Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Michael Hogan]

Edward Feser suggests:

That the post-Enlightenment pretense of hostility to authority, tradition, and common sense as such, and especially the extreme form of it represented by the likes of Marx and Nietzsche, is what really underlies the popularity of conspiracy theories, particularly those involving 9/11. The absurd idea that to be intelligent, scientific, and intellectually honest requires a distrust for all authority per se and a contempt for the opinions of the average person, has so deeply permeated the modern Western consciousness that conspiratorial thinking has for many people come to seem the rational default position. And it also explains why even mainstream outlets like Time and Vanity Fair, while by no means endorsing the views of the conspiracy theorists, have tended to treat them with kid gloves, as if they were harmless and well-meaning eccentrics instead of shrill and hate-filled crackpots.

The full article:

We the Sheeple? Why Conspiracy Theories Persist by Edward Feser

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092006B

[Steve Ulman]

Don’t know the exact reason for Ryan being terminated, but can guess it was because he misrepresented, through omission, his expertise. He also, tried to use his employment with UL to add credibility to his claims, when he later admitted the letter he sent was on his own personal behalf, not as an UL employee. If you read his letter, you are left with the impression that he was in a position of knowledge within UL to know about their research on the steel and their certification process. This borders on fraud. He is a water quality expert and has no connection to their steel certification division. I’m surprised that they didn’t bring criminal charges. IMO, he was fired because he fraudulently used the UL name, which is very solid ground, not because he believes in the 9-11 CT theories.

As for Prof. Jones, lets leave that to the other thread.

Politicians want a lot of people fired and or hired for a lot of reasons. Hell, they impeached Clinton and there’s a possibility that the same could happen to Bush – politicians will say or do anything if the think it’ll get them a vote or two. As for the two prof’s, - teaching something as fact that which has no scientific basis as fact is wrong - and people have the right to scrutinize just what is proposed to be taught. After visiting your web site I think you’d agree, or do you now believe it is ok to teach ID in a science classroom????

As for Reynolds Dixon, if threats were made against him or his family, it is totally unacceptable and should be investigated. However, the only reference I can find about this is the Fetzer press release (your link) and or copies/links to the same thing. Not saying it didn’t happen, but I’d prefer additional sourcing.

As for explosives felling the Towers. How can anyone with an interest in knowing the truth state that they believe there were explosives used when no relevant experts will make the claim. This is even compounded when you ignore the testimony of relevant experts and choose instead to believe people have no expertise in the field. Talk about blind faith.

As to your and many CT’s contention that thousands of Engineers and Architects are part of the cover-up – let me try to explain further why this is just total crap.

Ron – you stated earlier:

No, I think they have families to feed and reputations and careers to protect.

What you don’t understand, an engineer’s career and reputation only stands on one thing Integrity. Without it, you cannot have a career. The people who hire them, accept their work, etc. must be able to trust them.

I am a Traffic Engineer and routinely give public testimony regarding my studies/designs. If the people I am presenting to don’t think I’m qualified or trustworthy, the project I am working on doesn’t go forward. When that trust goes away, so does my career. You may not realize, but you put your trust in my profession just about everyday. Every time you drive through an intersection with a STOP sign or a signal you trust that the engineer did the design correctly, because if he didn’t you could be killed. You trust that when you drive under that hanging signal head the engineer specified the correct materials to keep it up there, not fall through your windshield. You trust that when you are driving on a winding road, that the engineer did things correctly so that you can see far enough ahead to avoid problems. You trust that he knew the strength of the steel specified when he designed that bridge over the 100 foot gorge you’re currently driving on. Without that trust,( trust that is only gained being honest, trustworthy, having integrity – being a Professional) an engineer’s career is over.

I hope now you understand why I took such offence at your insinuation. This is a subject that directly affects my ablity to feed my family. Apology accepted.

Sorry for the length of this post.

