Two months ago I addressed an attempt by a self-declared ‘investigative journalist’, a Mr Stewart Bradley, to ‘debunk the debunkers’ (http://counterknowledge.com/2009/01/more-on-15-questions-for-911-truthers-a-reply-to-stewart-bradley/). Mr Bradley’s ‘rebuttal’ was a reply to an earlier post of mine pointing out the logical fallacies and factual flaws in the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. In attempting his own exercise at debunking, Mr Bradley provided an account of the events leading to the 11th September 2001 attacks on Washington DC and New York which was replete with inaccuracies and factual errors, as highlighted by my rejoinders to his post here (http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2008/12/15-answers-open-response-to-joseph.html).
Despite the fact that Mr Bradley is a supporter of the 9/11 ‘truth movement’, I had hoped that by providing a detailed explanation of his misconceptions – complete with reference to the documented record – I might perhaps have been able to engage him in a full and frank debate as to the veracity of what ‘truthers’ are pleased to call the ‘official’ story, as opposed to the varying and mutually contradictory accounts alleging US government foreknowledge or even participation in the 9/11 atrocities. For a ‘truther’, Mr Bradley gave a positive impression of himself. He could string a sentence together, spell and punctuate properly, and could also submit a comment without either ad hominem abuse or indulging in the frantic and hysterical writing style that other conspiracy theorists employ (comments in full caps, exclamation marks galore, etc). I began to wonder if Mr Bradley might be open-minded enough to acknowledge my criticisms of 9/11 conspiracy theories as being at best based on conjecture and thread-bare evidence, and at worst being based on urban myths and outright lies.
It now seems that I was being over-optimistic.
Mr Bradley’s follow-up post (http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/02/beyond-15-questions-historical-context.html) offers a prime example of how a ‘truther’ words. His methodology can be described as adhering to the four D’s – dodge, distract, distort, and deny.
Dodge – Mr Bradley piously claims that ‘Joseph and his loyal clique(?)’ have ‘their minds made up in support of the “official version” of 9/11’, and that we are ‘unwilling to seriously consider any information that contradicts that version’. In this manner, Mr Bradley neatly sidesteps the fact that I went through every claim that he made, and showed him where he had either misread the evidence or relied on inaccurate or fabricated information. I substantiated each point I made with reference to the evidence at hand, and invited him to consult it. Mr Bradley failed to rise to this challenge, thereby suggesting that it is he who is unwilling to serious consider any information that contradicts his own opinions on 9/11. In particular, Mr Bradley has implicitly conceded defeat on the following points, but not had the moral courage to admit as such:
- That al-Qaeda were to blame for the assassination of Ahmed Shah Massoud on 9th September 2001.
- That the absence of any contacts between US government agencies and anti-Taliban resistance forces in Afghanistan undermines assertions of foreknowledge on Washington’s part.
- That the dispersal of senior al-Qaeda leadership figures prior to 9/11 cannot be interpreted as anything other than a pre-emptive measure to avoid US retaliation for a terrorist attack already planned and close to being executed (namely, the hijacking of 4 passenger planes and their use as suicide attack craft against three targets in the USA).
- That it is impossible to now argue that the 19 hijackers were ‘patsies’ or ghosts, and that both DNA evidence of human remains from the crash site and the passenger manifests of the planes (http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:Ual93manifest.png; http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:Ual175manifest1.png) demonstrate this.
- That it is logically unsound for ‘truthers’ to argue that the Saudis were coerced by the US government into accepting that 15 of their citizens were responsible for 9/11, seeing as the Saudi role in the atrocity highlighted the Bush administration’s ties with the Saudi royal family and (it is alleged) the bin Laden clan.
- That al-Qaeda existed as a transnational terrorist group using its safe haven in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan to commit atrocities such as the 1993 WTC bombings, the 1998 Nairobi and Dar-e-Salaam embassy attacks, and the suicide attack on the USS Cole in 2000.
- That claims of the CIA’s role in ‘creating’ al-Qaeda in the 1980s are a fabrication of the historical record.
- That the US government would not have planned the invasion of a landlocked country in Central Asia without some guarantee of vitally-needed host nation support from its neighbours.
- That the 9/11 ‘truth movement’ is infested with anti-Semites and Holocaust Deniers, hence the frequency with which Israelis and Jews are described as having a role in the ‘false flag’ attacks on New York and Washington DC.
- That Niaz Naik’s claims about his meeting with retired US officials prior to 9/11 have no substance to them.
- That Indian government claims of a direct link between the former ISI director and Mohamed Atta have to be treated with caution.
- That there is no way that NORAD could have been ‘stood down’ without Canadian complicity.
- That Ed Haas of ‘Team Liberty’ distorted the content of an FBI press conference in order to claim that the Bureau had ‘no evidence’ linking bin Laden and al-Qaeda with 9/11.
- That ‘truther’ assertions that repeated video and audio tape admissions by al-Qaeda’s leadership of responsibility for (and pride in) the 11th September 2001 attacks on the USA lack credibility.
- That Flight UA93 was not shot down.
- That bin Laden had declared his intention to destroy the WTC towers (the original target of the failed 1993 attack) as ‘revenge’ for America’s policies towards the Middle East.
Mr Bradley seems uncomfortable about accepting this points, so I will put his lack of an adequate rejoinder on record.
Distract – Mr Bradley’s post sets up a straw man, in that he points to previous examples of covert and discreditable activity by the US government (notably the ‘Green Light’ given by the Ford Administration with Indonesia’s annexation of East Timor in 1975). In the process, he also engages in established canards about the Kennedy assassination (comprehensively refuted here http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7184933155238761777; Mr Bradley also erred grossly in stating that the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that two gunmen had been involved in the killing of JFK http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/arrb98/part03.htm) and on Pearl Harbor. Speaking as a historian, no reputable scholar worth his or her salt treats claims of foreknowledge on FDR’s part of a Japanese attack on Hawaii as being in any way credible. Parenthetically, one must also wonder why someone like Mr Bradley thinks that it was in any way discreditable for the USA to become involved in the war against the Axis powers. For someone who is supposedly sensitive to governments committing acts of mass murder, Auschwitz and Nanking seem to be small beer.
Perhaps Mr Bradley could also tell me where I – or any other contributor to Counterknowledge – have said that the US government (and other allied governments such as that of the UK) are squeaky clean, and have never been involved in any dirty tricks whatsoever at any point in their history. What I have done is stated that any acts of malfeasance by a democratic government – be it Watergate, Iran-Contra, the Sevres meeting of 1956 or the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior – usually become public knowledge shortly after they are committed, and that efforts at a cover-up by the Nixon and Reagan administrations (or the governments of Eden and Mitterand) do not survive scrutiny by democratic legislatures and a free press. A further point here is that Watergate did not actually kill American citizens (and with reference to the Iran-Contra scandal, the Reagan administration’s intention – by trading arms for hostages held in Lebanon – the intention was to save American lives). In contrast, ‘truthers’ are arguing that members of the US government – not just Bush, or Cheney, or all of the standard hate figures, but a host of lowly bureaucrats, law enforcement officers and military personnel – either connived in, or committed, one of the most heinous acts of mass killing to take place on American soil. This is a significant allegation to make, and given the sheer number of people who are being tarnished with it, it is up to the ‘truth movement’ to argue their case effectively and prove their allegations, rather than demand that they be accepted at face value. And this is precisely Mr Bradley’s problem.
Distort – Mr Bradley says that he ‘[takes] exception with the portrayal of all 9/11 research as false, and all Truthers as either liars or nuts’. He does not, however, help himself by indulging in his own mainpulation of the historical record. Take his assertion that ‘according to the testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, Dick Cheney not only lied about the time he arrived at the PEOC bunker, but he knew for at least 10 minutes beforehand about Flight 77 heading for the Pentagon yet refused to try to warn the Pentagon or intercept the Flight’. The ‘stand-down’ myth can be dealt with by a simple consultation of the record. Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon at 09:37 on the 11th September. According to Admiral James Underwood (USCG), one of Mineta’s aides, the Transport Secretary left to go to the PEOC at 0945 (http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-01089.pdf). Assuming that Mineta has his testimony correct, he is clearly referring to Flight 93 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwFGLIsIBuM&feature=related). There is no way whatsoever that Mineta could have been in a room with Cheney, hearing the Vice-President give the order to avoid shooting down a hijacked airliner unless time-travel was involved. Incidentally, Clarke’s own account of the morning of 9/11 confirms this timeline (http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_b_0_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=richard+clarke+against+all+enemies&sprefix=Richard+Clarke).
Secondly, there is the issue of the supposed ‘change’ in Standard Operating Procedures in June 2001 ‘which were altered to require approval from Secretary of Defense before NORAD could respond with “potentially lethal support” (launching combat aircraft) to an emergency call’. The two sets of orders dated 31st July 1997 (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01.pdf) and 1st June 2001 (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf) can be seen here. There is not a single reference to shooting down airliners in either of these documents – only a reference to the ‘Destruction of Derelict Airborne Objects’ (defined as UAVs, missiles, loose weather balloons), and in both cases the guidance is identical. Mr Bradley also ignores the fact that strict rules related to the Posse Comitatus Act governed the use of US military forces on American soil prior to September 2001 (http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00578.pdf). Is he saying that US military officers should have devised of their own bat measures to shoot down hijacked aircraft without reference to their civilian superiors?
Mr Bradley baldly states – without offering any evidence – that there are supposed discrepancies between the timings offered by the FAA and NORAD for the morning of the attacks (he can check the following - http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm, and also http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/index.htm if he needs to refresh his memory). He also falsely implies that ‘multiple military exercises, remarkably similar to the 9/11 attack, were scheduled for the morning of September 11, 2001, although military officials refuse to confirm who scheduled these drills during the very time of the real attack’. Never mind the fact that in my original post I referred to only two exercises (Vigilant Resolve – based at NEADS – and Northern Vigilance – in the Northern Pacific). Neither of these dealt with a scenario ‘remarkably similar to the 9/11 attack’, unless Mr Bradley wants to be a real revisionist and claim that the WTC towers and the Pentagon were bombed by Russian Tu-95s (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/tu-95-pics.htm). He need not take my word for it. Let’s see the testimony from NORAD officers (http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00172.pdf):
- Col Randy Morris (USAF), ‘there was a “beefed up” posturing of NORAD’s air defense fighters due to a planned Russian Bear exercise’ (p.3. Bear being the NATO code-name for the Russian Tu-95 long-range bomber).
- Lt Col Steve Usher (USAF), ‘recalled that on 9/11 he monitored the Vigilant Guardian exercise’s air tasking order prior to the hijacking events’ (p.6). Usher also recalls that it was only after 9/11 that the FAA and NORAD worked out rules of engagement for 9/11-style scenarios.
- General Larry Arnold (USAF), noted that in the 1990s NORAD’s mission shifted from air defence to ‘air sovereignty’, which ‘was intended to maintain control and prevent illegal entries’ into US airspace (my emphasis, JW). Arnold ‘noted that the Hart- Rudman study indicated terrorists, rogues and rogue states were the greatest threats to the national security of the United States. He explained that he took note of this, and that he concentrated on this threat’s potential to come from outside the borders of the country’ (p.10, my emphasis, JW – i.e., he did not anticipate the hijacking of US civilian aircraft from domestic airports, and their use as aerial bombs. See also p.12).
Furthermore, Mr Bradley also chose to ignore my point about how depleted NORAD’s resources were as a result of budget and force cuts in the post-Cold War period. These were certainly of concern to Maj Gen Craig McKinley (USAF) – see pp.20-21 of the document I linked to. In other words, the key constraints on the US air defence network prior to 9/11 was that (1) it was oriented to face external threats, and (2) it had limited aircraft available for internal air defence. Furthermore, Lt Col Usher and Col Morris’ comments show that the exercises did not involve the deployment of real aircraft, and that claims by ‘truthers’ that aircraft were diverted away from the Eastern seaboard in order to allow the 9/11 attacks to take place are completely without substance (also confirmed here, http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00778.pdf).
Thirdly, let us deal with the specifics of the pre-9/11 warnings. There were more detailed intelligence indicators which led – for example – to heightened security at the G7 Summit in Genoa in July 2001, and also the temporary closure of the US embassy in Yemen earlier that year. Yet Mr Bradley’s claims ‘of over 50 warnings received from June to September 10, 2001 which repeatedly specify, “Al-Qaeda attack, suicide hijackers, target in NY - WTC.”’ are a fabrication (see, for example, pp.219-229 of Thomas Copeland’s book, Fool Me Twice, available here http://bl147w.blu147.mail.live.com/mail/InboxLight.aspx?FolderID=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001&InboxSortAscending=False&InboxSortBy=Date&n=60689143; ironically enough, the ‘truther’ website which Mr Bradley links do also does not support such a bald assertion; http://www.americanhiroshima.com/911warnings.htm). Let us also see what participants who responded to 9/11 recall.
- Underwood noted that the Department of Transportation was more sensitive to terrorist threats after the Cole, and that ‘the feeling in the summer of 2001 was that something might be going on in the Middle East’ (http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-01089.pdf). No hint of an attack on US soil here.
- Lt Col Dawne Deskins (USAF) notes that ‘[she] does not recall ever personally designing an exercise in which a decision was made to shoot down [a] hijacked aircraft. A typical design would include course deviation in which the hijacker forces the pilot to fly to a designated landing point’ (http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00778.pdf). The clear implication of this is that military planning focused on traditional hijackings (where passengers were taken hostage) rather than the use of passenger aircraft as flying IEDs.
- Maj Gen McKinley noted that ‘if exercises did take place that can be compared to the 9/11 hijack attacks then there were no intelligence warnings that drove these exercises. He noted that “the exercise kids probably put on their creative hats” and developed interesting scenarios to test the operations capabilities of their sectors but there was no indication that the scenarios paralleled a credible threat’. McKinley states that ‘to his knowledge before he left the Pentagon there were no 9/11-type scenarios built into their exercises. The hijack scenarios that were exercised involved a successful escort to landing and negotiations with the hijackers’ (p.21, emphasis added – JW http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00172.pdf). Incidentally, McKinley left his post in DOD in July 2002.
- William A. Scott (USAF-Retired) – interestingly enough, Scott notes that there a sentiment within the DOD prior to 9/11 that NORAD was a ‘”sunset” mission’, and that the command might be abolished as being no longer necessary. Scott was part of a USAF team set up to address NORAD’s roles in 1998, and in discussion potential threats the only scenarios officials could come up with was an external ‘asymmetric’ attack – such as a cruise missile launch from offshore (pp.26-28, http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00172.pdf).
Fourthly, on the so-called ‘whistle-blowers’. John O’Neill made it clear that rivals and unsympathetic superiors within the FBI were the main source of his problems. Sibel Edmonds joined the Bureau after 9/11, so quite what she has to say about the state of investigations prior to the September 2001 attacks is beyond me. Lt Col Anthony Shaffer worked for the DIA, not the FBI, and his claims about Able Danger bear little substance. In particular, claims that Mohamed Atta and other hijackers were identified in May 1999 as part of a ‘Brooklyn Cell’ are undermined by the fact that he and the rest of the ‘Hamburg Cell’ were still in Germany, and did not enter the USA until the spring of 2000 (see Jason Burke, Al Qaeda (London: Penguin 2007, pp.244-245). The veracity (or otherwise) of Shaffer’s claims about Able Danger are dealt with here (http://www.dodig.osd.mil/fo/Foia/ERR/r_H05L97905217-PWH.pdf), here (http://www.9-11pdp.org/press/2005-08-12_pr.pdf) and here (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Able_Danger).
Coleen Rowley’s account supports claims of obstruction as a product of bureaucratic inertia, rather than anything more sinister (http://www.911myths.com/html/coleen_rowley.html). Robert Wright’s frustrations over counter-terrorism ended when he was reassigned in August 1999 – yes, that’s right, when Clinton was still President. Mr Bradley would have us believe that the powers of the Bush administration in obstructing the anti-al Qaeda effort are so powerful that they can be exercised even when Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al are not in office (http://www.911myths.com/html/robert_wright.html).
Kenneth Williams and Harry Samit’s frustrations with Moussawi extended to their own field offices, not higher up the chain of command (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE0DD173FF93AA25755C0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=3&pagewanted=print). In each of these cases, claims of a conspiracy of silence at the highest levels remain long on assertion and short on substance.
Deny – Mr Bradley continues to harp on about the Afghan pipeline even though it is perfectly clear that UNOCAL’s efforts to build this project – which Marty Miller referred to as a ‘moon shot’ – ended after the US cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan (the reprisals for the Kenyan and Tanzanian bombings) in August 1998 (http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00728.pdf). Mr Bradley is also untroubled by the need to show a causal link between UNOCAL’s failed negotiations, and the TAPI pipeline he referred to in his original post (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2608713.stm). His assertion that he is only interested in determining the evidence is undermined by such sleights of hand.
Mr Bradley’s comments on NSPD-9 are also hopelessly off the mark. Ironically enough, he seems to be relying here on former Defense Secretary Donald Rumseld’s claims as to what this document involved (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-9.htm). Having stated at the outset that government statements cannot be relied upon, Mr Bradley decides that on this occasion Rummy was telling the truth. In much the same way, Mr Bradey cannot make up his mind as to whether the FBI is complicit in the official ‘cover up’ on 9/11, or whether its investigations were impeded by the White House. Consistency is most certainly not his forte.
The precise contents of NSPD-9 remain open to question, as the document is still classified. It is also important to understand that the debate about NSPD-9 revolves around the dispute between the Bush administration and former NSC Counter-terrorism co-ordinator Richard Clarke over the latter’s claims that prior to 9/11 Bush Jr and his advisors were insouciant in the face of the al-Qaeda threat (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm). We have no idea as to how many iterations NSPD-9 went through pre-and post-9/11, but what we do know thanks to Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon was that the original discussion on this document at the Principals meeting on 4th September 2001 focused on targeting al-Qaeda’s finances, proposals to aid the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, and also an inconclusive discussion on whether Predator UAVs should be armed for operations over Afghanistan, and who should have the authority to use them (see the following, http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sacred-Terror-Daniel-Benjamin-Steven/dp/0375508597/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236599407&sr=1-1 pp.345-346; see also http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,993730-3,00.html). I also refer back to my original comments from Steve Coll relating to the tentative nature of such proposals – notably the fact that no one discussed how the proposals implemented in NSPD-9 should be funded (Coll, Ghost Wars, p.580).
Further evidence to suggest that the Bush administration had no war plan to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban can be seen in its incoherent response in the aftermath of 9/11 (see, for example, Frederick Kagan, Finding the Target. The Transformation of American Military Power (NY: Encounter Books 2006), chapter 8). In the days following the attacks, administration officials suggested that Mullah Omar’s government may be spared overthrow if it broke ranks with al-Qaeda, and indeed Bush’s ultimatum of 20th September 2001 gave the Taliban leadership the option of averting war by handing over the al-Qaeda leadership and closing al-Qaeda and other jihadi training camps (such as those used by militants sent to Kashmir) (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/). The fact that terms were offered which gave the Taliban a peaceful option disproves the image Mr Bradley portrays of an administration hell-bent on war and invasion. It was the Taliban’s intransigent rejection of these terms – based on its own ideological bent and also its financial and military reliance on al-Qaeda – which made war inevitable, so we need not hear any more moonshine about PNAC (which never even mentioned Afghanistan or al-Qaeda) or pipelines (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/world/main310852.shtml).
Finally, we have Mr Bradley’s pathetic insistence that molten steel was found in the remains of the two WTC towers, despite evidence to the contrary, as cited here:
NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminium (sic – US spelling here) alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.
Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Mr Bradley also repeats the anti-scientific nonsense spouted about nano-thermite (refuted here http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Mackey_drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf, pp.55-78; and here http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?action=jump&catid=18&id=86, pp.67-69), which clearly puts him in the same camp as the ‘controlled demolition theorists’. This begs certain questions which I think he needs to answer.
1. Do any accredited experts in pyrotechnics and explosives confirm your ‘hypothesis’ about nano-thermite?
2. Following on from my questions here, can you explain how WTC1, 2 and 7, were rigged for demolition without any one either working in the building or in the vicinity noticing anything amiss (http://counterknowledge.com/2009/01/5-more-questions-for-911-truthers/)?
3. If you are trying to argue that three tall buildings can be clandestinely prepared for a controlled demolition, are there any specialists in CD who can confirm that this is possible?
4. If you are trying to claim a US government role in the 9/11 attacks, then do you honestly think it is credible that the perfect ‘false flag’ attack – involving 4 hijackings, the ‘sheep-dipping’ of 19 suspects, and the rigging of 3 buildings for demolition – can be arranged in the eight months between the Republican administration’s inauguration and the 11th September 2001?
Mr Bradley pompously notes that in light of his assertions I and other critics of the ‘truth movement’ can ‘now actually see 9/11 in a historical context and cede that maybe, just maybe, a new investigation is warranted’. Yet he can only go so far with rehashes of discredited claims, bad science and a lousy grasp of the historical record. If Mr Bradley wants to delude himself by clinging dogmatically to flimsy ‘theories’, and by systematically ignoring the vast mass of evidence which proves al-Qaeda’s complicity in one of the most grotesque acts of terrorism in recent history, then he is welcome to his illusions. But he should also not be surprised if those of us who prefer verifiable claims based on firm evidence – as opposed to the blinkered fanaticism – treat his brand of counter-knowledge with the contempt it deserves.
If you enjoyed this post, why not subscribe to our RSS feed or follow us on Twitter? You might also consider making a donation to the Counterknowledge.com fighting fund.
1347 responses
Thank you for fact-checking these phony “truthers.” Would you also be willing to fact-check a REAL 9/11 related conspiracy?
I have been working with Tom Burnett Sr. (father of Flight 93 hero Tom Jr.) to stop the Park Service from planting a giant Mecca-oriented crescent atop his son’s grave. The Memorial Project has denied to the press several times that the giant crescent (originally named “Crescent of Embrace”) points to Mecca (within 2 degrees of Mecca is our claim), but it literally takes only 2 minutes for anyone to verify the rough Mecca-orientation for themselves. Just use the Mecca-direction calculator at Islam.com to print out the direction to Mecca from the crash-site, then place this printout over the Crescent site plan on your computer screen. Source documents available here:
http://www.crescentofbetrayal.com/VerifyingMeccaOrientation.htm
To be precise, the crescent points 1.8 degrees north of Mecca, + or - a tenth of a degree. This turns the giant Islamic-shaped crescent into a mihrab (the Mecca-direction indicator around which every mosque is built). The planned memorial is actually a terrorist memorial mosque.
Other Islamic and terrorist memorializing features:
–The 9/11 date will be inscribed on a separate section of Memorial Wall that is centered on the center-line of the giant crescent. That is the exact position of the star on an Islamic crescent and star flag. The date goes to the star on an Islamic flag. THE DATE GOES TO THE TERRORISTS.
http://www.crescentofbetrayal.com/VerifyingDateAsStar.htm
–The entire multi-Mecca oriented geometry of the giant central crescent is exactly repeated in the giant array of crescents that surround the Tower of Voices part of the memorial.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVVKKoGRVFw
–The minaret-like Tower of Voices turns out to be a year round accurate Islamic prayer-time sundial.
http://www.crescentofbetrayal.com/proof.htm
These and a host of other terrorist memorializing features all remain completely intact in the so-called redesign. They call it “Circle of Embrace” now, but the Park Service’s own website acknowledges that the circle is still broken. The unbroken part of the circle——what is symbolically left standing in the wake of 9/11——remains exactly as it was in the original Crescent of Embrace. It is is still a giant Islamic-shaped crescent, still pointing to Mecca.
Mr. Burnett has issued repeated appeals to nation to please check the facts about this terrorist memorializing design and to help him “do something,” as his son telephoned that he was going to “do something” about the original hijacking of Flight 93, yet our newspapers have refused to cover this story. Mr. Burnett’s appeal for fact-checking and exposure has not even gotten out, never mind been heeded. As fact-checking is your chosen portfolio, might you please heed this request, and publish your findings? Video of Mr. Burnett’s appeal to the American people here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4z1QN6m_QI
Full expose: http://www.CrescentOfBetrayal.com
Updates: http://www.ErrorTheory.blogspot.com
Contact: alec@rawls.org
If you would like to speak to the Burnetts, you can reach them through me.
Wow. Another great post and points well made. If only the truthers had a spokesman that could, with facts and knowledge, put together a legit and comprehensive arguement. But, alas, they can’t because their ideas are based on lies, half-truths, innuendo and bullshit.
