TruthMove Forum

Register or log in:

Username:

Password:

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Kevin Barrett asks Amy Goodman to Autograph Hufschmid's 'Painful Questions' (29 posts)

1. Victronix
   Member

   Kevin Barrett is calling for people to email Amy (while featuring a page suggesting she may one day find herself on the scaffold) to have him on her show and asked her to autograph Hufschmid's 'Painful Questions.' What a slap in the face. We need to email her with concerns. The post below is from the mujca email list I'm on.

   I recommend sending a note. Here are some links for info -

   Kevin Barrett: "I am not a hardcore nonviolence activist" http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/621?replies=2...

   Amy [Goodman], you will one day find yourself on the scaffold, condemned to hang alongside the other Goebbels-style traitors and mass-murder-coverup-conspirators from the corporate media you pretend to criticize. http://www.mujca.com/amy.htm

   MUJCA's famous Holocaust denial e-mail Holocaust Denial nonsense sent from the alleged Muslim-Jewish-Christian alliance promoting a mix of real and false claims for 9/11 complicity (MUJCA promotes "no plane hit Pentagon" and "Loose Change"). http://www.oilempire.us/mujca.html

   Kevin Barrett, the founder of MUJCA and a member of Scholars, reports he is troubled by these new studies. "I guess I'll have to take this possibility more seriously now," Barrett said. "In the past, I have assumed video fakery was far-fetched and that anyone who endorsed it was probably a crackpot! Now I'm not so sure." Mounting Evidence of 9/11 Video Fakery: New proof of media duplicity, Scholars claim www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_james_fe_070726_m...

   ---

   Kevin Barrett Questions Amy Goodman On Building 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2yC4xgeVMM

   by Kevin Barrett, http://mujca.com

   Thanks to Matt Naus of http://ts911t.org for his stellar camerawork.

   Please, write Amy and ask her to invite me on her show to continue the conversation! mail@democracynow.org

   I attended Amy Goodman's speech at the University of Wisconsin-Madison last night, Thursday, 9/27/2007. She talked about doing "ground zero reporting" and said "our job as journalists is to go to where the silence is." I wanted to confront Amy over her reprehensible silence about the 9/11 truth debates in general, and her refusal to cover the demolition of Building 7 in particular. After all, she was present at the pre-announced demolition of Building 7: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-409453920...

   If I were confronting a hopelessly evil 9/11-complicit creep like Guiliani or McCain I'd be a lot more confrontational. But, as Col. Bob Bowman pointed out on my radio show, which will be rebroadcast next Friday, 10/5/07 4-6 pm CT on http://gcnlive.com network 2, Amy is a potential ally, albeit a maddeningly silent one so far. And her audience, who are also potential allies, loves her. So I wanted to get in her face, but with a 'tough love' approach spiced with humor, rather than venting the anger we all feel about Amy's betrayal of the truth.

   Amy began the question period by announcing that nobody would be tasered for asking questions.

   Kevin: "Well, if anyone were going to be tasered here, it probably would be me. Hi Amy. Kevin Barrett here. I appreciate your great work on so many issues, and I agree with your quote that 'our job as journalists is to go to where the silence is.' Now there's a very popular youtube video that's especially popular among the 100 million Americans who know that 9/11 was an inside job, according to a New York Times poll. It shows you present at the controlled demolition of Building 7." Amy: "I did not demolish Building 7." Kevin: "Well, okay, I'm glad we got that straight. My question would be, if your job is to go to where the silence is, Building 7 is a great place of silence, as I'm sure you know. It's a 47 story building that came down into its own footprint for no apparent reason at about 5:30 p.m. on September 11th. A countdown to the demolition of Building 7 went out on New York police radio. I was in New York for the sixth anniversary, and every cop I talked to knows that that went out on police radio. The BBC reported that Building 7 had collapsed twenty minutes before it happened, with Building 7 standing in the background behind the reporter. And we have eyewitnesses--I can give you their contact information--who were inside Building 7 at [around] 9 o'clock in the morning who witnessed massive explosions that killed large numbers of people and devastated the lobby. There were pre-demolition explosions. You're right there in New York, you're right next to Ground Zero, and you talked about doing 'ground zero reporting' -- so when are you going to get around to doing some 'ground zero reporting' on Building 7?" Heckler: "Why don't you shut up, this is not your night." Amy: "Overall, I would say that everything that happened on September 11th should be fully investigated. Of course I don't think that the 9/11 Commission was an adequate investigation. And I agree that there are a lot of questions that have to be answered."

