How to tell the difference between true and false conspiracy theories

meglome

AnthonyHall wrote: »

Meglome. Check out this excerpt explaining some of Professor MacQueen's research, which involves reading the 13,000 pages of testimony given by NYC fire fighters recording their experiences and observations of 9/11.

What made you think Professor MacQueen was referring to the You Tube you saw. There are dozens of clips from 9/11 where all sorts of witnesses describe various explosions, or we actually see and hear the explosions going off. Also check out the testimony of WTC janitor William Rodriguez who is adamant that explosions went off in the basement of the place where he worked for 20 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg

You mentioned a fire-fighter and the lobby, which I replied to. I haven't the slightest problem believing there were sounds of explosions. In a situation like this it would be fairly amazing if there wasn't. The problem is linking explosion with explosive when clearly they mean different things.

Capt'n Midnight

suppose it might be an opportunity to post this

People believe that the government can manage elaborate conspiracy's for decades when they can't even manage the day to day business without cocking up, frequently

Torakx

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

suppose it might be an opportunity to post this

People believe that the government can manage elaborate conspiracy's for decades when they can't even manage the day to day business without cocking up, frequently

Ah but that statement relies on the fact that they cocked up in the first place. How do you know stuff that appears to be unforseen wasnt forseen by the people involved or someone else entirely?
So day to day bussiness is not quite the same as day to day plane crashing into a building type of bussiness but both could be seen as a cockup from someone and yet both could have been well planned.Although the planes into a building i admit may need some cooperation because of airspace and security etc etc

Also if im making a big project and i break a few pencils along the way im not going to worry about those pencils as i would the bigger stuff.So it stands to bare that it might be more likely the bigger issues are forseen and planned by someone in a few cases than focusiing on the little things that might just be a mistake along the way.With that reasoning the frequent cockups are expected as they work towards bigger ones that might be planned or might just be a massive accident..

Capt'n Midnight

so you are saying that FF planed to to trash the Irish economy yet again ?
that Maggie's plan was to hand power to Labour for a generation

People that capable could find better things to do with their time.



Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity / incompetence..

Torakx

Or greed.

meglome

Torakx wrote: »

Or greed.

But what they've done is putting a stop to their gravy train. So I'm guessing incompetence.

Brown Bomber

I just wanted to say Professor that I admire your courage and integrity in going against the grain to speak out for what you believe in. Especially considering you have much to lose professionally and in terms of reputation.

For anyone who doesn't know University of Illinois law school professor Francis Boyle in this interview explains quite clearly the pressure of conforming in academia in the US.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5wtE9wd1uU

The first I'd heard of you (or Shermer) was after you had done a very interesting radio interview with Kevin Barrett maybe a couple of months ago. So I looked into it a little and it became apparent to me that Shermer is a sleazy shill for the status-quo and you deserve credit for exposing this.

AnthonyHall

Thanks Brown Bomber. I shall alert Kevin Barrett to this discussion that suddenly takes on more depth for me now that we have established some common points of historical reference.

The more I got to know about the Shermer file the more shocking it became to me how many big and seeming reputable companies and schools have hosted this performer, who really has nothing but the most skimpy of claims to be employed at a US university.. ie TED, McGill, Charlie Rose.

Now Shermer has turned his big guns against me from his bully pulpit at Scienticfic American. Shermer responds to my exposure of his own misrepresentation of credentials at Claremont Graduate University by doing classic disinformation on me. I asserted at the University of Lethbridge and I assert now that Michael Shermer is a disgrace to the academy. In the column that began this discussion, however, Shermer would have me assert that he, Shermer, is a disgrace to the economy.

Being a disgrace to the economy, whatever that means, or a disgrace to the academy are two very different things. Shermer purposely misquotes my intervention, caught plainly on tape, in a way that strips my criticism of him of its most potent meaning. Shermer is not merely mistaken. I allege that he has knowingly committed fraud in Scientific American in his effort to demean and discredit me and to draw attention away from what I discovered about his false claim that he is adjunct professor of economics at Claremont.

Obviously I seek to set the record straight. Moreover Shermer's quote of me in Scientific American eliminates my core contention that the author of "Why People Believe Weird Things" has not reckoned with the prolific publications on 9/11 by Prof. David Ray Griffin. The contrast between the authentic and widely respected Professor Griffin and the fraud Michael Shermer could not be more telling. Michael Shermer is not tenured. He is a part-timer who occasionally team teaches a course at Claremont with Paul Zak, voodoo Professor of oxytocin, love, trust, and capitalist con jobs in a scam of a field known as Neuroeconomics.

Of course it is damaging to me professionally to have Shermer's effort to discredit disseminated so widely in what used to be the esteemed Scientific American. What is going on with this publication that it would lower itself to replicate Shermeresque disinformation?

I have been attempting to contact Fred Guterl, Executive Editor of Scientific American and the person ultimately responsible for Shermer's hit job. I have also been attempting to contact Scientific American's PR department at <SNIP> The only proper remedy is for me to get comparable space in Scientific American to respond to Shermer's mischaracterization of my work.

As I keep indicating, much of that work is now widely accessible for the consideration of colleagues and the general public in the peer-reviewed volume, Earth into Property. From all that I can see so far, it appears to me that Shermer operates generally outside the framework of peer-reviewed scholarship. Unlike Professor Griffin and I, Michael Shermer has never lived and worked within the system of scholarly peer review or the regular reporting necessary to obtain tenure and promotion up the academic ranks.

Thse comments began with Brown Bomber's comments about hearing me be interviewed by Dr. Kevin Barrett. A PhD. in Arab Studies, Kevin Barrett's employment at the University of Wisconsin was terminated for his teaching of how 9/11 has affected the treatment and perceptions of Arab and Muslim peoples around the world. This example is a small illustration that the supporters of the unsupported and unsupportable government account of what happened on 9/11 are sometimes ruthless in their defense of the myth that perpetuates the Global War on Terror. Shermer disinformation about 9/11 contributes in major ways to this pattern of demonizing all Arab and Muslim peoples.

It makes no sense that those who ask questions about 9/11 and who try to investigate the relevant information are compared to, say, Holocaust Deniers or those who study the possibility that outer space critters visit Earth. It is like comparing apples and oranges, daggers and paper clips. With the power of his rhetoric, however, Shermer connects the unconnected, assembling with a few turns of phrase disparate arrays of theories into one great big package of undifferentiated "conspiracy theories." He thereby commits the most grave form of disinformation and smear, a phrase that I learned when studying Cold War tactics of psychological warfare.

