open and scientific investigation.

Why would any reasoned human disagree with this? Please, tell me why?

[Pyrrho]

I dunno. Sounds more and more like a tobacco company rationale to me. "More research is needed," etc. while steadfastly ignoring the facts already in evidence.

Anyway, if someone other than taxpayers wants to foot the bill for a whole new investigation, I say let them have at it.

There is the "truth," as in what really actually happened, and an approximation of the "truth," which is all we can hope to attain.

Meh. I've been over all this many times before. People who want to read my arguments can dig them up via the search function.

[norrinradd]

the New York Times noted in 2003:

   The panel [i.e. the 9/11 Commission] also said the failure of the Bush administration to allow officials to be interviewed without the presence of government colleagues could impede its investigation, with the commission’s chairman suggesting today that the situation amounted to “intimidation” of the witnesses.

[9/11 Commission co-chairs] Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton suggested that the Justice Department was behind a directive barring intelligence officials from being interviewed by the panel without the presence of agency colleagues.

   At a news conference, Mr. Kean described the presence of “minders” at the interviews as a form of intimidation. “I think the commission feels unanimously that it’s some intimidation to have somebody sitting behind you all the time who you either work for or works for your agency,” he said. “You might get less testimony than you would.”

   “We would rather interview these people without minders or without agency people there,” he said.

A recently released 9/11 Commission memo complains that:

   * Minders “answer[ed] questions directed at witnesses;”

   * Minders acted as “monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staffs lines of inquiry and witnesses’ verbatim responses.” The staff thought this “conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution;” and

   * Minders “positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions."

Bottom Line: The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, Tom Keane and Lee Hamilton, and chair of the the Joint Inquiry of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees into 9/11, Bob Graham, said that minders obstructed the investigation into 9/11.

Shouldn’t we believe them?

[norrinradd]

No reason for a new investigation? How about the fact that even the two chairmen of the 9/11 Commission  state publicly that their investigation was complete BS? That they had no funding, no subpoena power, that the government intimidated their witnesses and the President and vice president refused to testify under oath?

"The two co-chairs of the Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, believe that the government established the Commission in a way that ensured that it would fail. In their book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission describing their experience serving, Hamilton listed a number of reasons for reaching this conclusion, including: the late establishment of the Commission and the very short deadline imposed on its work; the insufficient funds (3 million dollars), initially allocated for conducting such an extensive investigation (later the Commission requested additional funds but received only a fraction of the funds requested and the chairs still felt hamstrung); the many politicians who opposed the establishment of the Commission; the continuing resistance and opposition to the work of the Commission by many politicians, particularly those who did not wish to be blamed for any of what happened; the deception of the Commission by various key government agencies, including the Department of Defense, NORAD and the FAA; and, the denial of access by various agencies to documents and witnesses. "So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail."

How can any of you pretend that the commission was a legitimate investigation? You cannot.

[OutOfBreath]

I'll give you this one point by point, and then I'll just let it be.

I am a skeptic, knowledge is impossible, at least about vast swathes of reality. I thought you were too! And a philosophical one at that, I hazard a guess.

Theoretically, I somewhat agree. I do however disagree on using it practically, as it never gets down from speculation that way.

Absolutely. What reason do you have not to revise your theories about 911? Surely just that the vast incentive upon you and me and all is not to revise our theories.

No convincing opposing evidence is apparent to me. There's just speculation that stumbles into eachother without offering a credible alternative explanation. And here you mix in political paranoia with your scientific reasoning. Whether someone would want something, if true, to be hidden has no bearing on weighing the evidence we have. You can only speculate as to the (potentially) missing evidence.

I think we have been here before about probability in evidence, na?

We have, but I won't budge on that we do use probabilities in judging whether we admit it or not. These probabilities are not picked from thin air but based on other knowns. How do you reject most conspiracy theories?

So in those terms how many university professors would it take to make you endorse this statement:

"I would like to see a new, impartial, open and scientific investigation  into 911."

Investigate away. But it's not likely to yield any better results than the very thorough existing one. If someone feels like blowing some million $ on doing it, I won't stop them.

I agree on the middle ground. Utterly. I think you will believe me on this. This is why I reject thinking about the majority of conspiarcies. But about some, that isn't the case. I personally cannot navigate between those two without  a new, impartial, open and scientific investigation  into 911. Until then, all I can do is doubt the all sides. This is an exemplary  skeptical position, is it not?

Kudos for not jumping on all the conspiracy wagons. They do seem to cause addiction to many.
Doubting all sides without judging the amount and quality of the evidence is not a very good position in my view. It may be nicely "philosophically/cartesian skeptic TM" but in this case, not warranted in my view.

I am talking about investigating theories, not revising any specific theory.

That is truly poteito potahto. Investigating leads to revising, and revising involves investigation.

It is the most purely scientific of all pursuits to create theories. Then those theories are pruned by inductive reasoning, and what remains, we hope, is the truth.

