OPINION & EDITORIAL
A cowardly display
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- Williams wrong to stereotype, speculate (May 8, 2008)
- Corcoran no loser landlord (May 1, 2008)
- Shhhh! I'm trying to study! (April 30, 2008)
- Moderation possible on drug law (April 28, 2008)
- Granias takes liberties with liberty (April 28, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Extremist lectures harmful to UW education (October 19, 2006)
- Rehiring Barrett too risky (February 15, 2007)
- Fractured fairy tales (October 2, 2006)
- Barrett defends course, teaching at UW (February 20, 2007)
- Barrett shamelessly exploits position (September 4, 2006)
Share This:
by Letters to the Editor
Friday, January 25, 2008
On Jan. 21, University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse wrote on her blog, “I don’t know why the University of Wisconsin has not rehired 9/11 conspiracy believer Kevin Barrett to teach a course on the history of Islam. But if we know a person believes something truly nutty, are we not entitled to use that as evidence of his intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness?”
This is an amazing statement coming from a professor of law — a position that presupposes a respect for carefully considered evidence. Her assault on Mr. Barrett, in which she makes no effort to consider the countless facts backing the so-called Truth Movement, is shamefully flippant — her word choice of “truly nutty” — and unworthy of an academic intent on attacking another.
Without going into details easily found on the Internet, a considerable army of architects, engineers, physicists, logicians, commercial and military pilots, first responders, military figures all the way to general officer, and government personnel including FBI and CIA agents has amassed a solid case countering the official story. That army is all the greater for the addition of similar experts from countries all over the world.
Ms. Althouse has refused to debate the issue in public forum. That being so, how does the objective observer avoid a conclusion of moral cowardice on her part? As a professional, is she not obligated to present evidence rather than indulging in personal attack?
There is irony surrounding Ms. Althouse’s questioning of Mr. Barrett’s intelligence, judgment and trustworthiness, because it leads one to the question, “If we know that a law professor is willing to attack someone for no reason that she could defend in a courtroom situation, would we not be entitled to question her intelligence, judgment and trustworthiness?” And there is little doubt that in a courtroom, in which she would face that army of experts and their facts, she would be reduced to dust on the floor.
Bill Willers
Professor emeritus, biology
UW-Oshkosh
willers@charter.net
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 7:19am):
I hoe someone puts a copy of this in her permanent record
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 7:23am):
I would hope that were I to send my children to a university that they would be exposed to professors whose teachings included the importance and use of critical thinking in their courses.
I am appalled by Prof. Willers' editorial above which throws critical thinking, logic, scientific, forensic, physical, and eyewitness evidence to the wind, in favor of a vocal group - including those from disciplines Prof. Willers lists above - whose sole accomplishments in six years of trying is to deny ALL of the evidence of what happened on 9/11 without being able to refute any of it.
That Prof. Willers is unable to distinguish between what constitutes overwhelming evidence and who is responsible for the burden of proof, and who brazenly makes false statements like "...the countless facts backing the so-called Truth Movement,...", in reality nothing more than claims and misrepresentations REPEATEDLY shown to be false over six years, should serve as a warning to parents and university officials everywhere.
Contrary to Prof. Willers and Kevin Barrett's assault on reason, there ARE objective standards in this world. And contrary to Prof. Willers post-Modernist whining, people will judge others on their ability to reason and be objective, just as they will judge a university's ability and determination to provide a good education. We will judge people like Barrett and others on an objective basis and Barrett has earned the derision he gets.
Sadly, Prof. Willers doesn't understand that the foundation of the 9/11 Truth Movement is NOT based on the search for truth but rather on the DENIAL of objective reality for political purposes. It's particularly sad that Prof. Willers does not demonstrate he understands the difference between 'evidence' and 'claims.'
b. j. edwards
bje@usa.com
http://911booger.blogspot.com
Ann Althouse (January 25, 2008 @ 8:59am):
In my blog post, I set aside the facts I don't know and raise a question designed to help readers work toward a general principle that would distinguish between the discrimination against a political viewpoint and the proper use of evidence of a person's qualities of mind.
Professor Willers calls that "an amazing statement coming from a professor of law a position that presupposes a respect for carefully considered evidence."
Presumably, by "position" he means that the position of professor of law presupposes respect for evidence. But it could more aptly mean that the position I took in my statement is, in fact, a recommendation that we ascertain the value of the evidence that a job applicant creates through speaking and thus a position that entails respect for evidence.
Willers says that my "assault on Mr. Barrett... is shamefully flippant her word choice of truly nutty and unworthy of an academic intent on attacking another."
Professor Willers, calm down and reread. I put to the side the case of Kevin Barrett and said I did not know the facts. Moving to the level of abstraction, I asked a neutral question that was intended to facilitate thinking about what to do in the case of a job applicant who takes a truly nutty position. By the way, it's the work of a law professor to propose hypotheticals to assist students in thinking about legal problems outside of the context of a particular case.
Willers would like me to engage in a debate about physics in a "courtroom situation," but I'm going to decline. Why would I debate about physics when I'm a law professor? Being "a professional" doesn't mean you're an expert in everything.
Again, I did not make a personal attack.
By the way, Professor Willers, aren't you making a personal attack? Do you think you had the obligation to read my letter with basic understanding before writing a letter like this to the newspaper?
"There is irony surrounding Ms. Althouses questioning of Mr. Barretts intelligence judgment and trustworthiness, because it leads one to the question, 'If we know that a law professor is willing to attack someone for no reason that she could defend in a courtroom situation, would we not be entitled to question her intelligence, judgment and trustworthiness?' And there is little doubt that in a courtroom, in which she would face that army of experts and their facts, she would be reduced to dust on the floor."
In answer to your hypothetical, of course you could take into account that the law professor attacked someone for no reason. I didn't do that, however, so that doesn't refer to me.
Nevertheless, I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment and trustworthiness.
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 9:16am):
Ummm... I'll make sure to validate Prof. Willers thoughts NEXT TIME I AM IN OSHKOSH?!?!?! Stick to your knitting, Bill.
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 9:50am):
"But if we know a person believes something truly nutty, are we not entitled to use that as evidence of his intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness?
Yeah, but why the hell should we have to pay him to prove it? He's a nutjob. Let al-Qaida pay him. Let him go to Iran to work as a teacher.
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 9:54am):
Anyone who believes that GW Bush is such an evil genius that he set up 9-11 is an IDIOT, I don't care how many degrees they have.
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 10:25am):
Oh god! Do you know what kind of damage you're doing to Oshkosh's already fragile reputation?
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 11:33am):
Profesor Willers,
Please do some actual research. There are no facts backing the "the so-called Truth Movement". A good place to start is www.911myths.com
more can be found here: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
You have been mislead by clever sales pitches and sloppy research. Professor Altohouse is dead on in her characterization of these theories as crazy.
-Chris
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 11:51am):
"And there is little doubt that in a courtroom, in which she would face that army of experts and their facts, she would be reduced to dust on the floor."
And you're just the man to do it, Bill.
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 11:51am):
Kevin Barrett is an excellent scholar and lecturer. Please make sure that the University of Wisconsin can utilize his talents.
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 11:57am):
Um, this feedback is pointless if the BH won't select the best-of-the-week to publish on Fridays.
"Readers sound off" has been silenced.
Ann Althouse (January 25, 2008 @ 11:58am):
I respond to Professor Willer's silly letter <a href="http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/01/im-assailed-in-local-paper-for-failing.html">here</a>.
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 12:04pm):
Is this blog part of the UW web site? IOW, is she posting these fact-impaired attacks on the public's dime?
Prof. Althouse doesn't even have the roles right, in calling Dr. Barrett (it is _Dr_ Barrett, isn't it?) a "conspiracy believer". The 9/11 truth movement is based on _dis_belief of the official story, which itself is the "nutty" conspiracy theory.
The facts would indeed challenge any official story argument Prof. Althouse would make if she did, but I think the "dust on the floor" phrase was a bit over the top. A little too strong a metaphor for the physical circumstances of the event in question. Let's not forget, there _were_ people under that dust; it's in their honor that the truth movement presses on.
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 12:11pm):
BRING. BACK. BARRETT.
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 12:12pm):
people still care about this?
Evan Ravitz (January 25, 2008 @ 12:14pm):
The 9/11 families who forced the U.S. to hold the 9/11 Commission, and prevented Kissinger from heading it, now say that 70% of their questions were never asked and that the Commission was a whitewash.
See their excellent film 9/11 Press for Truth for free at: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481&q=9%2F11+press+for+truth&total=290&start=0&num=30&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Then see the far more detailed Loose Change, which Vanity Fair said "might be the first internet blockbuster," also free at:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598&q=loose+change+final+cut&total=300&start=0&num=30&so=0&type=search&plindex=4
If you understand the laws of physics or military protocols, it's easy to see the government's ever-changing stories don't hold water.
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 12:21pm):
All of you people are totally fine with 3 buildings symmetrically collapsing into dust at near-freefall speeds, molten metal found in all three basements (how does that get there, NIST did not even try to answer this), NORAD getting caught with their collective dicks in their hands for over 1.5 hours even though scrambling aircraft is a routine procedure done on average 60-100 times a year (response times between 10-30 min)? The list goes on and on and on. I am amazed at the lack of inquiry by this professor and those posting here.
Paul V. Sheridan (January 25, 2008 @ 12:35pm):
Quote by Anonymous coward on(January 25, 2008 @ 9:54am):
"Anyone who believes that GW Bush is such an evil genius that he set up 9-11 is an IDIOT, I don't care how many degrees they have."
Show us here Anonymous coward, for all to see, EXACTLY where Professor Barrett, or anyone else that has studied current affairs with a modicum of integrity, sincerity and competence (something the ding-aling law professor Althouse has demonstrably NOT done), has made any such claim. Be specific Anonymous coward, hiding in the bushes, unwilling to take a non-anonymous stand (Heck, even the dolt Althouse made a public stand; can't fault her there!).
No one that has studied 9/11 thinks George Bush was involved with the decades-long processes that are still unfolding before our eyes/lives. Specifically, if Althouse had any credibility, even her simpleton Bar Association membership brain could figure out that the #1 casuality/target is the U.S. Constitution. In this sense, Althouse has publically demonstrated that she has no integrity, she cannot be trusted; shame on her person at the deepest levels of patriotism (in her case, lack thereof).
Please go to my profile URL, and read my letter http://links.veronicachapman.com/Senator%20Levin%20Cover%20Request%20Letter.pdf It includes hyperlinks to prior letters.
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 12:43pm):
Dr. Kevin Barrett is a outstanding scholar, and so are many other prominent members of the 9/11 Truth community that has been attacked in this discussion. To not give the right of free speech to this educated man who has throughly research the ideas he talks about is a travesty. I have only met Dr. Barrett a couple of times, but I got the impression that he only wants what is right for this country and for the students at Univ. of Wisconsin.
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 12:54pm):
935 lies by the Bush administration prior to the war in Iraq... anyone?
