Kevin Barrett Questions Amy Goodman On Building 7
digg_url = 'http://digg.com/world_news/Kevin_Barrett_Questions_Amy_Goodman_On_Building_7';
Kevin Barrett Questions Amy Goodman On Building 7:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2yC4xgeVMM
Thanks to Matt Naus of http://ts911t.org for his stellar camerawork.
Please, write Amy and ask her to invite me on her show to continue the conversation! mail@democracynow.org
I attended Amy Goodman's speech at the University of Wisconsin-Madison last night, Thursday, 9/27/2007. She talked about doing "ground zero reporting" and said "our job as journalists is to go to where the silence is." I wanted to confront Amy over her reprehensible silence about the 9/11 truth debates in general, and her refusal to cover the demolition of Building 7 in particular. After all, she was present at the pre-announced demolition of Building 7:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4094539209684370800&pr=goog-sl
If I were confronting a hopelessly evil 9/11-complicit creep like Guiliani or McCain I'd be a lot more confrontational. But, as Col. Bob Bowman pointed out on my radio show, which will be rebroadcast next Friday, 10/5/07 4-6 pm CT on http://gcnlive.com network 2, Amy is a potential ally, albeit a maddeningly silent one so far. And her audience, who are also potential allies, loves her. So I wanted to get in her face, but with a 'tough love' approach spiced with humor, rather than venting the anger we all feel about Amy's betrayal of the truth.
Amy began the question period by announcing that nobody would be tasered for asking questions.
Kevin: "Well, if anyone were going to be tasered here, it probably would be me. Hi Amy. Kevin Barrett here. I appreciate your great work on so many issues, and I agree with your quote that 'our job as journalists is to go to where the silence is.' Now there's a very popular youtube video that's especially popular among the 100 million Americans who know that 9/11 was an inside job, according to a New York Times poll. It shows you present at the controlled demolition of Building 7."
Amy: "I did not demolish Building 7."
Kevin: "Well, okay, I'm glad we got that straight. My question would be, if your job is to go to where the silence is, Building 7 is a great place of silence, as I'm sure you know. It's a 47 story building that came down into its own footprint for no apparent reason at about 5:30 p.m. on September 11th. A countdown to the demolition of Building 7 went out on New York police radio. I was in New York for the sixth anniversary, and every cop I talked to knows that that went out on police radio. The BBC reported that Building 7 had collapsed twenty minutes before it happened, with Building 7 standing in the background behind the reporter. And we have eyewitnesses--I can give you their contact information--who were inside Building 7 at [around] 9 o'clock in the morning who witnessed massive explosions that killed large numbers of people and devastated the lobby. There were pre-demolition explosions. You're right there in New York, you're right next to Ground Zero, and you talked about doing 'ground zero reporting' -- so when are you going to get around to doing some 'ground zero reporting' on Building 7?"
Heckler: "Why don't you shut up, this is not your night."
Amy: "Overall, I would say that everything that happened on September 11th should be fully investigated. Of course I don't think that the 9/11 Commission was an adequate investigation. And I agree that there are a lot of questions that have to be answered."
[well jeez Amy, you're a journalist, you're based right next to Ground Zero...why don't YOU try to get some answers??!!!]
***
While I stood in line to get my Amy Goodman book autographed, I autographed Amy a copy of my own book Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie: http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Jihad-Epic-Struggle-Against/dp/0930852990
I also carried a copy of the best photo book on 9/11, Eric Huffschmid's Painful Questions, open to the page showing the demolition of Building 7. When I arrived in Amy's exalted presence, the following dialogue transpired:
Amy: "I guess you're famous here."
Kevin: "Not as famous as you, Amy. Here's my book, with my phone number, in case you want to invite me on your show, or appear on one of my three radio shows. Also, I was wondering if you could autograph this book (Eric Huffschmidt's Painful Questions) here on the Building 7 page (page 65, featuring still shots from the demolition of WTC-7) so when you break this story..."
Amy: "I don't want to mess up your page."
Kevin: " I think when you break this story it'll be valuable..."
Matt Naus (off camera): "You were there, Amy! I saw the video of you. You were there!"
Amy: (smiling) "I work right there."
Kevin: "I mean, if you break this story...if anybody does, it might be you...and if you sign this, this will be a very valuable book."
Still smiling, she declines to sign.
Please write to Amy and ask her to invite Kevin Barrett on her show either (A) for a friendly chat about the 9/11 truth movement, or (B) to debate any bunker who dares to try to take me on. Her address:
- Kevin Barrett's blog
- Login to post comments
great job Kevin. the scum in
great job Kevin. the scum in the audience who told you to shut up are on the wrong side of history and should be ashamed.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
Kevin's Spirit is Amazing
Kevin is the reason my 75 year old father is now a truther.
Kevin lost his job because he spoke the truth. The perps have all the money in the world because they own the printing presses. I send Kevin a small check every month to support him. It feels really good to give Kevin money.
(send him some paypal love)
https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_flow&SESSION=pnxQUDG9XglGn...
Or you can send a check
or money order to:
MUJCA.Net
PO Box 221
Lone Rock , WI 53556
God has just smote Amy Goodman!
Most likely for her stance on 9/11.
Okay, I don't really believe it, but it makes a good headline and tagline.
I thought there was something wrong with her, and she has announced that she is suffering from Bell's Palsy, which should clear up soon. (er or later)
If I was her, I wouldn't push my luck, though. You know — just in case.
----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist
To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. — Abraham Lincoln
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein
Goodman's record and NO ONE here seems to know it!
[I sent this to DN ages ago and, well, they've long since stopped any correspondence with me]
>From Goodman’s Exception to the Rulers, “Blowback” chapter:
“At 5:00 p.m., producer Miranda Kennedy and I walked outside and watched Building 7 go down. Seeing this forty-seven-story building just north of the Twin Towers crumple like a dollhouse was a surreal, sad moment. The building housed the mayor’s multimillion-dollar eighth-floor bunker, built after the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. The command center included 130,000 gallons of oil. As many pointed out—and objected to—at the time, if the World Trade Center was attacked again, Mayor Giuliani’s command center would blow up, endanger everything around it, and poison Lower Manhattan with PCBs. That’s exactly what happened” (15-16, my emphasis).
The phrase “exactly what happened” (16) will haunt me for some time, as I hope it eventually comes to haunt Amy.
Even though most of us here know that diesel tanks couldn't possibly cause the collapse of WTC7, let's just PRETEND we're as clueless as Amy Goodman...
What is amazing about this small item in Amy’s book is how it suggests that seeds for this myth, apparently, were planted in advance of the event? This may be a case of Goodman merely exaggerating some statement made by the NYFD. I could find nothing predating 9-11-01 as she alleges, although the NYFD’s apparent conflict with the mayor about the safety standards of his little tank seem rather peculiar, rather like a planted story. Fumes? Problems with fumes? Put a lid on it! Disaster? Exploding diesel tanks because of fumes? Funny, but that sort of accident seems rather rare, and it may have to do with the fact that diesel is not particularly flammable. (http://www.ngv.org/ngv/ngvorg01.nsf/bytitle/NGVsSafetyBulletin.htm) Diesel needs to be mixed with air to burn, so the story of the “fumes” seems important, but a rather unlikely accident (particularly on that day!) that the “fumes” from the Mayor’s tank on the first floor would have permeated the building, turning it into a veritable internal implosion engine! Preposterous. Only on 9-11-01 do we have to believe such tall tales.
The best article tidbit on this subject of contradictory information about oil tanks in WTC7, http://www.wtc7.net/articles/elitewatch_7wtc.html, contained some interesting expired links:
NY TIMES 12/20/2001 City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center
"Fire Department officials warned the city and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that a giant diesel fuel tank for the mayor's $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise that burned and collapsed on Sept. 11, posed a hazard and was not consistent with city fire codes. The 6,000-gallon tank was positioned about 15 feet above the ground floor and near several lobby elevators and was meant to fuel generators that would supply electricity to the 23rd-floor bunker in the event of a power failure. Although the city made some design changes to address the concerns - moving a fuel pipe that would have run from the tank up an elevator shaft, for example - it left the tank in place. But the Fire Department repeatedly warned that a tank in that position could spread fumes throughout the building if it leaked, or, if it caught fire, could produce what one Fire Department memorandum called "disaster."
http://www.ulster.net/~babs7/articles/robertlederman/guilianigang.htm [link expired]
So Goodman apparently mixed up two separate facts in her book, a rather embarrassing blunder of at least 124,000 gallons. Perhaps a fact checking service could be useful before the next book goes to print? Chip Berlet, a researcher who has been on Democracy Now, might be helpful in the future?
Where did Goodman get that number, 130,000? Here’s one possibility, after 9/11, a common story of a “substation” oil leak:
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn20242.htm
On the other hand, there are an astounding variety of stories about the size of the possible “combined” fuel contained in other tanks. For example, this story claims 42,000 gallons [ http://www.wanttoknow.info/020302nytimes], but no breakdown for how that figure is obtained.
HOW MANY TANKS WERE THERE AND WHAT WERE THEIR RESPECTIVE CAPACITIES?
Were the tanks adjacent or on separate floors? This question is never explored. A simple question. But what is the answer? Here’s the best information based on on an expired link:
"A cleanup is underway to remove tens of thousands of gallons of oil that spilled from 7 World Trade Center when the 47-story office tower collapsed on Sept. 11, according to a published report.
Citing an environmental impact report made public by the Empire State Development Corp., Newsday reported Thursday that 130,000 gallons of oil leaked from the Con Edison substation contained within the building.
Additional oil leaked from two 6,000-gallon storage tanks owned by Salomon Smith Barney, and conduits beneath the building may have contained asbestos and feeder lines wrapped in a material containing toxins, the report said.
Two 11,690-gallon diesel fuel tanks operated by Silverstein Properties were also inside the building, but were removed in March and April and showed no evidence of spillage, Newsday said. "
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/WABC_060602_oil.html [link expired]
So from these stories, if the three tanks were full, the two operated by SSB and the one for the command center, that would be 18,000 gallons total, but not necessarily adjacent tanks, apparently not on the same floor. It would have been a freak accident if even one of the 6000-gallon tanks caught on fire since the building had a sprinkler system and was not hit by a plane. How ANY FIRE started in that building is not clear. Debris from the blasts of the other buildings would not have started a fire. None of the debris was on fire, although some might have been smoldering as it was blown from one of the towers? Whatever fire might have started in that building should have been easily extinguished by the sprinkler system. In photos and video, there is only a little smoke coming from one or two floors, no visible flames, and no official explanation about why fires were started on those floors, nor any speculation about who or how such fires started or were able to burn despite a sprinkler system.
In explaining the collapse of WTC7, no article or report alleges that the substation caught on fire or was the source of an explosion. All the articles I found pertaining to the 130,000 gallons, refer to that oil “leaking” from the substation, but not from a tank. Logically, things that have already burned do not leak. There are many stories about 130,000 gallons “leaking”, always leaking, from the substation. How would anyone know how many gallons “leaked” anywhere, particularly after a fire and an implosion? It certainly suggests that the story is either intentional disinformation or that there was a tank that large. Does anyone make a 130,000 gallon tank? Yes, I found reference to such a large tank. ( http://www.laseagrant.org/hurricane/oil.htm). But nowhere in the reading I’ve done about WTC7, is there a discussion of a such a tank at the substation, only the implication that the substation would have had one if there was a “leak” of that size. In all of the discussions of the leak, there is never mention of whether the leak came from one tank or several tanks. There is the strange implication that the substation contained a 130,000-gallon tank, but no reference to such a tank is made in any literature about WTC7, the fire, etc.
What is the substation? Good luck finding a description of it. What is it doing under a building? Presumably, it would be saving space to put it under a building, and that’s why, presumably, they are doing the same thing again! Perhaps Democracy Now can do an investigation into the safety of the new substation as Goodman apparently believes the substation “tank”--not the mayor’s tank-- caused the implosion? Or does Goodman believe that 6000 gallons of diesel can completely demolish a building? From her confusion, it’s not clear what she believes. She seems to be espousing her own unique crackpot conspiracy theory that she created, one that is clearly wrong.
Why would a substation have a bunch of oil? A substation is not a power plant. Here’s Con Edison description of the new substation in the new WTC7-- http://www.coned.com/newsroom/news/pr20040526.asp?from=hc --The new substation at 7 World Trade Center currently houses three large power transformers, each 20 feet tall and weighing 168 tons, and have a capacity of approximately 80 megawatts of electricity. One megawatt can power approximately 1,000 homes. Eventually, 10 transformers will occupy the site to meet the growing power demand in the area.
OR CONSIDER THIS: http://www.projectrebirth.org/rebuild/engineering/power.html --The substation will house ten total transformers weighing about 85 tons apiece, and reaching 20 feet in height. Each one can provide up to 80 megawatts of power - enough to power 80,000 homes.
Power Restoration Stats
More than 130 miles of new cable laid
More than 50 miles of underground conduit installed
46,000 feet of new trenches dug
Tens of thousands of cable splices made
In NO description of a substation will you find reference to vast oil tanks. No mention of fuel tanks, back-up generators, “fuel lines”, or any other notion other than the typical substation: transformers & cable. And yet, if responsible, or partly responsible, for the collapse of WTC7, one would expect some mention of the new design; how was it a safer version than the last one?
Neither of these descriptions (albeit contradictory) of the new substation mention diesel or oil tanks. This is consistent with the fact that a substation moves electricity; it is not a power plant and does not generate electricity. It makes sense for them to contain transformers as that would be their primary task, to take energy from power lines, power generated elsewhere, and step it down for local, short distance lines.
But there is the endlessly repeated “story” about 130,000 gallons “leaking” (e.g., "Did you mean to search for: 130000 gallons of oil leak from the Con Edison substation").
Again, no one alleges that the “substation” caught on fire or exploded. Oddly, whatever the substation was, it is never described in any news article or official FEMA or NIST report that I could find. Nothing specific about what it was, what size tanks it allegedly held, etc. Ironically, one can read about the NEW Con Edison substation built to replace the old one!-- http://www.state.ny.us/governor/press/04/may26_2_04.htm NO DESCRIPTION OF NEW OIL TANKS in that story either.
Here’s another example of where Goodman may have gotten her facts mixed up. Evidently the NYFD complained about the mayor’s little fuel tank. I say “little” because a 6000-gallon tank of diesel isn’t very big and has little explosive capability. When was the last time a tank of diesel fuel blew up? Has it ever happened? At the end of the following article, there is mention of the NYFD’s warning (fumes, alleged ‘danger’) to the mayor about his 6000-gallon tank: http://www.americanfreepress.net/Conspiracy/Fire_Engineers_Call_WTC_Prob... In my view, this “conflict” between the NYFD and the mayor is most probably disinformation.
I searched for any evidence that ANY diesel fuel tank had EVER exploded ANYWHERE and had a difficult time finding any such event. (Google “diesel fuel tank explodes “) Here is the only case I could find, a tank that was under pressure, :
Pressurisation of Fuel Storage Tanks
A diesel fuel storage tank exploded at a Wembley foundry and engineering works after it was pressurised with compressed air.
Published: 10/01/1998
http://www.safetyline.wa.gov.au/pagebin/injrsign0050.htm
The mythology of the exploding fuel tank of WTC7 is one of wackiest ancillary notions of the “official” narrative, an unsubstantiated, inconsistent, and preposterous idea that any investigator will soon find laughable after a day of research. That such an improbable scheme was repeated by Goodman in her book, that she got the facts wrong and told the world that her misunderstanding was “exactly what happened” is embarrassing and disheartening. All the more so because she hasn’t been able to apologize for being wrong as her bestseller continues to spread misinformation on this important topic.
FYI ---
Large transformers contain copious amounts of oil --- used as a dielectric as well as a coolant/dispersing heat.
No offense, but this is trival
That transformers contain a bit of oil is irrelevant because the official theory never posits that such scattered and UNQUANTIFIED AMOUNTS--unquantified by you or anyone else. Such 'copious amounts of oil' are 1) UNQUANTIFIED AMOUNTS not demonstrated to be significant in quantitity to have any ability to, say, create blast furnace conditions; 2) that this oil was somehow ignited; nor do you provide a method, theoretical or otherwise, by which ignition MIGHT occur; and 3) these UNQUANTIFIED AMOUNTS have not apparent bearing on any previous discussion on the matter (no mention in the NIST reports, no mention by Amy Goodman, and no mention in any of the numerous descriptions we have of substations or their components; not that there might not be a bit of oil scatter around in a small number of transformers that are separated and contained.
But again, what is troubling about all of this is that Barrett never calls Goodman on her written record, appears to be ignorant of her record, and NO ONE on this site NOTICED or considers such matters of fact worthy of mention and instead we have to bear witness to an infantile session of name calling between to factions that is embarrassing and insulting to newcomers to this site.
“This is not your night
“This is not your night why don’t you shuddup” – what a moron that guy was, and what bigger morons were all the people who clapped for that.
Barrett needs to stop supporting absurd junk science from Fetzer et al, if he wants to actually contribute to building 9/11 Truth’s credibility to a point where people like Amy Goodman want to embrace it.
i agree, he really should
i agree, he really should drop that bullshit right now but he doesnt mention it in this thread or video and does a nice job of putting Amy on the spot. Goodman already openly admits that she thinks the 9/11 Commission is a cover-up, so it isnt junk science or a lack of credibility of some in the movement that keeps her from doing more about 9/11, its her own cowardice. Barrett should drop the junk science but he did a nice job here. cant we give credit where its due without all the caveats and down votes? just once?
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
"cant we give credit where its due without all the caveats and down votes? just once?"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Thank you Chris. I haven't laughed that hard in a long time. Where was your concern for "caveats and down voting" during my first responder fund drives? Where was your concern for "caveats and down voting" when Lorie Van Auken explained about the importance of the JICI? Where was your concern for "caveats and down voting" when Lorie Van Auken introduced the story of Sibel Edmonds? Where was your concern for "caveats and down voting" when Donna Marsh O'Connor agreed to answer some questions?
Now, you care about "caveats and down voting" when Kevin Barrett openly promotes Eric Hufschmid, someone that made a movie about how the Jews should stay away from 9/11 Truth?
Man. Thank you for that laugh. That was a good one.
A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks
Dude your not supposed to
Dude your not supposed to notice his nuanced subtleties. Shhhh.....
--
The 9/11 Truth B-Team
Nothing subtle about Chris...
He's been a disruptor and an instigator on this site from the very beginning. If you read through this thread, you'll eventually see what kind of problems he used to give dz. Way back in March 2006. Good ole' anonymous Chris who supposedly lives in my area, and has never once participated in any activism. Good ole' anonymous Chris.
By the way, the voting on 911blogger.com is compromised. I wouldn't put much stock in it anymore.
A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks
'compromised'
What do you mean by this? that it is possible to cheat by changing the IP or deleting cookies or something alike?
Every online voting system is 'compromised' in that sense.
Or did the site-admins note anything peculiar ? It seems pretty consistent to me... And im not sure how effective it really would be to cheat it, at least the downvoting-way. Hidden posts are extra-attractive to many, as has been pointed out many times....
Talk to...
Reprehensor.
A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks
ive never particapated in
ive never particapated in activism with you, thats for sure. you're an asshole Jon. this was unprovoked and you lost it here. grow up already. im an agent i guess. im a "disruptor" because i pissed off big bad Jon Gold. leave me alone Jon. you've shown you're not capable of change so just leave me the fuck alone please.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
Hey Jon...
Remember a little something about 9/11 truth? That's why we're all here. All you're doing is wasting time. If you yourself are not an agent of distraction, you're doing those who are an enormous favor.
Get back on the ball or get out. I used to respect you. But now you're beginning to piss me off hardcore. This movement is extremely important to me and you're not doing anything in this thread to promote our collective goal. In short, cut the shit man...just F'ing stop it. You're little "bwawhwhwha" or whatever angered me quite a bit. I've seen plenty of folks hostile to 9/11 truth use that childish expression and I don't want to begin equating you with them.
Chris, you are astonishingly sophisticated for your age (for today's standards anyway...in the 60s you'd be considered "normal"). Keep up what you do man...you make me proud time and time again. It's perfectly humanly natural to "take the bait" at times...I've done it, but brother, ignore the distract-tactics as much as you can. We're winning and many seams are beginning to show all over the place. I don't know about Jon...I don't want to accuse him of anything, but I have to say...he's not helping this movement, at least in this thread.
Jon, if you're an honest seeker for truth, behave (at all times in public forums) as though David Ray Griffin is watching you intently. (Talk about having an angel on your shoulder) ;-)
Mmmhmmm...
Thanks for your "input". Kevin Barrett promoting an obvious anti-semite, Holocaust denier, moon-landing denier, and someone that made a movie (that included me in it) about how the Jews should stay away from 9/11 Truth angered me. I guess you're ok with that though. As was Chris, the "astonishingly sophisticated" individual, with his call for "caveats and down voting" to stop just for this issue.
Is anti-semitism, Holocaust denying, moon-landing denying, and racism what you consider to be 9/11 Truth? If so, you can have it.
Still waiting on Chris' contribution.
Oh look... Eric Hufschmid attacked John Feal to. What a guy.
A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks
ERIC H - PAINFULL DECEPTIONS
John;
I watched Eric Hufschmid's film Painfull Deceptions about a year ago, and thought it was an excellent film. It was one of the films that convinced me 9/11 was an inside job.
But then, about 6 months ago, I found out Eric was a Holocaust Denier.
So now what am I supposed to do???
Also, I am wondering if he became a Holocaust denier BEFORE or AFTER he made the film Painfull Deceptions.
thanks man, when the best
thanks man, when the best you can do is yell "ANTI SEMITE", "LIAR" and play the six degrees Kevin Bacon game you obviously dont have a leg to stand on. people who are not honest frequently take this road and you're right, i shouldnt have even responded. i dont have a website like the great Jon Gold, saviour of the 9/11 families so i guess ive never contributed anything in his mind. like you say though, hes clearly not honest and i could really care less about those accusations. despite medical problems i do at least some sort of 9/11 activism almost every single day. i dont need to prove myself to bullies like Jon. in fact, some say you havent really made it until Jon Gold calls you a liar or anti-semite. im neither of course but having the great Jon Gold(still waiting on an answer for how old he is)say these things about me has to be a good sign right? i shouldnt have taken the bait but the man attacked me pretty hard for no reason out of nowhere and unfortunately i responded to him. thanks again for the compliment, thats rare around here,haha.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
Yep...
Harassing individuals, such as myself, on 911Blogger.com is a great contribution. Who are those people that say you haven't made it until Jon Gold calls you a liar or anti-semite? The wonderful people at www.wtcdemolition.com? A great bunch of people at that site.
I'll leave you to your "contribution" now.
A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks
are you ever going to leave
are you ever going to leave me alone? how old are you again Jon? note to everybody here-dont ever respond to Jon Gold or question anything he ever posts, he sees this as harassment. he may come off as a real tough guy around here but as you can see hes quite sensitive.
Jon, we can both agree that this has gone on for too long in this thread. dont respond to me again and i wont respond to you. lets both drop this now. ive asked you more than once to leave me alone. lets drop this, at least on this thread. show me how mature you can be.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
I think...
I've made my point.
A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks
yes, i think i have too,
yes, i think i have too, considering you couldnt help yourself and responded yet again. try to act your age(35? 40?) in the future. bye Jon.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
Plants don't just grow in the garden
I've only been reading here much a few months, but Chris usually seems pretty spot on (as the Brits say) about most everything I've read him discuss here.
Jon Gold, on the other hand, is an odd duck here indeed. He campaigns against the controlled demolition theory of the collapse of the WTC (the irrefutable centerpiece of the 9/11 truth movement), and tries to get people here think that 9/11 only happened because the Bush administration looked the other way while agents of Islamic regimes -- Turkey (!), Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc. -- plotted 9/11. You see, everybody, if this country just worked harder and more loyally for the cause of AIPAC, we wouldn't be having all these terrorist attacks.
I don't know whether Gold is a paid disinformation agent or what, though it's extremely suspicious. But at best he's thoroughly out of step with what the 9/11 truth movement is about. It's hilarious and preposterous that he keeps posting like he's just one of the regulars here, always quick to put down the normal truthers as though they were intrusive outsiders.
Or maybe...
I put forward some of the most incriminating information out there, and individuals like yourself, are supposed to paint me as disinformation.
You're right though... I can definitely see how one shouldn't be annoyed when someone promotes the person that made this...
A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks
Hey 911Blogger.com moderators...
Why is this individual allowed to post here? Do you agree with what he's saying? Do you condone what he's saying? Wake the fuck up.
A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks
Did I ever say that?
That, "the WTC collapses were not controlled demolitions?" Nope. Never said that. What I did say, however, is that this approach, "There is reason to believe we haven't been told the truth about how the towers, and WTC7 collapsed. For instance, the family members along with two scientists filed a petition for correction with NIST because of faulty information within their report. NIST's report regarding the collapse of WTC7 has been delayed twice, and has yet to be released. The 9/11 Commission completely omitted any mention of WTC7 in their report. If there are going to be high-rise buildings in the future, don't you think we should investigate every aspect of how and why those buildings collapsed so as to make sure something like that doesn't happen again in the future?" coming from a layman (someone that isn't a physics professor, or an architect) sounds a helluva lot better than the buildings were brought down by "Controlled Demolition.".
In regards to Dr. Griffin, Steven Jones, etc... Have you ever appeared in a front page news article with Dr. Griffin that led to another front page news article the following Sunday? I have. Are you friends with Dr. Griffin? I am. Are you friends with Dr. Jones? I am.
Keep trying to paint me as an "infiltrator", and as a "disinformationist" though. It is what you're supposedly good at.
A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks
Jon. This is the "They
Jon. This is the "They Fight You" stage.
Expect more of it on all fronts. Don't sweat it, because you know what the next stage is.
/////////////////////
911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info
I read Emanuel Sferio's
I read Emanuel Sferio's farewell piece written on 9/11/06. Basically he lays out, in his opinion, the over all strategy is to keep people in a box bickering over technical details, and keeping the focus off of individuals and events squarely pointing at complicity. That seems to be a fair assessment, its just that your not playing along Jon, and as such you need to be challenged and attacked.
More About Disinformation
source: http://www.septembereleventh.org/five_years_later.php
One of the characteristics of 9/11 disinformation a lot of people have a hard time grasping is that much of it is designed specifically to convince people of US government complicity in 9/11. This might seem like a contradiction, until one understands that 9/11 disinfo is part of a broader system of mass manipulation where the opposing perspective plays an essential role. The basic idea is to control both sides of the debate, and frame it in a way that makes the opposing side ineffective (not necessarily unbelievable). In the end it doesn't matter whether even a majority of the people believe the US government was complicit in 9/11 (this is already the case). What matters is only that the perpetrators can never successfully be prosecuted. Thus they pollute the body of evidence with red herrings and false lines of inquiry. If, in the process, they happen to cause some people to disbelieve the official story (as in the case with the "no plane at the Pentagon" hoax), all the better, because the end result is a weakening of any legal case that might be brought against them.
There is an important quote by E. Martin Schotz from his book, History Will Not Absolve Us: Orwellian Control, Public Denial, and the Murder of President Kennedy. It is: "One of the primary means of immobilizing the American people politically today is to hold them in a state of confusion in which anything can be believed and nothing can be known." Conspiracy theories, in other words, provide the perfect cover for real conspiracies. When anything can be believed because the available information is a convoluted mix of truth, falsehood and probability; when the actual truth itself is convoluted, involving deception, mystery and illusion; then one is ultimately left to their own emotions to decide. And emotions, of course, can be easily manipulated. What do you want to believe? After all, it's up to you. You'll never know the truth, or at least you'll never be able to prove it in a court of law. Do you really want to be marginalized and ridiculed as a conspiracy theorist? You get the idea.
--
The 9/11 Truth B-Team
are you calling me disinfo?
right back at you if so. to imgstacke and DHS, i think you both need to work on your reading comprehension a bit. i know he likes to play the victim and is very good at it, but you need to go back and re-read just who attacked who first in this thread. what started this page long argument? i didnt attack him. he attacked me and i stuck up for myself. and you'll notice numerous times i tried to end it and he kept on going. but yeah, hes the one thats being attacked right? im not protecting anybody, i want EVERYONE involved in 9/11 to be held accountable. lets stop pretending that Jon is a victim. he gets special treatment. Jon tells the mods to "wake the fuck up" and slanders me as a racist and doesnt get banned. i make some off hand comment about how one of the mods voted me down and i get banned for it?(banned by Rep unjustifiably and re-instated a couple days later by SBG because of the clear double standard. i asked GW and Rep why i was banned and both of them failed to come up with an answer. in fact they didnt even bother responding to me because they knew they were wrong as SBG later proved). even if you dont like me, an unbiased person would be able to admit the double standard in that case. hilarious how he was crying about his point totals and how the system was "rigged" too. well, im getting plenty of negatives while your bullshit comments are being voted up. can i cry about how the point system is rigged against me now? but yeah, the LIHOP mob and the self appointed disinfo police(they know whats best for us all after all) are the victims right? please, you guys rule this site with an iron fist now. stop playing the victim, its ridiculous.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
Delete
Delete
The voting system here is a joke
People are obviously voting more than once using multiple logins. That has been evident since day one.
I, myself, have 133 logins I use to vote, which is why my posts usually hover around -4.
They really should turn that feature off. It's used for petty and/or irrational means more often than not, so it means nothing.
I always uncompress negative replies just to see what the Idiots are voting down now.
----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist
To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. — Abraham Lincoln
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein
The...
Voting system was originally intended to be the alternative to censorship. If enough people vote down a thread, then other people will know that it's really not worth looking at. However, it has since been morphed into exactly what you described.
A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks
wow. this was an unexpected outburst......
jesus Jon, you seem extremely pissed right now. you're right Jon, i dont have concern for you based on exactly how you are acting right here now. i shouldnt be surprised by this childish outburst. and conflating my support of Kevin Barrett questioning Amy Goodman with Hufschmid and his racist views? thats not low or lazy at all is it? its also not typical of Jon Gold is it? or is it? heres why i think you really think im a "disruptor" and that the point system is "rigged"(i get voted down by the imgstacke/DHS/Gold brigade too, you're not the only one getting voted down around here) just look at the point totals:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/11646
isnt that why you really felt the need to come at me so disrespectfully like this? its ashame you delete all the blogs you act childish on and get verbally ripped on, i could go and post some great ones about you too. you were that angry that you went back on your site to look for dirt on me? dz and i are fine now, hes a grown up. how old are you Jon? im 24. how mature are you Jon? im trying.......
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
Could you be any more blatantly obvious?
I call you out on your bullshit, and so you act like a victim? You just gave me another laugh. Thank you Chris.
BTW... Pat at screwloosechange.blogspot.com gave the same lie you just did about how I have deleted multiple threads because of the comments. One. Not plural.
Feel free to keep lying though. It doesn't surprise me coming from you.
A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks
projecting yet again are we?
no Jon, you would be the one that plays the victim so well(how many times have you "quit" now?). other way around, i call YOU on your bullshit and you take it from thread to thread(like you did here) and cry like a little bitch like i "follow you around for 2 years" or some shit. how old are you again Jon?
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
Old enough...
To know when someone is a liar.
A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks
i rest my case.
i rest my case.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
screwloosechange vs. Jon Gold pro wrestling match
Oh, I well remember writing a comment on the thread started by "Jon Gold" about how the Sibel Edmonds business shows that 9/11 was done by agents of Islamic countries while Bush looked the other way! I noted how this, combined with firm denial that the WTC collapses were controlled demolitions, sounded like Mossad disinformation.
I tried to go back to the thread a couple hours later to see what replies I got, but -- lo and behold -- the whole thread had vanished. It couldn't even be retrieved by a "Search".
Who got rid of the thread, "Jon Gold"? Was it enemy Islamic agents?
I'll bet the "screwloosechangers" and "Jon Gold" had a hearty laugh together about their staged "charges" against one another.
Amy on the spot
Boy, Chris do you have that one right. She wanted no part of Kevin and the WTC7 question. If she could have disappeared, I can assure you she would have. I pay no attention to controlled shills like Amy Goodman. I my mind they are just as complicit as the neo-cons. Anyone who knows the truth but won't say something is just as guilty as the preps. She is as much a scum-bag as Bush or Cheney.
She is a GateKeeper
{Amy: "I guess you're famous here."
Kevin: "Not as famous as you, Amy. Here's my book, with my phone number, in case you want to invite me on your show, or appear on one of my three radio shows. Also, I was wondering if you could autograph this book (Eric Huffschmidt's Painful Questions) here on the Building 7 page (page 65, featuring still shots from the demolition of WTC-7) so when you break this story..."
Amy: "I don't want to mess up your page."
Kevin: " I think when you break this story it'll be valuable..."
Matt Naus (off camera): "You were there, Amy! I saw the video of you. You were there!"
Amy: (smiling) "I work right there."
Kevin: "I mean, if you break this story...if anybody does, it might be you...and if you sign this, this will be a very valuable book."
Still smiling, she declines to sign.
She is Obsfucating and Pretending. I have seen other clips, i believe it is WeAreChange and she is always evasive and making excuses.
Let US NOT APPLAUD HER FOR SAYING WE NEED A NEW INVESTIGATION (AFTER 6 YRS OF COMPLICIT SILENCE).
REMEMBER THE KENNEDY RE-INVESTIGATIONS. IT WILL BE A FARCE.
Pls note: She is smiling and saying "I work right there". ALL THE MORE REASON TO QUESITON THE LIES BEHIND THE OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY.
She cannot claim lack of proximity to the event, lack of being an eyewitness, lack of people providing her proper evidence of an INSIDE JOB.
I seriously believe she is a GATEKEEPER.
To put you to sleep. Chris is right in his William Colby quote.
Intelligence Organizations OWN most if not ALL the MAINSTREAM MEDIA PLAYERS INCLUDING "PRETENTIOUS ALTERNATIVE MEDIA"
Remember:
Amy: "I don't want to mess up your page."...................................
Amy: (smiling) "I work right there."
Kevin: "I mean, if you break this story...if anybody does, it might be you...and if you sign this, this will be a very valuable book."
Still smiling, she declines to sign.
This is an ACT.
We DON'T NEED AMY GOODMAN OR ANY COMPLICIT GATEKEEPER TO CALL FOR A NEW GENUINE NON-PRETENTIOUS 911 INVESTIGATION AND BRING THE MILITARY-MEDIA-INDUSTRIAL-COMPLEX TO TASK FOR THEIR MASS MURDERS AND GLOBAL CRIMES.
She is no better than Kissinger or Rice or Zelikow calling for A NEW INVESTIGATION.
Let us not be desperate and start asking GATEKEEPERS TO UNCOVER THE TRUTH.
Remember it has been 6 yrs of COMPLICIT SILENCE AT GROUND ZERO FROM SOMEONE WHO SHOULD KNOW THE TRUTH, AN EYEWITNESS AND STILL IS IN "DENIAL"
I don't buy her excuses.
It looks like pure lies to me.
She is NOT the voice for truth.
We have better options, better people to uncover the truth.
Let us stick to trustworthy , HONEST people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it.
Kevin is not angry with Amy
I understand being angry at "left gate keepers". Early on after reading Griffin's "A New Pear Harbor", I went to an Amy Goodman book signing and I bought her the book. She said that she would give it to one of her staff to read. I was later angry at the way Dr. Griffin was treated on her show.
Regardless of what her past motives were which I think were basically, "I don't want to die", having her say the words now is what we should politely keep pushing for.
Polite with Amy, angry with Rudi
Thanks for understanding
The Complicity of the Media in its Silence is a serious matter.
I have suspicions of her and as you mentioned EVEN David Ray Griffin was treated badly on her show hence your anger.
I think Chris is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ON THE WILLIAM COLBY Quote.
Let us not let our guard down.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it.
Who's disputing the fact
Who's disputing the fact that Fetzer's a human being? So is Morgan Reynolds, so is Judy Wood, so is Nico Haupt and Rick Siegel. Doesn’t mean I suddenly have to feel all compassionate and forgiving towards any of them after they have systematically worked together to damage 9/11 Truth's credibility.
Do what?
No, it does NOT help us to have a "space-beam" nutter "opening alot of minds to 9/11 truth." No, it does not help, that the first exposure to 9/11 is from a bloke they will soon learn is mental. Chances are, those "open minds" will piss off soon afterwards:
"I thought there was something to it, but then they started saying no-planes were involved. They ARE tinfoil wackos."
As for Kevin--dunno--keeping a close eye on that one...
______________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
Barrett's not the problem here
The difficulty with Goodman has nothing to do with whether Barrett embraces the correct 9/11 theories or not. She's had plenty of opportunity to explore 9/11 events from the get-go, and has only offered evasion and lip service.
She's a gatekeeper, always has been, always will be. Part of her function is to proclaim stuff such as that the 9/11 Commission was a cover-up, but then not lift a finger to expose the particulars. Or to say that there needs to be a re-investigation, when it's obvious no such thing will happen unless highly visible journalists like her do just that.
It's shuck and jive, aimed at giving the sheepish among her listeners the illusion that she's somehow on top of this, while obscuring the painful truth that she won't touch the biggest story of our time.
Yes, speaking out and asking
Yes, speaking out and asking questions is not your right. Now sit down.
/sarcasm
/////////////////////
911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info
Only thing is...
She won't want to embrace it no matter what. In my opinion you're giving her too much credit. Did you see her face? It wreaked of sarcastic disdain for the question as well as the questioner. "No I did not bring down Building 7".
Uh...did Kevin suggest that she single-handedly demolished building 7 in even the most round-about way? I believe not.
F Amy. I say that as an x-fan of hers as well as her daily program. I'm more and more convinced that she's a WILLING accomplice to the globalist agenda. Whether she's on their payroll is pure speculation, but I wouldn't have any reason to cast any doubt on the notion.
Excellent Kevin!
Greetings from MALAYSIA Kevin!
Excellent Job!
The REST OF THE WORLD KNOWS 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, MANY LIKE MYSELF (A CHRISTIAN) FROM DAY ONE.
NORAD STAND DOWN?!!! IMPOSSIBLE!..
She is acting cowardlly, making excuses and obsfucating. Classic symbols of a gatekeeper or threathened individual afraid to FACE THE FACTS
OF THE CONTROLLED DEMOLITION OF NOT ONLY WTC7 BUT THE GREAT REPUBLIC THAT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USED TO BE.
The Patriot ACT I & II, The Victory ACT, PDD51 and others is CLEAR INDICATION THAT THE War ON Freedom AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THAT IS WHAT THE 200 ODD FEMA CAMPS ARE FOR, SCATTERED ACROSS THE USA.
SOME- COURTESY OF HALLIBURTON AND FRIENDS.
I am sure you can do your research to confirm.
I have been observing Miss "Goodman" from a number of years from thousands of miles away and a simple person like me can tell you she is and has been behaving like a Gatekeeper.
She did NOT DEMOLISH WCT7.NOBODY SUGGESTED THAT!
But why is she SILENT ON ITS "COLLAPSE" FOR SO MANY YEARS BEING AN EYEWITNESS?
WHAT HAS SHE DONE FOR THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DYING FIRST RESPONDERS?
THE DEATH TOLL OF 911 IS FAR FAR GREATER THAN 2994++ PEOPLE (OFFICIAL FIGURES)WHO WERE MURDERERD BY THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.
LET US NEVER FORGET TENS OF THOUSANDS OF FIRST RESPONDERS. BETRAYED.
ARE THE AMY "GOODMAN"'S OF THE MEDIA INVESTIGATING THE SILENCE ON THE LIES OF THE EPA - CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN, RICE ETC AND THE POISONING OF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF EMT, PATRIOTIC AMERICANS WHO WORKED FOR WEEKS AT END AT A TOXIC DISASTER SITE WITHOUT PROPER SUPPORT?
WHY IS IT WEARECHANGE IS OPENLY CHALLENGING GIULIANI AND SHE IS APPARENLY SILENT ON THE MATTER?
Let us not be deceived by Gatekeepers.
Obsfucation and Deception.
The COMPLICIT MEDIA HAS COMMITED TREASON AFTER THE FACT.
HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.
DEMOCRACY NOW? SHE IS LYING
LUKE FROM WEARE CHANGE IS ONLY 21 AND IS RISKING HIS LIFE CHALLENGING THE LIES BECAUSE HE CARES ABOUT THE FIRST RESPONDERS, ABOUT JUSTICE, ABOUT THE REPUBLIC.
DOES SHE CARE?
OR IS IT ALL JUST FOR THE MONEY!!!!
HOW CAN ANYONE PRETEND AT A TIME LIKE THIS!
CHRIS IS RIGHT :
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
I strongly believe SHE IS COMPRIMISED.
Complicity is Evident. Hold Her Accountable instead of being deceived by the facade and niceties behind the deception.
This is AN EYEWITNESS. She cannot deny knowledge of what happened.
THE EXPLOSIONS ARE SO OBVIOUS. 6-7 SECONDS TO "COLLAPSE"
Maybe Gravity works differently in Manhattan than from the REST OF THE WORLD.
Her style of A NEW 911 INVESTIGATION will result in another Kennedy Coverup. Complete FIASCO.
If you understand the history of John F. Kennedy's murder, you will agree.
Same Skull & Bones Team - Same style of CONTROLLED COVER-UP INVESTIGATION.
SAME PACK OF MEDIA LIES TO THE OBVIOUS.
911 BY 19 HIJACKERS DEFEATING NORAD IS THE OSWALD OF THE 21ST CENTURY.
WE HAVE TO PUT A COMPLETE STOP TO THIS.
PLS SEE: E. HOWARD HUNT
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13893143/the_last_confessions...
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/jfk_hunt_last_confessions_rolling_st...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it.
Digg this:
http://digg.com/world_news/Kevin_Barrett_Questions_Amy_Goodman_On_Buildi...
GREAT JOB Kevin!!
- laura
www.Columbus911Truth.org
Recommended reading
Amy [Goodman], you will one day find yourself on the scaffold, condemned to hang alongside the other Goebbels-style traitors and mass-murder-coverup-conspirators from the corporate media you pretend to criticize.
http://www.mujca.com/amy.htm
The betrayal of trust, for me, is so immense, that I want to see Amy Goodman in the docket for war crimes alongside the Goebbels crew from Fox and the ownership of all mainstream US media and the "left gatekeepers" of the so-called alternative media. Of all of these purveyors of blood libel, I think Amy may be the worst--because she is the one idealistic skeptics trust the most. Through her complicit silence, Amy has done more to promote today's anti-Muslim genocide than any other media figure. The ghosts of 600,000 dead Iraqis will haunt her soul forever.
Amy Goodman -- j'accuse.
-Kevin Barrett
Madison, Wisconsin 12/1/2006
http://www.mujca.com/amy.htm
Get a grip
Posting those kinds of violent fantasies of revenge don't help our cause. They play right into the hands of our enemies, who would love to depict us as dangerous nuts.
True, but Victronix’s
True, but Victronix’s sarcasm isn’t very clear if that’s the point.
"Recommended reading" is a bit hard to interpret.
Like that guy who just got out of gaol learned
You need to be VERY careful with your words.
So I suggest you change "gun" to "firing squad".
If you are particularly paranoid, you could change it to "officially mandated legal firing squad".
Of course, any asshole who interpreted your words otherwise is just that, but that's "how they get you".
----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist
To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. — Abraham Lincoln
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein
Yes. We need to do this CONSTITUTIONALLY
We need to deal with this TREASON CONSTITUTIONALLY.
Non-Violent Direct Action CONSTITUTIONALLY.
That is the difference between us and the criminals who use violence for the War on Freedom VIA FALSE FLAG TERRORISM.
They FEAR THE CONSTITUTION.
Hence the PATRIOT ACT, PDD 51 and so many other acts of treason and betrayal.
They WILL be brought to JUSTICE. But there is a DIFFERENCE between VENGEANCE and JUSTICE.
So let's focus on a CONSTITUTIONAL APPROACH to dealing with this Treason.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it.
Temporarily I voluntarily rescind my evil designs on Amy
No, you're right. Consider the guillotine and gun deleted... oh and the rope, I suppose. But - in my dark nightmares -- which appear to be coming true -- as the economy continues its complete collapse in the next little bit and the authoritarian state begins to clamp down further, hyperinflation ensues and people are starving and children dying (even more than they do now in this land of plenty) and the actual bits of resistance are erradicated and the remainder of the dissenters removed to the camps...... If I am still alive, I will remember those who could have helped prevent that but did not.
And if the nation ever comes out of the dark days quickly coming (which is highly unlikely) I sincerely hope that some remember those who betrayed the Republic through their refusal to act. And Amy Goodman is one of those.
m
(oh, but I keep the plug for INN in .... you wanted positive TV exposure? There it is.)
==================================================================
"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." (Goethe)
polarizing
Nothing to "dig up" since it's all right out there on the websites. You can see if from me or you can see it from FOX News on an anniversary. Your choice.
Sounds like you've never listened to DNow. You should try it sometime. It's one of the few good radio programs.
It takes a little maturity to accept that not every single person will be onboard with demolition and other issues, but that they still can be doing good work that benefits many.
I don't like icons in general and certainly not media icons. But the show itself is extremely wide-ranging and covers most the important stuff, even the third party candidates, which you won't see Alex Jones or Wearechange covering. They're too busy promoting the guy who is against the development of alternative fuels, and voted to drill in Alaska.
http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/q11_2006.asp
Great Job Kevin....
Keep the pressure on the Gatekeepers at all times. As for the sheep F**k em !!.
WE WILL WIN !!!!
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!" -Dan Wallace
invitation to interview me about Jim Fetzer
Those of you who are pissed of at me for giving Jim Fetzer the time of day are hereby invited to come on one of my three radio shows (http://www. mujca.com/airwaves.htm) and ask me about it. I will be happy to answer all questions forthrightly. Please email me: kevin@mujca.com and I'll find an available radio show for you.
Note that I have many areas of disagreement with Jim as well as many areas of agreement, just as I have with many other 9/11 researchers and activists.
I have called Jim on what I see as his mistakes, just as I recently called Webster Tarpley on what I see as his recent mistakes. (Note: I think Webster's opponents are mistaken on the substance, while Webster's mistake was his style.) While I haven't succeeded in changing either of their minds very much, I respect both of them as brilliant, sometimes cantankerous, imperfect human beings who have important contributions to make. I want to keep dialogue open with guys who are that smart! I've gotten to know Jim personally, and can assure you that he is neither an infiltrator nor the ogre that he is sometimes made out to be on this website. (Would an infiltrator have torn up Ollie North on Fox the way Jim did?!)
If you'd seen Jim doing his intro to 9/11 presentations to newbie audiences, you'd realize that he may be the most effective person we have in that department. 95%-plus of his presentation is on non-controversial evidence, and he presents it extremely well.
I agree that the way he revels in intra-truther controversy is politically inexpedient. And he did let himself get suckered into some bad behavior last year during the Scholars split. From where I sit, Jim got taken for a ride by that lunatic-or-worse Rick Siegal, who, I am told, has an uncle or grandfather or something named Bugsy.
I will be happy to be grilled on all this by a hostile interviewer. If you're afraid to try it yourself, maybe you can ask Hannity or O'Reilly to do it for you ; )
Kevin
Tight blog post.
Thanks Kevin.
We were discussing Jim and Web just last night. I'm not always so good at getting my feelings across, but simply as you say, Web and Jim earn more (understandable, thought not wholly due) truther ire more for their crotchety off style, rather than the ideas they clumsily raise.
(but Amy is a complete flipping mess. Her only improvement since I spoke with her last year, is when she's asked the same questions at a book signing now, she no longer looks back with eyes of horror. Maybe she's been getting lessons?)
So when's your German
So when's your German Translation of your book coming out?
"Mein [epic] Kampf!"
--
The 9/11 Truth B-Team
Was Hitler EVER a comedian?
Far cry from the ironic humor you're suggest we should laugh at, because Hitler's "Epic Struggle" is quite a bit different than Barrett's oft present tongue in cheek. No?
Look what I just found by
Look what I just found by typing in "Mein Kampf" into google images;
http://jeremayakovka.typepad.com/jeremayakovka/2007/01/my_kampf_the_is.html
Barrett's book may well be associated with all the garbage propaganda about Ahmadinejad being the "new Hitler", after "Saddam" was the "new Hitler" of course. The state of Israel acts much more like the Nazis frankly, they break the Ten Commandments on a daily basis – so they’re not even very Jewish it’s a double irony.
You ARE A REAL JOURNALIST
Dear Professor Barret,
You should be commended for your desire to be balanced and giving even those who have "strange" theories such as the space-beams and no-planer crowd, some time on your radio show in order to REVIEW and CRITIQUE their viewpoints in a FAIR AND BALANCED WAY (not FAUX NEWS STYLE).
I don't agree with Prof James Fetzer and the others on their theories but they HAVE THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH TO AIR THEM REGARDLESS OF THE PATRIOT ACT OR FRAUDENTLY ELECTED PREZ BUSH'S PDD51.
If they are CO-INTEL PRO, they will be discovered in due course. We have many HONEST, SMART , GENUINE PATRIOTS WATCHING.
I am disappointed with Mr. Webster Tarpley whom I have HAD a great deal of respect for due to his bad handling of the recent KB "signed" document affair and the attacks on a hard-working - heart broken anti-war peace activist such as Cindy Sheehan and others such as Cosmos/YT from TruthAction who is a co-worker with Luke (THE REAL DEAL!) FROM WEARECHANGE.
We need to give these people (Fetzer,Tarpley etc )some space for them to air their "SPACE BEAM" views and at the same time maintain VIGILANCE.
Which is more important, being "right" about a pet theory, our ego's or getting JUSTICE AND TRUTH FOR THE DYING FIRST RESPONDERS (ALSO VICTIMS OF AL-QAEDA OR AL-CIA - SAME DIFFERENCE).
Tens of thousands. Dying. Slowly Poisoned. Unbelievable. Unacceptable
There must be a voice for them. Medical Attention, Restitution, The Truth and the Criminal "Neglect" OF THE BUSH CABAL i.e Skull & Bones + Complicit Media Brought to FULL ACCOUNTABILITY.
WE NEED TO BE THAT VOICE. NEVER STOPPING. NEVER.
TAKING ACTION CONSTRUCTIVELY -GLOBALLY AND LOCALY.
EVEN IF 19 HIJACKERS ACTUALLY BEAT NORAD, THE PENTAGON AIR-DEFENSES, THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, LIMITATIONS ON FIRES MELTING CONSTRUCTION GRADE STEEL AND MIRACULOUSLY BRINGING WTC7 WITHOUT EVEN HITTING IT WITH A PLANE!!!
WE MUST REALIZE MANY MAINSTREAM JOURNALISTS ARE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR.
How The Presstitutes Lie To America
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2558.htm
Pro-Musharraf presstitutes regurgitate the same mantra and myth of Al-Qaeda
http://www.dictatorshipwatch.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=a...
There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell the country for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press. We are the tools and vassals of the rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.
-John Swinton, a toast before the New York Press Club
http://www.quoteland.com/topic.asp?CATEGORY_ID=179
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it.
Thanks Kevin
for your comments.
Interesting about Fetzer (Siegal is an issue, eh? How unsurprising.) and Tarpley (who, while he interviewed Paul Craig Roberts last night was actually pretty good but I turned it off when Roberts departed). I didn't want to run the risk of having to listen to any more diatribes against decent truth researchers. DL, a Tarpley associate can be briliant at times but his presentation is completely undermined by his arrogance regarding his own work and derogation of the truth movement. (IMHO).
Amy Goodman is dead to me. I have trouble even watching Democracy Now with a sense of dismay and nausea. Because she is such a left gate keeper and her apparent alliance to the forces commiting treason against the Republic dominates my thoughts when I see her.
Richard
==================================================================
"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." (Goethe)
"Need I remind you that to a
"Need I remind you that to a lot of people outside of the 911 Truth bubble think that our ideas about government involvement seem just as outlandish."
Yea, that's because it gets associated with garbage about "no planes hitting the WTC". Your talk about "technologies" reminds me of the junk spewed by Abrahamson;
"I know Nico is controversial, I know Nico has had battles with people, I think Nico has had battles with me. I brought Nico on the program because I think we need to start having this discussion, you can disagree with him, you can think he's disinfo, you can think he's a bad guy, you can think I'm disinfo, you can think I'm a bad guy, but I think we need to have a dialog on the true technologies." - Dan Abrahamson
We don't need a "discussion" about high technology, most people accept that there are very high tech weapons in existence. What's the point of tying that reality to the drive to get truth and justice for 9/11 when we have MORE THAN ENOUGH AMMO already (WTC 7 etc)???? What's the point of taking facts about weapons technology and then inventing COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED AND ABSURD BULLSHIT in regards to how the Towers collapsed, making the issue sound EVEN MORE ridiculous then than it already is??? What's the point of that shit when it's NOTHING but counterproductive?!
Nice one!
;-)
______________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
To Dem
Hey all I was saying is nothing should ever be closed to discussion. Isn't that what we're fighting for??? And isn't it a little Fascist to say we don't need to discuss something? Didn't Bush say "let us never tolerate outlandish conspiracy theories"? I don’t know exactly what happened to bring those buildings down, and neither do you. We all have theories about it. But to say that we don’t need a discussion about something is narrow minded. And I never said anything about a no plane theory. I just get frustrated with people attacking others for their beliefs or ideas. We all want the truth and I may be alone in this but I don’t’ believe any type of discussion is counterproductive so long as it is attempting to help bring out some truth.
I never meant to offend, and by your comment I feel like i ought to apologies, even though I know it's not necessary.
Mini-nukes, space beams, and no planes
have been discussed at length. They have all been shown to be completely impausible and should have been put on the shelf long ago. See the articles on why these theories don't explain the data at the Journal of 911 Studies.
It is actually appropriate to start an investigation with speculation that appears to explain the observed data. But when certain theories are shown to be completely implausible, stoic investigators put them aside and move on with those which continue to agree with the data and evidence.
There are no physicists, engineers, or any real science people, that I know of, other than Dr. Judy Wood, backing any of these theories for what occurred in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001. Dr. Greg Jenkins did a real service for the Truth movement by interviewing Dr. Judy Wood about her space beam theory. In that interview she showed herself to be ridiculous and engaged in a childish fantasy, as she essentially could not provide any realistic basis for her theory. I'm sorry but talking about putting a fork in a microwave oven as a basis for how a space beam could have taken down the towers is ridiculous.
I am confused about Dr. James Fetzer and would like to think that he is a patriot who generally wants the truth but has allowed himself to provide an unearned stature to these implausible theories. He is not a scientist regardless of his philosophy of science background. That area of study does not provide one with a scientific thought process or training. Unfortunately, even after being shown, by people with real scientific backgrounds, that these theories are without any tenable basis, he has continued to push them. I believe he has done this due to the combination of a lack of a real scientific background and a tendency to want to be a part of ground breaking research. I wish he would revisit what the word stoicism means and why that approach is much more respectable. However, given his impressive ability to convey thoughts, I believe Dr. Fetzer would be much more valuable to the 911 truth movement and could redeem himself if he would defer to the real scientists involved and apply his talents where they count most, instead of dabbling where he does not have expertise.
I believe Dr. Kevin Barrett has been a stoic concerning the data and evidence from the events of Sept. 11, 2001. I believe his approach to learning the truth has been appropriate. Truth is usually a process of convergence and it does require an open mind to possibilities and to investigate them. That is all Dr. Barrett has shown a willingness to do and we should all realize that is all he is doing. He has not given undue support to every theory coming down the line. As he himself said, in a comment above, he does not agree with or support many ideas which Dr. Fetzer supports, and has actually taken Dr. Fetzer to task on many of these issues. Dr. Barrett's bottom line, that I have heard, is that the controlled demolition of WTC7 is the smoking gun of 911. That is where anyone lucid and honest would start the conversation.
This invariably leads to pre-positioned explosives being in the towers and their use in bringing them down with the plane impacts being used as causal ruses to blame outsiders.
However, with all of that said there is more than enough hard evidence for a new investigation and these sideline theories should be set aside for an investigation to sift through. These other theories are distracting and can only cause a loss of focus to the movement.
On second thought
Jim Fetzer is either a disinfo agent or a fool. I personally begged him not to keep pursuing the space beam nonsense and to put it on the back burner until a new investigation was realized and to let them look into it as it was thoroughly implausible, had nothing to do with the damage to the adjacent buildings, and was near impossible to prove. See my letter on this in the Journal of 911 Studies. Amazingly, now he not only continues to push that but is pushing the no planes scenario.
The buildings were obviously taken down by charges placed on the core columns and the corners of the buildings. We need a new investigation to determine who had access to the building interiors and to question them under oath and investigate their backgrounds and activities.
I have to stop vacillating and giving Jim Fetzer the benefit of the doubt and Kevin Barrett should also. No planes and space beams do nothing for the movement but cause confusion. The resolution of whether they have anything to do with anything does nothing to further the movement and they would be put aside by anyone interested in getting a real investigation.
I am sorry that I lapse into giving Jim Fetzer the benefit of the doubt and feel he should be completely shunned unless he admits his foolishness.
In your dreams, baby, in your dreams
"We need a new investigation to determine who had access to the building interiors and to question them under oath and investigate their backgrounds and activities."
Uh, excuse me: AIPAC Nancy and her Dancing Democrats aren't having any new 9/11 investigation, any more than Charlie Rose plans to invite David Ray Griffin onto his PBS show.
The 9/11 truth movement is just going to have bite the bullet and plow ahead on its own, waking the public to that which the politicians and the professional media are too prostituted -- and too frightened (remember anthrax? remember what happened to uppity Paul Wellstone?) -- to reveal on their own.
9/11 is a grassroots movement, and will remain so until the time comes when the people "throw the bums out," i.e. vote out the old school of politicians and stop consuming the professionalized media content that's organized to protect the 9/11 perps.
On THIRD Thought: Barrett's Role Will Become Clear:
Barrett's classic Cointelpro-like role as "soft cop" (in this case "sincere but misguided leader") will become crystal clear upon investigation and reflection. One can start with an excellent short summary just posted on http://www.truthaction.org (and elsewhere on this thread).
--------------------------
No secrets are so well kept as those secrets everybody guesses. ~~G.B. Shaw
Capt Eric May on MUJCA
Kevin, as a site dedicated to religions which include Jewish people, I was wondering why you include "Captain Eric May" on your website (many times it seems) even though he makes statements like these -
"In this case it is the controlled media, who use Jewish Cabalism, and the "Bush Boyz" (criminal officials and agents), who use Masonic coding, and they're reporting their handiwork in the Great Plains! . . . I wonder why the Jewish film industry would make a mistake like that, rewriting the plot of reality to convince us -- with a powerful movie -- not to obsess about the prospect of embedded code in the mainstream Jewish news media?"
http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/burning.htm
The simple fact is that these deaths were repressed by a Zionist-dominated professional group, and who can blame me and mine if we make the politically incorrect, but factually correct, point that Jews covered up Christian deaths?
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters1/Toben/toben_may.htm
Don't you think these might be offensive to Jewish people?
Victoria, is this all that
Victoria, is this all that you do?(tear people down and play thought police all the time) make any more lists lately?
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
Sorry Chris man, but these
Sorry Chris man, but these criticisms are legitimate I think.
It's starting to look like
It's starting to look like the Hegelian Dialectic -- problem/reaction/solution. I hope I'm wrong.
In case anyone hasn't noticed a pattern here, the self-appointed Roto Rooter team of the 9/11 movement, currently instigating and maintaining internecine kerfuffles here and on Truth Action, are becoming curiouser and curiouser.
First, we had one woman's constant support of RT's "right to full and scrupulous historical truth" when he posted endlessly here about his disagreements with the official Holocaust narrative. It wasn't denial, dontcha know, it was what a truth movement was supposed to be all about -- all truth! Then posted under her real name both here and on Truth Action is a statement about how the 9/11 movement is being infiltrated by and conflated with anti-Semitism and HD and racism. Huh. She is well aware that in every possible venue, we have seen an attempt by the mainstream media to conflate the two in order to smear the whole shebang as anti-Semitic. So what gives? Why feed the hand that's biting you?
Using another 9/11 activist's popular podcast, a 9/11 WTC researcher and, for that show's episode, self-appointed expert on disinformation, presents a haughty description of his contentious argument for a Boeing-in-the-Pentagon, and then conflates criticism of same with disinfo. His research desciple or compatriot, who gained credibility by decent analysis of the WTC (although it's hard to take someone seriously who presents academic material under an internet handle), has spent most of his time recently bully others with that thesis. (When challenged on specific points, he either reiterates earlier points or goes silent.) Creating a false dichotomy on the Pentagon was counterproductive, especially as early criticism of the "conspiracy theories" barely touched on the Pentagon until it became known as a division to be exploited. (The original Popular Mechanics article relegated it to a near afterthought.)
The same crew with new members then endlessly blog and comment to create a disingenuous conflation of LaRouchian politics with the 9/11 movement in an attempt to smear Webster's work (with help from his contentious personality, I will add), and then cry foul that we are being associated with LaRouche. (I find it very interesting that there were, for the first time, "LaRouchies" set up outside the venue in NY; as a group, they have not been 9/11 friendly nor do they seem kindly disposed to Tarpley.) They broadcast the disagreement over the Kennnebunkport Warning, which wouldn't have risen above sea level in the outside world, and have handed ammunition and succor to the likes of sleazy 9/11 debunkers like Chip Berlet and the impotent and heavily infiltrated anti-war movement. Again, why feed the hand that's biting you?
I have not seen much meaningful contribution to this or other 9/11 sites since this behavior moved into high gear. As always, the success off COINTELPRO is determined by how much mudslinging and destruction can be generated. (If they had a COINTELPRO party and no one showed up, would it work? No.)
For people new to this and other sites, it looks like a cluster you-know-what. For older 9/11 activists, it is dispiriting, irritating, and a time-sink. In the meantime, legs are constantly kicked out from beneath the truth stool. If they aren't making trouble intentionally, they're doing a good job of playing it on the internet. They maintain that their Rooter standard is "by their fruits ye shall know them" -- I would hope they turn that mirror around and take a look. I'm NOT accusing anyone of anything; ego, personality, high-spiritedness, the high-stakes nature of this material, the weariness of a long struggle, all make for difficult intersections. But when the results are the same, some serious reflection should occur.
Silence is almost never a solution
“In case anyone hasn't noticed a pattern here, the self-appointed Roto Rooter team of the 9/11 movement, currently instigating and maintaining internecine kerfuffles here and on Truth Action, are becoming curiouser and curiouser.”
I think you’re being unfair in your characterization. What is the point of commenting if one side is not allowed to voice their point of view? I agree that ad-hominems (i.e. roto rooter team) and guilt by association and pointless arguments should be avoided. But reading this thread, there are many who have different opinions, and is this ever not true at 911blogger?
There is also a difference between genuine critique and pointless infighting—which I want no part in. The ad-hominem is a very serious problem and is only a deterrent to reasonable discussion and to focusing on ideas--not the individuals presenting the ideas.
I have not posted a single blog on the Kennebunkport warning on 911blogger for a reason—the comment section would probably be hijacked, and then the infighting will start. At least that was my gut feeling, and that was why I kept my research on the topic off of here. I tried to keep my comments to as few as possible.
“As always, the success off COINTELPRO is determined by how much mudslinging and destruction can be generated.”
I agree. But silence is complicity. Saying nothing is essentially saying that “personal attacks are ok”. It’s like saying: “I know 9/11 is an inside job, but I’m not going to discuss it because it will cause too much divisiveness”. Obviously, you do not hold that view about 9/11, so why is this different? I agree it doesn’t mean that we should start engaging in the behavior we are complaining about. Which is why, I have tried my best; I have never personally attacked Mr. Tarpley. It is true that I offered my opinions on the affair, but I have NEVER said I have “proved” who is telling the truth. Read my articles if you don’t believe me. I have said all along my main concern was the personal attacks against Cindy Sheehan and the anti-war activists. If Tarpley wants to be a comedian and attack me for criticizing his behavior, make ridiculous claims that I "oppose" his warning (when I supplied research to support it), and make silly cartoons he can go ahead. It’s not my credibility at risk for that.
"The same crew with new members then endlessly blog and comment to create a disingenuous conflation of LaRouchian ."
I have said I don’t know what the connection is; I only know that it exists. I agree that it is not a good idea to focus too much attention to relationship--ideas and destructive behavior are much more relevant.
“I have not seen much meaningful contribution to this or other 9/11 sites since this behavior moved into high gear. As always, the success off COINTELPRO is determined by how much mudslinging and destruction can be generated.”
We live and learn, and do the best we can. I am always learning, and I will make an attempt to be a better researcher and activist, and I can only hope the same for everyone.
(If they had a COINTELPRO party and no one showed up, would it work? No.)”
Yes it would work, because it would allow the attacks to continue. It’s like saying I’m not going to deal with a problem and it will disappear. How do you know that? Are you going to stop talking about 9/11 because it is “divisive”, or "controversial"? Of course not. The point is, you have to find the most constructive way to deal with a problem, and that is what I have been trying (my best) to do.
I would suggest the best way of dealing with a problem is not to ignore it; it is to bring attention to the problem, not get involved in the controversy by trying to remain civil, and offering solutions. Doing nothing is always usually not a good solution in my opinion.
Take the example of scholars for 9/11 truth. By ignoring the divisiveness that led to the break-up did that help matters? Did the people engaging in the bad behavior stop? No, they didn't--and there is a reason why they won't stop. And that's why we have to deal with it.
Everything Arabesque said
Personally I don't see a precentage in being nice about it at this point, but Arabesque's recommendation to try to be civil is well taken.
But as for this, "“I have not seen much meaningful contribution to this or other 9/11 sites since this behavior moved into high gear."
Silly me for thinking exposing attacks on our allies is a meaningful contribution. Funny thing, I was under the impression ALL of us in 9/11 Truth were part of the "roto-rooter team".
The attacks continue--for anyone who cares. Jamilla seems to be taking it harder than the rest. I was going to blog a letter campaign of support here, but as Arabesque points out, it would probably get hijacked. The last thing Dahlia et al need is loads of hate mail right now.
Now I want to know where the bloody hell the line is between exposing 911 Truth and exposing people trying to muddle "exposing 911 Truth". Cause I thought it was all the same thing. >:(
______________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
I'll respond to both of you
I'll respond to both of you in the same post.
I don't see many areas of disagreement in most of yours, Arabesque. The difference is that disinfo or disruptive behavior is in the eye of the beholder -- it is not usually an absolute. Nearly everyone who has gained what passes for prominence in this community has been guilty of, at the very least, an evolving interpretation of the events of 9/11 and occasional expressions of anger at the truth movement for one thing or another. Remember the Cleveland Airport scenario in LC? Was that deliberate disinfo to discredit the movement or misinfo? You obviously vehemently disagree with their interpretation of the Pentagon scene -- where is the vehement denunciation of their motives? Is the beer-soaked frat-boy demeanor of the LC boys on their radio program designed to discredit the prominence of their film? What about their occasional meltdowns on Blogger? (For the record, I don't think so -- it's all a matter of evolution and age and taste.)
Here's another example: many people saw In Plane Site as their first 9/11 documentary. It was a useful -- albeit flawed -- tool at the time. It has been eclipsed by others that are better, thankfully. But the pod issue was not a deal-breaker for most people new to an alternative view of 9/11; rather, it was barely noticed. Most people are capable of discernment in the long run. A simple statement of disagreement under a posting of a book or film or theory that one doesn't agree with, pointing to something better, lends dignity and credibility to the entire movement.
I never thought that the most meaningful contribution anyone could make was countering attacks with attacks in an endless loop that makes everyone look dodgy. (I thought it was reaching out to new people in out own communities in the best and most efficient way possible.) As for attacks on our allies, I guess we would have to discern who our allies are. The anti-war leaders? The evidence simply isn't there. As I posted before, if the KW women were committed to ending "the war" and disposed to use the best weapon -- 9/11 truth -- to do so, they wouldn't have launched the first public shot over the bow. They would have dealt with it quietly between the principals. They certainly wouldn't decide to hold back such a spectacularly useful strategy because of one person's actions. Like they don't have egos and constant personalilty clashes in the various anti-war factions? Please. Maybe you haven't been around this block as long as I have.
As Arabesque honestly admitted, he doesn't know is the truth behind the KW backslide. So why does it make sense that the benefit of the doubt and subsequent ethusiastic public advocacy was given to the people who had changed their stories a few times? Why does it make sense to reexamine the entire history of an outspoken proponent for 9/11 awareness and not reexamine the entire history of the methods and effectiveness of the moribund anti-war leaders? What is fair? What is productive?
It's a matter of balance, and I saw the scales tipping to the counter-productive side, possibly because of bruised egos all round. I was simply attempting to tip them back toward center and give food for thought.
This bit is bollocks:
"As I posted before, if the KW women were committed to ending "the war" and disposed to use the best weapon -- 9/11 truth -- to do so, they wouldn't have launched the first public shot over the bow. They would have dealt with it quietly between the principals."
First, I know Jamilla DID try to discuss it quietly with Laurie Dobson--for all the good it did her.
Second, while I do not believe for a second you are stating anything else but your personal opinion--misguided IMO--I know one other person who makes these arguments "to deal quietly behind the scenes" when under attack, and I am 99% certain they ARE a shill. That puts me right off that argument from go. And then my personal experience that dealing quietly with abusers NEVER works, makes me wonder why an intelligent person like yourself is even typing those words.
"Dahliar 4"--yeah, that's what Tarpley calls them--only made a public statement after emailing people was obviously failing. Hell, Laurie Dobson is posting those emails on her blog as "proof" of something--but I'll let you find that yourself--I've done enough work and I'm not bleeding holding someone's hand to make it easier on them. Maybe if you have to slough through the lot on your own, you'll see how bad it is and how bad it could have been if no one had taken proactive measures.
Sod this--I've things to do--some of them related to 9/11 would yeh believe.
______________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.
In response to LEH
I never thought that the most meaningful contribution anyone could make was countering attacks with attacks in an endless loop that makes everyone look dodgy. (I thought it was reaching out to new people in out own communities in the best and most efficient way possible).
For some reason – I’m assuming it’s just ignorance – the irony of this statement escapes you. Your strategy for success is precisely what the folks at truthaction have been doing since day one. The sole purpose of the site and the campaign is grass roots activism. Everything else is way, way down on the list of priorities. I might add that it has been remarkably successful in this regard. Starting in three cities and involving about a dozen people it has spread to over a hundred cities with thousands of participants – everywhere from Boston to Berlin. These numbers are steadily rising. It is completely decentralized and leaderless. Perhaps this is why it is coming under attack. Or perhaps it’s as you say: ego run amok.
In your previous post you aped Tarpley by omitting this rather important point about truthaction.org. You also talked about a sinister influx of “new users” to that site, failing to mention that most of the “new users” singed up when 911blogger shut down commenting and designated truthaction a viable alternative. A few people from Truthmove and other locales also came onboard in order to lend support when Tarpley began his meltdown, but (speaking for myself at least) I’m pretty sure they’re not party to a sinister plot on behalf of the Ford Foundation. That you would insinuate as much is pretty shameful, imo.
These “new users” did what I think every single person in the movement should have done when the controversy broke: lend their support to fellow activists whose only “crime” was questioning the (increasingly fascistic) tactics of a leader figure. Thankfully, a few gutsy people like Kevin Ryan and most people on blogger were not afraid to step up to the plate.
This Bunkport silliness is merely a blip on the radar. There are hundreds of registered users at truthaction; only a handful have even bothered to talk about Webster’s shenanigans. What you call the “maintenance” of the controversy has mostly consisted of users snickering at Tarpley’s latest embarrassing tirade or documenting the latest dubious character invited on his radio program. Barely a day has gone by without Tarpley repeating his baseless allegations. Indeed, I think the LACK of response by people like Cosmos and the superhuman civility of people like Arabesque has been nothing short of remarkable (Cosmos has barely even mentioned it on his radio program, choosing to concentrate on activism instead). Personally, I would have already sued the old man, or at the very least sent message from my lawyer (if I had one ;)
Would it be better to ignore all of this entirely? Perhaps. It’s a very easy thing to say when you are not personally being subjected to ongoing and decidedly vicious slander. I understand what you’re saying about an “endless loop”. If we ever reach a point – and perhaps some of us already have – where the bulk of our efforts are devoted to personal squabbling instead of 911 truth activism then I agree. The bad guys win. But does this mean we have to ignore it altogether? I mean – you aren’t, are you? Perhaps this is just a growing pain.
You talked about reaching out to people “in the most efficient way possible”. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that “reaching out” to people with completely unsubstantiated (in fact, ridiculous) theories, personal attacks on the single most prominent anti-war activist, further personal attacks against people involved in the most effective 911 truth campaign to date, and rampant jew-baiting is not very efficient.
Unless, of course, the goal is to completely derail the 911 truth movement.
Silence is complicity. Tarpley’s behavior should be condemned, but we should at least try to keep it above the belt. I don’t always succeed in this regard and I admit it.
You see disinformation as of little or no consequence; in my opinion the only reason its effects have been marginal up to this point is because most people in the movement reject it. It is not at all clear that this would be the case if not for those pesky “troublemakers” who insist on maintaining reasonable standards of scholarship, who devote some of their time to debunking quack theories (on behalf of the truth, if I need to spell it out) and who criticize “leaders” who take the opposite course.
You also mentioned that every prominent figure in the movement has been guilty of promoting misinformation at some point, but that their understanding has evolved over time. Well yeah, exactly. There’s a name for creatures who fail to evolve – extinct.
When people continue to promote theories that have been soundly debunked (over…and over…and over again); when they promote these theories despite the fact that detailed counter-information has been presented them (over and over and over again) – I no longer consider them responsible advocates for our cause. In fact, I don’t consider them advocates for our cause at all but rather advocates for ScrewLooseChange. You see the various theories about 911 as subjective and cite the Pentagon (the most controversial issue) as an example. This is disengenuous. There is no comparing the various theories about the Pentagon with holograms at the WTC.
If you label me a “troublemaker” for saying as much that’s your prerogative. All I can say is: thank God for the troublemakers! Rigorous criticism of leader figures is an excellent way of avoiding the slide into group-think and fascism. If I can’t criticize Webster Tarpley without being labeled an agent I might as well just join the neocons, thank you very much.
As for attacks on our allies, I guess we would have to discern who our allies are.
Indeed. This really cuts to the heart of the matter. I consider this the “911 truth” movement. I don’t consider this the “find the wackiest and least supported theory” movement. Thus, in my mind, the nut case wing of “holograms” and “da jooz” is not even part of the movement I am involved in. Puts a whole new light on “inra-group" squabbling, eh?
I would even go so far as to say that the people being most divisive here are those who continue to defend these NON-truthers. If they succeed in their efforts they will divide us from every intelligent, rational, caring, and remotely progressive individual on the planet. I want no “unity” with quacks and Neo-Nazis, and that extends to people who implicitly lend their support to bigotry and bad science by giving them an uncritical platform. For a shining example of such a person go look at the guests invited to World Crisis Radio over the past few weeks.
Big tent? Nah. If these are the people in the “big tent” I’ll go pitch my own.
The Eleventh Day of Every Month
Where in my posts did I give
Where in my posts did I give the impression that I was a "big tenter" or that I support wacky theories or that I defend non-truthers or anti-Semitism? As a matter of fact, I've worked to expose some of your favorite charlatans in the past. This is a perfect example of the overreaching I attempted to illustrate.
I think this movement would be much healthier without relying on "leaders" at all. If it is truly grassroots and diffuse, there is less need to recall people when they go off the reservation. There isn't a single person who has achieved prominence in this movement with whom I agree on everything or whose motives I trust entirely. Not one. While people can usually agree on most of the problems with 9/11, their long-standing political ideologies clash when it comes to solutions. I love Ralph Shoenman and Mya Shone's program "Taking Aim" and recommend their archives constantly. I love having "Terrorstorm" in the outreach video arsenal and distribute it widely. But if you put AJ in a room with Ralph and Mya to discuss the real root problems and solutions (or forced them to listen to each others' programs), they would begin to disagree almost immediately. Does this create a problem for me? Not at all. They are all useful. As a matter of fact, one of my main talking points is that people who have worked to expose the fallacy of the 9/11 narrative come from every point of the political spectrum, involving people who otherwise wouldn't agree on the positions of the hands on a clock. I alert them to the fact that there is a lot of junk out there, intentionally and unintentionally injected as the main points of the movement have become more mainstream, and that a huge shit filter is required.
I think Truth Action's 11th Day of Every Month campaign is very useful and galvanizing. But if I were a newbie and visited its forum over the past month, I would have thought that this movement was infested with LaRouchies and anti-Semites and all manner of creepy crawlies because what appeared to be "outing" was the overwhelming order of discussion. Does the tenor of the discussion reflect the stated goals of the site? Would I send someone new to the site under those conditions? If I was a newbie to 9/11 Blogger reading through the comments, I would have thought that this movement was one big cat fight. Does this entice people into a positive movement? Would this make me want to get involved? (I maintain the same about Webster's program in its recent devotion to excoriating his attackers. But since you guys are well-acquainted with that aspect, I hardly think it worth mentioning;-))
As I said, it's about balance. And convincing people that getting involved in 9/11 analysis and activism is a positive endeavor. Sorting through the crap is good, but allowing it to turn off curious newcomers is not. I always try to imagine what things look like to someone new, not how things look to people already invested.
Look, I was a competitive debater for seven years. It is my intrinsic nature to see things from all sides and see things through to their logical conclusions. You are supposing that because I appear to be challenging you (or choose to believe that I am personally insulting you) that I must agree with the creeps and their theories you mentioned. This is not a mature read. I'm trying to be analytical and look at the big picture and you guys keep responding as though you've been swatted with a rolled newspaper.
Anywhooo, I'm done. As always, best wishes to all well-meaning folk.
Reading comprehension, dear...
I'll cut you major slack in that department because the blog entry by "epochthree" was VERY misleadingly formatted. The blogger attached his own opinions to the article he reposted in a very unclear way.
There is a difference between Jew-haters and anti-Zionists. My friend Petros, who wrote the essay to which you allude, is and anti-Zionist, as am I. We are also very opposed to anti-Semitism in the form of Jew hating. There is a distinct difference, and let me recommend the website racetraitor.org if you need additional help understanding that distinction. I am not nearly as disturbed by charges of anti-Semitism being used against 9/11 Truth by the media as I am by the fact that there are Jew-haters and people who enable Jew-haters in prominent positions in the 9/11 Truth movement.
So please do not accuse me of taking a self-contradictory political stance unless you know WTF you are talking about. Thanks.
Sara Lamadrid
INTERNATIONAL Criminal Network Behind 911
There is a Criminal Network of Global Proportions behind the 911 Operation and subsequent crimes.
Pls see: House of Saud
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4383835181717429209&q=house+of+s...
Also see: Fahrenheit 911 to understand the BUSH FAMILY'S ULTRA-CLOSE TIES TO THE BIN LADIN FAMILY, THE HOUSE OF SAUD - SAUDI ROYAL FAMILY ETC.
UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF THE CARLYLE GROUP.
The Pakistani ISI - the 100K wire transfer etc indicates complicity from a vast network of criminals proftting from G.O.D. - GUNS, OIL, DRUGS IN THE 911 WARS.
I could go into more detail but I daresay everyone here has the general idea. Just do some research and the Mossad / Israelite / Dancing Israelites is only the tip of the ice-berg.
THE LOVE FOR CORRUPT MONEY HAS NO RELIGIOUS OR RACIAL BIAS.
THESE PEOPLE ARE FROM AROUND THE WORLD AND ARE PROFITING FROM THE ARMS TRADE, THE DRUG TRADE AND THE MANIPULATION OF OIL PRICES UP TO USD 82-84+ NOW.
LET US NOT BE MANIPULATED BY THIS ELITE CORRUPT GANG OF ILLUMINAZIS.
BE IT FROM SAUDI ARABIA, WASHINGTON D.C. TEL-AVIV OR IN ASIA.
The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9-11
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring.html
This is NOT AN ATTACK ON THE JEWISH PEOPLE. There are many many wonderful good Jewish people, just as there are many good Muslim-Arab people.
We are talking ABOUT A CRIMINAL NETWORK OF GLOBAL PROPORTIONS COMPRISING OF FAKE "CHRISTIANS" OF THE SKULL AND BONES VARIETY, SO CALLED "JEWS" AND MUSLIMS WHO ARE EXPLOITING THEIR PEOPLE THROUGH WARS AND MEDIA CONTROL TO UNDERMINE FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY AND TRUTH IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THEIR GRIP ON ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it.
"Chasing Amy Goodman" New Film In The Works
That was a joke, pitched inside to myself like a whacky sinker on an 0-2 count.
Anywho, why are we chasing Amy so much? I understand that she is a "Gate Keeper" but this is about the 4th video I've seen involving Amy Goodman. You would think that she holds the keys to the CFR itself by now. She already said that she agrees with a new investigation. What are we waiting for her to say the 5th, 6th, or 7th time around?
You would think that someone in the 9/11 chain of evidence would be questioned like this. Maybe CNN, maybe BBC, maybe fire chiefs, maybe Generals or Lieutenants, maybe news anchors or film editors, maybe even firemen or policemen. But we go after Amy for the 4th time.
Is there a method to this madness other than her being one of the "Elites" of the left wing persuasion?
"[M]adness"?
Going after CNN or BBC or fire chiefs or generals or news anchors may be amusing, but nobody expects anything from them anyway.
The difficulty with Goodman is that she has an audience that's potentially, easily receptive to 9/11 truth, but she's careful never to expose her audience even to the fundamentals. She could in short order do so much good, but she steadfastly refuses to.
I guess Amy will confess soon....
You know, she might confess soon to hearing a demolition countdown at GZ if we press her enough. Oh wait, reality just called me on the phone and laughed in my ear....REALLY REALLY loud. He almost sounded drunk.
What's more offensive, worthy of stronger challenge?
The overt ham-fisted face punchings by Bill O'Really?
I the soothing genteel hand and 'trustworthy frump' of Amy Good-for-tears?
Amy's damage by denying exposure to this material from the eyes of her Peace-Loving audiences, handicaps intelligent productive dialogue and efforts toward substantive and lasting change for the better.... FAR MORE than FOX's base-whipping upon the humanistically small minded.
Amy may not be the bigger villan of those with a finger on vile bomb buttons, yet I'd argue she vastly more repugnant as villainy's aid deep inside the camp of ineffectualness.
Insidious Amy
Fox News has been self-consciously cheerleading Bush imperialism from the start. Never any surprises there. Its audience expects and, presumably, likes that.
Goodman and her Democracy Now, conversely, have been assaulting that same Bush enterprise from the start. At least, that's the impression one would get if one didn't look more deeply.
So why do they refuse to seriously look into prospectively the most incriminating evidence against that imperialism? Even if only to refute it, assuming they could?
Perhaps she thinks 9/11 revisionism is so prima facie preposterous that it doesn't merit consideration. But then common decency dictates that she display the guts to come straight out and say so. Instead, all we get is evasion and obvious discomfort.
Goodman is vastly more insidious than Fox because she refuses a highly potentially receptive audience access to information that would make many of them supportive of 9/11 truth. The mere fact that she doesn't give 9/11 truth the time of day, as with Chomsky, sends the message to her audience, that there's nothing much to it.
Fantastic job by Kevin Barrett in questioning Amy Goodman,
left gatekeeper extraordinaire!!! Goodman is much like her hero, Noam Chomsky, a left gatekeeper who helped conceal the govt's assassination of JFK!
Amy, gatekeepers like yourself are guilty of being accessories-after-the-fact to mass murder & high treason. You are a very serious criminal in your own right!
(Also notice how Goodman has been basically silent in stopping/ending the illegal invasions of Afghanistan & Iraq, impeaching Bush/Cheney, etc. I believe she is NWO.)
Amy Goodman is not a
Amy Goodman is not a Journalist, she's an enabler of mass murderers.
Yes greenback
Yes Sir / Madam.
You said it right. It is COWARDLY COMPLICITY.
"She works right there" Or so she says.
I can't believe her elusive obsfucating statements and hypocrisy. Sorry if i sound angry, but I am.
There are worse "journalists" or presstitutes like Hannity or is it Vannity, Colmes and the O'Really Factor,
Mr Bill "Shad-Up" O' Reilly.
Presstitutes PAR EXCELLENCE.
NOW LET US MEET THEM WITH THE CONSTITUTION PAR EXCELLENCE WEARECHANGE STYLE.
GOD BLESS THE WEARECHANGERS.
SHOW THEM THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRUE PATRIOTS AND TRAITORS.
NO MORE EXCUSES. NO MORE LIES.
TRUTH. JUSTICE. FREEDOM.
CONSTITUTIONALLY.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMERICA WILL PREVAIL. SHE IS GOING TO OVERCOME.
COUNT ON IT.
I KNOW AMERICANS.
FOR CO-INTEL PRO. REPENT.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it.
Great job!
I am always amazed about Kevin's media performances. He is well composed, concise, uses best points in support of his arguments. As far as I am concerned, he could be the spokesperson of the Truth Movement.
His support (however weak) for DEW or any other crazy theory of Fetzer & Co is unfortunate, of course.
If you'd seen Jim doing his intro to 9/11 presentations to newbie audiences, you'd realize that he may be the most effective person we have in that department.
I am not so sure about that, with all due respect to Dr. Barrett. Fetzer's arrogant style of presentation (as much as I have seen on YouTube), is enough to turn off at least as many people as he turns on. His ego (and the resultant fall for crazy theories and ad hominem attacks) overshadows his accomplishments greatly, unfortunately.
Amy's running scared
But who can blame her?
Except people who have nothing to lose because the chances of them losing their job and career over their 9/11 outspokenness is pretty much nil. (that is a form of cowardice, imo)
Although it's impressive and honorable when people do put their "lives" on the line, such as Kevin Ryan and Steven Jones, who "paid the ultimate price", so to speak, I don't blame anyone (too much) who chooses to take the cautious route, hoping that they will some day "grow a pair" and choose to be brave and courageous and all of that good kind of stuff. (and then hope they don't get screwed for it)
I will admit that, ideally, people should speak out, regardless of the consequences. And I would hope I would be one of those people, were I in that position. But then Reality set in.
So I bide my time. In hope that they will one day, when the time is right and ripe, "do the right thing". Which I know will eventually occur for each and every one. Some sooner, some later. Just as we have seen so far.
----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist
To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. — Abraham Lincoln
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein
Was Amy Goodman EATING while
Was Amy Goodman EATING while Kevin was asking his question?? WTF??
"Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy."
-Ron Paul
Barrie Zwicker gave her a month...its been over a year!!!!!!!
Lets not forget Barrie Zwicker and I's "little visit' to Amy's book signing Sept. 11 2006 in NYC.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3766
Not much has changed and no further coverage even though the past year has seen the 911 truth movement gain millions of new supporters and thousands of pages of new evidence which directly contradict the official story. I had hope for Juan Gonzales and even her supporters forcing this issue after my interviews in 2006.
Yet she is still a potential, even if unwilling, ally,...... so venomous attacks on her do little but alienate her listeners and stroke our own righteous egos, ......even if she absolutely deserves it. Yes , we deserve to be righteous..because we are right, (and I like a good stroke as much as the next one) but many of her listeners are just waiting for even a little movement from her on the issue and then they will be the ones pursuing her with questions. .......And from there , its almost impossible to go back...especially if starts at Building 7. ...Hell ,lets make up our own word for it like the NIST scientists, we'll call it ,,,,,"the left media 911 truth collapse initiation point ."
Nice job Kevin.
Radical Pragmatist
Bullying
The issue is not about whether Amy should be confronted, the issue is about who is doing the confronting, what they say to her, how it is done, etc.
The fact is, Amy has made her position pretty clear. At a certain point we have to focus our efforts elsewhere and she will either get on board or not.
Asking her to sign a Hufschmid book at this point is ridiculous and amounts to harassment given that she has made her position clear.
Writing posts about her that suggest she should be tried for war crimes and should consider the scaffold is also an attempt at bullying her into submission that none of us should be engaging in.
This is how we TURN OFF hardworking activists of the left to 9/11 truth issues, by attacking them on our websites, ignoring the entire body of work they have done on many other issues, and making veiled threats. Goodman has risked her life to cover the news. 99% of the rest of the work she does is beneficial to ALL of us. If we cannot allow people doing that kind of work to their own opinions on 9/11, we are not showing common decency toward people who are mostly on our side.
Yes she is a leader, and yes she is closed to demolition.
This is fact.
Leave her alone and focus elsewhere. Don't humiliate her, attack her, deride her, admonish her, etc. That's how we lose support from her allies and supporters, not how we gain it. Amy is doing extremely important work. Many others confronted are not, but Amy is.
It's fine to question her or anyone in public in a considerate way. But asking her to sign the book of a known anti-semite is an affront to any thinking person. And bullying her with "scaffold" is not the way to expose truths, but to anger reporters.
If bullying is the way, then we should all join Bush in his empire.
It's not the way we need to be moving.
Who do we trust?
COMPARE democracynow to the People at GCN, WTPRN.
PRESSTITUTES. THE SIMPLE TRUTH.
http://www.google.com.my/search?hl=en&q=Pentagon+buys+journalists&btnG=G...
http://www.democracynow.org/about.shtml
Democracy Now! is a national, daily, independent, award-winning news program airing on over 450 stations in North America. Pioneering the largest public media collaboration in the U.S., Democracy Now! is broadcast on Pacifica, NPR, community, and college radio stations; on public access, PBS, satellite television (DISH network: Free Speech TV ch. 9415 and Link TV ch. 9410; DIRECTV: Link TV ch. 375); as a "podcast," and on the internet.
The program is hosted by award-winning journalists Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez and produced out of the Downtown Community Television Center, a community media center in New York City’s Chinatown (shown to the right).
Democracy Now!'s War and Peace Report provides our audience with access to people and perspectives rarely heard in the U.S.corporate-sponsored media, including independent and international journalists, ordinary people from around the world who are directly affected by U.S. foreign policy, grassroots leaders and peace activists, artists, academics and independent analysts. In addition, the War and Peace Report hosts real debates - debates between people who substantially disagree, such as between the White House or the Pentagon spokespeople on the one hand, and grassroots activists on the other.
New stations are adding Democracy Now! to their programming schedules all the time, and there are several movements going on around the country right now to bring Democracy Now! to new communities. To find out more about these efforts, and how to get involved, click here.
WHY INDEPENDENT MEDIA ?
For true democracy to work, people need easy access to independent, diverse sources of news and information.
But the last two decades have seen unprecedented corporate media consolidation. The U.S. media was already fairly homogenous in the early 80s: some fifty media conglomerates dominated all media outlets, including television, radio, newspapers, magazines, music, publishing and film. In the year 2000, just six corporations dominated the U.S. media.
In addition, corporate media outlets in the U.S. are legally responsible to their shareholders to maximize profits.
And U.S. “public” media outlets accept funding from major corporations, as well as from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Every Corporation for Public Broadcasting board member is appointed by the White House and confirmed by the Senate.
Democracy Now! is funded entirely through contributions from listeners, viewers, and foundations. We do not accept advertisers, donations from corporations, or donations from governments. This allows us to maintain our independence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AM I SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE THIS?
ANYTIME GCN, WTPRN.
I WOULD BELIEVE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it.
i agree
and it is always the same cast of characters who seem to find some tortured logic for defending bad manners, bad research, bad public relations, calls for violence and outright disinformation.
its seems like an organized effort to harass people whom we should be courting to support our cause. right?
what could this confrontation possibly achieve? what could this poor judgment tell us?
- produce a 9/11 book with the words Mein Kumf and Jihad right on the cover - guaranteed to alienate large cross-sections of the population. check
- make sure the book itself has no hard evidence in it. check.
- call for prominent members of the left-leaning media to be executed - in the name of 911 Truth. check.
- present books on holocaust denial and anti-semitism to members of the media - in the name of 911 Truth. check.
- create a website and radio show that gives a platform for arcane research about space beams and no-planes theories - in the interests of freedom and democracy - LOL!! check.
- go to Morocco to 'find the living hijackers'. check
- go on FoxNews where they roll out the red carpet for you. check
- organize conferences that assemble not the most credible - but the most absurd theorists. check
- go on Blogger where a mysterious mix of posters slap you on the back for making a spectacle of yourself in the name of 911 Truth - and go on to echo the violent rhetoric against Amy Goodman. check.
seems complete. did i leave anything out?
connect the dots.
"Mein Kumf"
That sounds like the title of the worst porno film ever made. It's "Mein Kampf" -- and does that mean we should never, ever use the English phrase "my struggle" because of its German translation? The words "Mein Kampf" are not on the book's cover (nor are the words "Mein Kumf")
...
This 'Mein Kampf' similarity-paranoia is just ridiculous. And i thought it is only the germans who are paranoid about such things.
Oh, and
"- go on FoxNews where they roll out the red carpet for you. check"
Did they roll out that red carpet for you too, JohnA?
CHECK AND DOUBLECHECK! Your summary is excellent
Your summary is excellent. I hope all who agree will post and repost this. Seeing it all together like that will help people (as it helped me) to see what's going on with KEVIN BARRETT. We need to pull together to keep this, as well as the more obvious Tarpley/Fetzer/Etc. disinformation and disruption barrages, spotlighted, exposed, and promptly and constantly challenged.
The time of the explosions
Thank you for your courageous action.
Didn't the explosions occur closer to 9.30, according to Barry Jennings' testimony?
Here's a fairly detailed description (scroll the page down a bit):
http://tinyurl.com/yqp5ra
Now, if Jennings' testimony is correct, it is a huge smoking gun. Explosions in Seven well in advance of the "collapse" of the towers. But his testimony is needed in a legally binding form. Has that been secured? Further, is his testimony corroborated by others? By Mike Hess, whom he says was with him? By any of the firemen who allegedly also saw a lot of bodies in the lobby of WTC 7???
If all or even much of that is true, it is stupefying. How could it have been kept under wraps?
If it is true, it's time to use it to its full potential. It has a lot of significance for the still ongoing NIST investigation as well.
What was that?
I mean, why was the above post of mine voted down - and without any comments? I'd really be interested to know.
Kick Ass
Kick ass job Kevin! Watch Amy run!
bless you, Kevin Barrett
kate of the kiosk
I am so disillusioned with journalists like Amy. She should be ashamed. Perhaps she has fear, like so many others. It seems most have to be an ex, or former, or retired to speak out. You were very right to bring this up, no matter what anyone says. It took courage. you were also quite charming and polite to her later. She might succumb, eventually. I hope she gives you an interview.
Nice job. And yet…
I’m curious, Kevin, why is it that out of all the books you could have asked Amy Goodman to sign you chose one by Eric Hufschmid. Isn’t that the same guy who when asked who brought down the towers answered “Duh! The Jews!”
Were you not aware of his opinions on “The” Jews and if not, why not? A simple google search turns up all sorts of juicy information on this character. Assuming you are aware of his views on da jooz, why are you promoting his work? Surely you could have found a book making a salient case for the collapse of WTC7 written by a non-neo-nazi? And I would also join Victronix in asking why you choose to link to people like “Captain Eric May” on your website. It’s rather puzzling that someone devoted to building an alliance between religious groups – including Jews – would implicitly endorse individuals who write about “embedded code in the mainstream Jewish news media”.
Speaking from personal experience, I very much dislike individuals who conflate the Zinoist role in 911 with blanket hatred of a religious group: it serves no purpose but to discredit the entire line of inquiry; indeed, if I was more cynical, I might say that this was/is the entire purpose of their rantings to begin with.
A few people here have tried to suggest as much, only to be attacked for being “divisive”. The assumption, I guess, is that’s ok to align oneself with neo-nazis and quacks so long as they (seem to) support 911 truth. The big tent is just that big. It never occurs to people that by aligning ourselves with fanatics we automatically divide ourselves from the majority of the population, most especially people in the peace and justice movements, ie Amy's audience. If you really want to be “unified” with white supremacists I would suggest joining your local chapter of the Aryan Youth.
--
Maddog wrote:
[no one] who says in public that 9/11 was an inside job is disruptive to the 9/11 truth movement. I even back David Icke
I take it you are not aware of the phrase “stigma by association”. It’s all the rage in social psychology textbooks.
“Stigma is defined as a sign of disgrace or discredit that sets a person apart from others. Goffman (1963), a sociological researcher with an interest in psychiatric stigma, defined stigma in terms of undesirable ‘deeply discrediting’ attributes that ‘disqualify one from full social acceptance’”
It should be noted that stigmas can be both rational and irrational. For example, it would be irrational to consider someone mentally challenged or insane because they displayed a physical deformity, while conversely, it would be quite rational indeed to consider that someone might be mentally challenged or insane if they believe that the world is run by shape-shifting lizards. This is where the term “by association” comes in.
It might interest you to learn that the National Enquirer was founded by an “ex” CIA agent who “previously” specialized in psychological warfare. Here’s a snippet:
“As pointed out in Grossed-Out Surgeon Vomits Inside Patient! An Insider's Look At Supermarket Tabloids, by Jim Hogshire, a study by Deborah Gruenfeld revealed that headlines tend to influence people's beliefs to a degree which makes the articles nearly worthless in value. Further, tabloids only trail marginally behind mainstream journalism in terms of believability (which, considering the equally disgusting level of deceit in both, is quite understandable.) Thus, the best way to influence public opinion is not through well-reasoned and well-written articles, but by having headlines with sensational - and thus attention-getting - claims shoved in the face of the most number of people. Like, say, at the checkout counter of a supermarket.
The founder of the model for supermarket tabloid publishing was a man named Generoso Pope. In 1951, as Mr. Pope would readily admit in his own "Who's Who" Biography, he worked for the CIA in their psychological warfare division. In 1952, he bought the Hearst-owned New York Enquirer (he changed the name to The National Enquirer) and started his media empire, supposedly independent of his lone one year stint (or so he claims) in league with Langely. Pope financed the purchase via a loan for twenty grand from mobster Frank Costello, who also happened to be godfather of Pope's children. According to Pope, the loan was at "zero interest." Thus, the beginnings of tabloid journalism have the predictable intelligence/Mafia fingerprints all over the place.
In retrospect, it all makes sense. At the time, the CIA plot known as Operation MOCKINGBIRD was in full effect, an attempt to put it's bloody tentacles over the entire korporate media apparatus, an attempt that has clearly succeeded. But as any expert of Machiavellian plots will tell you, to truly kontrol something, you also must kontrol the alternatives. It should then be no surprise that suddenly the supermarket tabloid popped up, to give the masses a false option of "choice". By being an option that is so easily discredited, it somehow manages to reinforce the "legitimacy" and "integrity" of mainstream korporate journalism. The tabloid also serves for middle America as another kontrol mechanism, the pages filled with a reactionary ideology that is disgustingly racist and sexist, which explains why tabloids regularly have been propaganda mills for the ruling klass. And finally, the tabloids are the perfect place to throw a legitimate story that the elites desire to discredit.
http://www.konformist.com/jonbenet.htm
Starting to get the picture?
Alexjonesfan:
“I saw Jim Fetzer a month ago and during his one hour speech he mentioned 3G weapons systems for about 30 seconds and suggested that everyone do their own research.”
“Disinformation, in order to be effective, must be 90% accurate.”- Peter Dale Scott
It would be a disservice to our cause (the truth) to allow blatant bullshit to be disseminated in our name without criticizing said bullshit. I’m not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
Incidentally, Jim Fetzer’s DEW theories are not the only source of controversy about this gentleman. Along with other disseminators of space beams and “no planes” he has spent an equal amount of time attempting (failing) to discredit the hard science of Steven Jones. The Jones of your nom de plume has also come under attack by Fetzer for his refusal to endorse the aforementioned goofy theories.
Erin S. Myers:
“Web and Jim earn more (understandable, thought not wholly due) truther ire more for their crotchety off style, rather than the ideas they clumsily raise.”
I have no problem with Fetzer’s “style”, and in fact enjoy Tarpley’s. My ire arises soley from their ideas and behavior. Fetzer has been discussed. As for Tarpley, it rubs me the wrong that he has repeatedly accused 911 researchers and activists, including a 911 family member, of being COINTELPRO agents (even petitioning fancy cartoons to that effect) based solely on the fact that they took issue with his ham-fisted interaction with prominent members of the peace movement. His implicit endorsement of DEW and his promotion of Nico Haupt also rubs me the wrong way. No problem with their “style”, all sorts of problems with their ideas.
If people want to promote and defend these gentlemen that’s their business and their right. But I also have a right to criticize them and state my opinion that they do nothing but harm to our cause.
The Eleventh Day of Every Month
Kevin Could Have...
Kevin could have asked questions more on the line as to why Democracy Now! doesn't seem to report on truly newsworthy 911 truth events like the ex-CIA veterans who want another investigation, like Richard Gage's important organizing effort with architects and engineers for 911 truth, like James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), calling for an independent review of NIST's investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11, like a decent interview with Kevin Ryan and Steven Jones, and on....
Kevin seems to be caught up in his own quantity of fame here. Bad trap. Focus on the important stuff Kevin.
Here, Here!
Although his question was better than most I've seen, he could have done a lot better.
How about requesting a simple one-hour interview of David Ray Griffin about ANY of his books???
She does it for other people, but will only give an occasional, rare, short, lame-ass debate about 9/11.
Maybe she thought that would stop people from bothering her about 9/11 anymore.
----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist
To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. — Abraham Lincoln
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein
<deleted>
Comment reposted with additions...
... as it was buried without anyone providing any criticism.
Kevin, thank you for your courageous action.
Didn't the explosions occur closer to 9.30, according to Barry Jennings' testimony?
Here's a fairly detailed description (scroll the page down a bit):
http://tinyurl.com/yqp5ra
Now, if Jennings' testimony is correct, it is a huge smoking gun. Explosions in Seven well before the "collapse" of the towers. But his testimony is needed in a legally binding form. Has that been secured? Further, is his testimony corroborated by others? By Mike Hess, whom he says was with him? By any of the firemen who allegedly also saw a lot of bodies in the lobby of WTC 7?
If all or even much of that is true, it is stupefying. How could it have been kept under wraps?
If it is true, it's time to use it to its full potential. It has a lot of significance for the still ongoing NIST investigation as well. NIST, after all, has subcontracted much of the WTC 7 investigation. And the subcontractor is contracted to investigate the behavior of the building from floor 8 upwards. Recall that according to Jennings' testimony, there was an explosion on the sixth floor, and the lobby was extensively destroyed as well. Evidently, NIST does not want anybody touching the lowest floors
Kudos to Kevin
Wow...This is the second time around I've watched this and all I can say is that Kevin is one hell of an American Patriot...Nice guy too!
Amy Goodman's moment of guilt was priceless! I'm glad she's now admitting this whole mess has to be straightened out though.
Kudos to Kevin
Wow...This is the second time around I've watched this and all I can say is that Kevin is one hell of an American Patriot...Nice guy too!
Amy Goodman's moment of guilt was priceless! I'm glad she's now admitting this whole mess has to be straightened out though.
Keven Barrett and Dialog
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/09/911-truth-dialog-false-adversar...
Kevin Barrett commented after the conference, The Science of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not:
"The way I study [social interaction] is through dialog... I think we could use a little more conviviality within the Truth movement... one reason for that is that we want people to join us... by reaching out to them in a conviviality way... people will come on board... I think we need to enjoy dialog including with people that we don't agree with... [especially] non-9/11 truth people... I want dialog with [people who support the official story]--dialog is good... this is the key to the politics that we need to practice..."
I agree completely with this statement by Mr. Barrett and I endorse it. I believe the importance of open and civil dialog is critical for the 9/11 truth movement. However, for dialog to be possible, one side must respond to critique. If one side refuses, then dialog is impossible.
"I do not find it necessary to respond directly to the interview criticism in either its original content or in the further criticism in the new letter. My line of research in furtherance of DEW causal theory has taken a different direction that neither benefits nor suffers from public criticism of the theory. Opinions on the matter differ and I respect those who have differing opinions."
Clearly, this is an example where dialog has been closed. Furthermore, while I agree completely with Mr. Barrett's views on dialog, I believe that he has not followed his own advice:
"As I understand it, the usual penalty for treason is hanging, not death by firing squad. In that case, it is likely that Mr. Bush will be hanged, not shot, for treason. By making this prediction, am I running the risk of having my clothesline confiscated? I also think that there is a real possibility that Mr. Bush will be electrocuted for the mass murder of 2,500 Americans in the World Trade Center. By stating this, am I risking a court order shutting off my electricity? I also foresee a small but very real possibility that Mr. Bush will die in the gas chamber. Does raising this possibility mean that my gas could be cut off?"
"As the example of Nuremburg suggests, journalists who act as propagandists for war crimes may one day find themselves on the scaffold. You would be well advised to strive for more balanced and accurate coverage in the future."
"Amy [Goodman], you will one day find yourself on the scaffold, condemned to hang alongside the other Goebbels-style traitors and mass-murder-coverup-conspirators from the corporate media you pretend to criticize."
"The State Department doesn’t know what it is talking about, but what else is new? Frankly I wonder who wrote this for the State Department. We need to find out because they are going to have to go up there on the scaffold with the other people who planned the attacks and more importantly the people who covered them up. The people complicit in the attacks need to be tried, condemned and sentenced."
"First Kevin Barrett said that Fox News employees should be hung. Then he said that the producers of United 93 should be tried for inciting war crimes, now he is expanding his list of those on death row to include just about every journalist in the world, while discussing an e-mail exchange he had with a journalist for Harper’s Magazine:
My response to that was, you know, I think that anybody who has drawn a paycheck from the major mainstream journalistic outlets in the past should be up on the scaffold for the crimes of high treason and crimes against humanity."
"If you are not aware that you're covering up for that traitor and mass murderer and yes insurance fraudster Silverstein, you'll figure it out when you're beside him on the scaffold. I'll be saving this email as evidence for your trial."
"The Capital Times ownership and editorial decision-makers, like those of other mainstream U.S. news outlets, are setting themselves up to be prosecuted as war criminals. By publishing the endless stream of lies that brought us into the Iraqi and Afghan quagmires, without exercising duly diligent skepticism, journalistic decision-makers are following in the footsteps of Joseph Goebbels -- a path that ends at the scaffold."
"Kevin Barrett contacted me after he heard that Kevin Ryan backed out of a debate opportunity with me. Barrett wanted to know if I was interested in debating him on his radio show, or perhaps in a live debate when he is in New York. In his email to me, he copied a response he had sent to a listener, in which he said that I was complicit in mass murder and a candidate for a war crimes tribunal, with the gallows perhaps in my future. I guess that's his idea of an inducement to debate."
In my opinion, these comments are antithetical to the possibility of dialog. Is it necessary to make these statements against journalists and defenders of the official story? How can this approach open others to considering the possibility of 9/11 truth? Indeed, why should it be necessary to make statements such as these when the truth about 9/11 is a powerful enough message?
Back By Popular Demand
[Copy&Pasted from TruthAction.org]
.... it is always the same cast of characters who seem to find some tortured logic for defending bad manners, bad research, bad public relations, calls for violence and outright disinformation.
its seems like an organized effort to harass people whom we should be courting to support our cause. right?
what could this confrontation possibly achieve? what could this poor judgment tell us?
- produce a 9/11 book with the words Mein Kumf and Jihad right on the cover - guaranteed to alienate large cross-sections of the population. check
- make sure the book itself has no hard evidence in it. check.
- call for prominent members of the left-leaning media to be executed - in the name of 911 Truth. check.
- present books on holocaust denial and anti-semitism to members of the media - in the name of 911 Truth. check.
- create a website and radio show that gives a platform for arcane research about space beams and no-planes theories - in the interests of freedom and democracy - LOL!! check.
- go to Morocco to 'find the living hijackers'. check
- go on FoxNews where they roll out the red carpet for you. check
- organize conferences that assemble not the most credible - but the most absurd theorists. check
- go on Blogger where a mysterious mix of posters slap you on the back for making a spectacle of yourself in the name of 911 Truth - and go on to echo the violent rhetoric against Amy Goodman. check.
seems complete. did i leave anything out?
connect the dots.
Submitted by JohnA on Fri, 09/28/2007 - 12:47pm.
=====
reply: CHECK AND DOUBLECHECK! Your summary is excellent
Your summary is excellent. I hope all who agree will post and repost this. Seeing it all together like that will help people (as it helped me) to see what's going on with KEVIN BARRETT. We need to pull together to keep this, as well as the more obvious Tarpley/Fetzer/Etc. disinformation and disruption barrages, spotlighted, exposed, and promptly and constantly challenged.
Submitted by karpwalter on Sun, 09/30/2007 - 10:52pm.
_________________
It could have been worse.
Why are you copying posts from here over to truthaction.org
and then copying it back to here and saying it's from there?
This seems odd.
The Eleventh Day of Every Month
Because I think it's a very important issue which needs
attention at both sites.
(Is there a rule against it?)
OK
That's cool, I was just curious - carry on!
The Eleventh Day of Every Month
Curiouser The Better
Curiouser&Curiouser