These brave researchers [Craig Ranke, and Aldo Marquis of Citizen Investigation Team] have been repeatedly smeared by -- who else? -- the anonymous cyber-entity that calls itself "Arabesque." This web handle (I have no idea if an actual person corresponds to it, or whether its true name is Operation Arabesque) specializes in cherry-picking little out-of-context word-turds from the internet, and assembling them into deceptive TIN RATS (They'll Never Read All This S**T). The result looks somewhat like actual scholarship to those unfamiliar with the genuine article, and provides those guided more by emotion than intellect -- especially people who are deathly afraid that the 9/11 truth movement will become identified with a claim that looks outlandish to the general public (!) -- with reasons to embrace their knee-jerk emotional reactions rather than engage intellectually with the evidence. (Check out this excellent deconstruction of Operation Arabesque's deceptive attacks on CIT.
It's funny how the opinions of real 9/11 truth leaders like David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage (who recently endorsed CIT's work) are ignored by certain 9/11 sites, while the deceptive nonsense spewing from the cyber-orifice of Operation Arabesque is accepted. It makes you wonder about the judgement, if not the sincerety [sic], of the people who run these sites.
In my humble opinion, the issue of disinformation and disruption is of critical importance to the success of the 9/11 truth movement. In fact, as I have argued, the official story of 9/11 itself is disinformation; a deliberate attempt to mislead the public about the truth about 9/11. As I have said:
“The official story of 9/11 is disinformation, which means that the subject of disinformation is a vital and essential topic of 9/11 discussion. The opinion that disinformation is ‘extraordinarily low’ in this movement misses the mark by a long-shot since the very purpose of our movement is to expose the disinformation of the official story of 9/11. We cannot avoid the subject of disinformation.”
“One of the telling signs of many disinformation artists (who may or may not be gainfully employed by some ‘shadowy government agency’) is that a lot of their claims are simply too strong to be true… I am not suggesting that any of them works for the NSA, the CIA, or the FBI. That creates an exaggerated version of the situation as I see it that makes it easy to satirize. I have no idea why they are doing what they are doing. But there are ample grounds based upon past experience to believe they are abusing logic and language to mislead and deceive others about the state of research... On the basis of my experience with them, I believe this is deliberate. Their function appears to me to be obfuscation... There is a serious disinformation movement afoot, one that finds the work of those they attack to be too good to ignore. Disinformation… is the major obstacle to the search for truth about the death of JFK.”
First of all, I want to make absolutely clear that I do not endorse or approve of allegations or speculation that cannot be proven. As I have written:
FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, in a letter entitled Disruption of the New Left explained that activist groups would be neutralized through various means including “the instigating of or the taking advantage of personal conflicts or animosities existing between New Left leaders… hostility should be exploited wherever possible…” According to Brian Glick, this would be partly achieved through infiltration, “[agents] and informers did not merely spy on political activists. Their main purpose was to discredit and disrupt… set up pseudo movement groups run by government agents.”… False and misleading accusations are frequently and effectively used by agent provocateurs. The most common accusation within the 9/11 truth movement is that a 9/11 researcher or activist is an “agent” working for the US government… 9/11 activists should be wary of any and all accusations that are not readily supported by credible evidence, facts, or documentation. Ultimately, false and misleading accusations create divisiveness and encourage hostility.
As I concluded in elsewhere the end result of disinformation or misinformation is the same, regardless of intent:
In summary, there is a clear distinction between criticizing the actions of an individual and making allegations or accusations that can not be verified or proven. As well, we do not need to understand “intent” to understand that a statement itself is false or misleading. Following this premise, we do not need to understand “intent” to understand that promoting misleading claims or divisive behavior discredits and divides the 9/11 truth movement. As Jim Hoffman has explained:
“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.”
I believe that the 9/11 truth movement not only has a right to be critical—it has a responsibility. First of all, while I do not endorse any claim that a 9/11 activists is an “agent” (as I explained above quite clearly), I believe that we have the responsibility as a truth movement to be critical. Furthermore, as I have established, it is indeed possible to be critical without making accusations.
One of the 9/11 researchers most criticized for promoting false and misleading information about 9/11 is Jim Fetzer. A co-founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Fetzer has been harshly criticized for promoting information and theories about 9/11 widely regarded as disinformation.