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 12:56pm):
Bill Willers claims there's an "army of architects, engineers, physicists, logicians, commercial and military pilots" etc supporting the 9/11 CT claims. Sorry Bill, there's not. In fact, there's not a single peer-reviewed article written by anyone in the 9/11 "truth" movement. In fact, the whole thing is based on lies and misinformation. To put it in a context Willers could understand there's an "army" of nutjobs from all kinds of disciplines (incuding physics and chemistry!) who claim the Theory of Evolution is false and Creationism or Intelligent Design is supported by the evidence. Doesn't make it so though, does it Prof. Willers?
The next 9/11 conspiracy theorist who presents any evidence at all supporting them will be the first.
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 1:00pm):
Ms. Althouse is a disgrace to Wisconsin, and an example of everything that is wrong in American society today.
The crimes of 9/11, and the cover-up of those crimes by the Bush Administration, could not be better supported than through Ms. Althouse and her ignoble kind.
Apparently mindless foolishness is the new standard of excellence at UW.
Peter Kogen (January 25, 2008 @ 1:01pm):
Prof. Althouse's refusal to debate Kevin Barrett on the subject of 9/11 and her dismissal of him for the position he takes on 9/11 is narrow-minded and childish. Evidence and truth matter. I have heard Kevin Barrett lecture and read his book on 9/11. In my opinion there is no question that he is very knowledgeable and qualified to discuss the subject of 9/11 as well as on the history of Islam. If people like Prof. Althouse would open their minds to the alternative explanation of what happened on 9/11, which is backed up by overwhelming evidence, she would discover that Kevin Barrett embodies the true meaning of patriotism that the founding fathers intended. They did not intend for us to childishly believe everything our leaders tell us, but to speak out when we recognize they are lying and decieving us as citizens.
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 1:19pm):
I have been listening to Kevin Barrett for a couple of years now and he is one of the greatest assets we have in the truth movement. I really admire his ability to debate these very important discrepancies in the "official" conspiracy theory with such a level head. Mr. Barrett would be my choice to debate anyone anytime about the official conspiracy. I have much confidence in Kevin. Why have the people that defend the "official" conspiracy theory resort to childish behavior and not debate the topics? When you silence dissent, you invite tyranny.
Mike cctx
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 1:31pm):
It should be questioned whether Ms. Althouse is intelligent enough to be teaching our students.
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 1:37pm):
And exactly how does Bill Willers' expertise in BIOLOGY qualify him to lecture on matters of jurisprudence?
Does Barrett really think any court is interested in hearing his little "army" of troofer kooks? Good luck finding a judge willing to entertain your idiotarian nonsense.
Bring it on!
Matthew Naus (January 25, 2008 @ 1:48pm):
Anyone that believes the government's official accounting of 9/11/01 with 19 terrorists using boxcutters lead by a man in a cave needs to have a serious exam of their mindset. That's another way of saying "Truely Nutty". Prof. Althouse you need to back up your words and have a intellectual debate with Kevin Barrett. I bet you can guess who my monies on. Kevin Barrett
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 1:53pm):
Kevin "The Holocaust was a myth" Barrett's right to free speech has nothing to do with the right to have a job teaching students. The man has called for the death of those who argue against him or who portray truther events as the crazy collection of loons they are.
See here- http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71003
I find it particularly scary that such a violent man, also has a site where he publishes the home addresses of those he deems "were in on it"
http://www.wheretheylive.org/?p=1
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 2:16pm):
For those who are considering the advice to watch the movie "Loose Change", follow that up with the information documenting the distortions and misrepresentations made in that movie. One such site can be found here:
http://emptv.com/research/loose-change
... as well as the "Loose Change" debunking links at
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53102
Then, follow that up with visits to:
http://911myths.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82689
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 2:22pm):
For those who are wondering about the idea of " 3 buildings symmetrically collapsing into dust at near-freefall speeds":
The freefall fallacy: http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
and: http://911myths.com/html/freefall.html
For those wondering about "molten metal":
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/groundzerocleanup%2Cfreshkillssortingopera (scroll down to the "Fires in the piles /Molten metal/ Eutectic reaction / Thermite theories" section
For those wondering about "NORAD getting caught with their collective dicks in their hands for over 1.5 hours even though scrambling aircraft is a routine procedure done on average 60-100 times a year (response times between 10-30 min)?":
http://911myths.com/html/stand_down.html
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=103846 (this thread discusses 9/11 events through the prism of the '99 Payne Stewart intercept, and demonstrates the falsity of claims such as "routine procedure done on average 60-100 times a year)
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 2:25pm):
"And exactly how does Bill Willers' expertise in BIOLOGY qualify him to lecture on matters of jurisprudence?"
What are YOUR qualifications to lecture us on either 9/11 or the culture of Islam?
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 2:47pm):
the problem with the 9/11 'truth' movement is that it is essentially a religion. they hold tightly to the few questions and unexplained issues that support their position, yet they disregard the mountain of evidence and experts that refute their position as fabricated/government-generated.
fyi, the frequent misspellings on the 9/11 conspiracy websites (which i've reviewed, far too extensively, at my conspiracy theory friends' requests) do not add credibility to your cause. in that vein, it's actually spelled 'truly', mr. naus (or is it doctor? i would hate to understate your credentials).
wisconsin, w/its free-thinking history, has always had a few nutjobs on the payroll in the spirit of diversity. kevin barrett is just another such NJ. and finally 'truthers', if you wonder why we post anonymously, it's because we don't want to end up on the kevin barrett witch-hunt address list. i have no fear of your 'truth', but i'll freely admit that the idea of you folks w/my address freaks me the hell out.
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 2:55pm):
my profile may be viewed at http://www.helium.com/user/show/89941 --- the relevance to this discussion is that the U.S. Government displayed its preoccupations prior to 9/11 through their collusively-produced films.
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 2:56pm):
"...decades-long processes that are still unfolding before our eyes/lives."
Hmmmmmm, so which of the secret societies is really behind it all? Will we ever know?
Git yerself some heavy-duty aluminum foil and make ya a nice hat to protect yer brain from the emmisions!
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 2:57pm):
mindless foolishness = 9-11 truther
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 2:58pm):
To me it is clear that Mr. Barrett is at least asking questions. He does not presume to know anything. On the other hand, Althouse wants us all to believe that we should not want a healthy debate, instead, we all should just be nice and stop asking about the future of our worlds safety. Like a bad parent whose answer to a innocent question from a child would be "shut up just because I say so". I am under the impression that here is no room in the practice of law for planned ignorance.
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 2:58pm):
Oh, please, Barrett is a wierdo, and Willers is a wannabe wierdo enabler.
Oh, and the definition of wierdo is anyone who believes the Bush Administration "pulled" off 9/11 as an inside job which only 9/11truthers can find evidence for,
but that the same "evil geniuses" couldn't plant a tractor trailer load of WMD in the Iraqi desert.
And planting WMD would have been a far simpler move, one which would have guaranteed the support of the American people for Republican foreign policy for a generation, and which would certainly have led to Jed Bush having been the Republican Presidential nominee this year.
Chris Bowers (January 25, 2008 @ 3:11pm):
Below is an email I sent to Ann Althouse concerning her attack of her peer and fellow colleague Kevin Barrett. I am submitting it as a letter to the editor in the hope that it might stir more students and professors to practice what they hopefully learn and teach - thorough research!
Dear Ann,
I received an email from Kevin Barret. I am told you have subtly called for his dismissal for professing to understand the exhaustive and verifiable evidence concerning a subject (Sept.11) I must assume you have yet to fully research diligently and responsibly. If you really had any idea of how many academics, professionals, military and commercial pilots and former State department, Pentagon and CIA/FBI have come forward - well, you get the point. Ponder this logic law professor: In light of the myriad of unimpeachable professional witnesses that would most definitely be present in a court of law concerning the issues and events of 9-11 you would not so easily get away with such a flippant and flagrant disregard and dismissal of a colleague and peer. The judge would demand that you represent the charges filed in his/her court in a logical, verifiable and coherent manner befitting a competent lawyer or face having the charges dismissed with prejudice and face an admonishment from the judge "to have your evidence and facts in order before you decide to file charges in my courtroom in the future!". If you truly feel strongly enough about what you have said to fellow peers concerning Barrett, then you should be willing and prepared to debate the issue before a jury of your peers. Education is the last institution that should be allowing itself the luxury of immunity from reason and logic. You must believe in that, or else what in heaven's name are you doing in education? You are supposed to be training students how to think and reason for themselves to prepare them for anything the world may throw at them! Hopefully, you train us to learn how to learn. Why am I, the layman, having to remind you, the professional, of something so basic as this?
To throw you a bone of peace, my research on the subject of Sept.11th began with me being quite fed up with hearing people talk about conspiracy theories/9-11. By way of a thoughtful and reasoned process (a process I believed would give me the logic and proof to counter these conspiracy theorists) I discovered a conspiracy - and not just one. Not only have I come to understand the "why" of the events of 9-11, I discovered that the staged "shock and awe" event of that day is by no means anything new - it was and is business as usual for intelligence communities/militarys throughout recorded history and the usual suspects still have basically the same M.O. because history is full of similar false flag successes that paved the way for a well planned (or sometimes not-so-well planned) agenda to proceed without protest. Those involved have left a long trail of historical bread crumbs that are just lying there in documented history (thanks to the freedom of information act) for any earnest researcher to discover.
If you should choose to remain stubborn-proud with "eyes wide shut" without performing due diligence concerning your charges, as a steward of quality education and professional academic disciplines you are displaying complete and utter disregard for the heart and soul of the institution you presumably stand and live to represent! If you do plan on taking a closer look into the evidence concerning Sept.11, feel free to contact me concerning any of the subject matter you have questions about or are just looking for documented evidence to verify specific claims. And if you can stump me, I will provide you with links to websites and individuals much more learned than I. But really, you should either retract what you said or be willing to debate Professor Barrett. There is no downside to all this because whatever is true is already true and discovery is never a bad thing if indeed your search is for truth and you truly are a student and disciple of quality education in the hallowed halls of learning. Please carefully consider your personal responsibility in this matter...
In Hope for a better and more transparent future,
Chris Bowers
Liberty Lake, WA
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 3:19pm):
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance" - Einstein
A few facts for big mouth idiots like professor Ann Althouse:
Jet fuel can't melt structural steel, molten metal does not appear unless there is sufficient explosive energy involved. Freefall speed cannot be achieved unless sufficient mass is removed as in controlled demolition. NORAD does not stand down unless directed. You do not remove and destroy evidence unless you are guilty of the crime. Gag orders are not issued unless you want the truth suppressed. Video tapes are not withheld unless you are lying. Patriot Acts are not made into laws unless you want to institute a fascist state.
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 3:24pm):
"But if we know a person believes something truly nutty,..."
Sorry Professor Ann Althouse wrong call. I believe the Saviour of this world rode into Jerusalem on a donkey. That might seem to some truly nutty but are you entitled to use that as evidence of my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness?
