Shermer uses an array of deceptive methods to persuade the reader that challenges to the official story of the 9/11 attack are worthy only of ridicule and should not be scrutinized. His primary technique is to use hoaxes and unscientific ideas -- long promoted on the web and in videos -- to bracket the valid ideas that he seeks to shield the reader from. That Shermer went to such great lengths to thoroughly misrepresent the painstaking, scientific, evidence-based work of 911Research is a testament to the site's success.
moments before collapse
Scientific American's Dishonest Attack On 911Research
by Jim Hoffman
May 26, 2005
The editors of Scientific American followed in the footsteps of Popular Mechanics in exploiting a trusted brand in order to protect the perpetrators of the mass murder of 9/11/01. The column by Michael Shermer in the June, 2005 issue of Scientific American, titled Fahrenheit 2777, is an attempt to deceive the magazine's readers into dismissing the overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was an inside job without ever looking at that evidence. More specifically, Shermer attempts to inoculate readers against looking at the decidedly scientific refutation of the official story found on our website, 911Research, with a cluster of disinformation techniques including:
* Mis-attributing to 911Research the erroneous statement that steel's melting point is 2,777ºF
* Falsely implying that 911Research embraces a straw-man argument that the official account of the Twin Towers' collapses depends on the fires having melted steel.
* Contextualizing 911Research as nonsense by surrounding its mention with absurd claims, and racist ideas.
Although the column aims to marginalize the 9/11 Truth Movement generally (without ever acknowledging it by name), mentioning the books Inside Job, The New Pearl Harbor, and 9/11: The Great Illusion, it appears to be aimed primarily at 911Research for several reasons:
* It is one of only two sites Shermer mentions.
* It's the alleged source of his 2,777 figure.
* It's the target of his mis-attribution of the straw man claim about melted steel.
* Its most persuasively argued claim -- that the Towers were destroyed through controlled demolition -- is the only point Shermer attempts to debunk.
(continued)
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/sciam/index.html
by Jim Hoffman
May 26, 2005
The editors of Scientific American followed in the footsteps of Popular Mechanics in exploiting a trusted brand in order to protect the perpetrators of the mass murder of 9/11/01. The column by Michael Shermer in the June, 2005 issue of Scientific American, titled Fahrenheit 2777, is an attempt to deceive the magazine's readers into dismissing the overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was an inside job without ever looking at that evidence. More specifically, Shermer attempts to inoculate readers against looking at the decidedly scientific refutation of the official story found on our website, 911Research, with a cluster of disinformation techniques including:
* Mis-attributing to 911Research the erroneous statement that steel's melting point is 2,777ºF
* Falsely implying that 911Research embraces a straw-man argument that the official account of the Twin Towers' collapses depends on the fires having melted steel.
* Contextualizing 911Research as nonsense by surrounding its mention with absurd claims, and racist ideas.
Although the column aims to marginalize the 9/11 Truth Movement generally (without ever acknowledging it by name), mentioning the books Inside Job, The New Pearl Harbor, and 9/11: The Great Illusion, it appears to be aimed primarily at 911Research for several reasons:
* It is one of only two sites Shermer mentions.
* It's the alleged source of his 2,777 figure.
* It's the target of his mis-attribution of the straw man claim about melted steel.
* Its most persuasively argued claim -- that the Towers were destroyed through controlled demolition -- is the only point Shermer attempts to debunk.
(continued)
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/sciam/index.html
Homepage:
Comments
Display the following 8 comments