(See also: "Groucho" Onellian: Who Are You Gonna Believe, Me or Your Own Eyes?)

Dr. Barrett Rebutts Professor Orwellian

by Kevin Barrett, http://mujca.com

Re: Physics prof calls 9/11 conspiracist 'fruitcake'
'Since he can't evaluate the evidence presented, he shouldn't have an opinion'

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51858

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/physics_prof_calls_911_conspiracist_fruitcake.htm

A University of Wisconsin professor who works with 9-11 conspiracist Kevin Barrett says he's a "fruitcake" who is too biased in favor of Islam to teach a class on the subject.

Barrett, a Muslim convert, was recently cleared by the college to teach a course this fall titled, "Islam: Religion and Culture." Like many Muslims, he contends the 9-11 attacks were an "inside job" carried out by Bush administration officials and not Islamic terrorists...

"He's a fruitcake," says Marshall F. Onellion, a physics professor at the University of Wisconsin. "He has no education in any engineering or science area pertinent to how, or whether, buildings fall down when hit by airplanes. Since he can't evaluate the evidence presented, he shouldn't have an opinion" that will influence students...

"I simply do not believe that an adult convert to Islam is capable of objectively teaching, or objectively grading, a course on his religion," he told WorldNetDaily. "Never would such a person be objective."

* * *

University of Wisconsin Professor M.F. Orwellian's argument that colleague Dr. Kevin Barrett is a "fruitcake," and that only those with physics Ph.D.s are qualified to judge anything involving the laws of physics, was subjected to a calm, thoughtful, scholarly rebuttal by Dr. Barrett yesterday.

Dr. Barrett began by lucidly laying out the premise and conclusion of his argument: "Professor Orwellian is a wingbat, a dingnut, a moonboot--which is to say, an utter and complete imbecile with the malignant growth on his neck that passes for his head firmly implanted in his hindmost nether-regions. Even Steve Nass, the man with one N too many, whom I have cheerfully described as a moonbutt, does not have a head as empty, as putrid, and as deeply ensconced in his own posterior, as does my esteemed colleague the good Doctor Orwellian." Barrett then politely refused to speculate about what Professor Orwellian's initials might stand for.

Judging that Professor Orwellian's "fruitcake" argument had thus been convincingly rebutted, Dr. Barrett moved on to examine the assertions on which that argument was based. Dr. Barrett began with Professor Orwellian's claim that Dr. Barrett is unqualified to teach a Religious Studies course on Islam because he is a Muslim. "The idea that professing a particular religion or religious position makes one unqualified to teach Religious Studies courses will be news to every single member of the American academy besides Dr. Orwellian," Barrett pointed out. "Everybody who teaches religious studies has some religious position--be it atheism, agnosticism, or affiliation with a major or minor religious tradition. Likewise, philosophy teachers have their own philosophy. The idea that an atheist existentialist could not teach existentialism, an atheistic philosophy, because he or she happened to be an atheist and existentialist, is too ridiculous to contemplate. And the idea that we should fire almost the whole Jewish Studies department because most of its members are Jewish--or the African-American Studies program because most of its members are African-American--is insane. Obviously the good Professor has taken leave of his senses."

Dr. Barrett next took up Professor Orwellian's implicit claim that nobody without a Ph.D. in physics is competent to judge anything involving the laws of physics. Dr. Barrett--citing Samuel Johnson, who had refuted Bishop Berkeley's idealist position by kicking a stone--replied to Professor Orwellian's "physicists-only" argument by intoning "I refute it thus" and kicking Professor Orwellian sharply in the latter's gluteus maximus. "According to the law of angular momentum," Dr. Barrett pontificated, "my foot just described nearly one-quarter of a complete arc around a fixed reference point in the general location of my hip joint. And according to the law of conservation of momentum, it would have tended to continue in that direction unless acted upon by an outside force--in this case, the soft, flabby hindquarters of Professor Orwellian. But you don't really need to know that to understand that I have just kicked him in the ass."

Barrett then proceeded to take issue with Professor Orwellian's professional qualifications. "Professor Orwellian apparently believes that the large amounts of molten steel produced by the WTC collapses, documented in photographs, videos, and eyewitness accounts of 'rivers of molten steel' in the rubble, were produced by fires whose only fuel was hydrocarbons--namely, jet fuel, which is kerosene, and office materials such as paper, wood, plastic, and so on. Yet the melting point of steel is universally agreed to be in the neighborhood of 2800 degrees f., while hydrocarbon fires cannot exceed 1800 degrees f. even under laboratory conditions. Professor Orwellian is one thousand degrees short of a full melting point. I demand that he resign from his physics post forthwith, and return to his true calling, which is autoproctology."

The courteous scholarly debate between Dr. Barrett and Professor Orwellian elicited a decorous ripple of applause from Academic Senate members.

* * *

Physics prof calls 9/11 conspiracist 'fruitcake'
'Since he can't evaluate the evidence presented, he shouldn't have an opinion'

World Net Daily | September 6, 2006: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51858

The September issue of Whistleblower magazine takes an objective look at the "9/11 truth movement" and alternate 9/11 theories, and is titled "9/11: FIVE YEARS LATER, A TIME FOR TRUTH."

