Teacher's 9/11 views raise red flags

[n2doc]

A university lecturer casts doubt that terrorists plotted the attacks. Is that academic freedom?

By Amanda Paulson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
CHICAGO – According to Kevin Barrett, the US government planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks, the World Trade Center imploded due to explosives set up ahead of time in the buildings, Minnesota Sen. Paul Wellstone's plane crash was no accident, and Osama bin Laden has probably been dead since 2001. Mr. Barrett is not a radical anarchist or a teenager peddling conspiracy theories; he's a lecturer at the University of Wisconsin, Madison - a fact that has outraged some state politicians.


The case has drawn national attention and provided grist for conservative talk-show hosts, while the university has been deluged with e-mails against Barrett. Yet it has stuck by the decision to have him teach a planned course on Islam this fall. Beyond the emotional reactions, the case raises questions about academic freedom: Are there limits to what can be taught, and if so, who decides them? Are certain views indicative of incompetence, as some Wisconsin legislators have said, or does such criticism lead to censorship? "There should be no limits at all as to what subjects can be subjected to academic analysis," says Stanley Fish, a law professor at Florida International University in Miami. "But you should be performing as an academic and not as a partisan or preacher or moral judge." That's the view the administration took as well, when they investigated. They found that however outlandish his personal opinions, Barrett - who was given an $8,427 contract to teach this course - was given good reviews for his past teaching. He plans to look at 9/11, including his own views, during one week of the course, but through a range of lenses. "He does a good job teaching that course, no matter what his views are," says John Wiley, the university's chancellor. Interference from legislators or the public sets a dangerous precedent, Chancellor Wiley adds. "If there's one place controversy should be welcomed, it's universities."

Such controversies are not new or rare. Taboo subjects have included sex, politics, and even butter - in the 1940s when dairy industry grew angry over research into alternatives. More recently, the University of Colorado faced criticism over its defense of Ward Churchill, an ethnic studies professor who called some 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns" in a 2001 essay. The university ultimately voted to fire Professor Churchill for professional misconduct, including plagiarism and fabrication of information - a decision he is contesting. Earlier this year, an electrical engineering professor at Northwestern, Arthur Butz, raised the ire of some for denying the Holocaust. His critics said such views - even if not discussed in the classroom - showed an incompetence that shouldn't be tolerated. That argument may be appropriate occasionally, says Jonathan Knight, of the department of academic freedom and governance at the American Association of University Professors. "The faculty member who devotes part of his course on physics to the proposition that the moon is made of cheese could rightly be accused of professional behavior that amounts to incompetence. But short of that, colleges and universities are places where ideas of the most unusual sort ought to be tested before students and peers."

Those sort of defenses seem like a cop-out to Steve Nass, the Wisconsin state representative who has led the charge against Barrett and gained 61 signatures from other legislators for a resolution calling for his dismissal. "I have no problem with discussion on unpopular ideas in the classroom, but substantiate what you're talking about," Representative Nass says. "This isn't academic freedom. This person can't substantiate his views." The legislature is on recess until January, but if Barrett is rehired, Nass says he'll introduce a proposal to cut funding to the administration.
more:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0818/p03s01-legn.html

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

1. Mhmm.

We have PROOF.

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. Well since there is no evidence

that supports the OCT theory and the NIST report and 9-11 Commission were jokes, we are reduced to ridiculing others.

[Clark2008]

43. What, pray tell, is that?

eom

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

87. A simulation of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.

Conceived & executed by one of the MIHOP brigade.

[samfishX]

3. If He's Saying The Government Did It...

...then he's an idiot.

Yes, the official story is bullshit. Anyone with a functioning brain can see the massive holes in it.
But there isn't enough real evidence to say it was the government at this point.

[johnnie]

4. Hell

There's really not a lot of real evidence to say that anyone else did it either.

[BootinUp]

29. That is an absurd position

I assume "it" is 9/11?

There certainly is evidence of multiple hijackings by people of foreign nationality who planned in advance to do exactly what transpired.

[TNOE]

47. Really?

Because Robert Mueller, head of the FBI said there isn't. Not one SHRED of evidence against Bin Laden.

Half of the supposed hijackers have turned up alive. All of the passenger lists for the hijacked planes were all somehow 4-6 people short (the hijackers).

The governments whole story is laughable. 19 guys who don't know how to fly - yet flew hi-tech manuvers. A man in a cave was able to stand down our military. EVERY BODY that day in charge was asleep at the wheel, supposedly, if we're to believe their story. Yet no firings, but PROMOTIONS AND THE MEDAL OF FREEDOM.

Regardless of the "intricate" details of 9/11 - what we do know for a fact is that once the President of the United States was alerted to the fact that America was under attack - he SAT & DID NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING. CONTINUED ON WITH HIS READING TO 2ND GRADERS, AND WENT ON WITH HIS PHOTO OP. This fact alone should be TREASON.

We know Jeb Bush flew into the Florida flight training schools & picked up all the files under the cover of darkness. We know that Jeb Bush put the state of Florida under Emergency on 9/10. We know that the government shut down muslim websites on 9/10. We know that Marvin Bush was in charge of security at the WTC. We know that Condi Rice said "NO ONE COULD HAVE IMAGINED PLANES FLYING INTO BUILDINGS" - and yet the government was running 6 training exercises that day ON THAT VERY SAME SCENARIO. She's caught red-handed lying.

Too many convenient "coincidences" to all be an accident.

I don't know why the people of New York didn't screm for their tax dollars back. With that supposed level of incompentence - there should have been heads rolling all over the place, lots of firings. But there were none.

Frankly, I'm shocked at the people still in doubt. To me, its as obvious as the computer I'm typing on.

[BootinUp]

57. Hi-Tech Maneuvers???

Go buy Microsoft Flight simulator or F16 or another realistic simulator and play with it for awhile. Then get back to me about how hard it was. Turning and descending into the tallest thing on the landscape is just not as difficult as the conspiracy theorists are proclaiming.

I addressed your concern about hijackers still alive in another post.

[TNOE]

63. Your statement just flies in the face of common sense

and I'm no pilot.

Flight 77: "The Plane Was Flown With Extraordinary Skill"
Once again: Operation 911 demanded that the attacks be tightly coordinated. Four jets took off within 15 minutes of each other at Boston, Dulles, and Newark airports, and roughly two hours later, it was over. If we are to believe the story we are being told, the masterminds needed, at an absolute minimum, pilots who could actually fly the planes and who could arrive at the right place at the right time.
American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, took off from Dulles Airport in northern Virginia at 8:10 a.m. and crashed into the Pentagon at 9:40 a.m. The Washington Post, September 12, says this: "Aviation sources said that the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious."

According to the article, the air traffic controllers "had time to warn the White House that the jet was aimed directly at the president's mansion and was traveling at a gut-wrenching speed--full throttle.

"But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees from the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controller's screens, the sources said." ("On Flight 77: 'Our Plane Is Being Hijacked'," The Washington Post, September 12, 2001, pgs. 1 & 11)

http://www.geeman-headquarters.com/page445.html

[BootinUp]

69. Well I would suggest the opposite (of course) LOL

Lets start over.

Someone flew planes into the world trade center. Who do you suggest would do it and why (suicide)?

