Conspiracy Behind 9-11
I am a 9-11 conspiracy skeptic.
However I try to honestly look at the evidence presented by the conspiracy theorists. I think we need to honestly examine the evidence presented because not always have our elected officials represented us in stalwart fashion.
In spite of all the "unreasonable" crap dished out by conspiracy theorists, which includes colored charts and graphs that actually would serve to obviously DISPROVE their case, occasionally one comes across an intelligent piece that actually causes one to consider the conspiracy might not be that outlandish.
(See here) Professor Steven E. Jones, from Brigham Young University, that puts forth the explanation we have been provided is not adequate.
This piece is rather scholarly. It overwhelms my own ignorance. However, even as ignorant as I am, I still will engage in criticism of his "scholarly" work. Notice how the learned professor discusses an experiment, and points to the results of his "laboratory conditions" experiment as proof in the regards to how aluminum will react with steel. Let me quote the caption provided to a picture of the experiment:
Ahem. Has anyone never heard of jumping to conclusions? And never heard of scientific experiments that "obviously must be true" resulting in preordained results?
Proof is that the "learned professor" only engaged in experiments until the results supported his conclusion. He did not continue to engage in experiments that explored all the possibilities. Once he got the results he needed, he stopped. He was already sure he was right, and once he obtained the results he wanted he was no longer motivated to explore alternate theories.
Now these observations come from an uneducated truck driver. But that these observations can so easily be made by such an uneducated truck driver proves just how flimsy the evidence the "learned professor" presents really is.
If you are going to put your money on "learned professors" against the odds of "common sense" I will point you in the direction towards learning of your own folly. Let us examine John Edward Mack, noted Harvard professor and even recipient of the Pulitzer Prize. He seemed to think we should accept that some human beings really are abducted by little green aliens.
The opinions of the learned should be respected, however they need not automatically be accepted as fact. While Albert Einstein serves as an example of how "brilliant eggheads" can serve as the fountain of truth, for every Albert Einstein we have to put up with thousands of lunatics. Not every egghead who tries to be Albert Einstein accomplishes his goal. Some of them are just idiots, in fact most of them are.
We should try and keep the door open for the next Albert Einstein. Problem is all the lunatics that keep rushing the door that motivates us to lock it!
However I try to honestly look at the evidence presented by the conspiracy theorists. I think we need to honestly examine the evidence presented because not always have our elected officials represented us in stalwart fashion.
In spite of all the "unreasonable" crap dished out by conspiracy theorists, which includes colored charts and graphs that actually would serve to obviously DISPROVE their case, occasionally one comes across an intelligent piece that actually causes one to consider the conspiracy might not be that outlandish.
(See here) Professor Steven E. Jones, from Brigham Young University, that puts forth the explanation we have been provided is not adequate.
This piece is rather scholarly. It overwhelms my own ignorance. However, even as ignorant as I am, I still will engage in criticism of his "scholarly" work. Notice how the learned professor discusses an experiment, and points to the results of his "laboratory conditions" experiment as proof in the regards to how aluminum will react with steel. Let me quote the caption provided to a picture of the experiment:
Molten aluminum poured onto rusted steel: no violent reactions observed at all.Was this because all the various temperatures of steel as it came in contact with molten aluminum were explored? Nope. In his experiment molten aluminum came in contact with room temperature steel and that was all the proof he needed.
Ahem. Has anyone never heard of jumping to conclusions? And never heard of scientific experiments that "obviously must be true" resulting in preordained results?
Proof is that the "learned professor" only engaged in experiments until the results supported his conclusion. He did not continue to engage in experiments that explored all the possibilities. Once he got the results he needed, he stopped. He was already sure he was right, and once he obtained the results he wanted he was no longer motivated to explore alternate theories.
Now these observations come from an uneducated truck driver. But that these observations can so easily be made by such an uneducated truck driver proves just how flimsy the evidence the "learned professor" presents really is.
If you are going to put your money on "learned professors" against the odds of "common sense" I will point you in the direction towards learning of your own folly. Let us examine John Edward Mack, noted Harvard professor and even recipient of the Pulitzer Prize. He seemed to think we should accept that some human beings really are abducted by little green aliens.
The opinions of the learned should be respected, however they need not automatically be accepted as fact. While Albert Einstein serves as an example of how "brilliant eggheads" can serve as the fountain of truth, for every Albert Einstein we have to put up with thousands of lunatics. Not every egghead who tries to be Albert Einstein accomplishes his goal. Some of them are just idiots, in fact most of them are.
We should try and keep the door open for the next Albert Einstein. Problem is all the lunatics that keep rushing the door that motivates us to lock it!
posted by Little David at 6/24/2006 03:44:00 PM
5 Comments:
I think that most 9-11 conspiracy theorists are nuts but I think what the prof was demonstrating is something that is already well known - i.e., molten aluminium does not react in a violent manner with iron or steel.
That is, that the official line on how the steel superstructure could have become molten is bogus.
That is no to say that there was a conspiracy theory, but rather, that parts of the report onto why and how the twin towers came down seem to be expedient connivance rather than a valid hypothesis.
Regards,
Michael Tam
Well I will admit my own ignorance.
However my point was made because at least one individual, who's opinions Professor Jones seemed to respect, and who is identified in Professor Jones' paper as F. Greening, theorized that molten aluminum reacting with steel could be an explanation for some of the inconsistencies conspiracy theorists pointed to.
Professor Jones was motivated to then conduct his experiment to prove F. Greening wrong. Professor Jones then presents the results of his experiment as if the issue is solved. I am saying Professor Jones' experiment proves no such thing.
I am pleased to see that people as learned as Professor Jones are willing to take the issue on. Professor Jones has submitted his paper for peer review. I would like to see some of these peer reviews so as to see what his peers think of his work.
I became motivated to search for some of the "peer review" of Professor Jones paper. Didn't find the actual papers themselves, but found critiques of the "peer review" that was conducted.
Seems Professor Jones did not submit his piece to a journal that specializes in structural or civil engineering.
(See here) a scathing critique of Professor Jones work. It must be pointed out that this piece appears on the Debunking 911 website, but it includes critical statements of Professor Jones work by Dr Miller, Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and by Professor D. Allan Firmage, Civil Engineering, BYU.
I will quote Professor Firmage:
"In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable."
And:
"Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing."
I will point out that both Dr Miller and Professor Firmage actually seem to have some experience in civil engineering while Professor Jones' specialty has been cold fusion. It is my understanding that Professor Jones has actually did some respected work in this field, including work that debunked some of the wild claims made in this field by some of his peers. However Professor Jones has also published at least one rather curious paper unrelated to his work (see here) where he argues the Book of Mormon is true and the Risen Jesus did visit America.
As before, I think that most 9-11 conspiracy theorists are nuts.
I personally think that the "scale" of the conspiracy required for it to have actually been done by Bush and Co. / Pentagon / Mossad / (insert your favourite bogeyman) would have been impossible to contain.
Ockham's razor tells me that the attack was planned by Al Quada.
However, as to exactly who and how the terrorists accomplished their goal (in terms of intelligence failures), analysis as to why the towers failed from a structural perspective; I believe that there is much lacking in the analysis. Does the released report explain what actually happened? I don't really think so.
It may be just that the relevant experts simply DON'T know why towers fell down. As before, I don't really think that there is a conspiracy that "caused" 9-11. There may be one though to hide pre-9-11 intelligence failures and incomplete/incompetent forensic analysis afterwards.
Regards,
Michael Tam
I would agree that intelligence failures occured and that the government is not motivated to highlight their failures.
As for the shortcomings of the investigation explaining the WTC collapses, I think that they were expected to quickly come up with the best explanation they could come up with in a brief period of time. The public was not going to patiently sit back and wait while the commission took decades to conduct experiments and pinpoint the exact causes of everything that occured.
Now we have the opportunity to take our breath and slowly, rationally, come to our conclusions. However just like the unsupported arguments against Gitmo will forever live on, even when the rational explanations about the WTC collapse come forth, the ill founded arguments will live on forever.
Post a Comment
<< Home