tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2253633813431459343.post4807344621077633002..comments2023-05-24T11:49:42.337-07:00Comments on Kevin Barrett's radio show schedule: Blankfort: "I've been Duffed!"Kevin Barretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11522769898898884227noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2253633813431459343.post-10764151363863803152011-08-08T13:28:40.745-07:002011-08-08T13:28:40.745-07:00This lame argument of yours doesn't fly, Kevin...This lame argument of yours doesn't fly, Kevin. You don't like "disinfo accusations?" You're aware of how much disinfo is embedded in the 9/11 Truth movement, are you not? Governments being what they are, disinfo is rampant. But you say you don't like the word if it's used against your friend Duff.<br /><br />Annonymous above said you "sound" very naive, he didn't say you were naive. So what other reasons could there be for you to defend Duff the way you do? Four out of five of your comments here are anti-Duff, meaning you're not fooling anyone. <br /><br />You called Duff goofy, wrong, reckless but, somehow and at the same time, that's a "good formula for getting the word out." What word? Why didn't you question Duff on your program of 7-18-11 about his claim that an on-duty police detective called him on the morning of 9-11-01 to tell him about an arrest of two Israelis with 2000 lbs. of explosives in a van on the George Washington Bridge?? An obvious falsehood that a 9/11 expert like you can detect. Yet you let it pass, something I don't think you would do for anyone else.<br /><br />Duff uses you, Kevin, and you let him. Why? People are really seeing through him, so when his reputation goes, perhaps yours will also.Carolynhttp://www.carolynyeager.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2253633813431459343.post-51092319111801827702011-08-06T09:31:06.353-07:002011-08-06T09:31:06.353-07:00Okay Kevin, you accept Mr. Duff's junk logic f...Okay Kevin, you accept Mr. Duff's junk logic for why he talks shit and spreads disinfo but I have not. It's funny that one of his arguments is that " the other side does this stuff " but hey, isn't that what people are sick of? Isn't that why they are coming to sites like yours and others in the alternative media in increasing numbers, because theyre sick of " the other side " and their ways?<br /><br />I had to laugh at his statement about how Murdoch claimed " I'm not jewish ", yet according to Gordon's logic, this merely proves that he is in fact an orthodox jew. As Blankfort said, the jewish press loves to talk about powerful jews and if Murdoch was attending synagogues, as Duff claims his friend told him, it would be well written about in the jewish press yet there is nothing about it. <br /><br />He also claims he proved Wikileaks was an Israeli operation when he did no such thing. I imagine his large ego is what makes him such an attractive proposition for his handlers. lmao <br /><br />I found Duff's comment " I'm pretty sure the CIA thinks they are running VT " verrrrrrry illuminating. Why exactly does he think such a thing? <br /><br />He talks about Assange's non-existant relationship with Manning while it seems the two have never met. Oh silly me, this is about entertainment value, I forgot.<br /><br />Now I see that Ken o Keefe is coming under attack just like Steve Jones has been increasingly coming under attack. The game is changing, israel is becomming much more pro-active in the field of information warfare, as if they weren't already bad enough.<br /><br />I've had my suspicions about him ever since his pimping of Khalezov. He is connected to the same clique which is now promoting DEW while at the same time, promoting the mini-nuke idea. This is the cognitive infiltration Sunstein spoke of.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2253633813431459343.post-28182973644695098582011-08-05T21:00:55.040-07:002011-08-05T21:00:55.040-07:00I disagree with most of the "so and so is dis...I disagree with most of the "so and so is disinfo" accusations that get hurled around, including this one...especially this one.<br /><br />Duff's approach to alternative media - inclusiveness, entertainment value, and (yes) a certain amount of recklessness - is a pretty good formula for building up an audience and getting the word out.<br /><br />Some people in the 9/11 truth community have reacted to the predictable ad hominem attacks by becoming hyper-careful, hyper-serious, hyper-conservative, hyper-scientific, hyper-defensive...and in some cases, downright boring. No wonder so many people would rather watch Fox or listen to Alex Jones or read Gordon Duff. <br /><br />Of course he's obviously wrong about Blankfort. But Duff's goofy accusation did give me an excuse to bring Jeff on the show and put out another great hour of radio! Nothing wrong with that.Kevin Barretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11522769898898884227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2253633813431459343.post-74509693903488291662011-08-05T15:54:25.283-07:002011-08-05T15:54:25.283-07:00Duff is not ' one of us ' and many people ...Duff is not ' one of us ' and many people already know it. <br /><br />He's very entertaining but he is a bullshit artist. <br /><br />I'm a fan of your work Kevin but I must say, you sound very naive when attempting to defend the disinfo of Duff.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2253633813431459343.post-79228606879320222232011-08-01T14:55:27.390-07:002011-08-01T14:55:27.390-07:00Kevin, please forward this comment to Peymon Motta...Kevin, please forward this comment to Peymon Mottadeh. Thanks!<br /><br />Peymon, your had a most informative interview with Doug Rokke on Truth Jihad Radio on Friday, July 29, 2011, but you consistently made an error in identifying the nature and source of "depleted uranium" used in DU-tipped munitions.