Most detailed scientific papers for and against controlled demolition

[Scott Sommers]

Dave, thanks for the comments. I hope you're correct about why Skeptic's sold out. I got lucky and this issue features some other very interesting articles.

The 15 % of Americans is the number willing to endorse statements that link 911 to the government. This does not necessarily mean that 15% of Americans are Truthers. I don't know if you saw the endnote related to this point, but there is a lot of confusion about the so-called 'official story', and I suspect there are people who think that's what it is. I also make a comparison between this number and the number willing to endorse statements about the citizenship of President Obama.

The high/low commitment thing is more a methodological issue. I suspect that Trutherdom or belief in 911 conspiracy ideas follows a continuum. A probability sample of Truthers is an impractical project, and the idea of using contrasting groups has a long history. My guess is that the leadership positions of the high commitment group is what selects for their better education. There are other explanations, though.

I also suspect this will be changing soon. Luke Rudkowski has been 'removed' from We Are Change because of allegations he is stealing their money. The de facto leader now is Craig Fitzgerald. Craig's not stupid and has a great imagination, but he is also not a very well-educated guy and is linked to working-class neo-fascist groups.

 

[tfk]

The 15 % of Americans is the number willing to endorse statements that link 911 to the government. This does not necessarily mean that 15% of Americans are Truthers. I don't know if you saw the endnote related to this point, but there is a lot of confusion about the so-called 'official story', and I suspect there are people who think that's what it is. I also make a comparison between this number and the number willing to endorse statements about the citizenship of President Obama.

IIRC, 15% is also very close to the number of Americans who believe that we did not walk on the moon.

Perhaps this IS some floor to the answer to any poll question, no matter how obvious.

Perhaps 10% just like to mess with pollsters, for example.


tk

 

[Scott Sommers]

The survey was conducted by a commercial marketing research form. They surveyed 1007 Americans. 15% is 151 people. Now the same survey also found 6% willing to endorse an item that no planes crashed into the WTC buildings and that TV images were altered.

I think your point about the Moon is probably closer to where we should be going with this. Keep in mind that 15% of the sample will score in the bottom 15% of surveyed IQ scores.

 

[tfk]

The survey was conducted by a commercial marketing research form. They surveyed 1007 Americans. 15% is 151 people. Now the same survey also found 6% willing to endorse an item that no planes crashed into the WTC buildings and that TV images were altered.

I think your point about the Moon is probably closer to where we should be going with this. Keep in mind that 15% of the sample will score in the bottom 15% of surveyed IQ scores.

A good friend of mine helped support himself & his wife while he got his PhD in Madison, WI, by performing polling for various "professional market research companies".

Sometimes, they had to do the polling in the winter. It's cold in the winter in Madison. It takes a long time to conduct these polls. It's kinda embarrassing for a PhD candidate in Nuclear Engineering to be asking dummies a bunch of dumb questions, and have to pretend to be interested in their dumb answers.

Besides which, he liked to take a little time off, and this polling nonsense, while paying some bills, ate into his free time.

So he & his wife & his neighbor & his neighbor's wife would get a couple bottles of wine, a few joints, get high & sit around the table, get really silly & fill out a couple hundred of these polls per hour. As "creatively" as possible.

Saved LOTS of time.

And they REALLY messed with the marketing companies questionnaires.

My friend told me this story - in all seriousness - about 20 years ago.

I've never looked at published market research results the same since.


tom

 

[Scott Sommers]

This was a phone survey. There's more information in the article.

I've also worked in marketing research. We had our own phone banks and would do national phone surveys similar to the one I'm reporting here. We monitored our staff to make sure they were doing OK.

Since I started doing this, about 2 years ago, I've talked with a lot of people about conspiracy theory. I don't doubt there's a substrata of people who accept these kinds of ideas. There's a large literature on AIDS conspiracy theory among African-Americans that suggests, in some sense, it is mainstream culture. I am increasingly coming to believe ideas about conspiracy have been incorporated into white working-class culture.

A colleague of mine, in a discussion on the topic, called 911 Truth a lobby group for those not able to enter the knowledge economy. I overdo this a lot, but I do think there's real accuracy in this kind of understanding of conspiracy theory.

 

[Andy_Ross]

A good friend of mine helped support himself & his wife while he got his PhD in Madison, WI, by performing polling for various "professional market research companies".

Sometimes, they had to do the polling in the winter. It's cold in the winter in Madison. It takes a long time to conduct these polls. It's kinda embarrassing for a PhD candidate in Nuclear Engineering to be asking dummies a bunch of dumb questions, and have to pretend to be interested in their dumb answers.

Besides which, he liked to take a little time off, and this polling nonsense, while paying some bills, ate into his free time.

So he & his wife & his neighbor & his neighbor's wife would get a couple bottles of wine, a few joints, get high & sit around the table, get really silly & fill out a couple hundred of these polls per hour. As "creatively" as possible.

Saved LOTS of time.

And they REALLY messed with the marketing companies questionnaires.

My friend told me this story - in all seriousness - about 20 years ago.

I've never looked at published market research results the same since.


tom

He got paid to do the Polling and then didn't do it?

Isn't that fraud?

Maybe I should get drunk and smoke a few joints and just tell the boss I did the work.

 

[Edx]

He got paid to do the Polling and then didn't do it?

Isn't that fraud?

Maybe I should get drunk and smoke a few joints and just tell the boss I did the work.

Thats nothing, I had a paper round when I was 15 and I had to deliver free newspapers in the rain one time, I got soaked. Fed up and pissed off I dumped them deep in a bush and went home.

 

[ergo]

A colleague of mine, in a discussion on the topic, called 911 Truth a lobby group for those not able to enter the knowledge economy. I overdo this a lot, but I do think there's real accuracy in this kind of understanding of conspiracy theory.

I think this is a very amusing statement considering the level of argument offered here at JREF, and the complete lack of substance evident in Scott Sommers' own "arguments".

Obviously all of the researchers contributing to 9/11 inquiry are part of the "knowledge economy", and many have been for far longer than the few quacks left here supporting untenable theories. I don't know any 9/11 doubters in Canada who don't have a university education.

On the other hand, I've noticed that most self-described "skeptics" are actually scientist wannabes. Few have real scientific credentials. Even their social science credentials are sketchy. And when you watch them in action, for example at a public talk, they don't have any actual arguments. Their sole purpose seems to be to attack the characters of 9/11 researchers.

And what's this business about Michael Shermer pretending he's a professor of economics at Claremont Graduate University? Sad.

 

[dc1971]

Obviously all of the researchers contributing to 9/11 inquiry are part of the "knowledge economy", and many have been for far longer than the few quacks left here supporting untenable theories.

A few quacks, eh? You mean like the over 6,000,000,000 quacks?

 

[TruthersLie]

I think this is a very amusing statement considering the level of argument offered here at JREF, and the complete lack of substance evident in Scott Sommers' own "arguments".

Obviously all of the researchers contributing to 9/11 inquiry are part of the "knowledge economy", and many have been for far longer than the few quacks left here supporting untenable theories. I don't know any 9/11 doubters in Canada who don't have a university education.

On the other hand, I've noticed that most self-described "skeptics" are actually scientist wannabes. Few have real scientific credentials. Even their social science credentials are sketchy. And when you watch them in action, for example at a public talk, they don't have any actual arguments. Their sole purpose seems to be to attack the characters of 9/11 researchers.

And what's this business about Michael Shermer pretending he's a professor of economics at Claremont Graduate University? Sad.

Welcome back.
HI ergo.

did you have a good break?
Did you have the chance on those three days to find out about
into vs onto?
essentially vs actually?
center of mass vs a debris field the "size of the moon?"
Any of newtons laws?
major vs minor
or did you have a chance to figure out why the Caracas tower didn't collapse?
or you could have gone into a Boarders, Barnes and Noble or any other bookstore and actually READ scott Summers article in skeptic magazine in which he details his study. It is rather well done with only a few issues about the way it was conducted (but then again, Educational psychology is one of my degree fields, so i do know the methodology and research methods done).

Once you have figured those out, maybe we can talk about peoples qualifications.... (have you figured out why your rule 12 violations got you busted for 3 days yet?)

 

[Scott Sommers]

The issue of Truthers outside the USA is interesting. Truthing is now deeply incorporated into a discourse about secret world government and a plan to depopulate the Earth. On particular political issues it shares many similarities with the American Christian Right. The major difference between the two groups is not on their description of global affairs. In fact, almost all the Americans I now talk with a belief in 911 Truth could also be loosely described as members of the Christian Right. My point is that talk about a 911 conspiracy is now very much an internal discourse between elements of American society.

As our Truther friend Ergo points out, this doesn't mean Truthers aren't from other places in the world. The problem is they're joining in a very American discourse whose history they are not really a part of. The Canadian Truthers I talk with still seem to believe they are making a statement about 'American imperialism', although increasingly you're seeing them join in this talk about a New World Order and how vaccines are being used to kill people by the billions.

Originally Posted by ergo
Obviously all of the researchers contributing to 9/11 inquiry are part of the "knowledge economy", and many have been for far longer than the few quacks left here supporting untenable theories. I don't know any 9/11 doubters in Canada who don't have a university education.

If you read my article, you'll find out why this doesn't surprise me. But that's not the issue I was hoping to address when I made my statement about the knowledge economy.

I've noticed that most self-described "skeptics" are actually scientist wannabes. Few have real scientific credentials. Even their social science credentials are sketchy.

You'll have to be more specific here. All of the group you refer to as 'skeptics' that I know personally are faculty at universities in Canada and the USA. Even the group that posts on JREF generally has a very deep technical understanding of science and engineering.

There is a reason why this discussion is not taking place at a conference sponsored by the the American Society of Civil Engineers. Civil engineers are simply not interested in talk about a controlled demolition of the WTC buildings. All of the discussion about this issue takes place on forums set up to promote these issues and are not part of a general professional discourse.

 

[grandmastershek]

If you read my article, you'll find out why this doesn't surprise me. But that's not the issue I was hoping to address when I made my statement about the knowledge economy.

I am not shocked either. When I was an undergrad my US II professor was a truther. 1 day in class he was parroting the old stand by's like the PNAC "New Pearl Harbor", "they let it happen", etc. At the time I wasn't very knowledgeable about trutherisms and all I had heard of was Loose Change; this was around '05. No one in class knew enough to refute what he was saying. So I wouldn't be shocked if some left there under the impression that there was some fact behind what he was saying.

 

[Scott Sommers]

I am not shocked either. When I was an undergrad my US II professor was a truther. 1 day in class he was parroting the old stand by's like the PNAC "New Pearl Harbor", "they let it happen", etc. At the time I wasn't very knowledgeable about trutherisms and all I had heard of was Loose Change; this was around '05. No one in class knew enough to refute what he was saying. So I wouldn't be shocked if some left there under the impression that there was some fact behind what he was saying.

What's his name and where does he teach? If he's still teaching this crap, the university should know.

I suspect you'll find a lot fewer of those guys now that Obama's the President. Most of the university grads you see talking this stuff these days are not very well employed. The leadership of We Are Change has, up 'til now, been reasonably well-educated, although not necessarily well-employed. One of the things I found was that better employed Truthers stop Truthing. Some number of these guys just drop off the Net, and it tends to be the better employed ones.

As I said, Truthing isn't a protest against the Republicans and their connections with the oil lobby anymore. The political positions of Truthers now generally parallels the Christian Right. 911 conspiracy and the NWO has been incorporated into Obama Anti-Christ Theory and a generalized anti-science position. I recently heard (Canadian) Truthers talking about how carbon dating doesn't work. Where was the last time you heard that one?

 

[grandmastershek]

What's his name and where does he teach? If he's still teaching this crap, the university should know.

I suspect you'll find a lot fewer of those guys now that Obama's the President. Most of the university grads you see talking this stuff these days are not very well employed. The leadership of We Are Change has, up 'til now, been reasonably well-educated, although not necessarily well-employed. One of the things I found was that better employed Truthers stop Truthing. Some number of these guys just drop off the Net, and it tends to be the better employed ones.

As I said, Truthing isn't a protest against the Republicans and their connections with the oil lobby anymore. The political positions of Truthers now generally parallels the Christian Right. 911 conspiracy and the NWO has been incorporated into Obama Anti-Christ Theory and a generalized anti-science position. I recently heard (Canadian) Truthers talking about how carbon dating doesn't work. Where was the last time you heard that one?

Huh...he isn't listed there anymore. I guess he retired.

 

[dafydd]

A few quacks, eh? You mean like the over 6,000,000,000 quacks?

Why can't truthers realize that they are in a tiny tiny teeny weeny minority?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Because they only read their own 'truther' websites and watch each others youtube videos. They think they are the majority.

 

[ergo]

Truthing is now deeply incorporated into a discourse about secret world government and a plan to depopulate the Earth. On particular political issues it shares many similarities with the American Christian Right.

Careful, there's some foam dripping from your mouth.

Is this what is meant by "skepticality"? You're taking the exact same approaches as fake economics professor Michael Shermer: Don't present any credible argument based on facts. Instead, misrepresent and discredit.

These kinds of rantings are an embarrassment to true skeptics everywhere.

 

[ergo]

Yes, I think "skepticality" must be something quite different than skepticism. It's more along the lines of bedunkerism, where it becomes a kind of passion or crusade.

So here we're probably dealing mostly with "skepticalists", and not actual skeptics, who would operate more along the lines of the actual definition of skepticism:

1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety.

2. Philosophy

a. The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.
b. The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general.
c. A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.
​

3. Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets.

 

[beachnut]

Because they only read their own 'truther' websites and watch each others youtube videos. They think they are the majority.

Got to hand it to 911 truth, they think their ideas are valid. They think there is evidence, but fail to see the evidence 911 truth has is limited to failed opinions, lies and fantasy.

Talk is evidence in 911 truth.

 

[ergo]

What idiot has ever said that the Twin Towers "collapsed in under 15 seconds from one-hour upper floor fires"?

This is merely a description of what is observed. What part of that description is incorrect? And where do the NIST reports contradict this statement?