RECAP: Gordon Ross, Master of Engineering, Investigation into the Collapse of the WTC on 9/11

Master of Engineering, Gordon Ross presentation of his analysis of the destruction of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre on 11th September 2001. Recorded 8th June 2007 at the Indian YMCA in London.


___________________________________

This excellent clip describes the damage seen to the steel in the rubble with what you would expect with the explosive demolition of the structure. The evidence-based lecture also accounts for the features seen during the destruction of the twin towers. The information here makes good, practical sense of what was observed.

The clip here is partly posted in response to disinformation circulating on the internet. No space beams or mini nukes are necessary! The burnt cars (cited for alternative theories) are almost certainly damaged from molten iron seen flowing from the building (see video) prior to the main demolition charges going off. When the buildings blew up thousand degree fragments of iron would have been scattered in the pulverised concrete clouds.

REMEMBER: Lies generally believed by the population, are still lies no matter how many people believe in them. Always check the evidence. The 911 lie has led to an endless cycle of war. If you 'support the troops' stop and think about how the conflict started; with LIES. Later we were treated to further lies (that were not 'intelligence failures') about WMDs that led to more unnecessary war.

Related Info:

Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org

JREF Forum posts: "Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic"

Richard Gage
911blogger.com
February 12, 2010

Here is the excellent post on the JREF forum (Feb 6th) that actually exposes all of their 9/11 Debunking tactics in one convenient tidy package - from their own master. It can be seen as the bible of the true skeptic - by the ultimate skeptic, Proff Truzi. Use this to expose the debunkers with their own "Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic and the skeptic". (I have added the numbers for your future use). Use it liberally!

(Thanks go to Dan Noel)

RG

Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic and the skeptic
I have noticed that there appears to be two main types of skeptics. One an admirable role, one quite the opposite.

Therefore we have a skeptic, and a pseudoskeptic.

Points courtesy of Proff Truzi,

Characteristics of a pseudoskeptic:

1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt.
2. Double standards in the application of criticism.
3. The making of judgments without full inquiry.
4. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate.
5. Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments.
6. Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.
7. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof.
8. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof.
9. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims.
10. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence.
11. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it.
12. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims.
13. Asserting that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (Argument from ignorance).
14. They speak down to their audience using 'arguments from authority'.
15. They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths.
16. No references to reputable journal material.
17. If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative.

True Skeptics / Open-Minded Skeptics

A. Does not show any of the characteristics of a pseudoskeptic.
B. Inquires and asks questions to try to understand things
C. Applies open inquiry and investigation of both sides
D. Is nonjudgmental, doesn't jump to rash conclusions
E. Has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own
F. Seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim
G. Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all sides
H. Acknowledges valid convincing evidence
I. Possesses solid sharp common sense and reason
J. Is able to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence

Just a nice guide to fall back on, the skeptics bible in a way. Its not amazingly consistent (ie, skeptics should not give people a stereotype and dismiss them due to that, so immediately labelling the pseudoskeptic, so has an early issue)

Related Info:

Gordon Ross is pretty sure he exists.

Debunking PseudoSkeptics - CSICOP, James Randi, Michael Shermer, etc

How Pseudoskeptics hijack "Skepticism" to mean its opposite: Disinformation, Mind Control and Suppression

They Are the Ones Who Are Not Skeptics

I have seen the light! [Satire]

Circular Rationalism

JREF Forum posts: "Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic"

911 Truth: Michael Shermer's Amateur Disinformation Attempt Fails (again!)

Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories