Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
When you consider the forces that are involved in the collapse of two giant skyscrapers—forces far surpassing a demolition explosion—AND the fact that there were two large explosions when the planes hit, the teeth on rooftops thing really doesn’t look like evidence for anything. I’d be much more surprised if there wasn’t debris scattered on rooftops throughout the area.
As far as “explosive sounds” being heard, where are the recordings? Testimonial witness of disasters always produces a heavily skewed version of events. Even on simple matters people have a hard time reconstructing a chronology of events as they actually happened. I think that can be safely thrown out without much other scrutiny.
You’re right, eye witnesses of unanticipated explosions should be expected to have recording devices already on. And neuroscientists have very much research evidence showing that false narrative accounts of memories do indeed occur when humans rationalize a sequence of events rather than stating exactly what is in memory minus all attempts to form a story. Agreed, the entire area’s rooftops probably contain more than sufficient debris.
And no, I don’t think much more outside inquiry is required. It would be a waste of money. When you consider the amount of people who worked on this, implying that they were bought-and-paid-for propagandists is insulting and suggests that a massive—MASSIVE—conspiracy is at play.
And if that large scale conspiracy were actually happening, the conspirators would hope to avoid being found. That’s why I mentioned earlier that if an investigation were to happen, it would have to be through channels that could not be bought, whence my naive suggestion of foreign nations or international law. But in fact you have raised an excellent point. No further inquiry is required and external probes coming in would indeed be a waste of money. The best thing, obviously, is for individual American citizens not to do anything to the effect of collecting evidence, putting the legal case together, gathering case experts and eye witnesses, recording testimony, and shipping the bundle to The Hague as fast and effectively as is practical. American citizens have access to places in which foreign help would be at a disadvantage due to being unfamiliar with the turf, but of course nice American citizens should never question their government and should never take this matter into their own hands. So, you’re right, the government possibly spoke the whole truth and nothing but the truth and indeed the case should rest.
I stand by my view that 9/11 truthers have a pseudoscience problem, but I’m not going to derail this thread into a 9/11 debate. That has its own thread.
One thing that needs a second look with 9/11 is WTC7. That one is suspicious.
It would also be interesting to see an opinion from a qualified individual on the thermate signature in the dust collected from Lower Manhattan.
Inquiry is OK. We’ll take the findings as they may come.
That’s all the derailment I will engage in here.
Let’s not forget that pseudoscience is in the eyes of the beholder.
Climate science could easily get the same moniker from both sides of the question.
There are serious questions about the shenanigans at CRU. They may not incriminate the entire body of work of that institute, but they raise red flags. Science is not immune to hysteria, and scientists are not immune to peer influence. Eugenics is not a bad example.
(What was the “hysteria” in the eugenics movement, you may ask? How about “our gene pool is being polluted by lower life forms?”)
Let’s not forget that pseudoscience is in the eyes of the beholder.
Climate science could easily get the same moniker from both sides of the question.
There are serious questions about the shenanigans at CRU. They may not incriminate the entire body of work of that institute, but they raise red flags. Science is not immune to hysteria, and scientists are not immune to peer influence. Eugenics is not a bad example.
(What was the “hysteria” in the eugenics movement, you may ask? How about “our gene pool is being polluted by lower life forms?”)
Educate me: what is CRU? Agreed as to the obvious conclusion regarding what is never said about environmental management.
I’m unfamiliar with the eugenics movement you’re referring to. In what specific way does it differ from humanity’s various genocides?
Let’s not forget that pseudoscience is in the eyes of the beholder.
Climate science could easily get the same moniker from both sides of the question.
There are serious questions about the shenanigans at CRU. They may not incriminate the entire body of work of that institute, but they raise red flags. Science is not immune to hysteria, and scientists are not immune to peer influence. Eugenics is not a bad example.
(What was the “hysteria” in the eugenics movement, you may ask? How about “our gene pool is being polluted by lower life forms?”)
Educate me: what is CRU? Agreed as to the obvious conclusion regarding what is never said about environmental management.
I’m unfamiliar with the eugenics movement you’re referring to. In what specific way does it differ from humanity’s various genocides?
All the best to you and yours,
Jennifer
Hi Jennifer!
CRU is the Climate Research Unit at the University Of East Anglia. It is the institution that is getting a fair amount of press, under the name ClimateGate, after the release of hacked/leaked emails from its researchers and associates around the globe. Clear signs of unscientific and otherwise underhanded practices are alleged by a goodly number of people, including otherwise sympathetic journalists like the UK’s George Monbiot.
The eugenics movement is not a bad candidate for having caused the Nazi genocides. The eugenics movement began early in the 20th century. It commonly found its outlet in the sterilization of individuals who were a supposed threat to the breeding population. A long list of ailments could get you on that list, one of them was a grab-bag definition of a social misfit, but also included deafness, mental retardation, and nervous disorders. Sterilization of travelers (tinkers) were carried out in Norway into the 1970s, presumably on the “misfit” criterion. Marriage laws and institutionalization of undesirables were other means used to keep the gene pool strong.
So I suppose the difference was that eugenics was the modern godfather of hyperactive extermination of one’s fellow humans.
