When Religion and Science Don't Mix
The Journal of 9/11 Studies once again maintains its reputation for academic work expected of a poorly run alternative high school, this time with a paper by retired Religious Studies professor Graeme McQueen regarding the words of firefighters describing the damage to WTC7, as put forth by Ryan Mackey, Mark Roberts and others. The logic employed, is rather fascinating, to say the least.
But let us turn to the third statement I listed in my summary of Mackey’s argument. Is it true that FDNY members rationally concluded from what they perceived that the building was in danger of collapse? Only seven appear to have done so, whereas 50 accepted the collapse prediction from others, typically superiors.
With regard to the fourth point in the argument, is it true that the collapse warnings were mainly the result of a rational conclusion based on observation and training? No. As far as we can tell, no rational conclusion based on direct perception was made in the vast majority of cases.
Basically he is arguing that since not every description of the damage, and the collapse was withing the parameters that he would accept as definitive, that we should ignore all of them, despite the fact that he does not have a single witness to back up a contradicting argument. Amazing.