I never said they did not practice flying the mission. I assume they used simulators. I seem to recall at least one hijacker was a trained pilot. And I assume there were terrorist allies that were trained pilots and assisted with planning and training the actual hijackers. None of this is highly extraordinary to believe.

Besides the main factor in the timing was the takeoff time which was not subject to skill at all. I am not even sure that the timing between the 4 planes crashing was at all critical. Please tell me why you think it is?

[TNOE]

76. OK

I'm not sure "some one" flew the planes into the WTC, that has not been proven. Especially since there were no hijacker names on the flight lists - it could have very well been global hawk technology, which has been around since the 60's (google it).

At least one hijacker was a trained pilot? Which one? One who turned up alive? The doctors who autopsied what was left of the bodies stated there were no dead "arabs".

Frankly, I don't know why any muslim would do this when the consequence of their actions would have been to "make war" on the US and in turn be decimated. Why would they want their fellow muslims (family) and country decimated? Their whole way of life changed? Didn't look like to me Afghanistan was prepared for a "war" at all. Sure, we've heard the 72 virgin story, that they did it for that reason, but come on, we've got a $4 TRILLION dollar defense system and 19 hijackers could overtake it? Also, the area around the WTC had been a no-fly zone since its inception - no way should any plane have been able to get close without a fighter jet on its tail immediately. But alas, no fighter jets that day. Also, there hadn't been a hijacking in this country for the past 14 years before this - why? Because it couldn't be done. And now we're to believe that 4 flights got hi-jacked???

Who benefits? Certainly not the muslims.

But look at all the benefits this administration gained.

How could muslims have stood down our military, from a cave? Answer: They couldn't & they didn't.

Isn't it a little bit more than just mere coincidence that our government was running at least 5 training exercises that very day of the very same scenario? Why do you think that was - to make the day more confusing and therefore more successful?

Why did Condi Rice lie? Because they never thought the American people would find out about the exercises they were running that day, obviously.

How was it the Secret Service seem to know Bush was not in any danger and therefore didn't immediately remove him. Why didn't Bush act? Why did the military LIE (according to the 9/11 Commission itself) 5 times to the 9/11 Commission as to the reason their response was so lacking?

Why did the people in charge - all say they were away from their posts and they HEARD IT ON TV? Come on, in the age of technology none of them had a cell phone or emergency pager, etc., etc.

I mean the stories we have been asked to believe are just too incredible.

Why did Colin Powel give the Taliban $42 million in July of 2001 and it was then reported that our Government said give us the rights to the Caspian Sea or we will either reward you with a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs - you're choice. The Taliban gave the deal to the Chinese, and surprise, surprise, we got attacked, it was conveniently blamed on Bin Laden - and we started bombing Afghanistan. That pipeline has been going through to the Caspian Sea ever since (where there is reported to be TRILLIONS of dollars of oil).

Why did Bush fight tooth & nail to NOT have an independent commission to investigate the WORST terrorist attack on AMerican soil? Why wouldn't he want that? If you were innocent - wouldn't you want to declare to the world that in fact you had done everything in your power to stop it? And then, why did Bush & Cheney testify to the Commission together (after it was forced on them) - and they REFUSED TO BE UNDER OATH? The only time you don't want to be under oath is if you're going to be lying, right? Why was no pen, pencil, or paper allowed in during their testimony? Does that not scream the word guilt in your mind?

Why did Bush & his administration have to lie and tell us that somehow Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and that the evidence woudl come in the form of a mushroom cloud? To get their war on with Iraq - read OIL. Remember the first mission was Operation Iraqi Liberation. They didn't even try to hide their motives.

You seem new to all this information - I suggest you take a look at the cite that I posted above and do some reading - or go to Alex Jones Prison Planet, or just google 9/11 - there is a TON of evidence.

Actually, you're coming really late to the party. It always surprises me when people still think that those who question the "official" 9/11 story are STILL labeled conspiracy theorists. I barely scratched the surface on all the unanswered questions.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

77. Invisible Jewish Elf technology...

...has been around since the beginning of the world! SEE THE TRUTH!

[TNOE]

79. You know you're just making yourself look stupid

but you're probably use to it. I doubt your idiocy impresses anyone but yourself.

3,000 deaths & multiple wars, what a riot eh?

Here's a tip - if you think maybe something doesn't exist - do some R-E-S-E-A-R-C-H. Google.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

85. Well isn't that special.

I'll just have to get "use to" my idiocy, then. I'm just off to do some Rorschach.

But in all seriousness, if you're going to put something so ridiculous out there (remote controlled planes) don't be surprised when you get hit with Invisible Jewish Elves, unless you can provide even one iota, one scrap, one tiny piece of evidence to support what you're suggesting.

The burden for Rorschaching a claim falls on the person making the claim. Or at least it, ahh... use to.

[TNOE]

98. Yep, its ridiculous fer sure - its only been around a LONG time

Defense Tech: Inside Global Hawkgh1.jpg Nearly a decade after its inception, the Air Force is finally migrating the Global Hawk drone from demonstration to production; the 18th standing up ...
www.defensetech.org/archives/002647.html - 33k - Cached - Similar pages


Global HawkGlobal Hawk: Is an aircraft and system developed by Northrop Grumman to fly ... This is the same way Global Hawk lands, only it does not have a pilot. ...
www.tidbitsnews.com/global_hawk.htm - 32k - Cached - Similar pages


USAF - RQ-4A Global Hawk Photo GalleryRQ-4A Global Hawk Unmanned Reconnaissance System ... RQ-4A Global Hawk Lo-Res | Hi-Res. RQ-4A Global Hawk Lo-Res | Hi-Res. RQ-4A Global Hawk ...
www.is.northropgrumman.com/gallery/usaf/global_hawk.htm - 8k - Cached - Similar pages


Global Hawk Hits the Pentagon?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

100. You don't seem to understand.

I'm not arguing that the technology doesn't exist. I'm arguing that you have no evidence that this technology was used in any way on 9/11.

If you have such evidence, post it now.

[TNOE]

108. Uhhhh, No.

Why do I have to PROVE anything? I'm not the government, I'm not the administration, I'm not in charge of a damn thing. How are ORDINARY citizens supposed to PROVE anything? Especially without the tools & resources that our government have?

I have questions, I wonder, I'm curious, I'd like to know myself - but as an ordinary citizen, I can only rely on the information that's been made available.

The government is the one who needs to PROVE that it WASN'T used and that there were hijackers, but you see, that can't be done, because the government went in & destroyed much of the evidence, as much as it could anyway. So it ain't on me to prove anything dude. I didn't cause 9/11.

I wasn't the one who ignored the August 6, 2001 PRESIDENTIAL DAILY BRIEFING ENTITLED "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN AMERICA". I wasn't the one who while living in the people's house and taking their money while willfully IGNORNING NUMEROUS warnings coming from everywhere that a terrorist attack was IMMINENT. Hell, Israel Mossoud FLEW here to meet with the pResident to warn him personally, he got warnings from - oh hell, I'll just post them for you:

http://www.wanttoknow.info/911information

[BootinUp]

110. Why do you say the government destroyed the evidence?

Not that I expect a useful reply.

Did you want them to just shutdown the financial district permanently?

[mrgerbik]

117. Were talking about

3000 people and the biggest "terrorist" attack in history on American Soil - shutting down the financial district for a proper investigation, instead of carting off the steel to blast furnaces, is the least they could have done.

