If you like this blog

Don't miss Kevin Barrett's radio shows! And visit TruthJihad.com for more...

Friday, November 20, 2009

Why KSM's Innocence Matters

By opting to try 9/11 patsy-in-chief Khaled Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court, the left wing of the 9/11 cover-up team has made a huge, high-stakes gamble. They are, as Obama absurdly blurted out, betting that KSM will be found guilty by a jury. But they are also betting that the 9/11 truth movement--which knows that KSM cannot possibly have demolished the World Trade Center with nanothermite, held the president in a known location in Florida reading about goats to kids during an alleged surprise attack, and ordered a stand-down of the US Air Force--will not use the case to draw attention to its cause.

If they win their bet and the KSM trial ends in a guilty verdict, with no visible protest from the 9/11 truth movement, the history books will record that "confessed 9/11 mastermind KSM was convicted by a jury and sentenced to death." For most Americans, that will mean "case closed." The official story will stand in the history books. "Finally, we have closure."

If, on the other hand, 9/11 truth-seekers--joined by Constitution supporters, anti-torture advocates, and honest journalists who understand that KSM was tortured into demonstrably false confessions--make a hugely visible stink about this grotesque miscarriage of justice, history's verdict will not be so cut-and-dried. And if KSM is found innocent, as he clearly will be if the jury follows the law and uses logic and evidence to arrive at their decision, the 9/11 case will suddenly be wide-open again.

That's why the psy-oppers in the front lines of the 9/11 cover-up team are terrified by Obama's decision to give KSM a jury trial. They are afraid that visible protests by the 9/11 truth, anti-torture, and Constitution movements, and/or a not-guilty verdict, could deal a mortal blow to their cover-up operation. That is why the decision to try KSM has aroused so much hysterical opposition, for example:

The mayor who oversaw rescue and recovery efforts in the wake of the attacks on lower Manhattan [9/11 criminal and fireman-murderer Rudy Giuliani, who admitted he was told in advance that the Towers would come down, then lied about it] told "Fox News Sunday" the president is only granting the "wish" of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad at the expense of the American people and that the conspirators should be tried in a military tribunal.

9/11 perp-in-chief Cheney's daughter is also whimpering hysterically at the prospect of a KSM trial, presumably at the thought of dear old dad's possible execution.

Those who want to see KSM convicted without visible protest, and the official 9/11 big lie sanctified for the history books, are trying to terrorize the 9/11 truth movement into shutting up.  The best-known 9/11 coverup propaganda website is, as usual, trying to scare truthers away from taking effective action, playing on fears and insecurities among those truthers who are hypersensitive about the verbal attacks they endure...but it's the coverup artists' own fear that shines through these lines:

I just hope the troofers finally put there money where their mouth is. I want to see a free KSM movement, just as powerful as the free Mumia nuts. If they really believe what they say they believe, they have no excuse not to do something. Perhaps Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin can appear as expert witnesses or something?

The traitor doth protest too much! Anybody with the faintest understanding of psychology can see that these lines are intended to PREVENT truth-seekers from supporting KSM's obvious and demonstrable innocence, by ridiculing the idea in a manner designed to play on truther insecurities and foster inaction. Anybody who thinks that this anti-truth propagandist really wants us to join Constitutionalists and anti-torture activists in a free KSM movement, and thus impede the sanctifying of the 9/11 big lie in the history books, is of questionable intentions and/or intelligence.

Interestingly, Jon Gold, who moved in on the family members shortly after 9/11, insulated them from such glaringly obvious truths as the controlled demolition of the WTC, fought long and hard against the controlled demolition evidence and other evidence proving that Muslims didn't do 9/11, and has been working overtime ever since to preserve the "evil Muslim terrorists" myth and obscure Zionist responsibility for 9/11, using such cointepro-style tactics as provoking flame wars and issuing vicious personal attacks, is now working overtime to stop the truth movement from joining the Constitutionalists and anti-torture activists in KSM's defense. Take a look at the email exchange below and draw your own conclusions.

