If you like this blog

Don't miss Kevin Barrett's radio shows! And visit TruthJihad.com for more...

Thursday, December 30, 2010

Where will it end?


How will we know when the "war on terror" is over?

How could the folks who storyboarded 9/11 and the "war on terror" possibly storyboard their way out of it? How can you end a war against an abstract noun?

Here's how some previous wars ended.

Can you imagine a "war is over" scenario for the so-called "war on terror"?  If not, it will go on forever, so better start imagining! As John and Yoko said, "war is over if you want it."

Al Qaeda Surrenders

"We're Giving Up On Humanity"

Obama: Long National "War On Terror" Nightmare Is Finally Over

Not Everyone Happy With Bin Laden's Decision to Leave Terrorism for Reality TV

Bat Guano Cave, Northwest Frontier Province, Pakistan

January 1, 2011

At exactly 9:11 a.m. this morning, America's longest war came to an end as Osama Bin Laden, or someone who looks a little bit like him, announced al-Qaeda's unconditional surrender to allied forces. "In the name of God the merciful and compassionate, I am here to say that al-Qaeda is hereby dissolved and the jihad against America and Israel is ended," Bin Laden intoned to the awestruck gasps and ululations of onlookers.

In his concession speech, Bin Laden stated that al-Qaeda's leadership decided to surrender for personal as well as political reasons. "Sure, the Zionists and their American lackeys are evil," Bin Laden said. "But, as the great TV philosopher Homer Simpson put it: 'DOH! What're ya gonna do?'" Bin Laden explained that he had been watching Simpsons re-runs while confined to his cave, and that after doing a lot of thinking, he and other top-ranking al-Qaeda members were "giving up on humanity." He added that being a world-famous terrorist leader forced to live in a cave for nine years hooked to a dialysis machine "isn't all it's cracked up to be."

The surprise announcement drew a mixed response from world opinion. In Washington, Barack Obama called a press conference announcing that "Our long national 'war on terror' nightmare is finally over," and asking Bin Laden to give half the profits from his new reality TV show to terror victims' families. Obama also announced that since he could no longer think of any reason to continue the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq other than oil and gas, pipelines, drug money, Zionism, permanent US bases, and the thrill of killing millions of innocent people for the hell of it, he would be sending an additional 200,000 troops to those war zones before preparations for withdrawal are scheduled to begin in the late 2030's.

Ordinary Americans reacted to the surprise announcement with mixed feelings. "Sure it's a big relief not having to worry about getting blown up by al-Qaeda every time I visit my hairdresser. But now who's going to want to look at my naked body and grope me when I fly?" said Phyllis Flintstoogle, 58, of Lubbock, Texas. Her husband, Philip Flintstoogle, 72, added that he had actually sort of enjoyed worrying about being blown up by al-Qaeda. "To be perfectly honest, I'm going to miss them," Flintstoogle stated. "I'm not quite sure what to do with myself without them."

"I'm glad to see we've finally smoked Bin Laden out of his cave," said Sgt. Schmook Nicklewit of the Northeast Western Reserve Forces of the South 3449th Regiment of the Applesoosa (FL) National Guard. "But how do we know that he's going to stick with reality TV and never relapse into terrorism? I think he should be microchipped so he'll never again be able to disappear into a cave with a dialysis machine and watch Simpsons reruns for nine years."

Ironically, Sgt. Nicklewit's worst fears may be realized. Bin Laden claimed in his speech that his new reality TV show, Osama's Cave, would be even bigger than any of al-Qaeda's previous critically-acclaimed terror spectaculars. "Think of it: Seven ordinary Americans, flown into the wilds of the Northwest Frontier Province and taken into my cave, where they are forced to sit with me watching Simpsons reruns and changing my catheter. After a few days or weeks of this, they start to break down; one by one, they lose it and run screaming from the cave, only to be mowed down by machine-gun-wielding Pashtun tribesmen. Which American will be able to hold out the longest and win valuable prizes?"

Award-winning scriptwriter Philip Zelikow, whose made-for-TV credits include "9/11: Attack on America," said he doubted that Osama's Cave would draw the huge audiences achieved by previous al-Qaeda-attributed spectaculars. "I've been writing this guy's scripts for years, and let me tell you, this 'cave' thing just isn't right for him. Plato, sure - Plato could make a cave interesting. But Osama? Give me a break. He needs planes into buildings, buildings blowing up, mythical cell phone calls from Solicitor General's wives aboard allegedly hijacked airplanes. Put him in a cave on dialysis, throw in seven average Americans, and what do you get? Sheer tedium. I predict it won't finish its first season."

The millions of people killed during the nine-and-one-half year "war on terror" could not be reached for comment.

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Poker Face: The sound of the New World Order going up in flames

Pokerface will join me for a special two-hour interview Saturday, January 8th, 2011, 5-7 pm Central, on http://www.AmericanFreedomRadio.com   Keep an eye on my radio schedule for more details.

I grew up listening to revolutionary rock n' roll. As I came of age in the late 70s, I still thought the MC5's Kick Out the Jams had enough power to bring down the Trilateralists, who were busy putting an end to the "excess of democracy" that made the 1960s so interesting.

Somewhere along the way the music stopped believing it could change anything. And I stopped listening. Well, not completely. But I started paying less and less attention to rock n' roll, and more to blues and jazz and classical and hip-hop and qawali and electronica and world and folk and just about every other style that was out there...without being especially obsessed with any of them. Since the demise of revolutionary rock n' roll, the only sounds that have really changed my life are recitations of Qur'an. (Get hold of a copy of Michael Sells' Approaching the Qur'an, read it, listen to the enclosed CD, and see if your life doesn't change too.)

Anyway...today, I am proud to announce the rebirth of revolutionary rock n' roll. I have seen its future, and the name is Poker Face.

Poker Face is Paul Topete, Dennis Beidler, and Brett Griffiths. These guys kick out the jams and take no prisoners as they rock the revolution.  But even though they rock harder for marijuana freedom than anybody, this isn't the misguided (and partly satanically-inspired) 60's style do-whatever-feels-good revolution that burned out on the plains of Altamont. Pokerface is a Christian band, and they're waging spiritual warfare against the powers of evil - specifically, the powers that revealed themselves through the human sacrifices at the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001.

Their  CD Peace or War: Songs for the Revolution features churning start-it-up rhythms and big guitar sound that blends with soaring yet edgy vocal harmonies. Like The Who, they put out a whole lot of sound for just three guys. And like some of those 60s groups, and unlike most of today's musical acts, these guys are seriously out to smash the (NWO) state:

"It's time to hunt bankers/And the judges and lawyers who are whores too
The same for Officials/Who like to break the golden rule
You know we've got our eyes on you/So you'd better do things right
Or we'll hang you from the highest trees/While we party through the night"


"I'm not a democrat, or republican
I'm just a God loving American
It's time to kill this fourth Reich of the rich
If humanity is to survive...

"Rise up rise up militias through out the world
It's time to end the ORDER's globalist plans
A REVOLUTION is the only solution
When good government has gone bad."

Peace or War features a beautifully-designed 9/11 truth insert that parts company with the 9/11 half-truth movement (the folks afraid to speak up about the Zionist connection) and lays it out plain, placing Mossad at the center of 9/11 evil, surrounded by Dov Zakheim, Benjamin Netanyahu, AIPAC, Larry Silverstein, Urban Moving Systems, Lewis Eisenberg, Ariel Sharon, ITCS, Odigo, Chertoff, Amdocs, Checkpoint, Comverse and the Dancing Israelis, and much, much more. I guess we won't be hearing much more Poker Face on Michael Whatzizname from Colorado's boring radio show, or seeing anything about them on 911blogger. Oh well, the half-truth movement's loss is the truth movement's gain. These guys ROCK.

Friday, December 17, 2010

Remembering Janette MacKinlay and Mark Wolfert - Two American Heroes

Beyond their wholehearted support for 9/11 truth, Janette MacKinlay and Mark Wolfert did not have a whole lot in common.

Janette, a sensitive and somewhat shy woman, was an artist who kept to the big city. Her haunts were downtown Manhattan and the San Francisco Bay Area.

As for Mark, sensitive and shy would be just about the last words you'd ever hear about him. He was a hard drinker (till a stroke slowed him down), a bar brawler (till getting older and wiser slowed him down), and a legendary loudmouth ham radio operator (the FCC never did manage to slow him down) who left the Chicago area two decades ago because he got sick of the big city, and set up a private auto repair practice in his garage in Lone Rock, Wisconsin.

Most serious 9/11 truth-seekers have heard about Janette MacKinlay. They know about how she was in her Manhattan apartment on 9/11/01 when dust and debris from the exploding Twin Towers blasted its way through her window and into her living quarters. Some have heard about how, while she sought shelter in another building, Janette heard FBI agents expressing concern about an anthrax attack. When, a month later, an actual anthrax attack happened, Janette remembered the FBI men's words and thought it exceedingly odd. Many know that she provided the first World Trade Center dust samples analyzed by Professor Steven Jones and found to contain iron-rich microspheres (a sign that steel had been melted to iron and explosively aerosolized) alongside unexploded chips of high-power nanothermite explosives.