I find it laughable that the truthers think that this was an iside job. The US Government can’t even keep a lid on their most secret and sensitive projects, yet for almost 8 years not a peep has been made and no “classified” or open evidence has been produced.
A good an thorough article that no “truther” will read properly. Honestly, to still be spinning this garbage you have to be deep in denial.
Here’s a good resource on NORAD and its response on the day:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70300
And here’s some stuff about the Afghan pipeline that never was, probably never will be, and will hardly benefit the US if it does come into being:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=103008
If you want to have some more fun try asking the “truthers” how a new investigation should be funded, who would carry it out, who they would call as witnesses and what those witnesses should be asked. Also, what physical evidence should the investigation be looking at again, and what historical evidence should they re-examine?
What would indicate some sort of conspiracy at odds with what we generally believe to have happened? What would make them accept that their ideas have no foundation?
And, most importantly, what are they doing to bring this investigation about?
They have to take it beyond “that looks odd”. For example, if they think that the Mineta testimony is important, they have to say what it means and state how they would going about proving that Dick Cheney did something to aid the attacks. The same with Silvestein and his “pull it”. I could say something much less ambiguous like “I wish you were dead”, but that wouldn’t prove I had murdered the person I said it to, if they later died.
I guarantee you’ll just get subjects changing, evasion and more asking questions and ignoring the answers. The fact that no truther has even taken the smallest of practical steps towards confirming their suspicions is a clear sign that they are flotaing around in a fantasy world with no intention of dispelling it.
The closest they’ve got is a couple of proposed investigations, which are so vague as to be laughable:
http://www.nyc911initiative.org/
http://www.911realinvestigation.org/
Truthers love to talk about how all they want is a “real investigation” but they don’t seem to have even the slightest clue about how such an investigation would work.
Great post. And keep it up. Sometimes calm rational argument works: http://extruther.blogspot.com/
Great post, but probably not worth the time and effort. 9/11 “truth” is really a religion, and just as there’s no convincing a creationist of the fact of evolution, no matter how much evidence you present, there’s no convincing a “truther” of the facts of 9/11.
Honestly, it’s best to just enjoy the “truth” movement as the bizarre comedy spectacle that it is. As long as all they do is yell at people like Bill Maher rather than engage in violence, we should all have a good laugh at their expense.
New Yorker
Unfortunately that attitude is precisely why Creationists can lobby to get Intelligent Design taught in schools and why the British health care system subsidizes homeopathic placebos.
“Finally, we have Mr Bradley’s pathetic insistence that molten steel was found in the remains of the two WTC towers, despite evidence to the contrary, as cited here:”
Certainly there was plenty of molten aluminum to be found on site, but let’s not leave room for Stewart to continue to hold fast to the notion that his oft quoted study of eutectic compounds found within samples of steel from the rubble pile indicate a controlled demolition. Nor let us allow him the notion that such steel melted at temperatures that were inconsistent with the “official story.”
Ironically he has held to both claims, oblivious of the fact that they are contradictory. Eutectic compounds, by their definition, lower the melting point of the original components. The word itself is derived from a Greek word which means “easily melted.”
The existence of the eutectic compound in partially melted steel belies the notion that the steel could have been subjected to temperatures that could melt pure steel. The absence of temperatures that can melt pure steel belies notion that a thermite reaction created the eutectic alloy.
I’ve responded to this claim of his many times. In all instances he has failed to even attempt a rebuttal, instead he chooses to simply restate the original claim. I was very disappointed to see it yet again in his response to you. He has yet to demonstrate that he understands the science behind his claim, he has failed to provide valid explanation of the leap he makes regarding the conclusion he draws from the study, and he has done nothing but ignore any attempt to educate him on the subject.
Thank you all for your comments.
New Yorker, I see your point, but I still think it necessary to take on 9/11 liars head-on. Not to convince them to change their minds - that’s pointless, as you say - but to ensure that if any third parties do read my stuff (and that of other debunkers), they don’t get suckered in by the ‘truthers’.
‘He has yet to demonstrate that he understands the science behind his claim, he has failed to provide valid explanation of the leap he makes regarding the conclusion he draws from the study, and he has done nothing but ignore any attempt to educate him on the subject.’
Behind the better grammar, the more controlled prose, and the veneer of politeness, Mr Bradley differs little from other ‘truthers’ in this crucial respect.
New Yorker
You’re right of course, I would add to that all of the categories of counterknowledge regularly blogged here: scientologists, creationists, holocaust deniers, whatever.
I don’t agree it’s a waste of time to expose them for what they are. As funny as it sounds to us today, and as comical as they appear today, misinformation has a way of seeping into all aspects of our society, and gaining credibility simply by the passing of time, better editing, fading memories and shifting politics.
In the decades following WW2, holocaust denial was a laughable sideshow of ragtag malcontents working out of their basements and writing in silly home made journals.
I don’t think that’s true of holocaust denial today.
Sadly, we need to constantly challenge these psuedo-religionists before they gain the credibility that comes with age and better packaging
unforunately, there is no way to change a mind infected by conspiracy fables (or at least, very little chance).
But it is true, we need to make the effort: not by reasoning by the setting out to destroy the `troofers” arguments and credibility in those who are inclined to believe `softly’ in conspiracies (that is, they have no intention of `investigating’ these matters themselves, but rather, believe what conspiracy fabulists tell them: I would consider the vast majority of the 70% or whatever of the u.s. public who believes in conspiracy wrt to the Kennedy assassination, are `soft’ conspiracists).
“New Yorker, I see your point, but I still think it necessary to take on 9/11 liars head-on. Not to convince them to change their minds - that’s pointless, as you say - but to ensure that if any third parties do read my stuff (and that of other debunkers), they don’t get suckered in by the ‘truthers’.”
Right, that’s what’s important: vaccinating people against “truth” before they become infected. Obviously, I think it’s good to take on 9/11 “truth” in a blog that’s dedicated to debunking all sorts of myths and pseudoscience. I was merely commenting on the unlikelihood that Stewart Bradley would ever change his mind on this, as the post was directed at him. With rare exception, once one is a “truther”, there’s no going back.
“Assuming that Mineta has his testimony correct, he is clearly referring to Flight 93″
I just want to point out that Norman Mineta is very clearly referring to Flight 77, the plane which hit the Pentagon.
He is very specific about this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbYwPQ9pTzk
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Fraser
All you have to do is explain what your best evidence is that 911 was an inside job. Just summarise, in say four sentences, what it is.
If it is good evidence, I will agree with you that 911 was an inside job……. Just one good bit of evidence….You must have at least one good reason to believe what you do.
Whereas I am prepared to believe you, I will bet you your very best bit of evidence has already been debunked.
Fraser - like many a truther - is missing the point, wilfully or otherwise. If Mineta is claiming that his testimony relates to AA77, then his recollections are spectacularly wrong. The Pentagon was struck at 09:37, and Mineta did not leave for the PEOC until 7 minutes later. That is documented, as I have shown in my post.
There is no way anyone who is of sound mind and who is properly conversant in the facts can conclude that his testimony offers evidence of a deliberate standdown ordered by the then-Vice President in order to ensure that flight 77 crashed into its target. Fraser’s persistence in pursuing this red-herring shows that he has the same tendency of wilful ignorance as Mr Bradley does.
The thing is though, Mr Welch, according to the pdf you linked to, Admiral James Underwood doesn’t say that Mineta left to go to the PEOC bunker at 09.45.
What it says is that by 9.45 he had already left.
Meaning that he left to go to the PEOC at an unspecified time before 09.45.
So this doesn’t necessarily contradict Minetas testimony.
“[U] Underwood said he watched on CNN as the second airplane went into the WTC. At
9:45 the Secretary had already departed for the PEOC.”
‘At 9:45 the Secretary had already departed for the PEOC’.
Suggesting that he was en route, rather than actually there. My comments still stand. Underwood’s testimony also matches the timeline in the Commission report, and also the account provided by Richard Clarke in his memoirs (and let us not forget that Clarke was - as I have noted above - no friend of the Bush administration).
So I stand by the facts and the evidence. It is simply not possible that Mineta was in a position to see Cheney order subordinates to stand down jets in order to facilitate the strike on the Pentagon. Having said that, I have a feeling that you are not going to let this canard rest.
Fraser
Your best evidence please….surely it cannot be hard for you….if you really had anything …………..
Amazing post, as were the others. Thank you for your incredible time and effort in the fight of supporting real truth instead of stupid conspiracy theories.
These “truthers” (in reality, simply “liars”) will never let go. They live in their own dark world of conspiracy theories, evil Jews, alien machinations to control the government, and black helicopters who come to take them away. It is a paranoid little world made by small minds - trapping them in a dark room from whence they refuse to come out. They are comfortable there.
To them, all “questions” are answered by fallacies piled up on each other. They start with a fallacy, and they add yet another to fill the gaps.
I knew on the morning of 9/11 (I was there, in NYC) that Bin Laden had done it - when the first plane had hit. I knew it because Bin Laden had said all along that he wanted to attack us. I knew it because Bin Laden had attacked us before. I knew it because of Occam’s Razor and, frankly, because I am not an idiot.
In the same way that I know that it is most likely that a suicide bomber blowing himself up in a cafe in Israel comes from the Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or the Tanzim, usually without needing much confirmation by Israeli sources, I also knew that the plane ramming into the WTC was from Al Qaeda.
To think otherwise, from the onset, one would have to start with the supposition that it was a conspiracy, and to discount the entire history of the methodology of suicide terrorism. One would have to discount the entire history of the use of suicide terrorists against the West in general. One would also have to discount the entire history of Bin Laden, his statements, his “poetry”, and his speeches. And in so discounting everything previously, only then could one be so insanely moronic as to start building these conspiracy theories.
Unfortunately, their “movement” will never truly die. We don’t really teach enough history and science at an early age to immunize people against this sort of disease. But the more posts like this which expose them for the deceivers which they truly are might immunize others from joining up.
So thank you again for standing up for the real truth in the face of these conspiracy-minded liars.
They’re not truthers, they’re just sick and deluded people.
As with any fringe group, whether it be Area 51, psychic phenomena, the JFK assassination or 911, we must realize that there are at least two distinct subsets of persons within that group.
1. The first consists of those looking for “signs and portents”. These persons are either willfully blind, or are too dimwitted to understand the complexity of the event.
2. The second subset consists of those who feed, and feed upon, the myth. Many of this second group may indeed be intelligent enough to realize that the theory is crap, but they have an interest in furthering it in order to accomplish political, emotional or monetary goals.
None of this should be taken as saying that we should ignore these myths. Fighting stupidity is a noble cause, and fighting the charlatans who feed upon the ignorent is theoretically a holy war.
Charlie
Mr Welch
“Suggesting that he was en route, rather than actually there. ”
……which is already different from what you originally said, which was that Mineta “left to go to the PEOC at 0945″.
According to Richard Clarke in his memoirs, Mineta was en route to the PEOC at 09.28.
“……. Mineta called in from his car and I asked him to come directly to the Situation Room. He had two sons who were pilots for United. He did not know where they were that day. I suggested he join the Vice President…………….It was now 9:28.”
So I think it is possible that Mineta was there before AA77 hit the Pentagon.
It’s certainly not impossible.
This seems to me more likely than a scenario where the Transportation Secretary is in the emergency bunker and is completely unaware (and no-one thinks to tell him) that a passenger plane has recently crashed into the Pentagon.
What do you think ?
You’ve completely disregarded the testimony.
“During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand”
He says he was there when the plane was 50 miles out. The the commission report says:
“At 9:29, the autopilot on American 77 was disengaged; the aircraft was at 7,000 feet and approximately 38 miles west of the Pentagon.”
Clark says Mineta was in his car at 9:28. The plane, traveling at +-370 MPH in autopilot, is doing approx. 6 miles a minute.
Thus, according to Clark, Mineta wasn’t there when the plane was 50 miles out to watch “the young man come in” and speak to the VP.
And that, I think, wraps that one up.
I will concede that I may have got the timings wrong, but I stand by my statement on Mineta’s testimony. It does not in any way support the ‘theory’ about a deliberate standdown.
“prime example of how a ‘truther’ words”
edit - I think you mean “works” not words.
For me, the truthers are a joke because I witnessed the plane slam into the Pentagon. But nice work on the flensing.
Charlie - Excellent summary of the various psychologies involved in conspiracy theories of this sort. What’s I find interesting is that the people in the first group - the truthers - are no more willing to believe that second group - those who are supporting the truthers for personal gain only - exists than they are willing to believe the actual truth of the event. The truthers are so blind that they think everyone on their team is just like them, rather than someone who knows their stories are crap but who nonethless wants to profit from them.
Combating idiots is frustrating, but when those people become Useful Idiots, with their whacko theories being used to advance some truly noxious agendas, it is essential that we continue to fight against them.
“And that, I think, wraps that one up”….and that was their “best” evidence….I wonder why I waste my time with these conspiriloons. You really do have to wonder what motivates them in the first place.
Actually I was mistaken about the timeline given by Richard Clarke in his book .
The time of 9.28 is when Clarke says he had a conversation with Acting Joint Chief of Staff Richard Myers about setting up a Combat Air Patrol over Washington, this means that he actually met with Mineta upon his arrival at the PEOC some time before this.
This supports Minetas claim that he arrived there at about 9.20.
Apologies for this inaccuracy.
I ask you, do you seriously believe that it’s possible that the Transportation Secretary could be in PEOC bunker and not be aware that a passenger plane had already crashed into the Pentagon ?
That no-one would have told him this ?
And if the “the plane is 50 miles out” conversation had actually been about Flight 93, what was the anticipated target of the flight ?
“50 miles out” from what ?
Couple of points. The Paranoid Style in American Politics remains an excellent overview of how conspiracy theorists work. What’s morbidly fascinating is that viewed historically conspiracists tend to exhibit the same tendencies throughout decades and through various conspiracies. At some point, when the same phenomenon reemerges again and again despite time and circumstance, it becomes high time to look for the roots of conspiracy theories in the human psyche and not as a reflection of the external world.
One of the points made in the Paranoid Style is the unusual relationship conspiracists have to evidence. They do not derive the conspiracy from a dispassionate review of the evidence. Rather they make pedantic use of evidence to protect the conspiracy that they passionately believe in. That is why you see the same obsessive relationship to an ever growing edifice of seemingly esoteric facts and details from one conspiracy theory to another.
On that point, trying to engage a conspiracist in a rational discussion of the evidence, while useful to others, is towards the conspiracist a waste of energy. The conspiracist’s relationship to evidence was never honest or rational to begin with. So too, the need to protect the cherished conspiratorial belief requires deliberately shielding this belief behind such a surfeit of details that the process of debunking is necessarily time consuming to the extent that most people won’t make the effort. Nor will the result be acknowledged if they do.
Bottom line, either people have real, tangible evidence to support their theories or they blowing the usual smoke.
.
“50 miles out” from what ?”
I knew you were going to ask that despite the fact that you’ve already made the assertion that the 50 miles out meant 50 miles out from the Pentagon. You certainly presented yourself as if you knew what the 50 miles out meant. Does this mean that you don’t have evidence that 50 miles out means the Pentagon like you claimed just a few posts ago? Did you forget what that evidence was, or did you never have it?
Ironic that when you’re proven wrong, it suddenly becomes ambiguous what 50 miles out might mean.
The clear answer is, there isn’t enough evidence there to say. You’re the one filling in the blanks here. You’re filling in a blank regarding what the order was. You’re filling in a blank regarding what the target was. You’re filling in a blank regarding what time Mineta arrived. Your filling in the blank regarding the VP’s intent, and your filling in the blank regarding Mineta’s veracity.
It’s like truther mad-libs around here.
Alright, here’s what Mineta said he did after he got out of his car:
“When I got to the White House, it was being evacuated*. I met briefly with Richard Clark, a National Security Council staff member, who had no new information. Then the Secret Service escorted me down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, otherwise known as the PEOC. I established contact on two lines, one with my chief of staff at the Department of Transportation, and the second with Monty Belger, the acting deputy administrator of the FAA, and Jane Garvey, both of whom were in the FAA operations center. And as the minutes passed, the developing picture from air traffic control towers and radar screens became increasingly more alarming. Some aircraft could not be contacted. While on a normal day that may be just a communications snafu, we were faced with trying to quickly sort out minor problems from significant threats. We did not know how many more attacks might be in progress. ”
* He said the White House was being evacuated when he got there. He further clarifies that statement here:
“I grabbed some manuals and some papers, went down to the car, and we went over to the White House. As we went in West Executive Drive, people pouring out of the Executive Office building, people running out of the White House, and I said to my driver and security guy, “Is there something wrong with this picture? We are driving in, and everybody else is running away.”
What time did people start running from the whitehouse?
Hmm.
CNN says 9:45
“Although a slow evacuation of the White House begins around 9:20 a.m. (see (9:22 a.m.) September 11, 2001), it is not until 9:45 that the Secret Service orders people to run from there (see (9:45 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [CNN, 9/11/2001; CNN, 9/12/2001; ABC News, 9/11/2002]”
Even so, let’s take the 9:20 time line. Let’s say he was there right when people started leaving. When he gets to the White House the plane is 86 miles out by my estimation. According to Mineta, he met with Clark, was escorted to the PEOC set up shop in the PEOC, and they had no idea how many more attacks were in progress. How long did that take? If the plane was 38 miles out from the Pentagon @ 9:28 that means it was 50 miles out at 9:26. Do you think he had time to do all that in 6 minutes?
50 miles out from what indeed.
I’ve checked again Clarke’s memoirs. He clearly states that he talks to Mineta before he talks to Myers (timing the latter conversation at 09.28). Clarke also recalls Myers saying that it would take 15 minutes to put a Combat Air Patrol over Washington. 2 fighters had just scrambled from Otis AB (at Cape Cod), and 2 were due to be launched from Langley (near Norfolk, Virginia).
So the planes were due to be over the capital by around 09:43-09:45. I would like to remind Fraser again as to the time when the Pentagon was struck: 09:37. The simple fact is that the planes which were scrambled to cover Washington DC would not have arrived in time to prevent AA77 from crashing into the Department of Defense. This is yet another nail in the coffin that is the standdown claim.
Fraser
OK. Its been established you do not have any facts or good evidence. Surprising, given you are a member of the 911 “Truth” movement.
Do you even have any plausible lies or half truths?
Else you could consider joining this guys movement :
http://extruther.blogspot.com/
Failing that, psychiatry is probably the next best option.
As a correction I should add here that it was the Langley jets that were scrambled for the CAP over Washington. In any case, they were not going to make it in time to shoot down AA77 before it hit the Pentagon.
9/11 as an inside job makes no sense. But the official story makes even less sense.
I like to concentrate on simple issues. The simplest of all seems to me the issue of UA 93.
You wrote “15. That Flight UA93 was not shot down.”
I rejoiced: finally someone has squared the theory of the jet hitting a field in Pennsylvania with the facts of debris falling over many square miles. So I looked all over your articles for an explanation of your conclusion 15, and I find statements of faIth, but no explanations.
On the ’shoot down theory’, read the following:
http://debunk911myths.org/topics/United_Airlines_Flight_93
Note the following:
‘State trooper, Tom Spallone said the plane was still smoldering at 12:30. He said officials were trying to keep people from scene and confirmed that there are no survivors. He said the “debris field spread over an area size of a football field, maybe two footballs fields.” The impact of the crash was so severe that the biggest piece of debris he has seen there is no bigger than 2 feet.’
That seems to contradict your claim that debris fell ‘over many square miles’. See also the following:
http://www.freewebs.com/911guide/flight93.htm
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:P200057-1.jpg
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:P200058-1.jpg
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:P200059-1.jpg
They HAVE no explanations…all they know is…”Mah gubbermint cudint hab dun dat!”
Yeah…NO WAY AT ALL.
Thank you for that very witty and incisive retort, hANOVER. That’s just the kind of deranged shriek that one can expect from a 9/11 (and a Holocaust) denier.
Welchy…John and I are awaiting you at the other posting…have your buttcheeks stopped chafing?
That “shriek”, as you put it, is simply a distillation of every response you nimrods have posted. Barry Jennings was murdered so that Michael Hess can lie his evil ass off - Mikey cannot even look into the camera with the lies spewing from his yapper.
And Welchy…let’s get this clear…I know 9/11 occurred…it just wasn’t orchestrated by Tim Osman, as you and the doops purport. And as for the Holocau$t…Boo! Bigfoot’s right behind you…
…oh, wait…that can’t be…BECAUSE IT DOESN’T EXIST.
Hello again my skeptical friends.
I have just finished “another” final rebuttal for Joseph Welch and hope you find it at least fair in it’s method and helpful in understanding my position. Sorry it took so long.
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/04/conflicting-sources-another-final-note.html
Good day to all…… Stewart Bradley
‘Welchy…John and I are awaiting you at the other posting…have your buttcheeks stopped chafing?’
I hate to be the one to break this to you, fIST, but this is something called ‘the internet’, where all interaction is online. As far as yourself and the loathsome Mr Thames are concerned, I doubt very much that either or both of you could organise (to use a quote from a TV comedy series I occaisonally watch) ‘a bum-rape in a barracks’. In any case, if you want to see your collective serial ranting as some sort of ‘victory’, then fill your boots. Just remember that I actually teach students and get published. Mr Thames is reduced to writing shit online - knowing full well that no reputable publisher will publish him with a bargepole - and you are reduced to cutting and pasting on a blog which no one reads.
There is a reason why you and your kind are marginalised. It has nothing to do with any great conspiracy - but everything to do with the fact that you, Mr Thames and all the rest of your coterie are a bunch of failures and arseholes.
Mr Bradley, I have read your piss-poor attempt at a rebuttal, and will comment more extensively in due course. In the meantime, I would like to direct your attention to this piece - although knowing you ‘truthers’ penchant for self-deception, I’m sure you’ll ignore this the same way you ignore all the evidence which undermines your contention about 9/11 being an ‘inside job’:
http://counterknowledge.com/2009/03/what-al-qaeda-says-about-911/
Well Joseph, you may have read my “piss-poor attempt” but it’s obvious you did not understand it.
“The problem is distinguishing the points I really do concede with the points I disagree. A main example here is my admission that al-Qaeda certainly may have committed the attack, but I disagree with Mr Welch’s assumption that al-Qaeda could have no clandestine collaboration from within our own intelligence agencies.”
Do you recall this statement from my text? If there is collaboration between al-Qaeda and US intelligence then it stands to reason the al-Qaeda leaders would be participating in the deception of guilt. Your “What al-Qaeda says” post does not contradict that.
And have you learned anything new about Nano-thermites now that there is a peer reviewed paper on the topic?
Sorry my friend, but your in a state of deep denial.
Let me deal with your post in detail, and then your comments above.
Section 1.
In the “Dodge” section Mr Welch gives a list of points that I had “implicitly conceded defeat….but not had the moral courage to admit as such.” The problem is distinguishing the points I really do concede with the points I disagree. A main example here is my admission that al-Qaeda certainly may have committed the attack, but I disagree with Mr Welch’s assumption that al-Qaeda could have no clandestine collaboration from within our own intelligence agencies.
‘1. Mr Welch claims the al-Qaeda assassination of Ahmed Shah Massoud undermined US efforts to gain Northern Alliance support against the Taliban:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/27/europe/terror.php?
http://www.levif.be/actualite/belgique/72-56-17674/la-belge-malika-el-aroud–l-une-des-plus-influentes-djihadistes-sur-internet.html?
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/12/11/belgium
I claimed al-Qaeda could have been framed for the assassination and was consistent with US intention to install their own leader of Afghanistan:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO309B.html
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/ASMassoud.html#fn30‘
I don’t know how to make this clearer to you, Mr Bradley. The French and Belgian authorities identified the two suicide bombers, both linked to al-Qaeda, and the former also convicted four men involved in the plot to kill Massoud in May 2005 (see my original sources). What part of this don’t you understand?