The irony is Shermer does this smear and disinformation in the name of skepticism. But he is no skeptic. Quite the contrary. The overriding thrust of his performance art is to divert real skeptical inquiry away from investigating and analysing the sometimes dark dealings sometimes deployed by the powerful to retain and expand their positions of privilege without accountability. A real skeptic whose commitment to uncover the truth is worthy of great respect is Professor David Ray Griffin, but especially when it comes to the Claremont sage's untiring investigations of the vast array of topics relevant to 9/11 Studies.

Yitzhak Rabin

AnthonyHall, please do not include emails in your posts. They get picked up by spambots and said email will be inundated with ads for viagra and kind offers to donate millions from Nigerian princes.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

And sorry stating that Germans who were alive from the 1930's to 1945 were National Socialists is like suggesting that it's weird that Irish people are Catholic. Pretty much everyone was a National Socialist in Germany then.

That's not true at all though is it?

Hitler got 30% of the vote in the Presidential elections which were won by Paul Von Hindenberg. In subsequent elections for the Reichstag the Nationalist Socialist Party never recieved more than 37% of the vote.

A minority not a majority.

Hitler only became Fuhrer after President Hindenberg had died and the Nazi false-flag attack of the Reichstag fire (9-11) put him in a position to pass the enabling act (Patriot Act) reducing civil liberties, detain people without due process (rendition) and allowed him to launch his war on communism (War on terror) to keep the population pliable and in a constant state of fear (as today).

von Holtzinbrinck founder of the parent company of Scientific American was a Nazi, who apparently used his magazines for spreading facist propoganda. Is it beyond comprehension that Holtzinbrinck today could be publishing facist propoganda?

It stands to reason that if 9-11 was a intelligence operation that the plans for the coverup were in place before the event. Shermer dishonestly conflatiing 9-11 truth with neo-nazi holocaust deniers, bigfoot trackers and alien abductees seems to me at least to be suspiciously trying to cover something up. If he is a true skeptic then he should doubt the official conspiracy theory of 9-11 due to the total absence of hard evidence and the mountain of anamolies that suggest otherwise; at least enough to doubt. He doesn't however, this "skeptic" follows the official media and politician collective standpoint of the official conspiracy theory. A true skeptic would have doubts on some aspects of the official story at least and true skeptics would differ on certain points but that is not what we see.

Brown Bomber

Here is an example of Holtzinbrinck censorship.

StudiVZ is a social networking platform for students (in particular for college and university students in Europe), based in Berlin, Germany. The name is an abbreviation of the German expression Studentenverzeichnis, which means students' directory.
The service is largely comparable to other social networking sites. StudiVZ claims to be one of the biggest social networks in Europe, with (reportedly) over 15,000,000 members as of September 2009,[1] mostly in the German-speaking countries of Germany, Switzerland, and Austria.


(...)


In January 2007, StudiVZ was sold to one of its investors, Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group, a German group which owns publishing companies worldwide, without any official figures given. Speculations vary from 20 to "over 100 million euros

The Zeitgeist movement is not one that I have any great time for however they were active on Holtzbrinc's StudiVZ.

"Were" being the operative word because all their groups were banned from the site, one with as many as 10,000 members.

This is the reason given to a member

Hello,

we deleted your group "ZG-revolution.de". So called ZG groups are no longer accepted in studiVZ. Anyhow, we want to give you the reason for our action. It is not our intension to supress alternative opinions or news, but we see with worries the developement of new theories that have been pushed, for example by the ZG movies.
The idea of gray eminences, elites or secret societies that control politics from behind the curtain is not new. The ZG movies extend these ideas to the economic system. And here the circle of the history of conspiracy theories closes: latent anti-Semitism, which shines through many of the formulated theories. For example the idea of the bad, grupping capital, which is responsible for the financial crisis and also patronage and similar means to take influence into world politic to control and guide them in their interest.
We will not explain or discuss this antisemitism, because we expect the group founders to be aware of the problematic content of their group themes. We urge you to not found any new groups with this topic or you account and profil will be deleted.

thanks for you attention, the VZ team.
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=236&id=140754&limit=10&limitstart=10

I don't know much about the Zeitgest movement but I know for a fact it is a social movement and is in now way anti-semitic. It seems as if Shermer himself wrote that response.

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That's not true at all though is it?

Hitler got 30% of the vote in the Presidential elections which were won by Paul Von Hindenberg. In subsequent elections for the Reichstag the Nationalist Socialist Party never recieved more than 37% of the vote.

A minority not a majority.

I never said anything about elections. I'm saying that the majority were, at least, supporters of the National Socialists. There were maybe 9 million members of the party alone.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Hitler only became Fuhrer after President Hindenberg had died and the Nazi false-flag attack of the Reichstag fire (9-11) put him in a position to pass the enabling act (Patriot Act) reducing civil liberties, detain people without due process (rendition) and allowed him to launch his war on communism (War on terror) to keep the population pliable and in a constant state of fear (as today).

Okay sure. And not a bit of this was secret or hidden. Other than in the very early stages.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

von Holtzinbrinck founder of the parent company of Scientific American was a Nazi, who apparently used his magazines for spreading facist propoganda. Is it beyond comprehension that Holtzinbrinck today could be publishing facist propoganda?

Apparently? Either he did this or he didn't. Again not that I'd be surprised given what Germany was like at the time. I assume that the people making the claims about him publishing fascist propaganda can back it up? I'll wait for the proof will I? Especially if he's publishing it now, should be very easy to prove.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It stands to reason that if 9-11 was a intelligence operation that the plans for the coverup were in place before the event. Shermer dishonestly conflatiing 9-11 truth with neo-nazi holocaust deniers, bigfoot trackers and alien abductees seems to me at least to be suspiciously trying to cover something up. If he is a true skeptic then he should doubt the official conspiracy theory of 9-11 due to the total absence of hard evidence and the mountain of anamolies that suggest otherwise; at least enough to doubt. He doesn't however, this "skeptic" follows the official media and politician collective standpoint of the official conspiracy theory. A true skeptic would have doubts on some aspects of the official story at least and true skeptics would differ on certain points but that is not what we see.

What I see here is rather than tackle what Shermer has said they are going after his character or credentials. Now I don't know the man and most of what I've seen of him has been posted in this thread. So far no one has been able to show the points he made as being illogical or incorrect. Might be better to drop the character assassination and deal with what he says.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Here is an example of Holtzinbrinck censorship.

