Madison professor death threats from O'Reilly on live tv

fourddream

Hi all,
I'm new on this board, just want to introduce you all to the MUJCA (Muslim, Jewish, Christian Alliance) for 911 truth UK.
After much success and the 1st Global conference for 911 truth last year in Chicago. Mujca is coming to the UK to work together with the 911 truth movement and scholars for truth towards events coming soon to London.

Our founder, Dr. Kevin Barrett has been much in the news lately :

Madison professor, fired, reinstated and threatened with his life for even BEGINNING to examine 911 evidence as part of a project on war.

You can help, mail FOXaroundtheworld@foxnews.com
tell them how you feel. Here follows a word from Kevin and an example of a reaction someone sent me a copy of. We've must defend free speech and now particularly on 911 because knowledge of 911 has the power to effect change by waking people up from their complacency on all manufactured world tragedies once they know it. It is the stone once removed that starts it all tumbling down, the whole labarynth of lies.
Angela.

1) More Fun with Fox

Maybe you caught my exchange with Hannity and Colmes:

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/07/kevin-barrett-on-hannity-and-colmes. html

In case you were wondering what Sean Hannity and I were shouting at each other, here's the transcript (thanks to Marguerite K. and Les Jamieson):

2) Dave and Joyce from the Power Hour Blow the O'Reilly Death Threat Story Wide Open!

http://www.thepowerhour.com/

Monday, July 17, hours 1 and 2

http://arc1.m2ktalk.com/JUL2006/power8ky4/0717062.mp3

http://arc1.m2ktalk.com/JUL2006/power8ky4/0717063.mp3

Tuesday, July 18, hour 1

http://arc1.m2ktalk.com/JUL2006/power8ky4/0718061.mp3

On his July 11th Fox program, Bill O'Reilly said that at the University of Wisconsin, where Kevin Barrett will be allowed to teach in fall, "there are no standards. . . . I'm stunned." He approvingly stated that at his own alma mater, Boston University, "The Chancellor there, John Silber, would have--would have--this guy'd be in the Charles River floating down, you know, toward the harbor."

3) Kevin Barrett Writes More Letters

To My Supporters,

Thank you for calling and writing to Fox News, to my university, to the local and national media, and to me. I am overwhelmed -- and my in-box is overwhelmed too! In the past I have tried to respond to all emails, but to do so now would leave me no time to do anything else. So please accept this note of heartfelt thanks in lieu of a personalized response.

I never intended to become a public figure. Maybe you remember that scene from a war movie where the sergeant describes a very dangerous mission and says "if anyone wants to volunteer, please take one step forward." Everybody takes one step backward -- except one guy. Maybe he doesn't understand cowardice, or maybe he's just thinking about something else. Bingo! He's the one!

It feels like I'm that guy who forgot to step backwards. But that isn't quite it -- because none of you have ever taken a single backward step. You all, and the millions of others who have bravely spoken out about 9/11, are right there with me. It was sheer luck, or destiny, or the will of God -- take your pick -- that two Bushite extremists, radio host Jessica McBride and State Representative Steve Nass, decided to make me famous for reasons known only to themselves. Since then, I've just been polishing my mirror, and reflecting whatever they give me right back at them.

Now that Bill O'Reilly has suggested on national television that I ought to be murdered by my own university officials and found floating in the harbor...well, I've already written to his boss, Rupert Murdoch: http://mujca.com/rupertmurdoch.htm Guess I'd better write to O'Reilly too. See below.

Keep those calls, cards and letters coming--let's flood the inboxes of every journalistic outlet, take over every radio talk show, knock Fox off the air and into a Nuremburg courtroom, and take this country back for its people and its Constitution.

Kevin Barrett

Coordinator, MUJCA-NET: http://mujca.com

Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth

* * *

Dear Sirs,

I'm writing in view of the fact that your so-called presenter, Bill
O'Reilly, suggested that Dr. Kevin Barratt should be executed and
dumped
into Boston Harbor, on your TV Network.

I presume you realise that if anything were to happen to Dr. Barratt
from now on, O'Reilly will be on trial as the instigator. Your Network
will also be on trial for providing the medium for such hate-speech.

Consequently, if you don't want Dr. Barratt's surviving relatives to
own
Fox News, then I suggest you immediately arrange some 24/7 armed
protection for Dr. Barratt, because that will cost you a lot less in
the
long run.

I've seen some thickos & sickos on TV in my time, but O'Reilly beats
them all. So that's his 'factor', is it?

I suggest your best policy would be to terminate Mr. O'Reilly's
employment forthwith. The 1st Amendment does not extend to death
threats.

Sincerely,

Ms. Veronica Chapman

MarkyX · Minor Poster Joined: 20 Jul 2006 Posts: 21

Here is some hate mail I got from the "Truth Movement" when I improved Loose Change.

TimmyG · Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:15 pm Post subject:

i am constantly amazed at how o'reily is allowed to have a day time tv show in america!

its like nick griffin hosting the bbc news or something

Snowygrouch · Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:20 pm Post subject: Improving loose change

Abusive email or verbal threats are deplorable.

