1/22/06 Osama Tape Phony
 
   1/14/06 9/11 Truth Joke Book

   1/13/06 Citizens' Counter-Coup

   1) 9/11 Truth Takes Oshkosh!

Barrett Thanks Steve Nass, Tinfoil Hat Republicans 

2) Denver, Boulder 9/11 Talks Garner Breakthrough Coverage 

[Note: Thank you for your support in the Air America contest. I lost out to the Sarge, who I have to admit was the best candidate—he managed to make the Attorney General’s race interesting, and he has a great radio style. Stay tuned for info on my upcoming radio show(s) on Genesis and/or RBN. –Kevin] 

9/11 Truth Takes Oshkosh!

Barrett Thanks Steve Nass, Tinfoil Hat Republicans 

Below is an abridged version of the text of Kevin Barrett’s talk at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh on 10/26/06. The event quickly sold out, thanks to the publicity generated by Republican protestors including Barrett’s nemesis/PR agent, Steve Nass, who led a pray-in to protest/publicize the event. A couple of Republicans, including one fat guy in a tinfoil hat—symbolizing his nutty belief in the “19 Arabs led by a guy on dialysis in a cave” conspiracy theory—added humor to the proceedings by standing up in the middle of the talk, blocking the views of the people behind them, and turning around so their oversized rumps could get a better view of the speaker. “I thought that was appropriate,” Barrett quipped, “since these guys refuse to face the truth. Turning around and refusing to look at the facts is about all they can do. On the other hand, since they have their heads so firmly planted in their posteriors, maybe turning around and looking through their Levis is the only way they can see anything. Since Steve Nass, the man with one N too many, has repeatedly called me a moonbat and a wingnut, I feel justified in calling him a ‘moonbutt’, and  urging him to turn around, drop his pants, pull his head out of his rear end, and take a hard look at the facts of 9/11. As W.C. Fields put it, ‘It’s time to take the bull by the tail and look the facts in the face.’ And the facts are that the official story of 9/11 is the biggest pile of BS this country has ever seen.” 

Thank you for coming out tonight and supporting free speech and academic freedom. I would like to thank the Oshkosh Campus Greens for inviting me here tonight. And I would like to thank Steve Nass, Mark Green, and the Wisconsin Republican Party, without whose ongoing barrage of free publicity none of this would have been possible. 

The Green party folks, unlike the Republicans, seem to know what they’re doing.  9/11 skepticism offers an unprecedented opportunity for third parties, who have been locked out of our system for too long. 9/11 was the most important historical event of the century. Yet polls show that the American people, and the people of the world, simply do not believe the government’s version of that event. A  recent New York Times poll showed that only 16% of the American people believe the official story, meaning that 84% do not.

And a 2004 poll by Canada’s largest newspaper, the Toronto Star, showed that nearly two out of three Canadians believe that top U.S. officials committed high treason and conspiracy to mass murder on 9/11; while an August, 2004 Zogby poll showed that half of New Yorkers believe the same thing. A recent Scripps-Howard poll showed that 36% of Americans believe that top US officials either perpetrated or allowed the 9/11 attacks in order to launch a war in the Middle East and Central Asia. That 36% represents more Americans than voted for George W. Bush in the last election, even if we believe the un-auditable figures of the Diebold voting machines.

It isn’t just ordinary folks who doubt the government’s version.  Dozens of former high-level military and intelligence officials, as well as many politicians, historians, academics, and other respectable folk, have spoken out for 9/11 truth. Politicians who’ve come right out and said they don’t believe the 9/11 Commission Report include a few brave democrats like Senator Barbara Boxer, former Senator Max Cleland, and Representative Cynthia McKinney. There are also a few equally brave Republicans including  Representative Curt Weldon, former officials from both Bush Administrations including Morgan Reynolds and Catherine Austin Fitts, and Ronald Reagan’s economics guru, Paul Craig Roberts. Former high-level mlitary officials who have openly scoffed at the official story of 9/11 include General Albert Stubblebine, Col. Ronald Ray, Col. Robert Bowman, Col. Donn de Grand-Pre, Col. George Nelson, and many others. Former intelligence officials who are 9/11 skeptics include ex-CIA officials Ray McGovern and Bill Christison, former NSA official Wayne Madsen, and Robert David Steele, a former CIA official who co-founded the Marine Corps Intelligence Command. Many of these people have come right out and said that top US officials had the WTC “blown to kingdom come” and that something other than a passenger jetliner hit the Pentagon.  

