Teacher under fire for his Cheney-9/11 theory

[incanada1234 0]

He converted to Islam in 1992 (source)

What? I am SHOCKED! He's blaming 9/11 on the mostly right-wing government and he's a muslim??? Well I NEVER!

Hey gimy, I can't remember your answer but, whatever happened to those people that were on the plane that hit the pentagon again? I'm sure you answered that somewhere....

[gimygirl 0]

He converted to Islam in 1992 (source)

What? I am SHOCKED! He's blaming 9/11 on the mostly right-wing government and he's a muslim??? Well I NEVER!

Hey gimy, I can't remember your answer but, whatever happened to those people that were on the plane that hit the pentagon again? I'm sure you answered that somewhere....

google is your friend, my love!!

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Actually, not only is he not alone, there is a lot of circumstancial evidence that can support his position. There is an excellent book "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11" by David Ray Griffin, Olive Branch Press, 2004 that you might want to read. I have a very good friend who was quite high up in the US senior federal adminstration before her retirement in 2003 who shares his perspective as do a number of her former colleagues.

[Alex+R 0]

Yes, might I add I think the guy's got something. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Or I wasn't, until 9/11. Plus I think my perspective on it was a bit different at the time because I was living in France so I never experienced that "whole country united" feeling everyone talks about having happened right afterward... people there were already talking conspiracy.

[UmmSqueakster 54]

A fellow Badger? Anyway, certain members of the Wisconsin state legislature have certainly tried very hard in the past few years to do exactly as described above. Poor UW-Madison. Its standards are only going to go down from here, considering the constant onslaught of budget cuts. The good professors are leaving.

On Wisconsin!

My sister tipped me off to a good statement on the wisc homepage.

At least before I left, they were trying to build up their islamic studies courses. We had some excellent guest lecturers in my Islamic History class that were interviewing for position. Don't know if any of them got it, but this kind of fear mongering and threats are going to keep away the talent and the new blood. It seems obvious (at least to me) that they're having trouble finding people to teach courses on Islam if they hired Kevin as an interim. Or maybe there is a permenant teacher coming in the spring.

It would be nice if we got in the national spotlight for something other than halloween riots and a kooky professor. Bah

Edited July 22, 2006 by rahma

[gimygirl 0]

It would be nice if we got in the national spotlight for something other than halloween riots and a kooky professor. Bah

and just what makes kevin barrett so 'kooky'?

[UmmSqueakster 54]

It would be nice if we got in the national spotlight for something other than halloween riots and a kooky professor. Bah

and just what makes kevin barrett so 'kooky'?

Kevin is ah, unique. As I mentioned earlier, he dressed up in a witch costume and cackled at Daniel Pipes during his question and answer session. He's a madison based activist, which automatically qualifies him as kooky. But, in Madison, we embrace our kooks

[incanada1234 0]

Claim: The damage to the Pentagon on September 11 was caused by something other than a hijacked Boeing 757's being crashed into its side.

Status: False.

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2002]

As everyone knows, on 11 September, less than an hour after the attack on the World Trade Centre, an airplane collided with the Pentagon. The Associated Press first reported that a booby-trapped truck had caused the explosion. The Pentagon quickly denied this. The official US government version of events still holds. Here's a little game for you: Take a look at these photographs and try to find evidence to corroborate the official version. It's up to you to Hunt the Boeing!

Origins: The

notion that the Pentagon was not damaged by terrorists who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and crashed it into the military office complex, but that the whole affair was staged by the U.S. government, has been promulgated by French author Thierry Meyssan in his book, The Frightening Fraud. Meyssan offers no real explanation for what did cause the extensive damage to the Pentagon, asserting only that Flight 77 did not exist, no plane crashed into the Pentagon, and that "the American government is lying."

Unfortunately, the appeal of conspiracy theories has resulted in widespread dissemination of Meyssan's "theory" in France and the USA, particularly in web sites that mirror his work. As Le Nouvel Observateur noted: "This theory suits everyone - there are no Islamic extremists and everyone is happy. It eliminates reality."

The text cited in the example above comes from a Hunt the Boeing! And test your perceptions! web site, one of the English-language mirrors of Meyssan's claims, where readers are invited to ponder a series of questions about why photographs of the damaged Pentagon seemingly show no evidence of a crashed airplane. The answers to the questions are:

1) Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?

Despite the appearances of exterior photographs, the Boeing 757-200 did not "only damage the outside of the Pentagon." It caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall. As 60 Minutes II reported in their "Miracle of the Pentagon" episode on 28 November 2001, the section of the Pentagon into which the hijacked airliner was flown had just been reinforced during a renovation project:

"We made several modifications to the building as part of that renovation that we think helped save people's lives," says Lee Evey, who runs a billion-dollar project to renovate the Pentagon. They’ve been working on it since 1993. The first section was five days from being finished when the terrorists hit it with the plane.

