So, you wanna be a skeptic?

By Phil Plait | March 30, 2009 11:22 am

If you read this blog, chances are you’re skeptical about something. Maybe you think all psychics are frauds, or Jenny McCarthy is a massive health threat, or homeopathy is killing people who should be taking real medicine, or the 911 Truthers are full of it. I’m sure there’s some form of bad thinking out there that sticks in your craw. And maybe, like me and many, many other folks, you’ve had enough.

Knowing that stuff, reading about it, is a whole lot different than getting off your keister and doing something about it. If you’ve got the itch, the need, the desire, the passion to get up and do something about all the nonsense facing the world, what can you do?

What’s the next step?

What Do I Do Next?

I’m glad you asked. Daniel Loxton, a long-time skeptical activist, gathered together a dozen other go-getters to create a guide for people who want to fight the good fight. Called "What Do I Do Next?" (PDF), it’s chock full of advice to get you off your sofa and into the action. It has tons of great information for you, with details on how you can accomplish your goals. There’s also an online Quick Reference Guide, a shorter version if you’re impatient like me. The bulleted list has just the facts with quickie advice. There’s also a Skeptical Activism page on Skeptics.com, and a forum where you can interact with other like-minded folks.

Let me ask you a question: who are your skeptical heroes? Randi? Genie Scott? Michael Shermer? Penn&Teller? Barbara Forrest?

Do you think these folks have always been giants in their field? No. They started off just like you and me. Intelligent, curious, reality-based people who, one day, had had enough. So they did something about it. That’s what Robert Lancaster did. That’s what Tim Farley did. That’s what Rebecca Watson did.

They did something, and they’re making a difference. So can you. Get involved.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Antiscience, Cool stuff, JREF, Skepticism

Comments (66)

  1. Sounds like a great resource! Need to print me off a few of these and have them for whatever “Drinking Skeptically” meeting I can manage to get together. :)

  2. scotth

    That’s what Phil Plait did.

  3. Elmar_M

    On a slightly related note:
    Youtube just kicked the channel and all videos of the JamesRandiFoundation. Is there a way for us to help? I mean, is there an email- adress of youtube to send our complaints and offensive words for this to?

    Sorry for the slight OT. Phil, are you on to that?

  4. Elmar_M

    PS: I have 60 email adresses and I can make a youtube account with every single one of them and then mirror the JREF videos on each of them. Right now they are down though, so I cant…

  5. Also slightly OT:

    I’ve already blogged about the JREF account suspension on youtube. I just saw the video while I was watching videos. What in the world is going on with youtube?

  6. Bill

    The latest edition of the Skepticality podcast has Derek and Swoopy interviewing Loxton about this. Very good episode – highly recommended.

  7. Charles Boyer

    “What in the world is going on with youtube?”

    YouTube is rather kneejerk about complaints, and they act before they investigate as a matter of course.

  8. I’ve got to wonder what the complaint is.

    Anyway, sorry for the offtopicness.

  9. BigBadSis

    Doing something about it could also include teaching our children to act and think rationally. This is not as easy to do as you would think, especially when they are fed bunk from all around, even by me when it was time for Santa Claus and the Easter bunny. But if you can’t write a blog, or you can’t write Youtube or your congressman every time an issue comes up, you can at least lovingly add skepticism to your dinner table talk. I’d like to learn more about how to do that. SkepticDad has been a good resource for me (don’t know how to add links, but go to http://skepticdad.wordpress.com/).

  10. BigBadSis

    Oh, yay! It added it for me.

  11. Craig

    So you can be skeptical about something but if you aren’t skeptical about things in the same way as are you, then those people are whack jobs?

    A rather cryptic comment, so please allow me to explain. I am a layperson with a lot of skepticism around what happened on 9/11. I don’t claim that there is some conspiracy or whatever, but I do have many unanswered questions. I don’t think we have all of the facts around 9/11, ergo that makes me skeptical. However, I often see in this blog and in PZ Meyers’ blog comments to the effect that people who question 9/11 or indeed, global warming, are comparable to anti-vaxxers or religious zealots, i.e., not real skeptics.

    Am I just reading something into those type of comments, or is that an accurate description?

  12. Craig,

    You readily admit to being a layperson, so there are a lot of things that may be beyond your experience regarding 9/11. If you head over to the JREF forums, there is a place that has all the data there pretty much laid out. 9/11 is pretty much an open and shut case. We may not have 100% every single nano-second accounted for, but the official transcripts are pretty spot on.

