A 9/11 Truth Response to Harvard Professor Steven Pinker's Treatise on Faith and Reason
Replying to this op-ed in today's Crimson: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=515314#
They have not posted my comment yet, but here's hoping!
Re: Less Faith, More Reason
It is amazing that Professor Pinker could raise so many valid points on the value of scientific literacy and the dichotomy of faith versus reason while failing to address, among the other socio-historical allusions in his piece, the greatest example that illustrates all of his points.
No issue paints the interaction between science, reason, faith, and their impact on society in more stark relief than the events of September 11, 2001. One faith in particular is held responsible for the destruction of the three towers (yes, three) at the World Trade Center, and while we would expect such a significant accusation to be based on sound science and reasonable standards of evidence, such is not at all the case.
Honest scientists are hard-pressed to explain, for example, the fact that pools of molten steel were discovered in the rubble piles of WTC 1 and 2 (the twin towers) and WTC 7 (the 47 story building that collapsed at 5:20 p.m. though no plane hit it and it suffered minimal damage from the collapse of the towers.)
Jet fuel burns at a maximum of 1200 degrees fahrenheit in an open fire, and 1800 under the most ideal controlled conditions. Steel, however, melts at 2750 degrees fahrenheit, no less.
Galileo's law of falling bodies, moreover, tells us the rate at which a body in free fall will accelerate towrds the ground. The fact that the top of each tower fell through hundreds of feet of intact structure at very nearly the exact rate we would expect from free fall through empty air suggests that something other than gravity was involved in the collapses, a fact buttressed by the many eyewitness accounts, from firefighters and other rescue workers, of powerful explosions before, during, and after each tower was struck by the respective airplanes.
Perhaps the problem with faith is not that it is, as Prof. Pinker suggests, solely a euphemism for religion, but a method by which people can avoid having to back up their beliefs and opinions with hard scientific fact.
Which brings us to the real crux of the crisis in academia today--the moral and ethical failure of scientists, who know full well that the official account of the twin towers' and building 7's collapse is a physical impossibility, to take their responsibility as public intellectuals seriously.
I would challenge Professor Pinker to rise to the occasion and stand by his stated principles and address the science behind the conventional account of the events of September 11th in the enlightenment spirit of reason and science over faith and politics.