Science Radio Show Host Michio Kaku Gave Michael Shermer An Unskeptical Interview

On July 16, 2013 on KPFA, Michio Kaku, "Professor of Theoretical Physics" and host of a long-standing radio show called "Exploration", gave a completely unscientific and unskeptical interview platform to Michael Shermer to discuss "The Borders of Science - Why People Believe Strange Things". And on July 19, 2013 RT Interview with Michio Kaku by Oksana Boyko, he really lost his "cool" when he tried to intellectually bully the young host. (July 19 Argument linked here and linked at bottom in the paragraph in yellow text added on 7-21-13.)

On July 16 Dr. Shermer is introduced as the "dean of debunkers", founder of The Skeptical Society, and a regular writer for Scientific American. Yet Shermer's technique is to include in that wierdo grab-bag of “strange beliefs” held by “otherwise smart people” a grab-bag of odd notions but not his own preposterous and completely unskeptical perspective on the official story of 9/11. Kaku allows Shermer to employ the anti-intellectual technique of ridicule in lieu of a rational analysis. In fact, Kaku joins in the non-science rudeness toward people not there to defend themselves, especially physicist Dr Steven Jones. 

Physicist Dr. Steven Jones describes explosive evidence that was found in WTC dust samples at the historic 2010 "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" San Francisco press conference while Erik Lawyer of "Firefighters for 9/11 Truth" and prolific author Dr. David Ray Griffin wait in the wings.

The long standing science show on NPR, all of the Pacifica radio stations, and syndicated to hundreds of other stations, has been strangely silent over these many years since 2001 on the scientific and forensic evidence of the events of 9/11/01. Like the Philip Zelikow-led 9/11 Commission Report, omissions and distortions abound in this rare and shamefully superficial “9/11 science” moment on Mister Kaku's show. No mention of Building 7 even as Kaku joins Shermer in the preposterous notion that World Trade Center buildings #1 and #2 disintegrated due to fuel and office fires and that no demolitions were involved. No discussion of the rate of fall in 10 seconds, nor any reference to the 100 plus year history of steel frame buidings.

After explaining "the skeptics movement", for which Shermer thinks himself the self-appointed leader of, the subjects go from 9/11, to talking with dead people, to creationist denial of Darwin, to superstitions, to UFO's, and so on in the mix of discrediting by association... Shermer gets to 9/11 at 11:45 in the hour long show and that segment goes to 19:20. Shermer acts shocked that he got "hundreds of letters from readers of Scientific American" angry with his debunking of 9/11”.

Hypothesis - 47 minutes film by Brett Smith on Dr Steven Jones

Dr Kaku lets Dr Shermer ridicule Dr Steven Jones without even mentioning a single detail of his work or his research on samples of WTC dust. It is enough that he was "suspended" by his university. What does our host do to challenge Shermer? Kaku has no informed questions for Shermer to debunk! Is not a "debunking" supposed to actually take on the points that the other scientist or author actually makes?

Watch "Hypothesis": Full Movie by Brett Smith (46:43) – The Story of Physicist Steven D. Jones and the World Trade Center 9/11 Dust Forensic Evidence of Thermitic Particles. 

Hypothesis - 47 minutes film by Brett Smith on Dr Steven Jones

Of course, Shermer does not address WTC Building 7 on the Kaku show, which was not hit by a plane and disintegrated in about 7 seconds. He claims that fires did not have to melt the tower buildings to make them collapse in about 10 seconds flat. 

Our popular “science guy”, Mr. Kaku, offers, without accreditation, that the architects designed the buildings to fall right into themselves. Should we not expect a citation for such a claim on a nominally unbiased scientific show? The only "residue" problem for Shermer is not what's found in the dust by Dr. Steven Jones and the international team which published a for-peer review report in The Open Chemical Physics Journal in 2009, but rather the residue of "unexplained anomalies". Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth article: “Advanced Pyrotechnic of Explosive Material Discovered in WTC Dust" by Gregg Roberts and Andrea Dreger.

Photo of thermitic spheres - Watch the 59 minute version of 

"9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out"

Shermer begs the question in lieu of scientific evidence and common sense! He asks, why not just take bin Laden's word for it, after all, says Shermer, he claimed to have done it. Yet bin Laden denied his involvement, which was reported on CNN on 9-16-01. A fake video with a fatter African featured bin Laden was "found" in Afghanistan after the US invasion, which is largely discredited. But Shermer makes no attempt to document what he says as a real scientist or skeptic would do. 

