New Hampshire Prof Under Fire for 9-11 Denial
Unfortunately, this case is unlikely to end up like Steven Jones' suspension.
Woodward, a tenured professor, belongs to Scholars for 9/11 Truth, whose members question the official story about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and contend that the U.S. government either had knowledge of the attacks or had a role in them.
Gov. John Lynch called Woodward's beliefs "completely crazy and offensive" and asked the trustees to investigate.
Andy Lietz, chairman of the university system trustees, said a "careful review" of Woodward found his teaching consistent with accepted standards, "even though he has expressed some ideas that many find objectionable." Some of Woodward's students have defended him.
Woodward has said he does not push his views on his students but has mentioned it in his classroom in the spirit of full disclosure.
Full disclosure? You mean like disclosing that he's a nutbar?
Reactions from other bloggers:
Blue Crab Boulevard:
The only way his beliefs would be relevant is if he were using them as an example of how otherwise intelligent people can be stupid enough to fall into idiotic and dangerous beliefs. Abnormal psychology, then.
Damian Penny:
As for Professor Woodward, the impression I get is that he brings up this stuff in class, kind of like the history professor I once had who moped about the collapse of the Soviet Union. As I wrote earlier, if Woodward is making the students accept his twisted theories if they want to pass, he's clearly crossed the line. If he's allowing students to argue with him, it's probably within bounds.
That's pretty much my take as well. Kevin Barnett is a different matter; there he's teaching 9-11 Denial as part of the curriculum.
James Joyner:
The idea that politicians, let alone students, should have any say as to which professors are hired and fired is nuttier than anything Woodward espouses. The professoriate has always operated as essentially a guild, with experts monitoring the conduct of other experts. That system has worked for centuries.
That's pretty close. I don't think students should not have any say; their input should certainly be considered, but it should not be dispositive.
posted by Pat @ 8:00 AM
16 comments
16 Comments:
I just hope the students' petition doesn't give the CT's another celebrity martyr.
I think you need to have trust in the peer review process wrt curriculum. That said, the ultra left wing aspect of most faculties will often mean a very soft disposition on all matters that protest against govt.
TAM
So what is it about the scholars for truth that bothers you folks so much?..
1. The fact that they use their positions as academics to insinuate that they are somehow more qualified to talk on all matters 9/11, when in fact, when it comes to the nuts and bolts of the attacks, 90% of the Full Time membership of that group have absolutely NO EDUCATION OR SKILLS in those areas.
2. The fact that people with such a high level of education could ignore logic, ignore the scientific method, ignore the evidence, or call it fabricated simply because it has some minute link to an element of the USG, or because their own distrust of the govt blinds them.
I hear and see claims that these profs. are crazy, they are nut cases. But I do not find much substance in such simple statements- what makes the professors so crazy?
Most craziness comments likely are about Judy Woods and Fetzer. Fetzer is poorly researched, and exhibits an extreme degree of paranoia. Judy compares the WTCs to Trees, which is enough for me to see she has lost it.
I've read many of the assertions and I can't determine what is so crazy or nutty?
Because you cannot see it does not mean it isn't so. they can't see it either.
As a former military man who worked in NORAD (and who understand that many in govt. are not working for the same team - i.e Hansen, Brian Reagan) I cannot figure out why so many balls were dropped on 9-11 - acorss so many agencies. I also find it nearly impossible that al-queda would be able to coordinate certain activites on 9-11 without having knowledge that could only be provided by an insider.
Well if you worked for NORAD, and you feel the government helped or let 9/11 happen, than come forward, give us your name and we will tell the "truth" movement. they will have you on all their shows, and then the big bad USG will come tumbling down. Funny they havent mentioned you.
Again, what makes the questions so crazy?
come on are you that naive. I dont think so. The questions are not what makes them crazy. We have questions to. It is the extreme, outrageous conspiracy claims they make...that make them crazy.
Hmmm. If I used history as a backdrop you folks seem to be the crazy ones. Our forefathers emphatically warn us not to trust govt...Govts. have historically been corrupt institutions. Govts. have historical committed horrible acts against it's own citizens.
You mistakenly think that most here "trust" govt. They don't. They just feel that the essence of the official story on who committed 9/11 attacks, and how, is correct.
With such a rich backdrop - it would seem that we should first look at and try ti rule out the govt. as the culprit. The claims of urgency, the enemy will get us if we waste time on conspiracies and those who question are aiding the enemy is about as tired and disproven as govt. itself.
Now that is a paranoid statement, to assume that the people elected by the people would be the first on a list of suspects to hurt them.
I know I know...It's different this time...You would be crazy to think otherwise. If you honestly examined the logistics to carry out attacks - you find that established govts. are the ones with exclusive access and capability.