The Zeitgeist movement is not one that I have any great time for however they were active on Holtzbrinc's StudiVZ.

"Were" being the operative word because all their groups were banned from the site, one with as many as 10,000 members.

This is the reason given to a member

I don't know much about the Zeitgest movement but I know for a fact it is a social movement and is in now way anti-semitic.

I see lot's of people on boards.ie crying about being banned and every time I've seen it, it has been for breaking the rules. Conspiracy groups on-line are full of anti-Semitics and anti-Semitic statements. I'm confused though on one hand the Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group is supposedly fascist or Nazi but on the other hand is banning people for being anti-Semitic. So which are they exactly?

And while we're on the subject Georg von Holtzbrinck doesn't run the company and hasn't since 1980, he must be over 90 now. But easier to go after the guy who ran the company 30 years ago than deal with the issues.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It seems as if Shermer himself wrote that response.

But what would Shermer have to do with these nazis? Or are they Zionists? I'm still confused.

meglome

AnthonyHall wrote: »

The more I got to know about the Shermer file the more shocking it became to me how many big and seeming reputable companies and schools have hosted this performer, who really has nothing but the most skimpy of claims to be employed at a US university.. ie TED, McGill, Charlie Rose.

Now Shermer has turned his big guns against me from his bully pulpit at Scienticfic American. Shermer responds to my exposure of his own misrepresentation of credentials at Claremont Graduate University by doing classic disinformation on me. I asserted at the University of Lethbridge and I assert now that Michael Shermer is a disgrace to the academy. In the column that began this discussion, however, Shermer would have me assert that he, Shermer, is a disgrace to the economy.

[...SNIP...]

It's odd isn't that all these people you mention are against you. It's all a big conspiracy. The video you bring up with Shermer and you looks like an honest mistake on his part and not some intentional misrepresentation. You on the other hand choose to believe he's out to get you. You try to assassinate the character of anyone who disagrees with you as far as I can see. You even had a stab at my spelling, but hardly a word about what I actually said. You and your ilk really irk me, the world isn't against you, maybe just maybe you're wrong.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

I never said anything about elections. I'm saying that the majority were, at least, supporters of the National Socialists. There were maybe 9 million members of the party alone. .

It seems you've pulled that 9 million figure out of your hat. Regardless I'd suspect your guess falls short of the membership numbers, that is after Hitler became Fuhrer for the simple reason that doing so would keep you off the radar of the Gestapo ala being a good party member in 1984. The situation with von Holtzinbrink is quite different however. He joined the Nazi Party in 1931 - before Hitler became Fuhrer.

In any case your "9 million members" disproves your own claim. Unless you think Germany had a population of less than 18 million???

Not that this is neccessary to prove you wrong as the Presidential and Reichstag elections prove in no uncertain terms that the majority of Germans never supported Hitler or the Nazi Party. If they did Hitler would've been President not Hindenberg and the Nationalist Socialists would have held a majority in the Reichstag. Neither happened.

[QUOTE=meglome;69406209Okay sure. And not a bit of this was secret or hidden. Other than in the very early stages. [/QUOTE]

What are you talking about??

You think Hitler and Goebells went on Nazi FM and said to the German people "OK we got this blind Dutch Communist to set fire to the Reichstag. Now we are going to blame the Commies and eliminate our political rivals and establish a dictatorship. You have no rights any more. Heil Hitler!"

meglome wrote: »

Apparently? Either he did this or he didn't. Again not that I'd be surprised given what Germany was like at the time. I assume that the people making the claims about him publishing fascist propaganda can back it up? I'll wait for the proof will I? Especially if he's publishing it now, should be very easy to prove.

Yes apparently. I've never seen the propoganda. Do you expect me to take the word unquestionably of a newspaper article?

meglome wrote: »

What I see here is rather than tackle what Shermer has said they are going after his character or credentials. Now I don't know the man and most of what I've seen of him has been posted in this thread. So far no one has been able to show the points he made as being illogical or incorrect. Might be better to drop the character assassination and deal with what he says.

Ironic since the basis of Shermer's lecture seems to be based on character assassination, straw men and generalisations.

meglome wrote: »

II see lot's of people on boards.ie crying about being banned and every time I've seen it, it has been for breaking the rules. Conspiracy groups on-line are full of anti-Semitics and anti-Semitic statements. I'm confused though on one hand the Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group is supposedly fascist or Nazi but on the other hand is banning people for being anti-Semitic. So which are they exactly? .

That's funny.

Your accusing a whole group of people whose members number in the 10

And while we're on the subject Georg von Holtzbrinck doesn't run the company and hasn't since 1980, he must be over 90 now. But easier to go after the guy who ran the company 30 years ago than deal with the issues.



But what would Shermer have to do with these nazis? Or are they Zionists? I'm still confused.[/QUOTE]

meglome

I'll tell you what, if you or your pal Anthony actually bother to prove that publishing company is fascist or nazi in some way now then the rest of the nazi discussion might be relevant. I'll wait for the proof will I?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What are you talking about??

You think Hitler and Goebells went on Nazi FM and said to the German people "OK we got this blind Dutch Communist to set fire to the Reichstag. Now we are going to blame the Commies and eliminate our political rivals and establish a dictatorship. You have no rights any more. Heil Hitler!"

Of course not. But enough people in the Nazi party knew about it at the time. After the war everyone knew about it. Still since no one has proven that there is any nazi connection here the whole point is irrelevant.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes apparently. I've never seen the propoganda. Do you expect me to take the word unquestionably of a newspaper article?

I don't expect anyone to take anything unquestionably. Which is why I'm clearly saying if someone believes some sort of nazi connection then they should prove it. Georg von Holtzbrinck hasn't been running that company since 1980, 30 years ago, so I won't hold my breath for the proof.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ironic since the basis of Shermer's lecture seems to be based on character assassination, straw men and generalisations.

What character assassination is that exactly? He mishears one thing, an honest mistake as far as I can tell. There is a list of his views on CT generally so why don't you tackle them directly.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That's funny.

Your accusing a whole group of people whose members number in the 10

Not sure what this means. But I hope you're not going to try and say the CT world isn't rife with anti-Semitics and anti-Semitic statements. Because that would just be nonsense.

Anyway back to the point... If Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing is facist or nazi why are they banning people for being anti-Semitic. Aren't those two stances polar opposites of each other?