Plenty of sane , wide awake professional people who having spent the time looking at the evidence of Twin Towers exploding not just collapsing believe the Official account to be incorrect even a cover up and at worst actually an Inside job
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 3:26pm):
Mr. Barrett is right about what he is saying. 9/11 was a false flag operation. The planes were remote, the pentagon was most likely hit by a cruise missile and there were explosives pre-planted in the buildings. There is no doubt that World Trade Center 7 was brought down by explosives. Everyone, who still don't inform him/herself about these very important issues is very ignorant.
Mia Hamel (January 25, 2008 @ 3:28pm):
"But if we know a person believes something truly nutty, are we not entitled to use that as evidence of his intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness? -Ann Althouse
Kevin Barrett, like the rest of us, did a lot of research before he drew his conclusions about 9/11/01, and exercised his intelligence AND his judgment. Has Ms. Althouse done her homework? A good many people like her may have relied on sources such as the 911 Commission Report for their narrative of the events.
The principal architect of that report was Philip Zelikow, whose specialty is 'the creation of societal myths'. David Ray Griffin, writer and theologian, has listed 115 lies and omissions from that report and calls it the '571 page lie'. If the government has nothing to hide, why is it hiding everything?
When the perpetrators control the narrative, naive propaganda victims like Ms Althouse are easily misled. Do your own research, the evidence is overwhelming. 9/11 was an inside job and we are all victims of a horrendous SCAM! Just look at what is happening, these warmongers and their 9/11 Wars. Wake up to the deception, this economic downturn and the sacking of our treasury are INTENTIONAL!
You would be 'truly nutty' to think what is happening is all one big COINCIDENCE!
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 3:38pm):
As far as (professional) integrity goes, I think Ms. Althouse is the one who warrants a credibility check. Under the circumstances, careless or not, the law professor's comments are abominable.
Privileging her own subjective (postmodern?) conclusions over those of a fellow colleague itself, reflects a lawless disregard. Recent experience has already shown us, it's educators such as this who bear a responsibility in modeling psychology for a student like Cho Seung-Hui. Unbelievable!
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 3:43pm):
Anonymous @ 2:25pm drooled: "What are YOUR qualifications to lecture us on either 9/11 or the culture of Islam?"
One needs no qualification to observe the glaring hypocrisy on stilts of BIOLOGY professor Willers lecturing a law professor on how our American judiciary work.
Now take your Haldol and crawl back into your mom's basement before she catches you drooling on her keyboard again.
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 3:48pm):
Burning jet fuel and all that it set on fire didn't have to melt structural steel, just heat it enough until it loses its strength to hold the weight over it. Molten metal such as the aluminum cladding which, after all, was all over the Towers, or lead from backup batteries from trading floors inside, can appear at relatively low temperatures, far below those needed to liquify steel. Freefall speed was only achieved by bits falling past the more slowly collapsing Tower structures. Its quite visible in the videos. NORAD did not stand down, they did the best they could given there were thousands of blips on the radars representing tens of thousands of innocent travelers on thousands of innocent aircraft, and the fact there were only 4 interceptors on duty east of the Mississippi, and no one was 100% sure we were under attack until Flight 175 hit the second Tower at 9:02am. By 10:03am there was nothing NORAD could do. No evidence was destroyed. It was all photographed and where relevant analyzed scientifically. There is a mountain of it still warehoused. Including thousands of tons of twisted steel from the Towers. Is there anything 9/11truthers believe that wasn't debunked years ago? No gag orders have ever been issues for anyone with any direct knowledge of anything that happened on 9/11. that includes Sibel Edmonds. Only those constructing strawman arguments imagine secret video tapes that do not exist. The Patriot Act can not be accused of inflated hyperbolic fact free "fascist" rhetoric if the free business and politics of the Republic continue uninterupted, including the free and open disemination of absolute 9/11truther gibberish.
If anything 9/11truthers have been the greatest supporters of the status quo because their hyperventilating tripe makes the Bushes seem ultra competent by comparison with their "evil deification" by truthers. and the flaws in the Patriot Act are made to somehow seem ok by comparison with the baseless accusations of "fascists" by the same truth free truthers.
9/11Truth just plain isn't.
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 3:51pm):
great letter!
Ann Althouse (January 25, 2008 @ 3:57pm):
2:58 Anonymous makes my favorite argument against the truthers. If the Bush administration would do the 9/11 attacks, why didn't they fake finding WMD in Iraq? Another question is, if the airplanes didn't bring down the buildings, why did they bother to fly airplanes into the buildings?
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 4:08pm):
Some facts to correct misrepresentations:
Jet fuel cannot melt steel, true. But, the steel in the WTC did not have to melt in order to explain the collapse. Steel loses around 50% of its load bearing capacity at temperatures well within jet fuel's temperature range.
And besides which, jet fuel was not the main fuel burning in the towers; NIST theorizes that the jet fuel burned off in minutes. The office contents burned for the rest of the time, and common structural fires are known to exceed 1000 degrees F (<a href="http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87587">Source</a>)
Sightings of molten **metals** have been claimed; nothing proves those sightings were of steel. The two videos popular online showing metal flowing from one of the towers have more probable explanations:
1. The flow might be aluminum or another metal. There was more than steel in the Twin Towers. For example, there was several hundred thousand pounds of aircraft-grade aluminum and other metals found in Boeing 757s.
2. The flow might be lead from enterprise class Uninterruptible Power Supply batteries. These wouldn't be the small, desk sized units you see at office supply stores; rather, these are towering units capable of running datacenters for the duration of a major power outage. See the following links for more information regarding that:
<a href="http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2007/06/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html">http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2007/06/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html</a>
<a href="http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2007/12/by-henry62-11-settembre.html">http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2007/12/by-henry62-11-settembre.html</a>
Explosives do not melt steel. Rather, it tends to fragment it. Study military explosives for proof of this. The only melting that comes with explosive releases of energy is due to the <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/bullets2-shaped-charge.htm">"Monroe Effect"</a> noted in shaped charges like military "HEAT" rounds, and those only produce temporary droplets that solidify quickly, not molten piles or open flows that last for weeks.
On top of that: Many sightings of molten metals besides the videos referenced above did not take place on the day of the impacts. Rather, they were witnessed weeks after the fact. No explosive can account for molten metal that far after the incident, especially as those dissipate their energy within fractions of a second. Rather, another, non-explosive explanation must exist. No, thermite is not the answer.
Again, please refer to links discussing this topic:
<a href="http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm">Debunking 9/11's "Molten Metal"</a> page
<a href="http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html">9/11 Myth's "WTC Molten Steel"</a> page
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 4:13pm):
"They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 4:15pm):
Further info to correct misrepresentations:
"Freefall speeds cannot be achieved unless sufficient mass is removed as in controlled demolition".
Incorrect. That assessment is built several pieces of work, most notably by Gordon Ross, who claims that the lower structure's strength should have been sufficient to arrest the collapse, as well as other claims from before his saying that the mass of the upper section is insufficient to overwhelm the mass of the lower section.
Second misapprehension first: You cannot simply analyze mass on mass and make conclusions about that. You must take into account potential energy. Gordon tried to argue this, and came to erroneous conclusions. Works discussing the energy potential in the Twin Towers, and how there was indeed enough energy to account for the collapse can be found here:
http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm
Scroll down and click the link for the "Bazant" paper.
Also: Dr. Frank Greening of Ontario, Canada, has produced work discussing the energy calculations, among other things. His work can be found here:
http://911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html
While you're at it, you can also peruse the other papers linked at both sites.
In summary, it is a mistake to say that controlled demolitions were necessary to account for the collapse. Studies so far have shown that once the structure of the towers was compromised by 1. The impact of the planes, and 2. The fires that weakened (didn't have to melt!) the structural steel, the collapse was inevitable.
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 4:31pm):
"Jet fuel can't melt structural steel, molten metal does not appear unless there is sufficient explosive energy involved."
since there was NO melted structural steel, your argument is moot.
There were MANY different MELTED METAL , found, but none were found to contain STEEL. Do you know how many different types of METAL can be found in 3 skyscrapers?
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 4:33pm):
And even more info:
"NORAD does not stand down unless directed."
The myth of the NORAD stand down is old and discredited. See the following links for information:
"9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes", Vanity Fair":
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608
New York Public Radio interview with Vanity Fair writer Michael Bronner
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/911.html
Popular Mechanics "No Stand-Down Order" section of their Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report" work:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=3
9/11 Myths.com's "Stand Down" section
http://911myths.com/html/stand_down.html
Result of James Randi Educational Foundation's Conspiracy Theories subforum keyword search for "NORAD":
http://forums.randi.org/tags/index.php?do=tag&searchid=1534
From the last link, the best "primer" thread in that list: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61752
Bottom line: There was no NORAD stand down.
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 4:37pm):
I guess even law professors are subject to error. :)
Ann will never debate Kevin Barrett on the facts surrounding the tragic events of 9/11 -- not because she doesn't have chutzpah, because she does, but because she either
1) will remain in ignorance of these
events and therefore continue to believe Kevin Barrett to be a "nut" or
2) will do the research and come to the same conclusions Kevin has.
Anyone who does significant research into the events of 9/11 comes to the following conclusion (among others):
Dick Cheney orchestrated the murder of almost 3,000 Americans on 9/11.
As a law professor, Ann may be too busy to do the necessary (or, apparently, any) research on 9/11. But in the end, we make time for the things we want to make time for.
If Ann does decide to research the issue that she claims to know so much about, she should start here:
http://www.SpontaneousCreation.org/SC/links.htm
On the above page, there are lots of videos. Ann could actually research while eating her words.
Sincerely,
Jock Doubleday
Active AIDS factualist, vaccine factualist, and 9-11 factualist
Director
Natural Woman, Natural Man, Inc.
A California 501(c)3 Nonprofit Corporation
http://www.SpontaneousCreation.org
director@spontaneouscreation.org
Jock Doubleday is the author of
"Spontaneous Creation:
101 Reasons Not to Have Your Baby in a Hospital, Vol 1:
A Book about Natural Childbirth and the Birth of Wisdom and Power in
Childbearing Women"
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 4:56pm):
Please, just leave UW-Madison alone.
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 5:28pm):
There are a lot of people writing comments here who need some physics lessons.
But most of all, this whole issue needs to be debated in a court of law. The truth will rise to the surface, if we truly want the truth, and I think we all do, except for those who are trying to cover it up.
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 5:54pm):
Kevin Barrett is a true American Hero. He makes me proud to be an American, something that is very difficult these days.
I was THERE in Manhattan on 9/11. I was THERE when they started carting away evidence to the land fill in Staten Island. I was THERE when the last of the shell that was the WTC was brought down the following December. I was THERE near City Hall watching the ambulances and firefighters.
I was THERE wrapping my arms (I am 5'6") around a strapping +6' firefighter as he sobbed uncontrollably over the loss of 15 - FIFTEEN of his brothers at his firehouse alone.
Can you even grasp what 343 funerals for firefighters can look like? and that was just a partial amount of those who died.
Where were you Ann Althouse? and what did you do afterwards while the rest of us were gathering together, talking and discussing what to do next - to try and STOP governments
mostly the U.S. Government - from using whatever did happen on 9/11 as an excuse to start WWIII.
No doubt you were safe on your imaginary throne pontificating about bombing innocents and waging war against imaginary enemies? SHAME on YOU Ann Althouse - SHAME on you!!
You are not worthy of being a law professor and you certainly aren't worthy of being in education in ANY capacity.
People DIED on 9/11 in a huge, horrific way. The stench of their death filled the air even as it coursed in the gutters surrounding lower Manhattan for days, weeks, yes MONTHS afterwards. Did YOU smell their rotting corpses? Did YOU look at your fellow Manhattanites and wonder what next?
People deserve to KNOW the truth if for no other reason for the sake of all those innocents who died that day. We do NOT deserve more lies, and more innocents should NOT die in Iraq, Afghanistan or HERE because of incompetence and ignorance like yours, Ann Althouse!
Keven Barrett has endured enormouse personal attacks for what exactly? asking questions?? oh my goodness!! why is that such a travesty?? He ASKED QUESTIONS!!! and dared NOT to ACCEPT the line of nonsense spoonfed and swallowed by so many of you ignorant and foolish individuals who just want to go back to your 2 car garages and surreal lawns and drive your fossil fuel burning machines while countless millions in the world go without electricity or even fresh drinking water.
Ann Althouse, people like you make me shake my head as an American. You are what is wrong with our education system. You are what is wrong with our country. You are what is wrong with our policies. You represent, in a nutshell, all the erroneous statements and lies propagated by a government representing a small number of people who control too much money and don't know how to use it for the greater good. You are what's wrong with the world and I hope, pray and wish that more Kevin Barretts will proliferate world-wide in response that some day, some day, the truth will be known, the real criminals will be brought to justice and peace might finally come to a world that longs for it so.
Paul Mozina (January 25, 2008 @ 7:05pm):
The thing that sealed the deal for me was meeting William Rodriguez, the last man to make it out of the North tower alive, in Madison recently. His eye witness account of the tremendous explosion that occurred in the sublevel below him BEFORE the plane struck above, and the 20 or so witnesses prepared to corroborate his story, is quite compelling. He testified before the 9/11 Commission for hours and submitted the names of the individuals who would corroborate his story. Yet the Commission did not even mention his testimony or contact any of the other witnesses. If you don't believe there were tremendous explosions in the basements, why don't you ask Philippe David how half the skin on his face and arms was blown off? See www.911keymaster.com
Paul Mozina
Shelton Lankford (January 25, 2008 @ 7:10pm):
I love all these "experts" who will tell you precisely how buildings fall through their undamaged lower structure just as though it were air or a vacuum. Why, they do it that fast because the government theory demands it else they have to get a new theory and that might get terribly messy. Since there are hundreds of eyewitnesses to explosions that they chose to ignore in the Commission, and lots of inconvenient clues to misfeasance, malfeasance, and plain traitorous conduct on the part of Bush administration functionaries before, during, and after the events, it could get very messy indeed.
People who believe the buildings fell due to fire, believe something demonstrably nutty, particularly in the face of numerous explosions for which no explanation has been offered. But it is officially convenient nuttiness, whereas they have striven mightily with pen and purse strings to nullify any criticism.
Ann Althouse should test her own powers of logic and command of the facts with Mr. Barrett in a public forum so that she could demonstrate the superiority of her approach. That should not be too hard, should it?
Frank Schlzer (January 25, 2008 @ 7:54pm):
Why did they fly planes into the buildings when the explosives could have done the job?
To blame it on the supposed extremists. Explosives would have been too obvious. Al Quaida, which, by the way, was fundet by the CIA, could not possibly have planted the explosives all over the towers.
Why didn't hey plant WMD's in Iraq?
I don't know. Maybe the international intelligence community knew there were no WMDs in Iraq; lying would have been too obvious.
Now, the data concerning the false flag operation ist just too massive. No plane wreck on the pentagon crash site, only a small turbine which didn't belong to the type of the plane that supposedly flew into the pentagon. The 5-frame-video-release which 'proves' the plane impact, but which actually shows nothing. The confescated video camera tapes around the pentagon. World Trade Center Seven. Numerous witnesses talking about second explosions, explosions in the understructure. Victims who are burnt, escaping from the understructure. Insider trading. 100.000 dollar trading to Mohammed Atta, from the head of the SIS. The planted 'proof', including a terrorist 'manual' and the passport of Atta, which magically survived the plane impact, but steel didn't. Traces of thermite found at ground zero. I could go on and on, but still won't convince you. Now, ask yourself the question: what is democracy about? Is it about following the mainline, disregarding diversity of thought? Or is it about asking questions and seriously considering diverse thoughts? People who are brave enough to address these serious issues, are harrassed by the mass media. Do you really think, 90% of the mainstream media does NOT have an agenda? There is basically no investigative journalism anymore in your country. I BEG you to take these accusations SERIOUSLY and to inform yourself. Break through the silence and the massmedia mindset. If you want to conserve civil rights and your constitution. If you really care about that, now is the time to act. Otherwise , i see the decline into fascism. I see the development and it was EXACTLY what happened in Germany. Blind patriotism, a patriotic mindset regarding german supremecy, false flag operation to start wars. Next, they will go on and take away all your civil rights.
Who is profiting from Iraq, Afghanistan? Do your people profit?? No! It's a criminal elite which enriches itself. Are the Americans therefore 'evil'? No! You have a corrupt government! Use your civil rights, as long as you can still use them and turn the situation around! The time for cynicism and endless discussions is over, it is really time to wake up and seize your government back!
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 8:16pm):
Has anyone seen Building 7 fall? A 47-story building collapsed in 6.5 seconds on 9-11 yet it wasn't hit by any aircraft. I encourage all doubters to 9-11 Truth to check out the original news footage with Dan Rather and Peter Jennings of this building's collapse, at free fall speed. And yet, how many Americans have ever heard of Building 7? The mass media wiped it from our consciousness. This is in itself enough evidence of a major cover-up.
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 9:50pm):
Professor (?) Willers, do some research and figure out how did building 7 collapse when no plane hit it? It had minor damage and a small minor piece from it on the SW corner. How does it come STRAIGHT down in it's own footprint? And don't give me the fuel lines ruptured and cayused it to collapse. That would have explosed the building and the debris would have been everywhere. It wasn't.
And to YOU other nut jobs out there, steel that loses strength has to lose an awful lot of strength to collapse like it did and there is NO way in hell that that steel lost that much strength in that amount of time. The FDNY Battalion Chief said he had 2 small fires in the south tower that he could knock down with TWO hand lines. How could the steel lose it's strength when he could knock all the fire down with 2 hand lines??? NUTJOBS!!! Answer that one!!!! Yo NUTJOBS that are against Professor Barret DO YA HEAR ME???? NUTJOBS DO YA HEAR ME???? NIST ran a BUSH style report so you can't rely on any of what they did. They fired a shotgun into a plywood box to test how the fireproofing got dislodged. A shotgun into a plywood box? How does that figure? DUH?
Anonymous (January 26, 2008 @ 12:08am):
There are more good reasons that Barrett should not be teaching on an American campus. He is an Islamic studies professor who does not know the first thing about Islam. He lists the terrorists groups Hezbollah and Hamas as his "heroes", he claims that the extremist fundamentalist Wahabbi sect is "pro-West", and amazingly claims that there is no such thing as radical Islamic violence.
And this is in addition to his conspiracy nonsense, Holocaust denial, and promises of execution to those who oppose him.
Anonymous (January 26, 2008 @ 4:45am):
I saw WTC 7 fall. I was there. Thousands of other eyewitnesses saw it fall. Including numerous FDNY personel. And millions saw it fall on TV. I don't list my name because Kevin "The Holocaust as taught in America is a hideously destructive myth" Barrett has also stated publicly that he thinks demonstrations on public property outside the home addresses of those he disagrees with is just fine and dandy.
7WTC, a 47-story building collapsed slowly, and professionals were interviewed before it came down on 9-11 stating they thought it would probably collapse because it was hit by so much debris from the collapsing Twin Towers and there were large fires burning out of control, and it had been slowly deforming for hours, its structural integrity slowly coming undone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HLDgjYuRHk
That's why there were no casualties at 7, the effort to put out the fires was pulled well before the collapse. Please don't let 9/11truthers pull your leg on this one.
The various news videos are part of the public record. You just won't find them in their entirety if you Google, "9/11truth".
I encourage all doubters of anyone who claims they have exclusive rights to using the term, "truth" with regards to 9/11/01 to check out the plain facts at the NIST web site starting here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/
http://wtc.nist.gov/
And please remember, if you debunk for yourself all the "9/11truther" disinformation for the political and even religious extremism it represents, and wonder why some of the "truthers" keep at it year after year, even as more and more people realize the entire "inside job" point of view is bogus, the "inside jobber" bottom line has always been to accuse anyone who doesn't agree with them of being, "sheeple," or somehow or other of being, "in on it, too."
Anonymous (January 26, 2008 @ 5:46am):
for anyone who has questions about the official story of 9/11, google and watch "Loose Change 2nd edition," or "9/11 Mysteries," both of which can be found and watched for free on the internet.
and yes, there ARE incredibly dubious sites devoted to "debunking" these films, but they are all filled with little substance, using logical fallacy, hyperbole, hypotheses, speculation, random guesswork, and the like. in short, they provide NO reasonable answers, despite claiming to "debunk" these films.
additionally, the entire crux of this debate is the simple fact that althouse refuses to debate kevin barrett on the most important issue of our time. the laughable "position" that it's just too far out there to do so is so weak, absurd, and baseless that it is an insult to ALL parties involved: a Scripps-Howard poll puts 37% of the US as believing that the US government may have known in advance of the attacks and refused to act, while a CNN poll placed that number at 89%. quoting these very polls, even FOX commentator bill o'reilly said, "this is not a fringe group -- this is a mainstream reality."
the most important thing to understand is that the huge, global 9/11 truth movement, is based on a massive body of measurable, demonstrable, physical evidence that was simply ignored by the only official investigating body. even the 9/11 families, without whom there would be no investigation, estimated that 90% of their questions - questions they were told would be answered - were simply IGNORED. and along those lines, why on earth did bush and cheney FIGHT the formation of an investigative commission for so long??
this is not an "if i hate bush so much, then he must be responsible for 9/11" statement. to this day, i have yet to meet anyone who thinks he was personally involved. this is based on measurable, factual discrepancies that SIMPLY DO NOT ADD UP.
i bought into the official story too, putting a flag in the planter near my front door. my girlfriend's father had to avoid falling bodies on his way out of WTC 1. i lost a friend in the second tower and i cried my heart out that day, swearing to avenge his death from "islamic radicals."
then, one day, i saw a picture of the pentagon immediately after the impact and just could not get my head around how a jetliner so large could leave a hole so small. in essence, my entire journey began with measured observation and common sense. of course, i had no idea then how far down the rabbit-hole this would go, but five years later, it just becomes increasingly obvious and i even wonder how those who denounce this comical story manage to even tie their shoes in the morning. the emperor wears no clothes? try the emperor never even existed.
finally, for those who believe this is something the government would never do, google "operation northwoods," and learn of a recently declassifed plan, signed off on by EVERY member of the joint chiefs of staff, to
stage terrorist attacks in miami and washington d.c. to set the stage for an invasion of cuba in 1963. it is time to wake up. your government is NOT all that you think it is.
google and watch "Loose Change, 2nd edition" and "9/11 Mysteries." even check out the bogus "debunking" sites. i believe the truth will hold, and any intelligent, critical mind will easily see a far different reality from the one we have been told.
Anonymous (January 26, 2008 @ 5:58am):
"Why didn't they plant WMD's in Iraq?
I don't know. Maybe the international intelligence community knew there were no WMDs in Iraq; lying would have been too obvious. -Frank Schlözer "
Why?
Sadaam used WMD against his own people.
No sane person disputes that.
And if any of the international intelligence community knew there were no more WMD left in Iraq, why didn't anyone, particularly Sadaam's pre-invasion business associates, Russia and France, say diddly quat about no WMD before the invasion?
I know: you don't know.
But you do know the well and thoroughly debunked misinformation garnered by Google searching on "9/11truth" or "9/11" and "inside job" is the truth because of, what, your political beliefs?
Anonymous (January 26, 2008 @ 5:59am):
A study just revealed that well over 900 lies were used by the administration to pave the way for the Iraq war. When will there be courage to study how many lies have been told about 9/11?
The truly nutty conspiracy theory is the one in which 19 flight-school flunk-outs, some of whom were into drugs, alcohol and strip clubs, flew zig-zag in central U.S. airspace, never far from some air force base, for two hours without any kind of interference, hitting the Pentagon some 1,5 hours after the attacks started, and reducing three skyscrapers into dust and debris in seconds. NIST cannot even come up with a report on WTC 7, which was not hit by any plane. The media avoids the topic like a plague. Apparently, a 174-meter building dropping without structural resistance into its footprint is not significant in terms of building safety.
Anonymous (January 26, 2008 @ 6:08am):
To: Paul Mozina
Sir, William Rodriguez's first piece of hyperbole was his claim that he was "the last man out alive" of the North Tower. And while no one may ever know exactly who it was that was the last out, these good people came out of the rubble of the North Tower, well after Rodriguez departed, who by his own admission left before the collapse. See:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E6DB1F3AF93BA1575AC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
Also, though no one disputes his heroism that day, Rodriguez' story has changed over time, see:
http://911stories.googlepages.com/home
Anonymous (January 26, 2008 @ 7:27am):
The original CBS footage shows WTC 7 collapsing in 13+ seconds. Any questions?
Anonymous (January 26, 2008 @ 9:24am):
Get a friggin life.
Anonymous (January 26, 2008 @ 11:27am):
People who believe in God are just as nutty. Still it doesn't matter. Barrett's association with 911 Truth is no detriment to his ability to teach a course on Islam, but on the contrary it provides him alternative perspectives which should be highly regarded in academia.
Anonymous (January 26, 2008 @ 11:59am):
Anonymous (January 25, 2008 @ 2:56pm):
"...decades-long processes that are still unfolding before our eyes/lives."
Hmmmmmm, so which of the secret societies is really behind it all? Will we ever know?"
So, the Anonymous COWARD runs his/her mouth once again, spewing nothing of substance or real contribution (That's what characterizes the coward, duh!).
Now, since this particular moron was the first in this blog to spew the term "secret socities" (reason/basis unknown and unstated), we all know that their is nothing secret about Kroll, or Bilderberg, or the CFR, or Silverstein, or the Mossad, or the CIA, and on and on. So when a COWARD like this moron diverts mindlessly to "secret societies" they are affirming a TOTAL ignorance of what is right in front of their cowardly nose. But this is instructive/informative; it is THIS type of moron that believes in 9/11 fairy tales about OBL and the like. Pity this pathetic slob.
Anonymous (January 26, 2008 @ 2:25pm):
"and yes, there ARE incredibly dubious sites devoted to "debunking" these films, but they are all filled with little substance, using logical fallacy, hyperbole, hypotheses, speculation, random guesswork, and the like. in short, they provide NO reasonable answers, despite claiming to "debunk" these films."
Incorrect. Go to the sites and see for yourself. They directly tackle the distortions the conspiracy peddlers push and demonstrate how they are wrong. Look at the posts above. Some made a claim that there was no sufficient evidence of a plane. The sites proved that wrong. One tried to claim that NORAD was ordered to "stand down". The sites show how that's wrong too. Some made claims about molten steel. The above sites tackled that question directly. No "logical fallacy", no "hyperbole", no "random guesswork". Rather, solid explanations.
"huge, global 9/11 truth movement, is based on a massive body of measurable, demonstrable, physical evidence that was simply ignored by the only official investigating body"
Incorrect. The so-called truth movement is based on distortion of claims, deliberate separation of individual elements of the event from the context, and poor science. See the links provided above to 9/11 Myths, Debunking 9/11, the Internet Detectives "Loose Change" guide, the "911guide.googlepages.com" site, the Popular Mechanics 9/11 works, and the James Randi Educational Forum's Conspiracy Theory subforum.
Every claim peddled above has been made in forums past. Simply double-check them against the myth correcting sites linked above.
Frank Schlzer (January 26, 2008 @ 3:12pm):
to "Anonymous":
the sites you provided, this is not new. Concerning the Pentagon: Where is the 757? This is a joke! A few pieces of rubble and a 'compressor'! Where is the plane??
You can talk and twist and distort, but there is no way to explain, why there are no 575-turbines or any other remainings. Are you totally blind??
Why did the towers collapse in freefall speed, why did WTC7 collapse? 'Fire' and 'debris' doesn't explain it.
Why did the chief of the Pakistan SIS wire 100.000 Dollar to Atta? Why wasn't that imvestigated? Why was the insider trading not investigated? Why was Norad standing down, why was Norad preoccupied with the exact same drill of hijacked planes?
Do you know about Pearl Harbour, Golf of Tonkin? Dou you know about Guatemala, Venezuela, Schah of Iran?
It is a normal procedure for the CIA to overthrow governments and to stage false flag attacks. Why do you think, they wouldn't do that on your own people? Secret services are a loose cannon. Democracy needs transperency and independent journalism.
I think it all comes down to what is 'pleasent' and 'comfortable' to believe. Believing the right-wing-nut propaganda about the evil islamic extremists is so nice and comfortable! You won't have to say a word, everything is in order! Yes! Everything will be in an EXTREME ORDER very soon!
Have fun!
Frank Schlzer (January 26, 2008 @ 3:31pm):
By the way, the situation reminds me of priest Niemöller who was in a concentration camp here in Germany from 1939-1945. He said:
When the Nazis took the communists away, i kept silent; i was no communist.
When the Nazis locked up the democrats, i kept silent; i was no democrat.
When the Nazis killed the jews, i kept silent, i was no jew.
When they came for me, there was noone left to protest.
Anonymous (January 26, 2008 @ 4:57pm):
The CIA undercuts Bush at every turn, not likely that they're on the same side of a grand conspiracy.
Opps, I forgot, Bush is an evil genius.
Anonymous (January 26, 2008 @ 6:56pm):
"the sites you provided, this is not new. Concerning the Pentagon: Where is the 757? This is a joke! A few pieces of rubble and a 'compressor'! Where is the plane??
You can talk and twist and distort, but there is no way to explain, why there are no 575-turbines or any other remainings. Are you totally blind??"
If you don't believe a jet hit the Pentagon because you don't think the debris is that of a 757, then you don't believe a 747 hit an apartment building in Amsterday in 1992 either, do you:
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/elal1862/photo.shtml
http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Aircraft/el-al.htm
check out that debris. Wheres the "474-turbines"? Where are the other remains? Are you blind too??
I'll let the readers here judge whether the Flight 77-Pentagon debris evidence is sufficient. Here are pictures:
http://www.defenselink.mil/DODCMSShare/NewsPhoto/2001-09/010914-F-8006R-002.jpg
http://911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html
http://emptv.com/research/loose-change-2#flight-77-wreckage
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/10/clamorosa-fotografia-inedita-dal.html
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87594
(... scroll roughly halfway down this page; some pics are repeats of ones in the above links)
Two separate pictures of engine parts are there, as well as other images of the debris. Oh, BTW, the compressor stage *is* a part of the engine. That is indeed a part of the 757 turbofan. At any rate, I'm certainly not blind, have the checkups to prove it. But perhaps, if you cannot see those images for yourself, you should have YOUR vision checked.
There's not enough debris in the photos for you? All right. Consider the witness testimonies as well.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary
136 people are on record as having seen the airplane approach the Pentagon.
104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.
6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.
26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet. 39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.
7 said it was a Boeing 757.
8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.
2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.
10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).
16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.
42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.
2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.
15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.
3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.
3 took photographs of the aftermath...
That's a lot of specific testimony from eyewitnesses.
Still not convinced? Ok. That's fine. I'm actually not worried about convincing you. You can live with your own misperceptions. But, you've become an excellent object lesson, so for that, I must thank you. You've allowed me to show people 1. What really happened that day - a 757 hit the Pentagon - and 2. What the proof is of that impact, and 3. Just how much the so-called truth movement depends on hand-waving distortion to make their arguments work. The images alone are convincing enough for the non-conspiracy addicted, the witness testimony icing on the cake. And when people see that, and see your attempts to explain it away, then then come to understand the deceptions of the so-called truth movement. And they can evaluate how credible your further claims are, given the quite obviously and demonstrably false nature of the first one. I'll post rebuttals to those later, but I have some other things to do at the moment.
Anonymous (January 26, 2008 @ 7:20pm):
Any sane person can read the comments on this thread and cease wondering why belief in 9/11 as an "inside job" by the U.S.Government is accepted by only 4.6% of the general public ( actual 9/11truther poll numbers:
http://www.911truth.org/images/ZogbyPoll2007.pdf).
Far less than believe in UFO's or intelligent design/creationism, or even angels.
And even though the four of them boil down to belief that something, or other, some hypothesis to be polite, for which only the most unproven, unscientific hyperbole exists, something cobbled together from scraps of information that doesn't hold together, is somehow the definition of what is real in time and space; their adherents being the most fervent of the true believers.
In fact, they all vboil down to faith in a political and/or religious ideal so great that the few enduring faithful are convinced makes it ok for facts can be manipulated, distorted, and even fabricated to match such a "great" point of view.
