September 11, 2006
Few scientists are willing to vouch for the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. Well, sure, there are a few Benedict Arnolds on the government payroll, either directly or via defense contractor, who will use their credentials to deceive.
But, there is no chorus of independent experts championing the government's conjectures (which are sold to the public as "fact" even though the reports themselves are careful to note that the official scenarios are really guesses). After all, how can credible experts assess the official theories? All that can be said is "insufficient data" because a pile of evidence that would affirm or debunk government claims is still under lock and key, despite numerous FOIA efforts. No serious scientist is going to back a government scenario knowing that critical data is being withheld.
On the other hand, there is a growing group of professors who do have competence to sift evidence who are unconvinced by the government's official theories.
Who is willing to back up the official stories? Popular Mechanics, a little Hearst organization mag that keeps track of the latest technical widgets, is about the best the government can do. Then there was a columnist for Scientific American who challenged those who don't believe the government (Michael Shermer is a Skeptic, but not of the government). Yet, I recall seeing no piece by a scientist writing for that popular magazine affirming the government theories.
In fact, there hasn't exactly been a glut of articles in technical or scientific journals affirming government theories, and not many scientists speaking out publicly in favor of government scenarios. Those who do are usually psychologists who tend to think that conspiracies are mostly paranoid fantasies. (I guess they think "it can't happen here," which is what Jews in Hitler's prewar Germany thought.)
On the other hand, the professional organizations that should be speaking out against the government are hunkered down and grotesquely silent.
Today I heard a snip of a radio discussion between the producers of "Loose Change," which focuses on apparent inconsistencies in the government line and Popular Mechanics journalists who said that all the "myths" have non-conspiracy explanations. The most important point is that Popular Mechanics seemed eager to deflate balloons rather than do an honest story that, while perhaps puncturing myths, also takes note of discrepancies and inconsistencies.
None of the government's scientific or technical investigations was subjected to peer review, meaning scientists have little basis for endorsing government claims.
The conspiracy to silence 9/11-doubting profs
September 8, 2006
On August 29, New Hampshire's Union Leader held up a University of New Hampshire professor to a public lashing for daring to disbelieve the official line on 9/11 and being convinced that the evidence points to treason.
The weasel-mouthed university defended Dr. William Woodward's free speech rights with the preface that the school may not agree with his views. We know that. The only reason for that preface is fear. Why not simply affirm the psychology prof's rights and leave it at that?
The Union Leader canvassed politicos who expressed anger that someone might think treason could have occurred, with one fuming that there are limits to freedom of speech. (And this from the state with the slogan: Live free or die.)
What should traitors do when confronted by an increasing number of academics with good credentials who challenge the official fairy tale? Answer: Rope them off -- in particular from their frightened peers -- and bash their reputations. Hopefully, one by one, the traitors, aided by dupes or worse in the media, can keep a significant body of reputable opinion from forming that points to treason.
Running interference for traitors
July 1, 2006
Wisconsin state legislator Steve Nass seems like a regular guy. The onetime payroll expert is a veteran of Operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield. He's a member of the Air National Guard, the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the Kiwanis.
The Republican got into the news recently by calling for the ouster of a University of Wisconsin instructor who is convinced that feds engineered the 9/11 attacks. Of course, the instructor, Kevin Barrett, is an easy target. He's a Muslim who teaches about religion. (See Appendix E for news story on Barrett.)
Yet the fact that a Muslim expresses doubt about 9/11 does not somehow absolve the Bush bunch.
People like Nass do a grave disservice to America by using their positions to promote the coverup of treason. Now one cannot assume that Nass has consciously decided to side with treason. Clearly he's following the party line, and the party line is that "none dare call it treason." Rather than being an out-and-out traitor, Nass more likely falls under the category -- in the jargon of intelligence operatives -- of "useful idiot" (aka "pawn" or "dupe").
It seems quite likely that Nass, who finds Barrett's charges "outlandish," is truly unaware of the treason of 9/11 because he assumes it can't be so and hence has done no spadework to find out what really might be going on in Washington. He's reminiscent of those gullible Americans who once assumed that the communist conspiracy couldn't be that bad merely because the press didn't have much on it.
