Kevin Barrett’s Support for 9/11 Disinformation

Arabesque: 9/11 Truth: Kevin Barrett

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.

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.”

(…)

Lyden av desinformasjon

Hentet fra Arabesque: 9/11 Truth

The Sound of Disinformation: What Will They Say Next?

By Arabesque, December 11, 2007

Disinformation is deliberately misleading information. In the 9/11 truth movement, this has been taken to the extreme. Often, this results in moments of hilarious, absurd, and unintentional comedy. Did they really say these things? What were they thinking? Listen for yourself and find out.

Jim Fetzer shows his love for… Judy Wood and beams from space?

Jim Fetzer: “I must say I think we’re finding out Judy, what happened on 9/11. I’m just blown away by your work. This is the most fascinating development in the history of the study of 9/11… I’m going to make a wild guess Judy; I’m going to presume that these [directed energy] beams had to be located in Building 7?”

Judy Wood: “Nope. I don’t think so.”

Fetzer: “Planes?”

Judy Wood: “No… I think it’s very likely it’s in orbit.”

Fetzer: “Oh Really?? Oh ho ho ho ho! Oh Judy. Oh my, oh my, oh my. This is huge… this is huge Judy.” [source: Jim Fetzer interviews Judy Wood, Non-Random Thoughts on RBN Live, November 11, 2006]

Morgan Reynolds embarrasses the real 9/11 truth movement by making the bogus claim that there were no planes used on 9/11.

“There were no big boeing crashes… I encourage everyone to do a frame by frame, penetration of the south tower, and what you will see is a fake, cartoon display. An aluminum plane cannot go through a building like the south tower was, as if it were thin air. We don’t really understand how they did that… they are contrived.” [source: Fox News, Youtube, Dr. Reynolds exposes 9/11 TV fakery on FoxNews, September 13, 2006]

Arabesque: US-myndighetenes 9/11-inkompetanse leder til forfremmelser

Meget godt stykke fra Arabesque: 9/11 Truth

Cui Bono? The 9/11 Promotions

By Arabesque, December 2, 2007

The 9/11 official story is a tale of outlandish incompetence. We are led to believe that Al Qaeda successfully evaded a multi-billion dollar defense establishment, NORAD air defenses, standard FAA intercept procedures, US airbases, [1] the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, international intelligence agencies, etc. without any significant or effective resistance. While any serious investigation of the 9/11 attacks was blocked by President Bush and Dick Cheney for more than a year, [2] a theory of systematic and incredible incompetence emerged: Al Qaeda got “lucky”. Mindy Kleinberg, of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee in an opening address to the 9/11 Commission criticized this notion:

“It has been said that the intelligence agencies have to be right 100% of the time. And the terrorists only have to get lucky once. This explanation for the devastating attacks of September 11th, simple on its face, is wrong in its value, because the 9-11 terrorists were not just lucky once. They were lucky over and over again. When you have this repeated pattern of broken protocols, broken laws, broken communication, one cannot still call it luck. If at some point, we don’t look to hold the individuals accountable for not doing their jobs, properly, then how can we ever expect for terrorists to not get lucky again?”[3]

What happened to those who “failed”, and what exactly were their “failures”?

Former Senator Gary Hart observes that, “in terms of accountability, I think this is one of the great mysteries of the last three or four years. Three thousand Americans died three years ago, and no one lost his or her job over it. A president who says that he is a strong president, and those around him say he is, did not fire anyone. Either he was misled, in which case, somebody should have been fired. Or he misled us, in which case he should be fired.”[4] Senator Charles Grassley similarly noted that “I can’t think of a single person being held accountable anywhere in government for what went on and what went wrong prior to Sept. 11, it seems that nobody in government makes any mistakes anymore.”[5] According to testimony given to Congress these statements are accurate; not one single individual within the CIA, FBI, and NSA has been reprimanded, punished, or fired for the events of 9/11.[6]

(…)

Les videre her.

US Justice ties abuse of power to the events of September 11, Patriot act and “persistent fear mongering”

Artikkel hentet fra Arabesque: 9/11 Truth

US Justice ties abuse of power to the events of September 11, Patriot act and “persistent fear mongering”

by Arabesque, July 10, 2007

A “longtime attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice” says that “I have never been as ashamed of the department and government that I serve as I am at this time,” calling it “inappropriate, unethical and indeed unlawful.”

John S. Koppel, US department of Justice:

“The public record now plainly demonstrates that both the DOJ and the government as a whole have been thoroughly politicized in a manner that is inappropriate, unethical and indeed unlawful. The unconscionable commutation of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s sentence, the misuse of warrantless investigative powers under the Patriot Act and the deplorable treatment of U.S. attorneys all point to an unmistakable pattern of abuse.”

[…]

“In the course of its tenure since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has turned the entire government (and the DOJ in particular) into a veritable Augean stable on issues such as civil rights, civil liberties, international law and basic human rights, as well as criminal prosecution and federal employment and contracting practices. It has systematically undermined the rule of law in the name of fighting terrorism, and it has sought to insulate its actions from legislative or judicial scrutiny and accountability by invoking national security at every turn, engaging in persistent fear mongering, routinely impugning the integrity and/or patriotism of its critics, and protecting its own lawbreakers. This is neither normal government conduct nor “politics as usual,” but a national disgrace of a magnitude unseen since the days of Watergate — which, in fact, I believe it eclipses.”

[…]

I realize that this constitutionally protected statement subjects me to a substantial risk of unlawful reprisal from extremely ruthless people who have repeatedly taken such action in the past. But I am confident that I am speaking on behalf of countless thousands of honorable public servants, at Justice and elsewhere, who take their responsibilities seriously and share these views. And some things must be said, whatever the risk.

John S. Koppel has been a civil appellate attorney with the Department of Justice since 1981.

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_6308408

Rick Siegels 911researchers.com stengt

Oppdatering fra George Washington: Rick Siegel has moved his website to a new server. The CURRENT administrator is currently taking action to have it removed.

Artikkel hentet fra Arabesques blog.

The 911researchers.com website has been shut down according to John Albanese. The website was known for ad-hominem attacks on researchers, and recently, a 9/11 victim family member was targeted:

“911Researchers has accused a great many people of a great many things. In recent days they accused me of being a member of Al Qaeda and a homicidal lunatic planning murder. The FBI and police are aware of this. The tags associated with these stories included ‘gas chamber’ - ‘torture’ - ‘hanging’ - ‘murder’ etc etc. All of this I quietly tolerated. But after a lengthy conversation with 911 widow Ellen Mariani last night I decided the time to act was now, and I decided to pull the plug on Mr. Siegel’s operation. It is my hope that Mr. Siegel and the ‘researchers’ who support him will reevaluate their lives and consider the pain and suffering they have brought into so many people’s lives with their irresponsible accusations and harassment campaigns. Simply put, attacking witnesses, first responders and 911 widows is off limits and is does not occur in a vacuum. People are indeed watching and prepared to act when that sacred line is crossed.”

“Forwarding absurd theories to intentionally discredit this movement is your right under the Constitution. Claiming space beams and little green men brought down the towers is protected speech. But - harassing people, defamation of character, slander and threats is NOT protected speech - and only a fool would believe that Americans are not prepared to live and die defending those principals.”

“I am sure we have not heard the last of Mr. Siegel and his team of ‘researchers.’ I would suggest they make the smart choice and leave widows, 911 victims, witnesses and first responders out of the equation.”

As ‘George Washington’ notes, “911Researchers.com was Rick Siegel and Nico Haupt’s site, and promoted theories such as holograms. Rick Siegel recently sued the makers of the movie “911 Mysteries” for copyright infringement, and has allegedly made death threats against several prominent 9/11 truth activists (some of them in were purportedly made in email form).”

In response to these and other attacks on the 9/11 truth movement, Albanese is making a film entitled “Disinformation in the Information Age”, a documentary that will discuss the issues of CoIntelPro and 9/11 disinformation.

10 gode grunner til å betvile NIST-rapportens konklusjoner

Dette er en oversettelse av Arabesques artikkel “Top 10 reasons why the NIST report is absurd“.

I 2005 fremla NIST resultatet av deres 20 millioner-dollar-etterforskning som forsøkte å forklare hvorfor World Trade Center tårnene (1&2) kollapset fullstendig - en såkalt “global kollaps”.[1]

Mange fremholder blindt denne rapporten (ofte uten å lese et ord av den) som tungtveiende og konkluderende bevis på at den offisielle historien er sann. Jeg (Arabesque) skriver denne listen for å rette på situasjonen. Alle mine påstander er dokumenterte - dette er ikke noe jeg tar ut av løse lufta. Noen av påstandene høres kanskje for ville ut til å være sanne, men sanne er de.

Mine fotnoter vil bevise det.

!0 gode grunner til at NIST-rapporten er absurd:

#10. Deres teori er at “widely-dislogded fireproofing” var hovedårsaken til at tånene kollapset.[2]

#9. Denne teorien ignorerer det faktum at det ikke finnes noen historisk presedens for totalkollaps av “stålrammebygninger” grunnet brann - utenom på 9/11.[3]

#8. NIST motbeviser sin egen “widely-dislogded fireproofing”-teori med et hagle-eksperiment.[4]

#7. De ignorerer mangfoldige øyenvitneobservasjoner.[5]

#6. De ignorerer en av fysikkens fundamentale lover.[6]

Den Vitenskapelige Metode versus Den Politiske Metode: US-administrasjonen og dens interpretasjon av 9/11-hendelsene

Denne og mange andre gode artikler finnes på Arabesques blog Arabesque: 9/11 Truth.

Kildeartikkel.

Scientific Method versus Political Method: The US administration and its interpretation of the events of 9/11.

By Arabesque

9/11 was a terrorist attack—or was it?

The US administration released several documents that claim that 9/11 was a terrorist attack. The NIST report,[1] 9/11 commission report,[2] FEMA report and the EPA report on air quality[3] were made by government scientists and high ranking government officials. Excluding the EPA report, all of these reports are used to claim that the official story about 9/11 is true.

Many assume that the reports are accurate and tell the full story of the events of 9/11. Unfortunately, an examination of the track record of the government in relation to science raises serious questions about their credibility.

Credibility[4] is defined as “the quality, capability, or power to elicit belief.”[5]

The most reliable form of credibility is based on the scientific method. The least reliable form is established through repeated or “pathological” lying. If we know someone to be a frequent liar, we will refuse to accept anything they say. Indeed, we will ignore them. This is therefore the most damning blow to an individuals’ credibility.

Is the US administration credible in their scientific reports?