9/11 Challenge to Prof. Ted Goertzel


From: Dan Noel
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 14:29
To: Skeptical Inquirer
Subject: Conspiracy Article, Disappointing...

Hello!

The cover of the latest edition of the Skeptical Inquirer is excellent. The drawing and the conspiracy theory formula suit very well what is arguably the grandest contemporaneous conspiracy: 9/11. Alas, the article itself gets 9/11 all wrong, peremptorily implying that the official “Osama’s fanatics brought down the twin towers with their hijacked jets” would be an irrefutable fact. This casts an ominous shadow on the whole article as well as the value of the Skeptical Inquirer’s contributions in the field of parapsychology, where evidence is much more subtle than in the case of the twin towers.

I strongly encourage you to include in your next edition a solid article on the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, with a section on the amply demonstrated controlled demolition of the twin towers. Anything less will establish the respectable Skeptical Inquirer another agent in the 9/11 censorship and an accomplice in the fear, the wars, the economic meltdown, and the neglect of pressing worldwide problems that the 9/11 hysteria has generated.

Love,

Dan Noël
1098 Glen Circle
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
USA


From: Dan Noel
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 14:37
To:
Ted Goertzel
Subject: FW: Conspiracy Article, Disappointing...

Dear Professor Goertzel:

Kindly find below [Dan's note: above in this thread] a complaint to the Skeptical Inquirer. It is highly unfortunate that a prominent scholar would lend credence to the lie of the decade. Since several of your Rutgers colleagues have spoken up against the official 9/11 conspiracy theory and its disastrous impact on collective mental health, one can wonder whether you wrote your article out of terrible misinformation or out of a deliberate drive to promote the 9/11 lie.

By the way, may I challenge you to refute my baby steps into 9/11? http://www.meetup.com/OC-911-Truth/pages/911_Truth%3A_a_Simple_Matter_of_Epistemology/

Love,

Dan Noël


From: Dan Noel
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 14:57
To:
Ted Goertzel
Subject: FW: Conspiracy Article, Disappointing...

Dear Professor Goertzel:

I am about to start publishing this thread. Would you care to add something?

Love,

Dan


From: Ted Goertzel
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 4:59
To: Dan Noel
Subject: Re: FW: Conspiracy Article, Disappointing...

Publish where? 

In any event, I could add the comment.  Please use it in its entirety or not at all,

I recommend anyone interested in this case read Brent Blanchard's "Critical Analysis of the Collapse of the WTC Towers"  You can find it easily with an internet search..  By coincidence, Brent happens to be my next door neighbor, so I can vouch for his integrity.  He is a professional in the business of controlled demolition of buildings, an expertise that very few share.  There are also critiques on the Internet, but my judgment is that Brent is right and the critics resort to rhetorical devices and implausible speculation.
Ted Goertzel


From: Dan Noel
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 21:28
To:
Ted Goertzel
Subject: RE: FW: Conspiracy Article, Disappointing...

  1. I intend to publish this thread on the web with no restriction to access. I don’t know where and how yet, but I’ll let you know.
  2. Of course, I shall refrain from cutting or editing your comments.
  3. Won’t you address at least the “baby steps” paragraph in my 1-5 Email?

Love,

Dan


From: Ted Goertzel
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 7:36
To: Dan Noel
Subject: Re: FW: Conspiracy Article, Disappointing...

I linked to the article you referred to after "baby steps" but couldn't find any reference to them.  I searched for the word "baby" and didn't find it.

I refer to this reference:
By the way, may I challenge you to refute my baby steps into 9/11? http://www.meetup.com/OC-911-Truth/pages/911_Truth%3A_a_Simple_Matter_of_Epistemology/


From: Dan Noel
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 22:09
To:
Ted Goertzel
Subject: RE: FW: Conspiracy Article, Disappointing...

Indeed, the phrase “baby steps” is merely a metaphor to refer to the objective of the web page. Its actual title is “9/11 Truth: a Simple Matter of Epistemology.” Its contents are what I invite you—or your delegate—to refute.

Love,

Dan


From: Ted Goertzel
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:00
To: Dan Noel
Subject: Re: FW: Conspiracy Article, Disappointing...

I was more interested in the metaphor.  Does it imply something about the way the argument is structured?


From: Dan Noel
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 20:40
To:
Ted Goertzel
Subject: RE: FW: Conspiracy Article, Disappointing...

The metaphor is not meant to imply anything about the way the argument is structured. Rather, it refers to the expected impact on the reader: a baby step into 9/11 Truth.

Love,


From: Ted Goertzel
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 2:14
To: Dan Noel
Subject: Re: Conspiracy Article, Disappointing...

By which you mean that doubts are raised by small unexplained facts leading to a reframing of the incident as a whole?


From: Dan Noel
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2011 23:42
To: 'Ted Goertzel'
Subject: RE: Conspiracy Article, Disappointing...

No. The page does not invite the reader to formulate doubts, does it?

Love,


From: Ted Goertzel
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 5:38
To: Dan Noel
Subject: Re: Conspiracy Article, Disappointing...

Yes, I believe that is the whole logic of it, to raise doubts that WTC7 fell as a result of the planes crashing into the towers.  Brent answers these doubts in his report, but you do not consider his arguments - see Assertion #7, item 4 of his report.


From: Dan Noel
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 11:26
To:
Ted Goertzel
Subject: RE: Conspiracy Article, Disappointing...

  1. My page and item 4 of Blanchard’s assertion #7 do not contradict each other, do they?
  2. It is odd that you would view my page’s purpose as raising doubts that WTC7 fell as a result of planes crashing into the towers. It actually invites the reader to reaffirm this theory.

Love,


From: Dan Noel
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 13:52
To: Ted Goertzel
Subject: FW: Conspiracy Article, Disappointing...

I intend to publish this thread on my web in the 2nd half of this month. If you have anything to add…

Love,