    As for the anti-vaxxers, again, the data is there. The only thing that supported nutcases like Jenny McCarthy (bodycount at 142) was a FAKED report. Again, the overwhelming evidence is that the anti-vaxxers are loopy.

    Anthropomorphic global climate change is a bit tougher. There is a great deal of evidence that supports it, but there is probably more unknowns in that field than in the previous two examples. What ends up happening is that any time anyone DARES admit that they don’t know, it’s tantamount to admitting that their whole body of work is bunk (which, it’s not!). Let’s just say that there are more gaps in concrete knowledge there, hence why the debate is more vigorous.

    Hope that helps a bit Craig. :)

  13. Craig

    Larian,
    Thanks for that — it does help.

  14. And also, keep in mind that skeptics, just like everyone else, are individuals, so we come in all flavours of humanity. It’s like herding cats sometimes! :D

  15. ND

    Craig,

    This depend on the specifics of the questions themselves and the facts that are discussed surrounding events such as 9/11. Early on a lot of conspiracy theorists asked questions by pointing out that the melting point of steel was above the temperatures reached by the fires in the two towers. This completely neglects the fact that steel will start to loose strength before it turns into liquid (melting point). At least that’s how I remember this very major conspiracy point that was thrown out there very early on. Corrections are welcome.

    Questions and facts can be crafted in a deceptive manner to insinuate a conspiracy. What may seem like honest and legit skeptical view can be a cover to promote a factually incorrect idea. Some are very upfront about their take on conspiracies and other are much more subtle and deceptive in their presentation.

  16. Elmar_M

    I have had that discussion (9/11 conspiracy) with someone else before. It is actually pretty obvious that what we all saw happening is what happened (I watched it live on CNN as the second plane crashed into the second tower). There is this conspiracy theory that says that the towers were imploded via explosives. Well the first question I have to ask people then is: Then why bother flying planes into them? Why fly planes into the towers and then use explosives anyway? That does not make any sense! A terrorist attack with explosives would have been just as plausible. It had been tried before after all.
    So naa, us sad as it is. This was another example of religious fanatism killing people. Like it or, or not.

  17. Jeff

    Yes, there are kooks everywhere, stupid ideas, always were, always will be. But come on, let’s get into a case by case , and not a blanket rule.

    or the 911 Truthers are full of it?

    No way. There are architects, engineers, physicians, govt. officials, defense dept. people, philosophers, pilots, all have web sites for 911 truth. Check out the science, it is beyond doubt the twin towers were demolished intentionally, and likely for obvious political reasons. But look at the science, and there is no longer any doubt. Are all these great people “kooks”. The perps would like you to think that, to lump all controversial ideas into the nutter category, very convenient cover for them to hide anything they want to do under.

  18. Though I wouldn’t describe myself as having “had had enough” to get me into this game, I nevertheless saw an untapped resource and launched (with the help of many others) a whole new category of skeptical activism. It’s #29 in the list and is building a head of steam. Even the BA himself has signed-up to participate in our coming event in CO.

  19. “Let me ask you a question: who are your skeptical heroes?”

    As a shout-out (and a sidebar): I grew up reading Jacques Monod, Albert Jacquard, Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould — all great skeptics; I feel great gratitude for their writings. And I want to add Barbara Mikkelson of Snopes.com, for debunking urban legends!

  20. Quiet Desperation

    If you read this blog, chances are you’re skeptical about something.

    I’m skeptical of any human being being worth the $20 or so of chemicals and minerals that compose their body. And before anyone asks, yes, I’m most skeptical if *I’m* worth it.

    Let me ask you a question: who are your skeptical heroes?

    There are no more heroes. The center is not holding. All is dark and dismal as I finally realize the goth kids were absolutely right. Woe is us and so on and so forth and blah blah blah.

    The Apocalypse will strike soon, now, and all that will be left for our entertainment are books by Nietzsche, MSNBC and poorly coded casual video games.

    So can you. Get involved.

    What do you suggest? Wasn’t it *you* who said a while back it’s really hard to get noticed as a blogger if you start now?

  21. ND

    Jeff,

    Did you actually yourself understand the science that was presented on those sites?

  22. Elmar_M

    What do you have against the goth kids?
    Most of them are born skeptics…

  23. Elmar_M

    Jeff, if we put everything else aside. Just stay very simple and pragmatic. Tell me, what is the reason for flying planes into buildings that you are blowing up with explosives anyway?
    I am trying and trying and I can not think of one reason for it. So that conspiracy theory is on very weak legs from the start.