So why am I the one talking to you here tonight? That’s a good question. “Why me, oh Lord?”  Another good question is, why have the media given so much publicity to a part-time lecturer, and to three twenty year old kids and their no-budget film, Loose Change?  Why aren’t they interviewing CIA official Bill Christenson about his statement that after carefully looking at the evidence, he has concluded that no jetliner hit the Pentagon? Why aren’t they interviewing CIA veteran Ray McGovern about his unqualified endorsement of David Ray Griffin’s 9/11 research, with its conclusion that we know “beyond a reasonable doubt...that the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by officials of our own government.” Why aren’t they interviewing Air Force Col. George Nelson, who has been forced to conclude that the 9/11 attacks were not conducted with passenger jetliners? Why aren’t they focusing on Bush’s own former top economist in the Labor Department, Morgan Reynolds, who says that his own ex-bosses “blew the World Trade Center to kingdom come” ? 

Maybe they figured that Corey, Dylan, Jason and I would be easier targets. Well, to paraphrase our fearless leader, they misunderestimated us. Dylan may not have finished film school, but he has made a movie that is making history. I may not have tenure, or even be tenure track, but I am neither a fool nor a coward. If Fox want use me, instead of the tenured and emeritus professors, as the Scholars for 9/11 Truth whipping boy, all I can say is “bring it on.” 

It’s funny how everybody from politicians like Steve Nass and Mark Green, to professors like Donald Downs and M.F. Onellian, is willing to call me names...but not of them is willing to debate me. You’d think that the whole purpose of turning a part-time lecturer into an internationally known 9/11 celebrity would be to find a guy that could maybe be shot down in a debate. But here we have a case where tenured professors, and professional politicians, are afraid to debate a part time lecturer. I can see why they wouldn’t want to debate the Distinguished McKnight Professor of Philosophy, Dr. Jim Fetzer, or the other distinguished professors at Scholars for 9/11 Truth. I can see why they wouldn’t want to debate Generals and Colonels and former top CIA officials and Administration officials  (see http://patriotsquestion911.com). I can see why they wouldn’t debate the former U.K. Minister of the Environment Michael Meacher, of the former head of the German Secret Service, Andreas Von Bulow. But when they won’t even debate ME...you know their case is pretty weak. 

The Oshkosh Northwestern recently threw up its hands and editorialized: Why won’t any professors shoot down this Barrett upstart? "Unfortunately, those who might consider Barrett unqualified or dead wrong on 9/11 seem more inclined to let him control the discussion...Academia seems hesitant to dissect and destroy his theory." Hesitant is an understatement. The University of Wisconsin History Students Association recently tried to set me up in a panel discussion or debate with one or more professors who would argue against me. It was a great idea. There was only one problem: They couldn’t find anyone to oppose me!  

The Badger Herald (10/6/06) wrote:  

UHA President Eli Persky said his intention in inviting Barrett and Fetzer to the meeting was to put them in a debate against UW political science and history professors. But the plan fell through, he said, because the other professors were unable to attend. 

“We contacted more [professors] than we normally would have needed to,” Persky said, guessing he had invited “more than half a dozen” faculty members. 

“There were lots of previous engagements,” UHA Vice President Sandra Brasda said. 

The professors have a good reason not to debate me. They’re smart enough to know they don’t have a case. But what about Steve Nass? Nass seems to be one state legislator who is one or two votes short of a quorum if you know what I mean. To take one example, a month ago Jim Fetzer and I set up a talk called “9/11: Fact and Folklore” at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. We set it up with only one week lead time. It was way too late to publicize the event properly, and we had basically no money for publicity anyway. It looked like only two people would show up—a BBC reporter and cameraman, who were doing a story on Scholars for 9/11 Truth.  I said to Jim, “Well, it’s a long shot, but let’s send a press release to Steve Nass.”  We did.  The next day, all the newspapers were running stories like NASS RAILS AGAINST BARRETT LECTURE; BBC TO COVER EVENT. It turns out that Nass had called another press conference to denounce me—and he made sure to let everyone know that the BBC was coming all the way from London to cover the talk. 

