9/11 debate challenges: Truth wins by default


Richard Gage AIA, professor Anthony Hall and other guests discuss 9/11 debate challenges !

By Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor

Richard Gage AIA and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have launched a $1,000 9/11 debate challenge! My interview with Richard Gage will be broadcast this Monday, 11 to noon Eastern, at No Lies Radio and then archived here.

911debate-challengeOn this (Friday) evening’s live show, which will also be archived, we’ll discuss the history of 9/11 debate challenges – and try to find someone to argue in favor of the official story. The second hour will feature VT Editor Jim Fetzer and Globalization Studies professor Anthony Hall of the University of Lethbridge talking about academic freedom and the Orwellian suppression of 9/11 truth.

We were hoping that some guy named Frank McLaughlin from the anti-9/11 truth site JREF would show up to debate Rick Shaddock of ANETA during the first hour. Rick is a “computer professional for 9/11 truth” who has been trying to find a qualified JREFer willing to debate either physicist Dr. David Griscom or himself. Frank, who like Rick is a computer professional, at first appeared willing to debate – but then started generating endless excuses for weaseling out.

I take these debate challenges personally. Having been politically blacklisted from teaching in American universities, starting with the “sifting and winnowing” University of Wisconsin, I issued the first-ever $1,000 9/11 debate challenge several years ago. My point: If the University refuses to employ me due to my interpretation of 9/11, it needs to show why my interpretation is not only wrong, but so egregiously wrong that it makes me unemployable. Yet not one of the thousands of teachers in the UW system will defend the 9/11 Commission’s “19 hijackers” myth in a debate – even for $1,000 (since doubled to $2000).


I was employed by/through the University of Wisconsin-Madison as a teacher or paid scholar every year from 1995 through 2006. Then in summer 2006 State Rep. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater), apparently egged on by Karl Rove and Lynn Cheney, launched a witch-hunt demanding that I be fired from teaching due to my research on 9/11. Since the witch-hunt, I have been repeatedly turned down for positions I am qualified to teach. (I was never turned down for any UW teaching jobs prior to the witch hunt.)

A member of the hiring committee in UW-Madison Asian Studies stated that the committee was told in 2007 that I could not be hired for political reasons. I was also turned down for a tenure-track Islam-Arabic-Humanities position at U.W.-Whitewater – they closed the position and returned the funds to the feds rather than hire me – purely due to my 9/11 research, according to whistleblower Howard Ross, then UW-Whitewater’s Dean of Humanities. Likewise, the University of Illinois-Urbana closed a tenure-track Islam-Humanities position for which I had applied, and for which I was eminently qualified, rather than hire me.

Having repeatedly seen universities close positions, or hire less-qualified individuals, when I apply for teaching jobs since the 2006 witch hunt, I have concluded that I have been informally blacklisted due to my high-profile research, publication and activism on 9/11.

Why the blacklisting?

A well-connected UW-Madison professor told me that the day after I appeared on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show the University lost more than half a million dollars in cancelled contributions to the Engineering school from private donors in less than 24 hours – and also expected to take a hit in federal funding. That very day (July 11th 2006) as the University was losing over $500,000, Provost Patrick Farrell called me and begged me to stop giving interviews. His first words were: “Kevin, you’re killing us!”

So I have concluded that nobody from the University will defend the 9/11 Commission, not even for $2,000, because:

1) They suspect that I may be right and/or capable of winning the debate and embarrassing them;


2) They suspect that their own livelihoods and reputations, and the fiscal well-being of their department and institution, could be damaged by any attempt whatsoever to pursue the truth about 9/11.

Or as Upton Sinclair put it: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

I sympathize, to some degree, with the cowardly professoriat of the University of Wisconsin. They are living in fear and insecurity. What a sad way to live.

