Rep. Nass Refusing to Debate Kevin Barrett
Rep. Steve Nass: It would be silly to debate Barrett on his 9/11 fiction
A concerted e-mail campaign is calling on state Rep. Steve Nass to debate University of Wisconsin-Madison lecturer Kevin Barrett about the 9/11 attacks. Barrett asserts the U.S. government was behind the attacks; Nass has called on the UW to fire Barrett because of his views. Nass' office, as well as this newspaper and other media outlets, have been inundated with e-mails from all over the country demanding a debate between the two men. On Wednesday, Nass' office sent this response:
Thank you for contacting me with your request that I debate Kevin Barrett regarding his 9/11 conspiracy theory. A debate is a process of discussing facts and attempting to interpret those facts. It would be silly to debate Mr. Barrett on his fiction relating to the events of 9/11.
I offer the following quotes for you to reflect upon:
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." (John Adams, Dec. 4, 1770)
"Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the spot of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck." (Thomas Jefferson, Dec. 8, 1822)
The facts surrounding 9/11 are truly a stubborn thing for Mr. Barrett. Mr. Barrett's personal views exceed the hand of reason and his hatred of the U.S. government, while clearly a part of his faith, doesn't constitute evidence.
Rep. Steve Nass
31st Assembly District
Well at least he is right on one thing, facts are stubborn things, and it appears that Nass has no confidence in his knowledge of them.
Thanks to Alex for the cartoon submission!
- Login to post comments
sl, you made me think of
sl, you made me think of this:
Issue a public challenge to Nass something like this:
To Rep. Stephan Nass: We, the undersigned, will guarantee a $10,000 endowment to the University of Wisconsin-Madison if you engage in a two hour debate with Kevin Barrett, challenging him on his claims about the events on 9/11.
If enough people got behind this idea, raising the 10 grand (or more) shouldn't be difficult. If after hearing this new challenge Nass still refuses, our effort will still serve to demonstrate:
1. That Nass won't accept a debate challenge even if it benefits
the constituents and college he's trying to "protect".
2. that the truth movement is very serious and confident about our stance, and the information we have to share.
I'm thinking that the endowment would only be issued if Nass wins the debate, virtually guaranteeing that the $10,000 is never issued. However, I don't know what method would be used to determine the winner.
Any thoughts on the above?
I think that public
I think that public challenge/ endowment would be a great idea. If it was possible to raise the money, I think the fair thing to do would be to donate it without regard for a "winner" of the debate. Rep. Nass, if you just show up and debate for two hours, the University gets the money. I think that would be a genius public relations move.
casseia: I agree that
casseia: I agree that ideally, the money should be endowed regardless of the outcome of the debate. However, if raising the $10,000 in a short period of time was expedited by the requirement of a Nass win, I think adding that requirement would be acceptable.
hey all. I took the time to
hey all. I took the time to email Mr. Nass and have included it here.
Dear Mr. Nass,
It is apparent to all whom have been following this on going issue with Mr. Barrett that you question his facts with nothing to back you up with the exception of the fictional account we've come to know as the 911 Commission Report. If you are so certain that he is wrong you would have little or no trouble defeating him in a debate. So why do you insist on not having such a debate? Gut reaction says you are simply a coward. I believe however that you know full well you have no chance of winning such a debate. Perhaps you know more than you let on or simply ignorant of the facts. My guess is that if you devoted even an hour or two of objective research in to 911 that you would see things differently. Of course you wouldn't want to lose YOUR job would you?
Come on Mr. Nass, if you are so certain of what you believe then for the love of God stand behind your convictions and have the debate.
"Dear Mr. Nass, It is
"Dear Mr. Nass,
It is apparent to all whom have been following this on going issue with Mr. Barrett that you question his facts with nothing to back you up with the exception of the fictional account we've come to know as the 911 Commission Report......"
I don't think Mr. Nass will be swayed by private communications such as these. However, publishing a public letter might make his avoidance behavior unsustainable.
Thanks, Steve. BTW, new
Thanks, Steve.
BTW, new interpretation of OCT: Official Chicken Theorists.
Just emailed Nass.
Just emailed Nass.
Mr. Nass apparently has zero
Mr. Nass apparently has zero faith in his own convictions. The man is the personification of cowardice.
Nass has the temerity to call for Kevin Barrett's firing? Nass needs to be fired!!
"Nass' office, as well as
"Nass' office, as well as this newspaper and other media outlets, have been inundated with e-mails from all over the country demanding a debate between the two men."
Best line.
This Nass guy is an absolute
This Nass guy is an absolute joke. Every interview I have seen with him (including the Bill O'reilly one) has been utterly devoid of actual fact regarding the very real issue of the existance of evidence contrary to the official theory.
Bottom line, it really doesn't matter what you think about Barrett having the right to express personal views on an important issue for 5% of an approved curriculum. I believe this is just a smokescreen to move attention from the fact that the evidence does exist, and the next logical step is action to address the situation.
Apparently Nass is more
Apparently Nass is more interested in getting his name in the press than presenting any valid arguments for his beliefs.
Not being from the Wisconsin area I will just venture to say that Nass is the type who would like to "stump' for flag burning type issues over any issues requiring logic and reason.
Keep those emails and phone calls coming folks! ;-)
"Apparently Nass is more
"Apparently Nass is more interested in getting his name in the press than presenting any valid arguments for his beliefs."
And with Fascist News in your corner, a "news" outlet that reaches half of the country, that's not hard to do.
Are you from Cincinatti
Are you from Cincinatti Cincy911Truth?
Nass is a Suitopath, a well
Nass is a Suitopath, a well dressed sociopath.
Don't let up Truther's! This
Don't let up Truther's! This coward needs to feel a little more heat.
Let him know what you really think!
E-Mail Nass at:
rep.nass@legis.state.wi.us
Nass is absolutely correct
Nass is absolutely correct to not engage in debate with Barrett. Barrett is desperate to try to get recognition for 9/11 conspiracy theories. As others have pointed out, 9/11 conspiracy theorists like Jim Fetzer have tried that desperate ploy to get someone to "debate" them in an effort to try to legitimize their made-up stories.
It doesn't work that way. I know you all want recognition but you haven't earned the right. You never will.
Troll Level : High
Troll Level : High
Mr. Nass: I admire and
Mr. Nass:
I admire and respect Kevin Barrett for his courage, his integrity and his character. Qualities which you obviously know little about.
Kevin has excercised his right as a patriotic American to speak truth to power. He has done what few in this country have the courage to do. You have responded in a manner that causes those who share Kevin's views to remain silent.
You are the one who hates America and what she stands for. You are the one who wants to squash freedom of speech. You are the one who backs down when confronted with facts that contradict your "truth". You sir are the one who needs to be fired.
If you don't have the courage of your convictions then please do us all a favor and shut the hell up!
Kevin Barrett is a true American patriot. Truth be told, he should have YOUR JOB! You don't deserve it.
Good day,
Chris Rose
Why is it desperate? If he
Why is it desperate? If he feels sure the 9/11 omission report can stand, he should be extremely certain of winning the debate. Obviously Nass doesn't quite feel that way.
In fact, if you're so
In fact, if you're so certain Nass would win, you should be asking Nass to debate just so he can wipe the floor with Barrett, hmmm?
Lol, this Nass guy is such a
Lol, this Nass guy is such a joke. I dont think Nass is smart enough to know he would be destroyed in this debate, I think he is just a coward. I think a turning point in the 9/11 Truth Movement will be when we can finally have some of the official story supporters debate us in public. I think that should be the immediate goal of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Andy, I agree that a public
Andy, I agree that a public debate should be an immediate goal of the mouvement. Pressure sould be put on official story supporter to participate to the National 9/11 Debate in Charleston, SC on 9/16. justthefact, would you care to join? Come wipe the floor with some lunatic truther. 8)
Ode to the Neocons.. from
Ode to the Neocons.. from the American Scholars Symposium
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/270706ode.htm
It's the arrogance factor.
It's the arrogance factor.
"My ideas are so superior to yours, it's not even worth discussing. It's just self-evident."
It's perhaps a defense mechanism, trying to cling to what you believe is the truth, and not willing to engage others and whether your ideas hold water.
I'd really like Nass to take a stab at why Building 7 came down ...
Ok, but was the cartoon
Ok, but was the cartoon funny? :)
http://www.911blogger.com/files/images/nass-cartoon2.JPG
Id like to know if Nass
Id like to know if Nass knows about WTC 7. My geuss is he doesnt. Clearly his statements are a sign of desperation to avoid a debate. Its funny the quotes he uses really only make him look that much more silly.
I liked the cartoon. :)
I liked the cartoon. :) But why Harvey?
Alex, I love the cartoon. I
Alex, I love the cartoon. I always find it cool when a good caricature illustrate a news.
Cincy, I agree, keep those
Cincy, I agree, keep those emails and phone calls coming!
http://www.mujca.com/debatecampaign.htm
"Nass is absolutely correct
"Nass is absolutely correct to not engage in debate with Barrett. Barrett is desperate to try to get recognition for 9/11 conspiracy theories. As others have pointed out, 9/11 conspiracy theorists like Jim Fetzer have tried that desperate ploy to get someone to "debate" them in an effort to try to legitimize their made-up stories.
It doesn't work that way. I know you all want recognition but you haven't earned the right. You never will."
So you're saying having a debate about the one day that changed the world is off limits? Is that what you're saying? Thanks for clarifying that.
I've been e-mailing this guy
I've been e-mailing this guy a couple of times a day. I hope everyone here is doing the same thing. Here's my most recent e-mail:
Mr. Nass-
Why have all your attempts to discredit Professor Kevin Barrett taken the form of ad hominem attacks and loaded language? It is my understanding that Professor Barrett has repeatedly challenged you to publicly debate the evidence of government complicity in the events of September eleventh (or lack thereof), but that you have refused. According to Zogby poll results released on May 22 of this year, 42% of the American populace believes "that the United States government and the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their explanation of the September eleventh attacks", and 45% is of the opinion "that so many questions about September eleventh remain that Congress or an international tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any members of the United States government helped facilitate their success". Therefore, to engage in a public debate with Professor Barrett would be to address the concerns of seventy million Americans, which is your duty as a public servant. You stated recently that the University of Wisconsin-Madison "operates at its own peril if it continues to ignore views of the taxpayers." Perhaps you should heed your own warning.
It has also come to my attention that, in a response to the e-mail campaign calling on you to debate Professor Barrett, you stated that "[a] debate is a process of discussing facts and attempting to interpret those facts." One of the facts likely to be discussed if you were to accept Professor Barrett's challenge to a public debate would be the fact that, in addition to World Trade Center 1 and World Trade Center 2, a third building, World Trade Center 7, collapsed on September eleventh. However, the public has never been given an "official" explanation as to the cause of this collapse. In FACT, FEMA stated that their "best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence", and that "[f]urther research, investigation and analysis are needed to resolve this issue." The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States apparently did no further research or investigation into the cause of the collapse of World Trade Center 7; their final report simply fails to acknowledge that the building ever existed. Furthermore, on June 20th, 2005, the National Institue of Standards and Technology, having released their final report on the collapse of World Trade Center 1 and World Trade Center 2 on April 5, 2005, stated in a press release that their final report on the collapse of World Trade Center 7 would be released "at a later date." It has still not been released. Nearly five years after the events of September eleventh, the American public has still not been told what caused the collapse of World Trade Center 7. This fact is surely worthy of discussion and interpretation in the form of a public debate.
The public is demanding answers, Mr. Nass, and it is your duty as a public servant to provide them.
Remember the "Good Ole'
Remember the "Good Ole' Days" when people like Senator Mark Dayton appeared to give a crap?
I guess he's a "Conspiracy Theorist".
It doesn't work that way. I
It doesn't work that way. I know you all want recognition but you haven't earned the right. You never will.
Just the Facts | 07.27.06 - 6:42 pm | #
I never wish harm on any human being, but Mr or Mrs Just the Facts. How will you feel when your Son, Daughter, Wife, Husband, Mother or Father is gunned down by the Military when the US government gains the total power it's after?
I sincerely hope it never happens, but don't come crying to us if it does? You are complicite in this barbaric treatment of the people of this world.
I hope that you can sleep with a clear conscience.
All the best,
DabeesUK
jtf can't sleep with a clear
jtf can't sleep with a clear conscience, he has not.
BTW, he seem to master particularly #6 of his guide http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html#Twenty-Five_Rules_of_Disinformation__
yes TNF, and hes pretty good
yes TNF, and hes pretty good at #4 too......
if a debate does happen
if a debate does happen (if!), from my conversation with Nass' representative it sounds like all they've done is read the Popular Mechanics "debunk" article to prove that Barrett is wrong.
I'd love to see Nass debate using Popular Mechanic talking points.
He will never sleep with a
He will never sleep with a clear conscience, you have to have a conscience to be able to sleep with a clear one.
Excellent e-mail to Nass
Excellent e-mail to Nass JeremyA. Very well thought out. Your arguments are difficult to refute, much less ignore.
Just the Facts >> Are you
Just the Facts >>
Are you writing from Greenzone in Baghdad? Still not enough IEDs for you moron? I can arrange for you special tour inside Walter Reed Hospital to meet some real guys..
"I admire and respect Kevin
"I admire and respect Kevin Barrett for his courage, his integrity and his character. Qualities which you obviously know little about."
What are yyou smoking you poor soul?
Nice comeback jtf lol
Nice comeback jtf
lol
"So you're saying having a
"So you're saying having a debate about the one day that changed the world is off limits? Is that what you're saying? Thanks for clarifying that."
You would debate a Holocaust denier, Mr. Gold?
Why?
"Why have all your attempts
"Why have all your attempts to discredit Professor Kevin Barrett taken the form of ad hominem attacks and loaded language?"
Barrett is obviously dishonest. And you give him comfort?
"My ideas are so superior to
"My ideas are so superior to yours, it's not even worth discussing. It's just self-evident."
Nass has the facts, Barrett has obvious lies. Where do you fit in?
"I never wish harm on any
"I never wish harm on any human being, but Mr or Mrs Just the Facts. How will you feel when your Son, Daughter, Wife, Husband, Mother or Father is gunned down by the Military when the US government gains the total power it's after?"
But you willingly support Barrett's lies? Pity you.
So you're saying having a
So you're saying having a debate about the one day that changed the world is off limits? Is that what you're saying? Thanks for clarifying that.
Jon Gold | Homepage | 07.27.06 - 7:45 pm | #
___________________________________--
Indeed, that is a major red flag that something is amiss.
Anti-truthers want the topic to be off-limits.
If we are so off-base, why won't they simply debunk our arguments?
The following items appear to be troll kryptonite:
1) WTC 7
2) ISI connection
3) WTC 7
4) NORAAD stand-down
5) WTC 7
6) Whistleblowers (Sibel, etc...)
7) WTC 7
8) Eyewitness testimony of CD
9) WTC 7
JTF, since you're cherry
JTF, since you're cherry picking sentences, what would your response to the following be?
"However, the public has never been given an "official" explanation as to the cause of this [WTC7] collapse."
Instead of trolling, address some real issues. What's the deal with WTC7 from your perspective? How would you address this issue in debate if you were Nass?
Go on... humor us.
Mr. Gold, why are you
Mr. Gold, why are you avoiding answering my question again? It's been several hours since I gave you another opportunity.
It must be very hard for you even after a whole day to support your contention. Maybe you could explain your difficulty.
"The following items appear
"The following items appear to be troll kryptonite."
So why are you trolling?
BTW, JTF if you choose NOT
BTW, JTF if you choose NOT to respond to this direct challenge [WTC7], I'm going to encourage my fellow Truthers to ignore you.
Although I really hope you choose to respond with legitimate facts (instead of more sarcasm), I won't be surprised if you don't. I'm sure none of us will.
Lastly, I really, really, really want to call you a nasty name... but this issue is too important to sink to that level.
Just know that I really, really, really wanted to do that.
Hint jtf, Truthers respect a
Hint jtf,
Truthers respect a fair and honest argument.
The reason you are a joke is because you give us no reason whatsoever to doubt our beliefs.
Some people value the written word, logic, debate, the marketplace of ideas, the academic pursuit of truth, the intellectual pursuit of wisdom, etc...
We are not swayed by adolescent hazing.
"So why are you
"So why are you trolling"
See, this is what I'm talking about. Is that the best response you can come up with? You might as well have said, "I know you are, but what am I?"
What facts do you have dear sir? Educate us. Please!!!
[soundfx type="crickets"
[soundfx type="crickets" volume="deafening"]Chirp![/soundfx]
Bueller? Bueller? ...Bueller?
Bueller?
Bueller?
...Bueller?
???
"So you're saying having a
"So you're saying having a debate about the one day that changed the world is off limits? Is that what you're saying? Thanks for clarifying that."
You would debate a Holocaust denier, Mr. Gold?
Why?"
#1, I do not deny 9/11 happened. I do not deny that close to 3000 people died. I do not deny that heroes were made that day. I do not deny that people are still suffering today from exposure from the collapsed buildings.
#2, I do not deny the Holocaust took place. Period.
#3, On the 1 year anniversary of the 9/11 Commission Report, Lorie Van Auken, along with Monica Gabrielle, and MIndy Kleinberg, all surviving family members, made the following statement:
The 9/11 CommissionÂ’s report is one year old today. This report was supposed to provide the definitive account of what had transpired on September eleven, 2001. We hoped that our thousands of unanswered questions would be addressed and answered. Yet incredibly we have found that the CommissionÂ’s definitive final report has actually yielded more questions than answers.
Moreover, there are still so many areas that remain unexplained, or are only vaguely touched upon by the 9/11 Commission, so much so that it was quite difficult for me to decide where I should start my testimony to you today.
So let me see... I'm going to take JTF's assertion that there's no need to debate that day over someone like Lorie Van Auken?
What are you smoking you poor soul?
As a matter of fact, Lorie
As a matter of fact, Lorie Van Auken recently sent in a "Letter To The Editor" for the NYTimes. In that letter, she said:
For the last four and a half years, I have searched for answers as to how my government could have failed so miserably to protect its citizens. The 9/11 commission didn't provide answers to those questions.
Again I ask... What are you
Again I ask...
What are you smoking you poor soul?
What's it say on
What's it say on 911myths.com about that?
MEMORANDUM To: Just the
MEMORANDUM
To: Just the Facts'
Commanding Officer
From: 911Blogger
Re: Is this some kind of a joke?
Please be advised of the fact that Just the Facts is performing at a sub-standard level. He should be demoted to DailyKos duty immediately.
For those who have not yet
For those who have not yet seen the Channel 3, Jul. 21 interview with Barrett:
http://www.c3ktogo.com/video-player.php?id=4688
Nass sounds like an idiot,
Nass sounds like an idiot, and Barrett has my support.
Just as an addendum to the WTC Oliver Stone thread below, Stone was out here in Australia some years ago doing an interview with a mainstream journalist (I think around the time U-TURN premiered). The interviewer, Jim Schembri - a right-winger, apparently, but he hides this most of the time - usually included pre-interview talk in his final articles. The first think Oliver Stone said to Schembri as a conversation starter was:
"Have you heard of Danny Casolaro?"
Stone was referencing the Casolaro / 'Octopus' conspiracy (google the guys name and you'll get heaps of info). Knowing this and hearing his comments on the JFK commentary it's very apparent that he's extremely conversant with the key, factually-based 'conspiracies' that are out there at the moment. If Richard Linklater can buy the 9/11 truth side of things then I'm sure that Stone would.
Stone is no dummy though. Having been through the whole heated response to his movie JFK, he'd know that the mainstream press would be eager to paint his new movie as the work of a looney. If Stone jumped right in with LOOSE CHANGE footage at the beginning of his film, it'd be enough for some doubtng fence-sitters to condemn the whole 9/11 truth movement as 'just another Oliver Stone conspiracy' or something similar. In fact, I'm sure that's what many pro-official story folks would be hoping for. "Here's Oliver Stone with another nutty conspiracy..."
Again, Stone is no dummy. I was assuming that he would have given the content of his movie a lot of thought, and if the review below is accurate, I'd say he's been both canny and careful. If the footage of building 7 collapsing is included in the film, this is a key sign that he's ..carefully.. ..carefully.. pointing in the direction of the same ideas and thoughts that we all follow here, without immediately giving critics the means to strike back. If he went out and shouted 'conspiracy' throughout the movie, the mainstream media would immediately go on the attack. Stone has framed his movie in such a way that they can't attack it for that reason yet. This also means that hundreds of thousands of cinemagoers will shortly be seeing footage of the building 7 collapse, and getting their first taste of the molten-metal thermite indicators of controlled demolition. Again, I'm basing this on the idea that the review below is accurate. Ditto the sound of explosions, if they're included in the film.
I have a copy of Peter Dale Scott's DEEP POLITICS on my bookshelf, and it contains a back cover blurb of appreciation by Stone. (Stone's published JFK screenplay also contains citations in the footnotes of PD Scott's earlier books). Stone is obviously aware of Scott's writing - as he is of several other conspiracy researchers, since Stone has written forewards and acknowledgements for several other similar books - and he must follow the field of research to a certain degree. Scott's next major book, mentioned proninently on his website, is THE ROAD TO 9/11, a heavily researched CROSSING THE RUBICON style study of the 9/11 attacks and the whole field of enquiry. (Note too that Scott is the editor of one of the two new 9/11 books due out in the next month or so from Amazon). All this is a longwinded way of saying that it's inconceivable that Stone isn't aware of 9/11 truth by this point. Charlie Sheen was in two of Stone's movies (Martin Sheen was in one of them) and it's impossible that Stone also wasn't aware of Sheen's recent efforts to publicise 9/11 truth in the mainstream media.
Again - Stone is no dummy. If his new movie contains the sounds of explosions, a shot of WTC7 collapsing and footage of molten metal ala thermite after effects, then that's a major victory in getting that info out to the general public WITHOUT the taint of 'nutty conspiracy theories' that a more overt approach would have attracted. There are members of the mainstream public that would have completely avoided the new movie if Stone had framed it in a way that overtly pushed 9/11 truth theories, simply as the rest of the mainstream media would have bent over backwards to label it as the work of a crackpot. Doing things this way means that the info gets out there, but the mainstream media will try to avoid drawing too much attention to it. Lets see how millions of new viewers worldwide respond to seeing WTC7 collapse for the first time. They likely haven't seen it before on TV or the web, so this will be a first for them. Lets also have them watch firefighters note and react onscreen to the sound of explosions - again, if the review is accurate - and see how this sits with them. If the review is accurate (and if those scenes remain in the final cut) then this is the best possible approach I could have probably hoped for, and will do the 9/11 truth movement a lot of good.
I'm in touch with some documentary filmmakers (mentioned on this page some weeks back) who told me that at the recent Alex Jones conference there were a LOT of other documentarians there who were evidently workng hard on new films and docunemtaries about the topic. In 12 months time LOOSE CHANGE and EVERYBODY'S GOT TO LEARN wil be just the tip of the iceberg, and we'll have several new books out on the topic as well. (9/11 SYNTHETIC TERROR is up to a 3rd printing, and I'm sure it will hit a 4th before too long). We're getting there. We may have some new hurdles to clear in the future if and when the administration gets more desperate, but slowly and surely we are getting there. If Stone's new movie manages to quietly deliver some 9/11 truth to people without them raising defences that a more controversial approach would have induced, then that's good, and I hope that other filmmakers can shortly do the same thing. When the movie hits there's bound to be a lot of discussion. Perhasps we should start publically asking the question as to why the WTC7 collapse wasn't mentioned in the 9/11 commission report? Lets show the transcripts of firefighters hearing explosions and have moviegoers draw their own conclusions. A lot of new people will be freshly receptive to getting new information on the subject, so let's get ready to give it to them.
JTF=just another clown who
JTF=just another clown who makes statements backed up by no FACTS.I'm tired of people like this who come on the site to take our thoughts off topic.It's best to ignore him until he provides some real meaningful words that are really worthy of debate.Otherwise he's equal to Nass.
Bogan: You are right on
Bogan:
You are right on point!
I agree that Stone is "a friend of ours".
Here's a point to consider. Many in the MSM realize that WTC7 is the quintessential smoking gun. Have you noticed that Stones film has not received nearly the hype that Flight 93 had ramped up this close to release?
What gives? Did Stone keep the WTC7 chip in his pocket. Is he pissing some very powerful people off right now?
As a "controversial" film maker, what better way to cement you place in history.
If your analysis is correct, and I suspect it is, Stone may have crafted the perfect film for blowing the lid off of the 9/11 coverup.
If so... we need to do everything in our power to make sure he succeeds!!!
They painted themselves into
They painted themselves into a corner on this movie.
They already embraced it.
They cannot retract their support without an explanation.
Must be a tough choice for the trolls:
1) Acknowledge proven facts
OR
2) Draw attention to yourself by not acknowledging proven facts
Bogan, excellent analyse.
Bogan, excellent analyse. It's like if you've took the words out of my mind. I can wait to see that movie. I wonder if there will be a screen play at the white house this time... 8)
Glad to see Nass quoting
Glad to see Nass quoting the founding father of the democratic Party, Thomas jefferson. I wonder if his constituents realize Jefferson was talking about faith in Religion as being "absurdities"?
If the WTC7 collapse is
If the WTC7 collapse is indeed shown in this movie, expect a major False Flag within a week of opening to distract & deceive.
Either that, or expect a major last minute final edit, pulling the offending scenes out.
This is BIG! I just don't see them letting this fly! Why cover-up WTC7 widely, only to give Stone the stage to let the genie out of the bottle?
NO, this is too good to be true. Something does not add up.
Excellent Bogan.
Excellent Bogan.
Especially in light of the
Especially in light of the following... something doesn't smell right.
***
CONSERVATIVE PUBLICITY FIRM BACKING LIBERAL STONE'S FILM
Oliver Stone
Paramount
Creative Response Systems, the publicity firm credited with devising the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign that attacked John Kerry's Vietnam war record in the last presidential race, has been successfully rallying support for Oliver Stone's World Trade Center from numerous prominent conservatives, the New York Times reported today (Thursday). The film has received exuberant praise from such conservatives as L. Brent Bozell, who has called it "a masterpiece" and has urged his followers to see it. (In the past, Bozell's Parents Television Council has organized massive letter-writing campaigns to the FCC to protest against allegedly indecent television programs.) Syndicated columnist Cal Thomas called the film "one of the greatest pro-American ... films you will ever see." And the National Review's Clifford Dr. May proclaimed, "God Bless Oliver Stone." The reaction is particularly striking since Stone's films have in the past been a lightening rod for attacks by conservatives. In an interview with the Times, the director said that he had been unaware of the publicity firm's involvement in the Swift Boat campaign but that he had been told that it had been effective in promoting Disney's The Chronicles of Narnia. "Believe me, I didn't cave," Stone said, noting that he had condemned the attack on Kerry's war record. Referring to Paramount's marketing unit, he remarked, "They do it their way."
