Barrett Challenges Nass to Debate the Facts
Debate would occur next Thursday, 7/20/06
http://mujca.com/nassdebate.htm
Dr. Kevin Barrett, U.W.-Madison lecturer who has received overwhelming public support along with a dash of vitriol for expressing his views about 9/11 on a radio program, has challenged Rep. Steve Nass to debate him on the subject. “It is time to stop the name-calling and threats, and get down to a serious, scholarly debate,” Barrett said, adding “If Rep. Nass successfully refutes my arguments, I promise to withdraw them, and issue a public apology to Vice President Cheney and others I have named as 9/11 suspects.”
Nass has stated that “Kevin Barrett has been unable to provide any scholarly basis for his conspiracy theory on 9/11 or even a minimal level of evidence that might circumstantially support his views.” In fact, Barrett is the author of a scholarly essay, to be published in September in a book he co-edited alongside fellow academics John Cobb and Sandra Lubarsky, that includes a wealth of citations to scholarly articles and other evidence that supports his views. (Cobb, whose views of 9/11 are not far from Barrett’s, is regarded by many as America’s leading Christian theologian, and Lubarsky is a respected Jewish Studies professor.) Barrett is also a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (http://st911.org) and Society for Physical Investigation of 9/11 or SPINE (http://911physics.net). Both groups have posted at their websites many scholarly articles that support Barrett’s views. Together, the two groups include many dozens of professors affiliated with dozens of universities and colleges, none of which has even considered firing or disciplining any one of them for their 9/11 revisionist views.
Here is Barrett’s letter to Steve Nass challenging him to a debate, emailed to Nass on Tuesday evening, July 11th:
Dear Rep. Nass,
Since you have stated that I have no scholarly basis for my ideas about 9/11, and repeatedly insulted me and my views, I challenge you to a public debate on the topic. You will argue that the 9/11 Commission Report is a trustworthy account of the events of 9/11, and I will argue that it is not.
The debate format will favor complex argumentation backed by scholarly sources, and allow for sustained cross-examination.
Are you willing to stand behind your ideas and subject them to the light of critical scrutiny? Or are you afraid to go beyond simple name-calling?
Sincerely,
Kevin Barrett
Reply With Quote