However perhaps in your academic unbiased help for the producers of
loose change you may have perhaps not lent yourself the influence you
require by calling it

"screw loose change"

That for me does not conjour up an image of a level headed critique; its a shame as LC2 has some errors that require correction which is not really helped by entitling someones hard work in such a manner.

I would imagine making a list of errors and emailing Dylan might be the way to go if you are interested in journalistic accuracy.

MarkyX · Minor Poster Joined: 20 Jul 2006 Posts: 21

He's not interested in accuracy, otherwise he wouldn't be using strawman arguments, quotes out of context, edited footage, cropped images, or dupe "experts" on his video. The man used an anti-tank javelin footage and said IT WAS A CRUISE MISSILE!

His final cut is a joke. He interviews the Scholars of Truth but avoids certified pilots, structual engineers, or Controlled Demolitions Inc...

TimmyG · Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:45 pm Post subject:

markyx
most of us here, i think, accept that there are several flaws in the evidence which loose change presents. its popular becuase its so accessible and well produced.

however.. it does make people question, quite rightly, the official account. and your in-no-way-emotionally-charged 'screw loose change' video can not change the fact that there is evidence to support a demolition. and can't explain other abnormalities like the funding of $100,000 from mahmoud ahmed.

MarkyX · Minor Poster Joined: 20 Jul 2006 Posts: 21

What evidence that there was bombs? And saying "firefighters" doesn't confirm that the source of those explosions were a bomb.

http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electric-Transformer-Explosion

Look, an electrical transformer making an EXPLOSION and a BRIGHT FLASH.

TimmyG · Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:49 pm Post subject:

read the jon ronson thread. we've just been through all this

spiv · Validated Poster Joined: 01 Jul 2006 Posts: 483

I watched the video clip of the interview on Fox News, and was appalled by the biased unprofessional interview of Mr Barrett, so much so that I sent the following e-mail to them ->>

Dear Sirs,

I have just watched a recording of the interview your two presenters did of Mr Kevin Barrett concerning the questions raised about the 9/11 attacks purported to have been carried out by Arab extremists.

Be advised that I am absolutely appalled by the way that your clearly biased interviewers were conducting their jobs, even to the extent of calling Mr Barrett a "nut job". This is completely unprofessional, and is not the sort of thing one expects from a serious "News" programme. However, it is quite clear that your programme cannot be considered serious, nor unbiased, and, as such, must be considered to be complete rubbish presented by fools!!!

Also be advised that I have myself studied film and photographic material produced at the time of the 9/11 attacks, and also conclude that 19 Arab terrorists could not have done this. I believe, as indeed do many around the world (except for your rather silly presenters) that this was an "inside job" done by unknown persons, most likely factions within the American Government, as a false-flag attack to motivate public opinion to sway behind Bush's planned attacks on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and North Korea, to control oil supplies from the Middle East, to substantially increase military spending, and to utilise the so called (hoax) "War on Terror" to restrict and curtail our freedoms. Although I am not an American, we are having the same erosions in Britain. Indeed, Britain and America are the two most warmongering countries in the world, and, as far as Blair's warmongering goes, it is not being done in my name without my objections being known.

I want to see a full, frank, independent, complete and through investigation done regarding the 9/11 attacks, in order that the world learns of the truth. I want to see the persons responsible for the planning and undertaking of that attack brought to justice, even if the tentacles of the real conspirators reach as high as Bush and any other world leaders, including Blair if he also knew the attacks were 'false-flag' (he has, after all, jumped into bed with Bush to go to an illegal war, and restrict the freedoms of we British)

Until your so called "News" starts to be unbiased and report all arguments in an impartial manner, then your company will not be considered by myself as worthy of taking any notice of.

News presenters may not agree with whom they interview, but that is no excuse for speaking the way these two unprofessional presenters did!!!

John White · Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 5:08 pm Post subject:

scar · Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 5:34 pm Post subject:

Indeed John i cant see the connection between those 2 quotes. The first is from an anonymous source and is deplorable, the second, although a 'strongly worded POV', is right on the money.

Summin amiss with this quote in light of that:

MarkyX · Minor Poster Joined: 20 Jul 2006 Posts: 21

From what he released, yes. He interviews the scholars of truth...that's supposed to convience me? Kevin "Water boy" Ryan, Jim Marrs, and Jim "Bruce Willis Suitcase" Fetzer? Also, I would like to know the point of talking to a Canadian Conspriacy author. I don't care about some guy's opinion.