Indeed. But when we already have pruned, and the discarded theories are lacking for evidence we may draw some conclusions. Otherwise, there was no point to the pruning, or indeed, no pruning took place.

We cannot prune this thorny 911 bush without  a new, impartial, open and scientific investigation.
Why would any reasoned human disagree with this? Please, tell me why?

Because I don't see the need for a new investigation, and like many others, see it is a case closed. I won't stop you or others for dishing out the $ needed to do anohter one.

Peace
Dan

[norrinradd]

being Out of breath can deprive a brain of much-needed oxygen.

The investigation was not "thorough", it was a farce, and even the two co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission said it was "set up to fail".

You whine about the cost of a new investigation? The investigation of Clinton's blowjob cost the taxpayers $44 million. The investigation into 9/11 (which was actually important)? $3 million. They requested more, but got only a fraction of what they needed.

Whine about what the cost of NOT having a serious investigation has been. Trillions spent on wars. And counting.

[OutOfBreath]

being Out of breath can deprive a brain of much-needed oxygen.

The investigation was not "thorough", it was a farce, and even the two co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission said it was "set up to fail".

You whine about the cost of a new investigation? The investigation of Clinton's blowjob cost the taxpayers $44 million. The investigation into 9/11 (which was actually important)? $3 million. They requested more, but got only a fraction of what they needed.

Whine about what the cost of NOT having a serious investigation has been. Trillions spent on wars. And counting.

Did you have a point apart from derision?

Peace
Dan

[xouper]

being Out of breath can deprive a brain of much-needed oxygen.

The investigation was not "thorough", it was a farce, and even the two co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission said it was "set up to fail".

You whine about the cost of a new investigation? The investigation of Clinton's blowjob cost the taxpayers $44 million. The investigation into 9/11 (which was actually important)? $3 million. They requested more, but got only a fraction of what they needed.

Whine about what the cost of NOT having a serious investigation has been. Trillions spent on wars. And counting.

Did you have a point apart from derision?

He might have a point, but it certainly not anything remotely relevant or valid.

To norrinradd:

I am not happy about the money spent investigating Clinton's blowjob. But that is not a valid reason to spend more of my money on an investigation that is not likely to uncover any more evidence about why the towers collapsed. If you want to spend more of your own money on such a speculative venture, fine, but keep your hands out of my pocket.

[norrinradd]

Yes, you poor confused fellow. My point was that spending a few million more on a genuine investigation would have saved us perhaps trillions of dollars that have been spent on our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

to xouper:

You want to continue to spend a Billion dollars a month on the Bush wars, then spend YOUR own money on such a pointless venture, but keep your hands out of MY pocket.

A new investigation that reveals these wars were not justified would bring them to an end in a more timely manner, and save us many times more than it would cost.

And yes, it is very probable that a serious investigation would come to a different conclusion, in fact, several already have. The University of Copenhagen two year study revealed physical proof, in fact.

[OutOfBreath]

And yes, it is very probable that a serious investigation would come to a different conclusion, in fact, several already have. The University of Copenhagen two year study revealed physical proof, in fact.

Can you corroborate that statement with a link to this study, and what it shows?

Peace
Dan

[norrinradd]

I certainly can. Here you go.

http://nielsharrit.org/

There are also video links, if you'd rather watch videos discussing the findings of this international panel of scientists.

Peace to you.

[xouper]

You want to continue to spend a Billion dollars a month on the Bush wars, then spend YOUR own money on such a pointless venture, but keep your hands out of MY pocket.

It's not my hands in your pocket. I did not vote for or approve of spending that money, so don't blame me.

A new investigation that reveals these wars were not justified would bring them to an end in a more timely manner, and save us many times more than it would cost.

No it wouldn't. For example, I assume you know that the 9/11 Commission found no link between the 9/11 attacks and Iraq? Are you saying you want a new investigation to find a link and thus justify the wars?

And yes, it is very probable that a serious investigation would come to a different conclusion, in fact, several already have. The University of Copenhagen two year study revealed physical proof, in fact.

Sorry, but that is not a valid inference from their study. Their findings of thermite in the rubble is NOT evidence of controlled demolition. For two reasons. 1) thermite is not used by anyone anywhere for controlled demolition of buildings. And 2), thermite cannot cut through vertical steel columns or beams as used in those buildings.

If that's the best you've got, then you've got nothing, and a new investigation will not help you with that one.

[xouper]

I certainly can. Here you go.

http://nielsharrit.org/

There are also video links, if you'd rather watch videos discussing the findings of this international panel of scientists.

Peace to you.

Harrit's paper is thoroughly debunked here:
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.ca/2009/05/response-to-harrit-jones-etal-from-dr.html

See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentham_Science_Publishers#Controversy

[OutOfBreath]

That's just about what I found out as well. The peer review is dubious and the paper doesn't seem to gather much support from other scientists.

Peace
Dan

[norrinradd]

Harrit's team of scientists are not debunked by anybody, your link is to a post in a forum like this one, it is not written by any scientist and has no weight of any kind. You do realize that, don't you?