Scribd Logo
Fazer o upload

Bem-vindo(a) ao Scribd!

  • The Waterloo March 19th 9/11 Event: A Response

    Enviado por

    Michael Keefer
    901 visualizações6 páginas
    On March 19, 2008, I participated in a well-attended event devoted to 9/11 evidence, organized by the University of Waterloo's student Debating Society. The principal speakers were Kee Dewdney, Professor Emeritus of mathematics and computer science at Waterloo, who outlined his refutation of official narratives about cellphone calls from the hijacked airliners; and Professor Graeme MacQueen, co-founder of McMaster University's Institute of Peace Studies, who presented his and mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti's refutation of the official analysis of the destruction of World Trade Center 1. Richard B. Lee, University Professor Emeritus at the University of Toronto, introduced the speakers; I was moderator for the question period. During the break before question period, I was confronted in a highly insulting manner by an audience member whom I later discovered to be Professor Jeffrey Shallit of Waterloo's Department of Mathematics. Several days later, Professor Shallit sent the following message to the participants in the event: Dear Colleagues: I attend[ed] the “debate-that-was-not-a-debate” about 9/11 on Wednesday, March 19, at the University of Waterloo. I have written a series of critical blog posts about the event, which you can find at my blog recursed.blogspot.com. I hope you will agree that I have been harsh in my criticism, but fair. If you feel that I have misrepresented what you said in any way, please let me know so that I can issue the appropriate correction. Of course, you are also welcome to comment directly on my blog. Or, if you prefer, feel free to send me e-mail and mention that you would like me to publish your response. Regards, (Prof.) Jeffrey Shallit I responded on March 25, 2008: Dear Professor Shallit, I am enclosing a response to you as an attachment to this message. You are welcome to post my text on your blog, provided you reproduce it in its entirety. I believe you owe me an apology for your grotesquely insulting behaviour to me on the evening of March 19th. Your language to me on that occasion had nothing to do with criticism, whether harsh or fair. Nor do repeated insinuations of Holocaust denial amount to an argument. Plato's Eleatic Stranger describes refutation as a blessing, “the chiefest and greatest of purifications” (Sophist 230d-e). I am perfectly willing to accept the blessing of refutation from those who think themselves wise or learned enough to bestow it—and I am no less willing to bestow the same benefit, perhaps more thoroughly, in return. However, I am not willing to accept abusive smears from you or anyone else. Yours sincerely, Michael Keefer Professor, School of English and Theatre Studies, University of Guelph Professor Shallit promptly changed his mind about publishing my response on his blog. We did meet for lunch, and civil conversation, some months later. But since his blog posts about the 9/11 event and about what he calls “denialism” remain online, it seems appropriate to publish this response.

    Direitos autorais

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formatos disponíveis

    DOC, PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd

    Você considera este documento útil?

    Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

    Denunciar este documento
    On March 19, 2008, I participated in a well-attended event devoted to 9/11 evidence, organized by the University of Waterloo's student Debating Society. The principal speakers were Kee Dewdney, Professor Emeritus of mathematics and computer science at Waterloo, who outlined his refutation of official narratives about cellphone calls from the hijacked airliners; and Professor Graeme MacQueen, co-founder of McMaster University's Institute of Peace Studies, who presented his and mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti's refutation of the official analysis of the destruction of World Trade Center 1. Richard B. Lee, University Professor Emeritus at the University of Toronto, introduced the speakers; I was moderator for the question period. During the break before question period, I was confronted in a highly insulting manner by an audience member whom I later discovered to be Professor Jeffrey Shallit of Waterloo's Department of Mathematics. Several days later, Professor Shallit sent the following message to the participants in the event: Dear Colleagues: I attend[ed] the “debate-that-was-not-a-debate” about 9/11 on Wednesday, March 19, at the University of Waterloo. I have written a series of critical blog posts about the event, which you can find at my blog recursed.blogspot.com. I hope you will agree that I have been harsh in my criticism, but fair. If you feel that I have misrepresented what you said in any way, please let me know so that I can issue the appropriate correction. Of course, you are also welcome to comment directly on my blog. Or, if you prefer, feel free to send me e-mail and mention that you would like me to publish your response. Regards, (Prof.) Jeffrey Shallit I responded on March 25, 2008: Dear Professor Shallit, I am enclosing a response to you as an attachment to this message. You are welcome to post my text on your blog, provided you reproduce it in its entirety. I believe you owe me an apology for your grotesquely insulting behaviour to me on the evening of March 19th. Your language to me on that occasion had nothing to do with criticism, whether harsh or fair. Nor do repeated insinuations of Holocaust denial amount to an argument. Plato's Eleatic Stranger describes refutation as a blessing, “the chiefest and greatest of purifications” (Sophist 230d-e). I am perfectly willing to accept the blessing of refutation from those who think themselves wise or learned enough to bestow it—and I am no less willing to bestow the same benefit, perhaps more thoroughly, in return. However, I am not willing to accept abusive smears from you or anyone else. Yours sincerely, Michael Keefer Professor, School of English and Theatre Studies, University of Guelph Professor Shallit promptly changed his mind about publishing my response on his blog. We did meet for lunch, and civil conversation, some months later. But since his blog posts about the 9/11 event and about what he calls “denialism” remain online, it seems appropriate to publish this response.

