Hi, I'm new, and have a few questions about 9/11

[Undesired Walrus]

Hi, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I have a few questions about 9/11.

Is it true that some of the hijackers are still alive? Still, not saying I believe either side.

*Some rational explanation that has been covered countless times*

Thanks very much for your explanation! But I also heard they were at US military....

*Another rational explantion*

Oh, ok. But what about....

*Tired rational explantion*

Oh yeah, and somehow magically these men blah blah... 80% of the world's population is soon to be destroyed... NWO... Moon hoax.. etc

*

Why do they feel the need to do this? Is a little bit of intellectual honesty too much to ask?

[danielk]

Liar! You aren't new here at all! Ha ha, I exposed you!

[Undesired Walrus]

Liar! You aren't new here at all! Ha ha, I exposed you!

Huh? I'm not him, Undesired Walrus is an idiot. He's a moron. Of course I'm not him.

But about that melting steel huh? NIST doesn't even explain the melting point of collapse times (Is this right? Ed).

[Drudgewire]

Is a little bit of intellectual honesty too much to ask?
Is this a trick question? :boggled:

[SDC]

*Why do they feel the need to do this? Is a little bit of intellectual honesty too much to ask?

Yes.

[Reality Believer]

It's called, "Tweaking the tiger's tail."

[T.A.M.]

Socratic Method.

TAM:)

[slyjoe]

Socratic Method.

TAM:)


Isn't JAQing off just HALF of the Socratic Method?

[T.A.M.]

Do I even want to ask what the other half is?

lol

TAM:)

[Myriad]

I think they're inspired to it, like in so many other things, by life-experience-through-movies.

We're the evil cultists, right? And they've learned that all you have to do to infiltrate the evil cultist's temple and steal the golden idol in the middle of the ceremony is put on the same robes the evil cultists are wearing.

There are two problems with this, though:

1. Even in the movies, it never actually works! The characters who attempt it inevitably get caught and put into the slowly-lowering-into-molten-lava device.

2. Even if it worked for stealing the Golden Idol, it doesn't work for other purposes. The whole "stealth and disguise" thing kind of becomes useless once you start trying to preach the sermon.

Note for Darat: Can we add a slowly-lowering-into-molten-lava device to the forum software?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[DavidJames]

Do I even want to ask what the other half is?

lol

TAM:)

Love your new avatar. I get goose bumps just thinking about how it affects some of our little buddies when they see it.

[DavidJames]

Why do they feel the need to do this? Is a little bit of intellectual honesty too much to ask?you know that each one thinks they're the first one to think of and try this brilliant technique.

[dbalsdon]

you know that each one thinks they're the first one to think of and try this brilliant technique.

It's probably a little game for them. Who can last the longest on the jref forums, without being exposed as an idiot truther.

[1337m4n]

"A disguise is not just the clothing, it is the manner of the person wearing it. Don't act out of character for the person you're trying to be."

--Perfect Dark tutorial mission





You know, I wonder if we might do the same thing to the Truthers, just for the fun of it (and to some extent to get back at them). Register at LCF, Pilots for Truth, or AboveTopSecret pretending to be a neutral JAQ-offer, then very slowly turn debunker.

[1337m4n]

Love your new avatar. I get goose bumps just thinking about how it affects some of our little buddies when they see it.

"You hear that, Mr. Avery? That is the sound of inevitability."

[CurtC]

I think they're inspired to it, like in so many other things, by life-experience-through-movies.

I wrote my thesis on life experience.

[boloboffin]

I call it "fatigue trolling."

The best way to wear down debunkers is emotionally. By starting new JAQing accounts, they raise your hopes that you're explaining sense to someone momentarily confused, and then, BAM! They begin the datadump.

You either find a way to maintain a civil composure, or you begin to kneejerk attack any new person that comes along, or you just ignore any new person that comes along, or you just give up. The second, third, and fourth options are fine by the disinformationalists.

[T.A.M.]

Love your new avatar. I get goose bumps just thinking about how it affects some of our little buddies when they see it.

Well thank you...Mr. James!

I call it "fatigue trolling."

The best way to wear down debunkers is emotionally. By starting new JAQing accounts, they raise your hopes that you're explaining sense to someone momentarily confused, and then, BAM! They begin the datadump.

You either find a way to maintain a civil composure, or you begin to kneejerk attack any new person that comes along, or you just ignore any new person that comes along, or you just give up. The second, third, and fourth options are fine by the disinformationalists.

