Kevin Barrett Interviewed by Bill O'Reilly on 'The Factor'

Please forgive me for the poor quality of this video, my video card died on me this evening so I had to handi-cam it. Once we have a better copy we will be sure to update this thread. Update: Added a 33MB WMV of much better quality. Big thanks to Beltman713 and Jon Gold for the help!

Intimidating Academics

Anybody else get the feeling that this interview was designed to tell aspiring academics that their careers will suffer if they dare to touch this issue?

Show "No, not at all" by Anonymous (not verified)
Show "Thanks for confirming my" by Anonymous (not verified)


That's not how I saw it. Your boy got his ass handed to him, on his home turf.

Exactly! However, Kevin did

Exactly! However, Kevin did a fair job in the face of a mass murderer enabler. In the future, anybody from the 911 Truth Movement should use any mainstream media attention as prime time to promote simple things.

Just shout it out over and over:

911 Press for Truth is the Official 911 Commission's Family Steering Committee's documentary covering their experience with the Official 911 Commission.

Major Miliray Exercises mimicking the exact acts of the supposed hijackers were occuring on 911.

Shout websites

Shout google search phrases, for example "world trade center 7 fire"

Shout David Ray Griffin; shout Professor Steven Jones; etc...

We need to sieze control of any major media airtime we recieve. The bottom line message of the shout-outs will break through to inquisitive minds. Loyal Bill O-Lilly viewers will not care how well spoken a 911 argument is, let alone such an argument has barely a chance on mainstream media.

911 Shout Outs are the answer for mainstream media appearances.

Show "You're an Embarrassment" by Anonymous (not verified)

Truth Shout Outs

Well of course not. Running down the street shouting your head off would make you sound like a lunatic. That we agree on. But first get this straight, just because a lunatic is running down the street shouting, "911 was an inside job," the lunatic doesn't make a difference if it is true or not. Secondly, my comments were not made on the street, they were directed towards a television program purported to be a news/magazine show with a pretty decent sized audience. Anytime in the past 6 will years will show you that presently Bush has reached his lowest in the poles. His loyal base of foxxies have begun to doubt the Disneyland vision of US politics that FOX has sold them (and sold it to many of them with fluxuating lending rates). Finally this base of GOP/FOX is open for debate. They will investigate to some degree. I think it best that given that O'Lilly has the power to control his own show, trying to win a debate is practically useless, he'll damn everything. Truth Shout outs are needed and it can be done skillfully. Whatever the question the answer should alway manage to get across catch phrases, or solid 911 Truth names, or DVD and book titles, get those shout-outs to the foxxies. It will lead them to Truth. By no means was I criticizing Kevin Barrett, either. The fact that Kevin answered clearly to the best of his abilities under the extreme pressure of a setup from powerhouse Bill O'Lilly & FOX, it pretty much is a testament of the quality individual Mr Kevin Barrett appears to be. But this is not neccasarily about Kevin Barrett. Most of all, my comments were merely intended to push forthe an idea of sizing up each and every media interview for what it obviously is, and Bill O'Lilly is obvious. I think that whatever the show, whoever appears obvious, whatever the question, primarily it should be answered but always manage to bring it back to these primary ideas: 911 Press for Truth - the Official 911 Commission's Family Steering Committee's documentary about their struggle in dealing with the present administration in Washington DC. Also, the military exercises occuring on 911. And, why is the administration preventing an investigation? Why have they refused to turn over essential documents, film footage, and the release of official testimonies.

Shout Out $20 bucks


Typical scumbag tactics.

Kevin Barrett was excellent.

Show "Barrett ended the 911 truth" by Anonymous (not verified)

Reminds me...

Of the old days. Before anyone figured out how to use their VCR. :)

The Time For Debate Is Over

Show "Reminds me of the 9/11 Truth Movement" by Anonymous (not verified)

Reminds me....

That Bill O'Reilly can't argue the points which is why he said he didn't want to debate them.

The Time For Debate Is Over


Yeah, so they just resort to juvenile name calling.
Reminds me of someone I know who shall remain Anonymous.

Sticks and stones, nyaah, nyaah, nyaah

It strikes me as very odd that all of your responses consist of personal attacks and name calling. You never seem to be able to refute the facts cited by Barrett or others in the 9/11 Truth Movement with any documented, credible sources. Why is that? Hmmmm.....

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" – Edward R. Murrow

Any press is not always good press

The interview was as dissapointing as one would expect. O'Reilly basically challenged the credibility of the claim of government complicity on 9/11 by pointing to the fact that the "liberal biased" main stream media has not covered the issue. Kevin cited the BBC article about the hijackers being alive and was interupted by Bill. (I wish that Kevin had mentioned the C-SPAN coverage). Bill then took great pleasure in informing Kevin that the University would not be hiring him to teach again. They both called one another crazy and the interview was over.

I don't think this coverage resulted in anything positive for the Tuth movement.

I've mentioned several times

I've mentioned several times that the editors at the BBC have been very even as of late about allowing comments about alternative theories of 911 to be posted on their blog (and even several comments on their main news sight "have your say" forum). They will also be airing an upcoming show on it. The likes of Barret should be seaking out more 'reputal' sources of MS than assclowns like Bill Oily.

Yes, O'Reilly was lying in wait for Barrett with the two quick


1) that the mainstream, "liberal" media hasn't covered 9/11 truth, and

2) that Barrett isn't teaching at university this semester.

O'Reilly made these 2 misleading points hit-and-run style, not giving Barrett any real time to respond/elaborate.

I don't think this rushed, hasty debate changed anyone's mind one way or the other. Barrett & others who find themselves under such ambush journalism should just repeatedly interject "WTC-7" and "NORAD stand down," IMO.

Barrett could also just plug his or another truth website also


O'Reilly hammered away at a

O'Reilly hammered away at a point he has made before: that if there was any merit to truthseekers' arguments, the "anti-American" press in other countries would have picked up on it and published front page articles. The fact that they haven't is proof to O'Reilly, and many others, that we must be wrong.

What Barrett should have pointed out is that there is no more any "anti-American" media, nor any "pro-American" media for that matter. The greatest part of the mainstream media around the world has been bought up by pro-Zionist entities. In the words of anti-Zionist writer Israel Shamir:

"Too many of our media lords subscribe to the notion of Jewish supremacy, and they are spread around the globe. In England there is Conrad Black: he owns many papers in Canada, the US, and in Israel. In our country, he owns the Jerusalem Post. When he bought this paper, he dismissed the staff and hired people of his opinions. He is a right-wing Zionist, a zealous supporter of Jewish supremacy......This international group of media lords, from Washington to Moscow, is not subservient to the interests of Israel. But support of Israel is part of their agenda..... [Galilee Flowers, pp. 219]

And suppression of all discussion of 9/11 is also part of that agenda, for obvious reasons. Kevin Barrett could have pointed this out, but if he had, it is unlikely Mort Zuckerman's Fox network would have broadcast it.

here's the link on

[] [] <- You're in the fringe element, Bill.