AnthonyHall

Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

German newspaper Die Zeit in newsstand



Issue of Scientific American


Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck is a Stuttgart-based publishing holding company which owns publishing companies worldwide. Holtzbrinck has published everything from Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses to classics by Agatha Christie, Jean-Paul Sartre, Ernest Hemingway and John Updike. Amongst its well known international publications are Nature and Scientific American.
URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georg_von_Holtzbrinck_Publishing_Group&action=edit&section=1"]edit[/URL History

Established by Georg von Holtzbrinck (He joined the National Socialist German Students' League in 1931.[1])

Heh Meglome.

All I said was that the holding company of Scientific American was founded by a Nazi with a special interest in identifying and cultivating Nazi collaborators in the academy. You could have checked it yourself.

You indicate you are self taught. Fine. Excellent. But please consider the fact that its quite obvious you haven't read nearly as much as Brown Bomber and you don't seem motivated to go far beyond flag waving for Michael Shermer, who is the aggressor here. You aren't being attacked and misquoted in Scientific American. Your scholarly interests aren't being equated with those of Holocaust Deniers or theorists preoccupied with fake moon landings. You aren't being held up to public ridicule in a major magazine in ways whose effect is to negate the fruits of three decades of hard work and steady progress in academic teaching as well as research and publication.

If you had actually read the results of my investigation of Shermer's misrepresentation of his credentials, which you obviously have not, then your comments would have more clout behind them.

These comments may seem harsh, but you asked for proof and I am showing you proof from the most obvious place to look. Are you in the habit of using the Google search engine? I didn't make a big deal about Holtzbrinck's Nazi past. My purpose was simply to ask if mentioning this known known would qualify one to be cast into the pot of wicked and wacko Shermeresque "conspiracy theorists," a term that Shermer is clearly trying to medicalize with columns categorized as "mind and brain."

I want to be respectful and even appreciative of your interest in this subject and of the availability of this venue. Please accept my observations as constructive criticism. I am sure your intentions are good and its better to be directing attention to this kind of exchange than to the hypnotic distractions of television, Shermer's real home medium.

Shermer is not a genuine academic. I am. Professor Griffin is. Shermer is a TV performer with only the most ephemeral connections to the academy. He presents entertainment disguised as information. But the content of this entertainment is not neutral. It is toxic to human consciousness because it is woven around tapestries of lies and half truths. As I see him, Shermer is a troubling embodiment of the move away from even modest respect for reason and reality in the mainstream media in order to serve the perception management objectives of the war machine.

Brown Bomber is obviously in a position to understand the distinction between genuine academics, whether good, bad, or indifferent, and crass TV performers like Shermer. To reiterate, its just obvious that Brown Bomber has read a lot more in this area than you have, Meglome. And unlike the fraud Shermer, Brown Bomber has the intuitions of a real skeptic, one with the courage to peel back the layers that veil the sometimes corrupt workings of power. Shermer serves and messages power. His interpretations naturally ingratiate him to elites who have a major interest in maintaining the obfuscations on which their ability to exercise power depends.

Why refer to Brown Bomber as my "pal?" We're all strangers to one another except for our shared involvement in this medium and this blog.

Yitzhak Rabin

Prof. Hall,

Do you not see the hypocrisy of being completely incensed at the thought of someone attacking your character rather than the substance of your argument in one breath, and then in another spend your entire time attacking Shermer's character and qualifications rather than the substance of his article.

Also, in the video which I posted, your student rather cynically implies that Shermer is a paid for CIA disinformation agent. He does so, by adding a question at the end of the video, but the intention is obvious.

Why don't you take his points on how to tell a true conspiracy from a false one and then dissect each one in turn?

Also, you are disgusted at being compared to a holocaust denier. Presumably you do not deny that the holocaust occurred, but from my experience holocaust denier academics (And there are some) adopt a a similar stance to you in that they cry suppression and censorship louder than they spend actually putting forward their views.

For what it is worth, I am undecided on what the truth of what happened on 9/11 is. I am thoroughly unconvinced by the majority of the alternative theories put forward by the 9/11 truth movement. They can vary from the mildly plausible to the patently absurd. I think that given the scale of the conspiracy, orchestrating it would be an impossibility. It is therefore more likely, that if the US government had a hand in it, it was more than likely to ignore the warning signals. I am undecided if they ignored them through incompetence or malice.

For transparency could you say what you believe is the truth with the attacks on 9/11, and which particular theory you subscribe to?

Torakx

the thread topic and content is misleading imo.
We are discussing how to tell the difference between a true and false CT.
But using 9/11 as the main example is probably gong to end up another 9/11 thread especially if that last question is answered lol.
Really its a non topic because you cant really tell for sure without it not being a theory.But im enjoying it so just keep that in mind i guess as we discuss.
9/11 sounds a good well known topic, but how do you use that to show how to tell if a ct is true or false?

Maybe we should be comparing an old ct that has already been proven true instead? And an old one that is definetly popular as the true one but turned out to be surely false.

Yitzhak Rabin

Torakx wrote: »

the thread topic and content is misleading imo.
We are discussing how to tell the difference between a true and false CT.
But using 9/11 as the main example is probably gong to end up another 9/11 thread especially if that last question is answered lol.

You're probably right, but seeing as we Prof. Hall is the subject of the article and is kindly here discussing it with us, it was always going to end up going down the 9/11 route.

Maybe we should be comparing an old ct that has already been proven true instead? And an old one that is definetly popular as the true one but turned out to be surely false.

Thats a good idea.

I think a classic example of a CT that was true is the Watergate scandal. If we look at that in the context of Shermer's 'how to tell a true one' it holds up well enough.

Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections—or to randomness—the conspiracy theory is likely to be false.

This wasn't the case. The CT focussed on the one event.


The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. People are usually not nearly so powerful as we think they are.

Clearly no extraordinary power was needed for it to succeed.


The conspiracy is complex, and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.

Doesn't fulfil this criteria


Similarly, the conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets. The more people involved, the less realistic it becomes.

Watergate illustrated this point well. It involved only a very small amount of people and even they couldn't keep quiet about it. Thats one of the major reasons I don't believe that the controlled demolition theory could possibly be true, based on the huge number of people that would need to be involved.


The conspiracy encompasses a grand ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, the theory is even less likely to be true.

Again, watergate wasn't about geo-political domination.


The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger, much less probable events.

Watergate stayed small.

The last few points are irrelevant and imo, not particularly useful.

An example of an equally popular theory that didn't come to fruition... well there are lots, but the goalposts often move when the date go by, or no date is applied.