   [well jeez Amy, you're a journalist, you're based right next to Ground Zero...why don't YOU try to get some answers??!!!]

   ---

   While I stood in line to get my Amy Goodman book autographed, I autographed Amy a copy of my own book Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie: http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Jihad-Epic-Struggle-Ag... I also carried a copy of the best photo book on 9/11, Eric Huffschmid's Painful Questions, open to the page showing the demolition of Building 7. When I arrived in Amy's exalted presence, the following dialogue transpired:

   Amy: "I guess you're famous here." Kevin: "Not as famous as you, Amy. Here's my book, with my phone number, in case you want to invite me on your show, or appear on one of my three radio shows. Also, I was wondering if you could autograph this book (Eric Huffschmidt's Painful Questions) here on the Building 7 page (page 65, featuring still shots from the demolition of WTC-7) so when you break this story..." Amy: "I don't want to mess up your page." Kevin: " I think when you break this story it'll be valuable..." Matt Naus (off camera): "You were there, Amy! I saw the video of you. You were there!" Amy: (smiling) "I work right there." Kevin: "I mean, if you break this story...if anybody does, it might be you...and if you sign this, this will be a very valuable book." Still smiling, she declines to sign.

   Please write to Amy and ask her to invite Kevin Barrett on her show either (A) for a friendly chat about the 9/11 truth movement, or (B) to debate any bunker who dares to try to take me on. Her address:

   mail@democracynow.org

   Posted 17 years ago #
2. Victronix
   Member

   Comment here -

   http://911blogger.com/node/11700

   I think they should not allow this on blogger given the things he has said about Amy --

   The betrayal of trust, for me, is so immense, that I want to see Amy Goodman in the docket for war crimes alongside the Goebbels crew from Fox and the ownership of all mainstream US media and the "left gatekeepers" of the so-called alternative media. Of all of these purveyors of blood libel, I think Amy may be the worst--because she is the one idealistic skeptics trust the most. Through her complicit silence, Amy has done more to promote today's anti-Muslim genocide than any other media figure. The ghosts of 600,000 dead Iraqis will haunt her soul forever.

   Amy Goodman -- j'accuse.

   -Kevin Barrett

   Madison, Wisconsin 12/1/2006 http://www.mujca.com/amy.htm

   Posted 17 years ago #
3. JohnA
   Member

   i just read the 911Blogger thread on Barrett and Goodman - and i want to throw up.

   Posted 17 years ago #
4. jan
   Member

   Thanks for the resources, Vic. I will write a note to Goodman later today.

   At some point, destruction to the public image of the 9/11 truth movement overshadows the value of having a current news/opinion portal.

   There was a critical, but brief period with the founding National 9/11 Visibility Project Activism Forum where we experienced this reality . It became obvious that the (essentially unmoderated) forum had evolved where it had become more destructive than constructive, so we each agreed with the difficult decision to end it.

   Imo, the public relations damage caused by 911blogger's lack of discernment may be more net destructive than helpful.

   Thank you truthmove, for the careful moderation of this fine forum.

   Jan Hoyer

   Posted 17 years ago #
5. JohnA
   Member

   So how do we direct the public to a more constructive forum? TruthMove is very well moderated - but lacks the traffic. how do we restore and redirect the national dialogue on 911 to more legitimate resources and forums and voices? do we even want that traffic here. (i kinda like the fact that we have a quiet place - undisrupted - to talk)

   but is it the result of a lack of aggressive marketing?

   say what you will about Nico Haupt - the man pumps out more propaganda in a single week than all of us here combined. his material surfaces everywhere - on every message board - in videos - on an array of websites. we may not approve of his content - but you do have to admit the guy has been overwhelmingly successful in making sure that his 'product' is out there - and seen.

   Posted 17 years ago #
6. NicholasLevis
   Member

   Yes, all this is also a result of a lack of aggressive marketing (which has several causes, I shall not assign blame) as well as the too-easy way in which those who wanted a serious campaign got themselves mixed up with the obvious sales-people and others pushing different agendas than 9/11 truth disclosure (largely a function of desperation and loneliness in the early years, but no excuse for that anymore given the widespread currency of 9/11 skepticism).

   Posted 17 years ago #
7. Victronix
   Member

   The important thing is to offset the attack emails going to DNow with apologies and statements of appreciation. Goodman does meaningful work on 99% of the issues we all care about. She has the right to her own position on 9/11, no matter what it is. We need to protect the right of some people not to have to be harassed if they do not agree.

   This is another effort to divide us from our basic allies.

   I agree with Jan on blogger. But that's another post . . .

   Posted 17 years ago #
8. JohnA
   Member

   it is always the same cast of characters who seem to find some tortured logic for defending bad manners, bad research, bad public relations, calls for violence and outright disinformation.

   its seems like an organized effort to harass people whom we should be courting to support our cause. right?

   Regarding Barrett:

   • produce a 9/11 book with the words Mein Kumf and Jihad right on the cover - guaranteed to alienate large cross-sections of the population. check

   • make sure the book itself has no hard evidence in it. check.

   • call for prominent members of the left-leaning media to be executed - in the name of 911 Truth. check.

   • present books on holocaust denial and anti-semitism to members of the media - in the name of 911 Truth. check.

   • create a website and radio show that gives a platform for arcane research about space beams and no-planes theories - in the interests of freedom and democracy - LOL!! check.

   • go to Morocco to 'find the living hijackers'. check

   • go on FoxNews where they roll out the red carpet for you. check

   • organize conferences that assemble not the most credible - but the most absurd theorists. check

   • go on Blogger where a mysterious mix of posters slap you on the back for making a spectacle of yourself in the name of 911 Truth - and go on to echo the violent rhetoric against Amy Goodman. check.

   seems complete. did i leave anything out?

   connect the dots.

   Posted 17 years ago #
9. Victronix
   Member

   Blogger where a mysterious mix of posters slap you on the back for making a spectacle of yourself in the name of 911 Truth

   Yes, and who is running the site?

   Long ago Mark R noted that indymedia's open format allowed it to become a tool to post hoaxes over and over. Blogger often functions in a similar way with no direction except cheerleading everytime no planes and no phone calls are posted, and the placing on the front page of no-planes, wearechange, and LC over and over and over.

   One editor on there expressed pride in not taking a position on the evidence, claiming that those who do are showing bias. This is the essence of big tent.

   Posted 17 years ago #
10. JohnA
    Member

    they ARE taking a position on the evidence every day by making an editorial choice on what to put on the front page.

    gee - whiz - you would think they would be EXTREMELY careful on what goes on the front page. you would think they would be as meticulous as possible in making sure that it projects the most credible and mature face for the movement.

    How can anyone NOT see that Barrett's behavior is over the top and embarassing?

    Posted 17 years ago #
11. JonGold
    Member

    I have been with 911blogger.com from the very beginning. The founder, dz, is a good, decent man. Admittedly, I've only met him once (in Chicago), but have talked with him on the phone several times, have IM'd him SEVERAL KABILLION times, and have emailed him several times. I also became friendly with his girlfriend. When dz started 911Blogger.com, he asked me specifically to post there because he "respected" me, and my efforts. When he originally created the site, he did so because he wanted to post all 9/11 related info, irregardless of what it was. Reason being, he wanted to contribute to the cause, but didn't want to take a position. Later, because he got a lot of flack (from me and others) for posting questionable things, he started to limit what was posted (and took flack for that from the people who's information stopped being posted). If you remember, dz was the one that had fund-raisers for advertising to be placed on prominent sites (Rawstory, Bradblog, etc...). He used to consult me for what should be in the advertisements, etc... he was also a HUGE advocate for "9/11: Press For Truth." Also, when activists (such as myself and others) started producing really good activism media, that's when 911Blogger.com took off. When all of that was happening, 911Blogger.com was THE 9/11 site. John Albanese posted there for a long time. Then, I think because of the popularity it was gaining, certain people started to post there. First, it was Nico and the rest of the "No Brainers" as I used to call them. Then, it was the "Holocaust Deniers", and the so-called "anti-Zionist" people. Now, it's anti-EVERYTHING but Controlled Demolition people, with a sprinkle of everything else.

    It's very hard to post there anymore. I don't "enjoy" it if that makes any sense. The ONLY reasons I continue to post there is because of all of the HARD WORK I personally put into that site, and because it is still the highest ranked 9/11 Truth site. I don't post for my health ya know... I do it so people can see it.

    The commenting destroyed that site. Comments used to be about contributing additional information for whatever thread you were in. Now it's about picking fights with people. People who know me tell me to stay away from 911Blogger.com because it's bad for my health (stress level). Unfortunately, I am a VERY stubborn individual.

    The only person of the three moderators I've met is Somebigguy. Read this...

    http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=24...

    That's a letter SBG wrote in defense of me when Gerard Holmgren and Nico Haupt were attacking me through one of their famous email lists. I've known SBG since my days of posting on the Howard Stern Bulletin Board (HSBB). I know he posts questionable things sometimes, but I just think it's because a lack of judgment. I don't think he's trying to sabotage anything.

    I only know GW from his articles. I think one of the first articles of his I came across was this one...

    http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=...

    I thought it was good, so of course I started to follow what he wrote. He and I don't agree about religion, and whether or not it should be incorporated into 9/11 Truth (much like David Ray Griffin called for), but I'm 99.9% sure he's not here to sabotage the movement. We have corresponded several times, and he seems like a good guy.

    Reprehensor I remember from GNN. He transcribed the McKinney hearings if I remember correctly. He also wrote a few good articles. He is very big into Dr. Scott, and Nafeez Ahmed (two people I also follow). I am also 99.9% sure he's not here to sabotage the movement.

    I say 99.9% sure because as John Albanese can attest to, I trust no one. I've been screwed over so many times in this movement by people I thought were my friends. You may have seen someone called "inside" posting periodically on different sites. He used to be known as "911=inside job." He and I first met on the HSBB years ago. We knew each other for a long time, and I thought he was my friend. Then, one day, out of the blue, he turns on me, and calls me a shill on 911Blogger.com's comments. He's been doing that ever since. Then, my good buddy Eric Hufschmid and I were friends for a good year. IMing each other all of the time, etc... When he was on Bullshit, I actually felt sorry for him (now when I look back to that episode, I can clearly see he is not here to help us). We all know what he turned into.

    I know that I can't be the only one who really cares about this, so that means there are people out there I can trust. Who they are, I have a few ideas. That being said, you really have to earn it with me.

    Anyway, 911Blogger.com has its' problems, but because of some, good information does get posted, and good activism gets posted as well. It's up to the mods at Blogger to decide what's best for Blogger. However, I'm sure they would be open to hear your input.

    reprehensor.911blogger@gmail.com, georgewashington.911blogger@gmail.com, sbg.911blogger@gmail.com

    Posted 17 years ago #
12. CX
    Member

    Excellent response by Danse to both Barrett's action and a few of the blogger's commenting:

    Nice job. And yet…

    I’m curious, Kevin, why is it that out of all the books you could have asked Amy Goodman to sign you chose one by Eric Hufschmid. Isn’t that the same guy who when asked who brought down the towers answered “Duh! The Jews!”

    Were you not aware of his opinions on “The” Jews and if not, why not? A simple google search turns up all sorts of juicy information on this character. Assuming you are aware of his views on da jooz, why are you promoting his work? Surely you could have found a book making a salient case for the collapse of WTC7 written by a non-neo-nazi? And I would also join Victronix in asking why you choose to link to people like “Captain Eric May” on your website. It’s rather puzzling that someone devoted to building an alliance between religious groups – including Jews – would implicitly endorse individuals who write about “embedded code in the mainstream Jewish news media”.

    Speaking from personal experience, I very much dislike individuals who conflate the Zinoist role in 911 with blanket hatred of a religious group: it serves no purpose but to discredit the entire line of inquiry; indeed, if I was more cynical, I might say that this was/is the entire purpose of their rantings to begin with.