"Believe me, I didn't cave,"
"Believe me, I didn't cave," Stone said.
Hmmmmmmm
http://www.indybay.org/upload
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2006/07/26/wtcposter.jpg
It's diffult to say that the
It's diffult to say that the WTC7 collapse was completely covered up as footage of it is still out there, many people saw it, and certain references (such as Sheen's) have been made about it on national TV. The key is that it's always previously been glossed over, overlooked, not dwelt upon, or generally avoided. If the footage remains in the film, it'll be out there in permanent form forever, especially when the film hits DVD. The key here is that Stone evidently does include footage of folks having puzzled reactions to it, rather than pretending it doesn't exist. Also, if the line "Don't think, just move.." remains in the movie, it's very telling, indicating that experienced firefighters found something very out-of-the-ordinary about the sounds and sights they were experiencing just prior to the collapse. I also can't believe that Stone and Cage could stage and shoot that line without being aware of the various implications of it.
Fingers crossed that the content of the movie matches the expectations we have here, without being pressured to undergo small cuts for reasons of 'pacing' or something similar. I can't be sure but I think - MPAA censorship restrictions aside - Stone is one of the handful of big filmmakers out there that has final cut with his movies. This bodes well, but again, fingers crossed.
Daricus said: "I liked the
Daricus said: "I liked the cartoon. But why Harvey?"
Harvey was an imaginary giant rabbit in an old Jimmy Stewart movie. In fact, that was the movie's name.
TNF said: Alex, I love the cartoon. I always find it cool when a good caricature illustrate a news.
I'm glad you liked it. I believe that
humor and/or sarcasm can be a powerful
an immediate way to communicate 911 Truth, and I plan on doing more.
The LA Times takes note of
The LA Times takes note of the "unusually low key" marketing of "World Trade Center".
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-fi-wtc27jul27,1,5176414.sto...
HUGE spoiler alert in the
HUGE spoiler alert in the following right-wing conservative review of Stone's WTC. Written by L. Brent Bozell III.
I received no spoiler warning. I just wanted to know what the neo-cons are saying about the film.
Don't read this review if you don't want to know EXACTLY how it ends. I'm serious. God these guys are dicks!!!
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_27267212.shtml
Bogan, Excellent post! You
Bogan,
Excellent post! You hit the nail on the head regarding Stone's strategy.
I like Kurt's idea to yell
I like Kurt's idea to yell out 'Controlled Demolition!'in the theatre when they show WTC 7 collapsing.Maybe there are other scenes where we can yell out different 9 11 truths.We can turn it into a "Rocky Horror Picture Show"of the movement.(just kidding,sort of.)
From the National Ledger
From the National Ledger critic up there: "World Trade Center pleads with us to remember that moment and to keep it alive. It is not appropriate for the very young, of course. It is appropriate, indeed necessary, for everyone else, just as it is appropriate, and necessary, for Stone's critics now to salute him, and thank him for the gift he's given his country." If only it will backlash in their faces. They are so oblivious of the 9/11 truth that for them is just fringe conspiracy nuts, that they don't see the subtlety. Once this film is out there, let's rock'n roll.
If Nass is too chicken to
If Nass is too chicken to debate Barrett, then how about hiring a Nass substitute DRESSED IN A CHICKEN COSTUME?
We could use the comic relief, and if the "chicken" isn't made to look TOO foolish - ya know, allow him to parrot (no pun intended) the government's best Fairy Tales - then such a debate could also be informative.
If the debate was pressed to CD and passed out, and IF it ended up sinking Nass' political career, such an effort might yield an even bigger prize. And that is: showing that candidates that are chicken about 911 can be defeated on that basis.
sl, that brilliant. The idea
sl, that brilliant. The idea of a public debate between the official fairy tale vs the truth is a must, whatever the form it takes. It shall be done.
Tough to watch... but this
Tough to watch... but this is why the TRUTH matters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SbssOdruPQ&feature=Views&page=1&t=t&f=b
Did my posts get deleted?
Did my posts get deleted?
Dear Somebigguy, Thank you
Dear Somebigguy,
Thank you for the flyer. I like it a lot. I have one thing about it I would have changed if I had made it.
In advertising, it is important to have an action statement, and you have one. I like a lot of your action recommendations at the bottom.
