ST911 Press Release on Wisconsin Politicians


Wisconsin politicians display ignorance, paranoia, and pandering, Scholars say

Madison, WI (PRWEB) October 12, 2006 --- The Governor of Wisconsin, Jim Doyle, and his GOP rival, Mark Green, both want to fire a controversial instructor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison for holding views about 9/11 they don’t like. Kevin Barrett, a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, is discussing 9/11 and its impact on relations between the US and Islam in a course on Islam he is offering this semester.

Barrett has now inflamed political passions by drawing comparisons between Adolf Hitler and George W. Bush in a forthcoming essay. “Like Bush and the neocons, Hitler and the Nazis inaugurated their new era by destroying an architectural monument and blaming its destruction on their designated enemies,” he writes, where the Twin Towers played a role parallel to that of the German Reichstag.

“That may sound like an exaggeration if you have never studied what happened on 9/11,” observed James Fetzer, the founder of the scholars’ society, “but what we have discovered lends considerable weight to the parallel. The Twin Towers, for example, were brought down by special kinds of controlled demolition, not by the impact of the planes, the jet-fuel-based fires, or any kind of pancake collapse.”

(More after jump...)

According to Fetzer, the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of similar large commercial airliners, the jet-fuel-based fires burned too low and too briefly to even weaken, much less melt, the steel, and no “pancaking” occurred. “Indeed, the buildings were being blown apart from the top down. Steel beams were being blown outward and even upward. The buildings were destroyed in 10 and 9 seconds, which is even faster than free fall and would have been impossible without explosives.”

“Bush himself has acknowledged that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the events of 9/11,” Fetzer added. “The Senate Intelligence Committee has released a study showing that Saddam had no ties with Osama bin Laden. And the FBI has acknowledged that it has ‘no hard evidence’ connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11. If neither Saddam nor Osama had anything to do with 9/11”, he asked, “then who was responsible? The Bush administration has been lying to us about 9/11 from scratch.”

Comparisons between Hitler and Bush do not originate with Barrett, Fetzer said. “If you google ‘Bush Hitler’, for example, you will get 11 million hits. Try ‘The Gallery of Bush-Hitler Allusions’ and you will find hundreds of others who have found parallels between them, including comparisons of The Patriot Act and The Enabling Act, which enabled Hitler, who had been democratically elected, to consolidate his power. And both launched wars in violation of international law and condoned the use of torture.”

Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which Fetzer founded in mid-December, is dedicated to exposing falsehoods and revealing the truth about the events of 9/11, “letting the chips fall where they may.” Its members include physicists, mechanical engineers, civil engineers, structural engineers, aeronautical engineers, and pilots, as well as many with backgrounds in the social sciences and the humanities. Fetzer himself has a Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science and has published 27 books.

“The situation is even more bizarre because these politicians don’t know why Kevin holds these beliefs and refuse to look at the evidence, even though it is abundant and easily accessible.” He offered Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) and Scott Suder (R-Abbotsford), members of the state legislature, as prime examples. Nass has even tried to pass legislation to have Barrett fired, but was unable to round up enough votes. “Kevin can be provocative, but that doesn’t make him wrong,” Fetzer said.

Bill Douglas, an expert on parenting fascinated by the controversy, after discovering that about 1/3 of the American people doubt the official account, recently contacted Nass’s office to ask if anyone there had reviewed the studies of 9/11 presented on the Scholars’ web site at, only to be told that was something they would certainly not do, because anyone who holds views like that must be a “Bush hater.”

Douglas was dumbfounded by their response. “They want to fire a university teacher for presenting facts, many of which are readily available on that web site—facts that they dispute, yet have no idea what those facts are—and are unwilling to look at them to find out what they are, which is insane. This kind of delusional paranoia by elected officials is of particular concern.” Indeed, this degree of detachment from reality raises serious questions about their competence for public office, he said.

“Suder’s case,” Fetzer added, “is even more outrageous. He claims that conspiracy theories are incapable of scientific study. This means he has never visited our site. He has never read any of the peer-reviewed articles we have archived there. He doesn’t understand that our objective is to take rumor and speculation out of the case and place it on an objective and scientific foundation. After 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, it’s safe to say I know the difference.”

“Suder even claims that Barrett’s forthcoming book, ‘9/11 and the American Empire: Muslims, Jews and Christians Speak Out,’ is anti-Semitic, ostensibly on the ground it includes harsh criticism of the nation of Israel,” Fetzer said. “Not only does his book include several essays by noted Jewish scholars but criticism of Israel only qualifies as ‘anti-Semitism’ if it is confused with prejudice against persons who happen to be Jewish. Criticism of Israel, of its government or of its policies is not anti-Semitism.”