Why spin it to the "Blame Bush" meme?

Hold it.

Barrett got about 10 seconds and talked about...

Alive hijackers?

O'Reilly let you run and you ran within the bounds.

600,000 Americans... ? oops.


///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

I have...

Are You Just Bragging?

Send it to Dz, or post it in the comment section, because I can't play this one and I would like to watch it again.Radical Pragmatist


I was letting dz know that I had a good version so he could get online, which he did, so he could get it from me, which he did, so he could put it online for everyone else, which I'm sure he's doing at this very moment.

The Time For Debate Is Over

It all sounds logical Jon.....almost too logical....and planned

Humour and sarcasm are tough to communicate on this.
I knew you where on top of it. I was more just killing time, until a better version was posted. My daughter decidedto do a super fly onto my head when the segment started, so I was greatly distracted by her screams of shock and empathy as my nose exploded with blood across the living room.
Its not easy being a truther., or a father.
Radical Pragmatist



interviewed? more like

interviewed? more like attacked. Barrett was great with what tiny bit of time he had and considering the interview style of that jackass. notice that O'Reilly made sure to say from the start that he didnt want to hear about any evidence. the second that Barrett tried to mention some evidence O'Reilly jumped down his throat. interesting.

Kevin started off strong

First half of the interview was the best. Not sure what happened during the second half. Calling Bush a mass murderer was a risk. Not sure how people will take that.
The "you must be crazy for inviting a crazy person like me on your show" was humorous, but I don't know what it accomplished.

It's all good

"The "you must be crazy for inviting a crazy person like me on your show" was humorous, but I don't know what it accomplished."

I thought it made him human. It's a good thing for people to identify with him.

And how is it a risk to call him a mass murderer? Isn't that we want people to understand?

Quit letting Fox define the parameters of respectability!

Off topic

I'm gonna watch the Barret video in a second, but I had to bring to your attention that I think every American who believes in the seperation of church and state should see (I know many of you don't like C&L and I don't blame you but this video is important).

I once was a Christian, gave it up years ago. But I still believe in freedom of religion. If you are a Christian, please no offence is meant, but there's got to be a line drawn somewhere, and the hypocracy of it all is astounding. "The more you know......*ding* "

OK, I'll get back on topic now.

Off topic - comment on the Christian Embasy

Simple people doing simple things, at the Pentagon?

God help us, because I don't think they can. They seem so completely oblivious to what’s going around them.

Maybe they did just accidentally let 9/11 happen?

Very interesting and frightening, thank you for the post.

Regards John


You missed the boat on this one.

Christian truther

Not all Christians want to abolish the separation of church and state. In fact, many Christians in America know that any one state-recognized form of Christianity is not going to be the real thing.

Sounds like you gave up being a Christian because of the hypocracy you saw in other Christians. Sad to hear that.

In my case, I became a Christian because of the truth I saw in Christ himself. There are plenty of shills and trolls who call themselves Christians. I don't allow them to distract me from the goodness I see in Christ. The shills and trolls never died on the cross for my sins.

Did not know about the

Christian embassy. Thanks, However I become more pissed off each day with material I have not seen turns up.
All I can say "O my God"

As for Kevin's interview? Not much he could say. Just waiting for the day when it blows and the new press interview Bill O from his cell.

"from his cell"

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks this way. The United States Constituion mentions "Aid and Comfort"...

Good but not great

The way O'Reilly asks a question, pauses, and then interrupts the answer is just enfuriating to watch. I liked how Barret started off, making very clear that we are not a fringe movement and crediting all those involved. And I loved that he got the point in about understanding the 3,000 American's killed within the context of 600,000 Iraqi's. Certainly it was unfortunate that he mistakenly said American the second time, but the point was made. For these reasons, but mostly for the exposure, I'd say it was a positive for the movement.

Now if we can just get W-Rod not to go to Iran... right?


W-Rod Iran Trip

There is no rational reason to oppose the William Rodriguez trip to Iran. The truth of the matter is George Bush should be going to Iran.

except that

Iran hosted a 'rethinking the Holocaust' conference just one week before they announced their 'rethinking 9/11' conference. Coincidence? Not in O'Reilly's mind, that's for sure...

the O'Reilly's of the world

the O'Reilly's of the world will never be swayed and neither will his followers. i dont know why people worry so much about what the real fringe(the sheep who still believe the official story unquestioningly. even pairing it with holocaust denial will not slow down the truth, history shows that) of society thinks. personally, i gave up on swaying the blind flag waving faux-patriots a long time ago. let Hannity and the rest of the so called "liberal media" try and pair 9/11 truth with holocaust denial and see how it backfires. this is why O'Reilly and the rest only have Barrett and Fetzer and others on for 2 minutes at a time and only let them squeeze out a tiny bit of info if any. that is by design because they fear 9/11 truth. my guess is that if the 9/11-Iran conference gets any media play, it will only be in passing. they fear us. tonight proved that yet again.

no rational reason?

What about the fact Iran has promised to wipe us off the planet and just held a week long conference denying the Holocaust? Being associated with that could be very negative for this movement. Many American's suspect the truth about 9/11, all the more so after watching the documentaries, but they refrain from speaking out because they worry about the impact on our country. We all know how important security is to Americans, and any percieved alliance between our movement and those who wish to destroy us can only be harmful to our cause. The potential impact of the 9/11 truth movement is staggering, so we need to remind people that this will ultimately put us on a safer path.

And frankly, I don't appreciate your dismissiveness. Not only is it disrespectful to me, but it also reflects poorly on you, as well as the movement as a whole. This forum is at its best when we are discussing and sharing information; worst when people are belligerently ranting.


i bet you believe that

i bet you believe that Ahmandinejad has actual power huh? hes a figure head,even moreso than Bush is. now calm down, my comments were not that serious where you should be acting like you are right now. calm down buddy, i didnt disrespect anyone, stop reading into shit so goddamn much.


correction Peter, your comments were to Chris Rose and not me, but my thoughts still stand. his comments were not that serious and he happens to be right in my opinion.

I agree Peter, with respect to William's peace position.

Also Peter, I'm all for manners and strong constructive respectful debate!

I read your "about me" and I think you should take a risk and go all the way for truth, the time is now!!
I'm following a similar path to you and am also trepidatious about where it all may lead. You no what they say, nothing ventured .........

