Thursday, December 07, 2006

Creative Math

When I did my first survey of the Full Members of the "Scholars" for 9/11 "Truth" back in May, I merely counted the fields that they were in, I did not count of their level of qualification. I have been meaning to ever since, but haven't got around to it. It is not so much that it makes a difference to me, I don't believe you necessarily need a PhD to research all these subjects, but they are the ones bragging about their qualifications.

So I was reading Kevin Barrett's website mujca.com the other day, and they are making claims about their qualifications again:

The O’Reilly Harbor Toss is Barrett’s response to a thinly-veiled threat from Mr. Bill. During his program on 11 July, O'Reilly expressed dismay that Barrett, one of 80 university-affiliated Ph.D. members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, was being allowed to teach: “At the University of Wisconsin there are no standards. . . . I'm stunned. This guy would have been gone at Boston University, my alma mater, in a heartbeat. The Chancellor there, John Silber, would of--would have--this guy'd be in the Charles River floating down, you know, toward the harbor."
I found this interesting, because only a couple of weeks ago him and Bill Woodward were complaining that there were only 2 or 3 professors who were willing to speak out about 9/11. So now there are really "80 university-affiliated Ph.D. members"? So I put the list of Full Members (they have now finally broken into triple digits with 100) into Excel and laboriously looked up their qualifications.

First let me define how I did this. The count I was looking for was PhD level, full time professors at 4 year institutions. I omitted non US and Canadian institutions for a variety of reasons, first of all, because I am not familiar with their systems and it is hard for me to evaluate. Several of those at foreign schools are listed as "ESL instructors". I don't know if that really qualfies as an academic posting, my sister taught English in Japan for a couple of years, but I would hardly count her as a scholar. I also categorized those who have an academic affiliation, but not a full-time, PhD level one, this includes adjunct (part-time) professors, lecturers, and non-PhD level faculty. Other categories include non four year institutions (community college), those who are retired or no longer employed for whatever reason, and those that have no identifiable academic affiliation whatsoever.

So my grand total for PhD level full-time affiliated professors comes to 29 (and this even includes all of the English and psychology professors), out of the 100 members. The other totals are:

Retired\unemployed: 19
Non full-time/Non-PhD level: 7
No academic affiliation found: 32
Non four year institutions: 5
Foreign institutions: 8

15 Comments:

At 07 December, 2006 14:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Update: I'm closing comments on this post for now and not showing the old ones. I have not deleted them.

From the Burlingame Post....

I'm not sure I understand the difference. Are you considering bringing them back?

 
At 07 December, 2006 16:19, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It was getting a bit to personal i think, so i think it was actually a good thing to close it down.

 
At 07 December, 2006 17:57, Blogger ConsDemo said...

I'm surprised by the shutdown, but I don't know what was posted.

As to the topic at hand. Given the prevailing standards on American universities, once one get tenured they are free to become an American hating zealot. Universities will defend such nonsense in the name of "free speech" but if they cross to politically correct taboo, there is hell to pay.

 
At 07 December, 2006 18:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just to be clear, I heavily moderate comments on my blog, which is possibly 1/10,000 as popular as SLC.

I'm not saying SLC Blog shouldn't have a right to moderate, or do anything they want here.

For the record, let me Part of What They are Hiding from the previous Burlingame Post.

 
At 07 December, 2006 19:47, Blogger shawn said...

Please do not mention that I have posted this.

I'm sorry, Grand Highlord Dinosaurius of the Babylonian Brotherhood has already been informed.

 
At 08 December, 2006 04:35, Anonymous Anonymous said...

BG, that's not the reason the topic was closed for comments. I saw the comments there and it wasn't pretty.

 
At 08 December, 2006 05:49, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

What is the big deal?

It has been like that since I've started visiting. I will admit I've only stooped on a couple of occasions. But I think you will agree that most of the comments like what we saw were from the OS side. Of course that is common talk when confronted by CT'ers.

Why all of the sudden the whole thread is shut down?

I'm glad Pat recognized he was the one ultimately responsible for the issue, considering he posted the article. Kudos for Pat for removing it.

BG I only wished you had captured the whole thread up until 6 pm est yesterday. I was interested in what BS Trite was about to spout next.

 
At 08 December, 2006 07:57, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

James, bro, what is your point here? Nothing that exciting on the Truth Movement today?

I have a better idea. Compile the number of people who heard explosions going off in the WTC complex before the plane hit and after the plane hit.
Then get to that debunking that you are so good at.

 
At 08 December, 2006 08:31, Blogger James B. said...

I think that would be one.

Since the plane crash was essentially an explosion, how exactly did he tell which explosion came before which explosion?

Why would the conspirators be randomly blowing stuff up in the basement?

I am just asking questions here.

 
At 08 December, 2006 11:48, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Why would the conspirators be randomly blowing stuff up in the basement?

To help gravity out! Why else?

 
At 08 December, 2006 11:50, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

James, by the way, your going to have to link to that conspiracycarol website I posted earlier to keep up the festive holiday atmosphere.

http://www.conspiracycarols.com/

 
At 08 December, 2006 12:51, Blogger Triterope said...

I was interested in what BS Trite was about to spout next.

I'm curious about this myself, since I don't recall posting on the closed thread. What did I say, exactly?

 
At 08 December, 2006 14:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why would the conspirators be randomly blowing stuff up in the basement?

To help gravity out! Why else?


And yet the building collapsed from top to bottom.

 
At 08 December, 2006 18:13, Blogger Alex said...

Well, sure, it makes perfect sense. I even did an experiment to prove it. I stacked a whole bunch of tupperware containers on top of eachother. I then partially melted one of the bottom containers. Then I threw a toy plane into the middle of the structure. It collapsed just like the WTC! If that's not proof of controlled demolition, I don't know WHAT is...

 
At 09 December, 2006 05:44, Blogger Unknown said...

Hey Alex
That reminds me of the time I tried an experiment of my own. After watching numerous videos found on YouTube and Google Video, I was convinced that what happend to the towers was not a result of fire or structural damage.

To prove this I made two tall hollow square tubes out of clay. These were to represent the towers. I then took my mechanical Bic pencil and poked many many holes in one face of each "tower". This was to simulate the damage done by the supposed planes.

My next step could be argued as overkill, but I placed each tower in a kiln. This was to simulate the fire. Now, we all know that clay is not as strong as steel, so I figured the raging inferno inside the oven would positively vaporize both of my clay structures.

Imagine my suprise when, upon removing them from the kiln, I found them to be hard as a rock!! The fire actually made the towers MORE stable!!! (I thought to myself, that they were almost like trees.)

This begged the question then: What brought the towers down? If the fire actually made the buildings stronger, some foriegn force must've been at work.

I took a hammer out and whacked the towers to simulate Bush whacking the towers with a hammer... Nothing. I shot at them with an AK-47 to simulate Israeli soldiers shooting at them with AK-47s... Still nothing!!

Finally, I went down to Ace Hardware and picked up some yellow cake. I made myself two mini-nuclear bombs and detonated each at the base of the towers (always wear protective goggles).

That was the one to do it, although not as I expected. It seems from my observations that the strength of the outer tube carried the force of the nuclear blast up vertically to the top of each tower whereby it proceeded to facilitate collapse at the areas weakened by my Bic, from the top down.

I have proceeded to post my findings on reputable websites known for hating this administration and have found them to be very well received for some reason.

This is concrete proof that the government story is a sham.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home