Posted on 08/06/2006 5:18:55 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
(AP) -- Kevin Barrett believes the U.S. government might have destroyed the World Trade Center. Steven Jones is researching what he calls evidence that the twin towers were brought down by explosives detonated inside them, not by hijacked airliners.
These men aren't uneducated junk scientists: Barrett will teach a class on Islam at the University of Wisconsin this fall, over the protests of more than 60 state legislators. Jones is a tenured physicist at Brigham Young University whose mainstream academic job has made him a hero to conspiracy theorists.
Five years after the terrorist attacks, a community that believes widely discredited ideas about what happened on September 11, 2001, persists and even thrives. Members trade their ideas on the Internet and in self-published papers and in books. About 500 of them attended a recent conference in Chicago, Illinois.
The movement claims to be drawing fresh energy and credibility from a recently formed group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth.
The organization says publicity over Barrett's case has helped boost membership to about 75 academics. They are a tiny minority of the 1 million part- and full-time faculty nationwide, and some have no university affiliation. Most aren't experts in relevant fields.
But some are well educated, with degrees from elite universities such as Princeton and Stanford and jobs at schools including Rice, Indiana and the University of Texas.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Coming down how?
you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.
...
He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
"Nobody goes in" I think that would include your imaginary demolition crew. By the way, as far as I know, firefighters don't do building demolitions, professional demolition experts do that.
here's a paper by a demolition industry pro about WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7.
http://www.implosionworld.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf
You don't have good reading comprehension and memory skills, I can see.
Let me repeat my original statement:
" . . . there is a remote possibility that because it did resemble the configuration of a demolition, the buildings may have been wired for demolition when they were constructed years ago in anticipation of the day they would have to be demolished."
[. . . snip . . .}
and:
"Building 7 must have been wired long before 9/11 "
No conspiracy. Just a possibility.
Now put your knee joint back in place and rule out the possibility that at least Building 7 may have been pre-wired, not hours or even days before it came down, but years ago.
Perhaps the bulding insurers would have an answer for you -- whether it was pre-wired or not. I remember reading a long discussion or report on that subject, but have since lost the link.
Why is it important to you to believe that the bullding was not wired and came down as a result of the fire alone?
Because there is plenty of evidence that the building was heavily damaged and fell due to that damage and the fire.
As for your idea that the building was wired for demolition during construction, I find that idea bizarre and fanciful. Has that ever been done before?
Does that mean just the wiring? I assume they wouldn't put the explosives in their while the place was being built!
Do you have any evidence to back up your opinions?
I have presented documented testimony from a firefighter that was there and analysis by a demolition expert.
What do you have to back up your ideas?
here's a photo of WTC7 on fire with the aforementioned gaping hole.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/536/239/1600/wtc7_2.jpg
source
http://911yj.blogspot.com/2006/08/wtc-7-photo-for-visually-impaired.html
Not disputing the damage and fire. Not disputing that the building fell because of it. Just presenting a possibility that the building may have came down with a little help if they were sure it was going to come down anyway. Better controlled than not controlled.
. "As for your idea that the building was wired for demolition during construction, I find that idea bizarre and fanciful. Has that ever been done before? Does that mean just the wiring? I assume they wouldn't put the explosives in their while the place was being built!
Not my idea. Just repeating what I read.
Do you have any evidence to back up your opinions?
Not my opinions. Just a re-statement of the opinions of others. It is not a critical issue with me. I though it was of interest to mention the possibility of demolition, and at a critical moment, someone may have said, 'bring it down.' No big deal. The building was going to have to be re-built anyway. The building was vacated and a perimeter was established. Everyone had at least an hour to clear the area. All three networks had cameras ready. Perhaps they can confirm that they were notified what time the building was coming down.
If it was demolition-assisted, it may have been for safety reasons and an agreed-upon insurance settelement..
If I ever bump into the report again, I'll send you the url.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