So we're left with this flimsy NIST report, which raises many more questions then it ever answered, and this is supposed to quell our doubts and lay it all to rest for good? It's JFK all over again.

No wonder so many people are jumping ship, so to speak.

[BootinUp]

120. Question before we continue

Lets go back to square one a minute and see where we have the biggest problem agreeing.

1. Are there terrorists of Arab descent (some known as Al Qaeda) who use tactics such as suicide bombing of civilian targets in a jihad against Western interests?

2. Was it really really hard to hi jack an airplane in America pre 911?

3. Is it hard to steer an airplane in flight assuming you have studied the cockpit controls for 2 years?

4. Could we have stopped (shot down) 4 hi-jacked planes with less than an hour warning over crowded (airplane filled) domestic skies, forget whether or not someone was willing to take the authority to authorize it for the purpose of this discussion, just tell me if fighter jets could have located and shot down all 4 commercial airliners without shooting down the wrong one.

5. Is it one of the first 4 or is it that you just can't fathom the building coming down from a massive fire and structural damage without a secret plot and bombs etc. WHICH ONE DO YOU HAVE THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH?

I would be glad to focus on just one area once you have selected one of those.

[John Q. Citizen]

128. Let's back up here because you are making assumptions, and we

know where assuming leads us.

1. Did the highest levels of our government ever plot to destroy airplanes in a false flag operation in order to shape public opinion? Yes. Google operation North Woods. It's public knowledge. It was canned by President Kennedy. Is Bush Kennedy? No.

2. Why don't you google when the last domestic hijacking took place prior to 9/11? i looked for a while and I couldn't find a definitive answer. But I did find this:

"O'BRIEN: The Air Marshal Program, which began in 1970 and provided armed undercover agents on select flights, remained in place. There was also talk of fortifying cockpit doors and arming the pilots. Those measures were never adopted.

In the years ahead, as domestic hijackings dropped to near zero, the Air Marshal Program was effectively phased out."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0111/03/cp.00.html

Is seems to say that for 34 years there were almost zero domestic hijackings, so apparently it wasn't all that easy. And four on one day within an hour or so would be harder still. With box cutters no less. Do you really buy that? The rash of hijackings in the 60's usually involved fire arms or explosives. Not Woody Allen saying "I've got a gub."

3.Yes, it is hard to pin-point steer a jet airliner. Otherwise anybody could be a jet Airline Pilot after just a few hours of hands on training. Do you believe that's realistic? It's not like steering a boat or a car, because you have stuff like airspeed, and vertical and horizontal challenges.

4. Indubitably we could scramble 4 Airliners with an hour notice. But on 9/11 we couldn't even scramble one. What's to stop the Russians or the Chinese, or the North Koreans from dropping an A bomb on a city? Why have restricted air space at all if we can't restrict it? Or is your theory that US air defense is a sham? It really doesn't work, but they have us convinced it does?

5. 3 overbuilt Steel frame buildings suffered complete collapse due to fire caused by kerosene on 9/11. The first and last time that has ever happened to even one building, much less three. It should be named, "The Magic Building Theory." None of the investigations undertaken by The 9/11 Commission or Fema or NIST every looked at the possibility that some sort of detonation device, or thermitic device or a combination may have been a possible cause for the highly unexpected building collapses.

The Magic Building Theory is taken in hook, line and sinker without even looking at other possibilities. You may have caught the article posted earlier last night that the "Magic Bullet Theory" put forth by the Warren Commission to explain the physical evidence in the Kennedy assassination has been proved unsupportable. http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/15321194.htm

The Magic Bullet Theory and the Magic Building Theory seem to share a lot in common. They both try to explain events in a long convoluted fashion that doesn't hold up well under scrutiny.

Why just focus one area when there are so many holes in the Governments conspiracy theory?


edited to add link to the debunking of the Magic Bullet Theory

[BootinUp]

130. holes that you or others create from mere fantasy

and the apparent lack of ability to understand that people in government don't tend to be magicians conjuring up secret plots faking terrorists attacks. Most of the time when they take risks involving secret agents and breaking the law in the US they end up getting caught in quite conventional ways. It is far far more likely that people who have committed themselves to an act of suicide and have no power other than from taking those risks will be the ones taking the risks that result in either death or incarceration for most of thier lives.

The folks in power in government can fuck us while we are looking right at them, and they smile at the same time, they just don't need to use subterfuge like you imagine to carryout their desires. There are less risky ways.

I don't know if there is any point discussing this with you though unless you grasp those basic ideas. I didn't say it can't be that people in the highest levels of government do risky secret law breaking things, just that it is not as likely as you imagine and certainly they are not as good at it as you imagine.

edited to add additional thoughts on the subject.

[John Q. Citizen]

127. If you don't know what a Rorschach. test is, I would suggest you

don't use it to support an argument.

Apparently you think it measures idiocy. That's not true. Google it, read up on it, and then come back and try to make a respectable argument.

Until then, you are just talking out of your butt.

[DemInDistress]

116. those 5 mossad agents wished they were invisable on 911

but their magic that day wasn't working and they were caught later that day. Was it a coincidence those mossad elves were there across the Hudson videotaping the event? Or was it planned by mossad? with help from the neocons.
either way 911 was an inside job ..

[cali]

75. make claims

such as "Half of the supposed hijackers have turned up alive. All of the passenger lists for the hijacked planes were all somehow 4-6 people short (the hijackers)" and you damned well should provide evidence. Same goes for "We know Jeb Bush flew into the Florida flight training schools & picked up all the files under the cover of darkness."

And please, no "loose change" type "evidence".

And as I stated on another thread, my brother-in-law, a pilot for a major airline for twenty-five years, flight instructor and flight simulator instructor, believes that the putative hijackers, could very well have flown the planes.

[TNOE]

93. Here ya go

While I'm sure your brother-in-law is a very fine pilot, I prefer to listen to the experts. You can google too ya know - that's all I did. I don't have time to go through my tons of files on this.

Jeb Bush took Flight School Records:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0212/S00058.htm

Whatever secrets Dekkers may possess about the terrorists, records from his flight school were deemed sensitive enough to have merited being escorted back to Washington by Florida Governor Jeb Bush aboard a C-130 cargo plane, which left Sarasota less than 24 hours after the September 11 attack.

