Comment: Searching for truth

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: What gets me tingly is the (see in situ)

Searching for truth

I'm not making fun of you, I'm making fun of scientific illiteracy. If you're searching for truth you'll also want to shun scientific illiteracy, because it doesn't lead to truth.

Let me put it this way. If someone sees one of the billboards or whatever and wants to look into these questions, and the first ten things they see are bogus, what's their reaction going to be? Suppose they're not sheepishly just swallowing it, they're looking at both sides of the argument. The see a photo of a diagonally-cut girder; thirty seconds later they've found a video about a cleanup crew making those diagonal cuts to take down standing beams. They see an argument that confuses acceleration due to gravity with kinetic energy, and they remember enough high school physics to roll their eyes at it and laugh. They see a video that seems to be arguing that free-fall doesn't start immediately much like a dragster may be delayed getting off the starting line, and again they roll their eyes and laugh. And so on. Have they been won over? Or have they been convinced that to be a truther you have to be scientifically illiterate and cherry pick the evidence? Anyone who wants the truth should be happy to see bad arguments rejected.

No duh, 9/11 has been used as an excuse for many, many horrible things, domestically and abroad.

I recently reviewed everything I could find that Ron Paul said about 9/11. I didn't find anything I disagreed with. I think he was right that it was about blowback, and that he's right that a new investigation is needed. I happy to defend those things. I don't care to be associated with theories about holographic planes and disintegration rays and militant scientific illiteracy.