Kevin Barrett: Media are ignoring 9/11 whistle-blowers

Kevin Barrett: Media are ignoring 9/11 whistle-blowers

Letter to the editor — 1/26/2008 8:31 am

Dear Editor: I am out of a job because The Capital Times and other mainstream media outlets refuse to report the news.

As a scholar, my job is to seek and report the truth, no matter where it leads. That is also the job of the media.

Along with hundreds of other scholars, engineers, architects, and former high-level military, intelligence and executive branch officials (, I have pointed out that the official story of 9/11 is a ridiculous fairy tale, contradicted at every turn by overwhelming evidence. But rather than reporting on all of these people, and investigating the evidence they cite, the media singled me out for vicious attacks, up to and including a death threat from Bill O'Reilly.

Recently, the former president of Italy, Francesco Cossiga, stated publicly that the global intelligence community and the democratic forces in Europe know that the CIA and Mossad perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. Why wasn't that front page headlines?

Last week, the probable next prime minister of Japan, Yukihisa Fujita, grilled current prime minister Fukuda for half an hour about the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center and the staged events at the Pentagon and asked whether the Japanese police could arrest George W. Bush for his complicity in 9/11. Why wasn't that front page news? Japan, after all, is the world's second-largest economy, and if they are pulling the plug not just on financing the Iraq and Afghan wars, but the whole U.S. economy, because they know this country is led by 9/11 war criminals, maybe the American people should hear about it.

Also last week FBI whistle-blower Sibel Edmonds, who has implicated leading neocon ex-members of the Bush administration in the financing and coverup of 9/11, made front page headlines in the UK. Why won't the U.S. media cover Edmonds, the most gagged whistle-blower in U.S. history?
Why have the media refused to report on the 120+ senior military, intelligence service, law enforcement and government officials, 290+ engineers and architects, 60+ pilots and aviation professionals, 190+ professors, and 200+ 9/11 survivors and family members who have publicly blasted the official 9/11 fairy tale -- many of them openly calling 9/11 an inside job?

As for me, my reputation has been ruined, at least in the eyes of the fewer and fewer people naive enough to believe the mainstream media. I can no longer practice my chosen profession, in training for which I invested more than 10 years of my life and tens of thousands of dollars, because the media singled me out for distorted coverage -- while ignoring the hundreds of others vastly more qualified than I am who say the same things and refusing to investigate the evidence they cite.

Kevin Barrett
Lone Rock

MP3 Audio Clip - Kevin Barrett & Keith McHenry

Friday January 25, 2008
Kevin Barrett Talks With Keith McHenry From Food Not Bombs About The Upcoming Peaceful Occupation Of Washington D.C.

* source =

More MP3 Audio Clips >

the Authoritarian personality....

I feel for Kevin, it seems to the rational mind, there should be some recourse? However, it helps illustrate the chasm between those who want to remain in control and everyone else.

There is a critical observation made by John Dean, a Republican and a member of the Nixon White House, which helps explain our present predicament:

"What I found provided a personal epiphany. Authoritarian conservatives are, as a researcher told me, "enemies of freedom, antidemocratic, antiequality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian and amoral." And that's not just his view. To the contrary, this is how these people have consistently described themselves when being anonymously tested, by the tens of thousands over the past several decades. "

Dean's book, "Conservatives without Conscience," makes use of research into Right-Wing Authoritarian Theory by Bob Altemeyer. John Dean and Barry Goldwater, hardly liberals, were just as mystified by the behavior of some conservatives.

Here's the link to a wiki overview:

Right-wing Authoritarianism

I refer to it, simply, as the fascist personality. These people want order over all else and Dean put the population estimate at 25 percent who are authoritarian in their orientation. I believe, this research should not be ignored!

Bob Altemeyer's "The Authoritarians"

...don't believe them!

Show "So, how do we break thru the media barrier?" by BillDouglas

The Oregonian -

The Oregonian published my opinion piece in the Sunday Opinion section - about the failure of the US media to write about Sibel Edmonds. I challenged the Oregonian to be the first. I hope they do an investigation and write the WHOLE story. It's a start.


See the blog comments to the article - I made a plug for The Shell Game. What a stunningly good book. I'm going to buy at least five more books for distribution. Just do it.

Sandy Duffy

"arrest George Bush" -- show me where he said that

What is the source for the "arrest George Bush" attribution to Fujita?

(Update: see comment below. Prison Planet and Kurt Nimmo appear to be the source. I'm trying to figure out if Nimmo made just it up or relied on an early translation. None I have seen say that now.)

There's a set of subtitled videos up that appear excellent.

I've only watched Part 1, which was a perfect translation to me.

Could you find the part where he says "arrest George Bush"?

It's not in the Japanese transcript:

It's not in Benjamin Fulford's translation:

This is the only reference to Bush in the Japanes transcript and n Fulford's translation, which is accurate enough:

"So far the only thing the government has said is that we think it was caused by Al Qaeda because President Bush told us so."