Doesn't it strike you odd that the high members of the "truth" movement dodge and evade people with expertise and instead go for fringe wannabes? Imagine the impact they can have if they bring a large group of pilots or structual engineers with credible backgrounds speaking out. Instead, we have Judy Wood comparing the construction of the WTC to trees. Final Cut had they opportunity and they refused to take it...I wonder why Laughing

Fortunately the 9/11 Myths book is going to be released and there was a recent announcement on a document based on the official story.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060721/film_nm/leisure9_11_dc;_ylt=Aq1ziJ J54g3xV6kgfWnnhuhxFb8C;_ylu=X3oDMTA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM-

Funny how the 9/11 Myths book talks to air defense experts, pilots, and other valid experts, while the Truth Movement has a cold fusion engineer who thinks Jesus was in North America and a Theology PHD.

scar · Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 6:33 pm Post subject:

Snowygrouch · Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 6:55 pm Post subject: Marky

I dont think you really grasped my point here.

I didnt ask you what Dylans objectives are; if I wanted such I would have emailed Dylan.

I said I think a constructive way forward would be to email him your list of errors.

Have you done so?

MarkyX · Minor Poster Joined: 20 Jul 2006 Posts: 21

Gravy · Minor Poster Joined: 19 Jul 2006 Posts: 65

TimmyG · Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 9:14 pm Post subject:

i dunno.
you can't blame people for thinking you might be a shill when you have said that the collapse of building 7 looks nothing like a controlled demolition.

NDBoston · New Poster Joined: 22 Jul 2006 Posts: 3

Hi:

It's my first post on here.

I was working at 7WTC for three years up until 9/11 working for Salomon Smith Barney. This subject hits very close to me.

I walked down for 45 minutes from the 44th floor to get out of the building. The building was getting pounded with debris from the minute the first plane hit. I was unable to go out the front entrance because it was blocked with debris so everyone went out the back.

I would also mention that my company had 18 floors of the building which included a few trading floors that had activity 24/7. I was involved in a large global architecture project for a trading system that required me to go floor hopping every day to find the different requirements people had.

I didn't see one construction project going on during my time there within the SSB floors save the addition of few conference rooms once. I was working 80-90 hours a week at that time and I was hardly alone. I was paid good money and dealt with demanding timelines that required me to live my job.

Why did I get involved enough to post on a board like this? Last January, I walked by Ground Zero and was approached by someone from NY9/11 truth who handed me a pamphlet. We started talking and a crowd gathered as they listened to my recollection of what happened.

It ended with people accusing me of being a government employee and I was being paid to misinform people or I was actually involved in what happened.

I was more than a little pissed off to say the least. The police officer there had to pull me away from the person who said that because I was going to punch him in the face if I could get to him. I lost one of my best friends who worked at Cantor Fitzgerald so I take claims like that very seriously.

So I'm here. Ask me about working at 7WTC and I can tell you things Google Video can't.

Abandoned Ego · Moderate Poster Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Posts: 288

Gravy · Minor Poster Joined: 19 Jul 2006 Posts: 65

John White · Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 10:22 pm Post subject:

So you accept the comments re: Skull n Bones to be factual then Gravy?

NDBoston · New Poster Joined: 22 Jul 2006 Posts: 3

John White · Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:46 pm Post subject:

For heavens sake, someone dig out a link to Silverstein on VT

He says "the decision was taken to pull the building, and they, y'know, pulled it" or something very similar: theres no doubt that pull means bring WTC7 down

Its on the public record

MarkyX · Minor Poster Joined: 20 Jul 2006 Posts: 21

I don't get it John White.

Your type takes the firefighters quotes of "we heard explosions" as hardcore God-send evidence that they were bombs.

But when a firefighter talks about giving orders or recieving orders about pulling out of WTC7 because they knew it was going to collapse, you ignore it.

Seeking the "truth" my ass Rolling Eyes

John White · Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:53 pm Post subject:

Here it is:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pullIt3.wmv

Abandoned Ego · Moderate Poster Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Posts: 288

To NDBoston.

Thanks for your reply.

I was hoping that since you suggested that you could answer questions far more accurately than "googling " might, you might not recommend to me to "google" the list of occupants of WTC 7

I would also suggest that there is a world of difference between "pull it" , and pull them out. I guess we got confused there too.

Heres a hint for ya. Its kinda like me saying to you that there is no difference between you saying that you can tell me more things than google video and not Googling can"

In the interests of clarity on both sides I hope you take my point.

MarkyX · Minor Poster Joined: 20 Jul 2006 Posts: 21

John White · Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 12:02 am Post subject:

MarkyX · Minor Poster Joined: 20 Jul 2006 Posts: 21

The only thing firefighters have mentioned were explosions. which is not unusual for a large scale fire in an office building. Show me proof that the source of these explosions were bombs.

John White · Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 12:09 am Post subject:

So we can agree on the meaning of Silversteins comments on the public record then?

It's crazy to expect individuals on the other side of the atlantic to prove there were bombs/charges inside the infrastructure of buildings on 911: get real; especially with no definition of "proof" beforehand

The hypothesis is simply a working theory to find a greater balance of probability than the pathetic offical explanation: and the evidance is as strong: if not greater

It doesnt mean its totally provable:

A demand for a proper investigation of the evidance is the whole point of this campaign

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> General	All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2