Examples would be that the UN was created to form a one world government, or, I remember when barcode technology was introduced lots of people claimed the NWO would use it to tattoo them onto children when they were born. The goalposts on that one changed, now its that RFID, or smart cards will be used instead.

AnthonyHall

Here are the results of my investigation of Michael Shermer's credentials. I have made extensive inquiries at Claremont and you can see I am not making unfounded allegations but rather drawing on actual research. I am not taking wild pot shots like Shermer does in his effort to smear me in Scientific American piece but rather I am presenting the evidence of my research which I have published for all the world to see and evaluate on the Internet at

http://www.theprogressivemind.info/?p=50397

A version also appears in antifascist encyclopedia and Salem News, which first published the article. In the article you will see that Shermer raised the whole issue of the CIA. I merely quoted what he had to say on the subject as a prelude to asking about his funding sources.

OK. You can say I am criticizing Shermer and Shermer is criticizing me so what's the big deal. The fact is that Shermer is criticizing me in Scientific American and I am criticizing him in this venue with maybe one-millionth of the reach of Scientific American and none of the prestige that SA has built up over more than a century.

When I began the intervention at Boards.ie my main objective was to develop the case that I should have the right of reply in Scientific American. Should I be extended that right by Fred Guterl, who is the Executive Editor of the magazine? Who would support me in my assertion that Mr. Guterl should extend me equal space and with equal prominence to answer Michael Shermer's effort to maim me professionally. The fact is that I seriously outrank this adjunct professor of something or other. But he had the microphone and the podium on September 23. And he has access to Scientific American, an access that balance and equity demands should also be extended to me on at least a one-time basis to allow me to defend my professional reputation and to set the record straight according to my lights.

It is my contention that Shermer purposely misquoted me-- ie a disgrace to the "economy" rather than a disgrace to the "academy"-- to divert attention away from my very serious allegation from which, you might notice, I am not backing way. When the phrase, "disgrace to the academy," first came from my mouth I knew much less than I now know about Shermer's ephemeral relationship with Claremont. I knew nothing of his relationship with the psy ops lab of Professor Paul Zak. To see the outcome of my post-Sept. 23 research on Shermer's relationship to the academy, see the article linked to above.

In my view I have not led the discussion off topic. In fact I am the lead topic of Shermer's article. I have tried in this discussion to point out the absurdity of treating so-called conspiracy theories as Shermer does. No one has yet addressed in a serious way my allegation that his six point plan for detection of false conspiracy theories is indicative of the deep flaws in the whole framework of Shermeresque analysis.

I allege that Shermer's real agenda, whether or not he realizes it himself, is aimed at directing the tools of real skepticism away from the sometimes dark workings of power. This anti-skepticism or pseudo-skepicism dressed up as real skepticism, is, in my view, the underlying reason why Michael Shermer is given such prominence in mainstream media venues, including the once-venerable Scientific American. Mainstream media venues are often owned by the same cartels that are integral to workings of the military-industrial complex. Mainstream media cartels are losing credibility in the eyes of millions because they so often evade the truth to protect and advance the interests their rich and powerful owners-- intersts that often benefit most from the activities of the machine. Those who benefit most from the activities of the permanent war economy in the United States must renew and elaborate the public mythology on which tax payers' willingness to support the 9/11 Wars depend.

Is it likely that Shermer would join in this discussion to engage in real, evidence-based debate as I have been attempting to do in this venue? I have tried to respond to criticisms of me in a respectful manner even if I have sometimes met criticism with criticism.

Please show yourself Michael Shermer. Debate me on your conception of true or false "conspiracy theories." What are you afraid of? Please acknowledge my right of reply Fred Guterl. With so many real professors to choose from, why have you selected an individual who misrepresents his academic credentials as a regular columnist in Scientific American? What is the your philosophy in putting together the magazine? How does the publication of Shermeresque pseudo-science express that philosophy?

sponsoredwalk

Even though I went & made sure it was clear for all to see that even
though you were in fact interpreting something barely audible with
extremely sinister motives it doesn't even matter either way using
academy or economy. Still, you reiterate this standpoint which now has
been called for nothing but a hypocritical character assasination technique
by more than just me. Based on this evidence alone you've thoroughally
discredited yourself & phrases like "anti-skeptic" & "Shermeresque" are
nothing more than indirect psychological ploys to relinquish the pent-up
anger @ someone who shares a different opinion based on their own
research while also working for you in that they function as subtle forms
of changing the readers opinion. There is a more technical word
to describe the rhetorical methods you're using btw...

Conspiracy theory is the perfect description of that which you promulgate,
as I already explained you are positing a theory which states that there is
a conspiracy on behalf of the American government to attack it's own
people & use these attacks to attack others. You arguing that we
should not call a spade a spade does nothing for your credibility, it just
signifies that you are using anything but evidence to get us to change
our perspective on things for which the evidence does not convince
those who are in a position to evaluate it. I'm not an engineer & as far
as I know the consensus belief is that the buildings could not have come
down as part of some controlled experiment. Unless your consortium of
engineers are able to convince the mainstream that this is false then
I simply refuse to believe otherwise because I'm not technically
equipped to form my own conclusions. All the other theories about
hijacking the planes, taking the people off the planes secretly etc...
has never for a second convinced me because of the sheer magnitude
of secrecy that must take place & the fact that any mistake would have
put the US leaders in jail. Note that they would have done what they
were going to do anyway & the risks far outweigh the gains. This is
just logical to me & there is no argument I've read that convinces me
otherwise, let alone evidence for which this is scant. As your students
video has a scene with Griffin speaking about 3 classes of people
who interpret 911, I would agree that 911 was opportunistically
used to extend American empire & there is a lot of evidence to back
that position up.

As for "Shermer is not a genuine academic", I think his PhD says
otherwise there. Who is the one weaving "tapestries of lies and half
truths"? Seriously the amount of claims you've made in this thread
that are simply bogus is mind boggling. Not only is the claim that
Shermer is wrong about 911 bogus because the evidence is simply
in his favour as regards the mainstream consensus based off the work of
professionals equipped to evaluate this (& all the rhetoric & character assasination
we've read here hasn't convinced us otherwise) the claims about his credentials were
bogus as your enquiry ended up justifying his original claims.

professional experience

• 2007–present: Adjunct Professor, Claremont Graduate University.

