9/11 and the Academic Community

[grandmastershek]

As many of us have heard time and time again, allegedly the reason the academic community at large doesn't come out on 9/11 and has came to a consensus that it happened the way the "official story" states for 2 reasons: fear or complicity. Truthers will often contend that academia is by and large swayed by special interests.

Is this true? Doubtful. If we consider the tobacco industry, once one of the most powerful industries in the US and the world, had to face the link between cancer and smoking...even with much nay saying and even cover-up. Brought to us by whom? The scientific community and the government.

We can also look at the auto industry. Did they voluntarily make cars more eco-friendly and overall more safe? To my recollection they were forced to implement many safety features and research showed the dangers of emissions unchecked which resulted in developments like the catalytic converter.

Anyone have any others?

 

[Scott Sommers]

As many of us have heard time and time again, allegedly the reason the academic community at large doesn't come out on 9/11 and has came to a consensus that it happened the way the "official story" states for 2 reasons: fear or complicity. Truthers will often contend that academia is by and large swayed by special interests.

Is this true? Doubtful. If we consider the tobacco industry, once one of the most powerful industries in the US and the world, had to face the link between cancer and smoking...even with much nay saying and even cover-up. Brought to us by whom? The scientific community and the government.

We can also look at the auto industry. Did they voluntarily make cars more eco-friendly and overall more safe? To my recollection they were forced to implement many safety features and research showed the dangers of emissions unchecked which resulted in developments like the catalytic converter.

Anyone have any others?

Are you serious? I can't tell anymore.

It is extremely hard to control the academic community because there really is no such thing. I teach in Taiwan and professors here have nothing in common with their counterparts in North America. As much as the Ministry of Education wants to change that, it is almost impossible to fire anyone. You have to committ an indictable offense or show signs of visible mental illness - and then they'd have to give at least 1 or 2 years warning. I can say and do anything I want, including flagrantly breaking the rules of my school.

Research on 911 has been conducted in China, the USA, Canada and - I think - Europe. In these places, the systems that keep professors under check are all entirely different.

Besides, this fear of 'speaking the Truth about 911' hasn't worked. There are bazillions of people who have spoken out about the Bush Administration and their controlled demolition with thermite of the WTC buildings. Except for the major idiots, like Dr Steve, Dr. Judy and Kevin B., none of them have been fired. I have written professors who signed those silly Internet petitions and they're still teaching. It's not that the academic community hasn't spoken out against the controlled demolition with thermite of the WTC buildings, it's that the academic engineering community has said nothing.

So what is it that's supposed to happen to the academic engineering community that all the professors of English Lit and Religion who signed those silly petitions aren't afraid of? Why are all the professors of civil engineering at BYU, who were instrumental in getting Dr. Steve the punt,supposed to be afraid of this thing, but DRG who is also a professor (of religion) isn't?

 

[Thunder]

Don't university professors tend to be Jewish?

 

[The Almond]

I was at Clemson while Judy was teaching there. I had friends in her statics and dynamics classes, and they all reported that she was 100% batcrap insane. The reason she was allowed to stay for as long as she did (5 years, I think), was that she was conducting research that was bringing money into the mechanical engineering group. But Clemson, like most major universities, was a publish or perish place. When the faculty and administration looked at her research and publication rate, they saw that she was under performing, and that was it.

My point is that Judy was perfectly capable of conducting research in, and publishing papers on 9/11 engineering topics. None of my professors were under any gag orders, and the administration oversight for research/publication was really just about numbers ($$$), not about topic. To echo Scott's comments, academic researchers have tremendous freedom to publish whatever they want. But none of them think 9/11 research (that is, uncovering the largest, most complex and deadly conspiracy ever committed on Earth) is important enough to publish in an engineering journal. That just about says it all.

 

[JackDaniels]

I teach in Taiwan and professors here have nothing in common with their counterparts in North America. As much as the Ministry of Education wants to change that, it is almost impossible to fire anyone. You have to committ an indictable offense or show signs of visible mental illness - and then they'd have to give at least 1 or 2 years warning. I can say and do anything I want, including flagrantly breaking the rules of my school.

And you think that doesn't hold for professors in North America with tenure?

 

[RedIbis]

Don't university professors tend to be Jewish?

This one is.

 

[RedIbis]

And you think that doesn't hold for professors in North America with tenure?

No. Tenured professors cannot breach their contracts, and they can be fired for committing offenses unbefitting their institution. I imagine contracts are different at different schools, but it's not like just because you have tenure, you can do whatever you want.

 

[RedIbis]

My point is that Judy was perfectly capable of conducting research in, and publishing papers on 9/11 engineering topics. None of my professors were under any gag orders, and the administration oversight for research/publication was really just about numbers ($$$), not about topic. To echo Scott's comments, academic researchers have tremendous freedom to publish whatever they want. But none of them think 9/11 research (that is, uncovering the largest, most complex and deadly conspiracy ever committed on Earth) is important enough to publish in an engineering journal. That just about says it all.

