Mainstream Paper Prints Four "Althouse, Debate Barrett!" Letters

Congratulations to Richard, Lon, James and Jeannon, and a huge thanks to everybody who wrote to Althouse, the UW, and/or the local newspapers. This must be by far the biggest flood of 9/11 truth every published in the letters section of any mainstream US newspaper!

Ann Althouse, a law professor who seems to have a very high opinion of herself, needs to find the courage to defend her assertion that 9/11 skeptics are "nutty." If our arguments are that weak, it should be a piece of cake for an experienced law professor to take them apart...right?

Scroll down for a list of places to write and call to keep the pressure on her, and on the UW. We DEMAND a 9/11 debate in 2008!


PS I'll discuss this during the second hour of today's radio show (first hour guest Jarek Kupsc, writer-director of The Reflecting Pool). 4-6 pm CT Network 4 Call-in number 866-582-9933 Complete schedule & guest list:

Richard C. Lowe: "Nutty" belief? Let's put that to debate
Letter to the editor — 1/31/2008 9:35 am

Dear Editor: Ann Althouse wrote recently on her blog: "I don't know why the University of Wisconsin has not rehired 9/11 conspiracy believer Kevin Barrett to teach a course on the history of Islam. But if we know a person believes something truly nutty, are we not entitled to use that as evidence of his intelligence, judgment and trustworthiness?"

Having carefully researched the evidence for three years I have come to believe without a shadow of a doubt that 9/11 was orchestrated in part by criminal elements within the White House.

Hundreds of intelligence professionals, engineers, architects, military, first responders, pilots, aviation professionals and victims' families agree with me. See or

If Althouse has any intellectual integrity, she will be willing to debate Barrett publicly.
Do you really want someone with her flimsy grasp of this subject matter representing your university? Let's see Althouse's intelligence, judgment and trustworthiness.

I eagerly await the debate.

Richard C. Lowe
Lafayette, Colo.

Lon Ponschock: Althouse should be willing to debate
Letter to the editor — 1/31/2008 9:35 am

Dear Editor: On the subject of the truths and half-truths of the 9/11 issue, it is time to once again address the subject in terms of academic freedom for Kevin Barrett based on the documented evidence.

The presumptive attack on Barrett by UW law Professor Ann Althouse in her recent blog while at the same time refusing to engage in debate on the issue is my paramount concern.

Several years ago I suggested to Kevin Barrett that he speak at UW-Oshkosh on the topic of academic freedom as related to the 9/11 issue. The suggestion was taken up by members of the campus and community. A packed lecture hall received Barrett's lecture along with a documentary film on the subject.

Numerous times I have sought local speakers to engage in this debate and have come up wanting as was the case at UW-Oshkosh.

For this reason I am once again calling for a face-to-face debate on the issue without hiding behind a computer screen. This challenge is to Ann Althouse and any other individual who would make attacks and then refuse to let the facts on both sides be presented in full public view.

Lon Ponschock

James Buels: Has academia become the new Inquisition?
Letter to the editor — 1/31/2008 9:35 am

Dear Editor: Have American universities become the new Inquisition? Is the academic establishment so afraid some of their number might deviate from the "accepted" norms of discussion and investigation that they must attack their suspect colleagues at every opportunity to keep them in line?

Professor Ann Althouse's remarks about Kevin Barrett are not only cruel and uncalled for, they are unethical! Isn't it the responsibility of an academic to challenge conventional wisdom when they feel it is warranted, as a growing number of academics are doing worldwide in the case of the 9/11 attacks? Are they not obliged by their profession to continually question, investigate and report their findings, even when they know they may be attacked for it? Don't their colleagues have an obligation to respect them for this, especially if they disagree with them?
Above all, shouldn't they teach their students to do the same not only through admonition but through example?

Althouse should either agree to debate Barrett in a public forum about the attacks of 9/11, or she should resign!

James Buels
El Paso, Texas

Jeannon Kralj: Barrett is the "best thing" for UW

Letter to the editor — 1/31/2008 9:35 am

Dear Editor: Don't judge law professors by their truly nutty beliefs but do judge law professors by their writings and the tone of those writings and by what they have done and by what they have failed to do.

Kevin Barrett is the best thing that has ever happened to the University of Wisconsin.
UW law Professor Ann Althouse might benefit from the famous Wisconsin admonition:
"Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere, we believe that the great state University of Wisconsin should ever encourage the continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found."

If the lovers of the nation and the lovers of truth and justice do not speak out (and continually sift and winnow) for 9/11 truth and justice, there is no more sovereign constitutional republic of the United States of America.

Jeannon Kralj
Austin, Texas

ANN ALTHOUSE, 5110 Law Building, 975 Bascom Mall, Madison, WI 53706-1399 (608) 262-2444,
KENNETH B DAVIS Jr., Dean of U.W.-Madison Law School 5110 Law Building, 975 Bascom Mall, Madison, WI 53706-1399 (608) 262-0618, (608) 262-0962,
Provost Patrick Farrell,
Capital Times
Wisconsin State Journal

email: Ann Althouse

Send UW, etc. quotes from PATRIOTSQUESTION911.ORG

When you contact UW, etc. or for that matter when anyone challenges you as some fringe lunatic on questioning 9/11, THERE IS A POWERFUL RESOURCE OUT THERE FOR YOU TO USE.

Send UW, etc. quotes from PATRIOTSQUESTION911.ORG provides hundreds of highly respected military, intelligence, engineering, media and entertainment professionals who are now demanding a new 9/11 investigation. Copy and paste these people's quote, and email them to newspapers, magazines, etc.

Start with UW, but don't stop there!!



PS I'll discuss this during the second hour of today's radio show (first hour guest Jarek Kupsc, writer-director of The Reflecting Pool). 4-6 pm CT Network 4 Call-in number 866-582-9933 Complete schedule & guest list:

Richard C. Lowe: "Nutty" belief? Let's put that to debate
Letter to the editor — 1/31/2008 9:35 am>>

MP3 Audio Clips - Kevin Barrett

Sunday January 27, 2008
Lynn Margulis, Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusett, Amherst, Talks To Kevin Barrett About Meeting David Ray Griffin And Watching The Japanese Congress Debate 9/11 And The "War On Terror" (15 Min Clip Of 2 Hour Interview - 6 Meg)

* source =

Sunday December 16, 2007
Kevin Barrett Talks With G. Edward Griffin About The Council On Foreign Relations

* source =

More MP3 Audio Clips >

Carl Weis of to discuss this & more today, 5-6CT, GCN

Just got a second-hour guest, Carl Weis of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. We'll discuss impeaching/prosecuting Cheney (Carl's hobby), the new peer-reviewed article on WTC temperatures and its use in the academic 9/11 debates, and how we can get those debates off the ground. Call-in number 866-582-9933. 4-6 pm, Network 4

Here's his bio:

Carl Weis was born into a family with its share of scientists. At the age of 11 or 12, Carl awoke to larger world consciousness when he learned via a brief TV documentary that his own Uncle Bob Gibney had "pushed the button" on the first hydrogen bomb tested by the US in the Pacific in Dec. of 1952. His grandfather was chief civilian scientist in the late '40s and through the mid-'50s at Pt. Loma San Diego Naval Electronics Labs and Pt. Mugu missile testing base in CA. Carl walked (as a second grader) through a Univac computer at NEL in Decemebr of '49, and watched a drone aircraft flying past his grandfather's office at Pt. Mugu in the mid-'50s.

Carl is a retired associate professor of Creative Arts, Siena College, upstate New York and is a founding member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. He is also a grassroots organizer at 9/11 Truth. He knew the first named victim of the 9/11 attacks, Fr. Mychal Judge, a chaplain in the FDNY. His activism for 9/11 truth and justice is dedicated to Fr. Mike's memory.

I agree with Ann Althouse

If we know a person believes something truly nutty, it is not unreasonable to consider that in assessing a person's intelligence, judgment and trustworthiness. At least, it is a social reality that it wil be considered by many people.

Althouse of course begs the question of whether she "knows" that Dr. Barrett believes something "truly nutty", or just thinks that.

The idea of "nuttiness" is often a social construct. For example, it is not socially acceptable to disregard a scientist's intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness on the basis of religious beliefs in supernatural phenomenon. On the other hand, when it comes to 9/11 and other questions of government wrongdoing, it is socially acceptable, not "nutty," for scientists to propound on scientific issues without showing their work. That's why engineers put their name on the Popular Mechanics book without identifying what parts of the book they agree with and why. That's also why scientists answer questions of physics with the word "conspiracy theory," or in the case of NIST, do the same thing by refusing to consider certain hypotheses or by presuming unauthenticated evidence to be valid.

It is not true that just because one thing a person believes is "nutty," everything else that person believes is also "nutty." The person that believes one "nutty" thing might not be the best person to support other arguments---that is at least the premise of much of the "disinfo by association" discourse here---but even if their "nutty" belief is truely irrational, that doesn't mean that their arguments in support of other beliefs are not sound.

Of course, "nuttiness" must be shown and not assumed. Ann Althouse should debate Kevin Barrett, or should retract her statement.

Nutty Professor


Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective, -ti·er, -ti·est.

1. abounding in or producing nuts.

2. nutlike, esp. in flavor.

3. Slang.
a. silly or ridiculous: a nutty suggestion.
b. eccentric; queer.
c. insane.
d. very or excessively interested, excited, or the like: He's nutty about Mexican food.

4. full of flavor or zest; lively; stimulating; meaty: He offered several rich, nutty ideas on the subject.

3d or 4 may describe Kevin. Kevin walks the walk for 9/11 truth and he is a source of inspiration for me. I sent Ann a note . . it wasn't very nice.


my letter in to Ann Althouse

Dear Ann Althouse:

So Dr. Kevin Barrett is "nutty" and (as you've clearly implied) has been rightfully deprived of his teaching position at the University of Wisconsin?

Ms. Althouse, are you familiar with the large and growing body of scholarly opinion that strongly backs up Dr. Barrett's position on 9/11? This includes three superb studies by David Ray Griffin (THE NEW PEARL HARBOR: DISTURBING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND 9/11; THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT: OMISSIONS AND DISTORTIONS; and DEBUNKING 9/11 DEBUNKING), Nafeez Ahmed's THE WAR OF FREEDOM and THE WAR ON TRUTH; Paul Thompson's THE TERROR TIMELINE; Peter Dale Scott's THE ROAD TO 9/11, as well as a number of other worthy books. Though they are of course less comprehensive, there are many excellent presentations available in video form on the Internet which I could recommend as well.

Those who have joined Dr. Barrett in voicing their convictions that there was significant official US complicity in the attacks of 9/11 include many accomplished people from our nation's military, intelligence, academic, scientific, engineering and architectural communities, not to mention many family members of those murdered in the 9/11 attacks. (This is easily confirmed by visiting,, or Their swelling ranks have recently been joined by Dr. Lynn Margulis, a preeminent figure in the field of biology who teaches at the University of Massachusetts. Is Dr. Margulis "nutty" too, Ms. Althouse?

Ms. Althouse, you are a professor of law! Do you teach your students that academic integrity and freedom are so cheap that we may dispense with them with nothing more than uniformed claims that appeal to popular prejudice? Is this not the example you have set? Are the rights and livelihood of a colleague of no more concern to you than that?

May I make a recommendation? Before you join in a chilling smear campaign aimed at silencing those whose opinions you find unpalatable, you might bother acquainting yourself with the public and academic record on the matter in question. Not to do so is more than nutty, it is malicious and demagogic. It falls not only far below the standards of the academy generally, but below those (one should think!) of the University of Wisconsin in particular.

I await your reply to these basic questions. And as Dr. Barrett has offered you the opportunity to defend your position in a debate, I also look forward to hearing you do so, assuming you have any confidence that you even have a defensible position.


Tom Breidenbach

A law professor - the value of evidence

I hope the law professor isn't teaching trial advocacy, or evidence or constitutional law, because she is displaying her incompetency in each of those areas of law.

Evidence can result in different people coming to different conclusions. A factual conclusion does not result in one person being declared "sane" and the other person being declared "insane."

On appeal from a factual finding in a court of law, the test is whether a judge or a jury has "substantial evidence" to support the finding - not whether most of the evidence supports the conclusion, or that the best evidence supports the conclusion, but evidence that supports the conclusion is evidence that a reasonable person would rely on in coming to such a conclusion.

In any event, the law professor ought not be making defamatory statements that adversely affect a professional in his chosen line of work unless she is quite sure that she has the truth to protect her. If she had a handle on the universe of evidence in the 9-11 controversy, and wanted to opine on why one side was "better" (whatever that might mean), she could do so. But we are left with the impression that the law professor finds it abhorrent and personally inconceivable that our American government might find American lives expendable in a political and corporate end game. And, based on that emotional denial, has labeled anyone who disagrees with the 9-11 Commission Report as "nutty" or "insane."

Expect to see U of W's law school come down a few notches in the law school ratings next year.