FYI an interesting link - http://jod911.com/

[Steve Ulman]

Don’t know if I agree with all of his conclusions. However, I have always wondered why some people are drawn into the various CT’s. and he does make some compelling arguments.

As others have observed, there is usually a significant cross-over between the various CT’s – i.e. many of those who believe the 9-11 CT’s also believe the JFK CT’s which fits in with the first half of the paragraph quoted above.

[Steve Ulman]

... but I will not believe that AA 77 hit the Pentagon until I see substantial evidence backing it up.

for starters, what is wrong with all the eye witness testamony?

[Len Colby]

numerous people from assorted other professions have come forward with few ill affects do you think civil engineers, mechanical engineer, fire engineers, demolitions experts and architects are some how especially gutless?

One was fired from his job, one has been placed on leave, one has state politicians demanding that he be fired, one resigned from Scholars for 9/11 Truth after threats to his family over a factual article he wrote,

I said few not no “ill affects” but let’s look at those cases:

“fired from his job” - Kevin Ryan. Mr. Ryan was not fired for simply speaking his mind but for making it appear in a letter written on company letterhead that other at UL his employer shared his views and making false claims about his employer, namely that they tested the WTC steel.[source]

“one has been placed on leave” Jones, I discussed his suspension above but you didn’t reply. Perhaps the moral of the story is that professors at schools that don’t offer tenure should very publicly carry out shoddy research.

“one has state politicians demanding that he be fired” Kevin Barrett. This is true but you left out the part about the provost standing by him and he continues to teach part time at the University of Wisconsin. He also toyed with the limits of academic freedom by teachinf his alternate 9/11 theories in a folklore class. By agreement with the provost he will be allowed to mention his theories in an Islamic studies class

There are thousands of professors who unlike Jones and Barrett are tenured but even so only a small number have spoken up. Many of these tenured professors teach civil engineering and architecture, none of them have said anything.

“one resigned from Scholars for 9/11 Truth after threats to his family over a factual article he wrote”

Oh yes Mr. Reynolds Dixson a poet, book editor and former literature professor’s risible attempt at photo analysis which was thoroughly debunked on the forum set up to discuss articles from an ST911 website. That forum unfortunate was closed by the administrator probably because the articles kept on getting torn apart. This debunking is still available; try this link if the 1st doesn’t work. We have know way of know who threatened his family or why or even AFAIK know that such threats were made. The paper was such a POS the most likely explanations are, the threats were made: (in order of likelihood )

1) by a nut/prankster

2) up by Dixson either as a publicity stunt or as an excuse to distance himself from an embarrassingly bad paper

3) by a “truther” either as a publicity stunt or to get rid of an embarrassingly bad paper that they feared would help discredit “the movement”. Jim Hoffman a leading “inside job theorist said he has gotten far more harassment from fellow “truthers” than supporters of the official theory

and others have been publicly maligned as idiots and wackos. So do I think civil engineers etc. are gutless? No, I think they have families to feed and reputations and careers to protect. There's nothing gutless about protecting yourself and yours from unnecessary trouble from the state and its minions.

You still haven’t rationalized why engineers and architects from other countries or are tenured professors or retired haven’t come forward, not a single one with has any experience with high rises. The Scripts Howard poll showed IIRC that 6% percent of the population believes it’s “very likely” explosive were used and 10% believe that it is “somewhat likely”. If that theory is true and the collapse theory is so obviously wrong a higher number of engineers should believe it. By not speaking that are in effect covering up the real reason for the murder of almost 3000 people which was used as the pretext for one war and to a large degree a second. It’s hard to believe not one of them would risk job loss or embarrassment to speak up, there is no shortage of representatives of just about every other profession in the “truth” movement, just qualified engineers and architects.

[Ron Ecker]

As for explosives felling the Towers. How can anyone with an interest in knowing the truth state that they believe there were explosives used when no relevant experts will make the claim. This is even compounded when you ignore the testimony of relevant experts and choose instead to believe people have no expertise in the field. Talk about blind faith.

