On 9/11 denial and "top" professors
By redlightgrnlight Comments (24) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
It's in vogue right now. Who says that innocents were slaughtered by a murderous regime? Surely, the facts dictate otherwise. We were sent to war over a fictitious slaughter, one perpetrated by a handful of wealthy religious elites who created the most elaborate cover-up. Two movements: one fringe, one embraced.*
Holocaust denial isn't exactly a popular option in the present day. 6 million Jews actually emigrated rather than killed? Gas chambers and ovens impracticable based on the laws of physics? Manufactured photographs? Falsified history? Academics won't speak up because they would lose their jobs? The world writ-large has consistenly and unanimously rejected these absurd claims.
But what about 9/11 denial? Its tenants are identical to Holocaust denial. The airplane victims of 9/11 were shipped away by the government. Physics proves that the World Trade Center crash was impossible. Photographs have been altered or improperly examined. History has been glossed over. Academics are blind to the truth.
Increasingly, however, the 9/11 denial movement has gained followers. Consider a Drudge-linked article. It cites 75 "top" professors. Top? Take Dr. Steven E. Jones of BYU, whom The Daily Mail cites as one of these top professors.
In 1999, he was reported to be working on and off for the last four years on a portable no-fuel cooker using solar energy, because "Millions of children die from smoke inhalation every year."[1] Innocent enough, I suppose. But surely, Dr. Jones has been involved in greater projects.
Indeed, in 1989, Dr. Jones asserted to have discovered cold fusion.[2] He was ultimately categorically rejected by scientific peers. In fact, he was accused of "such factors as personal and professional rivalries, resistance to a novel idea and the lure of possible profits [that] have tended to overshadow the search for scientific truth."[3] "The lust for gold has partly derailed orderly scientific investigation."[4]
Maybe Dr. Jones is the exception. What about "top" philosopher Dr. James Fetzer, cited in the article? He's well-known for his dozens of pieces denying the JFK assassination on a media cover-up. What about "top" professor Dr. Kevin Barrett, cited in the article? Barrett believes that Karl Rove used an electromagnetic pulse to kill Senator Paul Wellstone.
"Top" professors? Perhaps Bush-bashing has gone a little too far. The media doesn't make us trust them any more by giving validity to these deniers.
* I'd have inserted the images side-by-side rather than just bare links, but I can't do that with limited HTML coding. Sorry.
[1] Vince Horiuchi, Solar Cooker: Making Dinner While the Sun Shines, Salt Lake Tribune, September 30, 1999, at B1.
[2] Joyce Price, Yale Physicists Repeat Utah Test But Fail To Generate Cold Fusion, The Washington Times, July 6, 1989, at A4.
[3] Robert C. Cowen, Profits Put Ahead of Scientific Research, The Oregonian, June 30, 1989, at B05.
[4] Id.
You are looking at the wrong portion of the video tape.
You say:
>>the same one who built the first skyscraper in history to come sailing out of the sky because of a fire on two of its floors
Try winding your tape back a few hours. You will see that, in addition to the fire, A PLANE HIT THE BUILDING! This created not just a fire, but a huge impact. Stories collapsed onto eachother creating new impacts and a downward momentum.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
A plane didn't crash into that one. Two huge skyscrapers collapsed right next to it.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Maybe it was structurally compromised and had to be brought down for safety? That would not be at all unusual. We demolish dangerous buildings rather than let them fail on their own. Honestly, that was my recollection from the actual day anyway. In any event, it is not the topic at hand. WTC 7 doesn't really explain this:
Professor Steven Jones, who lectures in physics at the Brigham Young University in Utah, says the official version of events is the biggest and most evil cover up in history.
He has joined the 9/11 Scholars for Truth whose membership includes up to 75 leading scientists and experts from universities across the US.
Prof Jones said: "We don't believe that 19 hijackers and a few others in a cave in Afghanistan pulled this off acting alone.
"We challenge this official conspiracy theory and, by God, we're going to get to the bottom of this."
Sure seems like he's doing a lot more than questioning why WT 7 collapsed. Seems to me like a suggestion that the 9/11 attacks were planned and coordinated by the US government. That makes him every bit as crazy as any holocaust denier.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
If you search for this string:
steven jones "by god"
on Google News, you know what you get? A bunch of similarly worded articles—attributed to a bunch of different authors (or anonymously written; I stopped counting after three different authors for the same article). I know Steven Jones. He doesn't talk like that, and I'm pretty sure what you just quoted wasn't him. If it was—I'd be interested to see your findings on when it happened and by whom he was quoted.
David Sudweeks
It doesn't seem very likely that the Daily Mail is in the habit of just googling somebody's name and attributing quotes to them based on whatever comes up. Maybe you should ask him about it next time you see him.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Skyscrapers in order of collapse: South Tower, North Tower, Tower 7. I'm glad you commented though Quentin! Seriously. Though you're wrong, it's notable that your reaction is not unlike most. "What's Tower 7?" I mean, it's as though nobody's heard of it.
This video, available through Google Video, will show you which collapse I'm talking about.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5101488991907845273&q=wtc+7&hl=...
—David Sudweeks
I said that a plane (actually two planes) hit the building. I did not specify that a plane hit that particular tower.
I repeat, there was an enormous impact. As Neil, rightly, points out, the collapse of the North & South towers created further impacts.
No one has ever suggested that a fire alone caused the collapse. To claim that this is the official position is not just wrong, but deeply dishonest.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
No, Quentin...your assertion, "You are looking at the wrong portion of the video tape" is incorrect seeing as he was talking about WTC7 and not towers one and two. Pay attention...
