From the Herald:
Green MP Jeanette Fitzsimons has been labelled "naive" for meeting with a group who claims that the collapse of the World Trade Centre in 2001 was an inside job.Ooh, I bet she gave him a good telling off. Gage uses the same types of pseudo-science arguments that climate change deniers use: find a bit of evidence that can be interpreted in a number of ways, then build an entire theory around it. Attack anyone who disagrees. Man, I'd love to have seen her tear a strip off him.
Fitzsimons met Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, in Wellington yesterday.
Fitzsimons said after her meeting with Gage that there were "some unexplained matters".Huh?
"What I've found is that there are a lot of highly trained people who say [the Twin Towers] could not have collapsed the way they say it did."Jesus wept! Why would any self-respecting politician give any credence to Gage's ridiculous theories?
Asked if she was a 9/11 sceptic, Fitzsimons said: "I would say I've got an open mind. I'm not interested in conspiracy theories, I'm interested in evidence."
So how bad is this for the Greens? From an Australian 911-"truth" site:
It is with great pride that I can announce that Jeanette Fitszimmons the co-leader of the Green party in New Zealand has signed the politicians for 911 truth petition.
Although Jeanette wishes to emphasise that she signed the petition as a private citizen first and politician second it remains a fact that she is the first sitting front bench MP of any country willing to make a stand and sign a petition demanding a new investigation into the events of 911. The Green party is currently in the opposition but until November last year was part of the governing Labour government and the third biggest party of New Zealand.
Jeanette Fitszimmons has repeatedly but off record expressed her sympathy with those of us who are working towards a new investigation but until this moment declined to speak openly about her doubts with regards to the official accounts of the events of 911, however when I e-mailed her with the news of the new website and the request that perhaps she would sign the petition I was pleasantly surprised to find my request fulfilled within hours.[emphasis added by me]
The 911 conspiracy theory is one of the looniest ever created. Think about it. As a non-scientist and non-engineer I happily confess to not understanding all the technical and scientific arguments put forward by each side. But a lot of scientists and engineers have looked at the claims made by the "truthers" and have discredited them. That shows that, at best, the technical and scientific arguments of Gage and others are highly questionable. At worst they're utter nonsense.
But what makes the theories loony is the conspiracy that must exist for them to be correct. The US military and secret services are simply too incompetent to put together something so elaborate. And why has not one person come forward to admit their involvement?
I hope Fitzsimons' party gives her a ticking off for allowing the Greens to be associated with this lunacy.
For the promotion of crackpot theories Jeanette Fitzsimons is the latest Imperator Fish Fool of the Moment.
It's the same thinking that drives their approach to GE, cellphones, and other fringe issues. Take small bits out of context, refuse to engage with the science or the larger picture, selectively quote and understand while ignoring larger bits of evidence, wave away experts that don't fit with your preconceived notions.
ReplyDeleteIt upsets me no end.
The longer I've been watching climate change, the more I see these tactics from the climate change truthers - the "skeptics". I try to explain that the exact same things which make the "skeptic" approach to climate change so untenable, and which the Greens criticise are the same things which are driving Green approaches to GE, but to no avail.
I study how foreigners have represented a conflict in Indonesia. One thing that has become apparent to me, sadly, is that people's ability to rationalise a position is almost limitless. Presented with evidence that does not fit with a preconceived world view, one can either: reject the evidence, reject the worldview, or accept that the worldview is incomplete. Most people do the first, some do the second (you see this with Marxists who become libertarians after they realise that Marxism has faults). Accepting that the world has contradictions and is not perfectly explained is quite difficult for humans, who seek simple rationalisations.
Yet another person whose sole argument against the evidence is that they find it incredible.
ReplyDeleteThat's not Gage's line at all. He's all about objectively looking at the evidence, doing experiments to confirm hypotheses, etc - and you're just there screaming that it can't be possible because it "couldn't possibly have happened".
Shake yourself out of your incredulity. Look at it objectively. Is it rational to believe that three WTC towers - one of which was not even struck by a plane and sustained minimal fire damage - came down at complete freefall, into a perfectly centred pile of rubble? Would finding chemical evidence of the use of explosives, and even particles of high-tech unexploded material in the dust clouds be sufficient evidence for you?
Or are you just closed minded to the idea, no matter how convincing the evidence?
Yes, it is quite rational, if you think that collapsing floors are responsible. Gravity is all you need.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I tracked down Gage's "chemical evidence" and it comprises one paper in a minor-league journal written by his mates, full of footnotes referring to other conspiracists, using samples of dubious provenance, years after the event. I don't find it persuasive at all.
Gage isn't objective -- Gage starts with the supposition that things are not as they seem and works out from there.
"Yet another person whose sole argument against the evidence is that they find it incredible."
ReplyDeleteThat wasn't my sole argument. Read what I wrote become commenting, please.
"Or are you just closed minded to the idea, no matter how convincing the evidence?"
What evidence? The "evidence" put forward has been ridiculed by a large number of scientists and experts.
Couple that fact with the total absurdity of the conspiracy theory (all those conspirators and not one person having come forward to admit any involvement). There is no evidence of a conspiracy.
And read this. It's the best thing I've read about Gage's visit and his "scientific" method.
And read Foucault's Pendulum, as that post recommends. Then come back and tell me whose mind is open.
I'll put that book on my list, thanks.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, there are more arguments put forth by the article you link to than incredulity. But not many.
