Slashdot Mirror

Oh, that's Already been done. No need to bother Obama about it.

Lets see. On one hand I can go with the basic laws of physics that CO2 and other gases do trap thermal radiation, or on the other hand I can go with global conspiracy theory claims that tens of thousands of scientists are perpetrating a hoax.

I'll go with the basic laws of physics, thankyouverymuch.

Over and over, we read of hidden, manipulated, and cherry-picked data, refusals to abide with having outsiders vet their work, and allowing naked advocacy into the IPCC reports on climate change as if they were peer-reviewed science.

I suggest you read the following links. As you say, over and over. Reading them enough times makes them true.
Global Warming: HOAX! http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
9/11: HOAX! http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646
Moon Landing: HOAX! http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

-

No. I'm talking about practical decision-making in a world where everyone has partial knowledge and some people are (intellectually) dishonest. What I'm saying is:

The people who are best able to determine if the science is good (other scientists) think the science is good. The scientific consensus is global, crossing political, economic, generational, racial, gender, etc. boundaries. This means there is less chance of a systemic bias.

Climate skepticism as a movement is selective, with (impossibly) high standards for climate science but low standards for other science (or the implications of its own ideas). It is driven by politically-motivated non-scientists who care more about the implications of climate change than they do about understanding climate. There is no reason to give climate skeptics the benefit of the doubt since there's nothing special about the belief that humans aren't causing climate change. (The real skeptical position is "we don't know", not "it isn't happening".) Furthermore, the alternate explanation includes an implausible conspiracy theory. Climate skeptics follow the pattern of denial, moving goalposts and repeating old arguments.

As a non-climate scientist (like most on Slashdot), I have to decide what to believe based mostly on the credibility of the people involved. I see no reason to doubt the global scientific community, which has a good track record for figuring things out. I see lots of reasons to doubt climate skeptics. Therefore, as a practical matter, I go with the scientists. Your standard is nice in theory, but in practice it would force me to also be skeptical about relativity, the Holocaust, the September 11th attacks, Obama's citizenship, evolution and the age of the earth, etc., which is a spectacular waste of my time. No matter how good the evidence, you can never convince everyone, especially when egos and fortunes are on the line.

I almost automatically read it as "a principled person who I disagree with."

He's a 911 "truther". He may have been a good CIA analyst, but he's either playing up the nutjobs for money or he is one himself.

At the very least, you should be skeptical when literally the only account you can find of an event in a room full of people comes from one man. I won't come right out and call him a liar, but nor will I condemn Clinton without hearing more... and believe me, I'm no fan of Clinton.

The Wikipedia article on the 9/11 Truth Movement, like all political articles, is full of idiotic weaseling about what people 'really' believe in that movement.

I was pointing out that the person linked to the wrong article. I was talking about 'Truthers', aka, members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, and yet they linked to the 9/11 conspiracies in general article. I was not claiming that the right article was entirely correct, I was saying, 'Wrong article, idiot.'.

And all adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement suspect that United States government insiders played a part in the attacks, or at the very least knew they were coming and let them occur anyway, or they aren't part of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Here is 911truth.org, the site that, arguably, is the first site calling itself '9/11 Truth Movement', talking about controlled demolitions:
'Although there is not complete consensus on this issue within the 9/11 truth movement...'

You know, when you say 'There's not complete consensus on this issue.', what you're actually saying is 'Most everyone agrees, but some dissent, so we'll disclaim this...'

And if you believe in controlled demolitions, you believe the government made it happen. (Or you believe something even stupider, as I pointed out with the mention of Sander Hicks above.) Of course, you could believe they did it and there were not controlled demolitions, so even with the qualifier about controlled demolitions, every single Truther could still think the government made it happen.

AMEN! The Globalists/corporatists want a new internet that they can TOTALLY control! Where you have no rights, freedom or privacy. Give them the BIG middle finger and tell them to F@#$ off!