It didn't start out that way. In fact, as Victoria Ashley explains, “James Fetzer started off appearing to support the work of Dr. Steven Jones and offered to help form a scholars group with Jones and a handful of others. Fetzer ran the website for the group, but within monthsFetzer's increasingly speculative, bizarre and one-sided posts began to earn criticism from other researchers... By the end of about one year, the situation had gotten so dire that some of the members, including Steven Jones, decided they could no longer allow Fetzer to control the website, and decided to take a vote on what to do, since Fetzer refused to remove the offending posts."
9/11 blogger George Washington described the situation:
”...people hostile to rationality and the scientific method are close to completely taking over Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Such people claim that "space beams" destroyed the World Trade Center, that no planes hit the Twin Towers, and that the Twin Towers fell faster than free-fall speed. Noneof the scientists in the Scholars' group buy these theories. These people throw out false arguments and then -- when caught in an untruth -- start calling anyone who raises contrary facts names and attempts to bully them into submission.”
Was this true? Ashley explains that, "Eventually, after several weeks involving hundreds of emails attempting to resolve the situation, a poll and subsequent vote was taken of the membership via email. All but ten of the more than two hundred members who participated in the vote voted to leave Fetzer's original groupand form a new group." In other words, what Fetzer called a "hostile takeover" involving only Dr. Jones, was in reality the vast majority of the Scholars group wrestling over control of a website that Fetzer solely controlled. The "hostile takeover" claim was deliberately misleading; an obvious example of disinformation.
What is striking about the Scholars for 9/11 truth site is its uncritical approach to 9/11; every possible theory, no matter how implausible is pursued as valid inquiry. No possibilities are eliminated as Ashley explains, "Jim Fetzer is the primary force behind publicity and press releases for the claims of Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds, advocating endless investigation into every possible scenario imaginable: '...once [Fetzer] had become convinced that thermite/thermate could not explain the extent and character of the destruction, he began encouraging investigation of alternative hypotheses, including lasers, masers, and plasmoids." What is even more striking is that every possible theory about 9/11 was encouraged on this website—with one interesting exception: a hit piece by Wood and Reynolds targeted Jones’ thermite evidence.
In summary, Fetzer co-founded scholars for 9/11 truth, but his actions eventually became so divisive and disruptive that only 10 people out of 200 decided to not leave Fetzer's group. It is worth asking if many of these scholars would have joined the original group in the first place if Fetzer had acted this way all along. Of course, this is extremely doubtful. Was this a "controlled demolition" of Scholars for 9/11 Truth?
Having established the above, I now turn to the subject of Kevin Barrett, a member of the “dynamic duo” radio show with Jim Fetzer. I will suggest it is past time to critically examine some of the statements that Kevin Barrett has made on behalf of the 9/11 truth movement. But before I do so, I will quote the Political Director of the Libertarian party who I think understands the issue quite clearly:
“In almost all cases, as Political Director I support the candidates as nominated by our state parties no matter how I feel about them. I cannot in good conscience do this in the case of Kevin Barrett. I do not have a problem with him or anyone as a so-called "9/11 Truther." I accept that people who express skepticism over the official story about what happened that day have a home in the LP. But Mr. Barrett goes well beyond that in two ways:
2) He has made qualified statements of support for the preeminent Holocaust deniers in North America. I researched this extensively before coming to this conclusion. He seems to be playing both sides of that fence. I am and will always be totally intolerant of the Holocaust deniers….
I strongly urge the Wisconsin LP to not nominate Kevin Barrett for US Congress. Regardless of your decision however I will go out of my way to disassociate him from the national LP.
I will now quote Jim Hoffman’s 9/11 research website:
“MUJCA.com is apparently mostly the work Kevin Barrett. Before August 2007, 9-11 Research expressed concerns about Barrett's apparent sympathy with Holocaust deniers, based on previously published conversations with the OilEmpire.us webmaster archived here. However, we removed quotations from that conversation after Barrett wrote to us to express his belief that our excerpt of it was libelous. Barrett's public statements suggestive of violence are in stark contrast with 9-11 Research's policy stressing civility, verifiable information, and rational analysis. In 2007 Barrett's support for 9/11 junk science presented as 9/11 Truth typified by postings on James Fetzer’s website became increasingly obvious.”
I have also been critical of Kevin Barrett for many of these statements. Let it be confirmed that nowhere do I call Kevin Barrett “an agent”. I know that many leaders in the 9/11 truth movement consider him a personal friend. I also understand that Kevin Barrett has helped spread awareness of the 9/11 truth movement. However, this does not mean that we cannot be critical of anything that he does. “Peer review” depends on the concept of being critical of our peers.
Now, what you may or not be aware about and might find interesting is Kevin Barrett’s apparent response to my criticism. Did he give an explanation for these statements? Did he apologize for them and say that he would discontinue making statements such as these? No—in fact his response is very interesting. Here is what he said about me on his radio show. I want to be clear that he does not say my name directly, but he is nevertheless referring to me personally:
This accusation is simply unacceptable in my humble opinion, coming from someone who is considered a “leader” of the 9/11 truth movement. Unfortunately, this is not unprecedented behavior as seen from some of our so-called “leaders” of the 9/11 truth movement. The obvious example for this is the Kennebunkport Warning controversy. Note that Mr. Barrett said above that 9/11 activists were “Maybe misguided on this particular issue”. Well, I would like to humbly disagree with Mr. Barrett here. What I and others repeatedly said in this context was that “divisive behavior is destructive and counterproductive to the 9/11 truth movement.” Who can honestly disagree that this is “misguided”? I would like to emphasize that our charges of incivility were completely ignored by many involved in the controversy or who claimed that we “opposed the warning” itself. I find this last charge particularly ridiculous because I posted my own research to support the warning. Ironically enough, we were accused of being “divisive” for pointing out divisive attacks, not to mention attacked viciously with copious amounts of slander. 9/11 activists were even targeted by a Youtube harassment campaign in which literally over a hundred youtube videos spread personal information including phone numbers and addresses along with encouragement of harassment. These videos even included accusations that members of the 9/11 truth movement were “Al Qaeda” members and even “perpetrators” of the 9/11 attacks. One of the individuals spreading these videos belonged to Captain May’s Ghost troop. Captain May himself for his part accused me and others of being COINTELPRO professionals during this controversy. All of my claims above are verifiable and I have taken the care to verify them.
I will quote Martin Luther King who said, “A time comes when silence is betrayal.” I would thank people like Kevin Ryan, Jim Hoffman, Jon Gold, and others who did speak out in support of the 9/11 activists were obviously and transparently being slandered and attacked. In retrospect, I found it very striking and surprising that such obvious attacks such as the above could occur and the response would be mostly indifference. Or instead, the entire controversy was framed as a “personal” or “equal dispute”. Is it an “equal dispute” when a country is invaded without provocation? Is it a “personal dispute” when Bill O’Reilly attacks 9/11 truth activists and calls them dangerous? It is a “personal dispute” when protesters are attacked at a peaceful protest? No, it is not—it is simply a one-sided and unprovoked attack.
Regarding “controversial theories”, it can be observed that there is “disagreement” and then there is “ignoring criticism”. Remember, peer review depends on critique of our “peers”. Let me quote the words of Dr. Judy Wood who when questioned about the Directed Energy Weapon Theory stated:
In other words, Judy Wood's response to the extensive and thorough criticism of her theory is essentially a non-response. Dr. Jenkins observed with irony, "Amazingly, [Wood] explicitly claims that her research has now moved beyond the original claims that were so suspect in the first place, thus neutralizing all past and present scientific scrutiny... [however,] Wood has repeated the same points in contention.” This is also strikingly similar to the approach taken by defenders of the official story of 9/11 itself who might say, “We simply disagree and we respect those who have differing opinions” while refusing to directly respond to those questioning the official story of 9/11. Does this mean that we should simply go home since the U.S. government will not address our concerns? Unfortunately, I think we know the answer to this rhetorical question. As someone who has actually taken the time to “debate” and examine the “theories” of “Directed Energy Weapons” and “TV fakery”, I can tell you that they are not only complete nonsense, but that the theorists themselves completely refuse to even acknowledge or respond to serious criticism of these theories. This is not a question of “open mind”, it is a question of a “closed one”—a refusal to discuss or acknowledge counterarguments. This is no longer simply “disagreement” but willful and deliberate avoidance of debate or criticism.
Here is an excerpt from a radio interview with Jim Fetzer interviewing Judy Wood while discussing the aforementioned "directed energy weapon theory":
Reprehensor explains that, “the DEW proponents only plow ahead, indifferent to reason… What has support of this idea by a handful of people done for 9/11 Truth? By far (to date) the most damaging thing has been that Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood attempted to take their ideas to court. United States District Judge George B. Daniels dismissed their complaints, with prejudice.” Quoting Jim Fetzer who says, “It’s obvious to me that you have to consider all the possible alternatives,” Reprehensor responds, “Yes, you CAN exclude some. The most improbable, the most unlikely, the impossible, the absurd ... grossly obvious disinformation, you CAN exclude this nonsense from your 9/11 horizons.”