    Direitos autorais:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Baixe no formato DOC, PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    901 visualizações6 páginas

    The Waterloo March 19th 9/11 Event: A Response

    Enviado por

    Michael Keefer
    On March 19, 2008, I participated in a well-attended event devoted to 9/11 evidence, organized by the University of Waterloo's student Debating Society. The principal speakers were Kee Dewdney, Professor Emeritus of mathematics and computer science at Waterloo, who outlined his refutation of official narratives about cellphone calls from the hijacked airliners; and Professor Graeme MacQueen, co-founder of McMaster University's Institute of Peace Studies, who presented his and mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti's refutation of the official analysis of the destruction of World Trade Center 1. Richard B. Lee, University Professor Emeritus at the University of Toronto, introduced the speakers; I was moderator for the question period. During the break before question period, I was confronted in a highly insulting manner by an audience member whom I later discovered to be Professor Jeffrey Shallit of Waterloo's Department of Mathematics. Several days later, Professor Shallit sent the following message to the participants in the event: Dear Colleagues: I attend[ed] the “debate-that-was-not-a-debate” about 9/11 on Wednesday, March 19, at the University of Waterloo. I have written a series of critical blog posts about the event, which you can find at my blog recursed.blogspot.com. I hope you will agree that I have been harsh in my criticism, but fair. If you feel that I have misrepresented what you said in any way, please let me know so that I can issue the appropriate correction. Of course, you are also welcome to comment directly on my blog. Or, if you prefer, feel free to send me e-mail and mention that you would like me to publish your response. Regards, (Prof.) Jeffrey Shallit I responded on March 25, 2008: Dear Professor Shallit, I am enclosing a response to you as an attachment to this message. You are welcome to post my text on your blog, provided you reproduce it in its entirety. I believe you owe me an apology for your grotesquely insulting behaviour to me on the evening of March 19th. Your language to me on that occasion had nothing to do with criticism, whether harsh or fair. Nor do repeated insinuations of Holocaust denial amount to an argument. Plato's Eleatic Stranger describes refutation as a blessing, “the chiefest and greatest of purifications” (Sophist 230d-e). I am perfectly willing to accept the blessing of refutation from those who think themselves wise or learned enough to bestow it—and I am no less willing to bestow the same benefit, perhaps more thoroughly, in return. However, I am not willing to accept abusive smears from you or anyone else. Yours sincerely, Michael Keefer Professor, School of English and Theatre Studies, University of Guelph Professor Shallit promptly changed his mind about publishing my response on his blog. We did meet for lunch, and civil conversation, some months later. But since his blog posts about the 9/11 event and about what he calls “denialism” remain online, it seems appropriate to publish this response.

    Direitos autorais:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Baixe no formato DOC, PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    de 6

    [On March 19, 2008, I participated in a wellattended event devoted to 9/11 evidence, organized by the

