Hopefully we can get a few more viewers each week... http://reddit.com/info/6kfbm/comments

If Greene tells you, let us know.

Having a hard time finding anyone to debate Dr. Scott. I'm sure he could get a schmuck like Ronald Wieck, but it might be next to impossible to find someone of the same caliber as Dr. Scott.

darkbeforedawn Is there a link where I could here it now that it is over? thanks in advance...

Noam Chomsky Does Not Want You to Read This

By Dr. Kevin Barrett

I have decided to go ahead and post my recent email correspondence with Noam Chomsky, without his permission, and against his wishes, despite his claim that by doing so I am violating his privacy, and despite my earlier statement to him that I would respect his privacy...

http://www.barrettforcongress.us/chomsky.htm

Noam Chomsky doesn't want you to read it because it says that his wife is severely ill.
For gods sake, he could have taken that line out. It is violating his personal privacy. Have a bit of decency.

Yes, the man's wife is ill. Leave him alone, already.

I agree that Barrett should have left that line out (of course if he did, someone would have attacked him for "altering" the email).

But getting to the bottom of 3000 people mass murdered is a little more important than worrying about the privacy of someone trying to prevent the truth from getting out.

It's not about who they are; it's about who we are. If you act like a dysfunctional piece of trash no one is going to listen to what you say.

We are not dysfunctional pieces of trash. We do not behave like this. And this is one of the many reasons Kevin is not part of "we" anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Barrett#cite_note-27

In case you missed the memo.

Only one group of people behave like Kevin just has--the Paula Gloria-Nico-Webfairy-Killtown-Fetzer-Wood faction of fake 911activists.

You need to ask yourself why Kev has chosen to behave EXACTLY LIKE these tossers.
______________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/
http://truthaction.org/forum/
http://www.911blacklist.org/

Or are you just a 'fan'? If you are working for him, we'd like to know....

snowflake;

I met Kevin about two years ago. He came to a Libertarian meeting and gave a speech about 9//11, and I spent about two hours attacking him. However, he did give me a copy of 'September 11 Revisited'. A couple months later, I watched the video and decided Barrett was correct, the WTC was really blown up. So then I started to study 9/11 in detail. The best site is Jim Hoffman's www.911research.com. The strongest 9/11 evidence is WTC 7, controlled demolition, failure to intercept, questions about the "hijackers", put options, foreknowledge, etc. I don't believe any of the "no planes" theories, TV fakery, pods, or any of that stuff. Nor am I a "right wing" Libertarian or a "conservative" Libertarian. Kevin picked the Libertarian Party ticket to run on because he wanted to stay as neutral as possible. He does not like the democrats or republicans, the Constitution party is far right, and the Green party is on the left. Only the LP, at least in Wisconsin, is in the center. That way he can appeal to 9/11 Truth Activists of all stripes, from Alex Jones fans to democrats who hate Bush and think the democrats are spineless, i.e. Mike Malloy type democrats. So, no, I am not working for Kevin, but I am assisting him with his campagn and helped him write some of his press releases and find material for his website. I hope you like his website and we are taking advice for things to add to it. My biggest pet peeve with the 9/11 Truth movement is when acvtivsts call each other "disinfo agents". What is really happening is that some people get stuck on their own theories or media strategies. Kevin has done a great job here in Wisconsin, I wouldn't be surprised if there are more 9/11 Truth Activists per capita in Dane County, Wisconsin, than almost anywhere else in the United States.

btw - The Libertarians are having their national convention right now in Denver. I am hoping that Dr. Mary Ruwart wins the nomination becaue she supports 9/11 Truth.

The fact that you initially attacked Barrett is very illuminating in that it shows how much 9/11 truth facts can anger some people so much at first that the only way they feel they can immediately channel that anger is through attacking the person presenting those facts. You are certainly admirable for admitting you were wrong.

I think it's certainly divisive to hurl the "disinfo shill" label at other activists, 95% of the time. That being said, there are a few provocateurs, particularly Nico, whose behavior is so divisive and outrageous that its almost impossible not to conclude that they're getting paid to disrupt the movement. I often wonder if the people who pay someone like him are the same ones who pay Mark Roberts and Ron Wieck. If Nico is a lone nut then is one heck of an asset to the disinfo office.

With regard to your comment: "What is really happening is that some people get stuck on their own theories or media strategies." I would say this was the case, for example, with Dave von Kleist and the 'pod' theory. He seems, to me anyway, to be a sincere researcher who perhaps fell into the trap of trying too hard to defend one particular theory; this being said, several of the pilots and veterans for 9/11 truth do believe the pod theory has possible credibility; these interviews can be seen on "Ripple Effect."

By the way, Hoffman's site is 911research.net, not .com. EDIT: Ah, I see Hoffman uses .com as the backup mirror.

You know, it's times like this I wish we could see who votes comments up and down.

yea, my first meeting with Barrett was very memorable.

I was notified by the Chairman that a "9/11 Conspiracy Theorist" was coming to speak to us. Up to that time, I knew hardly anything about it. I remembered on the day of 9/11 that I was wondering why no terrorist group claimed responsibility, that was it. I knew the Bush Administration had exploited 9/11 to invade the Middle East and pass the Patriot Act.. I also remembered seeing an article in the newspaper that a "9/11 Truth Activist" named Griffin was in town speaking (it turns out that Kevin had arranged that speech).

So when Kevin got there, I was really rough and questioned him with sharp stern questions and interrupted him frequently. This went on and on for two hours. Nothing he said really registered except one thing, he mentioned Building 7. I remembered seeing WTC 7 fall on 9/11 (CBS version), but had forgotten about it. At the end of the meeting I told Barrett I did not agree with his theories, but that I did not have a problem with him looking into it, as you never know, there's always a very small chance you could uncover something. I also gave him my card and said he could put me on his email list. He gave me a Loose Change DVD as well as the other one I mentioned above.

So a couple months later I was suprised that another 9/11 Truther was in the newspaper giving a speech, this time Morgan Reynolds. I said, WOW, this guy was in the Bush Administration and this conspiracy stuff is in the newspaper. That prompted me to finally watch the DVDs Kevin gave me. Then I did some web surfing and discovered the Zogby polls showing that half the country thought there was a coverup, which made me believe the 9/11 Truth movement could really catch on. I also noticed the poll about WTC 7. Then Kevin's media blowup started. It turned out that the chick who tried to set him up, Jessica McBride the radio host, was an acquaintance of mine, and Steve Nass, the idiot republican who wanted him fired,well, I went to high school with his sister. So I gave Kevin a call and started to lend him my support.

The thing that really got me, is that there is no rational way to explain WTC 7 without explosives, and all the witnesses talking about the explosions is very moving. So I hope that this little story was at least mildly interesting.

Quote: "As one of three American scholars to have lost a tenured or tenure-track job due to questioning the official story of 9/11 (the other two are Steven Jones, who just co-published a paper in a peer-reviewed engineering journal on the case, and Judy Wood)" -

^ What?! Why even mention Judy "I put forks in Microwaves" Wood Kevin? Why associate 9/11 Truth with Kookballs like that? Just keepin that "nutty conspiracy theorist” stereotype alive as long as possible, ain’t that right!! Bravo!

Barrett was tenure-track. The reports always said he was a part-time lecturer.

No I'll tell you what she's trying to do, she's trying to sink 9/11 Truth's credibility with absurd junk science. "Kookball" is putting it nicely, how about "Cointelpro Disinformation Operative", that better?

No most of the "know-it-alls on this site" have already had lengthy correspondences with Chomsky, including myself. None of us though ended up making Chomsky look like some kind of victim of harassment, slander and breach of privacy. All the Chomsky cultists who read that are just going to be further entrenched into their disdain for 9/11 Truth, yet again Barrett finds a way to intentionally/unintentionally do damage.

Just my two cents, I've read the whole thing, and wonder why it's not on the front page - despite Kevin's playing fast and loose with Chomsky's "privacy", the exchange offers an incredibly unique window by which we can understand why the foremost progressive activist has refused to investigate 9/11. Are there people on here who agree with Chomsky's absolute refusal to examine the evidence (and instead rely on a whole series of a priori assumptions which such an examination would go a long way towards rethinking) is not worth exposing and highlighting? Is Barrett inadvertently revealing Chomsky's wife's health status really worth picking on, given the stakes here?

I think the stakes are discussed quite enough in public. We know Chomsky's stance on 9/11 and the TM. It wasn't exactly a discussion of any importance, it was just Kevin Barrett giving his listeners a reason why Chomsky wasn't on his show. Nothing was at stake in this exchange, I didn't learn anything new from it other than not to have a private email conversation with Kevin Barrett. This kind of stuff really hurts the TM. Chomsky won't touch the evidence with a barge pole now, and other progressives will be completely turned off by this lack of respect for personal information and the childishness of new media figures like Barrett.

Chomsky will, when asked, bring stuff up like this in talks all over the world. 911 truth gets a bad rap from the left for this exact reason.

You raise interesting points, at least worth talking through. I'd be interested in how Barrett would respond.