I have finally found the video I had been seeking for so long. As the narrative with this video points out, so many of the conspiracy theorists about 9-11-01 point out that there was very little aircraft wreckage after the airliner hit the Pentagon. Well, those of us that have, for years, seen these types of videos expected as much.
Aircraft tend to disintegrate when they come in contact with highly reinforced concrete.
Watch… and learn.
Archive for June, 2006
It is now time for me to make a (albeit minor) correction to the record. I had (as so clearly pointed out by the NAP from ALiberalDose) not only abused, but misused the word hyperbole.
The kind professors at the Language Log carefully point out that hyperbole is used to extend in exaggeration. Now, thankfully, they weren’t actually talking about this blog in their post, but far be it from me to not acknowledge the error of my ways. Clearly my use of the word was not an extension of the point.
I want to thank the kind professors at the Language Log for continuously enlightening and brightening my blog-reading day.
I want to continue to encourage all four of you, dear readers, to visit regularly the Language Log.
Here are two photos (well, one, really) taken by my son. As you can see, the original is in color, and only three simple effects were applied using Picasa from Google. Converted to B/W, increased the contrast (using the shadows and highlights effect) and the adjusting the focal point.
Enjoy! 
I have added a couple interesting blogs to the links section, as well as started a new section for links to informational sites.
I am wondering, dear class, what you think I should add as links? Any favorite blogs you think I should point to? Should I, out of shear magnanimity, add our dear, eloquent friend the “new American Patriot” to the list? (Remember him? He is the owner of A Liberal Dose that, if I remember correctly, wants to kick me in my nuts…)
Just leave your comments here with your suggestions, and your votes!
The Professor
I know, I know, I can’t stay away from this topic. Any wonder why though? We not only have sites like “A Liberal Dose” mis-citing accurate statistics1 we also have, as The Numbers Guy points out, bad surveys and polls being conducted.
Again, many of you will remember my discussions (here and elsewhere) on the importance of carefully developed question development as well as care in interpreting and drawing conclusions, without over-reaching. While I have recently criticized the interpretation of published results, The Numbers Guy in his article points out that the American Association for Public Opinion Research is tackling the problem of poor surveys making it into the media–and the media unquestioningly accepting the results.
Two relevant quotes:
Faulty survey data takes many forms. Sometimes the questions are loaded, as with a survey about online gambling I wrote about in April. Other surveys have very low response rates, like a poll about the value of mothers’ work; or pollsters don’t disclose all of their questions nor results, raising fears they’ve cherry-picked those responses that reflect best on the polls’ sponsors. Also, many polls you may read about have been conducted online, usually among a panel of volunteers lured by online ads — considered a less-representative sample by most pollsters than respondents who are found by random-digit telephone dialing.
and:
Polls with pitfalls shouldn’t be discarded automatically. But often they are accepted automatically by the press and rendered indistinguishable from polls conducted by more standard means.
So there you have it. More criticisms of bad polling, bad data, and blind acceptance. And from a reputable source, to boot!
The Prof
1. And most recently in a fit of “hyper-’bowl’-e” misrepresenting students’ putting marijuana in muffins as “spiking a punch bowl,” two very different things, to be sure!