(The video above is more accurate -- he says "because President Bush told us so, or because so and so told us so.")

Has this question about the Japanese police arresting Bush appeared in subtitles of any videos?

This is a serious matter. Please source your attribution of this statement to Mr. Fujita. I am very concerned that you have taken a very serious statement by Mr. Fujita that should not be controversial -- this is a crime that should be properly investigated and the Japanese government should not just rely on statements by Bush or whoever -- and turned into a controversial, and most importantly, inaccurate accusation.

Also, show me where he said that Bush is complicit in 9/11. Is that in any subtitle?

Also, I wonder about this assertion:

"the probable next prime minister of Japan, Yukihisa Fujita"

I'd like to see that, but do you have a source for this?

Thank you.

Barrett's Radio Programs Tonight and Upcoming

January 26th

Sat. 12/26 Lynn Margulis, biologist; among world's leading scientists: and world-class truthteller:

6-8 p.m. CT, "Truth Jihad Radio" on RBN:

January 28th

Mon. 1/28 Carl Weis, Professor Emeritus of Creative Arts, Sienna College; Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice

4-6 pm CT, "The Dynamic Duo" on GCN: Network 4

January 29th

Tues. 1/29 First hour: Lloyd DeMause, Director, Institute for Psychohistory:

Second hour: Zeshan Shahbaz and Nadeem Haque, co-authors "Extraterrestrials in Islam" :

9-11 p.m. CT, "9/11 and Empire Radio" on WTPRN:

February 1st

Fri. 1/18 Jarek Kupsc,writer/director, The Reflecting Pool (9/11 truth feature fiction film): TRAILER The Reflecting Pool -

4-6 pm CT, "The Dynamic Duo" on GCN: Network 4

February 2nd

Sat. 2/2 The world's most notorious Muslim truth jihadi (that would be me, Kevin Barrett) listens to the complaints of misrepresented Jews and Christians! I guess we Muslims aren't the only ones who get misrepresented ; )

First hour: Andrew Mathis, discussing what he says are pejorative misconceptions about the Talmud, exemplified by; he recommends the refutation at Andrew writes: "It is often thought that the Talmud serves as the basis for Zionism. Actually, the Talmud strictly opposes Zionism."

Second hour: Brother Eliot and perhaps also Brother Raymond of They feel that the first part of the film Zeitgeist misrepresents religion in general and Christianity particular. Their youtube crititique of Zeitgeist is posted at their website, and the transcript is at

6-8 p.m. CT, "Truth Jihad Radio" on RBN:

February 4th

Mon. 2/4 Andy Worthington, British historian and author of The Guantanamo Files:

4-6 pm CT, "The Dynamic Duo" on GCN: Network 4

February 5th

Tues. 2/5 Mikey Weinstein, author With God on Our Side: One Man's War Against an Evangelical Coup in America's Military.

9-11 p.m. CT, "9/11 and Empire Radio" on WTPRN:

February 8th

Fri. 2/8 Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law, University of Illinois, impeachment activist, author Palestine, Palestinians and International Law:,+Francis Francis Boyle was among the first to point out that there was no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11--he even said so on Fox News on 9/15/01! Now the FBI agrees with him: It took me five years to go on Fox News and make the same point in stronger language:

4-6 pm CT, "The Dynamic Duo" on GCN: Network 4

This appears to be Mr. Barrett's source:

A Kurt Nimmo article cited by Prison Planet.

"He asked whether Terrorism is crime or war. Some Japanese people were killed, so he believes this was a crime, so Japanese police should investigate the real suspect even though Japanese government assumed that the suspect was Al-Queda since Bush told Koizumi so and sent the self-defense force to Iraq. Can Japanese police arrest president Bush if he was one of the suspects?"

Where did Nimmo get this? It doesn't appear now at the German website Nimmo links to, at least now, and I don't think it was ever in Benjamin Fulford's transcript.

Not here either:

As a scholar, and of languages to boot, you of all people should know better than to rely on a web article on such an important matter. Benjamin Fulford's good translation has been available for two weeks here, and your letter appears just as even better translations are becoming available.

It's a real shame, because the rest of your letter is quite good.

Did Cossiga state publicly . . .

"the global intelligence community and the democratic forces in Europe know that the CIA and Mossad perpetrated the 9/11 attacks."

It looks like there are also questions about Prison Planet's reporting on the former Italian president's statements.

The biggest question is whether Cossiga said that intelligence services know or just that democratic forces know. Others question whether he was serious or to be trusted.

There's a rough translation and link to the Italian original here:

It matches what little Italian I can understand, and reads to me that Italian intelligence question the authenticity of a bin Laden video, and that many people in America. Europe, and Italy believe that CIA and Mossad were behind 9/11.

Any Italian readers out there?

If this is a mistake, it's not as bad as with Fujita. But again, Mr. Barrett seems to rely on Prison Planet for translations, and Prison Planet appears prone to exaggerating translations.

Interesting quote about Cossiga

Apparently Cossiga spilled the beans on Operation Gladio when he was president of Italy:

"The problem with the President," said the Republican Party leader,
Giorgio La Malfa, "is that he talks too much and is still talking too

Cossiga's story is more complex.

Cossiga is linked to notorious Italian secret society, Propaganda Due, aka P2. So is the newspaper Corriere della Serra, which carried Cossiga's recent comments, and GLADIO had members in Propaganda Due as well.

Cossiga said that a major Italian media outlet was set to expose the latest Bin Laden video as a fabrication. A fabrication by Silvio Berlusconi’s “Mediaset”. Berlusconi was also a member of P2.

Corriere, (the “Evening Courier”), had deep links to P2. (Incidentally, I got an email from an anonymous source who says the Vice Director of Corriere is a Zionist, (an Egyptian Zionist?), and big name political players in Italy say off the record that he is a MOSSAD asset. This is the first Egyptian Zionist I have ever heard of, so I have to take this with a grain of salt. However, money will make people dance to very different music. The same source said that the CIA probably has stringers at Corriere as well.)

During the kidnapping and subsequent murder of Italian Premier Aldo Moro, Cossiga was neck deep in P2 connections and CIA henchmen;

Behind the facade, however, lies one of the most sinister episodes of the Italian Republic, an episode in which the entire secret state was fully involved. The Secret Services, which were supposed to find Moro’s prison, spectacularly bungled their search, together with the police and the Carabinieri; the P2 Masonic lodge, whose members happened to be put in charge of the investigations, deliberately messed up the search; Interior minister Francesco Cossiga surrounded himself with P2 members and CIA officers; the Mafia offered its services to free Moro, only to be told in no uncertain terms that Moro was wanted dead not alive. At the time, public opinion knew nothing of all this; the existence of the Masonic lodge P2 only became known three years later, in 1981…

It was only with the fall of the Berlin wall and the end of the Cold War that the enormity of the effects of such war upon Italy and the Italian political system began to emerge. The Gladio scandal, in the early 1990s, brought to light the existence of a whole secret network of anti-Communist organisations throughout Western Europe, whose official aim was to fight in the event of a Soviet invasion, but which also had the all-important unofficial aim of fighting against the internal communist threat in those countries considered most at risk. At the time of the Gladio scandal Francesco Cossiga was President of the Italian Republic. He publicly defended Gladio as a legitimate organisation against a young judge, Felice Casson, who proclaimed its illegitimacy. It was in those days that Cossiga and Casson expressed openly and clearly their allegiances to two contrasting states and principles of legitimation. Referring to P2 leader Licio Gelli, Cossiga declared ‘He is a patriot’. With reference to the same man, Casson stated ‘He is a traitor’. Never before, I believe, had the dual identity of the Italian Republic been so crudely exposed. By patriot, Cossiga referred to Gelli’s loyalty to the secret anti-Communist state. By traitor Casson referred to Gelli’s betrayal of the antifascist legitimating principle of the official state… /


The true GLADIO whistleblower was the current Prime Minister at the time of the scandal, Giulio Andreotti. AFTER Andreotti went public, Cossiga admitted it was true;

“In Italy, on 3 August 1990, then-prime minister Giulio Andreotti confirmed the existence of a secret army code-named “Gladio”– the Latin word for “sword” – within the state. His testimony before the Senate subcommittee investigating terrorism in Italy sent shockwaves through the Italian parliament and the public, as speculation arose that the secret army had possibly manipulated Italian politics through acts of terrorism.

Andreotti revealed that the secret Gladio army had been hidden within the Defense Ministry as a subsection of the military secret service, SISMI. General Vito Miceli, a former director of the Italian military secret service, could hardly believe that Andreotti had lifted the secret, and protested:

“I have gone to prison because I did not want to reveal the existence of this super secret organization. And now Andreotti comes along and tells it to parliament!” According to a document compiled by the Italian military secret service in 1959, the secret armies had a two-fold strategic purpose: firstly, to operate as a so-called “stay-behind” group in the case of a Soviet invasion and to carry out a guerrilla war in occupied territories; secondly, to carry out domestic operations in case of “emergency situations”.

The military secret services’ perceptions of what constituted an “emergency” was well defined in Cold War Italy and focused on the increasing strength of the Italian Communist and the Socialist parties, both of which were tasked with weakening NATO “from within”. Felice Casson, an Italian judge who during his investigations into right-wing terrorism had first discovered the secret Gladio army and had forced Andreotti to take a stand, found that the secret army (GLADIO) had linked up with right-wing terrorists in order to confront “emergency situations”. The terrorists, supplied by the secret army, carried out bomb attacks in public places, blamed them on the Italian left, and were thereafter protected from prosecution by the military secret service. “You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game,” right-wing terrorist Vincezo Vinciguerra explained the so-called “strategy of tension” to Casson.

“The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security. This is the political logic that lies behind all the massacres and the bombings which remain unpunished, because the state cannot convict itself or declare itself responsible for what happened.”


Cossiga was fucking proud of GLADIO, the evil operation that it secretly was, and defended it, he even threatened to kill the investigations that the Italian public was clamoring for after he confirmed that GLADIO was real;

“Only Francesco Cossiga, Italian President since 1985, confirmed what Andreotti had revealed and explained that he was even “proud and happy” for his part in setting up Gladio as junior Defence Minister of the Christian Democratic Party. During an official visit to Scotland, the President declared to journalists that all Gladiators were good patriots, adding: “I consider it a great privilege and an act of trust that … I was chosen for this delicate task … I have to say that I’m proud of the fact that we have kept the secret for 45 years.” Back in Italy, the President found himself in the midst of a political storm, and requests were made across parties for his immediate resignation or impeachment for high treason. Judge Casson wanted the head of state to testify in front of the investigating Senate committee. The President refused and even threatened to shut down the entire parliamentary investigation: “I’ll send the law extending its mandate [the mandate of the commission already approved by the Senate] back to Parliament and, should they re-approve it, I will have to examine the text anew to see if the conditions exist for the extreme recourse to an absolute [Presidential] refusal to promulgate.” The attack was completely without any constitutional grounds and critics in the press started to question the President’s sanity. As the Gladio scandal culminated, the Italian President only narrowly escaped his impeachment by stepping down in April 1992, three months before his term expired.”


Cossiga helped set up and keep covered-up the most infamous False Flag network to come to light in recent decades.

I have sent this information to Infowars and directly to Michel Chossudovsky, yet they have stuck with the "Cossiga was a GLADIO whistleblower" version of events, which is not true. Further, noting the compromised history, and possible current infiltration of Corriere, I think that we don't know what Cossiga's real intent was, he may have been trying to tip off Berlusconi in the public eye, and scuttle the faked video revelation.

I think he is devoid of altruistic intentions.

Here is a good documentary on GLADIO;

Part One:

Part Two:

Part Three:

Thanks, Reprehensor

That's very interesting. It looks like the quote I posted doesn't mean he spilled the beans, but that he bragged about it once it was revealed.

Yes, thanks

It seems that's worth a post in itself . . . nice compilation.

And many say secrets cannot be kept for long

"I have to say that I’m proud of the fact that we have kept the secret for 45 years"

"Arrest Bush?" Report

Thanks for pointing out that this doesn't appear in Fulford's transcript.

My belief that it did provides a classic example of the importance of first impressions in processing new information. (My first encounter with the topic was through the Prison Planet article.)

Our first impressions of 9/11 were carefully managed to implant the ideas the perps wanted us to have. Jerome Hauer's obviously scripted line "of course the buildings fell down because the fires were just too intense," the BBC's premature report of WTC-7 falling "because it was hit by debris," and the identification of Bin Laden and "al-Qaida" as the perps shortly after the buildings came down were all examples of first-impression management. See:

Ideas received in first impressions are very difficult to shake. Lots of Americans still believe what they were spoon-fed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, just as I still "remembered" the "arrest Bush" line even after reading the Fulford transcript.

Again, thanks for the correction.

Kevin, I know you've got a lot of balls in the air

And a lot of balls. I really appreciate your work. But this is seriously wrong on two levels:

1. Fujita did not say that. He is a foreign official and misquoting him as accusing Bush is a very serious matter.

2. Accusing Bush is, I think, a simplistic idea resulting from discourse that was, as you say, "carefully managed to implant the ideas the perps wanted us to have." Hence, I speculate, the New York Post running the huge headline "Bush Knew," "splashed in gaudy multi-point font across the front page of the New York Post in May of 2002."

The idea that "Bush Knew" or "Bush Did It" sets up fallacious arguments, e.g.

1. If it wasn't Al Qaeda, it was Bush and the entire government was in on it in advance.

and out of that idea,

2. Bush was too stupid; he or they are too incompetent---look at Iraq and Katrina; he or they would not have killed American citizens; it could not have been covered up; the entire "government" is in on it; blaming Bush for 9/11 is the result of partisan hatred for Bush, etc.

The crucial and fundamental point is that we do not know who did it. Finding out who did it, to assign criminal liability and to prevent a false narrative from being used for geopolitical purposes is essential. "if not Al Qaeda, Bush" is very limiting. Just as easily, it could be that some secret network carried out 9/11 and the government has decided to go along with blamiing it on "Al Qaeda" for geopolitical purposes, similar to the way Iran was blamed for the 1994 bombing in Argentina.

Secret violent networks could exist in this society as discussed in the Ganser article linked by Reprehensor above. This is the "blind spot" discussed by Ganser---Christian and secular intellectuals in the West not being able to conceive of secret violent networks other than radical Islamists. I'm afraid that you have contributed to that by reinforcing the idea that Bush is complicit. Of course he is complicit, but the question that remains is whether he was complicit before or after the fact.

I imagine that the complicity after the fact runs very broad and deep throughout law enforcement and intelligence, although Tarpley's analysis---how bureaucracies can be steered by a few people---offers insight into the question of how conscious this complicity is.

But the bottom line is that you misquoted a foreign government official as making a very controversial and speculative statement, rather than a very reasonable statement, based on fundamental principles of law and democracy, that should not be at all controversial. Your false version of Fujita's statement will do little more than provoke a nationalist reaction, rather than lead to principled thought.

And you based that false statement on a questionable source even while discussions of the translation were happening here and just as an excellent subtitled video has appeared. This is a real shame. With your background in academia and languages you should have known better than to rely on Prison Planet. I'm waiting for word from the German man at CoopTVBerlin@YouTube whether his website ever contained the false quote, as Kurt Nimmo claims. It does not contain it now. Regardless, Fujita didn't say it.

For the above reasons, I have sent the below letter to the editor of the Capital Times in order to correct the record. Please be more careful next time. Citizens joined in the quest for truth and justice should not be put at odds, and forced to publicly question each other, because of sloppiness.

Kevin Barrett misstated Japanese legislator's position on 9/11

In his letter of January 26, Kevin Barrett stated that Japanese legislator Yukihisa Fujita "asked whether the Japanese police could arrest George W. Bush for his complicity in 9/11." I studied law in Japan, and have reviewed videos, Japanese transcript, and translations of Fujita's presentation. Fujita did not say that.

What Fujita said, during debate on Japanese refueling support for U.S. military vessels in the Indian Ocean, should not be controversial. He said 9/11 is a crime in which Japanese citizens died, and is also the premise for the “war on terror” the Japanese government is being asked to support. Therefore, he said, the Japanese government should not simply rely on what the U.S. government said about what happened, but should carry out its own careful investigation. Nowhere did Fujita suggest that President Bush is complicit in 9/11 or ask whether the Japanese police can arrest him. He simply asked a question that all thinking, responsible Americans should have asked from the beginning: what is the evidence that Al Qaeda or only Al Qaeda are responsible for the crimes of 9/11?

I agree with Barrett that the American press should report that eminent people, both here and abroad, are questioning 9/11. A foreign official's words on such a sensitive and important matter should not be misstated. Yukihisa Fujita has been quoted many times by American and European newspapers, and I submit he would have been properly quoted this time if the press was doing its job. Please run this letter to correct the record.

Dwight Van Winkle
Seattle, Washington

OK, Kurt Nimmo had a source

The German man used Altavista Babelfish to translate this page:

which paraphrases Fujita's questions and the ministers' answers, and apparently formerly contained the statement about whether the Japanese police could arrest Bush. Early on, he had it on his site in English. It's not there now. I don't blame the German man - looks like he found a bad source and changed it as better information became available. Kurt Nimmo and Prison Planet should have updated their material, but the real problem is that the first reference to Fujita's questions in the mainstream U.S. press is this false quote.

Damn it man, are you not a translator and an academic?

It's increasingly clear that the right-wing Cossiga, who has often sarcastically referred to 9/11 "conspiracy theories," was doing it again in the quote you claim.

Follow the discussion here:

At any rate, if you want to publish these claims in newspapers -- in a column defending your reputation against accusations that you get the facts wrong! -- it's on you to get a reliable translation of the Italian, and not to repeat Prison Planet!

Sloppy, man - and apparently you fell into the trap with the Japanese legislator as well.

"Truth is not measured in mass appeal."

tv fakery . . .

I note that Kevin wants to send readers to a site that promotes TV Fakery as 9/11 truth, It even has a video titled "ALL the planes were make-believe." I got tons of emails pushing September Clues from that site.

Now why would Kevin send people there? To a site advocating TV Fakery. Maybe because Kevin also supports that idea?

Here's a nice video --

Morgan Reynolds and Kevin Barrett at Wisconsin 9/11 conf

"Morgan is a provateur in a good sense, speaking the truth in a full frontal kind of way, and some people just can't handle that."

"alleged plane hits on the Twin Towers,"

"it's not that big a deal in terms of how the illusions of suicide hijackings were created."


Here's the original conference link:

Here's another good one listed there:

How the Media Manipulates 9/11 (video)
9 September 2007, Cooper Union, Jim Fetzer
Plus Carl Person, Justin Martell, and Alfred Webre

Oh that's right, Carl Person is on the NY ballot initiative . . . hey, just looked and he's gone. Thanks to whomever is working on the commission members.

Brasscheck TV

"Maybe because Kevin also supports that idea?"

Maybe. Or maybe he just thought that particular video was good. Brasscheck has a variety of material.

We are talking about a very serious mistake by Barrett that we all seem to agree on --isn't that enough without bringing in a controversial issue?

to finish up this topic

Yes it is a serious mistake -- agreed. I don't think it's that far off topic to bring up one other mistake.

To address your mention that perhaps it was just a good video on a site with a variety of videos: sites that mix together utter lunacy and real research are huge problem, perhaps one of the worst, for outreach for this movement. Average people are led to believe the views of the "truthers" are there, and then click on a nonsense one and walk away from the whole thing and don't look back.

The reason that discrediting by association is used by the intelligence agencies is that it works.

Here is a relevant example from the CIA overthrow in Iran:

"The next thing Roosevelt did was start bribing newspaper editors, owners and columnists and reporters. Within a couple of weeks, he had 80% of the newspapers in Tehran on his payroll and they were grinding out every kind of lie attacking Mossadegh . The next thing Roosevelt did was start bribing religious leaders. Soon, at Friday prayers, the Mullahs were denouncing Mossadegh as an atheist enemy of Islam. Roosevelt also bribed members of police units and low-ranking military officers to be ready with their units on the crucial day. In what I think was really his master stroke, he hired the leaders of a bunch of street gangs in Tehran, and he used them to help create the impression that the rule of law had totally disintegrated in Iran. He actually at one point hired a gang to run through the streets of Tehran, beating up any pedestrian they found, breaking shop windows, firing their guns into mosques, and yelling—“We love Mossadegh and communism.” This would naturally turn any decent citizen against him."

That's what it's all about, linking repugnant stuff to anything you want to turn people away from. Brasschecktv is doing a disservice to us by mixing serious videos with nonsense. The least that someone can do, if they have to send people to such a site is to say something like "warning -- this site has nonsense videos also, and if you have another location for this video pls post."

But the problem, for many, is that Kevin doesn't see TV Fakery as a problem, as he says on the video.

For the sake of argument . . .

I will concede that questioning the crash physics and the authenticity of videos broadcast on 9/11 is "lunacy." I've agreed to accept those parameters here, so the question will remain begged.

I still do not agree that this argument is inherently repugnant, or that the conflict caused within this movement is worth the prevention of discrediting. Many people believe in good faith that there are valid questions, and they should not be accused of ill motives.

I accept that many see Kevin Barrett's apparent agnosticism on these issues as a problem. If I recall correctly, his position was that we should not attack each other because we disagree on what happened.

I think we should focus on the intervening criminal act that destroyed the Twin Towers and killed and injured the majority of people. This removes questions about the Pentagon, about the planes, hijackers, and apparent standown, and Pakistani relations to alleged hijackers. I also would not focus on the whole Saudi/Pakistan v. Israel debate, or on the exact type of energy added to the buildings. This would also render a sideshow the interminable debate about witnesses to planes at the Pentagon. This would remove a lot of conflict and speculation from this movement, and allow us to focus on what caused most of the deaths, as shown on videos whose autthenticity is not disputed---destruction of the Twin Towers.

Of course people could continue to research and speculate, but why can't this obvious fact and obvious criminal act--energy had to have been added to remove the resistance of and pulverize the buildings---be the common basis for this movement?

It would also render the Sibel Edmonds story what I believe it to be: an irrelevant, distracting, speculative, and questionable sideshow.

P.S. -- when I say "energy added" I am in no way implying "directed energy." I'm just saying that thermate, explosives, nukes, or whatever would add or apply energy to the buildings to remove resistance and pulverize.

>>or that the conflict

>>or that the conflict caused within this movement is worth the prevention of discrediting.

Unfortunately, we don't have any evidence outside of anecdotal.

If it didn't work, it wouldn't be used. The numbers of people who have already been turned away is unknown. Instead, those who heard about 9/11 on Coast to Coast come on board and start passing along the info, together with how they've had organs implanted by aliens (a true communication).

>> If I recall correctly, his position was that we should not attack each other because we disagree on what happened.

I never advocate attack (although I can get emotional in blog discussions). I advocate critique. But many try to conflate attack with critique to make critique taboo. Kevin is a person that is not neutral -- he literally says that science doesn't matter when he says that the "way" that things happen doesn't matter. Science is knowable, to an extent, that mythology cannot be inherently.

What his position ends up favoring is called Big Tent, and it's the formula for keeping the nonsense in play --

To not understand that, the destruction to the movement to speculate directly to the public as to whether real planes hit the towers, is the problem. One can take positions on evidence themselves but also understand the relevance of advocating it to the public or not.

I agree on all your other points.

Sibel Edmonds

"It would also render the Sibel Edmonds story what I believe it to be: an irrelevant, distracting, speculative, and questionable sideshow."