  24. I need a rubber bracelet that says WWPPD, or WWMSD, or WWNDTD, or WWRWD, or WWJRD… Except that rubber bracelets are stupid and no one would get it anyway. Maybe a t-shirt.

  25. Jeff

    elmar_m,

    basically no comment , no comment.

    But think about this, for every conclusion, there is a premise. People don’t usually realize they are assuming a premise is set in stone, and so draw a logical conclusion from it. But what if your basic premise is not correct to begin with?? Then any conclusion you draw from the flawed conclusion is invalid.

    No to be evasive, but anything I say will be likely assailed with several more questions, and it would be endless.

  26. BigBadSis

    Sorry about the weird post above. For some reason my prior comment did not post, so the one that appeared is out of context. Way out. I’ll have to rewrite what I said when I get back. LOL.

  27. BigBadSis

    Okay, that is very weird. Now my first post is up there. I swear it wasn’t there before. I swear.

  28. spencer

    Yay for work color copiers. Got a full color copy of the whole thing sitting next to me.

  29. ND

    WWJCD -> What Would Jackie Chan Do?

  30. Jeff,

    “No way. There are architects, engineers, physicians, govt. officials, defense dept. people, philosophers, pilots, all have web sites for 911 truth.”

    Sorry, but those folks, even the ones who have qualifications (philosphers do NOT) are well in the minoroty in their profession.

    ” Check out the science, it is beyond doubt the twin towers were demolished intentionally, and likely for obvious political reasons.”

    Actually. It is well in doubt. In fact, the evidence for demolition is very, very, very weak. It usually depends on the politics of the claimant than anything resembling science.

    ” But look at the science, and there is no longer any doubt. Are all these great people “kooks”.”

    Yes. Very often they are. Gage, for example, has demonstrated that he not only does not know what he is talking about, but that he might not be stable. The others you list are often well into kooky territory.

  31. Sir Eccles

    Regarding youtube and kneejerk takedowns:

    To certain extent, depending on the law under which the complaint is made (e.g. DMCA), youtube is pretty much obliged to act before they investigate. It’s a shame the law is written/interpreted this way but it isn’t all youtube’s fault.

    More general comment regarding conspiracy theories etc:

    It may appear that skeptics come across as rude to the people that propose crazy conspiracy theories but it is only because they have become tired of having to answer the same point over and over again without these people apparently being willing to listen.

    How many times do you have to repeat that steel weakens considerably well before it is molten? How many times do you have to say that really is a picture of an airplane flying into the Pentagon? …

  32. mapnut

    I made this comment under “The ABC’s of Skepticism”, but it promptly got lost in a severe topic hijacking. This is a better topic anyway for my question: Why do you and your allies define yourselves as skeptics? It’s a morally neutral term, and in fact works both ways – for example, global warming skeptics and evolution skeptics. In fact, isn’t a skeptic more likely a person who doesn’t believe the prevailing wisdom? You’re not a “skeptic” when you know you’re right and can back it up. To call yourself a “skeptic” with respect to the Moon Hoax or the vaccine-autism link or homeopathy way understates your position.

    “Debunker” works much better.

  33. okaasan59

    My skeptical hero is myself. :-)

  34. ND

    Sir Eccles,

    Not just pictures but witnesses who had a very clear view of the event. It flew over a populated area after all. It’s very easy present a different picture by cherry-picking those eyewitnesses who could not identify what they say or only saw a blur.

  35. Todd W.

    @ND

    Not to mention live television coverage of the first plane strike during which TV crews, from multiple stations, caught video of the second plane going in. I saw it live, as did (probably) millions of others.

  36. QUASAR

    Heroes are for zeros but I do admire Randi’s work.

  37. ND

    I didn’t have cable on 9/11 so I was following what people were describing on IRC, otherwise I would have watched it live then too. Very bad day.

  38. Jeff

    Matthew,

    “Sorry, but those folks, even the ones who have qualifications (philosphers do NOT) are well in the minoroty in their profession.

    Maybe the others are just scared? If they join the “kooks”, they’ll be branded “kooks” themselves and they well know it, so are keeping mum

  39. ND

    Jeff,

    “Maybe the others are just scared? If they join the “kooks”, they’ll be branded “kooks” themselves and they well know it, so are keeping mum”

    Do you have anything to support this idea? You’re guessing here.

  40. Todd W.

    @ND

    Saw it on broadcast news, actually. We got word that a plane had hit one of the towers, so a bunch of coworkers and I headed to one of the TVs to see what was what…we were watching that when the second plane hit. Still brings shivers.