Very interesting take on it. I had not thought of it that way, but I can see how this could be a tactic for some of them.

TAM:)

[thesyntaxera]

Why do they feel the need to do this? Is a little bit of intellectual honesty too much to ask?

Perhaps the first thing to do when trying to answer these questions would be to stop looking at every "twoofer" as if they are below your thinking capacity, and to begin entertaining the idea that they might just be curious about what is fact, what is speculation, and what is utter lunacy. There is so much information out there cluttering up the facts of the matter that for the lay person it is difficult to sort them out.

Undoubtly there are plenty of 'die hards' out there that just want to get a rise out of the members of this forum that are also SO certain of themselves.

I am not a structural engineer, nor am I privy to the exact 'ins and outs' of the whole investigation. I am not qualified to review the findings of the investigation or to conduct any other type of investigation independently. I doubt many here are. Sure, I can read the published reports, but they mean little to me without the core knowledge and expertise. So where does that leave me?

Since I am uneducated in such matters I am left to seek others who may have those answers. On one side is a dedicated group of people who believe one theoretical series of events, and on the other is another equally dedicated group of people who believe and entirely different and much more sinister series of theoretical events. Because niether side is adequately able to supply an explanation that satisfies all involved we(the uninformed masses) have to chose the one that best suits our level of comprehension. The more informed we become the easier it is to form an opinion.

In case you haven't noticed...which I doubt...conspiracy related video's are all the rage online. Zeitgeist alone has been at the top of the google video charts for some time and is showing no sign of going anywhere. Meanwhile, where is all the information that is supposed to over turn all of the 'insights' provided by the pro-CT side of this debacle? There are websites and poorly made documentaries that are constructed with the hope of correcting factual errors, but most as far as I have seen are complete and utter suck.

There has not been to the best of my knowledge anything of concrete nature released that utterly debases the CT premises. I doubt there will be any time soon either. The entire CT movement is based on creating doubt in the minds of the viewers, and this is something they are exceedingly good at. All they have to do is get people to question the facts and their job is done.

Because the CT job is so easy and the Fact-er's job so difficult this entire effort of correcting falsehood will take forever unless some one actually takes the time to address all of the supposed incongruities no matter how insignificant, and presents them in a way that is as easy to digest as Zeitgeist. Maybe some one should write a grant or something???

All of the logical rationalizations, and all the the appeals to occam's razor mean nothing without evidence to back them up. Stating that the burden of proof is on the CT'er only prolongs the debate, for all the CT's need to do is continually supply what they consider to be reasonable doubt.

So, if you want the endless cycle to end I would suggest offering something tangible that a less informed person can make use of...one that preferably entertains and debases every argument without condecending those that have or do entertain some of the notions presented by the CT angle.

[ElMondoHummus]

So, if you want the endless cycle to end I would suggest offering something tangible that a less informed person can make use of...one that preferably entertains and debases every argument without condecending those that have or do entertain some of the notions presented by the CT angle.

Tangible sites addressing addressing conspiracy arguments have been out there for some time now. The 911 Myths and Debunking 911 sites do the job, albeit in a rather dry fashion, but one of the biggest annoyances I have about stuff like Loose Change is the attempt to impart serious information with a damn soundtrack, so to me, dry is good.

Gravy's links at the top of this forum address many of the basics too.

The tangible resources are out there. People just need to use them.

[danielk]

I am not a structural engineer, nor am I privy to the exact 'ins and outs' of the whole investigation. I am not qualified to review the findings of the investigation or to conduct any other type of investigation independently. I doubt many here are. Sure, I can read the published reports, but they mean little to me without the core knowledge and expertise. So where does that leave me?
The thing is, you don't need to be a structural engineer to realize the conspiracy theorists have a few screws loose. When the topic first started to make the rounds about six years ago, I argued against it simply by using common sense and looking at possible motives. Conspiracy theories tend to have the conspirators engage in arcane and pointless plots with no benefit at all. It's like Austin Powers.

There has not been to the best of my knowledge anything of concrete nature released that utterly debases the CT premises. I doubt there will be any time soon either. The entire CT movement is based on creating doubt in the minds of the viewers, and this is something they are exceedingly good at. All they have to do is get people to question the facts and their job is done.
You don't need to be good at anything in order to make up stuff. The conspiracy theorists debase themselves, really.