    University of Waterloo's student Debating Society. The principal speakers were Kee Dewdney, Professor
    EmeritusofmathematicsandcomputerscienceatWaterloo,whooutlinedhisrefutationofofficialnarratives
    aboutcellphonecallsfromthehijackedairliners;andProfessorGraemeMacQueen,cofounderofMcMaster
    University'sInstituteofPeaceStudies,whopresentedhisandmechanicalengineerTonySzamboti'srefutation
    of the official analysis of the destruction of World Trade Center 1. Richard B. Lee, University Professor
    Emeritus at the University of Toronto, introduced the speakers; I was moderator for the question period.
    Duringthebreakbeforequestionperiod,Iwasconfrontedinahighlyinsultingmannerbyanaudiencemember
    whomIlaterdiscoveredtobeProfessorJeffreyShallitofWaterloo'sDepartmentofMathematics.
    Severaldayslater,ProfessorShallitsentthefollowingmessagetotheparticipantsintheevent:
    DearColleagues:
    Iattend[ed]thedebatethatwasnotadebateabout9/11onWednesday,March19,atthe
    UniversityofWaterloo.
    Ihavewrittenaseriesofcriticalblogpostsabouttheevent,whichyoucanfindatmyblog
    recursed.blogspot.com.
    IhopeyouwillagreethatIhavebeenharshinmycriticism,butfair.IfyoufeelthatIhave
    misrepresentedwhatyousaidinanyway,pleaseletmeknowsothatIcanissuetheappropriate
    correction.Ofcourse,youarealsowelcometocommentdirectlyonmyblog.Or,ifyouprefer,
    feelfreetosendmeemailandmentionthatyouwouldlikemetopublishyourresponse.
    Regards,(Prof.)JeffreyShallit
    IrespondedonMarch25,2008:
    DearProfessorShallit,
    Iamenclosingaresponsetoyouasanattachmenttothismessage.Youarewelcometopost
    mytextonyourblog,providedyoureproduceitinitsentirety.
    Ibelieveyouowemeanapologyforyourgrotesquelyinsultingbehaviourtomeonthe
    eveningofMarch19th.Yourlanguagetomeonthatoccasionhadnothingtodowithcriticism,
    whetherharshorfair.NordorepeatedinsinuationsofHolocaustdenialamounttoanargument.
    Plato's Eleatic Stranger describes refutation as a blessing, the chiefest and greatest of
    purifications(Sophist 230de).Iamperfectlywillingtoaccepttheblessingofrefutationfrom
    thosewhothinkthemselveswiseorlearnedenoughtobestowitandIamnolesswillingto
    bestowthesamebenefit,perhapsmorethoroughly,inreturn.
    However,Iamnotwillingtoacceptabusivesmearsfromyouoranyoneelse.
    Yourssincerely,MichaelKeefer
    Professor,SchoolofEnglishandTheatreStudies,UniversityofGuelph
    ProfessorShallitpromptlychangedhismindaboutpublishingmyresponseonhisblog.Wedidmeetfor
    lunch,andcivilconversation,somemonthslater.Butsincehisblogpostsaboutthe9/11eventandaboutwhat
    hecallsdenialismremainonline,itseemsappropriatetopublishthisresponse.]

    [Index:9/11,stateterrorism,highereducation,antisemitism]
    [Date:March2008]

    TheWaterlooMarch19th9/11Event:AResponse

    MichaelKeefer

    ProfessorJeffreyShallit,

    25March2008.

    UniversityofWaterloo.
    DearJeffreyShallit,
    Iamrespondingtoyourinvitationtoengageindiscussionwithyou.
    I am doing so in part because of some passing remarks about me in your
    Recursivityblog.Afterdoingmethesmallfavourofgivingreadersofyourbloglinksto
    twoofmyarticlestouchingon9/11evidence,youhavecommentedthereonmyvery
    minorroleinthe9/11eventorganizedbytheUniversityofWaterlooDebatingSocietyon
    March19thandonyourownroleaswellinamannerthatcallsforsomecorrection.
    1.Civilityandslander
    YourbehaviourtomepriortothequestionperiodonMarch19th,inwhatyouare
    pleased inyourblogtodescribeasanargument, surpassedincoarseandslanderous
    insinuation,andperhapsalsoinsheernoise,anythingthatIhaveexperiencedinnearly
    fourdecadesoflifeasanacademic.Ididnotimagine,whenyouaddressedmewithsuch
    evident rage, interrupting me repeatedly in a voice that rose almost to a shout, and
    insinuatingtomyfacethatIwasaHolocaustdenier,thattheludicrouslyinsolentperson
    in front of me could himself be an academicmuch less a senior professor in the
    universitytowhichIhadcomeasaninvitedguest.
    I have since learned, with some surprise, that you are a distinguished
    mathematician.Ihavelearnedaswellthatyouhavedoneworkasapublicintellectual
    indebatesoverevolutionarybiology,inrefutationsoftheinanitiesofcreationistpseudo
    science, and in criticism of the toxic antisemitism and neofascism of the supposed
    historianDavidIrvingthatIbothrespectandheartilyapproveof.
    There is all the more reason to let you know how grotesque an insult your

    insinuationofHolocaustdenialis.Ihave,asithappens,traveledquitewidelyinPoland.
    Duringthosetravels,IhavewalkedonwhatIregardassacredground.Ihavestood
    withinthefirstoftheNazigaschambersinthedeathcampatMajdanek,andinthe
    vacantspacesthatareallthatremainofsynagoguesinLublinandelsewhere.Ihave
    meditatedintheOldSynagogueinKazimierz,nexttoCrakow.Ihavestoodoutsidethe
    cinemaoncealsoasynagogueinKazimierzDolny,andinthemidstofthehillside
    monument of shattered gravestones, a kilometer outside that town, which is its only
    memorialtothe50percentofitspopulationwhoweremurderedintheShoah.
    Inmentioningthesefacts,Iamnotlayingclaimtoanykindofspuriousvirtueby
    associationwithsuffering. But I should like you to recognizeperhaps with some
    tinctureofshametheprofoundindecencyofyourinsult,directedasitwastosomeone
    youhadnevermet,andofwhoseworkIsuspectyouknewnothing.
    2.Logic
    Inotethatinyourblogyouagreewithananonymousposterwhosuggestsan
    analogybetween9/11deniersandcreationists.Youseeverystrongparallelsbetween
    thesetwokindsofidiocy,butaddthattheparallelsareevenstrongerbetween9/11
    denialismandHolocaustdenialism,andthatllbethesubjectofafuturepost.
    Letushopenot.Thelogicinvolvedinsuchasmearwoulddisgraceafreshman.
    How would it go? X and Y, who believe that highly placed people in the US
    government were responsible for the atrocities of 9/11, are also antisemites and
    Holocaustdeniers.DavidRayGriffin,JohnMcMurtryandMichelChossudovskyalso
    believe that highly placed people in the US government were responsible for the
    atrocitiesof9/11.Therefore,theytoo,andallother9/11scepticsaswell,areantisemites
    andHolocaustdeniers.Golly!Withlogiclikethat,IcouldprovethatSocrateshadfour
    legsandbarkedlikeadog.

    3.Civilityagain
    Idliketosaysomethingaboutalesserissueofcivility,and,inconclusion,about
    somemattersofscholarship.

    Iwonder,first,whatbusinessitisofyoursasafacultymembertocontestso
    obstreperouslythemannerinwhichastudentorganizationchoosestosetupeventsthatit
    holdsoncampus.Istheresomething intheconstitution oftheDebatingSocietythat
    requiresittostructureeveryeventitsponsorsasacontestoferisticrhetoricbetweentwo
    opposingsides?Idontknow,andIdontthinkitsanybusinessofyoursorminetotell
    the members of the Society how to organize themselves. Academic freedom, as I
    understandit,isnotmerelyapossessionoftenuredfaculty,butanecessaryconditionfor
    theproperfunctioningofauniversity,andhencesomethingthatstudentscanalsolay
    claimto,bothinsidetheclassroomandbeyondit.Thatmeans,Ibelieve,thatpeoplewith
    thepowerandauthorityoffacultymembersshouldnotbemeddlingintheaffairsof
    studentorganizations.
    Norshouldfaculty members takeforgrantedtherighttobeamong what,on
    March19th,timeconstraintsensuredcouldonlybeaverylimitednumberofquestioners
    attheendoftheevent.Asmoderator,Ihadinanycasenoinklingthatyouwereafaculty
    member rather than, as I assumed, merely a very unpleasant member of the general
    public.
    Yetdespiteyourpriorbehaviour,hadyoubeenthefirsttoraiseyourhandduring
    thebriefperiodofquestionsfromthefloorthatImoderated,Iwouldhaverecognized
    youas thefirsttoaskaquestion.Itsohappens that halfadozenpeople,outofan
    audienceofseveralhundred,wereaheadofyou.Nonetheless,whenoneofthespeakers,
    yourformercolleagueProfessorKeeDewdney,graciouslyintervenedtoaskthatyoube
    heard,Iacquiescedeventhoughitmeantthatotherslosttheirchancetospeak.

    4.Scholarship
    Finally,somemattersofscholarship.Ifinditamusingthatamathematicianwho
    hasdevotedsomeproportionofhisrecentenergiestodebatesveryinterestingdebates,
    from what Ive readin evolutionary biology should so strenuously object to other
    scholarsstrayingfromthefieldsoftheirprimaryexpertise.ItriedtotellyouonMarch
    19thbut failed, due to loud and hectoring repetitions of your question about
    engineering expertisethat Professor Graeme MacQueens current work is not just