Very few 9/11 truthers have heard of Mark Wolfert. But a lot of ordinary folks in my corner of Wisconsin know that when Mark saw the Towers exploding on TV, then Building 7 collapsing in 6.5 seconds, he got mad - just like he'd get mad if someone in a bar was being a real asshole, only more so. Mark immediately summed up 9/11 in two words: "Something STINKS." He must have said those two words thousands of times - to me, his customers, his friends, anybody who'd listen.

Janette MacKinlay didn't figure it out that fast. She was shell-shocked, dazed and confused, for the rest of 2001. But even early on, something deep inside her had told her to save some of the dust and grit that had blasted out her windows and blanketed her floors. As the months and then years went by, she heard about the questions that people like David Ray Griffin were raising concerning the events of 9/11 and looked into them and didn't like what she saw.

Mark Wolfert loved storytelling and had a powerful sense of humor that covered a huge range from sardonic to absurd to playful to obscene. He often would tell the story of how I was in his garage on 9/11/2001, sitting at the makeshift bar drinking plain orange juice (Mark's auto repair joint was the happeningest bar in Lone Rock, and I was its token teetotaler) watching the Towers exploding over and over on TV. The way Mark told it, he was ranting the whole time about the obvious controlled demolitions, while I kept telling him he was crazy. Well, maybe he was crazy, because I'm pretty sure I was in Madison on 9/11/01, not at Mark's garage bar in Lone Rock. But it's true that Mark did figure out that 9/11 was an inside job two years before I did. He used to rant about controlled demolition and the lack of airliner debris at the Pentagon two years before I took those topics seriously. He deserves some of the credit for pushing me to look into it, even if I wasn't actually there in his garage on 9/11.

Janette MacKinlay was exquisitely sensitive to the trauma that had been inflicted on her by the real perpetrators of 9/11. Her own case of 9/11-induced PTSD helped her understand how many other Americans had been similarly traumatized. She always advised the 9/11 truth movement to be kind and gentle and understated. Don't keep showing pictures of the exploding Towers, she said. That traumatizes people, makes them want to look away, makes them reject your message.

Mark Wolfert wasn't the kind of guy who'd be immobilized by trauma. And he wasn't traumatized by 9/11 - he was enraged. He got mad. He kicked ass. He got in people's faces. He made noise. His garage was full of posters with messages like "I smoke - fuckin' deal with it!" Mark was a classic example of the "hardy" type, as opposed to Janette's "sensitive" type, in Ken Jenkins' typology.

Janette, whose brain was apparently as sensitive to toxic chemicals as her heart and mind were to toxic images, was not just traumatized by the 9/11 perps - she was murdered. The World Trade Center dust she saved and gave to Steven Jones was full of toxins: nanothermite chips, asbestos, heavy metals from pulverized computers and batteries, a whole witch's brew of stuff you wouldn't want in your body. She breathed all that crap as she fled her apartment on 9/11/01, and last week it finally killed her. She died of a brain tumor almost undoubtedly caused by her inhalation of the same World Trade Center dust she provided to Steven Jones.

Mark died a month ago in a car crash. Two days before he died, he was at my house doing one of his trademark work-arounds to beat a short-circuit in my 1996 Nissan van. Mark was the best mechanic around, especially for weird problems that stumped more conventional minds. (The regular mechanics, those whose garages didn't double as bars, would send him vehicles with problems they couldn't figure out.) And Mark was an amateur radio genius. He blasted his shortwave radio transmissions at power levels thousands of times higher than those allowed by the FCC, telling people in Australia and Europe and Asia and Mars everywhere else that 9/11 was an inside job. Just before he died, Mark and I had been scheming to build a 100-foot radio tower on my property and resume the 9/11 truth transmissions that had been on hold since he'd had a stroke and lost his house and broadcast tower.

Less than 48 hours before his death, Mark fixed my van's short-circuit by doing some rewiring and setting it up so that when I turn off and park the van, I pull out the fuse governing the leaky circuit, which I then replace prior to re-starting the vehicle. This saved me a couple hundred dollars on a new ignition. As it turned out, Mark left his cigarette butt on the spot under the hood where I always put the pulled fuse. I've left it there, so that every time I pull or replace that fuse - every time I drive the van - I remember him.

As I recall, Janette used to sip wine with dinner. I got to know her over dinner at a restaurant in Washington, D.C. during the 2005 Truth Emergency Convergence. Mark, for his part, guzzled everything from beer to the hard stuff and did a whole lot of other things that Islam frowns on. Still, Mark defended Muslims and Islam against the ignorant attacks of some of his buddies, and his commitment to truth and justice was stronger than that of most Muslims I've known. Since God is just, perhaps the mercy and compassion of the All-Merciful and All-Compassionate may stretch to embrace not only such mild sinners as Janette, but even some committed reprobates like Mark, who had little use for religion but who borrowed The Idiots Guide to Islam from me right before his death.

Mark Wolfert and Janette MacKinlay, despite their opposite personalities, were both good, kind, generous people - people with hearts that do more than just pump blood, people whose having existed blesses the world. When I'm feeling disgusted by America and Americans and humanity in general, it's knowing that there are people out there like Mark and Janette that keeps me sane.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Dear Helen Thomas, Thank You for Your Courage!

In case you missed it, Helen Thomas has apparently taken my advice and stopped apologizing for telling the truth. The Detroit Free Press recently reported her words at a workshop against anti-Arab bigotry:

"I can call a president of the United States anything in the book but I can't touch Israel, which has Jewish-only roads in the West Bank. No American would tolerate that - white-only roads… We are owned by the propagandists against the Arabs. There's no question about that. Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street are owned by the Zionists. No question in my opinion. They put their money where their mouth is…We're being pushed into a wrong direction in every way."

Thomas defiantly stands by the statement that ended her journalistic career in May when she said the Israelis should "get the h--- out of Palestine" and "go home" to "Poland, Germany, and America, and everywhere else." Now she says, "I paid the price for that. But it was worth it, to speak the truth."

So I just sent her my second radio invitation:

* * *

Dear Helen Thomas,

I don't know whether you saw my piece "Why Apologize, Helen?" last June, or whether it played any role in your decision to continue boldly telling the truth. 

In any case, thank you for continuing to speak truth to power!  I would love to have you as a guest on my radio show. The next openings include Tuesdays beginning Dec. 28th, noon - 1 pm Eastern, and Saturdays beginning Jan. 8th, 6 to 7 pm or 7 to 8 pm Eastern.

Keep up the great work!

Kevin Barrett

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Pearl Harbor Treason? Special Two-Hour Debate on the KB Show!


Special Two-Hour Episode of the Kevin Barrett Show: A Debate on Pearl Harbor featuring Thomas Kimmel and Webster Tarpley
Did President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lt. Commander Arthur McCollum, and other U.S. actors commit de facto high treason by implementing an eight-point plan to provoke a Japanese attack on the US, then hiding intelligence on the approaching Japanese fleet from Gen. Short and Admiral Kimmel?  Did they welcome the slaughter of 2,403 Americans as "a pretty cheap price to pay for the unification of the country" as explained by Lt. Commander J.J. Rochefort, commander of Naval Intelligence Station HYPO, Pearl Harbor? And did the treasonous slaughter of Americans in an orchestrated war-trigger incident at Pearl Harbor set the stage for the even more treasonous 9/11 "new Pearl Harbor"?

Arguing in defense of Admiral Kimmel and the foreknowledge thesis (first hour): Thomas Kimmel, grandson of the Admiral, backed up by yours truly.  Defending FDR (second hour): historian Webster Tarpley, author of three crucial books on Obama as well as the seminal 9/11 truth book 9/11: Synthetic Terror.

Read more about the show here.  Listen to the archive here.

Friday, December 3, 2010

Operation Infinite Patience

Once upon a time, some Zionist neocons seized the US government and decided to occupy the Islamic world - forever. The neocons behind the plan realized it would require a long-term effort. So they code-named the plan "Operation Infinite Patience." (They also knew it would require infinite funds, but they didn't worry about that, because their friends owned the Federal Reserve, which can print money out of thin air.)

Things were going splendidly - until one day someone leaked the plan's code name. "Operation Infinite Patience! This is blasphemy! Only God has infinite patience!" the Muslims fumed. "Infinite patience my ass - we keep voting to end the wars, and they keep ignoring us and taking our money for more wars," the American people snarled. They weren't too crazy about the new TSA policy of universal public cavity searches either.

And suddenly everyone ran out of patience. Soon the resistance had spread from Afghanistan and Iraq to all the other countries run by Zio-American puppet dictators: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Gulf States...and last but not least, the USA, where angry veterans used their martial skills to great effect.

As the Zio-American empire burned to the ground, the last neocon - who was being strangled with the guts of the last Fed Chairman - turned to the Chairman and said, "I guess those Muslims were right - only God has infinite patience."

"Or infinite money," was the Fed Chairman's sorrowful reply.

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Michael Shermer debunks the "19 hijackers" conspiracy theory!

As Anthony Hall says, Michael Shermer isn't a real economics professor - he just plays one on TV. But that doesn't mean he's always wrong. In a recent Scientific American article, Shermer gives us many reasons to think that the Official Conspiracy Theory of 9/11 is "likely to be untrue." Below is Shermer's list of the characteristics of probably-untrue conspiracy theories. My comments are in italics.

Shermer writes:

Nevertheless, we cannot just dismiss all such theories out of hand, because real conspiracies do sometimes happen. Instead we should look for signs that indicate a conspiracy theory is likely to be untrue. The more that it manifests the following characteristics, the less probable that the theory is grounded in reality:

   1. Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections—or to randomness—the conspiracy theory is likely to be false.                                           

Good point, Michael! Example: The government's 169 "overt acts" allegedly showing a conspiracy by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and five co-defendents to pull off 9/11 in fact show no such thing. The 169 acts consist of innocent actions like starting bank accounts and purchasing Swiss Army knives. Only a paranoid, hyper-imaginative lunatic could connect these 169 dots and see a plot to pull off 9/11. The government has essentially admitted that there is no convincing evidence against these defendants, by withdrawing plans to try the defendants for these crimes. Likewise, the FBI and the Justice Department have admitted that there is "no hard evidence" connecting Osama Bin Laden to 9/11. That means that the popular conspiracy theory that 19 guys conspired with KSM, OBL and five co-defendants is, in your words, "likely to be false."

   2. The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. People are usually not nearly so powerful as we think they are. 

Another good point! How could four groups of four and five 5-foot-tall 150-pound Arabs - all on the same day - succeed in taking planes away from brawny military-vet pilots, when no US hijackings had succeeded in more than two decades? How could they prevent the pilots from squawking the hijack code - a simple action that takes at most a few seconds - on all four of the planes? How could three of four hijacker pilots - the best of whom was so incompetent he was prohibited from soloing in a Cessna training aircraft - succeed at hitting extremely difficult targets at sea-level speeds that probably exceed the capability of the aircraft? How could they avoid all of America's military defenses and fly around unmolested for more than an hour and a half? How could they take down three skyscrapers with two planes? Compare these guys - who looked like the most pathetic, bumbling, booze-and-drug-addled incompetents imaginable during the run-up to 9/11, yet allegedly morphed into superheroes on 9/11 - to the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the Times Square bomber, and  the Christmas tree bomber.. Why did the pathetic 9/11 patsies - but none of the other pathetic terror patsies - suddenly develop superhuman powers? 
   3. The conspiracy is complex, and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.

9/11 was a complex crime no matter who did it. Intelligence agencies, and the private entities they work with (top-tier organized crime outfits, high-tech military contractors) would obviously be more capable of pulling off such an intricate operation than a ragtag bunch of lowlifes. 

'Eckehardt Werthebach, former president of Germany's domestic intelligence service, Verfassungsschutz, told AFP that "the deathly precision" and "the magnitude of planning" behind the attacks of September 11 would have needed "years of planning."  Such a sophisticated operation, Werthebach said, would require the "fixed frame" of a state intelligence organization, something not found in a "loose group" of terrorists like the one allegedly led by Mohammed Atta while he studied in Hamburg.  Many people would have been involved in the planning of such an operation and Werthebach pointed to the absence of leaks as further indication that the attacks were "state organized actions."'  http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BOL403A.html 
4. Similarly, the conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets. The more people involved, the less realistic it becomes.

Intelligence agencies, and to a lesser extent organized crime outfits, have a proven capability to keep secrets; ordinary people, like the nineteen 9/11 patsies and the people they allegedly conspired with, do not. (Anyone who thinks governments cannot keep secrets ought to study the Manhattan Project and Operation Northwoods.)

   5. The conspiracy encompasses a grand ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, the theory is even less likely to be true.

What do political and economic elites ever do but conspire for control over nations, economies, and political systems? What do empires ever do but conspire in pursuit of world domination? What in the world was Shermer smoking when he wrote this? 

   6. The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger, much less probable events.

Like ratcheting up from Arabs starting bank accounts and buying Swiss army knives to pulling off superhuman feats and defying the laws of physics.

   7. The conspiracy theory assigns portentous, sinister meanings to what are most likely innocuous, insignificant events.

Swiss army knives and bank accounts.

   8. The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.

Facts: Swiss army knives and bank accounts. Speculations: two planes destroy three buildings.

   9. The theorist is indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups, which suggests an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies.

I have never heard of anyone being "indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups." Nobody has ever accused, say, the Social Security Administration or the Rotary Club of involvement with 9/11. This one is a straw man.

  10. The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.

This is exactly what the 9/11 Commission did, as David Ray Griffin explains in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. (Short version here.) 

To sum up: Many, though not all, of Shermer's points are at least partially valid. But they must be applied evenhandedly to all theories about any given historical event. And it should be added that if a crime is complex, or required the keeping of secrets, it should probably be attributed to those organizations that specialize in complex operations and the keeping of secrets.

Monday, November 29, 2010

High School Student Interviews Me on the WTC-7 Mosque

A high school student recently interviewed me on the WTC-7 Mosque:

Here are my questions:
1. What is the current situation of the mosque? Is it still under construction?

I don't know whether any construction work is going on right now, but as I understand it the space has been used for Friday prayers for several years at least. So it has been a mosque for many years, since long before the controversy arose. According to recent news reports, they are planning construction work, and applying for government funds to help pay for it. So in that sense it is definitely "under construction."

2. Why isn't anyone speaking up about the issues with the name "cordoba" and its history?

That's a good question! Cordoba was the most intellectually and socially advanced city on the planet during much of the time Muslims ruled Spain. It was known as a place where Jews, Christians, and Muslims got along and worked well together. The word "Cordoba" is a reminder that the three big monotheistic faiths can get along - and also that Islam is the most tolerant and inclusive of the three faiths. Perhaps the people who own and run the media - which is dominated by Zionist Jews who support the Jewish nationalist project in Occupied Palestine and all the ethnic cleansing it entails - do not want to remind people about Cordoba. (Here is a thoughtful essay, by a Jewish journalist, about Jewish domination of the media and its consequences: http://www.mondoweiss.net/2008/02/do-jews-dominat.html )
3. How are you handling all the 9/11 victims and their protests?

Only a small minority of 9/11 family members are protesting, but their voices are being wildly over-amplified by the media. In fact, according to Bob McIIivaine, who lost his son Bobby in the Towers, more than half of the family members know that 9/11 was an inside job - i.e. a false-flag event designed to libel Muslims and legitimize their mass murder in wars of aggression. Here is a Fox News segment about a commercial in which pro-9/11-truth family members express themselves about Building 7, the "smoking gun" of the 9/11 inside job: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFPobKeSzKQ

I think the best way to handle the protestors is to try to help educate them about what really happened on 9/11. Once they learn that it wasn't Muslims that did it - in fact, it was the enemies of Muslims - they will support an even bigger mosque at Ground Zero.
4. Do you think that after the mosque is built, the stereotype of islam will change?

I think it will be the gradual acceptance of 9/11 truth, rather than the building of the mosque, that will change the stereotype of Islam.

5. What does the cordoba house include besides the mosque?

It has already been functioning as a mosque for many years. The plans are to expand it to include a community center with exercise facilities, day care, a meeting space, and so on - all of which would serve the entire Lower Manhattan community, not just Muslims.
6. Have there been any attempts in the past to build a mosque in order to clear misunderstandings about muslims?

Here in Madison, Wisconsin, a nonprofit I work with called the Madison Muslim Dawa Circle has established a mosque as part of our dawa (Islamic outreach) work. Though our mosque is currently a "storefront mosque" in a rental space, we are working on building a permanent mosque. Our organization's primary purpose is to help educate our community - including locally, nationwide, and worldwide in that order - about the realities as opposed to the stereotypes about Islam. We began our project almost ten years ago - slightly before the NYC mosque project. I'm sure there have been other efforts like ours, though I don't know of any offhand.

I think that all mosques in non-Muslim-majority countries should include outreach (dawa) centers as well as prayer space. Ideally, every mosque in America would also be a community center! Unfortunately we have a long way to go before we reach this goal. Many American Muslims have caught the fear contagion engineered by the 9/11 inside job, and have reacted by becoming even more insular than they were before. Muslims need to get active and inform their neighbors about Islam and Islam-related issues - and above all, that 9/11 was an inside job. There is a million-Muslim-march being planned right now to do that.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. Signed, TK

You are most welcome! Thank you for your questions, and good luck with your research project. If I can be of any further assistance, feel free to stay in contact.

