- Thanks to Matt Naus of http://ts911t.org for his stellar
- Please, write Amy and ask her to invite me on her show
to continue the conversation
- I attended Amy Goodman's speech at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison last night, Thursday, 9/27/2007. She talked about doing
"ground zero reporting" and said "our job as journalists
is to go to where the silence is." I wanted to confront Amy
over her reprehensible silence about the 9/11 truth debates in general,
and her refusal to cover the demolition of Building 7 in particular. After
all, she was present at the pre-announced demolition of Building 7:
- If I were confronting a hopelessly evil 9/11-complicit
creep like Guiliani or McCain I'd be a lot more confrontational. But, as
Col. Bob Bowman pointed out on my radio show, which will be rebroadcast
next Friday, 10/5/07 4-6 pm CT on <http://gcnlive.com>http://gcnlive.com
network 2, Amy is a potential ally, albeit a maddeningly silent one so
far. And her audience, who are also potential allies, loves her. So I wanted
to get in her face, but with a 'tough love' approach spiced with humor,
rather than venting the anger we all feel about Amy's betrayal of the truth.
- Amy began the question period by announcing that nobody
would be tasered for asking questions.
- Kevin: "Well, if anyone were going to be tasered
here, it probably would be me. Hi Amy. Kevin Barrett here. I appreciate
your great work on so many issues, and I agree with your quote that 'our
job as journalists is to go to where the silence is.' Now there's a very
popular youtube video that's especially popular among the 100 million Americans
who know that 9/11 was an inside job, according to a New York Times poll.
It shows you present at the controlled demolition of Building 7."
- Amy: "I did not demolish Building 7."
- Kevin: "Well, okay, I'm glad we got that straight.
My question would be, if your job is to go to where the silence is, Building
7 is a great place of silence, as I'm sure you know. It's a 47 story building
that came down into its own footprint for no apparent reason at about 5:30
p.m. on September 11th. A countdown to the demolition of Building 7 went
out on New York police radio. I was in New York for the sixth anniversary,
and every cop I talked to knows that that went out on police radio. The
BBC reported that Building 7 had collapsed twenty minutes before it happened,
with Building 7 standing in the background behind the reporter. And we
have eyewitnesses--I can give you their contact information--who were inside
Building 7 at [around] 9 o'clock in the morning who witnessed massive explosions
that killed large numbers of people and devastated the lobby. There were
pre-demolition explosions. You're right there in New York, you're right
next to Ground Zero, and you talked about doing 'ground zero reporting'
-- so when are you going to get around to doing some 'ground zero reporting'
on Building 7?"
- Heckler: "Why don't you shut up, this is not your
- Amy: "Overall, I would say that everything that
happened on September 11th should be fully investigated. Of course I don't
think that the 9/11 Commission was an adequate investigation. And I agree
that there are a lot of questions that have to be answered."
- [well jeez Amy, you're a journalist, you're based right
next to Ground Zero...why don't YOU try to get some answers??!!!]
- While I stood in line to get my Amy Goodman book autographed,
I autographed Amy a copy of my own book Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against
the 9/11 Big Lie:
- I also carried a copy of the best photo book on 9/11,
Eric Huffschmid's Painful Questions, open to the page showing the demolition
of Building 7. When I arrived in Amy's exalted presence, the following
- Amy: "I guess you're famous here."
- Kevin: "Not as famous as you, Amy. Here's my book,
with my phone number, in case you want to invite me on your show, or appear
on one of my three radio shows. Also, I was wondering if you could autograph
this book (Eric Huffschmidt's Painful Questions) here on the Building 7
page (page 65, featuring still shots from the demolition of WTC-7) so when
you break this story..."
- Amy: "I don't want to mess up your page."
- Kevin: " I think when you break this story it'll
- Matt Naus (off camera): "You were there, Amy! I
saw the video of you. You were there!"
- Amy: (smiling) "I work right there."
- Kevin: "I mean, if you break this story...if anybody
does, it might be you...and if you sign this, this will be a very valuable
- Still smiling, she declines to sign.
