Powerhouse Radio Lineup: Steve Alten, Lynn Margulis, Richard Falk, Carolyn Baker...Griffin & Ventura on Deck

This is as good as 9/11 truth radio gets!

Tomorrow, Friday 3/21 I'll be talking with Steve Alten, author of The Shell Game. We'll discuss our respective encounters with neocon media, including Steve's run-in with Jim Bohanon http://www.911blogger.com/node/14248 and my own with Hannity and Colmes, recently analyzed at http://www.911blogger.com/node/14398 4-6 pm CT, http://www.gcnlive.com Network 4 call-in 866-582-9933

Saturday, 3/22 National Medal of Science winner Lynn Margulis http://www.mujca.com/margulis.htm comes back for an encore. Lynn is one of the most important minds on the planet. Along with James Lovelock she brought us the Gaia hypothesis of a homeostatic biosphere, and among evolutionary biologists she is one of the biggest names, and THE most prestigious challenger to neo-Darwinian orthodoxy. She's also a terrific writer and a fearless 9/11 truth-teller! 6-8 pm CT, http://www.republicbroadcasting.org call-in 800-313-9443

Monday, 3/24 my guest will be one of the world's most prestigious international law professors, Richard Falk. Richard is on the board of The Nation magazine and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations--please don't hold it against him! From everything I've seen he's a decent, honest, idealistic (not to mention erudite) guy who supports a diffuse, humane kind of world federalism -- not the brutal global dictatorship that appears to be the goal of some members of the CFR's inner circle. Richard, who is associated with 9/11 truth publisher Interlink Books, apparently had a hand in turning David Griffin's attention to 9/11 truth, and he has promised to tell this story on the air. 4-6 pm CT, http://www.gcnlive.com Network 4 call-in 866-582-9933

Tuesday, 3/25 Carolyn Baker, history professor and truth-teller: http://www.carolynbaker.net Her review of The Shell Game, like the rest of her stuff, is first-rate: http://carolynbaker.net/site/content/view/294/3/
8-10 pm CT, http://www.wtprn.com call-in 888-202-1984

The following week's guests include David Griffin and Jesse Ventura. For updates stay tuned to my radio schedule page, http://www.mujca.com/airwaves.htm

Kevin, why did you have to

Kevin, why did you have to support the "no planes hit the WTC" disinfo bs and prop up rightfully outcast individuals like Reynolds, Fetzer and Wood? Why did you do that, because you initially seemed intelligent enough to understand the value of credibility, why endorse and defend complete junk like "no planes hit the WTC" which only serves to bring us ridicule and nothing more period. Why?

Kevin is now supporting Griffin and Alten, two powerful rational

Kevin is now supporting Griffin and Alten, two powerful rational, 9/11 truth voices.

Soooo, let's focus on spreading the word about Kevin's powerful upcoming show, rather than assaulting him.

Everyone spread Kevin's radio line up thru every venue, blog, email you can. Alten and Griffin will have some powerful info to share.


When you post your OpEd news pieces, feel free to simultaneously post them here on your personal blog, I might not post them to the front page, but more people will see them.

Thanks, I will, and just posted my latest blog. Hope you like it

Below is a post made on my latest 911blogger blog, which links to my OpEdNews blog of today, referring to Kevin Barret's upcoming guest, Steve Alten's, important to the truth movement:


Anyone who hasn't heard Alten's Explosive National CBS Radio interview on the conservative mainstream Jim Bohannan show, which reached millions of listeners thru nearly 200 radio stations nationwide IS MISSING SOMETHING HUGE !!

Anyone interested in unearthing 9/11 truth, who isn't spreading this OpEd and this below 4 min. interview clip . . . is missing a MASSIVE OPPORTUNITY TO FURTHER OUR FIGHT FOR TRUTH:


MP3 Audio Clip - Kevin Barrett & Lynn Margulis

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 = http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/

More Interviews >


why do you put your life on the line for 9/11 truth? why did you lose your job? why did people harass your kids? why do you allow people to exercise their 1st ammendment rights on your radio show?

why did you go on Hannity and Colmes?

why did you go on the O'Reilly Factor?

why did you allow CNN to interview you?

why did you challenge Amy Goodman?

why did you interrupt Horowitz?