Good luck.

P.S. I think Kevin did well considering it's always an ambush on those shows, I'm glad it wasn't me.

Regards John

My Response to Peter...

There was nothing belligerent in my response and I certainly did not rant.

I just happen to disagree with your position on W-Rod visiting Iran. I was expressing my support for William Rodriguez more than dismissively disagreeing with you.

I also happen to think the so-called "Holocaust deniers" conference was more about FREE SPEECH than anything else. Perhaps you are unawhere but denying the reality of the Holocaust can get you thrown in jail in certain parts of the world.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it." Right? Otherwise, how much longer before "they" decide to throw 9/11 Truther's in jail?

And isn't it George Bush who would rather "wipe a country off the planet" rather than to engage in responsible dialogue with them? Look at what he has done to the people of Iraq (in our name no less!). As you note: "over 600,000+ Iraqis are DEAD!" How many more Iraqis must die before it is deemed a "Holocaust?" Remember, these are CIVILIANS (many women and children) whom are dying!

The Iranians understandably do NOT want to be next. Can you blame them Peter? I would say the middle east has much more to fear from "us" than we do from "them". What do you think?

Looking forward to your reply.

Hey Peter...

You gotta admit... Chris Rose makes some good points. What say you sir?

I just keeps it real!

I just keeps it real!

They Fear 9/11 truth

I posted this earlier but will say it again because these people DO fear 9/11 truth. It sure shows.....Chris is right-on again.
I just watched Barrett on the Factor. The usual O'Reilly smear tactics which I expected but what I noticed was not so much what that slime-ball said but his hands and body movement. Funny thing, he had a body language expert on right before his attack on Barrett and the truth movement. Did any one else notice how he kept moving his hands and body in a very nervious manner? He was a completely different person than he was when he interviewed his other guests. He knows the truth about 9/11 and is scared to death. As far as the interview I thought Barrett did an excellent job despite the slime-balls insults. Good work Kevin, you did a great job!

I know, & it may be much closer to +1 million Afghanis & Iraqis

killed now, from what I've been reading!

time for some tough action

What's O'Reilly's private email address....?? ;)

Couldn't expect much coming from Fox

O'Reily, couldn''t argue a single fact, only argues the point that mainstream media isn't covering it. The times we live in when a government can murder 3,000 people and the only topic up for grab is why *mainstream* is not rejecting the official story.

Hmph, let's get his email up and bombard him.


Great Job Keavin!

Good job on O'really tonight Kevin. A little mistake with the 600,000 dead Americans in Iraq comment but overall you held your own. Citing the NY Times poll was great, and it was hilarious that Bill would deny its validity. Facing off with Bill O'Really is not easy when its on his show. Thanks Kevin!

Thank you! Very well done under difficult circumstances.

You almost get the feeling O'Reilly wants 9/11 truth to come out...using the "demise of our education system" as his exuse to put you on...

 I can dream, can't I?

I thought Dr. Barrett did a

I thought Dr. Barrett did a decent job in light of the disgusting excuse for a human being that was "interviewing" him.

OR did the same old tired shtick about "if it had any merit, the mainstream media would be covering it." No, the mainstream media is just as honest and patriotic as is OR and Faux News Network, so nothing unusual 'bout that at all.

Then OR wanted to try to make Dr. B. look like a washed up fired college professor so he kept needling Dr. B. about that.

Just a personal opinion of mine, but Bill O'Reilly has really taken on an ugly diabolical countenance. I don't know if the hooded eyes and the need for about 3.2 Trillion dollars worth of plastic surgery and a whole new line of B S are the problem or what. He just looks like a cynical, crooked ugly and evil old man to me. There is nothing witty or intelligent or entertaining about that disgusting scum sucking traitor.

Next time I'll tell you what I really think.

Blessings from Dachsie in Austin.

The only reason...

The only reason he was put on the show was so people can see the "face of what's in the classroom."

O'Reilly framed the debate. That was the purpose. It was to put a face with "conspiracy crazy." Unfortunately, Barrett didn't make the crucial points. He should have just ignored O'Reilly's trap door questions.

That sad excuse for a journalist proes yet again the absolute contempt for the truth and anything that might be deemed as skeptical of our government. We are to blindly trust "daddy." It boggles me that O'Reilly uses the MSM to defend his case, when every other time he uses it as a rag to wipe his own ass with. Next time someone asks why the MSM isn't covering this story, you can say that it doens't know how to. It is too complex for them to reduce to one soundbite. That threatens their sponsors who demand that they simplify every important news story to easily digestible mush that can be force-fed should the sheepled-couch potatoes be too lazy to chew and swallow on their own.

I suggest we flood O'Reilly with emails about other issues such as the air quality cover-up at ground zero. Or the family steering Commission calling for a new investigation. He might take the bait on that. Any bets? Give him some stuff to chew on and show him that 72 million hits on a Yahoo search of "9/11 truth" proves that televised news is a dying dog that can't fetch any more.

-allright. Let's flood the

-allright. Let's flood the guy with emails. Make it an international 9/11 Truth coordinated protest.

Barrett kicked his ass, IMO

O'Reilly tried to frame it, and Barrett didn't let him. I don't agree at all that Barrett got trapped. I've only seen the first 3 minutes on YouTube, though, because it cuts off.

I loved it when Barrett said, "Well it's not outlandish." That destroyed O'Reilly's frame "What's happened since you started with your outlandish opinions."

Then O'Reilly said "hold it," and Barrett kept going, and ended up shutting O'Reilly up.

He did make a mistake on the 600,000 Americans, the second time he said it, but that just emphasized the point more. People realize he made a mistake, which was corrected, and notice that O'Reilly did not dispute the Johns Hopkins study.

Nice job!

still think so

I saw it all on TV, still think Barrett kicked O'Reilly's as on his own turf. Fine, O'Reilly got his stupid frame across -- what do you expect - it's his show.


I' ve sent this dickhead a collection out of my media-file with a little collection of newspapers, pictures and such stuff.

This dumbass

never get any infos from the real world outside if any mail with some stuff returns.

Fox News is controlled by the NeoCons

FOX news is a waste of time. They were complicit in the stolen election of 2000 and have been a bullhorn for the Neocon movement ever since.

Barrett was in an impossible position and fell into a cpl of traps and wasted time defending himself. He should have ignored the questions and used every second to point out the key questions.

Meanwhile, the Neocons are sending more Americans to their death in the middle east. One day, it will be our sons and daughters dying out there. God help us.

We need a dynamic leader and enough funds to get our own air time.

God Help us.

Show "kevin barrett=shill to keep" by RANDKILLER2006 (not verified)

RANDKILLER=worthless troll

RANDKILLER=worthless troll who has never done anything but leave negative comments---used to convince others not to take action for fear of criticism---better than everyone in his own mind

Show "if william rodriguez wasnt" by RANDKILLER2006 (not verified)

"He's a shill!" Cried the shill, to noone in particular.

I wouldn't throw that word around so casually my friend. You'/re ev/en s/hill/ier than o/ur fr/iend Mr. Sla/sh.

i wish it wasnt true

i wish it wasnt true


Speaking of Mr. Backslash, where is he?
I think he solved his nervous backslash tick and still posts as the new anonymous troll.
He says the same stuff Mr. Backslash did...but all the official story nutjobs sound the same nowadays.

Show "bite me---- rico lawsuit" by RANDKILLER2006 (not verified)

Good Job Kevin!!! The poll

Good Job Kevin!!!

The poll numbers are indisputable...  Should prompt some people to get their butts off their couches and read some information for themselves...


Kevin gave an awesome interview

given that he was facing O'Leilly.

Way to go Kevin!!! You, sir, are one of the bravest people I know.

Fantastic job Kevin!

Fantastic job Kevin!

The Pattern Of the Online 9/11 Truth thing...

O'reilly has Kevin Barrett on
a mainstream network covers loose change
O'reilly has Kevin Barret on
a gillion left wing and right wing mainstream articles call us nuts
the main discussion is framed to be melting points and pentagon holes
endless in fighting
O'reilly has Kevin Barret on
Alex Jones has a credible former CIA, scientist, etc on
O'reilly has Kevin Barret on
The newest esoteric Tower theory gets passed around(moon beams, space beams, cartoons)
more mainstream coverage, always on Loose Change and the circus atmosphere

Meanwhile, the more serious speakers like Peter Scott Dale, Michel Chouddousky, Paul Thompson,
Sander Hicks, Michael Berger, etc get pushed to the side and ignored for the circus like
element yelling about no planes, every terror act being an "inside job", fake Osama, fake hijackers, fake cellphone calls.

My gosh, everyone celebrates a totally predictable "Barret on Fox News for the billionth time" thing
and that's spose to be exciting? There's no new facts presented. Listen to Michael Berger on Truthnet radio, or the Academics Speak Out think with Peter Scott Dale and Ray Mcgovern, or any of Webster Tarpley's talks. Now that's where the real meat of the discussion is to me.

In another thread, I saw people bashing and making fun of William Rodriguez...what the hell folks?
It's bad enough the eggreciously insane and disinfo cartoon/hologram/space beam/"Jews did it!"
type fringe has clung to the truth movement(as have the so called "Debunkers", who seem even more insane and hateful)

Gosh forbid, gosh forbid some sanity comes through. It's always the same stuff, round and round and round.

Anyways, props to the original Sterling commission/citizens commission and grassroots 9/11 activists who DESPITE being overshadowed by the fake planes/cartoon planes/pentagon fakery/fake hijackers/Arabs werent involved circus, for contuing to make strides under the radar.

And props to Alex Jones for continuing to bring on incredible guests(The Oklahoma City revelations and CIA guy Steele as of late)

Also more props to Michael Berger, who I believe delievered recently one of the most mindblowing speaches on 9/11 recently.

"In another thread, I saw

"In another thread, I saw people bashing and making fun of William Rodriguez...what the hell folks?"

Congratulations, pockbot--you have graduated from sounding like a confused probable truther to a confused probable TROLL.

Let me explain: all the people I read bashing Rodriguez were known trolls or anonymous posters- as you very well know. But from this quote you want to make it look like 911Truthers were mocking Rodriguez. Granted there were some who didn't think his planned visit to Iran was a good idea, but mocking? Not so much. Except from trouble-makers. As you know because you read that thread.

So here's your chance to explain yourself. Also, if you register as a verified user, you can vote for banning anonymous/unverified users, which would eliminate almost all of those TROLLS mocking Rodriguez.

Time for less talk and more follow through from you, pockybot.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

911 Truth needs some new strategies

It's not wortth bothering to appear on shows like O'Reilly's. It just looks like masochism on Barrett's part.

The 911 anomalies form a complex subject that takes considerable time to absorb even with an open mind. Why subject oneself to a hostile show that, at best, offers thirty seconds?

The 911 Truth Movement, unfortunately, also looks like it is fracturing into a disunified mob. It's too bad. That no-planes/energy beams stuff is really doing a dis-service to the main argument - that we need a renewed investigation. I'm really disappointed in Fetzer,Woods and Reynolds.

What's the debate in March going to look like if they bring up all that horseshit? The debate requires a unified message.

The 911 Truth Movement should define a core set of the most intelligent, rational, effective tenets and stick to it.

It's useless to chase after wild speculation (like energy beams) before a proper investigation has uncovered or exposed as many of the facts as possible. And it's uselss to offer up one's side to be whipped by the media dogs.

Personally, I would like to see a stand-up comedian really make fun of the official story, the anthrax attacks, the war for oil, etc. That would be new and much more effective.

And when people laugh, they almost unconsciously accept what the comedian's underlying message is. That underlying message should be, "That 911 was never investigated and evidence is still being withheld".

How about we totally replace space-beams & cartoon planes with

1. The inexplicable controlled demolition of WTC-7.
2. The fact that something could strike the Pentagon about 35 minutes after the 2nd tower was struck by a hijacked plane.
3. NORAD didn't even catch a glimpse of whatever struck the Pentagon.
4. The gov't refuses to release the remaining 80 or so videos of whatever struck the Pentagon.

What are you talking about?

"space beams" and "cartoon planes" did not come up at all. Interesting how O'Reilly didn't bring these up -- people around here seem to think it would destroy "the movement," and were worried if O'Reilly would bring it up and how Barrett would respond. Maybe that means the MSM doesn't want to talk about that. Maybe not, but that is not an unreasonable conclusion.

Why are you trying to limit inquiry? It's not a zero sum game.

9/11 Truth not 9/11 Distortion

I'll bet they are saving their ace (i.e. space beams) for something special... like a national debate... that's what really scares me. They want to discredit Steven Jones, that's for sure.

Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds exposed--they are delberately hurting the truth movement.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Great Job, Kevin

You're very brave and courageous. Way to stand up to a bully moron (Bill O'Leilly).

Just watched it again.

The majority of it was actually quite good.The Truth is that Bill truly is becoming the fringe of a minority of American's who believe the official story.

It was only at the end when Kevins disgust and anger with Bill and all the lies and innocent deaths Bill represents, began to over take him a little. Kevin might have also just realized that the 'personal problems' angle might have been an attempt to bring up Kevin's very personal struggles that he reveals very frankly and humorously in his new book. (I'm half way through).
I mean this is the same Bill O'Reilly that said Kevin should be floating in the Charles River. I mean when you've been threatened and attacked by someone so blatantly and with such Bullshit, it's not easy keeping your emotions in check and bringing forth only the clearest, most calm facts and argument.s I know alot of people on this Blog that can identify with that,.

I also understood his confusion with mistakenly saying 600,000 americans. because he sees innocent Iraqi and american deaths as equal, they are all human beings.....children of God. Therefore he was making the point that the so-called liberal MSM don't even make a strong case against Bush's role in the mass murder of over a half million innocent human beings,...a fact which is obviouse to everyone.

To put it in O'Reily's words, 'If Bush was really responsible for killing half a million innocent people in a blatantly illegal imperial war of agression, of course all of the Bush hating media would be reporting it on the front page and calling for his impeachment and prosecution for war crimes. But they're it must not be true. And your crazy for even suggesting this"

Well anyway, thank you Kevin for sticking with it and It was great talking and being with you in Boston

PS. If anyone wants view my interviews of Kevin in Boston check out my blog.
.Radical Pragmatist

I think he did great

After reading the comments here, the general impression I got is that O'Reilly controlled Barrett. It didn't
seem that way to me. He didn't really make a mistake about 600,000 Americans -- he first said 600,000 Americans and thousands more Americans, then slipped a bit when O'Reilly misinterpreted it. Not perfect, but it's O'Reilly that misinterpreted what he said, perhaps intentionally.

I think Kevin Barrett did great. He didn't focus on no planes, etc, either, so I don't know what that comment was about. He mentioned Osama in the hospital reported in the French press, which is a point Chossudovsky always makes, so I don't agree with the comment that said he should have talked more about those aspects.

Barrett does it again

I love the way that Barrett stands up to O'Reilly with class and restraint. We can't have enough people like him. But his interview with Hannity and Colmes was an instant classic. Just hilarious. 

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Let's totally replace space-beams & cartoon planes with

1. The inexplicable controlled demolition of WTC-7.
2. The fact that something could strike the Pentagon about 35 minutes after the 2nd tower was struck by a hijacked plane.
3. NORAD didn't even catch a glimpse of whatever struck the Pentagon.
4. The gov't refuses to release the remaining 80 or so videos of whatever struck the Pentagon.

You think about what you think best

I'll do the same.

"Space beams" and "cartoon planes" didn't come up, which I find interesting. Is Bill off his game, or is he not supposed to talk about it?

Show "Not sure this exposure helps . . ." by craniac

just sad...

Go away you troll. Why are you dogging someone who just went up against the biggest asshole in the history of media in a totally biased interview?
What are you doing? Sitting online discussing how he could of been better?
Of course it could of been better, but it's better than not going on at all.
And then you make fun of his looks? Juvenile.
How can you he shouldn't be a lead spokesperson? Who said he was?!
God I'm so sick of every "truther" bickering when we have soldiers out there fighting for us.
We spend more time fighting each other about being a shill then we do spreading our info anymore.
It's depressing.
YOU, my friend, are hurting this movement 100 times more than Kevin not saying exactly what you want him to say in his allotted MINUTE of air time.

Kevin ya done good! I just

Kevin ya done good!

I just wish that when we get the opportunity, we go into the free fall aspect of the descent of the twin towers. Free fall in AIR from that height, for any freely dropped object, is about 13 seconds, and the south tower went down, from top to bottom, in about 13 seconds, with all the debris ejected laterally, in a fountain like cascade, leaving quite literally, nothing but atmosphere above the remaining undamaged structure, and yet, down goes the debris wave AT THE RATE OF ABSOLUTE FREE FALL IN AIR ALONE!

People need to chew on that a bit, and run it in their mind as a thought experiment..

Great job, but why didn't O'Reilly talk about space beams?

OK, it just came on and I saw the whole thing. I think Barrett did great.

When O'Reilly started asking whether Barrett was still teaching, my wife said "What's that got to do with anything." She also thought O'Reilly was a complete asshole. She's a fallry neutral observer.

The crazy thing was pretty good. O'Reilly made it ad hominem, and Barrett made fun of that.

The only thing that completely puzzles me was that O'Reilly didn't ask Barrett about "no planes" and "space beams." Who would have thought he would miss this chance to discredit the "movement"?

Looks like the media doesn't want people to hear about it. Good news -- I guess that means people will stop all the attacks on those who think it is worth considering.

Talking Points Talking Points Talking Points

What we, as a movement need to do is create a set of talking points imo.

I'm sorry but I think that Barrett preformed badly up there. Its important to understand that when we appear on one of these shows, this isn't about making well reasoned arguments, or trying to answer every question that these guys like O'Reily throw out.

Their approach is to try and take the debate as far away from the facts as possible. Everything said need to be answered with either a fact, or with very strong rhetoric.

You can't think that you are actually engaging in a conversation with a rational human being if you want to preform well on one of these shows. Its a war.

When Bill O'Reily aks "why hasn't the LeMonde reported this" Perhaps we should bring up the fact that LeMonde did report on the Israeli Spy Ring story- and then bring up the fact that it was based of a 4 part series by Carl Cameron. Or you could just ignore the question and hit something else. You could say in an offhanded flippant way "I have no idea Bill, let me ask you a question, how do you explain the motlen steel from the rubble pile 6 weeks later" Or, "have you actually WTC7 Bill?". This is about RHETORIC.

The facts are very strong if you know how to use them right.

A Possible Script

O'Reily: Ok Mr. Barrett, we have you on and blah blah blah, you suck, what do you have to say for yourself?

Barrett: Lets talk about the collape of the WTC buildings.

O'Reily (interrupting, which he will do frequently): so are you trying to say that Cheney planted bombs in the buildings? Thats absurd if there was any validity to these claims they would be all over the pages of the NY Times and on Al-Jazeera.

Barrett: You can't just ignore the facts here (list facts, understand engineering, read the NIST report, etc- BE KNOWLEDGABLE!

And if you aren't willing to take the time to become a good debater, then demand that Alex Jones or David Ray Griffin go on in your place. There is a reason why Jones and Griffin are never on- because they would destroy O'Reily and Carlson and all the rest. They understand the issues and they know how to argue.

With such blight wrought on our bankrupt estate, what ceremony of words can patch the havoc? Sylvia Plath


He should have mentioned the annihilation of the buildings. (They did not collapse -- we need a new word)

O'Reilly's big question...

about why the MSM doesnt cover 9/11 truth needs a more definitive answer.

