|University of Kent Debate: ‘Was 9/11 An Inside Job?’|
|Written by AE911Truth Staff|
|Thursday, 15 May 2014 05:00|
On April 1st (not an April fool's joke!), a formal debate was held at the University of Kent in the UK to debate the topic 'Was 9/11 an inside job?'
This was only the second formal debate about 9/11 conducted at a University in the UK. Arguing in support of the official story of 9/11 was University of Kent playwright and law student Edward Shambrook. Arguing that 9/11 had some element of inside support was Associate Professor Niels Harrit and Ian Henshall. Professor Harrit is a former Professor of Chemistry at Copenhagen University and has been one of the leading scientists working on the evidence for controlled demolition of the World Trade Center towers. He was a member of the team of scientists that discovered traces of thermite throughout the dust from the collapsed towers and had this published in a peer reviewed journal of chemistry. Ian Henshall is the UK's leading author on the evidence contradicting the official story of 9/11 and is the founder of the UK-based group 'Reinvestigate911.'
Professor Harrit's visit to Kent from his home in Copenhagen, Denmark, was funded by AE911Truth, and we thank them sincerely for this invaluable support.
The debate was attended by approximately 60 people and was mediated by Dr. Sarah Lieberman, who is the Programme Director for Politics and International Relations at nearby Canterbury University.
Ian Henshall and Professor Harrit began the debate with a 40 minute presentation of evidence supporting the position that 9/11 must have had at least some element of complicity from inside the US. Professor Harrit spoke first and demonstrated the science behind the free fall of WTC Building 7 and its implications, that is, it could only have occurred after simultaneous dismemberment of the internal structure of the building by means of a precisely controlled process of demolition using well placed and perfectly timed explosives.
Mr. Henshall then followed up with evidence of foreknowledge of 9/11 and intention to support the alleged hijackers by the intelligence agencies, as well as evidence of a cover-up by various official agencies. To bring an end to the presentation, UK citizen Matt Campbell, who lost his brother in the Twin Towers, came forward and gave an extremely moving account of how his brother's murder has not been properly investigated and how the coroner's report simply repeated what is clearly unsubstantiated and apparently fraudulent information from the investigators of 9/11. He described how he is currently in the middle of a legal campaign with UK authorities to have the investigation into his brother's murder reopened and conducted properly, and he also gave a passionate call to action to the audience to help spread this information and to help stop the genocide that is now being waged in the Middle East on the back of 9/11.
Mr. Shambrook then took the floor to argue the case in support of the official story of 9/11. Although clearly a talented and passionate speaker, Mr. Shambrook chose to take the unfortunately all-too-common approach in this situation and mostly played the game of attacking the person rather than the evidence, questioning the fact that Mr. Henshall has previously associated with some allegedly anti-semitic people, and that this somehow brought into question Mr. Henshall's character and evidence. Mr. Shambrook was eventually instructed by the mediator to cease this line of attack as he was treading into dangerous, and potential libelous, legal territory.
Mr. Shambrook then turned his attention to Professor Harrit and attempted to discredit him and his peer reviewed and published article on thermite. This was Mr. Shambrook's only attempt specifically to address and challenge any of the actual evidence that supports controlled demolition. Ironically, however, thermite had not even been mentioned in Professor Harrit's presentation. Mr. Shambrook made no effort to address what Professor Harrit had actually presented on, which was the evidence for, and official confirmation of, free fall in Building 7. Mr. Shambrook, in fact, refused point-blank even to accept that NIST had admitted to 2.25 seconds of free fall in 2008, even though it is in NIST's own report.
When pressed later in the debate on how the entire structure of Building 7 could have possibly been dismembered simultaneously by any means other than controlled demolition, Mr. Shambrook simply stated that he was not qualified to answer that question, even though this specific issue is the strongest evidence for the argument that Building 7 could only have come down through controlled demolition. Evidently, Mr. Shambrook felt qualified enough to call the 9/11 truth movement and AE911Truth "delusional," in his words, but not qualified enough to comment on the primary piece of evidence in support of the position taken by the 9/11 truth movement and AE911Truth.
When also asked to present any actual physical evidence which supported the official story of 9/11, Mr. Shambrook could only point to the following pieces of evidence: 1) the 'magic passport' which miraculously survived the inferno from the plane hitting the tower, 2) the clearly doctored video of Osama Bin Laden admitting to complicity in 9/11, and 3) the phone calls that were allegedly made from the passengers on the airliners.
No official 'winner' of the debate was announced. The audience did seem strongly to support the 'inside job team', however a show of hands at the beginning of the debate indicated that about 70% of the audience was already of this opinion, therefore it was a tough crowd for Mr. Shambrook to attempt to win over, especially since he presented no credible evidence to support his side of the debate. We commend Mr. Shambrook for having the courage to attempt that extremely difficult task, and we thank him genuinely for helping to organize the debate and for engaging in the debate with such passion.
The size of the audience was somewhat disappointing, and it would have been good if there had been more time to promote the event properly, and to have had a full lecture theater full of interested university students. One potentially very positive outcome from the debate, however, was that Dr Lieberman, its mediator, has expressed a strong interest in having a presentation on 9/11 to the political science[Carolyn1] students at Canterbury University where she works.
Peter Drew – AE911Truth UK Facilitator