9/11 Fraud: The Skeptic Emperors’ Missing Clothes

Page_45_illustration_in_fairy_tales_of_Andersen_(Stratton)

On September 10 2012, I wrote an article exposing what I’m convinced is the scientific fraud of the century.[1] In this article I showed how the official explanation of how the three skyscrapers (WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7) came down on 9/11 is accepted by all mainstream “skeptic” organizations, including The James Randi Foundation, Skeptic Magazine, Skeptical Inquirer Magazine, CSI and CFI. It is faithfully accepted by these organizations despite this explanation having no valid scientific evidence whatsoever to support it.

I contacted each one of these organizations in order to get their official response to these allegations. I was hoping for a hackneyed response along the lines of the shameful Mohr article which was deftly debunked by Jeremy Hammond last year.[2] Instead I was surprised at the sole response I got from Michael Shermer, editor at Skeptic Magazine:

Was 9/11 a conspiracy? Yes it was. By definition, a conspiracy is a secret plan by two or more people to commit an illegal, immoral, or subversive action against another without their knowledge or agreement. So, nineteen members of Al Qaeda plotting to fly planes into buildings without telling us constitutes a conspiracy. The ultimate failure of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists is their inability to explain away the overwhelming evidence of the real conspiracy by Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. For example, how do they explain these facts?:

The 1983 attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon by a radical Hezbollah faction.
The 1993 truck bomb attack on the World Trade Center.
The 1995 attempt to blow up 12 planes heading from the Philippines to the U.S.
The 1995 bombings of U.S. Embassy buildings in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 12 Americans and 200 Kenyans and Tanzanians.
The 1996 attack on Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. military personnel.
The 1999 attempt to attack Los Angeles International airport by Ahmed Ressam.
The 2000 suicide boat attack on the U.S.S. Cole that killed 17 sailors and injured 39 others.
The well-documented evidence that Osama Bin Laden is a major financier for and the leader of Al-Qaeda.
The 1996 fatwa by Bin Laden that officially declared a jihad against the United States.
The 1998 fatwa calling on his followers “to kill the Americans and their allies—civilian and military is an individual duty for any Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.

Given this background, since Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda have officially claimed responsibility for the attacks of 9/11, we should take them at their word that they did it.

Michael Shermer
Skeptic Magazine
Skeptics Society

So this shows some definite progress. Dr. Shermer does actually admit that the official 9/11 theory involves a conspiracy. However, he also refers to skeptics of the official conspiracy theory as “conspiracy theorists” but does not refer to believers in the official conspiracy theory in the same manner. Does this mean Dr. Shermer believes the official theory is a fact and not a theory? If it were a fact you would think the key event of that “fact” would have solid supporting evidence. As my previous article clearly showed though, there is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever to support the official explanation of the fall of the Twin Towers or WTC 7. The article also showed that there is scientific supporting evidence for the controlled demolition explanation for the three tower falls. In fact, this was the key point of my article. Dr. Shermer completely sidesteps this key point and the associated fact that he is therefore misrepresenting himself as a science-based critical thinker. Instead of tackling the serious allegations of fraud he lists a suspect series of Al-Qaeda attacks and rambles on about Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda’s confession as evidence. Presenting an irrelevant topic to divert attention away from the main issue at hand is referred to as a red herring logical fallacy.[3] In particular this is the tu quoque fallacy, avoiding the criticism by turning it back on the accuser. Instead of dealing with my argument he instead criticizes 9/11 skeptics for not explaining away the “overwhelming” evidence of Al-Qaeda’s involvement.

My article did not say Al-Qaeda was not involved in 9/11. Their involvement is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the scientific evidence points to the controlled demolition of the three towers in New York on 9/11. If 9/11 was entirely an Al-Qaeda operation as Shermer and all other mainstream “skeptics” faithfully believe, how did they pull off these controlled demolitions and why is the US government trying to suppress this fact? For all we know though Al-Qaeda was involved with 9/11. I personally don’t know and don’t care as it is irrelevant to the science. So Dr. Shermer’s Al-Qaeda argument is also a straw man fallacy. He is misrepresenting my position and then attacking that fabricated position in a deceptive attempt to discredit my actual position.

What we have here is a world-renowned “skeptic” solely using logical fallacies in response to serious accusations that his organizations are supporting scientific fraud. A critical thinker should not be supporting their position with logical fallacies. Such fallacies are an indication of uncritical thinking after all. Not only is Shermer misrepresenting himself as an advocate of good science, he is also misrepresenting himself as a critical thinker. So Shermer’s response is further evidence of his misrepresentation of himself as a science-based critical thinker.

I want to make clear that this article is not meant to single out Dr. Shermer. He was the only head of any mainstream “skeptic” group that had the courage and strength of character to actually respond. What he did is all any pathological skeptic could do to support their wholly faith-based myth while simultaneously rejecting the only available science-based explanation. It’s not like they are simply not getting my correspondence either. I asked Steven Novella a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry for a response on his Neurologica blog.[4] He acknowledged with a request for clarification and then refuses to respond.

When their cult-like faith-based 9/11 dogma is probed, all pathological skeptics can respond with are falsehoods and logical fallacies. This behavior is the very opposite of critical thinking. Yes, all they can do is use illogic to support pseudo-science all the while proclaiming they are science-based critical thinkers. Clearly the “skeptic” emperors have no clothes. They are either delusionally unaware of their nakedness or simply pretending to be. Most everyone else will never publicly acknowledge the state of the great “skeptics'” undress for fear of appearing foolish or unhinged.

 

Notes

1. http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/09/10/911-pseudo-science-a-us-foreign-policy-built-on-fraud/

2. http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/09/16/911-and-skeptic-magazines-science-of-controlled-demolitions/

3. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

4. http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/bigfoot-skeptics-new-atheists-politics-and-religion/comment-page-3/

 

2 comments

  1. 3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON’T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:

    Since Larry Silverstein said pull it,? demolished WTC 7 and collected billions in insurance, why would the insurance company pay the claim if there’s evidence of fraud?

    If WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by demolition & not fire, how do you explain video of the exterior columns buckling under heat and stress loads 18 minutes after impact?

    How can Marvin Bush be in charge of WTC security when he stopped working for Securecom in June of 2000?

    1. I don’t mind these questions because they’re completely irrelevant to the fraud mentioned in this article.

      First, the insurance companies paid out because they thought they had no case. Is science dictated by law?

      For the second point, fire buckles steel. If you claim an initial event caused a second event without eliminating all other possibilities though you commit the false cause fallacy. Where is the evidence that the fire and the buckling caused the destruction of the buildings?

      For the third, who said Bush was in charge? He was on the BOD.

Leave a Reply