Scientific American Jumps On 911 Denial Wagon, ATS mentioned

Let's also keep in mind Star Wars was only ONE movie and grew to three, the it was the first part of two trilologies.. ..

ATS is the biggest board, the most intelligent board and the longest member list board, but still it is a trilology of things and not inflated to two.

Just honest good people who as I understand it, spent many-many hours and years building ATS to what has become.
Sort of CNN and Turner.

Dallas

There are many issues revolving around 9/11 and this website is a forum for which ideas can get thrown around to potentially arrive at a consensus on the situation..........as a member more concerned with the events and mindsets that led to the tragedy, my thoughts on the subject were not represented by the article's implication.

I for one, would like to see a correction made.

I wrote Dr. Shermer a bitchy email last night, hope he reads it...

You know, I'm so mad at these guys for what they've done that I really don't feel like giving them any breaks.

Their quoted "expert"

Thomas Eagar, an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explains why: steel loses 50 percent of its strength at 1,200 degrees F;

is wrong.

No - Thomas of MIT - it loses 65% of its strength at 1200 F.



Now how would they feel if we wrote an ATSNN article that states Scientific American believes that ASTM-A36 only loses 50% of its strength at 1200 F?

Michael Shermer is unworthy of his title of Dr.

This is an undisputed fact.

One would think someone who has been deemed worthy of affixing such a title to his name would be aware of how to cite a source in an article.

A message board does not say anything. Members post information onto a message board. If "Dr." Shermer wished to quote something that appeared on a message board for his nice article, he should distinctly state that the information was posted by a member of the community.

In this particular case, as a member state above, the quote came from another website entirely. Such information tells me that "Dr" Shermer has now printed information in a nationally published magazine that belongs to that other website and did not even bother to give them any credit for it.

I must say, for a Doctor to write something like this and for a publication like Scientific American to publish it and distribute it is shocking.

Maybe I should affix "Dr" to my name since in the nearly 10 years since I finished high school I've not forgotten MLA.

Originally posted by Djarums
Michael Shermer is unworthy of his title of Dr.

This is an undisputed fact.

No. You need to dispute it if you make that accusation. Please do. Over a couple decades this mans work is worth more than that.


Dr. Michael Shermer of Occidental College has done more to deserve his degree in history than the President of the United States has done to deserve his title. You may not agree with his findings here, and Skeptic Magazine definitely misportrayed ATS - but the man is accomplished. More than most PhD's. Shermer despises creationists - and I am one. So that should make my opinion count for a little bit. He has scientifically debunked more bullstuff than anyone on this board will ever be able to. And honestly....the bombs in the building garbage is just a red herring all you "not" and I friggin emphasize not (sarcastically) sheeple completely buy into - because it's flashy. There is no credible evidence of that. We should pretend to be structural engineers because of a website. I just found the plans for an "Orange County Chopper" on the net. I suppose I'm an expert on building them now.

The most credible evidence is the "put" options on airline stock the day preceding. But that's not as flashy as the bombs. Follow that money trail and we won't look like fools. Grasp to bull# because you "believe" and we will.

That's why Shermer needs to be an ATS speaker. To ask him where the money went.

PS - I hate the word "sheeple".

I am a subscirber to Scientific American. The Dr. did not do anything wrong, he was just expressing his position, merely as we do on here. Just because he is not a member of the ATS community does not give us the right to throw away his remarks. I for one do not believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories, so I will have to side with him.

I'm probably not going to be very popular for saying this...but some of you people really should stop taking yourselves so seriously. So what, some magazine made a minor misrepresentation regarding an internet website that is (allegedly) concerned with conspiracy theories. Well, what a crime that is.
Does it really matter what has been written, or do some of you actually believe that your position is so important that any besmirchment of the forums upon which you write cannot be tolerated.

Besides, all advertising is good advertising. Come on people, lets cut the childish, misplaced indignation.

Originally posted by KhieuSamphan

I'm probably not going to be very popular for saying this...but some of you people really should stop taking yourselves so seriously. So what, some magazine made a minor misrepresentation regarding an internet website that is (allegedly) concerned with conspiracy theories. Well, what a crime that is.