...
courses taught

Claremont Graduate University (current)

1. Evolution and Society: Evolutionary Theory, Evolutionary Psychology, Evolutionary Ethics, Evolutionary Economics

http://www.michaelshermer.com/about-michael/curriculum-vitae/

The replies you got mentioning that Shermer had nothing to do with the
university from the people there are simply wrong since not only is he
working there he also got his PhD from Claremont in 1991 as his CV says
so his affiliation with the place is more than just his latest teaching
duties. What's more the constant refrain that 911 is not a conspiracy
theory when, in fact, it's nothing but that is another elucidation of this
technique of anything but evidence on your behalf to convince susceptible
readers to your side of this argument. Also this genuine academic stuff is
just more nonsense, but the worst of all this is the repeated mantra about
academy/economy to which you constantly attribute sinistra motivation
even though there is literally no conceivable way this could be
perceived as such.

I am responding to Michael Shermer's most recent column, wherein your
regular columnist misrepresents my positions and my spoken intervention
when he was at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada on the
23rd of September. For starters he wrongly quotes me as saying I accused
him of being a disgrace to the economy whereas I clearly said Mr. Shermer
is a disgrace to the academy.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december012010/shermer-critique-a.php

Video shows it's not clear. Just mind-boggling stuff, & what's Shermer's
main crime? Doing his own independent research into 911 & not being
convinced by all of the bogus nonsense promulgated by most & in the
more serious cases, such as Griffin's work, not being convinced by
doing his own reading of him. I want to repeat that you playing a
game trying to catch him out is another example of your double
standards (remember, you see him asking who caused 911 as some
sort of sinister game on his behalf but when you do something similar
it's not sly). Honestly I don't think Shermer was at fault asking you
who did it & I think the only reason you are so angry about that is
because he has highlighted the fact you haven't even got complete
evidence for this claim of yours - as you admitted yourself. So yeah
there is extremely little from you that is in any way credible &
the psychological techniques we've had to point out to you are
enough evidence of this to anyone who can read this. There is quite
a list of claims here I've made & I await either you or anyone who
thinks I'm wrong to point out the flaws on my behalf but honestly I'm
just using your words as my evidence so it'd be pretty funny to see
how this works out :cool: Another thing that particularly strikes me is the
playing dumb game on behalf of you & your student. What do I mean?
Well first there is the academy-economy thing which I know you can
understand as being questionable since you made that word inaudible
by moving as you spoke it. But also there is playing dumb at the end of
your students video about who is funding Shermer & Skeptic magazine.
Implying Shermer brought up the question first as your justification
for enquiring further is hilarious since you'd already sent multiple e-mails
enquiring down this very alleyway in the first place Also, the way
you describe the situation at the talk, Shermer did not stir up any
vigilante etmosphere, & I like how your student tried to get away with
that claim, but you had been shouting from your seat & the comparison
to anthropoligists & sociologists is null & void because these people
have meticulous & empirical case studies backing up their claims
corroborated over decades in many cases. A final thing about playing
dumb is focusing on Shermer saying he'd read all of Griffin's work,
I'll admit he did say that & shouldn't of but it's common parlance to
say things like that & @ least he's clarified that he'd read enough to
get to the substance of Griffin's claims. You may think he's wrong
on that but he has every right to give his opinion & unless Griffin's
claims are enough to convince the mainstream & show that the main
consensus is wrong, which I don't think it has done as of yet, then he
has every right to state his opinion of the work.

So, to answer the OP's question based on the literally unfolding
case study we've experienced I think the way to distinguish a
true CT from a bogus CT is to analyse the arguments & honesty of
the rhetoric by those positing that for which extraordinary evidence
is required. If, as in this classic example, we find no substance
& instead find psychological techniques being used as weapons to
both discredit an opponent while also acting as ploys to subtley
coax unconscious opinions into unwary readers then skepticism most
certainly must be directed at that person. If we then find that when
we have our own evidence of some specific event, as in the academy
economy example, & find those positing extraordinary claims also
misinterpreting what we can clearly see, especially attributing sinister
& ulterior motives to something so stupid as a barely audible word,
then yeah I think it's an example of overactive confirmation bias.
I'm sorry, I've tried to be nicer about this but it's just how I see
this bizzare situation. Bashing me as Shermeresque or whatever is
fine, I don't really care it doesn't invalidate the points I've made.
As I said before you could have taken the noble route & focused on
sticking with the evidence in the form of the engineers or use some
incriminating documents as of yet unpublished but debasing into this
character assasination on Shermer does nothing for 911 claims.
All I've focused on was your actions in this situation & found what I
see as flaws, it's in no way representative of you or what you do I think
it's just another example of people going crazy when 911 is involved.
So there's nothing, in my opinion, that justifies your witch hunt of
Shermer basically.

As for zeitgeist & censorship, I understand the motivation of the
webhosters. It's common knowledge that arguments about bankers
are motivated by some Jewish conspiracy & while I don't think
zeitgeist has made any argument specifically mentioning Jews these
arguments have been around for years. I recently learned this was
all NWO related, i.e. subtle Jew bashing, & the webhosters were
pretty clear in that they seen the zeitgeist thing as just an off-shoot
of this. They are wrong I'm sure but I think the zeitgeist people could
have simply made clear the differences to the webhosters. You don't
go off screaming bloody murder when someone makes a mistake, & it
seems this thread already has it's token example of that :pac:

meglome

AnthonyHall wrote: »

Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group

heh Meglome.

All I said was that the holding company of Scientific American was founded by a Nazi with a special interest in identifying and cultivating Nazi collaborators in the academy. You could have checked it yourself.

I have no problem believing that ol' Georg was a member of the Nazi party in his student days, him and millions of others. The real issue here is you are saying/implying they disagree with you because they have nazi leanings or sympathies. The problem with your mud slinging (and that's what it is) is that ol' Georg hasn't run the company since 1980, over 30 years ago.

AnthonyHall wrote: »

You indicate you are self taught. Fine. Excellent. But please consider the fact that its quite obvious you haven't read nearly as much as Brown Bomber and you don't seem motivated to go far beyond flag waving for Michael Shermer, who is the aggressor here. You aren't being attacked and misquoted in Scientific American. Your scholarly interests aren't being equated with those of Holocaust Deniers or theorists preoccupied with fake moon landings. You aren't being held up to public ridicule in a major magazine in ways whose effect is to negate the fruits of three decades of hard work and steady progress in academic teaching as well as research and publication.

So a little jab and me then stating how everyone is out to get you.