For instance they characterise the evidence of nanothermite as being limited to "it reminding the investigators" of it. Saying that the dust must have been "highly explosive" if it had that in it. Well, they *did* do scanning electron microscope probes of the material. They also did X-ray spectroscopy and determined that the material had a similar composition to thermite. How is that 'merely reminding'. What more do you expect? An official statement? You're claiming they planted the material? That the dust should have been explosive? Well, that would depend vastly on the concentration of the flammable material wouldn't it.
But just ignoring that hard evidence off-hand, putting forth hand-waving arguments to rebuke them... that's not really rational.
They also talk about a building in Italy. It was quite different; no steel frame.
Most of the rest of the source material appears to be a long essay about how much 9-11 meant to them or some such. I got into that crap and then it's like tl;dr.
I think we need to remember that engineers and architects can and do get their models wrong -- that's why structures occasionally fail inside their ostensible design parameters. So we need to be very careful when people claim "X is impossible, the physics proves it." Especially when other qualified people disagree with them. If I have competing teams of apparently well qualified authorities, I'm going to side with the one that requires me to believe the least amount of other unlikely stuff.
ReplyDeleteSam, I think you need to apply the same commendable critical scrutiny to Gage and co that you bring to official accounts. It's not clear to me why you find them more trustworthy than the people who contradict them. For example, I think it's actually quite likely that a small, ideologically committed group who believe strongly in their conspiracy theory would plant evidence -- this kind of fraud is quite common. If other people without their beliefs replicated their work elsewhere it would be much more credible.
It doesn't take much effort to find people busy debunking Gage's theories. So I think it's not at all clearcut that he is a credible person:
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php?page=Top+10+Boneheaded+Mistakes
Oh, the paper that Gage keeps turning to that claims to have found thermite: it was published in a journal that charges $800 per article, and allows submitters to select their own peer reviewers. The editor has resigned, and the respectable people on the editorial board have distanced themselves from the journal and the publishers, especially after they got pranked by a Sokal-like computer-generated gibberish paper.
ReplyDeleteSee http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/06/bentham-editors-resign.html
I mean look, that paper is a pillar of his case, and yet what a weak reed it turns out to be.
I don't know Stephen, I looked at some of the 'debunkings' on the AE911Truth.info wiki, and they're a bit weak really. Eg: flame-engulfed buildings. The video showed a high-rise in Beijing which was completely engulfed on all floors for over a day, but didn't even change shape let alone collapse. That undermines that counter-argument already. Arguing about the freefall, he seems fixated on a + or - on the estimated acceleration of less than 1m/s², whereas on the actual video there was a margin of error plotted. The point is that they fell at freefall, give or take a second - the exact value is irrelevant. Many of these "10 most bone-headed mistakes" are quibbling like this, or not arguing matters of fact.
ReplyDeleteThe thermite article you post assumes some things about the cutters which weren't necessarily true for the high-tech cutters which form that part of his hypothesis. He showed a patented design which achieves just what the article asks for. He explains how the devices could be planted with reference to the building plans, in the appropriate timeframe.
In terms of planting evidence, I disagree that it's crucial whether or not the dust and findings are authentic. You cannot trust either side of the argument on the authenticity of dust really. It is just showing how it could be possible to bring the buildings down in the manner that they were. ie, the existence of such a mechanism, and being available to the parties in question which is important for the argument.
Stephen just emailed me asking if I could post something for him, because apparently this Blogger platform thingie is unstable with Firefox and ate his comment (Stephen, next time try using a Microsoft product :) )
ReplyDeleteHere's what he wanted to say:
I just composed a long comment, on matters epistemological and otherwise, which this blog ate.
I commend this to you Sam
and I also want to say that I think someone prepared to present the paper on nanothermite as a credible source when in fact it is a vanity publication in a discredited journal is someone who has proved themselves totally untrustworthy on any matter of fact. Again, it puzzles me why you are so willing to extend Gage the credibility that you withhold from more conventional accounts.
It puzzles me why you are so puzzled. I saw some convincing evidence and I was convinced. I can take it only as a compliment - you seem to be expecting that what I say is the result of a solid process of "commendable critical scrutiny". Well, shucks, I try.
ReplyDeleteAnyway I took another look at the AE911truth.info site, this time starting at the front page. I did find some interesting points;
1. the comparison by Gage of the Beijing whole-building fire with WTC7 was dishonest, as the former was constructed after the WTC collapses/controlled demolitions (and, apparently, the construction company considered the WTC collapses during its construction)
2. the "official line" is not quite merely the official stonewalling that Loose Change / Gage portrayed. There are in fact several (at least) peer reviewed papers published which address the facts, some of them quite clearly.
3. For instance, http://xrl.us/bazant2007 explains a fair amount well - why the asymmetric beginnings of the collapse lead to apparent symmetric collapse later (short answer: pushing that falling mass sideways would require a huge amount of sideways thrust) - and how "near free-fall" speeds are obtained using the pile driver theory (the short answer I knew, but seeing it in carried out in algebraic form helped a bit)
That nanothermite post is certainly interesting. Perhaps I was bamboozled by fancy looking graphs I thought I understood much better than I really did for that.
Well, I think I just moved back from the "CD" category to the "unsure/fencesitter" camp. Which is good, because as a fencesitter I feel less of a moral obligation to bring the subject matter up with people. And this leaves me more time to do useful stuff with my life.