    interdisciplinarybutcollaborative:thestudyfromwhichhereadisbeingcoauthored(as
    Ibelievehesaidinintroducingit)withthemechanicalengineerTonySzamboti.Ialso
    tried,butfailed,toletyouknowthatlargenumbersofengineersandarchitectshavegone
    onrecordaschallengingtheconclusionsofthe9/11CommissionReport.
    Shouldyoubeinterested,youcanfindmorethanthreehundredofthemlistedat
    http://patriotsquestion911.com.
    IamsurprisedthatyoubelieveDavidDunbarsandBradReagans Debunking
    9/11Myths(2006)tobeanadequaterejoindertothewritingsof9/11sceptics.Whenyou
    recommendedittotheaudienceduringthequestionperiodonMarch19th,Iwastempted
    foramomenttorespondbyholdingupacopyofDavidRayGriffinsDebunking9/11
    Debunking (2007)whichIhadwithme.Butofcoursegettingyou,ortherestofthe
    audience,uptodateinyourscholarshipwasnotmyrole:itwouldhaverequiredmeto
    mention,aswell,RyanMackeysmonographlengthresponsetoGriffinintheJournalof
    Debunking911ConspiracyTheories,1.4,togetherwitharticlesinthe Journalof9/11
    Studies, responses to Mackey that have appeared elsewhere, and perhaps also the
    materials

    published

    at

    WTC

    Demolition

    Analysis

    (http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/).Hardlyamoderatorsjob,youmightagree.
    ButIamledtowonderwhetherthereisanadequatecorrespondencebetweenthe
    strengthofyouropinionson9/11inparticular,thestrengthofyouropinionsabout9/11
    scepticsandtheextentandthoroughnessofyourreadingandresearchonthesubject.I
    amdrawntothisquestionbyyourapparentconvictionthatwhatyouabsurdlycall9/11
    denialism(wouldntdenialistshavetobepeoplewhoclaimthatmostorallof9/11
    neverhappened?) isaquasireligious cultwhoseadherents shareacommonbodyof
    dogma. One doesnt actually have to read very far to discover sharp differences of
    opinionamong9/11researchers,aswellasawillingnessatleastamongthosewhomI
    respectto modify hypotheses in the face of new evidence and convincing counter
    analysis.
    IammyselfmorethanhappytopointoutthoseerrorsthatIamawareofinthe
    twoarticlesofminethatyoulinkedto.The CounterPunch polemic,firstpublishedin
    November2006,mentionsavideoinwhosetitleJeffKingisincorrectlydescribedasan

    MITprofessor,andcitestwopeopleIwouldnotnowcaretomention:JudyWood,a
    professor of mechanical engineering whose 9/11 work I now regard as wholly
    groundless, and Eric Hufschmidt, who, as I was unaware at the time, is indeed the
    antisemiteyouimagineall9/11scepticstobe.1
    The other essay, dating from August 2006, says things about philosopher of
    science ProfessorJimFetzerthatIwouldnotnowrepeat: myopinion that hehada
    polite but formidable command of the facts and also of appropriate protocols of
    interpretationhasbeenatleastpartiallyrefutedbyFetzerhimselfthroughhisflirtation
    with noplane and directedenergyweapon hypotheses.2 Whether this weakens my
    argumentaboutthebiasanddisinformationoftheCBCprogramIcriticizedinthatessay
    isforotherstojudge.
    Onsomeaspectsofthe9/11evidence,suchasthePentagonattackandthecrash
    ofFlight93,IdontfeelthatIhavesufficientgroundsforanyfirmopinion,beyondthe
    obvious one that the US government has either withheld or lied about much of the
    materialevidence.IdontmindsayingthatIhavefoundnothingonyourRecursivityblog
    thatwouldinducemetoaltermyviewsontheseorotheraspectsofthe9/11evidence.
    Shouldyouwishtopublishthisresponseonyourblog,youarewelcometodoso,
    provided that you reproduce it in its entirety. I will myself be circulating it to the
    organizersandtheotherparticipantsintheMarch19thevent.
    Yourssincerely,
    MichaelKeefer
    Professor,SchoolofEnglishandTheatreStudies,UniversityofGuelph

    1 ThereferenceistomyessayIntotheRingwithCounterPunchon9/11:HowAlexanderCockburn,
    OtherwiseSoBright,BlanksOuton9/11Evidence,firstpublishedonNovember4,2006,and
    availableathttp://journalof911studies.com/letters/e/ProfKeeferRepliesToCockburnCounterpunch.pdf,
    andalso(withcorrectionstotwofootnotes,atmywebsite).
    2 SeeAnatomyofaHatchetJob:CBCRadio's'TheCurrent'andScholarsfor9/11Truth,Centrefor
    ResearchonGlobalization(29August2006),http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?
    context=viewArticle&code=KEE20060829&articleid=30.

    Você também pode gostar