You can find the transcript of the show here as well.
mild hit-piece. I'm sure Kevin mentioned WTC-7 on the topic of "bombs bringing down the towers", but I guess CNN would not include these remarks. (I had been under the impression that Anderson Cooper had actually done the interview w/Barrett. Kind of reminds me how Oliver North often steps in to interview Fetzer on Hannity & Colmes.)
CNN needs an hour-long special devoted to exploring the evidence that Barrett is refering to. For just about any other subject, CNN spoonfeeds information and ideas to their audience. Why not for the spectrum of 9.11 ideas?
Yeah, right. The same CNN that, on Thanksgiving night, is re-airing "In the Footsteps of Bin Laden" for the umpteenth time—basically a cartoon of a report, parroting the official story. Shame on Christiane Amanpour for stooping so low. And shame on CNN for thinking its audience will be fooled by it. I’m about to lose my dinner…
are who you see, operatives program and edit -- 911 is much MSM coverup as CIA/FBI/DOD/NSA blackops/psyops -- chief operatives most likely unkown outside their cells
Download before making assumptions.
Download movie "Loose Change"
off of any P2P network.
Download objective video footage.
A theory only holds to the degree it can be falsified. If you do not
look at this evidence, you are denying yourself the ability to learn.
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
the argument of the victims' familys being 'hurt' was also what led to the cancellation of OJ's new book "if i did it". The trouble is, these "victim familys" ever so often turn out to be corrupt, in the case of OJ they are more suspicious of being behind the murder themselves than OJ is, they are where the major money trail leads, while with 9/11 we have the Flight 11/175 'widows' promoting the government version, and as for the real victims the MSM will just speak "for them" by denying they would ever want 9/11 truth.
Did you listen to what Jon's rebuttal was?
'Triple Cross' - here's a short clip from Lance's website - peterlance.com
ALI MOHAMED WAS THE KEY
In the years leading to the 9/11 attacks, no single agent of al Qaeda was more successful in compromising the U.S. intelligence community than a former Egyptian army captain turned CIA operative, Special Forces advisor, and FBI informant named Ali Mohamed. Spying first for the Central Intelligence Agency and later the FBI, Mohamed even succeeded in penetrating the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center at Fort Bragg—while simultaneously training the cell that blew up the World Trade Center in 1993. He went on to train Osama bin Laden’s personal bodyguard, and photographed the U.S. embassy in Kenya taking the surveillance pictures bin Laden himself used to target the suicide truck bomb that killed 224 and injured thousands there in 1998.
Click here and follow O'Reilly link to see a recent interview:
"9/11 Conspiracies - Should they be taught?" That's the name of this swiftboat on Kevin Barrett and the 9/11 truth movement. What a croc. They manage to describe him as "offensive" and a "nationwide embarrassment." Go CNN. Nice work.
But seriously, kudos to the University of Wisconsin for recognizing our right to free speech. And shame on CNN and it's mass media brethren - or should I say partners in crime? A cover-up is a crime, isn't it? They must know, don't they? They were the ones that took all the footage of WTC7 coming down, didn't they?
What has happened to real investigative journalism? Why doesn't CNN investigate 9/11 themselves? Why do they give this just 4 minutes of time? Why are they discussing whether or not we should allow a professor to speak his mind and not discussing the real events of 9/11 instead? Holy shit, what a scary world we live in.
A comment to CNN and its sponsors - if you are reading this, know that I now watch CNN only because I need to know what kind of crap you are feeding the world and not because I admire your journalistic integrity. It's the same reason I occasionally tune into Fox; though they are much less subtle about they way they manipulate public opinion. CNN's lack of action on investigating the events of 9/11 - which I believe is your responsibility - and your attempts to marginalize those that do bring truth to the masses proves you too are guilty of a massive cover-up. No doubt the government "made" you do it it, right?
my impression is that for a large part the MSM being "in" on the cover-up is not so much the case, and it's more that they're all afraid to touch the topic. The only way they accept to broadcast it is by merely reporting what other's are saying "Prof. Steven Jones says...P.M. magazine says....". But to do anything close to an 'opinion' piece, even just by investigating 9/11 and being 'curious', that's what they are scared to death of.
Thanks to years of GOP officials standing behind the lie, and Bush's 'we must never tolerate conspiracy theories', coupled with 'police state' laws and increased surveillance of everyone, they've achieved a high level of intimidation.
The notion of journalists being afraid is understandable. But is it true? I suspect that we have here a monolithic performance not just of the mainstream media, but of the 'alternative' media as well. Occasionally, an interesting story did make it to the periphery of the 'alternative' zone. For example: www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm
What is notable is that what we know, and that is very little, about the specific directives of corporate media, is that it is extremely hierarchical. In the film Improbable Collapse, Michael Berger gets into the issue of whether or not the collapse of WTC7 can be shown in the MSM. We saw what happened to Steven Jones on Tucker Carlson's show--they lied to him telling him they would show the collapse and then refused to do so. Berger then describes his own experience indicating that the decision about whether or not to allow the collapse of WTC7 to be shown went straight to the VP of programming--it wasn't up to the 'journalist' doing the interview. We have all been taught that we live in the 'best of all possible worlds', a democracy, a 'free press', and so forth. But in fact we live in an extremely totalitarian, corporately owned and controlled society with the government acting as facilitator and defender of the most powerful interests. Corruption, in a sense, is a 'natural' order where the most powerful prevail, again and again.
You nailed it! In my opinion the main stream media is complicit in hijacking this country. Our politicians would not get away with the stuff they do if we had independent journalists. The individuals at the highest levels of these media conglomerates should be on trial with the treasonous politicians that facilitated the dismantling of the constitution.
I have no doubt that CNN and the other media conglomerates are infiltrated / run by our elites and our intelligence agencies. All one needs to do is watch a video clip like the above and you can see how they operate. CNN has a much more mild approach to maligning the Truth movement. As such they appeal to the spectrum of the population that doesn't need emotionally charged invectives. The CIA has studied human behavior for decades and they damn well know how to break us down into categories so that they can have a game plan for how to approach and manipulate us. Unfortunately for them they can not manipulate everyone at all times.
I urge others to do as myself and boycott the major media conglomerates. It's really not hard. Sure it's nice to see what they are feeding the rest of the population and necessary but you can do most of that these days from online. Hit em in their F'ing pockets and ditch the cable/direct TV. It's surprisingly easy and you don't waste life watching commercials!
"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)
OIL IS OBSOLETE - WAKE UP - YOU'VE BEEN LIED TO, AGAIN!
I thought he did a great job despite CNN's obvious negative framing, hardly gave them anything to work with, really good.
Well, to play Devil's Advocate, one has to wonder whether or not Barrett should agree to such an interview when this product is the outcome. How many people are going to take Barrett's side? They purposefully set out to make him look like a nut and someone who should be fired. The purposfully made the politician calling for his removal to look like a rational human being concerned about curriculum. Never in the MSM has 9/11 skepticism been given a fair shake, so why should anyone be sympathetic to Barrett? His views were not given enough elaboration to make sense. That's the bottom line. It was hit piece and that is its impact on the average person.
I think it is worth questioning whether this does any good, say, for the 9/11 call for a new investigation? Does it help? How?
Obviously, CNN's goal is to bury 9/11 as an issue and dispose of the critics. That was there purpose and THEY had the final edit on the piece.
I like Kevin Barrett, but he, more than anyone besides maybe Fetzer, has attempted to play the MSM game and it is a rather dicey gamble. At some point, I hope Barrett and/or Fetzer will write an article about their decision to, in a sense, 'get spit on' in public, why they have chosen this path, how they see this strategy.
I suspect that "any coverage is good coverage" is NOT true, but a simplistic truism. After awhile, those who repeatedly "allow themselves to be spit on" will have that as their crown of thorns, their public persona.
Has anyone attempted to do a public poll to gauge the popular perception of Barrett or Fetzer?
Don't get me wrong, they're both heros in a way, I'm just asking if their MSM gambit is working, if anyone is attempting to measure the effect, and carefully consider such actions in the future?
"His views were not given enough elaboration to make sense. That's the bottom line. It was hit piece and that is its impact on the average person." -Anon.
The problem is not that his views were not given enough elaboration. The problem is his views themselves. Barrett's theme is that "the US government" orchestrated the attacks. That is absurd. The government did not have the means, the motive or a precedent of carrying out such a precise, secretive attack. Our federal government isn't capable of such an operation, and the people know it. Therefore to accuse "the government of being behind the attacks is counterproductive to 9/11 Truth. Perhaps that's why those who spout this line, like Barrett and Fetzer, are given so much play on the mainstream media.
The 9/11 attacks were carried out by a party with the means, the motive, and a long, infamous tradition of such actions in the past. It was indeed a state-sponsored attack, and that state was Israel. It was Israel that attacked the USS Liberty in 1967, murdering 34 American sailors. When they got caught red-handed, but suffered zero negative consequences, they decided to come back for more. It was Israeli commandos who hijacked the four planes. That's why we will never see video footage of the "Arabs" boarding the planes: the "Arabs" were actually dark-skinned Israelis who had assumed the stolen identities of the Arab patsies, and the Israeli-owned security company that controlled security at the three airports has made sure that the video has been destroyed-- if it was ever made in the first place.
Israelis committing a terrorist act while disguised as Arabs-- this has been a Zionist technique since at least 1946 when Menachem Begin and his Irgun gang planted bombs in the King David Hotel, killing 91 persons. And likewise it was Israelis in Arab garb dancing in front of the burning towers-- they were meant to be mistaken for Arabs, to fool the American people and thus enrage them against all things Muslim.
It was Israeli commandos who hijacked the planes, and likewise it was Zionist operatives who planted the explosives in the WTC buildings. They most likely gained access while owner Larry Silverstein agreed to be looking the other way.
It was Israel who did this false flag operation. It worked like a charm for them. They got the Americans to smash Saddam for them. They got the green light to smash the Palestinians, then the Lebanese as we saw this summer. Control of the whole Middle East, and its oil, is now within their grasp.
And the US government, what was its role? It got to sit by passively as the coverup was carried out by a few neocon moles in the Bush administration. The FBI, the FAA, the military-- all carried out their orders blindly, like the good soldiers they are. That was the role of "us" in this whole thing, and that's something any group of idiots can do.
If true (what's inside that posting) it's more likely Israeli operatives were specialist mercenaries, taking orders from a stateside rogue network -- those in control of US security codes -- codes that allowed them to orchestrate the security stripping of Air Force One (45 min. out of Sarasota without fighter support) -- codes revealed along with the "Angle is Next" threat -- codes making it a viable threat and causing Bush to fly to Offutt Air Force Base to take control in person of the US nuclear arsenal.
If Israeli operatives were involved, their role was minor. Israel serves as a local "cop on the beat," as per the Nixon Doctrine, and indeed, an integral part of the U.S. military-intelligence complex in the Middle East. As for his: "Control of the whole Middle East, and its oil, is now within their grasp." That's something Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya and their friends in Russia and China may like to discuss -- well, let's hope they're willing to "discuss" it. The notion that Jerusalem gives Washington it's marching orders betrays some other agenda. Actually Wall Street, as a symbolically geographical seat of power, really gives the orders, in consultation, of course, with the City of London.
"The notion that Jerusalem gives Washington it's marching orders betrays some other agenda." -blog dog
Ask anyone in Washington-- off the record, of course-- who calls the shots. They will tell you the Israeli lobby controls Washington policy, or at least the MidEast foreign policy aspect of it.
And ask yourself this: when was the last time Jerusalem didn't get what it wanted from Washington? The last time a major American politician stood up to Israel on a major policy issue was 1962, when JFK refused to give them the go-ahead on building their own nukes. We all know how that one turned out: Kennedy took the bullets to the head and Israel got their nukes. The precedent was set and continues to this day.
andrewkornkven, it sounds like you're saying Kennedy had no more ruthless enemies than those who ran Israel in the 60s, and ever since they killed him, Israeli operatives have had a gun to the head of everyone in Washington, so to speak.
I hold no sympathy for Zionists, and neither do I stand in awe of their prowess. Your previous posting suggested they came out ahead in the recent fighting in Lebanon. Many others claim it was a debacle. They killed more civilians, but failed in their mission and overall it has shaken their image as a warrior state and the confidence of their soldiers and population. Sorry, but I really can't help but sensse some more personal agenda in your position.
No, they did not fail in their mission. And they do not need to be a warrior state anymore with the US military willing to do their fighting for them. They succeeded in their goal for Lebanon-- to shatter its infrastructure, to depopulate the southern area, and to turn Lebanon into a failed state easily controlled by them. The same is their goal for Iraq, and they have succeeded there too, thanks to the 9/11 lie, and American blood and treasure.
I have no personal agenda other than to call attention to the diproportionate power wielded by Israel/Zionists in the government of my country. The most grotesque symbol of that power is the 9/11 attacks, which were conceived, orchestrated and carried out by Israel and its Zionist allies in the US.
I have to disagree that Israel/Zionists ran the show on 9/11. I will fully agree that they played a part. I don't think that there is any evidence as of yet proving beyond a shadow of a doubt claims such as Israeli operatives hijacked the planes. I think you need to realize that the way the power heirarchies are structured throughout the world Zionists are not alone at the top except for Israel(probably). 9/11 more than likely involved these powerful interests at the top in several countries. Back up a little bit and take a look at other elites because I think it's highly improbable that the Zionists are the sole elites who performed 9/11.
I have to admit that I cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Israeli operatives hijacked the planes. An analysis of the phone calls (http://www.911blogger.com/node/4190) made from the planes shows conclusively that they were indeed hijacked by somebody. That somebody made every effort to pass themselves off as savage Arabs. Meanwhile the whole attack demonstrated a level of sophistication that Arabs, savage or not, are not capable of.
Now ask yourself, which "elite" has a history of carrying out sophisticated false-flag attacks in which Arabs are implicated? Wall Street? The City of London? The Pope? I don't think so.
They edited the hell out of the clip. There were a couple of times where the reporter asked him something and he started to respond and they cut it out and voiced over him his claims but in a modified form to sound less convincing.
A few days ago, this item with Kevin Barrett was also broadcast around the globe in CNN International's "Today" show. (I happened to see it last night in Amsterdam, Holland).
PS: here are a couple more videos that could perhaps be added on 911blogger:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7076645552548284231 (Dutch tv interview with David Ray Griffin in Amsterdam)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3827383890990988216 (Dutch tv interview with Michael Meacher and Andreas von Bülow - unedited versions)
(See also the other videos in the list under "User".)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7983456992913081117 (interview with Andreas von Bülow at 9/11 truth conference in Utrecht, Holland, 16 September 2006)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7194757264118955440 (speech of Rick Siegel at 9/11 truth conference in Utrecht, Holland)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=772841113172147868 (interview with Rick Siegel at 9/11 truth conference in Utrecht, Holland)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3576574309862887728 (speech of Andreas von Bülow at 9/11 truth conference in Utrecht, Holland. Although the video is kinda shaky, the actual content is excellent.)
Thanks for posting these.
The key to remember in all these interviews is this: the messenger of truth need not defend himself from the onslaught of character assassination. He just needs to proclaim the truth. Kevin did that, calmly and rationally. And he challenged the audience to examine the readily available evidence.
I say this interview is a win for the truth movement. Thank you CNN for helping to advance our cause around the world.
Two Thumbs Up Kevin!
I agree wholeheartedly that Kevin was a model representative of the truth movement. And no doubt, should CNN ever give him an hour of time to present his case to the world, shit would really start hitting the fan.
But that won't happen.
Do you really think CNN is helping advance our cause? If anything, that was another attempt to frame the truth movement as unpatriotic and slap in the face of the victims families. They also referred to Barrett's plea to look at the real evidence as "crackpot stuff".
CNN, Fox, CBS, ABC, NBC all hold themselves out as news organizations. I don't see it that way at all. They are simply propagandists reporting what they are told. Either they want it that way or they have been told what to do.
Terror sells ads. Peace does not. Terror creates war profiteering. Peace does not.
Yes, we got covered in a 4 minute slot. No it didn't mean a thing. And no, CNN was just covering the story of Barrett and not the evidence itself.
No, CNN is not helping advance the cause. They are trying to frame it as the President wants - a wild conspiracy theory.
Was the interview a win for the truth movement? I guess that depends on which side of this argument you were already on. I don't think it will change any minds - that's probably what they wanted anyway.
4 minutes. 4 minutes to discuss the issue of free speech and what really happened on 9/11. Wonder how much time they gave to Kramer and OJ this week?
They should do better. Much, much, better.
No, it wasn't a win. Someone needs to throw a penalty flag on the field and stop this mad play.
The problem is they had the words CONSPIRACY THEORY on the bottom right corner of the screen during the entire story, as if to say "this guy is a wack job".
It was clear what they were trying to do.
I just wish most people could see through this kind of childish idiocy, akin to O'reilly calling a guest names to try to "win" the argument. Unfortunately, many americans buy into these tactics and believe CNN or Fox or whatever stooge network hacks are reporting the story.
Kevin mentions in the clip that he has a blog. Where is the Kevin Barrett blog? I would like to add it to my blogroll and read it every day.
and you can get on his mailing list and get the posts as they go up--about once a week. Kevin is awesome!
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
It's a shame they didn't mention the millions of people who suspect the government of criminal activity or collusion.
Or the many resources available to backup claims and theories.
Sites like this one, http://www.911truth.org and http://www.mime11.com have plenty of eye opening information.
Still, it's good they are backing him for the RIGHT reasons as opposed to backing down for the WRONG reasons.
i don't like either of those sites... espeically 911truth.org, it's so hard to find FREE information. the other site is well designed, but only uses videos that you can't download or make fullscreen. it's way nicer to watch them in google video. we need to start supporting http://www.truth911.net
that site is far and away the best for spreading the truth to new people.
Strange thing to say about Fellow 911 Truth Movement sites.
How can sites suck if they inform people for the movement? I suspect you are involved with your quoted site in some way maybe. Either way - to knock other popular and established sites is counter productive and maybe you should rethink your priorities.
Personally - I tip my hat to all of the sites that inform, support and educate the movement. It's a team thing...
i'm all for 9/11 truth sites.. .but when we decide to promote certain sites, we should pick the best one. i just like truth911.net because it is better than those sites. so it's not so much a critism of the sites, since it is really hard to make a good site, it was more a critism of your choice of sites to send people. everyone always recomends 911truth.org, but if everyone starts recomending truth911.net, the truth would spread like wildfire.
This thread raises a very important issue: Which sites are trustworthy and which are (possibly) disinformation?
I’ve been in this movement for a few months now, but it seems as soon as I start relying on a favorite (like Scholars for 911 Truth), I read somewhere else that it’s been infiltrated and laced with disinfo… and the arguments seem fairly credible.
Just as an example, look at the analysis done by “911review.COM” about the original “911review.ORG” site: http://911review.com/911review/index.html
Why does 911blogger list the former but not the latter in the index at left? (911review.org, now under “new moderation,” acknowledges no-planer Nico Haupt for some of the content.)
A WHOIS search shows 911review.com (created on 2/12/04) registered to a real person in MA, but 911review.org (created earlier, on 9/15/03) is cagey, registered to “Admin Admin.” Is .com’s attack of .org legit, or just jealousy and nitpicking?
And what about Fintan Dunne, that self-appointed critic of practically every other 9/11 site except his own?:
Is all of this a necessary evil, given the openness of the Internet, or is there some way to gauge the reliability of certain sites? Some kind of 9/11 Pledge of Purity? A “Good Truthseeking” Seal of Approval?
Any advice from the 9/11 truth vets out there?
use your own critical thinking.
I now own 911review.org.
The Domain was originally owned by Kee Dewdney, and the site was created by Mike Elliot with the help of a lot of people including me, and Nico Haupt
(who contributed the 911 encyclopedia)
Since i liked the site as a whole i decided to keep it the way it was, but adding content and remarks where i thought appropriate.
911review.COM was created with the sole intent of discrediting 911review.org.
It takes the "look and feel" of the page as well.
I personally think something hit the twin towers, but maybe not the flights that we were told, but i do think that some of the videos may have been altered.
(Theres other reasons to alter a video, than to add a plane)
i dont call myself a no-planer.
911Review.Com is run by
Jim Hoffman who works for MSRI
MSRI's top client is the NSA.
I do not, and never have worked for any government agency.
I worked as a cell phone engineer for may years, and thats what brought me to 9/11. I knew those calls were not possible. (at least not from a plane at 35,000 ft)
Cell phones and 9/11: an engineering perspective
911review.org + cell phones
Kee Dewdney contacted me about this in 2002, since then i have been a member of physics911.net, an associate member of Scholars for Truth, and member of the Science and Justice alliance, Team8plus, and other groups
I left the domain name as it was, because i didnt want some idiot tracking me down.
(which has already happned incidentally)
Someone at RANDI.ORG posted my personal address, my full name and a picture of my house, and told people to come and knock on my door.
For more on Hoffman see...
Anthrax Attacks + Jim Hoffman
Dont just think outside the box.
Think like there never was one.
well... it's nice to hear some people like my site... .though i don't think that those other sites "suck", i do agree that some sites seem to be angled towards profits rather than truth. in terms of which sites you can trust, i would like to offer that my site is, and always will be trustworthy. The reason for this, is that i created this site totally by myself and i control 100% of what goes on there. i paid a friend from high school to do the design work of designing the site, making the poster, flash intro, etc. So i do my best to put up all the information i can find, and i do my best to evaluate what information is valid, and what is disinfo. So, i don't have a team of people like some other sites, so i wont be infultrated.
I'm of a different school, where no advertising is bad advertising. With that firmly in mind, I give no creedence to Fintan's unfounded opinions, or Lisa and what's his name's absurd, "but we're not disinfo," -whinney rebuttals. As entertainment; 'tis like watching the final rehersal for a high school Shakesperian play, -six simple words and you've pretty much gotten the jist of opening night!
And, as the in-fighting originally broke-out, I chose to lay back and watch, offering consolations to those in dire emotional need, rather than push their hot-buttons unnecessarily. Soon, the 'movement' attained a much broader acceptance, as did the sheer number of folks professing 'truth' in their domain titles. Most remarkably, the Media has also played on the heels of that wave, incriminating themselves by incessantly calling us all conspiracy 'theorists.' Now, "Truth" once again became, not absolute, but somewhat subjective. Vis-a-vie; 'Peak' -dollar deception. Again, traditional Media, YOU LOOSE!, as YouTube picks up huge market share, and all of the '911T-ORG/s' did too.
Thankfully, 'blogger' provides all the bricks & mortar I need.
Those who are the -most- dubious of Jones, et. all, today, simply don't have a firm handle on the intrinsic process of science, as we see Steven attempting to initiate his audience to the process here. (One thread earlier.) And, they shall remain dubious right up to the point where they have placed their own forefinger into that bunsen-burner -flame. But, whatever the case, the only real 'opinion' that matters now, will ultimately come from the Judicial Bench...
Most likely it will require a 'market-crash' before it dawns on the American public; that running from the truth is a sure-fire course towards living Hell.
Here's the technique's I tend to use. Base your judgements off of the articles you read not the sites. Once you have read an article make a decision on how frequently the individuals provide information with sources versus claims appealing to authority and emotions. If you catch someone in the act of appealing to emotions then you need to make note of who they were. You can then rank individuals on their reliability in terms of logical arguements. Sometimes you'll find yourself disagreeing with someone you normally agree with, that's ok, it's normal to have differences in opinion. But don't waste your time on individuals who use propaganda techniques.
If you want to be spoon fed then go back to watching TV.
For the 9/11 truth movement to pick up speed and to reach a broader audience, it needs to reframe the discussion by using some key words and phrases:
Instead of taking comfort to the "conspiracy theory," that is often pinned on us, we need to start rejecting that term in favor of the "scientific theory."
Barrett mentioned the evidence. Anytime someone calls you a nut job, mention the evidence, mention it again, mention it again. If they deny it, ask these accusers and nay-sayers if the 9/11 Commission Report was based on scientific theory or political theory. If they argue this point, back it up with the fact that the 9/11 Commission concluded the investigation prematurely without looking or analyzing all the evidence. Therefore, it was a political theory that drove the commission and not a scientific one. From there, you can add the more important points that shows deliberate contempt for science such as the destruction of evidence which was the case with the steel shipped overseas and the omission of video and audio evidence which is still kept from the public eye. Why? You can ask rhetorically, what would they have to hide? You can also toss in that no one was fired as a result of 9/11 but some were actually promoted or honored.
Try to see it from their point of view. It may seem obvious to some of you now. But for some (myself included) I didn't always understand the truth and was offended when it was proposed like this. But we can detach our emotional bias by looking again at the facts and the evidence. They free us from that knee-jerk emotional anger we have when such "crazy" theories are proposed. Also, the art of compassion will help you gain a sympathetic ear, especially to conservative voices which scathingly distrusted Clinton. Ask, historically speaking, can governments be trusted? Are there examples where we have government deceiving the public? (use nazis, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.)
Then ask, what about our own government? JFK? Iran Contra? If they refute these or the ones you chose, then remind them that our country was founded on the principles of questioning authority. The Constitution deliberately requires it, and so on. Explain that if we all followed orders prior to 1776, where would be today?
If this doesn't work, try this analogy - Are there people out there who abuse their own spouses or children? Is this not the most awful crime imaginable? Essentially, this is what 9/11 is. It's like finding out Dad is cheating on mom, or beating her, or secretly abusing his own child. In many cases, members of the family will cover it up and deny its existence. WHy? because their own security is threatened. They wouldn't want it to leak out to the public. They will pretend it doesn't exist. The truth is sometimes hard to face. This should be emphasized. The truth of 9/11 is quite painful and isn't so easy. Getting in the face of someone who disagrees with you is only going to generate more hostility.
If this doesn't work. Then give that person space and pray for them. Never underestimate the power of prayer.
Frame it as science, as facts, as truth, and as possibilty. If we frame it with "conspiracy" or anger or hate or evil, then we are becoming like them. By them, I mean those responsible for 9/11. It is divisive and is intended to do this. They thrive on us vs. them thinking. Their sustenance comes from the dem vs. repub dichotomy which is only meant to distract us from the other possibilities.
In time, the truth will prevail. It's happening more and more each day. Never relent. Think how frustrated MLK must have been when he was arrested and hosed down. Think about Ghandi as he witnessed his fellow citizens shot to death. Patience, acceptance, and determination are what we have to work for us.
Make your efforts for the truth constructive.
That sounds like a familiar voice. I like the way you said that, Rob. Two addtl. points for NY! I wish I had this propensity to play 'big brother' to the uninformed, as I feel that's what makes Robert Bauman such a natural leader.
Thanks for the reply. I was really hoping that my words would not be misconstrued as pedantic or "big-brother" - ish. Perhaps my initial points and observations were made from my own histrocial experience and "evolution" into accepting the truths discussed in this forum.
A quick anecdote - shortly after college, I shared a house with some people. One of my roomates was a passionate bookworm when it came to alternate political theories and CIA stories, etc. There were many nights when we'd sit around and BS about whatever. The range of political beliefs was wide. So his, being quite radical, stood out. Back in the late 1990's he warned us about FEMA and the threat to the COnstitution. He warned us about false flag ops and martial law. We laughed. He couldn't convince us. Looking back, he was right.
But had he approached us with a tone that was more hospitable and humble, and not preachy, we may have been more inclined to read at least one of the books he often cited.
So, what I say is that 9/11 Truthers will have more success if they appraoch people in this manner. PAtience, acceptance, space, humility... these are the effortless tools which will win over more listeners.
Peace and thank you all for the work and contstructive dialogue.
Every effort has to be made not just to frame the debate properly, but also to make clear that we fight for truth because we want peace and justice to prevail, for everyone. For me personally this means for example that when I shine the light of truth on a country like Israel I make it clear to the haters out there that I am not on their side. I make it clear that you cannot hold all people of a certain background responsible for the actions of their corrupt representatives. This is what I hope for as an American and something I guarantee to every Israeli or Jewish person outside of Israel who may question my motives. We all either live together or die divided. There are many people in the world of all backgrounds who want the killing and lies to end. I am one of those, period. The reconciliation among peoples is impossible, however, when liars dominate the discussion. Part of growing into a major force is being welcoming to everyone without compromising our standards for truth and free inquiry. I would rather die having failed at doing the right thing than live and compromise with liars. We've reached a critical point in the world's history where I believe only a full reckoning and accounting is going to enable us to veer off the path of destruction. A radical view? Maybe, but we are so far off course these days it would seem to be in order. But never, never, never, can we lose sight of why we struggle, which is to end the scourge of racism, corruption, lies, and violence that now hold so much sway over the uninformed. Giving up is not an option.
"Most people I dont think believe that those buildings came down because explosives were planted in them"
"and thats because most people havent looked at the evidence"
The Truth Movement needs to start recognizing and publicizing the fact that the numbers are with us. Most people DO believe that we're being lied to and that is a perfect time to bring up statistics like that
VAB, interesting you should mention Utrecht. I know thousands of folks who are hip to Amsterdam, none who know Utrecht, or Eindhoven, as places best covered in architecture & planning magazines. Sadly, Eindhoven was flattened by the US Military planners (vis-a-vie, Team Prescott Bush) to pave the way for an entirely new city, -end-to-end. Then, it was re-built by Skidmore Owings & Merrill, ostensably as a sort of outpost for our ongoing covert military support for your Queen. Culturally, both resemble Boulder Colorado, at least in print.
Please tell us more about the Dutch people's impressions of the current amalgamation of interests forcing us toward this New World Order.
I'm interested in what's the real story between the BushCo/Blair group, and the powers behind control of the EU? Others here will be eager to know simple stats about the general percentage of 911-MIHOP beliefs.
It seems the islamo-fascist dirtbags that run this site think that by banning me they can stifle the TRUTH.
Try again, tin foil rag-heads.
But it may be a little over the top. If I'm getting your groove correctly Ez, you want to create ineterest in 9/11 truth by associating its opposite with outrageous conspiracy theories about Islamofascism, combined with childish tin foil references in lieu of confronting the facts that are stacked against them. Why we did not think of this tactic before--our own false flag posts designed to discredit our opposition I cannot say. But now that you've honed the art, it's time to leave the sandbox of 911blogger and go out onto forums full of disbelievers to spew your well-crafted faux-rhetoric. Godspeed, and thanks for taking it to the next level for us!!
Beat them with their own weapons.
They are probably not as trained yet in detecting false-flag posts as we are...
Do I hear you suggesting the Ez may really be Fintan Dunne?...nicely done...
CNN crappy attempt to stifle or confuse. CNN must have mentioned that Barrett was teaching and preaching 911 Truth 10 ten times when in fact he is not teaching it in his class. If he had been he would have been fired in a minute. Yet still CNN poured it on. I feel sorry for sheeple.
9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out on C-SPAN2
Today, Friday @ 4:00 pm EST
Tomorrow, Saturday @ 3:30 am EST & again @ 10:00 pm EST
The two previous C-Span 9/11 truth broadcasts were a HUGE factor in taking 9/11 truth from the margins to the mainstream
William Blum, auther of Killing Hope about CIA US mil interventions wrote:
The case that is still not closed
I have closely followed and often written about the case of PanAm Flight 103, blown out of the sky by a terrorist bomb over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, taking the lives of 270 people. For well over a year afterward, the US and the UK insisted that Iran, Syria, and a Palestinian group had been behind the bombing, until the buildup to the Gulf War came along in 1990 and the support of Iran and Syria was desired for the operation. Suddenly, in October 1990, the US declared that it was Libya -- the Arab state least supportive of the US build-up to the Gulf War and the sanctions imposed against Iraq -- that was behind the bombing after all.
Eventually, in 2001, a Libyan, Abdelbaset al Megrahi, was sentenced to life in prison for the crime, although his Libyan co-defendant, charged with the same crime and with the same evidence, was acquitted. The trial was the proverbial travesty of justice, which I've discussed in detail elsewhere. ("I am absolutely astounded, astonished," said the Scottish law professor who was the architect of the trial. "I was extremely reluctant to believe that any Scottish judge would convict anyone, even a Libyan, on the basis of such evidence.") The prosecution's star witness, Libyan defector Abdul Majid Giaka, groomed and presented by the CIA, was a thoroughly dubious character who didn't know much or have access to much, and who pretended to be otherwise just to get more CIA payments. And the CIA knew it. The Agency refused to fully declassify documents about him, using their standard excuse -- that it would reveal confidential sources and methods. It turned out they were reluctant because the documents showed that the CIA thought him unreliable.
Then, in 2005, we learned that a key piece of evidence linking Libya to the crime had been planted by the CIA. Just like in movie thrillers. Just like in conspiracy theories.
