Category: General

I’ve reviewed the e-mails I’ve received this week and I’ve decided that posting the really invective filled ones won’t bring me the kind of catharsis I’d like. So, I thought I’d given you an overview of the general comments I got. All of these are actual quotes, but they are not the full text; like Climategate (as I believe ‘they’ are calling it) I might well be distorting the record for my own malevolent purpose.

Or not. You can decide.

The most common sentiment I’ve received since the Herald on Sunday piece goes something like this:

Anyway perhaps you were misquoted or quoted out of context; if so I hope a correction can be published.

That was what lead me to writing my clarification.

Another correspondent asked:

Could you please tell me if you believe you were accurately quoted?

I ask this because I have no such feelings of anti-semitism. I am however anti – criminal behaviour and pro – truth

I’d like to think we are all pro-truth in some way. Actually, this correspondent ended up being the one person I had a productive e-mail exchange with. We ended up agreeing to disagree, with Dany admitting that I certainly did sound very sincere in my convictions.

Winner of the ‘Irony Award’ goes to this correspondent, who after asserting the ‘Inside Job’ hypothesis wrote:

I think that those who claim to know the truth (any truth) about 9/11, like you implied to do, are either conceited or highly naive.

It’s a great example of the Inadvertantly Self-referring Self-sealing Fallacy; how dare you call someone naive for thinking they have a handle on what went on in New York on 9/11. Only naive people, like myself, think they know one way or the other.

He also accused me of calling myself a scientist. The cad!

Several of my correspondents wanted to blame falling media standards on me:

Wow….and here I was thinking that anybody would care about the deterioration of mass-media or the replacement of actual problems with discussions on fashion and sports in the general public…

Admittedly, perhaps he was concerned with soundbite culture. But, let it be known, I would like all sports pages in all papers to be dismissed and never seen again.

I do sometimes look at the fashion pages, though…

Whilst many of the e-mails I received did the softly-softly tactic of trying to get me to admit I was wrong, some tried the hard sell:

Your cheap comment about Richard Gage , AIA and founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is typical based on your cognitive dissonance level. … You are a joke and bring shame to anyone who has done a PHD!

When that didn’t work he challenged me to call him an anti-semite. Charming man.

A convert to the Truther Movement wrote:

If you are truly getting a PhD on conspiracy theories, and you make a statement that “all the 9/11 conspiracies collapse when prodded” you must get a refund on your entire education, and become involved in mindless labor. Because you must be entirely incapable of critical thought.

I’m also entirely incapable of bilocation, but I keep trying.

The e-mail flood has not just slowed to a trickle; it has dried up. Unless any further excitement happens at Monday’s event, I think I’m now safely out of the Truthers’ eyeline.

Wonder if the lawyer ever found Jeanette Fitzsimons e-mail address, the one that is publicly available on the internet?

This weekend’s ‘Dentith Files’ has been delayed a week due to my companion in radio crime, José, being away for the weekend. Expect a Gage-centric show on the 5th of December.

Question time: I’m getting a lot of interesting e-mails and comments from Australians (which I’ll digest for the blog sometime this weekend). Any chance that the Australian promoter of the Richard Gage lecture circuit is encouraging his followers to get in contact? I admit, it sounds like a Conspiracy, but I’m willing to buy it for a dollar.

Dear Mr. Dentith,

I trust that I am addressing the correct Mr. Dentith, if not, full apologies to the recipient. (enjoy!)

With all respect Sir may I suggest that it is naive to believe the official “Bush believers conspiracy theory that 19 Arabs did 9/11 and fire brought down three steel high rise structures for the first time in history on the same site on the one day”.

Your comments would have some credibility if you stated that you have examined and considered the scientific analysis and evidence now available. As with Galileo’s findings, many did not accept them because they would not look through the telescope. I trust that for the benefit of your students, that in regard to the 9/11 matter, you will at least have a peak through the lens.

In considering your doctorate on conspiracy theories perhaps you would wish to include in your studies the following points:

Prosecutors on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen present conspiracy theories to juries in the criminal jurisdictions every day in commonwealth countries. Until such time as a jury convicts then it is a conspiracy theory.

Juries consider the evidence presented in a balanced and impartial objective manner, as is their duty, during their deliberations.

There are many theories that do not stand up considering the evidence and an acquittal should follow.

I have been studying the 9/11 event for over 5 years and have formed the opinion that the twin towers and building No 7 were destroyed with explosives.

