Sounds like someone we know =P (Alternative 9-11 theories)

MADISON, Wis. -- University of Wisconsin lecturer Kevin Barrett knows a little about life outside the mainstream--indeed, he once penned a travel guide under the pseudonym Dr. Weirde.

But he never expected to find himself carrying the banner for one of the most controversial theories of our times, a hypothesis that more than a few critics think goes beyond strange.

Barrett believes the U.S. government orchestrated the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, to create support for a larger military budget and a long-term Middle East war. He believes the World Trade Center buildings fell after a controlled demolition and doubts that the hijacker believed to have flown the plane into the Pentagon had the skills to do it. He thinks Osama bin Laden is probably dead.

Those views, part of what he plans to discuss with University of Wisconsin students this fall in a class about Islam, have created an uproar at the university and, a few blocks away, among lawmakers in the state Capitol.

After Barrett discussed his views on a radio talk show, dozens of Republican lawmakers demanded that university administrators fire him, threatening to cut funding.

Yeah, that's been hashed and rehashed here 1,000 times before. But what do you think about the attempt to remove a professor who talks about theories like this one in his class?

Speaking as an educator. He is out of line. He is entitled to his own opinion and to voice it. But to include it in a class about Islam and not a class on Political Theory, is not appropriate.

But if that's the case, and we say that alternative theories could and possibly should be taught alongside orthodox ones, doesn't that pave the way for intelligent design taught next to evolution?

I'm asking these questions because I'm feeling conflicted about them, myself. No answers here.

I am familiar with the construction of the WTC and among the tallest buildings in the world they are the only ones that could be taken down that way. Other buildings would behave differently. The Empire State Building will get only superficial damage, the Petronas Towers would probably see their upper floors topple, as would most other skyscrapers.

He said discussion about Sept. 11 is relevant in a class about Islam because many PEOPLE outside the U.S. don't trust the government account." is more accurate

He said discussion about Sept. 11 is relevant in a class about Islam because many PEOPLE outside the U.S. don't trust the government account." is more accurate

University Provost Patrick Farrell called the outcry politically motivated and has said that he will allow Barrett, a Muslim convert, to teach "Islam: Religion and Culture," an elective four-credit course.

It's already been explained how the planes took down the WTC. The pilots knew exactly where to hit to bring down the buildings (roughly the 2/3 point).

I am familiar with the construction of the WTC and among the tallest buildings in the world they are the only ones that could be taken down that way. Other buildings would behave differently. The Empire State Building will get only superficial damage, the Petronas Towers would probably see their upper floors topple, as would most other skyscrapers.

The WTC towers are supported largely from a very strong metal central core (unlike most buildings that are supported by the outer shell with many internal columns). The heat from the burning plane fuel and aluminum is enough to weaken that core, and the impact of the upper floors coming down is enough to buckle the lower parts.

The above explanation only refutes the demolition theory, it still remains possible that the planestrikes were orchestrated.

Oh, I just can't imagine a sacrificial lamb being thrown to the wolves to "prove" that 9/11 research as a whole is just nutjob conspiracy theory. Shocking!

Really, the was-it-conspiracy-or-not thing has been done over and over. I'm interested in talking about the potential dismissal of a professor for talking about it in class (and talking about it out of class, apparently). Not to squealch the debate, but jeez, people, there have been a bejillion threads about that already.

I couldn't get your message through all the sarcasm. What do you mean?

I assume you're joking.

It has been refuted that the heat from the fire could melt that much steel, or even to a temperature that would significantly weaken the metal. Firemen were only a few floors from the fire and anticipated it wouldn't take long to put it out, when it exploded on them.

It only has to get hot enough to ignite the aluminum that the plane is made of, plus the planes hit the steel already. There is a complicating matter here since planes normally catch fire in open areas. The WTC crash would put the planes in an enclosed space thus trapping more heat than usual.

This would mean that the firemen are very likely to underestimate the heat from the burning planes.

Interesting. Kerosene lighting up aluminium in an oxygen deprived enclosure causing lots of smoke will collapse buildings vertically downwards in a neat heap leaving molten structural metal in the basement.