Wisconsin’s La Crosse Tribune reports Ben Olson III will challenge Kevin Barrett for the Libertarian nomination in the state’s Third U.S. House District because “he doesn’t want people to get the wrong idea about Libertarians.”
The newspaper calls Barrett “a Sept. 11, 2001, skeptic,” and quotes Olson saying, “I don’t like the idea of him representing Libertarians in the race. I realize I’m probably going to put in a lot of effort to finish third in this race.” Olson said he is “working with others in the party to collect the 1,000 signatures needed to get on the primary ballot.”
Galileo,
Thank you for continuing to tout the “government did it” movement’s weakest case, WTC-7.
Typical 9/11 “Truth” advocates’ claims:
Claim: The collapse occurred at the speed of gravity.
Fact: The beginning of the collapse was noted a little after about 2:00pm when one corner of the building began to buckle. The collapse completed more than three hours later. In the real world, a 40-story building doesn’t take three hours to collapse if it’s doing so “at the speed of gravity.”
Claim: WTC-7 was nowhere near the towers and was “across the WTC complex,” and therefore could not have been damaged by tower debris.
Fact: WTC-7, a 40-story building, was separated from the north tower by one ten-story building. The visible damage to WTC-7 by debris from the tower ran from the 10th floor to the 18th floor, the floors below that having been shielded by the building in between the two.
Claim: WTC-7 collapsed into its own footprint, as is usual with intentional demolitions.
Fact: WTC-7 did collapse into its own footprint. However, it did not do so symmetrically as is usual with intentional demolitions. It did so asymmetrically as one corner of the building began to collapse, and as this caused the trusses to pull on the opposite corner, pulling it in after the first portion of the collapse.
Claim: Building owner Larry Silverstein alluded in an interview to having ordered WTC-7 “pulled.”
Fact: Yep, that’s true. However, if the destruction of WTC-7 had been pre-planned, why would he have HAD to order it “pulled” later in the day? Wouldn’t he have already done so? If Silverstein was referring to destroying the building (as opposed to pulling rescue and firefighting crews out as he later claimed), the purpose was much more likely insurance fraud (to “total” the building rather than trying to repair it with a smaller check) than some nefarious pre-planned simulated attack.
Of all the 9/11 “Truth” talking points, WTC-7 may well be the fucking silliest, if for no other reason than that it is so easily debunked in the indisputable known details.
The TV may say that Iraq has been handled “incompetently,†but take a look at Halliburton’s bottom line since 2003 and ask yourself if that’s truly the case. Some you people really need to get a clue.
Yep. Unfortunately some regime 9/11 fable believers couldn’t buy a vowel, much less a clue.
If the LP wants to be effective as an actual political party and not just some kind of secular church group with (wasted) ballot access, it needs to stop ninnying itself to death over libertopian esoterica and embrace anti-establishment candidates who have a profile and record on key libertarian issues.
The official government fairytale of 9/11 is the 21st basis of the rapidly-expanding warfare/police state. Barrett has done yeoman’s work in deconstructing that ludicrous myth, and picked up crdentials regarding academic freedom and free speech in doing so. A left-libertarian populist campaign like Barrett’s is a good fit for Wisconsin.
I agree.
If you haven’t heard of World Trade Center Building 7, please see here:
WTC 7 – This is an Orange
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3898962504721899003&q=wtc+7+this+is+an+orange&ei=gWkzSPSyA5qi4ALArYXoCQ&hl=en
The Smoking Gun of 9-11 (WTC7)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4605940839251141560&q=wtc7+barry+jennings&total=6&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2
The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 – The Third Tower. Sunday, 6 July 2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/
Ed Thompson is rediculously popular for a third-party candidate.
FURTHER UPDATE!!!
on the tape, ED THOMPSON TALKS ABOUT BUILDING 7!
direct link: http://www.rivervalleyblogs.com/artwork/Ed_Thompson.mp3
ANOTHER UPDATE!!
(inlcudes live interview)
Ed Thompson weighs in on congressional candidates
http://www.rivervalleyblogs.com/articles/2008/06/26/rmagney/009997.txt
UPDATE!
Thompson staying neutral in Libertarian primary
By REID MAGNEY | La Crosse Tribune
http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2008/06/26/news/z01thompson.txt
Tomah Mayor Ed Thompson said Wednesday he isn’t endorsing either Libertarian candidate in the 3rd Congressional District primary.
