Kevin Barrett Profiled on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 Blog

Wisconsin academic: 9/11 report a fraud

When I first said "hello" to Kevin Barrett, I was somewhat taken aback. The tall, bearded lecturer at the University of Wisconsin-Madison was seeing students in his office and struck me as soft-spoken, almost laid-back. He just didn't "seem" controversial.

But there is no doubt he has attracted a fair amount of controversy. Sixty-one Wisconsin legislators have said he should stop teaching. So has the governor. The university has received more than one thousand emails from alumni, many saying they'll stop donating unless Kevin Barrett goes.

Barrett belongs to a small but vocal group of academics who are writing and publishing ideas which charge the U.S. government played a role in the 9/11 attacks. He argues that members of the Bush administration knew about the attacks ahead of time, and at the very least, allowed them to occur. The purpose -- to give the United States an excuse to go to war, or as he has written, " found a new imperial 1000-year Reich like the ones the Nazis dreamed of."

"It's now very clear," he told me. "The official 9/11 report is a complete fraud." Barrett says a close examination of the twin towers falling shows puffs of smoke, a sign the buildings were pre-planted with explosives, and the collapse of the towers was a controlled demolition.

(more after the jump..)

"It's offensive, not only to America, but offensive to the victims of 9/11," said Scott Suder, one of the Wisconsin legislators calling for Barrett's ouster.

Somewhat to my surprise, I learned that Barrett wasn't bringing a whole lot of his own conspiracy ideas into his lectures. His semester-long course -- "Islam, Religion and Culture" -- spends a week on conspracy theories about 9/11, but Barrett said he doesn't introduce any of his own written work. He said he cites other academicians with similar ideas, such as Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed of the University of Sussex, Brighton, in the United Kingdom.

Students I spoke to were skeptical about what Barrett believes, but felt the controversy has been overblown. Sophomore Aaron Zwicker told me, "It's scary we could lose a professor like Professor Barrett, who I consider to be one of my best lecturers right now, because of stuff he hasn't realy talked about that much in class."

University officials we spoke to clearly wish this story would go away, but they have stood behind Barrett, saying that he's not teaching a political ideology and that feedback on his course has been positive.

While university officials are standing for academic freedom and independence, the political tension shows few signs of dissipating. Barrett, who holds a temporary appointment at the school, told me he plans to re-apply to teach similar classes in the future.

"I hope to be back in the fall, and as Douglas McArthur said, 'I shall return,'" Barrett said with a smile.

Be sure to get over there and post a comment.

Thanks to the user who posted the tip in the comments!

if ever there was a

if ever there was a candidate for Mockingbird, it would be Anderson"i interviewed for a CIA job and turned them down"Cooper. get over to those comments people, we are cleary outnumbered right now.(though they make it clear up front that not all comments will be posted. cowards.)


In their privacy statement they state they may not post all comments. CNN Comment Policy: CNN encourages you to add a comment to this discussion. You may not post any unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic or other material that would violate the law. Please note that CNN makes reasonable efforts to review all comments prior to posting and CNN may edit comments for clarity or to keep out questionable or off-topic material. All comments should be relevant to the post and remain respectful of other authors and commenters. By submitting your comment, you hereby give CNN the right, but not the obligation, to post, air, edit, exhibit, telecast, cablecast, webcast, re-use, publish, reproduce, use, license, print, distribute or otherwise use your comment(s) and accompanying personal identifying information via all forms of media now known or hereafter devised, worldwide, in perpetuity. CNN Privacy Statement. We must be the change we wish to see in the world. M Gandhi

You should have also

You should have also highlighted the fact that they can "edit" your comments. They could do what ever they want and then publish it. What a load of crap. They can filter whatever they want or even try to make the Truth movement look nutty.

I posted...

The comments in my "Challenge To The Media" blog...

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

My perhaps never-to-be-seen-on-CNN comment

I am a UW alumnus and support both Kevin Barrett's constitutional right to state his opinion, as well as his position at UW. I was one of the "alumni" that wrote, only I said I would stop donating if they DIDN'T keep Barrett.

