Home    

Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth Who We Are

 

 


The Inside Job of 9/11


Home

 

 

Barrett-Brown Debate Continues! 

During my radio debate with John Brown, archived free at: http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/get_archive.php?hn=Barrett&yr=07

I promised John I would post some links and photos that, according to him, would support his argument that 9/11 was not an inside job. 

Here is John's email with the links and photos, along with my responses (bold). Read, look, evaluate, and make up your own mind. 

Kevin Barrett 

On Aug 19, 2007, at 5:03 PM, John Brown wrote:

Sir, 

I greatly enjoyed our debate.

I think at times our emotions got the best of us. i appologize if at any time I was disrespectfull. 

Attached are the photos of wtc7 that you said you would put on your website and independent sources shwooing that the collapse of building 7 didnt happen as quickly as your theories would enjoy. 

Here is a link that explains the fall- http://www.firehouse.com/tech/news/2002/0121_terrorist.html

John, that webpage has nothing to do with the reasons for the destruction of the WTC buildings. It's a PR flak's announcement about the use of robots in the rescue effort!

This link shows the real time of the collapse -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edebunking911%2Ecom%2Fpull%2Ehtm 

This bizarre video, which bans comments (because its argument is so ridiculous) is playing absurd semantic games when it claims the actual collapse time of WTC-7 was more than ten seconds. While the destruction of WTC-7 obviously started long before the building collapsed--one key column seems to have been destroyed by explosives at around 9:30 a.m. according to eyewitness testimony-- the word collapse refers to the descent of the entire building. The building as a whole begins to descend when the roofline starts moving downwards. Thus the collapse happens in about 6.5 seconds, as this video and other videos show. The important thing is that when the roofline starts moving downward, there is nothing stopping or slowing it or the rest of the building. That means that all forms of vertical support have been removed in precisely timed sequence, presumably by explosives, since nothing else in history has ever made a tall building fall straight down. 

* * *

and here is the original video that The BBC got there information from. "Is or about to collpase".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o&mode=related&search

"On fire, may collapse?" NO TALL BUILDING HAS EVER COMPLETELY COLLAPSED FOR ANY REASON BUT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. Fire has never taken down a tall building anywhere--period. Whoever fed this "on fire, may collapse" to CNN was obviously complicit in the controlled demolition of WTC-7, and thus in the 9/11 coup d'etat. 

And how do we know for sure where the BBC got their information? They are proven liars. When their premature report of Building 7's demise was discovered, they claimed they couldn't find it in their archive, because they had lost all their footage of 9/11, the most important event of the century! That claim is beyond preposterous: "The dog ate all our 9/11 footage!" Yeah, right. In any case, the BBC's information that WTC-7 "had collapsed" NOT "was about to collapse" could only have come from the intelligence agency personnel who were involved in controlling the media response to this covert operation. 

It is absolutely impossible that anyone would have ever expected any steel frame highrise building to collapse for any reason but controlled demolition, because in over 100 years of architectural history NO TALL BUILDING HAS EVER COMPLETELY COLLAPSED FOR ANY REASON BUT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. 

If we want to enter bizzaro world and imagine a universe in which a tall building could conceivably collapse from fire and damage to its corner, then the building would and could only fall over on its side, not straight down. That means that if, in bizarro world, the bizarro authorities thought the building would collapse for those reasons, they would evacuate the entire area where it might topple. But no such evacuation happened on 9/11, proving that no such expectation of a non-demolition collapse existed.

* * *

and here is proof that the building was so damaged and week, that firefighters on the ground could tell it was going to fall....Unless they were in on the conspiracy as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XImQ6a-VrnA&mode=related&search=

Everyone in the area was told is was coming down -- by the people who took it down! DUH! There was even a countdown to demolition reported by some of the witnesses.

* * *
1st pic
- WTC3 shows that the fires in wtc7 were not small at all

WTC-7 fires -- is the smoke from cold, smoldering fires--or smoke bombs? 

These fires are not just small, they are MINUSCULE compared to dozens of other highrise fires, none of which, in over 100 years of architectural history, have come remotely close to causing tall buildings to collapse. Here are just a few examples:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

Madrid fire--compare this to the relatively tiny, short-lived fires at the WTC

* * *

2nd pic
- WTC debunking shows major damage and fires in wtc7 before collapse.

There is no "major damage" visible in this photo. There is just a bunch of smoke obscuring the view.

* * *

3rd pic
- shows damage to sw corner of builiding7, same side that began to fall first.