‘2. Mr Welch claims an absence of any contacts between US agencies and anti-Taliban forces:
Richard B. Andres, “Winning with Allies: The Strategic Value of the Afghan Model”, in International Security, Volume 30, Number 3, Winter 2005/06, pp. 124-160
William Maley, The Afghanistan Wars
I claim there were covert contacts between US intelligence and Northern Alliance forces:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/CIA18.html
http://www.americanspecialops.com/cia-special-operations/jawbreaker/‘
That’s a sly one. My original statement was that there were no covert contacts between the CIA (or any other US government agency) and the Northern Alliance to prepare for an offensive against the Taliban. I did not say that there were no clandestine contacts whatsoever. In fact, as Steve Coll notes in ‘Ghost Wars’ (pp.346-348), Gary Schroen did establish contact with Massoud on his missions to Afghanistan in the late 1990s. However, Schroen’s main brief was to try to buy back Stinger missiles provided to the Mujahidin during the 1980s, and as Coll notes, ‘Massoud and his advisors remained frustrated by the Americans. The United States was missing the main danger, they felt; the Taliban, Pakistani intelligence, and their Arab volunteers’. So if you are arguing that there was pre-planning between the CIA and NA before 9/11, you are wrong - and if you checked your sources properly, they don’t confirm that either.
‘.Mr Welch claims the dispersal of al-Qaeda’s leaders before 9/11 proves foreknowledge of the attack:
Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower, pp.356-358
I claim that while the movement of al-Qaeda’s leaders may demonstrate their foreknowledge of the attack, it does not rule out covert US collaboration. The larger point I made was how these al-Qaeda leaders were “allowed” to escape into Pakistan:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0605.naylor.html
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a1101ismailkhan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NbQiSQFFh0‘
As I have already pointed out, the main reason why Bin Laden and several senior Taliban and AQ leaders were able to escape was because of the fact that the US war plan drawn up in the days after 9/11 relied on special forces personnel and air power in support of indigenous anti-Taliban forces, rather than a full-scale invasion with ground troops (as per Iraq in 2003). The latter would not only have been more time-consuming to implement (Mr Bradley - like many amateurs - underestimates the number of man-hours military staffs need to devote to the complex task of launching and sustaining an operation), but was also rejected by an administration which initially wanted to avoid a substantial military commitment to Afghanistan. This is in the public domain. A more detailed explanation can be seen in the publications I cite. Mr Bradley seems not to want to read them. Perhaps it is because he is in ‘a state of deep denial’.
‘Mr Welch claimed the failure at Tora Bora was due to the “improvised nature of CENTCOM’s war plan” and a reliance on Pashtun Afghan militiamen:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0304/p01s03-wosc.htm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.htmlres=9F03EEDE1731F930A15751C1A9679C8B63&scp=1&sq=FAZAL+AHMAD&st=nyt
?http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200410/bergen’
Correct. And I see you can’t refute this.
‘4.Mr Welch claims the identities of the 19 hijackers has been irrefutably confirmed:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/79402/Exclusive-Remains-of-9-11-killers-found
http://www.newsweek.com/id/177724/output/print
http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:Ual93manifest.png
I claim the hijackers may have been using stolen identities and left a trail of false evidence to implicate these predetermined scapegoat identities:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10142
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091101evidencetrail
http://911review.org/Wiki/HijackersAliveAndWell.shtml‘
Which doesn’t of course explain the DNA evidence noted above. But then why rely on fact when you can use fantasy?
‘5.Mr Welch claims the Saudis acceptance that 15 of their citizens were involved in 9/11 proves the identities were not faked:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Holy-War-Inc-Inside-Secret/dp/0753816687/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215883120&sr=1-1?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Osama-Bin-Laden-Know-Al-Qaedas/dp/0743278917/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215883120&sr=1-2?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Al-Qaeda-True-Story-Radical-Islam/dp/0141031360/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215883353&sr=1-1?
I claim the Saudi 9/11 connection was downplayed at every opportunity by government officials and media considering the intimate connections between the Bush family and Saudi leadership:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/06/b99415.html
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=bushs_saudi_connections
http://www.wesjones.com/saudi1.htm‘
Which doesn’t answer my basic question? If you are going to set up 19 patsies, and if you (referring to the US government as a whole, and the Bush administration in particular) have a corrupt relationship with the Saudi royal regime, then why highlight this fact by making 15 out of your 19 hijackers Saudi citizens? Mr Bradley cannot explain that basic contradiction in his ‘theories’, so he waffles instead. Surprise surprise.
‘6.Mr Welch claims I disagreed that “al-Qaeda existed as a transnational terrorist group using its safe haven in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan to commit atrocities”:
?
I claim I never argued against that point:
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2008/12/15-answers-open-response-to-joseph.html
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/02/beyond-15-questions-historical-context.html‘
Let it be noted that Mr Bradley falsely asserted that al-Qaeda was a CIA creation (using an ‘oil empire’ article as his ’source’). I then showed - with reference to the better researched end of the literature on this subject - that this was complete nonsense. Mr Bradley seems to be upset about being reminded of this. I make no apologies here.
‘7.Mr Welch claims “the CIA’s role in ‘creating’ al-Qaeda in the 1980s are a fabrication of the historical record”:
Peter Bergen (“The Osama bin Laden I knew”, pp.60-61).
Jason Burke - (p.59)
Steve Coll - (p.87).
Lawrence Wright - “The Looming Tower” (pp.100-108).
Milt Bearden “The Main Enemy”, (Random House 2003),p.243).
I claim the CIA was not only instrumental in the creation of al-Qaeda, but the relationship between the Bush Family and bin Laden family has continued to this day:
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2001/465/25199
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/ONE309A.html
http://www.oilempire.us/qaeda.html
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/news/probestop-i.htm‘
As noted above, Mr Bradley has simply seen fit to ignore - rather than engage with - the literature on al-Qaeda, including the conclusions drawn by those who were studying bin Laden and his organisation way before 9/11 (see Gunaratna, Bergen, Burke etc). This tells you a lot about his methodology.
As for the Bush-bin Laden families, Mr Bradley chooses to harp on this theme despite one blatantly obvious point. The bin Laden clan is a large extended family, only one of whom has become involved in terrorism. Osama was disowned by the rest of his family in 1994.
Bush Junior did form a working relationship with Salem bin Laden, Osama’s half-brother. Salem died in May 1988, so quite what his role in 9/11 is I simply cannot guess. Furthermore (as Lawrence Wright notes in ‘The Looming Tower’, p.91) Salem’s credentials as an Islamist are somewhat suspect. Wright notes that during the Mecca siege of November-December 1979 - when Sunni militants seized control of the Grand Mosque - a gun-toting Salem bin Laden turned up with the plans of the Mosque (which his father had helped renovate), which he passed on to the National Guard. Doesn’t sound like Osama’s type to me.
More on the bin Laden family myths here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/bin_ladin_and_bush_senior.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/family_flights.html
‘8.Mr Welch claims the US government would not have planned the invasion of Afghanistan without support from it’s neighbors:
http://counterknowledge.com/2009/01/more-on-15-questions-for-911-truthers-a-reply-to-stewart-bradley/
Part 7 -”Given the geo-political realities of Central Asia in mid-2001, there were no guarantees of any host nation support for any attack on Afghanistan.”
I claim US forces, via people like Cheney and Armitage, did have support from several Afghanistan neighbors to stage the invasion:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/preplanned.html?q=preplanned.html
http://www.thedubyareport.com/oilwar.html
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq2.html (Part VII)’
And such support was only forthcoming in the aftermath of 9/11, and could not have been assured beforehand. No one could have banked on Russian or Pakistani support prior to the attacks.
‘9.Mr Welch claims the “9/11 ‘truth movement’ is infested with anti-Semites and Holocaust Deniers”:
http://911myths.com/index.php/Foreknowledge
http://edmundstanding.blogspot.com/2008/11/british-fascists-and-911-untruths.html
I admit that while some 9/11 researchers question the involvement of Israel’s Mossad agents on 9/11, the claims of widespread anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are promoted by opponents of 9/11 research to try to destroy our credibility:
http://www.mujca.com/georgewashington.htm
http://www.oilempire.us/holocaust-denial.html
http://riseuprochester.org/2008/11/06/911-truthers-are-not-holocaust-deniers/‘
Mr Bradley doesn’t appear to want to see the elephant in the room. Aside from the sources cited above, I could point him in the general direction of hANOVER fIST, a real charmer with whom Mr Bradley has corresponded. Mr B - I suggest you click on the link to fIST’s website, have a good look at the contents and the links, and then tell me what you think. Your ‘movement’ has attracted a lot of people like this, and you’ve got to ask yourself why.
‘10. Mr Welch claims that because Naiz Naik is not a credible witness means that the pre 9/11meetings between Bush administration officials and Taliban did not include pipeline negotiations:
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/08/15/forbidden_truth/
I claim the Bush administration was attempting to negotiate a pipeline deal with the Taliban giving them a clear financial and geopolitical motive for the Afghan invasion:
http://www.jihadunspun.com/articles/04152002-Bush.Oil.Taliban/index.html
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a080201rocca
http://www.onlinejournal.com/archive/03-10-02_Chin-Pt_2.pdf
http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/CK24Ag01.html‘
There is absoletly no evidence whatsoever to support this contention. As previously noted, the UNOCAL pipeline negotiations fell through in the aftermath of the August 1998 cruise missile strikes (Operation ‘Infinite Reach’). Mr Bradley has also wilfully misread my comments on Naik’s credibility, in particular the fact that his supposed American interlocutors (who were RETIRED diplomats) violently disagree with his statement, and that Naik did also misrepresent the outcome of earlier talks he had with an Indian contact over Kashmir. Again, Mr Bradley’s response to being caught out is to distort the original debate.
‘11. Mr Welch claims the Indian government’s report of a link between ISI Director, General Mahmoud Ahmed and Mohamed Atta “have to be treated with caution” :
http://www.911myths.com/html/isi_first_reports.html
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12818192
I claim that while the Bush administrations meetings with ISI General Ahmed doesn’t by itself imply guilt, the administrations attempt to cover up and distort this source of 9/11 funding is damning:
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/armitageISIatta.htm
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP209B.html
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/05/pakistani-smoking-gun-of-911.html‘
There has never been any ‘cover up’ of the fact that Lt Gen Ahmed was in Washington on the morning of 9/11. As for the reports of a link with Atta, the fact that these come from Indian government sources makes them suspect.
‘12. Mr Welch claims “there is no way that NORAD could have been ‘stood down’ without Canadian complicity.”:
http://www.norad.mil/leaders/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Bouchard
I claim that the secrecy about the war game exercises scheduled for 9/11, along with pre 9/11 changes in hijacking interception procedures, the absence of military chain of command, Norm Minnetta’s testimony, and contradicting stories from NORAD, NEADS, and the 9/11 Commission implies evidence of official foreknowledge, misconduct, and cover up:
http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html#coincidence
http://www.911review.com/means/standdown.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20GR20051213&articleId=1478
http://standdown.net/‘
Mr Bradley has responded to my evidence on NORAD’s activities, and also the red herring that is Norman Mineta’s testimony, by simply pretending I haven’t offered it. And he gets upset about ‘dodge, distract, distort and deny’.
‘13. Mr Welch claims Ed Haas “distorted the content of an FBI press conference in order to claim that the Bureau had ‘no evidence’ linking bin Laden and al-Qaeda with 9/11″:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html
http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html
I claim that if the FBI or Bush Justice Department did have hard evidence they would be able to get a Federal indictment holding bin Laden responsible for 9/11, which they have not:
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
http://www.nolanchart.com/article3419.html‘
But this doesn’t clarify anything, Mr Bradley. You have simultaneously claimed that the FBI are both part of the cover-up and are being obstructed by the Bush administration (and it is worth noting that since Dubya left office in January the Feds haven’t suddenly changed their tune). You are also simultaneously claiming that 9/11 was a set-up, and that the hijackers identities were faked, and that the US authorities have no evidence linking al-Qaeda to the attacks. These are what we in the real world call ‘logical inconsistencies’. You cannot argue that both sets of propositions are true.
‘14. Mr Welch claims the video and audio tape 9/11 confessions of bin Laden and al-Qaeda leaders are genuine proof of guilt:
http://www.911myths.com/html/fake_video.html
I claim that while the validity of bin Laden’s confession videos are disputed by reputable sources, the confessions of Al-qaeda leaders does not contradict the possibility of a covert CIA collaboration:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2526309.stm
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/osamatape.html
http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2210.shtml‘
Again this is sheer nonsense. Claims of a ‘covert CIA connection’ (such as the supposed Dubai meeting) have been proved to be false:
http://www.911myths.com/html/bin_ladin_met_the_cia.html
I should also add here - with my post on this matter (http://counterknowledge.com/2009/03/what-al-qaeda-says-about-911/) that al-Qaeda’s admission of responsibility extends to private communications between its members, not just to its public statements. A further question is why - if CIA or other US government sources were culpable, and LIHOP did occur - al-Qaeda haven’t chosen to publicise this assistance, with the appropriate evidence, in order to discredit the Bush administration and cause turmoil between the USA and its allies. Is he seriously expecting that if al-Qaeda have compromising information of LIHOP that it would keep it secret, rather than expose evidence which could destroy the USA’s alliances with NATO and other partners (notably Pakistan) and bring the ‘war on terror’ to a grinding halt?
It seems that Mr Bradley’s response to having his tall tales exposed is to invent new ones.
‘15. Mr Welch claims with certainty that “Flight UA93 was not shot down”:
http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_engine.html
?http://www.911myths.com/html/there_was_no_plane.html
?http://www.911myths.com/html/plane_holed.html
I claim there are several anomalies about Flight 93 that need to be addressed before we can know for certain whether it was shot down or not:
http://www.flight93crash.com/
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/flight93/index.html
http://www.projectcamelot.org/elizabeth_nelson_flight_93_transcript.html‘
Again, Mr Bradley has chosen to pretend that the evidence I cite does not exist.
‘16. Mr Welch claims “bin Laden had declared his intention to destroy the WTC towers as ‘revenge’ for America’s policies towards the Middle East:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3966817.stm
I claim that in contrast to the numerous warnings before 9/11 attributed to bin Laden, that bin Laden initially denied his involvement in the attack:
http://www.americanhiroshima.com/911warnings.htm
http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2521&Itemid=107
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091301talibandenies‘
As I noted above, there is one ‘denial’ attributed to bin Laden, which was a written response to a series of questions passed on via Taliban intermediaries. There is absolutely no evidence that OBL actually provided these answers. Mr Bradley tells us that a series of video and audio messages are unreliable, but that one scrap of paper is the gospel truth. Make of that what you will.
‘Section 2.
In the next section I was pointing out that the 9/11 controversy was the only political conspiracy that the Counterknowledge web site addressed and wondered what their stance would be on a few other disputed conspiracy subjects. The two refuted by Mr Welch:
1. Mr Welch states “no reputable scholar worth his or her salt treats claims of foreknowledge on FDR’s part of a Japanese attack on Hawaii as being in any way credible”:
?
I claim that based on a document declassified in 1994 from Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum of the Office of Naval Intelligence, that FDR provoked and allowed the Pearl Harbor attack:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/McCollum/index.html?q=McCollum/index.html
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/pearlharbor.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm‘
Rubbish. Complete claptrap. I prefer to take my history from more reputable sources (see, for example, Ian Kershaw and Roberta Wohlstetter):
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0804705984
http://www.amazon.com/Fateful-Choices-Decisions-Changed-1940-1941/dp/0143113720/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240239038&sr=1-5
http://www.amazon.com/At-Dawn-We-Slept-Untold/dp/0140157344/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240239063&sr=1-1
‘2. Mr Welch claims the House Select Committee investigation on the assassination of JFK did not conclude that there were two gunmen involved:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7184933155238761777
http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/arrb98/part03.htm
I claim the HSCA investigation concluded a “high probability” of a second gunman and that the Warren Commission investigation of a conspiracy was “inadequate”:’
And again Mr Bradley comes up with selective quotations. Firstly, the report did not conclude that there was a cover-up by the US government:
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1d.html
Mr Bradley also studiously ignored the 2005 BBC documentary (linked to by Google video), dealing with the acustic evidence which the HSCA mistakenly assumed indicated that a second gunman could be present.
‘Mr Welch … interpreted this section as an attempt to “Distract” by setting up a “straw man” argument over whether he, or any contributor to Counterknowledge said the US government has never been involved in “dirty tricks”. He then explains his belief “that any acts of malfeasance by a democratic government…usually become public knowledge shortly after they are committed, and that efforts at a cover-up… do not survive scrutiny by democratic legislatures and a free press.”
To Mr Welch’s credit he did say this was “usually” the case because if he is any kind of historian he knows that there are always exceptions to that rule. Examples include:
1. The CIA backed Operation Gladio waged a decades long campaign of terrorism and assassinations through Europe killing hundreds of innocent people, then blamed “leftist subversives” to demonize political opponents and frighten citizens into supporting government powers. Although first exposed in 1990 the existence of this program has been all but ignored by the American press.
http://911review.com/precedent/century/gladio.html‘
The substance of these claims comes from Daniele Ganser’s 2005 book ‘NATO’s Secret Armies’, for which the only primary piece of documentary evidence was a supposed US military manual, FM30-31B, which turned out to have been faked by the KGB in the 1970s:
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2006/Jan/20-127177.html on FM30-31B
The subject of ’stay-behind’ forces was dealt with by a recent edition of the ‘Journal of Strategic Studies’, a respected, academically peer-reviewed journal (it’s Issue 30/6, December 2007). Unfortunately the journal is accessible online by subscription-only, so I cannot link directly to discussions by the authors on Ganser’s work. However, I can add the following comment by Leopoldo Nuti and Olav Riste, two of the finest Cold War scholars in continental Europe, who state that:
‘[A] young Swiss researcher, Daniele Ganser, has published what purports to be the most comprehensive assessment so far of the whole stay-behind organization, in a book whose ambitious conclusions do not seem to be entirely corroborated by a sound examination of the sources available’.
(Nuti & Riste, ‘Introduction – Strategy of ‘Stay Behind’’, Journal of Strategic Studies, 30/6 (2007), p.930).
The main problem with ‘NATO’s Secret Armies’ is not its subject matter - e.g. ’stay-behind’ armies such as Gladio (established in the event of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe in the 1940s), and their potential involvement in far-right terrorism in Italy, Greece, Belgium and Turkey. The real problem is that - on the basis of evidence that is flimsy at best - he concocts a pan-Western conspiracy to destroy European democracy.
In many cases, his sources are far-left journals such as the British magazine ‘Lobster’ (which has admitted that the product of much of its output has been disinformation) and the Danish Communist party paper ‘Land og Folk’ - I’d be very uneasy if I had to base any historical study of post-1945 European politics on sources like these. His only primary source evidence is the forged Field Manual (noted above) which was identified by the US Congress as a KGB fake during the late 1970s.
A flavour of the Ganser approach to evidence can be gained from two issues, one minor and one major. The minor one concerns the recycling of John Pilger’s story about the SAS training the Khmer Rouge - even though that claim got him a libel suit that had to be settled out of court. A good scholar might have followed that up and discounted the story. A bad one (i.e. one taken in by a 30 year old Soviet forgery) would not:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/oliver_kamm/2009/02/pilger-and-camb.html
The second concerns his chapter on France, in which he makes the claim that the CIA plotted with the OAS to overthrow de Gaulle. Ganser’s claim is unsupported by the evidence, and goes against practically every reputable account of US-French relations in the early 1960s. As much of a nuisance as Charles de Gaulle could be for the USA and NATO, the Kennedy administration rightly decided that it was a key US interest for the Fifth Republic, and French democracy, to survive, and actually backed de Gaulle during the military putsch of 1961 (going as far as to offer the French President military assistance if he needed it). De Gaulle, for his part, had no hesitation backing the USA during the Cuban missile crisis the following year. There is simply no way that the US government would have covertly ordered de Gaulle’s overthrow, or that the then DCI John McCone would have conducted such an action without a Presidential finding. Ganser would have known this if he had made himself familiary with the historical literature on this subject, and had he consulted the US and French archives. But he failed to do this.
Thirdly, Ganser’s claims about Italian ‘Red Brigade’ attacks being false flag operations (notably the kidnapping and murder of Aldo Moro) have been discredited (see, for example, Richard Drake, ‘The Aldo Moro Murder Case in Retrospect’, in ‘Journal of Cold War Studies’, 8/2 (2006), pp.114-125). Ganser also claimed US complicity in the Colonel’s coup in Greece, also discredited (see Louis Klarevas, ‘The United States and the Greek coup of 1967′ in ‘Diplomatic History’, 30/3 (2006), pp.471-508). Ganser does have some grounds for suggesting foul play in Turkey, but the recent findings of the ‘Ergenekon’ scandal show that Turkish military activities were autonomous, and there is no evidence of any US involvement other than the establishment of the original ’stay-behind’ organisation - the OHD - during the 1950s.
‘2. The 1967 to 1972 CIA Operation Phoenix program of terrorism and assassination in Vietnam that murdered over 26, 000 people and instigated the Vietnam War. To this day most Americans have no idea this program existed either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program‘
Hang on Mr Bradley, let’s check our facts here. I’m pretty damn sure that the Tonkin Gulf incident happened in August 1964, and that Rolling Thunder and deployment of the first US ground troops to South Vietnam took place in March 1965. So how on earth did Phoenix ‘instigate’ the Vietnam war? Don’t you ‘investigative journalists’ do boring things such as check dates? What does this tell us about your intellectual capabilities if you can’t get basic facts right?
Incidentally, while I acknowledge the controversy surrounding Phoenix, the most up-to-date study on this episode of the Vietnam war stresses that the majority of casualties were Viet Cong guerrillas (namely armed insurgents). It also mentions the fact that Phoenix involved turning former VC and encouraging thousands to defect (notably after Tet 1968) with the Chieu Hoi programme:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Phoenix-Birds-Prey-Counterinsurgency-Counterterrorism/dp/0803216025/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240240358&sr=1-3
‘3. The CIA trained and supported death squads in El Salvador committing atrocities like the 1982 El Mazote massacre murdering over 700 men women and children. Again, most Americans were never informed about this.
http://www.votb.org/newsanalysis/behind_the_death_squads.html‘
As Daniel Byman notes in his study on this issue, US training for El Salvadorean military units does not necessarily involve complicity in their acts (see ‘With Friends Like These’ in ‘International Security’, 31/2 (2006), pp.79-115). And as for the supposed ignorance of the US public about El Salvador (and Central America in general), this ignores not only the widespread media coverage, but also the publicity gained from films like Oliver Stone’s ‘Salvador’:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091886/
But again, my basic point still stands, which is that any hint of US official wrong-doing quickly makes its way into the public domain - provided it can be substantiated. And this is the problem you ‘truthers’ have.
‘I’m sure Mr Welch will make a distinction over the US governments approval to murder foreign citizens but not our own citizens. I’m sure I don’t have to remind him of the 1962 Operation Northwoods plan drawn up by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to stage a terrorist attack on US citzens, including hijackings and bombings, then planting phony evidence to frame Fidel Castro in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. Yes, the plan was never used because it was rejected by President Kennedy, but what if there was a president who would accept such a plan? And nobody knew about this plan until it was declassified in 1997.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods‘
Let’s deal with this again. ‘Northwoods’ was declassified in April 2001. And if Mr Bradley is to be believed, then one of the first acts of the ‘real 9/11 plotters’ after taking a leaf out of Lemnitzer’s book is to release the original 1961 plans, so as to leave a paper trail to incriminate them. Yes, that makes a lot of sense on some planet:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
Mr Bradley also ignores a few minor facts about ‘Northwoods’ - such as the fact that the proposed ‘attacks’ were to be on a far smaller scale than the al-Qaeda atrocities of 9/11, and that actually these false flag ops were to be conducted so that there were no actual US casualties planned. But these are small matters. What is important is that ‘Northwoods’ was never implemented. And arguing that it has some connection with 9/11 is like saying that the Baader-Meinhoff was created by Willy Brandt, and that the Gleiwitz incident of 1939 is proof.
‘So to refute Mr Welch’s statement we see that acts of malfeasance by our democratic government are not always made public knowledge.’
On the contrary, see above.
As for the rest of your ‘post’, I will deal with the various distortions you offer in due course.
Turning now to the second part of Mr Bradley’s ‘rebuttal’.
‘1. Mr Welch claims Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta’s testimony was in reference to Flight 93. Relying on the word of an aide to Mineta, Admiral James Underwood, Mr Welch claims there is no way Mineta could have heard the supposed “stand down” confirmation:
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-01089.pdf
I claim the 9/11 Commission admits the 9:37 entry time for Cheney was based on the Secret Service report alarm data and is undocumented, while Mineta’s early arrival testimony is consistent with reports from Richard Clark, Condi Rice, Karl Rove, White House photographer David Bohrer, and ABC, BBC, and WSJ. This is discussed in great detail in chapter 2 of David Ray Griffin’s book “9/11 Contradictions.”
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/01/22/02147.html
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=2008050770616110
So let’s listen again to Mineta’s official testimony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y
Mineta still stands by his testimony that he was referring to Flight 77 nearing the Pentagon when Cheney issued his “of course the order still stands” quote. This was before the Pentagon was hit. He has clarified this many times:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGI5BmNd7AE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-5PKQTUz5o
Yet the 9/11 commission and the media continue misquoting Mineta saying it was in reference to Flight 93.
We can logically assume one of two things considering this contradiction. First, that if Mineta was referring to Flight 93 then his story about the “order still stands” conversation was a complete fabrication because Flight 93 was not “ten miles out” from any Washington target. This would make Mineta guilty of perjury for which he has not been charged.
Or Mineta was telling the truth which contradicted the “official story” so his testimony was omitted form the 9/11 Report and distorted by the press. In this CNN clip Josh Bolten claims the aid was asking about shoot down confirmation of Flight 93 contradicting Mineta’s sworn testimony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR7b_zofzXU’
Let’s deal with this step-by-step. Firstly, do Clark and Rice place Mineta and Cheney in the PEOC at the time AA77 crashed into the Pentagon? The answer is a most resounding ‘no’. I have already referred Mr Bradley to Clarke’s account in his memoirs. I should also add here that a read of both his and Dr Rice’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission makes no mention whatsoever of the timings in which either the Vice President or Secretary Mineta entered the PEOC bunker. So quite where Griffin got his evidence from, who knows?:
http://intelligence.senate.gov/clark.pdf
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/rice.transcript/
Incidentally, Griffin twists the content of Clarke’s memoir with his claim that the Transport Secretary was in the PEOC by 09:15. Clarke says no such thing.
Quite what Karl Rove can say about what was going on in the White House is unclear, given that he was with Bush at Sarasota, Florida, at the time of the 9/11 attacks:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/abcnews091102.html
So to repeat my point, the evidence placing Mineta in the bunker after the Pentagon was hit is more extensive than that which places him there beforehand (for which we have to rely on Mineta’s possibly imperfect memory). If Mr Bradley were an honest man, he’d accept this and move on.
‘2. Mr Welch makes an obvious straw man when he claims, in reference to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A, that there is not a single reference to shooting down airliners:
1997 - http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01.pdf
2001 - http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf
This was never what I disputed. I claim the subtle change in the directive is under 4. Policy, stating ” The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval.” which was changed from “The NMCC will monitor the situation and forward all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance for aircraft piracy (hijacking) to the Secretary of Defense for approval.”
What was added was the “exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d” which sites DOD Directive 3025.15, 18 February 1997, “Military Assistance to Civil Authorities”:
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302515p.pdf
This Directive allows commanders in the field to provide assistance in an emergency situation but requires approval from Secretary of Defense before responding with “potentially lethal support”, ( launching combat aircraft ). This change effectively moved the authorization to scramble military fighters from field commanders to the Secretary of Defense:
http://www.911review.com/means/standdown.html
http://www.911review.com/articles/russell/standdown.html’
Actually, it is Mr Bradley who is setting up the straw man here (worth bearing in mind with reference to his subsequent claims about NORAD exercises below). The fact is that there is no substantial change whatsoever in the two documents. All it does is clarify what was already established pre-9/11 policy, as per the Posse Comitatus Act, that the US armed forces required the approval of their civilian masters (post-1947, this being the Secretary of Defense) before they launch any military action on US soil. And – as noted below – if the NORAD air defence network has been cut to the bone during the 1990s, so that there are only 4 USAF ANG fighters on stand-by for the entire US East Coast on the morning of 11th September 2001, Mr Bradley’s act of textual perversion becomes even more meaningless.
One other thought has occurred to me here. Let us take Mr Bradley’s assumption – that the Secretary of Defense deliberately tampered with contingency plans for hijackings so as to ensure that the 9/11 attacks were carried out successfully – as read, and let us actually ignore the wording of the documents themselves. Where exactly was the Secretary of Defense the morning of the attacks? Why was he in one of the buildings that got struck by the planes? Why was he not in a place of safety? Mr Bradley’s claim will no doubt be that Rumsfeld had some jedi-like assurance that somehow AA77 would strike the ‘right’ part of the building and leave him unscathed. Only on Planet Truther would that kind of assumption be plausible.
‘3. Mr Welch claims there were no discrepancies in the 9/11 timelines offered by the FAA and NORAD:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/index.htm
I claim they had changed their accounts and the 9/11 Commission had added their own to shift any responsibility of misconduct from the military to the FAA:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20GR20051213&articleId=1478’
Actually, this is what David Ray Griffin says, not Mr Bradley. But never mind. Let us firstly deal with the fact that Griffin’s claims that it only takes ‘minutes’ between FAA notification of NORAD and the scrambling of jets (all four of them), which is torn to shreds here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/intercept_time.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/intercepts__norad_and_the_faa.html
http://911myths.com/index.php/Losing_Flight_77
For example, we can see that when General Eberhart states that it takes ‘one minute’ for the FAA to get hold of NORAD, he is talking about improvements in the inter-agency process that took place after 9/11 – the testimony Griffin quotes was dated October 2001. That’s a rather sneaky little trick on his part. The protocols dealing with hijacking are dealt with here:
http://debunk911myths.org/topics/Federal_Aviation_Administration
http://debunk911myths.org/topics/NORAD
Notice the following:
• ‘The hijacked aircraft would be readily identifiable and would not attempt to disappear;
• There would be time to address the problem through the appropriate FAA and NORAD chains of command; and
• Hijacking would take the traditional form: that is, it would not be a suicide hijacking designed to convert the aircraft into a guided missile.
When NORAD fighter jets were “scrambled”, that meant that they were to “establish a presence in the air. The pilots are trained to trail the hijacked plane at a distance of about five miles, out of sight, following it until, presumably, it lands. If necessary, they can show themselves, flying up close to establish visual contact, and, if the situation demands, maneuver to force the plane to land.” [See ‘Vanity Fair’ link below]’.
Griffin’s statement (in the ‘Global Research’ article Mr Bradley links to) about Standard Operating Procedures for FAA to follow in hijackings (namely loss of radio contact with plain, transponder turned off, plane deviates from course) were implemented after 9/11.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2795968&postcount=396
There is obviously more on the NORAD tapes – including precise times – here:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608?printable=true¤tPage=all
If you also bear in mind that during the course of 11th September 2001 the FAA wrongly reported incorrect hijackings, then one understands the sheer confusion that both civilian air traffic control and the military were working under (see also here for the tapes – http://911myths.com/index.php/NORAD).
‘4. Mr Welch claims there were only 2 military training exercises on 9/11, Vigilante Resolve and Northern Vigilance, neither of which deal with a 9/11 related scenario:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/tu-95-pics.htm
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00172.pdf
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00778.pdf
I claim Mr Welch is intentionally ignoring the full list of drills that relate to 9/11 which include:
http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html#coincidence
a) CIA / National Reconnaissance Office “plane into building” exercise:
http://www.oilempire.us/nro.html
b) Vigilant Guardian:
http://they-let-it-happen.blogspot.com/2006/11/wargame-one-vigilant-guardian.html
c) Vigilant Warrior:
http://they-let-it-happen.blogspot.com/2007/01/wargame-iv-vigilant-warrior.html
d) Northern Vigilance
http://they-let-it-happen.blogspot.com/2006/11/wargame-2-northern-vigilance.html
e) Northern Guardian
http://www.ringnebula.com/northern-vigilance.htm
f) Tripod II
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060704_tripod_fema.html
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml’
In this response, Mr Bradley deliberately twists my post. I reported two exercises for NORAD (only one of which – VIGILANT GUARDIAN – covered the airspace of the North-Eastern United states). Both of these were CPEXs involving a computer simulated scenario, and no ‘real’ assets (namely planes in the air) and NEITHER INVOLVED HIJACKINGS. Mr Bradley has the evidence at hand which confirms what NORAD was actually up to – as opposed to what Michael Ruppert claims – but refuses to acknowledge it. Make of that what you will.
As far as the mythical ‘exercises’ are concerned, these are effectively debunked here (although I expect that Mr Bradley will ignore all this, just as he has ignored all the other evidence I have cited to support my case):
http://911myths.com/index.php/War_Games
http://911myths.com/index.php/Cheney_in_charge_of_NORAD
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76824&page=2#51
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70300
‘5. Mr Welch claims the pre 9/11 warnings lacked any specifics and the military had no training drills that would prepare for a 9/11 type scenario:
http://bl147w.blu147.mail.live.com/mail/InboxLight.aspx?FolderID=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001&InboxSortAscending=False&InboxSortBy=Date&n=60689143
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-01089.pdf
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00778.pdf
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00172.pdf
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00172.pdf
I claim there were over 50 reports between June and September 10, 2001 that, taken together, clearly warn of an al-Qaeda attack by suicide hijackers targeting the WTC:
http://www.americanhiroshima.com/911warnings.htm
http://tvnewslies.org/html/9_11_warnings.html’
Mr Bradley clearly does not bother the read the sources he cites. As I point out, the idea that these reports ‘clearly warn of an al-Qaeda attack by suicide hijackers targeting the WTC’ isn’t even confirmed by the sources he cites.
‘And the military did conduct drills to prepare for possible 9/11 type scenarios:
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a99wtccrashsimulation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6FTkj6OEWA
http://www.911truth.org/downloads/fact_sheets/NORAD.htm
http://911review.org/Wiki/PentagonMascal.shtml’
And yet again Mr Bradley shows his inability to read beyond headlines. If he had actually bothered to read the testimonies of senior USAF officers I had cited, he would have noticed the emphasis on NORAD’s mission from the end of the Cold War to 9/11, which focussed on ‘air sovereignty’ (as opposed to air defence), ‘intended to maintain control and prevent illegal entries’ into US airspace (testimony of General Larry Arnold, USAF). NORAD did envisage the possibility of a mass casualty attack, but based its assessments on the assumption that such an attack would come from beyond the USA’s borders and air space. THEY DID NOT PREDICT THE HIJACKING OF INTERNAL FLIGHTS AND THEIR USE AS SUICIDE AIRCRAFT.
Let’s take a look at the CNN and ‘USA Today’ sources that the ‘History Commons’ article cites:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/04/19/norad.exercise/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm
From ‘USA Today’:
‘The exercises differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation were coming from a foreign country.
Until Sept. 11, NORAD was expected to defend the United States and Canada from aircraft based elsewhere. After the attacks, that responsibility broadened to include flights that originated in the two countries.’
From CNN:
‘The exercise was solely to test procedures and was no indication that NORAD had any reason to believe the scenario would happen in the real world, according to a spokesman.
It is unclear whether the simulated scenario was that of a hijacked plane being “used as missile” — intentionally crashing into a building — or that of an out-of-control hijacked plane.
Military officials said the exercise involved simulating a crash into a building that would be recognizable if identified, but was not the World Trade Center or the Pentagon.
They emphasize it involved an airliner being hijacked as it flew into U.S. airspace from abroad, a slightly different scenario from what happened on September 11, 2001.
The identity of the building named in the exercise is classified.
The exercise was conducted at one regional sector, and was not conducted at the headquarters, as are major exercises. This sector exercise involved some flying of military aircraft as well as a command post exercise in which communications procedures were practiced in an office environment.
NORAD officials emphasized that if it had been a real event, NORAD would have instituted standard procedures to try to contact the aircraft and keep it from crashing.
“We have planned and executed numerous scenarios over the years to include aircraft originating from foreign airports penetrating our sovereign airspace. Regrettably the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised,” said Gen. Ralph Eberhart, commander of NORAD.
NORAD has the ongoing mission of defense of U.S. airspace.
According to a statement from NORAD, “Before September 11th, 01, NORAD regularly conducted a variety of exercises that included hijack scenarios. These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures.”
All of those tasks are the responsibility of NORAD.
The statement continues:
“NORAD did not plan and execute these types of exercises because we thought the scenarios were probable. These exercises were artificial simulations that provided us the opportunity to test and validate our processes and rules of engagement with the appropriate coordination between NORAD’s command headquarters, its subordinate regions and sectors and National Command authorities in Canada and the United States.’’
The CNN article also stresses that (to quote NORAD) ‘At the NORAD headquarters’ level we normally conducted four major exercises a year, most of which included a hijack scenario. Since 9/11 however we have conducted more than 100 exercises, all of which included at least one hijack scenario’. In other words, that neatly shoots down any claim that Mr Bradley makes about the US military gearing up for the type of emergency that happened on the 11th September 2001.
It is also worth emphasising the point that any hijack scenarios involved the traditional type of terrorist plane-take over – terrorists take over plane, plane is landed, terrorists issue demands etc (as per numerous examples since the PFLP hijackings in September 1970). To quote the ‘USA Today’ source again:
‘But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were “hijacked.” Those planes were escorted by U.S. and Canadian aircraft to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska.’
‘6.Mr Welch claims the combined testimonies of FBI counterterror chief John O’Neill, field officer Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit of the Minnesota FBI, translator Sibel Edmonds, and Anthony Shaffer of Able Danger all lack credibility and are “long on assertion and short on substance.”
http://www.dodig.osd.mil/fo/Foia/ERR/r_H05L97905217-PWH.pdf
http://www.9-11pdp.org/press/2005-08-12_pr.pdf
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Able_Danger
http://www.911myths.com/html/coleen_rowley.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/robert_wright.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE0DD173FF93AA25755C0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=3&pagewanted=print
I claim that Mr Welch also forgot to offhandedly disregard the testimonies of FBI informant Randy Glass and prosecutor David Shippers as well as acknowledge the obstructions and subsequent promotions of David Frasca, Mike Maltbie, and Marion Bowman.
http://www.takeoverworld.info/fbi_hijacker.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MOO208B.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27876
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17135’
Mr Bradley, you are an outrageous liar. In my original comments, I noted that ‘claims of a conspiracy of silence at the highest levels remain long on assertion and short on substance’. This was not a reference to the whistle-blowers themselves (with the exception of Shaffer and Edmonds), but to conspiracy theorists like Mr Bradley who have taken the recorded frustrations of individuals like O’Neill, Rowley and Samit with bureaucratic red-tape, and knitted them into a theory of government complicity which these individuals did not subscribe to. Mr Bradley gets upset when anyone accuses him of distortion – if he was to quote my arguments honestly and accurately, he’d spare himself censure.
‘Section 4.
1. And finally in the “Deny” section Mr Welch again asserts his belief that US plans for the Afghani pipeline were abandoned in 1998 and that there is no connection between American interests and the now proposed TAPI project:
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00728.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2608713.stm
As I have pointed out in Section 1-10 the Bush administration was actively trying to negotiate a new pipeline deal with the Taliban before 9/11, a goal that would serve US financial as well as geopolitical interests:
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/3103/energy_security.html
http://afghanistan-the-true-story.blogspot.com/2008/06/pipeline-opens-new-front-in-afghan-war.html
The 2 obvious US links to the TAPI pipeline would be Hamid Karzai, the CIA connected leader of Afghanistan installed by the Bush administration, and the influence of Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hamid_Karzai
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Zalmay_Khalilzad’
Again, Mr Bradley has decided to ignore my sources on (1) the fate of the UNOCAL project, (2) the myth of Karzai being a consultant for UNOCAL, and (3) the fact that there is no evidence linking TAPI (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India) with the Bush administration. The sources which he cites claiming that the Bush administration was trying to negotiate a pipe-line deal with the Taliban prior to 9/11 don’t even mention this mythical attempt at lobbying. Mr Bradley, maybe you should actually read your sources properly before you cite them.
‘2. While mocking my distrust of government sources Mr Welch falls into a paradox of his own by rejecting the White House’s description of the NSPD-9 as a plan for military options “against Taliban targets in Afghanistan”.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sacred-Terror-Daniel-Benjamin-Steven/dp/0375508597/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236599407&sr=1-1
The paradox being that when the NSPD-9 plans for military action in Afghanistan were finalized on September 9, the Bush team still would have needed Congressional approval to implement them. So while the Bush administration planned to “use all elements of national power”to eliminate the al-Qaeda network, they simultaneously claim they never took seriously any warnings from multiple credible sources of an impending al-Qaeda attack. ( See Section 3-5)
I find it more likely that the Bush administration deliberately ignored these warnings to create a plausible deniability when the attack happen, giving them the very pretext they needed to use the waiting NSPD-9 plans:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/preplanned.html’
Mr Bradley again conveniently ignores the fact that there is only one source (namely Rumsfeld himself) claiming that NSPD-9 was a full-scale plan for war against the Taliban, while the sources I cite contradict this, and talk about a preliminary plan to fund the Northern Alliance, arm Predator etc. This is not a war plan, Mr Bradley, no matter how hard you try to insist. I should also point out here that Rumsfeld’s own claims are contradicted by the former National Security Advisor herself, as per the CNN transcript here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/rice.transcript/
‘This new strategy was developed over the Spring and Summer of 2001, and was approved by the president’s senior national security officials on September 4. It was the very first major national security policy directive of the Bush administration — not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination of al Qaeda.
Although this National Security Presidential Directive was originally a highly classified document, we arranged for portions to be declassified to help the Commission in its work, and I will describe some of those today. The strategy set as its goal the elimination of the al Qaeda network.
It ordered the leadership of relevant U.S. departments and agencies to make the elimination of al Qaeda a high priority and to use all aspects of our national power — intelligence, financial, diplomatic, and military — to meet this goal. And it gave Cabinet Secretaries and department heads specific responsibilities.
For instance: It directed the secretary of state to work with other countries to end all sanctuaries given to al Qaeda. It directed the secretaries of the treasury and state to work with foreign governments to seize or freeze assets and holdings of al Qaeda and its benefactors.
It directed the director of central intelligence to prepare an aggressive program of covert activities to disrupt al Qaeda and provide assistance to anti-Taliban groups operating against al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
It tasked the director of OMB with ensuring that sufficient funds were available in the budgets over the next five years to meet the goals laid out in the strategy.
And it directed the secretary of defense to — and I quote — “ensure that the contingency planning process include plans: against al Qaeda and associated terrorist facilities in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control-communications, training, and logistics facilities; against Taliban targets in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control, air and air defense, ground forces, and logistics; to eliminate weapons of mass destruction which al Qaeda and associated terrorist groups may acquire or manufacture, including those stored in underground bunkers.”
This was a change from the prior strategy — Presidential Decision Directive 62, signed in 1998 — which ordered the secretary of defense to provide transportation to bring individual terrorists to the U.S. for trial, to protect DOD forces overseas, and to be prepared to respond to terrorist and weapons of mass destruction incidents.’
Take a good look through this, Mr Bradley. Note in particular not only the guidance to the OMB to organise funding for the anti-AQ measures discussed, but also directed the Secretary of Defense to ‘ensure that contingency planning’ included preparations for more aggressive action against AQ and its Taliban sponsors. In other words, such planning had hitherto not been conducted by the NSC, the Pentagon and any other US government agency. This is the final nail in the coffin that is your claim about a pre-planned war.
‘3. Mr Welch then provides a further evidence that the Bush administration had no plan to invade Afghanistan being the ultimatum to Mullah Omar to hand over the al-Qaeda leaders or else be invaded. Mr Welch claims this offer was rejected by the Taliban “based on its own ideological bent and also its financial and military reliance on al-Qaeda”:
Frederick Kagan, Finding the Target. The Transformation of American Military Power (NY: Encounter Books 2006), chapter 8
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/world/main310852.shtml
What Mr Welch doesn’t tell you is the Taliban did offer to hand over bin Laden on the condition that the US provide evidence that bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attack. It was Bush who rejected this offer saying,”There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty.” (See Section 1-13):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5’
Again, this statement shows Mr Bradley’s naiveté. If he had read his source properly (this seems to be a recurring problem here) he would have noticed firstly the point that the Taliban promised to put bin Laden on trial at an ‘Islamic Court’ in Afghanistan, and secondly that Mullah Omar subsequently ruled out any hand-over of bin Laden. It also misses out a key point about the Taliban response, in that it did not in any way, shape or form address one of the key demands from the US government, which was not just to hand over the AQ leadership, but also to shut down the network of training camps AQ and its affiliates had in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan (and anyone who knows anything about the size of this effort pre-OEF would scoff at notions of ’19 Arabs in a cave’).
There’s also the question of whether the Taliban ‘offer’ on bin Laden was a genuine one:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/world/main310852.shtml
http://www.latimes.com/bal-te.taliban15sep15,0,2009431.story
Note the following:
‘The rejection came in a statement by Abdul Salam Zaeef, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan. Asked whether the Taliban would hand over bin Laden, Zaeef said, “No.” But his translator said, “No, not without evidence.”’
That sounds pretty unequivocal. And when you consider the relationship that Mullah Omar had built up with bin Laden – and the fact that many of the several thousand foreign volunteers who came to Afghanistan to train with AQ ended up as the Taliban’s shock troops – you can see that the prospects of Omar handing over his main benefactor and the mainstay of his war effort against the Northern Alliance are lower than nil (see Gunaratna, Rashid, Burke, Maley, Bergen et al on the military relationship between the Taliban and AQ. Accounts of the early phase of OEF also made it clear than the Taliban was dependent on AQ fighters – who tended to be more loyal and fanatical in their defence of Mullah Omar’s regime than native Afghan Taliban troops. See – for one of many sources – Anthony Davis, ‘How the Afghan War was Won’, ‘Jane’s Intelligence Review’, 14/2 February 2002).
At this point Mr Bradley then proceeds to make a series of claims related to the WTC towers which neatly contradict with the lines of his original argument – which were that AQ hijackers took over four flights and crashed 3 of them into the centre of Washington DC and New York, but did so with the connivance of the US government. Mr Bradley repeats claims of controlled demolition – including Steven Jones’ nonsense about nano-thermite – as if he understands them. Let’s be clear, Mr Bradley. I am no scientific expert, and you most certainly are not one yourself. However, it’s stretching the truth considerably to claim that Jones has made his case beyond reasonable doubt:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html
Mr Bradley’s reference to Scott Forbes’ story as proof that the WTC buildings were being rigged by controlled demolition. The hard fact is that buildings which are demolished in such a manner are rigorously prepared through weeks – if not months – of effort which would be impossible to miss. Where were the teams of engineers knocking down walls to fit det cord and charges? And more’s to the point, which group of individuals would sign up to the controlled demolition of an occupied building? Mr Bradley cannot answer these questions – so he waffles instead.
What also escapes Mr Bradley’s attention is that his comments on controlled demolition imply MIHOP – not LIHOP – on the part of the US government. They also highlight both the baroque assumptions behind 9/11 conspiracy theories, and also their lack of coherence and clarity. Being a ‘truther’ means not having to come up with a theory that makes sense – all you have to do is pose behind the claim that you are ‘just asking questions’. Thank you, Mr Bradley, for proving my point (http://counterknowledge.com/2008/12/15-questions-911-truthers-now-need-to-answer/).
‘4. Mr Welch asks if it is credible that such an elaborate “false flag” attack could be arranged between Bush’s inauguration and September 11th.
I think the plan could have been in the works for several years but relied upon Bush’s election in 2000 to be carried out. Which is why I believe the theft of the 2000 election was so important to the Bush administration, but I assume the evidence of thousands of illegally blocked Florida voters and other election monkey business will also be dismissed as another “moonbat conspiracy theory” by Mr Welch:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/palast
http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/unprecedented.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/dec/24/uselections2000.usa2’
Of course, all this planning to fix the 2000 election might have come a cropper through a variety of circumstances – not least Al Gore and the Democrats actually running an effective campaign – but we’ll leave that to one side.
Mr Bradley states here that ‘the plan could have been in the works for several years’ before Bush entered office in January 2001, without actually specifying who the conspirators were and how – if they didn’t have the machinery of the US government at their disposal – they were able to make the necessary preparations to co-ordinate an AQ multiple aircraft hijacking with the controlled destruction of the WTC towers. Like all other ‘truthers’, Mr Bradley feels free to offer assertion without evidence, and then gets upset when people like myself take issue with this act of fantasising. Such is life.
