An Open Letter about the Subject of Disinformation and Disruption within the 9/11 Truth Movement

By Arabesque

September 7, 2008

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.”

As controversial 9/11 researcher Jim Fetzer explains:

“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.”

Jim Fetzer, Signs of Disinformation

Read the rest of this entry »

Kevin Barrett and his PR Manager Slander 911blogger, Truthaction, and 9/11 Activists

by Arabesque

Kevin Barrett is running for Congress on a “9/11 truth” platform. His public relations manager (PR) is Rolf Lindgren, who posts at 911blogger.com as Galileo. In a reply to prominent 9/11 activist and blogger Jon Gold, Lindgren wrote on 911blogger:

“Dr. Barrett likes to take the high road, and stay out of catfights between feuding activists, especially in a public forum. Catfights make bad impressions on newbies.”

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.”

(Note: For the record, the current version of this article was edited to remove these attacks after 9/11 activists complained, but the screenshot I have attached proves that Barrett made these statements.)
Read the rest of this entry »

Kevin Barrett; Support for TV fakery, Space Beam Weapons and other debunked 9/11 theories

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.”[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 either study 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]

Jim Hoffman observed of this last statement that “demonizing of critique and conflating it with infighting” is a distortion and contrary to peer review and the scientific method.[6] As Danse writes on truthaction.org, “By Barrett’s logic I could run around saying the Easter Bunny runs the world — and that 911 was an inside job — and still retain an honored position in his friendly fraternity of ‘pro-truth’ voices. Here’s another one: Dick Cheney is a space alien reptoid – and 911 was an inside job. Care to invite me to the next conference? I’d be an excellent ambassador for the cause. If the amiable Mr. Barret doesn’t have a problem with my theories why should you? I’m on the side of ‘truth’, remember?“[7]

Read the rest of this entry »

Kevin Barrett: Liberal news media continue to block debate about 9/11 truth

A letter to the editor — 6/27/2007 11:43 am

Dear Editor: Last year The Capital Times distinguished itself as the first mainstream U.S. daily to publish not one but two hard-hitting 9/11 truth op-ed columns — both by yours truly.

In one, I asked why the media weren’t covering the dozens of former high-level military, intelligence and administration officials who are charging or implying that 9/11 was an inside job. (See http://patriotsquestion911.com.)

Then, instead of covering these generals, colonels, CIA officers, Bush administration officials and other notables, the media decided to cover a part-time university lecturer — me. I would have thought it more significant that Col. Robert Bowman, a Cal Tech Ph.D., much-decorated fighter pilot and former chief of the Star Wars missile defense program under two presidents, is running for high office on a 9/11 truth platform than that a part-time university lecturer, however charming and articulate, is doing 9/11 activism in his spare time.

Unfortunately, it isn’t just the mainstream media that are censoring the questions raised by the 9/11 truth movement. With a few honorable exceptions, the left and alternative media are complicit in the coverup of blatant, in-your-face high treason and mass murder. Amy Goodman of “Democracy Now” was present for the demolition of World Trade Center Building 7 (Google the video), yet in almost six years she has not breathed a word about WTC-7, the ultimate smoking gun of 9/11.

Matt Rothschild of The Progressive told me in May 2005, just a month after David Griffin’s nationally televised UW-Madison talk, that he had never heard of Building 7. By summer 2006, Rothschild was spouting nonsense in an attempt to debunk 9/11 skeptics, from a knowledge base of near zero.

Allegedly liberal newspapers seem to go out of their way to avoid mentioning the debate on 9/11 that is raging in the U.S. (where a poll showed 36 percent of the population suspects an “inside job”) and around the world.

On June 22 the New York Times ran a laudatory article about Rosie O’Donnell’s new uncensored video blog — without even mentioning the elephant in the living room, Rosie’s outspoken support for 9/11 truth.

Now that Michael Moore has joined O’Donnell in speaking out for 9/11 truth, and Harper’s editor Lewis Lapham has admitted to reading David Griffin’s “Debunking 9/11 Debunking,” will the media on the left rescind their blackout on our most important national debate since the Civil War?

Kevin Barrett, Madison