You are here: Home Forum
 
Media Lens Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 3      Prev   1   2   3   Next
margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #16 
SEFI APPROVES 9/11 SCIENCE AND ETHICS PAPER
— Then Censors it on Dubious Grounds

Quote:
"If a conference such as SEFI 2015 (European Society for Engineering Education) cannot address the ethical lapses of the engineering peer review process, what venues are available to demand that engineers adhere to the ideals embodied in their various codes of ethics?" — Wayne Coste and Michael Smith


[excerpt]


LAST month, the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) rescinded
its approval
for engineers to present their paper at the 43rd annual SEFI conference
in Orléans, France, just prior to participants' arrival.


The paper, titled "The World Trade Center Analyses: Case Study of Ethics, Public Policy and the Engineering Profession" and co-authored by Prof R. M. Korol of [Dept of Civil Engineering] McMaster University, questions the ethics and credibility of those who speak for the engineering profession. Specifically, it critiques the unscientific conclusions and ethics failures of an article written by Northwestern University engineering professor Zdeněk P. Bažant, "What Did and Did Not Cause the Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York," that was published in respected professional journals after the destruction of these New York City skyscrapers on September 11, 2001.

 Though their paper was peer-reviewed by the SEFI conference's scientific committee and was subsequently accepted and scheduled for presentation, the scientific committee then did an about-face after two committee chairmen overruled the scientific committee's recommendation and withdrew approval at the last minute. The reason SEFI gave for pulling the paper had nothing to do with the technical veracity of its content or its conclusions, the paper's authors maintain. Rather, they say, SEFI cited an unspecified concern about possible libelous statements.

An excerpt from that correspondence reads: "On looking again at your proposed paper, the Committee was not fully convinced that you met the copyright statement below which you completed on 6 April: 'The authors warrant that the article contains no libelous or other unlawful statements and does not infringe the rights of others.'"

Coste and Smith believe that the SEFI chairmen were seeking an excuse to prevent them from presenting their paper. Indeed, the chairmen did not attempt to refute either the paper's data or the conclusions it drew about compromised ethics on the part of engineering trade journals, nor did they suggest any possible libelous statement or theme...

+ article continues at link http://www.ae911truth.org/news/225-news-media-events-sefi.html

+ Censored paper by COSTE et al http://censoredbysefi.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/54759.pdf

+ New 20-page science/engineering information booklet published for distribution to building professionals, academics, journalists > http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=d03bf3ffcac549c7dc7888ef5&id=14ac549b31&e=[UNIQID]
margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #17 
The Sound of Silence in Academia:
Critical perspectives on 911 systematically excluded from universities (not to speak of media)

German journalist Lars Schell interviews Canadian documentary maker, Adnan Zuberi

http://www.globalresearch.ca/911-truth-and-the-sound-of-silence-in-academia-critical-perspectives-on-911-are-systematically-excluded-from-universities/5473622
margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #18 
As we reach the 14th year of  the ongoing 911 Wars, a number of people will engage in interactive discussion on Friday 11 and Saturday 12 September, including:

-- Daniele Ganser -- senior researcher at Institute of Strategic Studies, University of Zurich;
-- director of Swiss Institute for Peace and Energy Research;
-- author of Operation Gladio: NATO's Secret Armies (2004)

-- Anthony Hall -- professor of Globalisation Studies at University of Lethbridge, Canada;
-- author of Earth Into Property (McGill University Press) (2010)

-- Graeme McQueen -- professor emeritus, founder of Centre of Peace Studies at McMaster University, Canada

--
Cynthia McKinney -- served six times in the US House of Representative

-- David Johnson -- professor emeritus of Urban & Regional Planning at University of Tennesee, engineer
-- His letter of intent > http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2012-September---Johnson-letter.pdf

-- Kevin Ryan -- scientist, steel insurance whistle-blower fired after calling out NIST on its structural steel assessments

--------
Good summary of The NIST Investigation > http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/nist/index.html
Myers

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 18
Reply with quote  #19 
Regarding Guardian video piece in July:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2015/jul/16/terrorism-buildings-design-architecture-how-world-trade-collapse-911-fire-melt-video#comments

Comments link is there (38 comments) but clicking reveals nothing. They have been removed ?
margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #20 
Two interesting papers I recently came across:

(i) originally written in Italian by scholars from University of Perugia, but translated here:

The Implausibility of the Official Explanation of 9/11: Science and Participatory Democracy
Scienza e Democrazia (2013)
 


http://www.dmi.unipg.it/mamone/sci-dem/nuocontri_3/911_mmc_mcdn.pdf

(ii) Written a number of years ago, but still valid

911 Skeptopathy: Pathological Skeptism in support of the falsified official story
Michael Fuller (2011)

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/07/18/911-skeptopathy-pathological-skepticism-in-support-of-the-falsified-official-story/







margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #21 
Scribd > "Beyond Misinformation"  - concise compilation of observable/verifiable facts > http://www.scribd.com/doc/280021915/Beyond-Misinformation-2015#scribd
 -----

Glasgow officials should try the office furnishing fire demo method trumpeted by NIST, in order to effect a WTC7-type textbook demolition:
"City officials apologise for towers botched demolition'
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/12/glasgow-city-officials-apologise-for-towers-botched-demolition



Wsvfdrfd

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #22 
The documentation of relevant and current http://www.casesam.co.uk/ links is plenty and fine. I often read http://www.ourcase.co.uk/  somewhere on the web.
margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #23 
New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) is to host architect Richard Gage and engineer Tony Szamboti to discuss 911.
Faculty members from NJIT’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering will also participate to present views and explore a topic with critical unanswered questions.