For anyone still in doubt about the farcical nature of the trial, now comes along Michael Scharf, an attorney who worked on the 103 case at the State Department and was the counsel to the counter-terrorism bureau when the two Libyans were indicted for the bombing. In the past year he trained judges and prosecutors in Iraq in the case that led to the conviction and death sentence of Saddam Hussein. Scharf recently stated that the Panam case "was largely based on this inside guy [Giaka]. It wasn't until the trial that I learned this guy was a nut-job and that the CIA had absolutely no confidence in him and that they knew he was a liar. It was a case that was so full of holes it was like Swiss cheese." He says that the case had a "diplomatic rather than a purely legal goal".
Victor Ostrovsky, formerly with the Israeli intelligence service, Mossad, has written of Mossad what one could just as correctly say of the CIA: "This feeling that you can do anything you want to whomever you want for as long as you want because you have the power."
So, let's hope that Abdelbaset al Megrahi is really guilty. It would be a terrible shame if he spends the rest of his life in prison simply because back in 1990 Washington's hegemonic plans for the Middle East needed a convenient scapegoat, which just happened to be his country. However, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is to report in the coming months on whether it believes there was a miscarriage of justice in the case.
And by the way, my usual reminder, Libya has never confessed to having carried out the act. They've only taken "responsibility", in the hope of getting various sanctions against them lifted.
I found this comment amusing and hypocritical:
'OPPENHEIM: But a description he wrote under his department photo suggests something not so benign. It reads, he enjoys gardening, music, and bringing down fascist regimes in his spare time. '
Nowits amusing that Barret should be damned for doing what the US has been doing, and CNN hasnteen calling it 'not so benign' : that is REGIME CHANGE...
Why is Barrets advocacy of regime change so disturbing? can it be that its ok to bring down other regimes but not the Bush neocon regime? This is an eg of how hypocritical, defensive and stupid the american defendes of the Bus govt are. Maybe someone should point this out to Oppenheim!
Yes, that was amazing. It's as if they knew that comment would go right over the heads of the audience (as I'm sure it did).
"How dare he try to bring down Fascist regimes... whatever they are... Not only is he a crackpot Islamist, he's anti-Fascist" : ) I suppose the first problem is assuming Joe Sixpack knows what a Fascist it, other than Bush's definition, which probably translates as "Muslim".
In regards to this movement, I'm sorry to say - if I may paraphrase Bender from Futurama, "We're boned." Kevin Barrett may be sincere - but the perps own the media, and they only let people through who have baggage. I can't think of more critical baggage to the average Joe than Barrett being a "teacher of Islam." I'm sure he gets 4,000 hate mails a day.
They are controlling this movement, and have been for a while.
Interesting propaganda angle CNN managed to work into this piece.
Beginning at 40 seconds in, anchor tells of Barrett's course, Intro to Islam, then cuts to Barrett who's heard saying,
"The message of Islam is, you absolutely have to submit."
Then they cut back to CNN anchor voice over. Interesting choice of sound bites by CNN, yes?
I think the major papers and channels are all aware that it 9/11 probably was an inside job. My question -my challenge for them all is this: Are you going to be the one who breaks it? Obviously, everyone will talk about how "bloggers" uncovered the truth years ago. But which mainstream source is going to get credit for taking the plunge? I think I might start a campaign to start prodding the news on this. It's not the truth that's important to them, it's getting the story. And this is the biggest story. Ever.
Get on this people!
This clip is awesome - is it availible elsewhere on web?
I just saw the Washington Journal call-in callers on the topic of the Moussaui trial, and it was awesome with the number of callers calling in and telling the truth about 9/11.
I just saw it at
Which is difficult to use - The clip is under "Videos" ("Documentaries and Videos Intros / Clips") clip number 6.
I would like to know if anyone knows if the same clip can be found anywhere else on the web such as You Tube, Google Video, or for download - anywhere else, that is.
Please let me know if you can find it elsewhere. Thank you
What makes me outrage is this. They use the family members of the victims of 9/11 to counter attack people like Kevin Barrett that wants to know what happen on 9/11. But if the rescue worker at ground zero. Are sick and dieing well you notice Fox News And CNN dont cover that now. Why would the EPA and the White House lie to us about any matter concerning any event about 9/11. It is like the mothers and fathers that lost sons and daughters in iraq already. Dont question 9/11 or the reason why we are in iraq. Because you might outrage The real nuts CNN Fox ect. What is outrageous is the lies force on the american people. And if the american people catch on to the Neo-Cons Goons. We are the nutty ones. You think CNN-Fox or any other news network care for the families about the events of 9/11 or the sons and daughter lost in iraq nope they dont. 3,000 and counting on 9/11 over 2.500 in iraq and more counting with that war. Nobody dose death better then the US Government.