Civility & 9/11 Truth Debates

How confrontational should 9/11 truth advocates be? Depends on the situation, of course. I think we should generally try to err on the side of civility--though the prophetic voice of righteous outrage has its place, especially in direct confrontations with the high & mighty (Giuliani, Clinton) or the low & genocidal (Horowitz).

I recently engaged in three "debates"--twice on my own radio show, and once on Brian Wolf's Shakedown Street.

On GCN's Dynamic Duo, Monday, 11/12/07, I had a very civil debate on Civil Information Activism with Richard Brinkman and Wayne Prante (description below).
KevinBarrett-RichardandWayneOnCivilInformationActivismHr1.mp3
KevinBarrett-RichardandWayneOnCivilInformationActivismHr2.mp3

Last night, 11/17/07 during the second hour of my congenial interview with Dave Lindorff of http://thiscantbehappening.net we got into a bit of a debate. (Dave cautiously espouses LIHOP while I forthrightly champion MIHOP.)
http://arc.republicbroadcasting.org/Barrett/07/11/Barrett_111707_190000.MP3
[The first hour concerned Dave's excellent work on the missing Minot nukes:
http://216.240.133.177/Barrett/07/11/Barrett_111707_180000.MP3]

On 11/4/07 I appeared on Brian Wolf's Shakedown Street radio show, and toward the end the debate with callers got a bit less civil, partly due to my lousy phone connection while having too many callers on the line at once:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/-Shakedown-Street/2007/11/05/free-world-radio-network

I hope to appear on Brian's show again soon with a better connection.

-KB

* * *

From Wayne Prante:

Boy Wonder Barrett vs the Canucks in Great 9/11 Truth Activism Debate

9/11 Truth News Wire,
Nov. 18th, 2007 -

Canadians Richard Brinkman of Edmonton 9/11 Truth and Wayne Prante of Fraser Valley 9/11 Truth were the guests last Monday Nov. 12th on Kevin Barrett's (GCN radio network) debating 'Civil Information' Activism vs. the 'Civil Disobedience' style of activism that has stirred a lot of controversy within the 9/11 Truth movement recently. 'Civil Disobedience' was defined as high-profile, aggressive, confrontational, or disruptive - not in the classic legal sense of Ghandi and MLK. Civil Information activism on the other is more low key, friendly, sociable and unobtrusive. The debate also focused on the pros and cons of mainstream media attention and on 'being the media'.

Barrett is well known in the movement for being a radio show host with an open mind, who will entertain both sides of any argument. The 'Boy Wonder' however (as his co-host Jim Fetzer of the Dynamic Duo show refers to him) has been a vocal and ardent supporter of the confrontational approach, himself having taken on the likes Sean Hannity on FOX news. Barrett challenged the Canucks often, but the Dynamic Duo of the North countered well and held their own in this debate, making a solid case for what they have dubbed "C.I., eh! "

Team Canada was left short-handed however, when Brinkman, in describing his reaction to a statement made recently by a Canadian political leader, uttered the words "Bullshit", not realizing that the show falls under FCC guidelines. The network was not able to bleep Brinkman's blooper, and Brinkman received 5 minutes in the penalty box, but fortunately no game misconduct. Brinkman apologized profusely in typical Canadian fashion while Prante (who set a new personal record for "ya knows") used some Tenacious D to fend off the Boy Wonder's power play.

Who won the debate? We'll let you listen and decide !

The archives and have posted there.

Download:

KevinBarrett-RichardandWayneOnCivilInformationActivismHr1.mp3

KevinBarrett-RichardandWayneOnCivilInformationActivismHr2.mp3

(Each file is 6 MBs, 52 Minutes in length and includes commercials)

If you find the above links are not working, check Edmonton911Truth.com !

Perma lInk http://fv911truth.bravejournal.com/entry/24414

-- Fraser Valley 9/11 Truth FV911Truth.org

* * *

From JeffnDenmark:

http://www.drudge.com/news/100907/retort-saturday-nooner

Hi BRIWO,
Listened to your Kevin Barrett interview.
That was the most unprofessional interview I ever heard!
Barrett's mic was turned down so low that I could barely hear him. Your colleague Lisa's mic was so high that I had to turn my speakers down when she spoke.
Then on top of that you had 3 callers talking at once while Barrett was trying to speak.
Plus! Lisa asked Barrett a fairly complicated question that Barrett attempted to answer about 3 times. Every time he would start to answer the question Lisa would talk over him to one of the other people in the room, AND she was actually cackling like Hillary Clinton while Kevin Barrett was trying to speak.
You owe Kevin Barrett an apology for that rude treatment and poor performance.

