Personal attacks requires motive and intent. In my experience, personal attacks and irrelevant commentary are used to intentionally create hostility within the 9/11 truth movement, possibly with the intent of distracting attention away from facts, evidence, and legitimate debate. Personal attacks are a diversion and distraction similarly exploited by FOX propaganda specialists like Bill O'Reilly and Michelle Malkin. Likewise, the 9/11 truth "debunker" site "Screw Loose Change" strongly emphasizes personal attacks against 9/11 truth advocates instead of debate. As Jim Fetzer explains (note: see this article for my observations on Fetzer and his definitions of disinformation), Ad hominem attacks are disinformation:
As for CIT's claim that the plane flew "north of CITGO" gas station, this has long been debunked. Among the witnesses that CIT cites as "evidence" include witness accounts (5 years later) who said the plane hit the Pentagon (implicitly debunking the north flight path), appeared to show up on different location on the CITGO gas station video from where they claimed to be (CIT claiming that the perpetrators purposely altered the video), with another witness claiming that light poles were "not knocked down" where they were in fact, knocked down.
Disingenuously, CIT claims that these witnesses are somehow "smoking gun" evidence of a "military slight of hand deception" that "fooled" witnesses into somehow thinking that a plane hit the Pentagon despite the above and other glaring problems with the theory.
Kevin Barrett is a prominent 9/11 activist. While he has significantly contributed awareness for the 9/11 truth movement, he has also damaged its credibility with damaging associations, discrediting theories, and controversial statements.
Support for TV fakery, Space Beam Weapons and other debunked 9/11 theories
Barrett has supported 9/11 disinformation conferences such as The Science and the Politics of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not?[1]On 911blogger Barrett promoted this conference with the plea to “Join the cutting edge of the movement to save our planet.”[2] As Jim Hoffman observes, “Jim Fetzer's conference in Madison in August of 2007… included Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood, Dave Von Kleist, Barbara Honegger, and others, and featured conclusively debunked theories, such as hologram planes and Tower-vaporizing space beam weapons.”[3]
In an interview after the conference, Barrett explained, "We can prove it's an inside job Seven Ways from Sunday--so it’s not that big a deal... how the illusions of... suicide hijackings were created."[4] Clearly, many disagree with this sentiment as Barrett complained that:
“‘Many participants lamented the phenomenon of "internet lynch mobs" comprised of angry emailers and bloggers demanding that this or that researcher be banished for heresy. Often these internet lynch mobs are made up of people who have not carefully studied the research issues that they so confidently pronounce on. Barrett urged those who find controversial research issues a distraction from 9/11 activism to eitherstudy those issues with an open mind, or ignore them and focus on activism. The worst thing to do is waste time and energy on fruitless infighting.’”[5]
In the film Ripple Effect Barrett says, “I’ve looked at various hypotheses about what might have happened with the plane hits on the World Trade Center, and frankly, I haven’t come to a firm conclusion—I do think that some of the pod images are suggestive of the possibility of a plane switch. I’m not convinced that that’s the case however… pods under the planes suggesting they might be some sort of military plane, flashes suggesting that they might be igniting large fireballs for spectacular television effect—personally I’m not convinced that that’s true, but I’m also far—I’m not convinced that we need to dismiss that hypothesis. I’ve looked at these images and some of the pod images I think… don’t just look to me like optical illusions—like the people who debunk this claim.”[8]
Barrett on “TV fakery”
In a Scholars for 9/11 Truth press release, Barrett said, “I guess I’ll have to take this possibility more seriously now… In the past, I have assumed video fakery was far-fetched and that anyone who endorsed it was probably a crackpot! Now I’m not so sure.”[9]
Barrett on “Directed Energy Weapons”
In late 2006, Barrett endorsed the study of directed energy weapons on his radio show to explain the destruction of the world trade center on 9/11:
“I would urge people to go take a look at this material… 'I think we don't really need any kind of unanimity from researchers… I don't think this is doing any permanent harm to the 9/11 movement… 'I think people who are blowing it up into something really huge are either sort of panicking or just making a tactical mistake… [the perpetrators] would have taken advantage of the most advanced technologies of deception and demolition, and in fact they would have arranged it in such a way that anyone who figured out exactly what happened and described it accurately would sound completely insane… So, I wouldn’t rule out anythingand I think we need to allow researchers to pursue their own path…”[10]
Support for Controversial 9/11 activists
Kevin Barrett forms the dynamic duo with Jim Fetzer.[11] His radio show has featured interviews with Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood, Captain May,[12] and other controversial figures. Barrett describes Reynolds as “a provocateur in the good sense.”[13]
The Theory of Dialog and Social Interaction…
"The way I study [social interaction] is through dialog... I think we could use a little more conviviality within the Truth movement... one reason for that is that we want people to join us... by reaching out to them in a conviviality way... people will come on board... I think we need to enjoy dialog including with people that we don't agree with... [especially] non-9/11 truth people... I want dialog with [people who support the official story]—dialog is good... this is the key to the politics that we need to practice..."[14]
…Versus Practice
Barrett wasn’t joking when he said “I am not a hardcore nonviolence activist".[15] In response to a journalist who covered the disinformation conference The Science and the Politics of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not?Barrett wrote, "As the example of Nuremburg suggests, journalists who act as propagandists for war crimes may one day find themselves on the scaffold. You would be well advised to strive for more balanced and accurate coverage in the future."[16]
Similar comments include:
"Amy [Goodman], you will one day find yourself on the scaffold, condemned to hang alongside the other Goebbels-style traitors and mass-murder-coverup-conspirators from the corporate media you pretend to criticize… I stand by the opinion that the support Amy Goodman has given to the worst blood libel in human history, and her ensuing participation in the murder of over a million people in Iraq, Afghanistan and the USA, constitutes complicity in high treason, mass murder, war crimes, and other crimes against humanity. "[17]
"The State Department doesn’t know what it is talking about, but what else is new? Frankly I wonder who wrote this for the State Department. We need to find out because they are going to have to go up there on the scaffold with the other people who planned the attacks and more importantly the people who covered them up. The people complicit in the attacks need to be tried, condemned and sentenced."[18]
James B. of Screwloosechange observed that, "First Kevin Barrett said that Fox News employees should be hung. Then he said that the producers of United 93 should be tried for inciting war crimes, now he is expanding his list of those on death row to include just about every journalist in the world, while discussing an e-mail exchange he had with a journalist for Harper’s Magazine: 'My response to that was, you know, I think that anybody who has drawn a paycheck from the major mainstream journalistic outlets in the past should be up on the scaffold for the crimes of high treason and crimes against humanity.'"[19]
"If you are not aware that you're covering up for that traitor and mass murderer and yes insurance fraudster Silverstein, you'll figure it out when you're beside him on the scaffold. I'll be saving this email as evidence for your trial."[20]
"The Capital Times ownership and editorial decision-makers, like those of other mainstream U.S. news outlets, are setting themselves up to be prosecuted as war criminals. By publishing the endless stream of lies that brought us into the Iraqi and Afghan quagmires, without exercising duly diligent skepticism, journalistic decision-makers are following in the footsteps of Joseph Goebbels -- a path that ends at the scaffold."[21]
"Kevin Barrett contacted me after he heard that Kevin Ryan backed out of a debate opportunity with me. Barrett wanted to know if I was interested in debating him on his radio show, or perhaps in a live debate when he is in New York. In his email to me, he copied a response he had sent to a listener, in which he said that I was complicit in mass murder and a candidate for a war crimes tribunal, with the gallows perhaps in my future. I guess that's his idea of an inducement to debate."[22]
"As I understand it, the usual penalty for treason is hanging, not death by firing squad. In that case, it is likely that Mr. Bush will be hanged, not shot, for treason. By making this prediction, am I running the risk of having my clothesline confiscated? I also think that there is a real possibility that Mr. Bush will be electrocuted for the mass murder of 2,500 Americans in the World Trade Center. By stating this, am I risking a court order shutting off my electricity? I also foresee a small but very real possibility that Mr. Bush will die in the gas chamber. Does raising this possibility mean that my gas could be cut off?"[23]
"By blinding people to the need to take the only effective action, [Noam Chomsky] is bringing on disaster. If he convinces even one person to do something other than work for 9/11 truth, he may as well have personally murdered all 6 billion people on earth."[24]
Kevin Barrett on the Holocaust
Barrett is a founder of MUJCA,[25] “a group of scholars, religious leaders and activists dedicated to uniting members of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths in pursuit of 9/11 truth.”[26]
Despite being a founder of an alliance of diverse religions, Stephen Lemons observed that “Barrett said he could not dismiss the propaganda of Holocaust deniers like David Irving and Ernst Zundel, the latter of whom's currently doing five years in a German clink for anti-Semitic agitating.”[27] The evidence for this statement was an email sent by Barrett in late 2005:
“…it seems tragic that systematic Zionist Big Lies… have cast legitimate doubt upon ANYTHING Jews say about Jews and their recent history, including the Holocaust… I cannot possibly dismiss the arguments of people like Green, Irving, and even Zundel. And even if the 6-million-deliberately-murdered-for-purely-ethnic-reasons figure is correct—which it very well may be; I have grown agnostic on that after studying the Big Lies of Zionism—I would still have to characterize the Holocaust as it is taught in the US as a hideously destructive myth. (A myth is a sacred, worldview-inaugurating story its users believe to be true.) The upshot: nobody in the debate should be boycotted or vilified; nobody should be arrested for expressing honestly-held opinions; all voices should be heard; and the destructive myths and mind-numbing censorship imposed by Zionism must be swept clean so an honest assessment of history can emerge—at which point the Holocaust revisionists may very well be proven incorrect. And even if they are, they obviously should not be harassed or vilified, much less jailed!! In the meantime, voices like Green and AFPN should be heard and subjected to rational criticism, not vilified or silenced. And the use of state power to enforce Holocaust Fundamentalism must end!”[28]
Mark Rabinowitz from Oilempire.us questions why Captain May is promoted by websites like NY911Truth and Barrett’s MUJCA, supposedly a part Jewish alliance:
"Why does both MUJCA and NY911Truth feature a blatant anti-semite on their sites?... [Captain May] sounds reasonable enough on these pages, but apparently no one has read a single other thing the supposed ‘former’ intelligence Captain speculating about numerology has written. One would imagine that the Jewish members of the Muslim Christian Jewish Alliance might take offense, but apparently they haven't noticed either."[29]
“Without a method to distinguish true from false theories, investigations of the crime will remain mired in ambiguities. The scientific method is the proven method of distinguishing between true and false theories. The scientific method depends on critique (peer review). A culture hostile to critique is antagonistic to science and to the development of a persuasive, actionable case for investigation of the crimes of 9/11/01. Such a culture supports stereotypes of challenges to the official story as irrational and faith-based.” Critique of 9/11 Mysteries: The Necessity of Critique
7-24-07 Capt May on Dr. Kevin Barrett's show talking about his article last week on The Price Of Liberty, "Next 9/11, Summer 2007?"
7-3-07 Capt May on Dr. Kevin Barrett's 9/11 Empire show addressed the prospects and probabilities of a July false flag attack on U.S. soil, and of a consequent escalation of the Mideast War (Iraq and Afghanistan) to World War Three (Syria and Iran, et al.).
A Blog Devoted to Discussing 9/11 News, Research, and Disinformation
"When we act, we create our own reality"
“The aide said that guys like me were ‘in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who ‘believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.’ I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ‘That's not the way the world really works anymore… We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.'"
“Arabesque is the best writer in the movement, bar none. Arabesque writes with great clarity on all areas of the 9-11 cover-up, meticulously documenting each point through the use of extensive endnotes. Arabesque has also proven that he isn’t afraid to take on the disinformation specialists who would serve to discredit legitimate questions, research, and evidence which would directly contradict the 'official conspiracy theory' about the events of September 11th, 2001. This, I believe, is one of the most important issues facing the 9-11 movement today.” — Michael Wolsey, Visibility 9-11
"Arabesque, I found a photo of you at a 9/11 conference... Oh yeah...by the way[...] the plane approached on the north side of the Citgo." 
Barrett has supported 9/11 disinformation conferences such as 
“…it seems tragic that systematic Zionist Big Lies… have cast legitimate doubt upon ANYTHING Jews say about Jews and their recent history, including the Holocaust… I cannot possibly dismiss the arguments of people like Green, Irving, and even Zundel. And even if the 6-million-deliberately-murdered-for-purely-ethnic-reasons figure is correct—which it very well may be; I have grown agnostic on that after studying the Big Lies of Zionism—I would still have to characterize the Holocaust as it is taught in the US as a hideously destructive myth. (A myth is a sacred, worldview-inaugurating story its users believe to be true.) The upshot: nobody in the debate should be boycotted or vilified; nobody should be arrested for expressing honestly-held opinions; all voices should be heard; and the destructive myths and mind-numbing censorship imposed by Zionism must be swept clean so an honest assessment of history can emerge—at which point the Holocaust revisionists may very well be proven incorrect. And even if they are, they obviously should not be harassed or vilified, much less jailed!! In the meantime, voices like Green and AFPN should be heard and subjected to rational criticism, not vilified or silenced. And the use of state power to enforce Holocaust Fundamentalism must end!”
