I wonder if there is a way we can call the many well-intentioned, influential pseudoskeptics on the carpet in a new way that holds there feet to the fire and forces them to live up to their own standards of inquiry.

Can we brainstorm for a second? I think this is worth a discussion.

We are up against a monumental task to change the minds of people who don't want to be challenged with the facts. I can't help but think of Dr Oliver Wendell Holmes in the 1840's who was appalled at the high death rate of postpartum mothers and saw a causal link between the physicians' filthy hands and high infection rates. These same physicians apparently were performing autopsies in the basement then assisting with baby deliveries without washing in between. I understand he was ridiculed by his peers for quite some time for simply suggesting prophylactic hygiene standards (washing your damn hands).

STICK WITH ME--- HERE'S THE POINT

The history of science has been a battle for the truth and for facts between visionary skeptics and the status quo EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. Scientific professions have an EMBARRASSING history of holding on to comfortable bias and forsaking the need to continue to ask questions. Human pride I suspect has played a horribly antagonistic role in the search for answers, yes?

So here's my idea. I would love to see a Who's Who of scientific truth through the ages- the antagonists and the protagonists. Imagine a timeline (maybe Paul Thomson can help us here) with a breakdown of historically key scientific ideas that were at one time ridiculed to the point of religious fervor, the ideas only later to be accepted as fact by layman and scientists alike. I'm not talking about small scientific disputes but rather paradigm changing ideas that were well supported by strong data but resisted and ridiculed by antagonists who should have AT THE LEAST allowed for discussion and consideration of the possibilities.

I think this timeline should obviously extend right up the present day and ultimately ask questions about 911, anthrax attacks, pre-war intel, the whole bit. The implications would be obvious. We should identify the modern antagonists to the questions of the day and show that they are in good company and yet wrong for repeating the same mistakes of pseudoskepticism that so many before them have committed.

It is a shameful thing, I think, to identify oneself as a skeptical inquirer in the sense of being a standard bearer of principles of science while hypocritically turning one's back on the very principles of the scientific method.

Let's put people on the record. Let's actually draw a line in the sand of scientific standards and differentiate between those on one side or the other. There are those who are willing to ask the hard questions and follow the evidence to wherever it takes us no matter how painful or confusing but are still willing to accept the data and then there are those who deny that they are cherry picking the data.

I'll close with this familiar quote...

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer

The goal of the skeptics and debunkers is to draw out the collapse of WTC7 as long as they can. The longer the collapse takes the less suspicious it supposedly looks. If it takes the building say 16 seconds to collapse then maybe we can reconcile that with the laws of physics. The problem is that different parts of the building collapse at different times. The east penthouse collapses first but the roof-line isn't moving yet. Once the roof-line begins to move it almost instantly enters free-fall(for 8 stories). Measuring from the time the roof-line begins to move, the collapse takes around 7 seconds. To understand the dynamics of the collapse we would need to determine how fast the east penthouse fell, then how fast did the external perimeter collapse etc? The debunkers want to give the impression that the entire building moved downward for 16 seconds. This is just another example of their intellectually dishonest arguments.

Watch this video by achimspok. It's a little debunker riddle.