Few scientists are willing to vouch for the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. Well, sure, there are a few Benedict Arnolds on the government payroll, either directly or via defense contractor, who will use their credentials to deceive.
But, there is no chorus of independent experts championing the government's conjectures (which are sold to the public as "fact" even though the reports themselves are careful to note that the official scenarios are really guesses). After all, how can credible experts assess the official theories? All that can be said is "insufficient data" because a pile of evidence that would affirm or debunk government claims is still under lock and key, despite numerous FOIA efforts. No serious scientist is going to back a government scenario knowing that critical data is being withheld.
On the other hand, there is a growing group of professors who do have competence to sift evidence who are unconvinced by the government's official theories.
Who is willing to back up the official stories? Popular Mechanics, a little Hearst organization mag that keeps track of the latest technical widgets, is about the best the government can do. Then there was a columnist for Scientific American who challenged those who don't believe the government (Michael Shermer is a Skeptic, but not of the government). Yet, I recall seeing no piece by a scientist writing for that popular magazine affirming the government theories.
In fact, there hasn't exactly been a glut of articles in technical or scientific journals affirming government theories, and not many scientists speaking out publicly in favor of government scenarios. Those who do are usually psychologists who tend to think that conspiracies are mostly paranoid fantasies. (I guess they think "it can't happen here," which is what Jews in Hitler's prewar Germany thought.)
On the other hand, the professional organizations that should be speaking out against the government are hunkered down and grotesquely silent.
Today I heard a snip of a radio discussion between the producers of "Loose Change," which focuses on apparent inconsistencies in the government line and Popular Mechanics journalists who said that all the "myths" have non-conspiracy explanations. The most important point is that Popular Mechanics seemed eager to deflate balloons rather than do an honest story that, while perhaps puncturing myths, also takes note of discrepancies and inconsistencies.
None of the government's scientific or technical investigations was subjected to peer review, meaning scientists have little basis for endorsing government claims.
The conspiracy to silence 9/11-doubting profs
September 8, 2006
On August 29, New Hampshire's Union Leader held up a University of New Hampshire professor to a public lashing for daring to disbelieve the official line on 9/11 and being convinced that the evidence points to treason.
The weasel-mouthed university defended Dr. William Woodward's free speech rights with the preface that the school may not agree with his views. We know that. The only reason for that preface is fear. Why not simply affirm the psychology prof's rights and leave it at that?
The Union Leader canvassed politicos who expressed anger that someone might think treason could have occurred, with one fuming that there are limits to freedom of speech. (And this from the state with the slogan: Live free or die.)
What should traitors do when confronted by an increasing number of academics with good credentials who challenge the official fairy tale? Answer: Rope them off -- in particular from their frightened peers -- and bash their reputations. Hopefully, one by one, the traitors, aided by dupes or worse in the media, can keep a significant body of reputable opinion from forming that points to treason.
Running interference for traitors
July 1, 2006
Wisconsin state legislator Steve Nass seems like a regular guy. The onetime payroll expert is a veteran of Operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield. He's a member of the Air National Guard, the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the Kiwanis.
The Republican got into the news recently by calling for the ouster of a University of Wisconsin instructor who is convinced that feds engineered the 9/11 attacks. Of course, the instructor, Kevin Barrett, is an easy target. He's a Muslim who teaches about religion. (See Appendix E for news story on Barrett.)
Yet the fact that a Muslim expresses doubt about 9/11 does not somehow absolve the Bush bunch.
People like Nass do a grave disservice to America by using their positions to promote the coverup of treason. Now one cannot assume that Nass has consciously decided to side with treason. Clearly he's following the party line, and the party line is that "none dare call it treason." Rather than being an out-and-out traitor, Nass more likely falls under the category -- in the jargon of intelligence operatives -- of "useful idiot" (aka "pawn" or "dupe").
It seems quite likely that Nass, who finds Barrett's charges "outlandish," is truly unaware of the treason of 9/11 because he assumes it can't be so and hence has done no spadework to find out what really might be going on in Washington. He's reminiscent of those gullible Americans who once assumed that the communist conspiracy couldn't be that bad merely because the press didn't have much on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment