You are here

The Great Demolition Debate, Pt. 1: Physics Prof Denis Rancourt Questions Twin Towers Demolition Hypothesis

Truth Jihad Radio Sat. 11/6/10, 5-7 pm Central, American Freedom Radio (archived here.) Call-in number: (402) 237-2525 or post your questions to my Facebook page.

Physics professor and academic freedom fighter Denis Rancourt recently came out for 9/11 truth on my radio show. Specifically, Denis agrees that Building 7 was obviously a controlled demolition, that the government’s story about the Pentagon attack doesn’t withstand scrutiny, and that in general 9/11 featured government “malfeasance” and “coverup.” So far so good. Yet for some reason, Denis isn’t convinced that the Twin Towers were destroyed in controlled demolitions.

I very rarely find intelligent, open-minded people who are willing to publicly defend the official account of the destruction of the Twin Towers, or take issue with the 9/11 truth movement’s alternative explanation. Over the past several years I have been insulted by several colleagues, including physics prof MF Onellian, who are unwilling to debate me or explain why my views are wrong. So it’s great to find a free-spirited, highly-qualified guy like Denis who’s willing to challenge at least some of my opinions on 9/11!

During this special two-hour interview, Denis Rancourt will present and discuss his views of 9/11. I expect to agree with most of those views. The big exception, of course, is the question of how the Towers were destroyed.

Then, like Woody Allen producing Marshall McLuhan to support his case, on Tuesday I will be welcoming Niels Harrit to debate Denis Rancourt on a special two-hour edition of the Kevin Barrett Show, 11 a.m. to 1 pm Central, on

Let the great demolition debate begin!

17 Thoughts to “The Great Demolition Debate, Pt. 1: Physics Prof Denis Rancourt Questions Twin Towers Demolition Hypothesis”

  1. My question is since all three branches of government has been co-opted by Zionists how can we obtain the authority the forcibly remove these people from power since they pay our salaries and bribes to keep them in power? We are our own worst enemy. We have to call upon some higher authority that is incorruptible to put these people on trial for their crimes against humanity. WHO!?!?!?!

  2. Anonymous

    While well coached, he blew his cover.
    The Kelvin scale doesn't use the term "degrees";
    temperatures are stated in "Kelvins".

  3. Anonymous

    Has this "physicist" Denis Rancourt never heard of Tunguska?
    Why's he altering directed meteors to space-based lasers?
    And what's this hologram nonsense? What I've heard is that no uncoached, unpaid witnesses saw any planes impact the WTC, even as holograms. Photoshopping videos to insert planes isn't "holography", so tell him to get off it. And didn't Steven E. Jones (a REAL physicist) do what he was supposed to, yet got fired (under the ruse of taking early retirement) anyhow? (*) Is this Denis Rancourt a disinformation agent? Who really did the research and wrote his over 100 articles in peer reviewed scientific journals? While I may superficially agree with him on several issues, he strikes me as a ringer. What physics expertise of his I can gather seems to focus on optics, which may explain his hologram obsession.

    * Supposedly for naïvely blaming the Rothschilde, by using the loaded term "international bankers" (picked up from AFP) of whose implications he was unaware, and
    under RadioWest host Doug Fabrizio's high pressure, leading questions. (Shades of Helen Thomas!) Has anyone investigated him?
    Yep, Zion is infested with vipers! (According to Steve Davis , Gordon B. Hinckley was a major proponent of the CIA's Project Blue Beam.)

  4. This is great! Like you, my jaw dropped when I heard Denis deny the bleeding obvious re the demolition of the Twin Towers … I had to remind myself that I, too, completely failed to see the bleeding obvious re the demolition of the Twin Towers for five years … though it was obvious to me from day one that the official story was bunk, it wasn't until I read "The Missing Jolt" by Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti, that I realized the bleeding obvious … the Twin Towers could not possibly crush themselves to dust while simultaneously descending with near freefall acceleration under the force of gravity alone without defying fundamental laws of physics.

    A professor of physics should be able to understand this very simple point, the gravitational energy is being used to accelerate the mass of the buildings groundward, there is very little gravitational energy left to do the work of pulverizing concrete and severing steel columns.

    Denis undermines his credibility by resorting to Chomskyesque arguments like "if you take a complex event there will invariably be a mass of unexplained phenomena associated with it" … sure, but unexplained phenomena is not quite the same as the suspension of fundamental principles of physics … is he suggesting that magic and miracles can occur in a complex event?

  5. Anonymous

    This video clearly shows the squibs and explosions. It is not coming down due to a pile driver.

    Has Rancourt seen this view of the tower "collapse"? Isn't it obvious?

  6. Anonymous

    Hi Kevin,
    Have you seen this?

    You may also wish to have Mark Basile to come on your show to debate Rancourt. He specifically mentioned the impossibility of the nanothermite being formed 'spontaneously' by objects falling down in a building. And he has actually done experiments on the nanothermite.

    You may also wish to forward that video to Rancourt.

  7. I have my doubts about this Denis Rancourt fellow. His stubborn refusal to concede the obvious is annoying and highly suspicious … his attempts to introduce some cognitive diversity into the debate about 9/11 is not at all appreciated, thank you very much … he sounds rather like one of Sunstein's little helpers, to me.

    There are two fundamental laws of physics that clearly disprove the gravitational collapse hypothesis propounded by NIST and enthusiastically promoted by Rancourt. These two laws are known as the second and third laws of motion, they were first described by Sir Issac Newton in his work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, published 1687, and together with the first law of motion, form the basis of classical mechanics.

    As a physics professor, Rancourt should be well versed in the principles of classical mechanics, but his reasoning on the destruction of the Twin Towers belies an apparent ignorance of these basic laws. Denis Rancourt exhibited scant regard for comments and arguments offered by Tony Szamboti, betraying an arrogance and superficiality at odds with his professed expertise in matters of physical principles.

    I'm afraid that Dennis Rancourt has failed to persuade me that he has a well considered position on the issue of the destruction of the Twin Towers. If he is, in fact, a sincere, genuine truth seeker and scientist, I hope that he will take the time to read the paper by Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti entitled "The Missing Jolt" (available on the Journal of 9/11 Studies website), which explains in simple terms how these two scientific principles, these laws of motion are not consistent with and do not support the gravitational collapse hypothesis.

  8. Anonymous

    Not to mention that a terrorist designing a demolition of three buildings would have had them fall sideways onto other buildings, widening the destruction, death and mayhem. It would have been cheaper Nd easier than designing them to collapse into their own footprint.

  9. Dr. Rancourt needs to take the time do his homework before glibly talking down to other scientists, engineers, and even laymen who have spent the time to study the video recordings, and the physical, chemical, and engineering issues pertaining to the mid-air disintegration of the WTC twin towers.

    We ought not to attribute to psychopathic collaboration what can be readily explained by the wounded hubris of the expert who has inadvertently exposed his posturing ignorance to a bunch of laymen.

    Dr. Rancourt interprets and deconstructs facts like a most rare bird indeed — a post-modernist scientist.

    I hope Dr. Rancourt will use the opportunity redeem himself during tomorrow's debate with Kevin Barrett and Nils Harrit

  10. I agree Doug … lest my previous comments be taken as an unwarranted accusation let me qualify them by adding that I don't think Rancourt is an agent provocateur or intelligence asset, though we all have every right and reason to suspect that such types are lurking in the truth movement, and we have the words of Cass Sunstein to substantiate that suspicion.

    Of course, the agencies want to infiltrate the movement, cognitively, for the purpose of providing "cognitive diversity", whatever that is, by generating confusion and discord among legitimately concerned citizens who are attempting to discern truth from lies in order to understand 9/11.

    And a credible cognitive infiltrator would need all the qualifications held by Rancourt. But scientific credibility is not bestowed in laurels, it is demonstrated by intellectual honesty and an ability to think clearly and reason logically.

    How do we know Denis is one of those academics with the mindset he described, who would simply dismiss out of hand any suggestion that a city could be incinerated from space, by anything man made, other than nuclear weapons, in the 70's, and not one of those scientists he described as completely incompetent poltroons?

  11. The follow-up debate on Truth Jihad proved to be an excruciating ordeal for the real scientist, Nils Harrit. It was painful to listen to.

    Nils's and Kevin's debate with Denis Rancourt was similar to a radio debate I heard between Richard Gage and
    a pack of slippery, self-styled "skeptics" of the Michael Shermer school.

    Denis Rancourt's debating techniques are vintage post-modernist deconstruction:
    – vicious ad hominem attacks;
    – hit-and-run skeptical insinuation;
    – narrative
    logorrhea to bury succinct, cogent arguments that disprove the deconstructor's own unfounded assertions;
    – mixing facts
    with hypthetical assertions to establish the assumption that all opposing
    arguments are mere personal, local truths, i.e. "strawman arguments", that would be a sheer waste of time to even attempt to replicate or to falsify.

    For example, Denis Rancourt harped on nano-particles of iron oxide, which are stable in normal environments, to distract Nils Harrit from highlighting the nano-particles of ALUMINUM, which are
    highly unstable, and require extremely advanced fabrication methods.

    A sad truth is that Cass Sunstein doesn't have to pay post-modernist academics to trash
    real science. They relish destroying the public's belief in the potential for scientists to approach objective truth.

