PLANETIZATION and the Human Union

MUJCA-NET's
ENDORSERS

GROWING TRENDS  

Ramadan Reflections

Truth is our Trench

(http://www.911blogger.com/2006/05/video-everybodys-gotta-learn-sometime.html)

To the Wisconsin State Journal,

I would like to clarify my comments in the State Journal (June 30) concerning the case of Kevin Barrett at the UW. Whatever one thinks of Barretts' ideas concerning what happened on September 11 (and I strongly disagree with them), two things must be understood. First, Barrett's views are protected under the canons of academic freedom if they are relevant to the subject matter of the class and are presented in a way that does not discriminate against students or prevent them from disagreeing. This means that he cannot be fired from his position for simply expressing them. Second, in considering any renewal of his contract, it would be wrong to base the decision on such things as public pressure and disagreement with the content of his views. The most relevant criteria for a lecturer include how well he knows his subject matter and the quality of student reviews. Whether Mr. Barrett satisfies these conditions is a matter of departmental judgment and assessment. Universities worth their salt must guard against dismissing people because of their ideas and conclusions alone.

Donald Downs
UW Madison

Kevin, you need to stress on your blog that based on everything I know, I am still strongly opposed to your position, and consider it beyond the pale of common sense. This point is different from the academic freedom issue per se, which I have clarified. But this does not mean that I endorse anything about your position, or consider it plausible in any way. Let's leave it at that.

D.

Gustavo Espada Writes to Donald Downs

From: Gustavo Espada <espada@fas.harvard.edu>
Date: July 3, 2006 6:56:15 AM CDT
To: Khidria <khidria@merr.com>
Subject: Re: letter of support for Dr. Kevin Barrett

Prof Downs,

I appreciate the reply, and the clarification re: Dr. Barrett. I do think however, that your main concern, aside from academic freedom, should be for honesty in government and the protection of our constitution from its enemies, not to mention the welfare of our young men and women in uniform and their innocent victims. While you have every right to teach your students what you believe to be true about 9-11, you will find that you are wrong for disagreeing with the truth movement, and pleading ignorance down the road to explain your poor judgement will not help you much.

Best,

Gustavo Espada

DONALD A DOWNS wrote:

Mr. Espada,

My main concern here is for academic freedom, and I have written a letter to the editor of the State Journal in support of Kevin's basic academic freedom rights. I attach this for your consideration.

Donald Downs

----- Original Message -----
From: Gustavo Espada <espada@fas.harvard.edu>
Date: Sunday, July 2, 2006 1:16 pm
Subject: letter of support for Dr. Kevin Barrett
To: dadowns@facstaff.wisc.edu
Cc: pfarrell@provost.wisc.edu, khidria@merr.com

Dear Prof. Downs,

You are no doubt receiving many of these letters, as are others in a position of authority at the University of Wisconsin. I hope that even if you don't read them all, or read this one, that you get the message that a genie once out of a bottle is not easy to put back in, nor to reckon with.

Since many people believe, as you seem to, that it is irrational and even unpatriotic to question this administration let me first introduce myself. My name is Gustavo Espada, I am a graduate of Harvard College and the son of a retired U.S. Foreign Service Officer. I was raised both around Washington D.C. and in several countries in Latin America. One of those countries was Colombia, where when I was 9 years old, a car bomb was detonated outside the American Embassy where my father worked. I have thus firsthand experience with international terrorism as well as having received my bachelor's degree in Sociology from a relatively well-regarded institution. I have worked at that same institution for the last 7 years in an administrative support capacity involving financial and computer matters.

My reaction to the events of September 11 was much the same as everyone else's--I was in shock and extremely concerned for my fellow citizens' and my own well-being. I did not, however cease to think critically about the events of that day, as so many seem to have done, understandably as a result of the incessant propaganda to which we were all subjected from the administration and the cowed, compliant media. I struggled to reconcile the official accounts of bin Laden and 19 hijackers with reports in the mainstream media that stock trades leading up to the event indicated someone knew what was about to happen, and disappointed when the 9-11 commission dismissed those trades with nary an explanation, simply their assurance that they were found to be "innocuous". I was further troubled by a report by the BBC that at least four of the alleged hijackers were found to be living and working in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and elsewhere--no mention by the commission on that report. I was further perplexed by the lack of evidence of a Boeing having crashed at the Pentagon--another imponderable, publicized by French author Thierry Meyssan. Finally, the eager and reckless response by the Bush administration not just to ram through the so-called patriot act but also to launch a series of ill-advised wars of conquest in the middle east cemented my resolve to find out for myself what was going on.

