Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Karen M. Douglas & Robbie M. Sutton
Does it take one to know one? Endorsement of conspiracy theories is influenced by personal willingness to conspire
ABSTRACTOk you got me...
We advance a new account of why people endorse conspiracy theories, arguing that individuals use the social–cognitive tool of projection when making social judgements about others. In two studies, we found that individuals were more likely to endorse conspiracy theories if they thought they would be willing, personally, to participate in the alleged conspiracies. Study 1 established an association between conspiracy beliefs and personal willingness to conspire, which fully mediated a relationship between Machiavellianism and conspiracy beliefs. In Study 2, participants primed with their own morality were less inclined than controls to endorse conspiracy theories – a finding fully mediated by personal willingness to conspire. These results suggest that some people think ‘they conspired’ because they think ‘I would conspire’.
I think the truth is actually the reverse. The truth is, alot of people who refuse to believe in conspiracies do so because they think "They wouldn't do such a thing!". But what they really mean is "I wouldn't do such a thing".
"...The often fantastic nature of conspiracy theories does not necessarily make the scenarios any less plausible. After all, soaps are only a minor exaggeration of real life, a kind of superconcentrated pastiche of the violence, secrecy, and betrayal that exist in the real world. To deny that the absolute lowest in human potential could exist in at least a small coterie of planetary citizens, and then to doubt their ability to gravitate toward each other and to plan, is to be unrealistically naive." - From the Introduction of The Conspiracy Reader by Al Hidell and Joan d'Arc
Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories
NWO Conspiracy Bullshit
Conspiracies - 9/11 and The New World Order
Nano-thermite Demolishes 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
I Am Not A Conspiracy Theorist
Is Obi-Wan Kenobi a Wacko Conspiracy Theorist?
Hijacking the American Conscience: The Reality of Conspiracy in the USA & The Way to Progress
WeAreChange Norwich: Conspiracy Realists
Saturday, April 23, 2011
This is for anyone who still thinks the no-plane theories have any credibility. Please consider this my public statement about no-plane theories: They have no merit and are all wrong.
Debunking "September Clues" and "No Plane" Theories
The plane does decelerate:
Interpreting the Boeing-767 Deceleration During Impact with the WTC Tower
The F=MA argument
No "TV Fakery":
A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories
Letter Added to A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories
Rebuttal of Ace Baker's "Chopper 5 Composite" Analysis
DEBUNKING “SEPTEMBER CLUES” A POINT-BY-POINT ANALYSIS
September Clues - Busted! U-Tube version
South Towers Anomalies -- Busted!
Impossible speed? No:
Simulator Proves “Impossible Speed” was “probable” for Flt 11 and Flt 175
9/11: Impossible Speed & Impact -- Busted!
9/11: Possible or Impossible Speed?
Can planes penetrate steel structures? Yes:
9/11 No Planer Open your eyes War Planes vs Steel
There were reliable witnesses to the crashes:
No Planes Theory: R.I.P.
9/11 — Plane Impacts: Real or Faked?
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Structural Aspects of Building 7’s Collapse: Why the NIST Report is Non-explanatory by Tony Szamboti
Submitted by Radical Pragmatist at 911blogger.com.
The Physics of WTC 7
World Trade Center 7: An Engineered Collapse
NIST's Admission of Freefall - Does It Matter?
The Ultimate proof NIST is lying about WTC7
Re: NIST Report on WTC7 debunked and exposed!
Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST
The NIST WTC 7 Report: Bush Science reaches its peak
The NIST Analyses: A Close Look at WTC 7
Comments on the Draft Report NIST NCSTAR 1-9: “Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7”, issued by NIST August 21st, 2008
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Ultimately, however, it is going to require some sort of reliable and medically safe form of body cavity imaging of human beings, in addition to exterior body scans, that is quick enough to make it economically feasible in airport security settings with their potentially long passenger ques. Until the future fielding of such advanced scanning devices, we can now expect to be attacked individually, and just as likely attacked in clusters, by Al Qaeda operatives carrying body cavity suicide bombs inside of themselves on commercial airliners.http://www.groupintel.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Bunker-GroupIntel_BodyCavityBombs.pdf
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Certainly, living in America, all of our lives were changed nearly 10 years ago on September 11th, 2001. As days moved on, more and more were added to the death toll in the ensuing weeks afterwards. What’s not common knowledge is that some of the effects of the attacks will still be felt for decades to come. For years following, first responders to the attacks at ground zero have been affected by numerous different health problems directly related to the 9/11 attacks.