Dave Slesinger writes to a list of 9/11 truth-seekers proposing leaflets citing evidence against the official story but saying we don't really know whether KSM is innocent or guilty. Subject header: Re: Draft proposal for presence in NYC for KSM trial
I respond:

Kevin Barrett:

Personally I think this is too weak a response to an outrage this extreme.

If someone is tortured into a demonstrably bogus confession, that person may safely be assumed to be innocent. And if the torturers then destroy the recordings of the torture sessions, the assumption should be upgraded to accepted fact.  That is essentially what Bob Baer says, only slightly between the lines:



Here's my response, which is proportionate to the outrage.

In any case, the proposed leaflet should focus on the abundant evidence that KSM is innocent. The question of who is really guilty should be secondary. In other words, the nanothermite evidence should be cited primarily to clear KSM.  Remember, there is a  real chance that a jury will find KSM not guilty. If leaflets citing evidence of his innocence were distributed in mass quantities targeting the prospective jury pool, the likelihood of acquittal would rise -- and any response by the government would trigger useful publicity.

Saying "we're not sure KSM wasn't involved" is exactly like saying "we're not sure David Slesinger wasn't involved." The main difference is that the torture, along with other evidence, clears KSM, whereas no equally strong evidence has yet surfaced that clears Dave  ; )


[Various emailers joke about "yeah, we should definitely torture Dave" and "I've had my suspicions about Dave for a long time" etc. etc.  Others support the position that we should defend KSM's innocence.]

Jon Gold:

We need a real criminal investigation into 9/11. I am not defending KSM, nor do I think people in the 9/11 Truth Movement should.


[emailer disagrees with Jon, who responds:]

We must NOT come across as "terrorist sympathizers." There are MANY in the 9/11 Truth Movement who would like us to do just that. That would be a PR DISASTER. My approach recognizes that 9/11 was a crime, and that there are MORE suspects than just the 5 being brought to NYC.

Here is the available evidence I know of against KSM.



The "debunkers" are calling for us to do it.


It is important to note that KSM allegedly confessed to the crime before he was captured.


KSM IS a "terrorist."  Project Bojinka ring a bell to anyone?  It would be absolutely foolish for us to give our opponents ammunition to call us "terrorist sympathizers."  I am not a "terrorist sympathizer."  I would hate to be painted with a "terrorist sympathizer" brush because certain people are sympathizing with terrorists.


Kevin Barrett:

That's "evidence" against KSM?!  The guy they made a human vegetable through nonstop torture, then destroyed the interrogation tapes?! Please.

And "terrorist sympathizers"?! As my book Questioning the War on Terror explains and documents, even if we consider 9/11 a "terrorist attack," you are thirty times more likely to be struck by lightning, and ten times more likely to drown in your bathtub, than to be killed by an anti-government "terrorist." So "terrorism" in the sense of al-Qaeda, the Weathermen, the Puerto Rican freedom fighters, etc. is a complete non-issue. We need to ruthlessly mock the whole idiotic "fear the terrorists" meme -- not worry about being called a "terrorist sympathizer"!  Most of the people labeled terrorists, in fact, are heroes fighting against extreme injustice and government terrorism. We SHOULD sympathize with freedom-fighters fighting war criminals in Afghanstan, Iraq, and Palestine. If you don't, Jon, what the hell kind of human being are you?

Governments and their militaries, for their part, murdered roughly 100 million people during the 20th century, most of them civilians. They're the only terrorists that matter.

So I agree that we must not come across as "terrorist sympathizers" by showing any sympathy whatsoever with the US government, the biggest terrorist organization on earth.

And from a PR standpoint, it would be great to have Dave Slesinger carrying a huge sign reading "Torture me, I'll confess too!" in front of the courthouse where KSM is being tried, with hundreds of supporters with similar signs behind him.  A large, visible movement supporting KSM's obvious innocence would help annihilate the "we're all terrorist-hating patriots here" consensus hallucination the Zionist MSM and Jon want to impose on us.