Anonymous (January 26, 2008 @ 8:05pm):
despite what the "debunking" crowd may like to believe, their sites offer little more than theory, half-baked rationalizing, often a complete lack of logic, and the typical apologist behavior you will see in any dogmatic suppression of truth.
how is that three of the four nearly-indestructible black boxes, simply destruct and/or disappear - yet a "hijacker's" passport, made of paper, and ostensibly at the very center of the explosion, magically appears completely intact on the street outside one of the buildings?
and yes, i have read the "debunking" sites. i have read them all from the very beginning and NONE of them offer a complete answer. as always, they all serve to twist truth, distort facts, speculate, hypothesize, hyperbolize, make random guesswork, theories and the like.
case in point: in response to the magical passport that was found, these "debunking" sites state that, since other remnants were found, the passport had just as likely of a chance of turning up as anything else.
but you know what the big difference is? these other items were NOT at the VERY CENTER of the explosion and impact. that is a pretty big difference. of course, remnants of items away from the center of impact and near the windows will appear from time to time, but a piece of paper, in the pocket of a pilot, at the very CENTER of the impact? quite unlikely, if not entirely impossible.
and on it goes. this exactly the type of illogical responses you will find on these "debunking" websites. and as usual, the people who post them, merely hide behind them, posting and running, shall we say, as opposed to addressing the issues directly.
how is it that - according to the LA Times, chicago tribune, washington post, and saudi arabian embassy - at least nine of the nineteen "hijackers" have come forward stating that the picture, bio, and entire identity is identical to theirs, yet they are clearly STILL ALIVE?
"debunking" sites explanation to this? oh, it was all just a big mistake! a case of mistaken identity where they had the wrong name attached to the picture or vice versa. oops!
WRONG.
in nearly every case where the alleged hijacker disputed his guilt - again - EVERYTHING matched up: the pic, the bio, the personal history - EVERYTHING - yet they are clearly still alive. and yet, none of these were EVER corrected. as usual, the "debunking" sites get it all wrong.
why, in the "evidence" of the "hijackers" being in the airport on the day of the crime, do the time and date stamps NOT match up to 9/11/2001?
of course, despite this being a huge discrepancy, i have yet to see the holy "debunking" sites even touch this one.
why is it that, despite put options (bets that a stock will fall) placed on boeing, united airlines, and american airlines being ELEVEN times the usual amount in the immediate days preceding 9/11, the 9/11 commission REFUSED to investigate this - essentially failing to obviously "follow the money?"
and the debunking sites? they simply parrot the laughable 9/11 commission report, which states that these put options were placed "by a large US-based institutional investor with no ties to al-qeada." end of story. no more questions, please. they won't even NAME the institution!
why did condoleezza rice, president bush, dick cheney, and robert meuller all state that "no one could have predicted" anyone would ever fly an airplane into the world trade center or pentagon, when NUMEROUS pentagon and military exercises had been conducted in recent years based ON EXACTLY such an attack? in short, these are all flat-out LIES, yet again, the debunking sites have nothing to say about this one.
and on it goes.
the bottom line here is that the massive discrepancies are extensive, and no amount of half-baked explanations and apologist-type rationalizing - SOP for the "debunking" crowd - will change them unless we get a REAL investigation.
if you want more fact-based truth, go to http://www.911blogger.com
http://www.911truth.org/
also, if you want to see a list of highly-qualified military officers, federal attorneys, demolition experts, physicists, former cabinet members of both bush administrations and the reagan administration, pilots, engineers, professors, architects, news media professionals, survivors, family members and the like, all of whom believe 9/11 was an inside job, then go to:
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
you will learn a lot.
Anonymous (January 26, 2008 @ 9:32pm):
Wake up people.
http://nasathermalimages.com
This is not our government.
Anonymous (January 26, 2008 @ 9:52pm):
first of all, in response to the lie that only 4.6% of the american people believe 9/11 may have been an inside job: your willful distortion of facts and truth are not fooling anybody except those who believe the so-called "debunking" websites.
if you look carefully at this poll, it clearly states that 26.4% and 4.6% believe that the US government either "let it happen on purpose" or "made it happen on purpose."
...that amounts to 30% of the american people believing the government - at the very least - simply ALLOWED the attacks to occur, which is MORE than enough to convict for TREASON.
if you're going to "back up" your statements with facts, at least get them straight.
secondly, a Scripps-Howard poll puts 37% of the US as believing that the US government may have known in advance of the attacks and refused to act, while a CNN poll placed that number at 89%. quoting these very polls, even FOX commentator bill o'reilly said, "this is not a fringe group -- this is a mainstream reality."
as far as the pentagon goes:
in a typical shopping mall, counting those in every store as well as in the general walking area, you will find a camera, on average, every ten to twenty feet. in fact, it is estimated that, on any given day, we are photographed by surveillance cameras up to well over a hundred times a day.
now, the pentagon is the very CENTER of US intelligence. it is one of, if not THE, most heavily fortified and secure building in the entire world - filled with, and surrounded by, cameras.
so why, then, is there not a SINGLE, SOLITARY image of ANY plane hitting the pentagon? this makes absolutely no sense, UNLESS, of course, there was NO plane.
furthermore, why - when the government claimed to release video of the plane hitting the building after so much outcry - does the video STILL not show a plane??
additionally, why did the FBI confiscate the videotapes of the nearby hotel and gas station (both more heavily surveilled than the pentagon???) within minutes, and NO one has been allowed to see them to this very day??
if a boeing 757 hit the pentagon, there would be NUMEROUS photographs and videos of the evidence as it occurred, yet there are NONE. no amount of rationalizing will EVER be believable until we are shown the obvious.
Frank Schlzer (January 27, 2008 @ 6:50am):
to "Anonymous"
Once more, you are trying to 'debunk' the 9/11 truth movement.
You are wildly throwing links into the discussion, which supposedly 'prove'
the pentagon was actually hit by a 757.
You are using these links as they were direct proof. Few people who
read this thread actually will check out these links.
Well, i did. Every argument you offer is pure BOGUS. Now, let's start.
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/elal1862/photo.shtml
http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Aircraft/el-al.htm
These pictures, you say, prove, that the crash site of Amsterdam, which
was hit by a 747 in 1992, looks similar to the pentagon crash site.
From your standpoint, no remains of the plane can be seen. So noone should wonder
why there are no remains at the pentagon crash site.
Well, the pictures were taken FROM VERY HIGH ALTITUDE.
Naturally, you can't see ANY DEBRIS, of course!
Link 1: BOGUS.
These are the next links you provide:
http://www.defenselink.mil/DODCMSShare/NewsPhoto/2001-09/010914-F-8006R-002.jpg
http://911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html
http://emptv.com/research/loose-change-2#flight-77-wreckage
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/10/clamorosa-fotografia-inedita-dal.html
These links supposedly 'prove' that there is sufficient evidence for
757 debris.
The numerous pictures are not new. Actually, many of them prove that there
is indeed *no 757*, a large passenger airline jet. Whatever crashed into the pentagon, it was no
757! If there *was* a 757, one would have found seats, the wing sections, large parts of the plane!
Instead, these pictures show repeatedly the SAME TINY HULL fragment and the compressor from many angles,
which is,... a joke!
On http://911myths.com/html/pentagon_4.html, the 'debunking' site says:
The large circular piece in the middle APPEARS TO BE the diffusor section of the compressor, THOUGH THIS IS NOT KNOWN FOR CERTAIN.
http://911myths.com/html/pentagon_0.html
Does this picture prove anything?
No! No plane debris can be seen, only shattered glass, tiny concrete from the pentagons wall.
Link 2: BOGUS.
Next, you talk about the testimonials of the witnesses. You use the link
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary
You just use the summary of that site, without actually reading the
testimonials.
When you read the testimonials IN DEPTH, you will find the following:
"I didn't know exactly what it was." (Abshire Marc)
"I heard jet engines pass our building" (Anderson Steve)
"loud roar" (Anlauf Deb & Jeff)
etc. etc. So these people talk about hearing jet engines and a few
of them saw indeed a plane-like object, but very few of them actually talk
about A 757 hitting the pentagon. This 'plane' COULD HAVE
BEEN ANYTHING, ranging from a missile to a drone.
Actually, most of the witnesses who mention the 757, WERE TOLD
a 757 hit the pentagon. For example, the testimony of
Scott P. Cook from the supposed 'debunker site' above:
"It was a 757 out of Dulles, which had come up " ...
HIS ORIGINAL TESTIMONY is the following:
"We didnt know what kind of plane had hit the Pentagon, or where it had hit. Later, we were told that it was a 757 out of Dulles, which had come up " ...
Additionally, his location was so far away from the impact, that he could't have POSSIBLY
WITNESSED that it was a 757.
So these testimonies are actually distorted.
LINK 3: BOGUS
So, as you can see, it's not enough to throw mindless links
into the discussion. You should actually check the SOURCES.
Anonymous (January 27, 2008 @ 12:15pm):
Frank is distorting. Read the original info yourselves as a start, then read his "presentation" of it. You will see his distortions, and will in fact wonder how he comes to the conclusions he does.
"The numerous pictures are not new. Actually, many of them prove that there
is indeed *no 757*, a large passenger airline jet. Whatever crashed into the pentagon, it was no
757! If there *was* a 757, one would have found seats, the wing sections, large parts of the plane!
Instead, these pictures show repeatedly the SAME TINY HULL fragment and the compressor from many angles,
which is,... a joke!"
So, he's trying to claim the wreckage isn't of a 757. Despite the ample evidence.
You want to see a seat? How about the person who was sitting in one?
http://emptv.com/research/loose-change-2#flight-77-wreckage
Watch Frank claim that picture is fake.
Fact of the matter is, the pictures aren't fake. He's handwaving. Check out the Sandia F-4 crash test, and tell me how many "large parts of the plane" remain from that. Fact is, at 400+ MPH, the segments aren't very large. Frank is trying to make an unsupported claim about what the wreckage is supposed to look like. He doesn't know what a crash scene looks like. Fact of the matter is, aircraft investigators found nothing unexpected at the Pentagon crash scene.
View the links for yourselves.
"The large circular piece in the middle APPEARS TO BE the diffusor section of the compressor, THOUGH THIS IS NOT KNOWN FOR CERTAIN."
Yet, if you scroll down on this page - http://911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html - to the graphic matching pictures of the wreckage to a graphic of the engine, you'll see that the debris does indeed match the known characteristics of an Rolls-Royce RB211 series engine. Frank must cherry pick and distort in order to make his argument. Go look for yourselves.
"http://911myths.com/html/pentagon_0.html
Does this picture prove anything?
No! No plane debris can be seen, only shattered glass, tiny concrete from the pentagons wall."
Note how he singles out one image showing the firefighting, and not any the other images clearly showing wreckage. Again, cherry picking and distortion.
"You just use the summary of that site, without actually reading the
testimonials."
Neither did you:
"Vietnam Veteran looked up, directly into the right engine of a 757 commercial airliner cresting the hilltop Navy Annex. It reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine. "Had I not hit the deck, the plane would have taken off my head."
http://www.moaa.org/Magazine/January2002/feature3.asp
"I did see airplane seats and a corpse still strapped to one of the seats."