9/11 was an inside job!
9/11 truth
infowars
prison planet

Does this mean next time they want to pull a 9/11 move, it will be easier or harder? These criminals need to go to jail. I don't think we should be shutting down our sky coordination system under the current regime. Is regime the right word for when there isn't a valid election?

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?Channe lID=31
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboa rd.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1108892&mes g_id=1127482

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040731 213239607
http://www.vote.org/911/
http://standdown.net/

So, um, yeah, back on subject:

Hurray!

Every aspect of every conspiracy theory about 9/11 has been systematically debunked somewhere or another.

Right, on Popular Mechanics, Snopes, 911Myths, and the very convincing 911 Commission Report which did not even bother to investigate the WTC 7 collapse. And actually Snopes debunks most of the "rumours" by referring to the Commission report. And 911 Myths states stuff like "Our take". Yeah, very convincing, some unregistered site in the U.K.

If you actually read the research, the proponents for the "offical" conspiracy theory really end up being pretty muddled and confusing - because they have been given the conclusion, so they must build their facts & evidence based on that. That's bad science, so naturally they have a hard time. Speaking of the highly respected journal Popular Mechanics, there is an well written paper by 911 Research which points out the flaws in the article.

Since the WTC was structurally unique, comparisons to other buildings really don't have much bearing in the matter,

and while they anticipated the impact of a 707, they did not take into account the combined effect of impact and a full load of fuel;

Yep, that's the number one argument - engineers just "forgot" about the fuel? That's an interesting view of the engineering profession.

all of this, of course, assumes that the designers were correct when saying that the building could withstand a 707.

Timelines show that jets were scrambled in a timely manner when the situation was understood (within minutes of realizing the planes were hijacked and pinpointing their locations.)

Well, their story keeps changing there also. Apparently, at one point, they had the jets scrambled *away*, 150 miles out into the Atlantic!

In hearings last Friday, Sen. Dayton (D-MN) raised an obvious point: if the timeline of air defense response as promoted in the Kean Commission's best-selling book is correct, then the timeline presented repeatedly by NORAD during the last two years was completely wrong. Yet now no one at NORAD is willing to comment on their own timeline!

When the official story of 9/11 can be changed repeatedly without anyone ever being held accountable, we have no right to ever again expect honest government. Please read the following story and do your part to support Sen. Dayton for highlighting the contradiction, and to encourage the media to follow up.

You need to think a little more. They don't require many conspirators, just a few at the top, the rest obediently falling orders. The best example is the officer who was reprimanded by Cheney when he asked him, as the plane was approaching the Pentagon, whether "the orders still stood". Cheney chewed him out something to the effect that had he heard otherwise.

Also, be careful not to confuse disinformation with information. Switching planes? Red herring, like the "Arab Pilot Learns to Fly" story.

You'll never convince him otherwise, because his entire conception of self is wound up in the idea that he is the rare visionary, the one who cannot be fooled. To admit that he is wrong would require him to admit that he is profoundly wrong, not just gulled, but gullible.

Yes, so I'll stop bothering reading this thread, those stubborn folk just won't change their minds with scientific proofs under their very noses!

I hope that people this election are not so stupid as to give up their freedoms to the sellout lamescream political party that has manipulated them for years. Each time I hear people bitch and moan that Gore should have won the election or that "Democrats" tried to appeal and recount their way to victory, I want to puke. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE which one should have, could have or had won, the results are the same. More government, higher taxes, more rules and fewer freedoms for the people. I want limited government, so that is why I vote for candidates of the Constituion and Libertarian parties. I hope people who read this are not stupid enough to throw their vote away on a Republicrat

You, the true patriots of America, the people who will stand and fight their own government to save the freedoms they have now and liberate the freedoms you had before PATRIOT, have until sometime between the start of July and the end of September 2008.

I predict, as I'm sure a few other people have done, that sometime between those dates, there will be another "terrorist attack" on United States soil.

I don't want this to happen, and I already weep for the people who will die in this event, but I believe that your government will, if not directly take part, at least allow this to happen.

Why?