Mr Bradley expresses the hope that ‘Mr Welch and others of his mindset, as loyal as they are to the voice of authority [nice little dig there, Mr B – I’m a British citizen, by the way, and am not ‘loyal’ to any US administration, be it Clinton’s, Bush’s or Obama’s] eventually find that one piece of evidence that they cannot honestly explain away’. Mr Bradley, I’ll put this on the record – I (and I suspect other debunkers) are awaiting solid verifiable proof from you to call our assumptions into question. We are not going to be fooled by pseudo-scientific nonsense (as offered by Jones and Gage), distortions of the documented historical record (as provided by Griffin and Ruppert), quote-mining taken out of context from source materials, and other acts of con-artistry on your part. We are also a little tired of being presented with the same rehashed (and as noted above already discredited) ‘facts’ and ‘theories’ which you have offered us over the past 7 years or so. Maybe it is time for you to take a closer look at your sources – which as I’ve shown here, you’ve repeatedly failed to do – and ask them if they actually support in any way the claims you make. Maybe you might want to ask yourself if you can rely on other ‘truthers’ when they have been shown to be at best incompetent in how they collate and analyse evidence, or at worst openly lie about the record. If you are so upset about ‘unfair attacks upon my credibility and character’, may I suggest that such attacks on your compromised reputation might cease once you stop peddling the same old lies the ‘truth movement’ has spouted ad nauseam – and without even a hint of contrition once they have been corrected – and start looking at the facts and the evidence as they actually exist, not as you wish them to be?
Postscript:
I have just read an interesting article by a Peter Krause called ‘The Last Good Chance: A Reassessment of US Operations at Tora Bora’, in ‘Security Studies’, 17/4 (2008), pp.644-684. Mr Bradley might do well to read this article – which explains the planning and logistical complexities of conducting military operations on the hoof at high altitude in an Eastern Afghan winter – to correct his presumptions about the reasons why bin Laden was able to escape Afghanistan in December 2001. It is well researched and clearly written, and should be comprehensible even to dilettantes and lightweights like him.
Hello again Joseph,
I didn’t doubt for a moment that you would either ignore or misrepresent every single piece of information I presented with a smug presumption of superiority and infallibility. Cheers to your ability to contort reality to your liking and simultaneously vilify me, and all who question 9/11, as either con men or a fools.
I purposely set up my response so that readers could compare our sources and decide for themselves what to make of the evidence surrounding 9/11. It is the readers whom I wish to reach at this point because, as I have repeated, you have obviously long ago decided you knew all you wanted to know about 9/11 and simply reject any information that contradicts your opinion on the topic. You sir are a true debunker.
The best example of this is your total avoidance of the “molten metal” topic. Did you even read the WPI report on molten steel?
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
Or the new peer reviewed report discussing the active Thermitic chips found in the WTC dust?
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm (under 2009)
You apparently did not and your failure to do so speaks volumes about your willingness to harshly judge information which you have no knowledge of.
While I am tempted to write another long winded reply to clarify all of your “liberties with the truth” here, I frankly have better things to do than give you more information you will disregard completely anyway. If you want to chalk that up as a victory, fine, but it is a victory only of your stubborn inability to learn beyond what you think you already know about 9/11.
But I will do what you have demonstrated that you cannot, admit when I am wrong. You were correct in saying I initially wanted to base my case on a LIHOP scenario, although I did specify there were anomalies about the WTC collapses that was curious about.
But during the last months of our interaction I could no longer escape the conclusion that al-Qaeda could not have pulled off the attack without active support from within the US intelligence agencies.
Yes, I was wrong and you were right. I am a MIHOP. I again gladly cede to you that argument. But I must wonder if you even have the humility to honestly question whether you could possibly be wrong about 9/11, or if your reputation and pride prevents such reality checks.
Anyway, I’ve been as fair and polite as I could be. I still believe, however naively, that it’s possible to debate without hostility or attacking your opponents character. But this courtesy is wasted here. I can only again wish you, Joseph or whatever your real name is, the best of luck in finding what you search for and hope you aren’t a ridiculous asshole your entire life.
Farewell……. Stewart
‘I didn’t doubt for a moment that you would either ignore or misrepresent every single piece of information I presented with a smug presumption of superiority and infallibility. Cheers to your ability to contort reality to your liking and simultaneously vilify me, and all who question 9/11, as either con men or a fools.’
I’m sorry to see that you’re such a sensitive little flower, Mr Bradley, but has it occurred to you that it might not be so easy for me to portray you as a shyster or an idiot if (1) you represented your opponents’ arguments correctly, (2) you actually read the sources they cited in their defence, (3) you checked whether the sources you cite actually back up your claims and (4) you were man enough to admit when you were wrong or ill-informed?
I thought not.
‘I purposely set up my response so that readers could compare our sources and decide for themselves what to make of the evidence surrounding 9/11. It is the readers whom I wish to reach at this point because, as I have repeated, you have obviously long ago decided you knew all you wanted to know about 9/11 and simply reject any information that contradicts your opinion on the topic. You sir are a true debunker.’
Thank you. I accept the complement that is my due, and I posted here for the same reasons. It is pretty clear that unless readers already have their minds made up that 9/11 is an ‘inside job’, they’ll be able to see for themselves who has actually done the background reading on this cataclysmic event, and who is waffling. If you read the comments above on this thread, it’s pretty clear that it is you who are at a disadvantage.
‘Or [perhaps you could read] the new peer reviewed report discussing the active Thermitic chips found in the WTC dust?
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm (under 2009)
You apparently did not and your failure to do so speaks volumes about your willingness to harshly judge information which you have no knowledge of.’
This is somewhat hypocritical of you, Mr Bradley. My comments above were only cleared from moderation (and therefore visible to you) last night. Are you honestly telling me that you read all the information and evidence I cited in my defence? I find that hard to believe.
In any case, I already referred you to a rebuttal of the ‘Open Chemical Physics Journal’ article, and I should add here that the editor of this publication resigned, because she thought the article was crap:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=141353
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/04/bentham-editor-resigns-over-steven.html
That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement, is it?
‘While I am tempted to write another long winded reply to clarify all of your “liberties with the truth” here, I frankly have better things to do than give you more information you will disregard completely anyway. If you want to chalk that up as a victory, fine, but it is a victory only of your stubborn inability to learn beyond what you think you already know about 9/11.’
Mr Bradley, look at my comments. I ‘ignored’ none of your arguments and supporting ‘evidence’. I went through it all, and refuted it point by point, time and time again. If anyone is showing a ’stubborn inability to learn beyond what you think you already know about 9/11′, it is you.
In any case, I am most interested to see your transition from LIHOP to MIHOP. It has merely confirmed what I already suspected, which is that you are a man with a preconceived hypothesis searching desperately for the information to prove your point, and with a mind that filters out any of that annoying evidence - historical, practical, logical, scientific - which undermines your world view. You are a fanatic, Mr Bradley, and your penchant at self-delusion and self-deceit is evident.
‘But I must wonder if you even have the humility to honestly question whether you could possibly be wrong about 9/11, or if your reputation and pride prevents such reality checks.’
As I said, I am waiting for you - and all the other truthers - to give me something in the way of hard evidence that makes me think again, not to recycle the same tired and long-discredited myths that have been repeated ad nauseam since the dust settled in Washington DC and New York. In fact, I’d say the same is true of anyone outside your closed little ‘9/11 denier’ circle. Your failure to get anywhere with your claims in over 7 years of effort should tell you something. It is that the ‘9/11 truth movement’ is based on a fraud, and you are either too dishonest or too stupid to notice it.
The fact is that we are facing major issues in the post-9/11 world that require a proper debate. How do we deal with the global phenomenon that is radicalised Islamism? How do we deal with problems like Afghanistan and the North-West Frontier Provinces of Pakistan? Can we negotiate with al-Qaeda and its affiliates? Would a change in Western policy to the Middle East and the Moslem world make a difference, and make us less or more likely to encourage terrorism attacks? How do we combat domestic terrorism without alienating significant sections of the population in our countries? How do we strike a balance between protecting ourselves from more 9/11s, Balis, 7/7s, Madrids, Mumbais and Nairobis, and between ensuring the protection of our civil liberties?
These are all important debates for my country, yours and many others. There are sound and sensible arguments on both sides, and no easy issues. But you and your kind have nothing to bring to this debate except your ‘inside job’ mantra. It is the symptom of a narcissistic, blinkered, and ultimately inbred mentality. There is a globalised problem that brings death to city streets, hatred to thousands of minds, that has actually inflicted more misery and carnage on the Moslem world than on the West, and which threatens now to destabilise a nuclear state, and you’re only response is to say ‘It’s all an illusion. It’s MIHOP. There is no Al Qaeda. It’s all a creation of the real plotters’. This gets us nowhere, Mr Bradley, and it does nothing to solve the essential conceptual problem of managing the intellectual ferment and bloody violence inspired by Sayyid Qutb and his successors. If anyone is living in a fool’s paradise, it’s you and the rest of the ‘truthers’.
‘Anyway, I’ve been as fair and polite as I could be. I still believe, however naively, that it’s possible to debate without hostility or attacking your opponents character. But this courtesy is wasted here. I can only again wish you, Joseph or whatever your real name is, the best of luck in finding what you search for and hope you aren’t a ridiculous asshole your entire life.
Farewell……. Stewart’
Goodbye Mr Bradley. You will not be missed here.
Welchy…got one for you:
http://911-harley-shirt-guy.blogspot.com/2009/05/mark-adrian-humphrey-actor-is-harley.html
This puts the lie to “planes hit buildings, fuel and impact cause collapse” foolishness.
Oh, so just because a witness happens to bear a slight resemblance to an actor no one’s ever heard of, that means 9/11 was an inside job.
This is your proof. Well done. The NWO is completely destroyed, the Bush family have all committed harikiri, and the state of Israel has voluntarily disolved itself. I’m going to resign my job and join a commune, and tell everyone I meet that hANOVER fIST is the smartest guy on the planet, and deserves both the Nobel Peace and Science prize for his tiresome battles for ‘the troof’.
This is not a smoking gun, you walt.
In the meantime, perhaps you can tell me what you’re thinking (assuming you can think) when you see these photos:
http://layscience.net/node/124
I’ll check out your photos, Welchy…but while I do, why don’t you chew on this: http://www.gulli.com/news/world-trade-center-destruction-2009-05-24/
Oh, yes…and he mentions two words that should churn all of the choda in your gullet: PEER REVIEW.
Well…I just blew Stupid Reason #9 out of the water, eh?
Let’s repost the verbiage here:
“9. Workmen cutting beams in the wreckage. Conspiracy theorists are for some reason obsessed with the idea that thermite was used in 9/11, in spite of the fact that thermite is used for cutting and welding, and never in demolitions (indeed, it would be practically impossible to set it up). They cite neatly cut beams as evidence of thermite being used, but ignore the fact that beams were neatly cut up by workmen operating after the collapse.”
Wow…I guess if I got all my info from Mark L. from Controlled Demolition, I could rally around that thesis…but it has now proven to be demonstrably false.
I’ll let the boys handle the rest of this asshat’s assertions.
Oh…when did I state that I’m “the smartest guy on the planet?”
Never have, never will…but I do know what conforms to basic physics and basic chemistry, and what doesn’t.
When I see these pictures, I see a clod with ISLAMOFASCISM tattooed across his stupid, huge waterhead.
Ah yes, Dr Harrit’s unimpeachable research (which was not published in a peer-reviewed journal, as you claim). This bullshit was also disowned by the editor of said journal, and as ridiculed elsewhere (including by fellow ‘truthers’):
http://mikeruppert.blogspot.com/2009/04/media-outlets-requesting-review_21.html
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=141353
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139293
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4584589&postcount=74
The phrase ‘clutching at straws’ springs to mind.
More on the journal that Niels Harrit et al got published in:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-spoof-paper-accepted-by-peerreviewed-journal.html
Still, it fooled hANOVER fIST, so I shouldn’t be surprised.
Ah….Welchy.
You are a fucktard of immense proportions.
Let’s see…the document linked to is this: https://confluence.cornell.edu/download/attachments/2523490/Access+Points.pdf
Hmmm…doesn’t seem to have ANY RELATION WHATSOEVER to this: http://www.gulli.com/news/world-trade-center-destruction-2009-05-24/
Could this be more scumbaggery on your part, Welchy? Could it be that, like for the rest of May and up until June 12th, you had NO BLOODY ANSWER, and decided a bit of scumbaggery was in order; precisely, MAKE UP A COMPLETE BLOODY LIE?
You lose.
It needs to be spelled out in small words for Han. Let me take a crack at it.
That Journal? No good.
Is filled with junk science papers.
Your paper is bad.
That it was in there
Does not surprise us at all.
You call us dumb? Odd!
Fung…what took you so long, c0ck-smoker?
Where were you on the 26th of May? Eating a hot lunch from Welchy’s bung?
Show me a direct link, or shut your stupid mouth.
Show you a direct link to what?
Sanity?
I doubt you could follow it.
You’re funny…just about as funny with a load of Welchy’s but-nuggets in your mouth.
You mean, you can’t actually provide a link to the bogus peer-reviewed journal in question?
Put up or shut up.
I’m not sure what that’s going to prove to you, but since it’s an online journal you can find it here:
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/
The real question is if you can find that journal here:
http://www.csa.com/factsheets/supplements/pais.php
or here:
http://science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlsearch.cgi?PC=MASTER&Error=1
Or how about here:
http://www.oclc.org/firstsearch/periodicals/results_issn_search.asp?issn1=1874&issn2=4125&database=%25&fulltext=%22%22&results=paged&PageSize=25&B1=Search
That’ll be a bit more complicated. It seems its not in the international list of journals, it’s not in the Thompson Reuter’s master journal list, and not a single library has anything from it listed in their reference material. What good is a journal that no one reads? No good.
As to the actual science of the paper, that’s no good either. As long as we’re on the topic of “what took you so long” You never answered my questions on the topic of Nanothermites that I posed in the other thread back on April 9th.
I asked:
“If the temperatures within the collapse were such that they could sustain a thermite reaction then he should have found the products of such a reaction in his dust. Far more compelling to the argument would be the presence of Aluminum oxide, and iron, among the ambiguous “highly explosive nanothermite””
Let me say that again. If a thermite reaction took place, you would have found aluminum oxide.
Aluminum is a funny element. It rusts (oxidizes) almost instantaneously when it exposed to the atmosphere. Fortunately, aluminum oxide is very hard. In fact, it’s a 9 on the hardness scale, with 10 being a diamond, and iron being about 5.5.
Since it’s so hard it the oxide forms a very thin passivation layer which protects the easily oxidized metal beneath. Without this property aluminum would pretty much immediately change to aluminum oxide in open air.
So let’s go back to your article. Was there any aluminum oxide in statically significant amounts mixed in with your mysterious red chips that were found in samples that were collected by scraping up random bits of dust from around New York?
I have tried reading the SANtomauro thread on four different laptops, I always get “allowed memory exhausted” message.
I’ll explain this in simple terms, so even hANOVER fIST can understand it without raising his knuckle-dragging hands from the floor to scratch his peanut-sized head.
Harrit’s ‘paper’ was not published in an academically peer-reviewed journal. It was published in a vanity publication (not affiliated with a university) whose editorial board doesn’t even bother to check the findings of any submission and analyse the author’s methodology before putting any article into print. The ‘New Scientist’ link I provided attests to that.
Harrit’s paper was so unconvincing that the Benthan journal’s editor resigned when she realised it had been put into print. It’s conclusions are so ludicrous that even fellow truther’s like Michael Ruppert (who - as I’ve shown - was taken in by the Vreeland scam) think that the whole thing is a put-up job.
I still have a comment awaiting moderation, but it provides more links around this farce.
Obviously, hANOVER fIST - someone who’s grasp of physics is as limited as his reading comprehension - will think that Harrit’s bullshit is the gospel truth. But then that just goes to show what an inbred cretin he is. The ‘truth’ movement limps on because of morons like him, which explain why we are coming up to the 8th anniversary of 9/11 - and the conspiracy-lunatics are becoming more progressively marginalised.
‘I have tried reading the SANtomauro thread on four different laptops, I always get “allowed memory exhausted” message.’
Which is just about the only impact that that sicko John Thames will ever have in his miserable excuse for a life. That thread is nearly four months old, and every day there are a score of comments from that scumbag. Still, as the example of James von Brunn shows, neo-Nazis tend to be rather lonely people.
Welchy…don’t speak on things you’ve no knowledge of.
I see that there still hasn’t been a link proferred. What’s the delay about…like your delay in responding to the initial posting?
I won’t take your word for anything, so let’s see it.
“I see that there still hasn’t been a link proferred.”
My “serious” comment on the matter is currently in moderation.
As a side note, it literally took me a third of a second to find that link. Are you seriously unable to find the online journal that hosts the report that you yourself touted?
Fung…are you hard of reading, stupid-ass?
I’m done with you.
Please…I could care less, asshats. You idiots were SPEECHLESS for over three weeks, while you were spinning your wheels trying to take this apart. You are all intellectual dullards.
What if the “peer review” process is indunated with 9/11 doops, like yourselves? How would anyone get this peer reviewed? I’ll bet even Stephen Hawking couldn’t get this peer reviewed, with you c0ck-smokers as the gatekeepers.
You idiots still can’t refute the facts in the document, “peer review” or not.
“I’m done with you.”
Not so done that you didn’t have more to say.
“You idiots were SPEECHLESS for over three weeks”
It’s funny to me how people project their own personality on to others. How much time do you spend trying to support this tripe, Han? I hate to break it to you, but it only takes a few minutes to “take it apart”.
Not weeks.
Clearly there’s another explanation for our silence on the matter.
“You idiots still can’t refute the facts in the document,”
I directly refuted the “facts” presented in this document back in April 9th. I also asked you questions about the “facts’ in this document back on April 9th in one of the other threads. You did not answer them. Once my post comes out of moderation you will see them posted here for a second time. Am I to assume that you were SPEECHLESS because you were spinning your wheels trying to take it apart?
What kind of moron are you?
April 9th?
Oh…YOU posted this info, and then debunked it months ago?!?
“What kind of moron are you?”
The kind that can both remember a conversation that took place 2 months ago, and browse to that conversation on counterknowledge, apparently.
While we are on the subject of classification, apparently you are the kind of moron that doesn’t even read the content you spam to other people’s web pages.
You posted here:
http://counterknowledge.com/2009/01/more-on-15-questions-for-911-truthers-a-reply-to-stewart-bradley/#comments
On April 8th.
With an article that you obviously didn’t write about the paper submitted to Open Chemical Physics Journal.
I responded on April 9th.
I asked you why the “highly explosive nanothermite” did not explode in the conditions present within the towers, and I asked you why the products of such an explosion were not present in the dust.
I still await your answer.
Fung.
You dumbass.
The document submitted at the other link was a paper by Dr. Steven Jones, not Dr. Harritt. Here’s the news, asshat - two different papers, outlining the same culprit - NANO-THERMITE.
That’s right - I didn’t write the articles in question, stupid-ass…it’s amazing to me that Welchy thinks your reading comprehension beats mine.
Write to the two authors and pose your question…I await their answer to you.
“The document submitted at the other link was a paper by Dr. Steven Jones, not Dr. Harritt.”
You pay close attention now, because I spent the last 7 weeks spinning my wheels trying to take your comment from a couple of hours ago apart.
They both had their names on the paper submitted to the Journal. The title of the paper is:
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
pp.7-31 (25) Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen
doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007
What was that about superior reading comprehension? Clearly you didn’t even get past the title.
“Write to the two authors and pose your question”
I already know the answer. Steven Jones admits to the answer, and has done so in writing. The point is that YOU don’t know the answer.
Oooh…you can cut and paste…but YOU CANNOT COMPREHEND .
Are you trying now to say that Jones goes against his own paper?
Just as you always do…pretend that I’m possessed of your stupid brain cells, and tell me what your answer is…I can’t wait to start tearing you a new one.
I’m sure though, that you’ll attempt some way of not stating your opinion.
“Are you trying now to say that Jones goes against his own paper?”
I stated very clearly what I wanted to say.
1. Jones et al did not find the products of a thermite reaction in their dust samples. If such a reaction took place, they would necessarily find them.
2. Jones states that point 1 would be a key factor in establishing the use of thermite in the buildings, and laments his inability to find them.
The theory that thermite was used to demolish the buildings is not established by detecting the elements present in the reagents for a thermite reaction. These elements Fe, Al, and O are common to every building. When Jones shows you a chart that detects these elements, he’s not showing you evidence that thermite was used to demolish a building. He’s showing you that dust near the building had iron, aluminum and oxygen in it. This is no great surprise.
Testing for the presence of these elements is just one step along a path of procedure that Jones et al did not follow.
First of all, and most importantly, Jones does not do anything to exclude any of the abundant sources of these elements. The iron in the samples he received could have come from the beams themselves, from office equipment inside the towers, from ball point pens and paper clips for all Jones knows. The entire building was clad in aluminum, the airframe was aluminum, there was aluminum in office equipment, and all manner of other items present within the buildings. All of the elements Jones detects have myriad sources in the buildings he was studying. His assumption that they came from an engineered form of thermite that was either applied to the building, or carried into the building for the specific purpose of demolishing the building is quite a leap that he does nothing to establish.
Next, Jones et al do not establish the structure and stoichiometry of those elements. In simple terms, he does not establish thermite. He only establishes the chemical building blocks of thermite. These building blocks, as I have shown above, are abundant. Those elements could be combined in a host of different fashions. We could have Fe0 or Fe2, or Fe2O3 or Al2 or Al2O3 or O2 or any other combination.
For the simple minded like Han, think of a big bucket of legos. Jones detected three different types of legos, but he didn’t prove that those three types were pieced together to make a model of the death star. They could have been a model of a robot, or a model of a race car, or maybe it was just a big bucket of legos.
In order to establish the presence of a thermite reaction we need to know the ratios of Fe2O3 to Al in unreacted samples. We need to detect Al2O3 or an Al203+Fe2 slag to show that the reaction indeed took place. Jones’ paper does not do this.
Furthermore, he does not explain why an active Fe2O3+Al2–>Al2O3 +Fe2 reaction did not consume his samples of “nano thermites” and covert them to Al2O3 +Fe2.
He does not explain how such a reaction could have been engineered to demolish a building.
He does not explain why such a reaction would have been engineered to demolish a building.
That’s a lot of holes.
Oh, and it looks like a previous comment of mine about the journal is now out of moderation. You can look at, and fail to understand that post too, if you like, Han.
Conspiracy and Closed Minds on 9/11
by Morgan Reynolds, professor emeritus of economics, Texas A&M
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=closed_minds_on_911
While more Americans doubt the 9/11 story every week, evidence abounds that many have a mental block against rational examination of the evidence about 9/11. The possibility that it was an inside job is a non-starter for them. Programmed “cut outs” insure that 9/11 doubts are consigned to the “conspiracy” closet.
Last June I was explaining the fuss over my 9/11 article to a family member who shall remain anonymous and he interrupted and said, “I don’t want to talk about it.” Millions join him in that sentiment. By implication they might as well say: “I’d rather cling to the official 9/11 myth” = “If mass murderers run free,
I’m fine with that” = “If 9/11 was an inside job, then I’m ruled by monsters and I might have to do something about it, I’d rather watch Paris Hilton.”
Where does this passive attitude come from? Causes are many but American indoctrination has two sides that figure prominently in the explanation:
• Belief in “American Exceptionalism”
• Disbelief in conspiracy
This describes you doops to a T.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qih8K6psmM0
Tuesday June 16, 2009
Dr. Yuan T. Lee, Chemistry Nobel Laureate, 1986.
After his public lecture, we briefly explained the findings of the “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the World Trade Center Catastrophe” peer-reviewed paper and politely asked him to review it.
University of Waterloo 9/11 Research Group
http://www.Waterloo911.ca
“we briefly explained the findings of the “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the World Trade Center Catastrophe” peer-reviewed paper and politely asked him to review it.”
Yes. It’s been peer reviewed, and found to be crap. So what does handing a paper to a scientist prove in your mind exactly?
Someone handed a piece of paper to a scientist so therefor the government used thermite to murder more than 3000 U.S. citizens?
‘Welchy…don’t speak on things you’ve no knowledge of’.
Coming from a mong like hANOVER fIST that’s rich, but there you go.
‘I see that there still hasn’t been a link proferred. What’s the delay about…like your delay in responding to the initial posting?’
Now cleared - comments are dated 26th May. Again, hANOVER should know something about the delay in clearing moderated comments, because he threw a collosal temper tantrum about it on another thread, and launched his toys out of the pram:
http://counterknowledge.com/2008/12/15-questions-911-truthers-now-need-to-answer/#comments
Now back to the substance. Dr Harrit’s ‘paper’ was published in a journal - ‘The Open Chemical Physics Journal’ - which is not (contrary to truther claims) peer-reviewed, at least as far as real academics understand this term. The editor in chief actually resigned her post after it was put into print, which doesn’t suggest a lot of confidence in its content.
The standards of editing for these Bentham journals (which publish ‘OCPJ’) were shown with the ‘New Scientist’ hoax I linked to. What that shows is that to get published by Bentham Science Publishers, you don’t have to actually write an article that makes any sense whatsoever. You’ve just got to submit your work, and stump up $800. Money - rather than academic credibility - is the key to getting into print.
So if hANOVER was able to save some of the money which - judging by his comments - he clearly spends on crack cocaine, concentrates long enough to knit together his collective rantings into a 5,000 word piece, submits it to one of Bentham’s journals, and then pays $800 dollars (US, rather than Zimbabwean), I’m sure he’d be able to preen himself about the fact that he has just produced ‘peer-reviewed’ work.
Welchy…screw you and the nag you rode in on.
Once again…maybe I have to spell it out for the mentally challenged…if all “peer-reviewed” journals are beset by scumbags such as yourselves, there’s no way any REAL INFORMATION can pass peer-review.
Wasn’t ASPARTAME peer-reviewed”? It is a known carcinogen and neurotoxin. Peer-review has less to do with TRUTH than it does with PROFITS.
‘Welchy…screw you and the nag you rode in on’.
I’ll pass your complements on to your mother, hANOVER.
‘Once again…maybe I have to spell it out for the mentally challenged…if all “peer-reviewed” journals are beset by scumbags such as yourselves, there’s no way any REAL INFORMATION can pass peer-review’.
hANOVER, perhaps you should find out for yourself what ‘peer reviewed’ really means. For your information, it doesn’t mean ‘Write a pile of scientificually illiterate shit and then bung the editors some money to print it’.
‘Peer-review has less to do with TRUTH than it does with PROFITS’.
Newsflash, numbnuts. Academics do not get paid for their articles. I should know. I have had nine printed in my field (modern and contemporary history) since 2003, and never got a penny for them. Never asked either. Maybe I should follow the fine example set by David Ray Griffin, and make a fortune out of gullible pricks like you by publishing complete lies.
That will work.
http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/29_Structural-Civil_Engineers_2009-06-17.pdf
So…just like John Thames, I’ll keep posting information, and you nitwits will pick apart a couple of terms.
The tide is turning. Do you plan to keep your heads thrusted in the sand until after the lawnmower comes by?
Welchy…where did I state that “academics get paid for articles”?
Stupid ass…straw-man arguments are not your strong suit…stick to swallowing choda.
I am referring to articles having no basis in truth; yet, they are vetted and presented to the world as the honest truth.
For example, NIST’s report and the dreckfest called the 9/11 Commission Report.
Here’s a great frickin’ article: http://snippits-and-slappits.blogspot.com/2009/06/destruction-of-american-education-and.html - I’d copy and post the whole thing here, but this posting would crap out much like the Michael Santomauro thread.
Which, by the way, you tools lost. John Thames OWNED you.
No he didn’t. In my subsequent post, I demonstrated that directly due to Nazi policy, around 2.5 million Jews (including those sent to Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec and Majdanek) ceased to be part of the population of European Jewry - completely separate from another 2.5 million Jews that ceased to be a part of European Jewry via migration.
You and John have (unsurprisingly) left that elephant in the room well alone, instead preferring to copy and paste bilge from your favourite pseudodemographer, who - just like you, ignores the aforementioned material.
“…all we have is a deportation policy…”
John Thames, Keyboard Warrior, 19 April 2009.
“perfectly clear, it’s part of our plans, elimination of the Jews, extermination, we’re doing it”
Heinrich Himmler, SS-Reichsführer, 4 October 1943
“I’ll keep posting information, and you nitwits will pick apart a couple of terms.”
History has shown that you’ll post articles that you haven’t read, don’t understand, and that often contradict the very point you think you’re trying to prove. When these evident facts are pointed out to you by others, you’ll fling invective, and then change the subject with a different article that you haven’t read, don’t understand, and that contradicts the point you are trying to make.
Your posts are disjointed, and often incomprehensible. Your writing style is barely intelligible. Most of all, they are completely illogical. You posted a video of someone handing a paper to a scientist as evidence of what exactly? Your complaint regarding junk science papers passing peer review reinforces which of your points? And finally, what in the world do you think writing words in all caps does to enhance your argument?
Regardless, you sure do like to crow about how smart you are. Is that how you rationalize being so alone in your views? Your smart and the majority of everyone else in the world is dumb? I have some news for you, Mr. 91 on a test once. So far the only things you have succeeding in proving are:
1. You don’t know a lick about physics and chemistry.
2. You have an irrational prejudice against Jews.
3. You have a third grader’s capacity to construct a rational argument.
4. You are fixated on homosexual acts.
If that was your intent, congratulations. You completely owned those 4 points.
To pull you back to the thermite discussion, you have yet to address the glaring problems with Jones’ report. I didn’t just “pick apart a couple of terms.” I pointed out fundamental problems in Jones’ hypothesis. Jones did not prove the existence of thermite. Jones did not find evidence of a thermite reaction. Beyond that you did not successfully address the other points raised in the original 911 thread.
Thermite is not used to implode buildings. There has been no credible procedure described that could have been employed to cut WTC columns using thermite. The only theories offered are completely infeasible when the scale of the building is considered.
Thermite is difficult to ignite, and would have required a complex control system for ignition. No evidence of such a control system exists. No one has found specialized detonators, no one witnessed the placement of such devices prior to the attacks.
So in conclusion I fully expect you to ignore the glaring problems in your “evidence”, change the subject, and then fantasize about the places my genitalia has been.
‘So…just like John Thames, I’ll keep posting information, and you nitwits will pick apart a couple of terms.’
Actually, all I see you two losers doing is posting obsessively on this site (judging by the counter on this page, Thames has posted at least 10 a day on the Santomauro thread) since it opened in mid-March), because no one reads your crappy little blogs.
‘The tide is turning. Do you plan to keep your heads thrusted in the sand until after the lawnmower comes by?’
Eight years of effort = no success in convincing the world that 9/11 was an inside job.
Thirty years of effort = no success in convincing anyone beyond the Middle East that the Holocaust never happened.
If you want to live with your delusions, that’s fine by me.
‘Welchy…where did I state that “academics get paid for articles”?’
hANOVER’s comment here, implying that academic research involves personal corruption on the part of those involved:
‘Peer-review has less to do with TRUTH than it does with PROFITS.’
Our man is so stupid that he doesn’t even read what he types. This is the kind of O2 thief that the ‘truth’ movement and the Holocaust Deniers rely on. Nothing more need be said - except for the obvious point that he has been unable to make any more convincing a case for his ‘theories’ than the original subject of this thread, Mr Bradley.
History.
It’s funny that you mention HISTORY. It has been proven that history is written by both the victors and massive scumbags.
Elie Wiesel was rescued from two “death camps”?
Here’s the thing - none of the supposed Holocau$t “survivors” could come to a consensus about the existence of the so-called “gas chambers”. There is NO CORROBORATING EVIDENCE whatsoever to prove their existence…even worse is the rate of cremation given by “luminaries” such as Raul Hilberg…and for the rate of cremations given to have occurred, the ovens would have had to be running 24 hours, which is untenable and improbable.
In contrast, I have read independent confirmation on the scumbaggery involved in the Balfour Declaration, and the betrayal of the Arabic population in Palestine.
You posited, Welchy, your “15 questions” that purport to prove that the events of September 11th could not have been performed with any collusion from our government; I submit that all of the proposed events simply happened alongside the events leading up to and during the attack.
Your take is that these 15 “things” obviate any collusion. But, you’re ignoring that fact that there were NO 19 ARAB HIJACKERS.
None.
There’s no video footage; the “passport” was a complete plant; the whole thing was a psy-op, planned to derail the world’s condemnation of Israel for their evil actions against others. There was a conference scheduled to take place on September 22, 2001, which was scrapped after the attack on the 11th.
I don’t believe that you have the credentials to establish my education. You also seem to place entirely too much on credentials. So, for example, you would trust some idiot who passed a braindump and obtained some certificate that says that they could perform some function, rather than trust a guy who could actually perform the job.
This is the downfall of our educational system - placing the ends over the means.
As for not “reading what I type”…if I copy and paste a document, it’s there to bolster an argument. I prefer to leave the whole thing intact, rather than pruning it. I’m not afraid to show things that contradict my statements.
The problem with your “ragheads/Islamofascists did 9/11″ scenario is this:
No indication of actual devout Arabs involved (for example, Atta was drinking and carousing at a strip club, on his way to martyrdom?)
Complete failure of airport security
Rules of physics and chemistry absolutely violated if you accept the story promulgated by the government, NIST and FEMA
Secret Service did not perform their duties with pResident Bush (scaring the kids is actually preferable to putting them in harm’s way)
So…I could go on and on, but I’ll presume that you’ve read my latest postings…if not, here it is again: http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/29_Structural-Civil_Engineers_2009-06-17.pdf - I am still waiting for you all to impugn their motives.
“Your take is that these 15 “things” obviate any collusion.”
How am I not surprised that you missed the point, and cede the point at the same time. You don’t ask a question to obviate anything. You ask a question to get an answer. Joseph was tired of the CT folks asking all the questions. It was time that they answered some questions about their own theories.
You seem to be confirming that there are no good answers to his questions. How is that Joseph’s fault? They are all valid questions. Did he somehow trick you because he knew how to ask a question that you couldn’t possibly answer if your version were true?
You hold fast to the conclusion, but you don’t have the answers. That’s not objectivity. That’s not thinking on your own. That’s not a display of that superior intelligence you keep praising yourself for.
That’s mindlessly holding to a foregone conclusion.
“As for not “reading what I type”…if I copy and paste a document, it’s there to bolster an argument. I prefer to leave the whole thing intact, rather than pruning it. I’m not afraid to show things that contradict my statements”
No, that’s not how I know that you haven’t read what you’ve pasted. It’s because you seem to have no working knowledge or memory of its contents. You didn’t know that both Jones and Harrit had collaborated on the same paper. You thought your posting from April 9th was completely different from the more recent posting here. You didn’t know that it was posted to an open online journal, and was not subject to peer review prior to publishing.
I have had countless dialogs with you where it is completely apparent that you’ve read the first couple of lines, and drawn your conclusions from that. I asked you to read a NIST report, and you didn’t get past the abstract. Remember that?
“Rules of physics and chemistry absolutely violated”
Answer my questions then. If you know what you’re talking about, explain how Jones knows he’s found thermite through xray spectrography on a sample of dust of questionable origin. Explain how he wouldn’t find any Al2O3 in the dust. Explain how the charges were prepared, installed, and detonated without leaving any evidence of their existence other than some red chips that bear a strong similarity to the type of primer that was used to coat the beams prior to fireproofing.
You didn’t disprove anything on April 9th, and you haven’t proven anything else but that you’re a BS artist of the highest order.
Your lies equal the load of bull offered by the NTSB in regards to the residue left on the seats from Flight 800. Jones and Harritt stand by their nano-thermite theory.
I don’t really care that you employ ad hominem fallacy. It’s telling that you must resort to it rather than make an honest attempt to answer the questions I have asked. It’s just another piece of evidence to show that you have no idea what you’re talking about, and have not examined the claims critically.
You accuse us of being dupes, but why is it that you believe that Jones’ paper is correct? You cannot say. You do not know. The only reason you’re defending it is because he agrees with you.
It shines a light on your understanding of the peer review process as well. Peer review is not simply other like minded individuals agreeing with each other. Peer review is not handing a scientist a piece of paper after he’s completed a lecture on a completely different subject. Peer review is not just getting your paper past the editor of a journal.
Peer review takes the whole community. It takes people interested in the subject who are able to repeat the results when the experiment is repeated. It takes them refining the model or improving the process. It takes them proposing alternative hypothesis, and then proving or disproving those hypothesis.
People have reviewed Jones’ paper. They’ve found problems. That in itself does not disprove that thermite was in the rubble, but it’s quite clear that Jones did not prove that it was. People have offered alternative hypothesis for the existence of those “red chips” and those hypothesis have yet to be disproved. That in itself does not prove that the hypothesis are correct. It means that people on your side of the argument need to respond.
Instead you shut down and call us all liars in order to cling to the unestablished, and completely illogical conclusion that the government demolished the WTC with thermite.
And here is where you fail.
You think that you have me on the ropes here; that I committed a faux pas. What you’ve done is that you’ve overreached yourself, once again.
When I stated that you couldn’t have debunked the claim two months earlier to the link in question, I was referring to the INTERVIEW with Dr. Harritt, not the paper in question. That was, after all, the purpose of the link at the time. It actually works to explain the situation better than the paper to someone not wishing to mire themselves in details. Of course, one could further research the paper and read everything they wished.
So…just for the slow ones in the room…In April, on an adjacent thread, I post a paper. Later, on this thread, I post a link to an interview that refers to said paper, but the purpose of the link is to show the interview, with the paper working as background data. I wondered why you felt so smug about this, and just to be clear - you didn’t debunk ANYTHING earlier. What was this amazing info that made Jones, Harritt et al tuck their balls in and run for cover?
And please…enlighten me…who are these “people” who offer alternative HYPOTHESES?
Red chips? Are we talking terra chips?
No one is responding to you besides myself, because you haven’t offered any dissenting evidence besides “people” disagreeing with their data. These people could be your fellow mental patients…and I don’t think they qualify.
“People”, indeed.
Your superior reading comprehension failed to notice that I did not claim to have debunked anything.
I asked you question
They are questions that you have not answered.
At this point you have avoided the questions a sufficient amount of times as to assume that you do not know the answers.
Just to be clear - what are the “questions” you’ve posed to me?
I expect to see them in the next posting bearing your monicker, Fungbooze; otherwise, I’ll assume you’re talking out of you ass again.
And I see that your “people” are staying anonymous, as in you made them up.
“Just to be clear - what are the “questions” you’ve posed to me?”
Use your superior reading comprehension skills.
The problem here is not that I didn’t ask the question enough times.
You are a fucking loser.
Like I guessed…NO QUESTIONS, and NO “PEOPLE”.
You’ve nothing to offer here but sophistry.
Let’s see if I can churn the crap in your colon once again: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
This should be simple enough even for a tool such as yourself.
“Like I guessed…”
You don’t have to guess.
You just have to read.
Can you read, Han? <— Look, another question.
Ooh…another question…don’t you think that others are tiring of your constant avoidance of the issue?
Just cut-and-paste your queries here, and I’ll answer as best as I can.
http://robertscourt.blogspot.com/2009/06/29-engineers-only-explosives-can.html
While I anxiously await your next scintillating post.
“Ooh…another question…don’t you think that others are tiring of your constant avoidance of the issue?”
My constant avoidance? My cut and paste posts? That’s rich. I really have no interest to continue in a discussion that has descended to such intellectual depths as the “I know you are but what am I?” rebuttal.
Good. I guess you’ll shut your stupid yapper from here on in.
FROM KING DAVID TO VON BRUNN
Would James Von Brunn have made it as a member of the Irgun Zvai Leumi? Undoubtedly not. The Jews who terrorized the British out of Palestine in 1946-1948 were rational men, rationally calculating how best to drive out of Palestine a well-armed opponent. Their terrorism had the support of the entire Jewish community in Palestine, the Yishuv. Every member of the Irgun, the Stern gang and the other Jewish terrorist gangs operating in Palestine were regularly sheltered by their brother Jews. Not once was a Jewish terrorist betrayed to the British by a brother Jew. These Jews meant business. They did not go around shooting hapless security guards at museums. They blew up trains and munitions dumps. They killed a hundred at a time by blowing up hotels. They kidnapped sergeants and booby-trapped their bodies. They assassinated high British officials and United Nations mediators. They staged daring breakouts from ancient prisons. They massacred helpless civilians at Deir Yassein and Tantura. They acted with precise intent toward a well-defined objective. – the expulsion of the British and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
Now contrast this pre-meditated terrorism with the foolish act of a foolish old man. James Von Brunn could not possibly hope to drive the Zionists out of America by launching a one-man kamikaze assault on the Holocaust Memorial Museum. He did not have the backing of his fellow whites. He had no well-organized support system behind him. He could not kill anyone of importance, even if he succeeded. At most, he could help to stigmatize all Holocaust Deniers as potential assassins, like him. He could help to get “hate crimes” and “hate statutes” passed by a counterproductive act. That is the difference between the rational political violence which created the state of Israel and the irrational violence of a born loser like James Von Brunn.
THE RUBICON MCCARTHY WOULD NOT CROSS
“Jewish Organizations Response To Communism And To Senator McCarthy” by Aviva Weingarten is a very recent (2008) but very informative examination of the hidden topic behind Senator Joseph McCarthy’s anti-communist investigations – the Jewish involvement in same. As Miss Weingarten makes clear, McCarthy was extremely unpopular with Jews, because the communists McCarthy was exposing were disproportionately Jewish. The Jewish defense organizations (the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress and the Anti Defamation League) conceived the strategy of opposing communism while upholding civil rights against McCarthy’s “excesses”. They also made alliances, somewhat reluctantly, with non-Jewish anti-communist groups, such as the All American Conference To Combat Communism (the AACCC). This was basically an attempt to portray their “anti-communist but pro-civil rights” positions as something other than the Jewish defense mechanism it basically was. The defense organizations were less enthusiastic about such organizations as the American Jewish League Against Communism, headed by Rabbi Benjamin Schultz. McCarthy made intense efforts to make sure that his anti-communist crusade was not portrayed as an anti-Jewish crusade. Thus, he stated in a speech of April 1954 speaking of the communists: “First, they emphasize the religion of traitors and security risks in those instances where it so happens that they are of the Jewish faith. This type of propaganda, as the Communists well know, catalyzes latent prejudices and creates race hatreds.”
McCarthy, although despised by the vast majority of America’s liberal/leftist Jews, nevertheless had a significant number of anti-communist Jewish supporters. These included the so-called “China Hands”, George Sokolsky, the well-known newspaper columnist and Alfred Kohlberg. It is also highly probable that McCarthy appointed Roy Cohn, the Jewish lawyer, as chief counsel to the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in an effort to prove that he was not anti-Semitic. Cohn and David Schine, his assistant, were never popular with the media. Their ill-fated trip to Europe to search overseas American libraries for communist books was a fiasco. Schine’s drafting into the Army lead to subsequent charges of attempted preferential treatment by McCarthy’s subcommittee. It became a highly contentious issue during the later Army-McCarthy hearings. McCarthy also made efforts to get Roy Cohn, his chief counsel, appointed to the Board of Directors of the ADL. The Senator further had a meeting with the ADL, arranged by his friend, George Sokolsky. The meeting has been variously described by the participants but did not result in any modus vivendi between McCarthy and the ADL, which continued to oppose his methods. There were several incidents in McCarthy’s career which bordered on anti-Semitism without ever crossing the line into it. The first was the uproar over the appointment of Hungarian born Jewess Anna Rosenberg to Assistant Secretary of State for Manpower in November 1940. Allegations arose that Mrs. Rosenberg had been a Communist Party member in the 1930’s. The allegations were made by a former communist, Ralph de Sola, who claimed to have attended John Reed Club meetings with Mrs. Rosenberg. The charges were dismissed as a case of mistaken identity, although it has since come to light that in December 8, 1942 an article by Anna Rosenberg, described as “Regional Director, War Manpower Commission” appeared in the Communist “New Masses” magazine, with a drawing of Mrs. Rosenberg’s face. Aviva Weingarten concludes that McCarthy went after Rosenberg, not because she was Jewish, but because she had been appointed by Secretary of State, George Catlett Marshall, who McCarthy held responsible for the fall of China to the communists.
Another issue which brought McCarthy dangerously close to the forbidden issue of Jews and communism was the investigation of the Army Signal Corps installation at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey in October 1953. The Army and the FBI had already been independently conducting their investigations and had identified 42 security risks, 39 of them Jewish. The ADL conducted its own investigation and asserted that the problem was “anti-Semitism”. One particularly acrimonious episode arising from the Fort Monmouth investigations was the issue of who promoted the security risk, the dentist Irving Peress, to major. It was in this incident that the issue of preferential treatment for David Schine came up. The Army claimed that the “persecution” of Peress was retaliation for the failure to obtain preferential treatment for Schine. McCarthy became extremely belligerent over the issue in the televised Army-McCarthy hearings and this became one of the major precipitating factors in his downfall.
Although Aviva Weingarten’s study is well documented, there are some interesting omissions in her account. She makes no mention of the role McCarthy played in uncovering the abuses of the Malmedy Trial in Germany after the war, where McCarthy vigorously condemned the black hoods and other torture methods used against the Germans by Jewish interrogators in American uniforms. Perhaps this involvement explains why the Jewish controlled American media were ready to pounce on McCarthy when he made his famous Wheeling, West Virginia speech about communists in the State Department. Nor does she mention his very close friendship with James Forrestal, the thoroughly anti-Zionist Secretary of Defense. Perhaps these omissions would undermine her thesis that McCarthy was only anti-communist, not anti-Zionist. She does admit that McCarthy’s investigation of Anna Rosenberg involved McCarthy with known anti-Semites, like Benjamin Freedman, Gerald L.K. Smith and others. Aviva Weingarten also has to admit that Jews were disproportionately involved in the American Communist Party, although she maintains the standard apologetic defense that the majority of America’s Jews were anti-communist. (A very dubious proposition, as anyone who has studied the subject knows.)
Joseph McCarthy, as “Jewish Organisations” shows, tried very hard to distance himself from any accusations of anti-Semitism. It did not work. No matter how many overtures he made to Jewish organizations, no matter how many anti-communist Jews he employed or praised, the body of organized Jewry remained against him, then and until the present day. Even the confirmation of so many of his charges has not changed this hostility. (Indeed, the confirmation of the charges against so many identifiably guilty culprits has probably increased the hostility.) There is a profoundly important message in all this. There can be no compromise with Jewry. Present day authors, like professors Walt and Mearsheimer, who imagine that they can insulate themselves from the wrath of Jewry by making nice distinctions between “good, loyal Jews” and bad Zionist Jews deceive themselves. It cannot be done. It did not work in the case of Joseph McCarthy; it will not work for them. Senator McCarthy had the opportunity to convert his anti-communist crusade into an anti-Jewish crusade. That was precisely what the Jewish organizations feared. But McCarthy decided to play safe. By deluding himself that compromise with the real enemy was possible, he lost the opportunity to rebel against the real target. America has been paying the price ever since.
Since I can no longer access the thread on the Holocaust, I will post here.
The whole issue of 09/11 is a no-brainer. There is not a single intelligence official in Europe who does not know it was an inside job by the Jews. So what is there to debate?
http://vdare.com/roberts/090618_waning_power.htm
The idiots at counterknowledge.com should simply read Paul Craig Roberts.
“There is not a single intelligence official in Europe who does not know it was an inside job by the Jews.”
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
You would d be funny if you weren’t mentally ill.
Why don’t you provide us with this list of intelligence officials then?
John…welcome back.
You’re damn straight that the events of September 11th, 2001 were an inside job…of course, there are those who are just need it spelled out for them.
Though these individuals don’t count as intelligence officials, I’d like to think that their two cents do matter:
Francesco Cossiga, former president of Italy
Gernot Rotter, professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the University of Hamburg
Prince Turki al Faisal, former head of Saudi intelligence
So…there’s three. Care to put up or shut up?
I think Hanover answered your question, Lee.
http://zioncrimefactory.wordpress.com/israel-did-911/
I believe that this comprehensive analysis from “Missing Links” isconclusive.
Grandpa Thames
“I think Hanover answered your question, Lee.”
If you think that answers the question, your mental illness is more advanced than I thought. You asserted that all western intelligence agencies believed that the jews were responsible for 911.
Please provide the list of all these agencies and agents, and your sources.
Otherwise you are incorrect. Aren’t you?
If you have problems understanding a simple question just let me know.
Let’s ignore the retarded posters here…sometimes they substitute words like “European” for “western” inadvertently…can’t imagine why.
Let’s get back to the issue at hand - are you nitwits still stuck on stupid? Do you really believe that there’s any chance some “terrorist network” was able to pull off this attack without some assistance from quislings within our government?
If so…the burden of proof is upon YOU.
Lee:
You haven’t paid the slightest attention to any source I’ve ever posted. But now you want “sources”. How amusing.
Grandpa Thames
I did not think you would be able to answer the question.
“You haven’t paid the slightest attention to any source I’ve ever posted. But now you want “sources”. How amusing.”
