Paul Craig Roberts - "Where is the evidence?"

Swiped this link from CK's blog.

Where is the evidence?

"... My opinion of “Loose Change” and Popular Mechanics is independent of who won the debate. The “Loose Change” producers are more to be admired than the Popular Mechanics editors for the simple reason that the former are committed to opening a debate and the latter are committed to closing debate down. Indeed, Popular Mechanics was early on the scene trying to close off debate by defending the government line. Why?

If I had been in the debate, I would have asked Meigs and Dunbar what’s conspiratorial about a thorough hearing and examination of an event that has been used to justify illegal invasions that are war crimes and have destroyed two countries and killed tens of thousands of people.

The Popular Mechanics editors are convinced that any explanation other than the government’s explanation is a conspiracy theory. However, the title of their new book applies equally to their view, as there is no more fantastic conspiracy theory than the view championed by the Popular Mechanics editors. How, for example, can it be possible that on one short morning of September 11, 2001, multiple failures occurred not only in airport security but also in FAA and NORAD procedures? The probability of any one of these failures is low. The probability of all of these failures occurring on one morning is very low indeed. How is it possible that essentially all US security failures of the last 5 or 10 years occurred on one morning? What probability do independent statisticians assign to such an event?

The probability is also extremely low that the only three steel columned buildings believed to have collapsed from fire all failed on the same day from three separate fires..."


Correct link

C-SPAN Washington journal is

C-SPAN Washington journal is doing a segment this morning at 8 am. I hope some good questioners get to see this post and call in. Thanks.

C-span - interview of the publisher of Skeptic magazine'

I saw the interview and was very disappointed in the 'Skeptic' publisher, Michael Shermer.

I didn't get a chance to get through on the lines, but I was very impressed that most of the callers were 9/11 truth believers who asked valuable questions.

Unfortunately, they weren't coordinated and couldn't ask enough questions. It's really a shame that there wasn't another person on the show who could have properly debated Mr. Shermer.

I e-mailed Mr. Shermer to express my disappointment with him. His e-mail is:

I suggest that everyone else e-mail him to complain.


Shermer is a fraud

I don't think a lot of people realize that people like Shermer, Randi and Kurtz are frauds, and their magazines "Skeptic" and "Skeptical Inquirer" are for propaganda and are not real skeptic publications. They use invalid forms of reasoning all the time via debunking, lie when they have to and often promote their philosophical views.

probability is the key

PCR writes:

>The probability is also extremely low that the only three steel columned buildings believed to have >collapsed from fire all failed on the same day

That's precisely the key. They can always come up with a "scenario" of how it could have possibly happened from hijacked planes, like the Pentagon coincidence theorists, but they can never debunk the probability!
- When it looks like a controlled demolition, then it most likely WAS a controlled demolition,
and when it looks like no aircraft crashed in the Shanksville crater, then most likely there WASN'T any.


you have to admit that the guy is a skeptic. I myself am a bit skeptical. the cure it . . . . science!


Has there been any mention in the US media about Syrian reports that The US was behind the recently foiled attack on the US Embassy?
The whole incident seems to have gone quiet very quickly - which leads me to believe that there may be some truth in it:

Yes, a little.

A couple newswire reports.

Mr. Shermer did a very poor

Mr. Shermer did a very poor job of "debunking." I noticed that he said "a 747" in relation to one of the planes. Probably a lot of people think it was a huge plane like that whereas the reality is that the 757s and 767s are only 6 seats across.

Shermer also claimed to have spoken to people at the BBC about the story that some of the hijackers are alive and the BBC denied it. Then, another caller asked who Shermer spoke to at the BBC and he had no answer. Then the caller read of the "Hijackers alive and well" URL. I'm sure Shermer will never look at it; his strategy is to remain ignorant of any details.

my response to this article

If we were only to focus on the question of controlled demolition of the WTC, the 9/11 truth movement would have little room for making its case, simply because, as Paul Craig Roberts has explained, these are scientific calculations that pit one expert against another. Michael Ruppert correctly stated this problem in his book "Crossing the Rubicon" which is why he completely avoided talking about physical evidence.

There's enough to prosecute the thugs in this administration, just given the evidence of simultaneous war games, Cheney's role in the stand down orders, NORAD's "failure", put options on airline company stocks, prior warnings from so many sources, stonewalling the creation of a Commission, and a whole lot more.

In 2004, Jeff Wells of Rigorous Intuition wrote one of the best pieces questioning 9/11 -- and, it doesn't require going into scientific research about physical evidence. Go here and learn:

All that said, I do believe that the government's versions of how the buildings fell are laughable. But, we can prove 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB without even talking about controlled demolition or the hole in the Pentagon. Why not just stick to what we CAN prove? There's MORE THAN ENOUGH to indict and convict these monsters.

There's a new documentary that is a good place to start for anyone still on the fence about 9/11, and it's based on Paul Thompson's timeline and features the Jersey Girls and other victims' family members. The film never once goes into "conspiracy theory" territory -- it doesn't have to. It's so damn obvious that Osama couldn't have pulled off 9/11 without outside help. And, after viewing the film, I would be very surprised if any independent thinker would not be pointing the finger at American involvement.

9/11: Press for Truth

i agree to an extent but you

i agree to an extent but you cant use such a broad brush. WTC7 was a mistake. there is a reason the media avoids it at all cost.