Past Events
Successful Fall 2006 Events hosted by Colorado 9/11 Visibility
Colorado 9/11 Visibility and 911truth. org were pleased to host three Scholars for 9/11 Truth (Steven E. Jones, Kevin Ryan, and Kevin Barrett) at the University of Denver on Saturday Oct 28 and at the University of Colorado at Boulder on Sunday Oct 29. The highly successful events were attended by 300 in Denver and 250 in Boulder. The topic was "Research on 9/11: Why the Official Story Cannot Be True -- Scientists Find Overwhelming Evidence of Controlled Demolition" regarding the collapses of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. The event at the University of Denver was videotaped and will be available on DVD at a reasonable cost in the near future. Please check back at colorado911visibility.org for availability and ordering.
Media Coverage
Local newspaper coverage following the events was significant and we offer the thoughtful public the following comments on the coverage.
The events resulted in a front-page article in the Denver Post on Monday, Oct 30. The article did help to educate the public about the work of Steven E. Jones and we appreciated the front page placement as it is certainly the right time for major coverage of the work of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth. However, there were some shortcomings to the piece:
- This article drew attention to the work of Dr. Jones but it failed to mention the other two speakers, Kevin Barrett and Kevin Ryan. Kevin Barrett gave an excellent overview of what are called "false flag attacks", which are attacks made to look like they were done by a designated enemy, when in reality they were staged by one's own government, and how these have been used historically to galvanize public support for war. This provides the necessary context for understanding the events of 9/11. Kevin Ryan gave a thorough overview of the four engineering studies of the WTC collapses that have been done to date and how the official explanation fails to hold up under scrutiny and has changed over time. Especially important were his scientific challenges to the NIST report of 2005, the official government engineering study of the collapse of the twin towers, which resorted to using tweaked computer simulations unavailable for public scrutiny to explain the collapses after reconstructed WTC floor assemblies did not fail in fire testing.
- The article quoted Brent Blanchard of Protec Documentation Services, a New Jersey firm that documents building demolitions. In his presentation, Kevin Ryan mentioned Brent Blanchard as a spokesman who often lacks substance but speaks with much "bluster", and these statements appear to fit that pattern. In the article, Blanchard gave two reasons why criticisms of the official story are "out-of-control allegations" that "could not be true".
- The first was that controlled demolitions are initiated at the base of a building, whereas these collapses were initiated at the point of the plane impacts. He failed to mention that WTC Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, fit the model of a conventional demolition perfectly, imploding neatly and accompanied by the traditional series of visible detonations from bottom to top. Regarding the twin towers, he failed to acknowledge considerable witness testimony of explosions well before the buildings fell, particularly in subfloor areas where victims were burned and extensive blast evidence was observed. Although the collapses (and the accompanying detonation sequence) did appear to progress in an uncharacteristic way, top to bottom, the previous basement explosions played a key role in the success of the demolition and it clearly merits further study.
- Blanchard's second point was that pre-planted explosives could not have survived the plane crashes and subsequent fires without detonating prematurely. While this may be true of some explosives, it does not necessarily apply to thermite. Dr. Jones spoke to this issue in his paper at journalof911studies. com: "It is important to note that initiating the thermite reaction requires temperatures well above those achieved by burning jet fuel or office materials -- which is an advantage of using thermite charges over conventional monomolecular explosives such as TNT, RDX and PETN. " In his talks in Denver and Boulder, Dr. Jones stated that in his own experiments, he was unsuccessful at igniting thermite with a propane torch.
Regarding the October 30 article in the Boulder Daily Camera. This was an accurate though brief article and we commend the Camera on their coverage of this controversial topic.