EYE dismantle Godless Spellchecker’s dubiously disingenuous debunking of the FACT that a European Scientific Journal published an article concluding controlled demolition as the most rational explanation for the unprecedented structural failures witnessed on 9/11, 2001.
Sceptic: a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions.
Like a lot of people in this world EYEis a bit of a sceptic.
One of the things that I’m a tad skeptical about are the conclusions outlined in the Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (2004).
This doesn’t mean that I believe in hologram areoplanes, directed energy weapons or that George Bush is secretly an evil genius, it just means that I believe there should be a thorough independent investigation into the remarkable and tragic terrorist atrocity that triggered a seemingly never ending ‘war on terror’ and at least two illegal wars.
In fairness, the report includes so many obvious ommissions and distortions that even most of the 911 Commissioners don’t buy the ‘official’ account so at least I’m in good company.
Nevertheless, some people still think that anyone who dares to question the Bush Administrations ‘official’ conspiracy theory should be condescendingly dismissed as a tinfoil hat wearing, potentially anti-Semitic, disrespectful, #cuckoo, crank.
Or more succinctly, a truther.
Truther: a person who doubts the generally accepted account of an event, believing that an official conspiracy exists to conceal the true explanation; a conspiracy theorist.
In fairness, toxic dust may carry cancer causing carcinogens but names will never hurt me so I usually ignore such unsophisticated put downs and besides I rarely blog about geopolitics so.. whatever.
That said, I do blog about confirmation bias, hypocrisy, double standards and passive aggressive pearl clutching and over the last week or so I’ve witnessed all of the above from so called sceptic the Godless Spellchecker.
Spellchecker’s noble goal is to ‘amplify good ideas and scrutinise bad ones‘ which is fair enough. He has little patience with ‘911 truthers’ and recently claimed to debunk one that was doing the rounds on social media over the recent anniversary.
Again fair enough.
Trouble is that his claim that ‘the European Scientific Journal didn’t conclude 9/11 involved controlled demolition’ was more than a little disingenuous and more than a lot debunkable itself.
As a sceptic, I try to honour the fallen at this time of year by spreading truth and combating the many pseudo-intellectual falsehoods that those who overestimate their intelligence choose to peddle. Godless Spellchecker
His central thesis appears to be that anyone who doesn’t agree with his preferred conspiracy theory is an idiot and having tried to contribute to his earlier discussion on Debunking 9/11 Conspiracies, I discovered that he only approves comments that agree with him and stroke his ego.
So I knew he’d censor the comment I’ve reproduced below but his claims were so dubious that I couldn’t resist pulling them apart….
Claim 1: The Physicist’s claims were not actually published in The European Scientific Journal and said esteemed European Scientific Journal has released a statement to address this misinformation.
Although it’s more about nuance than ‘misinformation’. The (ahem) ‘tinfoil hat wearing brigade’ that GS points to all mention (A) European Scientific Journal as opposed to (THE) European Scientific Journal.
For the uninitiated: THE European Scientific Review publish 3 monthly (online) issues that focus on Economics, Law & Education; Humanities; and Life Sciences. As their one sentence press release rather undramaticaly confirms, they didn’t publish the Physics paper that peaked so much interest
Claim 2: The Physicist’s claims were not actually published in a credible scientific journal at all but rather some ‘online news rag’.
It was published in Euro Physics News’ which is a quarterly magazine with a circulation of about 25000 copies per issue distributed to the membership of the European Physical Society which includes the national physical societies of 42 countries.
And pretty please with sugar on top, look up the dictionary definition of ‘scientific journal’ before grasping for the word ‘magazine’.
Claim 3: The Physicists are all affiliated with 9/11 ‘truther’ movements which is essentially the equivalent of creationists presenting evidence for intelligent design.
They are all affiliated with groups demanding “a truly independent investigation” into the events and aftermath of the September 11 attacks.
If you can’t counter that demand without insinuating that you must be an idiot not to believe your and the Bush administration’s preferred version of events then I have to ask why you just can’t stick to the facts without embarrassing yourself by sneering at people who don’t think like you.
Claim 4: The Physicist’s ‘conclusions’ are not particularly scientific and not peer-reviewed.
The paper was reviewed by members of the Europhysics News Editorial Board. It’s content (and I quote) should be of interest to all which imposes rules of clarity and simplicity to its authors, particularly when recent research advances are explained.
It has also to date convinced 2,643 professionals to risk their reputation and livelihood by signing the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition demanding a new investigation.
By contrast the NIST report into the collapse of building 7 took seven years to complete and has NOT been peer reviewed because releasing the necessary data might ‘jeopardize public safety’.
Also the ‘official’ 911 Report completely ignored the unprecedented collapse of the 47 story skyscraper and Donald Rumsfeld only heard about it years after the event.
It took less than a week to spread the ‘official’ conspiracy theory but like Hillsborough, Bloody Sunday and the rest it takes years, even decades to ‘officially’ debunk it.
Predictably he didn’t approve my comment but I guess I must have at least partly convinced him because now he is now rather pompously demanding that said “online news rag’ apologize to him personally for publishing an article he doesn’t agree with.
EYEdon’t remotely know all the facts about 9/11 but I do know that you won’t find them in echochambers or by demanding apologies from people because they said something you don’t agree with.
Still at least Christine Whitman issued an apology last week (sort of), so I guess at least one sceptic successfully shouted some truth over the usual cynical din…