Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth Who We Are
The debate is archived free at archived free at: http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/get_archive.php?hn=Barrett&yr=07
The debate continues via email and photos at: http://www.mujca.com/barrettbrown.htm
More debate feedback at:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/10728 - comment
From Kevin Ryan, Underwriters Labs whistleblower and slayer of NIST
Nice job Kevin.
He almost had you with the "16 UN resolutions against Iraq before 9/11". Unfortunately, it doesn't look like those resolutions had much, if anything, to do with a weapons program, as he implied.
Another thing I found today - Lee Hamilton still thought "What caused the collapse of the buildings, to summarize it, was that the super-heated jet fuel melted the steel super-structure of these buildings and caused their collapse." from CBC interview in August 2006!
Hamilton also said, in the same interview, "I could never figure out why these 19 fellas did what they did. We looked into their backgrounds. In one or two cases, they were apparently happy, well-adjusted, not particularly religious - in one case quite well-to-do, had a girlfriend. We just couldn’t figure out why he did it. I still don’t know. And I think one of the great unanswered questions - a good topic for investigative reporters - would be: why did these 19 do what they did? We speculated in the report about why the enemy hates us, but we simply weren’t able to answer the questions about the 19.” So I guess we have no motive to this day.
Keep up the good work.
* * *
- I enjoyed listening to the debate between yourself and John Brown. You
did a stellar job. A few favorite quotes from the debate (from John Brown)
"I would never argue that the military does not lie," and "Bush looked like
an idiot." A few of my favorite quotes from you "fascist Nazi nightmare we
are in right now," and "it would take extreme clemency to keep them from
being hanged for war crimes." Also when John said that the military would
never make a tactic maneuver like that and you said you are sure they would
never make the mistake morally (tongue in cheek).
Anyway, well done. I loved the Lennon music too.
* * *
That was a very professional debate that you carried out with John Brown the other night. You showed him great respect for having the guts to come onto your radio show and engage in debate. It is very rare indeed for anyone to have the balls to actually defend the official story, or at least defend against the notion that 9/11 was an inside job. Like yourself, he is a true patriot who is willing to defend what he believes in without childish name calling. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for "Faux News" and the rest of the government lap dog mainstream outlets. Obviously, I disagree with Mr. Brown on most issues. I wish, as I am sure you do, that there would have been more time to debate. Almost each argument that he raised can be easily countered by the works of David Griffin. You were able to mention a lot, but unfortunately there just was not enough time for you to really drive home each point, as I am sure you would have liked to do.
Mr. Brown and I do agree on the fact that there was lots of lying in the 9/11 Ommission Report, we only differ as to the reason for the lying. He thinks it is to cover up incompetence, I think it is to cover up complicity. It also seems to me that he puts a little to much stock in the NIST report. This is why I think that you should try to make a deal with him. Since he challenged you to put WTC 7 pictures up on your website, you should tell him that you will accept that challenge only if he reads "Debunking 9/11 Debunking". This should put an end to any and all faith he has in NIST, the Ommission Report, the WTC 7 collapse, etc... Just an idea. It would be interesting what he would think after he completed the book.
Also, I recently got hired on with an airline, so if you have any aviation related 9/11 questions, don't hessitate to ask.
Pilots for 9/11 Truth
PS: I just finished "Truth Jihad", you did a very nice job.
Loved your debate on RBN with John Brown (?) on Saturday. At least I think that's the dude's name! You were really scraping the bottom of the barrel there, weren't you Kevin? You mopped the floor with him! I mean, this dude was in total denial - other than to hint that the 911 Commission may not have been telling the truth! Where the hell did this dope get his facts from? Popular Mechanics? I was hoping for a great, knockdown, drag-out debate but it was so one-sided (in your favor) that I had to laugh nearly all the way through it! His line of BS on Building 7 was a classic.
Tell me, where did you get the figure on the 20,000 persons being kidnapped by the US World-Wide, Kevin? I would like to know if the US government has actually fessed-up to kidnapping that many hapless souls and where to find the data. Thanks. Keep up the good work!
* * *
By the way, that Atkinson article landed in my in-box, and friends asked me to engage, but I looked up his bio on the net and judged he wasn’t worth bothering with! I see he isn’t taking you up on your offer.
* * *
My Dear Kevin,
Salaam Alekum - I missed your program live but my 9th grader son and myself are listening to the archive now. At 16 minutes into the show, your debater points out the anamoly that if they are so smart as to plan an inside job like 911 which might have taken years, they are hardly likely to rattle it publicly - in response to your mentioning the Zelikow article in Foreign Affairs of 1998.
I paused there and am writing you this note to point out two points:
a) the same argument applies to Bin Laden - if he is so smart to plan this out to the precision that he did, he is a fool to get morons like Atta to execute it knowing all that we know of these 'hijackers' making it known publicly that they don't intent to land, make a show of themselves the night and days before the event, etc. The exact same argument that your interlocutor gave you also applies to his antagonists. Thus if that is the basis to rule out an inside-job, it is equally the basis to rule out the external enemy. b) I address this precise point of why PNAC/Brzezinski/Zelikow etc. would make their plans known with references like the "New Pearl Harbor" because on the face of it that doesn't make sense - exactly as your debator pointed out. You can read it in the Forward2005 of my book here - it's the Straussian model of 'full spectrum deception' in plain sight for a specific reason. Please let me know if you might agree with this analysis, because otherwise as your interlocutor pointed out, it makes
no sense at all. But unlike your interlocutors argument, it only rules out the external enemy and not the internal one, because the latter actually made these references ahead of the event, whereas the former never did; and even more, actually never accepted the blame (see http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/10/top1.htm) plus explicitly denied it in an aljazeera interview (don't have a citation). But do see my brief analysis below of this precise issue of why toot the horn before the event?
Will let you know my further reaction to the debate.
* * *
Thanks for the note as always. I listened to the debate, which was not much of a debate at all - John Brown is not exactly a didactic logician. Anyway, his arguments were less than compelling is all, and I thought you were a genial adversary for sure - I would have been less kind with his lame brand of thinking.
More feedback: http://www.911blogger.com/node/10728#comment