What is it terrorists hate about us again?

... O yeh ... Our freedoms!



SAS hit squads at UK's malls

SAS hit squads are today protecting packed shopping centres from terrorists - with orders to shoot to kill.

The regiment's elite troops are poised to foil any al-Qaeda bid to cause Mumbai-style carnage amid Britain's Christmas crowds.

The Who Dares Wins teams have instructions to strike hard and fast to combat the "real and credible" threat of a bomb-and-gun onslaught by fanatics.

The crack SAS troops are equipped with weapons including high-velocity Minimi semi-automatic assault rifles, gas-loading pistols and stun grenades.

They have been briefed to "engage and neutralise" any terrorists as quickly as possible to minimise the chance of civilian deaths. They know the first 90 minutes are crucial to prevent the toll soaring.

More: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3263540/SAS-hit-squads-at-UKs-malls.html

Also, check out the column by The Sun's 'Security Adviser' to the right of the article. Thanks Andy, you have put my mind at ease. I now see there is no reason to be concerned about the presence of elite "Who Dares Wins" teams in shopping malls. Xmas shopping is war!

Michael Shermer's Projections

Michael Shermer has responded to Anthony Hall's confronting of him in his usual way.

After listing several NWO theories, Shermer writes...

Nevertheless, we cannot just dismiss all such theories out of hand, because real conspiracies do sometimes happen. Instead we should look for signs that indicate a conspiracy theory is likely to be untrue. The more that it manifests the following characteristics, the less probable that the theory is grounded in reality:

1. Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections—or to randomness—the conspiracy theory is likely to be false.
2. The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. People are usually not nearly so powerful as we think they are.
3. The conspiracy is complex, and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.
4. Similarly, the conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets. The more people involved, the less realistic it becomes.
5. The conspiracy encompasses a grand ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, the theory is even less likely to be true.
6. The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger, much less probable events.
7. The conspiracy theory assigns portentous, sinister meanings to what are most likely innocuous, insignificant events.
8. The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.
9. The theorist is indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups, which suggests an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies.
10. The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.

Same old incredulous nonsense. But I found 2, 8 and 10 interesting as they could equally apply to the official conspiracy theory and Shermer's own beliefs.

Hani Hanjour would need to have been superhuman to pull off the maneuvres he did. So number 2 definately applies to the hijackers.

Defenders of the official story mix facts and speculation, and they don't ever calculate the improbability or assess the factuality. If they were to calculate the improbability of all the coincidences surrounding 9/11 being 'just coincidences', they'd probably get a value greater than the number of electrons in the universe. And with regards to the explanation for the towers destruction, the debunkers take computer models over hard evidence. So the official conspiracy theory also ticks number 8.

Finally, the debunkers, including Shermer himself, "[refuse] to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth". I couldn't have put it any better myself, Shermer!

Circular Rationalism

In several Youtube debates I've had on a variety of different subjects, I've noticed the debunkers/skeptics have a number of vague buzzwords that they like to throw around. They include:

1. 'Reason'
2. 'Rationality'
3. 'Debunked by Science'
4. 'Freethinker'

The third one is a common dismissal. "Those 9/11 truthers have been debunked by science" or "Science refutes those global warming deniers" etc. Interesting choise of words ... not "<Insert specific observation here> scientifically rebuts...", but "Science itself debunks...", as if anyone who disagrees with them isn't doing science. And those that make these statements rarely go into specifics. It bares all the hallmarks of some cultist mantra, if you ask me.

As does their use of the words 'Reason' and 'Rationality'. The other day I commented on some video about life's origins, drawing parallels between the evolution of life and the evolution of human technology, and someone replied:

"@ScootleRoyale - Whatever floats your boat. I'd rather use rationality and reason."

I find these types of replies very interesting. What is 'rationality'? What is 'reason'? The dictionary definition of 'rational' includes the word 'reason', so to use both is redundant, and the dictionary definition of 'reason' refers to logic. So true 'rationality' is to use logic.

But 'rationality' is often a subjective thing. What one person considers 'rational', another person may consider 'irrational'. What do we say when people are trying to fit something into their world view? We say they are 'rationalizing' the observations - regardless of whether or not their rationalization is in any way logical.

It seems to me when so-called skeptics/debunkers etc. use the word 'rational', their use is purely subjective. They arbitrarily label things as 'rational' or 'irrational' depending on their world view - and then they say their world view is based on 'rationality'! It's completely circular!

Circular logic is a flawed logic, it therefore contradicts 'reason', and is thus 'irrational'.

Now of course it's not just skeptics who do that. Many Christians arbitrarily label belief in Jesus as 'rational', because that is their world view. But you'd think that so-called 'skeptics' would be better than that. But they are not. They are hypocrites and they have no reason to call themselves 'skeptics' or 'freethinkers'.

James Randi, Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins are 'freethinkers'? ... What a joke!

The name 'rationalist' however is appropriate, if by 'rationalist' you mean someone who rationalizes things to fit their world view, coz that is exactly what they are. But if you use that definition, then flat earthers, religious fundamentalists and holocaust deniers would also be 'rationalists'.