  41. Elmar_M

    @Sir Eccles
    Why the hell did they have to take down the entire channel then? No, this was a coordinated attack on JREF by Google (they are really evil and yeah I total see a conspiracy theory there… anyway).

    @Jeff, about conspiracy theories:
    I have noticed that most government involving conspiracy theories are coming from the US. Here people are not so into that and trust me our government is evil to your face (170,000 USD a year for a fracking secratary for every EU senator? Thats what I call evil!).
    Anyway, in regards to the 9/11 conspiracy (and also to the JFk- assasination conspiracy- theory), I have the following explanation as to why they emerged and why they became so popular:
    The thought of an all powerful government that is very evil is less unsettling to people than the thought of a government that was incapable of preventing this from happening. The idea that there was no Jack Bauer, James Bond, McGyver or A- Team to stop the 9/11 attacks, or the JFK- assassination does not fit the picture of the mighty super power USA. People would much rather believe that the stuff was ordered by the government for whatever reason.
    That is at least my theory.

  42. “Maybe the others are just scared? If they join the “kooks”, they’ll be branded “kooks” themselves and they well know it, so are keeping mum”

    I’m sorry, that is just patently ridiculous. These are engineers from all walks of life , from all around the world, with all levels of education and the ones who claim explosives were used are a fraction of a fraction of a fraction. That’s not a minority opinion being suppressed, that just the expected level of crankery to be found in almost any profession. In fact, its kind of low for the crankery level.

  43. Jeff

    Matthew,

    Imagine in the days of the Copernican Revolution, were there a lot of Galileo’s and Giordano Bruno’s coming out of the woodwork to support Copernicus? No, because the inquisition would have burned them at the stake. Even Copernicus himself waited until his deathbed to publish his paper, and Galileo recanted half-heartedly to save himself.

    So these 911 truthers instead of being “kooks” are brave revolutionaries .

  44. TheBlackCat

    So these 911 truthers instead of being “kooks” are brave revolutionaries .

    The fact that they are still alive disproves this. Actually, the fact that they are still alive disproves their points entirely. If they can talk about this stuff as much as they want with no negative ramifications, then what is stopping those who know about the conspiracy from doing the same thing?

  45. HvP

    Jeff,

    Data is all that matters. Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein etc. had copious data that survived rigorous testing. That’s all that matters.

    Politics, character assassination, and personal testimony all fade into the background compared to data.

  46. Jeff:

    OK, that comparison is just plain ridiculous.

    1) The world’s national engineering institutes are not the Catholic church 300+ years ago. They base their work on evidence and not a religious doctrine. When they studied the failure of the WTC they learned a lot they didn’t know before. But what they learned is not considered ‘sexy’ by the Conspiracy Theorists. There is no evidence whatsoever for the use of demolitions in the towers. So that is why engineers do not give such ‘theories’ any credence.

    2) You are basically invoking the Galileo Fallacy. Look it up.

    3) Think about what you are saying right now: You are essentially saying that a majority or at least a decent size minority of engineers, et al. are happier to let someone get away with the mass murder of 3000+ citizens for fear of being labelled a ‘kook’. You seem to feel that the majority of engineers are cowards. That is reprehensible.

  47. Inquiring Minds

    Jeff,

    How do you know the 911 truthers are brave revolutionaries, and not David Eicke and his secrets of the lizard people?

    How do you know the global warming deniers are not brave revolutionaries, and will soon be proven right when the ice caps freeze up again and the polar bear population thrives again?

    How do you know the Holocaust deniers aren’t the brave revolutionaries they are? After all, I didn’t see 6 million bodies. Did you? Doctors say that you can only declare somebody dead when you see their body. Where are the bodies? Coincidence? I don’t think so.

    How do you know that you’re not a brave revolutionary declaring the truth about Copernicus, about how he secretly protected his work from the Evil Inquisition. The rest of us dumbos still think that Copernicus freely shared his theories with people across Europe, including senior Archbishops in Rome who were very encouraging about it, but you Sir, are fighting the brave fight and letting the truth be known!

