portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

9.11 investigation

"Bunk and Debunking Battles" ~ Scientific American / 9-11 Truth Conference, Chicago

I met the author of this article on Debunking and 9/11, at the Chicago Conference on 9/11 Truth. I think he is from Portland.

This article below was published on the Direct Action- oriented list called "ActionGreens" and also on the international US Greens Abroad group list:

Does anyone here know him? It seems he does real work on this issue.

"Bunk and Debunking Battles" / Scientific American

To: pdx911truth Contacts
From: DM

Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006
Subject: [pdx911truth] Contact Scientific American re: Controlled Demolition Article

Scientific American magazine is considering doing an article on WTC and
controlled demolition. Please contact them either by phone of by email
and encourage them to do this. Considering the amount of corporate
money in this magazine an article on CD would be cataclysmic on many
fronts. Please forward this to other 911 groups and contacts.




Hello David,
and friends within and around the 9/11 efforts for Truth and Justice,

That would indeed be good news - if Scientific American were to review its current position on 9/11 which is an embarrassment to Science. But where have you learned this? I looked everywhere online about whether the magazine has announced this but can not find the source.

Following below are a few thoughts triggered by your letter on why this subject matters, and on some elements of the "Bunk and Debunking Battles".


"Bunk and Debunking Battles" / Scientific American

Scientific American magazine is not just another magazine. Even though within academia it is not really considered a Journal of Science, it has a political role: is the unofficial spokes-venue for what is the "official" version of science embraced by the establishment.

It is one of the best- camouflaged and one of the most influential instruments of the domination of Science by the twin evils of Corporate power and the authoritarian State. The views it promotes are the views of an occupation regime installed in an invaded and conquered country; Science itself is a realm, a body of knowledge and practice which is invaded and occupied by Corporate power just like Iraq is by the US. Its "official" descriptions of reality have the same relationships of power, military occupation and financial domination (dependency, disinformation, subservience) built right into every utterance.

Anyway, the most recent article on the subject published in Scientific American is a despicable piece by one of the magazine's stars, Michael Shermer. He postures proudly "debunking" our efforts for research into the World Trade Center demolition and for a more coherent version of the truth. (The event itself, the collapse of the towers seen as a demolition, seems to be almost a certainty by now. After years of frustrating unanswered questions on the events of September Eleven, many reasonable doubts aimed at both the official version and many of the proposed alternative versions, a lot of collective research and detective work, the efforts have been notably rendered much more credible and solidified now on the foundations of good science since professor Steven Jone's most recent experiments which even explain the colours of the molten metal that appears on videos of the collapsing towers and in the basement of the disaster site for weeks afterwards, on the basis of known actions of the chemical components of military Thermite).

Michael Shermer's article "debunking" that line of thought consists of 90% political sloganeering, cultural cliches, and "setting the mood" to predispose the reader with context that ridicules our explorations, and then adds 10% of pseudo-science. It's unbelievable that he is one of the leading establishment scientists of our time. One can read his article here:
"Fahrenheit 2777
9/11 has generated the mother of all conspiracy theories"
By Michael Shermer
 link to www.sciam.com

There are two very good refutations of that article from different points of view - I don't necessarily endorse everything that these two authors below say, but I acknowledge that we need a flexible and open mind in the dialogue, and applications of sharp logic to think things through for ourselves. Here:
and here:
"Scientific American's Dishonest Attack On 911Research"
by Jim Hoffman

Jim Hoffman's article "debunks the debunking", but it's a little difficult to read. A lot of our material suffers of this problem. It's a lot easier to read the propaganda and lies than it is to study the materials which deconstruct them and point out their absurdities.

Origins of Bunk

It's not useful (or feasible) to explore, refute, deconstruct, or expose the path of displaced logic, twisted faith, or degenerate ideology displayed by every idiot's attack on our work. But the work by Michael Shermer is significant, as it is one of the pillars of the Corporate State's occupation regime lording over the realm of Science.