'Debunker' Pat Curley: the King of Scientific Peer-review

Pat "Yoda" Curley, ready to battle troofer stormtroopers from his Dagobah-like tract home in Phoenix.

One of the peer-reviewers of the "Active Thermitic Material" paper has been identified as Prof. David L. Griscom. The current situation is sumerized by "Sitting-Bull" on 911blogger.com:

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 notes that he is also a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 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.

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change states that "even the Troofers have their limits" and notes that 911 Blogger user "Loose Nuke" (who I have great respect for) raises the question of whether Jones' recommended Griscom as a reviewer. Pat ignores the fact that Loose Nuke later concurs that "Griscom's credentials establish him as qualified to review" the paper and instead focuses on his perception that Jones intentionally dodged the question about recommendation. This seems unlikely being that authors are allowed to suggest referees as was demonstrated by a study cited by "Swing Dangler" in the comments. This study entitled "Differences in Review Quality and Recommendations for Publication Between Peer Reviewers Suggested by Authors or by Editors" concludes:

Author-and editor-suggested reviewers did not differ in the quality of their reviews, but author-suggested reviewers tended to make more favorable recommendations for publication. Editors can be confident that reviewers suggested by authors will complete adequate reviews of manuscripts, but should be cautious about relying on their recommendations for publication.

So, considering Griscom's qualifications, the results of this study, and the fact we were informed by one of the paper's author's, Gregg Roberts, 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," it is clear that the review was legitimate and thus Jones would not need to hide if he recommended Griscom. Jones very well could have just fired back a response to Loose Nuke and in doing so failed to adequately address one question asked.

Further evidence that Jones was not dodging the question is demonstrated by the fact that Loose Nuke also asked, "Why was David Griscom thanked in the Active Thermitic Acknowledgements?" Jones did not answer this question in the comments, but did essentially answer it on the Visibility 9/11 podcast at the time of publication:

Usually peer-review is done completely anonymously, but it is possible for a reviewer to identify himself. I've seen that done before. (Note: Jones, has authored or co-authored over forty peer reviewed publications, including three papers for which he was first author in the renowned journal NATURE) In this case one of the reviewers identified himself as a physics professor, a Fellow of the American Physical Society... well credentialed... I checked... like 80 peer-reviewed papers of his own.

So it is no secret or problem that Jones was made aware Griscom had been selected as a reviewer prior to publication.

Furthermore, Jones stated in the comments that "BYU scientists did a review of the paper" that led to changes in the report. Jones previously revealed in comments on another post that the paper was "peer-reviewed by the Physics dept. chair at BYU... because two of the authors are from this dept." Elsewhere he revealed that he was told by the chairman that the paper "was sound scientific research and that he was now persuaded that explosives/pyrotechnics were involved in the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11."



Then we have chemical engineer Mark Basile, who was not involved in the paper, recently stating on video that he has unequivocally confirmed its findings and even obtained a completely independent sample of dust from a NYC museum.



French researcher Frédéric Henry-Couannier also confirmed several aspects of the experiments. And it was reported by a Danish media outlet that professor of inorganic chemistry Jens Ulstrup, of the Technical University of Denmark, "felt that the assessments were made on the basis of 'very suitable' tests by current standards."
Pat ignores all of that though, because Griscom is a "sack of fecal matter... Troofer moron... AAAS-hole... nut" who has theorized that the planes on 9/11 were swapped out for drones and that the passengers were in on it and are still alive.
Gregg Roberts responds:

Many scientists who have done good work in their field have strange beliefs that have nothing to do with the quality of their scientific work. Using Griscom's analysis of what happened to the passengers and generalizing from that to whether he provided a tough, accurate, technical review of the red/gray chips paper, is an unjustified leap.

All this trash talk is just a way to avoid dealing with what the paper says. Even the editor-in-chief who perversely resigned in protest rather than firing the editor who allegedly published the paper behind her back didn't criticize the paper itself.

Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Steve Weathers had this to say:

Did Pat just imply that the individuals in the peer-review process favoured the article being published when there was some obvious flaw to the paper that should have prevented publication? Where is the error? Has he cited a peer reviewed response to the material presented? Do the existing peer-reviewers have less of an understanding about the science involved here than Mr Pat Curley? If the fault is so obvious, where is the peer reviewed criticism?

Here is how Pat's peer-review of the paper would have gone.
Pat:
I think what we are looking at here is just "bits of paint and rust." Also, you say here that thermite burns at 400-450°C., but it actually burns much hotter.
Reply from authors:
First off, there is no kind of paint in existence capable of producing a high-temperature chemical reaction as evinced by the fact that the chips produce molten iron spheres. Secondly, paint from the WTC has a different chemical composition. Finally, we soaked the chips in a paint solvent for 55 hours and they remained intact.
In regard to your second point, we were saying that 400-450°C is the temperature that TRIGGERS the reaction. We have forwarded your stunning incomprehension of the material to the editor and expect them to promptly find a more qualified referee.
Joseph Nobles over at the "debunking" site ae911truth.info states, "And yet Griscom says that he couldn’t find anything to criticize about the ATM paper! 12 notes of suggestions he has that makes Harrit, et al. sweat and strain to meet (according to Jones), but none of these are criticisms?"

