World Experts to Debate ‘Was 9/11 an Inside Job?’

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 the government 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 that office fires in the nearby World Trade Centre Building 7 caused it to also collapse later in the day. He will argue that this official explanation has been accepted by almost all quarters of the mainstream media because it is the most logical and reasonable explanation of what happened that day. To quote Bill Maher, “How big a lunatic do you have to be to watch two giant airliners packed with jet fuel slam into buildings on live TV igniting a massive inferno that burned for two hours and then think, “Well, if you believe that was the cause?” He will argue that these theories are based on nothing more than logical fallacies, and that the “scientific evidence” given to promote these theories is somewhat questionable.

On the other side of the debate, two promoters of 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, an experienced, retired Professor of Chemistry at Copenhagen University. 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.  They will point towards the December 2013 revelation 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.

For further information, contact Peter Drew at or Edward Shambrook at


Event Page for the debate:!/events/495953840515073/?ref_dashboard_filter=upcoming


‘Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’ webpage:


Link to the Facebook page of ‘A Skeptic’s Love Letter’:!/SkepticsLoveLetter