Take a good long look at September 11, 2001. Take another good long look at the bombings in London on July 7, 2005.

I repeat, I don't want this to happen. I am filled with rage and sorrow right now at the people who presented the official reports on 9/11 and 7/7, and the people who used these and earlier governmental and departmental reports to justify such things as the PATRIOT act, extensive wire-tapping without judicial process, and the mistreatment of anyone deemed to be an "enemy combatant".

The thought even occurs to me that this next attack might happen in a "token" ally country, like Canada, or my home, Australia, set up to look like a Muslim or other religion-based attack from the "axis of evil".

Second prediction - Within hours of the attack, the FBI or Department of Homeland Security will have a prepared statement that says they know who performed the attacks and how. Within 48 hours, probably less, they will state that they have conclusive evidence to prove their earlier statement.

There will be no oversight on this evidence from a third, impartial party to verify and confirm the previous statements. Any actual evidence of the attacks will be removed as quickly as possible from the public eye "in the interests of preventing further panic and allowing the people to recover quickly and get on with their lives".

This clean up will remove the real evidence of what happened, just like what happened after September 11, and I presume happened very shortly after July 7. Two to three years later there will be a government sponsored report on what happened, and it will be as full of holes and ommissions as the official report on September 11 is.

More freedoms will be lost. In all likelyhood most of the changes will happen behind the scenes, nibbling away at what freedoms US citizens have now. There will be no grand gesture on the part of the government to look after and protect its people by removing mass amounts of rights and privileges. The grand gesture was the "terrorist attack", orchestrated by those capable of doing so in order to shake up and ready the people's minds to a gentle lessening of freedoms.

People in westernised countries are being terrorised every day, but it's not by foreigners. The terror is coming from inside their own heads, their imaginations, and the people putting the imagery in

So true.

I live in Canada and because of that I have an external point of view on the whole 9/11 mess. It never seemed right to me, until recently I discovered that I was not alone thinking that.

http://911truth.org/ and http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1951610169 657809939 terrified me, opened my eyes.

The genesis of the new cladestine governement began on 9/11/2001 with the horrific terrorist events that occured that fateful day. Summarily the US Congress gave the president carte blanche to basically use whatever means necessary to bring the terrorists to justice and protect the American people from future attacks.

Today there is a strong and growing 911 Truth movement trying to find answers to legitimate questions about the inconsistencies and omissions in the official NIST and 9/11 commisions reports. Our US government has been less then cooperative in providing images, videos, and audio tapes that could either confirm or deny their assertion that middle east terrorist without assistance were soley responsible for 9/11.

Do your own research and see the pictures and videos for yourself.

"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government. Whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, 1789. ME 7:253

The 9/11 Commission was a bipartisan effort initiated not from Congress but from the families of 9/11 victims. Where is the evidence that they covered up or lied about this particular story?

The Families of 9/11 victims are still looking for answers.
Press Release from 10/26/2004 demanding a better investigation Note: the 9/11 Commission was published July of 2004
The top 15 reasons to doubt the official story of Sept. 11, 2001 Number 1: Conflict of interest of those on the commission.

Conspiracy theories are very tempting, but sometimes more logical explanations exist.

And the logical explanation for WTC7 collopse is?
And how is it the ASTM E119 certified steel in the World Trade Towers weaken/melt after exposure to an uncontrolled & undirected jet fuel fire?

See Letter from Underwriters Laboratories(UL) to NIST

snip
We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all. /snip

If the buildings collapsed because fire weaken the steel support, then there are some serious safety issues that need to be addressed. But no one has really bothered with this. At the very least you would think building codes would have been updated to mandate better steel and UL would have to update it testing&certification process. Because clearly their certification that the steel used in the World Trade Towers was not up to snuff. Gee, that kinda smells like a lawsuit... but I haven't heard of one.

Don't forget that the Commission was opposed by the Bush Administration every step of the way!

And when W did final give testimony to the commission it wasn't under oath, it was behind closed doors and his vice-president was there to help him.