I shouldn’t be too hard on Steve. It could be that he’s a genius who’s secretly on our side. No, I take that back—that’s a crazy conspiracy theory. It isn’t as crazy as the official “19 Arab hijackers” conspiracy theory of 9/11, but it’s still completely insane. (Steve Nass a genius?!) 

Actually Steven Nass’s cognitive capacity is not even an issue. He doesn’t know whether or not he has a case, because he refuses to even look at any evidence. Rep. Nass wants me fired because, as he put it, "This isn't academic freedom. This person can't substantiate his views." (Christian Science Monitor, August 18th, 2006). But when constituents have asked him whether he has looked at the evidence posted at the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website, including several peer-reviewed papers, he has responded by saying that he has not examined, and will not examine, any such evidence. That’s sort of like the people who refuted Galileo by refusing to look through his telescope.  

Five hundred years ago, it was the people who refused to look through the telescope who were the biggest advocates of turning Galileo over to the Inquisition. Today, it’s Steve Nass, who refuses to look at any of the evidence cited by 9/11 skeptics, leading the crusade against academic freedom. Seems like not much has changed in the past 400 years. 

Funny, I thought a few things had changed. I thought the Inquisition was kaput. I thought the Enlightenment had put an end to the Divine Right of Kings and Presidents to have their opponents arrested, tortured, and held forever without any charges or any reason being given. I thought we decided controversial questions in free and open debates about evidence, not by trying to silence people whose views threaten powerful interests. And I thought that academic freedom was a given. The idea that politicians could try to fire university instructors on the basis of their political views expressed outside the classroom would have been unthinkable before 9/11.  The fact that it is now thinkable—so thinkable that Physics professor Steven Jones has been forced out of Brigham Young University for making thoughtful and understated political comments on a radio show—shows that 9/11 has indeed been turned into the American Reichstag Fire. Even those who have been averting their eyes from the reality of 9/11 should recognize that where there’s smoke, there’s a Reichstag Fire...and that 9/11 has functioned as a Reichstag Fire, regardless of who set it. 

* * *
Colorado Awakening: 9/11 Truth Goes Mainstream! 

Hard work and careful planning by activists at Colorado 911 Visibility paid off with amazing mainstream coverage of the 9/11 truth talks in Denver and Boulder this weekend (10/29-10/30). These articles, especially the Boulder Daily Camera article below, are short on obligatory disclaimers, ad-hominem attacks, and cutesy “aren’t these nutballs colorful” spinning.  

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2006/oct/30/panelists-raise-doubts-over-911/

Panelists raise doubts over 9/11

Speakers at CU say government deceiving citizens 

By John Aguilar (Contact)

Monday, October 30, 2006 

The idea was to turn the concept of a conspiracy theory on its head. 

A panel of scientists and scholars, gathered in a classroom Sunday afternoon at the University of Colorado at Boulder, suggested to several hundred vocal supporters that the true conspiratorial types when it comes to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are the federal government and the mainstream media. 

"They pounded a script into our heads that we now know is backed by zero evidence," said Kevin Barrett, a professor of Islamic studies at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. 

Barrett was one of a trio of speakers who came to CU to lay out their case that the World Trade Center towers didn't collapse as a result of jet fuel melting and softening of the buildings' steel structure, but rather from a deliberate demolition effort perpetrated by the United States government to justify its invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and assert its power around the world. 

"Three thousand lives were lost at the World Trade Center as a means to global domination," Barrett said. 

He characterized the 9/11 attacks as a "false flag operation" carried out by the United States with the intention of stirring up the passions and buying the allegiance of its people. 

"A false flag operation is a contrived event — shocking and spectacular — used to achieve political ends, start wars and justify suppression," he said. 

