Gathering 7-9pm Wednesday August 2nd

at LAUGHING HORSE Books 12 NE 10th Ave - Portland latest info see portland indymedia calendar or phone 503 287 3473

Kevin Barrett Appears On 'For The Record'

How to Give a 9/11 Interview: Controversial Instructor Speaks About His 9/11 Views, UW Course

Kevin Barrett Appears On 'For The Record' By Adam Malecek, Staff Writer July 22, 2006

This article is quite fine, but watch the absolutely splendid interview video! Watch the video. Barrett's lengthy, warm and compelling tour de force should be seen and studied by anyone facing civil questioning of their 9/11 beliefs. Like Dr. Stephen Jones, Kevin brings an extremely sympathetic and human voice to what are essentially horrific conversations and gives listeners both courage and hope in the process. The video can be downloaded for podcasting and other forms of sharing, and we urge you to share it widely. - Ed.

MADISON, Wis. -- Controversial University of Wisconsin-Madison lecturer Kevin Barrett appeared on WISC-TV's "For The Record," discussing his views on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Islamic studies and the class he is teaching this fall at UW-Madison.

VIDEO: Watch The Show

Recently, 61 state legislators signed a resolution calling for UW-Madison to fire Barrett over his outspoken views that the U.S. government orchestrated the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

UW-Madison Provost Patrick Farrell reviewed Barrett's record and decided he was qualified to teach an introductory course on Islam as scheduled in the fall. Farrell said that the university doesn't endorse Barrett's theories, but he said that his review found Barrett has a record of quality teaching.

On "For The Record," Barrett said his views are always evolving but explained how his current thoughts on 9/11 developed.

He said that immediately after the attacks, he was in a state of shock and wasn't sure who was behind the attacks.

"And as time went by, gradually the whole country went into a war frenzy, which I didn't really feel like I was participating in," Barrett said. "And I noticed there were a lot of holes in the official story and a lot of suspicious aspects to it from the get go. But, at the same time, I couldn't imagine that such an act could be orchestrated from the top of the U.S. government. So that thought didn't even enter my mind in a big way until two years after the event."

Barrett said that two things got him to start thinking along the lines that the U.S. government was behind the attacks.

The first was a televised debate on Aljazeera where a guest argued that a missile, not a plane, hit the Pentagon. Barrett said a poll on the program showed that the vast majority of the Aljazeera audience believed the U.S. government was behind the attack.

"I also didn't know that the arguments in favor of this looked stronger than the arguments against it, so I thought I'd better look closer," Barrett said.

The second moment came when Barrett heard that Dr. David Ray Griffin, a professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology, was writing a book called The New Pearl Harbor.

"As soon as I heard Dr. Griffin was on the case, I thought I'd better get on the case too, because he's a brilliant man, a man of uncommon common sense," Barrett said. "So, I looked into it myself, and lo-and-behold, I couldn't believe what I found. The evidence for complicity is so overwhelming I was really stunned, and I spent a few weeks kind of in a funk thinking, 'Wow, what am I going to do with this information?'"

Barrett said he thinks the core of the 9/11 issue is the question of whether the three World Trade Center buildings were destroyed with explosives or whether they fell down for some other reason, such as being damaged plane crashes or fires.

"I think that, at this point, no rational person who looks at the evidence can argue against the proposition that the three World Trade Center buildings -- the twin towers and WTC Building 7, especially -- were taken down in controlled demolitions. That I think is, by now, proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as David Griffin has said and as everyone who has looked into it, I think from a fair-minded perspective, agrees."

As for the Pentagon and Flight 93, Barrett said he finds both events more puzzling.

"I find the whole Pentagon incident troubling, disquieting, confusing, and I wouldn't want to make any strong pronouncements about being certain what happened there," he said.

The course Barrett will teach at UW-Madison in the fall is called "Islam: Religion and Culture." He said it is like any other introductory religious studies class, with the purpose of giving the students a feel for the religious worldview, as well as acquainting them with some of the contemporary cultural, social and political issues surrounding the religion.