I found it imprudent that your article didn't mention David Ray Griffin, or Stephen Jones, as high ranking American academics who have studied 9-11 extensively and published articles.

I guess the Professor with a Muslim sounding name seems more noticable?

There is a large movement in the US to find out who was responsible for 9-11 and CNN would be good to be on the side of the Constitution, and do its job.

This is the biggest truth news to break in a long time! I'm

feeling very good about this!

and so is 911blogger!

3573911 visits since April (911blogger) I hit 'back 'to check if this was right (10 secs) and it had jumped 15 .


Where do you find the "hits" that websites get?
I heard Alex Jones saying independent media is killing MSM right now and I want to check all the records.
Anyone know?

Missing the point

I left this comment at the CNN blog. Let's see if they run it.

"Why doesn't CNN investigate, consider and present some of Barrett's evidence instead of covering Barrett himself? This is not about Barrett, or Stephen Jones, or David Ray Griffen, or Charlie Sheen. This is about what really happened on September 11, 2001. CNN should run its own investigation and not simply categorize the brilliant and brave people struggling to bring truth to the masses via the Internet as "controversial" and "offensive". CNN misses the point completely. Perhaps by design. Shame on you. You are part of the problem."

"Why Schools Never Learn"

I subjugated myself to an accelerated fine arts program in college. That particular year, in Chicago, it seemed the rhetorical cliche was: "Those who do, do. Those who can't,- teach." You get the general idea. Teaching 'Art', at today's pay scale really sucks. That's why a 'minor' in Arts Education from a top-dollar school is almost unheard of. Naturally, I was drawn to the subject...

I deliberately didn't mention to my teacher, (nor to my four other classmates,) that I had previously enjoyed an apprenticeship to the world's #1 educator, Mona Dayton, who invented the 'Free school' concept, and founded Montessori, much to her critic's dismay. For her brilliance, she was rewarded with an endless string of external attacks, and eventually quit each of the various organizations that she had fought tooth-and-nail to establish, since the early 1950's.

Unlike Kevin Barrett, who merely states the obvious; [that there is more than enough factual material to convict 1/2 of Washington, and ALL of the media for their blatant complicity in mass-murder,] Mona's 'objectors' were of the very richest power-elite in New York. They included Nelson Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan's family, and the like. In short order, they literally abducted her, and essentially said: "Get out of the US Educational system, if you value your life."

Not that she dwelled on that everyday, as a personal issue, but this certainly was to affect every nuance of her teaching style, throughout her illustrious career. She eventually discovered that the only 'safe-haven' left to teach in America was at the very heart of the source of her problems. And she received enormous acclaim, and financial support, for tutoring just a select group of children, from Southampton to Mauntauk, Long Island. That's where we met.

Back in Chicago, following the most sophomoric and senseless array of 'introductory concepts' such as 'child psycho-trama 101,' and such, I was eventually required to write a 'peer-reviewed thesis,' in order to receive a passing grade. Naturally, I was scarred shitless, so I called on 'Vinny,' the school's self-proclaimed "Resident Marxist," who was always delighted to engage in a truly heated debate. After all, "why else would you go to College?," he said.

At the time, I could barely read and I certainly couldn't write. But Vinny enabled me to tackle the grand concepts, and encouraged me to convey my points to his entire Art History class, who would play the antagonist, and so provided me the necessary ammo with which to arrange certain key paragraphs.

The essay was titled: "Why Schools Fail". My teacher was not amused. It did, however, create the second largest controversy of the year. (The other had something to do with nude videos, drugs, alcohol and day-students.) The staff purported to have been "divided" in their final assessments. Vinnie had given me an 'A-' with an accommodation for effort, but this would not overshadow the instructor's solid (MAGIC MARKER) "F." Neither would Betsy Rupprecht's 'B+', she was, after all, just the School-founder's daughter.

I was summoned into a meeting with the Senior staff, and it was decided that I should find 'higher education' elsewhere. Once they realized that I actually did have the expertise to back my points, (and that the paper clearly was Not a ghost-written piece by Vinny,) I was given a final ultimatum: "Write about anything you like, as long as you don't criticize the US higher Educational System. ...If you can receive a 'C' average from this panel, we'll give you your diploma, otherwise, consider your tenure here complete." -I thought, "tenure?" These people don't know the difference between a student, and their own instructors! And, yes, I do still owe those fine Academicians one final rebuttal. But, if it is to be delivered in a 'literal manner,' here's how it might read, today:

" Representative Nass; Go stick your goddamn '9/11' Lies up your Ass! "

'Authentic' Students please note: Over this past 30 years, not once was I required to present a diploma to get work, nor have I provided any 'verification' as to my formal schooling. After auditing a few classes at Harvard, (or Yale, as I did,) you'll catch on. It's much more fun to be a corporate raider than to punch a time-clock, anyway. :)


a kindred spirit indeed, my own departure from the cold arcades of academe with but the middling MA, so demoralized I was at seeing my own advisor's spirit being broken by the stifle and the daggers. I swore it was enough. And all along the way I never attended a single commencement and have since lost all actual certificates through various moves and likewise have never once been asked ever to present one, but then as a free-lance artist, who the hell cares, it's only the work that matters. No doubt, Dr. Barret will carry on in better company.

Here, Here!

With any luck, he'll discover FinalCut Pro, or PhotoShop, and live happily ever after in the YouTube cyberspace hall of fame! :)

Anderson CIA Cooper

For what it's worth, I posted this comment:

As the great journalist Izzy Stone once said, "Governments lie." The fact that there are so many blatantly obvious oddities around 911 and its aftermath puts the onus of responsibility on the government, not the truth seekers like Barrett. For example, as far as I know, the government has never presented any evidence that Osama bin Ladin and Al Queda members actually carried out 911, but they are constantly blamed for it in the media. This was decided by the major media the day after 911! And still no evidence! Why was all the materials from the twin towers shipped away after the clean up? In a normal arson case there are teams of investigators to go through the rubble to find the cause. In this case the NIST report relies on computer modeling to speculate why the towers collapsed. We need an honest investigation of the facts, please.

Are we so sure the WTC rubble was shipped to China

When the student is ready the teacher will come.

Taking into consideration the theory by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds about almost everything being blown up at WTC, can we really say for sure that the materials, rubble or steel whatever you want to call it was shipped away. Their Star Wars Beam theory has just about everything blown to smitherines. I heard Judy Wood say something to the effect of "are we so sure to say that this stuff was shipped to China or could this be a cover story to confuse us or send us on goose chases so we don't get to close to the real truth". Just something to think about because when we get so use to hearing or reading something it becomes easily taken as truth in our minds, and then we fail to look at things in a different way. Kind of like most of the people that heard about the numerous reports of 19 hijackers and they took it as truth and many of them failed to look at it a different way until they learned otherwise.

please do yourself a favor

please do yourself a favor and DONT take anything that Woods or Reynolds have to say into consideration. thats your first mistake.

Not the rubble, the steel.

This idea seems to come from mainstream sources -- it should be pretty easy for you to check out.

I posted this comment

Please understand there are two Truth Camps:

Camp A - People who believe the 911 Commission Report was far from extensive and left extremely important questions unanswered (e.g., to what extent was the Pakistani ISI involved in 911 given that $100,000 wired to Mohammad Atta was traced to the head of the ISI; why did the commission lie for VP Cheney by saying he wasn’t in the WH bunker until after Flight 77 hit the pentagon when Norman Mineta’s sworn eyewitness testimony that places Cheney in the bunker at 9:20 as they tracked the plane into the pentagon). If your a person interested in understanding the full implications of what the Main Stream Media reported in fragmented pieces before, during and after 9/11 and how the commission purposefully fail to connect the dots then watch: “9/11 Press For Truth” on google or youtube. This documentary is brought to you by the four women (wives of 9/11 victems) that are responsible for there even being a 9/11 Report at all.

