Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Althouse: The UW 9/11 denialist appears on "Hannity and Colmes."

Althouse: The UW 9/11 denialist appears on "Hannity and Colmes.": "
Colmes's attempt at the beginning to present Barrett in a good light by emphasizing that Barrett will bring debate and critical thinking to the classroom is all shot to hell. We've seen Barrett in action. Barrett retained his position here because we care about free speech values, but he slammed us in the face with his disrespect for free speech."


CF said...

Then get an engineering school prof to discuss the theory that the Administration blew up the WTC, not this fruitcake. I explained to Ann why I no longer contribute to the school's general fund raising drives--bad decisions like this are one reason.

David Thomson said...

The disturbing question is this: Is Kevin Barrett a statistical anomaly---or does he represent the views of many leftists?

chuck said...

...or does he represent the views of many leftists?

Probably not yet, but their time will come. It is sort of the last stand against creeping reality.

Knucklehead said...

For anyone interested...

Here's a detailed paper, Sulfur and the World Trade Center Disaster,
by F. R. Greening, about potential sources of sulfur in the WTC that takes into account the "thermite/thermate" controlled demolition claimed by the conspiracy whackos such as Barrett (who points to the "overwhelming evidence" provide by Jones).

For those unwilling to read such a long and pretty darned boring paper the bottom line is that over 2 orders of magnitude (more than 100 times) the amount of sulfur was available, and the conditions present to produce it, than would be produced by the controlled demolition charges the nutballs claim. In other words, even if the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition this is not proved by the presence of either sulfur or "corroded steel or even the alleged pools of molten steel".

FR Greening also has an extensive paper, Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster explaining the "explosions" based upon conditions and materials within the building.

I don't know anything about Greening other than that he seems to be a Canadian scientist of one sort or another (physics?) who is called on by governments to render professional opinion. He was apparently one of the (many) original public commenters on the NIST report concerning the WTC (you can find his comments here).

No doubt this Candian ubergeek has unlimited reasons to join the vast conspiracy to hide what really happened at the WTC on 9/11/01. Why else would he go to such great pains to author and publish two papers explaining how the "mystery" materials and conditions were present onsite at the time of the disaster and didn't required hundreds of people to take part in a wild-assed plot to accomplish something ridiculous.

psikeyhackr said...

In his paper on the energy of collapse Greening averaged the mass of the WTC by dividing by 110. This ignored the 6 sub-basements and his entire idea is incorrect because the building had to be bottom heavy. Averaging would shift mass upwards increasing the potential energy.