LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  February 2007

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE February 2007

Subject:

Re: The 9/11 conspiracy virus

From:

Eric Entemann <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 18 Feb 2007 12:52:39 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (260 lines)

Excellent! Thank you, Jose.

----Original Message Follows----
From: "Josť F. Morales" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List
<[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The 9/11 conspiracy virus
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 09:26:08 -0500

How about this as a strategy?

Put the burden of proof on the denialists. As Carl Sagan said extraordinary
claims require extraordinary proof.

Ask the ASLists (Anti-Science Leftists) Cambell/Cohen for a paper
representing the VERY best evidence they know of supporting an issue in
question...for example, the HIV virus not being the cause of AIDS. Have them
pick 1 figure or section of the paper. Send the paper around, let them give
a summary of what the section means, agree to ground rules and we'll see the
real deal.

The merits of their case will be displayed by
1. the paper they pick
2. the section they pick (no longer than the average post on the list)
3. the summary they give (shorter than the section itself)
4. their defense of the data

The ground rules would have to be such that if so and so happens, ASLists
will agree that the best evidence lacks rigor or something. Further if this
and that happens the rest of us will have to agree that they have a point.

IF so and so....the rest of us say that the ASLists have more credibility
than we gave them credit for
IF this and that happens...the ASLists will say that the best evidence isn't
very good.

Will this get us somewhere?

