Letter from Kevin Barrett on Fetzer and Space Beams
I wrote to Kevin Barrett and asked if he was planning on leaving Scholars for 9/11 truth. He wrote back the following. It seems written for public consumption so here it is:
No and yes.
More on this later...meanwhile see, below.
Kevin
As activists, when people ask us "what do you think of X theory about what happened," our answer should always be "well, that theory is no more improbable than the official story, whose probability is zero...but our job is not to prove what happened, but to show that the official story is demonstrably false, and force a new investigation."
The case of st911 is tricky, because it's dedicated to research more than activism. I think researchers have to be willing to allow other researchers to propose hypotheses, no matter how outlandish-sounding. The best response is evidence-based critique, not ad-hominem attack.
Morgan Reynolds, who was himself critiqued way too harshly by Jim Hoffman, seems to have caught the ad-hominem bug in his silly attacks on Steven Jones, which mix legitimate critique with ill-founded invective. I hope Steve can keep his cool and his trademark professional politeness, ignore the misrepresentations, and stick to evidence-based critique of whatever new hypotheses are proposed. So far Steve and David are the two researchers who have best combined lucid research with professional demeanor, and I don't expect that to change any time soon.
Meanwhile I hope to have Steve on the new GCN radio show "The Dynamic Duo" ASAP. I think a case can be made that my co-host on that show and st911 colleague Jim Fetzer is jumping the gun by prematurely hyping the exotic weaponry hypothesis, and I want to argue that activists should focus on the gaping holes in the official story, not exotic weaponry.
Above all, the format for proposed 9/11 debates needs to be a simple pro versus con on the 9/11 Commission Report -- that's the only debate that matters, and it's one we can't possibly lose.
Kevin
P.S. Important caveat: I haven't had time to look at the exotic weapons arguments in enough detail to have an informed opinion of their scientific (as opposed to rhetorical) merits.
- misterguy's blog
- Login to post comments
I got the same response...
I replied with...
Personally, I think we should focus on convincing the public that there are MANY unanswered questions. Posed by the families, and the people. To stop trying to answer the questions, and instead, ask them. As a movement. I also think promoting anything that just sounds "crazy" should be avoided. When you say, "I think researchers have to be willing to allow other researchers to propose hypotheses, no matter how outlandish-sounding...", does that mean someone can propose the idea that aliens from space implanted reptilian DNA into our leaders, etc...? And I'm not talking about privately, but publicly... that little "theory" I mentioned sounds just as crazy as the exotic weaponry idea being promoted by Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds, and now Jim Fetzer. It's something the media would eat us alive with. If you are a "leader" of the 9/11 Truth Movement, and by that, I mean someone who is able to get attention, provide information, help people focus on the grassroots level, etc... then I think you have a responsibility to filter out certain information... At least publicly. We have a hard enough time with credibility... we don't need to hand-feed the media ammunition against us...
Anyway... I was just curious about your thoughts. Thanks.
Jon
His response...
You have a point. Superficially, the argument Jim's putting forth does seem a lot more plausible than space reptilians. But that doesn't mean it should be front and center. Like the other "what may have happened theories" it needs to be investigated...but not over-emphasized.
Kevin
___________________________________
"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."
Thank you , Jon Gold
for writing this letter. I agree 100% on this. Very well put into words.
I happen to like Kevin...
A lot, and I was curious about his take on promoting nonsense.
___________________________________
"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."
Where's the proof of concept for thermite?
What skyscraper in history was ever brought down by thermite in controlled demolition?
Jones has provided no proof of concept. A quick search with google will give you the answer.
David?
edit: OK I'm guessing DRG, he wasn't mentioned previously in the letter so it was unclear
You mindless idiot, what the
You mindless idiot, what the f*ck do you think you were doing spreading "no planes" disinfo here;
http://blog.zmag.org/node/2779
Way to make us all look like morons you professional assclown! You don't speak for me!
>>Morgan Reynolds, who was
>>Morgan Reynolds, who was himself critiqued way too harshly by Jim Hoffman, seems to have caught the ad-hominem bug in his silly attacks on Steven Jones, which mix legitimate critique with ill-founded invective.
Why would Barrett refer to Jim Hoffman here, when Hoffman is nothing like Reynolds? Where does Hoffman ever engage in any of the personal attacks that Reynolds does?
Go ahead, show me the evidence.
Meanwhile, back here in reality, it's pretty obvious that Reynolds & Wood openly engage in personal attacks to try to cover for their efforts to promote things like space weapons and fake planes. Hoffman, instead, sticks to the issues.
Here are a few comments of Reynolds and Woods . . . look for yourself and tell me where Hoffman ever says anything like this of anyone -
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=helping_jones
* "Can a Ph.D. physicist be this retarded?"
* "It is frustrating talking to a non-scientific person like Steven Jones."
* "He presumably is trying to cover his tracks. This is not honest science or research."
* "Jones huffs and puffs"
* "He fails to impress these two Ph.D.s."
I'm sorry, but Ph.D.s who think commercial jets didn't hit the WTC towers are a lot less than impressive! And ones that call science professors "retarded," are even worse.
>>I want to argue that
>>I want to argue that activists should focus on the gaping holes in the official story, not exotic weaponry.
>> I think researchers have to be willing to allow other researchers to propose hypotheses, no matter how outlandish-sounding.
So which is it? Allow all manner of outlandishness, no matter the lunacy; or focus on official story gaping holes?
In reality, there's a difference between :
1) making outlandish-sounding proposals and then simply writing a bunch of ad hominem attacks on everyone who disagrees or writing up a bunch of baseless claims (Reynolds and Wood), and,
2) doing real science, which involves testing the evidence of outlandish-sounding proposals, rejecting outlandish proposals which are NOT supported by the evidence while accepting those which are, and all the while, not engaging in personal attacks. (Hoffman & Jones)