"This book argues the rogue network MIHOP position. That is to say, it represents the analytical point of view which sees the events of September 11, 2001 as a deliberate provocation manufactured by an outlaw network of high officials infesting the military and security apparatus of the United States and Great Britain, a network ultimately dominated by Wall Street and City of London financiers. It is our contention that any other approach… misrepresents what actually happened in the terror attacks... Sibel Edmonds… worked as a translator for the FBI’s Washington field office… Edmonds’ letter provides another rare glimpse at how moles operate inside intelligence agencies to sabotage law enforcement and make sure that patsies are not rounded up or effective warnings given until it is too late… Edmonds also revealed a specific pre-9/11 warning on patsy activities which was simply ignored by the FBI, and then ignored again by the 9/11 commission… Edmonds goes on to mock the clichés about connecting the dots and sharing intelligence which are the stock in trade of the controlled corporate media. She points out that the Phoenix memo, the Minneapolis alarms, and the Sarshar material all converged in the J. Edgar Hoover Building in Washington DC. The FBI had all that it needed to know that a large operation was afoot, which it could have disrupted by rolling up parts of the patsy network. But the FBI did nothing, and the 9/11 commission dropped the ball here as well.” Webster Tarpley, Synthetic Terror

"Often, evidence found under the make-believe “LIHOP” category is among the most incriminating because it can name the actual names of those complicit for the attacks.[50] We know who was responsible for NORAD on 9/11.[51] We know who planned the War Games.[52] We know who got promoted.[53] On the other hand, we don’t know who is responsible for placing the thermite at the World Trade Center.[54] This is significant because knowing the precise names of those responsible could lead to prosecutions or even create pressure to name others responsible for the events of 9/11. In contrast, unanswered speculation about who is responsible for observed (or perceived) physical anomalies of the 9/11 attack will frequently force a potentially never-ending “who did it” guessing game until an investigation can conclusively answer these questions."
Disinformation and the False LIHOP/MIHOP Dichotomy
Arabesque: 911 Truth


Good points which are constructive. I've been fascinated to watch the Sibel Edmonds story continue to develop in a SINGLE NEWSPAPER in another country . . . It's one of the bizarre symptoms of the world in which we are living, and getting more bizarre by the day.

OK, Edmonds' story adds something . . .

to the Phoenix memo / Minneapolis agents / Moussaoui story, which is much more specific, and names names: Dave Frasca and Spike Bowman. I'm referring to her allegation in her August 2004 letter to Thomas Kean that an intelligence asset provided agents and a translator with information that Osama bin Laden was planning an attack, that this was reported to Thomas Frield, and that he did nothing. OK, she names a name, but how does she know what his response was? This appears to be second hand info, and I have doubts about how she came to be privy to so much information so quickly as a new part-time translator. Farsi was not her primary language, and the Sunday Times has now gotten more specific that she was hired to work on backlog in a nuclear case. Regardless, the ultimate truth of the information is not proven, even if the Iranian asset believed it was true, and saying that 9/11 proves it was true is just swallowing the myth uncritically.

All this adds to the official story of how the buildings were destroyed: hijacked planes. I'm saying that we know that hijacked planes did not bring down the buildings, so it is utlimately irrelevant to explaining how most of the people were murdered.

You're missing the broader theme of Tarpley's book. myth-mongering. He criticizes spurious leads to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. He quotes a Pakistani general, Mirsa Aslam Beg, as stating that none of the "evidence" the U.S. government provided to the Pakistani government in demanding cooperation on Afghanistan would hold up in a court of law, and that the attacks were the work of highly trained experts "who used high technology for destruction." He points out that none of the bin Laden tapes have been authenticated. Pasties on the ground training to fly may have been part of that myth-mongering, and honest FBI agents may have seen that, and moles may have interfered to keep the cover story intact, but we must not forget that this is all part of the myth. More importantly, this myth, even if it were true, is demonstrably, by physical evidence and argument alone, not the cause of the buildings "collapses" that killed most of the people and injured so many rescue personnel.

I am also saying that the rest of Sibel Edmonds story is irrelevant to even the myth of 9/11, other than as an anecdotal example about how the FBI might be compromised. And there are holes in her story as I have pointed out. If she is discredited, either as fabricating or as having sincerely misinterpreted what she saw, where does that leave us?

Part of her story---bureaucrats telling translators to slow down so they could justify hiring more translators---supports the myth that better translations would have stopped 9/11. It has also been discredited for me by her claim (repeated by Giraldi) that the FBI's Inspector General supported her allegation, which is false. I also find it implausible that this occurred, especially after 9/11.

Given the marginal relevance to 9/11, where the relevant part merely supports the Phoenix/Minnesota story, I don't see the benefit in critically sorting through her complex story, as anyone holding it out as useful is morally obligated to do. I did so, and found problems.

Ultimately, I'm urging the old saw of trial lawyers: Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Pakistani general had money sent to Mohammed Atta? Good luck proving it. And even if you can, so what? Atta didn't kill most of the people.

Goss and Graham meeting with Pakistani general on 9/11? So what? Duh, preparations for attacking Afghanistan were being made. The Northern Alliance leader Massoud was killed on September 8. Since you're citing Tarpley, his view is that this was not done by Al Qaeda but by CIA, because Masoud was a proud nationalist that would not take orders.

Remember: Keep It Simple, Stupid. Somebody blew up those buildings.

I have heard the argument that all eggs should not be put in this basket because (1) you can't prove it, and (2) what if there is an official admission that it really was wired by "Al Qaeda," and this was not revealed. Bush's reference to KSM saying they wired the buildings is cited.

(1) It has been proven. It is self-evident

(2) That would not fly, after NIST, and the insurance trials, and all the denials and mockery of our self-evident observation.

To respond to your argument, Arabesque, NORAD and the war games are not the cause of most of the deaths, they are just part of the cover story. It is not speculative that massive amounts of energy were added to "collapse" the Twin Towers. I don't care how many lying engineers you trot out to say differently. This is not a "perception," it is a fact.

"You're missing the broader

"You're missing the broader theme of Tarpley's book. myth-mongering. "

No, you (and many many others) are missing the broader theme of Tarpley's book that Sibel Edmonds is PART of his "so-called" "MIHOP" thesis.

While the CD of the twin towers is in my opinion obvious, there is one small problem. We don't know who planted the explosives. We have a good idea, but no one can prove exactly who did it. Ultimately we don't know what Sibel knows either, but we do know that she is being censored for her beliefs and that certain whistlebowers know that officials knew the date, time, and method of the attacks.

The fatal mistake of that many make is the belief that the 9/11 attacks were EITHER made or let happen. They were both made and allowed to happen, not one or the other. The MIHOP/LIHOP terms are disinformation. A straw-man invented by Nico Haupt and seeded in Tarpley's book.

To focus on one small aspect of the attacks and put blinders on is to miss the full picture, and possibly important suspects who can lead to others if they are properly investigated. By all means CD should be emphasized. But it is a fallacy to argue that other aspects of the attack are not equally important. If they can name suspects, they are very important indeed. Clearly, only an investigation can answer the real questions about who is ultimately responsible. We can only guess (with some accuracy) at this point.

The perpetrators are hoping you don't look at the obvious people who got promoted, and the people who allowed the patsies to do what they did. If these people were fingered long enough, it might lead to bigger fish--the "make it happen" people giving the orders to "let" it happen.
Arabesque: 911 Truth

If you read what I wrote

It is obvious that I am not missing that argument. I know Tarpley's argument well, since I was banned from Truth Action for saying to made sense. I also know how it relates to your argument about problems with the LIHOP/MIHOP dichotomy, which is a good argument but hardly the basis for an accusation that it originated as disinformation. Why does it seem that every suggestion of yours for looking at a problem differently has to come as an accusation?

First you cite Tarpley's book favorably, then you accuse him of "seeding" a "straw man" started by the devil himself, Nico Haupt. Which is it? And isn't it true that the terms were coined to argue that this was more than just prior knowledge and letting it happen. Controlled demolition, which is not a matter of opinion anymore, shows how false that was. You're just arguing that some of the other stuff about Al Qaeda, NORAD is still relevant. It is, but marginally, is my argument. That's not how most people died.

You missed or ignored my argument about Sibel Edmonds: her claims related to 9/11 are questionable, her other claims are marginally related to 9/11, and none are necessary to the argument that FBI was compromised. So why talk about them?

You say: "but we do know that she is being censored for her beliefs" - we don't know that at all. We know that a "state secrets" order was issued by Ashcroft. I don't know the terms of the order or what leeway it gives her, but it doesn't seem to be too restrictive. And the issuance of the order is not itself proof of anything. I could speculate about other reasons for such a posture.

You are lecturing me on what the perpetrators want me to think. I disagree -- what you are saying is an old story about which nothing was done. Remember Arlen Spector's statement --

"I don't believe any longer that it's a matter of connecting the dots," Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., told reporters. "I think they had a veritable blueprint and we want to know why they didn't act on it."

I have already explained that it is important to keep it simple. Most of the people died because of the buildings being destroyed, not because of planes. We don't need to know who planted the explosives, because we know who covered it up. Just because the most important question is difficult to answer doesn't mean you mix in a bunch of less important questions that are equally difficult to answer.

double post


triple post


quadruple post

who put LSD on my keyboard?

Don't throw the bambino out with the bathwater

"Da ambienti vicini a Palazzo Chigi, centro nevralgico di direzione dell'intelligence italiana, si fa notare che la non autenticità del video è testimoniata dal fatto che Osama Bin Laden in esso 'confessa' che Al Qaeda sarebbe stato l'autore dell'attentato dell'11 settembre alle due torri in New York,"

Translated in an article linked from Diane's article thus:

"“From areas around the Palazzo Chigi, nerve centre of direction of Italian intelligence, it is noted that the non-authenticity of the video is testified from the fact that Osama bin Laden in it ‘confessed’ that Al Qaeda would have been the author of the attack of the 11 September to the Twin Towers in New York,"

This is a statement attributed to Italian intelligence that a bin Laden video is not authentic. It is oblique and maybe he's being sarcastic, but he's not saying what the centre-left in America and Europe think, he's saying what Italian intelligence thinks.

What he's saying is trivial anyway. Of course the video has not been properly authenticated, and the American people's relying on this "evidence" to support or acquiesce in wars and violations of civil liberties is the height of stupidty and servility.