This photo looks like it has been photo-shopped. Look at the color bleed at the bottom. I have heard, but do not yet have references, that new photos have been found that prove that this "extensive corner damage" photo is fake, and that the actual damage was minor, as would be expected from the fact that the neighboring Federal Building, which was as close to the Towers as WTC-7 was, suffered no significant structural damage. But even if this photo were genuine, how does damage to one corner cause the whole building to take a dive straight down in 6.6 seconds? Demolition experts use vast amounts of expertise and spend tens of millions of dollars to get tall buildings to come straight down--an extremely difficult task, because if one vertical support is removed even a second or two before all the others at the same level, the building will come down the natural way -- it will tip over on its side! Every single tall building "collapse" that wasn't controlled demolition, in over 100 years of tall buildings, has been a topple sideways, not a straight down collapse. (And every topple has been caused by earthquakes; FIRES DO NOT CAUSE TALL BUILDING COLLAPSES OF ANY KIND.) If WTC-7 could be knocked over by corner damage and fires--wildly unlikely if not impossible--it would go sidewise, not straight down.

* * *

4th pic- Proves that buildings did NOT fall at freefall speed. If they did, why does this pic show debris falling faster then the collapse?


It shows no such thing. This is a close-up photo completely irrelevant to the issue you're raising here. To see whether debris is falling faster than the demolition wave (what you would call the "collapse") you need to watch a video with a wide enough angle to actually follow the demolition wave down the building. When you watch these videos, you will see that the demolition wave is going faster than the debris falling alongside it. There is a good series of such shots near the end of 9/11 Mysteries:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911+mysteries&total=746&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

* * *

You have to ask yourself why there is so much deception in the 911 truth communities websites and videos? Why do they have to cut and past certain qoutes and videos to make there point? 

What does that say about there argument and the validity of those making it? Thats being deceptive and lying. Why lie if you beleive in what your saying? 

I ask you to look again at the "evidence" you're citing here and apply the above statement to yourself.

* * *

For the record.

I do not suppor the fact you ahve been riduculed and lost positons within your carrer becasue of your opinons. Thats wrong in my book. 

Thanks! 

With that being said, during your argument you continoueley said "we now know" and "it is a fact that", when in reality the points you were making were your opinons and not backed up by facts.

For that i can see whay someone would be ostricized from a certain community that bases itself on facts. 

If you look closely at the evidence you've cited above, you'll see that you're the one presenting nonsense as fact. You claim a PR flack's announcement about robots in the rescue effort explains the WTC destruction. You cite a laughable WTC-7 video that plays semantic games in order to avoid the real issue, how the entire building descended at roughly free-fall speed as measured from the moment it started descending (DUH!) You implicitly claim there is a rational, innocent explanation for the BBC's premature report of WTC-7's collapse, but offer no such explanation, but simply show us that CNN was fed a similar script by the perps. You correctly point out that the firefighters and others present at the destruction of WTC-7 were warned it was about to come down, but refuse to face the obvious implication, that those who demolished it were the ones who spread that information. You claim the WTC-7 fires were not small, a meaningless statement without a standard of comparison (sure they were big compared to a lit match)--when in fact they WERE exceedingly small compared to many highrise fires that have not brought highrises anywhere near collapse. You claim there is "major damage" visible in a photo showing only a tiny bit of minor damage and a lot of smoke. You present an apparently photo-shopped photo as an argument for "major damage" -- to ONE CORNER of the building!! (How is damage to one corner going to make it come straight down!? Much less at freefall speed?!) Finally you present a close-up of debris during the Towers destruction and claim it shows something about the relative rate of motion of the objects in the photo, which it obviously cannot, since it is a still photo. 

While I admire your patriotism, courage, and demeanor, I am beginning to wonder about your judgment. Claiming that WTC-7 collapsed in over 10 seconds, based on a purely semantic argument with no relation to visible, physical reality, suggests that you must not have thought very hard about what was right there in front of your eyes as you watched that video. I urge you to watch that video again, and think hard about what a "free-fall collapse" means in this context. While we could also call it an eight-hour collapse, since a key supporting column was apparently blown out by explosives at 9:30 a.m. according to Barry Jennings' eyewitness testimony, this would hardly be an argument that the overall building descended in eight hours, rather than 6.6 seconds. 

Thanks again for your willingness to debate, and best wishes in your effort to help get at the truth. 

Kevin Barrett



Please Support MUJCA-NET
MUJCA-NET needs your support. We are a non-profit organization and the scale of our activities depends entirely on your generosity. We would like to get copies of David Griffin's two 9/11 books (see above) into the hands of every religious leader in America. And we would like to push 9/11 truth onto the front pages of every newspaper in America. But we can't do it without your help. If you would like to donate to MUJCA-NET, click here.

TOP

 

 

About Us | Contact Us | 2005 Khidria