The renovation project built strength into the 60-year-old limestone exterior with a web of steel beams and columns.

"You have these steel tubes and, again, they go from the first floor and go all the way to the fifth floor," says Evey. "We have everything bolted together in a strong steel matrix. It supports and encases the windows and provides tremendous additional strength to the wall."

When the plane hit at 350 miles an hour, the limestone layer shattered. But inside, those shards of stone were caught by a shield of cloth that lines the entire section of the building.

It is a special cloth that helps prevent masonry from fragmenting and turning into shrapnel. The cloth is also used to make bullet-resistant vests.

All of this, especially the steel, held up the third, fourth and fifth floors. They stayed up for 35 minutes. You can see them through the smoke, suspended over the hole gouged by the jet. Only after the evacuation did the heat melt the new steel away. Evey says that without the reconstruction, the floors might have collapsed immediately.

Exterior photographs are misleading because they show only the intact roof structures of the outer rings and don't reveal that the plane penetrated all the way to the ground floor of the third ring. As a U.S. Army press release noted back on 26 September 2001, one engine of the aircraft punched a 12-foot hole through the wall of the second ring:

On the inside wall of the second ring of the Pentagon, a nearly circular hole, about 12-feet wide, allows light to pour into the building from an internal service alley. An aircraft engine punched the hole out on its last flight after being broken loose from its moorings on the plane. The result became a huge vent for the subsequent explosion and fire. Signs of fire and black smoke now ring the outside of the jagged-edged hole.

Recall that when the first airliner was flown into a World Trade Center tower on September 11 — before it was known that the "accident" was really part of a deliberate terrorist attack — newscasters were speculating that a small plane had accidentally flown into the side of the tower, because the visible exterior damage didn't seem as extensive as what people thought a large airliner would cause. Even though the two airplanes flown into the World Trade Center towers were travelling faster at the time of impact than the Pentagon plane was (400 MPH vs. 350 MPH), hit aluminum-and-glass buildings rather than reinforced concrete walls, and didn't dissipate much of their energy striking the ground first (as the Pentagon plane did), they still barely penetrated all the way through the WTC towers.

Below is a recent (11 March 2002) photograph of the the rebuilding effort underway at the Pentagon, demonstrating that far more than just the "outside" of the building was damaged and needed to be repaired:

2) Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?

As eyewitnesses described and photographs demonstrate, the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first, thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building; nonetheless, as described by The New York Times, the plane still hit not "just the ground floor" but between the first and second floors:

The Boeing 757 crashed into the outer edge of the building between the first and second floors, "at full power," Mr. Rumsfeld said. It penetrated three of the five concentric rings of the building.

Another account of the crash described:

The plane banked sharply and came in so low that it clipped light poles. It slammed into the side of the Pentagon at an estimated 350 miles per hour after first hitting the helipad. The plane penetrated the outer three rings of the building. The jet fuel exploded, which sent a fireball outward from the impact point. About 30 minutes after the crash, a cross-section of the building collapsed, but only after enough time had elapsed for rescue workers to evacuate all injured employees.

The fire was so hot that firefighters could not approach the impact point itself until approximately 1 P.M. The collapse and roof fires left the inner courtyard visible from outside through a gaping hole. The area hit by the plane was newly renovated and reinforced, while the areas surrounding the impact zone were closed in preparation for renovation, so the death toll could have been much higher if another area had been hit.

Next question:

3) You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?

You'll recall from the discussions above that the hijacked airliner did not "only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring" — it struck the Pentagon between the first and second floors and blasted all the way through to the third ring. Because the plane disappeared into the building's interior after penetrating the outer ring, it was not visible in photographs taken from outside the Pentagon. Moreover, since the airliner was full of jet fuel and was flown into thick, reinforced concrete walls at high speed, exploding in a fireball, any pieces of wreckage large enough to be identifiable in after-the-fact photographs taken from a few hundred feet away burned up in the intense fire that followed the crash (just as the planes flown into the World Trade Center towers burned up, and the intensity of their jet-fuel fires caused both towers to collapse).

Small pieces of airplane debris were plainly visible on the Pentagon lawn in other photographs, however, such as the one below:

4) Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?

The claim that the "Defence Secretary" ordered the lawn to be sanded over is false. A base of sand and gravel was laid on the Pentagon lawn because the trucks and other heavy equipment used to haul away the debris (as shown in the photograph below) would have been slipping and sliding on the grass and become mired in the Pentagon lawn otherwise.

5) Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?

As the front of the Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the outer portions of the wings likely snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building's interior; the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane. Any sizable portions of the wings were destroyed in the explosion or the subsequent fire. Nonetheless, damage to the building caused by the plane's wings is plainly visible in photographs, such as the one below (note the blackened sections on both sides of the impact site):

6) Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?

The exact quote offered here was:

When asked by a journalist: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?"

"First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing." "You know, I'd rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know."

