Former "Star Wars" Chief to State Legislators: Urge University to Re-Hire Kevin Barrett!

Contact: Kevin Barrett, 608-583-2132; kbarrett@merr.com

For Immediate Release - July 23, 2008

Contact:

Dr. Kevin Barrett; 608-583-2132, kbarrett@merr.com

On Tuesday, July 29th, the head of the "Star Wars" space weapons program under two U.S. presidents, Dr. Robert Bowman, will ask State Legislators to request the re-instatement of Dr. Kevin Barrett as a University of Wisconsin instructor.

Col. Bowman, a rocket scientist with a doctorate from Cal Tech who flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam as a fighter pilot, will present his request to the legislature at a press conference in the State Capitol building, Room 330 Southwest, at 11 a.m. Tuesday 7/29/08.

Kevin Barrett, the target of a 2006 witch-hunt by State Rep. Steve Nass, has not been rehired at UW-Madison, despite his repeated applications for open positions, since he finished teaching his controversial Islam course in fall 2006. His most recent application, for the spring 2008 semester, was rejected in favor of a less-qualified and less-experienced applicant.

Scholarship Failures of Dr. James Fetzer

Fetzer is a 9/11 Activist, not a 9/11 Scholar or Expert

by Rolf Lindgren

Dr. Fetzer is a good friend of mine, but I am very disappointed with the quality of his scholarship.

There are six areas of scholarship which Dr. Fetzer needs to shore up to become a credible leader in the 9/11 Truth Movement and a true 9/11 Expert. This analysis is based on one thousand conversations and one hundred personal meetings with Dr. Fetzer in the past two years.

1)

Dr. Fetzer has not read and/or is unfamiliar with the material in five fundamental books about 9/11. These books are:

a) The Terror Timeline by Paul Thompson

b) The 9/11 Commission Report

c) The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions by Dr. David Ray Griffin

d) Debunking 9/11 Myths by Popular Mechanics

e) Debunking 9/11 Debunking by Dr. David Ray Griffin

Dr. Fetzer needs to read these books and digest the material to become a true expert on 9/11. To be an expert on any subject, you need to be familiar with both sides of the story, and possess a broad knowledge of all the evidence.

2)

A symposium is being held in Jersey City July 1 on how to teach 9/11; while i pity the teachers that will attempt to teach the OCT to a generation avidly embracing the internet and wise to reality, critical thinking and the corporate govt/media conflicts and agenda, it is disturbing seeing well-funded attempts like this to indoctrinate the younger generations, the future of our nation, our posterity with evil lies. Similar to ABC's Path to 9/11 attempting to team up with Scholastic- they failed on the joint venture, i think- due to public outcry. Submit your comments if you have children and you care about the quality of their education, or if you don't have kids and just care about the health of society and the future of humanity.

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-10/121471548749320.xml&coll=1

Educators and 9/11: Learning to teach the unthinkable
Sunday, June 29, 2008
BY RUDY LARINI
Star-Ledger Staff

It's right there, tucked away in the pages of newer American history textbooks, along with the American Revolution, slavery and the Civil War, two world wars, the Great Depression, the civil rights movement and Vietnam.

The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
by David Kaiser

"Neither a random event nor the act of a lone madman—the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was an appalling and grisly conspiracy. This is the unvarnished story.

With deft investigative skill, David Kaiser shows that the events of November 22, 1963, cannot be understood without fully grasping the two larger stories of which they were a part: the U.S. government’s campaign against organized crime, which began in the late 1950s and accelerated dramatically under Robert Kennedy; and the furtive quest of two administrations—along with a cadre of private interest groups—to eliminate Fidel Castro.

OCT supporter asks some good and some dumb questions. Note; for the sake of argument, i go along with his arguments about the Pentagon, as I personally believe the issue is an intentional distraction. I don't claim to know for sure what hit the Pentagon, I see how it could've been 77, but there are still anomalies- i advocate the release of ALL the video cameras- 360 degrees, the E4B, C4 and lack of fighter jets should be on those, too, right, in addition to non-CG footage of 77, if that's what it was?

http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2008/05/washington-state-greens-promote-911_30.html

In researching Washington State Green Party for a story on their advocacy of a deceptive referendum which would divest Seattle's pension fund from companies doing business in Israel (a story I hope to post soon), I was surprised to discover the extent to which they promote "9/11 truth" and other related conspiracy theories.

I started to write this as a comment in reply to a comment appended to George Washington's excellent post, but I decided to I see that this subject confuses many, so I will weigh in with a few observations. Before I do, some important reminders for us "conspiracy theorists":

http://omniadeo.blogspot.com/2008/05/conspiracy-theory-101.html

In the AirAmerica comments section appended to the 5/22 Richard Greene show, I offered several polite challenges to Ron Wieck and one or two critiques of his arguments. I got the usual JREFer treatment in response; avoidance or misapprehension of my pointed questions and patronizing, smart-alecky comments. (To be fair, this type of behavior is too common on all sides of this and most other disputes on the internet.)

My comments can be found here: http://airamerica.com/clout/blog/2008/may/22/clout-thursday#comments

(You can find my posts by doing a search in your browser for the name: omniadeo.)