What I was trying to communicate, and I am surprised this was not clear, was the absurdity of suggesting that anyone believed the tower fell because of a fire on two floors. This is what is called a strawman or paper tiger. It is a logical fallacy.
To suggest that anyone believes this is dishonest, and ignores the fact that the building was struck by two planes. I grant you that I was trying to be humorous by suggesting that he wind the tape back to discover this. I had assumed he knew this, and was excluding this information from his argument in order to make a particularly fatuous point.
Is this clear now?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Help me understand what you're saying, Quentin. You're saying (1)that two planes hit Tower 7. (2)that a plane hit Tower 7. (3)that no planes hit Tower 7. (4)that although no planes directly hit Tower 7, it was still impacted somehow by the planes or plane. (5)that you thought I was talking about a different tower than Tower 7. Any of these close to what you're saying? It might be helpful when responding to this to pick the appropriate numbered option; and by helpful I mean helpful to me.
David Sudweeks
And I am sure that you know it.
I am saying that two planes struck the World Trade Center. These collisions created enormous impacts.
Are you done with the stupid questions now?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Look. I want to know what you believe. I'm willing to listen. I just can't understand what it is you're saying. Maybe it is stupid that I'm asking you to just pick a number, but your refusal to do so makes me wonder if no option suits you best. If so, just say so. In the meantime, stop pretending that I understand you. I don't.
David Sudweeks
You are trying to create a rather fatuous debate about nothing. It is long past time you apologised for your ridiculous OP. Pretending that there is some official story that a fire on two floors caused Tower 7 to collapse is asinine and dishonest. You need to withdraw that stupid remark before it is worth anyone's while engaging with you.
As for your claim that you don't understand me, that really is your problem. I have stated several times that the impact of the planes was massive. Everyone seems to know this but you.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
It appears to me that you're not reading more than a sentence or two into my comments, Quentin. Look at options 3, 4, and 5. Are those straw men? You know, It might be helpful to you to realize that 'straw man' is in fact not a magical incantation whose recitation immediately dismisses from logic the opposing viewpoints of one's peers. I know that sounds condescending to you; Please however take it for what it's worth.
David Sudweeks
I'll take your remarks for what they are worth.
I am not going to let you define what I think. What you think is fatuous enough. I am not going there.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Obliged.
Blam.
(KA-CHUNK!)
Look, guys, you gotta let us know when the 9/11 conspiracy fetishists show up. Even the ones that can write just like normal people.
Moe
PS: Yeah, I know, I'm not bothering to address his arguments. Doesn't that just BITE? :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
"9/11 Truthers" (is 'Truther' actually a word?) need love too [Kumbaya] :-)
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourkeq
He can write like a normal person. I knew there was something puzzling about him. It is why I have been torn between believing he is as dumb as a bucket of rocks or just lies every time his lips move.
It is actually rather disconcerting when you encounter conspiracy nuts who put a verb in every sentence.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Whether or not what you said is clear makes zero difference seeing that the largely benign info you posted has zero to do with what was posted. YOu screwed up and look like a fool. Just admit it and move on. I would suggest going back and commenting what is being discussed instead of trying to save face by repeating irrelevent info. Just my humble opinion.
: )
Nothing I said in the posts was incorrect. If you do not see the connection between a plane striking one part of a building and an impact on both other parts of the same building and on nearby buildings, I would submit that that is your problem.
If you are seeing a fool, put the mirror down.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Everyone has seen thiBLAM!!!!!
Alright, you primitive screwheads, listen up! You see this? This... is my BOOMSTICK! It's a 12 gauge double barreled Troll-killer, RedState's top of the line. You can find this in the our diary section. That's right, this sweet baby was made in New York, NY. Retails for about $109.95, got a walnut stock, cobalt blue steel, and a hair trigger. That's right: blog great, blog RedState. YA GOT THAT?!
(pause)
God, but it feels good to have that back. - Moe Lane
s, right?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc-7_1_.gif
Your "officials" can't decide why it happened 5 years after the fact.
you're drooling. When you come of thorozine all at once instead of stepping down gradually that happens.
Don't bother thanking me, it was gratis.
I personally know Steven Jones. I'm a BYU student and I took a physics class from him in 2002. Go ahead and criticize his past work all you want, but you should know he's a decent, honest guy, and he's a good physicist. He's also like you and me a conservative. Now, certainly, you can bundle all the conspiracies into one neat little disposable (forgettable) package, but don't forget that the truth operates independently of all other truths and all untruth. He's bringing up one little truth that won't go away. Specifically it's the tower that fell a little after 5 in the afternoon on 9/11. Tower 7 of WTC was 47 stories tall and it collapsed to the ground in about 6 seconds. NIST, the gov't agency who has spent the most effort investigating the structural failure of the three buildings that fell that day, has said they're considering alternate theories in determining the collapse of this specific tower (other than fire). It seems to me though, that anytime anybody brings up Tower 7 it's just played off like its collapse didn't happen. If an architectural firm—the same one who built the first skyscraper in history to come sailing out of the sky because of a fire on two of its floors—were drafting a building for you, wouldn't you want to know that they learned from their mistake? Or that they know what their mistake was? This collapse actually happened. You can find very easily on the internet news coverage of it. You can watch the fully-evacuated 47-story skyscraper fall out of the sky from several different angles. Putting everything else aside, Jones is right. This is worthy of further investigation.
—David Sudweeks