So, if you want the endless cycle to end I would suggest offering something tangible that a less informed person can make use of...one that preferably entertains and debases every argument without condecending those that have or do entertain some of the notions presented by the CT angle.
Actually if you want something that works for the less informed, the condescending approach is one way to do that. I.e. make it clear that you don't want to side with the insane guys. This can backfire, though.

[CHF]

Why do they feel the need to do this? Is a little bit of intellectual honesty too much to ask?

Apparently so.

Sure doesn't take long for their mask to slip, does it?

[1337m4n]

Actually if you want something that works for the less informed, the condescending approach is one way to do that. I.e. make it clear that you don't want to side with the insane guys. This can backfire, though.

It usually backfires. Likability is a huge aspect of persuasiveness. You don't want to come off as a [donkey]hole, as people tend to be more inclined to agree with the polite guy than the nasty guy (all other things equal, of course).

Take the Ron Paul movement, for instance. They go around harassing people in mobs (did you see that video with Sean Hannity being chased by Paul supporters), and Paul gets a tiny percent of the vote and is seen as a fringe kook.

Then there's those extremist Atheists who call the religious things like "deluded" and "brainwashed" (some even go so far as to call religion "child abuse"), and are then baffled when polls show a significant portion of the public wouldn't even consider voting for an atheist President. (No disrespect intended, because I know there's a lot of atheists on JREF, myself included. I'm just sayin', it's not good PR).

Granted, both of those examples are largely the fault of extremists who claim to represent the mainstream of the group (or even just unconsciously give off the impression that they represent the mainstream). But they illustrate an important point: People don't like mean people.

It's also why the Truth Movement is doing so poorly (even by fringe group standards): most of it's members are blatantly hostile to dissent and will accuse you of everything from being brainwashed to being "in on it".

[MIKILLINI]

It usually backfires. Likability is a huge aspect of persuasiveness. You don't want to come off as a [donkey]hole, as people tend to be more inclined to agree with the polite guy than the nasty guy (all other things equal, of course).

Take the Ron Paul movement, for instance. They go around harassing people in mobs (did you see that video with Sean Hannity being chased by Paul supporters), and Paul gets a tiny percent of the vote and is seen as a fringe kook.

Then there's those extremist Atheists who call the religious things like "deluded" and "brainwashed" (some even go so far as to call religion "child abuse"), and are then baffled when polls show a significant portion of the public wouldn't even consider voting for an atheist President. (No disrespect intended, because I know there's a lot of atheists on JREF, myself included. I'm just sayin', it's not good PR).

Granted, both of those examples are largely the fault of extremists who claim to represent the mainstream of the group (or even just unconsciously give off the impression that they represent the mainstream). But they illustrate an important point: People don't like mean people.

It's also why the Truth Movement is doing so poorly (even by fringe group standards): most of it's members are blatantly hostile to dissent and will accuse you of everything from being brainwashed to being "in on it".

This is a good post, 1337, and I'm not an atheist:). The last paragraph describes many truth members perfectly.
If there is a case to be made for brainwashing, truthers have the market cornered as brainwashed cult followers.

[thesyntaxera]

Tangible sites addressing addressing conspiracy arguments have been out there for some time now. The 911 Myths and Debunking 911 sites do the job, albeit in a rather dry fashion, but one of the biggest annoyances I have about stuff like Loose Change is the attempt to impart serious information with a damn soundtrack, so to me, dry is good.

Gravy's links at the top of this forum address many of the basics too.

The tangible resources are out there. People just need to use them.

I am aware of the sites availability, however, not having the time right now to review all of them in detail I would wonder how many of them contain actual commentary by qualified persons in the scientific fields in question? Any idea? How many of them are merely Gravy's own personal commentary on the claims made by CT's? Is Gravy qualified to assess the scientific papers in question?

Taking a minute to glance over one of the sites I see that there are links to scientific papers. Is there any attention paid to the counter claims made against these investigations?

I will take the time to look into these in more detail later, however at this point there doesn't look like there is much to actually detract from the counter claims in the minds of those who are set to believe them...if anything the latent disdain for 'twoofers' would put off anyone who doesn't already have their mind made up one way or the other.

[TheRedWorm]

Since when has science mattered to the so called "truth seekers?"