Marvin Bush:
Scoop: The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page LieThe omission of the fact that President Bush’s brother Marvin and his cousin ... both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32). ...
www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0505/S00295.htm - 51k - Cached - Similar pages

Scoop: UQ Wire: The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11That George Bush's brother Marvin sat on the board of the Kuwaiti-owned ... than the one that was lost in the collapse of WTC 7, was a lucky twist of fate. ...
www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0408/S00221.htm - 53k - Cached - Similar pages

HIJACKERS ALIVE:

Scoop: UQ Wire: 9/11 Cold Case - Boulder Weekly9/11: Cold Case - A former Bush-appointed official is calling for a ... that five to eight of the alleged hijackers are still alive today. ...
www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0509/S00140.htm - 42k - Cached - Similar pages


Scoop: UQ Wire: Terror Network Alive In FloridaEven before 9/11, even in Florida, it was considered a faux pas to bring your ... “The 19 hijackers who carried out the worst act of terror ever to occur on ...
www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0407/S00092.htm - 41k - Cached - Similar pages


Scoop: UQ Wire: Families Respond to Last 9/11 HearingsAddress the remaining questions about the identities of the hijackers on ... these photos show that today he is not only alive and well on the road to ...
www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0406/S00206.htm - 34k - Cached - Similar pages


Scoop: UQ Wire: 9/11 Unanswered Questions RemainWho, if anyone, assisted the hijackers during their time in the United States? ... 11 and are presumed alive and at large? Why on the morning of Sept. ...
www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0407/S00210.htm - 31k - Cached - Similar pages


Scoop: UQ Wire: 9/11 Commission Outline of the 9/11 PlotAs Binalshibh is the only one of the four still alive, he is the primary source ... Unlike the other 9/11 hijackers—who were instructed to avoid associating ...
www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0406/S00195.htm - 83k - Cached - Similar pages


Scoop: UQ Wire: The Red Herrings Of 9/11The Red Herrings Of 9/11 Indict The 19 Suspected Hijackers Now! ... If there were no Arab terrorists John O’Neill would still be alive. ...
www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0405/S00066.htm - 39k - Cached - Similar pages


Scoop: UQ Wire: Tenet Lied Under Oath To 9/11 Commission... did not discuss the 9/11 hijackers when they met in Crawford on August 24. ... these photos show that today he is not only alive and well on the road to ...
www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0406/S00098.htm - 37k - Cached - Similar pages

NO ARAB HIJACKERS:

Once I had made the list, it occurred to me that others might find this summary ... that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23). ...
www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0505/S00295.htm - 51k - Cached - Similar pages

[BootinUp]

95. Observation/question

You sure rely on "scoop" quite a bit there like every single link. Never heard of them. Why do you think I should rely on them as a source?

[TNOE]

102. Look - "Scoop" just happened to be what I was in

and they have a very good report so I used their search engine. I don't have time to do everyone else's homework for them. If you want to know something, obviously you have a computer & the internet. LOOK, DISCOVER, FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF.

You can try this, or this, or this, or this, et al:\

http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html#airforce
http://www.911proof.com/
http://www.uads.org/u/looyah/Tarpley-911synthetic_terror_made_in_USA.pdf
http://www.wanttoknow.info/911coverup10pg
http://www.archive.org/details/drgriffin
http://erroneousbusczh.homestead.com/9-11Plot.html

These stories can be searched from Rense.com;
WhatReallyHappened.com; Alex Jones Prison Planet; Google, etc.

[BootinUp]

105. There is not one "reputable" source there.

These sources have nothing to lose and hits to gain by spreading conspiracy nonsense. THey are not serious news sources that depend on accuracy to make their business a success.

[TNOE]

111. Oh, I see, and you've read them all have you?

Look, stay in the dark, no sweat off of me.

David Ray Griffin IS reputable
Webster Tarley IS reputable.

Stay in denial to your own peril. But the truth is DEFINITELY GOING TO COME OUT - and soon. You'll just be in the crowd bringing up the rear gasping in horror at it all. I don't care.

Every article I listed can be found elsewhere on other sources.

Why do you suppose Condi told such a big lie? That is not in dispute - I heard her. Donald Rumsfeld admitted on the Senate floor that wargames WERE being run that day. So that is not in dispute. We all saw Bush just sitting in the classroom after he knew America was under attack and he did nothing - that is not in dispute. We know Bush did not want to set up a commission to investigate - that is not in dispute. We know that he & Cheney testified together WITHOUT BEING UNDER OATH - that is not in dispute.

And I'm out of time - got to go. Hate to waste anymore of my time. All you want to know is out there. Find sources you are comfortable with - but it won't be on Fox News.

[mrgerbik]

118. like, lets say, FOX eh? n/t

[BootinUp]

119. There are plenty of sources you could choose

that I would not have questioned. Probably hundreds or at least dozens. And no I do not read FOX.

[cali]

104. Not hardly.

Holy shit, what a bunch of word salad. How come CT's can't write an English sentence? And sorry, no that website does NOT count as credible.

As for my brother-in-law, in case you didn't get it, He IS an expert- seeing as he was in charge of all training on Flight Simulators for a major airline, I'll take his opinion over the nutcases.

[TNOE]

112. Best of luck to you there Cali

Denial - its not just a river in Egypt. Whatever your most comfortable with. The Truth or Lies.

[Rude Horner]

52. And that evidence is based on what?

what the Bush administration has told us? Oh, well that puts my mind to rest! :sarcasm:

Half of those hijackers who supposedly perished on that day are still alive. According to the FBI, there is no hard evidence to link Osama Bin Laden to the attacks.

And besides....even based on what you said in your post, that would still not rule out LIHOP.

[BootinUp]

54. Identifying people burned to ash will be difficult

Don't you think?

Whether the identities are 100% accurate is not important to determine whether a hijacking took place by people intent on flying into buildings.

[Rude Horner]

62. What?

So if the government claims that this particular group of hijackers were the ones who commited these acts, and then it is discovered that some of those hijackers are still alive, your reaction is "Oh well. Someone else must've done it." And that's ok with you? Case closed?

Holy shit. Wow. Just plain wow. I'd hate to have you on a jury.

You're obviously closing the entire case based on no research whatsover. I would suggest opening your mind a bit. There's tons of well researched evidence out there that AT THE VERY LEAST, requires that this event be more thoroughly scrutinized.

[BootinUp]

73. Who do you think flew those planes? n/t

[n2doc]

5. His point is that a large portion of the world believes this

so it is important to include it in the discussion. If we stick our head in the sand and say "that is absurd" we will never understand what motivates others.

And frankly, I guess I am an idiot since I see plenty of reasons why the government (or at least, certain elements of it) would have wanted to "make it so". And I don't think that we will ever know the real story.

[samfishX]

13. I can see why

the government would want to make it so. It's hard to think anything but that once you learn about PNAC, to be honest.

But the point is that saying anything other than, "We don't know what happened, but the official story doesn't hold up" is speculating and ultimately hurts efforts to get to the truth, given the climate we're in politically on this topic.

That said, I'd be really stunned if 9/11 didn't turn out to be an inside job conjured up by the neocons in the Pentagon.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

16. His point is rubbish.

First of all, he's a conspiracy theorist, and he shares their views. Wonder if he shares their view that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are historical documents. Let's discuss that, eh?

[n2doc]

31. I would say, in the proper context, discussion of the PEZ is worthwhile

Wouldn't it be worth talking about one of the major myths in the anti-semite movement in a class about anti-semitism or religon? He is talking about MIHOP theories in a class about Islam, where many, perhaps most, of the world's Muslims believe in MIHOP.

[Clark2008]

49. Then the government is a conspiracy theorist, too

because the official line involves a theory in which conspirators conspired to knock buildings down.

I hate that idiotic terminology for people who don't buy the official BS.

IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY THEORY - INCLUDING THE GOVERNMENT LINE!

[INDIA]

125. Yeah! I bet Wes Clark would completely agree with you! n/t

[TNOE]

51. Yep, and your government would never lie to you

for the almighty dollar, power & profitable wars.

Only a fool would trust their government.

[arcane1]

9. well, somebody did it

rich white men can be just as evil as swarthy ones

3,000 lives don't mean a damn thing to killers

[Rude Horner]

11. And you base this on what?

Your years of extensive research into this matter, or what you've seen on television so far?