- Please write to Amy and ask her to invite Kevin Barrett
on her show either (A) for a friendly chat about the 9/11 truth movement,
or (B) to debate any bunker who dares to try to take me on. Her address:
- From:"Kevin Barrett"
- Dear Jeff Rense,
- You recently published my article linking the youtube
video of me questioning Amy Goodman about WTC-7. Unfortunately you
published it with an objectionable headline and introduction, in
a format that suggests that I am labeling Amy a "Zionist gatekeeper"
and a "mole." Here is the beginning of the article:
- Zionist Gatekeeper Amy Goodman Questioned On WTC-7
- By Kevin Barrett
- She has always been a mole.
- If you bother to write her (FOR NOTHING), include this
image below. Bottom, right of Center, zio-mole Goodman. Of her fans,
how many are also actually zio-moles?
- Note that I did not write a single word of this, yet
it says "By Kevin Barrett." Those unfamiliar with your
format will assume I wrote it, and I will have to spend precious
hours answering emails and phone calls and trying to straighten out
the misinformation. I have had to do this on dozens of other occasions
when false information about me was published, and I am starting
to get sick of it. Probably one of the reasons I became the target
of the "get the 9/11 professors" campaign is that unlike
the tenured and retired professors I am supporting a family way below
the poverty line and don't have the resources to hire lawyers and
fight back when I am defamed. The result is that there is a massive
amount of defamatory information about me floating around, and very
little I can do to make it go away.
- While you certainly have the right to speculate on Amy's
motivations for refusing to report the story of the century, you
do not have the right to publish my work without permission, add
an objectionable headline and introduction, and put my name on them.
- What makes this situation especially annoying is that
you have a history of mixing principled anti-Zionist articles (nothing
wrong with that) with occasional bigoted anti-Jewish stuff. This
discredits anti-Zionism and attracts the wrong kind of readers. Every
time you link one of my articles, I get hate mail, and once even
a death threat, for "selling out the white race" by refusing
to blame everything on "the Jews." This tendency to demonize
whole religious and ethnic groups, whether Jews or Muslims or who
knows what next, is unacceptable.
- Thank you for publishing this, for standing up for free
speech, and for being open to constructive criticism.
- Dr. Kevin Barrett Coordinator, MUJCA-NET:http://mujca.com
Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth Author, Truth Jihad: My
Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie Editor, 9/11 & American Empire:
Christians, Jews, and Muslims Speak Out
- Dear Kevin...
- This is exactly how we received the article and had no
way of knowing it was not from you. We get thousands of articles from
authors each month and occasionally people will send in material not written
by the credited author, and/or will add a sentence, a phrase or a
word to the text. This kind of misrepresentation of an article and
within an article is intolerable and we do our utmost to prevent it
from happening. We NEVER change someone's writing without their
request or permission.
- Please understand it is simply not possible to check
every word of every article as we're sure you can understand.
If we could find out who originally submitted this, we could do some tracing...
but with the volume we process that's impossible.
- In this particular case, your headline and byline are
clear at the top of your text, and show unequivocally where your
article begins. We assume, now, that you did not include the box
illustration. Who did? It looks like we've been duped. It has happened
before and it will happen again. In this digital age, anything is possible.
- We certainly regret any imposition and will pull
the story immediately as is and replace it on with your story and your
letter below. In the future, unless we can be positive you, in fact,
are the actual one sending a story, we'll delete it upon arrival. As for
unpleasant email, we get a ton of it from many different special
- As far 'mixing principled anti-Zionist articles (nothing
wrong with that) with occasional bigoted anti-Jewish stuff' we don't
do so with any intent other than that of open journalism...which is supposed
to present ALL sides of controversial issues and permit the reader to process
and make independent judgments. No other site that we know of follows
these bedrock, pure journalism ethics. We see it as a situation of
either practicing total journalism or becoming 'gatekeepers' ourselves
by editing and selecting stories which results in biases. Furthermore,
we can't publish what we don't receive, which makes what we do even more
- We certainly publish a TON of what could be classified
as 'anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-gentile' and even 'anti-American'
(to some) material as well. For example, virtually every critical
story of the Bush/Cheney administration fits this paradigm with ease.
- Our best to you and thanks for understanding our situation.
We certainly understand yours.