    A few people here have tried to suggest as much, only to be attacked for being “divisive”. The assumption, I guess, is that’s ok to align oneself with neo-nazis and quacks so long as they (seem to) support 911 truth. The big tent is just that big. It never occurs to people that by aligning ourselves with fanatics we automatically divide ourselves from the majority of the population, most especially people in the peace and justice movements, ie Amy's audience. If you really want to be “unified” with white supremacists I would suggest joining your local chapter of the Aryan Youth.

    --

    Maddog wrote:

    [no one] who says in public that 9/11 was an inside job is disruptive to the 9/11 truth movement. I even back David Icke

    I take it you are not aware of the phrase “stigma by association”. It’s all the rage in social psychology textbooks.

    “Stigma is defined as a sign of disgrace or discredit that sets a person apart from others. Goffman (1963), a sociological researcher with an interest in psychiatric stigma, defined stigma in terms of undesirable ‘deeply discrediting’ attributes that ‘disqualify one from full social acceptance’”

    It should be noted that stigmas can be both rational and irrational. For example, it would be irrational to consider someone mentally challenged or insane because they displayed a physical deformity, while conversely, it would be quite rational indeed to consider that someone might be mentally challenged or insane if they believe that the world is run by shape-shifting lizards. This is where the term “by association” comes in.

    It might interest you to learn that the National Enquirer was founded by an “ex” CIA agent who “previously” specialized in psychological warfare. Here’s a snippet:

    “As pointed out in Grossed-Out Surgeon Vomits Inside Patient! An Insider's Look At Supermarket Tabloids, by Jim Hogshire, a study by Deborah Gruenfeld revealed that headlines tend to influence people's beliefs to a degree which makes the articles nearly worthless in value. Further, tabloids only trail marginally behind mainstream journalism in terms of believability (which, considering the equally disgusting level of deceit in both, is quite understandable.) Thus, the best way to influence public opinion is not through well-reasoned and well-written articles, but by having headlines with sensational - and thus attention-getting - claims shoved in the face of the most number of people. Like, say, at the checkout counter of a supermarket.

    The founder of the model for supermarket tabloid publishing was a man named Generoso Pope. In 1951, as Mr. Pope would readily admit in his own "Who's Who" Biography, he worked for the CIA in their psychological warfare division. In 1952, he bought the Hearst-owned New York Enquirer (he changed the name to The National Enquirer) and started his media empire, supposedly independent of his lone one year stint (or so he claims) in league with Langely. Pope financed the purchase via a loan for twenty grand from mobster Frank Costello, who also happened to be godfather of Pope's children. According to Pope, the loan was at "zero interest." Thus, the beginnings of tabloid journalism have the predictable intelligence/Mafia fingerprints all over the place.

    In retrospect, it all makes sense. At the time, the CIA plot known as Operation MOCKINGBIRD was in full effect, an attempt to put it's bloody tentacles over the entire korporate media apparatus, an attempt that has clearly succeeded. But as any expert of Machiavellian plots will tell you, to truly kontrol something, you also must kontrol the alternatives. It should then be no surprise that suddenly the supermarket tabloid popped up, to give the masses a false option of "choice". By being an option that is so easily discredited, it somehow manages to reinforce the "legitimacy" and "integrity" of mainstream korporate journalism. The tabloid also serves for middle America as another kontrol mechanism, the pages filled with a reactionary ideology that is disgustingly racist and sexist, which explains why tabloids regularly have been propaganda mills for the ruling klass. And finally, the tabloids are the perfect place to throw a legitimate story that the elites desire to discredit.

    http://www.konformist.com/jonbenet.htm

    Starting to get the picture?

    Alexjonesfan:

    “I saw Jim Fetzer a month ago and during his one hour speech he mentioned 3G weapons systems for about 30 seconds and suggested that everyone do their own research.”

    “Disinformation, in order to be effective, must be 90% accurate.”- Peter Dale Scott

    It would be a disservice to our cause (the truth) to allow blatant bullshit to be disseminated in our name without criticizing said bullshit. I’m not sure why this is so difficult to understand.

