I think Barrett is possibly that naive.
It probably feels better to think that, and possibility it's true - we don't know. But the evidence doesn't seem to suggest it's true. From what I've seen he appears to go out of his way to protect those who are making the ad hominem attacks, for example, in writing, such as Reynolds and Wood, who he's had on his show over and over, and Fetzer, his "partner," who openly calls people "morons," etc., and is no longer even allowed to post on blogger.
Here's an interesting example of what KB does below, in excerpts from a Dynamic Duo show (my bold).
Here's a great line from that that KB says -
. . . . .
"I don't know if it's true or not, but you're putting forth a reasoned argument, you're pointing at evidence."
. . . . .
Gosh, might as well promote it then, since it "points at" some kind of "evidence"!
But what evidence? Apparently what the evidence is means nothing. Note that he decisively says that MR is making a "reasoned argument." What reason is there in his argument? It all makes no sense, except for the fact that reality, evidence, reason, logic and consequently truth, don't actually mean anything at all.
No sane person in 2007 would be saying that we still need to "weigh" the evidence in the case of "no Big Boeings" hit the WTC. If it hasn't been done by now by KB, it isn't ever going to be.
And this is almost exactly the same as Fetzer.
The only theory Fetzer is willing to discard is whatever Steven Jones says, but every other theory imaginable - nukes, space beams, etc. - is endlessly in need to "analysis" and constant promotion.
Transcript: The Dynamic Duo with Kevin Barrett
Final Revision 26 February 2007
Participants
KB = Dr. Kevin Barrett (Host)
MR = Prof. Morgan Reynolds
http://www.veronicachapman.com/st911/070219_transc...
KB: Oh yea … I've made this point many times. There are - there are folks in the 9/11 Truth Movement who – who really have a har- strong aversion to people like you coming out and – and suggesting that there may have been these high-tech, exotic, weapons being used - because they're afraid that people are gonna call them tin-foil-hat-wearers, as they go about doing their 9/11 Truth work. But what I always tell these people is: "Look, if you were a covert operations professional, with a lot of means at your disposal, wouldn't you do this in such a way that anyone who figured it out, and told the truth, would sound crazy?"
MR: Right!
KB: So you gotta keep that in mind, as a possibility. And I tell people "Let's not write people like Morgan Reynolds off right away. We need to take a look at what you're saying, and weigh it, and think about it, and not - not spread stupid rumours – and …
. . . .
MR: . . . You probably are familiar with a Fox News video, back on September 10th, you might have seen it - it's about a three and a half minute clip? And the anchor asked me about – " Aren't you one of those guys who said there was no plane?". And I say "Yes I am. No plane went into the South Tower. And I can prove it". And he says "Well, that means you're accusing the mass media of being complicit! ". And I said "Well, good for you! Yes, I am!".
. . . .
KB: …But, Morgan, you know the thing is that once you've proved 'controlled demolition', or – you know – 'intentional demolition', then you no longer have Arab-Muslim hijackers meaningfully involved in this. Why? Because there's no way that they're gonna rely on these alleged 'suicide hijackers' to make sure that they create the smash – the smash up that they can blame the demolition on. They're gonna make sure that they – you know – do something else to create a plane crash. Or the illusion of a plane crash, in your case. It doesn't matter really, because the point is that once you got the Towers …
MR: Oh … it matters!
. . . .
KB: Well, let me – let me explain partly why Morgan. One is that I've looked at your stuff on this and, contrary to all – you know - a whole lot of people telling me "Oh! No! That's crazy! Don't go there! Don't got there!" – well, I've gone a little ways and …
MR: Um-hum [considering]
KB: … I don't think it's crazy. I don't know if it's true or not, but you're putting forth a reasoned argument, you're pointing at evidence.
MR: Right!
KB: … and I think you should have the right to do that. So I think people running around and calling you names should stop – I also think you shouldn't call people names either, by the way, but that's another topic …
MR: Yea … well … [laughs]. But [unintelligible] have for that, actually there are very few. My 'competitor', Steven Jones, in every talk, it seems like every other paragraph reverts to ad hominem attacks, but I gather he's not talking about me, because I can only remember saying – after I'd earned my spurs, in an article co-authored with Judy Wood, you know, we'd gone through about nine things - and I finally said "How retarded is that?"
. . . .
KB: Yes. Lots of people argue in academia. Like I've – you know - I haven't published that many academic articles but, as I understand it, you're not supposed to say "Well how retarded is that?" – you know - you're supposed to kind of like 'give that impression', without coming out and saying it directly.
MR: Well, I understand the negative side of that, but I'm not taking it back. It's true …