It's sad, almost pathetic to read this noteworthy scientist's defiance of both logic and science. All the more because he used to teach a College course titled "Critical Thinking: A Primer in Reason, Logic, and Science". Even worse, because he wrote a book titled
"Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstitions, and Other Confusions of Our Time". If only he had the courage to apply that line of exploration on himself for purposes of self-knowledge, to understand his own belief in Pseudoscience, Superstitions, and Other Confusions of Our Time...
Check out more of his almost megalomaniac path, on his own CV online:

Anyway, why is this important for us? Why can't we just dismiss his objections? Does Michael Shermer's "scientific" work have any relevance to our quest for truth and justice on 9-11?

I think the answer is yes.

We need to be able to understand certain opponents. Those who do not respect worthy opponents in struggle end up dead or enslaved.

Those who go out of their way to further the lies of the regime, to cover up the truth and to ridicule honest explorers of the truth while they remain backed up and protected by the tremendous power of the university-military-industrial complex, need to be respected as opponents, and dealt with as such.

Michael Shermer in his role as Founding Publisher/ Editor-in-Chief of "Skeptic" magazine {  http://skeptic.com } likes to pretend that he is motivated by Spinoza's teaching, which he displays prominently on their site:
"I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them." - Baruch Spinoza

Ha! If only he had the honesty to see that his despicable writings and his cocky self-centered attitude is not much more than unprincipled efforts toward ridicule and disinformation served up with the pettiest of vitriolic scorn. But spokespersons of occupation regimes are not known for their honesty.

Understanding the path and the location of this particular opponent within the Imperial structure

Michael Shermer is one of those people who are the Voice of Authority (His Master's Voice..) on what is Reality. His voice endorses, or condemns accordingly, on behalf of the ruling oligarchy of the global Empire what the official Method is for the verification of Reality, and issues rulings on what the (supposed) findings of that Method are.

Two simple and handy tests on the validity of this luminary "influential voice of Science":

Read how he "debunks" the theoretical foundation of the science which guides Acupuncture medicine:
"Full of Holes
The curious case of acupuncture"
By Michael Shermer

Michael Shermer's views on Global Warming are even scarier.
From the time he was an undergraduate in the 1970's (when a basic understanding of the reality of Global Warming was beginning to enter into Science), and continuing throughout all these decades (during which many researchers were thrown out of universities which operate under Corporate occupation simply for teaching Global Warming as a scientific view) and until this year, Shermer opposed the concept of Global Warming. He "debunked" it as pseudo-science, as hysteria, and as "the sky is falling" type of thing. That's thirty five years of a scientific career spent in denial.

Then all of a sudden this year, he suffers a revelation during which he reverses his previous "scientific" position on the basis of ...what do you think might have shaken his unshakeable denial? Nothing short of this: on February 8, 2006, he writes, "86 leading evangelical Christians issued the Evangelical Climate Initiative calling for 'national legislation requiring sufficient economy-wide reductions' in carbon emissions." He admits it all here:
"The Flipping Point
How the evidence for anthropogenic global warming has converged to cause this environmental skeptic to make a cognitive flip"
By Michael Shermer

In his article he does not explain the scientific basis for his change in position, his "cognitive flip". It's not unreasonable to expect this from scientist who gets invited to Conferences to make presentations on the science of cognition and the Mind.

Worse, he does not even issue a self-criticism on what kept him in denial for thirty five years, contributing to the obstacles and delays in the efforts to reverse the destruction of our planet, and to the ruining of careers of genuine scientists committed to teaching the truth. If he were able to conjure up some honesty to say, "well, I calculated this numerical value wrongly, here is my mistake in the math...", or "well, I was not very clear on this particular concept of Paleontology, so I made a mistake in projecting the trends through time...", or something, anything, we might have better criteria to trust him.

But the best he does to explain why he was "mistaken" for three and a half decades is to blame the environmentalists. Blame the environmentalists! He says that "Environmental groups who cry doom and gloom to keep donations flowing only hurt their credibility." It was their fault that he could not appreciate the science of Global Warming.

Also he writes "As an undergraduate in the 1970s, I learned (and believed) that by the 1990s overpopulation would lead to worldwide starvation and the exhaustion of key minerals, metals and oil, predictions that failed utterly. Politics polluted the science and made me an environmental skeptic."

Again, he blames others for his belief in the fascist concept of "overpopulation" and blames "politics" for his becoming a skeptic.

{ Within the progressive and radical wings of the ecology/ environmentalist movement, and within the scientific disciplines which deal with those issues, we all acknowledge clearly and openly that it is not "overpopulation" that's eating up global resources but the political economy that rules our lives: the United States, with around only 5 percent of the world's population, consumes about 40% of the world's resources and emits around 21% of the worlds carbon dioxide, a greenhouse-causing gas. But the United States is not over-populated - the consumption-based life style generates these effects. More details here:
"Stress on the environment, society and resources?"

We often stress that one's orientation on the roots of the problem - their analysis - lead to drastic differences among us on the solutions. For those who believe "overpopulation" is the root of the problem, the "final solution" means mass extermination of people, and prevention of more births. For those who see that our global political economy is at the root of the problem, solutions involve social-political changes in the relations of ownership and control of social and natural resources, in the arrangements of distribution, consumption and production, within the context of a new society based on co-operation, community self-government, and appropriate technologies. }

But where is Michael Shermer's insight into how and why those concepts became anchored within him as articles of faith? He now tells us it was not because of science that he "debunked" Global Warming, but because of "politics". Is his opposition to the September Eleven Truth and Justice movement based on *any* science at all?

He blames "politics" for clouding his mind on science ...well it's actually the truth, but the truth is exactly opposite from the way he means it. "Who cares what clouded his mind?" some of our people might say. Well, the issue of what kind of politics take the upper hand in the pages of Scientific American turns on little factors such as these: what determines cognition, thought, and opinion?

Michael Shermer is not just some innocent scientist confused by politics. The inverse is the truth: he is an operative of a powerful political machine which confuses Science.

His is a "Scientific Advisor" to the American Council on Science and Health. Just to get an idea of what these people do, please consider the following. The President of that organization, Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan, published a "scientific" article in which:
- she "debunks" Erin Brockovich for her struggle to defend people injured by industrial pollution, accusing her of making millions from the settlement;
- she "debunks" the idea that poisonous mercury in vaccines is a threat to children, and claims it is a wrong decision to remove that "safe" poison from the vaccines;
- she "debunks" the fact that the chemical toxins called Poly-Chlorinated Biphenyls (known as PCBs) cause cancer, and ridicules the Environmental Protection Agency for forcing the industry to clean up the rivers from these deadly poisons (more on that incredible controversy below).

Here is that great article:
"The Top 10 Public Health Travesties of 2005"
By Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H.

Do you think that an article like this by the President of the American Council on Science and Health could be published without the approval of its Scientific Advisors?

If we want to better understand these "scientific" messages we can look at the funding of this organization. Most of it comes from the Chemical Industry, including Big Oil, Big Food and Fast Food giant corporations, and manufacturers of military weapons that include weapons of mass destruction and chemical/ biological weapons (a link about their funding is listed at the bottom).

If we want to understand the political alliances of these "neutral" scientists just check out again that same article. It is reported with pride that it was published by the National Review and the Washington Times.

For those who might appreciate a refresher, the National Review is a reactionary near- nazi publication. One can evaluate the ideological orientation of its editorial board by this short article published in its pages - it simply calls for the leveling of Fallujah:
"Fallujah -- a Modest Proposal"

The Washington Times is another important pillar of the ideological and organizational machinery of some of the most reactionary sections of the global ruling class. Washington Times is owned and controlled by the Moonies, also known as the Unification Church , which is founded by Rev. Sun Myung Moon (some sources on that listed at the bottom). The Moonies organization exercised a powerful counter-insurgency operation during the years of the global youth and New Left revolution of the sixties and seventies by recruiting very large numbers of disoriented or immature young people into remote communes where they were subjected to antisexual "love bombing" and brainwashed into spending endless days and nights selling wooden flowers at train stations to raise money for the coming of the kingdom of the new Messiah.

Rev. Sun Myung Moon's global organization has a complex overlap with the Korean CIA - for those who remember global reality, Korea is a country occupied by 40,000 US troops armed with nuclear weapons.

