"Professor's 9/11 theories outrage NH leaders"

[FrankChodorov]

Embracing such conspiracy theories about Sept. 11th is not constructive for Americans who face a immediate threat from terrorists "who want to kill Americans because they don't like us," Gregg said.

"It is insensitive, inappropriate and inexcusable to make such statements," he said, "and not far from making racist statements and using hate statements."

does anyone actually believe that terrorists want to kill us because they don't like us?

as W says they hate is "because of our freedoms"...

[maineiac]

"In my view, there are limitations to academic freedom and freedom of speech," said U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H.


Ugh.  Judge Dredd strikes again.

Nice! Your govvie over there in N'amshuh is a real peach!

. . . and, paraphrasing from the original article, "Americans {we} can't be wasting time with conspiracy theories when there are people out there that want to kill us because of who we are." --Dredd


That particular quote is so totally Homeland/KGB, it might come straight from The Onion! Come to think of it, all establishment media have truly become a parody of themselves recently.

[maineiac]

Well, that wasn't a good paraphrasing maybe . . . here it is from the article:

"Embracing such conspiracy theories about Sept. 11th is not constructive for Americans who face a immediate threat from terrorists "who want to kill Americans because they don't like us,"" Gregg said.

[BaRbArIaN]

http://gaelicstarover.blogspot.com/2006/08/then-they-came-for-professors.html

This professor at UNH is getting a lot of heat because he dares to talk about alternative versions of who is responsible for the 9/11 disaster.   Agree or not, you'd think merely bringing it up in class as a talking point wouldn't get you so much grief.   In NH yet.

[aries]

You speak as if NH is a state where this would not normally happen... you forget that we are a very conservative state.

The only way he would be censored is by social pressure, isn't that a part of the libertarian philosophy? That the government should never censor but people are encouraged to express outrage and ostracize others in order to induce social change or opinion?

I've been following this man's story and I think he was brave enough to bring it up in classes...

also-
"'In my view, there are limitations to academic freedom and freedom of speech,' said U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H..."

I've said this a million times, Judd can go fuck himself for being an ignorant asshole who doesn't care about me, or any other NH residents that he represents. He's a sadistic, elitist POS. You can bet there will be a big smile on my face as I vote against his sorry ass.

[Caleb]

does anyone actually believe that terrorists want to kill us because they don't like us?

yes, but that doesn't rule out the government also having a stake in what happened.

I think its very difficult to be completely informed and not believe that there was US complicity at some level.

For Mike, and KB and others, let me ask you a fairly straightforward question:  If the US was not in any way complicit ... why has Mahmoud Ahmad not been extradited to face charges (you know, the Pakistani ISI chief who wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta)?  I thought that we would consider the nations that harbor the terrorists to be no different than the terrorists?  So under the Bush doctrine, shouldn't Pakistan turn over Ahmad ... or else?

Caleb

[KBCraig]

For Mike, and KB and others, let me ask you a fairly straightforward question:  If the US was not in any way complicit ... why has Mahmoud Ahmad not been extradited to face charges (you know, the Pakistani ISI chief who wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta)?  I thought that we would consider the nations that harbor the terrorists to be no different than the terrorists?  So under the Bush doctrine, shouldn't Pakistan turn over Ahmad ... or else?

That's a non-sequitur. Questioning ST911 (and others) is not the same as defending Bush.

[Dave Ridley]

also bear in mind the professor is state funded and is thus using my money to spew his claims...although I think it's kinda fun that people are spewing these claims I don't want them doing it on my dime without my consent.

[FTL_Ian]

The real issue is state funding of schools.  If all school funding were private, the market would handle this situation instead of hot-air-blowing politicians.

[KBCraig]

FYI: I don't believe he should be investigated or censured because of an unpopular opinion. But, I do agree that any university proffesor who engages in research, but who employs such obviously faulty methods and standards, should be reviewed as to his level of professional competenance.


UL: The Nutty Professor

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleID=33c2a542-6df1-4b20-bf73-e5dd175e0d14

The nutty professor: UNH needs an investigation

SHOULD the University of New Hampshire fire psychology professor William Woodward because his belief that the Bush administration brought down the twin towers is so divergent from the mainstream? Of course not. But the professor's views are illogical enough to justify an investigation into whether he is fit for his job.

The question here is not whether Woodward should keep his job because his political beliefs are unusual. The questions are whether Woodward is misusing his position to promote those beliefs, and whether he is up to snuff academically.

Woodward's beliefs call into question his rational abilities, to say the least. It is one thing to question the official version of 9/11 events. It is another to take that skepticism and leap to the conclusion that the only possible explanation for anomalies in the official version of events is that the Bush administration brought the towers down. One would expect a professor to use better logic than that.

But the group to which Woodward belongs, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, is that sloppy in its thinking.

Its members find things in the official version of events that appear suspicious, then simply posit that 9/11 must have been a government conspiracy. Woodward's own stated views on the subject merit further inspection. UNH should double-check professor Woodward's teaching and research. Is he using his class to peddle his beliefs? Is his professional research as sloppy as his research into the causes of 9/11?

And under no circumstances should UNH let him teach a class on the psychology of 9/11, which he wants to do. Woodward has shown that he is not an objective analyst of that event, but a partisan with an agenda to promote.

If we were inclined to think like Woodward does, we might say that the evidence suggests that he is a small part of an elaborate conspiracy to undermine the public's confidence in the American government. Hey, we can't prove it. But don't you see, that means it must be a conspiracy!

But we will be more generous, and logical, than that. Woodward's thinking suggests that he might not be fit for a tenured faculty position at UNH.

The university should look into it.

[tracysaboe]

Why is it that everytime somebody believes an unofficial or anti-official version of events everybody just attacks with the illogical ad hominum of "irrational."

They use the word more like a religion or something they worship as opposed to actually showing that they understand its meaning.

If a person is irrational. Show why he's irrational. Find flaws in his deductive or inductive reasonings. If you can't find any, then he's not irrational or illogical. It's possible he could still be wrong however if his innitial conditions are inncorect -- in which case you show him contrary facts from that which he basis his initial conditions on. Then you can have a healthy debate about which set of facts are more reliable and why.

I personally don't put a lot of stock in these further out conspiracy theories above and beyond the government knowing about it and purposefully refusing to acknowledge it or do anything about it so it could help push their agenda.

But just because he disagrees with me, doesn't make him irrational.

2ndly, regarding freedom of speach. Hoppe just had a run-in with freedom of speach. And the ACLU came an deffended him. Who's to say which things a professure says in example are allowed and which aren't? Seems to me a lot of libertarians and conservatives are highly sellective about which cases the property rights of the government funded campus vs freedom of speach takes takes priority. In fact, I'll use the same arguments libertarians used in defending Hans Herman-hoppe. "These are college kids who can think for themselves and know very well these are mere oppinions of their profesures and which things actually pertain to the course materials."

If we were inclined to think like Woodward does, we might say that the evidence suggests that he is a small part of an elaborate conspiracy to undermine the public's confidence in the American government.

And this is the typical red herring everybody shilling for the official version of events uses, and it never accurately represents the position of the minority view. It's simply another ad hominum. most conspiracy theories have sources and facts they're using to back up their believes. Not "there is no proof and that's the proof" nonsense. The speaker is simply to lazy to anylize the evidence to pick it apart and refute it so he uses this lame, time honored aproach of propagandic discreditation.

I'm highly unimpressed with this article.

Not posting it to Digg, Kevin. 

Tracy

[KBCraig]

I'm highly unimpressed with this article.

Not posting it to Digg, Kevin. 

+5, Bro.! 

Facts, not ideology or theology. Truth, not desired outcome. Darned good mantra.

Kevin

[Kat Kanning]

Merged another thread into this one.

[Russell Kanning]

They must have been asking the wrong "NH leaders".

[FTL_Ian]

I hate it when people use "leaders" in that context.  Elected representatives are not my leaders.  Blecch!