I don't support "no planes"

But I think it's really sad to see so much "What?! You don't hate the people I hate? Then I must hate you!"

I am generally tolerant of ridiculous opinions. Some of my best friends, and even some family members, are "no controlled demolition" lunatics. I do not ostracize them. I engage them.

Heck, I often invite radio guests who perniciously "support no controlled demolition" by refusing to pronounce the catechism that they are absolutely certain it was a demolition. I realize that even talking to such morons discredits me in the eyes of all reasonable people, but what the hey, I like hearing ideas different from my own once in awhile.

The arguments for video fakery (as opposed to no planes) have not convinced me, but they're vastly more plausible than "no controlled demolition" !

If you want me to lean way, WAY over backward to be sympathetic to someone, the best way to do it is to vilify me for not hating or ostracizing that person.

If Morgan and Judy and Jim are evil pernicious operatives, I'm sure they're the ones who are pseudonymously attacking me for associating with Morgan and Judy and Jim, because, knowing me, they realize that that is the best way to make sure I sympathize with Morgan and Judy and Jim and bend over backward to give them a hearing.

Margulis is a hiv skeptic as well

Dr. Barrett, after you have Margulis on your show you should have Dr. Garth Nad Nancy Nicolson as well, discussing their new book Project Day Lily, here is some background

Hiv is probably harmless. its only in 1/1000 cells and doesnt do anything when injected into animals. Some of the top scientists in the world have spoken out against the hypothesis. Nobel prize winners like Kary Mullis and Walter gilbert a Harvard MCB professer, Retroviral UCB expert Duesberg, Dr. Shyh Ching Lo the military's highest ranking infectious disease pathologist, amongst many more. See the film hiv fact or fraud.

The only microbe to worry about is mycoplasma incogitus/penetrans. This was what was part of the biological weapons program and was discovered by Dr. Shyh Ching Lo of the army. Every animal he injected it with died. When two top Cancer researchers found it in the blood of sick Gulf war one vets armed agents from the DOD threatened them to stop their research, and their boss was shot in the head five times right after he told Garth and Nancy Nicolson it was part of the biological weapons program and being illegally tested. Read their new mindblowing book Project Day Lily.

Think mycoplasmas are Harmless? Read this excerpt from a Miami herald article on a summary of Dr. Lo's peer reviewed work.

"Lo laid all his cards on the table. He had detected an organism similar to a bacteria, called a mycoplasma, in cells taken from AIDS patients. He could not find the organism in cells of healthy individuals. When he injected the organism into four silvered leaf monkeys, three quickly developed low-grade fevers. All four lost weight. All four died within seven to nine months of infection. When they were autopsied, there was Lo's mycoplasma in their brains, livers and spleens.

Lo also reported finding the mycoplasma in the damaged tissue of six HIV-negative human beings who had died from unspecified causes after suffering from suspiciously AIDS-like symptoms. "

Is Hiv Guilty Miami Herald 1990

Show "Great Interview Kevin" by billybipbip

Well that sounds a lot

Well that sounds a lot better, it's just I had great appreciation for your article "Apocalypse of Coercion" - I thought that was fantastic, and for a long time I'd refer people to your work without any hesitation. But then while everyone else saw and responded to the damage individuals like Reynolds, Fetzer and Wood were causing, you seemed to not recognise it all and in fact defend Fetzer's behaviour and sort of went over the cliff with him in "Fetzer's Big Bus Of Bunk" instead of bailing out at the last minute.

What I'm talking about are things like this, if you didn't write it then you should sue Fetzer:

"Kevin Barrett, the founder of MUJCA and a member of Scholars, reports he is troubled by these new studies. “I guess I’ll have to take this possibility more seriously now,” Barrett said. “In the past, I have assumed video fakery was far-fetched and that anyone who endorsed it was probably a crackpot! Now I’m not so sure.”

^ If those are your words why did you lend credence to such absurd and offensive garbage? I mean your embracing not only the quackery of Fetzer, Reynolds and Judy "Forks go in Microwaves" Wood, but also Nico-Intelpro Haupt, Rick Siegel and all the other dregs of the planet who have unfortunately gravitated towards association with 9/11 Truth. It baffles me, also how could you be friends with Fetzer after the way he treated Dr Jones? That was just utterly shameful on Fetzer's part and so it was immensely confusing to see anyone sticking with him after that.

It's this video which was the nail in the coffin in regards to being able to confidently refer people to your work without having to be concerned that they would discover something ridiculous like "no planes hit the WTC" disinfo material in the process, thus turning them off entirely from the subject:

I hope that you have come to your senses and finally thought about your loyalty to the credibility of 9/11 Truth over any perhaps misplaced loyalty to individuals like Fetzer, because I do still think some of your work is excellent and that your contribution to the issue has been a good one over all. It's just a little hard to now promote what you've produced with the other things your unfortunately associated with still floating around on the net.

I was there personally for Tower Two

Some guy on the bus talking to his wife said, "A tower got hit." We were on the FDR Drive above he Brooklyn Bridge. I looked out the window and saw the burning tower. Then, the other tower exploded. I knew it was terrorism. I thought it was an explosion and I never saw a plane.

[edit: But I'm absolutely certain beyond any shadow of a doubt that on the other side of tower two there was a plane approaching as I watched and it smashed into the tower causing the large fireball I saw coming out of the front.]

Course I was North and East.

[edit: I couldn't see the plane that certainly hit the tower from my position.]

All I know is this:

Last November 2, Bandar bush confessed to knowing that September 11 could have been avoided.

Bandar bush threatened Tony Blair with "another 7/7.

Bandar bush is the only guy bush's disgusting Republican Mommy lets smoke in her house.

One thing is for sure:

Bandar bush could have prevented 9/11, he threatened further terrorism against our Ally, and he is an "Adopted" member of GHW Bush the Republican and his Republican wife, and all their Republican Offspring.

Bandar bush: even if the White House wouldn't do what you wanted, or ask you respectfully for your opinion about world events, when you knew New York was about to be attacked, as you confessed, WHY didn't you warn the American People?

nursing home attendent or activist work -- you decide

>>I am generally tolerant of ridiculous opinions. Some of my best friends, and even some family members, are "no controlled demolition" lunatics. I do not ostracize them. I engage them.

Being against controlled demolition is a polar opposite situation to claiming that real planes didn't hit the towers, so this is another strawman argument.

People who accept the official story are everyday people who follow what authority tells them, often because it makes them feel comfortable. There is a massive media campaign to influence them. No brainer.

People who think real planes didn't hit the towers are often unable to listen to reason, unable to function in groups or blogs like this one, and uninterested or misinformed about the scientific method.

Some sound eloquent but when listeners pause for a moment they realize it is nonsense. Some are even aggressive and belligerent. Rescuing no planers, DEW or nuke advocates to defend against average activists who see through the nonsense -- regardless of the intention -- only bogs down the movement in nonsense and turns us into a nursing home, not an activist and research community. We aren't running a nursing home or a pre-school or a day treatment, we're trying to expose a crime.

Defending people who are saying nutty unsupported claims about a crime in public which blatantly discredit a whole movement -- with the platitude of "evidence doesn't matter" anyway, and "I am generally tolerant of ridiculous opinions" -- helps no one but those in need of making ridiculous statements to reporters and the public.

FY: the whole updated/corrected radio schedule

March 17th

Mon. 3/17 Native America activist and 9/11 truth-seeker Splitting-the-Sky: http://www.911blogger.com/node/14411

4-6 pm CT, "The Dynamic Duo" on GCN: http://gcnlive.com Network 4

March 18th

Tues. 3/18th First hour: Gabriel Day, leading 9/11 activist, discussing upcoming 2008 events: http://www.911sharethetruth.org

Second hour: Law professor Peter Erlinder, author "The Torture of Sami al-Arian": http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2008/03/torture-of-sami-al-arian.php and Abdullah al-Arian http://www.freesamialarian.com

8-10 p.m. CT, "9/11 and Empire Radio" on WTPRN: http://wtprn.com

March 21st

Fri. 3/21 Steve Alten, author, The Shell Game -- the brand-new 9/11 truth novel heading for the bestseller list! We'll discuss our experiences with hostile neocon media, including Steve's run-in with Jim Bohanon http://www.911blogger.com/node/14248 and my own with Hannity and Colmes, recently analyzed at http://www.911blogger.com/node/14398 . http://patriotsquestion911.com/media.html#Alten,


4-6 pm CT, "The Dynamic Duo" on GCN: http://gcnlive.com Network 4

March 22nd

Sat. 3/22 Lynn Margulis, leading scientist and author: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis and 9/11 truth-teller: http://www.mujca.com/margulis.htm

6-8 p.m. CT, "Truth Jihad Radio" on RBN: http://republicbroadcasting.org

March 24th

Mon. 3/24 Princeton University Professor Emeritus Richard Falk, one of the world's leading international law experts. Dr. Falk is a strong academic freedom advocate http://wardchurchill.net/blog/2006/11/06/professor-richard-falk-calls-fo... and a 9/11 truth supporter http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/forum/meet/2004/Falk_GriffinForeword.html

4-6 pm CT, "The Dynamic Duo" on GCN: http://gcnlive.com Network 4

March 25th

Tues. 3/25 History professor and truth-teller Carolyn Baker: http://www.carolynbaker.net

8-10 p.m. CT, "9/11 and Empire Radio" on WTPRN: http://wtprn.com

March 28th

Fri. 3/28 Binghamton University Professor Emeritus of Sociology James Petras, author of 62 books in 29 languages including Rulers and Ruled in the US Empire http://www.populistamerica.com/rulers_and_ruled_in_the_us_empire

4-6 pm CT, "The Dynamic Duo" on GCN: http://gcnlive.com Network 4

March 29th

Sat. 3/29 Anthony J. Hall, founding coordinator and associate professor, globalization studies, University of Lethbridge; author of The American Empire and the Fourth World: http://mqup.mcgill.ca/book.php?bookid=1628

6-8 p.m. CT, "Truth Jihad Radio" on RBN: http://republicbroadcasting.org

April 1st

Tues. 4/1 David Ray Griffin http://www.mujca.com/newyork.htm author of the brand-new 9/11 Contradictions http://www.amazon.com/11-CONTRADICTIONS-Letter-Congress-Press/dp/1566567165

8-10 p.m. CT, "9/11 and Empire Radio" on WTPRN: http://wtprn.com

April 5th

Sat. 4/5 Former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura, 9/11 skeptic http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/video_ventura_questions_911_fabl... and author Don't Start the Revolution Without Me! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22515242/

April 15th

Tues. 4/15 Mikey Weinstein, leading opponent of extremist Christian takeover of America's military: http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org

Barrett takes a beating....

and keeps on ticking! I don't believe a dressing down by O'Reilly, who has to settle a sexual harrassment suit with $10 million payoff, makes Barrett some kind of disinfo agent? Barrett's interviews helped promote awareness. It certainly stuck in my mind his Hannity and Colmes encounter, where the obvious MSM full press was on!

I wonder from time to time about the heavy TV fakery prohibition on 9/11 blogger? While I tend to believe there were planes, most likely drones, I also lean towards heavy media manipulation-as much as possible at least--in near real time--done on images presented on TV? 9/11 was a very sophisticated effort with much left to be explained.

Morgan, Jim and Judy may have not performed always at top form, I don't believe they are CIA operatives! I don't detect the telltale fascist self-assuredness in them? Deagle seems to be censored as well for presenting the possibility of mini-nukes. I guess, it will take a dirty nuke (obfuscation of a real nuke) blamed on terrorists detonated in a major American city (Portland?)--gee, who said that?-- to wake people up to high tech realities!

...don't believe them!

Balance and proportion are better than prohibitions

We need to subdue the fear and anger in our own minds as we respond to the many viewpoints in the 9/11 truth movement. Knee-jerk paranoid responses to proponents of "outrageous conspiracy theories" such as exotic demolition weapons and video fakery (both of which strike our intended audience, the non-truthers, as no more exotic than controlled demolition) are counterproductive. Lucid, careful deconstructions of invalid arguments ARE productive. The extant quality deconstructions (there are fewer really good ones than you'd think) have helped me stay skeptical in the face of the arguments for exotic hypotheses...while the name calling and harassment from the internet lynch mobs and truther thought police has given me very strong motivation to give every benefit of the doubt to the exotic hypothesis proponents.