Govts. are not about the individual - it's about the fallible instituion that has be be forced to serve the people - govts. have to be brutally managed by the people -- to the opposite -- govts who rule and influence the people are exemplified by threats against academics who dare challenge the party line and citizens who fear being labled a nut case if he/she dares to ask the tough questions....
So all the hundreds of engineers, scientists, who are also academics, but who believe the official story, what do you say about them...or are they "different" academics. You make it sound like Fetzer et al represent all educators and academics everywhere, when that is extremely far from the truth.
Oh I forgot to add the part about the professors who are corrupting the minds of impressionable students at taxpayer expense.
Thats right. I am fighting to force professors to follow the party line (similar to 30's Germany) - none of that subversive stuff that will cause my kid to question authority. I want my junior to grow up believing every thing spewed out of the govts mouth. I have decided to say "to hell with the Constitution, to hell with the Founding Fathers - shut them up and get them out -
Noone is saying the profs cannot include 9/11 alternative theories in an appropriate course. That is the issue, is where is appropriate. I personally don't think that I want my son learning about 9/11 in his math class (an extreme example, but you get the point).
Nice of you to join us FORMER NORAD WORKER. Did you leave before or after 9/11?
TAM
So what is it about the scholars for truth that bothers you folks so much?..
They're liars. Is that a good enough reason?
Again, what makes the questions so crazy?
It isn't the questions themselves.
It's the mindless repetition of the questions long after they've been answered. It's the answers the truth cult comes up with as alternatives to the answers they've been given.
Unrelated:
I mocked this guy in a forum one time for his horrible typing. It turned out he had no arms and had to type with his feet. I never make fun of people's typing any more.
I also find it nearly impossible that al-queda would be able to coordinate certain activites on 9-11 without having knowledge that could only be provided by an insider.
Well, as one military man speaking to another, you Sir are a quack. There is not a single "activity" which the hijackers performed which would require "an insider". If you truly think otherwise, I challange you to come up with a list of these "activities" and we'll discuss them. That's the sort of comment I'd expect from a civ, not from someone who's worn the uniform, and DEFFINITELY not from someone who's worked as part of NORAD. Unless, ofcourse, your experience at NORAD ended back in the 60's, in which case your lack of education about modern threats would be understandable.
DD-214 please, preferably not faked...
what makes the professors so crazy?
They believe that the towers were demolished via controlled demolition and that 9/11 was an inside job.
I am fighting to force professors to follow the party line (similar to 30's Germany) - none of that subversive stuff that will cause my kid to question authority.
Wow, have you even gone to college? If you think the professors tell you to respect authority and are all right-wing fascists (though they are another type) - well you either went through college in a coma or never went at all.
LOL, perfect answer. Also if you were really in the Military then you would know that you don't have to be in NORAD to know what's going on. Claiming to be a "military man who worked in NORAD" sounds like something out of hollywood. Why don't we ever hear people say "Well I was in S2 at the time" or "I was coming off of Staff Duty when I..."
P.S. I was cleaning the barracks when CQ informed me that the first plane had hit.
I was stationed near NORAD (Ft. Carson) and I toured it once. Does that make me an expert on national security?
or pulling a good patriot off of a key position.
You lost all credibility on that one. You officially have no idea waht your talking about. I think that you may have actually served in the Air Force but that doesn't mean jack. You can throw around words like COMSEC, OPSEC, etc but for us that served it makes you look stupid. You didn't even give your rank or MOS. You could be some shitbag E-2 cook for all I know. Every single one of my fellow soldiers that I've talked about 9/11 with agree that it wasn't LIHOP or MIHOP, so don't go around saying that they are being kept quiet. To date the only veterans that agree with the CTers are either fakers poor soldiers.
EDIT :
fakers OR poor soldiers.
Again, if history is a clue, based on personal understanding of fundamental procedures it is likely an inside job.
As someone who knew more about history at the age of eight than you will in your entire life, I wonder how you could make such a stupid statement.
Actual attacks far outweight false-flag operations in the historical record. Not only that, but in modern American history false-flag operations (or just non-attacks used to justify an action - Tonkin Gulf being on eof the few) are outnumbered by al-Qaeda attacks against America interests in the past two decades.
Oh, and you've obviously never read Leo Strauss.
Indeed, author Shadia B. Drury, in her 1997 book, Leo Strauss and the American Right
Yea, right. You cite another brain dead conspiracy theorist to try to prove yours is valid? It is easy to prove Drury is a loon, take this for example from the same book.
The truth of the matter is that neoconservativism is not conservative, but radical and reactionary.