Fetzer and Barrett have given different answers to the same question posed by O'Reilly on The Factor.

Fetzer basically gave the view that the MSM is filled with CIA shills. No matter whether liberal or conservative, they will cover up for the establishment.

Barrett basically gave the view that the MSM is covering 9/11 truth.

The typical Fox audience isnt going to believe either answer. I think the best answer should be:

"I'll tell you why the main-stream media isn't covering the 9/11 truth movement to any great extent. It's because what happened on 9/11 is so treasonous, so shocking... that even the best minds in journalism are shamed into silence. Just like you Bill O'Reilly. You want to report the no-spin, you want to be the culture warrior. It's hard for you to fathom the tyranny and treachery that was set upon us that day. But that's okay. Because as you slowly come out of denial, we're going to be there for you. We're going to help you understand the facts."

The Poll

The poll that Barret referred to can be found here:

Happy reading Mr. O'Reilly.

Haha O'Reilly was yet again

Haha O'Reilly was yet again shown up for the ignorant peice of sub human scum he really is, ealier in his show they were talking about body language and he was DESPERATE for the body language expert to say how Dan rathers body language showd he was a lieing peice of dog turd, but she actually said it was obvious Dan rather was a passionate man and not a liar ETC, Bill was mortified and tried to spin it to make Rather look like an idiot.

I thought Kevin Barrett did a good job, it's not easy going on someone like O' Reilly's show.

When O'reilly said why hasn't it been mentioned in the MSM, well .....


Its Theatre

The O'Reilly Factor exists to feed the Cobert Report. Barrett is on because he is good for ratings. I think O'Reilly is much more interested in "the bad" Ms. America. He mentioned her looks over and over again. Fox is a freak show. I wouldn't watch except that Kevin was on . . . .at the end . . . I watched most of the show . . . hmmmmmm

Positive Spin Zone

Don’t let O’Reilly’s ignorance detract from the success of this piece. Kevin got some excellent points in about the 84% poll and all the honest, caring, intelligent people in the movement. Certainly this won’t convince the dittoheads, but it’s bound to get SOME people out there re-thinking 9/11.

I look at it as free advertising. Corporations sink millions into TV commercials (even the bad ones) because THEY WORK. Same with 9/11. Keep the issue alive, in the public consciousness, and sooner or later people will be forced to re-examine it—especially as they find themselves in a shrinking minority.

Marketing experts are ecstatic when they get a 5% response rate. We should be just as happy each time 9/11 gets air time, good or bad.

"Creedy: Die! Die! Why won't you die?... Why won't you die?
V: Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof."
--V for Vendetta

Read the actual poll

The poll is regarding whether people think the government is telling the truth about warnings of the attack, not lying about the attack itself. According to you guys the attack was fake, so there should not have been any warnings at all.

When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

Umm... No

It was a real terrorist attack. The only questions is who were the terrorists. The poll is inquiring about "what they knew" "about possible terrorist attacks". Certainly, the Bush Admin would "know" about its own involvement in the terrorist attacks, so the question makes perfect sense from an inside job standpoint.


When being interviewed by these guys you have to be able to manipulate their questions to meet your needs... It's not hard. Just watch them do it.

You have to hit your talking points because you are only going to get a few chances to say what you have to say.....

Know your talking points and then manipulate the questiions!

The entire show was manipulated by O'Liely..... hell, he knew that Kevin has facial ticks when he gets nervous... so he has on a body language analyst just prior to his interview.... plant the seeds and let them grow.... although the analyst wasn't talking about Barrett.... they made all the viewers experts just prior.... seeding their feeble minds to focus on his mannerisms rather than his message.

He was making a point about Kevin losing his job because he spoke out.... and he was trying to prove that the people who are leading this movement are benefitting either monitarily or socially from propogating their views.

While many of the people in this movement are good people..... that does not make us right in the minds of the people. When you take a test you do not pass or fail based on your personality, your morals or your values.

O'Liely had not studied the evidence and he didn't need to.... he simply had to say that he didn't believe it and he wouldn't believe it.

Not that we had any chance in the world to sway the minds of anyone who watches FOX.

The Line that I had told Kevin to use was this:

"Hey Bill, What are you going to do when everyone STOPS listening to you.... and they START watching Olberman?".

... would have gotten Kevin play on Olberman, for sure.

This movement needs a good publicist.

make o'reilly invites conditional

maybe barrett should have told bill-o that he would appear on "the factor" only if bill agreed to be interviewed on kevin's radio show.

this might be a good tactic for future oreilly invites; we can then turn it back on oreilly for being a coward.


Never happen.

asking the MSM to jump through hoops.... especially on this topic..... these people are not reporters... they are informers.

they have no desire to get to the bottom of anything.

Bill O'Liely only knows that which he believes and that is seldom superceeded by what he is told unless if fits into the framework of what he believes.... this makes things very clear cut for him.... it's just easier that way.

He does his job very well and like your leader.... is never wrong

Question: "If this story

Question: "If this story had any credibility, then why aren't all the major media outlets covering it?"

Response: "You tell me, Bill."

Jesus H. Christ.....Kevin Barret and everyone else knows that statement/question is coming.....make the mainstream explain why mainstream is ignoring an 80% constituancy. Take the poll results with you and answer the question as if you did your research.
Why do you continually go on the air empty handed? Huh?

I agree completely

This is why a group of us who actually have good rhetorical skills need to get together and create something- a guideline for appearing on these sorts of shows. It is something that I have thought about doing, and the need for it seems apparent.

But its also important for us to understand that they have the people they have on for a reason- because they know they can handle them. Kevin Barrett needs to understand that, because he is certainly not a good ambassador for us. No offense to him of course- I do appreciate what he is doing, but we need somebody who can talk.

Yes... A PR firm...anything

Yes... A PR firm...anything or anyone... to advise, educate, and counsel on effective interviewing techniques. Level the playing field for god's sake.

Trolls, eat this:

"How dare you imply that those in government do not always have the interests of the people they govern in mind! You are a dangerous and ignorant person! Everyone knows that Santa Claus is real, that the sun revolves around the earth, that illness is caused by demons, and that the earth is flat and hollow. The fact that these things have been ALLEGEDLY proven false does not mean that it is so. If you tell me that the earth is not flat, then your sources MUST be biased or wrong. If you tell me that the sun does not revolve around the earth, then you are a Communist. If you tell me that illness is not caused by demons, then you hate America! You want the truth? You want a government by the people, for the people? You hate America! America should be a one-party state where people like you are put in concentration camps for the beliefs, or made to leave! That is what America has always stood for! If you disagree with me, you are insane and should be put in jail and not allowed to hold a job! god will strike you down while wearing his white beard and white robe and riding his chariot!"

-Wiseman from Greenpoint, Brooklyn

Dont go around joining

Dont go around joining dubios movements, cause that way you will be easily controlled and your means and deeds will get suppressed. And you will be Delphi `d. Think for yourselves! You dont need snitches to tell you what to think!

The Delphi Technique. What Is It?

They have divided the movement allready.., no planers, podpeople,energy beams directed from WTC 7, and on we go....They are trying to keep us busy arguing and fighting with ourselves, DIVIDE AND CONQUER!

80% to 90% of the movements are controlled/infiltrated by the government, thats a fact!! Do your math!! Dont be naive!

"These bogus groups could serve many functions which might include attacking and/or disrupting bona fide groups, or even just simply creating a diversion with clever propaganda in order to attract members away so as to involve them with time-wasting activity designed to prevent them from doing anything useful. COINTELPRO was also famous for instigation of hostile actions through third parties so that it looked like just a "disagreement" between two individuals or groups, a "food fight" or something, and there was no way to connect it to any government operation."

So, 8 to 9 out of 10

So, 8 to 9 out of 10 movements is controlled/infiltrated. Now, ask yourselves wich are the ones with most supporters or readers? And its not just that.., they are "striking the root" also.

Dont go around donating money, cause its not about the money..,dont be fooled.., or please do if you want to end up blacklisted for supporting a "radical movement".

Its all about control.

How they control the

How they control the movement

This is just one example:

The Delphi Technique — What Is It?

"A specialized use of this technique was developed for teachers, the "Alinsky Method" (ibid, p.123). The setting or group is, however, immaterial; the point is that people in groups tend to share a certain knowledge base and display certain identifiable characteristics (known as group dynamics). This allows for a special application of a basic technique.

The change agent or facilitator goes through the motions of acting as an organizer, getting each person in the target group to elicit expression of their concerns about a program, project, or policy in question. The facilitator listens attentively, forms "task forces," "urges everyone to make lists," and so on. While s/he is doing this, the facilitator learns something about each member of the target group. S/He identifies the "leaders," the "loud mouths," as well as those who frequently turn sides during the argument — the "weak or noncommittal".

Suddenly, the amiable facilitator becomes "devil's advocate." S/He dons his professional agitator hat. Using the "divide and conquer" technique, s/he manipulates one group opinion against the other. This is accomplished by manipulating those who are out of step to appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." S/He wants certain members of the group to become angry, thereby forcing tensions to accelerate. The facilitator is well trained in psychological manipulation. S/He is able to predict the reactions of each group member. Individuals in opposition to the policy or program will be shut out of the group.

The method works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and any community group. The "targets" rarely, if ever, know that they are being manipulated. Or, if they suspect this is happening, do not know how to end the process."

Read on..

The Delphi Technique — What Is It?

The Delphi Technique — How to Disrupt It

Ground rules for disrupting the consensus process (Delphi Technique) — when facilitators want to steer a group in a specific direction.

1) Always Be Charming. Smile, be pleasant, be courteous, moderate your voice so as not to come across as belligerent or aggressive.

2) Stay Focused. If at all possible, write your question down to help you stay focused. Facilitators, when asked questions they don't want to answer, often digress from the issue raised and try to work the conversation around to where they can make the individual asking the question look foolish, feel foolish, appear belligerent or aggressive. The goal is to put the one asking the question on the defensive. Do not fall for this tactic. Always be charming, thus deflecting any insinuation, innuendo, etc, that may be thrown at you in their attempt to put you on the defensive, but bring them back to the question you asked. If they rephrase your question into an accusatory statement (a favorite tactic) simply state, "that is not what I stated, what I asked was… (repeat your question)." Stay focused on your question.

3) Be Persistent. If putting you on the defensive doesn't work, facilitators often resort to long drawn out dissertations on some off-the-wall and usually unrelated, or vaguely related, subject that drags on for several minutes – during which time the crowd or group usually loses focus on the question asked (which is the intent). Let them finish with their dissertation/expose, then nicely, with focus and persistence, state, "but you didn't answer my question. My question was… (repeat your question)."


always be charming,

stay focused, and

be persistent.

Never, under any circumstance, become angry. Anger directed at the facilitator will immediately make the facilitator "the victim." This defeats the purpose which is to make you the victim. The goal of the facilitator is to make those they are facilitating like them, alienating anyone who might pose a threat to the realization of their agenda. [People with fixed belief systems, who know what they believe and stand on what they believe, are obvious threats.] If the participant becomes the victim, the facilitator loses face and favor with the crowd. This is why crowds are broken up into groups of seven or eight, why objections are written on cards, not voiced aloud where they are open to public discussion and public debate. It's called crowd control. It is always good to have someone else, or two or three others who know the Delphi Technique dispersed through the crowd; who, when the facilitator digresses from the question, will stand up and say nicely, "but you didn't answer that lady's/gentleman's question." The facilitator, even if suspecting you are together, certainly will not want to alienate the crowd by making that accusation. Sometimes it only takes one occurrence of this type for the crowd to figure out what's going on, sometimes it takes more than one.

If you have an organized group, meet before the meeting to strategize. Everyone should know their part. Meet after the meeting to analyze what went right, what went wrong and why, and what needs to happen the next time around. Never meet during the meeting. One of the favorite tactics of the facilitator, if the meeting is not going the way he/she wants, if he/she is meeting measurable resistance, is to call a recess. During the recess, the facilitator and his/her "spotters" (people who wander the room during the course of the meeting, watching the crowd) watch the crowd to see who congregates where, especially those who have offered measurable resistance. If the "resistors" congregate in one place, a "spotter" will usually gravitate to that group to "join in the conversation" and will report back to the facilitator. When the meeting resumes, the facilitator will steer clear of those who are "resistors." Do not congregate. Hang loose and work the crowd. Move to where the facilitator or "spotters" are, listen to what they have to say, but do not gravitate to where another member of your team is.

This strategy also works in a face to face, one on one, meeting with anyone who has been trained in how to use the Delphi Technique.

Please blog this...

Please blog this...

Or not. Sorry to be wet, but

Or not.

Sorry to be wet, but this was posted, word for word, in another comments forum. There are details that make me hesitant to embrace it, from a framing stand point. I've already stated them, but I'll repeat if anyone's interested.

Or did you mean "blog it so it doesn't take up so much space in this thread?" With the bonus of needing to be verified?

Yes, we posted it here,

Yes, we posted it here,

-Merry X-mas!-


And, so you decided to spam

And, so you decided to spam it into every comments forum you had time to get to? You're proud of this, sunbeam?