    Jeff, Of these groups, please rank them in order of “Most Truthy” and “Most Deserving of Copernicus-like Revolutionary” status.

    a. Creationists
    b. Alien Abductees
    c. the David Eicke people
    d. Copernicus was a scaredy cat Truthers
    e. Global Warming is a Lie R Us organisations
    f. 911 Truthers (those who deny that 911 is the number for the emergency services) Not to be confused with: see below
    g. 911 Truthers (Those Who think Reno 911 is the best TV show) Not to be confused with: see below-er
    h. 911 Truthers (those who think two buildings collapsing on live TV was actually caused by giplosions [short hand for gigantic explosions])
    i. 910 Truthers (those who think it actually happened in 9/10 but the footage was delayed a day by “The Government(tm)” so they could insert shots of CGI planes into the news feed

    Thats quite a list. I’m looking forward to your answers, so I know which group to support.

    Thanks

    -

  48. Prolix

    Maybe you think … homeopathy is killing people who should be taking real medicine

    Well, I’m sceptical, but open to evidence other than the usual anecdote. Any decent homeopath would refer to a conventional doctor, and anyone self-treating for serious problems, well, that happens every day with conventional OTC medicines.

    who are your skeptical heroes?

    Sextus Empiricus

  49. it is important to step forward and voice your skeptical questions on any claim (dubious or not) to both educate yourself and others.

    Phil is one of my skeptical heroes mostly because it was Bad Astronomy that opened my eyes to the world of skepticism, as well as providing a great resource for space science news. Other big name heroes include Randi, Adam Savage, the SGU and many more.

    Another hero of mine is my friend Desiree who hosts a skeptical call in radio show called “Skeptically Speaking” (formerly Q Transmissions). The show regularly interviews scientists and experts in many fields (PZ Myers, Greg Laden, Stephen Kent, Jeremy Whitlock). I look forward to Fridays when the show airs where I can get the opportunity to call in and ask meaningful questions of great minds.

    http://skepticallyspeaking.com/

    Standing up and making yourself heard is the first step to instituting real positive change in the world.

  50. Craig

    Just to offer an answer to a question that was asked several times: “Why blow up a building that you are going to fly a plane into?”

    Possible answer: To ensure that it DOES collapse completely.
    “Shock and awe” to borrow a quote from the Bush administration.

    Anyway, I’m not hear to add fuel to a fire. My original point is that sometimes the tone of this and other blogs is that either you hold to the same skepticism as the blogger or be labeled “anti-whatever”.

    For the record, I am 100% behind science of all kinds. I especially love astronomy but all science intrigues me. My kids are vaccinated, and we are atheists.

  51. Peter B

    Quiet Desperation asked: “What do you suggest? Wasn’t it *you* who said a while back it’s really hard to get noticed as a blogger if you start now?”

    Write letters to your local newspaper. Write to your local politicians. Get involved with your local community radio station.

    I’ve written about 20 pamphlets, 1 to 2 pages long, giving a skeptical introduction to a range of topics such as Firewalking, Spontaneous Human Combustion, the Assassination of JFK, Holocaust Denial, the Apollo Hoax and Vaccines, for my local Skeptic group. As a result they’ve been distributed by the hundreds at various events the Skeptics have been involved in. With any luck they’ll be going up on our group’s web-site some time this year for people to download at their leisure.

    Who needs a blog?

  52. dre

    911 truthers? You mean like Flavor Flav? Get up a-get get get down, 911 is a joke in yo town!

  53. fellow truther

    Jeff, you have revealed yourself to them. You will have to go into hiding now to stay safe. Put on your tinfoil helmet and don’t answer the door unless they knock to the beat of “On our own” by Bobby Brown.

  54. blake

    in a similar vein, what skeptical websites do you guys recommend/enjoy?

  55. Quiet Desperation

    Write letters to your local newspaper.

    I have. Never been published despite my letters being an order of magnitude better written than the ones that do get to print, usually stuff full of logical fallacies.

    Write to your local politicians.

    I have actually phoned them, and gotten rudely treated by aides and lower level hacks. Seriously, at least here is California, they DO NOT CARE anymore what people think. They are gerrymandered in until getting termed out. Well, for now, at least. We did recently pass redistricting reform, but I’m sure the new process will be bought out and corrupted in no time.

    Get involved with your local community radio station.

    Meh. Bunch of hippies. ;-) Or 24/7 progressive jazz.

    I’ve written about 20 pamphlets, 1 to 2 pages long, giving a skeptical introduction to a range of topics such as Firewalking, Spontaneous Human Combustion, the Assassination of JFK, Holocaust Denial, the Apollo Hoax and Vaccines, for my local Skeptic group

    That’s all well and good, but what this country needs is massive giga-doses of political skepticism. You know, something beyond merely picking on the Republicans. If one good thing comes out of this downturn I hope it’s a return to proper and healthy skepticism of the G-Man.