“Anti-Semitism is morally objectionable. False allegations like this one deserve to be scorned. These politicians don’t care about the truth but appear to be pandering for votes,” Fetzer said. The University, however, continues to express support for Kevin for encouraging his students to think about these issues from diverse perspectives. “I am proud of UW-M for standing up to political pressure and defending academic freedom, which means nothing if you are only allowed to express popular opinions.”

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
Founder and Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth (

From what i can gather Kevin

From what i can gather Kevin Barratt isnt forcing his veiws on anyone, rather trying to teach students to have an open mind and ask questions, even if they are very difficult.The treatment of Kevin Barratt in the media particuallarly fox news has been nothing short of disgusting.


Is only telling the truth no more no less and the truth is pure poison to these stark raving lunatics.
They don't have a leg to stand on and they know it, but they also know perfectly well that if enough Americans dont stand up and do something about it then their lies will work wonders on the simple minded.

They cant discuss the facts or even acknowledge the facts, all they can do is LIE, so that is what they are doing.
Meanwhile 99% of the propagandist press will completely ignore the facts, paint Barrett with a Nutbrush and only present the side of these lunatics.

10s of Millions of Americans need to stand up NOW! against these propagandist in the Mainstream media and attack these lunatic politicians, let them know the gig is up.

who decides what is true?

What they never say directly when they attack Barrett, but always just imply in a myriad of ways, like when they say it's about Barrett's "abillity to teach" now being in doubt, is that they actually mean it's not TRUE what he says about 9/11. The only problem is, who are they to decide what the truth is?? Is Cheney's wife somehow authorized to 'decide' what the truth is? Is she a supreme court judge? No, their f**** justification what is true and what is not is depending on what is "mainstream" and what is not "mainstream". It was once mainstream that the earth is flat...

This is exactly why we need

Separation of School and State!

Government being in charge of our schools means our youth does not get the Truth!


I agree! The thing that makes me even more disgusted is the fact the media,NIST,and the 9/11 commission run from the national 9/11 debate set up by Ed Haas.
There is one way to put this baby to bed once,and for all. NIST,and the 9/11 Commission debate us.Have it covered by FOX,NBC,ABC,CBS in an all day event! Also to have it advertized a week in advanced.
So i say.......PUT UP ,OR SHUT UP!

O Reilly was on a rant

again yesterday. He had one of Kevin's students on who struggled to get a word in defending the class, as well as a bitter Ann Coulter-like student who agreed with everything fascist Bill had to say.
They did show the cover of the book Kevin is using. Anybody know where I can get a copy?

oh shoot, anybody tape it?

oh shoot, anybody tape it?

I sent a message to get it

I sent a message to get it up on 911podcasts but haven't heard back.

It's sitting on my server ready to be encoded and put on 911podcasts, Google video or YouTube. Anyone with an account want to put it up somewhere?

i didnt see this email,

i didnt see this email, please resend directly to me if you can, or if you can post it on youtube that would work as well!

I actually filled out the

I actually filled out the form on 911podcasts. Do those not go to you? Anyhow, I will resend the link via email.


According to Fetzer, the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of similar large commercial airliners,

Jim, are you sure about that claim? According to Leslie E. Robertson, the "lead structural engineer" on the towers, they were designed to withstand the impact of a slow, nearly-empty-of-fuel 707 lost on approach to a NYC area airport, not a 767 going 500+ mph with enough fuel to make a trans-continental flight.

Do you have contradictory information?

fetzer's got it right

Directly from the History Channel:

"The building was designed to have a fully-loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners, because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid. And the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting." - Frank A. DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Project Management

· History Channel [VIDEO] (00:00:35)
History Channel, January 2001.

DeMartini worked on the 88th floor of the North Tower and died in the attacks on September 11th.

What about the velocity?

I've seen the DeMartini video. Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so it's not an insignificant point.

I'm not trying to be a stickler (and not arguing against CD), I just think it's important to stick to the best points and not muddy the waters with weak ones. The DeMartini video gets twisted by Alex Jones, who quotes him as saying "the building was designed for multiple impacts..." It's not unlike how the "pull it" comment gets turned into "Larry Silverstein admitted he demolished WTC 7!", which just ain't true.

"Pull It" certianly didn't

"Pull It" certianly didn't mean what he said it did though.... to pull the rescue personel out of the building??...

seriously.... if it did'd think he would have spewed that excuse out long before the time that he gave us his explanation of his comments.

Pretty weak for over four years of thinking of an excuse to cover his initial remark.

thank God for publicists!

Silverstein's silence

It's also his whole silence about it, the whole lack of openness. Is he under a gag order? don't think so. If he's totally innocent, and didn't do foul play nor covered it up, why isn't he openly making a longer statement that sets the record straight about what he knows of the collapse. Why doesn't he say, folks the truth about WTC7 thing is, i don't know why it collapsed.... but he doesn't say so. That's a frequent phenomenon with liars: they do lie, for sure, but only when they have to.