To me there is persuasive evidence that explosives were used irrespective of what experts do or do not claim. It has to do with what, for want of a better term, I will call coincidence theory.

First, there is the visual appearance of controlled demolition, but official CTs want us to believe that is an illusion, because it couldn't happen. What they want us to believe happened is that not one but two towers were hit by planes and though not hit in the same places at the same angles (Flight 175 appears to have almost missed its building), they not only collapsed as a result but collapsed in identical fashion. Not only that, but Building 7 collapsed without even being hit by a plane, in what coincidentally looked like a controlled demolition (with the leaseholder's "pull it" talk being just another coincidence, misunderstood). Three buildings (but only two planes) in one grand implausible coincidence, and people who won't swallow this implausible scenario are considered wackos and idiots. Well, I have to be included among the latter. Which is no problem, I'm used to it.

[Len Colby]

Politicians in New Hampshire want university prof William Woodward fired,

UNH is standing by Woodward just as UW istanding by Barrett. It could be argued though that he abused academic freedom too. http://www.debunk911myths.org/?p=10 I don't know enough about this case to say.

[Len Colby]

To me there is persuasive evidence that explosives were used irrespective of what experts do or do not claim. It has to do with what, for want of a better term, I will call coincidence theory.

First, there is the visual appearance of controlled demolition, but official CTs want us to believe that is an illusion, because it couldn't happen. What they want us to believe happened is that not one but two towers were hit by planes and though not hit in the same places at the same angles (Flight 175 appears to have almost missed its building), they not only collapsed as a result but collapsed in identical fashion. Not only that, but Building 7 collapsed without even being hit by a plane, in what coincidentally looked like a controlled demolition (with the leaseholder's "pull it" talk being just another coincidence, misunderstood). Three buildings (but only two planes) in one grand implausible coincidence, and people who won't swallow this implausible scenario are considered wackos and idiots. Well, I have to be included among the latter. Which is no problem, I'm used to it.

Some people think dolphins are fish because they look like them. I knew a guy who was a dead ringer for Yul Brenner

The collapse of the Twin Towers only looks very superficially like CD. All CD go bottom up not top down as the towers did, In CD structures collapse into their footprints with out dammaging other structures, the towers expelled debris hundereds of yarda away and a good deal of the deris fell far outside the buildings footprints.

In CD contrary to the belief of "truthers" cutter charges are only planted on a few floors and gravity does the rest the mass of the building braks the rest of the supporting structure. In that respect the collapses were like CD collapsed ensued in the impact zones and those local collapses brought down the rest.

7 WTC did LOOK like CD but that's another story and it's past my bedtime!

Edited September 21, 2006 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

... but I will not believe that AA 77 hit the Pentagon until I see substantial evidence backing it up.

for starters, what is wrong with all the eye witness testamony?

And what about all the wreckage and victim's DNA found at the scene and the fact that the hole was about the size of a 757 and the knocked over lamp ploes?

[Ron Ecker]

The collapse of the Twin Towers only looks very superficially like CD.

I've covered that, I said that you official CTs call it an illusion. You didn't address the grand coincidence of the three collapses at all.

[Steve Ulman]

The collapse of the Twin Towers only looks very superficially like CD.

I've covered that, I said that you official CTs call it an illusion. You didn't address the grand coincidence of the three collapses at all.

GRAVITY!

I guess you don't know that the major force at work in a controlled demolition (CD) is GRAVITY. That’s all - GRAVITY.

And guess what - all three buildings were affected by it!

A CD is simply the use of explosives to degrade the structural integrity of a building so that gravity will bring it down. The WTC Towers and WTC-7 were significantly damaged by impacts – in the case of the Towers it was the planes – in the case of WTC-7 it was debris from WTC-1, and all three had their structural integrity further compromised by fire. Once the structural integrity of the buildings was sufficiently compromised GRAVITY took over and brought them down. Even a non-engineer should be able to understand – GRAVITY is the common element.