It is true that the corporate sponsored media will ridicule the 9/11 truth movement regardless of what it promotes. However, this does not therefore mean that we should give them as much ammunition as possible to discredit by association the real questions and contradictions of the 9/11 "official story". This is a disservice to the family members who wanted their real questions answered in the first place. As explained by Thomas Pynchon, “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.” I believe that the 9/11 truth movement has to be aware of how it can be discredited instead of simply taking a passive approach to dealing with the issue of disinformation and misinformation. Otherwise, we are playing right into the hands of those who wish to discredit the 9/11 truth movement itself.
This issue is not simply limited to the problem of “controversial theories”. Ad hominem attacks and disruption are an equally important issue. Should members of 9/11 truth movement demand accountability from its leaders when they engage in destructive behavior and promote damaging information or speculation? I think the answer is clear: we cannot afford not to.
Shortly before Kevin Barrett was banned from 911blogger.com, he made the following statement on April 17, 2008:
One of the "very good" things about 9/11, from an Israeli perspective, was the miracle of the Twin Towers. Somehow all the Israelis just didn't happen to be there that day. The vile rumor that "no Jews died in the Towers" was probably spread by Mossad as a pre-emptive strike against people noticing that no ISRAELIS died in the Towers. This is what Ahmadinejad should be harping on!
It is an amazing fact that citizens of more than 100 nations died in the Twin Towers, but not a single Israeli was killed, despite the well-known heavy presence of Israelis in the World Trade Center. China lost 20 people, Columbia lost 18, the Dominican Republic lost 25, India lost 34, Ecuador and Italy both lost 13, the Phillipines lost 16, Japan and Jamaica both lost 21, Trinidad and Tobago lost 15, the UK lost 68, and indeed the majority of nations on earth lost people in the World Trade Center... and Israel lost exactly ZERO, zilch, nada... While the USA lost 2,464 people.
After posting this false information, 911blogger.com administrator Reprehensor saved a copy of the post after deleting it from 911blogger.com, saying:
9/11 blogger loose nuke posted a rebuttal, citing an article that listed the deaths of 5 Israeli citizens on 9/11:
President Moshe Katsav, US Ambassador Dan Kurtzer, Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert, the families of five Israelis killed on September 11, and others gathered outside the Israel Museum in Jerusalem yesterday to remember the nearly 3,000 who died in the attacks a year ago.
Greer Fay Cashman, Five Israeli victims remembered in capital, The Jerusalem Post, September 11, 2002.
Shortly after September 11, 2001, false rumors began to circulate claiming that 4,000 Jews, or 4,000 Israelis, had failed to report for work at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11, supposedly because they had been warned to stay away by Israeli secret services, which were allegedly responsible for the attack. The claim is totally false....
Vague conspiracy theories blaming Israel began to appear within 24 hours of the attacks. Syria's government-owned Al Thawra newspaper may have been the first newspaper to make the "4,000 Jews" claim. According to U.S. embassy reporting, its September 15th edition falsely claimed "four thousand Jews were absent from their work on the day of the explosions."
The 4,000 figure apparently came from an article entitled "Hundreds of Israelis missing in WTC attack" which appeared in the September 12th internet edition of the Jerusalem Post. It stated, "The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem has so far received the names of 4,000 Israelis believed to have been in the areas of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon at the time of the attacks." ...
According to an article in the October 11, 2001, Wall Street Journal, roughly 1,700 people had listed the religion of a person missing in the WTC attacks; approximately 10% were Jewish. A later article, in the September 5, 2002, Jewish Week, states, "based on the list of names, biographical information compiled by The New York Times, and information from records at the Medical Examiner's Office, there were at least 400 victims either confirmed or strongly believed to be Jewish." This would be approximately 15% of the total victims of the WTC attacks. A partial list of 390 Cantor Fitzgerald employees who died (out of 658 in the company) lists 49 Jewish memorial services, which is between 12% and 13%.
This 10-15% estimate of Jewish fatalities tracks closely with the percentage of Jews living in the New York area. According to the 2002 American Jewish Year Book, 9% of the population of New York State, where 64% of the WTC victims lived, is Jewish. A 2002 study estimated that New York City's population was 12% Jewish. Forty-three percent of the WTC victims lived in New York City. Thus, the number of Jewish victims correlates very closely with the number of Jewish residents in New York. If 4,000 Jews had not reported for work on September 11, the number of Jewish victims would have been much lower than 10-15%.
I received this correspondence from Kevin Barrett's PR representative, Rolf Lindgren:
"Arabesque... You're doing a great job fighting for 9/11 Truth... Once again, we all here in Wisconsin and the entire Barrett Campaign appreciates your great work for the Truth."
I'm just a little confused about one thing though. Why did Barrett call me a "COINTELPRO" operative on his radio show if he thinks I'm doing "great work"? Not to mention that I'm still scratching my head over the fact that Barrett called 911blogger "Islamophobic" and Lindgren called truthaction activists "batshit insane". When I criticized these divisive attacks, Lindgren "responded" by saying:
Arabesque has totally lost his grasp with reality in this article [Kevin Barrett and his PR Manager Slander 911blogger, Truthaction, and 9/11 Activists]. He forgets that Kevin Barrett is not the enemy, but his ally. The real enemy is the Bush Administration and those that promote the 9/11 Commission myth. I would hope that Arabesque could return to his more productive work of the past, in [promoting] the strongest 9/11 Truth evidence to the public.
That's right, instead of responding to my criticism that Kevin Barrett is attacking 9/11 activists, he ignores these facts and says that 'we're all on the same side.' Does that make any sense to you? No wonder I said that Lindgren's job as Barrett's PR manager is not an easy one.
What "catfight" was Lindgren referring to? He was speaking about the Kennebunkport Warning controversy in which Cindy Sheehan was called a "wretched individual" and 9/11 activists were slandered and attacked for reporting on the controversy.
Lindgren's statement is misleading for several reasons. First of all, the Kennebunkport Warning controversy was not a "catfight", since the attacks were almost entirely one-sided as I prolifically documented. This statement is also inaccurate since Mr. Barrett participated in the slander. In other words, Barrett was a part of the controversy. After adding his signature to the Kennebunkport Warning, Barrett said the following about Cindy Sheehan and other anti-war activists:
"But Tarpley’s ill-considered accusation is nothing next to the mendacious fraud accusations put forth by the four regretful signatories... Frankly, if I were one of the Warning’s organizers, I would be strongly considering legal action. The possibility of cointelpro involvement in this affair is not to be dismissed. It is hard to imagine how anyone could be so stupidly unethical as to make transparently false accusations of forgery without some form of pressure having been applied. That pressure could come from threats; or, more likely, from “nice antiwar friends” from the foundation-funded pseudo-left... the kind of people professional 9/11 coverup agent Chip Berlet hangs out with. Cindi Sheehan and her foundation-funded fake-peace-movement “friends” are easy targets for this kind of manipulation by professional psy-oppers. Wake up, Cindi! Anyone who takes foundation money is on the CIA payroll. The foundation-funded “left” magazines, radio shows, and organizations are CIA propaganda outlets. It really IS that simple."
Now, as I have repeatedly pointed out, reporting attacks is not an attack. If I am a reporter, and I report that person X is attacking person Y, I am not making an "attack" against person X, am I? Conflating critique or criticism with ad-hominem is a straw-man. Recently, Barrett has further slandered 9/11 activists in relation to this controversy on his radio show:
Barrett: Maybe that's it. I don't know, those people I have no use for, whatever Webster wants to say about them I happily endorse. The people with real names that he called out were actually good people. Maybe misguided on this particular issue... throwing them in with these two false names--COINTELPRO people who are intelligence fronts or idiots, whoever they are was completely mad. It was really unfair to those two real human beings. I told him so, I gave him a really hard time after that."
Remember, Barrett's PR manager claimed that he did not take a side in the controversy and that he did not involve himself in "catfights". This is demonstrably false, since as you can see he is accusing me of being a COINTELPRO operative on his radio show without any evidence.
Now as if this was not enough, Mr. Barrett made a "call for unity" shortly before his recent attacks on 9/11 activists. As I have argued all along, attacks on activists are divisive and destructive. However, it is very difficult to have "unity" with individuals who insist on attacking other activists. This should be obvious. Keeping the above "call for unity" in mind, Barrett is now slandering 911blogger as an "Islamophobic" site.
"...I am dismayed that... 911blogger.com, has continued its recent policy of silencing and expelling Muslims and those with views approximating those of the global Muslim mainstream...
Sadly, I have to wonder whether [911blogger may be Islamophobic]. A few months ago, the only two Muslim regular posters at 911blogger, myself and John Leonard of Progressive Press, were banned from 911blogger, and the excuses for the banning in both cases were transparently ridiculous. ([Reprehensor], who is now the sole Decider at 911blogger, claimed he was banning me because I had invited John Lear, a highly qualified pilot with some odd views, on my radio show. But Lear had already been on other 9/11-oriented shows run by non-Muslims, such as Rob Balsamo's, without any complaints from Allan.)
