Comments on: 42nd Skeptics Circle http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/01/42nd-skeptics-circle/ I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:11:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: David Ecklein http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/01/42nd-skeptics-circle/comment-page-1/#comment-20157 David Ecklein Sat, 02 Sep 2006 13:36:34 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/01/42nd-skeptics-circle/#comment-20157 This is all good stuff, but most of these involve beating dead horses that are not found on the roads I most often travel. Lately, I have more frequently come across echoes of the bizarre (to me) Griffen/Jones theory that government sappers were responsible for 9/11 in a Bush pre-event conspiracy. That there is a post-event administration conspiracy to exploit this event for the justification of the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions seems obvious and still proven by daily events and statements. I am agnostic on the question of the extent of administration foreknowledge (the notion that perhaps they had intelligence that something was up, let it happen as a pretext for policy), since this pattern has been suggested with some evidential support in the the case of the Rooosevelt administration vs. the Japanese prior to Peal Harbor. Early on, skeptic Michael Shermer briefly attacked this theory, but a thorough debunking of the Griffin/Jones proposition is still missing. It would be worth a book. Its proponents have several already on the market, selling well to wishful thinkers. This is all good stuff, but most of these involve beating dead horses that are not found on the roads I most often travel.

Lately, I have more frequently come across echoes of the bizarre (to me) Griffen/Jones theory that government sappers were responsible for 9/11 in a Bush pre-event conspiracy. That there is a post-event administration conspiracy to exploit this event for the justification of the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions seems obvious and still proven by daily events and statements. I am agnostic on the question of the extent of administration foreknowledge (the notion that perhaps they had intelligence that something was up, let it happen as a pretext for policy), since this pattern has been suggested with some evidential support in the the case of the Rooosevelt administration vs. the Japanese prior to Peal Harbor.

Early on, skeptic Michael Shermer briefly attacked this theory, but a thorough debunking of the Griffin/Jones proposition is still missing. It would be worth a book. Its proponents have several already on the market, selling well to wishful thinkers.

]]> By: icemith http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/01/42nd-skeptics-circle/comment-page-1/#comment-20158 icemith Sat, 02 Sep 2006 11:55:18 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/01/42nd-skeptics-circle/#comment-20158 I'm all for too encompassing. Ivan. I’m all for too encompassing.

Ivan.

]]> By: Jack Hagerty http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/01/42nd-skeptics-circle/comment-page-1/#comment-20159 Jack Hagerty Sat, 02 Sep 2006 01:36:13 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/01/42nd-skeptics-circle/#comment-20159 Andy Says: "You are planning to make a lot of “42″ jokes, right?" Nah, that would be too all-encompanssing. Andy Says: “You are planning to make a lot of “42″ jokes, right?”

Nah, that would be too all-encompanssing.

]]> By: Andy http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/01/42nd-skeptics-circle/comment-page-1/#comment-20160 Andy Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:36:51 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2006/09/01/42nd-skeptics-circle/#comment-20160 You are planning to make a lot of "42" jokes, right? right? You are planning to make a lot of “42″ jokes, right?

right?

]]>