    Incidentally, Jim Fetzer’s DEW theories are not the only source of controversy about this gentleman. Along with other disseminators of space beams and “no planes” he has spent an equal amount of time attempting (failing) to discredit the hard science of Steven Jones. The Jones of your nom de plume has also come under attack by Fetzer for his refusal to endorse the aforementioned goofy theories.

    Erin S. Myers:

    “Web and Jim earn more (understandable, thought not wholly due) truther ire more for their crotchety off style, rather than the ideas they clumsily raise.”

    I have no problem with Fetzer’s “style”, and in fact enjoy Tarpley’s. My ire arises soley from their ideas and behavior. Fetzer has been discussed. As for Tarpley, it rubs me the wrong that he has repeatedly accused 911 researchers and activists, including a 911 family member, of being COINTELPRO agents (even petitioning fancy cartoons to that effect) based solely on the fact that they took issue with his ham-fisted interaction with prominent members of the peace movement. His implicit endorsement of DEW and his promotion of Nico Haupt also rubs me the wrong way. No problem with their “style”, all sorts of problems with their ideas.

    If people want to promote and defend these gentlemen that’s their business and their right. But I also have a right to criticize them and state my opinion that they do nothing but harm to our cause.

    The Eleventh Day of Every Month

    Posted 17 years ago #
13. Arabesque
    Member

    Kevin Barrett commented after the conference The Science of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not

    "The way I study [social interaction] is through dialog... I think we could use a little more conviviality within the Truth movement... one reason for that is that we want people to join us... by reaching out to them in a conviviality way... people will come on board... I think we need to enjoy dialog including with people that we don't agree with... [especially] non-9/11 truth people... I want dialog with [people who support the official story]--dialog is good... this is the key to the politics that we need to practice..." http://www.truthring.org/?p=4830

    I agree completely with this statement by Mr. Barrett and I support it. I believe the importance of open and civil dialog is of paramount importance to the 9/11 truth movement. For dialog to be possible, one side must respond to critique. If one side will refuse to answer critique (i.e. in the Journal of 9/11 Studies), then dialog is impossible.

    While I agree completely with Mr. Barrett's above statement, I feel that he has not followed his own statement:

    As I understand it, the usual penalty for treason is hanging, not death by firing squad. In that case, it is likely that Mr. Bush will be hanged, not shot, for treason. By making this prediction, am I running the risk of having my clothesline confiscated? I also think that there is a real possibility that Mr. Bush will be electrocuted for the mass murder of 2,500 Americans in the World Trade Center. By stating this, am I risking a court order shutting off my electricity? I also foresee a small but very real possibility that Mr. Bush will die in the gas chamber. Does raising this possibility mean that my gas could be cut off? http://www.dailytakes.com/?p=825

    As the example of Nuremburg suggests, journalists who act as propagandists for war crimes may one day find themselves on the scaffold. You would be well advised to strive for more balanced and accurate coverage in the future. http://www.mujca.com/popper.htm

    Amy [Goodman], you will one day find yourself on the scaffold, condemned to hang alongside the other Goebbels-style traitors and mass-murder-coverup-conspirators from the corporate media you pretend to criticize. http://www.mujca.com/amy.htm

    The State Department doesn’t know what it is talking about, but what else is new? Frankly I wonder who wrote this for the State Department. We need to find out because they are going to have to go up there on the scaffold with the other people who planned the attacks and more importantly the people who covered them up. The people complicit in the attacks need to be tried, condemned and sentenced. http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/06/more-...

    First Kevin Barrett said that Fox News employees should be hung. Then he said that the producers of United 93 should be tried for inciting war crimes, now he is expanding his list of those on death row to include just about every journalist in the world, while discussing an e-mail exchange he had with a journalist for Harper’s Magazine:

    "My response to that was, you know, I think that anybody who has drawn a paycheck from the major mainstream journalistic outlets in the past should be up on the scaffold for the crimes of high treason and crimes against humanity. http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/05/kevin...

    "If you are not aware that you're covering up for that traitor and mass murderer and yes insurance fraudster Silverstein, you'll figure it out when you're beside him on the scaffold. I'll be saving this email as evidence for your trial." http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/semiliterateparano...

    "The Capital Times ownership and editorial decision-makers, like those of other mainstream U.S. news outlets, are setting themselves up to be prosecuted as war criminals. By publishing the endless stream of lies that brought us into the Iraqi and Afghan quagmires, without exercising duly diligent skepticism, journalistic decision-makers are following in the footsteps of Joseph Goebbels -- a path that ends at the scaffold." http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/letter/202146

    "Kevin Barrett contacted me after he heard that Kevin Ryan backed out of a debate opportunity with me. Barrett wanted to know if I was interested in debating him on his radio show, or perhaps in a live debate when he is in New York. In his email to me, he copied a response he had sent to a listener, in which he said that I was complicit in mass murder and a candidate for a war crimes tribunal, with the gallows perhaps in my future. I guess that's his idea of an inducement to debate." http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=91656

    I believe these comments by Barrett are inappropriate and destructive to our movement. May I ask why Mr. Barrett feels the need to make these threatening statements against journalists and defenders of the official story? How do these statements lead to constructive dialog or help convert those to our message of 9/11 truth? Why should it be necessary to make statements like these when the truth about 9/11 is a powerful enough message?

    I agree that we need to have dialog. And I also believe that our credibility is everything. If we don't have it, our message is worthless.

    Posted 17 years ago #
14. truthmod
    Administrator

    Thanks Arabesque. I can clearly see how some people might easily take Kevin Barrett's foibles as naive mistakes. And how some will actually applaud him for stuff like this Amy Goodman confrontation.

    Gathering and persistently posting these quotes and other background is an important service to the movement. People need to be held accountable for what they do and say.

    Posted 17 years ago #
15. JonGold
    Member

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-727092048...

    Posted 17 years ago #
16. DBLS
    Inactive

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-727092048...

    ^ I don't know whether to describe that as sick or hilariously ridiculous, maybe it's just both.

    Posted 17 years ago #
17. Victronix
    Member

    SLC post -

    "On a related note, Kevin "stalker" Barrett confronts that very same Amy Goodman at a public event. Disappointingly Ms. Goodman does not confess to being part of the mind-numbingly large vast conspiracy. Barrett does go up and asks her to sign a book afterwards. Not one of Goodman's books, but "Painful Questions" by prominent anti-Semitic conspiracy kook Eric Hufschmid.

    UPDATE: I am not sure why Barrett is being so polite to her, since last year he had already accused her of being part of the cover-up and threatened her with hanging." http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/09/kevin...

    Posted 17 years ago #
18. JonGold
    Member

    "I don't know whether to describe that as sick or hilariously ridiculous, maybe it's just both."

    More sick than ridiculous.

    Posted 17 years ago #
19. mark
    Member

    It must be a coincidence that Mr. Barrett received State Department funding for his work just before 9/11.

    http://african.lss.wisc.edu/allnews/FALL-00/studne... Kevin Barrett: Kevin returns to Madison this semester after spending the past year in Morocco conducting dissertation research on a Fulbright 11-E fellowship. His research centered on the topic of "Sufism and the supernatural image: a comparison of narrative genres including hagiography, personal experience narrative, oral tale and legend, and written legend." He was also awarded a Dissertator Fellowship for Spring 2001.

    http://www.iie.org/Template.cfm?section=Fulbright1 Sponsored by the United States Department of State, the Fulbright Program provides funding for students, scholars, and professionals to undertake graduate study, advanced research, university teaching, and teaching in elementary, and secondary schools.

    http://www.iie.org/Template.cfm?Section=Mission_an...

    IIE manages over 250 programs. Sponsors include the: U.S. Department of State U.S. Agency for International Development U.S. Department of Energy World Bank Cisco Learning Institute Ford Foundation Freeman Foundation GE Foundation Goldman Sachs Foundation Governments of Brazil, Chile, Japan and Spain Levi Strauss Foundation Lucent Technologies Foundation MacArthur Foundation Packard Foundation AIG Foundation

    ---

    Mr. Barrett's MUJCA was the co-sponsor of 911truth.org's conference in Chicago in June 2006.

    http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060706_q...