AnthonyHall wrote: »

If you had actually read the results of my investigation of Shermer's misrepresentation of his credentials, which you obviously have not, then your comments would have more clout behind them.

Well so far I've heard a lot of complaining that people are out to get you and no substance. (and another little stab at me)

AnthonyHall wrote: »

These comments may seem harsh, but you asked for proof and I am showing you proof from the most obvious place to look. Are you in the habit of using the Google search engine? I didn't make a big deal about Holtzbrinck's Nazi past. My purpose was simply to ask if mentioning this known known would qualify one to be cast into the pot of wicked and wacko Shermeresque "conspiracy theorists," a term that Shermer is clearly trying to medicalize with columns categorized as "mind and brain."

We'll you specifically brought up the nazi connection and made no mention of why Scientific American disagree with you. Are they all out to get you?

AnthonyHall wrote: »

I want to be respectful and even appreciative of your interest in this subject and of the availability of this venue. Please accept my observations as constructive criticism. I am sure your intentions are good and its better to be directing attention to this kind of exchange than to the hypnotic distractions of television, Shermer's real home medium.

My intentions are good but you seem focused on me rather that what I said. Which you are doing with Shermer too.

AnthonyHall wrote: »

Shermer is not a genuine academic. I am. Professor Griffin is. Shermer is a TV performer with only the most ephemeral connections to the academy. He presents entertainment disguised as information. But the content of this entertainment is not neutral. It is toxic to human consciousness because it is woven around tapestries of lies and half truths. As I see him, Shermer is a troubling embodiment of the move away from even modest respect for reason and reality in the mainstream media in order to serve the perception management objectives of the war machine.

More character assassination and not one word on the subject we were discussing. Seems like it's a habit for you. I have a feeling irony is not your friend.

AnthonyHall wrote: »

Brown Bomber is obviously in a position to understand the distinction between genuine academics, whether good, bad, or indifferent, and crass TV performers like Shermer. To reiterate, its just obvious that Brown Bomber has read a lot more in this area than you have, Meglome. And unlike the fraud Shermer, Brown Bomber has the intuitions of a real skeptic, one with the courage to peel back the layers that veil the sometimes corrupt workings of power. Shermer serves and messages power. His interpretations naturally ingratiate him to elites who have a major interest in maintaining the obfuscations on which their ability to exercise power depends.

Personally I judge people on their actions and words. I have no idea what Shermer is like though his words so far have made good sense. You on the other hand are focused on telling us what a bad person Shermer is with constant character assassination, all the while accusing him of it. (Not forgetting the additional little stab at me). You have completely failed to actually address what we were discussing. I don't know you but I really don't like your tactics nor that you have no understanding of what hypocrisy is.

Oh and why did you sign off one of your posts 'Graeme'? You wouldn't be lying about your identity would you?

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

I never said anything about elections. I'm saying that the majority were, at least, supporters of the National Socialists. There were maybe 9 million members of the party alone. .

It seems you've pulled that 9 million figure out of your hat. Regardless I'd suspect your guess falls short of the membership numbers, that is after Hitler became Fuhrer for the simple reason that doing so would keep you off the radar of the Gestapo ala being a good party member in 1984. The situation with von Holtzinbrink is quite different however. He joined the Nazi Party in 1931 - before Hitler became Fuhrer.

In any case your "9 million members" disproves your own claim. Unless you think Germany had a population of less than 18 million???

Not that this is neccessary to prove you wrong as the Presidential and Reichstag elections prove in no uncertain terms that the majority of Germans never supported Hitler or the Nazi Party. If they did Hitler would've been President not Hindenberg and the Nationalist Socialists would have held a majority in the Reichstag. Neither happened.

meglome wrote: »

Okay sure. And not a bit of this was secret or hidden. Other than in the very early stages.

What are you talking about??

You think Hitler and Goebells went on Nazi FM and said to the German people "OK we got this blind Dutch Communist to set fire to the Reichstag. Now we are going to blame the Commies and eliminate our political rivals and establish a dictatorship. You have no rights any more. Heil Hitler!"

meglome wrote: »

Apparently? Either he did this or he didn't. Again not that I'd be surprised given what Germany was like at the time. I assume that the people making the claims about him publishing fascist propaganda can back it up? I'll wait for the proof will I? Especially if he's publishing it now, should be very easy to prove.

Yes apparently. I've never seen the propoganda. Do you expect me to take the word unquestionably of a newspaper article?

meglome wrote: »

What I see here is rather than tackle what Shermer has said they are going after his character or credentials. Now I don't know the man and most of what I've seen of him has been posted in this thread. So far no one has been able to show the points he made as being illogical or incorrect. Might be better to drop the character assassination and deal with what he says.

Ironic since the basis of Shermer's lecture seems to be based on character assassination, straw men and generalisations.

meglome wrote: »

II see lot's of people on boards.ie crying about being banned and every time I've seen it, it has been for breaking the rules. Conspiracy groups on-line are full of anti-Semitics and anti-Semitic statements. I'm confused though on one hand the Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group is supposedly fascist or Nazi but on the other hand is banning people for being anti-Semitic. So which are they exactly? .

That's funny.

Your accusing a whole group of people whose members number in the 10's of 1000's of anti-semitism. Thousands of individuals with unique perspective. Thousands of individuals who you know absolutely nothing about, nothing at all. And what the **** is a "conspiracy group"?

It's funny because you are doing exactly the same as Shermer. Your conflating anti-semitism with a social movement and bundling it all up as a "conspiracy theory". Are you capable of differentiating between two seperate entities? Or is everything that you don't understand a "conspiracy theory" to be labelled as racist and to be scoffed at?

Think about what you are saying...

You do the sufferers of actual anti-semitism harm by throwing out accusations of anti-semitism with absolutely zero foundation in fact. You've used this particularly nasty slur so flippantly here you delegitimize the term anti-semitism.

Yitzhak Rabin

meglome wrote: »

Oh and why did you sign off one of your posts 'Graeme'? You wouldn't be lying about your identity would you?

Its worth pointing out that I sent a PM to AnthonyHall when he first started posting, asking him to drop me an email from his faculty account to confirm his identity. He never replied, so I would also have my doubts as to whether this is actually Prof. Hall, and not someone, perhaps one of his students, writing on his behalf?

Edit: Actually that post it seems he was quoting a colleague of his Graeme Mc Queen and not signing off as Graeme.

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... snip...

BB I already replied to this at the top of the page. Nothing more I'd like to add really.