The fire chief wasn't asked "where the aircraft was"; he was asked "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?" He did indeed provide an answer to the question he was asked: There were no large sections of the plane left by the time he was asked (the day after the attack) because they had been smashed into smaller pieces by the impact and then burned up; all that remained were smaller pieces visible only from the interior of the Pentagon.

7) Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?

Immediately after Flight 77 smashed into the Pentagon, the impact was obscured by a huge fireball, explosions, fire, smoke, and water from firefighting efforts. Within a half hour, the upper stories of the building collapsed, thereby permanently obscuring the impact site. It simply wasn't possible for photographs to capture a clear view of the impact site during that brief interval between the crash and the collapse.

In photographs like the one provided (below left), the impact site is obscured by water from firefighters' hoses and smoke. A two-story high impact hole does exist right behind the fireman in the photograph, but it's covered over by water issuing from the fire truck.

By the time the smoke and water cleared, additional portions of the building had collapsed (below right), further obscuring the impact point.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

And I thought Wisonsin was different than other states in the area. I'm so sick of hearing about all the indoctrination going on a American universities. If that were true most university graduates should be liberals just like the professors supposedly are.

I've taught here for a while and there has not been a single student who has been converted to my politics even though I'm quite upfront about my own views on issues. Most students were actually glad to be exposed to a point of view different from their own because it taught them how to argue against my position.

So yes, it is impossible, especially in the humanities, to be completely objective, but most scholars are trained to accept that people - including students - disagree with them. Rather than indoctrinating students, they aim at enabling students to become more convincing in expressing their opinion. Any attempts by state legislatures to restrict free academic speech in classrooms will inevitably hurt the students more than the teacher because they will not learn that disagreement is not bad but productive and instructive.

[Fuzzness 2]

5) Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?

As the front of the Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the outer portions of the wings likely snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building's interior; the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane. Any sizable portions of the wings were destroyed in the explosion or the subsequent fire. Nonetheless, damage to the building caused by the plane's wings is plainly visible in photographs, such as the one below (note the blackened sections on both sides of the impact site):

if the wings had clipped the poles in front of the building, the wings would have been torn off at that speed. the wings could not have penetrated the pentagon like that. there should have been wing damage.

not saying a 757 didn't hit the pentagon, i'm just not convinced, especially after seeing the video.

[Heracles 417]

people like me are not in the minority anymore ... there is a definite shift in thought processes. the government can only keep things covered up for so long ...

ok right.. yeah your on to it.. where do you live so this so-called "hidden special-opps team" causing all of these catastrophes can track you down??

If there was such a team, common sense would prevail and at least one person would have spilled the beans about it. Especially in a country like the US were democrats have absolutely no loyalty to the country and try to screw it over any chance they get..

Hey, we have a large amount of people with left wing views in Australia but at least they don't believe in taking down the country like US democrats do...

if the wings had clipped the poles in front of the building, the wings would have been torn off at that speed. the wings could not have penetrated the pentagon like that. there should have been wing damage.

Not really. Being an engineer I know that most of those poles are designed to break if a car hits them, preventing people from being killed by them. A plane travelling at such a high speed would easily take them out..

Edited July 22, 2006 by Infidel

[Alex+R 0]

Especially in a country like the US were democrats have absolutely no loyalty to the country and try to screw it over any chance they get..

Hey, we have a large amount of people with left wing views in Australia but at least they don't believe in taking down the country like US democrats do...

Not this crapola again...

Sidenote: Please review the difference between "where" and "were" as well as "your" and "you're". . .I swear I can't take it anymore.

[Heracles 417]

Sidenote: Please review the difference between "where" and "were" as well as "your" and "you're". . .I swear I can't take it anymore.

Heads up. maybe you should check out the difference in grammar between the english and US system before criticising someone else's grammar. That is, considering this is a visa forum where people chat from around the world..

Edited July 22, 2006 by Infidel

[Alex+R 0]

Sidenote: Please review the difference between "where" and "were" as well as "your" and "you're". . .I swear I can't take it anymore.

Heads up. maybe you should check out the difference in grammar between the english and US system before criticising someone else's grammar. That is, considering this is a visa forum where people chat from around the world..

Does this mean to say that England has roundly done away with the contraction "you+are=you're" and has just abbreviated them all to the possessive "your"? Or that the spelling of the word "where" is different? If so, I stand corrected. However, I'm, shall we say, skeptical.

[ace13 0]

Sidenote: Please review the difference between "where" and "were" as well as "your" and "you're". . .I swear I can't take it anymore.

Heads up. maybe you should check out the difference in grammar between the english and US system before criticising someone else's grammar. That is, considering this is a visa forum where people chat from around the world..

Does this mean to say that England has roundly done away with the contraction "you+are=you're" and has just abbreviated them all to the possessive "your"? Or that the spelling of the word "where" is different? If so, I stand corrected. However, I'm, shall we say, skeptical.

Why do you have to attack people Play nice