Silverstein would've said "pull out" or "pull back" if...

he meant the firefighters should evacuate the building or leave the area! (There were no firefighters in there at that time anyway.)

John Skilling

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or McDonald Douglas DC-8.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. 3  

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

source :

Thanks for the information,

Thanks for the information, imgstacke. It would be nice if this white paper was a available somewhere. The only references are on 9/11 "conspiracy" sites. The point I was trying to make, which I apparently did not make well, is that the issue of what the buildings were capable of handling in terms of airplane impacts is not cut and dry and, like the issue of what hit the Pentagon, it can be debated endlessly and is subject to easy "debunking" from 9/11 believers by citing "experts."

Anyway, thanks again for the info.

Didn't TV show Twin Towers took impact of planes really well?

"Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity "

That's absolutely correct.

But the Twin Towers took the impact of the planes really well, didn't they? The didn't crumble from the impact. They didn't fall from the fires.

It was something entirely different that made them "dissolve" (and turn to fine, pulverized dust spread across all of Lower Manhattan and wider, plus a debris field of 30 foot long steel columns roughly scattered around the former WTC site)....

Were the towers also designed to erupt & explode in...

a top-down controlled demolition (less than a hour after a plane hit)? I think not.

twin collapse improbable

And never to forget: we're talking about 2 separate skyscrapers here. One being hit by a plane and "misfortunately" being damaged in a way that it pancakes down, doesn't mean the same will happen to the other. We're not talking about precise mathematics, 1+1=2, we're talking about fuzzy, unpredictable things, and the odds that the same unfortunate collapse occurs with that other skyscraper of the twins, that's impossible, im-possible, impossibile...

Still can't disregard Laws of Physics and Gravity

No matter what arguments you may have as to whether a pancake theory is plausible or implausible or whether the building was built to withstand the impact of an airplane or not is irrelevant. Keep the following FACTS!!! in mind. A building 1362 feet (Wikipedia) collapsed in ten seconds (9/11 commission report). In a vacuum (zero resistance) the best possible result for an obect dropped from the top of the building using the laws of physics would be 9.2 seconds. That leaves eight tenths of a second for resistance to occur outside of that vacuum. None of the theories examine the time element. Even if you find the pancake theory plausible, surely, one floor crashing into the other would take eight tenths of a second. Even with accelarated force, the 109 remaining floors could not simultaneously collapse. Then there's that pesky little nuisance building that was not hit by an airplane, that at 50 stories tall, fell completely to the ground within six seconds. For that to happen, the laws of gravity were suspended for that day. Believe what you are told not what you see (the world is flat... the world is flat), ignore the science and the facts, and the stories you have been told are completly believable. However the facts do not support the story.

Skyscrapers are designed to do exactly the opposite of...

what they did on 9/11. If damage occurs to several floors, the buildings are designed NOT to have a chain-reaction take over & bring the entire building down into a pile of rubble!!!

withstand how?

it depends what is meant by "withstand": does it mean here that the building remains largely standing but is too badly damaged for further use, or does it mean it collapses withing one hour to the ground, bringing even the "spire" down without tilting to the side

Both towers

withstood the Impacts of the airplanes exactly as they were designed to do, they absorbed the kinetic energy and all N all handled the impact very well.

There is no way that the planes had anything to do with the collapse obviously.
Only a braindead fool could look at the many videos of the collapse's, at both towers with just minor overall damage, 99% of the massive steel columns and beams unharmed, just a few floors affected by low heat fires, not even a single floor was totally engulfed by fire as the worst floor was only 60% touched by flame, and then ignorantly believe they flopped to the ground at freefall speed.

I mean just how stupid can people be?

Interesting ABC News Video of Flight 93 from April 2006...

that some people may have missed. (The video starts after a brief commercial.)

Show "what are you folks on?" by PWK (not verified)

Manhattan Project - 130,000 people - 6 years

The project's roots lay in scientists' fears since the 1930s that Nazi Germany was also investigating such weapons of its own. Born out of a small research program which began in 1939, the Manhattan Project would eventually employ over 130,000 people and cost a total of nearly $2 billion USD ($20 billion in 2004 dollars based on CPI), and result in the creation of multiple production and research sites operated in secret.[1]


First of all the government didn't bungle anything, fool. You are trying to whitewash the crime of premeditated murder to the level of a DUI fatality. It was intentional, there were no "bungles".

I hold the laws of physics to be in pretty high regard. Therefore if WTC7 crumbles to dust (which it did) that means that there would have to be a physical reason for the collapse.

Did Silverstein's "spidy sense" go off and he knew to "pull the fire-fighters away" just in time before the building collapsed?

Jesus Christ, pull your head out of your ass.

I'm on the good stuff!

Can still out reason this spew of ignorance.
“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"