AnthonyHall

The tone suggests that really is you, Michael Shermer. Please confirm or deny.

Let's take it one step at a time. Let's start at the beginning.

Where did I ever say there was a conspiracy on behalf of the American government? You interrupted my comment during the Q and A session in your presentation at Lethbridge to ask who I thought "did it." I don't know who "did it." I have read Peter Dale Scott's peer reviewed The Road to 9/11 and he raises a lot of questions about Cheney on 9/11 and over a three decade period leading up to that fateful day. What's your opinion of PDS's work? This accomplished academic is a Canadian too, an important public intellectual who is the son of a very famous public intellectual in my country. I would not take it well if you dismissed the work of PDS as glibly as you dismissed the work of David Ray Griffin, a full professor at Claremont who, unlike you, has more than paid his dues in the academy.

So, again, you start by putting words in my mouth seemingly based on some kind of intuitive sense you have about the collective position of a generic category of investigator, good, bad, or indifferent, tenured or untenured, that you identify as "truthers." Or, when you are really felling the need to generate hatred towards the targets of your sneering contempt, you employ the term of derision, "troofers." .

Please address my first point before we move on.

Thanks,

TH

sponsoredwalk

I don't know who that is addressed to as it doesn't really address any of
the points made in the posts responding to you but a simple test to find
out whether or not one of us is Michael Shermer would be to go & read
our old posts on this website & corroborate them to Shermer's posts on
the New Scientist website or his own skeptic website.

I've been checking out some stuff earlier & Prof Hall Shermer has plenty of
essays online explaining his reasons why he doesn't believe the 911 claims,
also he addresses these points in many videos that I was able to find in
5 seconds on google. I seen a video today in which he literally explains
why he compares 911 advocates to Holocaust deniers. You should do some
research into that as it would clarify some things for you.

Another thing I thought of today that would have been a lot better &
more credible a method of deconstructing Shermer would have been to
do an analysis of his previous writings on this topic & compare/contrast
his points to the arguments made by you & Mr. Griffin showing the
contradictions in Shermer's points, assuming the exist, and also answering
some of the criticisms Shermer makes. So far none of this has been done
& all we've seen is the ad hominem approach so characteristic of a
discussion of 911. I've answered all the ridiculous claims you've made
in this thread and the few external links as you've hopefully read & I
honestly don't think you deserve any form of response in the New Scientist
when someone like me is just able to read your stuff, watch your videos &
have a conversation with you only to find the big list of problems I made
above. The only problem I had with Shermer, with regard to 911, was
the Holocaust comparison but if you go & actually do that 5 minutes of
research into why he does this you'll see what he means. The problems
I've found with your approach are numerous and made explicit in my
previous posts, basically this is just a big waste of time & will solve
nothing for anyone. A credible thing you could do here would be
to do a comparison of his old analyses of 911 claims, show the
flaws through yours & Griffin's evidence & then I think you'll have
enough material to convince him otherwise. You can call him X, Y & Z
but anyone who looks at his history can respect the fact that he
goes & challenges holocaust deniers, creationists & their offshoot ID'ers,
anti-vaccine people etc... & anyone with this kind of past tells me that
if you show his analysis wrong & use evidence to point out the flaws
you'll have his attention. I've just got to clarify, I mean you do know this,
you do know that any curious person inquiring into the history
here will see that you never went for the substance of Shermer's claims
at all & instead went after his employment, his reputation & claimed he
purposely misrepresented you by getting wrong a trivial descriptive
word that is barely audible. I mean if that is academic, as you have
claimed of yourself in this thread numerous times, then I really pity
the field of globalization studies. But it's not & we both know that you
don't behave this way in any other area of interest, as I've said before
for some reason with 911 people think all this crazy ridiculous methodology
is somehow justified...

By the way, first you sign off with Graeme, now it's TH? If we're being
misled then I apologise to Mr. Hall for the things that may have been
said to someone else in these posts here in his name but not for the
comments I made focusing on the external links/essay's & video material
which I have mentioned. I honestly just think this is a big waste of time
acheiving nothing & certainly not validating any claims with regard to 911.

AnthonyHall

Sorry Sponsored Walk. You are obviously not Michael Shermer. It seemed you were writing from his perspective in the first couple of paragraphs. As I read on, however, I see my initial impressions were wrong.

Dave!

Michael Shermer has discovered this thread! Those of you following him on Facebook will already have seen the following:

Michael Shermer
U. of Lethbridge prof Anthony Hall claims that I "serve the interests of power by teaching anti-skepticism to divert attention away from..."

Michael Shermer
Hall quote cont... "the machinations of the plutocrat class in monopoly capitalism." I didn't know I was so powerful! http://bit.ly/foC4y9

Michael Shermer
Hey, where's my $ from my capitalist paymasters? I need a raise. My daughter is in college-I have bills-I'll join the proletariat otherwise.

Hi Dr Shermer!

meglome

AnthonyHall wrote: »

The tone suggests that really is you, Michael Shermer. Please confirm or deny.

Is anything not a conspiracy to you?

AnthonyHall wrote: »

Let's take it one step at a time. Let's start at the beginning.

That would be great because so far you've just slung mud.

AnthonyHall wrote: »

T
Where did I ever say there was a conspiracy on behalf of the American government? You interrupted my comment during the Q and A session in your presentation at Lethbridge to ask who I thought "did it." I don't know who "did it." I have read Peter Dale Scott's peer reviewed The Road to 9/11 and he raises a lot of questions about Cheney on 9/11 and over a three decade period leading up to that fateful day. What's your opinion of PDS's work? This accomplished academic is a Canadian too, an important public intellectual who is the son of a very famous public intellectual in my country. I would not take it well if you dismissed the work of PDS as glibly as you dismissed the work of David Ray Griffin, a full professor at Claremont who, unlike you, has more than paid his dues in the academy.

So even after your talk of 13,000 pages of evidence you don't know who did it? 9 years after the events you can't even offer us who you think did it or why. I'm no expert on the law but surely the first thing you'd need to do is put forward a cogent alternative theory. The fact there isn't one speaks volumes for your so called evidence.

AnthonyHall wrote: »

So, again, you start by putting words in my mouth seemingly based on some kind of intuitive sense you have about the collective position of a generic category of investigator, good, bad, or indifferent, tenured or untenured, that you identify as "truthers." Or, when you are really felling the need to generate hatred towards the targets of your sneering contempt, you employ the term of derision, "troofers." .

And off on another attack on Shermer. No doubt we're all stunned.