[samfishX]

15. I Base That Conclusion

on logic. Not speculation.

Right now, for example, there is no real evidence that the towers were brought down with explosives.
There is evidence that suggests that to be the case...but it's also a possibility that there is a different explanation.

[Rude Horner]

18. There are plenty of engineers who would disagree with...

your logic. Building designers and engineers who say that those buildings fell at free fall speed, like there was absolutely no resistance whatsoever. Who say that those towers were designed to withstand a direct hit from a plane and still stand, and certainly wouldn't collapse in such a short time from those collisions. Who point out that no steel structure building has ever collapsed due to fire.

And what about WTC 7? What about the owners comments that the decision was made "to pull it"?

There are plenty of good books on the subject.

[BootinUp]

on the building collapse

The steel strength was reduced to 50% or less due to temperatures in excess of 1200F and the steel was stressed due to the structural damage. What is so hard to believe with regard to the building failure as a result of the fire one hour or more after the impact? Not a damn thing.

The design of the WTC in fact was unique and also contributed. All these engineers must know the buildings were not using typical structural design methods. So the failure resulted in new things learned that much is true.

the freefall as you call it was actually each floor collapsing as a result of the impact from the above floors.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

[TNOE]

97. Is this the article from Homeland Security's Michael Chertoff's

cousin? Has his name now been removed? Yep, no "conflict of interest" here.

[BootinUp]

99. I guess if you are sure that the online editor of this major magazine

is a relative, and IF the government really did do the deed as you say, then sure there is a conflict. I guess the online editor had to put one over on all the other people in the organization too. right? I mean he is not the owner. Maybe he paid them off somehow. So don't keep me in suspense, are they relatives?

POPULAR MECHANICS EDITORIAL STAFF
James B. Meigs
Editor-In-Chief
Executive Editor David Dunbar
Design Director Michael Lawton Deputy Editor Jerry Beilinson
Managing Editor Sarah Deem
AUTOMOTIVE
Editor Don Chaikin
Detroit Editor Jim Dunne
Senior Editor Mike Allen
West Coast Editor Ben Stewart
Contributing Editors Jay Leno,
Joe Oldham, Jim McCraw, Ken Juran

HOME
Senior Editors Roy Berendsohn, Thomas Klenck
Contributing Editors Neal Barrett, Norman Becker,
Merle Henkenius, Fred Mackerodt,
Joe Provey, Joe Truini

SCIENCE
Senior Editor Jennifer Bogo
Contributing Editors Jim Gorman,
Alex Hutchinson, Brad Reagan,
Leslie Sabbagh,
Logan Ward, Jeff Wise

TECHNOLOGY
Senior Editor Glenn Derene
Contributing Editors Rebecca Day, Joel Johnson, Glenn Harlan Reynolds

DEPARTMENTS
Associate Editor Erik Sofge

ART
Senior Art Director Peter Herbert
Assistant Art Director Michael Friel

PHOTOGRAPHY
Director Allyson Torrisi
Associate Photo Editor
Alison Unterreiner

PRODUCTION
Copy Chief Kim Sipes
Copy Editor James Ross
Asst. Managing Editor Greig O'Brien
Production Director Steven Baker
Production Associate Jatniel Delgado

IMAGING
Digital Imaging Specialist
Anthony Verducci

RESEARCH
Research Editor Davin Coburn
Researcher Tyghe Trimble

EDITORIAL ADMINISTRATION
Asst. To The Editor-In-Chief
Erin McCarthy
Business Associate Wendy Logroño
Editorial Assistant Ines Kolanovic

PROJECT ASSISTANTS
Adam Bryant, Andrew Nusca,
Matthew Pecca, Erin Scottberg
POPULARMECHANICS.COM
Online Editor Benjamin Chertoff Online Manager Angela Diegel
SUBSCRIPTIONS
subscribe.popularmechanics.com

EDITORIAL OFFICES
300 West 57 Street,
New York, NY 10019
212/649-2000

[TNOE]

113. Yep, it was Chertoff

Now that this thread has been moved to the 9/11 basement - you may be able to learn something here.

Popular Mechanics' Deceptive Smear Against 9/11 Truth: A more detailed critique of ... The Hearst-owned Popular Mechanics targeted the 9/11 Truth Movement ...
911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html - 82k - Cached - Similar pages


Alex Jones Responds To Ben Chertoff, Popular Mechanics Debunking ...Alex Jones responds to the Popular Mechanics 9/11 debunking exercise. ... Related: Chertoff's Cousin Penned Popular Mechanics 9/11 Hit Piece ...
prisonplanet.tv/audio/090305alexresponds.htm - 36k - Cached - Similar pages


Chertoff's Cousin Penned Popular Mechanics 9/11 Hit PieceBut the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics (PM) plumbs new depths of nepotism and Hearst-style "yellow journalism" with its cover story about 9/11. ...
www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/070305chertoffscousin.htm - 39k - Cached - Similar pages


Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 LiesPopular Mechanics' March 2005 front cover story was entitled 'Debunking 9/11 Lies' and has since become the bellwether reference point for all proponents of ...
www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/100806popularmechanics.htm - 51k - Cached - Similar pages

[BootinUp]

114. I listened to 5 minutes approx, not one thing was refuted LOL.

you need help if you are believing that guy in your link.

[BootinUp]

123. Have you read this letter by the Editor?

In fact the article debunking the 16 most common 9/11 Myths was written as a result of the work of many people at Popular Mechanics and the many experts they interviewed.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1230517.html

[TNOE]

68. Yea, it would have been great if

investigators had a chance to inspect the steel - but it was immediately shipped off to China. Imagine that.

[Matariki]

12. well, the bush crime family isn't the government

so, i agree with you :evilgrin:

[Klimmer]

19. Are you for real?

There's plenty of evidence:

Physical, means, motive and opportunity . . .

and while utilizing the scientific method much of the time in doing so. Which by the way, the 9/11 CR steers completely clear of. I don't think the Bush admin. knows what science is.

If what really happened on 9/11 were to go to a valid, honest court of law in the US or abroad, the 9/11 truth movement has overwhelming and irrefutable evidence. The BCF and the Neo-con Rethug Admin. have reason to worry. 9/11 was absolutely an inside job --- complete and total MIHOP.

http://www.st911.org/
http://www.journalof911studies.com/

[BootinUp]

35. What nonsense.

Inside job my ass. What planet are you people from.

[Rude Horner]

44. Planet critical thinking.

Let me just ask you - why do you consider it so implausible?

[BootinUp]

53. Not sure why I should go first, but what the hell

This is silly to even discuss if you ask me. And maybe you don't believe what I think you do, if so forgive me for assuming incorrectly.


So, if it was an inside job and bombs were planted ahead of time, how the hell did they plant those bombs exactly where the planes then struck (and exactly where the buildings buckled)? Just luck?


And what is supposed to be so hard about steering a plane into a huge building? Have you ever tried a flight simulator?

[Rude Horner]

67. I honestly can't believe

that you're comparing Microsoft flight simulator to flying a full size aircraft into a building.

Over 3000 people died on that day, and since that day we've had two wars where more than 2,500 Americans have died and countless more have been wounded. This event has been used as justification to illegally wiretap Americans, torture innocent people, and more. - and you think this is silly to discuss?

Please - just READ a bit. Read the PNAC statement regarding the New American Century. Read "The Terror Timeline". There is a LOT more to this story than what we've been spoonfed.