Capt. Jim Ingledue, Virginia Beach Fire Dept.
"It had that distinctive silver finish... it was definitely an American Airlines Aircraft"
"... and I keyed the mike again, and said "Washington this is Gopher Zero-six, that airplane just hit the west side of the Pentagon"
-Lt. Col. Steve O' Brien, describing how Flight 77 actually came across his "12 o'clock", and how it banked and descended into the Pentagon.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Q9ag6brfWro
Other examples can be found at that page. But, go see for yourselves what people say. And, keep in mind how Frank singles out some statements and draws unsupportable conclusions from them. For example, here's the totality of Scott Cook's statement:
""It was a 757 out of Dulles, which had come up the river in back of our building, turned sharply over the Capitol, ran past the White House and the Washington Monument, up the river to Rosslyn, then dropped to treetop level and ran down Washington Boulevard to the Pentagon (...) As we watched the black plume gather strength, less than a minute after the explosion, we saw an odd sight that no one else has yet commented on. Directly in back of the plume, which would place it almost due west from our office, a four-engine propeller plane, which Ray later said resembled a C-130, started a steep decent towards the Pentagon. It was coming from an odd direction (planes dont go east-west in the area), and it was descending at a much steeper angle than most aircraft. Trailing a thin, diffuse black trail from its engines, the plane reached the Pentagon at a low altitude and made a sharp left turn, passing just north of the plume, and headed straight for the White House. All the while, I was sort of talking at it: "Who the hell are you? Where are you going? Youre not headed for downtown!" Ray and Verle watched it with me, and I was convinced it was another attack. But right over the tidal basin, at an altitude of less than 1000 feet, it made another sharp left turn to the north and climbed rapidly. Soon it was gone, leaving only the thin black trail."
Note how Frank tries to imply that Mr. Cook was merely repeating something he was told, rather than the truth, that he saw an airliner, and the reason he was told it was a 757 was because someone was *confirming* his sighting to him, and adding detail. Not instructing him.
Frank is distorting the testimony, and drawing unsupportable conclusions from single sentences he *must* know are distorted if he had read those witnesses entire statements.
I encourage everyone to go see for themselves, and note Frank's distortions. Go see how strong the evidence is that Frank doesn't even mention. Go read the info directly, then compare it to what he's said here.
Anonymous (January 27, 2008 @ 1:36pm):
Hey there Troothers,
Are the attacks in Europe also part of the Grand Conspiracy? The previous attacks as well as the ones planned after?
Terror Arrests in Barcelona
Fourteen men, 12 Pakistanis and two Indians, have been charged in Barcelona with participating in a plot to blow up transportation facilities across Europe:
The group intended to carry out three attacks in Spain and one each in Portugal, France and Germany, an unnamed man who infiltrated the group told top-selling daily El Pais.
The preferred targets were public transportation networks, especially metro systems because of the difficulty which emergency services would have in reaching the injured there, according to the newspaper.
The attacks would be claimed in the name of al-Qaeda by Islamist warlord Baitullah Mehsud from Pakistan's tribal region of South Waziristan.
Anonymous (January 27, 2008 @ 2:49pm):
Frank Schlozer @ 6:50am drooled: "So these people talk about hearing jet engines and a few of them saw indeed a plane-like object, but very few of them actually talk about A 757 hitting the pentagon. This 'plane' COULD HAVE BEEN ANYTHING, ranging from a missile to a drone."
You f^ckn A-hole! My older brother had a clear view and watched the plane fly into the Pentagon. My younger brother was nearly killed there that day. My coworker crawled through the wreckage pulling out survivors and victims alike.
These troofer loons can kiss my ass! If I ever run into one of these nutjobs spouting this crap in public, be assured I will follow Penn Gillette defenestration advice with gusto.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I
Anonymous (January 27, 2008 @ 6:06pm):
I find it very telling that in Mrs. William's blog, and much of the discussion here by those who support her, is completely devoid of any real discussion about what happened on 9/11. Ann Williams has made a direct accusation against Mr. Barrett's competency by alleging that his beliefs about 9/11 are "nutty". I have seen Mr. Barrett speak on a number of occassions about the topic, and find his presentations full of facts, evidence, and reason. Those who speak out against his views and the 9/11 truth movement consistantly use absolutly no facts or hard evidence when they make their claims.
Lets take one example: the Pentagon. If those of you who oppose Mr. Barrett belief he is nutty, than I think you are obligated to explain to us the evidence that led you to believe that there REALLY was a jumbo jet that crashed into Pengaton. From every picture I've ever seen of the Pengtagon on 9/11, it would appear that this plane left a circular hole about 14 ft across and left no major debris on the lawn in front of the "crash" site.
In short, opponents of Mr. Barrett would like to put 100% of the burden of proof on us (while denying the existance of any evidence that he uses to make his case), and take no responsibility to make their own case. The bottom line is, he has a belief about what happened that day, and so do you. Lets side aside the heated rhetoric, and have a serious, open-minded discussion about what really happened. I think if that day ever comes, there will be many more people on the side of the 9/11 truth movement.
Frank Schlzer (January 27, 2008 @ 6:07pm):
1. Lets keep this civilized. I'm suprised cussing is allowed now.
2. The picture of the body in the seat maybe real, but is it from the Pentagon? I don't think so. I'm surprised, all of a sudden, a body in a seat is still intact, but 2 massive titan turbines aren't because they are 'pulverized'. Hmm, strange indeed.
3. Give me your name or something substantial, so you can prove that your 'co-worker' crawled through the wreckage and your 'younger brother' was nearly killed.
I've heard this story over and over again. There must have been so many people at the pentagon and the WTC! Running out of arguments, there's still the emotional approach, huh?
Well then, don't blame me, you can go on to chase Osama Bin Laden. Or bomb some Third-World country with Napalm. But don't use your brain! You might find out what's going on!
About the suitcase bombers in Germany...
Instead of bringing them to court in Germany, they were shipped to Lybia where they were trialed and found guilty. I always found that very strange.
In London, everything points to an inside job. At least one of the bombers was executed with headshots by a special unit (eye witnesses on tape), there were fire-drills about 'subway bombings' going on at the exact time at the same location...
pretty much like Norad, which was preoccupied with drills about 'hijacked planes' on 9/11....
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories and never have been, but when there are, like 10000 coincidences at the same time, one doesn't believe in 'coincidence' anymore...
Anonymous (January 27, 2008 @ 6:28pm):
I too find it appalling that Dr. Barrett has been slammed by others who are unwilling to debate facts that exist on his side of the issue.
But, people generally don't want to participate in a debate in the facts will invalidate their self righteous and incorrect opinions, do they?
Ann Althouse should debate Dr. Barrett. Gee, she might even learn something, what a novel idea.....
Paul Mozina (January 27, 2008 @ 6:31pm):
To Anonymous who responded directly regarding my comments about William Rodriguez.
Anonymous (January 26, 2008 @ 6:08am):
To: Paul Mozina
I read yur document and followed the link to the videos. WOW! I'd never seen many of these videos before! From the reporter saying the FBI's working hypothesis was that vans full of explosives were used.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3su9mWta-M
To the mechanic commenting on the destruction of a 50-ton press. And all the videos of the collapses that unmistakenably show rings of explosions around the floors preceding the collapse. That is pretty compelling evidence. There is so much evidence out there of controlled demolition, its hard to believe how anyone with eyes to see cannot accept this, or, at least accept the fact that it is a possibility that reasonable people may consider.
And if we are supposed to NOT believe all the eye witnessess who heard, saw and felt the explosions in the Twin Towers, despite all the corroborating evidence, why should we belive the Pentagon witnesses sited by Anonymous
Anonymous (January 26, 2008 @ 6:56pm):
in the absence of corresponding physical evidence of a plane at the Pentagon? Has one single piece of that 757 with an identification number been produced to positively ID that plane? No.
Anonymous (January 28, 2008 @ 12:04am):
"Has one single piece of that 757 with an identification number been produced to positively ID that plane?"
You mean besides the flight data recorder some of you truthers try to say proves the plane didn't hit? Or the cockpit voice recorder that you all complain was damaged, but somehow some passport survived? Or the landing gear parts pictured in this photo?
http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2007/10/rottami-del-volo-american-77-al.html
You know, there's a difference between those part number matchups not being online and findable by you guys, and not existing at all. You really got to find better arguments. But if you want, I'll give you ONE free one from publicly available information:
This picture -http://911files.info/77/pentagon_911_book/aa_debris_serial.jpg
... shows information that traces to a jet, FAA serial number 24602 (N-Number N644AA). With that information, you can go to the FAA Aircraft Registry:
http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certification/aircraft_registry/
... and do your own research. If you want to save yourself the trouble, you can trust me that it was indeed Flight 77, but I recommend you look this up for yourself.
Frank Schlzer (January 28, 2008 @ 3:11am):
Bogus time again?
Focus on WTC 7 and explain the freefall speed. And don't give me the pancake.
There are still some physics in this world, the last time i checked there was, and a 47-steelframe-building, which was not hit by any plane, doesn't come down in freefall speed, due to concrete, steel frame and walls between the levels! Give me a reasonable explaination for that and don't give me paintshop pictures!
What's that metal thing anyway? A piece of metal in the garden with some paper number on it? 7 years after 9/11 magically released by a 'member of the military'? Man, that's really late! Come on...
Give me original videos from the site, video interviews or pictures where you can at least see some relation to the pentagon.
Anonymous (January 28, 2008 @ 9:07am):
Frank Schlözer whined: "Lets keep this civilized."
It's way past civility when German f^cktards join troofer idiotarians to indulge in this sick brand of atrocity denial. Schlözer's entire nation is one collosal case study in Holocaust guilt transfer. Try dealing with that cultural inheritance of national guilt and shame over Germany's massacred millions and lay off these irrational fantasies about American cover-ups of 9/11.
Any American in Germany should feel free to offer this Schlözer cretin the Penn Gillette credo without apprehension.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I
The gloves are off.
Anonymous (January 28, 2008 @ 12:55pm):
WTC 7? The building that was hit by the main towers when they collapsed? Again, note how he distorts: "... was not hit by any plane...". Of course not. Yet you ignore the fact it was hit by large parts of WTC 1 and 2.
Dishonest fact distortion. See what he's doing? Everyone, evaluate his credibility based on the above. See how he fails to support anything he says. Everything he's claimed is debunked, and he doesn't even try to defend it; now it's "Focus on WTC 7", because he cannot defend his mistakes on the Pentagon.
Read the links. See his distortions. Decide for yourself. This is classic for the so-called truth movement. You can almost forgive truthers for claiming he's "disinfo" made to discredit the 9/11 "Truth" movement because he's arguing their points so badly.
Have fun Frank!