Dr. Kevin Barrett

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Dear Barack, thank you for thanking me for everything...and by the way, thanks for nothing

It's Thanksgiving, the time for giving thanks. But I never expected to get an email from Barack Obama thanking me...for everything.

    From:     info@barackobama.com
    Subject:     Thankful
    Date:     November 25, 2010 12:45:20 PM CST
    To:     kbarrett[AT]merr[DOT]com
    Reply-To: info@barackobama.com

Kevin --

When Michelle and I sit down with our family to give thanks today, I want you to know that we'll be especially grateful for folks like you.

Everything we have been able to accomplish in the last two years was possible because you have been willing to work for it and organize for it.

And every time we face a setback, or when progress doesn't happen as quickly as we would like, we know that you'll be right there with us, ready to fight another day.

So I want to thank you -- for everything.

I also hope you'll join me in taking a moment to remember that the freedoms and security we enjoy as Americans are protected by the brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces. These patriots are willing to lay down their lives in our defense, and each of us owes them and their families a debt of gratitude.

Have a wonderful day, and God bless.


My reply:

Dear Barack,

I appreciate your gratitude for my efforts to expose the 9/11 inside job, end Zionism and the Zionist stranglehold on America, end the Fed, cut the military budget by 90%, bring all our troops home and close all of our 900+ foreign bases, shut down DHS and smash the naked body scanners, restore our Constitution, begin treason and war crimes trials for all federal officials who have not actively worked for 9/11 truth and against the 9/11 wars of aggression, and hang every last one of the thousands of them (including you) who have been actively complicit in those treasonous and/or criminal activities...except for cases in which sincere repentance has been clearly shown well in advance of crunch time.

Your letter thanking me for my work suggests that you, like Geraldo Rivera and perhaps even Glenn Beck, may be on the road to sincere repentance for past sins. Please demonstrate your good faith and stop mass-murdering people in Afghanistan and Iraq. Then I might rethink my efforts - for which you have thanked me so effusively - to have you and the other traitors and war criminals charged, tried, convicted, and hanged by the neck until dead.

In other words, thanks for nothing.

So far.

Until then, I remain

Yours truly

Dr. Kevin Barrett

Saturday, November 20, 2010

TSA Tips for Travelers: Or, How to Stop Worrying and Love Letting Us Touch Your Junk

[Note: TruthJihad blog always attempts to prevent a fair and balanced view of issues related to the War on Terror. In order to do so, we occasionally invite contributions from those whose views we would ordinarily oppose. Today, due to widespread public rage against TSA groping and naked body scanners, we felt obliged to invite the TSA to respond.]

TSA Tips for Travelers: Or, How to Stop Worrying and Love Letting Us Touch Your Junk

Guest blog post by Vora Rephilia, Assistant Pubic Relations Officer, Transportation Security Administration

Greetings, travelers! We at the Transportation Security Administration are dedicated to making your journey as pleasant as possible. That is why we offer you the choice of either allowing us to look at you naked, or allowing us to fondle your genitals.

We know that many of you have been raised to feel ashamed of exposing your naked bodies in public. For people who suffer from this kind of inhibition, we offer the option of merely having your genitals groped.

Some people are worried about how their kids will react to our screening procedures.

It is your responsibility to inform your children that cavity searches are an integral part of informed citizenship in a free society. If they resist, our agents are equipped with a broad spectrum of animal tranquilizers to help them enjoy this important educational experience.

We also understand that there are some health concerns about the massive radiation exposures created by our naked body scanners. Let us just put that whole issue to rest by saying that thus far, there has not been even ONE single documented case of anyone visibly mutating while passing through one of our scanners. If there had been, trust us, we would have noticed.

We know that despite all of our efforts to lubricate our invasive security procedures, we have been getting some bad press lately. Here are some recent headlines:

Rape Survivor Devastated by TSA Enhanced Pat Down

TSA official pats down distraught 3-year-old girl

Coffee, Tea, or Should We Feel Your Pregnant Wife’s Breasts Before Throwing You in a Cell at the Airport and Then Lying About Why We Put You There?

All of these passengers could have had much more pleasant experiences with TSA if they had been better-informed about proper procedures at TSA checkpoints.

Below is a passenger-training video produced by the Department of Homeland Security. In the video, two glamorous Hollywood actors demonstrate the patriotic way to behave at a TSA checkpoint. 


Friday, November 19, 2010

A call for We Are Change and all other courageous activists to SUPPORT OPT-OUT DAY...

...by going to your nearest airport on Opt-Out Day, Wednesday November 24th, and engaging in civil information activism...even if you aren't traveling! (Or ESPECIALLY if you aren't traveling - because you, unlike the poor folks getting scanned and groped, won't have a flight to miss!)

How? Just stand near where people line up to go through the checkpoint, being careful not to physically obstruct anyone, and talk to travelers about Opt-Out Day, naked body scanners, and "enhanced pat-downs" that amount to sexual assaults. Ask people to Opt Out of the naked body scanners, and to insist that the TSA sexual assault take place in full view of other passengers. Be sure to inform them that they are 30 times more likely to be struck by lightning than to be killed by a terrorist, as I explain in my book Questioning the War on Terror.

Keep in mind that the Supreme Court has ruled that airports are not exempt from First Amendment protections.

If you want to provoke a confrontation with authorities and film it for YouTube, that shouldn't be too hard.  Speaking loudly, bullhorning, and/or holding up signs such as "TSA = Total Sexual Assault" would be easy ways to get asked to leave. Insist on your First Amendment Rights (at least up to the point that arrest seems imminent) and film the conversation.

I will personally send $50 by check or paypal (your choice) to the person who makes the best Opt-Out Day We Are Change type activist video. You don't have to belong to We Are Change to enter the contest. Just put your video on Youtube and email a link to kbarrett[at]merr[dot]com.  Entries will be accepted through the end of November 2010.

If anyone else wants to pledge some additional prize money, please let me know and I'll keep track of the amount of prize money here.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Barbara Honegger's brand-new updated Pentagon Attack Papers!

Barbara Honegger will be my guest this Saturday, November 20th on Truth Jihad Radio.

Here is her newly revised edition of The Pentagon Attack Papers featuring new material including interviews with former Terror Czar Richard Clarke and other high-level officials.


Updated November 2010
Barbara Honegger
Appendix to
THE TERROR CONSPIRACY (Second Ed.) by Jim Marrs 
Barbara Honegger, M.S. is Senior Military Affairs Journalist with the Naval Postgraduate School (1995-present), DoD’s graduate science, technology, national security and homeland security university....

Click here to read The Pentagon Attack Papers: Updated November 2010 

* * *

also don't miss Barbara Honegger's

The Scarlet ‘A’: Links Between the,  Anthrax Attacks and 9/11

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

New POWER OF TRUTH Radio Network picks up steam!

A brand-new network devoted to promoting the best of alternative radio is on the air! Check out Power of Truth Radio, where you can find my shows streaming twice a day, along with several other shows that together represent much of the best that alternative radio has to offer.

Curious about what the world's 1.5 billion Muslims really think - and why the mainstream media won't tell you? Power of Truth Radio  features the best in Muslim-hosted English language radio with Hesham Tillawi, Imam W.D. Mohammed, Syed Saboor, "Live from Gaza with Yusef al-Helan," "Understanding the Qur'an," and of course yours truly. But it isn't an all-Muslim network - it also features the Marxist truth radio pioneers Ralph Shoenman and Mya Shone, and Christian truth-teller Mark Glenn. (More high-quality shows coming soon!)

Power of Truth Radio will be working hard - with significant resources - to promote and expand the audience for this crucial segment of the alternative media. Please listen, donate, and spread the word!

Monday, November 15, 2010

What You Can't Say on Geraldo

Geraldo: Has he rescinded the digitis impudicus he once flashed at the "nutjobs" who support 9/11 truth?

At first glance, Geraldo's 9/11 show with Bob McIlvaine and Tony Szamboti was mind-boggling. Never before has mainstream network TV put such a favorable spin on 9/11 truth.

Even at second glance it's still pretty mind-boggling. Congratulations to everyone involved - Bob and Tony (who performed brilliantly), the NYCcan and BuildingWhat folks, and behind them the whole truth movement. (I will be welcoming Tony Szamboti to Truth Jihad Radio next Saturday, Nov. 20th, 5 to 7 pm Central, live on AmericanFreedomRadio.com.)

After the celebrations and congratulations are over, it's time to ask: Why are Geraldo and Fox doing this now? After all, the destruction of WTC-7 was an obvious controlled demolition from day one. Now, almost ten years later, Geraldo finally gets it. What's up with that?