"The religion itself is the focus, not the politics," Barrett said. "In fact, if students sign up for my class with the idea that they're going to get a Conspiracy Theory 101 class, or a 'What Happened On 9/11' class, they are going to be sorely disappointed."

Barrett -- who has a PhD in African Languages and Literature with a focus on Islamic Studies -- said that one week of the class will be devoted to critically analyzing the idea of the War on Terror, and that views on 9/11 will be a small part of that week.

"I'm not going to be teaching my views … I'm simply going to be presenting other people's views -- ones that I think are worth hearing, and students get to make up their own minds," Barrett said.

He said that he plans to teach the different views with equal enthusiasm, noting that he would present the official account of 9/11 without any sarcasm in his voice.

"I try to ventriloquate different people's voices, and do a good job on everybody's voice," he said. "And, likewise, students of all persuasions and opinions, I try to enthusiastically celebrate their contributions, even if I personally think they are completely ridiculous."

Barrett said he appreciates all the UW-Madison administrators who, while not personally subscribing to his views, have supported his right to teach.

"I'm happy to find out there are a lot of people in Wisconsin who stand up for that old line, 'I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it,'" Barrett said.

While he said the controversy might hurt his career prospects in the short term, Barrett said he's "angling for the long-term."

"I think a lot sooner than most people realize, 9/11 is going blow wide open," he said. "The official report doesn't stand up to scrutiny -- it's very simple."

Barrett said he is optimistic that 9/11 will ultimately be a catalyst for Americans to take back the Constitution.

"We have a great Constitution in this country, and it's been trashed and burned by this current administration," he said. "And not just this administration … a lot (of Democrats) are equally responsible."

End

Previous Stories

* July 21, 2006: 61 Lawmakers Demand UW Fire Instructor Over 9/11 Theory

* June 30, 2006: Lawmaker Wants UW Lecturer Fired Over 9/11 Views

Video

VIDEO: Assembly Fails To Vote On Controversial UW Lecturer (July 2006)

VIDEO: Barrett Talks (June 2006)

Copyright 2006 by Channel 3000. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Source article here.

Gathering 7-9pm Wednesday July 26th

at LAUGHING HORSE Books 12 NE 10th Ave - Portland latest info see portland indymedia calendar

Mt. Rush to War

Courtesy of the San Diegans for 9/11 Truth ...

And hear GWB On Wings of Song ...

Gathering 7pm Wed July 19th at Laughing Horse

New York World Trade Center 7 (seven) "just fall down and go boom" Latest info on June 19th Gathering posted on portland indymedia calendar also check out our internal "talking shop" Some recent newswire items on portland indymedia that may NOT appear on their 9.11 investigation topic page

• 13.Jul.2006 01:28

  ---

  The Flying Elephant: Evidence for Involvement of a Third (and Fourth) Jet in the WTC Attacks
  author: 9/11 Scholars for Truth, get crackin

• 12.Jul.2006 18:58

  ---

  Michelle Malkin's Neo-Con Blog Fears Bruce Willis Now 9/11 Truther
  author: prison plane

###

meeting 7pm Wed July 12th at Laughing Horse

details on portland indymedia calendar
###

With only a letter, FBI can gather private data

National Security Letters' reach expanded after 9/11 By Richard Willing USA TODAY When the FBI office in New Haven, Conn., received an e-mail in February 2005 that looked like a terrorist threat, agents followed a familiar routine. They asked the service provider, a group of Connecticut public libraries, for the real name, street address and Internet logs of the sender. They had no search warrant, grand jury subpoena or court order. Instead, a local FBI official hand-delivered a National Security Letter — one of more than 9,000 sent to finance, telephone and Internet companies last year — that described the records needed. Under a federal law expanded by the anti-terrorism USA Patriot Act of 2001, the written request was all the authority the FBI needed. The Patriot Act also barred the librarians from disclosing the request to anyone. The librarians refused to hand over the information. Instead, they filed a federal lawsuit challenging the secret letters as an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. Read full article

FBI says, ‘No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11'

Go to original. Editor's note: Paul V. Sheridan earned his master's in business administration from the Johnson School at Cornell in 1980. He is a former member of the Alumni Executive Council, Alumni Interviewer Network and a frequent visitor to Ithaca and the Cornell campus. Sheridan has made an exhaustive research of FBI documents relating to the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States. He recently brought attention to the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorist Web page for Osama Bin Laden, pointing out that it makes no connection between Bin Laden and the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. A thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups in June, and was sent to the Muckraker Report by Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), bringing attention to the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Osama bin Laden. In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn't Osama bin Laden's Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of Sept. 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its bin Laden Web page, that Osama bin Laden is wanted in connection with the Aug. 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” bin Laden by saying, “In addition, bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.” The Muckraker Report contacted the FBI headquarters on June 6 to learn why their bin Laden's Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Osama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, chief of investigative publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on the Bin Laden's Most Wanted Web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” Surprised by the ease with which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How was this possible?” Tomb continued, “bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” It shouldn't take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure. If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered. First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush administration told the American people that Osama bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3,000 people on Sept. 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11. Next is the bin Laden “confession” video that was released by the U.S. government on Dec. 13, 2001. Most Americans remember this video. It was the video showing bin Laden with a few of his comrades recounting with delight the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. The Department of Defense issued a press release to accompany this video in which Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said, “There was no doubt of bin Laden's responsibility for the Sept. 11 attacks before the tape was discovered.” What Rumsfeld implied by his statement was that bin Laden was the known mastermind behind 9/11 even before the “confession video” and that the video simply served to confirm what the U.S. government already knew; that bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. In a Dec. 14, 2001 BBC News article reporting on the “9/11 confession video” release, President Bush is said to have been hesitant to release the tape because he knew it would be a vivid reminder to many people of their loss. But, he also knew it would be “a devastating declaration” of bin Laden's guilt. “Were going to get him,” said President Bush. “Dead or alive, it doesn't matter to me.” In a Dec. 14, 2001 CNN report regarding the bin Laden tape, then-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that “the tape removes any doubt that the U.S. military campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than justified.” Senator Richard Shelby, R-Ala,, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said, “The tape's release is central to informing people in the outside world who don't believe bin Laden was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.” Shelby went on to say, “I don't know how they can be in denial after they see this tape.” Well, Senator Shelby, apparently the Federal Bureau of Investigation isn't convinced by the taped confession, so why are you? The Muckraker Report attempted to secure a reference to the U.S. government authenticating the bin Laden “confession video,” to no avail. However, it is conclusive that the Bush Administration and U.S. Congress, along with the dead stream media, played the video as if it was authentic. So why doesn't the FBI view the “confession video” as hard evidence? After all, if the FBI is investigating a crime such as drug trafficking, and it discovers a video of members of a drug cartel openly talking about a successful distribution operation in the United States, that video would be presented to a federal grand jury. The identified participants of the video would be indicted, and if captured, the video alone would serve as sufficient evidence to net a conviction in a federal court. So why is the bin Laden “confession video” not carrying the same weight with the FBI? Remember, on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Rex Tomb said, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11.” This should be headline news worldwide. The challenge to the reader is to find out why it is not. Why has the U.S. media blindly read the government-provided 9/11 scripts, rather than investigate without passion, prejudice or bias, the events of Sept. 11, 2001? Why has the U.S. media blacklisted any guest that might speak of a government sponsored 9/11 cover-up, rather than seeking out those people who have something to say about 9/11 that is contrary to the government's account? And on those few occasions when a 9/11 dissenter has made it upon the airways, why has the mainstream media ridiculed the guest as a conspiracy nut, rather than listen to the evidence that clearly raises valid questions about the government's 9/11 account? Why is the Big Media Conglomeration blindly content with the government's 9/11 story when so much verifiable information to the contrary is available with a few clicks of a computer mouse? Who is it that is controlling the media message, and how is it that the U.S. media has indicted Osama bin Laden for the events of Sept. 11, 2001, but the U.S. government has not? How is it that the FBI has no “hard evidence” connecting Osama bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001, while the U.S. media has played the bin Laden-9/11 connection story for five years now as if it has conclusive evidence that bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93? No hard evidence connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11. ... Think about it. Freelance writer / author Ed Haas is the editor and columnist for the Muckraker Report at http://teamliberty.net. The guest column was reprinted in The Ithaca Journal with permission from Haas. Originally published June 29, 2006

Torrent downloads available

These are links to 2 great documentaries on 9/11 and false flag state sponsored terrorism. Terror Storm by Alex Jones Loose Change 2nd Edition The Gret Conspiracy by Barrie Zwicker You will need torrent software to download these movies. This is my favorite bit torrent software

9/11 recovery workers: Government deceived, abandoned us

Go to original Millionaire Christine Todd Whitman, the Bush appointee who used to head the Environmental Protection Agency, said exactly one week after the collapse of the Twin Towers, I¹m glad to reassure the people of New York that their air is safe to breathe. Capitalist politicians, from President George W. Bush to Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, put on hard hats for the cameras and praised the first responders, calling them heroes and offering all their support. But today, thousands of those who worked at ground zero after the buildings collapsed are furious at the government, which they charge deceived and abandoned them. This June 17, some 200 held a rally at the site to demand comprehensive health care for all those sickened by the work there after the disaster. Many of the two dozen or so people who spoke at the event, including former recovery workers and their families, said that top federal, state and local officials seemed to be focusing on 9/11 memorials while workers who untangled the gnarled debris at ground zero continued to face red tape, resistance and skepticism over their claims. (New York Times, June 18) Like U.S. soldiers sickened by the Pentagon's use of Agent Orange and depleted uranium in its wars for empire, these workers whose health is failing after breathing in the toxic dust left by the towers' collapse‹are being treated as malingerers by a capitalist government that spends hundreds of billions each year for war and for state repression at home but has cut essential services. Many former recovery workers who are too sick to labor now find themselves unemployed and joining the 45 million people in this country without health care. A special program for 9/11 responders set up at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Manhattan has seen about 15,000 people since 2002, according to Dr. Robin Herbert. Almost five years after the collapse, it is still getting 100 new cases each month. So many are applying that there¹s now a three-to-four-month backup. As of early this year, the program had received not one penny of government funds. In January, WABC-TV Eyewitness News reported on the death of Chris Pellegrino, a cable installer who had worked at ground zero for months. He died of lung illness at age 42 after developing World Trade Center cough. The number of responders and recovery workers who have died, some in the prime of life, is now well over 30. Just one attorney, David Worby, said in January that 21 of his clients had died of Sept. 11-related diseases since mid-2004. (Associated Press, Jan. 18) It took the death of a police detective, 34-year-old James Zadroga, for the state to finally acknowledge the link between breathing in the toxic dust and fatal lung disease. Zadroga's father said at the rally, however, that doctors and Police Depart ment officials had ignored his son's sickness until it was too late. Doctors at Mount Sinai say they're now seeing more cases of the severe lung scarring that killed Zadroga. (Newsday, June 1) They also report that cancers of the blood, kidney and pancreas are appearing among this group at a rate much higher than in the general population. After 9/11, Congress rushed to pass the Patriot Act, which has turned into a huge boondoggle for big business. But when it comes to allocating tax money for a real public health program that would end the crisis in health care, these servants of capital run the other way.

Must See 9/11 Truth TV

CLICK HERE FOR A COOL "YOU TUBE" FLICK
The webvideo draws the all to clear connections between the movie "Vendetta" and the cover-up of the truth about the events of 9/11.