One last thing. And this is important. You're expecting all of us who think the government had something to do with this to have all the answers. We don't. But here's the thing. If you do some research, you will find that there are TONS of questions that remain unanswered. And tons of things that require an explanation. Until those questions are answered, none of us will have all the answers. But doesn't this event deserve something more than just "a few planes crashed. We think it might be Muslims. We think Osama was behind it. Let's close the case."

[BootinUp]

71. This thread has caused me to look for efforts at debunking

Here is a thorough attempt, I only read a small part so far:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y


"I honestly can't believe that you're comparing Microsoft flight simulator to flying a full size aircraft into a building."

Why? Its called hand / eye coordination similar to how you drive a car or any other moving vehicle. That plus the training on flying by a pilot or studying a training manual thoroughly is all an intelligent person would need. These people planned this thing years in advance afterall.

The critical aspects of flying are knowing the controls and gauges and and the limit of the planes maneuvering ability. Its a fact that the hardest part of flying is taking off and landing.

Commercial aircraft have automatic warning systems that assist you if you are out of the proper ranges of speed or turning yaw or whatever. Why not stop trying so hard to prove a conspiracy. Your not doing a very good job.

[Arugula Latte]

81. Let me just weigh in on one thing:

Many firefighters have testified that they heard explosions coming from the basement of the towers on that morning.

See http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/explosive-testimony-revelations-about-the-twin-towers-in-the-911-oral-histories

I think there is definitely something fishy about many aspects of 9-11. We'll probably never know a fraction of what really happened.

[BootinUp]

83. A link for you debunking explosions

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y

FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

[Arugula Latte]

88. These firefighters say otherwise, and have testified under oath.

“There was just an explosion . It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”–Firefighter Richard Banaciski

“I saw a flash flash flash the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”–Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

“It was professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear ‘Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop’."–Paramedic Daniel Rivera

* * *

Some of the testimonies suggested that more than one explosion occurred in one tower or the other. FDNY Captain Dennis Tardio, speaking of the south tower, said: "I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, from the top floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom."10

In June of 2002, NBC television played segments from tapes recorded on 9/11. One segment contained the following exchange, which involved firefighters in the south tower:

Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we’ve just had another explosion.
Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we’ve had additional explosion.
Dispatcher: Received battalion command. Additional explosion.11

Firefighter Louie Cacchioli, after entering the north tower lobby and seeing elevator doors completely blown out and people being hit with debris, asked himself, “how could this be happening so quickly if a plane hit way above?” After he reached the 24th floor, he and another fireman “heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator.” After they pried themselves out of the elevator, “another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later . . . I’m thinking, ‘Oh. My God, these bastards put bombs in here like they did in 1993!’”12

Multiple explosions were also reported by Teresa Veliz, who worked for a software development company in the north tower. She was on the 47th floor, she reported, when suddenly “the whole building shook. . . . the building shook again, this time even more violently." Then, while Veliz was making her way downstairs and outside: “There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. . . . There was another explosion. And another. I didn’t know where to run."13

Steve Evans, a New York-based correspondent for the BBC, said: “I was at the base of the second tower . . . that was hit. . . . There was an explosion. . . . The base of the building shook. . . . hen there was a series of explosions.”14

Sue Keane, an officer in the New Jersey Fire Police Department who was previously a sergeant in the U.S. Army, said in her account of the onset of the collapse of the south tower: “t sounded like bombs going off. That’s when the explosions happened. . . . I knew something was going to happen. . . . It started to get dark, then all of a sudden there was this massive explosion.” Then, discussing her experiences during the collapse of the north tower, she said: “ another explosion. That sent me and the two firefighters down the stairs. . . . I can’t tell you how many times I got banged around. Each one of those explosions picked me up and threw me. . . . There was another explosion, and I got thrown with two firefighters out onto the street.”15

Wall Street Journal reporter John Bussey, describing his observation of the collapse of the south tower from the ninth floor of the WSJ office building, said: “I . . . looked up out of the office window to see what seemed like perfectly synchronized explosions coming from each floor. . . . One after the other, from top to bottom, with a fraction of a second between, the floors blew to pieces.”16

Another Wall Street Journal reporter said that after seeing what appeared to be “individual floors, one after the other exploding outward,” he thought: “‘My God, they’re going to bring the building down.’ And they, whoever they are, HAD SET CHARGES. . . . I saw the explosions.”17

A similar perception was reported by Beth Fertig of WNYC Radio, who said: “It just descended like a timed explosion—like when they are deliberately bringing a building down. . . . It was coming down so perfectly that in one part of my brain I was thinking, ‘They got everyone out, and they’re bringing the building down because they have to.’”18

A more graphic testimony to this perception was provided on the film made by the Naudet brothers. In a clip from that film, one can watch two firemen describing their experiences to other firemen.

Fireman 1: “We made it outside, we made it about a block . . . .”

Fireman 2: “We made it at least two blocks and we started running.” He makes explosive sounds and then uses a chopping hand motion to emphasize his next point: “Floor by floor it started popping out . . . .”

Fireman 1: “It was as if they had detonated–as if they were planning to take down a building, boom boom boom boom boom . . . .”

Fireman 2: “All the way down. I was watching it and running. And then you just saw this cloud of shit chasing you down.”19

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

91. One time I was driving down a street in Mountain View, CA.

I passed a burning car. The driver and passengers had evacuated and were standing on the sidewalk on the other side of the street, watching the car burn with about twenty onlookers. Then the car exploded - BLAMMO! - just as I was driving by, stuck in traffic.

Now unless you're going to argue that there were explosives planted in the car, I think it's only fair for you to admit & acknowledge that things other than explosives are capable of causing explosions. Especially in the context of several squillion tons of burning & twisted rubble.

[BootinUp]

92. A building is on fire and collapsing and

I am sure there were lots of loud noises and flashes that could mislead untrained eyewitnesses.

And you need to expand on why you think it is likely that explosive devices where placed to explode on the same day (hour) that suicide flyers flew 747's into the building. Whats the point. The government is not that good for one thing they could have never pulled that off so secretly that you have no proof. Think occam's razor.

[wildbilln864]

96. check this out...

http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/rate/14211/index.php#Article-14211

there's a related thread here in the dungeon. What do ya think?

[BootinUp]

101. What do you think?

seriously couldn't it just be inaccurate timing devices :) I only read a small part of your shocking link.

[wildbilln864]

124. obviously you didn't!

else you'd realize that both times are based on the same atomic clock.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

89. Why is that weird?

Are you actually suggesting that the only things that cause explosions are bombs or proper explosives?

[Mnemosyne]

121. "bombs were planted ahead of time"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fcUQg3DadaA&mode=related&search=

[BootinUp]

122. How is a falling skyscraper supposed to look?

One that structurally fails from fire and commercial aricraft crash?

Gravity is all that video is proving.

[LunaC]

20. Lemmee clue you in

Do yourself a favor and check out the link in my sig line before you start ranting about "idiots" who see the government's hand in 911. If it doesn't open your eyes and piss you off, then you weren't paying attention.

