Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Newspaper Editor Recycles Trash

This guy would be getting a lot more attention if he hadn't come out for 9-11 Denial during the Rosie/Imus/Virginia Tech stories. Still, he's a editor of a fairly major newspaper, the Winnipeg Sun, so unlike Rosie, he has some pretensions to seriousness.

The most dramatically disputed aspect of 9/11 is the question of what the world really saw that day in New York City, when three steel-frame high-rises -- the 110-storey Twin Towers and the 47-storey WTC 7 -- collapsed at near free-fall speed neatly into their own footprints.


Yeah, neatly



into their own



footprints:



This is the usual recycled nonsense that we hear from the Deniers.

This view, though rejected by Popular Mechanics and defenders of the status quo, has won support from engineers and academics from other disciplines. For instance, John McMurtry, a philosophy professor emeritus at the University of Guelph and fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, credits Prof. John Valleau of the Chemistry-Physics Research Group at University of Toronto for drawing his attention to "this scientific anomaly." McMurtry concludes: "The instant and inexplicable collapses of the WTC buildings in uniform demolition style could not be explained by fire (plus, in the case of the Twin Towers, the impact of the airplanes) without contradicting the laws of engineering physics."


Wow, so he got a quote from a philosophy professor on the laws of "engineering physics"? I'm quite impressed; perhaps when we have a question about Plato's allegory of the Cave we could consult Einstein on the matter?

Labels: , ,

32 Comments:

At 18 April, 2007 10:19, Blogger CHF said...

So he takes the word of philosophy profs on why buildings collapse.

I wonder whether he'd contact structural engineers if he had a question about philosophy.

 
At 18 April, 2007 10:59, Blogger Edmund Standing said...

Original post:
Wow, so he got a quote from a philosophy professor on the laws of "engineering physics"? I'm quite impressed; perhaps when we have a question about Plato's allegory of the Cave we could consult Einstein on the matter?

CHF:
So he takes the word of philosophy profs on why buildings collapse.
I wonder whether he'd contact structural engineers if he had a question about philosophy.


Er...

 
At 18 April, 2007 11:59, Blogger CHF said...

Yeah I know - I was redundant.

My bad for not reading the original post until the end. I just skipped right to the actual Sun piece.

 
At 18 April, 2007 13:29, Blogger Edmund Standing said...

Yeah, I guessed :-)

But it's a serious point. I mean, imagine if truthers thought the opinions of a comedian, an ailing Broadway star and a washed up Hollywood actor counted for more than those of experts in structural engineering, controlled demolition, and political science.

Wait a minute, that sounds kind of familiar...

 
At 18 April, 2007 13:51, Blogger MarkyX said...

God damn it Canada, stop embrassing me.

 
At 18 April, 2007 13:54, Blogger CHF said...

I fired off a letter to the editor today outlining what a fraud the "scholars" are.

 
At 18 April, 2007 15:43, Blogger Babatunde said...

I've spent some time in Winnipeg. The Sun is tabloid-style, and is the smaller paper in town, and will probably always be. The last time I read it, it seemed to be geared at folks who believed NASCAR was too uppity.

 
At 18 April, 2007 16:19, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

My Canadian pride has now taken a knock.

Go Senators Go!!!

There, I feel better now.

TAM:)

 
At 18 April, 2007 20:09, Blogger ConsDemo said...

As annoying as domestic deniers are, they are actually worse in other countries because few want to be seen as defending America. So anti-Americanism, even the truly ridiculous variety like this, flows more easily.

No word on the Virginia Tech shooter's views on 9/11, but he was definitely into government conspiracies

 
At 18 April, 2007 20:46, Blogger Newtons Bit said...

Sadly there are no such things as laws of engineering physics.

 
At 19 April, 2007 03:04, Blogger Edmund Standing said...

No word on the Virginia Tech shooter's views on 9/11, but he was definitely into government conspiracies.

I'm a bit disturbed by the fact that some people on here were actually hoping the killer was a 'truther' and apparently still do. That's almost as sick as what the truthers have done by trying to exploit these killings by putting them into their NWO agenda 'theories'. What are you hoping it would prove even if he did hold 9/11 conspiracy views? A lone spree killer is not representative of the '9/11 Truth' movement, so what he may or may not have believed is irrelevant. I would ask those who are so keen to find out if the killer had an interest in 9/11 conspiracies what you would say/do if he did? Start posting messages saying, 'There, that proves it, truthers are insane'? I hope not.

 
At 19 April, 2007 05:19, Blogger Edmund Standing said...

Update: MSNBC has posted excerpts from the killer's writings including this:

Now that you have gone on a 9/11 on my life like [fucking?] Osama ... Are you happy now?

So, not a truther.

 
At 19 April, 2007 06:03, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Wow, so he got a quote from a philosophy professor on the laws of "engineering physics"?

So physics is limited to the engineering field only now, eh? Interesting. I didn't realize the laws of physics change based upon what field your in. I will have to discuss this new development with my engineering co-worker. I'm sure she will find this new development quite a shock.

 
At 19 April, 2007 06:42, Blogger sggw said...

Physicists and Philosophers don't build buildings and don't use structural dynamics.

What makes him an expert on structural engineering in the first place?

What makes him an expert on structural engineering in the first place?

What is his mechanical design experience with Structrial Dynamics

What is his experience with aircraft investigatoins.

Which crashes did he investigate?

What is his experience with building design and how many has he investigated?

 
At 19 April, 2007 07:02, Blogger Gary said...

http://www.am770chqr.com/station/blog_the_world_tonight.cfm?bid=10799

 
At 19 April, 2007 07:41, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

I'm a bit disturbed by the fact that some people on here were actually hoping the killer was a 'truther' and apparently still do. That's almost as sick as what the truthers have done by trying to exploit these killings by putting them into their NWO agenda 'theories'. What are you hoping it would prove even if he did hold 9/11 conspiracy views? A lone spree killer is not representative of the '9/11 Truth' movement, so what he may or may not have believed is irrelevant. I would ask those who are so keen to find out if the killer had an interest in 9/11 conspiracies what you would say/do if he did? Start posting messages saying, 'There, that proves it, truthers are insane'? I hope not.

Exactly, and if he did turn out to be a twoofer they'd say it was a plot to smear the movement.

 
At 19 April, 2007 08:29, Blogger CHF said...

I will have to discuss this new development with my engineering co-worker.

And his take on basement bombs is....?

 
At 19 April, 2007 18:18, Blogger ConsDemo said...

I'm a bit disturbed by the fact that some people on here were actually hoping the killer was a 'truther' and apparently still do.

Edmund, I wasn't hoping he was a twoofer and I accept your quote suggesting he wasn't. I wondered whether he was. Twoofers such as Alex Jones are eager to lump him in with thier latest conspiracy, so it would have been ironic if he was a twoofer. Secondly, people who are mentally ill frequently glaum onto conspiracy theories, thus it wouldn't have been a great leap if he was a twoofer.

 
At 19 April, 2007 19:09, Blogger Alex said...

What are you hoping it would prove even if he did hold 9/11 conspiracy views?

It wouldn't "prove" anything, but it is data that support the idea that people who are mentally ill are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. Ofcourse, we already know this from past experience, but there hasn't been enough time between 9/11 and present-day to gather data on the correlation between 9/11 denial in particular and sociopathic behaviour. It'd be interesting to see if the data meets expected results.

 
At 19 April, 2007 20:51, Blogger texasjack said...

I will have to discuss this new development with my engineering co-worker.

Judy Wood?

 
At 20 April, 2007 07:40, Blogger James B. said...

No, I think she is still unemployed. Would you hire that woman to design something for you?

 
At 20 April, 2007 07:42, Blogger Jeff and Melissa said...

"former Brigham Young University physics professor Steven Jones argues forcefully that the nature of the collapses, the presence of large pools of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, witness accounts of hearing explosions -- that these and other factors point to the conclusion all three buildings were brought down by controlled demolition." from the book 911 and American Empire.

"David Ray Griffin, a former theology professor from California who has become a leading voice of 9/11 dissent, also points to the destruction of evidence after the collapse -- most of the steel was quickly hauled away and shipped to Asia, where it was melted down.

"Although it is normally a federal offence to remove evidence from a crime scene, the removal of the steel, which was carefully overseen, was facilitated by federal officials," Griffin wrote".

Please note that David Ray Griffin did not comment on the physics of the event.

Please not that John Gleeson did not himself discuss the physics. He did not comment, he did not state.

Please read the article before you start grasping at straws to prove a point which cannot be proven.

 
At 20 April, 2007 08:07, Blogger Alex said...

huh? what the hell was that in response to?

 
At 20 April, 2007 08:40, Blogger Edmund Standing said...

It wouldn't "prove" anything, but it is data that support the idea that people who are mentally ill are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories.

But, so what? I still can't help feeling you would like to be able to have this as a stick to beat truthers with - "Your beliefs are nuts, look at the mentally ill people who share them."

If I'm wrong, I apologise.

 
At 20 April, 2007 09:10, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

"Please note that David Ray Griffin did not comment on the physics of the event."

Oh, but he does all the time, and is embarrassingly wrong most of the time. Controlled Demolition, free fall,

QUOTE: Griffin: Well, first of all, you have to distinguish between the Twin Towers and Building 7. Building 7 is a classic implosion that did proceed from the bottom - that is the normal way in which one does an implosion, which is the kind of controlled demolition, that is guaranteed to make the building come straight down, so that it doesn't fall over on the surrounding buildings.

It's understand able a "theologian" would not understand these massive building could not fall over no mater what happened. They would fall straight down because that is the physical nature of structures that big. The religion guy does not know structural engineering at all. But he has got you suckered.

As for the removal of debris, are you saying all the stuff should have been left in place? No rescue efforts, burning trash spewing toxic fumes in the air? Don't touch it!... a conspiracy theorist nut case want to look at it.

No the crime was obvious, 19 Islamic terrorist and two airplanes. NO bombs NO controlled demolition.

 
At 20 April, 2007 09:47, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

But, so what? I still can't help feeling you would like to be able to have this as a stick to beat truthers with - "Your beliefs are nuts, look at the mentally ill people who share them."

And it's a stick we already have.

 
At 20 April, 2007 10:34, Blogger Jeff and Melissa said...

John Gleeson is simply drawing on statements and facts brought forward by professionals that work or have worked with the science that defines the events that took place on 9/11. John Gleeson has brought forth questions that have yet to be answered. That we continue to have unanswered questions five years after the event took place is ridiculous. I don't believe that anyone commenting on this blog should be making broad open statements about exactly what took place, using either mainstream media or government provided information to make their own conclusions as these sources of information cannot be guranteed free of political and commercial interest conflicts. We clearly need an international commission that will openly investigate the events that surrounded the days in question and one that will remain entirely independant from all governments and international organizations such as the UN.

 
At 20 April, 2007 11:48, Blogger sggw said...

Any questions that have been left unanswered are questions that have no relivence to what happened on 911. Had you the knowledge to understand you would see this.
No toofer has ever answered the myrad of questions that we have asked. Why is that?

 
At 20 April, 2007 12:16, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

Notice the basic idea truthers float.

They ask what are simple to answer questions and when THEY can not understand the answers they insist a investigation is needed.

The best experts in the fields of engineering have explained how the towers fell using real science and logic. Now if YOU lack the knowledge or inborn intelligence to comprehend what they are saying then it is YOUR fault, maybe some more reading will help you. I have no problem understanding the concepts but I am kind of a science geek and read lots about this stuff.

How far do we have to dumb the explanation down? How much do we spend to appease the simple of mind.

 
At 20 April, 2007 12:58, Blogger sggw said...

After the Oil for Palace debocal can you imagine how the UN could screw this up.

 
At 20 April, 2007 14:26, Blogger Alex said...

We clearly need an international commission that will openly investigate the events that surrounded the days in question and one that will remain entirely independant from all governments and international organizations such as the UN.

Right! Maybe we can get Ahmadenijad to run it!



Edmund:

But, so what? I still can't help feeling you would like to be able to have this as a stick to beat truthers with - "Your beliefs are nuts, look at the mentally ill people who share them."

If I'm wrong, I apologise.


No, you're right. And while you're certainly correct in your intimation that it is a logical fallacy to discredit a theory by pointing out that insane people share it, there's a point at which you need to stop and look at who the proponents of the theory are. There's nothing wrong with dismissing an argument which is only supported by cranks and lunatics. Otherwise we'd still be debating the possible benefits of perpetual motion machines.

 
At 20 April, 2007 16:32, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

Right! Maybe we can get Ahmadenijad to run it!

We'll have to wait until he's got to the bottom of the holocaust first!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home