    For what it is worth, I have turned over a dozen people away from Sylvia Browne. Her mining accident flub was the skeptical equivalent of a shiny new box of silver bullets. ;-) I got much mileage out of that.

  56. Jeff

    Inquiring Mind, I’ll try to answer your question:

    Jeff, Of these groups, please rank them in order of “Most Truthy” and “Most Deserving of Copernicus-like Revolutionary” status.

    a. Creationists
    b. Alien Abductees
    c. the David Eicke people
    d. Copernicus was a scaredy cat Truthers
    e. Global Warming is a Lie R Us organisations
    f. 911 Truthers (those who deny that 911 is the number for the emergency services) Not to be confused with: see below
    g. 911 Truthers (Those Who think Reno 911 is the best TV show) Not to be confused with: see below-er
    h. 911 Truthers (those who think two buildings collapsing on live TV was actually caused by giplosions [short hand for gigantic explosions])
    i. 910 Truthers

    In order of least to most truthy:

    c, a, b, e, d , h.

    The others may not be serious answers, so they aren’t on the list.

    I use the criteria of logical/evidence to make the ranking. Yes, there are kooky ideas, and yes, also good idea.

  57. Inquiring Minds

    There is video footage of alledged aliens, but there is none of the alledged detonation of Building 7 or the twin towers. What evidence do you have that makes you rank the 9/11 Truthies as being more reliable than video footage of aliens and eye witness statements from allegedged alien abductees?

    Am looking forward to comparing and contrasting the evidence

  58. Jeff

    Inquiring Mind:

    alien abductees: only personal accounts of their experience usually from hypnotic regression of “missing time”. I’m not aware of videos that aren’t hoaxes or too fuzzy to be taken seriously.

    twin towers: yes there are videos, the very ones that show the buildings “collapsing”. But look more carefully at them, the buildings are being turned to fine dust from the top down. Dude, what’s the biggie about demolitions? They do it everyday in Las Vegas, for heaven’s sake.

  59. “twin towers: yes there are videos, the very ones that show the buildings “collapsing”. But look more carefully at them, the buildings are being turned to fine dust from the top down. Dude, what’s the biggie about demolitions? They do it everyday in Las Vegas, for heaven’s sake.”

    For one thing, they never do a building as large as the WTC towers.

    For another, what you are claiming to see is not was is on the videos. The buildings are not being turned into fine dust, they are being obscured as they fall into a cloud of dust made by drywall, concrete, etc.

    Also, the explosives that would turn something the size of that WTC block into ‘fine powder’ would make enough noise to be heard in the heartland. None of the videos, nor does anyone in NYC say they heard sounds that loud. If you get a chance, go view a few building demolitions live. You might notice the explosives are pretty loud and sharp. They are nothing like the rumbling of the tower collapse.

  60. Jeff

    “For another, what you are claiming to see is not was is on the videos. The buildings are not being turned into fine dust, they are being obscured as they fall into a cloud of dust made by drywall, concrete, etc.”

    Yeah, but what a big cloud of dust it is. I don’t see anything left at the bottom except dust.

    The videos I saw, the noise seemed pretty scary and deafening loud.

  61. “Yeah, but what a big cloud of dust it is. I don’t see anything left at the bottom except dust.”

    Well, you cannot see through dust. and you are obviosly not seeing , or seeing something else from what I see in the videos and aftermath photos. Because there sure as heck was a more than dust left. All of this ignores the obscene amount of explosives you’d need for you alleged ‘dusitification’ to take place. Any such level explosives, even with shaped charges would resemble a true explosion…not ‘the block disappears into a cloud of dust’.

    This is, quite frankly, silly.

    “The videos I saw, the noise seemed pretty scary and deafening loud.”

    But not the sound of explosive charges. Not like that all. There is a huge difference between the massive rumbling sounds of the collapsing towers and demolition charges going off.

  62. To be a skeptic, you cannot just cherry pick individual cases. For example: you cannot simply say that all psychics are frauds just because Sylvia Browne is a perfect example of a psychic fraud. It is important to be skeptical. However, skepticism must not lead to aragance. Skepticism is open-mindedness. In other words, you have to be accepting of every bit of evidence. Even anecdotal evidence is considered evidence, although, it is worth squat. Anyone can say anything but that doesn’t make it true. You have to consider the authencity of the evidence before you make assumptions on it. There are people who make crap up just to get attention. However, many people do tell the truth when they speak.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »