Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnyrotten
You made(this thread) the stupid premise that ALL people who dont support the weak govt lie are nutcases.
This lady, among thousands, actually millions of other well educated people can easily see through the very thin verneer of the official lie.
The difference with her is, she has no problem publically stating it.
The biggest problem with 9/11 truth isnt the overwhelming scientific evidence arrayed against the official story, its the fact that somehow, people think the govt incapable of doing such a thing.
Each day that goes by buttresses the fact they are more than capable.
|
I (in response to your post) did not call anyone a nutcase. The person who started this thread made that accusation but I prefer not to stoop to silly name calling. I simply pointed out the fallacy of your argument that any prominent scientist making the same argument as you validates your point. I happen to be a big fan of Lynn Margulis and her work and have had the honor of speaking with her on several occasions. As I pointed out, everyone has a right to their opinion and I greatly respect hers, particularly in her area of expertise but I don't consider her the appropriate expert to support the concept that 9/11 is an "inside job".
I've tended to stay out of these 9/11 discussions because I don't have the time to follow every conspiracy theory and the counter arguments to make a sound argument one way or the other. I only jumped into the fray because a fellow biologist was cited. But I do have opinions and here is where I stand on the issue. I agree there is a massive cover-up but it does not mean to me that the events were an "inside job". I believe the lies are attempts to hide their complete incompetence. We should certainly be investigating these lies and finding out what they are covering up but I don't believe it will unveil an "inside job". I don't subscribe to the notion that questioning something means it is entirely wrong. Questioning is how science is done. Generally, it does not lead to a complete negation of our previous understanding, simply a refinement. I also don't believe that just because millions of people "believe" something it is true. I think it's safe to say there are millions of people who believe W is a good president - does that make it true?
Most of the "scientific evidence" I have seen presented is negative data. A lack of data to support something doesn't make it false. If just making a bunch of calculations is all the evidence we need, then why to we bother doing experiments? The best structural engineers can and do make mistakes. Another false argument I see a lot is "it looks like X so it must be X". I would recommend two very good books about how we are easily fooled by rare events and how we assign false meaning to events leading up to a rare event. Both are by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. The first is called "Fooled by Randomness" and the second is "The Black Swan". The possibility of rare events is why science is so dependent on repetition. We see a lot of strange, unexplained things happen if we only do an experiment once.