Posted by JeffnDenmark

interesting Jeff ~ I haven't heard it & Briw knows why...too bad the usually bright Hans is like Data on this subject matter & Lisa ~ what was that all about?
Until Sibel Edmonds gets un-gaged ~ one should expect this kind of treatment, I suppose:>/

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/-Shakedown-Street/2007/11/05/free-world-radio-network

* * *

We're over due for a wee chat, Kev...

http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/2007/11/kevin-barrett-front-and-cente...

The short version is: BEHAVE.

Please.
______________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/

September Clues Debunked

"Exposing the deception, insidious innuendo, misdirection and lies in the “September Clues” series of videos, which many scholars and others ... all » have mistaken for the truth about some of the events that happened on that terrible day: September 11, 2001. Hopefully, this video will make them realise that they have been deliberately mislead. (By the author of "WTC7 - This is an Orange") Content: Where necessary, some of the shots in this video have been enlarged, slowed down, or have had indicators or stop motion techniques applied to them. No other visual manipulations or additions have been made."


______________________________
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com

Show "Debunking September Clues is a testimony...." by alllans2k7

What will they say next?

The Sound of Disinformation: What Will They Say Next?

Disinformation is deliberately misleading information. In the 9/11 truth movement, this has been taken to the extreme. Often, this results in moments of hilarious, absurd, and unintentional comedy. Did they really say these things? What were they thinking? Listen for yourself and find out.

Webster Tarpley interviews Nico Haupt and Jeff King: TV Fakery

Webster Tarpley: Nico Haupt… is one of the leading researchers in the 9/11 truth movement. Indeed, he’s been called the enfant terrible of the 9/11 truth movement research. He’s always controversial, but he’s always on the cutting edge of research. He is the author of the 9/11 encyclopedia. He conducted for quite a while the 911skeptics.blogspot. I would point out that no matter how controversial some of his ideas may sound, over the years a lot of his discoveries have been indeed been incorporated into what is the conventional and accepted wisdom about these matters… Nico is the one who practically invented the terms LIHOP and MIHOP… to distinguish the less radical from the more radical schools of thought on the 9/11 events. Nico is also the one who led a decisive workshop in San Francisco in March 2004 on the question of the War Drills and terror drills and how they went live; how the operations were conduited through those... Finally he is one of the leading people in the research on how the news-film of 9/11, that you saw on CNN and the other networks was doctored. He also has some… very controversial, but extremely heuristic findings about implications about doctored news-film and other considerations for what actually happened on 9/11… I would like to give Nico the floor. He has some very very interesting research results
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth

Please read this

Debunking September Clues: A Point by Point Analysis

I agree that SC is quite effective and very well crafted. Unfortunately - because it contains quite a lot of material that can only be described as intentionally deceptive - that's not a good thing. I found this point by point deconstruction by Nick Irving to be very helpful.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Too generous.

When confronting the claim "Steel-slicing aluminum" this paper should have laid the big smackdown. But it doesn't. As a matter of fact, the response is tepid and of an unsupported "conspiracy theory" nature.

Says Nick Irving:

"Obvious possibilities include:
1. The planes were “rigged” in some way to assist their entry into the Towers.
2. The Towers were “rigged” in some way to assist the entries of the planes.
3. Both the Towers and the planes were “rigged” in order to assist the entry of the planes."

This is giving CREDENCE to the claim, and not refuting it directly.

News for all concerned: WATER CAN SLICE THROUGH STEEL.

Since 1912, when the Titanic went down, this has pretty much been common knowledge.

What we saw on 9/11 was a plane travelling around 500mph -- SMASHING through (not "slicing") several perimeter columns. This does not strike me as particularly odd in any way. The mass of 100 tons travelling at 500mph offers all the force necessary to penetrate the towers. No other explanation is needed.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.