Media Release: University of Kent - debate with world experts asking 'Was 9/11 an inside job?'

Media Release

University of Kent - World Experts to Debate 'Was 9/11 an Inside Job?'

Event: A formal debate featuring world experts will be conducted at the University of Kent asking the question 'Was 9/11 an inside job?'

Date: Tuesday April 1st, 2014
Time: 7.00 - 9.00pm
Venue: Grimond Lecture Theatre 1, University of Kent, Canterbury

Event Overview
The views of the '9/11 truth movement', which has long argued that Al Qaeda must have had some kind of assistance in staging the attacks of 9/11, have been widely criticised in many quarters for being based on supposedly flimsy and outrageous speculation, and for being disrespectful to the families of the victims.

Edward Shambrook, a playwright at the University of Kent is currently producing a play about the allegedly misdirected and mistaken '9/11 truth movement'. In advance of launching his play, he will lead one side of a formal debate at the University of Kent, arguing in support of the official story about 9/11 that 19 Saudi and Afghan terrorists hijacked 4 airliners and successfully evaded the US air defence system, resulting in two of the airliners crashing into the Twin Towers. The ensuing fires from the jet fuel causing both towers to collapse, and then office fires in the nearby World Trade Centre Building 7 causing it to also collapse later in the day.

On the other side of the debate, two world experts from the '9/11 truth movement' will be arguing that this official version of events is not the complete and accurate story, and that other influences must have been involved. Putting the evidence and arguments forward for this position will be Professor Niels Harrit, formerly Professor of Chemistry at Copenhagen University, and one of the world's foremost scientists regarding the scientific evidence that supposedly contradicts the official story of 9/11. Professor Harrit will present evidence focussing in particular on the mysterious and total collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7, a 47 storey High Rise Tower not struck by a plane, but which collapsed at 5.20pm on 9/11 in perfect symmetry and in less than 7 seconds. Professor Harrit will present his evidence for the alleged presence and use of high tech explosives. Joining Professor Harrit will be Ian Henshall, the UK's leading author on the evidence allegedly contradicting the official story of 9/11, in particular, evidence that intelligence agencies knew that an attack was imminent and that they should have been able to prevent it. Professor Harrit’s visit to the UK for this debate has been sponsored by the US based organisation ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’.

Adding to the intrigue of this subject is the recent revelation in December 2013, that two members of US Congress, who have been granted special permission by Congress to view 28 redacted pages of the 9/11 Commission Report, have been shocked by what they have read in those previously concealed pages, and are currently demanding that President Obama release these 28 pages for all of Congress to see. The debate is likely to be a lively and controversial affair, and a sizeable and very divided audience is expected to attend.


maybe its just me but does anyone see any real value in another "debate". We've been through this before without much to show for it. Will faculty be there from the university? Will engineering professionals be there? Will members of the media be there? Unlikely is my answer to all these questions. I'm glad to see Neils Harrit will be there. I am vaguely familiar with Ian Henshall's work but I trust he will represent us competently without going to no planes at the pentagon, etc etc etc... It would seem that there should be a licensed architect or structural engineer there. RG is great but I would like to see someone different. He's done so much already and new faces are sorely needed. There is no real debate however. Our panel need only stick to WTC 7 and lies in the NIST report. Those are all verifiable and measurable. WTC 7 nullifies the entire OCT IMHO.

Also no American citizens are represented nor any mention of who will be representing the OCT. At least they didn't call them "truthers". I know some are trying to turn the meaning of that word around but I think it better to drop the term altogether.

Any thoughts out there?

peace everyone.

Edit: What if they just debated against the Experts Speak Out dvd?? just 2 more cents.. :)

Day in Court

Dan, LIke Bob McIlvaine, I too lost family on 911. We know the real terrorists are inside the Beltway. We want our day in court. We, Truthers, Patriots win when we get the crime of the century to court. We have enough evidence now to prove our case. We must take these mass murdering psychopaths out...permanently. Because if we don't, their mayhem will continue. It's guaranteed.

I can understand your

I can understand your thoughts on this, but the value of the debate depends on the content. The ESO DVD is great, but in my experience, those who oppose our message strongly are well skilled in casting doubt where there should be none, and good as the DVD is, DVDs don't answer back. Both Neils and Ian are well versed and level headed in their approach and luckily for us are on the correct side of the debate.
The fact that there are no Americans represented should illustrate to many on either side of this issue that there is a global campaign for justice that reaches far beyond the limits of the US. I agree with you that WTC7 nullifies the whole OCT and is the weak point that should be focused on in order to open the door to addressing the whole issue.
Those in the US who do such a fantastic job researching and moving the issue forward should take heart in the fact that they have such dedicated and well researched people on their side from across the globe. It is worth keeping in mind that perhaps it might be pressure from both outside and inside the US that will break the barrier to a new investigation.
Hopefully, in the absence of MSM coverage, debates such as these will help continue to get the word out.