U.W.-Madison Professors Refuse to Debate Barrett, Fetzer Thurs. 10/5/06
Gutless UW Profs Won't Debate Barrett, Fetzer Thurs. 10/5/06 - indymedia.org
by Kevin Barrett
It appears that Kevin Barrett and Jim Fetzer will debate two empty chairs Thursday, October 5th, 2006 at 6 p.m. at the Curti Lounge, 5243 Humanities, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
The History Students' Association tried to find one or more U.W.-Madison professors willing to defend the 9/11 Commission Report in a debate with Barrett and Fetzer, to no avail. This seems odd, since UW Political Science professor Donald Downs has claimed that Barrett's views are preposterous, while Physics professor M.F. Onellian has engaged in childish name-calling: http://mujca.com/groucho.htm
The fact that not a single U.W.-Madison professor is willing to defend the 9/11 Commission Report in public speaks volumes. The cowardice of professors who call names, but won't debate the facts, is astounding.
Ironically, the Oshkosh Northwestern just ran an editorial bemoaning the fact that no academics are willing to debate Barrett:
http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061004/OSH06/610040382/1190/OSHopinion
Continued...
Thanks, Daithí.
- Login to post comments
More from the MUJCA site....
http://mujca.com/oshkosh.htm
Please Digg The Original Story!
Ignorant Cowards
Well, they say ignorance is bliss. Maybe this is why even those in academia fail to see what is going on. Maybe they don't want to know the truth--as we all know, it hurts too much. However, it is disgusting that they are either too lazy to look into this, too apatheitic or too brain washed---either way, the fact that they are not willing to support their version of events in a debate, and are not willing to investigate what really happened shows are real lack of integrity and unworthiness of respect.
They are too damn stupid to see what is happening and are too damn scared to look.
Speaks volumes, doesn't it....
....their absence, I mean....
Awfully easy to attack the Truth Movement from behind closed doors, isn't it?...in public, well, that's a different matter...as all those shills from Popular Mechanics can attest....they can't even beat the Loose Change kids (and I don't mean that derogatorily) in a debate....
Of course if I were a "Good German" OV supporter, I wouldn't want to face Fetzer or Barrett in public either....they've been handing the shills their asses for some time, even on their home turf...
What a stupid idea
Why would anyone want to debate the 911 Commission Report when the 911 Truth Movement KNOWS it should on the NIST, FEMA, and ASCE reports which we ALL know is the heart of the Inside Job premise.
This is really nuts, guys, really, really stupid.
debates - a good forum - but be careful
Debates - a good forum. Promoting debates on 911 is a good strategy. 911 Truth is now in the court of public opinion, but be careful, In court only the most important facts count. The minutia is only a distraction. e.g.
1. Regardless of what hit the Pentagon, the Pentagon defense failure is an indefensible stand down - treasonable action.
2. Whether reading "My Pet Goat" or "Little Orphan Annie," The morning of 9/11, with the nation "under attack" the POTUS was not protected as per SOP, but security stripped and hung out as a target for the coup plotters - treasonable action.
3. No matter how erroneous the flight manifests, leadership-level officials demonstrated they knew an attack was coming by acting to protect selected individuals, but not the nation - treasonable action.
Getting the perpetrators into court on charges of treason, any and all coconspirators, as many as possible to the point they start flipping on one another, should prove most effective in taking them down. The best minds and advocates available must spearhead. Listen, learn and make a sharp to the point case. Avoid the minutia. It's only a distraction. Avoid the temptation to humiliate the POTUS, after all What Me Worry is the ultimate patsy.
FOCUS!
jtg
Your 3 points of "treasonable action" downplay evidence...
The fact that AA-77 did NOT strike the Pentagon, that Bush deliberately played the part of a fool while the towers exploded, and that most the passengers on 9/11 were fake/imposters as per Operation Northwoods are all key evidence! Don't try to downplay them, it makes it look like you're planting subtle disinfo.
disinfo?
Please - ask any trial attorney - your evidence may fill a room, but anything beyond the few strongest points only confuses the jury - by all means, follow all leads and document everything, but when you get to court. FOCUS! Your strongest points win the case, and in the court of public opinion it's no different. I've read loads of deniers strenuously argue against the evidence you diplay. Arguing with them is like debating the propeller-heads at Popular Mechanics. It's a distraction. But 15 simultaneous military drills is a fact, not a coincidence of any kind and can in no way be denied. Who orchestrated the drills to conduit the attack? Get those guys in the dock charged with treason and you'll get somewhere. The guys who laid wire at WTC were probably just off the boat and told they upgrading the fire alarms.
jtg
When are we ever going to get 9/11 into an honest court???
