[Robotgroup] OT: challenge

[Shane Geiger]

Vern Graner wrote:
> Shane Geiger wrote:
> <snip>
>
> This seems to be a topic you are quite concerned with and one in which I 
> don't doubt you have sincere beliefs. However, I think the topic has a 
> high probability to become inflammatory, divisive and distracting to The 
> Robot Group mailing list.
>
> To preserve the domestic tranquility we enjoy here, I'd like to keep to 
> the more mundane, robotic and technological discussions commonly featured.
>
> I think 9-11 theories best be discussed elsewhere.
>
> Thanks! :)
>
>   

Here is my original challenge that I encourage you all to take:

"[T]ell me what is wrong (if anything) with this analysis:

"Freefall Acceleration of WTC7: 
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=POUSJm--tgw (10 minutes)
(This analysis is shockingly easy to understand and shocking.  It is 
worth noting that other independent evidence strongly suggests the very 
same thing:  This is a controlled demolition.)

"Good luck."


It is an interesting intellectual challenge that requires only basic 
physics to answer the question "What is wrong with the analysis in the 
video?"

I have been extremely well mannered and provided extensive reasoning (in 
my last email) to legitimize discussion of this ten-minute video.  This 
is a matter of physics and of the scientific method. 

If blind nationalism gets dragged into the conversation, then I could 
see how people might be poor mannered.  However, to censor this physics 
discussion even before some people voice objections about on-topic 
topics, is a shame.  One of the seven wise men of ancient Greece and the 
"Socrates of his time," Solon declared:  "It is a crime for any citizen 
to shrink from controversy."

Censorship concerning the science of this matter comes in various forms: 
self-censorship, discouraging discussion (in polite ways or by 
discrediting a group) and even outright censorship.

Observing objective reality, trying to find an explanation and testing 
this explanation should not be considered an affront to any educated 
person. 

I feel it is anti-intellectual to censor a discussion of physics, and 
that it is a form of prejudice against a minority.



My Rule: Do Not Use the Term "Conspiracy Theorist"

You are using a loaded, prejudiced term when you use "conspiracy theory" 
or "conspiracy theorist."  It is akin to the sorts of terms that 
disparage minority groups.  (It has not been scientifically shown that 
people who suspect and inspect a conspiracy are somehow less intelligent 
than the rest of the population, but this term gets used as such to keep 
the population from thinking.)

If people want to use prejudiced propaganda-like term against a 
minority--as do racists, sexists and homophobes--then keep using that 
term.  If they want to think things through and develop a more 
intelligent society, then they should avoid that term, demanding the 
same of other and that people drop the attitude of superiority.  (Acting 
like jerks often has the effect of making people who have knowledge to 
tune out.)

History is full of smaller and larger conspiracies, so ridiculing 
someone because they are concerned about conspiracies taking place in 
one's own time, belies a lack of knowledge of the past.

In any case, the "conspiracy theory" moniker is meant to stop people 
from thinking.  Resist the urge to "non-think" that way.

(It's ridiculous anyway to use that term in relation to 9/11 because 
everybody agrees more than one person conspired to commit crimes on 9/11.)



> Vern
>
>   


-- 
Shane Geiger
IT Director
National Council on Economic Education
sgeiger at ncee.net  |  402-438-8958  |  http://www.ncee.net

Leading the Campaign for Economic and Financial Literacy