The two other speakers focused on the structural and chemical analysis of the buildings' ruins and enumerated the inconsistencies or errors that came out of the government's 9/11 investigations. 

Kevin Ryan, a chemist who said he was fired from Underwriters Laboratories after he challenged the lab's analysis of the performance of the World Trade Center's steel, took to task the National Institutes of Standards and Technology for its investigation of the collapse. 

NIST has offices in Boulder. 

He said the temperatures of the fires in the buildings were never high enough to cause the collapse of the towers, as NIST contends. 

"Neither jet fuel nor office furnishings can cause that kind of fire," he said. 

Steven Jones, a retiring physics professor at Brigham Young University in Utah, questioned NIST's conclusion that the molten metal seen pouring out of a window on the 80th floor of one of the towers shortly before its collapse was the melted remnants of the aircraft's aluminum shell. 

Instead, he said, his own tests at BYU indicated that the liquid metal bore the signs of a high-powered, sulphur-laced explosive meant to "cut through steel like it was butter." 

The speakers, presented by the group Colorado 9/11 Visibility, didn't have many detractors in the audience. 

"I happen to be an engineer and the facts just don't add up," said Steven Dunbar, a Lafayette resident who is dubious of the government's innocence in the 9/11 attacks. "The scientific evidence is not adding up. 

* * * 

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_4572518?source=email

Backers hail 9/11 theorist's speech

By Michael Riley

Denver Post Staff Writer

Article Last Updated:10/29/2006 11:46:00 PM MST 

The standing ovation has finally died down, and Steven E. Jones, a soft-spoken physics professor, finds himself pinned against the stage by some of the enthusiastic fans who packed a University of Denver auditorium over the weekend to see him. 

A man with a "Got truth?" T-shirt offers Jones a careful explanation for why the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center were operated by remote control. Another quizzes him about the size of the footprint of the Pentagon crash - too small, he says, for the Boeing 757 that "officially" smashed into it on Sept. 11, 2001... 

* * *

Steven Jones writes: 

Friends and colleagues – 

What a wonderful experience!  Thank you for your warm hospitality.   I enjoyed so much meeting and talking to all of you and the many who attended.  The press coverage was surprisingly positive and I hope you at Colorado 9/11 Visibility will keep up the great momentum you have generated by this event!  Great networking, and new concepts came (I'm thinking especially of the Kevins, Carol and Mike Berger) which I found intriguing, informative, hopeful.  (My only regret is that my wife was unable to come due to severe back injury, but she is slowly getting better.   Dr. Earl at the dinner had a good suggestion to help her heal faster – and if you see him, tell him I did get for her that herb and she's taking it…) 

I agree with your comments to the Post.  I should add that I had a call from a radio station yesterday pm in

which he started out by calling my research "irresponsible," which led to a rather vigorous discussion.  He kept interrupting me/ speaking while I was trying to answer his questions…  So I'm not sure how it turned out.  Finally, my phone went dead, so evidently they hung up on their end…  Whew!  I did get in a few words about thermite, WTC 7 and the infamous "put options" so perhaps piqued some interest in listeners. 

Best wishes, 

Steven J 

* * * 

Kevin Ryan writes: 

Dear Friends, 

It was great to meet and speak out with all of you.  Congratulations to the organizers for a very successful conference. 

Those of you in CO may not remember, but a Boulder Weekly article in October 2004 was instrumental in “pushing me to the edge”, so to speak.  It was the NIST draft of that same month, along with the courageous example provided by your group (and some nonsense from Hyman Brown), that inspired my letter to NIST.  Bob McFarland was kind enough to save an original copy for me.  Please send my thanks to Bob, Jim and Charlie, and the others who were so kind. 

My only comment on the copy is that you might include reference to the second volume of 9/11 & American Empire, edited by Dr. Barrett.  (http://www.amazon.com/11-American-Empire-Christians-Muslims/dp/1566566606) 

The Colorado 911 Visibility team continues to inspire me, and together we are surely inspiring others.  Keep the faith and thanks again. 

Kevin