Does it really matter what has been written, or do some of you actually believe that your position is so important that any besmirchment of the forums upon which you write cannot be tolerated.

Besides, all advertising is good advertising. Come on people, lets cut the childish, misplaced indignation.

That's your opinion: A low one of both this discussion forum and community.

Allow those of us that think differently and actively strive toward a greater mission some slight indignation when quoted as being Randy Lavello of Prison Planet.

Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact
www.prisonplanet.com...

By Randy Lavello

By now the misinformation and ignored findings surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks have evaporated the official version into the land of fiction. Didn't it seem strange that we learned everything of the government version by the next day? Much has been learned about the attacks, yet the official version has never changed; it seems as though our government thinks the point moot since it used this excuse to pass unconstitutional laws and wage wars resulting in oil profits. The time has come to admit the sorry truth as a nation, so that we can move on - as a nation.


The planes did not bring those towers down; bombs did.

The concepts of reputation and credibility may be as lost on you as they are on one very lazy author named Dr Michael Schermer, but they aren't lost on some of us.

I'd like us to be dangerous, not some erroneous straw man in a joker's article. How hard would it be to cite PrisonPlanet.com properly? Or any of the original research our own members have contributed to AboveTopSecret.com much of which supports Shermer's own theories?

Short of a complete lack of understanding of the Internet (which is entirely possible for a Doctorate on AOL), there's no excuse for this mistake. And given his own ridiculing tone of the assertions he's falsely attributed to our domain, he of all people should agree.

Well I agree with the statement "there's no such thing as bad publicity", but I do feel the 'good' doctor made a couple of errors that need to be called foul.

Write the magazine, express your dissatisfaction with the level of professionalism displayed by their contributors.

I don't subscribe, but I do occasionally pick up a single copy, and I have a vast collection of back issues donated by friends with subscriptions. I think they do good work generally, sort of a bridge between the serious journals and the laymans rags.

I think anybody offended by his treatment of ATS, and his lack of careful documentation should write him a letter and let him know. Even better, write his editor. Tell them to use me next time.

Originally posted by RANT
Allow those of us that think differently and actively strive toward a greater mission

Originally posted by RANT
Allow those of us that think differently and actively strive toward a greater mission...

Good luck my friend.

Originally posted by RANT
The concepts of reputation and credibility may be as lost on you...

No sir, these I am fully cognisant of these concepts, however, this board is not the BBC or some equivalent news outlet. I would not have supposed that the image of the board, perceived by others outside of the regular patrons, was a major concern, particularly as the subject matter covered here could sometimes be described as 'coming out of left field'.

However, if some users have delusions of grandeur regarding the boards significance, then so be it, but surely you can see how calls to sue can seem a little ridiculous!

Originally posted by KhieuSamphan
However, if some users have delusions of grandeur regarding the boards significance, then so be it, but surely you can see how calls to sue can seem a little ridiculous!

Well of course. That's just silly. I never suggested that.

Though if you knew Alex Jones' Prison Planet you might want to sue anyone that mistook you for it.

As to your continued derision of ATS, I suppose it's coming more from a place of just any website being equally ineffective. Ask Dan Rather about that sometime.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is a copy and paste reproduced with permission with accompanying links.

I guess the reporter at Scientific American didn't read too carefully or wasn't too interested in minor details like correct attributation.

So these are not even the views of members but a member reported what someone else said.

However, if some users have delusions of grandeur regarding the boards significance, then so be it, but surely you can see how calls to sue can seem a little ridiculous!

this is nothing about grandeur, this is about misrepresentation of the facts. Saying that this site has an opinion when in fact it is open to 'denying ignorance' and implying connotations to our domain name is a misjustice.

Nobody thinks we're important, but we are a community nonetheless. Some people are proud of the effort of excellent research and the quality of debate that goes on here, I know I am for one. I am a proud ATS member and I stand by 'denying ignorance'. When someone misuses our good name and makes us come across as bunch of ignorant, delusional and paranoid conspiracy theorists who are unable to see facts and reason, I feel that this is a misinterpretation of the community.