The taboo on discussing exotic weaponry in false-flag attacks may turn out to have been misguided at best. For example, in my recent interview with Bali bombing documentary filmmaker Glen Clancy, the very interesting work of Joe Vialls came up. http://www.vialls.com/nuke/bali_micro_nuke.htm Joe died a suspicious death in the aftermath of his work arguing that the big bomb planted by intelligence agents in Bali to coincide with the patsies' car bomb was an Israeli micro-nuke: http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?p=59882&sid=b7273d8d0bb4... Glen Clancy has great respect for Joe and his work, and included it in his film -- eliciting the predictable reaction from certain knee-jerk anti-exotics folks. If Vialls is right, those who are trying to maintain a taboo against discussing the Israeli micro-nuke hypothesis are obviously serving the interests of the perpetrators, whether intentionally or unintentionally. I don't know whether that's the case--I haven't studied it closely enough to be sure--but I AM sure that knee-jerk emotional reactions to scientific hypotheses are counterproductive.


I have just made an announcement on editorial direction here at the site.

Please check it out:



good decision, rep!

It has all been said far too many times. I look forward to not having to deal with any more ad-hominem and guilt-by-association attacks that bring up these topics in order to distort my views of them--always as "comments" on postings of mine that have nothing to do with the controversial topics!

Mr. Barrett - You need to test your theory with the public.

I don't know about you, but whenever I go out and engage the general public on the topic of 9/11 I am always asked at least once "you don't believe that nonsense about no planes hitting the Towers, do you?"

Additionally, by age 25 just about everyone has seen a video of a building being brought down by means of controlled demolition, agreed? Have you ever seen a building destroyed with a directed energy weapon?

I've worked in construction for about 30 years, every tradesperson I know understands and accepts the reality of controlled demolitions. Very few of my peers can even wrap their minds around the concept of a DEW bringing a building down. So, yes, DEW's are quite exotic when compared with chemical explosives.

Now, I'm not saying that DEW's don't exist, the active denial system reported on recently clearly demonstrates that relatively low power DEW's do exist.

I'm also not saying that researchers should not investigate all possibilities, if they so choose. Do the research, publish the findings, accept the critique and respond (without ad hominem attacks, I might add).

I understand your big tent approach, and I agree with it when we are talking about researchers doing research quietly and then seeking peer review, that is the logical, best way forward into the light of truth and understanding. It is also really fun.

However, promoting 9/11 truth in public is akin to walking through a mine field. Now, am I going to stick to the path of my buddy who made it through safely (i.e. made his case to someone and now has them questioning the government myth) or am I going to put on a blindfold and a clown suit and try to dance through the mine field?

I don't know about you, and while I love dancing, I'm going to wait until I get to the other side to start my dancing (and I'll have quite a few more folks to dance with, too!).

The pejorative definition of "conspiracy theorist" is one who espouses a theory with little or no credible evidence to support it.

The first rule of retail sales is put the product in the customers hands.

I can show someone copies of Operation Northwoods documents, I can give them quotes from some of the principles involved in the Tonkin Gulf fraud admitting the hoax, I can show them WTC 7 going down exactly like a textbook controlled demolition, I can show them photos of iron microspheres and thermite flakes found in the dust, I can show them Norman Minetta's testimony on YouTube, I can show them copies of documents putting Cheney in charge of all the military and government drills, but I can't show them any evidence that DEW's can bring down a building, let alone the Twin Towers. Nor can I show them anything that will convince them that thousands of people did not see the second plane hit the second tower, and frankly, it's a complete waste of my time to do so.

In my work there are standard, accepted methods for doing things, we tweak them here and there trying to increase efficiency and thus productivity, but we don't ignore the tried and true and embrace the exotic just for the heck of it. We don't wear our boots on our hands, for example.

Does a lawyer, pleading her case to the jury, make her best, most solid case in a precise manner, or does she throw out every random bit of information with no rhyme or reason?

I don't know about you, but I play to win. I play fair, but I play to win. I don't plan to start having losing seasons now.

I hope that you and yours are well and I look forward to seeing you in person sometime soon.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.