But I have no sympathy for the mega-cowards who attacked me in the media but refused to debate me. These individuals are utterly despicable. Here are their names, emails, and telephone numbers:

Donald Downs [email protected] (608) 263-2295 

Downs is a political science professor who poses as a defender of academic freedom. He was quoted in the media in July 2006 as ridiculing my research on 9/11 (which he knew nothing about) and saying that though I couldn’t be immediately fired from teaching, the best thing would be to never re-hire me after my semester contract was up. (The University has followed his advice, thereby depriving me of my livelihood and robbing me of roughly two million dollars in projected lifetime earnings.) When I asked Downs in 2006 to defend the 9/11 Commission in a public debate, he initially expressed interest, then weaseled out. He also refused a request by the UW-Madison History Club to debate me. He has continued to chicken out of debate challenges ever since.

Ann Althouse  [email protected]  (608)262-2444 

Law professor Ann Althouse has flung dozens of insults my way: “nutty,” “despicable,” “Nazi,” “klansman.” Naturally she won’t debate me – she apparently doesn’t realize hurling ad hominem attacks while refusing debate amounts to conceding that I’m right and she’s wrong. As a trained law professor, she could easily win a debate…if I were remotely as far off base as she says. But she won’t do it, even for $2000.

Marshall Onellion  [email protected]  (608) 263-6829 

Like Downs and Althouse, Onellion knew nothing about my research when he insulted me in the media:

…”He’s a fruitcake,” says Marshall F. Onellion, a physics professor at the University of Wisconsin. “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” that will influence students…

Since Onellion obviously thinks he can evaluate evidence better than I can, he should have confidence in his ability to win a debate…right? Wrong. The coward has repeatedly refused my debate challenge.

Onellian even insulted my religion, claiming that I should not be allowed to teach Religious Studies because I am a Muslim and therefore “biased.” (Never mind that most Religious Studies teachers in America are Christian, and nearly all Jewish Studies teachers are Jewish.)

This bigot apparently fears he will lose a debate about physics and engineering – his two specialties – to a humanities scholar. Even $2,000 wouldn’t compensate that kind of humiliation.

So feel free to call and email these people, copying to:

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

I discussed my experience as a UW-Madison witch hunt target at the Academic Freedom Conference last spring at the University of Illinois Champagne-Urbana:

YouTube - Veterans Today -

Share...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on LinkedInShare on RedditShare on Tumblr

Related Posts:

All content herein is owned by author exclusively. Expressed opinions are not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians or Veterans Today Network and its assigns. In addition, all images within this post are the full responsibility of the author and NOT Veterans Today Network.
Legal Notice - Comment Policy

Posted by on August 15, 2014, With 4306 Reads Filed under 9/11. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments Closed

16 Responses to "9/11 debate challenges: Truth wins by default"

  1. coffeelover  August 18, 2014 at 7:15 pm

    Glad that you’ve exposed their names to the public. It’s the right thing to do and a good way to fight cowards and shills.

  2. WeroInNM  August 16, 2014 at 3:39 pm

    http //teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blogs/9-11-truth-seekers-the-l…
    “Food For Thought”
    Hello When Are Americans Going To Wake Up?-God Bless America!
    Semper Fi!

  3. John Kirby  August 15, 2014 at 8:42 pm

    There are too many unanswered questions, and ordinary people are beginning to see that. Top of my list would be 1) The use of hydrogen cyanide to kill Jews at Auschwitz. 2) President Kennedy’s head exploding backwards. 3)The obliteration of the central cores of the WTC twin towers. 4) The symetrical collapse of WTC7. You could also add events like the attack on the Liberty, Pollard’s spying, the 2008 crash.

    We are accused of being anti-semitic conspiracy nuts for showing healthy skepticism.

    • John Kirby  August 15, 2014 at 8:46 pm

      I forgot to add the small round hole in the Pentagon where a big plane went thru.

  4. Kevin Barrett  August 15, 2014 at 5:01 pm

    This show is tonight. But it looks like the anti-truth shill won’t show up.

  5. wolf  August 15, 2014 at 2:48 pm

    I’m glad you listed the email addresses of these disgusting charlatans, Doc. There is practically nothing I enjoy more than lambasting a phony troll via the written acerbic word. Rest assured, I have done my best to reach out and bludgeon someone…especially that phony physics prof who chooses to suspend the law of physics for a day.

