7. Andy Swamp 07:43 PM 12/27/12

This article would be interesting except for two things, the beginning and the end. In the first paragraph Mr. Shermer lists the notion that "9/11 was an inside job" as an idea for which there is overwhelming contradictory evidence. In fact, the opposite is true, though this author has closed the water-tight doors in his mind to the concerns raised by many professionals (including over 1,700 plus architects and engineers calling for a new investigation of the collapses that occurred on 9/11). The irony of his closed-minded approach to the events of 9/11 undermines the relevance of most of the rest of the article.

But, it is the article's ending paragraph that would be hilarious in its lack of anything close to advocating a scientific dialog, if it were not so egregious. As strategies for breaking down the opinions of people holding different opinions, he offers—as I read them—the following advice:

• Offer alternative solutions aimed at the weaknesses of your opponents arguments
• Don't repeat any part of the other person's argument so as to not give it any weight
• Emphasis (I read this as, "shout") your facts instead of theirs
• Warn listeners/readers that the other guy's opinion is just myth
• Arm yourself with the knowledge that the other guy probably can't agree with your arguments because your arguments threaten his world view, not because of any inherent weaknesses in your observations

Three steel-frame structures (the first in history to fall symmetrically with a near free-fall level of acceleration to the ground) collapsed on 9/11 into their own footprints. Various "one of" answers have been put forward regarding these irregularities. However, the cumulative probability of never-before-seen-and-never-likely-to-be-seen-again events occurring independently all on the same day at the same site demonstrates exactly how weak the government's story about the events of that day really are. Mr. Shermer's article here and Scientific American Magazine general response to the scientific study of the events of 9/11 appears to have been to use the strategies promoted in this article for putting-down opposing views instead of dealing with the physical and probabilistic questions that are undisputed about the collapses.

Oh, and Mr. Shermer's (and the government's) version of the events (for which largely there is no publicly visible evidence) is a myth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. RSchmidt 10:32 AM 1/12/13

@Andy Swamp, facts and reason cannot cannot cure paranoia, only pharmaceutics and therapy. The article clearly explains your mental challenges but instead of seeing yourself in the mirror you see Michael Shermer as part of the conspiracy. That is one of the biggest challenges when treating the mentally ill, they don't see themselves as ill.