CAMP B - People who look at the evidence from a variety of sources (NIST Report, FEMA Report, 9/11 Commission Report, WTC physical evidence, video tapes, photographs, eyewitness reports / testimony, Main Stream Media reports, Trade Journal Articles, etc) and conclude that the CONCLUSIONS of the "official" government story are "fraudulent". This would include the actually mechanism for the collapse of the three (perhaps more) WTC buildings.

This 360 article is a classic example of providing just enough discussion of alternative 9/11 theory "evidence" to make any reasoned person conclude that a Controlled Demolition is nuts. The fact is that the "puffs" of smoke are by far not the only evidence supportive of a CD theory and are certainly not caused by overpressure (a) they occur up to 30 floors below the collapse, b) they are localized to one or two window - an overpressure would be much more widespread and symmetrical). Additionally there are numerous observations that can be made THAT CAN'T BE EXPLAINED BY A GRAVITY COLLPASE, AND BUT ARE CONSISTENT WITH A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

What most people don’t realize is that the government is on its THIRD theory as to why the towers collapsed: 1) the steel melted, 2) the trusses failed causing a pancake collapse, and the newest 3) core column failure causing the outer columns to be pulled into the center, thus losing their ability to hold up the structure – resulting in a pile driver effect. Note that the latest theory is based solely on only video and photographic pictures that MAY show some exterior column bowing – as it was never considered that the bending seen in the video/photo’s may have been the result of the refraction caused by heated air around those areas.

So evidence of CD at the WTC Site includes, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TOO:

NO steel structured high rise EVER totally collapsed for any reason before or after 9/11, even in cases where the fires burned for literally hours and hours and hours, engulfing the entire building like a touch – as was the case in the 2005 Madrid hotel fire which burned as an inferno for more than 17 hours (as compared to less then 1 hour and 2 hours for the WTC towers 1 and 2)


NIST NEVER bothered to check for explosive residue or other bomb evidence in the WTC debris, even though there were reports of bombs and explosions from multiple sources. Therefore, they didn’t even consider the possibility even one day after 9/11. How did they know that the terrorists didn’t plant at least one bomb in the building visa-vi the 1993 bombing?

Even though the WTC site was the largest crime scene in the history of the US, it was not treated as such. The evidence that would be needed to establish, CD or not, what brought down the towers was quickly removed and the steel was sent over seas to be recycled within weeks of 9/11. This means that the actually structural material can’t be examined to establish how to make SAFER buildings in the future. Protests to the removal of the structural components in this fashion were made:
In an article published on January 3 of 2002, James Quintiere, a Professor of Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland, pointed out that fires could not have destroyed Twin Towers and Building 7. He lamented the recycling of the evidence, and called for a genuine investigation.
In the January 2002 issue of Fire Engineering Magazine, editor Bill Manning published an scathing attack on the destruction of WTC evidence, "$elling Out the Investigation", in which he called FEMA's "official investigation" a "half-baked farce".
NIST’s own report specifically states that it does NOT address the mechanism of global collapse and is only responsible for detailing events UP TO the collapse initiation – thereby alleviating the need to explain the full dynamics of the collapse. Therefore, much of the evidence for CD is not explained formally by the NIST report. However, NIST has made an attempt to account, unscientifically, for some of the CD evidence on their website.


* NIST’s own report shows that the truss systems did not fail. In fact in NIST’s actually tests the trusses only sagged 3 to 4” after twice the duration (2 hours), twice the dead load (on top), and much higher temperatures then the NIST report says existed in the towers. Despite their own physical tests, the final NIST computer model required 40 inches of truss sag, and the discarding of their own realistic input parameters for unrealistic extreme parameters, to get the towers to collapse! In addition, they refuse to release the visualizations of the computer model, a position which has been highly criticized by the structural engineering industry.

CD THEORY can explain the building collapse because it doesn’t require the truss to fail!

* NIST’s own report says the despite the fires and the plane damage that the buildings would NOT have collapsed without a wide dislodging fireproofing. Yet the report provides NO evidence that the fireproofing was widely dislodged; and provides only a ridiculous appendix experiment with a shotgun blast into a non-representative sample of fireproofed steel to show some dislodging can occur.

CD THEORY can explain the building collapse because it doesn’t require the fireproofing to be widely dislodged!

* NIST’s own report did NOT find evidence of that the fire temperatures exceeded 600’F anywhere in the towers and that the fire distribution was not complete. This means that the building structure should not have collapsed symmetrically.

CD THEORY can explain the building collapse because a top down controlled demolition perfectly explains how BOTH towers fell symmetrically and completely!

* NIST’s own report ignores original design estimates for the WTC – NIST’s estimates for column damage are FAR too low to cause the building’s collapse (e.g., interior core column losses would have had to have been twice what the NIST reports estimate, and exterior column losses would have had to have been almost 10 times what occurred).Remember that the WTC towers were extremely overbuilt and were designed to take the direct impact of a 707, similar in size and weight to a 767.

CD THEORY can explain the building collapse because the support core structure was destroyed using explosives. This also accounts for why WTC core is seen failing moments before the rest of the building (i.e., the radio tower falls several feet downward before the exterior of the building starts to descend).

* NIST’s own report details that the collapse of the WTC 1 & 2 buildings occurred at nearly free fall speed (under 11 seconds for both towers, about the time it takes for a ball to hit the ground if dropped from the tower tops). This means that the 70+ floors below the collapse zone posed little to no resistance to the building collapse, which defies physics (conservation of momentum) and is impossible without the use of explosives to remove the supporting structure.

CD THEORY can explain the building’s free fall collapse because the support core structure was destroyed using explosives.

* Complete pulverization of interior contents (people, desks, computer, office cabinets, etc) and nearly all concrete into micron sized particles, coupled with the expulsion of this material in a pyroclastic flow (i.e., like a ash from a volcanic eruption). Such observations are clear indications of the use of high explosives to generate the energy needed to pulverize the building to dust and super heat the air to create a pyroclastic flow. NOTE: NIST doesn’t attempt to explain the pulverization because it occurred after the “collapse initiation”, therefore they don’t even need to explain be basic contraction that if the building was turning to dust then there would have been no substantial material remaining to sustain a gravity collapse. In effect, a gravity collapse defies physics by breaking the law of conservation of energy.

CD THEORY can explain the building’s pulverization and pyroclastic flow through the use of high explosives.

* Complete destruction of the core is not explained by the NIST report. In no way could a gravity collapse completely dismantle the entire 47 column interlocking superstructure that was the core into 30’ length beams.

CD THEORY can explain the complete dismantling of the core into 30’ lengths through the use of high explosive cutting charges.

* The NIST report fails to explain how a gravity collapse can propel material laterally great distances from the build, including a 300 Ton WTC core columns flung over a football field distance into an adjacent building. Again, because the report doesn’t address issues after the collapse initiation, so they don’t need to address this FACT!

CD THEORY can explain were the energy came from for laterally (vertically) expelling material through the use of high explosive cutting charges.

* Flowing Molten Metal observed in the Pile and White Hot Steel Beams pulled from the wreckage 5 weeks after the collapse. A gravity collapse provides no mechanism for melting steel and certainly no mechanism to sustaining extreme heat over an extended period of weeks. In addition, NASA heat images showing temperatures at the Pile and at WTC in excess of 1300 degrees a week after the collapse. It was widely reported by that workers on the Pile went through multiple pairs of boots because they would literally melt while on the pile!

CD THEORY can explain how pools of molten metal formed if Thermate (or SuperThermate) was used. This material chemically reacts with steel to create a high energy explosion hot enough to instantaneously melt steel AND since it is a chemical reaction (steeling the oxygen from the steel – creating iron and other trace compounds) it does not need an oxygen source to continue (i.e., it can occur underwater!)

* Eyewitness reports of (e.g., William Rodriguez), and injuries directly associated with, an explosion in the first WTC tower’s subbasement just prior to the first plane hitting.

CD THEORY can explain why there was a massive explosion in the subbasement, as a bomb was used to weaken the core base.

* Firefighter reports of bombs in the buildings and of explosions going off in the building at specific floors (see Firefighter oral histories released 4 years after 9/11)

CD THEORY can explain why explosions occurred in the building, as cutter charges were used to weaken the building. IT IS NORMAL PROCEDURE IN A CD TO WEAKEN A BUILDING PRIOR TO SETTING OFF THE CHARGES THAT BRING DOWN THE BUILDING.

* Firefighter report of seeing white flashes and “pops” going off around one of the WTC buildings in a ring as the collapse occurred. (see Firefighter oral histories released 4 years after 9/11 and only after their release was forced.)

CD THEORY can explain these explosions perfectly.

* Photographs that MAY show beams severed by high energy cutter charges, as oppose to torches used in the WTC cleanup effort.

CD THEORY can explain why some of the core columns are seen with “clean” angled cuts that exhibit slag on both the inside and outside of the column (the columns are hollow). In some photos of columns ready for removal one can see a clear difference between columns with perfectly clean cuts, and those with ragged cuts made by torches used by metal workers to cut the beams.

For WTC 7

* The collapse of WTC 7 is such a mystery that the FEMA Report states that its fire theory has only a “low probability of occurrence.” The NIST report regarding WTC 7 won’t be out until 2007 & they are now going to consider looking into possible explosives.

CD Theory can explain why NIST and FEMA can’t figure out why the WTC 7 fell!

* Collapse of the WTC 7 building at free fall speed into its footprint in the EXACT fashion of a classic bottom to top Controlled Demolition. (a 47 story building – not hit by a plane – that housed the NYC’s emergency bunker and other government offices – that also collapses at free falls speed into its own foot print at 5:20pm on 9/11.)

CD Theory can explain why WTC 7 fell at free fall speed into its own footprint.

* Molten Metal / Hot Spots similar to those associated with WTC 1 & 2.

CD Theory can explain the molten metal and hot spots at WTC 7.

* Eyewitness description of a shockwave rolling through the building, blowing out windows, as the building started to collapse.

CD Theory can explain the eyewitness observations made.

* Collapse occurs in the exact style of a CD, the building crimped in the middle, and imploded (not exploded as would have been the case if the diesel generator fuel tanks had exploded). In fact, the collapse starts at the east penthouse far from the location of any structural damage that may have occurred from falling WTC debris.) In addition, a stop Swedish structural engineer, before knowing the building was WTC 7, was shown the collapse and was sure it was a classic controlled demolition.


* Demolition Squibs (those puffs of smoke) can been seen in the collapse sequence (no pancaking floors here!)


Note that you can be in BOTH

Note that you can be in BOTH Camps at the same time - Which is where I am...



I see my comment did not get

I see my comment did not get posted on CNN. I guess it had too much information in it. I sent a follow up comment, which also did not get posted. MSM outlets like CNN are enemies of our republic. It sickens me. CNN is becoming FOX - check out Glen Beck. This is the best mind that CNN can offer for 1 hour every night? God save us. I just have one question for the MSM that gets posed to every 9/11 Truther..."Why are you doing this? Don't you love our country?"

We need a mega march on washington, but don't forget the Boston Tea party on 12/16 (obviously in Boston). I'm going to be there. I hope 70 million other American Partiots will too. (I'll bring the donuts!)

Kevin Barrett

I have just watched the coverage on the CNN website, finally someone is speaking out to students about the truth which is right in our face. I am shocked to see that there is finally some hint of truth in our brainwashing media even though its still accused to be a "conspiracy". In middle ages they banned heresy and now i guess is time to turn everything into conspiracy. Ive payed close attention to symbolism, fact and events and came to a conclusion that the world is so obviously misslead, whilst only the insiders know the real plans towards consolidation of a new world order. Operating under a facade of democracy we are really worshipping the horrifying back of the one dollar bill filled with symbolism of fascism, the all seeing eye and illuminati worship. And even the UN which is founded on the basis of fascist and communist ideology. Like he said 9/11 is the pearl harbour of 21st century, which no doubt has begun the war on terrorism, once a again a manufactured war from which only a very small minority will benefit. History indeed repeats itself, but at least we know why, someone makes sure it does. I study at the other side of the world, in Europe, but am fortunate to see that people are finally not affraid to question...after all arent citizens protected by freedom of speech?! Please if you will have time, send me some of your ideas and thoughts.


Anderson CIA Cooper

They posted my comment. Anderson CIA Cooper I could kiss you!
Now its time to expose the Hoaxacost=USS Liberty=911=Zionist Whore congress! Put that on your show Anderson and smoke it!

Of course

They (CNN) posted you total bullshit disinfo crap.

Yet refuse to post the excellent post above (Les Fredette)

No doubt Fetzer & Woods will be on every MSM news in the coming months and allowed to spew their complete BS over & over uninterrupted.

Kevin Barrett, Alex Jones, Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin etc IF they are ever allowed on again will as usual be shouted down and not allowed to speak.

What more evidence does one need to prove the MSM are pure Reich Wing Propaganda?

This is why we MUST take back our media or we have little to no chance of winning this war.

Kevin Barrett on CNN International

This is actually a transcript of an item on Kevin Barrett which was broadcast by CNN International's "Today" show throughout Europe (and most likely around the entire globe) from 1.40-1.45am CET, Thursday 23 November 2006. I just saw it on tv, here in Amsterdam (Holland), and I guess it has been broadcast by CNN in the US a couple of days earlier. I've already passed this information on to "Somebigguy", since I cannot find a download of this broadcast on the web. But perhaps you guys can locate it somewhere and post it on 911blogger. The show wasn't that bad, really. For CNN standards, it sure seemed less negative (both in tone and content) than a couple of months ago. Are things finally shifting...?
Anyway, I thought I should let you know.

The Dutch 9/11 Truth Movement salutes you!

Best regards from Amsterdam,

9/11 and global warming

I find Barrett's argument healthy and interesting given the various historic Western and United State's governments involvements in several controversial events from stirring unrest in third world countries to staging military coups in rival countries, as well as involvement in assasinations and let's not forget the excellence in the art of coming up with pretext such as the invasion of Iraq based on (faulty) intel reports that the regime of that country (then) stockpiled weapons of mass destruction.

I think 9/11 is an event staged for political purposes in as much as Global Warming is spoken of with purely political zeal and incomplete scientific understanding. I think that Global Warming is a geo-cyclic event which we may never know the truth about before the beginning of another ice age if we live that long.

9/11 is a perfect pretext for:
1. Invading Afghanestan: Thus sending the message to the Russians that, first, 'we control Central Asia', second, 'we (think, we) have won where you have shamefully failed".
* Gain: Getting closer to Central Asian oil reserves and reminding China that we are in Afghanestan just like we are in Taiwan.
2. Invading Iraq
* Gain: Control completely some 5% of the world oil reserves and probably 2% of the World production and send messages to the Venezuelan President and the Iranian President saying, 'your oil weapon is not so effective as it may have been in the past'.
3. Exercising greater control over the Arab states of the Persian Gulf (Saudi, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait e.t.c.)
* Gain: More leverage to the American military by allowing the Americans and some other Western powers to build bases and stockpile weapons in depots in those Gulf states.
4. Exercising more power and flex more muscle over the whole world as the U.S. relentlessly seek to contract the help of more scared parties in it's War on Terror - this point particularily appeals to Barrett's argument about The United States wanting to establish world domination - a 1000 year reich more reminiscent of the long reign of the Roman Empire rather than the short lived Nazi Germany.

Finally, if 3000 people could be killed in return of a global worth of oil supply and undisputed hegemony over the world then why not kill them.


"if 3000 people could be killed in return of a global worth of oil supply and undisputed hegemony over the world then why not kill them."

YOU and your entire family first to die then, that OK with you?