By Kevin Barrett, Ph.D.
On Oct. 9, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced he was running for president as an independent. Speaking at the historic National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Kennedy boldly declared his independence not only from the Democrats, but also from “Wall Street, Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Ag, the military contractors and their lobbyists, the mercenary media, cynical elites, the two political parties and the corrupt interests that dominate them, and the entire rigged system of rancor and rage, corruption and lies, that has turned government officials into indentured servants of their corporate bosses.”
Click the Link Below to Listen to the Audio of this Article
The New York Times’ obligatory hit piece on Kennedy’s announcement predictably hyperventilated: “Mr. Kennedy has alienated family members and many Democrats with his promotion of conspiracy theories, his rejection of scientific orthodoxies, and his embrace of far-right political figures.”
Translation: RFK Jr. knows the CIA killed his father and uncle and says so publicly, questions the official version of 9/11, promotes the scientific method rather than “orthodoxy” regarding vaccines, and tries to find common ground with Americans from across the political spectrum. Most Americans might find those positions uncommonly sensible. But not The New York Times.
The latest mainstream media panic attack over RFK Jr.’s “conspiracy theories” occurred on Sept. 26, when a late-August interview with self-styled 9/11 expert Peter Bergen was released. Bergen, whose books promote the fiction that al Qaeda is an independent organization rather than a front for intelligence agencies, asked Kennedy if he accepts “the official explanation of 9/11.”
Kennedy responded: “Which is what?” prompting Bergen to insist that “al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11.”
Kennedy’s response showed he probably knows more than he feels comfortable saying. RFK Jr. said:
I don’t know what happened on 9/11. I mean, I understand what the official explanation is, I understand that there is dissent. I have not looked into it. I haven’t examined it. I’m not a good person to talk to about it.
Pressed by Bergen about the source of his doubts, Kennedy said “strange things happened.” Bergen asked, “What are the strange things?” Kennedy: “Well, one of the buildings came down that wasn’t hit by a plane,” a clear reference to World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC-7), the 47-story tower that mysteriously collapsed into its own footprint on 9/11.
Bergen then unleashed a whopper, hysterically claiming that WTC-7 “collapsed because two of the world’s biggest buildings collapsed on top of it.” To his credit, RFK Jr. called out Bergen’s outrageous lie: “No, they didn’t collapse on top of it. My offices were down there. There are pictures of it collapsing. There’s nothing collapsing on top of it. What you’re repeating now, I know not to be true.”
Peter Bergen is one of America’s most prominent 9/11 historians. How could he know absolutely nothing about the collapse of WTC-7, the Achilles heel of the official story of 9/11? Does he really believe that WTC-7 was knocked down by the Twin Towers collapsing on top of it? The Towers collapsed (or rather exploded) at 9:59 and 10:28 a.m. respectively, while WTC-7, which sustained only minor damage from the exploding Towers, came straight down into its footprint, after a countdown broadcast on police radio, in an obvious controlled demolition at 5:21 p.m.
No reputable independent scientist that I’m aware of has ever studied the demise of WTC-7 and come to any other conclusion than that it was a clear and undeniable controlled demolition. Frank Greening, the most prominent independent scientist who has tried to argue that the Twin Towers were not obliterated by explosive demolitions, admitted on my radio show that NIST’s official U.S. government explanation of what happened to WTC-7 is preposterous.
And physics professor Denis Rancourt, another rare independent scientist who perversely argues that the Towers may not have been demolished, nonetheless admits that WTC-7 was unquestionably taken down with explosives. The most meticulous study of WTC-7’s demise, conducted by a team from the University of Alaska led by professor Leroy Hulsey, also supported the demolition hypothesis.
RFK Jr. may not know all the details surrounding the bizarre collapse of WTC-7. But at least he brought up the issue publicly and called out Bergen’s lie. It takes guts for a major presidential candidate to openly doubt the official story of 9/11 and call attention to WTC-7.
But though RFK Jr. has declared his independence from most of the powers-that-be, the biggest and most corrupt political force in America—Zionism—seemingly has him by the throat. After Palestinians broke out of the Gaza concentration camp Oct. 7 and scored a brilliant military victory against their genocidal tormentors, RFK Jr. described the Hamam operation as an “ignominious, unprovoked, and barbaric attack on Israel” which “must be met with world condemnation and unequivocal support for the Jewish state’s right to self-defense.”
“We must provide Israel with whatever it needs to defend itself—now,” RFK Jr. insisted, sounding exactly like every other major U.S. figure across the political spectrum.
Why does the “truth-seeker” Kennedy support the people who killed his father and uncle, and attacked America on 9/11?
Kevin Barrett, Ph.D., is an Arabist-Islamologist scholar and one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror. From 1991 through 2006, Dr. Barrett taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin. In 2006, however, he was attacked by Republican state legislators who called for him to be fired from his job at the University of Wisconsin-Madison due to his political opinions.