[jsamuel]

6. Is this true?

"According to Kevin Barrett, the US government planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks, the World Trade Center imploded due to explosives set up ahead of time in the buildings, Minnesota Sen. Paul Wellstone's plane crash was no accident, and Osama bin Laden has probably been dead since 2001. Mr. Barrett is not a radical anarchist or a teenager peddling conspiracy theories; he's a lecturer at the University of Wisconsin, Madison - a fact that has outraged some state politicians."

Does he actually believe all of that, or are they just saying he believes it because he is willing to discuss/entertain the idea?

[earth mom]

7. He believes it. Why would he put his career on the line otherwise?

Bravo for him! :applause:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Part of being a college professor...

is entertaining ideas you may not believe in yourself for the purposes of discussion, and the point of tenure is so you can do such a thing without putting your career on the line.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

17. That is irrelevant.

entertaining ideas you may not believe in yourself

He DOES believe in it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. How do you know?

And what difference does it make?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

30. Did you read...

...even the first line of the article?

According to Kevin Barrett, the US government planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks, the World Trade Center imploded due to explosives set up ahead of time in the buildings, Minnesota Sen. Paul Wellstone's plane crash was no accident, and Osama bin Laden has probably been dead since 2001.

Defending his actions is one thing, but pretending he's not a believer is quite another.

[jsamuel]

39. That is the line I am questioning. You are proving the question with itse

lf.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

48. You know...

Carl Sagan once taught an entire college-level introductory astronomy course on the geo-centric model of the solar system. I'm pretty certain he didn't actually believe it.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

56. Indeed.

The only difference is that in this case the professor does believe in the geo-centric model of the solar system. And that is a very different thing indeed.

Not that I mind. He should be able to teach whatever he wants. But it's disingenuous to suggest that his opinions on this matter are neutral or unbiased.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

58. I'll ask again...

how do you know he actually believes it?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

59. I'm tired of playing this game.

If you're really that suspicious about the truthfulness of the article, just google the man and read it in his own words. I won't link to it, since links to conspiracy sites are prohibited on DU.

Ciao.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

60. Well then, if you're not going to prove your assertations...

then perhaps you shouldn't be calling other people disingenuous, unneutral, and biased.

[salvorhardin]

115. You can hear Barrett in his own words

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oi3-pojxD4

At 3:10 into the interview: "The evidence for complicity is so overwhelming."
At 4:30 into the interview: "...the evidence is just, you know, very convincing that all 3 buildings were taken down with explosives and controlled demolitions."

You can listen to the rest of the interview yourself, but it's more of the same mistruths, myths and shoddy reasoning.

[Bill McBlueState]

26. no, it's completely relevant

It doesn't matter at all what the professor believes. What is at issue is his freedom to say what he wants to in his classes.

[jsamuel]

41. that is part of what I am asking though

is the paper ASSUMING that he believes it because he discusses it? Does the paper not understand that what he believes is not the issue, but rather does he have the right to discuss in public?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. That's what I'm saying is irrelevant.

What is irrelevant is what the professor actually believes.

The troubling thing about this story is politicians interjecting their own opinions into what a college professor is teaching.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

78. See, I actually agree with you on this point.

My only point through this debate has been that he is a fuckwit. And as a believer in the 1st amendment to the Constitution, I don't think fuckwittery disqualifies anyone from having an opinion. He's more than free to spread his inane gibberish via whatever convenient vector he can establish by way of his academic reputation. But that doesn't mean he isn't a fuckwit.

[Rude Horner]

10. I believe it.

At least about the 9/11 attacks and the WTC implosions. I don't know enough about those other things to give an opinion.

[Cha]

14. We've come a long way

since.."LIHOP?" Would I put it past cheney and the Machiavellian gang whose power run the world? No.

Hope the truth comes out someday. But, it ain't gonna come out from the repukes investigating it..they're all about CYA.

[MoseyWalker]

22. Our kids will still be talking about it, but

no way will the truth ever come out. Ever. That's the way these things work. Olberman was talking about how the information over the past years has come out in a trickle, but that trickle really tells us nothing.

edit: Olberman didn't say that trickle really tells us nothing. Sorry for the confused posting.

[Cha]

33. Kinda like the John F.

Kennedy assassination. I have my own thoughts on that now..way different than when I was a nineteen year old when it happened. :(

[TNOE]

40. I think you just might be "mistaken" about that

The one thing they didn't count on was the "internet" - without it, they would have most definitely gotten away with it and the truth wouldn't have been revealed until way after they were all dead.

However, the fact that FINALLY after 6 years you hear it on the news channels - even FAUX for God's sake - albeit in condescending tones - they KNOW the truth is out there. The rest of the world knows it and wonders how a supposedly "free" America can't NOT know it. Their press is freeer than ours. What are the polls - 80+% believe the government was somehow involved??

[cigsandcoffee]

21. He sounds pretty kooky.

Probably a fun class, as long as none of the kids take him seriously.

[SmokingJacket]

36. Actually, it's not about what he's teaching.

Apparently he keeps his personal views to himself. They're trying to fire him for what he says *outside* the classroom.

[cigsandcoffee]

72. Well, that seems silly.

As long as he's not a racist or something, I don't see how they can fire him for what he says outside the classroom.

[Rude Horner]

24. I would suggest that anyone who just dismisses

even the POSSIBILITY that the government could have been in on it, because - ya know....our government would NEVER do such a thing to it's own people (:sarcasm:), should do some research on "Operation Northwoods". You might be surprised. Our government HAS thought about doing such things to Americans before. That fact alone should make you at least admit the possibility that it could happen.

[gatorboy]

25. So the conservatives want to paint him as kooky?

Aren't these the same folks that believe Noah had a boat full of Dinosaurs?

[Bill McBlueState]

27. many of you are missing the point

Whether LIHOP or MIHOP are true is irrelevant to the case. This is about academic freedom -- whether a professor has the freedom to teach what he or she wants to teach. One thousand years of tradition says he does. And there is no such tradition of legislators meddling with course content.

If you make the debate about whether a particular explanation of 9/11 is plausible, you miss the point and you lose a lot of support.

[Klimmer]

32. I agree, I'm a physics HS teacher. Academic freedom is paramount.

But you better have the evidence to back up your point of view or world view. In this case he does. The more this story gets attention, the better it is for further establishing the need for and the vital importance of academic freedom, and we get another bird for the same stone ---the truth of 9/11 MIHOP.

The Neo-con Rethug conservatives are calling him crazy. Well, then I say debate him. Let's see who the real nut jobs are.

[midnight]

84. Now that would bring this into the limelight.

A nice open airing of the lecture's ideas vs. someone else's. Let's do it!

[Rude Horner]

34. I'm all about freedom of speech and all that, however

I don't know if I agree with TOTAL academic freedom. For example, I don't think teachers in public schools should be teaching intelligent design over evolution.

[enlightenment]

28. One week out of a semester is hardly

pushing an agenda.
Part of the process of education is exposure to ideas that are not, necessarily, substantiated.
The more removed a historical moment is from the present, the greater the number of interpretations. You can't evaluate an interpretation if you fail to examine it -- and if you fail to evaluate it, you allow it a certain level of unchallenged authority.

Perhaps that's what Barrett is trying to do; one article on the subject isn't enough to make an informed decision as to his ability, saneness, or professionalism.

[QuettaKid]

37. The bush-cheney admin wants YOU to believe

that it would take hundreds and hundreds of people to be involved in a conspiracy as large as that. Then they turn around and tell you that 19 guys did it with boxcutters.
Riiiiiiiighht.
MIHOP.