Jon Gold:

Kevin Barrett is not someone that should be taken seriously or trusted.  He obviously has an agenda which is not in the best interests of this cause.



P.S. I live in a world of reality.  I do not proclaim everything to be fake because it doesn't coincide with what I think happened on 9/11.  As I mentioned KSM allegedly confessed BEFORE being tortured.  I also pointed out that the 9/11 Commission was HEAVILY based on his tortured confessions.  An indication that the 9/11 Report isn't worth the paper it was written on.

* *  *

Okay, that's enough of Jon Gold. I'll spare you Jon's illiterate obscene grunts sent to me off-list, which I am used to by now. If I had a dollar for every four-letter-word Jon has emailed me since he started stalking me a few years ago...well, I wouldn't exactly be a rich man, considering the fall of the dollar, but I could at least buy everybody a cup of coffee!

Anyway, does Jon really believe "The 'debunkers' are calling for us" to defend KSM's innocence? Or is he working with those very "debunkers" to spread fear in the truth movement and PREVENT us from taking action? Feel free to post a comment voting either "yes he's stupid enough to believe it" or "no, he's working for the other side."

I'll let Sander Hicks, a brilliant yet cautious and meticulous researcher, have the last word.

Sander Hicks:

Jon Gold, you are wrong. Neo-Zionist ideology = ONE BIG ZERO.

Why are you trying to instill a fear in us?

Sorry, let them called me a "terrorist sympathizer." I have already been called worse. KSM deserves a legal defense. I hold that we activists of good faith need to assemble an "Amicus Brief" and file it through an attorney.

Kevin Barrett has more substance to his argument, on the basis of legal jurisprudence, common sense, morality, ethics, due process of law, standards of evidence, etc.

The USA's eagerness to violate international laws against evidence garnered under torture itself shows desperation. International legal scholars point out that the confession from torture is inadmissable: http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/17/2/349

It violates the UN Convention Against Torture, see Article 15

Yet, let's not place any hope in the NY Courts, we saw how quickly they dispatched 80,000 signatures from NYC CAN.

YES there IS a strange allegation that KSM "confessed" before his apprehension in Pakistan.

However, this "confession" was witnessed by only one source, the writer Yosri Fouda. His connections to the establishment media (and possible intelligence assocations) destroy Fouda's credibility. His book "Masterminds of Terror" is a lightweight flake of chaff. KSM says in an off hand way "yes we did it" at the end of a chapter. It's rather unclear: We did WHAT?

Look at Fouda on the History Commons timeline:

Financial Times states: “Analysts cited the crude editing of [Fouda’s interview] tapes and the timing of the broadcasts as reasons to be suspicious about their authenticity. Dia Rashwan, an expert on Islamist movements at the Al-Ahram Centre for Strategic Studies in Cairo, said: ‘I have very serious doubts [about the authenticity of this tape]. It could have been a script written by the FBI.’” [Financial Times, 9/11/2002] ... After being so reviled by al-Qaeda supporters, Fouda is later given a cassette said to be a bin Laden speech. [MSNBC, 11/18/2002] US officials believe the voice on that cassette is “almost certainly” bin Laden, but one of the world’s leading voice-recognition institutes said it is 95 percent certain the tape is a forgery. [BBC, 11/18/2002; BBC, 11/29/2002]


  1. CR sez: Welp, my vote is that Jon GOLD IS an operative/cointel... In fact more and more I see his influence at 911blogger which I do not promote anymore...often the blog seems to be running pretty tepid stories, stories that reinforce the official lies when boiled down.
    And I agree immensely that KSM needs a REAL trial. But we know how they work and that will not happen. Still, we must try...I believe the corporate MSM will make sure KSM is no more... and added to the generally accepted myths of 9-11...and the memoryhole. Unless AMerica pulls its head out of its ass -this is likely to happen.

  2. If KSM is tried in a US court no evidence can be used if it was obtained by torture. That's the law in this country. In fact, if he were to recant his confession then it's hard to see how he could ever be convicted. We'll see what happens but there is certainly no evidence that he's now a "vegetable" as you seem confident of. Have you spoken to him?

    As far as 9/11 is concerned. There was no "standown" - orders were never given to shoot planes down until it was too late. There is no evidence of "nanothermite" because the article you quote shows a material which would have been ignited by the fires and because the energetic reaction was provoked in the presence of oxygen and carbon. As far the the president and the goats story is concerned, it lasted for 7 minutes while the situaion was evaluated from video tape evidence of the events. No one knows what the protocols are for protecting the president it's ridiculous to think that somehow you have access to secret secret service information. Can you demonstrate this? Basically you are, as my mom used to say, full of beans.

  3. I'm entirely in agreement with Kevin Barrett and Sander Hicks. Truthers and their associates should now demonstrate and support KSM.

    John Minnneapolis

  4. While I spend long hours doing 911 truth work, I sadly continue to hold that our movement does not deserve success.I hold that position because it is SOP to accuse anyone you disagree with of bad faith. There is no reason criticizing what someone says or does isn't sufficient.

    I really like the idea of holding a banner saying,TortureMe!I'llConfessToo(.com)It would be spiritually beneficial for the American public to distance itself from Islamophobia.

    Despite the reality that it is possible Muslims were on the planes(I doubt it, but it is possible),it's also quite possible that since the USG lied about so much else, any or all evidence of KSM's involvement should be doubted.

    I didn't maintain there are no Muslim terrorists. I just maintain they are an infinitesimal threat to our freedom compared to the Republicans and Democrats.

    Jon Gold offers some truth by urging that the truth movement should in no way favor a position of no accountability for terrorists.He also, by focusing on the need for a real investigation,Jon reminds us how little we do know about 911.

    Maybe we need a second banner reading,"Why do Americans love being lied to?"

  5. I've been missing some heated exchanges. What happened to open forums? Didn't it to come to fisticuffs on the floor of Congress before the PC (Politically Correct Movement) took hold? I'd say, it's time to get angry and rude because much is at stake. Yes, civility lends itself to rationality but we're living under an insane regime! It amazes me how much Kevin has been hammered and how high-handed a Jon Gold can be in his presentation without repercussion. Would any criticism be anti-semitic? I just wish it was a little less obvious when I'm guided down a path of misdirection and disinformation. It insults intelligence when much of what we're being fed is lightweight flakes of chaff (tip of hat to Hicks' phrase)!

  6. Just because one person has a different perspective than another, a different idea of what would hurt or help the truth movement--is no proof of them being cointelpro/operative or whatever else you want to call them. I'm so sick of the in fighting! Don't you realize that all this will be used against us when we finally do get exposure?! One being Muslim, the other Jewish sure as hell makes me think they are both naturally overly defensive perhaps. Isn't it possible that some people who happen to be Muslim were pasties in a plot that was developed by zionists as well as who knows who else? That is not an insult to the Muslim faith just as a zionist terrorist is not a n insult to the Jewish faith and the entire US Gov criminals guilt is not an insult to the Christian faith as none of these guilty have truly followed the principals of their faith.

    I have not gotten into the details of the "zionist" stuff or the so called proof against those captured and tortured--(I will now though) so I don't know but I certainly want you to know how this in fighting and name calling and accustaions comes off: it stinks and it hurts our cause! I am sick of accustaions coming from both sides due to disageements. Although I am extremely saddened by the ignorance of many to the values of the Muslim faith and the fear this ignorance has caused--thanks to the propaganda from our gov to paint them as scary--I will NOT throw my full support to any suspects at this point ( imust educate myself on this)--at this point I only wish for them to have a fair trial--which I know in reality is pretty much impossible--but you never know. And I hope that through all this chaos and attention we can bring attention to the torture, the less than valid "intel" gathered from it, and maybe--just maybe a little truth will get out--maybe some of the suspects can spill some beans. And although I am not prepared to give my full support in proclaiming any and all of them innocent (dont have all the facts yet--although im sure many if not most or all are innocent)I give my full support in hearing them out and seeing what bs evidence they have against them--hopefully outing our gov dirty work and maybe showing the us public that they cant trust their gov and that the innocent were set up. The us public has to be proven that they cannot trust their gov and see the way they frame people--use patsies and scapegoats and coverups.
    I do agree we have to be carefuk because this can turn out to be a PR nightmare but of course we have to be strong, bold and courageous---but it is smart to plan out your statements--have them well thought out--talking points can make or break you. This is why we need a strategy. We are like loose cannons now. We need a strategic framework because this is simply insane.