LINK > http://www.njit.edu/news/2015/2015-279.php
margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #24 
911 Commission Report: fabricated sections
No wireless technology in 2001 for mobile phone calls

http://www.globalresearch.ca/what-happened-on-the-planes-on-september-11-2001-the-911-commission-script-was-fabricated/5428771
margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #25 
University Civil Engineering Dept to undertake WTC 7 Evaluation

http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/

A two-year study being undertaken by Dr. J Leroy Hulsey, Chair of University of Alaska's Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, and two Ph.D. research assistants. It is being crowd-funded. Every aspect of the scientific process will be on the university's website so that the public can follow its progress.



margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #26 
With 911-initiated terrorism now threatening ill-informed people everywhere, it's hard not to point fingers at the media which omitted facts that might otherwise have led civil society to a better understanding of how the world arrived at this impasse.

It's also hard not to feel disappointed that intellectuals also closed gates, further narrowing public discovery that might have lead to catalysing realisation over the past decade.

I refer to the way Chomsky equated writers contributing to a modest website called 'Journal of 911 Studies'  with creationists, which turned people away from their work.  Writers at this site include scientists Terry Morrone, Ken Kuttler, Frank Legge, EPA head Dr Cate Jenkins, engineers like Jon Cole P.E.
Respectable leftists everywhere, who value Chomsky's opinion, avoid such a 'toxic' Journal after his targeted dismissal. This Journal does not only host the work of scientists, but also analysts and authors like John McMurtry, Daniele Ganser and Peter Dale Scott - thinkers who don't deserve to be smeared by association as 'intelligent design' idiots.

[As one example: Disregard the first two minutes and listen carefully from 3 minutes on:  you will hear Chomsky say:

Quote:
“There are submissions to the Journal of 911 Studies, but that is about as convincing
as submissions to The Journal of Intelligent Design Studies.”


** Link >> 


Chomsky admits he does not have the scientific expertise to evaluate scientists's writing, which suggests he should take a more agnostic position.
If steel skyscrapers  plunged with no resistance in Beijing or Tehran, say, with American passports found in the rubble, and scientists and engineers raised reg flags over conservation of momentum, would Chomsky's position be the same? What is the responsibility of intellectuals?
Myers

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 18
Reply with quote  #27 
I used to think that Chomsky was 'forgiveable' for his 'blind spot' on 911 and JFK, but no longer.

I think that if our culture, our relatively open, quasi-democratic society cannot break the taboo surrounding issues like false flag terror, secret warfare, strategies of tension, and 'Big Lies', then to be frank, it deserves to be superseded by the forthcoming totalitarianism (or something else). If our leading Liberal intellectual -and I do regard him as a liberal rather than anarchist, is willing not only to disregard evidence and opinions but to deliberately misrepresent a whole movement of academics and professionals, that is only emblematic of a general failing of Western Thought to break through the denial surrounding the true corruption at the heart of our political structures. We cannot comprehend 'the unspeakable' (as James Douglass calls it) perhaps because ultimately our understanding of human nature and therefore of human thought is incomplete. I think that Chomsky's Materialist Atheism also has repercussions in this regard- although that is a longer point to make.

It is tempting to say that time will be the judge on Chomsky's opinions on this matter, but I think it already has been. The arguments were settled ten years back, and not only Chomsky failed us, but so many others. Where are Hedges, Pilger, Greenwald, Cockburn, Roy, Klein, Goodman, Curtis, or for that matter David Edwards and David Cromwell? 
To those who have made the leap into considering the mere possibility that critical perspectives on 911 might have some merit, our eventual descent into fascism has long seemed inevitable- short of acknowledgement that the perpetual war and the closure of society are based on abject lies. It matters not how well you argue that war is an inappropriate response to terrorist attacks, or that war creates blowback terrorism, or that there is a skewed morality in the whole thing. These are reasoned arguments that hold no weight in the face of the irrationality of fear- fear that is deliberately generated in false flag events. Fear trumps reason and morality, tragically, that is the essential kernel of truth behind Machiavellian tactics. This though seems lost on the Liberal analysis,
If one can get a population to accept that skyscrapers can just fall to pieces at the click of a finger, one can get them to accept pretty much anything; once reason is abandoned, there really is no limit given enough time and resources.
It is no surprise that we are purportedly now at war with an enemy that our leaders openly acknowledge they created.  It will be no surprise that the war will turn out to be against ISIS's enemy Assad. It will be no surprise if the overt fascist Trump gets positioned into the White House. It will be no surprise when the next terror event takes place in this country that it will follow the very same ridiculously transparent script as those before. It will be no surprise when the government unveil emergency powers and a state of emergency that sounds the death knell of open dissent in the UK. If taboos are left unchallenged they grow into remarkable but predictable powers.

