September 5, 2007
"Exposing falsehoods and revealing truths."
Dr. Barrett might benefit from the famous Wisconsin admonition:
It says "continual and fearless sifting and winnowing," not "once" and then avoid "back-and-forths" forever. Does Kevin reject the Wisconsin idea now because he feels the heat in the kitchen?
KB: "9/11 researchers have the right to be wrong."
This is a strange idea to state here. Surely we all do "have the right to be wrong" but there is a big difference between being wrong innocently and being wrong on purpose. No one has the right to promote the official story, openly or covertly, and expect to be greeted with roses. Criticism of error is always justified but criticism of truth with the intent to deceive is another matter. And no discussion? Rubbish! Attacks on evidence in order to suppress the truth cannot be greeted with equanimity. While criticism and striving to collect more data and derive correct hypotheses is the normal way to correct "wrongs," honest researchers cannot flourish if outnumbered by ops and trolls 100-to-1. All wrongs are not created equal. Many researchers, organizers and activists clearly have been planted in the conventional-controlled 9/11 truth movement to serve and protect "wrongs." Their job is to stifle and suppress the spread of improvements in our understanding of 9/11.
KB: Since I am not a scientist, and do not have the time or the training to evaluate technical arguments about video images, I am applying common sense, along with evaluations of evidence that I am qualified to understand, to this issue.
Good. Use your common sense. Science is refined common sense. If you are not a scientist, so what? Think critically about 9/11 unless you are happy getting strip-searched at the airport and being told when you can use toothpaste to brush your teeth. Any citizen can understand the lack of plane evidence, like virtually no wreckage at each site, no collision between the plane image and the south tower, no serial numbered parts recovered to identify aircraft, thin aluminum panels cannot cut through steel columns, Boeings cannot disappear through undersized and impossible cartoon-shaped holes, and so on. All any citizen need do is apply common reasoning to the claim that airliners crashed as depicted on 9/11. Seeing it on TV is not proof because everyone has seen special effects on TV. Who believes that the corporate media and their news departments are all about the truth and nothing but the truth? The media were in on 9/11 from the git-go.
On August 5th, Dr. Barrett attended Reynolds presentation, "What Planes?"
Honest study of an issue like lack-of-plane-debris removes "agnosticism" but Barrett resists mightily. Isnt this like the child who puts his head in a bucket and says, "lalalalalala, I cant hear you, cant hear you." Is conviviality and agreeableness more important than the truth? Is the youngster with his head in the bucket being convivial? Does he value his many friends and
colleagues on both sides of the issue? If he values them, truly, he would listen to their evidence and arguments. Dr. Barrett listened at the recent Madison conference. We all have a responsibility to speak the truth.
KB: it is not inconceivable that the no-planers could turn out to be right.
An objective (not political) look at the data is not all that difficult. Why is Dr. Barrett wording things in such a biased, "crack-in-the-door" fashion? The effect is to keep people from questioning the facts about planes.
KB: Yet the [Pentagon] evidence strongly suggests that a plane substitution was arranged.
"Strongly suggests" is poorly chosen language, it is not proof, instead, it is manipulative opinion. Dr. Barrett apparently believes he has done enough homework on the Pentagon incident to take position, claiming a plane went into the Pentagon but not flight 77. What evidence can he offer for this proposition? Barrett may have a plane theory but he wants to avoid questions about his theory. A responsible approach would lay it out and show the evidence on its behalf to permit "fearless sifting and winnowing." Otherwise, it is propaganda. Nearly all the reasoning and physical evidence that show it is impossible for a Boeing 757 to have put the hole in the Pentagon apply to any airplaneno plane made that hole.
KB: unlikely to be caught on amateur video and happened too fast to be clearly remembered, was evident in the Pentagon attack.
Where is this from? Thousands of tourists would have been on the mall, Arlington National Cemetery and other tourist locations in the immediate vicinity taking family pictures and videos. A large plane comes right over the White House, just misses the Washington monument and nobody takes a picture or video of it, even accidentally? Give us a break! Yet we have no amateur videos or pictures of this extraordinary Pentagon event! What does this tell us about what happened that morning? Is Kevin playing stupid?
KB: the case of the E-4B that was circling the White House around 9:30 a.m. on 9/11/01.
Where is the evidence for this event? Will Dr. Barrett believe anything the TV shows or what the Rense website tells him? Rense.com is well known as unreliable, it is even banned as a source on many 9/11 forums. The site has the testimony of two media shills, a video that looks fake and has no known photographer (it is amazing how potentially-high-dollar videos anonymously show up for free on the web).
And does that photo of a 747 shape by Linda L. Brookhart look real? It is suspect, with such a whiter-than-white underside of a four-engine jetliner, it looks photoshopped. And if Brookhart just left the old Executive Office Building, what is that office building in the photo? In any event, one data point is far too little to put any confidence in. Corroborating evidence and reasoning is needed. Can a person of Kevins maturity and experience really believe this unproven stuff while rejecting the evidence for no planes.
KB: Regarding the WTC no-planes and video-fakery controversies, I haven't seen enough evidence to be sure, nor do I think it matters very much.
This is perhaps Dr. Barretts most egregious error. The U.S. government started a holy war based on Muslim hijackers on four commercial jets. Hundreds of thousands have been murdered as a result of the plane yarns spun on 9/11, and most victims have been Muslims. After 9/11, it was hard to have a middle eastern appearance and stay safe in America.
When will Kevin see enough evidence? He need only spend 15 minutes and go frame-by-frame with any South Tower penetration flick. Then reverse it frame-by-frame. The immaculate deception is in plane view. It shows an impossible event: a plane image gliding into a steel/concrete tower, not losing a flap, panel, actuator, wing tip, tail section--nothing. The media psy-oped America, Kevin. No deep academic thought is required.
Hollow aluminum planes cannot make plane-shaped holes in buildings, even if Roadrunner can!
KB: We do know beyond a reasonable doubt that there were no suicide hijackings. The impossibility of claimed cell phone calls, the extreme improbability that guys with box-cutters could overwhelm military-trained pilots even once (much less four times),
To point to "extreme improbability" of "no suicide hijackings" is not proof. We can do lots better and must to convict the perpetrators in a criminal courtroom. The evidence and arguments for no plane crashes is powerful. There is no reason to fear the truth (unless you are a perp of course).
KB: and above all the fact that buildings were rigged with explosives
How do you know this? On the authority of Dr. Steven Earl Jones? What is your evidence for internal explosives? Why do you ignore the powerful data for DEW? As your radio guest, trial attorney Jerry Leaphart put it,
For an activist to disregard the strongest admissible evidence is troubling. We all want justice, right? Criminal convictions of the perps?
KB: and HAD to be "hit" would dictate that no human kamikaze pilots were trusted to get the job done. DEMOLITIONS PROVES [sic] NO SUICIDE HIJACKINGS.
This is a non-sequitur. Although there were no hijackings, demolitions and suicide hijackings logically could both occur because the perps want to blame
Indeed, that is exactly the psy-op the perps pulled off.
The reality of WTC demolitions does not prove that there were "NO SUICIDE HIJACKINGS." Proof of no hijackings and demolition must be developed independently. One does not imply the other.
KB: This is way beyond obvious, and yet there are a few 9/11 truth activists who still refer to "hijackings," thereby participating, however unwittingly, in the racist psy-op. (My introductory analysis of the psy op is at http://mujca.com/apocalypse.htm).
Barretts friend Steven Jones is one of the guilty parties, continually referring to the wholly-unproven hijacking stories peddled by government and major media. Why doesnt Barrett straighten Jones out on the "racist psy-op"?
KB: It was this "terror in the skies" emotional image that mesmerized the American people, linked the act to Arab-Muslims who have already been slandered as "suicidal terrorists" in the media, and provided a gripping narrative that overwhelmed "what we saw with our own eyes" - the obvious controlled demolition of the three buildings.
The destruction of the buildings was indeed highly controlled, but of course controlled does not necessarily mean conventional. There is sound insight into the psy-op here, as far Dr. Barrett goes. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. government, the military-industrial-intelligence complex, and the powers that be, especially financial, desperately needed a new enemy (and the associated money!), otherwise peace threatened to break out.
KB: claiming that terrorist-placed bombs somehow created straight-down controlled demolitions was a non-starter.
True but this shows how key the airplane magic show was: people were psy-oped into believing that plane crashes and fires led to destruction of the towers. So the plane hoax was absolutely vital no matter how Dr. Barrett wiggles, waggles and evades this centerpiece of 9/11. Of course here is the other big factor he evades: the corporate media were complicit in selling the plane hoax.
Person writing to KB: And why why [sic] haven't I seen any "amateur" video showing the south towersuddenly explode without any plane approaching? Or have they all been silenced?
KB: I cannot completely eliminate the possibility that the absence of such video could be explained by something other than the complete authenticity of the extant videos--see my first paragraphs above. Still, this is a good question.
We have something even better in the form of professional video from TV coverage the morning of 9/11 showing no plane before the south tower explodes, see Octopus 8 video
KB: This question, along with the fact that it doesn't really matter HOW the illusion of suicide hijackings was created, is why I don't take the no-plane theories seriously enough to spend a lot of time on them. I don't understand why such an ultimately unimportant issue has become so divisive, unless maybe the psy-oppers are stoking the conflict.
Wake up and smell the coffee, Kevin! Ultimately unimportant? Kevin is avoiding the issue again. Here is what is at issue: Why is the battle over the plane fraud so ferocious? Well-intended people who "don't want to go there" argue that the WTC demolitions provide plenty of evidence to prove 9/11 was an inside job, especially combined with the government's lies about the Pentagon incident. This is essentially truethese facts have no other reasonable explanation but that insiders did itand they are sufficient to begin arresting and charging principals like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.
But governments like Bush-Cheney come and go. After Bush-Cheney leave office, nothing really changes because the Invisible Government is still in power. The conspiracy runs deep and no planes takes the analysis to a new level, right into the inner sanctum. The other side makes the familiar charges that no plane advocates are kooks, divisive and spew nonsense to discredit the sensible 9/11 skeptics. It is the same psy-op technique used to discredit DEW by calling it "ray beams from space." Google that term and see who cooked it up. The media, goes the argument, can have a field day any time they wish by setting no plane proponents and opponents against each other, therefore no-crash advocates had best keep silent to preserve a united front and not confuse the public. But this admonition is superficial: "best evidence" is the right thing to do on its own and the American people are ready for the truth. The government-media-paymaster-9/11antitruther complex is not.
Here is the big picture: the blood libel that young Arabs hijacked specific flights and crashed them into U.S. landmarks fuels the war on terror, a.k.a. the world domination project. Preserving the plane fiction is the perpetrators' Maginot line. Once we breach this fortification, a complete rout will swiftly follow. The public will find out that Katie Couric, Peter Jennings, Charles Gibson and the beloved leadership of corporate media were accessories to mass murder. Media are the enforcement arm, psy-ops, of the powers-that-be, the mind control engine, the propaganda matrix. Once their deception and treasonous collaboration come into bright sunlight for all to see, an unprecedented wave of anger will be unleashed against the killers, their media mouthpieces and their paymasters. The traitors will be "drowned" and America's reinvention will begin. This explains the intensity of the no plane debate. For more, see
To pooh-pooh the no-planes issue is either flippant, irresponsible or op behavior. Repent Kevin or the world implodes! If Kevin repents, hugs and forgiveness await this nice man.
|From: Kevin Barrett <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: September 15, 2007 12:59:01 PM CDT
To: Morgan Reynolds
Subject: Re: oops, forgot the link
On Sep 15, 2007, at 11:27 AM, Morgan Reynolds wrote:
On August 5th, Dr. Barrett attended Reynolds presentation, "What Planes?"
He knows aluminum planes cannot disappear into steel/concrete towers virtually without a trace.
Actually I don't exactly "know" that. I found your presentation interesting but not conclusive. I have looked at the back-and-forth arguments on the deceleration/disappearance and am not convinced that you're right and your opponents, such as AK "kinetic energy" Dewdney, are wrong. Nor am I convinced that Dewdney's right and you're wrong. The jury is still out. If new evidence comes along, I'll consider it. Until then, I find endless back-and-forths a distraction from effective activism.
Dr. Barrett apparently believes he has done enough homework on the Pentagon incident to take position, claiming a plane went into the Pentagon but not flight 77.
No, I just deny that Flight 77 hit. It does appear that another plane at least made an approach. That would imply a substitution. What if anything hit, I don't know.
We've been over this stuff many times. I'm still not sure you're right, not sure you're wrong. Too many question marks: the physics of the crashes, the authenticity of the videos, the reason for the relative paucity of South Tower no-plane videos, the identity of the people who post the videos, etc.
Maybe we need a David Ray Griffin style thoroughly-documented cumulative no-plane argument that goes out of its way to give the other side a fair hearing, and avoids polemics and ad hominems. Your next book?
Dr. Kevin Barrett
Coordinator, MUJCA-NET: http://mujca.com
Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth
Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie
9/11 & American Empire: Christians, Jews, and Muslims Speak Out
Please look at
|To: Kevin Barrett <email@example.com>
Subject: KB, epistemological egalitarian
From: Morgan O. Reynolds
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:18:43 -0500
Dear Dr. Barrett:
My fellow Badger, I've delayed my response because it is frustrating talking to mush. I'm used to resistance or agreement, not mush. Once again, you are unresponsive regarding the content Dr. Wood and I have posed.
I'm not going to repeat our challenge. Instead, I confess I'm out of patience with your behavior. Sorry if I offend you but here is our typical conversation:
MR: Water runs downhill.
KB: That's interesting.
MR: You're not convinced of that?
KB: I'm waiting for more data. We have to leave open the possibility that water flowed uphill in nature somewhere, not just in man-made water systems.
MR: Are you deliberately being dense? OK, let's try this: the earth orbits the sun in elliptical orbits.
KB: That's an interesting proposition. It could be circles instead of ellipses. Or maybe the sun orbits the earth. That would be consistent with the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. I'm not yet convinced.
MR: You're deliberately being dense, aren't you?
KB: No I'm not. I'm being open-minded. We shouldn't rush to judgment. Let's hear everybody out.
MR: Have you heard of Johannes Kepler?
KB: Yeah, I've heard the name...back in the history of science somewhere, but I'm no scientist.
MR: What about the universal law of gravitation?
KB: As I say, I'm no scientist.
MR: Science is only refined common sense.
KB: Maybe, but I haven't seen all the data. I've read some of your stuff.
MR: Do you agree that reality is absolute and basic physical laws are constants?
KB: Well, yeah, I guess so.
And so it goes. Your schtick is "niceness" combined with philosophical skepticism, or, better labeled, agnosticism. "Fence-riding," in other words. I conclude that I cannot present enough data or validated theory to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that no plane crashed at any of the designated 9/11 sites.
Your philosophical approach is complete BS. That's how you manage to fence ride and avoid reaching inconvenient truths. I here borrow below Leonard Peikoff's critique of agnosticism to demonstrate what vapid nonsense your position is:
Epistemological destroyers! Yup, out to undermine knowledge. Undermining the ability to think and acquire reliable knowledge. Doesn't that sum up the 9/11 truth movement? Is the corrective to demand that government appoint a commission and investigate the issue?
The shoe fits, Kevin.
Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the articles posted on this webpage are distributed for their included information without profit for research and/or educational purposes only. This webpage has no affiliation whatsoever with the original sources of the articles nor are we sponsored or endorsed by any of the original sources.
© 2006-2007 Judy Wood and the author(s) above. All rights reserved.