Gordon Duff of Veterans Today - who will join me on the radio next Tuesday, November 23rd - writes:

"This week,  Geraldo Rivera was foiled in his attempt to “contain” the 9/11 movement,  something exploding around the world...Rivera tried,  during the show,  to “sucker” the parent of a Building 7 murder victim into a 2 minute discussion of 9/11 as an “inside job” knowing quite well he would be able to get a quick attack in.  Rivera was outwitted as the video shows,  cut off at the legs.  Why would Rivera do this?"

Duff thinks that Rivera, an Israeli citizen, and Fox, a de facto Israeli network, are "trying to 'spin' the story,  control it,  make murder a joke."

How could Rivera/Fox have been attempting to spin/control 9/11 truth? Duff speculates that Rivera is disguising the 9/11 false-flag mass murders - a crime whose perpetrators and main motive are fairly well-known - as a "mystery."

Following Duff, I think Rivera/Fox is trying to impose certain limits of permissible discourse on 9/11 activists: Ask questions, but don't make strong statements about who did it and why. Sign a petition if you're an engineer or an architect, otherwise keep your mouth shut because what do you know. Whatever you do, don't demonstrate noisily in the streets like those "nut jobs" in the clip he showed. Anybody who makes too much noise, or who takes too strong action, will be attacked as a "nut job" by Fox. But if you follow all of Fox's rules, you may get a few minutes of approval from Fox/Rivera! Then you can sit back and feel good about yourself being so calm and professional and responsible! What a wonderful feeling, after all these years of being attacked and vilified by Fox and the sheeple who watch it! It will feel so good that if any other 9/11 activists dare to make 9/11 truth look bad by being loud, rebellious, unruly, overly confident or assertive about who did it and why, or (G-d forbid) "anti-Semitic" (by bringing up the case against Israel and Zionists)...well, we'll just have to silence them and censor them and shout them down and ban them from websites and start flame wars and lynch mobs to keep them in line! (Now THAT is beneficial cognitive diversity.)

The polite approach to 9/11 truth has its place. But carried too far, it serves the interests of the perpetrators. The reason is that "9/11" is a meme, and the default status for that meme is "radical Arab Muslim attack on America."

The thing about memes is that the more you mention a given meme - even if you're questioning or opposing it - the more you unwittingly reinforce it. So every 9/11 activist who helps keep the 9/11 meme alive by talking and writing and posting and demonstrating about 9/11 may be (among other things) unwittingly helping reinforce the "Muslims did it" meme in service to the perpetrators. This is especially true when the emphasis is on victims and family members, first responders, and anything else that taps into the prefabricated patriotic myth constructed for the event ahead of time and wheeled out by the psy ops pros on the morning of the 11th. Note that the Let It Happen On Purpose (LIHOP) paradigm, which imagines top US officials looking the other way while evil Arab Muslim terrorists hijacked and crashed planes, tends to reinforce the "Muslims did it" meme far more than it undermines it.  Keeping all of this in mind, it is easy to see why certain people and/or anonymous cyber-entities at 911blogger have been suspected of "working for the other side."

So Rivero/Fox (and presumably the psy-ops pros behind them) don't really mind if we politely question 9/11, harp on its being a mystery, critique the official reports, invoke family members and first responders, and so on. What they don't want us to do is assertively create and spread alternative memes that could crowd out the original "Arab-Muslim terrorist attack" meme from the public mind. Such memes include but are not limited to: False-flag attack, inside job, controlled demolition, Zionist operation, Mossad operation, remote-control planes, accused hijackers are innocent, war on Islam for Israel, Zionist coup d'etat, big lie, Reichstag fire, Zionist attack on America, trigger for criminal wars of aggression, and so on.

Okay, you say, we get your point about memes - but why all this harping on Israel and Zionists? 

First, because it's true. Nobody else had such an overwhelming, existential motive to pull off something as huge and as risky as 9/11. As Chomsky correctly said, the Bush Administration would have been crazy to do it. But the Israelis, who inhabit an illegitimate state doomed by history, had nothing to lose and everything to gain. The "who gains" question alone argues Israel did 9/11. And this interpretation is supported by extensive evidence - evidence that the overly-polite wing of the truth movement, the thought police who guard and monitor it, and the Israeli Fox hosts who encourage it, don't want us to talk about.

At the end of the day, the (true) "Zionists did it" meme can and will eventually crowd out the (false) "Muslims did it" meme. Simply asking questions and invoking mysteries won't.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Tony Szamboti does Truth Jihad Radio, Geraldo in the same night!

Tony Szamboti had a good excuse for leaving Truth Jihad Radio thirty minutes ahead of schedule last night: He was booked, along with pro-truth family member Bob McIlvaine, on Geraldo's Fox News show! No problem - I brought on Muad'Dib's colleague Rob from Ireland to talk about the recent travesty of justice at the Irish Supreme Court.  In Case you haven't heard, Muad'Dib is incarcerated and awaiting extradition for the "crime" of mailing his 7/7 truth DVD 7/7 Ripple Effect.

My interview last night with Tony Szamboti, featuring Tony's critique of Denis Rancourt's anti-Twin-Towers-demolition case, will soon be archived here. Following Tony, you can listen to Rob discussing Muad'Dib, then former NASA Director Dwain Deets addressing 9/11 truth issues. This show was dedicated to my good friend and 9/11 truth colleague, the late Mark Wolfert, who will be very greatly missed.

Tony Szamboti will return to Truth Jihad Radio next week to offer a more detailed refutation of Rancourt's arguments. Meanwhile, here is Geraldo's amazing interview with Tony Szamboti and Bob McIlvaine.

Saturday, November 13, 2010


You can listen to my 2009 interview with Muad'Dib here, and follow his case here.  Also, you can listen to today's conversation between Jim Fetzer and Muad'Dib's friend Rob here.  -KB


Guest blog by Jim Fetzer

In a stunning development, Ireland's highest court ruled in favor of the extradition of Muad'Dib, who produced "7/7 Ripple Effect", to England to stand trial for attempting to corrupt the judicial system.  The charge is in fact quite absurd, since Muad'Dib simply sent copies of his DVD to the court in England in an attempt to preclude the miscarriage of justice that would be involved in sentencing friends of the alleged "bombers" for their complicity in the matter, which is completely unjustified, once one becomes aware of the apparent governmental complicity in staging the 7/7 attacks.

The court addressed only three of some fifty-four points Muad'Dib had made in his own defense while ignoring the remainder.  According to a friend of Muad'Dib, Rob, who was present at the hearing, they used tortured logic and distorted language to justify their otherwise grossly improper verdict. The judges did not even bother to view "7/7 Ripple Effect", which appears on its face to be completely unreasonable, since it was alleged to be the content of that DVD that is responsible for the extradition request.  For all the judges knew, the DVD could have been a Beatles' concert or completely blank.

Rob called me from Ireland and we recorded two 25-30 minute segments about this travesty, which are linked below.  A web site about the proceeding and relevant records such as Muad'Dib's brief is archived at http://mtrial.org. In addition, I have interviewed Muad'Dib twice--once for two hours and once for another--as well as two experts on these attacks, Nicholas Kollerstrom, author of TERROR ON THE TUBE, and Rory Ridley-Duff of Sheffield University. All of these interviews are available at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com:

7/7 Ripple Effect
Exposing the "false flag" London attack

FRIDAY, JULY 17, 2009
Muad'Dib / Declan & Lola Heavey
"7/7 Ripple Effect" / religionandmorality.net

Nicholas Kollerstrom
9/11, 7/7, and more

Rory Ridley-Duff
7/7 London Attacks: Fact or Fiction?

Nicholas Kollerstrom
1994 False Flag Attacks in London

Nick Kollerstrom
Formal inquiry into 7/7

Friday, November 12, 2010

Harrit-Rancourt Debate: My Take, then Graeme MacQueen's

[Listen to my debate with Denis Rancourt (2nd hour).   Listen to chemistry professor Niels Harrit debate Denis Rancourt. And tune in tomorrow, Sat. 11/13/10, to hear engineers Tony Szamboti and Dwain Deets join the discussion.]

This week I finally got to host a real debate - three whole hours' worth - on the physical evidence for the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers.

Ever since I was chased out of academia by a gaggle of know-nothing state legislators, I have, like Diogenes with his lamp, been trying to find someone willing to defend the government's version of what happened to the World Trade Center.  (For details, click here and scroll down to #5.)

So I am grateful to physics professor Denis Rancourt for stepping forward to oppose the controlled demolition hypothesis for the Twin Towers. Until Denis arrived, the only independent scientist who has been willing to publicly make this argument, to the best of my knowledge, is Dr. Frank Greening. (Interestingly, both Rancourt and Greening admit that the government's version of what happened to World Trade Center 7 is nonsense, with Rancourt going so far as to call WTC-7 an obvious controlled demolition.)

Because Denis Rancourt agrees with most of the 9/11 truth movement's contentions, I had hoped that he would debate Niels Harrit in an amicable, collegial way. Instead, he surprised me by using the aggressive ad-hominem tactics associated with Fox News style "debunkers." Taking advantage of non-native-speaker Harrit's slower, more deliberate style of speaking - and the one-second time lag on Harrit's line - Rancourt tried to dominate the debate by interrupting regularly and heaping scorn on his interlocutor.

For me, the most telling moment was when Rancourt attacked Harrit's professional credentials, claiming that a Google Scholar search for Harrit only turned up a couple of hits and demanding that Harrit explain. Harrit, who has plenty of professional credentials, had no idea why Rancourt couldn't find his work through Google Scholar. The problem, it later turned out, was that Rancourt had misspelled Harrit's name.

Rancourt's sloppy, superficial, ad-hominem use of Google Scholar may have reflected his approach to the whole debate. Rather than carefully studying and weighing the case for demolition, evenhandedly attempting to discern its strengths and potential weaknesses, and offering a carefully-thought-out critique, he maintained a gratingly aggressive attitude while alternately lobbing colorful soundbites of questionable relevance, and occasionally retreating into scientific jargon that non-technical listeners wouldn't understand.

Rancourt bases his argument on the large amount of gravitational potential energy in any tall building - energy which is released when the building comes down. So much energy, he claims, could pulverize almost all of the Towers' concrete into rapidly expanding pyroclastic-type clouds, fling gigantic multi-ton steel beams upward and outward at high speed, melt steel, cause the sounds of explosions, make the building disappear symmetrically, with rapid onset, in ten to fifteen seconds...and otherwise create all of the effects commonly cited as evidence for demolition with explosives. (He still hasn't explained how gravity alone managed to scatter tiny shards of human bones all over the roof of the neighboring Deutche Bank building.)

I don't buy Rancourt's "potential energy" argument for one nanosecond.  As Tony Szamboti points out, there is far more (chemical ) potential energy in a chocolate chip cookie than in a stick of dynamite of the same mass. But chocolate chip cookies don't blow things up, because there is no mechanism for the energy to be released with tremendous rapidity in such a way as to cause shock waves. Likewise, any discussion of what caused a building to collapse must focus on the precise mechanisms of energy release, not just the total amount of energy involved, which is in itself irrelevant.

Because a tall building, like a tall mountain (or anything tall with a lot of mass) harbors lots of gravitational potential energy, Rancourt stated that tall buildings are like huge bombs waiting to go off. If this is true, why has no tall building in more than a century of architectural experience ever "gone off" for any reason other than controlled demolition - except, we have been preposterously led to believe, three times on the same day in the same city?!  Tall buildings have become blazing infernos (unlike the Towers on 9/11, which experienced very modest fires); they have been rocked by gale-force winds; they have been battered by earthquakes. But never in history has a tall building come down for any reason except controlled demolition. Based on the history of tall buildings, they are no more likely to naturally suffer complete collapse than are mountains; for neither tall buildings nor mountains have ever done so.

Rancourt compares the destruction of the Twin Towers to the bombing of Hiroshima, claiming that the two events are alike - that Hiroshima is a sort of precedent and model for the Towers' destruction - simply because the Towers' destruction unleashed gravitational energy equivalent to 1% of the energy of the Hiroshima bomb! Like the whole "building = bomb" equation, this is a classic example of a misleading comparison. Rather than illuminating these two (physically) radically different events, the Hiroshima-Twin Towers comparison propagandizes for the "massively destructive attack" mental image embedded in the WTC site's "Ground Zero" label.  Good propaganda, bad science.

Yet another misleading comparison came when Rancourt claimed that the gigantic multi-ton steel beams that accelerated upward and outward from the exploding Towers were sort of like bouncing rubber balls. That is, if a ball can "fall upward" when it bounces, so can heavy pieces of structural steel and aluminum cladding "fall upwards and outwards" in parabolic arcs from collapsing buildings, presumably by bouncing off of the portion of the building that has not yet collapsed. Hey scientists and engineers: Is this argument as self-evidently preposterous as it sounds? Is there any evidence that anything remotely like this has ever happened in the real world? Maybe somebody accidentally built a skyscraper with Disney-style Flubber instead of steel?

Rancourt attacked Harrit's nanothermite paper by claiming that (a) the samples of WTC dust could have been contaminated in various ways so as to produce the findings of shockingly high amounts of unexploded nanothermite chips, and (b) even if the nanothermite chips were really there, they could have been somehow manufactured by the complex interactions of falling rusted steel and aluminum during the collapse of the Twin Towers. Harrit countered that this was about as likely as taking paper, phosphorous, gelatin, etc., throwing them into a burning/collapsing building, and finding that they had miraculously assembled themselves into books of matches littering the rubble.

In my evaluation, Rancourt "won" this debate in the same way that Hannity and O'Reilly "win" most of their "debates" - by being aggressively insulting, talking over their opponents, and offering lots of misleading soundbite images in place of arguments. Harrit, like Bob Bowman under fire from Hannity, kept calm, spoke far fewer words than his opponent, yet emerged with his dignity and the core of his arguments intact. 

Why is this debate important? Rancourt claims that arguments for Twin Towers demolition, like those for "no planes just holograms" and "Directed Energy Weapons," are baseless and make the 9/11 truth movement look bad. I think this is yet another misleading comparison. So far there are SIX peer-reviewed pro-9/11-truth papers published in mainstream scientific journals, and every single one of them has the destruction of the Twin Towers as its primary focus. No comparable scholarly scientific support exists for any other aspect of the case for 9/11 as inside job.

Additionally, the horrific destruction of the Towers was obviously the core image and core operation of the 9/11 psy-op. Without the demolition of the Towers, 9/11 would have been just another forgettable incident on the scale of OKC, Khobar Towers, Marines in Beirut, Pan Am Flight 103, and so on. By blowing the Twin Towers to kingdom come, the neocons got their New Pearl Harbor.

Since the Towers demolition case is so important to the 9/11 truth movement, and so well-supported by scientific evidence, some of my listeners think Rancourt is an agent tasked with fostering "beneficial cognitive diversity" - meaning paralyzing doubt, time-wasting, and infighting - in the 9/11 truth movement. Me, I think he's just a too-smart-by-half smart aleck and free-spirited natural hell-raiser who's playing a very useful devil's advocate role. By throwing everything he's got at Harrit, and missing so badly on most of his throws, Rancourt appears to be strengthening the case for controlled demolition of the Towers. So if he's working undercover for anybody, it would be us.

* * *

Graeme MacQueen writes to Denis Rancourt (posted with Professor MacQueen's permission):

Dear Denis:

Thanks for forwarding this piece. These issues have been discussed in detail for years and I think we should avoid repeating what others have said. However, despite my reluctance to get involved in another debate I can’t help replying to a couple of your comments.

(1) “And the Movement needs to stop spinning its wheels with extreme theories such as: directed energy weapons, all the video is fake and there were no planes, and the two towers necessarily came down in controlled explosives-assisted demolitions with or without the help of tonnes of nanothermite.”

Comment: I agree that we need to concentrate on theories that are solid, but I disagree that controlled demolition is in the same category as no-planes, directed energy weapons and so on. The CD hypothesis is based on a good deal of evidence, and such evidence continues to accumulate. Adnan has pointed to the fact that the CD in WTC 7 cannot easily be separated from the issue of the Towers’ collapses. The Towers were certainly brought down in a different way that WTC 7 but the evidence that they were deliberately demolished with the help of explosives is plentiful.

(2) “A standing building is a bomb waiting to be ignited (by an earthquake or anything capable of taking out structural elements). The gravitational potential energy that is released when a tall structure collapses is enormous. The higher and more massive the structure, the greater the energy release.

Indeed, this is the basis of controlled demolition in which gravitational energy not explosives does virtually all the destructive work. The explosives are only used to take out key structural elements and gravity does the rest.”

Comment: Well, I have to disagree with your opening statement. A standing building, if it is built well, is not much like a bomb at all. I don’t think the metaphor helps us. A well designed steel-framed skyscraper will not come down easily, and I’m sure we agree that this is one of the reasons controlled demolition is necessary. Yes, the explosives in a standard CD take out structural elements so that gravity can do most of the work, but taking out the structural elements is not a piece of cake: it is planned carefully, especially when it’s important to have a symmetrical collapse. The task of those who think CD was not used on the Towers is to explain how the key structural elements were taken out given that they were attacked neither by the planes nor the fires. By this I mean that even if the planes and fires were successful in critically weakening the structure--and I have seen no convincing evidence of this in thousands of pages of the NIST reports—they weakened this structure only in the area where damage was observed. In the North Tower this was roughly floors 92-98. There is no evidence they caused major damage outside this region; NIST certainly does not claim this. So, even if we accept that this part of the NT was so badly damaged that it began to catastrophically collapse (NIST has not convinced me that this happened), then we still have to explain how we get from this sort of local collapse to the collapse of the whole building. You’ve tried to give us a scenario in which this might happen, but I don’t find it convincing and I don’t find that it meshes with the evidence we’ve got. For example:

(a) We have a building where the top quite suddenly begins to come down on the rest of the building but where this top section accelerates smoothly right through the period when it’s supposedly destroying the powerful, intact structure beneath it. Not possible. Something else has clearly already destroyed the structural resistance of the lower part of the Tower. No explanation of the collapse will work if it doesn’t explain this smooth acceleration.

