You are here

You can’t PAY people to defend the 9/11 Commission Report. Does that mean we’ve won?

Even though nobody showed up to claim the $1,000 honorarium – maybe even because no debate opponent showed up – the 9/11: Explosive Evidence film and debate event Thursday night was a huge success.

In the film, a long list of experts explained, clearly and in detail, why the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers can only be explained by controlled demolition.

After the film, not one of the thousands of supposed experts on engineering, physics, architecture and other relevant topics who teach at the University of Wisconsin showed up to claim $1,000 and explain why the experts in the film are wrong. Since they would have only had to debate little ol’ me, and since I am an expert in humanities, not hard sciences, I wonder why some scientist or engineer from the UW system didn’t show up to try to mop the floor with me. Surely there must be at least ONE scientist or engineer in the UW system who believes the government’s story about what happened to those three buildings!

Of course, it would be awfully embarrassing for a science professor like Marshall Onellian, who called me a “fruitcake” in the media, to lose a debate on a science/engineering topic to a humanities scholar. And that is exactly what would have happened had Onellian or any other science-professor opponent showed up. The reason: The argument about the destruction of the three skyscrapers mostly concerns sixth-grade physics. And the government’s account violates the basic laws of physics. Were a humanities scholar to demonstrate that a science or engineering scholar could not understand and apply the simple, basic laws of physics…well, I’m afraid that would signal the end of the war between the “two cultures” with a resounding victory for the humanities, and a free-fall implosion of the sciences.

That, of course, is not my objective. Some of my best friends are scientists! As much as I appreciate humanities (not to mention divinities) I think we’re in a battle to preserve the scientific method, among other gains of the Enlightenment, from the psychotic/Satanic tribalism of the Straussian neoconservatives, who aim to destroy the whole notion of truth and reserve accurate knowledge and critical thinking for a tiny, mendacious, unprincipled elite of self-styled philosopher-kings…while brainwashing the masses with emotionally-charged mythologies such as the official version of 9/11. So I’m actually on a mission to save science from a tiny cabal of insane humanities people (and the folks they’ve managed to brainwash). For details on the Straussian project, read Shadia Drury.

What about law professors like Ann Althouse (who publicly called me “truly nutty”) and political science professor Donald Downs (who suggested that I should never be re-hired by the University)? Are they not obliged to defend those views in a transparent public debate? May UW-Madison faculty members insult their colleagues’ research in the media, yet refuse to back up the insults with any rational-empirical arguments?

If Onellian, Althouse and Downs get away with this, the Englightenment is officially over, and the neocons have won…at least here at the University of Wisconsin, whose motto is: “Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere, we believe that the great State University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found.”

5 Thoughts to “You can’t PAY people to defend the 9/11 Commission Report. Does that mean we’ve won?”

  1. pourquoi tant de haine a l'encontre de Kevin… l'universite va faire faillite, ca sera le top, ces infames iront se prostitues la ou ils savent mieux le faire

    courage Kevin, et encoe mille bravo pour ton travail titanesque

  2. Adam Syed

    I remember when I was a freshman at Ohio State, and at freshman orientation, when we sat in an auditorium and were greeted by the Dean, he told us that the real purpose of higher education is the pursuit of truth.

    Not social status, not credentials so we can get that 6 figure income and live out the materialistic American Dream [sic]. But the pursuit of TRUTH at all costs.

  3. Do you remember that Dean's name? Maybe I should invite him on my radio show.

    Of course, just because they talk the talk doesn't mean they walk the walk.

  4. Anonymous

    hi…great release on the lack of debate the other night…and i've been enjoying your shows…

    …paul thompson did some interesting radio on sibel edmonds's site…two part series…especially concerning richard clark…

    …wish you could get him on to talk about some of the issues where he seems to believe the government…for example the bin laden killing…

    …met a chinese buddhist and iranian muslim (strange case…she won the INS lottery quite recently)…both of these women were giving off so much light…effortlessly…

    …i was reminded of your questioning me about spirituality…i've seen some christians with it too…i try to ignore this aspect of life…but it reappears…

  5. The purpose of life is to OBEY ALLAH…. to submit ourselves to his will. It seems that your detractors aren't living up to that purpose…

Leave a Comment