[note by Arabesque: According to Reprehensor "John Leonard has not been banned from [911blogger]". However, 911blogger no longer accepts paid ads from Leonard, says Reprehensor.]
American society is so permeated with double-standards, so drenched in an ideology of Jewish superiority and Muslim inferiority, that people like [Reprehenser] of 911blogger can effectively ban all Muslims and Muslim-friendly perspectives and not only get away with it, but perhaps not even fully understand what they're doing. Islamophobia has become like the air we breathe -- toxic, omnipresent, and unremarked-on."
Why is Barrett making "calls for unity" with divisive activists like Jim Fetzer, but spreading lies that 911blogger is an "Islamophobic" site, that he was banned for "being a Muslim", that 9/11 blogger is "silencing Mulsim-friendly perspectives", and that 9/11 activists Arabesque and Col. Jenny Sparks are "COINTELPRO operatives"? These and other charges are false. On what basis is Kevin Barrett attacking myself as a "COINTELPRO" agent? Probably, in response to the fact I wrote an article about him. The entire article is essentially a collection of direct quotations by Kevin Barrett. Is this the first time that Barrett has made accusations against someone for quoting his own words? In fact, it is not. According to the respected 9/11 research website wtc7.net:
That's right: Apparently, quoting the words of Kevin Barrett is now evidence of "libel" or that you are a "COINTELPRO agent". And it appears that Lindgren, his PR manager (who obviously has a very difficult job) isn't above slander or "cat fights" either: he attacked activists at truthaction.org as "bat shit insane" in response to criticism of Kevin Barrett.
Again and again we return to what I think is the core issue: Attacking activists is wrong and divisive. Criticizing Mr. Barrett and others for their divisive statements and actions is not an attack. I'll repeat myself: reporting attacks are not the same as making an attack.
Mr. Barrett is running for Congress while representing the 9/11 truth movement. I believe that the 9/11 truth movement should demand responsible behavior from anyone who claims to represent it, and that if we don't demand it we are going to be burned and we are going to be discredited. Remaining silent about slander and damaging behavior that affects the movement as a whole is among the most damaging and serious problems that the 9/11 movement faces. Pretending that there is not an issue allows any serious problems to continue unaddressed and for the movement to be continuously misrepresented and discredited.
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.).
"Captain May, a former Army intelligence and public affairs officer, is the founder and commander of Ghost Troop, a 300-strong unit comprised of military and police veterans and active duty, along with civilian research/activists. He is on a self-declared "mission of conscience" to oppose the Bush War Cabal."
Ghost Troop is comprised of:
"former military and interested civilians, many with a background in recon and intelligence... working on the analysis of the 911-to-be (ergo 9112B) event which has been pre-programmed into the public via the media as a matter of WHEN, not IF."
While the above citation claims that Ghost Troop consists of “former” members of the military, another article reveals that there are "current" members:
CAPT. MAY: Ghost Troup [sic] is really an analytic group. As a trained intelligence officer I serve as the chief analyst. As a trained public affairs officer I serve as the unit spokesman. What I put out is the distilled intelligence product of many Ghost Troops. They send me the reports and sometimes I do a little back-and-forth with them. They keep me informed, and I polish my ideas and Ghost Troop analysis with top experts in the field, sometimes across many countries and several continents. [...]
ICONOCLAST: You have said that you already have informants imbedded [sic] in various governmental and corporate entities. Are you seeking to expand upon these?
CAPT. MAY: At all times. [...] Some of the most prominent people in the 911 Truth Movement, for example, are Ghost Troops. We had a U.S. ambassador in the unit as chaplain for the first three years."
Captain may is a supporter, signer and endorser of Webster Tarpley's Kennebunkport Warning of a potential false flag attack:
"The Kennebunkport Warning is short and strident at 200 words. It has been posted widely on the Internet, and in last week's edition of The Lone Star Iconoclast. Since then, though, it has come under sustained fire from a swiftboat attack aimed at its authors and signers, and even its word choices. Every aspect of the document has been called into question -- except its content." [see Kennebunkport Warning Controversy for a response to these claims]
Not only has May endorsed the Kennebunkport warning, but previous warnings as well. In fact, he has been interviewed on the radio by fellow supporters of the Kennebunkport Warning including Jim Fetzer, Kevin Barrett, and Webster Tarpley. Morgan Stack, yet another Kennebunkport warning signer/promoter features his work on his website 911truth.ie as noted below by Jim Hoffman. Radio interviews include:
· "In his July 3 interview with Dr. Kevin Barrett, Captain May 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.)."
According to Captain May, understanding numerology is important because the planners of the next false flag attack:
"like to communicate with this Illuminist number code and the media is actually passing the information on to the many levels of members, alerting them of the potential dates and times of planned acts of terror... They are also using the repetitive name game, another way of feeling superior. Just think about it: Oklahoma City, Okla., New York, N.Y. and now maybe Texas City, Texas."
Using numbers and name games to predict the next 9/11? Jim Hoffman observes that David Ray Griffin's appearance in Ireland was canceled because of Captain May:
"In Ireland David Ray Griffin's appearance was canceled and he was labeled anti-Semetic due to posts by "Captain Eric May" being featured on Morgan Stack's 911truth.ie website. * May is yet another "former" intelligence person who advocates numerology to expose the 9-11 coverup. * May is openly anti-semetic, describing the media and Hollywood as 'controlled by the Jews'."
A brief and short internet search on articles by Captain May reveals that he is antisemitic:
"In this case it is the controlled media, who use Jewish Cabalism, and the "Bush Boyz" (criminal officials and agents), who use Masonic coding, and they're reporting their handiwork in the Great Plains! . . . I wonder why the Jewish film industry would make a mistake like that, rewriting the plot of reality to convince us -- with a powerful movie -- not to obsess about the prospect of embedded code in the mainstream Jewish news media?" - Captain Eric H. May
"Dear Mr. Green, I read with great interest your essay "Holocaust Fundamentalism - You WILL Believe" just now, and am eager to forward it to Ghost Troop, my associates (military veterans and civilian supporters). We have come to be astute in the importance of body-count numbers to political purposes, and aren't a bit surprised to find that thoughtful men like you are questioning "official reality" in the Holocaust... We are specifically rooted in the matter of the current Zionist Media efforts to keep the real number of US dead GI's covered up in the Middle East. The same forces that want to exagerate [sic] the suffering of the Jews on the one hand want to minimize the suffering of the Christian Army they have duped into killing Moslems. […] If you told me you thought youfound an exaggeration factor of "5" (in the Holocaust), I'd just say it matched the minimization factor of five (in the Middle Eastern War). Captain May / Ghost Troop"
"Believe me, all, those of us, like Ghost Troop, who are intellectual opponents of the Jewish Zionist kulturkampf -- which we call the infowar -- are the rational opposition. I provide one stark link to our unit infowar history, from this summer, when we were involved in what we coded "Ghost Troop 9112B." It's from a most valued international infowar ally who stabbed us in the back for trying to hold true to the Constitution, when he and his cult wanted us to renounce that prudent pact to join a growing international -- and revolutionary -- movement against the Jewshttp://100777.com/node/1373 Captain Eric H. May, MI, USA CO, Ghost Troop, 3/7 Cybercav+ Mission of Conscience / Patriots in Action"
"No question about it, the American People are being readied for another Al Qaida attack -- and they have been told that it will be in the heartland of the Homeland months ago. The WMD attack, high death tool and ensuing tower collapse to top it all off will achieve the kind of "iconic" psychological effect necessary to carry the war spirit to the nuclear level necessary to impose a Middle Eastern Final Solution -- for the equal benefit of the co-founders, the Military Industrial Complex and the Israel Lobby. The first target for the American "counterattack" is obvious. Iran is already being shaped into a monster by Judas Journalists with their headquarters in New York and their heartbeat in Tel Aviv. The best propagandists in broadcast and print first insinuated -- and now insist -- that Iran is a "nuclear threat" bent on a "nuclear confrontation," that might have to be met by a "nuclear option." Any idea is worth hanging a "nuclear" label on, and any excuse will do to start a nuclear war! Captain Eric H. May, MI/PAO, USA CO, Ghost Troop, 3/7 Cybercav+ Mission of Conscience / Patriots in Action"
"Our Ghost Troop mission of conscience began with honoring our dead comrades in the services who were receiving no just counting by the propaganda press. That mission has been covered widely in the international media and US alternative media, and is summed up nicely (I think) by National Vanguard. We became creative in finding ways around the Israel Lobby's propaganda arm (they call it the media) to pursue just honors for our fallen brothers and sisters, who are dying in far greater numbers than are being reported. Captain Eric H. May, MI/PAO, USA CO, Ghost Troop, 3/7 Cybercav+ Mission of Conscience / Patriots in Action"
Captain May's “Jews control the media” theme of was subtly repeated in his piece “Amerika Über Alles” — Our Nazi Nation” posted on 911blogger by Carol Brouillet:
"Neither Hitler nor Bush could have effected their radical plans without a party full of functionaries and a compliant national media, of course. Hitler relied on his “Nazi” party, a word derived from the name of his National Socialist organization. He had a brilliant individual named Joseph Goebbels to control the Reich Propaganda Ministry and rally the public behind Nazi policies. Bush relied on his “Nozi” party, a word derived from “Zionism,” with the first four letters Z-i-o-n remixed into N-o-z-i. He had a brilliant cartel of Zionists to control the American Mainstream Media and rally the public behind Nozi policies."
Another article by May entitled “Jews for Torture” was hidden after breaking guidelines at Indymedia.
This is only a short sample of Captain May's work and antisemitism. Mark Rabinowitz from Oilempire.us questions why an anti-semite is promoted by websites like NY911Truth and MUJCA, supposedly a part Jewish alliance:
"Why does both MUJCA and NY911Truth feature a blatant anti-semite on their sites? ( a google search returns 14 entries [on MUJCA]) He 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."
Captain May appeared on Webster Tarpley's radio show to accuse Jenny Sparks and Arabesque of being "trained COINTELPRO professionals", "organized COINTELPRO cells", etc.
These comments are also attributed to an email by Captain Eric May:
"I believe that... the more prolific of our antagonists in the Kennebunkport Warning matter were professional agitators. To take one example, 'Colonel Jenny Sparks' was harassing both the Oregon Truth Alliance and Portland Nuclear Inquest (which I lead) in the weeks before the Kennebunkport Warning. In typical agitator fashion, she claimed to do so in order to defend the 911 Truth Movement and debunk our "alarmism" for alerting Portland to the dangers the nuclear simulation, Operation Noble Resolve. She and cohorts infiltrated both group lists and hurled monkey wrenches in every direction before getting the boot. As a lasting memorial of the encounter, they then set up their own user group, made up of a mixed set of a dozen agitators and useful idiots, largely dedicated to damning me and browbeating [other local activists]. Every once in awhile I read it for amusement."
And these accusations of COINTELPRO were found in a radio interview with Webster Tarpley:
"Uh, with Jenny Sparks I think you're at both ends--I think she uses professional cointelpro cooperation and then useful idiots where ever they can be found... They're... trained cointelpro professionals--agitprop activists--and their job is not to produce positive analysis. If you can look far and near for any article of any consequence, by any of these people and you'll not find it. But what you'll find is a constant rat-a-tat of criticism against anyone else's work. And that is because their mission is not to develop the area of 911 analyses, or the next 911 prediction--it's to impede 911 analysis and prediction. So, these are classic disinformation tactics… you have to realize there are organized cointelpro cells… I've run into half a dozen of them. Anything from military professionals who went by rank, although would not sign their work, to, you know, cute synonyms like Arabesque or Jenny Sparks who would not sign their work… they usually coalesce and target specific points. You have to see them as military assets." [Note: Captain May has never provided any evidence to support these false allegations. See Kennebunkport Warning Controversy for a response to these claims]
"An effort is being made in some quarters to falsely attribute these faked and counterfeit postings, emails, and videos to Webster G. Tarpley, Bruce Marshall, Captain Eric May, and to other persons sympathetic to the Philadelphia Platform and/or the Kennebunkport Warning. Any such attempted attribution is a lie."
In fact, we have tied some of these videos to an associate of Captain May. "Ozzy bin Oswald", a member of Captain May's Ghost Troop email list was responsible for posting some of these videos, some of which accusing Arabesque, Cosmos, Jenny Sparks and others of belonging to Al Qaeda. These videos often make use of radio interviews by Captain May, and Webster Tarpley in the background.
Captain May advocates antisemitism, holocaust denial, numerology, frequent warnings of another 9/11 attack, and accusations of COINTELPRO against legitimate 9/11 researchers frequently with dubious misinformation and often no evidence at all. His work is promoted by 9/11 activists who have a history of promoting and advocating controversial claims, researchers, and divisive behavior. "Guilt by association" is also a typical ploy used to discredit activist groups and the 9/11 truth movement is especially noteworthy for attempts to associate it with holocaust denial and antisemitism. In fact, this could be used as a deliberate strategy to discredit valid 9/11 research, evidence, and unanswered questions.
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
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!”
