Letters To The Capital Times Editor

Sad, isn't it? - Jon

Bill Lueders: Journalists under no obligation to please Barrett, '9/11 truth-seekers'

Source: madison.com

A letter to the editor — 8/22/2007 11:58 am

Dear Editor: Even before I read Kevin Barrett's gratuitous swipe at Isthmus in his Aug. 11 letter, I was inclined to defend The Capital Times against the attacks being leveled by the so-called 9/11 truth-seekers.

Focusing on an interesting and revealing moment -- an expression of pure paranoia by a presenter at a recent conference -- is not, as Barrett and others claim, an abdication of journalistic responsibility. It's what a good reporter should do.

As these critics noted, anyone with access to the Internet can obtain uncritical and comprehensive coverage of this conference, and the far-fetched theories that underlie it. The reporter was quite right to call attention to a moment that cut through the facade.

Last year, when Isthmus -- "to its eternal shame and perhaps its eventual prosecution," asserts Barrett -- ran a fair, balanced look at the 9/11 conspiracy mongers, the response was similar. Barrett, perhaps the state's leading beneficiary of tolerance for free speech, threatened the paper and harassed the writer, disseminating his home phone number.

And now Barrett invokes Nuremberg to vent his disapproval of The Capital Times' coverage, saying "journalists who act as propagandists for war crimes may one day find themselves on the scaffold." Yikes.

News flash: It is not the obligation of journalists to please people like Kevin Barrett. A journalist's responsibility is to the story. And when it comes to "9/11 truth-seekers," the story is that these people -- at least some of them -- are as crazy as they are mean.

Bill Lueders, Isthmus news editor

Brian Marx: Barrett and cohorts ignore simple, plausible 9/11 explanations

Source: madison.com

Dear Editor: I have finally reached the point where I cannot be silent and I must speak out about these 9/11 conspiracists. As a daily reader of the Cap Times, I have seen numerous articles by Kevin Barrett and other 9/11 conspiracists. The complete foundation of their conspiracy theory is false, misleading and most of all unscientific.

Kevin Barrett has said that World Trade Center Building 7 is the smoking gun. All the evidence his fellow conspiracists provide are pictures of the collapse and a story. The explanations provided by U.S. government agencies are more than adequate.

In the case of WTC 7, the blast of hot debris from WTC 1 kindled fires in WTC 7 and caused an emergency power system to feed the burning to the point of building collapse. One of the building's major bridging supports was heated to the point of exhaustion by the burning of an abundant store of hydrocarbon (diesel) fuel, pumped from the sub-basement by the backup system and spraying through a torn pipe into the fire next to two of the building 's three major structural trusses.

It has been calculated that the diesel fuel spraying at a rate of 75 gallons a minute ultimately released energy equivalent to that of an explosion of 367 tons of TNT. I see no smoking gun here.

Another common argument of the conspiracists is that no planes crashed into the Pentagon. Well, besides the fact that many people witnessed this and video exists of the planes hitting the buildings, why is it that several of the passengers on the plane were identified via dental remains found at the Pentagon?

It is unnecessary to search for supernatural and make-believe stories to explain real phenomena.

The personal attacks on the Cap Times by the 9/11 conspiracists are ridiculous and are the result of a lack of both evidence and a sane story about the true causes of 9/11.

Brian Marx, Madison

What explanations? The FEMA report?

"The explanations provided by U.S. government agencies are more than adequate [regarding WTC7]."

But they haven't provided any explanations...? That's the point.

Thank you John, nice to see

Thank you John, nice to see the mess that Barrett is causing up in Wisconsin. And for the record, Barrett does not speak for me.
11/11 Never Forget - Fetzer Flips

Barrett should apologize

Barrett should apologize. I found his editorial offensive and uncalled for.

I have a problem when Barrett says things like:

People who critize DEW are making a "tactical mistake" (Because we don't have enough smoking guns already?)
TV fakery "might have merit" (Revenge of the fake Zapruder film: Part II: The World Trade Center! p.s. Fetzer wrote a book on the "faked" Zapruder film]
Don't "waste time" criticizing theories like "DEW" and TV fakery [Because we don't have enough smoking guns already?)
Hang journalists because they don't report "evidence" at a disinfo conference

I have a problem with his support for disruptive activists like Fetzer (i.e. Dynamic Duo), that focus a great deal of their energy attacking Dr. Jones, and others (including harassing phone calls).

It is a "tactical mistake" to support activists who support these kinds of things.

Of course Barrett has done good things and I applaud those. It's not the good things I have a problem with--it's the bad.

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

Blah blah blah...

The "complete foundation" of their movement is.... Controlled Demolition.

Who decided that was the "complete foundation" of this movement? Was it Eric Hufschmid? Was it Jim Hoffman? Was it Don Paul? Was it Prof. Jones? Was it Popular Mechanics? Was it Dylan & Co? Was it the controlled media? Was it the true perpetrators of 9/11?

All I know is that it wasn't me.

Donate To 9/11 First Responders

whos divisive?

yeah, because the MSM has given CD a fair shake right? like on The History Channel thing where Steve Jones and his work were basically ignored? or when Jones tried to get Tucker to show WTC7 and he wouldnt? maybe if we drop CD altogether the MSM will start talking about Pakistan? you think so? because i got a bridge for sale......
(now hurry up and vote me down like the mods did. they did a great job of purging this site of your enemies and making it more friendly for the "safe" crowd. you,DHS,imgstacke etc. keep spinning that safe yarn and see how far it gets you, see if you can force the medias hand. blame the CD advocates for the lack of Pakistan coverage. thats a great cop-out. good luck.)

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Okay then.

The mods didn't vote you down.

We didn't didn't purge the site of Jon Gold's enemies.

You just earned yourself a vacation from this site. Account is now blocked.


what are you trying to say with this?
Is it the "CD theory" s fault that we get hit pieces like this? Is it?
Do you think these same people would likely write a totally fair and balanced report about , hm, say, huh,the wire-transfer?
Would they acknowledge that there are serious questions about 911, if it wasnt for the CD "theory" ?
I'd be interested to know.