But as you said, research at universities is about bringing in grant money, so by your own accurate description, if 9/11 engineering research doesn't bring in any money, what incentive would those researchers and universities have to pursue, expensive, long term analyses?

 

[tsig]

No. Tenured professors cannot breach their contracts, and they can be fired for committing offenses unbefitting their institution. I imagine contracts are different at different schools, but it's not like just because you have tenure, you can do whatever you want.

Yes you can. You can publish anything you want and advocate any position you want. It's called academic freedom.

 

[beachnut]

But as you said, research at universities is about bringing in grant money, so by your own accurate description, if 9/11 engineering research doesn't bring in any money, what incentive would those researchers and universities have to pursue, expensive, long term analyses?

911 research did bring in money! You might want to try to pick a new delusion instead of the ones from 911 truth. Bigfoot is as good and it is more fun.

Gage could take his money and use it with grad students to do real research and find out he is spewing lies.

Gage has 1000 dolts signed up, they could do research, or are they idiots fooled by lies?


(Funny how dolts, after leaving 911 truth become intelligent people! I think falling for 911 truth all the way and then leaving is a sign of superiority - I salute those who have crawled, walked, run, flew, and otherwise escaped from ignorance; those people have improved and gained the skill to recognize stupidity and fraud. I better start trying to catch up...)

 

[angrysoba]

Except for the major idiots, like Dr Steve, Dr. Judy and Kevin B., none of them have been fired.

Steven Jones wasn't fired. If I remember correctly he was given paid leave.

Barrett wasn't even a tenured professor but someone who just taught a few classes in literature. I'm sure if he was banging on about 9/11 in his classes it wouldn't be appropriate for his course.

Truthers are basically fantasy dissidents in the sense that what they seem to think is rebellious is barely even acknowledged by the "powers that be" that they say they are railing against. It's not quite the same as being a dissident against, say, the Iranian regime where you are likely to be arrested, tortured, raped, perhaps executed or the Burmese regime or the North Korean regime. However, they will pretend it is JUST AS BAD if not worse because it is really, really, really subtle.

For example, they'll be ignored (ostracised!) by other passengers on the bus or suppressed and silenced when their letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal or the Times written in red-ink on their typewriter doesn't get published or they'll suffer MacArthyite slanders by people who laugh at them on Internet forums (LOL!).

Maybe that's what bothers them the most. Complete and utter indifference on the part of those they are blaring at through their bullhorns.

 

[RedIbis]

Yes you can. You can publish anything you want and advocate any position you want. It's called academic freedom.

Scott wasn't talking about publishing, he was talking about flagrantly breaking the rules of his school. This isn't the case at all schools in N. America as Jack was suggesting.

 

[The Almond]

But as you said, research at universities is about bringing in grant money, so by your own accurate description, if 9/11 engineering research doesn't bring in any money,

The NYCCAN ad campaign is over $10,000, right? That's enough for about 25 hours of an assistant professor's time at a medium sized university with low overhead. Then let's count in Gage's speaker's fees and walking around money. Oh right, but it's far more important to not have any research done by competent academics with the capacity to publish in reputable engineering journals. Having Richard Gage explain it is a far better use for the money.

what incentive would those researchers and universities have to pursue, expensive, long term analyses?

I'm missing something here. It would take a fully competent researcher with a PhD large amounts of money and time in order to prove that a conspiracy exists, but you've figured this all out by investigoogling it in your spare time? Since when do people need PhDs in engineering to prove conspiracies exist? Since when do they need to do expensive, complicated, long term analyses? Richard Gage is neither a competent researcher nor an academic, but he's proved that the towers fell by dropping cardboard boxes. Imagine what a professional with a lab and some semblance of professionalism could do! Imagine how many journal articles they could have published by now!

 

[Scott Sommers]

No. Tenured professors cannot breach their contracts, and they can be fired for committing offenses unbefitting their institution. I imagine contracts are different at different schools, but it's not like just because you have tenure, you can do whatever you want.

Thank you for your undergraduate interpretation of the problem. Just in case anyone is reading this, it should be corrected. In fact, it is almost impossible to remove tenured faculty who publish regularly. The case of Denis Rancourt is illustrative of this problem.

By the way, do you know what tenure means? It just means full-time, permanent employment. It's not any different than union membership. If you do a Google search on the topic, one of things you'll find is that professors who have lost their jobs are typically 'adjunct'. Barrett was adjunct.

Steven Jones wasn't fired. If I remember correctly he was given paid leave.

Barrett wasn't even a tenured professor but someone who just taught a few classes in literature. I'm sure if he was banging on about 9/11 in his classes it wouldn't be appropriate for his course.

Truthers are basically fantasy dissidents in the sense that what they seem to think is rebellious is barely even acknowledged by the "powers that be" that they say they are railing against. It's not quite the same as being a dissident against, say, the Iranian regime where you are likely to be arrested, tortured, raped, perhaps executed or the Burmese regime or the North Korean regime. However, they will pretend it is JUST AS BAD if not worse because it is really, really, really subtle.