    THE NY TIMES PUTS 9-11 QUESTIONS IN THE GRAVE As Sad As It Was Predictable Story Marks the End of a Sequential and Planned Campaign to Discredit Authentic 9/11 Research by Michael C. Ruppert and Jamey Hecht

    [It’s pretty easy to deconstruct and demonstrate, step-by-step, how the 9-11 movement was led into the Valley of the Little Bighorn and massacred before the public eye. It’s too bad that so many of its self-proclaimed leaders acted as willing accomplices while the real 9-11 pioneers; skilled and experienced investigators, journalists, professors and academics could only sit back and watch the “assisted” suicide take place. 9-11 has been sent to the dustbin of history and the sad part is that it has all been done before. Few would listen to our warnings. There are great lessons here for the future if another opportunity should present itself to break through into the mainstream. But that would have to be something as big as 9-11 and I’m not sure the remnants of this free nation could stand something like that. – Michael C Ruppert]

    Posted 17 years ago #
20. Arabesque
    Member

    Not strictly related, but related:

    October 1, 2007 Peter Guenther's Prologue Captain Eric H. May

    http://911blogger.com/node/11758

    Neither Hitler nor Bush could have effected their radical plans without a party full of functionaries and a compliant national media, of course. Hitler relied on his "Nazi" party, a word derived from the name of his National Socialist organization. He had a brilliant individual named Joseph Goebbels to control the Reich Propaganda Ministry and rally the public behind Nazi policies. Bush relied on his "Nozi" party, a word derived from "Zionism," with the first four letters Z-i-o-n remixed into N-o-z-i. He had a brilliant cartel of Zionists to control the American Mainstream Media and rally the public behind Nozi policies.

    Mr. May has been interviewed by and is supported by many of the usual suspects. Tarpley, Fetzer, and Barrett have all had him on their radio shows. There is a strong connection to the KW warning, and a lot of interesting details here that I will document for posterity when I have the chance. May, Barrett, Fetzer, Tarpley, and Stack have all supported the KW.

    "In Ireland David Ray Griffin's appearance was canceled and he was labeled anti-Semetic due to posts by "Captain Eric May" being featured on Morgan Stack's 911truth.ie website. May is yet another 'former' intelligence person who advocates numerology to expose the 9-11 coverup. May is openly anti-Semetic, describing the media and Hollywood as 'controlled by the Jews'." http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/911mysteries/app...

    Posted 17 years ago #
21. JonGold
    Member

    Michael Wolsey also had Eric May on his radio show... oooooooooooooooooooooooooooh...

    Posted 17 years ago #
22. JonGold
    Member

    However, I know personally that Michael is not happy about it.

    Posted 17 years ago #
23. Arabesque
    Member

    I posted one of May's stories on 911blogger, so in that sense I'm "guilty by association" too. Someone told me about the holocaust issue in private afterwards. The funny thing is that it wouldn't surprise me if the "holocaust denial" thing is an act.

    I know at least one other "former" DoD person suddenly started promoting this stuff after doing decent work. Then he started calling Truthaction "communists" after the KW affair and was banned from the STJ911, 911blogger, and Truthaction forums (multiple times) for bad behavior.

    Posted 17 years ago #
24. JonGold
    Member

    Arabesque. I'm not perfect. Lord knows I've said some divisive things in the past, and probably some things I shouldn't have said regarding Nico, etc... However, I am not one to go on the "offensive" regarding someone. I usually speak my peace, and leave. However, I am human, and sometimes it shows (constantly being attacked, questioned, insinuated about takes it's toll). I also think it's important to call someone out when they're being stupid (the topic of this thread for instance). There are some, however, that spend ALL OF THEIR TIME attacking others. I don't understand their kind. Who has the time to spend thinking of ways to attack someone else? I WISH the bullshit that takes place within the movement never happens. Unfortunately, it does. All you can do is your best. The people that frequent this board, and others know what needs to be done. Our very best. In promoting information, in being active, in reaching out to other movements/causes, in arranging conferences, and so on so that we can end this nightmare.

    Posted 17 years ago #
25. JonGold
    Member

    Speaking of... See these two pictures?

    http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/me911benefit1.jpg

    http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/me911benefit2.jpg

    Nico was trying to get in them (hence my expression).

    Posted 17 years ago #

Reply »

You must log in to post.