You are here

When their only arguments are insults, they lose the debate

I’m at the Academic Freedom Conference in Urbana-Champaign Illinois.

From my article that will be appearing later today at Press TV or Veterans Today:

For the first time in history, an American university is hosting an event questioning the official stories of 9/11, the JFK assassination, and the Nazi holocaust.

The conference, entitled “Academic Freedom: Are There Limits To Inquiry?” is being held today, April 26th, at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. I will be participating, along with four other current or former professors: James Fetzer (Philosophy of Science), Nicholas Kollerstrom (History of Science), David Robinson (Education) and Winfield Abbe (Physics)…

 …Why are the holocaust, the JFK assassination, and 9/11 surrounded by the same kind of taboo? Anyone who questions the official version of any of these three critically-important historical events becomes the target of mindless insults: “holocaust denier,” conspiracy theorist,” and so on. Why is that?  In all three cases, there is strong prima facie evidence that the official story is questionable. Perhaps that is why the questions are taboo – because we are afraid of the likely answers.
My presentation is called “Facts, Insults, and Academic Freedom.”

Below is the handout I’ll be passing out:

Detractors Afraid to Debate University of Wisconsin 9/11 Skeptic Dr. Kevin Barrett

State Rep. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater):“The taxpayers of Wisconsin and the tuition-paying families aren’t interested in supporting the University of Wingnuts at Madison. The time has come to put Wisconsin back into the UW and firing Mr. Barrett would be a noble first step.”
U.W. Physics Professor Marshall Onellian: “He’s a fruitcake. He has no education in any engineering or science area pertinent to how, or whether, buildings fall down when hit by airplanes. Since he can’t evaluate the evidence presented, he shouldn’t have an opinion…I simply do not believe that an adult convert to Islam is capable of objectively teaching, or objectively grading, a course on his religion. Never would such a person be objective.” World Net Daily, 9/6/2006
U.W. Law Professor Ann Althouse:I think your theory is despicable…I would no more debate you than I would Nazis or Klansman.” (sic) email, 2/3/2008
U.W. Political Science Professor Donald Downs: Barrett’s position is “Absurd…beyond the pale…” He cannot be fired, but should not be rehired. 6/2006
U.W. Journalism professor Jessica McBride:We’ve been at war for several decades with Islamo fascist terrorists (sic) who want to destroy our way of life….He (Kevin Barrett) refused to say that Osama bin Laden is an evil man, although I asked him this question several times.”
Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle’s office: “This further highlights the governor’s concerns about whether somebody who is touting these outlandish views is fit to teach in the classroom…This shows that he has no regard to facts…In the academic world, theories must be based on some factual evidence and it appears that Mr. Barrett draws conclusions without any factual basis.”
Republican Gubernatorial candidate Mark Green:“For far too long, Kevin Barrett has been allowed to propagate his libelous theories at the UW, and this time he’ll be doing it in front of a worldwide audience (BBC)…(it’s) a slap in the face to families who lost loved ones in the Sept. 11 attacks…If I were governor, I would not have a gentleman like Mr. Barrett teaching our students. Elect me governor, and I’ll inject some Wisconsin common sense back into the University of Wisconsin.”
July 11th, 2006: “I challenge Mark Green, Donald Downs, Jim Doyle, Steve Nass, Jessica McBride, or anyone else…to take up our debate challenge and defend the 9/11 Commission Report using logic and facts, not name-calling and threats.” – Kevin Barrett
No takers.
March, 2011: $1,000 offered to any UW teacher willing to defend the 9/11 Commission in a debate with Barrett. Still no takers.
March, 2012: Honorarium doubled to $2,000. And still no takers. See:

4 Thoughts to “When their only arguments are insults, they lose the debate”

  1. Anonymous

    Is that a picture of Jon Gold?

  2. no arguments, no logic, nothing… end of their story… lies and lies that's all they defend for few dollars… shame on them!

    Keep up the very good work Kevin!

    Malaysia threaten to publish their own report on the MH370…

  3. “In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted …they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie… It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” — Adolf Hitler

  4. Anonymous

    Hello Dr. Barrett,

    As usual I enjoyed your latest at VT: 911,JFK and the Holocaust.

    I sent you the writing on future technologies. As I read it, I thought that this might be the way these three
    as well as other frauds will be exposed in the future if not by current methods, especially the part on the
    Watson computer and future computer capabilities. The powers that be have a lot of control now so these
    frauds and others may not be exposed in our life time. I have personally made the decision to have my
    beliefs on these three crimes as well as others, documented and to be available for future generations to
    acknowledge that here rest a man who did not believe these lies.

    I hope you enjoy the attachment and find it useful for your research.

Leave a Comment