For example, they'll be ignored (ostracised!) by other passengers on the bus or suppressed and silenced when their letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal or the Times written in red-ink on their typewriter doesn't get published or they'll suffer MacArthyite slanders by people who laugh at them on Internet forums (LOL!).

Maybe that's what bothers them the most. Complete and utter indifference on the part of those they are blaring at through their bullhorns.

Technically, you are correct - Barrett was adjunct. They just discontinued his classes. Dr. Steve is a little more complex. Dr. Steve had a reasonable publication record, but he taught at BYU. This is church-owned private school. BYU makes student adhere to an honor code that regulates

chastity, dress, grooming, drugs, and alcohol. A signed commitment to live the honor code is part of the application process, and must be adhered by all students, faculty, and staff. Students and faculty found in violation of standards are either warned or called to meet with representatives of the Honor Council.

Some other church operated schools have similar situations.

I am unfamilar with Dr. Judy's case. I can believe it was as The Almond describes because I have been unable to find any academic publications with Dr. Judy's name on them.

Dr. Judy apparently has a sidekick, Tracy Postert who also has a PhD from somewhere. Dr. Tracy believes an X-ray beam was used to destroy the WTC Buildings. She also claims to be a medical marijuana researchers, although she has published nothing about anything ever. Barrett certaily hasn't published a stick.

I quite like this term "fantasy dissident". When I think about Dr. Steve and what drew him into this dark world, I can only think that back in 2006, these guys and gals were thinking that the really Lefties, like Chomsky, would be rushing to supoprt them. And when the Dems got back in power, there would be just rewards handed out to the faithful. This never happened, and Chomsky and rest just laughed at them, too. It's sad. It's true that Jones and Wood really no longer merit a job. Even without this stigma attached, they were unemployable. Now, there is no chance for them.

 

[RedIbis]

Thank you for your undergraduate interpretation of the problem. Just in case anyone is reading this, it should be corrected. In fact, it is almost impossible to remove tenured faculty who publish regularly.

Now follow along closely and extra slowly:

You said:

"I can say and do anything I want, including flagrantly breaking the rules of my school."

You're not talking about publishing here.

Jack Daniels said:

And you think that doesn't hold for professors in North America with tenure?

I said:

No.

You cannot flagrantly break the rules if you are a tenured professor at a N. American school.

But please, flagrantly break the rules, I'm sure it will catch up to you at some point.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

But as you said, research at universities is about bringing in grant money, so by your own accurate description, if 9/11 engineering research doesn't bring in any money, what incentive would those researchers and universities have to pursue, expensive, long term analyses?

To my knowledge the threat of legal or employment ramifications has had little role in influencing the staff at the institution I go to. Generally speaking the kinds of theories that get pushed by professionals like those in AE911truth are well outside the scope of competence anyway.

I'd say they'd be fine expressing such things as opinion, but I doubt most institutions would like those kinds of things to become part of the instructor's professional practice given that some of these theories would easily result in the equivalent of teaching students to give the building codes one massive middle finger to the face and all.

 

[RedIbis]

To my knowledge the threat of legal or employment ramifications has had little role in influencing the staff at the institution I go to. Generally speaking the kinds of theories that get pushed by professionals like those in AE911truth are well outside the scope of competence anyway.

I'd say they'd be fine expressing such things as opinion, but I doubt most institutions would like those kinds of things to become part of the instructor's professional practice given that some of these theories would easily result in the equivalent of teaching students to give the building codes one massive middle finger to the face and all.

There are two very different things being discussed. One is whether or not tenured professors "can do whatever they want." The answer to that is of course, no.

The other issue is whether or not professors can responsibly pursue and publish even radical ideas, and on the whole, the answer is yes.

 

[BigAl]

There are two very different things being discussed. One is whether or not tenured professors "can do whatever they want." The answer to that is of course, no.

The other issue is whether or not professors can responsibly pursue and publish even radical ideas, and on the whole, the answer is yes.

I wonder what Prof. Ward Churchill is doing these days.

 

[Oystein]

There are two very different things being discussed. One is whether or not tenured professors "can do whatever they want." The answer to that is of course, no.

The other issue is whether or not professors can responsibly pursue and publish even radical ideas, and on the whole, the answer is yes.

Great. So tenured professors must not murder students, and they must not forge scientific data. Cool.

Otherwise, they are free to pursue any scientific interest they want. It better be within their field of expertise, but Dr. Steven, as we know, has also published in the fields of weird faith and silly magic (Christ visiting the Americas blah blah). That didn't do him in (admittedly, BYU as an institution buys that brand of magic). His troubles started when he began doing BAD science outside of his field of experience.

 

[RedIbis]

I wonder what Prof. Ward Churchill is doing these days.

Appealing a judge's decision to deny his reinstatement and deny any financial compensation for his firing and termination of his tenure, proving of course, whether justifiable or not, that a university can fire a tenured professor.