In the course of these exchanges, I offered to debate Wieck, Mackey, Roberts or whomever. Mr. Wieck responded with an acceptance to set up a debate with Mark Roberts. His exact words were, "An unknown, anonymous internet denizen wants to debate Mark Roberts? Sure you do. What's your name? Let's set it up."

This is a fairly long but relatively fair review of 9/11 Truth films by a professor of Film and Communication Studies at Seton Hall. Follow the link for the entire review.

copyright 2008, Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media
Jump Cut, No. 50, spring 2008

Without restraint: 9/11 videos and the pursuit of truth
by Christopher Sharrett

David Rockefeller and his brother, Nelson, originally conceived the twin towers as an urban renewal project to revitalize Lower Manhattan. In 1966, 164 buildings, including many electonics stores in seedy radio row, were demolished to create the WTC construction site.

But, with the realization of the Rockefellers' urban renewal dream came a nightmare: by the time the first tenants moved into the North Tower in December 1970, the World Trade Center was rife with asbestos...asbestos that 31 years later covered all of Lower Manhattan.

Exactly How Much Asbestos Did the WTC Contain?

Nobody seems to know exactly how much asbestos was in the WTC, but click on the image to the right and you'll get a pretty good idea: a lot!

The New York Port Authority originally planned to use 5,000 tons of asbestos fireproofing. The fireproofing, trademarked Blade-Shield, was manufactured by United States Mineral Products of Stanhope, N.J. It was 20% asbestos mixed with mineral wool -- a concrete-like substance made from melted rock.

By 1971, medical studies began to show the cancerous effects of asbestos, and New York City banned its use in construction -- but not before asbestos-containing Blade-Shield was sprayed on the beams and supports of the first 40 floors of the Twin Towers.

The Port Authority claims that over half of the applied asbestos-containing fireproofing had been removed by September 11, 2001.

So, how much asbestos remained in the Twin Towers?

Read more: The Trouble with WTC Asbestos.

Evidence Room: Hijacker’s DNA, FBI Fingerprints
By, Cheri Roberts-Piper MTR News

Stories have been written with headlines stating the FBI had the terrorists’ DNA before the Sept. 11th attacks. The information behind those headlines was rooted in chapter 30 - a two and a half page chapter titled The Terrorists, in the book Who They Were, Inside The World Trade Center DNA Story: The Unprecedented Effort To Identify The Missing by, Robert C. Shaler - Director of the Forensic Biology Dept in the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) of New York. The information in chapter 30 briefly and unceremoniously outlines the DNA identification of three of the ten alleged terrorists that flew planes into NYC’s World Trade Center buildings.

The Coming False Flag to Justify War on Iran

Father of Reaganomics on . . . is a FALSE FLAG Dirty Bomb in Our Future? The facts suggest that the neocons need a horrific attack in the U.S. to justify their launching a war on Iran. Was this Russian agent part of such a scheme? The answer to that may be too disturbing for most Americans to even ponder.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bill_dou_080327_father_of_reaganomic.htm

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031403677.html

A Crude Case For War?

By Steven Mufson
Sunday, March 16, 2008; B01

It's hard to miss the point of the "Blood for Oil" Web site. It features one poster of an American flag with "Blood for oil?" in white block letters where the stars should be and two dripping red handprints across the stripes. Another shows a photo of President Bush with a thin black line on his upper lip. "Got oil?" the headline asks wryly.

Five years after the United States invaded Iraq, plenty of people believe that the war was waged chiefly to secure U.S. petroleum supplies and to make Iraq safe -- and lucrative -- for the U.S. oil industry.

See no evil

By David Cogswell

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3001.shtml

Online Journal Contributing Writer

Feb 27, 2008, 00:53

I recently had a conversation with a person I'll just call "a successful writer," and when I mentioned an idea that he classified as "conspiracy theory" he said this: "The trouble with conspiracy theories is that they really take a toll on readership. Many people write you off as a conspiracy nut and the result is that you don't get to have your voice in the mainstream dialogue."

The Economist website posted a list yesterday of the top 10 conspiracy theories believed in today, and of course, 9/11 Truth topped the list. Direct link to article: http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10715149

Source: http://phibetacons.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTU2NDllZDExNmIxYTBiYzRjMzU1MDY5ODVjNGJkOWE=

Monday, February 11, 2008

9/11 Truther to Speak at Stanford Law [Stephen Spruiell]

From Stanford Law School, former NR associate editor Anthony Dick sends word that a group has invited a 9/11 truther to speak this afternoon:

The Civil Rights Civil Liberties Society has invited Sander Hicks to speak at the law school today, billing him as "a multimedia political activist committed to the preservation of civil liberties and civil rights for all Americans."

In fact, Mr. Hicks is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist committed to the proposition that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were orchestrated by the United States government, which is now murdering its citizens to cover up the truth. In his own words:

"The 9/11 commission was a coverup. . . . 9/11 was the product of a conspiracy — specifically a conspiracy between the CIA, Pakistani intelligence, and the so-called al-Qaeda organization, which is really most likely just a product of Pakistani intelligence and CIA intelligence."