>I've been giving a lot of thought to the discussions here about proper list
>etiquette the past couple of days, which were inspired largely by the
>three-way exchange between myself, Mitchel Cohen and Jonathan Campbell. I
>think that this post from Phil raises the kinds of issues that concern me,
>and which have prompted my perhaps overly heated posts here (I should say
>that I think limiting posts each day is a great idea, and pledge to honor
>that myself.)
>
>To me, 9/11 conspiracy theories, which are rampant among certain segments
>of the left and have received considerable airing on Pacifica radio, are
>the political equivalent of HIV-AIDs denial and its apparent latter-day
>form, HPV denial in regards to cervical cancer (see especially Jonathan's
>post on this subject, but also Mitchel's, in which it is suggested that HPV
>may have little or nothing to do with this particular cancer.) That is,
>they represent a triumph of ignorance and fantasy over facts and evidence,
>something the left needs to avoid seriously if it is to be credible and get
>anywhere.
>
>Faced with posts of this kind, I see three alternatives:
>
>1. Ignore them entirely.
>2. Refute point by point the arguments made.
>3. Interpret them politically.
>
>The first is always a possibility, and in fact I have chosen to do that
>recently in order to stick to the minimum posting guidelines.
>
>The second is not an option, not only because it is not appropriate for
>this particular list, but because it would take time and energy that could
>not be justified. Eg, if someone posted a Holocaust denial article complete
>with a long list of arguments for why the gas chambers never existed, would
>the appropriate response by list members be to refute it point by point,
>digging deeply into historical resources? I doubt very much that anyone
>here would do this.
>
>The third alternative seems to me the most appropriate on a list devoted to
>furthering left analysis and progressive causes, although it also makes the
>poster who pursues this avenue most vulnerable to accusations of ad hominem
>argumentation. But when it comes to 9/11 conspiracies and AIDS
>conspiracies, in my personal view the most important issue for leftists is
>to understand why these views are so rampant, and yes, sometimes to parody
>and ridicule them, because parody and ridicule are political tools and
>justifiable ones in many cases. I could also give the example, in the
>scientific domain, of climate change skepticism. If someone posts a
>contrarian view on that subject, would most people here debate the
>scientific details with long posts about modeling and satellite data or try
>to get behind the politics of the debate? (I give this example with some
>hesitation, because I don't agree that leftists should be telling the
>public that scientific truth is arrived at by majority vote or even
>consensus.)
>
>In sum, I will try to abide by the guidelines that people here have urged,
>but I think it would be inhibiting to political expression and analysis to
>give up the tools of parody and ridicule entirely, even if they should be
>used in a gentle manner rather than in a nasty way. I admit to fault on
>this score, and will try to do better, but please don't expect me to
>entirely ignore some of the more outrageous things that are posted here,
>especially when lives are at stake as Carrol pointed out earlier.
>
>best wishes, Michael
>
>On 2/18/07, Phil Gasper
><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
><http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2006830,00.html>http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2006830,00.html
> Comment
>
>A 9/11 conspiracy virus is sweeping the world, but it has no basis in fact
>
>Loose Change is a sharp, slick film with an authoritative voiceover, but it
>drowns the truth in an ocean of nonsense
>
>George Monbiot
>Tuesday February 6, 2007
>The Guardian
>
>There is a virus sweeping the world. It infects opponents of the Bush
>government, sucks their brains out through their eyes and turns them into
>gibbering idiots. First cultivated in a laboratory in the US, the strain
>reached these shores a few months ago. In the past fortnight, it has become
>an epidemic. Scarcely a day now passes without someone possessed by this
>sickness, eyes rolling, lips flecked with foam, trying to infect me.
>
>Article continues
>The disease is called Loose Change. It is a film made by three young men
>that airs most of the standard conspiracy theories about the attacks of
>September<javascript:void(0)> 11 2001. Unlike the other 9/11 conspiracy
>films, Loose Change is sharp and swift, with a thumping soundtrack, slick
>graphics and a calm and authoritative voiceover. Its makers claim that it
>has now been watched by 100 million people.
>
>The Pentagon, the film maintains, was not hit by a commercial airliner.
>There was "no discernible trace" of a plane found in the wreckage, and the
>entrance and exit holes in the building were far too small. It was hit by a
>cruise missile. The twin towers were brought down by means of "a carefully
>planned controlled demolition". You can see the small puffs of smoke caused
>by explosives just below the cascading sections. All other hypotheses are
>implausible: the fire was not hot enough to melt steel and the towers fell
>too quickly. Building 7 was destroyed by the same means a few hours later.
>
>Flight 93 did not crash, but was redirected to Cleveland airport, where the
>passengers were taken into a Nasa building and never seen again. Their
>voices had been cloned by the Los Alamos laboratories and used to make fake
>calls to their relatives. The footage of Osama bin Laden, claiming
>responsibility for the attacks, was faked. The US government carried out
>this great crime for four reasons: to help Larry Silverstein, who leased
>the towers, to collect his insurance money; to assist insider traders
>betting on falling airline stocks; to steal the gold in the basement; and
>to grant George Bush new executive powers, so that he could carry out his
>plans for world domination.
>
>Even if you have seen or read no other accounts of 9/11, and your brain has
>not yet been liquidised, a few problems must occur to you. The first is the
>complete absence of scientific advice. At one point, the presenter asks:
>"So what brought down the twin towers? Let's ask the experts." But they
>don't ask the experts. The film-makers take some old quotes, edit them to
>remove any contradictions, then denounce all subsequent retractions as
>further evidence of conspiracy.
>
>The only people they interview are a janitor, a group of firemen, and a
>flight instructor. They let the janitor speak at length, but cut the
>firemen off in mid-sentence. The flight instructor speaks in short clips,
>which give the impression that his pupil, the hijacker Hani Hanjour, was
>incapable of hitting the Pentagon. Elsewhere he has said the opposite: he
>had "no doubt" that Hanjour could have done it.
>
>Where are the structural engineers, the materials scientists, the
>specialists in ballistics, explosives or fire? The film-makers now say that
>the third edition of the film will be fact-checked by an expert, but he
>turns out to be "a theology professor". They don't name him, but I would
>bet that it's David Ray Griffin, who also happens to be the high priest of
>the 9/11 conspiracists.
>
>The next evident flaw is that the plot they propose must have involved tens
>of thousands of people. It could not have been executed without the help of
>demolition experts, the security firms guarding the World Trade Centre,
>Mayor Giuliani (who hastily disposed of the remains), much of the US air
>force, the Federal Aviation Administration and the North American Aerospace
>Defence Command, the relatives of the people "killed" in the plane crashes,
>the rest of the Pentagon's staff, the Los Alamos laboratories, the FBI, the
>CIA, and the investigators who picked through the rubble.
>
>If there is one universal American characteristic, it is a confessional
>culture that permits no one with a good story to keep his mouth shut.
>People appear on the Jerry Springer Show to admit to carnal relations with
>their tractors. Yet none of the participants in this monumental crime has
>sought to blow the whistle - before, during or after the attacks. No one
>has volunteered to tell the greatest story ever told.
>
>Read some conflicting accounts, and Loose Change's case crumbles faster
>than the twin towers. Hundreds of people saw a plane hit the Pentagon.
>Because it collided with one of the world's best-defended buildings at full
>speed, the plane was pulverised - even so, plane parts and body parts were
>in fact recovered. The wings and tail disintegrated when they hit the wall,
>which is why the holes weren't bigger.
>
>The failure of the twin towers has been exhaustively documented by the
>National Institute of Standards and Technology. Far from being impossible,
>the collapse turns out to have been inevitable. The planes cut some of the
>support columns and ignited fires sufficient to weaken (but not melt) the
>remaining steel structures. As the perimeter columns buckled, the weight of
>the collapsing top stories generated a momentum the rest of the building
>could not arrest. Puffs of smoke were blown out of the structure by
>compression as the building fell.
>
>Counterpunch, the radical leftwing magazine, commissioned its own expert -
>an aerospace and mechanical engineer - to test the official findings. He
>shows that the institute must have been right. He also demonstrates how
>Building 7 collapsed. Burning debris falling from the twin towers ruptured
>the oil pipes feeding its emergency generators. The reduction in pressure
>triggered the automatic pumping system, which poured thousands of gallons
>of diesel on to the fire. The support trusses weakened and buckled, and the
>building imploded. Popular Mechanics magazine polled 300 experts and came
>to the same conclusions.
>
>So the critics - even Counterpunch - are labelled co-conspirators, and the
>plot expands until it comes to involve a substantial part of the world's
>population. There is no reasoning with this madness. People believe Loose
>Change because it proposes a closed world: comprehensible, controllable,
>small. Despite the great evil that runs it, it is more companionable than
>the chaos that really governs our lives, a world without destination or
>purpose. This neat story draws campaigners away from real issues - global
>warming, the Iraq war, nuclear weapons, privatisation, inequality - while
>permanently wrecking their credibility. Bush did capitalise on the attacks,
>and he did follow a pre-existing agenda, spelt out, as Loose Change says,
>by the Project for the New American Century. But by drowning this truth in
>an ocean of nonsense, the conspiracists ensure that it can never again be
>taken seriously.
>
>The film's greatest flaw is this: the men who made it are still alive. If
>the US government is running an all-knowing, all-encompassing conspiracy,
>why did it not snuff them out long ago? There is only one possible
>explanation. They are in fact agents of the Bush regime, employed to
>distract people from its real abuses of power. This, if you are inclined to
>believe such stories, is surely a more plausible theory than the one
>proposed in Loose Change.
>
><http://www.monbiot.com>www.monbiot.com
>
>
>
>
>--
><http://www.michaelbalter.com>www.michaelbalter.com
>
>******************************************
>Michael Balter
>Contributing Correspondent, Science
><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>******************************************


--
|||///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\|||O|||///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\|||
Jose Morales Ph.D.

_________________________________________________________________
With tax season right around the corner, make sure to follow these few
simple tips.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/PreparationTips/PreparationTips.aspx?icid=HMFebtagline

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager