Thursday, November 10, 2011
Dr. James Fetzer is widely regarded as one of the world's leading authorities on the JFK assassination.
On Tuesday, November 22nd, he will tell us who killed JFK and why; and how we know.
He will also be presenting explosive new evidence never seen before.
Be there! 7-9:30 pm, 3650 Humanities, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
* * *
A former Marine Corps officer, Jim Fetzer has published widely on the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and evolution and mentality.
McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, he has also conducted extensive research into the the events of 9/11, and the plane crash that killed Sen. Paul Wellstone. His JFK-related books include Murder in Dealy Plaza, Assassination Science, and The Great Zapruder Film Hoax.
The founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, his latest books include The Evolution of Intelligence (2005), The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007), Render Unto Darwin (2007), and The Place of Probability in Science (2010).
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Dr. James Fetzer will present "What Happened to Sen. Paul Wellstone" on the 9th anniversary of the Senator's tragic death - and his supporters' even more tragic paralysis in the face of an obvious assassination that has grown even more obvious as the evidence has accumulated.
Paul Wellstone was suspicious about 9/11 and dedicated to stopping the impending criminal war on Iraq. Dick Cheney targeted Wellstone for removal from the Senate, hand-picked and lavishly funded neocon opponent Norm Coleman...and when polls showed that Wellstone's anti-Iraq-war position was a hit and voters were going to hand him a landslide victory over Coleman, Cheney delivered a threatening ultimatum that Wellstone ignored. A week later, Wellstone's plane went down. It was no accident.
69% of Minnesotans subsequently blamed Wellstone's political enemies for the apparent assassination. Had there been courageous Democratic leadership willing to risk everything for justice, a revolution might have started in Minnesota, and Bush and Cheney hanged for treason and murder before the war in Iraq even began. Instead, Wellstone's "friends" acquiesced in his murder. Since then, hundreds if not thousands of other Americans have died in political assassinations by the same forces that killed Wellstone; thousands more Americans have died in treasonous, illegal wars; and millions of innocent people in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere have been slaughtered...all due to the fecklessness of Wellstone's false friends on the American left: the scumbag pseudo-opposition gatekeepers who cover up the most outrageous crimes of our criminal elite. Obviously we need new leadership - leadership that knows that the second American Revolution is long overdue.
-Kevin Barrett, advisor, U.W. Sifting and Winnowing Club
(The above opinions are those of the author, and not those of the UW or the Sifting and Winnowing Club)
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Sifting and Winnowing Club member Paul Craig Roberts asks: Do the Critics of 9/11 Truth Have a Case?
In this essay, Dr. Roberts implicitly answers the question: Why won't any professor, lecturer or TA in the entire University of Wisconsin system accept a $1,000 honorarium to defend the official story of 9/11 in a debate with Dr. Kevin Barrett?
The “Critics” of 9/11 Truth. Do They Have a Case?
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts | Global Research | September 13, 2011
The short answer to the question in the title is no.
The 9/11 truth critics have nothing but ad hominem arguments.
Let’s examine the case against “the truthers” presented by Ted Rall, Ann Barnhardt, and Alexander Cockburn.
But first let’s define who “the truthers” are.
The Internet has made it possible for anyone to have a web site and to rant and speculate to their heart’s content. There are a large number of “9/11 conspiracy theorists”.
Many on both sides of the issue are equally ignorant. Neither side has any shame about demonstrating ignorance.
Both sides of the issue have conspiracy theories.
9/11 was a conspiracy whether a person believes that it was an inside job or that a handful of Arabs outwitted the entire intelligence apparatus of the Western world and the operational response of NORAD and the US Air Force.
For one side to call the other conspiracy theorists is the pot calling the kettle black.
The question turns not on name-calling but on evidence.
The 9/11 Truth movement was not created by bloggers ranting on their web sites. It was created by professional architects and engineers some of whom are known for having designed steel high rise buildings.
It was created by distinguished scientists, such as University of Copenhagen nano-Chemist Niels Harrit who has 60 scientific papers to his credit and physicist Steven Jones.
It was created by US Air Force pilots and commercial airline pilots who are expert at flying airplanes.
It was created by firefighters who were in the twin towers and who personally heard and experienced numerous explosions including explosions in the sub-basements. It was created by members of 9/11 families who desire to know how such an improbable event as 9/11 could possibly occur.
The professionals and the scientists are speaking from the basis of years of experience and expert knowledge. Moreover, the scientists are speaking from the basis of careful research into the evidence that exists.
When an international research team of scientists spends 18 months studying the components in the dust from the towers and the fused pieces of concrete and steel, they know what they are doing. When they announce that they have definite evidence of incendiaries and explosives, you can bet your life that that have the evidence.
When a physicist proves that Building 7 (the stories not obscured by other buildings) fell at free fall speed and NIST has to acknowledge that he is correct, you can bet your life that the physicist is correct.
When fire department captains and clean-up teams report molten steel–and their testimony is backed up with photographs–in the debris of the ruins weeks and months after the buildings’ destruction, you can bet your life the molten steel was there.
When the same authorities report pumping fire suppressants and huge quantities of water with no effect on the molten steel, you can bet your life that the temperature long after the buildings’ destruction remained extremely high, far higher than any building fire can reach.
When the architects, engineers, and scientists speak, they offer no theory of who is responsible for 9/11. They state that the known evidence supports neither the NIST reports nor the 9/11 Commission Report. They say that the explanation that the government has provided is demonstrably wrong and that an investigation is required if we are to discover the truth about the event.
It is not a conspiracy theory to examine the evidence and to state that the evidence does not support the explanation that has been given.
That is the position of the 9/11 Truth movement.
What is the position of the movement’s critics? Ted Rall says: “Everything I’ve read and watched on Truther sites is easily dismissed by anyone with a basic knowledge of physics and architecture. (I spent three years in engineering school.)”
Wow! What powerful credentials. Has Rall ever designed a high rise steel building? Could Rall engage in a debate with a professor of nano-chemistry? Could he refute Newton’s laws in a debate with university physicists? Does Rall know anything about maneuvering airplanes? Does he have an explanation why 100 firefighters, janitors, and police report hearing and experiencing explosions that they did not hear or experience?
Clearly, Ted Rall has no qualifications whatsoever to make any judgment about the judgments of experts whose knowledge exceeds his meager understanding by a large amount.
Ann Barnhardt writes: “I gotta tell you, I’ve just about had it with these 9/11 truthers. If there is one phenomenon in our sick, sick culture that sums up how far gone and utterly damaged we are as a people, it is 9/11 trutherism. It pretty much covers everything: self-loathing, antisemitism, zero knowledge of rudimentary physics and a general inability to think logically.” She goes down hill from here.
Amazing, isn’t she? Physics professors have “zero knowledge of rudimentary physics.”
Internationally recognized logicians have “a general inability to think logically.” People trained in the scientific method who use it to seek truth are “self-loathing.” If you doubt the government’s account you are antisemitic. Barnhardt then provides her readers with a lesson in physics, structural architecture and engineering, and the behavior of steel under heat and stress that is the most absolute nonsense imaginable.
Obviously, Barnhardt knows nothing whatsoever about what she is talking about, but overflowing with hubris she dismisses real scientists and professionals with ad hominem arguments. She adds to her luster with a video of herself tearing out pages of the Koran, which she has marked with slices of bacon, and burning the pages.
Now we come to Alexander Cockburn. He is certainly not stupid. I know him. He is pleasant company. He provides interesting intellectual conversation. I like him. Yet, he also arrogantly dismisses highly qualified experts who provide evidence contrary to the official government story of 9/11.
Cockburn avoids evidence presented by credentialed experts and relies on parody. He writes that the conspiracists claim that the twin towers “pancaked because Dick Cheney’s agents–scores of them–methodically planted demolition charges.”
Little doubt but there are bloggers somewhere in the vast Internet world who say this. But this is not what the professionals are saying who have provided evidence that the official account is not correct. The experts are simply saying that the evidence does not support the official explanation. More recently, an international team of scientists has reported finding unequivocal evidence of incendiaries and explosives. They have not said anything about who planted them. Indeed, they have said that other scientists should test their conclusions by repeating the research. After calling experts “conspiracy kooks,” Alex then damns them for not putting forward “a scenario of the alleged conspiracy.”
Moreover, not a single one of the experts believes the towers “pancaked.” This was an early explanation that, I believe, was tentatively put forward by NIST, but it had to be abandoned because of the speed with which the buildings came down and due to other problems.
Unlike Rall and Barnhardt, Cockburn does refer to evidence, but it is second or third-hand hearsay evidence that is nonsensical on its face. For example, Cockburn writes that Chuck Spinney “tells me that ‘there ARE pictures taken of the 757 plane hitting Pentagon–they were taken by the surveillance cameras at Pentagon’s heliport, which was right next to impact point. I have seen them both–stills and moving pictures. I just missed seeing it personally, but the driver of the van I just got out of in South Parking saw it so closely that he could see the terrified faces of passengers in windows.’”
If there were pictures or videos of an airliner hitting the Pentagon, they would have been released years ago. They would have been supplied to the 9/11 Commission. Why would the government refuse for 10 years to release pictures that prove its case? The FBI confiscated all film from all surveillance cameras. No one has seen them, much less a Pentagon critic such as Spinney.
I have to say that the van driver must have better eyes than an eagle if he could see expressions on passenger faces through those small airliner portholes in a plane traveling around 500 mph. Try it sometime. Sit on your front steps and try to discern the expressions of automobile passengers through much larger and clearer windows traveling down your street in a vehicle moving 30 mph. Then kick the speed up 16.7 times to 500 mph and report if you see anything but a blur.
Cockburn’s other evidence that 9/11 truthers are kooks is a letter that Herman Soifer, who claims to be a retired structural engineer, wrote to him summarizing “the collapse of Buildings 1 and 2 succinctly.” This is what Soifer, who “had followed the plans and engineering of the Towers during construction” wrote to Alex: “The towers were basically tubes, essentially hollow.” This canard was disposed of years ago. If Alex had merely googled the plans of the buildings, he would have discovered that there were no thin-walled hollow tubes, but a very large number of massively thick steel beams.
Cockburn’s willingness to dismiss as kooks numerous acknowledged experts on the basis of a claim that a van driver saw terrified faces of passengers moving at 500 mph and a totally erroneous description in a letter from a person who knew nothing whatsoever about the structural integrity of the buildings means that he is a much braver person than I.
Before I call architects kooks whose careers were spent building steel high rises, I would want to know a lot more about the subject than I do. Before I poke fun at nano-chemists and physicists, I would want to at least be able to read their papers and find the scientific flaws in their arguments.
Yet, none of the people who ridicule 9/11 skeptics are capable of this. How, for example, can Rall, Barnhardt, or Cockburn pass judgment on a nano-chemist with 40 years of experience and 60 scientific publications to his credit?
They cannot, but nevertheless do. They don’t hesitate to pass judgment on issues about which they have no knowledge or understanding. This is an interesting psychological phenomenon worthy of study and analysis.
Another interesting phenomenon is the strong emotional reactions that many have to 9/11, an event about which they have little information. Even the lead members of the 9/11 Commission itself have said that information was withheld from them and the commission was set up to fail. People who rush to the defense of NIST do not even know what they are defending as NIST refuses to release the details of the simulation upon which NIST bases its conclusion.
There is no 9/11 debate.
On the one hand there are credentialed experts who demonstrate problems in the official account, and on the other hand there are non-experts who denounce the experts as conspiracy kooks.
The experts are cautious and careful about what they say, and their detractors have thrown caution and care to the wind. That is the state of the debate.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Per Kevin Barrett's request, I am submitting a suggestion for the Sifting & Winnowing Club to bring about educated discussion on the destruction of the three WTC massive steel framed buildings.
As I understand it, pretty much every college that has an Engineering curriculum usually also has some type of engineering contest. For example, there was a contest where students had to design a contraption that would safely carry a raw egg dropped from several stories above without causing the egg to crack when it landed on the ground.
My suggestion, of course, is to put structural engineering students to the test to see if they can recreate the free-fall, symetrical collapse of a steel and concrete structure (on a model scale) using only open-air office fire that lasts approximately one hour. This, of course, is part of the Scientific Method. Would be interesting to see how many Engineering students repeatedly try to attempt this feat based on the solid engineering/physics principals that they are being taught in school. What occurred on 9/11 violates all of the principals that they have been taught.
Each model structure must be examined by at least two independent professional structural engineers to make sure that there is no trickery involved. The model structures must be solid. Doesn't have to be fancy - could weld together some wire milk crates for example. See if they can get the smaller mass to free-fall through the much larger stronger mass - accelerating, not slowing down.
If, by some small chance there was a miracle and someone recreated this feat, then it would need to be performed again with supervision on how the structure was put together. No shenanigans allowed.
This is the core of what we are dealing with. If students are being taught the same solid structural and physical principals that I learned in Engineering school, then they will quickly know that what happened on 9/11 is impossible - unless there is the use of controlled demolition. If they can't repeat the feat through simple experimentation, then there is no debate. The science speaks for itself.
This contest should be run at every engineering program at every college across the country.
This is kind of the same as asking someone if they believe the official account, then would they be willing to start a demolition company that only uses open-air fire to completely demolish steel framed structures in free fall acelleration, perfectly symetrical. So far, I have not seen anyone start up such a business.
Hope you find this suggestion helpful. And I hope to see some engineering contests on campuses across the U.S.!
Friday, September 9, 2011
Dr. Kevin Barrett, who is informally blacklisted from teaching in the UW system due to his research and views on 9/11, wound up "debating" audience members - none of whom seriously disagreed with him.
"I thought this University was a place of 'fearless sifting and winnowing,' a place where the toughest issues are debated freely and fearlessly," Dr. Barrett said. "Yet while three UW professors - Marshall Onellian, Ann Althouse, and Donald Downs - have insulted me in the media, neither they nor any other teacher in the whole university system will defend the 9/11 Commission Report in a public debate...not when they are begged to do so by media outlets and student organizations, and not even when they could pick up $1,000 for just showing up. I think that speaks volumes."
9/11: Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out, the new film from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, premiered Thursday in select locations across the country. The film features a wide range of experts including engineers, architects, scientists, and others explaining why the government's version of the destruction of the World Trade Center is indefensible. (One of the featured experts is Lynn Margulis, the greatest scientist the UW has ever produced, who signed the open letter demanding that the University of Wisconsin live up to its "sifting and winnowing" motto, debate 9/11, and consider re-hiring Dr. Barrett.)
In his discussion with the audience, Dr. Barrett asked for suggestions about how to make the University live up to Provost Patrick Farrell's 2006 promise to sponsor a debate on the 9/11 controversies. Barrett said a backer is willing to put up ten thousand dollars for any UW professor willing to defend the 9/11 Commission Report. Tom Spellman of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth suggested that the offer should be "$1,000 to debate, $10,000 if you win." A neutral forensic organization would presumably be brought in to judge.
Dr. Barrett also discussed the possibility of leading an occupation of the campus offices of professors Downs, Onellian, and Althouse. "The professors who insulted me but won't debate me are the ones who should be banned from holding a university position," he said. "In the academy, the one hard and fast rule is that we have to publicly back up all of our claims with reason and evidence in a free, fair, public, transparent debate. Downs, Althouse, and Onellian refuse to do that. Therefore they have no business even cleaning the restrooms in a great public university like this one. Maybe it's time to force them to either abide by the one great rule of the academy, or leave and get a real job."
Suggestions about how to up the ante in the campaign to force a 9/11 debate at the University of Wisconsin may be sent to: UWsifting(at)gmail(dot)com.
The U.W. Madison Sifting and Winnowing Club (mission statement here) meets on the first and third Tuesdays of the month in the Paul Bunyan Room, across from the Rathskeller in the UW-Madison Memorial Union. The club is seeking members, especially UW-Madison students, who may sign up by emailing UWsifting(at)gmail(dot)com.
This semester's activities include talks by world-renowned expert Professor James Fetzer on the anniversaries of the Wellstone (Oct. 25th) and JFK (Nov. 22nd) assassinations, and a screening of Dr. Bob Reuschlein's new film Peace Economics and public speak-out on September 17th. Details here.
Monday, August 22, 2011
If you agree with us that it's important to contest the media's 9/11 lies, especially around the tenth anniversary of the event, please consider helping cover the costs of this ad - about $850 - and other publicity efforts. Contact: UWsifting(at)gmail(dot)com, bobreuschlein(at)gmail(dot)com, or kbarrett(at)merr(dot)com.
The following email from the Sifting and Winnowing Club was emailed to roughly 50,000 University of Wisconsin-Madison faculty, staff and students on September 1st, 2011.
To the U.W.-Madison campus community,
The University of Wisconsin-Madison SIFTING AND WINNOWING CLUB aims to foster research, dialogue and debate on the most significant controversial issues. To join, or to receive more information, hit "reply" or email UWsifting(at)gmail.com , or join us in the Paul Bunyan Room of Memorial Union, 7 pm, on the first and third Tuesdays of the month.
The issues we're covering this fall are highly significant and controversial: The debates surrounding what really happened on September 11th, 2001; October 25th, 2002; and November 22nd, 1963; and the question of whether the US is dominated by an economy-destroying military-industrial complex. All events are free and open to the campus community.
* * *
Thursday, September 8th, 7 pm, 180 Science Hall (moved from previously-scheduled location in Humanities building):
World premiere of the new Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth film "9/11: Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out." (Watch the trailer.) After the film, we're hosting The Great 9/11 Debate, pitting blacklisted former UW instructor Dr. Kevin Barrett against...whoever wants to make an easy $1,000 and has the guts to defend the 9/11 Commission Report! Any U.W. system professor, lecturer or instructor is eligible to earn a $1,000 honorarium by debating Dr. Barrett; yet as of this writing there are no takers. Please ask YOUR teachers here at the UW to support free speech and debate Dr. Barrett, who was hounded from his teaching job for making historical arguments that nobody at the U.W. is willing to oppose in a public debate. (See the text of the full-page ad that appeared in the Isthmus last spring, appended below.)
Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist and Islamic Studies expert, is one of America's best-known critics of the War on Terror. Dr. Barrett has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications. He is lead editor of the book 9/11 AND AMERICAN EMPIRE (Volume II) and author of the books TRUTH JIHAD: MY EPIC STRUGGLE AGAINST THE 9/11 BIG LIE (2007) and QUESTIONING THE WAR ON TERROR (2009). He ran for Congress (winning the primary) in 2008 and hosts two talk radio shows. His website is www.TruthJihad.com .
* * *
Saturday September 17th 2011 from 5 to 9 pm (following Fighting Bob Fest):
Free showing of the film "Peace Economics" with Dr. Bob Reuschlein, Meeting in the Clarion Hotel (connected to the Alliant Center on the South side). After the film, five minute presentations each by the public will happen, sharing our thoughts on the film and Peace. Some food will be provided.
Dr. Bob Reuschlein, a.k.a. "Dr. Peace," is an expert on how military spending destroys economies. His website is www.realeconomy.com
* * *
Tuesday, October 25th, 7 pm, Humanities Building (check http://www.union.wisc.edu/titu/ for room number):
Dr. James Fetzer presents: "What Happened to Sen. Paul Wellstone?" Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, and author or co-author of 29 books including "American Assassination: The Strange Death of Sen. Paul Wellstone." He is the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and hosts a radio program, "The Real Deal", on revereradio.net. Please note that October 25th 2011 is the ninth anniversary of the assassination of Sen. Paul Wellstone.
* * *
Tuesday, November 22nd, 7 pm, Humanities Building (check http://www.union.wisc.edu/titu/ for room number):
Dr. James Fetzer presents: "JFK Assassination Revisited." Dr. Fetzer's 29 books include "Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK," "Murder in Dealy Plaza," and "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax." His JFK assassination website is www.assassinationscience.com. Please note that November 22nd, 2011 is the 48th anniversary of the JFK assassination.
* * *
For more information about the Sifting and Winnowing Club, check out our full-page Isthmus ad from last spring:
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
Friday, April 8, 2011
The crowd of approximately 230 included several dozen who identified themselves as architects or engineers. At the beginning of the lecture, Gage found that more than sixty audience members either believed the government's version of the WTC "collapses" or weren't sure. By the end, virtually all were convinced that the three skycrapers came down in controlled demolitions.
Many audience members were shocked by the abundance, and obviousness, of the evidence for controlled demolition that Gage presented. Even some audience members who had already concluded that the World Trade Center was destroyed by demolition pros, not extremist Muslim hijackers, were awed by Gage's carefully-structured argument, which leaves essentially no room for doubt. (Overall, more than 85% of initially skeptical architects and engineers who see Gage's presentation change their minds and conclude that the WTC skyscrapers were victims of controlled demolition.)
One 9/11 expert in the audience, Dr. James Fetzer of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, said he was impressed by Gage's arguments. "In the past I've questioned some of the lines of argument he presented, including the evidence for thermite and molten metal. But my overall impression was that this was an excellent and very convincing presentation."
Coincidentally, the day before the event, the FBI released many of its previously secret files on the 1970 bombing of Sterling Hall by anti-war activists. The irony of Gage's presentation on the most famous bombing in US history (which is not yet officially acknowledged as a bombing) taking place at the site of the second most famous bombing in postwar history was not lost on the crowd. Some wondered out loud whether we would have to wait 41 years before the FBI releases its secret files on 9/11.
Dr. Kevin Barrett, Advisor of the student affiliate UW-Madison Sifting and Winnowing Club, expressed mild astonishment that no U.W. scholar would accept a $1,000 offer to debate Richard Gage on Wednesday night. "The benefactor put up the money only a week before the event, which made it difficult to publicize as widely as we would have liked," Barrett said. "But still, a thousand bucks is a thousand bucks! I know full well some of these professors would happily blow smoke in defense of the official story for, say, a million dollars in federal grants. I guess it's like the old joke where the guy asks a woman whether she would sleep with him for a million dollars and she admits she probably would. So he asks whether she'd do it for twenty dollars. 'Twenty dollars!? What do you think I am?!' 'We've already established that,' the guy says, 'now we're just haggling over the price.'"
Barrett then wondered aloud how much it would cost to purchase the services of U.W. law professor Ann Althouse, who publicly said Barrett was "crazy" and "nutty" and "lying" due to his stance on 9/11, while repeatedly refusing to debate the issue...and was thrashed for her cowardice by another professor. Regardless of Althouse's price, the U.W. Sifting and Winnowing Club will continue to sift and winnow the UW faculty in search of someone brave enough, or foolish enough, to defend the official story of 9/11 in a debate with Dr. Barrett and/or other skeptics. Another likely target is physics professor M.F. Onellian, who called Barrett a "fruitcake" for his views on 9/11, yet refused to publicly debate those views. And a third prospect is political science professor Donald Downs, who publicly said the University should not re-hire Barrett due to his views of 9/11 -- advice that the University has apparently taken - yet backed out of a tentative agreement to debate Dr. Barrett, offering no explanation.
The S&W Club will also explore other important controversial issues, beginning with the question: Do conventional economists underestimate the harmful effects of military spending? Dr. Bob Reuschlein will address that topic at the premiere of his film Peace Economics on April 12th, 7pm, Sequoya Library at corner of Midvale and Tokay on West Side of Madison.
The next Sifting and Winnowing Club meeting is scheduled for Thursday, April 14th, 7 pm, in the Paul Bunyan Room of Memorial Union. Please come and let us know what you think are the most significant controversial issues that ought to be fearlessly sifted and winnowed.
The above three plaques - the first memorializing the Sterling Hall bombing, the second the turbulent 1960s, and the third the University's alleged "fearless sifting and winnowing" in search of truth - grace historic Bascom Hill at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
Dear Chancellor Martin, and All Faculty of the University of Wisconsin:
The attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11/01 were used as an excuse to increase U.S. aggression abroad and erode our civil liberties and Constitutional rights at home. Every day the "war on terror" is used to justify continued assaults on the U.S. Constitution and foreign wars which have caused the deaths of countless innocent people. This perpetual "war on terror" has enabled blatant abuses of power at the highest levels of government, yet few people question the validity of the purported threats to our security.
After nearly a decade of reviewing all publicly available forensic evidence, 1450 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are formally questioning the government's official story about what destroyed the three high rises at the World Trade Center on 9/11, and calling for a new, independent investigation. Their concerns, echoed by hundreds of scientists, professors, senior government officials, aviation professionals and others, are based on strong evidence for explosive controlled demolition of the buildings. (See www.PatriotsQuestion911.com.) These brave people, whose love of country is greater than their fear of ridicule, risk their reputations, their jobs, and their livelihoods in attempting to bring this evidence to light.
There is a plaque at Bascom Hall which reads:
"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."
Yet this esteemed institution did trammel inquiry when a political opportunist, Wisconsin Assemblyman Steven Nass (R), assailed the credentials of Dr. Kevin Barrett, an instructor of Islamic Studies, and called for his removal from the U.W. Dr. Barrett's political views on 9/11 were the focus of this personal attack and ensuing media attention, which featured mischaracterization of his actual course curriculum. In spite of being a highly qualified and competent instructor, he was refused re-hire and apparently blacklisted with no debate. Not one academic from the U.W. accepted the History Club's request to debate Dr. Barrett. Lost in this debacle was the concern for truth and academic freedom necessary for the survival of a healthy democracy.
This is an urgent plea to the UW faculty to research and debate these issues. Please attend the presentation by architect Richard Gage on April 7th to see evidence which has been ignored by mainstream sources. And please continue dialogue by sponsoring a series of debates to critically analyse this information. Additionally, please investigate whether there was unjust discrimination involved in any hiring decisions. It's time for the University to take its rightful place as a bulwark defender of academic freedom, this "fearless sifting and winnowing" on which we pride ourselves. Show us that the plaque at Bascom Hall is more than a wall covering, or please take it down.
This plea is dedicated to all those with the intellectual honesty and moral courage to continue searching for truth, no matter how that inquiry challenges their fundamental beliefs.
Mark Wollum, 1987 U.W. Graduate, 2008 Candidate for Congress, Wisconsin's 6th CD;
special dedications to my dear late twin brother Scott Wollum, a U.W graduate who had a brilliant mind for mathematics, valued intellectual honesty and moral integrity above popularity and material gain, always had more cajones than I did, and who remains my inspiration;
and to the late Mark Wolfert of Lone Rock, a Fearless Sifter and Winnower.
Distinguished University Professor
University of Massachusetts-Amherst
MS Zoology&Genetics University of Wisconsin, 1960
Professor of Metallurgical Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison 1965 - 1978.
Senior Staff Member, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment 1978 - 1990.
William B. Willers
Emeritus Professor of Biology, UW-Oshkosh
Former Dean of L&S, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
Professor of Psychology, Cal State - Long Beach
UW-Madison B.A. Philosophy, 1966
Ph.D., Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech; former Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the U.S. Air Force
Paul Craig Roberts
Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy,
Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, former Wall St. Journal columnist
Activist, former economic hit man, economist, and NYT bestselling author
Founder, Center for Process Studies, Claremont School of Theology
Niels Harrit, Ph.D.
Associate Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Chemistry
University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Attorney for Martin Luther King Jr. family; author, Act of State
David Ray Griffin
Professor of Philosophy of Religion & Theology
Claremont School of Theology & Claremont Graduate University
Author of 37 books, one of which was Publishers Weekly's "Pick of the Week"
Anthony J. Hall
Professor of Globalization Studies, University of Lethbridge
Ph.D. University of Michigan, former Director of Studies, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College
A. K. Dewdney,
Computer scientist and science author,
University of Western Ontario
Associate Professor of Religious Studies, McMaster University (ret.)
Professor of English, University of La Verne
Ph.D., Philosophy of Religion, University of Chicago
Ph.D. psychotherapist, pundit
Distinguished McNight Professor Emeritus
University of Minnesota-Duluth
Four Arrows (Don Jacobs)
Doctoral Faculty, School of Educational Leadership and Change
Rev. Dr. Richard Curtis, PhD
Educator and Author
Ph.D., University of Toronto
Ph.D., University of Toronto
Former CIA asset, 9/11 whistleblower
Author, Extreme Prejudice
Senior Military Affairs Journalist
Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey
Professor, School of English and Theatre Studies, University of Guelph.
Shelton F. Lankford
LtCol. USMC (Ret.)
Senior Editor, Veterans Today
Eric Beeth, M.D.
Graduate Student, University of Lethbridge
Biology faculty, University of Oregon
DS, Award-Winning Writer, Co-Director Sciencewriters Books, Chelsea Green Publishing.
Former Engineering Management Consultant
World Bank, USAID
Architect; alumnus, UW-Milwaukee; Board Member, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Professor of Philosophy, University of Guelph; Fellow, Royal Society of Canada
Professor of English and Journalism, Lincoln University, PA
Former Director for Research Engineering
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Michael D. Rectenwald, Ph.D.
Professor of Global Liberal Studies
New York University
Saturday, March 5, 2011
The University of Wisconsin-Madison SIFTING AND WINNOWING CLUB aims to foster research, dialogue and debate on the most significant controversial issues. We are students, faculty, alumni, and other members of the University community who oppose all forms of censorship, whether tacit or explicit; support academic freedom in its broadest form; and wish to see the University of Wisconsin live up to its motto: "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."
Membership is free. No commitment necessary. By joining, all you are doing is saying that you support the mission statement. Note that we may contact you from time to time with event information; if you ever decide you do not wish to be contacted, just say "leave me alone!" and we will.
To join, simply send an email to UWsifting(at)gmail(dot)com telling us you want to join, or cut and paste from the coupon below:
_____ YES! I SUPPORT FEARLESS SIFTING AND WINNOWING AND WANT TO JOIN.
_____ NO, I THINK SIFTING AND WINNOWING IS TOO DANGEROUS, AND THAT IF IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, IT SHOULD BE DONE FEARFULLY, FURTIVELY AND FECKLESSLY.
Student or Faculty ID number (if you have one and would like to be a part of the student organization):