Anonymous (January 28, 2008 @ 5:06pm):
Whoa, easy!... no need to Godwins-rule the thread, or start leveling F-bombs. All that really needs to happen is to point out Frank's distortions, and the rest of the so-called truth movement's misrepresentations as well. Nazi history is not relevant to the discussion here. And while I agree with Penn Gillette's characterization of individual members, let's not take the hyperbolic defenestration statement seriously; no one here deserves that.
Truthers are ignorant. Deliberately so, and resistant to enlightenment, but at base the problem is ignorance. Not evil, not maliciousness. Let's keep things within reason here.
Frank Schlzer (January 29, 2008 @ 12:03am):
to straighten this out: i'm not against people in the military. Actually i truely believe that there are a lot of reasonable people in the military. About the Holocaust: yes it happened here in Germany and that's why i'm so concerned. We, all of us, have to do everything to prevent it from happening *again*. The cards are on the table. Every patriot should think about where your country is going. Is 200 billion military spending ok, more than all other fields of spending combined? Do you know how much pain your country is inflicting on children, women, elderly people in other countries? Do you think it's ok to burn people alive by area bombardment because a tiny elite wants access to oil? The military economy has grown so big in your country, that war has become an industry. The more bombs you throw, the more helicopters crash, the more Americans die, the more money the military-industrial complex makes.
If you don't care about other nations, how about your own people? 100.000 golf war veterans now suffer from radiation poisining, because your country is using depleted uranium ammunition, without even telling your soldiers. Not to mentions the countless civilians who live in these areas where it was used. Suffering, desease, child deformations follow. Do you think this is ok? Your 'independent' media totally blocks this out as everything related to 9/11!
Your country is going in a very wrong direction and the longer you, yes YOU, look away, the lesser the chances to turn this around!
Anonymous (January 29, 2008 @ 7:57am):
- think for yourself. Have a look at '911 Thought Experiment' and see what makes sense to you - http://www.rudemacedon.ca/lgi/911-thoughtex.html . The 'official conspiracy theory' is just full of comic book impossibilities, and this does a very good job of showing one of the main ones. If you like comic book fantasies, be careful, you might not like this ....
Anonymous (January 29, 2008 @ 8:36am):
Anonymous @ 5:06pm opined: "Truthers are ignorant... not maliciousness."
This idiotarian German troofer purposefully denies the indiscriminate, Islamo-fascist "aerial bombardment" slaughter of thousands of innocent Americans in NYC and Arlington, VA. Then it has the audicity to climb up on it's hind legs and howl about fictional indiscrimate "area bombardment" by our noble American military.
Moreover, it isn't ignorance that observes America spending billions to develop and employ precision-guided munitions to avoid civilian casualities.
Schlozer is indulging in purposeful, malicious slander. It is not ignorance. And coming from German socialists-- the progeny of 20th-century fascism-- it is pernicious guilt transfer, masquerading as hypocrisy.
In fact, it is Germany's modern $ocialist regime that enabled $addam's mass murders, rape rooms, torture chambers, etc., ad nauseum-- through $hroeder, Putin and Chiraq deliberate controvention of the UN Oil for Food Program. It was Euro-fascism that endulged in this demonic $ocialist $cheme to gleen enormous profit$ from fascist-Ba'athist state genocide in Iraq. That Americans have to fight and die to liberate innocent Iraqis from Saddam's German-financed Iraqi terror regime is bad enough without having these same Euro-fascist enablers heckling from the sidelines.
Go fr!g yourself, Schlozer, and all you mild-mannered Euro-fascist pukes.
Anonymous (January 29, 2008 @ 9:37am):
Bernard Brown was a Pentagon employee. His 11 year-old son died on board Flight 77 (the one that hit the Pentagon).
http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/wong/bernardbrown.jpg
The father happened to not be at work that day, or else you could have had the horrific situation where the son would have been a hostage on the plane that, upon crashing, killed his own father. Remember this is a real, actual person, who actually lost his son.
Now listen to 9/11 Troofer Dylan Avery ("Loose Change" director) say that Bernard Brown was in on the conspiracy and intentionally took a day off to "go play golf" while his own son... was being burned alive in a plane crash he helped plan. Playing golf, while his son dies.
http://911myths.com/LooseChangeCreatorsSpeak.pdf
Dylan Avery, who knows this is fiction. Who has seen the evidence he left on the cutting room floor proving these planes were hijacked. And he accuses this grieving father of murdering his own son...
...Because it will help sell Dylan's movie and advance his film career.
Really, the whole 9/11 Troofer movement would be funny if it wasn't for the murderous lies and horrific deaths and the Euro-fascist Schlozers who drool about it.
Frank Schlzer (January 29, 2008 @ 9:53am):
ok, you're not ignorant. I apologize.
You are insane. You are totally, absolutely hopelessly insane.
Last time i checked, Germany wasn't socialistic. And we sure don't finance Iraq. But we don't bomb them with Napalm either. Actually, if you can find Germany on a map (it's in the middle of Europe), we're supposed to be Allies. And our chancellor is not Schröder, it's Merkel.
And actually, it was the US who financed Saddam in the first place and sold them WMD-chemical weapons. Remember Iran-Contra? Like that, but with Saddam.
I think you're funny.
Greetings,
Anonymous (January 29, 2008 @ 1:08pm):
Apparently, Frank Schroder is both ignorant and malicious.
He's completely clueless about the nature of his own government, Germany, which was ruled by the Marxist-socialist Sozialdemokratische Partei of Gerhard Schroder from 1998- 2005. Your Vice Chancellor, Joschka Fischer, was a former Marxist-terrorist leader of the Proletarische Union fur Terror und Zerstorung (Proletarian Union for Terror and Destruction). Look it up, moron.
And Frank's utterly ignorant of Germany's role in the UN Oil for Food scandal that propped up Saddam's regime with petrol-Euros.
http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/oil_for_food/index.html
Yes. Now Germany has elected Merkel-- and France Sarkozy-- thanks in part to European backlash to the socialist corruption of Schroder and Chiraq.
And it was France and Russia who armed and financed Saddam (not the US), you unbelievable ignoramus. Destroyed hulks of French Mirage jets and Russian tanks litter the Iraqi desert as testimony to that obvious fact.
Now take your Haldol and strap on your drool cup, you microcephalic Eurotrash.
Anonymous (January 29, 2008 @ 4:39pm):
Do we really need to bring German politics into this? It's sufficient to highlight their claims and point out their distortions; none of the 9/11 "Truth" claims here stand up to the light of day The above posts demonstrate that. Discussing German and European politics distracts from that point.
Paul Mozina (January 29, 2008 @ 7:59pm):
Anonymous (January 28, 2008 @ 9:07am) manorwoman: keeps mentioning the "Penn Gillette credo"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I
I checked out the video. This guy is pathetic. What a Joke! A complete waste of time.
Regarding the lack of physical evidence at the Pentagon. You are right, the black boxes were found 3 days later at 4:00am. mmmm wonder how they go there?
I agree with Frank Schlözer (January 28, 2008 @ 3:11am): when he said
"Give me original videos from the site, video interviews or pictures where you can at least see some relation to the pentagon."
Go to http://www.911inplanesite.com/ and check this out. There is no Boeing 757 plane carcass there. Sorry anonyous, that is a fact. We have every right, and in fact a duty, to get the many questions about 9/11 answered.
Paul Mozina
Frank Schlzer (January 29, 2008 @ 8:01pm):
So, i won't go on here and support your diversive tactics. You really have to ask questons about 9/11. I mean, stop just making things up. Tell me how WTC7 fell in freefall speed without being hit by an aitplane. I don't know how far your ignorance reaches, but this is really, really, really hard to explain.
You are implying that the claims don't stand up to the light of day. Sounds really great. But you give no explaination.
I want to point out: Ann Althouse should discuss Mr. Barett in a public forum. You say that the claims are easy to disprove. Therefore, you shouldn't be afraid to have a public discussion about it. Do the forum. It was Mrs Althouse, if i remember correctly, who made the statement about Mr. Barrett in the first place.
Anonymous (January 30, 2008 @ 5:31pm):
Last spring Barrett uncritically spread William
Rodriguez's ridiculous claims to have saved
hundreds of people at the World Trade Center.
Let him acknowledge that he stepped in deep
manure because he wanted to believe it, and
THEN maybe he can claim to be a scholar.
Barrett is an embarrassment to the 9/11 Truth
movement.
Anonymous (January 31, 2008 @ 12:49pm):
It's amazing that one of the most powerful countries in the world (guess who), that spends billions and billions on its military and defense (guess who) cannot intercept a lousy commercial flight flying for almost two hours toward one of the most protected buildings in the world. I guess we need to spend billions more on our military so they can protect us from interlopers. By the way, what ever happened to Osama Bin Laden?
Come on Althouse, publicly debate Barrett.
Anonymous (February 4, 2008 @ 8:32pm):
I think we can sum up the comments pretty well:
One can never underestimate the intelligence of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Anonymous (February 5, 2008 @ 3:05pm):
Please don't take Dr. Barrett as a measure of
the intellectual capabilities of the entire
movement.
Anonymous (February 6, 2008 @ 7:40am):
I just wanted to correct some statements of me above: The military spending budjet of the US military is not 200 billion, it's 640 billion. Officially, it's not more then any other field of spending combined, but the actual budget is a deception:
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
Any way you put it, it's still an insane budget for a supposedly peaceful democracy. Let it be 640 billion, let it be 1 trillion. Insane.
About the German suitcase bombers: they were not shipped to Lybia, they were shipped to Libanon where they were found guilty. Still very strange.
About Mr. Barrett: I think Mr. Barrett has done a terrific job in informing the people. He won the argument on Insanity & Calmes. He has gotten media coverage. Maybe he is an individual and maybe he's got some religious views you don't concurr with. But he DOES speak out and gets beaten by just about every NWO-nut out there.
So i think Mr. Barrett has done a GREAT job informing the people. To all of you 'you-must-be-a-110%-certain-and-120%-eloquent': Keep researching, meanwhile they set off nukes in New York and blame it on -i don't know- the pope or Elvis.
So i think YES- you should be very sure about what you're saying, but compared with the insane lies of the 9/11 official story, we are still on a mathematically correct level. We don't have unlimited time, so spreading the word is at least equally important as being 120% correct about everything.
So, in conclusion, Mr. Berrett has been very helpful for the 9/11 truth movement. We should all stand together in this fight.
Anonymous (February 23, 2008 @ 10:30am):
National Transportation Safety Board recently divulged they had funded a project with the US auto makers for the past five years. The NTSB covertly funded a project whereby the auto makers were installing black boxes in four wheel drive pickup trucks in an effort to determine, in fatal accidents, the circumstances in the last 15 seconds before the crash.
They were surprised to find in 49 of the 50 states the last words of drivers in 61.2% of fatal crashes were, "Oh, Shit!"
Only the state of Texas was different, where 89.3% of the final words were, "Hey Y'all, hold my beer and watch this!"
Anonymous (February 26, 2008 @ 6:02am):
National Transportation Safety Board recently divulged they had funded a project with the US auto makers for the past five years.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attack