There is a very curious relationship between the US intelligence agencies, the Korean CIA and the Moonies. All three networks were heavily involved in an infamous "false flag operation" within Soviet airspace which culminated in the shooting down of a Korean Airlines passenger plane by the Soviet Union in 1983 (KAL Flight 007).

Explorations into that incident in the months and years afterwards, revealed that through a combination of US intelligence technologies in aircraft identifiers, well- timed "military aircraft exercises" (sound familiar?), and clever timing, it was possible to substitute one plane for another on radar screens, make planes "vanish" for a while, make them re-appear somewhere else, and then provoke a military situation where the "cruel enemy" is convinced they are defending their country from a spy-plane incursion that's violating their borders, while they are presented by the Corporate media as bloody criminals triggering the violent beginning of a war that will bring about the end the world. Interesting, huh?

The "innocent and pure science" of Michael Shermer is a fantastic lie. The only way one might be able to see through it is to verify things for one's self through research and studying. Or by being able to rely on well-trusted sources of truth. But even among us, within the 9/11 Truth and Justice community, it's still very hard to know who to trust to and to what degree, in which areas of knowledge, and on what grounds.

We need to keep working on that. We need to build a better sense of unity among us, not on the basis of which "evidence" we agree or disagree on, but on more fundamental and universal values which are capable of building and sustaining an emerging community in struggle:
- a shared opposition of racism, sexism and homophobia both around us and inside of us are excellent places to begin. Our movement suffers a lot from those oppressive behaviours and ideologies.
- an embracing of Feminist and Ecological values, as well as a commitment to the movement for a lasting World Peace and Justice and to efforts for establishing the conditions that will make those goals possible.
- Internationalist solidarity that cuts across the barriers of ethnic, religious, language and culture borders, and helps to build bridges between people of all roots and all orientations helping each other to regain control of our planet together.
- a respect for all the various wings of the global liberation movement which aim at the personal (individual), social (collective), and spiritual liberation of all beings, and an embracing as much as we can of their wisdom, knowledge, and values that's capable of uniting us in deeper and more profound ways leading to collective feeling, thought, action.

The 9/11 grass roots mobilization is still generating its social/political compass; now is a good time to put forth universal principles such as the above, and to invite people to unite around them, on the basis of a shared understanding and unified action guided by them. What other option is there?