    Tonya Miller, Indiana

  7. On Facebook...

    Jon Gold: Nafeez... I have a question for you... what are your feelings about individuals who try to say there is no evidence of "hijackers" or "Muslim involvement" with regards to the 9/11 attacks, and say that if you promote information regarding that, you are promoting the "Islamofascist Myth", and are being a racist? I'd be interested to hear what you have to say since that is a focus of your research, and you are a Muslim. Thanks.

    Nafeez Ahmed: Jon, mostly these people largely lack a broader political or historical consiousness. obviously i think this is a ridiculous position to take. it comes from a total lack of familiarity with the politics of the muslim world, as well as with the development of us-uk unconventional warfare doctrines after ww2. in particular, the anonalies surrounding the alleged hijackers do not have easy answers - the problem is people like simple answers, they divide things up into simplitic binary choices, either 'this' or 'that', 'us' against 'them', etc. ironically, it's a very neocon like mentality that does us no favours...

    Jon Gold: Thank you Nafeez for your input. Here is something I wrote on the subject.


    Nafeez Ahmed: i've seen that post. i like it. :)

    Jon Gold: Nice. Thanks.

  8. Summarizing the 9/11 and 7/7 situations accurately and unflinchingly might not do Nafeez any favors in terms of being employable in (Zionist-colonized) Western academia. At the DC 2005 conference he was asked why he wouldn't just come out and say it was an inside job, and his answer was something very close to "If I said what I really thought, people would say I was crazy."

    Muslims in the West have even more reasons to exhibit this kind of denial than non-Muslims. A non-Muslim American, faced with the enormity of the situation, has to either take all-out action or admit he or she (as an American) is a gutless coward. For a Muslim, the same thing is true -- but there's the Zionist anti-Muslim genocide on top of that. So Muslims, epecially those who want nice middle-class jobs, will use any excuse to avoid doing the right thing, which at this point means all out jihad by any means necessary and by whatever means is most effective. Mine is telling the unvarnished truth and accepting the consequences. Nafeez has to live with himself and will have to face his creator. The Qur'an has very clear things to say about Muslims who flinch from the duty of jihad.

  9. A salam alikom Kev. Sorry to disappoint you, but that quote you cited of mine, was not part of some reverse psychology secret gambit, it was my actual opinion. Sorry, it is not that complicated and nefarious. I am simply not that clever. As I have argued for years, I find the disingenuous nature of the self-styled ”9/11 truth movement” to be rather bizarre. I obviously don’t believe the US government carried out the 9/11 attacks, but if I did, I would be raising bloody hell over the issue. I and my comrades would be out in the streets. To the contrary, the vast majority of this movement seems to treat this matter with all the seriousness of a minor policy disagreement like the health insurance debate, content with an occasional post on a forum or the ubiquitous YouTube videos. This actually somewhat understates the matter, in that the recent healthcare debate has resulted in hundreds of angry protests involving tens of thousands of people, as opposed to the events of the truth movement, who have trouble breaking into the double digits in attendance with bored advocates rambling incoherently about put options.

    Now Mr. Barrett, I would have to except from this comment. He actually seems to behave the way most people should behave if they actually seriously believed this stuff. Now I still think he is a complete nutcase, but at least he is an honest nutcase who stands by what he believes. Jon Gold seems somewhat saner, although this is a rather low bar to clear, but he rather cowardly refuses to take a stand on virtually anything, taking this whole “just asking questions” game to an extreme in a movement hardly noted for its courage in the first place. I find the accusation that Gold is somehow working for us to be hilarious, especially given the outright scorn I have treated him with for years. But hey, I guess in a world where you believe even hobbyist blogger software engineers from Seattle are covert CIA operatives, anything is possible.

