"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.

http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=contactus

thanks,

dm
-----------------



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".

Petros
--------------


"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
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E158\
3414B7F0000&colID=13


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:
http://911review.com/sciam/markup/sciam_shermer.html
and here:
"Scientific American's Dishonest Attack On 911Research"
by Jim Hoffman
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/sciam/index.html

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:
http://skeptic.com/about_us/shermers_cv.html

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
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00019055-0198-12D8-BDFD83414B7F0000

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
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B557A-71ED-146C-ADB783414B7F0000

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?"
http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/Population/Stress.asp

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.
http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.1260/healthissue_detail.asp

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"
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmM5ZjJiNTI3YjFkNGY4NDc0YjUxNzk0ZmQyOWI\
zYjI=

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
__________
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
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/

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
http://www.st911.org/


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
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/PCBs-Cause-Cancer-Whelan-ACSH.htm

American Council on Science and Health - Funding Sources:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Council_on_Science_and_Healt\
h#Funding

Some resources about the Moonies:
http://www.perkel.com/politics/moonies/index.htm

Korean Airlines Flight KAL 007:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Flight_KAL-007#Theories

__________________