A University of Wisconsin professor who works with 9-11 conspiracist Kevin Barrett says he's a "fruitcake" who is too biased in favor of Islam to teach a class on the subject.

Barrett, a Muslim convert, was recently cleared by the college to teach a course this fall titled, "Islam: Religion and Culture." Like many Muslims, he contends the 9-11 attacks were an "inside job" carried out by Bush administration officials and not Islamic terrorists.

Specifically, Barrett argues Bush officials rigged the World Trade Center with incendiary devices to bring it down and start a war against Islam.

"He's a fruitcake," says Marshall F. Onellion, a physics professor at the University of Wisconsin. "He has no education in any engineering or science area pertinent to how, or whether, buildings fall down when hit by airplanes. Since he can't evaluate the evidence presented, he shouldn't have an opinion" that will influence students.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology recently released a report on the WTC collapse that rules out such conspiracy theories about the use of controlled demolitions. It concluded the collapse resulted from structural damage to the buildings caused by the impact from the two Boeing 767 jetliners hijacked by Muslim terrorists.

The unusually large amounts of jet fuel from the planes ignited multi-floor fires reaching temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees, and significantly weakened the floors and columns "to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns," the report said. "This led to the inward bowing of the columns and failure of the south face of the WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers."

The independent 9-11 commission also concluded after some 1,200 interviews that Muslim hijackers were to blame.

But Barrett, who heads a group called "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," speculates that pro-Israeli neoconservatives led by Vice President Dick Cheney toppled the Twin Towers with secretly planted explosives or incendiary devices such as thermite rods. It's a popular theory in the Muslim community. The anti-Bush left has also embraced it.

Barrett, who converted to Islam 13 years ago, teaches a course on Islam that critics say whitewashes the 1400-year history of jihad against the West.

His Wisconsin colleague Onellion says Barrett is not qualified to teach the course because his doctorate is in Arabic studies, not Islamic studies. And as a Muslim activist with an ax to grind against the U.S. government, he says he is incapable of teaching the course objectively.

"I simply do not believe that an adult convert to Islam is capable of objectively teaching, or objectively grading, a course on his religion," he told WorldNetDaily. "Never would such a person be objective."

University officials, however, are persuaded that Barrett can teach Islam objectively.

In a July letter to Barrett, Wisconsin provost Patrick Farrell wrote, "I have accepted your assurance that you could control your enthusiasm for your personal viewpoints on the top of 9-11 and present them in class in an objective and balanced time frame and context."

Onellion, who is co-authoring a book on science and religion called, "Seeking truth: Living with Doubt," says about half the members of a Wisconsin faculty group for academic freedom sided with the decision to keep Barrett on staff and let him teach the controversial course. The other half disagreed with the decision.

Religious Leaders Outreach Program MUJCA-NET can help arrange for a 9/11 Truth outreach person to speak to a priest, imam, rabbi or minister in your area. We can also help arrange for a speaker to visit your church, synagogue or mosque and/or meet with members of your religious group (all religions welcome). We can also provide 9/11-related educational materials as finances permit. Click here for more information	Media Interview Requests MUJCA-NET may be able to arrange media interviews with, and guest appearances by, its founders, endorsers, and supporters in your area. It's an amazing story--Jews, Christians and Muslims uniting to fight for 9/11 truth and put an end to the bogus "war on terror" along with the escalating violence between the Abrahamic faiths. Click here for more information.
Eminent Theologian David Griffin Sparks 9/11 Truth Groundswell David Griffin, one of America's most eloquent and influential theologians, has summed up the overwhelming evidence for US government 9/11 complicity in in his bestseller The New Pearl Harbor. (Read Marc Estrin's review.) (Listen to Pacifica radio interview.) Dr. Griffin's follow-up book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, demolishes the last shreds of doubt that 9/11 was an inside job, and the official story a transparent cover-up.	Day of Prayer for 9/11 Truth Jews, Christians and Muslims from around the world are uniting to pray for 9/11 truth every Friday afternoon. (Muslim congregational prayer occurs shortly after noon on Fridays.) Muslims are asking God to end the nazi-style persecution aimed at them, and related political violence perpetrated by all sides, by helping reveal the the truth about what happened on 9/11. All are invited to join. Click here to find out how.
Please Support MUJCA-NET MUJCA-NET needs your support. We are a non-profit organization and the scale of our activities depends entirely on your generosity. We would like to get copies of David Griffin's two 9/11 books (see above) into the hands of every religious leader in America. And we would like to push 9/11 truth onto the front pages of every newspaper in America. But we can't do it without your help. If you would like to donate to MUJCA-NET, click here.	Book-in-Progress: The Myth of 9/11 MUJCA-NET co-founder Kevin Barrett is writing a book entitled The Myth of 9/11: An American Muslim Speaks Out. Dr. Barrett, an Arabist specializing in the analysis of myth, literature and folklore, argues that the official story of 9/11 is a myth, both in the popular sense of an untrue story, and the scholarly sense of a founding narrative legitimizing a particular social order. Preview and comment on The Myth of 9/11.

Free Java applets provided by JavaScript Kit