However, I think that, although I like 911blogger.com a lot, I don't think it and 911podcasts.com should stand alone as websites for newbies. This is only IMHO of course. But the reason is this. As you know we get occasional trolls posting nonsense. Then we sometimes get flame wars going between the trolls and the non-trolls. And that kind of stuff I think can be a turn-off for the newbies. I think newbies should have additional sites given to them, such as www.911truth.org and/or www.wtc7.net and/or www.911research.wtc7.net or even www.st911.org
If a newbie comes to this site only and goes into the comments section, they might be turned off.
Now I LOVE this site. I am not putting it down. But I think this site is best suited for people who know enough about the scene to know what trolls are and what they are doing.
IMHO. I would love to see an alternative version with those other websites. Thanks for listening.
Have you seen my flyer? Any ideas for improvement on mine?
Alex: Your cartoons
Alex: Your cartoons rock!!!
How about compiling them in a little "funnies section" people can hand out??
This might be a great way to reach people that don't read much.
THINK ABOUT IT :)
Since Nass refuses to
Since Nass refuses to debate, Barrett wins by default. I think most people are smart enough to see that. It is a win, win situation. If Nass had accepted the debate he would have had his ass handed to him. Not accepting the offer makes him look bad no matter how he tries to spin it. Plus 9/11 truth is getting more publicity. That is always a plus.
sl, that is a perfect idea.
sl, that is a perfect idea. Anyone want to email Barret this suggestion :)
I just sent Kevin an email
I just sent Kevin an email with the idea, but some reinforcements wouldn't hurt. Hint, hint. His email is: kevin@mujca.net
Bogan writes: "If the
Bogan writes: "If the footage remains in the film, it'll be out there in permanent form forever, especially when the film hits DVD."
Makes me wonder what Stone has in store for the DVD extras (assuming he has control over that). Some more raw footage (carefully chosen clips, presented without comment) might represent another subliminal technique to get people to notice what really happened that day..
GeorgeWashington said:
GeorgeWashington said: "Alex: Your cartoons rock!!!
How about compiling them in a little "funnies section" people can hand out??
This might be a great way to reach people that don't read much.
THINK ABOUT IT"
Thank you, GW. I'm trying to figure out
how I can do what I'd like to in this regard, and still have time to make a living.
I see lots more post-'9/11'
I see lots more post-'9/11' useless discussion here. They want your Money, your House, your Gold and your Country. The "Depression" is upon us. It is time for a revolution, and nothing less. MN. may be the first 'proving-ground.' Nass' 'job' needs to be the first causalty of the People's Revolution!
The signs, (which must strech across all major highways,) might read: "Rep Nass, Stick This Up Your '9/11' -Ass!"
-Capiche?
Jimmy Walters might be a
Jimmy Walters might be a good place to start looking for the moolah.
Chris Rose said: "Jimmy
Chris Rose said: "Jimmy Walters might be a good place to start looking for the moolah."
As I understand it, he's pretty much tapped-out, as far as putting more money into 9/11 truth. There must be others sympathetic to the 9/11 truth movement with deep enough pockets to come up with at least a portion of this.
Jon Gold said, "#1, I do not
Jon Gold said,
"#1, I do not deny 9/11 happened."
No one claimed you did. Yet, you are unable to demonstrate your claim that "9/11 was an inside job."
And you refuse to answer my questions, Mr. Gold. Like Kevin Barrett, you have no credibility.
"Any thoughts on the
"Any thoughts on the above?"
* Not a bad idea, but remember that the advertising cost needs to be considered. Even so, I'd be willing to contribute $100 to such an effort
BTW, this might be a good way to segue into a voting-with-your-hands aspect of a new media, which we clearly need. If donations for SPECIFIC efforts (such as the one you suggest) were routed through 911blogger.com, e.g., donations for SPECIFIC RESEARCH could be the next step. To see where I am going with this, please see my thread "Putting the NY Times Out of Business"
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showtopic=76406
* My 'debating the chicken' idea is funnier, but not really at odds with your more serious proposal. After all, we could use the 'Chicken Debate' to EGG Nass on (get it?) even after the fact!
sl said: * Not a bad idea,
sl said:
* Not a bad idea, but remember that the advertising cost needs to be considered. Even so, I'd be willing to contribute $100 to such an effort
That's great, sl.
I'm pretty sure word of mouth would take care of much of getting the word out. This would go viral pretty quickly.
Your other thoughts sound valid, as well. I will look into that link and your thread.
By some peoples standards, 10 grand isn't all that much - but used correctly, could make a huge difference for our movement. I have another marketing idea as well... I will post it when it is further developed.