The span of different toxins that inhabited the area around ground zero following 2001 is particularly frightening. This included asbestos, lead, mercury, as well as an unprecedented amount of dioxin and hydrocarbon arising from the fires and rubble. With a number of first responders on the scene, exposure to these toxins was extremely high. Even afterwards, many people that were allowed to go back to their homes and schools around ground zero ran the risk of toxin exposure. The release of these pollutants has been known to cause a number of diseases correlated with ground zero. This has included cases of pulmonary fibrosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, as well as a number of other types of cancer. The alarming rate of 70 percent of the first responders on 9/11 was reported to be under some kind of sickness or illness following the events.
One of the related diseases in particular is a main reason that we will see the brunt of some of these health problems for years to come. Mesothelioma, which is a result of exposure to asbestos, is a rare form of cancer that develops in the lining of the body’s organs, usually in the chest or abdomen region of the body. What makes this disease so particularly scary is the extremely long latency period in between original exposure to asbestos and the onslaught of related symptoms. Sometimes patients will have a period of up to 50 years before they are diagnosed with this disease after an initial exposure to asbestos. Certainly, some of the first responders and people around ground zero may yet to feel the symptoms and impact of a disease like mesothelioma, but the risk still remains. It’s particularly frightening that the disease has such a sever outlook after diagnosis, as mesothelioma life expectancy usually averages only a year.
It is just now that acts and proposals are going through Washington to help these first responders with support and structure in dealing with their health problems. Certainly, this type of support was needed for these brave citizens who risked their lives to save others. Even so, the first responders’ bill only looks to cover support through the year 2016. As mentioned earlier, some of these health problems may not develop for years to come. Hopefully this bill will be extended at some point, because it’s certain that many of these first responders may feel health repercussions for years to come.
Should 9/11 First Responders Bill be extended beyond 2016?
It's been two years now since the publishing of the Active Thermitic Material ... paper, and over the last two years the debunkers have gone to great lengths to deny this forensic proof of demolition. We at Debunking the Debunkers have been following the thermite denialists closely, and have written many articles debunking each and every one of their feats of mental gymnastics. Below are 46 posts from our archive that tear to shreds their ludicrous paint claims, hypocritical peer-review arguments and conspiratorial chain of custody suggestions.
So JREFers, from John-Michael, Faith, Adam, Stew, Spooky and myself, since you obviously have nothing of either substance or coherence to put up, please just shut up!
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
RIP Official 9/11 Story
9/11 - The Loaded Gun - Red/Grey Nanothermite Chips
Steven Jones Tells 9/11 'Debunkers' to Put up or Shut up!
9/11 Truth on Danish TV
Nano-thermite Demolishes 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Visibility 9-11 Welcomes John-Michael Talboo and Stewart Bradley of Debunking the Debunkers
Debunking the Rebunking
Who Needs Debunking When Insults Are So Easy
What in the World is High-Tech Explosive Material Doing in the Dust from 9/11?
More About That Exploding Paint
Debunking Scott Creighton's Debunking of Nano-Thermite
9/11 Truth Movement: Year in Review
Skeptical bias against 9/11 Truth?
Crazy Conspiracy Theories
Skeptics' Guide to 9/11 Bias
Thinking Clearly about The 911 Forensic Evidence - when you have Eliminated the Impossible, whatever Remains Must be the Truth.
Debunkers = Fish in a Barrel
Controlled Demolition Expert Mark Loizeaux Produces Signed Confession Regarding Destruction of WTC Buildings on 9/11!