[thesyntaxera]

The thing is, you don't need to be a structural engineer to realize the conspiracy theorists have a few screws loose. When the topic first started to make the rounds about six years ago, I argued against it simply by using common sense and looking at possible motives. Conspiracy theories tend to have the conspirators engage in arcane and pointless plots with no benefit at all. It's like Austin Powers.

Here's the thing... You do need to be a structural engineer to critique anything in the structural arena, as well you need the appropriate scientific education to critique any other respective area's being discussed. Unfortunately, CT's can not simply be debunked with inducutive(there's that word again) reasoning. The only thing that will truly solve this is a complete and thorough refutation of ALL the points on a point by point basis. Eventually the CT will refute itself if this is done, unfortunately I don't think anyone with the knowledge or resources would be inclined to do so outside of making some free web pages.


You don't need to be good at anything in order to make up stuff. The conspiracy theorists debase themselves, really.

To those inclined to not believe them.


Actually if you want something that works for the less informed, the condescending approach is one way to do that. I.e. make it clear that you don't want to side with the insane guys. This can backfire, though.

Condescension is one way yes...and how well has it worked so far?

[thesyntaxera]

Since when has science mattered to the so called "truth seekers?"

Well, it is being invoked to support CT claims, all that is required is for it to be falsified. I am not aware of any personally, but surely some one has falsified Jones' papers...haven't they?

[TheRedWorm]

If Jones paper has been falsified, do you think that Jones would acknowledge it, and retract his paper?

[danielk]

The only thing that will truly solve this is a complete and thorough refutation of ALL the points on a point by point basis.
Good luck. That's an impossible task. They just make up new points as they go!

Eventually the CT will refute itself if this is done, unfortunately I don't think anyone with the knowledge or resources would be inclined to do so outside of making some free web pages.
It already is internally inconsistent, and thus refutes itself.

To those inclined to not believe them.
To those who know a logical inconsistency when they see one.

Condescension is one way yes...and how well has it worked so far?
Can't tell. I don't know anyone who has turned this into a strategy yet.

[Brainache]

Well, it is being invoked to support CT claims, all that is required is for it to be falsified. I am not aware of any personally, but surely some one has falsified Jones' papers...haven't they?

The thing is, as I understand it, scientific debate takes place in the pages of peer reviewed journals. So far the Truth Movement's experts have failed to publish anything in any reputable peer reviewed journal. If they ever do, then you will see them debated by the scientists in relevant fields. Until then, sites like this one and the others already mentioned are all you can expect. No one here does this for a living, it's just a weird hobby as far as I'm concerned.

[Morrigan]

You know, I wonder if we might do the same thing to the Truthers, just for the fun of it (and to some extent to get back at them). Register at LCF, Pilots for Truth, or AboveTopSecret pretending to be a neutral JAQ-offer, then very slowly turn debunker.
Nah, as soon as you ask tough questions, you'll be accused of being a government shill or faker or something.

I wrote my thesis on life experience.
Kudos for the Simpsons reference.

[Reality Believer]

Here's the thing... You do need to be a structural engineer to critique anything in the structural arena, as well you need the appropriate scientific education to critique any other respective area's being discussed. ....

I disagree on big picture principles. Obviously point by point has been done countless times. This may be good for an audience looking on, but it does nothing to move the discussion forward. A very effective debunking can be done against a technical argument by one who has no knowledge of the subject at hand, but rather one who is skilled at the "persistent but polite" method of discovering causes of belief by asking a series of why, how, when, questions. It compels the claimant to respond to the reasons behind why he believes his point. The questioning will quickly resolve itself, which is rare in point by point refutations of minutia. Look at some of these threads that run into hundreds of pages. What is being accomplished really?

The other tactic could be to concede the technical point immediately with, "Ok, suppose you are right, now what?". It again avoids the pointless minutia and moves on to questions of larger scope and scale. That is where the real meat of the argument lies.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I call it "fatigue trolling."

The best way to wear down debunkers is emotionally. By starting new JAQing accounts, they raise your hopes that you're explaining sense to someone momentarily confused, and then, BAM! They begin the datadump.

You either find a way to maintain a civil composure, or you begin to kneejerk attack any new person that comes along, or you just ignore any new person that comes along, or you just give up. The second, third, and fourth options are fine by the disinformationalists.


That may be the effect, but I seriously doubt it's the intent. I honestly don't believe many, if any, of those people have engaged in that kind of forethought.