From the CNN Memory Hole "Osama Bin Laden Releases Statement Denying Responsibility for 9/11 Attacks"

Where is the skepticism of these official histories? Shermer says that Bush was too "incompetent" to pull off 9/11. He reveals that he has not really ever studied the subject or that he has a hidden agenda. See "Joshua Blakeney and Anthony J. Hall Investigate Michael Shermer's Academic Credentials - Oct 17, 2010 (11:30) Pretender or Professor? Joshua Blakeney and Anthony J. Hall Investigate Michael Shermer's Academic Credentials." 

Shouldn't this trashing by ridicule and specious science actually be seen as an opportunity for the international 9/11 truth movement? After all, Kaku has put his scientific reputation on the line by hosting Shermer in a completely uncritical and endorsing manner. After all, Kaku has rather avoided the subject for nearly 12 years... So what is he trying to do now? How about some public discussion of an appropriate response to Kaku from the intellectual leadership of the 9/11 Truth movement in numerous countries at once? Does Kaku not owe Dr Steven Jones an opportunity to discuss his scientific "Hypothesis" on the show which allowed him to be ridiculed? He should have Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth on a special show as well.

Contact for Michio Kaku listed at KPFA web page for his show: mkaku@aol.com

Our “science guy”, Michio Kaku has won wide respect for his straight talk about the dangers of nuclear power and weapons. Take note of this: In the last 3 minutes of this one hour show, Kaku offers an editorial cover for himself. He talks about how everyone thought that reports of CIA mind control experiments were just crazy “conspiracy theories”. He concludes that in the wake of the revelations that came out during the Watergate era about the MK Ultra Mind Control program, it turns out that “sometimes the conspiracy theorists are right”.

www.ae911truth.org

On July 19 Kaku really lost his "cool" when he tried to intellectually bully RT Interviewer Oksana Boyco. In “Science of Democracy”, featuring an interview by Oksana Boyko with Science populizer Dr Michio Kaku 7-19-13 RT Worlds Apart Channel (29:14) Kaku is quite combative with Oksana. At 9:25 Kaku becomes quite rude and belligerent with the host at this point. He asks, “Are you a 'conspiracy theorist'?”. And he demands that she answer his question, “Who was behind 9/11?” He repeats it five times in rapid succession! You can hear him interrupt her every time she tries to answer. He is clearly trying to use the full weight of his celebrity “Science Guy” status to intimidate the young and articulate Russian journalist, Oksana Boyco.

Truth Troubadour Vic Sadot first sang 9/11 Truth songs at the Truth Emergency Convergence at American University on July 23, 2005 and outside the UN for New York 9/11 Truth on Sept 11, 2005. He has been a member of the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance since 2008, and on Sept 11, 2011 Vic released a 16 song CD titled "9/11 Truth & Justice Songs", which is available at CD Baby. His official web site is www.vicsadot.com and he also blogs at Berkeley Calling and Broadside Balladeer blogs. Contact: TruthTroubadour@gmail.com 

Note: Excellent site by Daniel Noel called "9/11 Baby Step" posted in the comment section at KPFA for this particular show with Michael Shermer the unskeptical “skeptic” endorsing the pseudo-science of NIST and the 9/11 Commission Report based on Guantanamo torture testimony and Philip Zelikow creative myth writing.

http://www.911babystep.com

2007 Debate between Dr James Fetzer and Dr Micheal Shermer

http://twilightpines.com/media/Shermer_Fetzer_Rd_1_09_11_07.mp3

Debate Transcript Kevin Ryan vs Michael Shermer on Thom Hartmann

http://911blogger.com/news/2007-12-15/kevin-ryan-debates-michael-shermer-transcript

Recommend reading would be Jim Hoffman's article addressing Michael Shermer's history of attack pieces against 9/11 Truth titled “Scientific American's Dishonest Attack On 911Research” 7-13-05 by Jim Hoffman: “Shermer's attack could hardly be more hypocritical. He pays lip service to the kind of cumulative argument known as inference to the best explanation, which requires the consideration of all the relevant evidence. But he avoids the vast bodies of evidence cited by skeptics like David Ray Griffin, and fails to correctly state even a single one of their arguments. Instead, Shermer embeds mentions of the works of serious skeptics within a tapestry of ludicrous ideas so as to discredit them through guilt-by-association. This approach has nothing to do with science and everything to do with sophistry... Shermer's column exhibits many of the same propaganda techniques as the ambitious feature article in the March (2005) issue of Popular Mechanics by Benjamin Chertoff, for which Shermer professes admiration... 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." http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/sciam/index.html