    So to summarize, yes, I really do feel that if the “truth movement” really believes in what it says it believes, it should publically defend Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Anything else would be hypocritical. You guys have been demanding an investigation and a public forum for years, insisting that the truth should come out in the courts. Now that there will be a public court hearing, filled with scores of top-notch Ivy League educated lawyers on both sides, retreating from backing up your public statements because somebody might call you names would be pathetic. Not that such a response would be much of a surprise from this movement.

  10. How about protesting the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights (its somewhere in the Village)? The legal community is the real target if they are quiescent about death penalty trials after 183 waterboardings (and probably worse, probably a lot of beatings that no one counts as torture). Why should lawyers accept that a client who has been tortured is every actually telling them or anyone the truth rather than trying to figure out how to please his captors. This article from Slate outlines what KSM's lawyers should be doing at the least http://www.slate.com/id/2236146. The legal community should be put on notice that their silence will have an impact on constitutional rights forever.


  11. The ACLU has put up a very lame defense of the Constitution since 9/11. It would be nice if they'd rise to the occasion, but they're probably even more afraid of being labeled "terrorist sympathizers" than Jon Gold is.

    As for James B., I find it hard to believe he and Curley (and Larry and Moe for that matter) have nothing better to do than spend their lives as low-grade parasites sucking a few micrograms of cyber-blood from the 9/11 truth movement, farting out silly ad hominems and lame attempts at snarky humor in hopes of convincing the two-digit IQ crowd to imitate them in forums, chat rooms and youtube comments. Since it would be painful to imagine lives so degraded, I prefer to think of these guys as James Bond style disinfo operatives, jetting off to Langley periodically to confer with psy-ops pros about how to spread anti-twoofer memes among the two-digit IQ crowd. If they're not being paid, the thought of actual human beings giving their lives over to this kind of treasonous parasitism would be too hideously pathetic to contemplate. Even a tough guy like me, who can endure the knowledge that our leaders did 9/11 and much worse, would be devastated by the revelation that James and Pat are working for free. Guys, want to come on the radio show and try to convince me -- and, if you succeed, bring down what little is left of my sanity at near free-fall speed? ; )

  12. Based on past experience with US crimianally complicit media, there's very little chance that 9/11 truth activists will succeed in changing Holder's agenda with the KSM "show" trial in NYC. In fact, there's a better chance that the FED's are looking for an excuse to react forcefully to any un-authorized display of dissent. I suggest the better solution is to observe the trial and monitor the reaction of the non-truther public to assess public sympathy or public apathy.

    If you intend to engage in loud dissent, you shold have a large contingent of the 80,000 voters who were denied justice on the ballot initiative to join in. If you can't get these people to join the core group in your action, then you've been defeated before you start.

  13. Why not blog? Millions of people blog about television, pop culture, or subjects far more mundane than you guys. You all have drama, backstabbing and intrigue, schisms worthy of a 17th century church, even murder. Far more interesting than any reality show.

    Sorry about the radio thing, but some of us have actual jobs that pay us and all, and require our attention during the day. Plus I don't really feel like providing you more listeners so your advertisers can sell more anti-chemtrail herbs and copies of the American Free Press.

    And in response to hsaive, don't kid yourself that there are 80,000 New Yorkers out there rallying to your side. The last protest NYCAN had didn't even break into the triple digits.

  14. Is there anything comparable to ScrewLooseChange in the history of earlier social movements? i.e. parasites who build a whole identity around name-calling aimed at the leaders of, say, the civil rights or antiwar or labor movements? The closest analogy I can think of is a KKK barbershop in the early 60's deep south. You, James B., are a lot like that barber. Anyway, I'm sorry to hear that your job requires you to work 5-7 pm Saturdays. Yeah, right. Your other excuse is even lamer -- your appearance, compared to people like John Cobb, Richard Falk, Alan Hart, Jesse Ventura, or just about any of my guests, would hardly be likely to provide a whole lot of extra listeners. Have you ever written a book or actually PUBLISHED anything -- article, poem, even letter to the editor? Did you graduate from college, or high school for that matter? Who do you think you are to bring me listeners? Sheesh. Either come up with a more realistic excuse, or admit you're just a coward.

  15. I thought your show was weekdays. Heck, I can't keep track of your ever changing shows. I usually have more important things to do on my Saturday afternoons, but maybe after the new year I will feel more generous with my time.

    I am not even sure what a KKK barbershop would be. Interesting metaphor. And while I admit to snarkiness, we are hardly ad hominem, the amount of factual refutations we have made of truther arguments would fill several books if we were ever to compile them. As for your question I have a BA in Russian and East European studies and an MBA, so I am pretty sure I managed to graduate from high school in there somewhere.

  16. "Hardly ad hominem"? Since you're so well-educated, you probably know that "ad hominem" means "to the man" and refers to the fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the character of your opponent. While I haven't followed your work at all closely, to say the least, the reason I haven't is precisely because what I've seen of your blog is nothing BUT ad hominems, as the blog title would suggest. Your ad hominem approach completely blows your credibility with any fair-minded observer, who will quickly discover the enormous qualitative difference between what you do and what, say, David Ray Griffin does in his books and articles. If you really want to stop or at least slow down the truth movement, you should take all those "factual refutations" and boil them down into a single coherent book that leaves out the ad hominems and focuses on the evidence. If you can do that, you'll make a lot of money, since everything on your side in print right now is utter and complete garbage--the 9/11 Omission Report, the NIST nonsense (even Frank Greening admits it now), the ridiculous straw-man extravaganza from PM. As I'm sure you know, the publishing industry would welcome and heavily promote any book that carefully, accurately and comprehensively refuted David Ray Griffin's case...were such a book possible. To me it's obvious that the reason there is no such book is that no such refutation is possible. If you disagree, go ahead and try to write one. Once you've actually accomplished something, or at least tried to, I would be be much more eager to have you on the show.

  17. Ad hominem is when you attack the person as part of your argument. Simply mocking someone, in addition to a logical argument, may be rude, but it is not a logical fallacy.

    There actually is an in-depth refutation of Griffin's work, by NASA engineer Ryan Mackey. It has been available for free for a couple of years now, and David Ray Griffin refuses to respond to a single word of it.


    I have spoken with Mr. Griffin in both person and via e-mail. He is a pathetic researcher and historian. I asked him why he lied about evidence of a missile striking the Pentagon in a New Pearl Harbor, his response was so descriptive of his approach: "I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago."

    There have already been several great books written about what happened on 9/11. Try reading Steve Coll's Ghost Wars or Lawrence Wright's the Leaning Tower, both of which won Pulitzers. Firefight by Rick Newman and Patrick Creed is also quite good, if you want to know what happened at the Pentagon. All these books involved interviewing hundreds of witnesses on several continents, something I unfortunately do not have the resources to do, and apparently neither does Griffin, since he has managed to write 7 books on the subject without interviewing more than a couple of actual witneses. Like one of your college students, back when you actually had a part-time job as a professor, he doesn't seem to understand that using an Internet search engine is not original research.