  12. Anonymous

    Hi Kevin.

    I just listened to your Nov.6 interview with Denis Rancourt. Much thanks to both of you.

    I have five points to make re Denis' view that it would (might?) have been sufficient, for purposes of justifying the War on/OF Terror, to have just the sections above WTC 1&2 plane impacts collapse, rather than the entire two towers.

    1. I agree with you that the TOTAL destruction of WTC 1&2 had greater psychological impact than partial destruction would have had. However, it's impossible to know if your suggestion that the added DEGREE of shock/outrage was critical for purposes of justifying the War on/OF Terror is correct. (Your opinion is quite possibly true, but it's a non-falsifiable claim.)

    I suspect the total destruction of WTC 1&2 (&3?) was critical for other, more important, reasons:

    2. Partial destruction of the towers might have reduced the insurance payout to Larry Silverstein.

    3. Partial destruction would have left much, if not most, of their asbestos intact, and might have legally obliged Silverstein and/or NY Port Authority to pay for asbestos removal before reopening—out of insurance money. Or, if Silverstein/NYPA decided to tear down the damaged building and rebuild, they would have had to pay the cost of asbestos-correct dismantling (demolition?) of the towers.

    4. Partial destruction of the towers would likely have exposed Larry Silverstein and Rudy Giuliani to some REAL forensic investigation of the crashes and structural failures (to the extent that they might have occurred).

    5. If the towers had not collapsed completely, it would have been impossible to sweep away (almost) all evidence of planning, as well as all of the asbestos, in the frenzied "effort to find survivors."

    Perhaps you can forward this to Denis for his consideration.

    David McIntosh (Toronto)

  13. I wrote this report on the nanothermite paper:

    I will post Niels' response as it becomes available.

    I also made an error in my use of Google Scholar in the November 9th debate. I wrote this email to Niels and Kevin:

    "I solved my problem with the Google Scholar search.
    "NH Harrit" gives 3
    "Niels Harrit" gives 56

    I wrongly assumed that you would always have used your middle initial as in the nanothermite paper. Scientific authors are usually careful about that?

    Sorry for the misunderstanding. You did clarify that it was wrong.

    It had a good side benefit to get web discussions aware of Google Scholar, etc.

    Therefore, no need to send me a list of your papers, as I have found them now.


  14. Denis, if you're going to use Google Scholar search results to try to imply that someone is not a competent scholar, you should at least make sure that you yourself are competent at Google Scholar searches! This kind of botched ad-hominem attack doesn't help your credibility.

  15. Denis you need to explain how the gravitational potential energy would have been released in some level of detail as it has been shown that the NIST analysis does not provide for overloads anywhere near sufficient to cause failure of the east and west perimeter walls or core columns of WTC 1.

    You also need to explain how it would have been transmitted to cause a natural collapse. The upper sections of the buildings can't be transmitting their kinetic energy to the lower sections while continuously accelerating.

  16. Hello all —

    I would like to see some of the points clarified that got lost in the shuffle. If they two had been standing at a blackboard, I suspect there would have been much less talking past one another. One example is the badly unresolved business about the top chunk of the South Tower that very obviously tipped at a considerable angle before, as is usually said, disintegrating in mid-air, or as Denis said, being obscured by smoke.

    The idea that further contact/collision with the material below should have righted the orientation of the section seems quite out of bounds to me. As I remember it, the lowest edge of the rotated section was that contingent upon the existing wall below. That edge had not moved inboard. Any contact with the under surface of the section would have increased the rotation, not corrected it, and in doing so put its center of gravity further outside the footprint of the tower, ie., as Niels said, made a big pile outside the perimeter of the general pile that represented the bulk of that tower.

    First, does anybody have any evidence that such a secondary pile DID NOT exist — that perhaps escaped mention in coverage of the general melee? I never heard about it.

    The question bears heavily on the issue of whether the section did indeed pulverize in mid-air, which was Niels' point. I must say Denis never addressed this geometry matter at all, that of the lateral offset of the COG of the piece.

  17. Anonymous

    Niels Harrit: "Denis you just flunked a test in elementary chemistry. What you basically are saying is that you can form explosives in an explosion. You’re saying that you can form energetic, highly energetic materials at high temperatures. Let me give you an example. Matches, ordinary matches. They are made out of small pieces of wood, and there is a tip which consists of sulphur, grounded glass, a little phosphorus and a binder. Now imagine that you have a campfire, and into the campfire you throw little pieces of wood, you throw some sulphur, you throw some grounded glass, you throw a little phosphorus, and you throw a binder, organic binder. Would you expect in the ashes the next morning to find a box of matches? Yes, or no?"
    Brilliant. This statement was the crushing blow.

Leave a Comment