(b) We have a scenario where eyewitnesses report explosions before and at the beginning of the collapses. Many eyewitnesses clearly say that the explosions were destroying the building; several compare the process they observed to CD. There are over 150 eyewitnesses to explosions. They are, as far as we can tell, normal people in full possession of their senses. Many (most) were firefighters with extensive experience in burning buildings and in burning high-rises. The explosions typically found in fires do not fit the profile: they could not have played a significant role in destroying these buildings nor would firefighters have in this case said that what they observed seemed to be bombs or secondary devices.

We recently got, through a FOIA request, yet another set of eyewitnesses to these explosions:


I lay great stress on eyewitnesses because I believe it is a crucial strategy of authoritarian institutions to dismiss and attempt to de-legitimize normal human beings and their physical senses. (“You did not see what you thought you saw. We are the ones who will tell you what you saw.”)

The eyewitness evidence is corroborated by other kinds of evidence: still photos and videos, which show patterns of rapid and forceful ejections down the length of the Towers; and physical evidence. In the last category, quite apart from the nanothermite (I will let Niels deal with that one if he chooses to), there is the evidence of extreme heat. [See "Evidence of Very High Temperatures..." in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, v.19]. This evidence does not depend on people in the 9/11 truth movement—it has been documented by other researchers—and I have seen no convincing innocent explanation of it to date. It suggests pre-planted agents (incendiaries or explosives) used to bring down the buildings. These different forms of evidence converge in the CD hypothesis.

All the best,


Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Calling the Cops on Dialogue

Martin, a pro-9/11-truth libertarian from Southern California, recently sent me the following story:

Rice University Jewish Studies Professor calls police over youtube 9/11 video

A Houston man who sent a Rice University professor a youtube link via e-mail in October was contacted by police investigators shortly thereafter. The video, entitled 'History They Don't Teach You in School', was e-mailed to Rice University Jewish Studies professor Rabbi Shira Lander, Ph.D, after the man had seen fliers advertising her Jewish studies anti-semitism class.  [full article here ]

Always seeking a "teachable moment" and a good radio show, I emailed the Rabbi:

Dear Rabbi Lander,

I am writing you regarding the recent news story Rice University Jewish Studies Professor calls police over youtube 9/11 video.

I am mentioned in the article as lead editor, alongside noted theologian John Cobb and Jewish Studies professor Sandra Lubarsky, of 9/11 and American Empire v.2: Christians, Jews and Muslims Speak Out.  Co-editor Sandra Lubarsky, in her essay "Terrible Fears, Terrible Desires: A Jewish Response to 9/11" bravely admits to being "fearful of what might happen, were Jewish or Israeli involvement in 9/11 established."

Perhaps it was this kind of fear that led you to call the police over an emailer whose purpose appeared to be informative, not threatening.

I would like to send you a copy of
9/11 and American Empire v.2: Christians, Jews and Muslims Speak Out. After you have read it, and examined some of the evidence that 9/11 was a false-flag operation designed to demonize Muslims, you might consider apologizing to the emailer, and joining me for some interfaith dialogue on one of my radio shows. 

After all, "never again" applies equally to everyone, does it not?



* * *

And "never again" did I hear from the good rabbi. Maybe the moment wasn't as teachable as I thought! Oh well, at least she didn't call the cops on me.

She did, however, apparently contact fellow Jewish Studies professor Sandra Lubarsky, who felt compelled to email me a disclaimer stating that she has seen no evidence of Israeli or Mossad involvement in 9/11 and in fact does not believe that either Israel or the Mossad was involved. I answered:

Dear Sandra,

Always good to hear from you!

In my email to Shira Lander I did not mean to imply that you thought the Mossad was involved in 9/11. My point was that you ably expressed the fear you felt when contemplating that possibility - the same kind of fear that may have led Rabbi Lander to call the police inappropriately.  I admire you for bringing that fear out into the open and facing it publicly, and I meant to suggest that Rabbi Lander consider doing the same thing (by joining me on the radio).

By the way, I know this is a long shot, but would you like to take over as Coordinator of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth (MUJCA)?  Lou Stolzenberg, a Methodist, stepped down almost a year ago. Since we've already had a Muslim (me) and a Christian (Lou) it would be great to have a Jewish coordinator.  You'd have complete control for a one- or two-year term (your choice).   If you can't, could you recommend anyone?



I'm pretty sure that Sandra won't apply for the job of MUJCA coordinator - she's a full-time professor after all.  So if anybody out there knows the right Jewish 9/11 truth-seeker for the job, please contact me. The MUJCA Coordinator is appointed by the MUJCA board, acting on behalf of a nonprofit corporation; he or she edits the website and proposes, organizes, and/or endorses projects and events. Agreement with the (very different) perspectives of previous coordinators, or board members, is not a requirement!

Given that Israel, which defines itself as a Jewish state, is involved in a low-intensity war with virtually the entire Muslim world, it seems to me that interfaith dialogue on 9/11 (which most Muslims see as an American/Zionist false-flag op) is absolutely essential if that war is not to gradually or not-so-gradually heighten in intensity. So please, Jewish friends, let's talk this out!  We need dialogue on this issue, not cop-enforced silence.

Monday, November 8, 2010

Leaked Airline Memo: TSA Declares War on Toner Cartridges

TSA: Exploding toner cartridges have become the preferred weapon of jihadis who hate our freedom

The pen may be mightier than the sword...but is the toner cartridge mightier than the kalashnikov? The Transportation Security Administration apparently thinks so.  An airline employee, who says his job would be endangered if I revealed his name, has leaked the following secret TSA memo:

The TSA recently issued new Security Directives the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is implementing new security measures including a prohibition of the transportation on board domestic or international flights to or from the U.S. of printer or toner cartridges weighing 16 ounces or more. Accordingly, effective Monday, November 8, 2010, passengers are prohibited from transporting these items in either carry-on or checked baggage.

For more information see the TSA web site at www.tsa.gov.

Shirley Ragan

Security Compliance Specialist

Compass Airlines



Sunday, November 7, 2010

US, Arab World Both Need Revolutions

Virtually the entire Arab world - the historic heartland of Islam - is under US-Zionist occupation...while the US itself is under Zionist-financier occupation.

The people of the US and the Arab world ought to rise up, together, and overthrow the regimes occupying their countries and targeting them for destruction.

Unfortunately, many Arabs, and most Americans, are in denial. I spend most of my time trying to wake up Americans; but as a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, I am also interested in the Arab world.

When I watch al-Jazeera, I see bought-and-paid-for Arab talking heads bemoaning the Iranian influence in Iraq and espousing the "national interests" of Arab countries. In fact, "national interests" are worse than irrelevant; they are part of the enemy's divide-and-conquer strategy aimed at containing and then destroying the rebirth of Islamic civilization.

I am not of the Shia persuasion. But it is obvious to me that the Islamic Republic of Iran is struggling to help establish a renascent Islamic civilization...and that the whole Arab world desperately needs Iranian-style Islamic revolutions to overthrow the Zio-American puppets and collaborators who run the region.

The Islamic world needs an Islamic revolution, and Iran provides the best model. This fact has been obscured by Zionist-manufactured anti-Iran and anti-Shia hysteria, a poison spread by the flunkies of the Arab dictators as well as a few nutty Sunni extremists.

Again, I am not a Shia. But let's admit that the Shia were right about one thing: In an Islamic society, the (morally and spiritually) best people should rule...and after the death of the Prophet SAAS, Ali and his sons were the best.

Just a generation of the death of the Prophet Muhammad, the same corrupt Quraish forces the Prophet and companions overthrew were back in power, and the incorruptible, spiritually-advanced son-in-law and grandsons of the Prophet had been murdered. This was an immense tragedy for Islam and for humanity. The Shia are absolutely right about this.

Where the Shia are wrong, in my opinion (and God knows best) is in their claim that descendants of the Prophet SAAS are the only proper rulers. In fact, it just so happened that the best people WERE the Ahl al-Bayt, at least for a few generations. But goodness is not entirely an inherited trait. Moral and spiritual integrity are not a matter of genetic pedigree.

Today, Iran is run by people with the moral and spiritual integrity to speak 9/11 truth to power, and to speak the truth about the horrors of Zionism and the benefits of the coming post-Zionist world.

Today, Shia and Sunni should work together to ensure that the best people are in power, and the worst barred from power. And  Shia and Sunni should work together to expel the Zionists and imperialists from Dar al-Islaam, and establish Islamic societies in the Muslim-majority lands. The Islamic Republic of Iran, despite its flaws and shortcomings and compromises, is in the forefront of that effort. Every Muslim on earth needs to stand up and say "Want to attack Iran? You'll have to go through me."