The excellent writers who have a platform in the 'first circle' of alternative media, many of them now go right up to the threshold of calling 'bullshit' on the recent terrorism in Paris (- it just looks too convenient so it is hard not to), but unless or until they actually do, there is no chance of any real challenge to the current paradigm. I fear it is much too late anyway.
Chomsky be dammed, what use was all his analysis if we have come to this rule of fear, unreason, and absurd lies.
margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #28 
thanks for response, Myers.

By aligning 911 studies with "intelligence design", Chomsky has steered people away from the subject.
Has Chomsky ever listened to BBC's Mike Rudin trying to put words into scientist Dr Niels Harrit's mouth?

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aICwi_pJJ5I



Myers

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 18
Reply with quote  #29 
I am afraid I cannot listen to Mr Rudin again, once was enough, enough to know what a failed journalist sounds like when confronted with intellectual courage.

The more I think about Chomsky the more annoyed I get. That comparison:

Evolutionary theory is established by the work of countless scientists working over 150 years.

The NIST reports are 'established' by a handful of shaky assertions backed up by secret data sets, all with no peer review prior to publication and virtually no course for correction subsequently.

It is the official account that reads like psuedoscientific religious mumbo jumbo, isn't it?

All that they have is the weight of authority to push such nonsense onto the public, and people like Chomsky are a key part in what amounts to a kind of intellectual fascism. The hand waving refusal to debate and the insistence on the authenticity of the official reports, it's all rather authoritarian isn't it?

Imagine if Chomsky had said just this and no more (imagine how all those 'first circle' writers who look up to him as the truth oracle incarnate might have approached the subject these past fourteen years):

"The official reports are not to be taken as unquestionable fact. The inquiries can be shown to have been compromised and to not have stood up to the standards required of such. The scientific reports have not conformed to the accepted rigors of the scientific process, and so should not be regarded as settled. There has been only one minor criminal trial where anything approaching an adversarial process has cross examined the essential narrative of 9-11, insufficient to the extent that a question mark should rightly hang over the official story of the events of that day."

Imagine that, it's not an endorsement of any theory, it is utterly uncontroversial in terms of how easy it would be to substantiate such a statement. Yet what does Chomsky give us? 'Truthers are a cult', that they are analogous to creationists, that "Who Cares?" nonsense, and a load of speculative 'what-if' gibberish.
On reflection, it feels as if I have, over the years, been wooed by his industrious production, but that now I view him as a shallow, rather mechanical thinker, unable or unwilling to grapple with the most important and glaringly obvious issue of our time.
margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #30 
Myers, thanks for responding. Chomsky's approach is confusing because he has acknowledged the lack of evidence >

Chomsky: "No evidence that AlQaeda carried out the 911 attacks"
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/11/noam-chomsky-no-evidence-that-al-qaeda-carried-out-the-911-attacks.html

Chomsky is free to hold his opinion. But it is sad that he chose to denigrate grassroots forensics and claim it is 'easy' to get published in mainstream journals.  Even if he didn't want to engage with the science-based line of enquiry, perhaps he could at least have commented on the official cover-up, maintained by media: ie the official reports from US govt agency NIST and the 911 Commission Report, 25% of it based on torture testimony and penned by WH insider Philip Zelikow. ironically, the Commission Report *itself* said "it found no evidence" 63 times, even as it enshrined whole-cloth testimonies > http://digwithin.net/2011/10/30/no-evidence/

Perhaps there's a lack of self-consciousness on Chomsky's part as to his own significance and influence on thinkers? Chomsky has written movingly about "the responsibility of intellectuals" but perhaps, in this case, he has a blind spot?

I admit I also felt that flash of anger/frustration when I heard the 'intelligent design' comment, because the bloody deaths of the 911 Wars could perhaps have been halted when civil critique reached a pitch between 2006 and 2008 (before the media smears and censorship swung in with force).  More eyes might have been opened if Chomsky had merely taken a neutral position (as you eloquently posit, Myers) rather than an actively negative one. 

Anger put aside, one can feel sympathy. Sympathy for
-- Middle East victims who might value scrutiny, never supplied by the in-house official reports. A poll showed a majority of Afghans did not even understand why their country was invaded in September  2001 - no evidence or proof was ever given.
-- Analysts and scientists whose work has been placed beyond the parameters of discourse (a priori) by an influential academic.
-- Chomsky himself,  if he has inadvertently painted himself into a corner.




Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!

leftAll photos courtesy of the Creative Commons, a nonprofit organization that enables the sharing and use of creativity and knowledge through free legal tools..

Like, Tweet and Share...