Now I guess the CT’s will say that the gub’ment can control GRAVITY.

I rely on the research of others as well as my own two eyes (with particular regard to Building 7)

Sorry Ron – your belief that WTC-7 was brought down by a CD because that’s what it looked like doesn’t cut it. It sounds like your suffering a case of wishful thinking rather than critical thinking.

[Steve Ulman]

...and some people just don't want to see what is before their eyes....[when the facts don't fit the myth..they throw out the facts...]

Thank you for making my point about the various CT theories much more succinctly than I could.

{edit to remove sarcasm}

Edited September 21, 2006 by Steve Ulman

[Craig Lamson]

The collapse of the Twin Towers only looks very superficially like CD.

I've covered that, I said that you official CTs call it an illusion. You didn't address the grand coincidence of the three collapses at all.

http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictur...hard_8-8-06.pdf

[Len Colby]

The collapse of the Twin Towers only looks very superficially like CD.

I've covered that, I said that you official CTs call it an illusion. You didn't address the grand coincidence of the three collapses at all.

What coincidence Ron? No one is saying it's a coincidence that both towers were struck the same morning nor that it was a coincidence that numerous buildings around them (including 7) were severely damaged by their collapses. Gravity isn't a coincidence it is ubiquitous.

OK Let's imagine you accept the premise that it's theoretically possible that a 767 could fly into a building like one of the Twin Towers and do enough damage and start fires big enough to cause a collapse, the conclusion reached by every competent expert to study what happened, what do you with all you years experience as librarian think such a collapse should have looked like? Please back your answers with references to recognized engineering/physics sources and include your calculations.

Also no one says that it is "an illusion" that the collapses resemble (sorta) CD in both cases as I tried to explain to you and Steve put more succinctly the structures were/are weakened till they could no longer support their own weight at which point gravity does the rest.

Len

The collapse of the Twin Towers only looks very superficially like CD.

I've covered that, I said that you official CTs call it an illusion. You didn't address the grand coincidence of the three collapses at all.

http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictur...hard_8-8-06.pdf

I already provided links to that paper a couple of times, I doubt Ron or the other diehard "inside jobbers" took a look at it.

Len

[Len Colby]

Edward Feser suggests:

<B>

That the post-Enlightenment pretense of hostility to authority, tradition, and common sense as such, and especially the extreme form of it represented by the likes of Marx and Nietzsche, is what really underlies the popularity of conspiracy theories, particularly those involving 9/11. The absurd idea that to be intelligent, scientific, and intellectually honest requires a distrust for all authority per se and a contempt for the opinions of the average person, has so deeply permeated the modern Western consciousness that conspiratorial thinking has for many people come to seem the rational default position. And it also explains why even mainstream outlets like Time and Vanity Fair, while by no means endorsing the views of the conspiracy theorists, have tended to treat them with kid gloves, as if they were harmless and well-meaning eccentrics instead of shrill and hate-filled crackpots.

</B>

The full article:

We the Sheeple? Why Conspiracy Theories Persist by Edward Feser

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092006B

To be honest I've only skimmed the essay, but I agree with him on the motivations for many people to believe the most outlandish CTs no matter how much they conflict with the known facts.

To me the people who blindly accept what they see on sites like Alex Jones and the "Web Fairy" etc without bothering to check the facts or think on their own are just as much "sheeple" if not more so than the "Joe Six Packs" who believe everything Fox and prsidential spokespeople tell them. Worse is that many of them ape concern for the "average Joe". Concern and contempt are mutually exclusive.

...and some people just don't want to see what is before their eyes....[when the facts don't fit the myth..they throw out the facts...]

Thank you for making my point about the various CT theories much more succinctly than I could.

{edit to remove sarcasm}

I agree very well put Peter

Len

PS - Thanks for posting that Mike

Edit -typos fixed

Edited September 21, 2006 by Len Colby