Germany’s eugenics project which was a precursor to everything that happened since (Wannsee and Der Endlösung) was known as T-4, after the address of the main administration office at Tiergarten 4 in Berlin.
Let’s not forget that pseudoscience is in the eyes of the beholder.
Climate science could easily get the same moniker from both sides of the question.
There are serious questions about the shenanigans at CRU. They may not incriminate the entire body of work of that institute, but they raise red flags. Science is not immune to hysteria, and scientists are not immune to peer influence. Eugenics is not a bad example.
(What was the “hysteria” in the eugenics movement, you may ask? How about “our gene pool is being polluted by lower life forms?”)
Educate me: what is CRU? Agreed as to the obvious conclusion regarding what is never said about environmental management.
I’m unfamiliar with the eugenics movement you’re referring to. In what specific way does it differ from humanity’s various genocides?
All the best to you and yours,
Jennifer
Hello Jennifer——My dear—please don’t take this the wrong way; I have nothing against you , so this is not personal BUT..——after reading a lot of your posts I need to ask : can’t you ever say anything simply and directly ? I mean , going through your posts is like wading through everything but the kitchen sink, and deciphering Chinese .
You are a teacher, are you not ? Then you must understand that brevity ,clarity, and directness score big points. Please don’t get mad at me; I am not a teacher, but I have had three teachers read your posts and they agree with me. My family is a family of people in that profession so they are bound to end up at my house sooner or later. The last time we managed to get together My sister, husband’s grandson, his wife and his daughter asked me to show them how I spent my time on the compute. , so I did .
You are obviously a smart person and seem like charming company, but your mind must be like a Jackson Polock painting. ( that is a compliment btw ) Also, I am not saying that I am a good writer by any means ; perish the thought—,so don’t misunderstand me. I can’t even remember how to spell . So this is NOT about me and my writing skills ( or lack of ) , just in case anyone reading this starts rolling on the floor laughing .
I don’t understand what you hope to gain this way.
All the best to you and yours,
Jennifer
You have to gain more than I do.
Correction and disambiguation: I am currently absent of supervision. Absent of “have to” and absent of “must”, a state of being that is 100% earned, and entirely absent of influence from draconian overlords.
Or is this a misunderstanding?
You are right to return my attention to Sheba’s conversation, Dee. Indeed, I am absent of the ability to decipher empty and meaningless randomly generated grammatically reasonable sentence structures and realized today that obviously missed is that she’s demanding I must teach her for free the reason why of all the smart celebrities attached to the Reason Project and all the posters in the forums, I appear to be the unique non-anonymous interactive human. Unfortunately I am (quite naturally and far from surprisingly) entirely unavailable (for free) to speculate as to the (misleading?) appearance of cowardice and the good and strong reasons (one supposes such exists?) for having such an appearance - pay me to speculate on mid-range probabilities and I will, guaranteed without results.
Of course, the open option is considering the fact that perhaps this is me teaching what there is for me to teach, in the ways that I teach, in fair trade for the compensation offered, as was demanded. I think it will be you who thanks me.
This line of thinking sets up the idea that we should assume the possibility that one or several gods exist.
There is no reason whatsoever to assume that possibility. All we know is that we have large numbers of people believing such things. The correct line of inquiry is: “Large numbers of people believe in supernatural creatures. What are the causes for these beliefs, as there is no evidence for such supernatural beings?”
Sheba: Hello Jennifer——My dear—please don’t take this the wrong way; I have nothing against you , so this is not personal BUT..——after reading a lot of your posts I need to ask : can’t you ever say anything simply and directly ? I mean , going through your posts is like wading through everything but the kitchen sink, and deciphering Chinese .
You are a teacher, are you not ? Then you must understand that brevity ,clarity, and directness score big points. Please don’t get mad at me; I am not a teacher, but I have had three teachers read your posts and they agree with me. My family is a family of people in that profession so they are bound to end up at my house sooner or later. The last time we managed to get together My sister, husband’s grandson, his wife and his daughter asked me to show them how I spent my time on the compute. , so I did .
You are obviously a smart person and seem like charming company, but your mind must be like a Jackson Polock painting. ( that is a compliment btw ) Also, I am not saying that I am a good writer by any means ; perish the thought—,so don’t misunderstand me. I can’t even remember how to spell . So this is NOT about me and my writing skills ( or lack of ) , just in case anyone reading this starts rolling on the floor laughing .
Sheba, Just because a person’s style of communication doesn’t appeal to you doesn’t mean that others may feel differently. My mother used to say, “There are many flowers in a garden, each beautiful in its own way…”
(Pause for “awwwww…..” or “uuuuugh”, depending on your temperament.)
I just skip through the posts that don’t particularly interest me. An example is that (to me) tedious mathematical conversation that occurred a few posts back. I couldn’t stand to wade through it; however, I noticed that others seemed to take obvious delight in it.
I think you meant well when you offered what you thought was helpful advice, but, it was neither astute nor justifiable The fact that your relatives agree with you only demonstrates that their perspective is similar to yours, not that they or you are particularly astute.
It’s not like Jennifer was writing an English essay…she was writing to about a deep and complicated subject.
