MUJCA News: Kevin Barrett's speech at UWO

(NOTE: This is a copy-and-paste of a portion of the recent MUJCA newsletter)

9/11 Truth Takes Oshkosh!

Below is an abridged version of the text of Kevin Barrett’s talk at the
University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh on 10/26/06.

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.

continued...

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.