[independentpiney]

38. "This isn't academic freedom. This person can't substantiate his views."

A line has to be drawn imo, and not being able to substantiate views is a good place. Things work both ways, would you really like to see holocaust denial and the other crap the IHR and American Renaissance spews being taught in accredited university courses?

[Klimmer]

46. Really? He can't substantiate his views?

Sounds like you would like to debate him, and you can take the OCT government point of view. He has already made the challenge to those who would like to silence him. Perhaps you can step-up to the plate and take on his challenge.

A word of caution though, you'll be debating against the laws of physics. Good luck.

[independentpiney]

109. Thanks for the snarky reply!

it really added something to the discussion!

[noonwitch]

42. College students are adults who can make up their own minds what to think

Timothy Leary spoke at my public university when I was attending there. Nobody made any big deal about it.

I'm tired of people thinking college students are so vulnerable. I think his lecture would be inappropriate for high school students, because it's not based in fact, but college students are a different matter. Learning to think critically means being exposed to views that are sometimes off the wall.

If Pat Buchanan gave a lecture denying the holocaust at a public university, would the same people get their panties in a twist over it?

[Snivi Yllom]

45. question is if he actually teaching these views or are they opinions?

If he's teaching this stuff as fact he is waaayyyy out of line

If he was teaching 'fantasy writing' or 'conspiracy theory 101' it might be appropriate.

[rodeodance]

61. it is one theory amongst many. His official syllibus in on the web.

[Junkdrawer]

55. As time goes by, more who will look at the Official Story will reject it.

That's why we'll be hit again.

[rodeodance]

64. it only raises red flags for the David Horowitz types and a RW Wisc.

legilature.

[Junkdrawer]

65. Why do so many on this thread equate 9/11 theories with...

The Protocols of Zion and Holocaust denial?

Curious....

[wildbilln864]

66. kick...

absolutely MIHOP IMO! And to those who'd call this a conspiracy theory. All investigations of crimes are conspiracy theories until evidence renders them conspiracy fact!
Investigate 911!
Find the truth!
We know the administration is firmly against us knowing all the truth. Google "Able Danger"

[SidDithers]

70. Take it to the dungeon...nt

Sid

[BootinUp]

74. Is there one for this subject? I was just havin some fun.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

82. See, this is one of those threads...

...that I'd actually hate to see thrown into the dungeon, because there's actually a valid point to be made here with respect to academic freedom which is entirely separate from the 9/11 fuckwittery of the person in question.

Should his delusions impede his progress through academia? Lots of people have weird beliefs. But what about people with racist and/or stupid and vicious beliefs? Holocaust deniers, for instance? Would it be right & correct for a holocaust denier to keep his position? I know, this is an extreme case, and I'm not trying to compare this fuckwit to a holocaust denier. But the point remains - where, if anywhere, do we draw the line? My fundamental view on this is that we don't draw that line at all, because people are capable of figuring things out for themselves. And the last group of people I'd want determining university curriculum are a bunch of state-level political hacks.

[BootinUp]

86. I always accepted that

acedemicia (is that the correct use?) determined what can and cannot be taught at centers of higher learning. I would never want the government to make that call. If the school system has evaluated his teaching ability and class material and says its ok then I am ok with that. Of course students can choose to take the course or not as well.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

90. The word you're looking for is "academia."

And yes, academia is somewhat "self-regulating." That's a bit of a simplification, but your assertion is basically correct.

And yeah, not only can students chose to take the course or not, they can choose to agree with the professor... or not.

[BootinUp]

94. Thanks for the correction.

I get excited when I am rebutting arguments like these 911 conspiracy theories. It leads to errors.

[tabatha]

126. three questions

I have many questions about 911. But three stand out -

a) molten metal pouring out of the side of one of the towers
b) the top thirty story block on the top of the south tower turned into particulate matter in mid-air, as the block was turning and falling to the side of the tower
c) the very obvious and undeniable free fall of WTC7

Until the offical explanation can satisfactorily answer these questions, I don't believe anything.

(By the way, if explosives were set at every floor, it would be very easy to start the explosive sequence at the floors into which the planes flew.)

[BootinUp]

129. I wish I could help you.

But even if I try...

for instance to explain that Aluminum a fairly common metal in fact that is used in aiplanes and can melt at temperatures that very likely existed in a raging multiple floor fire...

or that the collapse of the south tower does not appear suspicious to me in a way that suggests explosives...

or that I can't pinpoint anything special about WTC7, well other than it was very close to 110 story collapsing buildings and sustained damage from said disaster, I mean other than that I can't imagine what caused it to collapse...

and so why you latch onto these 3 questions and then decide it means government conspiracy carried out by some mastermind (I guess) I don't think I can help you.

[tabatha]

131. three non-answers

As I stated, there are many questions that I have with respect to 911, but of those, the top three jarring-to-me are those that I listed - because they just fly in the face of the official explanations. I did not "latch" onto them - they were issues that stood out while reading literature both "for" and "against" the official explanation.

Also, I have found that the de-bunkers of any alternative theories have not read any of those theories; therefore the fact that they can just debunk them out of hand seems ignorant and biased. How can one profess to have an opinion about something one knows nothing about.

I am well aware that airplane construction includes Al (aluminium). (I had a chemistry degree by the age of 19). However, the color of the molten metal indicated it was not Al.

The sentence about the south tower is far too vague to constitute any kind of rebuttal to the more specific nature of my question about that tower.

Neither could the 911 commission come up with a plausible reason for the collapse of WTC7. Their only proffered explanation, by their own account, had a very low probability of happening.

If these questions cannot be answered by the "official explanation", what does it say about their theories.

[BootinUp]

132. It says that extremely few people in official capacities or

part of professional organizations involved in the investigations give them any weight. But you seriously think conspiracies like have been suggested can involve all these people?

For someone who is as intelligent as you present yourself, to then accept the kind of unscientifically gathered evidence as is found on the internet from non-credible self published sources as being weighty is quite shocking to me.

As for your understanding of how buildings will collapse once initiated, I can only say you are arguing with gravity and a tremendous amount of stored energy. Good luck.

[T Town Jake]

80. Well, 9/11 conspiracy theorists ARE either willfully ignorant...

...or woefully stupid people. I'm not sure I'd want one teaching my children on my dime in that sort of setting, which is supposed to be about REAL facts, not nut-job fantasies.

[WinkyDink]

106. Did ya hear the one about the Gulf of Tonkin? A Texan walked into a war...

[WinkyDink]

103. I guess it would A-OK if said professor insisted there was a God,

even if THAT is just a theory.

P.S. OP title should say "Professor" instead of "Teacher".

[SoCalDem]

107. A flood of emails, generated by a few" rightwing radio hosts.

and a few right wing think tanks.. THIS is why they "win". Ordinary people expect college to be a place of question and open-mindedness..a place where kids with many viewpoints come together and discuss their varied worldviews.

Rightwingers hate this with a white-hot passion. They spend decades grooming their spawn to think one specific way, and are appalled when they return from college with real ideas and evidence that they may actually be thinking for themselves.

Liberals always knew this was what college was all about, and we never felt the need to write brazillions of emails & letters to encourage professors to keep the kids thinking and discussing..

Do we send emails to the water department reminding them to keep that water goinjg through the pipes?