I find it offensive for you to infer that I have been naive in studying the ‘9/11 mass murders’ and/or meeting with Mr. Gage, for example. Actually, I have not only had him in my home in Sydney, but also; Frank Legge, Professor Steven Jones, Lt. Col. (ret) Bob Bowman and Yuki Fujita from the Japanese Parliament. Yuki is now in government with his party. Perhaps if you spent some time with some of these honourable people you would moderate your accusations.

I find it extraordinary and offensive that you would infer that; by my studying 9/11 and forming an opinion on it, it would add ‘credibility to groups with fringe and anti-Semitic agendas’. The last aspect is most offensive. What has anti-Semitism have to do with scientific investigation of mass murders? As for fringe groups: it would appear that your expected doctorate studies should be updated with a Time magazine article reporting the 9/11 truth is not a fringe group, considering the hundreds of millions of people who question the Bush Administrations account of 9/11.

Sir, you reference to anti-Semitism is, may I suggest is an attempt to smear respected persons and is an unlearned comment intended to somehow deride thinking people.

I will be sending a copy of this to The Honourable Ms Fitzsimmons (when I find an e-mail address)and I wish to congratulate her on the manner in which she has the courage to diligently carry out her duties to the people of New Zealand. I take it that she will not give any credence to uninformed criticism inferred by your suggestion that she is lacking; ethical standards and lacks the ability to judge things with reason.

Further, Sir in regard to your claim that all the 9/11 conspiracy theories collapse when ‘prodded’. No doubt you will substantiate that inane statement with a balanced critique of Mr. Gage’s address. I take it that if one of your students said; “Well Sir, your theories just collapse with a bit of prodding”, you will pass the student with honours in the light of your standards. I

In regards to Building No 7 may i suggest David Ray Griffin’s latest book; “The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center(sic) &. Why the final report about 9/11 is unscientific and false”. [2009. Olive Press] May respectfully opine, that you are facing extreme embarrassment if you maintain your stated unsubstantiated opinion/s in front of those of your students who should happen to read Mr. Griffin’s book. (and the many other he has written on the subject) It will be in interesting to see you ‘prod’ Griffin’s book and see if his analysis collapses, try it!

There are many avenues for further study on 9.11. I suggest you start at http://www.patriotsquestion9/11.com and the architects and engineers site at AE911truth.org. Keep up to date by a few weekly peaks at 911.blogger.com.

I wish you well with your doctorate and trust that some of the above observations will make your thesis at least worth the outcome expected by you.

Yours Sincerely,

B Antcliffe.
Member: Lawyers for 911 truth. Political Leaders for 9/11 truth.

PS: John ((John Bursill, the organiser of the Richard Gage tour in Australia and New Zealand.)), Cannot locate Fitzsimons or NZ Herald, e-mail perhaps when this goes round someone will send it on, Ta.

—

Thank you for your interesting but just a little disjointed e-mail. A few points:

In considering your doctorate on conspiracy theories perhaps you would wish to include in your studies the following points:

Prosecutors on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen present conspiracy theories to juries in the criminal jurisdictions every day in commonwealth countries. Until such time as a jury convicts then it is a conspiracy theory.

Juries consider the evidence presented in a balanced and impartial objective manner, as is their duty, during their deliberations.

There are many theories that do not stand up considering the evidence and an acquittal should follow.

I am well aware of charges, as well as successful convictions, for Criminal Conspiracies. Everyone knows that Conspiracies occur; the question, certainly salient here, is whether the charge of Conspiracy is true in this particular case.

I find it offensive for you to infer that I have been naive in studying the ‘9/11 mass murders’ and/or meeting with Mr. Gage, for example.

Actually, you are inferring that. I merely said Jeanette Fitzsimmons was naive in her endorsement.

Actually, I have not only had him in my home in Sydney, but also; Frank Legge, Professor Steven Jones, Lt. Col. (ret) Bob Bowman and Yuki Fujita from the Japanese Parliament. Yuki is now in government with his party. Perhaps if you spent some time with some of these honourable people you would moderate your accusations.

As an epistemologist I am concerned with whether people hold beliefs formed due to reliable processes; it matters not one whit whether they are good, honourable, et cetera; if they hold specious beliefs, then they can be called to account on that.

Sir, you reference to anti-Semitism is, may I suggest is an attempt to smear respected persons and is an unlearned comment intended to somehow deride thinking people.

As a lawyer I would expect you to read documents carefully and notice what is a direct quote, what is an associated comment and what is an inference. You have taken an associated comment and missed its relevance to the rest of the article.

Matthew