Nice reading comprehension there Joey. What Griscom actually said was that he "found absolutely nothing to criticize in the final version of the Harrit et al. paper!"
You know, the final version they produced after they made the changes based on his review!

Nothing has changed since Steven Jones told "debunkers" to Put up or Shut up on April 7, 2009:

Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.

So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, "is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?" If not, you can and should say -- "I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands...
IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are "vanity publications" (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) -- then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.

Related Info:

Prof. David L. Griscom: "Pay for Publish" without Peer Review is False!
Jones' Dust Analysis - Common Arguments Addressed
Why the Harrit Nano-thermite paper has not yet been debunked - "peer review"

ALERT: US State Department Cannot Afford Professional Advice on WTC Destruction

Written by John-Michael P. Talboo
Friday, 03 December 2010
ae911truth.org

Federal Government Website Offers Amateur Video by Student as Authoritative Analysis

A new report has been released by the State Department website America.Gov in an effort to debunk the physical and forensic evidence presented by the technical professionals of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and others. The report was made possible by the Science Fellowship Program, which gives an “opportunity for a scientist to contribute scientific and technical expertise to the Department.”

Not really.

In actuality the website posted a page purporting to debunk the evidence for controlled demolition on 9/11 just shortly after the publication of the peer-reviewed paper “Active Thermitic Materials Discovered in Dust from 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.”

The website recommends the long since debunked reports published by demolition photographer Brent Blanchard and Popular Mechanics. Even more striking, it suggests that visitors watch the YouTube video “9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible” posted September 02, 2007 by Ryan Owens (See http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/May/20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html.)

When Owens was informed that his video was being used by the State Department, he had this to say:

“I can't believe the State Department actually linked to one of my videos. LOL, that's f****** insane, I can go brag to my buddies now. I never knew that, and am shocked that they would do that, but whatever, cool nonetheless.”

The fact that the State Department would use a YouTube video from a non-scientist when they have top scientists at their disposal is bad enough, but then there is the issue of the contents of the video.

After producing a series of videos dealing with the claims of Ryan Owens, Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Adam Taylor wrote Owens an open letter attempting to take him up on his promise of fixing any errors that could be pointed out in his videos.

Owens’ response, however, demonstrated an inability to understand valid refutations and thus an unwillingness to correct major errors.

In regard to the video used by the State Department, Owens either failed to watch, or grasp the points, of a video of mine provided to him, which demonstrates that the continuous and rapid explosions of the Twin Towers would make distinct explosions nearly impossible to hear. Based on his false premise that distinct explosions would be required, Owens claims that no explosions were heard even at the base of the Towers. He then proclaims that explosives would have been heard miles away. However, a news clip from FOX used in my video shows witnesses in midtown NYC saying that the explosive roar of the Towers’ demise sounded like “another large aircraft flying overhead.” These sound waves were certainly heard miles away.

Owens also failed to admit that sounds strongly suggesting explosions can be heard in videos of WTC 1’s collapse obtained via a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed against NIST by the International Center for 9/11 Studies, and WTC 7’s collapse, with audio analysis by physicist David Chandler. Although not mentioned to Owens, such explosive sounds have also been found in newly released video of WTC 2’s collapse. It is also worth noting that the new videos of the Towers back up witness testimony describing loud pops at the onset of the collapses, which was also obtained through a FOIA lawsuit.

Regarding the demolition “squibs”, or isolated explosive ejections, seen on videos bursting out from the Towers, Owens failed to address that:

1. Calculations done by Dr. Crockett Grabbe show that the horizontal ejection rate of the squibs is disproportional to the vertical collapse rates of the Towers.

2. David Chandler has shown that some of these ejections came from the steel corner columns, making it impossible that they were the result of air pressure.

Owens also asserted that since no squibs were seen until after the destruction had already began, that they must have been driven purely by gravitation. One argument against this is that the North Tower’s antenna dropped before any other building movement is seen, which is evidence that demolition devices were working on the core before any squibs were seen emerging out of the perimeter walls. This argument, however, is unnecessary. Thanks to the lawsuit filed against NIST we now have video showing that, contrary to Owens’ claim, some of these ejections occurred before the collapses. See “Visible Explosion at World Trade Center” and “WTC1 collapse initiation - visible signs.”

The one point that Owens’ video gets right concerns what were once believed by many to be demolition squibs emerging from the southwest corner of WTC 7, but in fact are just window blinds flapping through broken windows as the building descends. This point has been conceded by AE911Truth for quite some time.

This is just a small summary of the conversation that took place, but to paraphrase Popular Mechanics, “most of the other claims are just as easily refuted.”

In fairness to Owens, he has stated in YouTube comments that he is a current engineering student, which the State Department’s 9/11 debunking crew probably didn’t know when they posted his video. But even if they did, they shouldn’t be relying on a student to be the teacher. Even NIST officials rely on qualified teachers to provide corrections to basic errors in its work – such as the publicly humiliating WTC 7 free-fall lesson provided to Dr. Shyam Sunder by physics instructor David Chandler during its Draft Final Report in August 2008.