You're obscuring physical evidence (and physics) with "he said, she said" stuff that can be rationalized away, especially before any "kangaroo court" that would be hearing a 9/11 case. They can just say that the war games were a "coincidence"; Cheney didn't have the heart to shoot down a passenger plane; and the only protected "selected individuals" because they had "unreliable/insufficient" warnings to alarm the general public.
Physical evidence & the laws of physics don't lie!
obscuring?
as for getting into court, law suites are already being filed and more will follow, many more - they can't trrow them all out - as for obscuring, I'm obscuring nothing - as for he said / she said, top gov. officers are logged in virtually around the clock, tracked and protected - every minute accounted for - so far the Able Danger destruction of over 2 TB of data has done more to halt investigation, but that's logged too -- I know many on this blog believe no "legal" means can prevail -- please think again, so long as there is even a shadow of a functioning legal system within this "republic" we must press for hearings, on every facet and when the perps are in the doc, demand to know where they were, what they were doing, what and when they knew anything at all -- they are logged and tracked -- the lies will untangle - the truth will come forth - when the time comes the case must be sharp pointed and clear
jtg
Your 3 points of "treasonable action" downplay evidence...
isn't what you just said subtle disinfo? Or are you really that much of a boob?
No, what I said isn't subtle disinfo, it condradicts the OV
The fact that AA-77 did NOT strike the Pentagon, that Bush deliberately played the part of a fool while the towers exploded, and that most the passengers on 9/11 were fake/imposters as per Operation Northwoods are all key evidence! Don't try to downplay them, it makes it look like you're planting subtle disinfo.
Only a fraud or a jackass would consider the above "subtle disinfo." Which are you?
Please Digg The Original Story!
No one should debate the
No one should debate the clinically insane. I could push them over the edge before they lead their lemmings over with them.
Alright, go collect your
Alright, go collect your support check from the Neocon GOPs, you devoted little slave.
We are really past debating, anyone on the OV is lying, IMO...
- A caveman & his 19 lackeys did not defeat our trillion dollar defenses with boxcutters
- Hostile airliners are not allowed to fly all over the eastern U.S. without being intercepted, chased, or even observed by military jets
- An airliner does not slam the Pentagon almost an hour after other "hijacked" planes slammed into the WTC
- Buildings do not erupt & explode after a plane crashes into them (or doesn't crash into them in the case of WTC-7)
See, here you go. These are
See, here you go. These are the good issues to look at. Operation northwoods is good at persuading people to open their minds to this because it says "they would do this," but it isn't exactly what they did, obviously. If you talk about stuff like operation northwoods while actually trying to prove something about 911, it's not helpfull. I think there are too many flimsy theories about the pentagon. I think the goat book thing either proves they knew, or that george bush is an idiot, but it would be very difficult to prove what was going on in his tiny brain at that moment. There is so much of substance that's better than these areas. This stuff is good for getting people interested in the subject so they realize that it was an inside job, but it's not the best stuff to try them on.
Try them on everything, put all the pieces together...
Northwoods is A LOT of what they did: false-flag murder, drones, imposter passengers, phony funerals!
What jury would believe that the President of U.S.A. CHOSE to sit there & do absolutely nothing while the WTC was slammed by two airliners!
filll the portfolio and bring out the best
Again, the argument must focus on the strongest points and dig to the heart of the matter. All around the web deniers throw straw man arguments left and right - refuse to take the bait: CGI planes, holograms, what became of UA 93, all the passengers or Cheney in his bunker - Tarpley makes the point - no way would they entrust Cheney, with his 4 heart attacks and 3 pace makers to an operation like this....and finally "Angle is next!" and all that followed. You've got to get to the skeleton beneath the slimy skin of this creature.
Thats funny
It's eazy for some people to cast aspersion about 9/11 but when it's time to back it up they go missing. I think they should still have the debate and put the dissenting professors name plates on the table opposite Fetzer and Barret. And when it time for them to rebutt just look over to the empty chairs and have some good zingers ready to go.
Who is going to want to debate the likes of Barrett....
his brain is like a savage animal in the jungle of ideas.... A true intellectual predator.