    • wolf  August 15, 2014 at 2:55 pm

      Aw nuts…Onellion’s email came back to me as undeliverable. Surely he couldn’t have terminated his email this soon after your post. Maybe he came to a moment of mental clarity, realized that Barrett was right and 9/11 really WAS an inside job, and hung himself with a belt in the janitor’s closet?

  6. Mulegino  August 15, 2014 at 2:42 pm

    This Onellion fellow is the quintessential, obtuse credentialist, i.e., “Since he can’t evaluate the evidence presented, he shouldn’t have an opinion…”

    Onellion apparently lacks the perspicacity to realize that, if his statement were true, no verdict in a jury trial should ever be accepted, since juries are composed of ordinary citizens in all walks of life, not solely of criminal investigators or licensed experts. And juries are oftentimes called upon to make decisions which could lead to a death sentence, of much greater consequence than dissenting from an official fairy tale.

  7. DaveE  August 15, 2014 at 12:10 pm

    BIG, big, big, big, big BRAVO, KB. NOW can you PLEASE get your colleague / associate Mr. Fetzer to get over his gargantuan EGO PROBLEM and admit that not everyone who doesn’t buy all aspects of his “theories” are “disinfo” and “psyops” and “thermite sniffers” and “hologram-deniers” ?

    I’m not holding my breath, but thanks for promoting Gage and Co. who are doing great work fighting the TRUE enemy of America.

    Even if they’re wrong on some details, which may /may not be the case, at least they’re fighting a fair fight, which I would NEVER accuse Mr. Fetzer of. Not lately, anyway.


    • gerryhiles  August 15, 2014 at 1:36 pm

      Well said, the stances of both Mr Fetzer and Mr Duff towards Richard Gage (or anyone not 100% with them?) is disgusting.

    • DaveE  August 15, 2014 at 5:25 pm

      If you have any SERIOUS evidence that non-radioactive (i.e, non decomposing) fissile material exists, we’d ALL like to see it. Until then, quit the garbage about the “WTC nukes planted in the basement in 1973” crap.

  8. dalethorn  August 15, 2014 at 10:46 am

    The “they” who are opposing you don’t represent a cross-section of anything. And the “half-million” (surprised it wasn’t six million) they lost in contributions was bullcrap – the university would GAIN money if they exposed the demonic nitwits who run the 9/11 charade. No, when you run into these obstacles, it isn’t because there are a lot of “them” numerically, it’s because there are a few fanatical stalkers and sociopaths they have hired to sit on you like they do on anyone who threatens the status quo. Heck, I run into crazed fanatical trolls on minor tech sites who are protecting advertiser revenues of a few thousand $$ a month – imagine what these demons are protecting.

  9. Jon Trofler  August 15, 2014 at 10:00 am

    I would rather see a debate to analise the alternate destruction theories of thermite, nuke and DEW supporters.

    • jan_holland  August 16, 2014 at 6:07 am

      This is very interesting can you ellaborate on what these systems actually looked like? And how they would be “activated” ? Are you able to provide drawings?

  10. davor  August 15, 2014 at 9:42 am

    Truth about 9/11 has gone through what usually truths went through inside strict communist and fascist states. 9/11 was kind of a Reichstag burning. Many people lost their jobs only for asking questions, let alone being random relatives with the “perpetrators”. Public afterthought over 9/11 went under incredible steel communist pressure. Communism and Stalinism 101. Architects and Engineers need to add Advocates or Lawyers to their org. Judges, and counties, and especially self-conscious Newyorkers. People around the world are still waiting for an american President that will have Adenauer-like balls to speak for the truth.

  11. captain obvious  August 15, 2014 at 8:53 am

    I’d love to see it happen, but theyed lose and have to accept the facts about THREE buildings being brought down by controlled demolitions, two of them being friggin nuked down, and asking who had capable nukes..
    then question who had motive to do it all to stop financial and other investigations that’d imprisoned them..
    like.. public servants who fraudulently call themselves “officials” and hand off a bogus “official story”..

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

From Veterans Today Network