Aw, what a childish trick to try an hide the fact that you haven’t got any sources to back up your arguments.
You said all western/ European agencies believe that 911 was performed by the jews.
Which agencies said this, who within them said it and what are the sources for your assertions.
Otherwise you are a liar or mentally insane. Take your pick. It is simple really isn’t it?
Lee:
In between sucking your own dick (about all you’re good for), try doing a little research. Here’s one for you, asswipe.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=114778
That’s some dandy research you did there John. Since you were fantasizing about Lee’s penis, you might have failed to notice that Francesco was president from June 29, 1985 – April 28, 1992. Hmm. 1992? That’s not even close to 2001.
And…
Wasn’t he forced to resign for doing exactly what he claims took place?
Fangfuck:
You haven’t had one intelligent thing to say yet. Nothing has changed.
Yeah.
You said:
“There is not a single intelligence official in Europe who does not know it was an inside job by the Jews.”
You backed it up that easily disputable claim (I only have to provide a single intelligence official who disagrees) with a single quote from a President Emeritus that left office back in 1992. He’s not even an intelligence official. He’s an ex president, (now lifetime senator) who is certainly not speaking from a position of deep involvement in the intelligence community. On top of that he’s not a conspiracy theorist. The statement he made was a sarcastic attempt to point out how loony idiots like you are. Do you honestly believe that he believes
“The trap was organized to create solidarity for Berlusconi, which is having lot of problem related for the tangle between RAI and Mediaset.”
Yeah, a Bin Laden tape threatening Silvio was invented so that Silvio Berlusconi could shift attention away from a minor broadcasting dispute. You people will believe anything as long as it supports your hatred of Jews, won’t you? Hey, if it’s true can you show me that tape? No. You can’t. Francesco made it up as part of the joke that you didn’t get.
Can you also explain why Francesco hasn’t said anything else that supports your view, provided any evidence, and even directly refutes the notion that 9/11 could have been in inside job in print?
Yeah. I’m the one who’s not intelligent. I’m the one that doesn’t think things through.
‘Since I can no longer access the thread on the Holocaust, I will post here.’
You probably exhausted the bandwidth with your repeated, obsessive posting over the past four months, Mr Thames. Still, if you are a sad neo-Nazi loser with no friends, no prospects and no life, what is there left for you to do.
Incidentally, you use the ‘claims’ made by former Italian President Francesco Cossiga as ‘proof’ that Mossad did 9/11. In fact, he was simply being ironic, and pouring scorn on the stupidity of ‘truthers’. Your inability to recognise sarcasm when you see it more or less proves his point:
http://counterknowledge.com/2008/12/is-support-finally-drying-up-for-the-911-truth-movement/
http://conspiracydebunkers.blogspot.com/2008/02/alex-jones-and-francesco-cossiga-911.html
Still, I guess your grasp of current history is a weak as it is of 20th century history. Hence your repeated insistence on making a tit of yourself on this website.
Mr. Welch;
Those who can do nothing useful in life become university lecturers. Look at you.
Since appearing on this website you have proven yourself an unmitigated horses ass on every subject. You failed to disprove my evidence on Jewish involvement in communism; you never delivered the long promised archival proof of the alleged shooting of every Jew on the eastern front; you alleged that my State Department document on “The Power And Aims Of International Jewry” was a forgery and then had nothing to say when I proved it wasn’t; you could not rebut either the German camp records or the forensic tests on the Auschwitz “gas chambers”; you were silent on the activities of the Jews at the Paris Peace Conference ; you ignored the history of Zionist manipulation of the British Empire and its policies. Now you attempt to talk your way around the overwhelming evidence that 09/11 was an inside job by the Jews.
You are a pathetic failure in life, Mr. Welch. When you have enough money in the bank where you can spend all your time researching and writing, like me, then you will have achieved a plateau. Until then, you can only churn out WW1 “Pravda” style English historical verities. I have a suggestion for you, Mr. Welch. Why don’t you get a job as Tony Blair’s official spokesman? Then you can recite “weapons of mass destruction” at the same time that you affirm the existence of “gas chambers” and preach the “truth” of 09/11.
Every born jerk should rise to his proper station in life. You have yet to achieve yours.
Fangfuck:
Get yourself a job as grading papers for Mr. Welch. You are both “birds of a feather”.
After reading the various comments on this post, it is clear to me that what is required is a clear exposition of the revisionist position. That might clear up the confusion reflected in so many of the posts regarding September 11th: it was a HOAX!!!
First, and the most obvious, Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda could not have done it. No one has EVER been able to come up with a single, reasonable, rational explanation as to why religious fundamentalists would want to crash planes into crowded office buildings. A basic tenet of revisionist methodology is: if it doesn’t make sense to us personally, it couldn’t have happened.
Second, there is no physical, forensic evidence of even the existence of the so called “Twin Towers.” The Twin-Tower profiteers insist that this “Ground Zero” was the site of these buildings. I challenge anyone to go to ground zero today and show me REAL evidence of these buildings. Do you see any REAL evidence of there having been two immense buildings there? I sure don’t.
Third, the only “evidence” that any aircraft were flown into the twin towers is some grainy video, and some “eyewitnesses.” How reliable is any of the video (supposedly taken in the year 2001) when they’re so grainy looking? Are we supposed to believe there were no modern cameras in New York in the 21st century? Come on people.
And how can you trust eyewitnesses? Billions of dollars have been paid out by the government and private insurers to $eptember 11th “victim$.” Were they trying to get on TV or cash in? Ya think.
Fourth, and we’ve been through this lie before, the estimate at the number of dead has been reduced – SEVERAL TIMES!!!! There is no clearer evidence that this was a hoax then showing the mortality estimates have been revised.
Since it is impossible to prove a negative, the mere fact that I have demonstrated that the $eptember 11th hoax has NO reliable eyewitnesses, NO reliable documents, and, above all, NO reliable physical evidence whatsoever, should be enough to discredit this hoax.
Was that last post a typo John?
Surely you meant to type; I guess was wrong about Francesco, and my statement that all European intelligence agencies believe it was an inside job was a blatant fabrication.
Ok, dick heads. See the attatched link by Paul Craig Roberts, especially the comments by the German, Andreas von Buelow and the Russian, Leonid Ivahov.
http://vdare.com/roberts/070910_911.htm
Ron is failing at his second career as attempted satirist. Some things never change.
Speaking of “tits up”…how’s this: http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0609/DOJ_Aipac_case_witness_asked_to_fakesuicide.html
Nothing like a li’l obstruction of justice to really get those scumbag juices flowing.
“See the attatched link by Paul Craig Roberts”
You know what’s missing from that article?
The opinion of all the intelligence agencies in Europe.
I did see a quote from a truther who served in German intelligence from 1976-1980. And a saw a comment from a guy who was not “Chief of staff of the Russian armed forces” rather he was a figurehead of military coordination for Russia’s rather flaccid version of the EU. Both of which are involved in “axis for peace” who’s main agenda is to blame America for everything that’s wrong with the world. To that end they say, things like “international terrorism doesn’t exist” and then attempt to prove that America is responsible for that thing they just said doesn’t exist.
Here we go again.
Since Fangfuck cannot address the essence of the criticisms, he instead dwells on the job titles. How typical. What a pathetic dick head.
What essence? You got some losers blowing smoke when you claimed to have the entire European intelligence population.
Your claim is clearly a fabrication.
AN UGLY BUT UNEXPLAINED POSSIBILITY
John Kennedy is the perfect illustration that no U.S. president who wants to survive can afford to beck Zionism. Kennedy tried – and failed. His failure may even have cost him his life. It is first necessary to realize that there was intense Jewish hostility toward the son of that “Nazi”, Joseph Kennedy, Sr. Second, it is necessary to realize that Kennedy was far from a shoo-in for the nomination at the Democratic convention in 1960. Both Lyndon Johnson and Adlai Stevenson were real contenders for the presidential nomination. To get the nomination Kennedy had to agree to appoint LBJ, who he detested, to the vice-presidential job. It was done precisely to appease the Zionists who detested Kennedy. Johnson had always been one of Israel’s main supporters, as he had demonstrated in 1956 during Eisenhower’s demand that Israel vacate the Sinai Peninsula. Bobby Kennedy, JFK’s brother, hated LBJ and opposed the move but was overruled because of political necessity. All the political moves described above were orchestrated by Phil Graham, the extremely influential editor of the Zionist controlled “Washington Post”.
When Kennedy got the nomination he had to make the usual groveling speech before the Zionist Organization of America blaming the Arabs of Palestine for Israeli-Palestinian tensions and suggesting that they go elsewhere to solve the festering refugee problem. Kennedy knew better, of course, but had to pay the price of power. When he got into office, Kennedy began applying extreme pressure to halt Israel’s development of nuclear weapons at Dimona. Abe Feinberg, the billionaire hosiery manufacturer, intervened and flatly told Kennedy to “back off” – or his lavish campaign contributions would no longer be available to the Democratic Party. Ultimately, a sham inspection was arranged complete with a bogus control room and a Hebrew interpreter instructed to lie. It was straight out of James Bond. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas in 1963. Who did it? No one knows. But what is clear is that U.S. policy toward Israel did a complete about face after Johnson came to power. And remember, Johnson had been installed as VP candidate by the Zionists who did not trust Kennedy. Was the assassination, then, punishment by the Zionists for turning pressure on Israel? Were the sins of Joseph Kennedy, St. avenged through the murder of the son? Clearly, the Zionists had killed before. They had murdered Lord Walter Moyne, the British High Commissioner in Egypt in 1944. They had assassinated the United Nations mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte and French Colonel Serot. They had blown off the southwestern wing of the king David Hotel in Jerusalem killing over ninety people. They had hanged the two British sergeants, Clifford Martin and Mervyn Pace and bobby trapped their bodies. They even sent letter bombs to ex-Palestinian officials in London to spread the terror there. Did John Kennedy die at the hands of the same international force?
When LBJ entered the presidency he opened the floodgates of U.S. aid to Israel. Influential Zionists like Walt Rostow and Abe Fortas, the Supreme Court justice, were everywhere in his administration. Arthur Krim, the head of United Artists, was one of his closest friends and political backers. When Israel attacked the intelligence ship, U.S.S. Liberty in 1967, Johnson ordered a cover-up which has lasted to this day. Next to Pearl Harbor and the 09/11 attacks, it remains one of the great cover-ups of political skullduggery to this day. It was done precisely to appease the Zionists. LBJ’s Warren Commission, which whitewashed the assassination, was filled with Jewish lawyers who never investigated Israel’s motivations for assassinating the late president. It was the arch-Zionist from Philadelphia, Arlen Spector, who concocted the preposterous “single bullet” theory to maintain the fiction of a lone assassin. Someone very powerful was pulling all kinds of strings to make sure that the real reason for the assassination never came out. Was it the same power that unleashed a hoax of six million murdered Jews upon the world at Nuremberg? Jack Ruby, the Jew who murdered Lee Harvey Oswald, the purported assassin, desperately wanted to talk. He was never allowed to. Who silenced him? Was it LBJ, the Zionists man, who gave the order?
The ancient principle, “Cui buono?”, still applies. John Kennedy’s assassination removed an anti-Zionist from office and put a life-long tool of the Zionists in power. It had been the Zionists who had forced Johnson onto the ticket against Kennedy’s wishes to control the son of a famous anti-Semite. LBJ gave up the extremely powerful position of Senate Majority Whip to take a go-nowhere position as Vice-President of the United States. Johnson then became President of the United States through an assassin’s bullet – and all resistance to Israel vanished from the U.S. government. None of this proves that the Jews killed JFK. But the consistency of the evidence, Johnson’s role from the Los Angeles convention to the ascendancy of the White House, the known background of both Kennedy, Sr. and Robert Kennedy who served on McCarthy’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations as assistant counsel, the life-long pro-Zionism of LBJ, the sudden and overt change in U.S. policy toward Israel following Kennedy’s assassination, all this clearly raises very ugly possibilities that the mainstream media have deliberately ignored for decades. And we all know who runs the media. The reader may draw his own conclusions.
Sorry Fangfuck:
My claim that every intelligence official in Europe knows that the Zionists did it is far too modest. Actually, every citizen on the street knows it, too.
P.S. “loser”. How many millions do you have in the bank, like I do, asshole? That’s how I find the time to intellectually castrate your shit-for-brain.
John Thams a/k/a Wilbur Sensor,
Your poor understanding of history in general, and Israel in particular, is staggering. From Israel’s perspective, Eisenhower was viewed negatively and Kennedy positively.
During the Eisenhower administration, U.S.-Israel relations were terrible. Eisenhower wanted closer ties with Arab states to encircle the USSR. Eisenhower bolstered Greece, Turkey, and Iran with regional alliances with Arab countries. Eisenhower purposefully left Israel out of these alliances, denied Israel arms, threatened economic sanctions, condemned Israel’s 1956 Sinai invasion, and forced Israel’s withdrawal.
In contrast, Kennedy (Robert and John both) spoke openly of empathy for Israel and American Jewry. Kennedy broke the U.S. taboo on selling sophisticated weaponry to Israel, and delivered Hawk antiaircraft missiles to Israel.
Kennedy never applied “extreme pressure” on Israel about Dimona. The memos and meeting between Kennedy and Ben Gurion on Dimona (which are all published now) were relaxed. While Kennedy was concerned about proliferation, he was extremely concerned about China and German nukes, and couldn’t appear selective by allowing Israel’s program.
That probably explains why Eisenhower received 40% of the Jewish vote and Kennedy received 82%.
Dangumit WIlbur
That jew college boy has done whupped ya again. Get yer dang butt out of them silly nazi websites and start studying fer your GED or yer gonna fail agin!
By intellectual castration you mean posting a quote from a guy who was making fun of you, and the implied impression that you think that 2 goofballs in Axis for peace represent the entire European intelligence community?
Or is it just the more literal persistent fascination with my man junk that you’re talking about?
Wilburrrrr,
“LBJ gave up the extremely powerful position of Senate Majority Whip to take a go-nowhere position as Vice-President of the United States.”
How do you cram so many historical, political and common sense errors into one sentence?
LBJ didn’t give up the position of majority whip, he was Senate Majority Leader when he joined the JFK ticket you bonehead. How could you get that wrong? Oooo maybe “the mainstream media have deliberately ignored for decades” this fact. Jeezus you’re dumb.
Do you have any idea how many “no-where position Vice Presidents went on to become President of the U.S.? 14. And guess how many “extremely powerful” Senate Whips went on to become President? Better yet, ask any senator if they’d rather be the “extremely powerful” whip or the “go-nowhere” VP.
Holy guacamole your ignorance is breathtaking.
Howdy Wilbur!
It’s yer ol’ pal Vern hyuk yuk. I heard Pa Wilbur was a-hollarin’ cuz you failed yer GED test agin. Y’all need to borrow my course book? Hyuk yuk. See ya at the cross burnin’ tonite.
Yer pal
Vern
“The ancient principle, “Cui buono?”, still applies.”
Welcome y’all to the john thames aka wilbur sensor turkey shoot
To all my horses ass critics:
I suggest you get a copy of Alan Hart’s “Zionism: The Real Enemy Of The Jews: Volume Two, When David Becomes Goliath” and read the first few chapters. Relations between Kennedy and Israel were anything but “non-strained” over the issue of Dimona. When did I ever deny that that Eisenhower applied pressure over Israel’s occupation of Sinai in 1956? Yes, Kennedy did get 90% of the Jewish vote in the election. But they certainly did not trust him because of his father’s background. And yes, LBJ was put on the ticket at Zionist insistance to keep a watch on Kennedy.
The question of whether Johnson was Senate Majority leader or Senate Whip is incidental. The point is that he gave up a powerful position for a go nowhere position - and then conveniently was elevated to the presidency by an assassination. Johnson had always been in Zionism’s pocket from his first day in politics. It was his friend and later Supreme Court justice, Abe Fortas, who got those 200 dead Mexican votes for him in the 1948 Senatorial election counted after they were originally thrown out - by appealing to his friends on the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling. Johnson had been instrumental in getting Jews out of Germany in the 1930’s - the conductor Eric Leinsdorf being a good example. Then LBJ collaborated with his friend, Jim Novy, in illegally smuggling arms fom Texas to the Zionists in Palestine using United Fruit boxes packed with guns and munitions.
This is the man who made it to the presidency after Kennedy’s assassination. The assassination happened in Johnson’s home state - and LBJ was the man who most immediately and directly benefitted. Who was behind LBJ? The Zionists. Who gave Israel everything it wanted and covered up the USS Liberty attack afterward? LBJ. Naturally you guys don’t want to talk about any of this for obvious reasons. But the theory that the Jews killed JFK is as good as any - and better than most.
Wilburrrr,
“Relations between Kennedy and Israel were anything but “non-strained” over the issue of Dimona.”
All the memos, correspondence and meeting notes about Dimona are on the net bonehead. Relations between the US and Israel were excellent, and after Dimona, the Kennedy boys were adamant and open in their support for Israel.
The Kennedy administration marks a dramatic and positive reversal in policy from Eisenhower. Kennedy is revered in Israel, and by American Jews. How could you not know that?
“The question of whether Johnson was Senate Majority leader or Senate Whip is incidental.”
No its not, its one of a string of sloppy mistakes you always make. Your ignorance about simple geography, history and religion is astounding. It’s precisely your sloppy mistakes which lead you to your ridiculous conclusions. As they say: garbage in, garbage out.
“The assassination happened in Johnson’s home state - and LBJ was the man who most immediately and directly benefitted.”
So what’s your argument now, “cui buono” man, Johnson killed Kennedy?
Wilbur
Haw haw “cui buono” man, that’s a funny. He done got ya there Wilbur. Dag gum you gotta hand it to that jew boy he sure makes y’all look dum.
I thinks y’all might be needin my GED books agin.
Ronnie Boy:
You are incredibly stupid - as well as incredibly incapable of evaluating evidence. Lawyers refer to concepts known as “weight” and “relevance”. Your adolescent shit-for-brain cannot understand either of these concepts. Constantly you wish to make minor slips the test of an argument. Thus, if you can point out that Transjordan did have a port-on-the-sea or that LBJ was Senate Majority leader, rather than Majority Whip, you immediately pounce. But if you cannot refute the main point, namely that the Entente victors, in collaboration with academics and Jews, screwed up the map of Europe after WW1, then you have nothing to say. Similarly, since you cannot deny that Zionist Jews distrusted Kennedy because of his father and that they did put LBJ on the ticket to keep an eye on Kennedy, then you have nothing to say.
You remain a sophist, Ronnie Boy. And as to events in Dallas, police normally look for the guy with the most to gain from the commission of the crime as the primary suspect. In this case, the guy who most immediately gained was LBJ. Whose interests did Lyndon serve his entire life in politics? Why, the interests of the Zionists. Who gave them the green light for the war of aggression they launched in 1967? LBJ. Who covered up their act of war against an American ship? LBJ. Now please don’t tell me, Ronnie Boy, that evil, wicked, Gamel Abdel Nasser started the 1967 war by sending a few measley divisions into Sinai and fucking with the shipping in the Suez canal. Lots of Israeli diplomats and generals, including Menachem Begin, have admitted that Nasser was only bluffing and that his bluff gave the Israelis the excuse to launch a war they already had in mind. Read Hart, and other authors for confirmation. But please don’t quote me pseudo-historian, Dr. Oren.
Your knowledge of history is that of a reader of newspaper headlines, Ronnie Boy. You don’t know anything more about Kennedy’s relations with the Zionists, the maneuvers behind his presidential nomination, the background to the 1967 war or any other subject than you know about fake “gas chambers”, a mythical six million or two trade centers and a third building demolished on Larry Silverstein’s express instructions. You are a fucking idiot, Ronnie Boy - and a perfect product of a modern “educational” system.
Hey Wilbur, I may be “. . . a perfect product of a modern “educational” system” but it’s a hell of alot better than a nut job who thinks he has “vast historical acumen” but didn’t know the first income tax was passed decades before WW1; Transjordan had an outlet to the sea; LBJ was the Senate leader not the whip; that Kennedy marked the turn towards warm relations with Israel; that Hitler wrote about the “jewish problem” not Herzl etc etc etc
It’s no wonder you think israel killed kennedy, jews caused 911, there was no holocaust, can’t fathom evolution and Transjordan had no outlet to the sea. Face it, your just not knowledgable about history, geography, science and religion. I’d call your level of knowledge retarded, but I’d be insulting the mentally challeneged.
And yes I deny your allegation zionists didn’t trust Kennedy, they loved him, and today they revere him. Your allegation is the product of not knowing basic american history and politics.
Garbage in, garbage out.
“But if you cannot refute the main point”
A judge would be quick to point out that there is no main point if it’s all built on circumstantial evidence, and evidence that’s completely fabricated. You keep complaining that we’re focusing on the erroneous minutia in your posts. The reality here is that minutia is what you keep offering for discussion. Minutia is all you have to support your idiotic claims.
To put it simply, if your evidence was compelling, more people would believe it.
You made a wild claim that everyone in Europe believes that Zionists blew up the world trade center. You then backed up that claim by pointing to an Italian ex president who was making fun of you, and 2 washed up politicians who subscribe to the notion that America is to blame for everything wrong in the world. Is there something else to your claim that needs refuting? Some other evidence?
Anything at all?
Ron and Fangfuck:
Circumstantial evidence is used all the time to get convictions in courtroom proceedings - as you stupid little shits might know if you had ever been in a courtroom. Frequently that circumstantial evidence is far less compelling than in the case of 09/11 or Pearl Harbor, for example. Now, since poor little Fangfuck is fixated on the completely irrelevant fact of when the income tax first came into American life, the obiter dicta was preface to an essay in which I documented the organizing behavior of American Jews for a post-war peace conference, said organizing taking place in 1915 before the end of the war was in sight. Nowhere did stupid shit Fangfuck try to rebut the fact of the organizing or its plain implications; instead he screamed that the income tax first came in about the time of the Civil War under Lincoln. That point is not exactly relevant to the theme of the essay, is it?
Here we have the same nonsense from a dumb ass who strays off into irrelevancies every time he is confronted with a devastating rebuttal. Poor little Ronnie Boy confuses popular perception with reality. Despite the “Camelot” bullshit, Zionist leaders behind the scenes were initially very wary of Kennedy. They did not trust him at all. LBJ was the “keeper” demanded by the Zionists through Phil Graham as the price of the nomination. “Believe it or not”, Turkey brain.
Now, since this is a discussion of 09/11, perhaps you silly little asses can answer the following points.
Who stood to gain from the 09/11 attacks, if not precisely the Zionist Jews who used the attacks to justify a subsequent invasion of Iraq?
Who told Larry Silverstein to buy the twin towers and insure them against a “terrorist attack”, which then so fortuitously happened?
How did all the air defenses just happen to go dead just before the attacks?
How did the purported pilots develop such astonishing navigational skills in such a short time?
How did several of the alleged “terrorists” then turn up alive in other parts of the world?
Who sent that Indigo message alerting the Jews in the building to get out?
Why were seismographs of internal explosions inside the towers recorded by nearby seismographs before the two planes struck?
Why did the two buildings go down like the controlled demolition they were?
Who carted away the steel beams before they could be examined forensically for tell-tale stress marks caused by planted charges?
Who told “Lucky Larry” to pull down the third building on his cell phone and why was this not covered in the official report?
Why were those good old Jew boys jumping up and down with glee after the attack?
Why did fellow Jew and subsequent head of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff not tell the public what these Jews said after they were released back to Israel?
I won’t go on belaboring the obvious. If these questions do not give you a clue, listing additional examples would serve no purpose. By the way, where is the refutation of “09/11, Missing Links”?
“Circumstantial evidence is used all the time to get convictions in courtroom proceedings”
Sure it’s used. It’s coupled with direct evidence such as eye witness testimony, and forensic evidence. Circumstantial evidence requires corroborative evidence in order to be credible. You are missing the corroborative evidence.
Much of your rantings don’t even meet the burden of admissible circumstantial evidence. For example, you posted a quote from a guy who would directly refute your intent to show that he thought that Zionists were behind 9/11. No judge or jury would take your word over Francesco’s on the matter of whether Francesco thinks that Zionists were truly behind 9/11.
Your MO has been to make an argumentative statement. Everyone in Europe thinks Zionists did 9/11. This statement is used to support some other wild claim. In complete shock that you would make such an outlandish claim, others call you on it to prove such a thing.