Big or small, powerful or powerless we all have a duty to uphold ATS as a place of integrity and intellectual debate and to uphold our image and our integrity.

Just because someone is little or insignificant doesnt mean that they should have to put up with or take slander and misuse of their name. Where is the justice in that?

And that's what its about to me. Not because I think ATS is as important as the BBC but because ATS and the people here are important to me

thanks,
drfunk


[edit on 5-6-2005 by drfunk]

ATS is more important and more relevant than Scientific American magazine. Shermer's comments and his reduction of ATS to a simple URL show the contempt he has for us on ATS and for the Internet in general, IMO.

The question is this: Regardless of what you believe about 9/11, why is it okay for a science magazine editor to get involved in politics with his magazine? Same thing with PopMech. Why do these 'pop' magazines feel the need to comment on 9/11 which was a mass-murder? Did these magazines do special insert pieces on the scientific truth of the Warren report?

I wonder if SciAm wrote any metal analysis of the ships in the Gulf of Tonkin incident. ...Oh wait! That event went off so perfectly that there was no need to run smokescreens in the media. Oh for the good old days before the Internet!

Originally posted by KhieuSamphan
Does it really matter what has been written,

Yes it matters what has been written......what would be the point of reading it if it didn't?

Originally posted by KhieuSamphan
....or do some of you actually believe that your position is so important that any besmirchment of the forums upon which you write cannot be tolerated.

Bingo. And in case you hadn't noticed, we are the premier conspiracy website and at present we are one of the most unique and interactive news sources on the net......and growing everyday......stick around for five years and see where we are then..........

By the by......some where up top someone proclaimed how bitchy their e-mail to the editor was.........good on ya, but a slight reminder that professional courtesy will go a long way towards accomplishing any goal, including this one........if we want to be taken seriously we have to earn it everywhere, especially in our displeasure.......

Originally posted by drfunk
Just because someone is little or insignificant doesnt mean that they should have to put up with or take slander and misuse of their name. Where is the justice in that?

And that's what its about to me. Not because I think ATS is as important as the BBC but because ATS and the people here are important to me

Right on, no matter how small, big, whatever we are doesn't give them the right to misquote us:

You have voted drfunk for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

turnaround is fair play. why not attribute that same quote to scientific american now?


Scientific American says:'The planes did not bring those towers down; bombs did," says Scientific American.

i mean they printed that in their mag. it's in there. they said it.

love the title, 'fahrenheit 2777'. it implies you're invited to a brown shirt's book-burning bbq.

now you debunkers know how rense feels. 'guilty by association'. do you think rense believes all the articles he HOSTS are true? i don't. i believe he is just cataloguing popular lore. if something posted on rense is true, the fact the rense hosts the article does not make it any less true.

i wonder what pons and flieshman think of controlled demolition theories? (i am implying that these two were blackballed by the 'establishment' of the 'peer review process'. their experiments HAVE been duplicated. nuclear fusion is occuring in chemical cells. cold fusion looks like a genuine energy creation process.
they were hushed up, because the work is a threat to the energy barons' status quo. there is nothing 'scientific' about it.)

Originally posted by drfunk

And that's what its about to me. Not because I think ATS is as important as the BBC but because ATS and the people here are important to me

I agree I think this could be a great opportunity to come back as a whole and express our opinions, if ATS site is to be mentioned they should do it right.

I feel that as a "conspiracy site" ATS can not be taken seriously by the so call "Dr." and "experts"

I demand "RESPECT" for this site as a member.

Somebody should go and said something in the behave of the ATS comunity.

(just my opinion)

Whomever and however, they could have at least checked for spelling errors I mean, grammer should at least be of some importance in being a reporter, no?
Whomever again, should be a reporter and not copy/paste something.Perhaps a little research and an article on their own would have been best.But at the same time, there is no need since it grabs the attention of just who they want.To those who think 9/11 was nothing but an attack by terrorists from a third world country will see just what they want and thats all they ( S.A. ) wanted.

I still think it is bad practice for a reporter to do such a shotty job on an important article involving 9/11