9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrutiny

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
<font face="comic sans ms, helvetica, verdana" size="3" color="#333333">
The post below is for those who reject the “conventional wisdom” that is the byproduct of the American propaganda system. As former Republican Paul Craig Roberts, a Ronald Reagan administration assistant secretary of the US Treasury points out in his article below..…..”There will always be Americans who will believe whatever the government tells them no matter how many times they know the government has lied to them”………

The 9/11 “Official Story” is full of gaping holes. Faith-based patriotism is not going to make the 9/11 “Official Story” lies and inconsistencies go away. As Paul Craig Roberts points out, the next step being utilized to intimidate and silence those who refuse to drink the 9/11 brainwash kool-aid is to criminalize them by classifying them as “terrorists”.</font>

<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="6"></hr>

<font face="arial black" size="6" color="#D90000"><u>
The Road to Armageddon</u></font>
<font face="tahoma" size="4" color="#0000FF"><b>There will always be Americans who will believe whatever the government tells them no matter how many times they know the government has lied to them....more than half of the U.S. population still believes the fantastic story that the government has told them about 9/11, a Muslim conspiracy that outwitted the entire Western world.</b></font>

<font face="verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
<b>February 25, 2010

By Paul Craig Roberts </b><br>
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/100225_armageddon.htm
<br>The <b>Washington Times</b> is a newspaper that looks with favor upon the Bush/Cheney/Obama/ neocon wars of aggression in the Middle East and favors making terrorists pay for 9/11. Therefore, I was surprised to learn on February 24 that the most popular story on the paper’s website for the past three days was the <strong>&quot;Inside the Beltway&quot;</strong> report, <strong><b>&quot;Explosive News,&quot;</b></strong> [By Jennifer Harper, February 22, 2010] about the 31 press conferences in cities in the US and abroad on February 19 held by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of professionals which now has 1,000 members.
<br>I was even more surprised that the news report treated the press conference seriously.
<br>How did three World Trade Center skyscrapers suddenly disintegrate into fine dust? How did massive steel beams in three skyscrapers suddenly fail as a result of short-lived, isolated, and low temperature fires? <strong>&quot;A thousand architects and engineers want to know, and are calling on Congress to order a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7,&quot;</strong> reports the <b>Washington Times.</b>
<br>The paper reports that the architects and engineers have concluded that the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Standards and Technology provided <strong>&quot;insufficient, contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers’ destruction&quot;</strong> and are <strong>&quot;calling for a grand jury investigation of NIST officials.&quot;</strong>
<br>The newspaper reports that Richard Gage, the spokesperson for the architects and engineers said: <strong>&quot;Government officials will be notified that ‘Misprision of Treason,’ U.S. Code 18 (Sec. 2382) is a serious federal offense, which requires those with evidence of treason to act. The implications are enormous and may have profound impact on the forthcoming Khalid Sheik Mohammed trial.&quot;</strong>
<br>There is now an organization, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth. At the main press conference in San Francisco, Erik Lawyer, the head of that organization, announced the firefighters’ support for the architects and engineers’ demands. He reported that no forensic investigation was made of the fires that are alleged to have destroyed the three buildings and that this failure constitutes a crime.
<br>Mandated procedures were not followed, and instead of being preserved and investigated, the crime scene was destroyed. He also reported that there are more than one hundred first responders who heard and experienced explosions and that there is radio, audio and video evidence of explosions.
<br>Also at the press conference, physicist Steven Jones presented the evidence of nano-thermite in the residue of the WTC buildings found by an international panel of scientists led by University of Copenhagen nano-chemist Professor Niels Harrit. Nano-thermite is a high-tech explosive/pyrotechnic capable of instantly melting steel girders.
<br>Before we yell <strong>&quot;conspiracy theory,&quot;</strong> we should be aware that the architects, engineers, firefighters, and scientists offer no theory. They provide evidence that challenges the official theory. This evidence is not going to go away.
<br>If expressing doubts or reservations about the official story in the 9/11 Commission Report makes a person a conspiracy theory kook, then we have to include both co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission and the Commission’s legal counsel, all of whom have written books in which they clearly state that they were lied to by government officials when they conducted their investigation, or, rather, when they presided over the investigation conducted by executive director Philip Zelikow, a member of President George W. Bush’s transition team and Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and a co-author of Bush Secretary of State Condi <strong>&quot;Mushroom Cloud&quot;</strong> Rice.
<br>There will always be Americans who will believe whatever the government tells them no matter how many times they know the government has lied to them. Despite expensive wars that threaten Social Security and Medicare, wars based on non-existent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, non-existent Saddam Hussein connections to al Qaida, non-existent Afghan participation in the 9/11 attacks, and the non-existent Iranian nukes that are being hyped as the reason for the next American war of aggression in the Middle East, more than half of the U.S. population still believes the fantastic story that the government has told them about 9/11, a Muslim conspiracy that outwitted the entire Western world.
<br>Moreover, it doesn’t matter to these Americans how often the government changes its story. For example, Americans first heard of Osama bin Laden because the Bush regime pinned the 9/11 attacks on him. Over the years video after video was served up to the gullible American public of bin Laden’s pronouncements. Experts dismissed the videos as fakes, but Americans remained their gullible selves. Then suddenly last year a new 9/11 <strong>&quot;mastermind&quot;</strong> emerged to take bin Laden’s place, the captive Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the detainee waterboarded 183 times until he confessed to masterminding the 9/11 attack.
<br>In the Middle Ages confessions extracted by torture constituted evidence, but self-incrimination has been a no-no in the U.S. legal system since our founding. But with the Bush regime and the Republican federal judges, whom we were assured would defend the U.S. Constitution, the self-incrimination of Sheik Mohammed stands today as the only evidence the U.S. government has that Muslim terrorists pulled off 9/11.
<br>If a person considers the feats attributed to Khalid Sheik Mohammed, they are simply unbelievable. Sheik Mohammed is a more brilliant, capable superhero than V in the fantasy movie, <strong>&quot;V for Vendetta.&quot;</strong> Sheik Mohammed outwitted all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies along with those of all U.S. allies or puppets, including Israel’s Mossad. No intelligence service on earth or all of them combined was a match for Sheik Mohammed.
<br>Sheik Mohammed outwitted the U.S. National Security Council, Dick Cheney, the Pentagon, the State Department, NORAD, the U.S. Air Force, and Air Traffic Control.
<br>He caused Airport Security to fail four times in one morning. He caused the state-of-the-art air defenses of the Pentagon to fail, allowing a hijacked airliner, which was off course all morning while the U.S. Air Force, for the first time in history, was unable to get aloft interceptor aircraft, to crash into the Pentagon.
<br>Sheik Mohammed was able to perform these feats with unqualified pilots.
<br>Sheik Mohammed, even as a waterboarded detainee, has managed to prevent the FBI from releasing the many confiscated videos that would show, according to the official story, the hijacked airliner hitting the Pentagon.
<br>How naive do you have to be to believe that any human, or for that matter Hollywood fantasy character, is this powerful and capable?
<br>If Sheik Mohammed has these superhuman capabilities, how did the incompetent Americans catch him? This guy is a patsy tortured into confession in order to keep the American naifs believing the government’s conspiracy theory.
<br>What is going on here is that the U.S. government has to bring the 9/11 mystery to an end. The government must put on trial and convict a culprit so that it can close the case before it explodes. Anyone waterboarded 183 times would confess to anything.
<br>The U.S. government has responded to the evidence being arrayed against its outlandish 9/11 conspiracy theory by redefining the war on terror from external to internal enemies. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on February 21 that American extremists are now as big a concern as international terrorists. Extremists, of course, are people who get in the way of the government’s agenda, such as the 1,000 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The group used to be 100, now it is 1,000. What if it becomes 10,000?
<br>Cass Sunstein, an Obama regime official, has a solution for the 9/11 skeptics: Infiltrate them and provoke them into statements and actions that can be used to discredit or to arrest them. But get rid of them at all cost.
<br>Why employ such extreme measures against alleged kooks if they only provide entertainment and laughs? Is the government worried that they are on to something?
<br>Instead, why doesn’t the U.S. government simply confront the evidence that is presented and answer it?
<br>If the architects, engineers, firefighters, and scientists are merely kooks, it would be a simple matter to acknowledge their evidence and refute it. Why is it necessary to infiltrate them with police agents and to set them up?
<br>Many Americans would reply that <strong>&quot;their&quot;</strong> government would never even dream of killing Americans by hijacking airliners and destroying buildings in order to advance a government agenda. But on February 3, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair told the House Intelligence Committee that the U.S. government can assassinate its own citizens when they are overseas. No arrest, trial, or conviction of a capital crime is necessary. Just straight out murder.
<br>Obviously, if the U.S. government can murder its citizens abroad it can murder them at home, and has done so. For example, 100 Branch Davidians were murdered in Waco, Texas, by the Clinton administration for no legitimate reason. The government just decided to use its power knowing that it could get away with it, which it did.
<br>Americans who think <strong>&quot;their&quot;</strong> government is some kind of morally pure operation would do well to familiarize themselves with Operation Northwoods. Operation Northwoods was a plot drawn up by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff for the CIA to commit acts of terrorism in American cities and fabricate evidence blaming Castro so that the U.S. could gain domestic and international support for regime change in Cuba. The secret plan was nixed by President John F. Kennedy and was declassified by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board. It is available online in the National Security Archive. There are numerous online accounts available, including Wikipedia. James Bamford’s book, Body of Secrets, also summarizes the plot:
<br><strong>&quot;Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman [Gen. Lemnitzer] and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.&quot;</strong>
<br>Prior to 9/11 the American neoconservatives were explicit that the wars of aggression that they intended to launch in the Middle East required <strong>&quot;a new Pearl Harbor.&quot;</strong>
<br>For their own good and that of the wider world, Americans need to pay attention to the growing body of experts who are telling them that the government’s account of 9/11 fails their investigation. 9/11 launched the neoconservative plan for U.S. world hegemony. As I write the U.S. government is purchasing the agreement of foreign governments that border Russia to accept U.S. missile interceptor bases. The U.S. intends to ring Russia with U.S. missile bases from Poland through central Europe and Kosovo to Georgia, Azerbaijan and central Asia. [See <b>Impending Explosion: U.S. Intensifies Threats To Russia And Iran</b><b>,</b> by Rick Rozoff, Global Research, February 19, 2010] U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke declared on February 20 that al Qaida is moving into former central Asian constituent parts of the Soviet Union, such as Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan. Holbrooke is soliciting U.S. bases in these former Soviet republics under the guise of the ever-expanding <strong>&quot;war on terror.&quot;</strong>
<br>The U.S. has already encircled Iran with military bases. The U.S. government intends to neutralize China by seizing control over the Middle East and cutting China off from oil.
<br>This plan assumes that Russia and China, nuclear armed states, will be intimidated by U.S. anti-missile defenses and acquiesce to U.S. hegemony and that China will lack oil for its industries and military.
<br>The U.S. government is delusional. Russian military and political leaders have responded to the obvious threat by declaring NATO a direct threat to the security of Russia and by announcing a change in Russian war doctrine to the pre-emptive launch of nuclear weapons. The Chinese are too confident to be bullied by a washed up American <strong>&quot;superpower.&quot;</strong>
<br>The morons in Washington are pushing the envelope of nuclear war. The insane drive for American hegemony threatens life on earth. The American people, by accepting the lies and deceptions of <strong>&quot;their&quot;</strong> government, are facilitating this outcome.
<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="10"></hr>

Blatantly Obvious Controlled Demolition Of World Trade Center #7 -
There is No!!! explanation for this building's collapse that can stand scrutiny in the "reality-based-world" None!!!

 
Last edited:
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

This is VIP level post fa sho. Very Important Post! Props.

-VG
 
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

very informative
2 bad that just a handful of people will read it
 
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

Move this shit to the main board immediately...People need to see this!
 
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

125 minutes of sobering reality. Watch the 6 minute clip below, about the Israeli defense forces killing American soldiers of the USS Liberty , and then go to the link above the YouTube video to watch the entire movie, which will meticulously detail the background facts about 9/11 that you will never see on corporate media in the US.

<div id="kadoo_video_container_15238327-506"><object height="385" width="512" id="video_detector_15238327-506"><param value="http://divshare.com/flash/video_flash_detector.php?data=YTo2OntzOjU6ImFwaUlkIjtzOjE6IjQiO3M6NjoiZmlsZUlkIjtpOjE1MjM4MzI3O3M6NDoiY29kZSI7czoxMjoiMTUyMzgzMjctNTA2IjtzOjY6InVzZXJJZCI7czo3OiIxMzE0NjMzIjtzOjQ6InRpbWUiO2k6MTMwOTgxNTQ0MztzOjEyOiJleHRlcm5hbENhbGwiO2k6MTt9&autoplay=default&id=15238327-506" name="movie"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><param name="wmode" value="opaque"></param><embed wmode="opaque" height="385" width="512" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" src="http://divshare.com/flash/video_flash_detector.php?data=YTo2OntzOjU6ImFwaUlkIjtzOjE6IjQiO3M6NjoiZmlsZUlkIjtpOjE1MjM4MzI3O3M6NDoiY29kZSI7czoxMjoiMTUyMzgzMjctNTA2IjtzOjY6InVzZXJJZCI7czo3OiIxMzE0NjMzIjtzOjQ6InRpbWUiO2k6MTMwOTgxNTQ0MztzOjEyOiJleHRlcm5hbENhbGwiO2k6MTt9&autoplay=default&id=15238327-506"></embed></object></div>

<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="6"></hr>

BannerMS.jpg


http://www.911missinglinks.com/


 
Last edited:
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

The problem is and has been the "official story" is full of holes but the so-called "truthers" don't have any answers that stand up to scrutiny and use their own misinformation to further their agenda.
The video of Building 7 falling does not show controlled demolition because that's not how a controlled demolition is done. You don't plant explosions up one side of the building. That's a good waste of explosives. Once you take out the bottom, the rest will fall on it's own.
 
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

I would like to know what the cause of Building 7's collapse was but none of the so-called "truthers" have ever explained it any better than the government.

I always doubt people that draw big, wide arcing generalizations on people that don't automatically agree with their positions. The positions seems to be either you believe them or you believe the government is a pure entity that never lies. Is it even remotely possible in their minds that many of us look at all parties claiming to have the "truth" skeptically?
 
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

The problem is and has been the "official story" is full of holes but the so-called "truthers" don't have any answers that stand up to scrutiny and use their own misinformation to further their agenda.
The video of Building 7 falling does not show controlled demolition because that's not how a controlled demolition is done. You don't plant explosions up one side of the building. That's a good waste of explosives. Once you take out the bottom, the rest will fall on it's own.

I think you are missing some of the point. A lot of times they say they dont' have answers. But what they want is a independent investigation done due to the evidence that appeared to be missing from the offical story. They want to know why Thermite was found on site. Why was the crime scene destroyed. Why won't videos be released. Those are the answers they are looking for. There are some who imply that so and so was behind it all, but this article just points out those who find inconsistencies and want another investigation done.
 
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

The video of Building 7 falling does not show controlled demolition because that's not how a controlled demolition is done. You don't plant explosions up one side of the building. That's a good waste of explosives. Once you take out the bottom, the rest will fall on it's own.

What the video does show is a building falling at virtually freefall speed, symmetrically and smoothly, and that it is not a natural process.

Buildings that fall in natural processes fall to the path of least resistance, they don't go straight down through themselves.
 
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

What the video does show is a building falling at virtually freefall speed, symmetrically and smoothly, and that it is not a natural process.

Buildings that fall in natural processes fall to the path of least resistance, they don't go straight down through themselves.

Lamar,

You make several "Scientific Conclusions":

Free-fall speed;
Symmetrical fall;
Not natural process;
Buildings don't go . . .​

but you haven't shown where you are qualified to make these conclusions.

QueEx
 
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

I think you are missing some of the point. A lot of times they say they dont' have answers. But what they want is a independent investigation done due to the evidence that appeared to be missing from the offical story. They want to know why Thermite was found on site. Why was the crime scene destroyed. Why won't videos be released. Those are the answers they are looking for. There are some who imply that so and so was behind it all, but this article just points out those who find inconsistencies and want another investigation done.

Thermite was found? I missed that. Who found it and have they been checked out?


Who would conduct such an investigation? The same people that did the last one? Some outside investigators? Outside of where? Answerable to who? What would make them more trustworthy in the eyes of doubters than the original investigators?
 
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

What the video does show is a building falling at virtually freefall speed, symmetrically and smoothly, and that it is not a natural process.

Buildings that fall in natural processes fall to the path of least resistance, they don't go straight down through themselves.

Help me with that, LaMarr. I've never seen a building fall any other way except straight down.
 
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

Help me with that, LaMarr. I've never seen a building fall any other way except straight down.

ok, I'll show you 2 examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1X8j53U1So&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqRN63iDTqA&feature=related

Needless to say, it doesn't happen often but when it does, there is no symmetrical, smooth collapse into itself. As shown, buildings fall towards the path of least resistence.

No steel framed building had completely collapsed from fire damage alone in previous history.

but you haven't shown where you are qualified to make these conclusions.

QueEx

maan, a sixth-grader can look at the footage & realize the consistency between WTC7 and a Las Vegas hotel implosion
 
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

ok, I'll show you 2 examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1X8j53U1So&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqRN63iDTqA&feature=related

Needless to say, it doesn't happen often but when it does, there is no symmetrical, smooth collapse into itself. As shown, buildings fall towards the path of least resistence.

No steel framed building had completely collapsed from fire damage alone in previous history.


I watched the first and the culprit was shoddy construction and I've never heard anyone say the WTC buildings were shoddy in their construction.
The second didn't have any explanation so I can do anything with it to compare it to the WTC.

No steel framed building has collapsed from fire including on Sept. 11. Two large planes hit those buildings. It shouldn't be stated that the buildings just caught fire.
 
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut


In the first video, the building has shifted on its foundation, and has physically tilted off it's center. Given that scenario, of course it not going to fall onto itself, at it is no longer under itself in a vertical line.

The second video pretty much shows the same thing; an earthquake has affected the foundation of the building, undermining it so that the building topples off center.

I'm not saying that the 9/11 building were or were not brought down by controlled demolition, but they definitely didn't have the shifted foundation scenario you highlight by posting those two videos.
 
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

Thermite was found? I missed that. Who found it and have they been checked out?


Who would conduct such an investigation? The same people that did the last one? Some outside investigators? Outside of where? Answerable to who? What would make them more trustworthy in the eyes of doubters than the original investigators?



Who found it?

It was found in the dust. There are several scientist who have taken a look. A link is below for one.

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM



Your 2nd question

Thats very important who will do the investigation. I would prefer that it's not anyone who has something to gain. Weather it be truthers or the govt. Who can be trusted to conduct a investigation and be given access to everything they ask for. We would need serious cooperation from the govt to not interfere and give answers to questions when asked. IMHO I don't think that is possible. The last people who did the investigation have already came out and said they were given the run around.
 
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

Lamar,

You make several "Scientific Conclusions":

Free-fall speed;
Symmetrical fall;
Not natural process;
Buildings don't go . . .​

but you haven't shown where you are qualified to make these conclusions.

QueEx


I like your response. It forces further investigation on your beliefs. Just for the sake of argument. We'll say that this guy below is qualified to make a conclusion like that. He is a architect and has 20 years experience in the industry.


http://911truthpedia.org/wiki/Richard_Gage
 
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

Who found it?

It was found in the dust. There are several scientist who have taken a look. A link is below for one.

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM



Your 2nd question

Thats very important who will do the investigation. I would prefer that it's not anyone who has something to gain. Weather it be truthers or the govt. Who can be trusted to conduct a investigation and be given access to everything they ask for. We would need serious cooperation from the govt to not interfere and give answers to questions when asked. IMHO I don't think that is possible. The last people who did the investigation have already came out and said they were given the run around.


Bentham Open?

These guys...
Home » Forums » Daily Paul Liberty Forum

Bentham Publishing Exposed For The Fraud's They Are
Submitted by Just dropping by on Thu, 06/11/2009 - 17:48
in Daily Paul Liberty Forum
Here's an excerpt

Earlier this year, Davis started receiving unsolicited emails from Bentham Science Publishers, which publishes more than 200 "open-access" journals – which turn the conventional business model of academic publishing on its head by charging publication fees to the authors of research papers, and then making the content available for free.

As the emails stacked up, Davis was not only encouraged to submit papers, but was also invited to serve on the editorial board of some of Bentham's journals – for which he was told he would be allowed to publish one free article each year. "I received solicitations for journals for which I had no subject expertise at all," says Davis. "It really painted a picture of vanity publishing."

So Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham's editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham.

Read the rest here. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-spoof-paper-acce...

So as the debunkers were saying months ago, this Bentham journal is pay-for-publish vanity journal and the fact that Stephen Jones got his little thermite paper published in it hold no fact because they were willing to publish a paper that made no sense whatsoever, as long as the $800 publication fee cleared.


separate article
Editor quits after journal accepts bogus science articleScience journal fails to spot hoax despite heavy hints from authors
(43)Tweet this (116)Comments (44) Jessica Shepherd guardian.co.uk, Thursday 18 June 2009 15.17 BST Article historyThe editor-in-chief of an academic journal has resigned after his publication accepted a hoax article.

The Open Information Science Journal failed to spot that the incomprehensible computer-generated paper was a fake. This was despite heavy hints from its authors, who claimed they were from the Centre for Research in Applied Phrenology – which forms the acronym Crap.

The journal, which claims to subject every paper to the scrutiny of other academics, so-called "peer review", accepted the paper.

Philip Davis, a graduate student at Cornell University in New York, who was behind the hoax, said he wanted to test the editorial standards of the journal's publisher, Bentham Science Publishers.

Davis had received unsolicited emails from Bentham asking him to submit papers to some of its 200+ journals that cover a wide range of subject matter from neuroscience to engineering.

If their papers are accepted, academics pay a fee in return for Bentham publishing the papers online. They can then be viewed by other academics for free.

Davis, with the help of Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at the New England Journal of Medicine, created the hoax computer science paper. The pair submitted their paper, Deconstructing Access Points, under false names. Four months later, they were told it had been accepted and the fee to have it published was $800 (almost £500).

Davis then withdrew the paper and revealed it as a hoax. Bambang Parmanto has since stepped down as editor-in-chief of the Open Information Science Journal. Parmanto told New Scientist that he never saw the paper.

Mahmood Alam, Bentham's director of publications, told New Scientist: "In this particular case, we were aware that the article submitted was a hoax and we tried to find out the identity of the individual by pretending the article had been accepted for publication when in fact it was not." Davis told the magazine that he had not been directly contacted.

The hoax has triggered a debate about "open access" journals, some of which charge academics fees to publish their papers and allow readers access to research without subscription. Anderson said: "It's almost an inevitability that you might have several publishers tempted to take advantage of this relatively easy money."

Alex Williamson, a former publishing director of the British Medical Journal – partly open access and partly run on subscriptions – said: "There is a whole range in the quality of journals. Some that are open access are extremely good. There are a lot of awful ones, and these are probably more likely to be open access journals. Any idiot can start a journal on the web."

another article
Some background on Bentham Open, but just some

Richard Poynder, The Open Access Interviews: Matthew Honan, Open and Shut? April 23, 2008. This is another thorough Poynder interview. It covers Bentham's progress toward the goal of 200 OA journals (178 launched to date), its policy on fee waivers and discounts (for authors from developing countries and for editors), its 90 subscription-based hybrid journals, its "limited OA option" (half of the standard publication fee for just 12 months of OA), the use of CC-BY license in the OA journals, the forthcoming self-archiving policy for Bentham's subscription journals (permitted only after a 12 month embargo), Honan's view of OA mandates from funders and universities, and Honan's responses to criticism of Bentham's practices. I encourage you to read it all. If it doesn't give a more complete picture of Bentham, it's not because Richard didn't ask the right questions. Excerpt:

...Last April [Bentham Science Publishers] announced its intention of launching 300 new Open Access journals by the end of the year. The audacity of this announcement should not be underestimated. After all, it has taken BMC eight years to build up a portfolio of 185 OA journals. And at the time of its announcement, Bentham itself was publishing less than 100 subscription journals. Unsurprisingly, therefore Bentham later reduced the number of new journals it planned to launch to 200....

f Bentham was to achieve its goal it would need to recruit hundreds of researchers to act as chief editors, thousands to sit on the editorial boards of the new journals, and thousands more to submit papers to these journals. Consequently before long a constant stream of email invitations was flowing into the inboxes of researchers around the world.

At first the strategy appeared to be working. After all, being on the editorial board of a scholarly journal is a much-cherished ambition for researchers, and the kudos attached to being a chief editor an even more attractive goal; likewise, their constant hunger to be published means that researchers are always on the lookout for publishing opportunities....

After the first flush of enthusiasm, however, researchers began to question Bentham's activities, not least because many of the invitations they were receiving seemed decidedly badly targeted. For instance, psychologists were being invited to contribute papers on ornithology, health policy researchers were being invited to submit papers on analytical chemistry and economists were being invited to submit papers on sleep research...

To add insult to injury, some of the invitations researchers were receiving were addressed to a completely different person, or the name field was empty, and addressed simply to "Dear Dr.,"...

By March of this year, senior health care research scientist at the University of Toronto Gunther Eysenbach had had enough. Publicly criticising Bentham's activities on his blog, Eysenbach complained..., "All pleas and begging from my side to stop the spamming, as well as clicking on any 'unsubcribe' links did not stop the spam plague from Bentham."

For others, the experience of being targeted by Bentham proved even more frustrating. When Professor John Furedy, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, received an invitation to be editor-in-chief of the Open Behavioral Science Journal he initially accepted. But after doing so he found himself being bombarded with further invitations. And when Bentham failed to reply to the questions he raised about the new role he had taken on he decided the best course of action was to withdraw his acceptance, reluctant to be associated with a company that behaved in this way. Even though he had resigned, however, Furedy was surprised to see that his name had been added to the list of editors on the journal's web site. And despite repeated requests to Bentham to remove it his name remains there to this day.

I too had by now begun receiving copies of Bentham's invitations — not because I was on its mailing list, but because frustrated researchers were forwarding them to me, and asking me to find out what the dickens was going on.

So I emailed various Bentham directors (including Richard Scott and Matthew Honan), all of whom — with the exception of publications director Mahmood Alam — completely ignored my messages. Moreover, while Alam replied, he proved decidedly unwilling to answer my questions, despite repeated promises that he would. He was equally unwilling to put me in contact with anyone else at the company.
I also tried calling the various telephone numbers on the Bentham web site, only to be greeted by voicemail messages. Personally I knew nothing whatsoever about Bentham, so for all I knew it might have been the front for some form of Internet scam.

In the hope of enlightening myself, therefore, I posted a message to a couple of mailing lists....I also began to receive private emails with information about Bentham, including the home phone number of Honan, which was sent to me by a publisher concerned that Bentham would bring the scholarly publishing industry into disrepute.

To his credit, when I called Honan he agreed to speak to me then and there and, with one notable exception, answered all my questions. He was, however, adamant that Bentham is not engaged in any kind of spamming. "The criticisms that you have levelled against the company for spamming are unjustified," he said, adding that by posting my message I had only served to "amplify" a few small errors that the company had made.

Honan also insisted that the company always honours requests to be removed from its mailing list, and added that it is doing no more than any other scholarly publisher....Those researchers who had continued to receive messages after opting had had multiple email addresses, he explained, saying, "We have had very few complaints, and we respond to the complaints that we receive — which are very few in comparison to the number of emails we send out." He did however apologise for any errors that had been made....

"Bentham once enjoyed a reputation as a high-priced reputable scholarly publisher," comments Charles Oppenheim, professor of information science at UK-based Loughborough University, another researcher to be targeted by Bentham.
"In my view, it has damaged that reputation...."

Eysenbach, meanwhile, is less forgiving. Indeed, he is so angry that he is considering suing Bentham under anti-spam laws....

As is now evident, Bentham is not a communicative company. And while it has a presence in four countries — the United Arab Emirates, the Netherlands, Pakistan, and Illinois, USA — in all four jurisdictions the contact point is either a PO Box, or c/o address....

[T]he one thing that Honan refused to tell me is who owns Bentham Science Publishers....

For [Stevan] Harnad there is a clear lesson to be learned. "Let it be an example to Bentham and other publishers that this is not the way to go about starting up journals. It merely gives the publisher, as well as online- and OA-journal publishing, a bad name." ...




That's a lot but this is the Politics board and I figured a CP warning was unnecessary. My point is that Bentham Open isn't exactly the most reliable publisher of information. If so called "Truthers" are going to hang their hats on someone, they need to do the due diligence they think they're doing to the "official story".
 
Last edited:
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

Bentham Open?

These guys...
Home » Forums » Daily Paul Liberty Forum

Bentham Publishing Exposed For The Fraud's They Are
Submitted by Just dropping by on Thu, 06/11/2009 - 17:48
in Daily Paul Liberty Forum
Here's an excerpt

Earlier this year, Davis started receiving unsolicited emails from Bentham Science Publishers, which publishes more than 200 "open-access" journals – which turn the conventional business model of academic publishing on its head by charging publication fees to the authors of research papers, and then making the content available for free.

As the emails stacked up, Davis was not only encouraged to submit papers, but was also invited to serve on the editorial board of some of Bentham's journals – for which he was told he would be allowed to publish one free article each year. "I received solicitations for journals for which I had no subject expertise at all," says Davis. "It really painted a picture of vanity publishing."

So Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham's editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham.

Read the rest here. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-spoof-paper-acce...

So as the debunkers were saying months ago, this Bentham journal is pay-for-publish vanity journal and the fact that Stephen Jones got his little thermite paper published in it hold no fact because they were willing to publish a paper that made no sense whatsoever, as long as the $800 publication fee cleared.


separate article
Editor quits after journal accepts bogus science articleScience journal fails to spot hoax despite heavy hints from authors
(43)Tweet this (116)Comments (44) Jessica Shepherd guardian.co.uk, Thursday 18 June 2009 15.17 BST Article historyThe editor-in-chief of an academic journal has resigned after his publication accepted a hoax article.

The Open Information Science Journal failed to spot that the incomprehensible computer-generated paper was a fake. This was despite heavy hints from its authors, who claimed they were from the Centre for Research in Applied Phrenology – which forms the acronym Crap.

The journal, which claims to subject every paper to the scrutiny of other academics, so-called "peer review", accepted the paper.

Philip Davis, a graduate student at Cornell University in New York, who was behind the hoax, said he wanted to test the editorial standards of the journal's publisher, Bentham Science Publishers.

Davis had received unsolicited emails from Bentham asking him to submit papers to some of its 200+ journals that cover a wide range of subject matter from neuroscience to engineering.

If their papers are accepted, academics pay a fee in return for Bentham publishing the papers online. They can then be viewed by other academics for free.

Davis, with the help of Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at the New England Journal of Medicine, created the hoax computer science paper. The pair submitted their paper, Deconstructing Access Points, under false names. Four months later, they were told it had been accepted and the fee to have it published was $800 (almost £500).

Davis then withdrew the paper and revealed it as a hoax. Bambang Parmanto has since stepped down as editor-in-chief of the Open Information Science Journal. Parmanto told New Scientist that he never saw the paper.

Mahmood Alam, Bentham's director of publications, told New Scientist: "In this particular case, we were aware that the article submitted was a hoax and we tried to find out the identity of the individual by pretending the article had been accepted for publication when in fact it was not." Davis told the magazine that he had not been directly contacted.

The hoax has triggered a debate about "open access" journals, some of which charge academics fees to publish their papers and allow readers access to research without subscription. Anderson said: "It's almost an inevitability that you might have several publishers tempted to take advantage of this relatively easy money."

Alex Williamson, a former publishing director of the British Medical Journal – partly open access and partly run on subscriptions – said: "There is a whole range in the quality of journals. Some that are open access are extremely good. There are a lot of awful ones, and these are probably more likely to be open access journals. Any idiot can start a journal on the web."

another article
Some background on Bentham Open, but just some

Richard Poynder, The Open Access Interviews: Matthew Honan, Open and Shut? April 23, 2008. This is another thorough Poynder interview. It covers Bentham's progress toward the goal of 200 OA journals (178 launched to date), its policy on fee waivers and discounts (for authors from developing countries and for editors), its 90 subscription-based hybrid journals, its "limited OA option" (half of the standard publication fee for just 12 months of OA), the use of CC-BY license in the OA journals, the forthcoming self-archiving policy for Bentham's subscription journals (permitted only after a 12 month embargo), Honan's view of OA mandates from funders and universities, and Honan's responses to criticism of Bentham's practices. I encourage you to read it all. If it doesn't give a more complete picture of Bentham, it's not because Richard didn't ask the right questions. Excerpt:

...Last April [Bentham Science Publishers] announced its intention of launching 300 new Open Access journals by the end of the year. The audacity of this announcement should not be underestimated. After all, it has taken BMC eight years to build up a portfolio of 185 OA journals. And at the time of its announcement, Bentham itself was publishing less than 100 subscription journals. Unsurprisingly, therefore Bentham later reduced the number of new journals it planned to launch to 200....

f Bentham was to achieve its goal it would need to recruit hundreds of researchers to act as chief editors, thousands to sit on the editorial boards of the new journals, and thousands more to submit papers to these journals. Consequently before long a constant stream of email invitations was flowing into the inboxes of researchers around the world.

At first the strategy appeared to be working. After all, being on the editorial board of a scholarly journal is a much-cherished ambition for researchers, and the kudos attached to being a chief editor an even more attractive goal; likewise, their constant hunger to be published means that researchers are always on the lookout for publishing opportunities....

After the first flush of enthusiasm, however, researchers began to question Bentham's activities, not least because many of the invitations they were receiving seemed decidedly badly targeted. For instance, psychologists were being invited to contribute papers on ornithology, health policy researchers were being invited to submit papers on analytical chemistry and economists were being invited to submit papers on sleep research...

To add insult to injury, some of the invitations researchers were receiving were addressed to a completely different person, or the name field was empty, and addressed simply to "Dear Dr.,"...

By March of this year, senior health care research scientist at the University of Toronto Gunther Eysenbach had had enough. Publicly criticising Bentham's activities on his blog, Eysenbach complained..., "All pleas and begging from my side to stop the spamming, as well as clicking on any 'unsubcribe' links did not stop the spam plague from Bentham."

For others, the experience of being targeted by Bentham proved even more frustrating. When Professor John Furedy, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, received an invitation to be editor-in-chief of the Open Behavioral Science Journal he initially accepted. But after doing so he found himself being bombarded with further invitations. And when Bentham failed to reply to the questions he raised about the new role he had taken on he decided the best course of action was to withdraw his acceptance, reluctant to be associated with a company that behaved in this way. Even though he had resigned, however, Furedy was surprised to see that his name had been added to the list of editors on the journal's web site. And despite repeated requests to Bentham to remove it his name remains there to this day.

I too had by now begun receiving copies of Bentham's invitations — not because I was on its mailing list, but because frustrated researchers were forwarding them to me, and asking me to find out what the dickens was going on.

So I emailed various Bentham directors (including Richard Scott and Matthew Honan), all of whom — with the exception of publications director Mahmood Alam — completely ignored my messages. Moreover, while Alam replied, he proved decidedly unwilling to answer my questions, despite repeated promises that he would. He was equally unwilling to put me in contact with anyone else at the company.
I also tried calling the various telephone numbers on the Bentham web site, only to be greeted by voicemail messages. Personally I knew nothing whatsoever about Bentham, so for all I knew it might have been the front for some form of Internet scam.

In the hope of enlightening myself, therefore, I posted a message to a couple of mailing lists....I also began to receive private emails with information about Bentham, including the home phone number of Honan, which was sent to me by a publisher concerned that Bentham would bring the scholarly publishing industry into disrepute.

To his credit, when I called Honan he agreed to speak to me then and there and, with one notable exception, answered all my questions. He was, however, adamant that Bentham is not engaged in any kind of spamming. "The criticisms that you have levelled against the company for spamming are unjustified," he said, adding that by posting my message I had only served to "amplify" a few small errors that the company had made.

Honan also insisted that the company always honours requests to be removed from its mailing list, and added that it is doing no more than any other scholarly publisher....Those researchers who had continued to receive messages after opting had had multiple email addresses, he explained, saying, "We have had very few complaints, and we respond to the complaints that we receive — which are very few in comparison to the number of emails we send out." He did however apologise for any errors that had been made....

"Bentham once enjoyed a reputation as a high-priced reputable scholarly publisher," comments Charles Oppenheim, professor of information science at UK-based Loughborough University, another researcher to be targeted by Bentham.
"In my view, it has damaged that reputation...."

Eysenbach, meanwhile, is less forgiving. Indeed, he is so angry that he is considering suing Bentham under anti-spam laws....

As is now evident, Bentham is not a communicative company. And while it has a presence in four countries — the United Arab Emirates, the Netherlands, Pakistan, and Illinois, USA — in all four jurisdictions the contact point is either a PO Box, or c/o address....

[T]he one thing that Honan refused to tell me is who owns Bentham Science Publishers....

For [Stevan] Harnad there is a clear lesson to be learned. "Let it be an example to Bentham and other publishers that this is not the way to go about starting up journals. It merely gives the publisher, as well as online- and OA-journal publishing, a bad name." ...




That's a lot but this is the Politics board and I figured a CP warning was unnecessary. My point is that Bentham Open is exactly the most reliable publisher of information. If so called "Truthers" are going to hang their hats on someone, they need to do the due diligence they think they're doing to the "official story".



Very interesting. But I would like for someone to come out and say that the science is not correct. I don't see any evidence of that in what was posted. I would like to see one of the so called "debunking truthers" take the evidence and dispute it.
 
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

Very interesting. But I would like for someone to come out and say that the science is not correct. I don't see any evidence of that in what was posted. I would like to see one of the so called "debunking truthers" take the evidence and dispute it.

But it's not "science" or even evidence until it's been someone else (preferably someone who doesn't have a dog in the fight) checks it and can verify it.
I just want both sides to be as skeptical of their own "proof" as they are of the other side's.
 
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

But it's not "science" or even evidence until it's been someone else (preferably someone who doesn't have a dog in the fight) checks it and can verify it.
I just want both sides to be as skeptical of their own "proof" as they are of the other side's.

I agree with you here 100 percent. I would like to see someone who doesn't have vested interest have a say in it. But honestly I don't believe the official story. The govt has too much history behind lies, and the story they give I can't buy. I would love too see the pentagon videos and a few other things they are hiding for them to prove there story is real.
 
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

I don't trust it either but for different reasons that most people. I think it's reasonable to say Arab Muslim terrorists flew planes into the buildings, causing their collapse. But I think the official story is full of CYA cover ups, not to hide complicity but to hide incompetence. The Bush Administration was unpopular around the time of 9/11 and his agenda was going nowhere. This gave him the opportunity to push his agenda similar to the way the current Administration has used the economic crisis to push it's agenda. The things that need to be uncovered aren't at the site of the former WTC but in the emails and memos that went ignored or weren't followed through on.
 
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

I think it's reasonable to say Arab Muslim terrorists flew planes into the buildings, causing their collapse.

this is the thing that gets me, sure we can agree 2 planes flew into the buildings. My issue with the whole scenario is that 3 buildings fell. WTC7 was not hit by a plane, yet it fell symmetrically into it's shell.

The things that need to be uncovered aren't at the site of the former WTC but in the emails and memos that went ignored or weren't followed through on.

idk but I think you're onto somethin!

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels
 
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

I like your response. It forces further investigation on your beliefs. Just for the sake of argument. We'll say that this guy below is qualified to make a conclusion like that. He is a architect and has 20 years experience in the industry.

http://911truthpedia.org/wiki/Richard_Gage

I listened carefully to the architect giving his oral cV, up to about the 3:00 minute mark, and I didn't hear at any point where he held himself out as an expert in failure analysis or as an expert, by any other name, with experience in determining why things fail. And, I doubt that his experience with the construction of buildings with steel would qualify him as such an expert. I note that he constantly referred to the work of others claiming to be experts, but aside from those references being hearsay, it would have been good to hear the so-called experts (and I'm not denying that they are) talk not about their conclusions, but in detail about the underlying assumptions, calculations, etc., employed to arrive at the conclusions.

In other words, I'm not disputing the architects suspicions that something else may have been at play with the falling of those buildings on 9-11; but I am saying that from what I saw, (and I did not have the time to watch a 2 hour video), I did not see where the architect was qualified to give the conclusions that he did.

--------------------------

I do join those who would like to see a truly independent investigation into these matters. For one reason, it "might" put some of the speculation, inuendo, etc., to rest. Maybe. I know there are mysteries that occur that don't always fit into nice explanations -- and sometimes we may never know or feel comfortable that we know, what really occurred, to-wit: the assassination of JFK.

Perhaps, in time I will get to view the 2 hr video. In the meantime, however, if there is some point that you feel is really important or relevant to a particular theory, let me know and I'll do my best zero-in and take a look.

QueEx
 
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

I listened carefully to the architect giving his oral cV, up to about the 3:00 minute mark, and I didn't hear at any point where he held himself out as an expert in failure analysis or as an expert, by any other name, with experience in determining why things fail. And, I doubt that his experience with the construction of buildings with steel would qualify him as such an expert. I note that he constantly referred to the work of others claiming to be experts, but aside from those references being hearsay, it would have been good to hear the so-called experts (and I'm not denying that they are) talk not about their conclusions, but in detail about the underlying assumptions, calculations, etc., employed to arrive at the conclusions.

In other words, I'm not disputing the architects suspicions that something else may have been at play with the falling of those buildings on 9-11; but I am saying that from what I saw, (and I did not have the time to watch a 2 hour video), I did not see where the architect was qualified to give the conclusions that he did.