This statement is, at best, a fallacy. You see, Drury is a hard left professor at the University of Calgary. She never meets, talk to or associates with anybody who disagees with her, so to her the hard left is normal. So when conservitives, for example, resist the effort to legalize gay marriage, and thereby redefine one of the fundamental institutions of our society, she sees that as "radical" and "reactionary", not the redefinition of marriage.
As for the laundry list of top officials who are supposedly under the spell of Strauss, I don't know if all those people ever even met this guy, but it sure sounds a lot like the Skull and Bones CT. It seems to me that the whole Strauss thing is just another poorly thought out and ignorant CT.
"So what is it about the scholars for truth that bothers you folks so much?.."
The fact that none of them have relevant engineering experience. Dr. Jones is a physicist who researches fusion, for example.
And, the fact that academics must know that the academically accepted way to legitimize research is to submit it to peer review in established publications. They have not done so; in fact, they're attempting to create their own rubber stamping review process. Which is a subversion of the whole concept of peer review.
" I'm simply saying that from my experience there was no way 19 guys could have pulled off the job without inside help"
Pulled what off? Get on an airplane and threaten passengers? What about the fact there was only 19 of them makes this impossible? Hijackings have happened in the past with far fewer people involved. After the hijacking, it's only a matter of navigation to accomplish the WTC and Pentagon attacks.
Please explain how you find it so impossible. You are only making an allegation.
"maybe I could post my AF Form 2587 "
Sure, go ahead. I'm not in the military myself, so I don't know what one is, but it would be a terrific good faith act to prove your credentials. You could blank out personal information, but it would help to understand what your credentials are.
BTW: What was your MOS? And your branch? I've noted that most ex-service members don't merely say "I'm military"; they usually identify themselves as having been with a specific branch i.e. "I'm ex Navy", or "I'm a Marine". No, I'm not assuming someone who served at NORAD was in the Air Force; I thought that was a joint agency. The current commander is an Admiral.
'Check out the book "Breaking the Ring" - while the Walker boys were in a different branch - many of us were intimately familiar with what was compromised."
I do remember the Walker case. I also remember that one of the big problems was lack of supervision. They were acting w/o government knowledge for many years. That was a severe issue, and proof that security was lacking to a frightening degree, but how exactly does that buttress any of the conspiracy fantasies about 9/11? How, for example, does the fact they existed support any claim about the government assisting the 9/11 hijackers? The Walker case was one about the government not knowing their espionage until after the fact. The 9/11 fantasy scenario would be the opposite: That government knew exactly what was happening because they planned it.
"If you recall, prior to 9-11 rowdy passengers (fights, attacks on staff was not unknown) led to action steps to limit in flight violence - I remember a news clip of flight attend..learning karate..."
And if you recall, the conventional wisdom on hijackings were that the hijackers were only concerned with being transported someplace, therefore you give them what they want and they'll let you go eventually. I distinctly remember reading and being told many times that the proper response to hijackers was to not stand out, to not give the hijackers any reason to single you out for any sort of action.
And: I know a flight attendant. She never said anything about resisting hijackers prior to 9/11; in fact, she said that the procedures for her airline were the opposite: Give them what they want, allow the local police force the opportunity to handle the situation, don't try to be a hero. That last was emphasized: "Don't try to be a hero".
So, not knowing that they were bound for kamikaze duty, the flight crew was supposed to fight back? I agree, that's what they should have done, but that's applying a hindsight analysis to the situation. Given the situation as it stood at the time, how can one say that fighting back was the proper response? Previous hijackings indicated otherwise.
". And perhaps more importantly, the military specializes in tracking craft that are off transponder or appear invisible - isn't that the very nature of an enemy craft? Again folks were are talking mil 101."
All right. Argument accepted. Can you explain how NORAD was supposed to single out the hijacked planes? They would've just been blips on radar. And, if they were out of their corridors, how would NORAD have known they were hijacked, as opposed to merely being off course for any reason (navigational error, in flight emergency)? Yes, I admit that I don't know much about procedure, but those like you who claim that the military was supposed to have been able to do something about the hijacked flights never explain how they were supposed to discriminate between them and legit traffic. Everyone points out Payne Stewart's flight, yet no one seems to explain how they were not able to intercept the Cessna that hit the White House back in '94, or the one that hit the Federal Reserve Bank in Miami in '02. Was NORAD stood down for those crashes too?
Last: How does your thesis regarding Strauss and his protégés explain anything? It may provide motive, assuming it's relevant, but how does it explain opportunity? I ask because I continually see arguments against this government being used to justify conspiracy fantasies, but philosophical bents of government personalities can not overcome the physical impossibilities of many of the conspiracy fantasies, such controlled demolition. Motive does not automatically translate into opportunity, and both are necessary.
Post a Comment
<< Home