New Video: Evidence
Beam Yourself Up Curley!
Sometimes I Forget
Super-Duper Thermite: A Year in Review
Thermite Denial - A Year in Review
Pat Curley's Shooting Blanks
Nanothermite Debunking Rebuttal - deRoy
The Sounds of Loud and Clear
An enemy within
Put up or Shut up: A Year in Review
Bias and 911 Truth/Skeptics
Dusting-off Corley: Is this the official response to the discovery of energetic materials in the WTC dust?
The Truth About TruthBurn
Why Do People Ask Retarded Questions?
Three Pictures ... Your Argument is Invalid!
Pat Curley Claims to Find Strawmen, but Only Exposes His Failed Logic and Poor Research
Amplifying the Sounds of Loud and Clear
Slicing Through Every Single 'Debunker' Argument, One at a Time
Hitler knows what Nano-Thermite in the WTC dust means, JREFers don't
'Debunker' Pat Curley: the King of Scientific Peer-review
Knee Deep in Crap
Debunking the Debunkers on Pumpitout Radio
Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal, Gone?
O Hai, Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal!
Listening to Debunker Arguments is Like Watching Paint Dry...
Listening to Debunker Arguments is Like Watching Two Coats of Paint Dry...
Saturday, April 2, 2011
I've just recently finished David Ray Griffin's nearly impeccable book "The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7," which I received as a gift for my birthday last month and was looking at the reviews at Amazon.com. As of this writing, there are 23 five star reviews and just a single lonely 1 star review, but that isn't going to stop me from joining this lopsided praise party by debunking that review!
Our old buddy James B. from the Screw Loose Change blog pops up in the comment section following the review, but most of his comments are not viewable because as Amazon states, customers don't think his posts add to the discussion. This is because James offered absolutely no refutations of anything in the book, but rather tried to discredit Griffin by using the fallacy of guilt by association, pointing out that Griffin has cited individuals in other books that hold anti-Semitic views. Griffin has never expressed such beliefs himself and any poor choice of citations in other books or bad research proves nothing regarding a book focused on one specific 9/11 issue.
"Sword man" starts off his review by stating, "Another work of fantasy from DRG. If you buy into the work of a theologian to understand science, you're part of the problem. Good old explosive demolition, except of course the explosives are silent. Magical super thermite. Ignoring the full collapse to represent the collapse of the out facade as the entirety of the collapse."
As to Griffin's supposed inability to understand science because he is a theologian, commenter and stated librarian E. Woodworth points out that Griffin "wrote several books dealing with the philosophy of science, one of which was given the Science and Medical Network's book prize for 2000." Woodworth also notes that "the book is endorsed by an architect, three engineers, and two physicists, one of whom, David Griscom, is one of America's leading physicists, being a fellow of both the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science."
Recently it was revealed that Griscom was a one of the peer-reviewers of the the "Active Thermitic Material..." paper, in which an international group of scientists report to have found remnants of the non-magical, but admittedly super-duper, incendiary/explosive nano-thermite in dust from the WTC. Here is how the situation was surmised by "Sitting-Bull" on 911blogger.com at the time:
It took Prof. Griscom 4 long years to become convinced of 9/11 truth. Science did it. And: Some "Debunkers" already claim he was chosen because he was a "truther". That's totally bogus. He did not play a vocal or any role in the 9/11 truth movement prior 2007/2008, Bentham surely did not find his rare blog entries on the issue for selecting him, but did search their database for valuable scientific referees in the field of research with good experience- no wonder they found Prof. Griscom.Griscom is indeed more than qualified to review such a paper as he has "refereed at least 600, and possibly as many as 1000, manuscripts" and was himself published twelve times in the American Institute of Physics’ Journal of Chemical Physics.
And contrary to Pat Curley's speculation on the Screw Loose Change blog, I have been told by Gregg Roberts, who was one of the paper's authors, that, "The other reviewer was not a truther. And that reviewer provided a much less rigorous review then did Griscom - while also recommending publication if the review points were dealt with adequately."