--------------------------

I do join those who would like to see a truly independent investigation into these matters. For one reason, it "might" put some of the speculation, inuendo, etc., to rest. Maybe. I know there are mysteries that occur that don't always fit into nice explanations -- and sometimes we may never know or feel comfortable that we know, what really occurred, to-wit: the assassination of JFK.

Perhaps, in time I will get to view the 2 hr video. In the meantime, however, if there is some point that you feel is really important or relevant to a particular theory, let me know and I'll do my best zero-in and take a look.

QueEx


I'll have to do some deep digging myself. I have watched you "son" people here over the years so I know to do my research. I seen u scared the other guy off already.:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

I'll have to do some deep digging myself. I have watched you "son" people here over the years so I know to do my research. I seen u scared the other guy off already.:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

You know, I was intending to put somewhere in my reply to you the phrase, "not meaning to be condescending" -- because I wasn't trying to mess with you or show you up or anything. I have a particular writing style and I argue for a living (LOL). While I use that style much more loosely here, I probably don't get too far away from it. Unfortunately, (and thats my fault) it probably looks like I'm trying to come-off a certain way or whatever -- but that is rarely the case. My apologies.

QueEx
 
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

The problem is and has been the "official story" is full of holes but the so-called "truthers" don't have any answers that stand up to scrutiny and use their own misinformation to further their agenda.
The video of Building 7 falling does not show controlled demolition because that's not how a controlled demolition is done. You don't plant explosions up one side of the building. That's a good waste of explosives. Once you take out the bottom, the rest will fall on it's own.

100% WRONG!!!!!!!


In order to have a building AS TALL as World Trade Tower 7 fall straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building), as it did, the professionals that do such demolitions use multiple timed explosions on multiple floors of the building to insure that the building collapses directly down onto its base.

READ- How Building Implosions Work

building-implosion-1.gif


If you only put explosives at the base of a building as tall as World Trade Tower 7 (57 stories tall) it will just tip the building over crashing it into adjacent buildings.

The phrase "conspiracy theory" harbors an ambiguity, since conspiracies are widespread and theories about them need not be mere speculations. The application of scientific reasoning in the form of inference to the best explanation, applied to the relevant evidence, establishes that the official story that the government wants you to believe about the events of 9/11 cannot be sustained under "reality based" scrutiny.

Objective measures of evidential support using likelihoods establish that the World Trade Center was brought down through the use of controlled demolition and that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757. Since these hypotheses have high likelihoods and the only alternatives have likelihoods that range from zero to -0- (because they are not even physically possible), assuming that sufficient evidence has become available and "settled down" these conclusions not only provide better explanations for the data but are proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Peeps we need to come to grips with conspiracies. Conspiracies are as American as apple pie. All they require is that two or more persons collaborate in actions to bring about illegal ends. When two guys rob a 7 /11 store, they are engaged in a conspiracy. Most conspiracies in our country are economic, such as Enron, WorldCom, Halliburton as it rips of the US taxpayer for billions on no-bid-contracts, and now Citibank, AIG, Goldman Sachs et al. surviving on billions of Federal Reserve and US treasury 0% interest money.

Insider trading is a simple example of a conspiracy, since investors and brokers collaborate to benefit from privileged information. Ordinarily, however, the media does not describe them as "conspiracies" The two most important conspiracies in our history are surely those involving the assassination of JFK and 9/11.

The crux of the 9/11 'official story' is the collaboration between nineteen Arab men engaged in a conspiracy to commit the greatest terrorist attack in US history; this obviously qualifies as a "conspiracy theory". When critics of the 'official story' offer an alternative account that implicates key figures of the US Government in 9/11, that obviously qualifies as a "conspiracy theory" too. But what matters now is that we are confronted, by the 'official story' and the alternative accounts of what happened on 9/11, both of which qualify as "conspiracy theories".

It is therefore not rational to dismiss one of them as a "conspiracy theory" in favor of the other. The question becomes, Which of these two "conspiracy theories" is more defensible?

There is a certain ingenuity in combining "conspiracy" with "theory" because the word "theory" can be used in the weak sense of a speculation, conjecture, or guess, to denigrate one account or another for political or ideological reasons without acknowledging that "theory" can also be used in the stronger sense of an empirically testable, explanatory hypothesis. Consider Newton's theory of gravitation or Einstein's theory of relativity as instances. The psychological ploy is to speak as though all "theories" were guesses, none of which ought to be taken seriously.

When it comes to the 9/11 'official story' - alternatives to the OFFICIALLY SANCTIONED, CORPORATE MEDIA, GOVERNMENT APPROVED 'official story' ARE NOT EVEN to be contemplated according to Government & Corporate elites.

This censorship of reality based thinking and presentation of facts reminds me of the Communist Party of China who have criminalized the mere discussion and public presentation of video & photos of Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989. According to the Communist Party of China who controls all forms of communication and media in Communist China, the newspapers, the television channels, the internet et al., the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989 NEVER HAPPENED. In Communist China if you talk about or show pictures about Tiananmen Square you can be jailed FOR LIFE.

This is the type of censorship and criminalization of reality based thinking that the article at the top of this thread is-talking-about. Former top US military officers, top scientist & engineers, top former US government officials who all DON'T BUY the 9/11 'official story' are being threatened with being tagged with the "terrorist" label by those whose best interest is served by perpetuating the 9/11 'official story' despite the GARGANTUAN GAPING holes & LIES in 'official story' narrative.

In the JFK assassination, The Single Bullet Theory, which was concocted by now Senator Arlen Spector 48 years ago is transparently bogus and disbelieved by the vast majority of Americans. Unlike the JFK assassination, a thorough analysis and debate in public (on mass media) about the veracity of the 9/11 "Official Story" has not yet been permitted. As the article that starts this thread points out anyone who has an alternative to the 9/11 "Official Story" is in danger of being branded a "terrorist".

Is this America or the Communist Party of China?


 
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

All that's nice but


The video of Building 7 is not the same as the video you have of the Barkway Court Towers. In the B7 video, you can see the progression of the floors as the dusts flies out, implying a steady collapse of the floors. Even the article you directed me to (thanks for that) says the demolition experts would place explosives in several locations but they wouldn't place them on nearly every floor as the B7 video implies and they definitely wouldn't do it on one side.

There are no objective measures of evidence that suggest the WTC were brought down by controlled demolition. There's a lot of speculation but no evidence.
 
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

The phrase "conspiracy theory" harbors an ambiguity, since conspiracies are widespread and theories about them need not be mere speculations. The application of scientific reasoning in the form of inference to the best explanation, applied to the relevant evidence, establishes that the official story that the government wants you to believe about the events of 9/11 cannot be sustained under "reality based" scrutiny.
There is no science supporting any such thing.


Objective measures of evidential support using likelihoods establish that the World Trade Center was brought down through the use of controlled demolition and that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757. Since these hypotheses have high likelihoods and the only alternatives have likelihoods that range from zero to -0- (because they are not even physically possible), assuming that sufficient evidence has become available and "settled down" these conclusions not only provide better explanations for the data but are proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Peeps we need to come to grips with conspiracies. Conspiracies are as American as apple pie. All they require is that two or more persons collaborate in actions to bring about illegal ends. When two guys rob a 7 /11 store, they are engaged in a conspiracy. Most conspiracies in our country are economic, such as Enron, WorldCom, Halliburton as it rips of the US taxpayer for billions on no-bid-contracts, and now Citibank, AIG, Goldman Sachs et al. surviving on billions of Federal Reserve and US treasury 0% interest money.