Thompson, arguably the state’s best-known Libertarian because of his run for governor in 2002, has been a guest several times on candidate Kevin Barrett’s Internet radio shows, talking about Barrett’s 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Thompson said he’s not as well-acquainted with businessman Ben Olson III of Wisconsin Dells, though Olson worked on his gubernatorial campaign.
Both candidates are still collecting signatures needed for ballot access. If both get on the ballot, the winner of the Sept. 9 primary takes on incumbent U.S. Rep. Ron Kind, D-La Crosse, and Republican homebuilder Paul Stark of Eau Claire.
Thompson said he thinks the outcome of the primary will be decided by “how people feel about 9/11.â€
Thompson said it’s “hard for me to believe†the U.S. government was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, as Barrett has argued. But he agrees with Barrett on the need for a more thorough investigation.
Olson is running because he doesn’t think Barrett represents Libertarian Party beliefs about less government, in part because he support of a single-payer health care system.
Thompson said he thinks Barrett is a Libertarian on social issues, including medical marijuana, but not so much on economic issues.
Thompson described Olson as “a nice, intelligent young man†who he doesn’t know as well as Barrett.
Thompson said he’ll support whoever wins the primary. But he also faces a problem.
“I really do like Ron Kind,†Thompson said. “I think he’s done a good job.â€
The TV may say that Iraq has been handled “incompetently,” but take a look at Halliburton’s bottom line since 2003 and ask yourself if that’s truly the case. Some you people really need to get a clue.
“But, I completely agree with GE’s comment. I just do not believe the US gov undcer Cheney or whoever, is competent enough to pull off a massive conspiracy like this. Look at how incompetently the occupation of Iraq has been handled!”
That was my comment Deran 😉
If the LP wants to be effective as an actual political party and not just some kind of secular church group with (wasted) ballot access, it needs to stop ninnying itself to death over libertopian esoterica and embrace anti-establishment candidates who have a profile and record on key libertarian issues.
The official government fairytale of 9/11 is the 21st basis of the rapidly-expanding warfare/police state. Barrett has done yeoman’s work in deconstructing that ludicrous myth, and picked up crdentials regarding academic freedom and free speech in doing so. A left-libertarian populist campaign like Barrett’s is a good fit for Wisconsin.
“You would have fit in quite well in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia.”
And thus why I’m always a little uneasy around Truthers. So, well, fanatical.
The Left is also plagued with this.
But, I completely agree with GE’s comment. I just do not believe the US gov undcer Cheney or whoever, is competent enough to pull off a massive conspiracy like this. Look at how incompetently the occupation of Iraq has been handled!
No Andy, I don’t believe this bloated bureaucratic behemoth of a federal government could pull off something as slick as 911 in it’s wettest dreams.
So in other words, you believe what the government says and anyone who questions what the government says should be locked in a mental ward.
You would have fit in quite well in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia.
“So you’d prefer to vote for or contribute to a liar? ”
Given the choice between the 2 with a gun to my head, yes. You can always call a liar out. Someone who believes the insane is truth is self-delutional and belongs in a mental ward, not in government office.
“Nexus // Jun 26, 2008 at 8:53 am
I will never vote for or contribute to a troofer.”
So you’d prefer to vote for or contribute to a liar?
“G.E. // Jun 26, 2008 at 9:00 am
I’d vote for or contribute to a 9/11 skeptic long before I’d vote for or contribute to a Libertarian who supports Social Security, etc.”
As up know, I am one of the biggest proponent of the 9/11 Truth Movement in the Libertarian Party, and I am also the founder of Libertarians for 911 Truth ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertariansfor911Truth/ ), however, as much as I like to see Libertarians who support 9/11 Truth running for office, I am disappointed with the fact that Kevin Barrett has held on to some of his leftist economic views while running as a Libertarian Party candidate and I therefore am not as enthusiastic about his campaign as I would be otherwise.
There is a more solid Libertarian who is also a 9/11 Truther who is running for Congress in Las Vegas, Nevada. I’m talking about the State Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Nevada, Jim Duensing. Jim is also the founder of http://www.LibertariansforJustice.org which is a Libertarian 9/11 Truth group. For those of you who don’t know, they sponsored an event at the LP National Convention in Denver. I wish that Jim Duensing’s campaign was getting as much publicity as Kevin Barrett’s. Here is a link to Jim Duensing’s website: http://www.voteforachange.us/candidates/duensing/ .
I’d vote for or contribute to a 9/11 skeptic long before I’d vote for or contribute to a Libertarian who supports Social Security, etc.
I will never vote for or contribute to a troofer. That is a deal breaker for me.
Barrett is also for Social Security and various other big government, anti-libertarian programs.
Go Barrett!