What kind of "War President" needs his vice president to help him testify?
Why wasn't his testimony under oath and public? (we can't handle the truth?)

But hey the gov't put out a report, so that must be the end of it. Nothing to see here, move along. Oooo look over there the Vice President was out hunting, had a few beers and shot someone. What were we talking about?

This current administration is the most blantly & openly corrupt administration ever. Nixon was almost impeached(his resigned before they could impeach him) for bugging the DNC. Bush admits to illegal wiretaps on untold thousands of Americans on national TV and Congress has to have a meeting to decide if they even want to question Bush about it. WTF?!?!

The 9/11 Commission was a bipartisan effort initiated not from Congress but from the families of 9/11 victims. Where is the evidence that they covered up or lied about this particular story?

The Families of 9/11 victims are still looking for answers.
Press Release from 10/26/2004 demanding a better investigation Note: the 9/11 Commission was published July of 2004
The top 15 reasons to doubt the official story of Sept. 11, 2001 Number 1: Conflict of interest of those on the commission.

Conspiracy theories are very tempting, but sometimes more logical explanations exist.

And the logical explanation for WTC7 collopse is?
And how is it the ASTM E119 certified steel in the World Trade Towers weaken/melt after exposure to an uncontrolled & undirected jet fuel fire?

See Letter from Underwriters Laboratories(UL) to NIST

snip
We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all. /snip

If the buildings collapsed because fire weaken the steel support, then there are some serious safety issues that need to be addressed. But no one has really bothered with this. At the very least you would think building codes would have been updated to mandate better steel and UL would have to update it testing&certification process. Because clearly their certification that the steel used in the World Trade Towers was not up to snuff. Gee, that kinda smells like a lawsuit... but I haven't heard of one.

Don't forget that the Commission was opposed by the Bush Administration every step of the way!

And when W did final give testimony to the commission it wasn't under oath, it was behind closed doors and his vice-president was there to help him.

What kind of "War President" needs his vice president to help him testify?
Why wasn't his testimony under oath and public? (we can't handle the truth?)

But hey the gov't put out a report, so that must be the end of it. Nothing to see here, move along. Oooo look over there the Vice President was out hunting, had a few beers and shot someone. What were we talking about?

This current administration is the most blantly & openly corrupt administration ever. Nixon was almost impeached(his resigned before they could impeach him) for bugging the DNC. Bush admits to illegal wiretaps on untold thousands of Americans on national TV and Congress has to have a meeting to decide if they even want to question Bush about it. WTF?!?!

"With high federal offices being given to the wives, sons and daughters of senior members of the Bush administration, the Hearst Corporation executives that publish Popular Mechanics magazine probably didn't worry about the ethical considerations of hiring a cousin of Michael Chertoff, a former Assistant Attorney General and the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as senior researcher."

Is it not interesting that the Hearst Corporation http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/hearst.asp thinks a person from the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is better suited to tell the truth than a real, educated journalist? (It is a good idea to visit cjr and educate yourself on what other media stations are likely only to publish what SDHS approves, like "National Geographic":
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/pentagon2/

Is it not also interesting that their article that is supposed to debulk the truth, read page 6 in that so-called "facst" article, in no way what so ever proves that a plane hit anywhere near the Pentagon, only provdes loose slander?
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/pentagon1/

Is it not nice to know that most of the free world view it as a fact that the fires in the Pentagon were started by arson?

Is it not comforting to know that most of the, in reality, free world now - like 63% of Canada - now view it as a FACT proven beyond all doubt that WTF 1, 2 and 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition?

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/10/326074.html
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20051026 163300114

March and April, 2004:

In testimony to the Kean Commission, both Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice once again insist that no one could have imagined hijacked planes would be used as weapons against buildings.

Not only was the 8/6/01 (1 month before 9/11/01) Presidential Daily Briefing dedicated to that subject, but it wasn't the first time. In fact, the US had helped the French intercept exactly that plan - planebombing the Eiffel Tower - earlier that Summer. The list goes on. OK, Anonymous Coward, did that change your tune? Of course not - your foregone conclusion can't be distracted by the facts. Otherwise you'd be damning the liars like the rest of us with integrity and patriotism. Not digging for any excuse or apology to let these traitors off the hook for at least failing to defend us, and in actuality threatening us more with every move they make.

During the Republican National Convention, when the GOP was zealously exploiting 9/11 to sell Bush-Cheney and the endless "war on terror," a poll was released stating that half of New Yorkers now think that Bush team members purposely allowed 9/11 to happen and thus abetted the attacks.

In the first scientific poll of public attitudes about possible government complicity in the 9/11 attacks, Zogby International reported on Monday, August 30th that over 49% of New York City residents believe that U.S. government leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to take action" and 66% called for either Congress or the New York Attorney General to reopen the 9/11 investigation. (See http://zogby.com/news)

"This is yet another demonstration that the 9/11 Commission did not answer or even address most of the victim families' most serious concerns, and that public hunger is now growing for some real 9/11 truth," said Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb.

"Since April 2004 the Greens have been the only political party to express solidarity with victim families exasperated or outraged by the Kean Commission cover-up. We have consistently supported their demands for a new investigation which addresses all of their unanswered questions, especially those suggesting foreknowledge, criminal negligence and complicity."

During the Republican National Convention, when the GOP was zealously exploiting 9/11 to sell Bush-Cheney and the endless "war on terror," a poll was released stating that half of New Yorkers now think that Bush team members purposely allowed 9/11 to happen and thus abetted the attacks.

In the first scientific poll of public attitudes about possible government complicity in the 9/11 attacks, Zogby International reported on Monday, August 30th that over 49% of New York City residents believe that U.S. government leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to take action" and 66% called for either Congress or the New York Attorney General to reopen the 9/11 investigation. (See http://zogby.com/news)

"This is yet another demonstration that the 9/11 Commission did not answer or even address most of the victim families' most serious concerns, and that public hunger is now growing for some real 9/11 truth," said Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb.

"Since April 2004 the Greens have been the only political party to express solidarity with victim families exasperated or outraged by the Kean Commission cover-up. We have consistently supported their demands for a new investigation which addresses all of their unanswered questions, especially those suggesting foreknowledge, criminal negligence and complicity."

Having been a 9-11 activist for the last two years I was impressed by the film. Though it doesn't go into great detail about government complicity in making 9-11 happen I felt it was a movie that can actually reach the mainstream because of the quality of the production.

In my group's online discussion I posted the following about my impressions:

First of all I saw Fahrenheit 9-11 in Oakland last night. I felt it was a
very powerful movie that could easily reach the mainstream and have what
our group would consider a positive effect. Personally I don't worry
about a limited hangout re Fahrenheit 9-11 (though I'm sure that would be
food for discussion among this group).

Secondly, I'm trying to assess reaction to the movie. Two nights ago on
mass media (possibly Fox news, I don't remember) the were commenting on
it. They used the term "agitprop", a term I didn't know. They also
showed some clips that were rather damning to Congress and the Bush
administration.

So I looked up agitprop on dictionary.com:

Political propaganda, especially favoring communism and disseminated
through literature, drama, art, or music: "It also is a conspiracy movie,
agitprop against today's targets, big government and big business" (George
F. Will).

[Russian, short for otdel agitatsii i propagandy, incitement and
propaganda section (of the central and local committees of the Russian
Communist party); name changed in 1934.]

n : a person who disseminates messages calculated to assist some cause or
some government [syn: propagandist]

I then tried a google search for "Fahrenheit 9-11 agitprop"

The search results actually mostly showed stories that were in agreement
with our perspectives. However I did find this link:

http://fim.ondragonswing.com/archives/006272.html

who's home page is:

http://fim.ondragonswing.com/

which linked to a critique from Slate:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/#ContinueArticle

These sources give a good perspective of some of the more competent
criticism we may face.