[thesyntaxera]

Would it be fair to say then that this firmly rests in the individuals perception almost totally, and that any attempt to debunk the CTer's will do no real good if those that are spreading the information are impervious to attacks no matter how well reasoned?

No single individual that I am aware of could convincingly argue this either way from what I have gathered. You either have people willing to accept one form of logic or another.

[Reality Believer]

Would it be fair to say then that this firmly rests in the individuals perception almost totally, and that any attempt to debunk the CTer's will do no real good if those that are spreading the information are impervious to attacks no matter how well reasoned?

No single individual that I am aware of could convincingly argue this either way from what I have gathered. You either have people willing to accept one form of logic or another.
The most hardcore CT's have a blind faith in their beliefs. There were some early influences, that seemed to connect with other personality traits to form the belief. As in religion and hydrolysis, breaking this bond, would require copious amounts of electricity.

[Newtons Bit]

Here's the thing... You do need to be a structural engineer to critique anything in the structural arena, as well you need the appropriate scientific education to critique any other respective area's being discussed. Unfortunately, CT's can not simply be debunked with inducutive(there's that word again) reasoning. The only thing that will truly solve this is a complete and thorough refutation of ALL the points on a point by point basis. Eventually the CT will refute itself if this is done, unfortunately I don't think anyone with the knowledge or resources would be inclined to do so outside of making some free web pages.

There are some of us here who are structural engineers, and we do refute the more technical papers by the truthers. Most truther, however, don't seem to be phased by this. They can understand the math or the concepts to begin with. All they really care about is someone who appears to be able to do the math disagrees with the OCT.

[Dave Rogers]

Well, it is being invoked to support CT claims, all that is required is for it to be falsified. I am not aware of any personally, but surely some one has falsified Jones' papers...haven't they?

The big problem with falsifying Jones's papers is that he operates in precisely the manner you described earlier in this thread. He rarely makes any concrete [1] assertions of his own, he rather concentrates on trying to raise reasonable doubt about the accepted explanation by saying "It couldn't have happened this way", often by misrepresenting the evidence to make it look more unlikely. Even his therm*te hypothesis oscillates wildly between describing therm*te as an incendiary (because explosives make a bang) and as an explosive (because incendiaries can't be controlled well enough). What Jones writes are not scientific papers by any stretch of the imagination; they are politically motivated obfuscation, and they're designed not to have anything specific enough to actually pin down and address. Trying to refute them is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.

Dave

[1] Except about the lack of it.

[CHF]

Why do they feel the need to do this? Is a little bit of intellectual honesty too much to ask?

You know, I think a possible reason for such reluctance to admit ones true colours is a touch of embarrassment.

"I'm not a truther, BUT....." seems kinda like a teenager buying a copy of Model Railroads Weekly and placing it atop his porno magazine at the checkout counter.

[danielk]

You know, I think a possible reason for such reluctance to admit ones true colours is a touch of embarrassment.

"I'm not a truther, BUT....." seems kinda like a teenager buying a copy of Model Railroads Weekly and placing it atop his porno magazine at the checkout counter.
... and swaps the two magazines if in proximity to peers.

[ElMondoHummus]

I am aware of the sites availability, however, not having the time right now to review all of them in detail I would wonder how many of them contain actual commentary by qualified persons in the scientific fields in question? Any idea? How many of them are merely Gravy's own personal commentary on the claims made by CT's? Is Gravy qualified to assess the scientific papers in question?

Taking a minute to glance over one of the sites I see that there are links to scientific papers. Is there any attention paid to the counter claims made against these investigations?

I will take the time to look into these in more detail later, however at this point there doesn't look like there is much to actually detract from the counter claims in the minds of those who are set to believe them...if anything the latent disdain for 'twoofers' would put off anyone who doesn't already have their mind made up one way or the other.


It's a bit disingenuous to invoke "qualified persons in the scientific fields in question" when much of the information presented at those sites are not papers like Bazants, or analyses like Greening's, but instead are simply pages pointing out errors and misperceptions peddled by conspiracy fantasists. For example, take the charge of a CNN correspondent saying "there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon (http://911myths.com/html/jamie_mcintyre_and_the_pentago.html)": No "qualified person" in the communications field is needed in order to show the proper context of that quote, nor is any such professional needed in order to explains that this isn't any sort of claim that no plane was involved. So no, not all of it involves commentary by "qualified persons in scientific fields". For many conspiracy claims, none is needed.