Petros Evdokas ~  petros@cyprus-org.net
Please feel free to reproduce, republish, forward or share this article wherever you think someone should or would like to see it -thanks. And my apologies if you are receiving multiple copies through various email lists.

~~~* Further Reading / Resources on related subjects *~~~~

If you haven't seen it yet, the scientific work on the demolition of the World Trade Center.
"Some Current Research"
Steven E. Jones, Professor

Some other excellent papers and very clear thinking which does an honest debunking of the "official" conspiracy theory that was published by the US Government.
Scholars for 9/11 Truth

The "brilliant" scientific work of the President of the American Council on Science and Health on cancer-causing toxins.
"Who Says PCBs Cause Cancer?"
Elizabeth M. Whelan / Wall Street Journal 12dec00

American Council on Science and Health - Funding Sources:
 link to www.sourcewatch.org

Some resources about the Moonies:

Korean Airlines Flight KAL 007:


pic 04.Jul.2007 03:36

pdx911truther Sat 1-2pm 9/11 'freeway blogger

adapted from Stop The War OF Terror 20020429
adapted from Stop The War OF Terror 20020429


Quit fucking presuming to be scientific masterminds 18.Jun.2006 23:51

a REAL 9-11 skeptic

"...if Scientific American were to review its current position on 9/11 which is an embarrassment to Science."

In terms of 9-11 OVERALL, this may be. But that's NOT the same thing as controlled demolition of the towers, the "overwhelmingly conclusive scientific case" for which exists entirely in the minds of people who DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. Griffin is a THEOLOGIST; Fetzer, bless his heart, is a philosopher. In their discussions of controlled demolition of the towers, both employ facile reasoning and cherry-picked science, but at least they have the excuse of not knowing any better. It pains me to have to point out that academia is extremely specialized these days. The only expertise these guys bring to this technical area relates to arguing persuasively (if sophistically). Set that aside and they understand the dynamic behavior of buildings about as well as some average shmo hanging out in a bar doofed up on a few too many. This is obvious and also to be expected. It's their pretense and capitalization on their credentials that's offensive.

Stephen Jones is a somewhat different story. His specialty is ultra-micro-scale physics, which sort of disqualifies him, but he at least knows Newtonian Mechanics really well. Jones does NOT have the excuse of not knowing any better. What Jones definitely IS is one of the most infamous hoaxters of recent scientific history. He's one of the key people behind the "Cold Fusion" quackery of two decades ago. Most of you are probably too young to even remember it. Rest assured that most of the people who do science for a living remember him REEEEEEEEL goooood. Fetzer's reputation is almost as abysmal. I bet Griffin's is plummeting into the ground here lately also. Don't write this off as inherent to being associated with 9-11 truth. If they were talking sound science, they would win friends. They're not. They may have YOU convinced they are, but you don't know what you're talking about, you're just too cocky to admit it. It's the blind leading the blind

The most credible scientist ever to punch holes in the official scenario is A.K. "Kee" Dewdney, who at least employed something resembling the full scientific method. I bet most of you have never even heard of him, and yet I have. What could explain this? Dewdney isn't touching this stuff, in fact he's distanced himself from the movement altogether. Why? Because it's academically self-destructing, that's why.

You think Charlie Sheen getting interviewed on CNN gave you credibility? Charlie Sheen and a rotifer have about two fucking brain cells between them! CNN gave him exposure because they WANT YOU to hang yourselves!! They're the FUCKING ENEMY!!!! THIIIIIIIIIIINNNNKH-KH-KH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am as skeptical of the official scenario as anyone, I promise you, and yet the 9-11 "Truth" movement's runaway ideological commitment to controlled demolition of the towers upsets me no end. Look people, I'm telling you this is a catastrophically dumb move. If you do get your wish and Scientific American does publish a review of controlled demolition, I'm warning you they're going to rip new assholes into each and every one of you. They're going to make you look like the biggest bunch of tin-foil-hat fuck-heads that's ever walked, AND YOU WILL DESERVE IT!!! You think you know exactly how the towers should have behaved? Based on what? Your world-class mastery of structural engineering and large-scale physics? That of a theologian, a philosopher, and a world-famous liar? Quit being such pompous fools! Quit being Ugly Americans. Griffin, Fetzer, and Jones are leading you off the brink of a cliff like a bunch of lemmings. I even have to wonder if they're on some GOP asshole's payroll. Just cuz they have doctorates DOES NOT mean they are automatically credible. The belief that they are is just another symptom of ignorance.

What happened to the multi-dimensional convergent arguments of a few years ago? Now THOSE were persuasive! Why have you put all your eggs in this one basket?

what a jerk 19.Jun.2006 17:14

educate us or shut up already

> You think you know exactly how the towers should have behaved?

Yeah, we do. All the eyewitnesses, and everybody who saw the towers come down on television, thought to themselves, "huh, that looks just like it looks when they implode a building on purpose." We all figured if a building collapsed due to asymmetrical damage, it ought to fall over on one side. That was our ignorant little assumption. The actual truth is that buildings like that don't fall down at all because of fire or because they've been damaged at one point; they're much stronger and more redundant than that. The many serial explanations of how this one unique instance of three steel buildings imploding due to fires in the buildings don't make any goddamned sense, and the author of the rant above doesn't even bother to present one. Really he just seems to be an asshole looking for an excuse to be abusive.

steve jones 20.Jun.2006 17:52

doug lain

My understanding is that Steve Jones' work on Cold Fusion was not fraudlent and that his work was not involved in the controversy. As to explaining the collapse of the towers it seems somewhat dubious to claim that reasonably intelligent people simply don't have the expertise to understand the phenomena of a building collapsing. My opinion has always been that those who truly understand something can explain it to anyone with a reasonable ability to think.