<br /><br />You mistakenly stated that DU is obtained from highly radioactive spent nuclear reactor fuel which should properly be buried in deep nuclear waste repositories for millenia. Doug Rokke didn't correct your error. <br /><br />DU, which is widely used by the US and other NATO countries to increase the penetrating power of munitions, is NOT spent nuclear fuel from nuclear power plants, and is NOT highly radioactive!<br /><br />DU is highly chemically toxic. When DU-tipped munitions is used in combat, it burns to generate toxic uranium oxide dust which lingers in the environment, and it is easily inhaled and ingested.<br /><br />The toxic effects of the use of DU-munitions in combat is bad enough, and causes many cases of serious illness, even without considering the known adverse health effects of LOW-LEVEL radioactivity.<br /><br />Depleted uranium (DU) contains mostly LOW-LEVEL radioactive uranium 238 which has been depleted of the much more highly radioactive uranium 235 during the processing of uranium ore to extract uranium 235 which is used in nuclear bombs, and to fuel certain types of nuclear power reactors.<br /><br />So what's the radioactive health hazard of DU, since it is actually LESS radioactive than the natural mixture of uranium 235 and uranium 238 found in minerals that occur in many environments?<br /><br />(1) When DU munitions are used in combat, the depleted uranium is converted into large quantities of small particles of oxidized uranium that is easily inhaled and ingested, and passes into the blood stream and lymphatic system, and into body tissues and cells.<br /><br />(2) Uranium particles from DU munitions have a chemical affinity for the DNA molecules in the nuclei of cells. Low levels of radioactivity, too low to be detected externally once the uranium particles have become lodged among the DNA molecules of cell nuclei, damage cell DNA, and can cause severe health effects.<br /><br />(3) There is evidence that the US and NATO military, as well as Israel, may have used UNDEPLETED uranium-tipped munitions in order to disguise the tell-tale signature of depleted uranium, which is easily identified forensically by its unnaturally depleted proportion of uranium 235.<br /><br />Undepleted uranium contains the naturally occurring ratio of uranium 235 and uranium 238, i.e. it contains more of the highly radioactive uranium 235, and its small particles are therefore more radioactive, and can cause more damage to the cell DNA.<br /><br />(4) There is some evidence suggesting that even the low radioactive uranium 238 isotope acts as a converter of natural high energy cosmic gamma radiation, as well as local sources gamma radiation and x-rays, which normally passes through cells without being absorbed, into high-energy electrons similar to alpha radiation, which is much more damaging to the cell DNA.<br /><br />The aweful lesson of soldiers and civilians sickened by exposure to DU-tipped munitions, and their residues, is that chronic exposure to LOW-LEVEL radioactivity is deadly when it comes in the form of small radioactive particles that are easily inhaled or ingested.<br /><br />This lesson applies to accurately assessing the public health risks of nuclear power plant malfunctions such as the damaged nuclear reactor plants at Fukushima Daiichi.<br /><br />My source for this information is Low Level Radiation Campaign website edited by Dr. Chris Busby: http://www.llrc.org/du/dupage.htm<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />Douglas Ralph ZorkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2253633813431459343.post-6976008393659586622011-07-31T15:09:59.215-07:002011-07-31T15:09:59.215-07:00I agree with the two previous anonymi. I find Mr. ...I agree with the two previous anonymi. I find Mr. Blankfort to be very insightful and a straight shooter. He's a great resource when trying to put the pieces together. He makes sense re Chomsky and acolyte Goodman, for example. His distillation, stripped of Duff Fluff, of what we know about the dancing Israelis, is an important reminder---they were caught redhanded. Good interview.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2253633813431459343.post-17332410663413773862011-07-30T17:44:46.948-07:002011-07-30T17:44:46.948-07:00Peace Kevin,
I agree with anonymous above. When I...Peace Kevin,<br /><br />I agree with anonymous above. When I listen to Duff, it always sounds like he is talking out of his a$$. Blankfort on the other hand sounds honest and reasonable. Blankfort in response to Duff makes good, logical points about Murdoch, about the USS Liberty event, about the role of PNAC in the run up to Iraq, etc...<br /><br />Just listening to the both of them, it is very clear to me who is on the ball.<br /><br />Also, I'm sure you are aware it is not good to be uncareful/sloppy in your work. You were not happy with Jonathan Kay's many errors about you. I would assume that you do unto others as they would do unto you. <br /><br />Also, when one is sloppy, people will lose their trust in you and will not give credence to your words. <br /><br />peace.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2253633813431459343.post-36283357690582361072011-07-30T13:23:55.073-07:002011-07-30T13:23:55.073-07:00Thanks for having on Blankfort. In my opinion he i...Thanks for having on Blankfort. In my opinion he is one of the most honest and knowledgeable people around.<br /><br />So far Duff has been exposed as a dubious character by three journalists/researchers, including Blankfort, Carolyn and Frederick Toben.<br /><br />I have exposed Bob Nichols as one of the worst and most ridiculous journalists at VT. Nichols can't tell the difference between radiation readings<br /><br />per second and per hour. He also recommended NUKING the Fukushima nuke plant in order to save the world (this guy needs more crack in his pipe).<br /><br />It is not only that Duff is sloppy, he intentionally makes things up, as Carolyn has documented in some of her radio shows.<br /><br />Thanks, Rw, TokyoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com