Also, in reference to Gravy's "qualifications": Again, much of that information isn't a scientific analysis. You should go look. Much of it is simply a centralization of witness testimony. Some of it is analysis of conspiracy fantasists statements. And the rest is simply the same as I mentioned above: A discussion of the errors made by conspiracy fantasists, plus text explaining the errors and providing information properly contextualizing the information fantasists present.

Third, in references to the "links to scientific papers": Yes, there is attention paid to the counter claims. Many are made here. I do not know of any made at the sites I refer to (FactCheck and others here who own those sites can correct me if I'm wrong about that), but many "counter claims" do not address what's posted at the sites. For example, Gordon Ross's work does not address issues outside of the energy required for building collapse, so therefore the only places such info needs to be addressed are the places where that topic is discussed.

If you do not think there is much to "actually detract from the counter claims in the minds of those who are set to believe them", you are correct. There is only factual analysis, listing of errors, and presentations of context regarding fantasists claims, healthy skepticism of such conspiracy claims, and a regard for proper logic and analysis of all factors. What's missing are conspiratorial attitudes, deliberate witholding of context, and fantasy projected from suspicion rather than opinion generated from analysis of facts. So yes, that won't change the conspiracy fantasists minds, but what it does do is present information for those who are truly interested in research and factual analysis.

[thesyntaxera]

It's a bit disingenuous to invoke "qualified persons in the scientific fields in question" when much of the information presented at those sites are not papers like Bazants, or analyses like Greening's, but instead are simply pages pointing out errors and misperceptions peddled by conspiracy fantasists. For example, take the charge of a CNN correspondent saying "there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon (http://911myths.com/html/jamie_mcintyre_and_the_pentago.html)": No "qualified person" in the communications field is needed in order to show the proper context of that quote, nor is any such professional needed in order to explains that this isn't any sort of claim that no plane was involved. So no, not all of it involves commentary by "qualified persons in scientific fields". For many conspiracy claims, none is needed.

Your missing the point I was trying to make I think. The only way to refute anything as factual or not would be to use scientific methods in relation to scientific problems that arise. You are describing a wholly different problem, and while being right in your statement, it has little to do with what I was getting at. The point was that in order to refute certain aspects of the CT that are claimed to be based in science one needs use the pertainent scientific professionals. Anyone can read the NIST or FEMA reports, but few know what is actually involved in those investigations besides the people who are qualified, hence the need for qualified reviewers.

Also, in reference to Gravy's "qualifications": Again, much of that information isn't a scientific analysis. You should go look. Much of it is simply a centralization of witness testimony. Some of it is analysis of conspiracy fantasists statements. And the rest is simply the same as I mentioned above: A discussion of the errors made by conspiracy fantasists, plus text explaining the errors and providing information properly contextualizing the information fantasists present.

I checked out the rest late last night.

Third, in references to the "links to scientific papers": Yes, there is attention paid to the counter claims. Many are made here. I do not know of any made at the sites I refer to (FactCheck and others here who own those sites can correct me if I'm wrong about that), but many "counter claims" do not address what's posted at the sites. For example, Gordon Ross's work does not address issues outside of the energy required for building collapse, so therefore the only places such info needs to be addressed are the places where that topic is discussed.

Counter claims don't need to address whats on the sites though. Isn't the whole point to come up with an endless series of what if's to draw any refutations into question? As has been demonstrated already, the more you debunk the deeper they go.

If you do not think there is much to "actually detract from the counter claims in the minds of those who are set to believe them", you are correct. There is only factual analysis, listing of errors, and presentations of context regarding fantasists claims, healthy skepticism of such conspiracy claims, and a regard for proper logic and analysis of all factors. What's missing are conspiratorial attitudes, deliberate witholding of context, and fantasy projected from suspicion rather than opinion generated from analysis of facts. So yes, that won't change the conspiracy fantasists minds, but what it does do is present information for those who are truly interested in research and factual analysis.

I agree, I just wonder how good of a job it does. If this were just a competetion of information the CT side of this is way in the lead. What I think I was initially trying to address is that there is a lack of comprehensive data available for people who are seriously just curious. The majority of the hits returned are CT related...or worse, hence the desire(at least from me) for some type of in depth, entertaining video that contains good fact based information.

As in religion and hydrolysis, breaking this bond, would require copious amounts of electricity.

Damn, I knew with was something.