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