The architect who endorsed the book is Richard Gage, the founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which is just about 1,500 members strong now. Griffin's book is sold at the AE911Truth store and cites much of the same evidence as does Gage. So it is much more credible to say that all of these building professionals endorse the book than it is for David Scott of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, who "Sword man" quotes, to imply that all 100,000 employees of the organizations the Council represents endorse the National Institute of Standards and Technology report. Equally ridiculous is his implied claim that all 120,000 members of the American Society of Civil Engineers support the report. Most incredible is the mention that the NIST "employs about 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support and administrative personnel." I will break these arguments down collectively and piece by piece.
As Woodworth states, "The review quotes the opinions of people who belong to large organizations as if everyone in those large organizations was of the same opinion about controlled demolition - thus conveying a sense of monolithic authority, where none is actually demonstrated to exist." And as I have written before, a failure to condemn the official story should not be viewed as an endorsement of it. One should also not assume that all individuals have been exposed to the relevant information. As Griffin points out in his article "Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight," there is "widespread ignorance about WTC 7," he writes:
A Zogby poll in May 2006 found that 43 percent of the American people were unaware that WTC 7 had collapsed, and that same year... Danny Jowenko of the Netherlands still did not know about it, even though controlled demolition was his field.This incident sparked a public awareness campaign in late 2010, which caught the attention of Geraldo Rivera, who felt he was aware enough of the relevant issues two years prior to mock 9/11 truth protesters.
A dramatic example of the fact that this building's collapse has not been prominent in the public consciousness was provided in a New York City courtroom in September 2009. Judge Edward Lehner was hearing arguments about a petition sponsored by NYC CAN to allow residents to vote on whether New York City should have its own investigation of the World Trade Center attacks. After Judge Lehner had observed that the 9/11 Commission had carried out an investigation and issued a report, Dennis McMahon, a lawyer for NYC CAN, said that this report left many unanswered questions. "One of the biggest questions," he added, "is why did Building 7 come down" -- at which point Judge Lehner asked: "Building what?" McMahon replied: "World Trade Center Seven. There were three buildings that came down."...
Judge Lehner, it should be emphasized, was not simply an ordinary American citizen. Besides being a judge presiding in New York City, he had been assigned to a case involving the 9/11 attacks in this city. So his ignorance about this building was surprising. And yet it was typical...
Regarding the American Society of Civil Engineers, it must be noted that the paper "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York" published in the ASCE's peer reviewed Journal of Engineering Mechanics by long time 9/11 "debunker" Dr. Frank Greening and three of his colleagues has been refuted by members of the 9/11 truth movement in this very same journal several times.
As far as David Scott bringing up the number of employees at the NIST, again, even if all of these employees did look into the report, it does not mean that they have looked at criticism of it. And it should go without saying that if any of these individuals speak out they will most likely no longer be one of Scott's cited numbers. Even after ending employment at NIST fear of getting involved in controversy would still be a factor. And if "Sword man" would have actually read the book he would have seen Griffin notes that:
We also have the testimony of a former NIST employee who had held "a supervisory scientist position at the top civil service grade" until 2001, after which he worked as a part-time contractor until 2006. Although this man wishes to remain anonymous, for fear of possible retaliation, he is known to physicist Steven Jones, who has confirmed that he is indeed who he says he is... Speaking in particular about the implications of NIST's politicization for its work on 9/11-related issues, he wrote:While not supporting the controlled demolition theory, James Quintiere, the former chief of NIST's fire science division has also called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Investigation, stating, "I wish that there would be a peer review of this."
When I first heard of [9/11 truth] and how the NIST "scientists" involved in 911 seemed to act in very un-scientific ways, it was not at all surprising to me. By 2001, everyone in NIST leadership had been trained to pay close heed to political pressures. There was no chance that NIST people "investigating" the 911 situation could have been acting in the true spirit of scientific independence, nor could they have operated at all without careful consideration of political impact. Everything that came from the hired guns was by then routinely filtered through the front office, and assessed for political implications before release.