Arabian rulers align themselves with Zionism and imperialism against Islamic Iran

Abu Dharr, The Street Minbar newsgroup

Muslim public opinion in general and Arabian public opinion in particular is at a loss to properly understand the Islamic Republic of Iran. Many people have an intuitive feeling that the Islamic orientation in Iran is for the long-term benefit of Muslims worldwide. The moneyed classes, the political elites, and the sectarian protagonists don't see things that way — their instincts tell them that the Islamic Republic of Iran is expansionist and, therefore, a threat!

   Some of them have come out of their diplomatic silence and stated in public that Iran is more dangerous than Israel. They, at politically sensitive times, remind us that Iran occupies three United Arab Emirates islands, that Iran oppresses the Ahwazi population of Arab descent, that Iran is coordinating its moves inside Iraq with the American occupation forces, and that the Shi`i populations of Iraq and the (Arabian) Gulf owe their allegiance to Shi`i Iran and not to their own people. (Remember the Jordanian King and the Egyptian Pharaoh-cum-president who talked about a Shi`i crescent a couple of years ago). And finally they say that Iran is using the Palestinian issue as a diplomatic Trojan Horse to salvage its nuclear program.

   Anyone who has the time and the patience to go through the official Arabian press gets the unmistakable impression that the Islamic Republic of Iran is "Zionist danger" on the verge of going nuclear while a forty year-old nuclear Zionist Israel is the Arabians' comrade in arms. Don't be surprised if the media networks belonging to Arabian petro-interests imply that President Mahmud Ahmadinejad is the new Holy Persian Emperor. When it comes to Islamic Iran there is a common denominator that is shared by Arabian nationalists, Islamic sectarians, and westoxicated liberals. The glue that keeps these otherwise contradictory elements together is the Saudi riyal, the American dollar, and the euro.

   This motley assortment of religious and ideological types cannot see several hundred nuclear bombs and weapons in Israel; rather they have their eyes fixed on an Iran that is rumored primarily by Tel Aviv and Washington to be in a matter of a few years in possession of nuclear weapons. The Arabian media have a topsy-turvy view of facts. The political neanderthals in Riyadh, Cairo, and `Amman who are leading the Afro-Asian Arabian flock are preparing public opinion for an alignment of imperialism, Zionism, and Arabian munafiqs against the Islamic political order in Iran. There is a new tripartite force in the womb of the Holy Land precincts from Makkah to Jerusalem. The anti-intellectual and artless politicians in Arabian countries want to survive by any means necessary on their thrones and in the palaces; and if that means they shall politically cohabit with the evil governments of Israel and its American bedfellow then that is exactly what they will do. For the bloodline rulers of Arabia, the Lord of Makkah no longer counts; it is the lord of Washington to whom they should submit.

    Some oily but squeaky Muslims from the Gulf and the Peninsula say with all the political ingenuousness that goes with it, "Why doesn't the Islamic Republic of Iran relinquish control of the three islands of Abu Musa, the major Tunb and the minor Tunb (al-Tunb al-Kubra and al-Tunb al-Sughra) to its rightful owner — the United Arab Emirates? As if the Islamic Republic of Iran sent in its armed forces and occupied these three islands. Their short and shallow memory does not tell them that the Islamic Republic of Iran assumed responsibility of its geographical areas — including these three islands — from the late and never lamented Shah, who was the darling of the Saudi regime and the political ally of the (Arabian) Gulfers when Arabian nationalism under the tutelage of the late Jamal `Abd al-Nasir was at its peak. It was not the Islamic Republic of Iran that grabbed the southern territories of al-Ahwaz, otherwise referred to in official Ba`thi political literature as `Arabistan, from al-ummah al-`arabiyah (the Arabian Nation).

   Let us refresh these Islamist history losers that the Islamic State in Iran assumed political responsibility for a vast area of land that includes many nationalities such as the Persians, Arabians, Kurds, Baluchis, Uzbeks, Lurs, and Turks. The only thing all these people have in common is their Islamic character and civilization. The majority of these peoples happen to have Shi`i persuasion as their denominational preference. It may not be off the mark to say that there are some non-Shi`i and non-Persian Muslims in Iran who feel they are not full political and civic participants of the Islamic State. And it is on the mark to acknowledge that the leadership in the Islamic State understands this very well and is doing whatever it can — given the war conditions imposed on it — to ameliorate this situation.

   The Arabian political mind, void of its Islamic content, has a problem. It wants to pick a fight with non-Arabians because of slivers of territories parceled out by British and French colonialists to Iranians and Turks at a time when all of these Arabians combined do not have the will-power to forge one united and coordinated political order, that is, government. The same problem exists between Arabian nationalists and Turks in what the Turks call the region of Hatay and the Arabians call Iskandarun between Turkey and Syria. Let us face the facts: the Arabian countries suffer from backdoor occupation — the non-representative Arabian regimes — and from in-your-face occupations — Palestine, Iraq, Ceuta and Melilla (Moroccan areas). Somalia has become a failed nation-state; Sudan is threatened with the same destiny as Somalia, and lurking not far behind is Morocco. The United Arab Emirates, that is so sensitive about the Arab identity of its three "Iranian" occupied Islands, has lost its own Arabian identity. Arabians in their United Arab Emirates are the overwhelming minority — while foreigners and slave-laborers constitute 80% of its population.

   To be blunt: at a time when Islamic Iran broke out of the global Zionist-imperialist network 31 years ago, the Arabian political elites have prostituted themselves to the same network of political rape and economic plunder. The social world — as the physical world — does not tolerate a vacuum. So when Iraq presented a void, Islamic Iran moved in. Why should anyone in his Islamic mind be bothered by an Islamic neighbor moving into Iraq to dislodge an imperialist intruder — the USA? The Arabian political and elitist crybabies have their own selves to blame; and if they could see through the emotional knots they are in they can easily identify the Saudi family kingdom for the socio-economic and politico-military mess that they are all in.

   If these same Arabian myopics could put on their corrective Islamic lenses they would realize that the leadership in Islamic Iran has gone out on a political limb in its support of the Palestinians who are neither Iranian nor Shi`is; inside of Islamic Iran there are sectarian and nationalist pressure groups who are not convinced that their government is looking out for them. These, too, in a very roundabout way, are allies of the Arabian nationalists and Islamic sectarians.

   Islamic Iran, hence Arab Iran, is the powerhouse of the whole region. It is the only principled and reliable supporter of the Islamic Resistance against Zionist occupation and expansionism. In view of this, it is Islamic Iran that is working on liberating what everyone says is Arab land, not Iranian land. Over the past two decades, it was the Arabian regimes that helped militarist American imperialism to occupy Iraq. Take Islamic Iran out of the equation and the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon and Palestine become sitting ducks for the Israeli Zionist bombers and shooters. If the Arabians cannot do a thing to support their Palestinian brothers they should stop blaming Islamic Iran for helping them. The same Arabian regimes that backed the American occupation of Iraq are also the ones that give backbone to anti-Islamic and anti-Iranian propaganda.

   While the officials and their media mouthpieces are in knots over Islamic Iran, the imperialist regime in Washington and its Zionist client in Tel Aviv are not confused by nationalism or sectarianism as they take a hard look at Islamic Iran. In the latest development the US regime has stationed a second aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln in the waters separating Arabia and Persia. It is anchored in the Arabian and what many naive Muslims would say "Sunni" ruled Bahrain. This is the first time in the past two years that the US political-military elite has stationed two of its aircraft carriers in the Gulf between Arabia and Persia. While the Arabians are in a confused mess about "what is Iran" the USS Harry S. Truman with its four squadrons of Hornet and Super Hornet fighter-bombers, surveillance and command craft, electronic warfare craft, squadrons of helicopters and transports are marking time for the Zionists in Washington to give them their strike-commands.

   To prove their loyalties, the Saudi and Egyptian armed forces secretly coordinated their first-ever joint military exercises in October. It was called Exercise Tabuk-2 and it was a mock exercise to repulse not Israeli but Iranian armed forces. This was reported to have taken place between Oct 17 and Oct 21, under the command of the acting Saudi Aviation and Defense Minister his highness Prince Khalid ibn Sultan, son of Prince Sultan and half brother of Bandar ibn Sultan (both Bandar and Sultan are said to be recuperating from serious medical problems in Morocco, the first undergoing five medical procedures and the second fighting his last days against terminal illness. Saudi press reports said Bandar returned to the kingdom in mid-October).

    And there you have it: the perfect alliance between kafirs and munafiqs in contravention of the ayah that instructs committed Muslims not to confederate their political and military secrets with Zionists and imperialists, "O You, who are firmly committed [to Allah's power and authority]! Do not predicate al-Yahud and al-Nasara (politico-military Jews and Christians) as your superior allies…" (5:82).