I urge everyone to click on the link given by TheDeparted, and go down to where I comment on it AND ask for a true life example---and their lack of response.

Oh, and there's the little thing about them posting anonymously intermitantly.

Their post might have helpful information, but the package, as well as the messenger cannot be trusted. If any VERIFIED user has more info, please share it.

"Bugger this; I want a better world."

Wow, who made you the King?

Wow, who made you the King? We are just helping out the sincere people, the sleepers. You call that spamming? I guess we stepped on something.

Dont you worry Jenny, you will get your answers...,



Sorry, "dearly" Departed, you earned that because your explaination was dishonest. You know bloody well that repeated postings of EXACTLY THE SAME POST, that are not direct responses or on topic are considered spam. Especially if it goes for two pages or more.

Not to say it can't have noble motivations. But people with noble motivations don't give snarky, manipulative responses to understandable questions. What you should have said, if you were really just being helpful, was something like this:

"Yeah, sorry about hogging the thread off topic, I just felt the information was so relevant, considering the problems we've been having here. As for you real time examples, see the original--I know it's hard to tell!--post here(link)."

Oh, and this is priceless:

>>>You call that spamming? I guess we stepped on something.<<<

[sarcasm mode] My GOD! I- a random reader--now wonder if Jenny is a troll/ spammer as she's challenging these virtuous do-gooders who are just trying to help a sincere sleeper like me! Ooh! Don't trust that Sparks!

[cancel sarcasm mode]

Which might have a snow-ball's chance in hell of working if you were a registered user.

And who the hell is "we"? Are you royalty? The Borg? Enjoy the unveriified posting while you can, prat.

"Bugger this; I want a better world."

Bitch please.., whats the

Bitch please.., whats the fuzz?? what the fuck are you talking about? cool down.. go back to school! learn something.. W

We never said anything like that.., you did..

You havent done your homework well, your boss must be very upset!!

Well, we wont charge you for consulting you, but this is free, next time be humble ...and
not so arrogant..please remember..the world is watching

Would you please

go fuck yourself at your earliest opportunity?

: teen angst?

: teen angst?

hahaaa, we liked that.. you

hahaaa, we liked that.. you got an, join us!?

Col. Jenny Sparks.., why are

Col. Jenny Sparks.., why are you treating us this way, we havent done anything wrong, just trying to help the sincere people.., dont delphi us. But then again, its your job.

Well, you have to admit it.., we fucked you up pretty good, we dont like snitches/ shills, hope you understand.

Next time.., dont be arrogant! Or methods familiar to you will be used. Whos laughing then? Eh bitch?

Well, I guess you're

Well, I guess you're cleverer than me.

Right, I confess, --I'm shilling for the new world order of alien shape-changing lizards from Alpha Centauri--shhhhhh! Don't tell anyone!

"Eh bitch?"

HEHEHEHE-HAHAHA--wait! Sorry, that's not in your script, is it? Let me try again...

Oh! Oh! You have impuned my honor, you dispicable cad! Help! Smelling salts! I'm swooning!

Actually, if anything I'm a bastard--why? "Because being a bastard works."--Spider Jerusalem

*two fingred salute*

"Bugger this; I want a better world."

"Bitch please..." He, he,

"Bitch please..."

He, he, he, he...HA HAHAHA--*snort*

Oh, wait--I'm supposed to be TERRIBLY offended, right?


I've been called worse--and it's always by some male bitch running away from a kicking, so I'm not surprised...


"Bugger this; I want a better world!"


Good to see all of you coming out to discuss this issue.... I like to know that there are all of you out there who care so much about these issues. This has been a very productive discussion.

Keep fighting the good fight!

Oi..In english

Oi..In english please?

Breath in breath out...english, please? (or, any of the 4 seriously taken languages in this beatiful world...exept spanish...! no fence! (The most pretties girls in this world are spanish)


Ps. Push it! And you snitches are in trouble....

hahaaa, we liked that.. you

hahaaa, we liked that.. you got an, join us!?

Fox News : Bill O'Reilly interviews Professor Kevin Barrett on “

to Bill O'Reilly journaliste on Fox news
Object : Your interview televised with Professor Kevin Barrett on "911 inside job"
Herblay France 20/12/2006
Dear Sir ,
I have just listened to your interview with Kevin Barrett on the Fox news published the 12/19/2006 on YouTube
Quoting you :
« My best argument is that there is so much anti-American press out there that if you had a shred of legislative evidence it would be on the front page of Le Monde or some other place that wants the USA to be embarrassed so we don’t see these reports any where and I believe you don’t have anything . . . »
Hearing what you say makes me ask, do you read French ? Do you READ Le Monde or any other French national newspapers? I do and I find contrarily to you that the French national press "Le Monde",
"Libération" and others are supporting blindly the official version of the attacks of the 11 September 2001. Contrarily to what you are saying they would not do anything that would embarrass the USA. So much are
they pro-American governement that they are treating each interrogator of the official version a conspiracy nut, an anti-amreican , a mentally ill person etc like you have unsuccessfully tried to do with you guest Kevin Barrett. And you know very well like me that he lost his job because he is opposing the offical lies on the 911 attacks. Fortunately for the French, Americans and world citizens there are in this world
such courageous people like Kevin Barrett.
Thierry Meyssan, a french independent journalist denouncing the 911 as an inside job on the Thierry Ardisson’s show "Tout le monde en parle", was so much disgraced that no other French television journalist dared after to invite him on their show. Thierry Ardisson nearly lost his job because he dared to have make known Thierry Meyssan's ideas.
Also , "Le Monde" , "Libération" and other mass media papers could not support such accusations against the American Government. Back up articles on this episode (that you probably had not read ) can be found at
other French articles can be found following the link
I wrote to Libération four weeks before the 5th anniversary in September 2006 asking them to inform the French about the millions of Americans that do not believe in the official version of 911. This is what they replied :
and the reactions of the readers are even more informative
Please, for world peace sake , help the truth on the 911 attacks be known before there is a worse second 911.

Bill to do time in soup kitchen

Kevin is one brave and heroic individual, that is all I can say. Bill O'Reilly should do community service for 100,000 hours in a Bagdad soup kitchen.

O' yeah Bill

My best argument is why doesn't the media cover it blah blah blah. I can't believe he admits that is his best argument.

Wake up and smell the corporate media!

I don't know Bill, why don't you tell me why the media even after 40 years still covers up the JFK conspiracy, even though no one disagrees that the back of JFK's head was blown off, and you can get a roomful of experts to testify that anyone with the back of his head blown off had to have been shot from the front (the grassy knoll)

That's just how the corporate media works.