As to the statement, "Good old explosive demolition, except of course the explosives are silent," made by "Sword man," [Update] Blog contributor Adam Taylor has published a paper entitled, "Collapse or Explosion? A Discussion of the WTC 'Sounds of Explosions' Issue."
Now to the argument that Griffin ignores "the full collapse to represent the collapse of the out facade as the entirety of the collapse." For starters, on May 13, 2008 there was partial fire induced collapse of the 13 story faculty of Architecture building at Delft University in the Netherlands, it took 10 seconds. So even if 9/11 "debunkers" are correct in their argument that the collapse of WTC 7 took 13 seconds, due to the penthouse collapsing first, as opposed to the approximately 7 seconds often cited by demolition advocates who only count the collapse of the main structure, it doesn't matter. To put it simply, if 13 stories takes 10 seconds, then 47 stories should not collapse in 13 seconds, and the 110 story Twin Towers definitely should not have collapsed in 15 seconds.
Secondly, as physicist David Chandler recently pointed out, NIST did not include the fall of the penthouse in their timing calculations either. When lead NIST investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder was fielded a question by Chandler regarding the issue at a NIST press conference subsequent to the release of the draft report on WTC 7, Sunder stated that "freefall time would be an object that has no structural components below it." In essence, Sunder admitted that this is impossible absent some external force, i.e., explosives. And yet now NIST is telling us in their final report, due to Chandler's question, that buckled columns did in fact lead to freefall for 2.25 seconds. However, buckled supports is a long way from "no supports."
As former NASA engineering executive Dwain Deets put it, this is "NIST's Half-Admission of Yet Another 9/11 Smoking Gun." He also notes that NIST tried to "bury these two seconds and their clear meaning" by failing to mention their admission of freefall in their list of changes made in the final report.
And finally, the collapse of the penthouse also took place too fast.
As Adam has stated, "Please purchase and read David Ray Griffins book, as (I believe) it is one of the most important books of the decade."
"A definitive study of what happens when political concerns are permitted to override science and the scientific method. With intellectual finesse worthy of a scientist, Griffin shows that NIST's WTC 7 report has no scientific credibility. A must read for all concerned with the restoration of science to its 'rightful place' in our democracy."--John D. Wyndham, Ph.D., Physics, Cambridge University; former Research Fellow at the California Institute of Technology
"David Ray Griffin has written a powerful book that asks disturbing questions and seeks to debunk myths about September 11. It is provocative, well-researched, and beyond convincing."--Rosie O'Donnell
Peter B Collins interviews David Ray Griffin (September 29, 2009):
Busting Myths With Building 7
Friday, April 1, 2011
Obama Failing as Commander in Chief
Author: Robert D. Blackwill, Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy
The Obama administration deserves credit for its foreign policy achievements.http://www.cfr.org/us-strategy-and-politics/obama-failing-commander-chief/p24496
There has been no successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil. President Barack Obama and his colleagues have, thus far, skillfully handled the popular eruptions in Tunisia and Egypt — though those crises are far from over. They strengthened sanctions against Iran regarding its nuclear weapons program; reset U.S.-Russia relations and completed the New START Treaty. They have begun to deal effectively with the rise of Chinese power; continued, after a slow start, the transformation of U.S.-India relations, and signed a bilateral trade accord with South Korea. They also modernized the North Atlantic Treaty Organization with summit agreements on a new strategic concept and ballistic missile defense.
But the administration's record of failure is equally as long. It has not seriously tackled our deficit and debt problem, the single greatest threat to long-term U.S. power and influence. It is now mishandling relations with the Gulf Arab monarchs and made a mess of the Middle East peace process. It has allowed the U.S.-Turkey relationship to reach historic lows, just as Turkey is becoming a formidable actor in the Greater Middle East.
By concentrating on health care for its first two years, the administration, and the large majorities in Congress, missed a crucial opportunity to pass climate change legislation. With the Democratic party's internal constituencies, there also has been almost no movement on international trade.