  18. So you've admitted that both excuses for ducking my show are bogus, you have no real reason not to debate me for an hour or two, but you refuse because I'm supposed to wait until you "feel generous with your time." You devote your life to snarking 9/11 truth yet you don't have an hour to try to snark me face to face! You want us to believe it's your generosity or lack of it, rather than your courage or lack of it, that is the issue. Anyone who believes THAT might also believe the BS Ryan Mackey churns out. Seriously, you consider Mackey's mind-bogglingly lame attack on DRG worth printing out and using for toilet paper?! A more hilariously discombobulated attempt to dodge the actual issues by blowing putrid verbal smoke could hardly be imagined. Mackey makes Chertoff Jr. at Popular Mechanics look like a clear and cogent writer and thinker. If you honestly think Mackey has achieved anything other than demonstrating his own bad faith and/or idiocy, take your pick, I pity you, and wonder whether you are worth having on my show at all. As for the hundreds of books that take the official story for granted, none, as far as I am aware, address the case for inside job as developed by Dr. Griffin. I have read quite a few of these, none of which has offered any convincing reason to believe the official conspiracy theory. If you have a list of books that do address the case for inside job, please let me know. Meanwhile, feel free to convince me and the world that you actually are not a coward by saying "yes, please schedule me for your radio show." The next opening is Saturday 12/19, 5-7 pm Central (take either or both hours). All Saturdays after that are also open. If you want something specific to talk about, I could take at random a few pages of Mackey and deconstruct them, and you could try to put the smithereens back together.

  19. What is this, third grade? Well when my older brother shows up he is going to kick your butt! You said nobody had taken on Griffin, I gave an example of an in-depth analysis of his writing by a qualified individual, a guy with a masters from CalTech no less. Despite the fact that Griffin is well aware of Mackey's paper, he is too cowardly to address a single word of it, but you somehow claim it is all rubbish regardless.

    What exactly would be the point of us debating the paper when Griffin refuses to address it? It would accomplish nothing. A Google search of our blog shows 949 hits for "David Ray Griffin" Why don't you go read all those articles on him that I have written, and when you are done we can discuss what I have gotten wrong. Thus far you have nothing but insults, you have never addressed a single tangible thing I have ever said. And then you bizarrely accuse me of ad hominem attacks. Do a Google search for your own name on the blog and you will find hundreds of things that you have said which I have pointed out are lies, or just plain bizarre. Once again, if you find an example where I was wrong, let me know.

  20. Wow! Look at how he keeps changing the subject after I showed him that his excuses for not debating me on the radio were bogus. He can't even think of a plausible excuse, so instead of admitting "yes, I invented bogus excuses to avoid having to debate you" he blows a lot of smoke about a nonentity named Mackey (there's a good reason his garbage hasn't been published), then imagines himself as a third-grader backing down from a playground challenge. "James," a third-grader who didn't want to defend his ideas in a debate could come up with better excuses than you have.

    "James B.," afraid to use his last name, takes cyber-cowardice to a new level. Hiding behind a monitor somewhere, he spends his life puking out scurrilous & vacuous attacks on the leaders of a movement he pretends to despise -- yet his whole identity depends on his parasitic relationship with that movement! Like all the other cyber-phonies and cyber-stalkers out there, he's afraid to even confront his targets voice-to-voice, much less face-to-face. He's just another celebrity stalker -- the pathetic nobodies who spend their lives writing angry letters to the famous people they have a secret crush on -- except that unlike them, "James B." is too cowardly to use his real name, or to even speak with his targets when they stoop to offer him the opportunity. As abject avatars of sheer feckless cowardice go, this guy is pretty impressive. This will be the last you hear from "James B." on this blog.

  21. well. I had a comment I sent in but it never showed up-it was a couple paragraphs and James B isnt worth the time to rewrite it. Suffice to day I know of James B and blocked him from my email some time ago.

  22. he spends his life puking out scurrilous & vacuous attacks on the leaders of a movement he pretends to despise -- yet his whole identity depends on his parasitic relationship with that movement!

    Projection, y'honour!

    Who had ever heard of Kevin Barrett until after 9.11?

  23. So what "social movement" am I parasitizing -- the neocon movement for murderous false flag operations?!

    I chose to fight the false-flag traitors and the rest of the Zionist fifth column, the military-industrial complex, and the New World Order financier dictatorship because they're a massively powerful, overwhelming threat to the Constitution and to life on this planet. Does the cowardly little cretin hiding behind the pseudonym "James B" think the 9/11 truth movement is THAT big and THAT destructive? If so, it's quite a compliment to the movement.