Insider trading is a simple example of a conspiracy, since investors and brokers collaborate to benefit from privileged information. Ordinarily, however, the media does not describe them as "conspiracies" The two most important conspiracies in our history are surely those involving the assassination of JFK and 9/11.

The crux of the 9/11 'official story' is the collaboration between nineteen Arab men engaged in a conspiracy to commit the greatest terrorist attack in US history; this obviously qualifies as a "conspiracy theory". When critics of the 'official story' offer an alternative account that implicates key figures of the US Government in 9/11, that obviously qualifies as a "conspiracy theory" too. But what matters now is that we are confronted, by the 'official story' and the alternative accounts of what happened on 9/11, both of which qualify as "conspiracy theories".

It is therefore not rational to dismiss one of them as a "conspiracy theory" in favor of the other. The question becomes, Which of these two "conspiracy theories" is more defensible?

There is a certain ingenuity in combining "conspiracy" with "theory" because the word "theory" can be used in the weak sense of a speculation, conjecture, or guess, to denigrate one account or another for political or ideological reasons without acknowledging that "theory" can also be used in the stronger sense of an empirically testable, explanatory hypothesis. Consider Newton's theory of gravitation or Einstein's theory of relativity as instances. The psychological ploy is to speak as though all "theories" were guesses, none of which ought to be taken seriously.

When it comes to the 9/11 'official story' - alternatives to the OFFICIALLY SANCTIONED, CORPORATE MEDIA, GOVERNMENT APPROVED 'official story' ARE NOT EVEN to be contemplated according to Government & Corporate elites.

This censorship of reality based thinking and presentation of facts reminds me of the Communist Party of China who have criminalized the mere discussion and public presentation of video & photos of Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989. According to the Communist Party of China who controls all forms of communication and media in Communist China, the newspapers, the television channels, the internet et al., the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989 NEVER HAPPENED. In Communist China if you talk about or show pictures about Tiananmen Square you can be jailed FOR LIFE.

This is the type of censorship and criminalization of reality based thinking that the article at the top of this thread is-talking-about. Former top US military officers, top scientist & engineers, top former US government officials who all DON'T BUY the 9/11 'official story' are being threatened with being tagged with the "terrorist" label by those whose best interest is served by perpetuating the 9/11 'official story' despite the GARGANTUAN GAPING holes & LIES in 'official story' narrative.

In the JFK assassination, The Single Bullet Theory, which was concocted by now Senator Arlen Spector 48 years ago is transparently bogus and disbelieved by the vast majority of Americans. Unlike the JFK assassination, a thorough analysis and debate in public (on mass media) about the veracity of the 9/11 "Official Story" has not yet been permitted. As the article that starts this thread points out anyone who has an alternative to the 9/11 "Official Story" is in danger of being branded a "terrorist".

Is this America or the Communist Party of China?


[/size][/color]



The whole comparison to China is insanely hyperbolic. Has anyone arrested the "Loose Change" guys? What about Alex Jones? C'mon bruh. It's been almost 10 years, who's been branded a "terrorist" for not believing the official story?
This is and has been my beef with many of the people that would consider themselves "truthers": their integrity and the integrity of people who believe like them is unimpeachable while everyone who doesn't fall in line (not necessarily disagrees with them) is somehow ignorant of history and a believer in the purity of government. It's not a case of "Believe in our conspiracy or believe in none", it's more a case, for me, of "Show me and be able to withstand the same scrutiny you dish out".
 
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

You know, I was intending to put somewhere in my reply to you the phrase, "not meaning to be condescending" -- because I wasn't trying to mess with you or show you up or anything. I have a particular writing style and I argue for a living (LOL). While I use that style much more loosely here, I probably don't get too far away from it. Unfortunately, (and thats my fault) it probably looks like I'm trying to come-off a certain way or whatever -- but that is rarely the case. My apologies.

QueEx


I actually prefer this. It forces me to think. I'm working 12 hour shifts right now so I can't put in as much time doing research and watching vids, but as a IT professional the skills and critical thinking I have gained on this board have been invaluable to my career
 
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

There are no objective measures of evidence that suggest the WTC were brought down by controlled demolition. There's a lot of speculation but no evidence.

So, at 1:06 in the video (in post 1) where Larry Silverstein reflects on a conversation with the fire dept & they made the decision to "pull it", Are you saying this doesn't qualify as, being objective evidence of a controlled demolition?

So let me get this straight: 2 planes hit 2 buildings, yet 3 buildings fall.
 
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

So, at 1:06 in the video (in post 1) where Larry Silverstein reflects on a conversation with the fire dept & they made the decision to "pull it", Are you saying this doesn't qualify as, being objective evidence of a controlled demolition?

So let me get this straight: 2 planes hit 2 buildings, yet 3 buildings fall.

I see why conspirators feel they can get away with this kind of stuff.

It's been almost 10 years and people still have taken no action against this government for this crime they have committed.

How can the government respect the people if they will accept obvious lies?

WTC 7 fell and people still want to give the government the benefit of the doubt. How do you respect that?

People willingly chose to attack 2 innocent countries without all the facts... just to feed their bigotry and hatred. How do you respect that?

No "attacks" in almost 10 years and people still want to believe in Islamic terrorists. How do you repsect that?

It's easy to see why the government holds the people in utter contempt.

The people deserve no respect.
 
Re: 9/11 "Official Story" Continues To Crumble Under Increasing 'Reality-Based' Scrut

So, at 1:06 in the video (in post 1) where Larry Silverstein reflects on a conversation with the fire dept & they made the decision to "pull it", Are you saying this doesn't qualify as, being objective evidence of a controlled demolition?
So let me get this straight: 2 planes hit 2 buildings, yet 3 buildings fall.

No. Is "pull it" normal jargon for controlled demolitions? Is the fire dept. the go-to people in NYC for controlled demolitions? Why bring down buildings with your own people in them?
Why sneak and do it in the first place? Everyone saw planes hit those buildings. The outrage would already be there and they could bring down the buildings after that openly, with a justifiable cause for going to war already established.
It would probably be easier to bring people like me aboard if the "conspiracy" wasn't so overthought in some areas but underthought in others.

I see why conspirators feel they can get away with this kind of stuff.

It's been almost 10 years and people still have taken no action against this government for this crime they have committed.

How can the government respect the people if they will accept obvious lies?

WTC 7 fell and people still want to give the government the benefit of the doubt. How do you respect that?

People willingly chose to attack 2 innocent countries without all the facts... just to feed their bigotry and hatred. How do you respect that?

No "attacks" in almost 10 years and people still want to believe in Islamic terrorists. How do you repsect that?

It's easy to see why the government holds the people in utter contempt.

The people deserve no respect.


There have been plenty of attacks and acts of violence in the States since Sept. 11, not counting the anthrax attacks immediately following. Google, man.
 
Back
Top