It has not been easy to do this difficult work with even my family and friends doubting me (though the majority of them have come around.) But I and others persevered, driven not only by our own moral compasses but by the growing body of research that instead of closing the case presented many more disturbing angles of inquiry. We have confirmed beyond doubt that world trade center building 7 was intentionally demolished using explosives. This happened at 5:20 on September 11, 2001. How is possible to set that up in a matter of hours, when such demolitions are normally planned over weeks if not months? Why does the government currently deny that this was done, claiming falsely that its own reports show it was a result of fires and structural damage? The reports cited in fact claim that their only hypothesis (fire and structural damage) "has only a low probability of occurence". This despite the owner, Larry Silverstein's admission on the PBS documentary America Rebuilds, that the fire department decided, on his suggestion, that the building should be "pulled". Why the confusion, and secrecy surrounding any attempts to determine with certitude how building 7 managed to collapse the way it did, visible in a number of videos to be a classic controlled demolition, with the center of the building iniating the collapse, pulling the outside inward so as to ensure a neat and orderly collapse?

Official claims that jet fuel fires weakened the twin towers' steel structures moreover have proven to be impossible. Not only did officials find it impossible to replicate that collapse in scale models of the towers, but computer simulations were also unable to replicate what was observed, based on that premise. Because the steel in the towers was certified to a standard that called for the steel to retain its structural integrity for 6 hours at 2000*F heat, and because the observed collapse points to a total failure of the virtually untouched 47 steel box columns comprising the core of the building, we must conclude that the government investigators were not forthcoming with the real cause of collapse. In fact, eyewitnesses claimed, on camera the day of 9/11, that multiple explosions in the basement and on floors far below the impact zone rocked the towers before they collapsed. Molten iron can be seen dripping out of the south tower in one video, and firefighters are on camera discovering pockets of red hot and molten steel up to six weeks after 9/11, despite the fact that the rubble piles had been doused with water in the interim. Since jet fuel burns in ideal temperatures at around 1800*F, and steel melts at around 3000*F, it is not absurd to conclude that the explosions reported by eyewitnesses were in fact explosive demolition charges, which would easily account for the presence of molten metal. The fact that Larry Silverstein, who owned building 7, purchased the lease on the twin towers about 6 weeks before 9/11 and ended up profiting handsomely should also give a patriotic American pause. Would this be the first instance of insurance fraud ever perpetrated in America? Hardly.
Would it be the first time that such a massive case was planned in conjunction with a corrupt administration's plans for inducing America to support an attack on the geo-politically and economically valuable region of the world where Afghanistan and Iraq are found? Perhaps.

To call us conspiracy theorists, nutjobs, or whackos because we demand a higher standard than you do for evidence of terrorist acts against our peopple, because we demand a higher standard of proof for sending thousands of our children to kill and die in an illegal war, because we take seriously the pledge we recited as school children, and the oaths we've taken to defend the constituion and the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic-- is that patriotic, Professor Downs? Is that moral? Is that wise? Because you have questioned Dr. Kevin Barrett's judgement for raising these and myriad other issues of grave importance, you have brought the same attention onto yourself. We would urge you to stand up for what you claim to believe in. I understand you have been challenged to a debate, where you will argue in support of the premise that 19 hijackers with box-cutters managed not only to hijack four aircraft, but also to overwhelm America's air defenses, strike its military headquarters, and cause 3 steel frame skyscrapers to completely collapse because of fire for the first and only time in history. It sounds impossible, but with your sound judgement and professed support for your country, I'm sure you'll find a way to dispel all of our absurd conspiracy theories. I wish you the best of luck in preserving your reputation for sound judgement and patriotism in the process--you will need it.

Best regards,

Gustavo Espada
A.B. Sociology, 1996 (Harvard)
Foreign Service "brat", 1984-1992
Patriotic American with sound judgement, 1975-present

Investigation Over 9/11 Teachings

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/07/03/madison

Academic Freedom Survey