You then vomit up a mass of three types of support for this statement. You offer fabricated evidence, such as the idea that a former Italian president thinks Zionists did it. You offer fallacious evidence, such as the idea that 2 politicians are representative of the entire European population. And you offer invective. We are all circumsized (sic) shit for brains because we don’t believe Zionists did 9/11. These three types of support combined do not prove that everyone in Europe thinks that Zionists did 9/11.
Your next move is to claim that we didn’t address the original claim that you supported with proven nonsense. But you’re wrong. We did address the original claim. It was supported by circumstantial evidence that was completely false, thus, it remains unproved.
“Now, since poor little Fangfuck is fixated on the completely irrelevant fact of when the income tax first came into American life”
You have me confused with someone else. There’s a shocker. You can’t even retell a story that took place, what, a month ago? Some historian you are.
“Who stood to gain from the 09/11 attacks, if not precisely the Zionist Jews who used the attacks to justify a subsequent invasion of Iraq?”
Not to quibble with a jew hating white supremicist but:
1 lots of various parties “stood to gain” with from the 9-11 attacks -namely, al Qaeda - who could demonstrate that they could strike at the heart of enemy, gained enormous support worldwide and many volunteers with their success on 9-11 and previous attacks against US targets.
2. I don’t know how the zionist jews gained anything from 9-11
3. zionist jews didn’t use 9-11 to justify an attack on Iraq and the last zionist jew attack on Iraq was in 1982. Since 1982 zionist jews have been far more concerned about Iran, it’s nuclear weapons buildup, their terrorist attacks against jewish targets worldwide, their support for Hezbollah and HAMAS, and destabilizing efforts in the arab world.
4. If memory serves me right (and let’s face it i’m a mere product of a modern “educational” system”)
a) it was that paragon of jewishness, rabbi George Bush, who ordered the attack on Iraq,
b) joined by several U.S. allies
c) not by israel
d) 9-11 wasn’t the justification of the Iraq war.
e) WMDs, support for terrorism, previous use of WMDs and violation of numerous UNSC resolutions were the justifications.
Face it, your just not knowledgable. It’s kind of sad to see your poor grasp of basic historical facts. It’s little wonder you reach absurd conclusions. Garbage in garbage out.
Don’t get me wrong, It’s fun watching you fail high school level history , geography, religion, and poli-sci 101, but deep down I feel sad giving you an F all the time.
Dear Ron and Fangfuck:
I can see that you two adolescent shit-for-brains actually do believe the nonsense that you write. In case you guys had not noticed, the United States invaded Iraq following 09/11. Why don’t you “educated “shit heads get a copy of Stephen Sniegowski’s book “The Transparent Cabal” and then tell me that it was George Bush, Jr. who was really behind the attack on Iraq. What nonsense. Equally nonsensical is the claim that the attack on Iraq was launched because of non-existent “weapons of mass destruction”. No one buys that one - except a total shit-head like Ron. As for violations of United Nations Security Council resolutions, dear old Israel has been doing that since 1948 to present with nary a declaration of war from anybody. As to Iraqi crimes, many of the “crimes” Sadaam Hussein committed during the 1980’s were done with our assistance and encouragement - back in the days when he was one of our allies. And we supplied him with the weapons he used. Or, have you two “history buffs” overlooked that? Idiot Ron claims that because Israel did not join the second Iraq war that therefore Israel’s lobby had nothing to do with the war. Ever hear of getting someone else to do your dirty work for you, lollipop brain? And, oh yes, Israel gained nothing from the two attacks on the twin towers. Really? Remember Netenyahu’s statement immediately following the two attacks that they “were very good for Israel”? Why do you think he made that statement? Does the Israeli PM have a grasp of political reality that Ronnie dick brain lacks? You utter stupid shit. Most Americans, according to major opinion polls, continue to believe that Iraq and Sadaam Hussein had something to do with the 09/11 attacks, although he provably did not. Still want to tell me that the US could have invaded Iraq a second time, but for 09/11?
Now for stupid shit, Fangfuck. Fangfuck claims that circumstantial evidence requires corroborative evdence. This, if you can believe it, from an imbecile who cannot correlate suppressed German camp records with forensic tests by several investigators that jibe with what the camp records say. This, from a fucking idiot, who cannot notice that huge numbers of well and alive Jews after a world war is inconsistent with the claim that “six million” of them were exterminated. This is the jackass who speaks of “corroration”. Do wonders never cease?
I notice that of all the questions I posted only one, about who benefitted from the 09/11 attacks was addressed, very feebly, by Ron the shit-head. All the others were ignored. Of course big, bad Al-Queda gained from the attacks. Al-Quaeda is nothing but a false flag for those too stupid to think - like Fangfuck and Ronnie dumb shit. The mysterious, all-powerful Al-Quaeds planned an operation right under the nose of the US government, developed miraculous flying skills never before seen, warned the Jews through Indigo to get out of the building (how considerate of them), shut down the security systems through the magic power of Allah (blessed be his name), planted explosive charges within the buildings without every Jew in New York catching on, told Larry Silverstein to buy the buildings beforehand and insure them from “terrorist attack” (special registered mail from Mecca, no doubt), and then hired all those Jews to jump up and down with glee at Al Quaeda’s “great success”. No doubt Al Quadea also appointed fellow Moslem Michael Chertoff to head Homeland Security, retained Dov Zackheim and Systems Planning Corporation to provide the remote control guidance systems to help out rookie Arab pilots and, of course, rigged seismographs at surrounding universities to record explosions within the two towers before the planes actually stuck the buildings. No doubt Al Quaeda also hired those fellow “Moslems” from Israel to attempt to blow up the Mexican Parliament several days later and used its awesome power to get the “Moslems” released the next day.
Hei the power of Allah - and, please, heil the “wisdom” of Ronnie Dick-Brain and Fuehrer Fangfuck who believe in this nonsense the same way they believe in “gas chambers” and reincarnated “survivors” down at the reparations office.
P.S. Boys.
Who fired the missle into the side of the Pentagon? And what happened to the dead bodies and missing wreckage of the plane that supposedly did it? Ask Allah. He believes in miracles - just like you two.
Hehe Wilbur “vast historical acumen”
“Who told Larry Silverstein to buy the twin towers and insure them against a “terrorist attack”, which then so fortuitously happened?”
Silverstein didn’t “buy” the twin towers you bonehead, he leased the WTC complex. How could you not know the difference between the two basic concepts. Are you that dumb?
Silverstein didn’t insure them against “terrorist attack” he was required under his lease - like every business lease in america - to purchase casualty insurance, which used to cover for terrorism.
You may be the only idiot who calls 9-11 fortuitous, as Silverstein lost the major chunk of his legal bid to collect on insurance to rebuild the towers, and is now stuck paying his lease even though he has no tenants.
It’s no wonder why you come to ridiculous conclusions, you have no grasp at all of historical, political, business, legal, religious or geographical facts. Garbage in garbage out.
“Why were those good old Jew boys jumping up and down with glee after the attack?”
Your confusing palestinians with “good old jew boys.” Although you’ve shown how jews and palestinians share genetic traits, they are in fact different.
The only jumping up and down with glee after the attack that I’m aware of was the glee shown by these palestinians dancing, singing, horn honking, and passing out candies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrM0dAFsZ8k
Are you going to suggest the palestinians did it?
I ain’t knowing what that jew college is gonna say about this, but I think your right on this son:
“Who told “Lucky Larry” to pull down the third building on his cell phone and why was this not covered in the official report?”
There just aint no way to explain their way out of that pickle. I’m proud of you son, you’re a real inspector Clouseau. By gum you’ve cracked the case!
Wilbur, right on the money (as always) keep up the good work!
“Who carted away the steel beams before they could be examined forensically for tell-tale stress marks caused by planted charges?”
The National Institute of Standards and Technology investigated the steel. They have a thorough report of their years long, in-depth, forensic analysis of the steel recovered from WTC - with colorful pictures, maps, drawings and microscopic images.
Oh and a report with a whole bunch of words and stuff too.
Imagine that, you were wrong on basic historical facts.
Who’d of thunk it?
“corroration”
What in the world is that, and when did I speak of it?
I spoke of corroboration. Your evidence must fit together to tell a story; your story. It doesn’t. Man, your whole world view is supported on a flimsy stack of cards that’s built from the top down. There’s no base for these things that you are saying. When we point that out, you accuse us of attacking minutia, but the bottom line is you did not prove your claims. Suppressed German camp records do not jive with forensic tests. You don’t have suppressed records. You don’t have a credible test. It’s all a fantasy that you’ve created in your mind, Wilbur. You can’t just keep repeating them and expect us to just give up and believe them.
This new batch of questions you asked are all founded in this fantasy land. No one ordered WTC7 demolished. The steel was examined forensically. Jews didn’t gain from the attack. The U.S. didn’t gain financially from the invasion of Iraq, nor did Israel. But as we tear down this house of cards from the bottom, you still claim to stand at the top unshaken. You still claim that we didn’t address “the big picture.” but we did and do. Your big picture is colored in with crayons that don’t exist, Wilbur. We have continually shown that they don’t.
Now the only question is whether you know they exist or not. Do you know you’re peddling disinformation, or do you think you’re speaking truth? Are you fake but accurate, John?
I don’t know. I do know that the more you fight here, the more we can see that it’s an illusion that you’ve created for yourself. Is it a willful delusion that allows you to cling to your belief that you are better than someone else? Does it stem from a profound sense of inadequacy and self loathing? Do you project those traits that you hate about yourself onto others, so that you don’t have to feel responsible for them?
Wilburrrrrr
“As for violations of United Nations Security Council resolutions, dear old Israel has been doing that since 1948 to present with nary a declaration of war from anybody.”
What security council resolutions.
‘Why were those good old Jew boys jumping up and down with glee after the attack?’
It seems that no matter how hard you try to nail a lie, some moron is going to continue to repeat it. And I see that Mr Thames is still refusing to take his meds.
http://www.911myths.com/html/dancing_israelis.html
http://www.nocturne.org/~terry/wtc_4000_Israeli.html
Mr Thames says that the planes were flown by remote control into the WTC towers. That lie is refuted here:
http://www.911myths.com/Remote_Takeover.pdf
He says that a missile was fired at the Pentagon, and there was no plane. Another lie that’s easily dismissed:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary
It seems that Mr Thames has now grown tired of spreading myths about his beloved Nazis, and he’s decided to do the same about 9/11.
THE OPPOSITION THAT ALWAYS FAILS
How little Americans know of the anti-Zionist struggles that have taken place within the departments of their own government. When John Kennedy became president of the United States he sent around to his State Department a memorandum which stated that “just because we got 90% of the Jewish vote, does not mean we are in the Jews pocket”. Kennedy early in his regime attempted a solution of the Palestinian refugee problem on the basis of resolution 194 of the United Nations, which held that the refugees had a right to return to Palestine or be compensated financially if they chose not to return. The early effort failed. However, shortly before his assassination in November 1963 in Dallas, Kennedy was once again planning a comprehensive solution of the Palestinian refugee problem based on resolution 194. He died shortly thereafter. Was there a connection? It is true that Kennedy agreed to sell Hawk Surface-To-Air missiles to Israel, a reversal of the Eisenhower administrations policy. However, he did this only in exchange for Israel agreeing to a phony inspection of its nuclear reactor in Dimona. Zionists within the Kennedy administration, such as Myer Feldman and the billionaire hosiery manufacturer, Abe Feinberg, vehemently objected, Feinberg even threatening to withdraw his much needed financial support if Kennedy did not “back off”. In December 1962 Kennedy held a meeting with Israeli foreign minister Golda Meir, in which he told her very bluntly that U.S. support for Israel was a two-way street – and that the departure of Zionist hard-liner David Ben-Gurion from office would be highly desirable in terms of improving U.S.-Israel relations.
Richard Nixon as U.S. president went to Israel’s rescue in the 1973 Yom Kippur war. Yet as the debacle of Watergate descended upon him in his second term of office there were signs that he was getting fed up with Israeli intransigence. Nixon sent general Vernon Walters, Deputy director of the CIA, to hold private talks with two PLO representatives, Khalad Hassan and Majed Abu Sharar in April 1974. Walters came back very impressed with the Palestinian position and so reported to Nixon. In June, shortly before his resignation from office, Nixon toured the Middle East. He harshly criticized the Israeli policy of never ending war with the Arabs, saying: “…some might say in this country and many of our very good friends in the Jewish community of the United States are saying it now, let’s go back to the old days. Just give us the arms and we can lick all of our enemies and all of the rest. I don’t think that’s a policy. I don’t think that is viable for the future… time will run out.” Nixon also wrote a letter to King Feisal in which he stated: “Your Majesty, trust me that I will realize justice for the Palestinians.” As of August 6, 1974 Nixon was turning down a request for long-term military aid for Israel. Moreover, he had instructed Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to prepare an order cutting off all military supplies to Israel until Israel was prepared to make peace on the basis of U.N. resolution 242, requiring withdrawal from all occupied territories. On August 9, 1974, Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment. The timing speaks for itself.
Again and again, one finds U.S. presidents planning to take action against Israel and its lobby – only to be stymied, again and again, by circumstances and the usual pressures. These pressures remain totally unknown to the average citizen – and are blacked out by the Zionist controlled media. But to read the record is to know what force controls the American government.
The Counterknowledge lie team is at it again.
Mr. Welch, who cannot even read historical accounts of Jewish commissars, now posts a supposed refutation of remote control planes. I doubt he understands one word of it. I am sure I don’t. Welch apparently believes that Arabs mastered flight capabilities beyond those possessed by professional pilots to fly two major airliners through New York Cities skyscrapers to collide dead on into two buildings. And those Israelis jumping up and down with glee. Why, they were just observing something they just happened to witness. Perfect timing!
The other idiots tell me that poor Larry Silverstein did not gain anything from the takedowns. Most amazing! I read that he reached a two billion dollar settlement with his insurers. And of course there was no suppression of German camp records at Auschwitz. That is why all the records disappeared into the interior of the Soviet Union for fifty years after the end of the war.
As usual I am accused of psychologicasl problems by nitwits who cannot even see the obvious in front of their face. Genius of the ivory tower Welch tells me that a plane hit the side of the Pentagon. Gee, I remember seeing photos of the lawn on the initial news reports. There was no plane wreckage and no dead bodies. Highly unusual for a “plane crash”. Keep on lying, boys. You are convincing no one.
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/Missile-Not-Flight-77.html
No missle, right?
“Gee, I remember seeing photos of the lawn”
That’s how all the great forensic investigations are conducted. They look at some photos in Newspapers, and deliver their opinion. Good work John. You’re a scientist now!
“Most amazing! I read that he reached a two billion dollar settlement with his insurers.”
You read wrong. It was more than that. But that doesn’t really prove that he gained, does it? Larry’s bid to the port authority for the lease was worth more than 3.2 billion. He insured for 3.5 billion.
He then payed 100 million a year in rent, so that he could collect how much in sublease? How much the lease itself worth currently? Had he tried to sell it? You know that he still has the lease and pays on it despite there being no buildings there? He’s still stuck with the bill despite the fact that most of the money from the insurance companies has been sunk into the design phase of new construction?
How much does a 100+ story building cost to build exactly? Do you know?
“And of course there was no suppression of German camp records at Auschwitz.”
What I find interesting is that you know what’s on these suppressed documents. That white cross burning hood must give you psychic powers. It’s also interesting that the German records are super complete and never mention anything about endlosung der judenfrage, except where you’re missing evidence, and then they are suppressed. And we all know that they are suppressed by the Russians who came in and took them, and not by the Germans who burnt them before the Russians got there.
“I doubt he understands one word of it. I am sure I don’t.”
You don’t understand the intricacies of flight, so therefor no one else can? That’s quite an ego you have there.
Fangfuck is a real genius.
He has never bothered to read any of the revisionist literature on what the German records really do say, but he just knows that they’ve been doctored. What does one do with with an adolescent idiot like this?
No comment I see on U.S. Israel relations. As usual, total silence on the facts.
“he just knows that they’ve been doctored”
I didn’t say anything about anything being doctored. I pointed out that you claim that there are records that have been suppressed, and you claim to know what’s on those records. This is not evidence, John. It is a figment of your imagination. Even if records have been suppressed, your claim to know what they say is nothing but a fantasy.
“No comment I see on U.S. Israel relations.”
Your so called facts are suppositions that you’ve strung together on innuendo and concocted evidence (like your suppressed documents) The only comment required is that you are incorrect in your analysis. That’s because I addressed the evidence you use to support that analysis.
U.S. / Israel relations are going where they should…into the shitter.
Many people are waking up to the attempted sinking of the U.S.S. Liberty and the DELIBERATE MURDER of 34 of its crewmen.
Not to mention the Lavon Affair, The U.S.S. Cole and other scumbaggery.
Try and tell me again how the U.S.S. Liberty was a “mistake”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyVy5XHjuGI&feature=player_embedded
Occupation 101–U.S. Aid to Israel
The Invention of the Jewish People
A sizable portion of my research has been aimed at those people and institutions throughout history who have automatically taken the word of self-described “Jews” that they are in fact descendants of the Jews on the Bible, based on the following “evidence”: their own say so. (Historically, the Catholic Church fell particularly hard for this masquerade).
Their say-so has never been enough for this writer and I am shocked at how entire theological and political architectures have been erected around the baseless assumption that Israelis, Zionists, and Talmudists from Brooklyn, are certainly the descendants of the Jews of the Bible.
Has anyone read Rev. 2:9? Rev. 3:9?
In autumn, Verso Press will publish in English, Shlomo Sand’s The Invention of the Jewish People. (400 pages. Cloth ISBN-13: 978 1 84467 422 0. US$34.95)
Sand is a historian at the University of Tel Aviv. He demonstrates that today’s “Jews” are mostly not the descendants of Biblical Israelites. They are descended in large part from Khazars who converted to rabbinic Talmudism (”Judaism”).
Oops.
The Oscar-winning composer behind ‘You Light Up My Life’ raped 11 women he lured to his apartment with the promise of a starring role in a movie, prosecutors said today.
The women read an online ad placed by director, Joseph Brooks, applied for the audition ‘and thought this was their chance to become a big star,’ prosecutor Lisa Friel said.
Instead, once the women were in Brooks’ Manhattan apartment, he plied them with wine and forcibly raped them or used threats and coercive behavior to make them have sex with him, prosecutors said.
Brooks, 71, denied the accusations. He pleaded not guilty in Manhattan’s state Supreme Court, where he is being tried for 91-counts and charged with rape, criminal sexual act, sexual abuse, assault and other charges. He faces up to 25 years in prison if convicted of first-degree rape.
Justice Charles Solomon set bail at $500,000 bond or $250,000 cash bail and gave Brooks until Thursday to post it. The judge told Brooks not to leave town without letting the court know.
Fangfuck:
Since you are too stupid to see through official lies like the 09/11 report, how would you know a verifiable fact if you tripped over one? Read Paul Craig Roberts:
http://vdare.com/roberts/070326_evidence.htm
As to the information contained in my esaay, try reading “Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jewish People, Volume Two: David Becomes Goliath”, from which the information is taken. You might learn something.
Hanover:
A word of caution. I don’t like movieland scumbags either but the behavior described by the prosecution sounds much more like seduction than rape to me. Using wine and promises to get women into bed may or may not be ethical, according to one’s point of view, but calling it “rape” is a feminist invention. I would wait for the facts to come out on this one.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Nuclear-Weapons-Key-to-Isr-by-Grant-F-Smith-090619-659.html
More reading for “Counterfacts” stupid fucks.
Granpa Thames
You said that all the western intelligence agencies believe that the jews were behind 911.
I suggested that if you could not provide a list you were a liar or mentally ill. I see that you have failed miserably. Therefore, you have proved my point. Which one are you?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
What an idiot you are…I’m just sat here laughing at you….though I know I should not really laugh at the mentally ill.
For centuries, Jewish elites have been trying to rewrite world history to paint a ‘peaceful Jewishness’ mask, thanks to their monopoly over media and banking institutions. However, many moral Jewish writers have exposed this ‘anti-Semitism’ myth. For example, Rabbi Michael Lerner wrote in Tikkun Magazine: “The media has been abuzz with stories of Jews denouncing former President Jimmy Carter for his book ‘Palestine: Peace or Apartheid’. The same charges of anti-Semitism that have consistently been launched against anyone who criticize Israeli policy is being launched against the one American leader who managed to create a lasting peace between Israel and a major Arab State (Egypt). Instead of seriously engaging with the issues raised, the Jewish establishment and media responds by attacking the people who raise these (racism, apartheid, mass killing, etc.) or any other critiques – shifting the discourse to the legitimacy of the messenger and thus avoiding the substance of criticism…..”
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/israels-roots-of-anti-semitism-racism-and-communism/
The free ride may be coming to an end.
http://jewise.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/typhus-the-killer-in-the-camps-the-true-story-of-the-gas-chambers/
The only gas chambers in existence are the mouths of Welchy, Fung, Lee and Ron…Willy H hasn’t mumbled enough to qualify.
Lee:
Try sucking your dick on line.
Hanover and I have been exposing Jewish lies since this debate began. You would not know a “lie” if you saw one- how could you? - when all you do is swallow them hook, line and sinker.
Try sucking your dick online? What does that even mean? Is that something “revisionists” do to prove that the Jews are liars?
My comments on Thames’ lies about 9/11 have not been cleared, so I won’t repeat them:
‘He has never bothered to read any of the revisionist literature …’
That’s right, brownshirt. He hasn’t, I haven’t, and no one else has outside your demented circle. No one reads ‘revisionist literature’ (and I’m glad you’ve admitted that its all fictional and concocted by calling it ‘literature’) in the same way that no one drinks bleach or eats putrefying food.
Aside from the fact that the only defenders of Holocaust Denial and 9/11 conspiracy theories are two retards who think that potty-mouthed insults and screams of abuse are a substitute for reasoned and informed argument, I cannot think of much else to say, except that Mr Bradley (the original source of this thread) can no longer deny that the ‘truth’ movement attracts the scum of the earth like a magnet attracts iron filings.
Ha No Ver
“Instead of seriously engaging with the issues raised, the Jewish establishment and media responds by attacking the people … shifting the discourse to the legitimacy of the messenger and thus avoiding the substance of criticism…..”
Carter said he wrote the apartheid book to stimulate debate, but when on his book tour he was repeatedly asked to engage in debate, he repeatedly refused to debate.
Carter was also attacked for using maps and other information that was copyrighted without permission or knowledge of the original authors.
Carter was also attacked because his book misstated what happened in meetings and how his book differed from the notes and minutes of the meetings.
In other words, Carter was attacked because of the substance of his criticism - his book misstated facts about meetings, appropriated copywrited information and he refused to debate the substance of what he claims.
Oh, and being a paid employee of the most powerful lobbying group on capitol hill - the saudis - didn’t help.
Welchy…conversely, you can no longer deny that the ‘debunker’ movement isn’t indunated with the dumbest bastards known to retards.
“No one reads revisionist literrature”…then why are you tools so up in arms about it? If it’s all just a bunch of hooey, let people call bullshit with they see it…the problem here is that you’re standing in a mirror and yelling BULLSHIT!
Ron…two words - OCTOBER SURPRISE.
Oh dear…let’s see some of these “mistated times and dates”…otherwise, you’re boring me with the same bunch of bushwah…
My ctitics become ever more pathetic.
Mr. Welch should be promoted to Professor Emeritus of Higher Stupidity as soon as possible. He has certainly earned it. Ron becomes more inane by the minute. Now he is accusing ex-president Carter of misquoting minutes of meetings and misappropriating maps. I am glad to know that I am not the only “distorter” of historical facts. It is so lonely to be the only one doing it. As for the Saudis having the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill, I can only laugh. The NRA and the AMA, not to mention AIPAC, are more powerful by far.
Hanover is entirely correct. The other side wishes to evade the substance of the issues at all costs. It is self-evident why. Mr. Welch accuses me of being a brownshirt. I have never advocated National Socialism and do not advocate it now, a fact that Mr. Welch simply ignores. Most of my reading is done in academic reference works, particularly Jewish ones. How amusing that I have actually done the research that liscenced quack Joseph Welch has not. One need not be an academic to do historical research. Some of the best historical writing has come from non-academics. Just try reading Patrick Buchanan’s: “Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War”, Mr. Welch. You might learn something. Or, you might try reading Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s “Two Hundred Years Together” in its French translation. You undoubtedly know how. There is no need whatever to read Holocaust Denial, if it perturbs you so greatly.
The attempted rebuttals of documented facts by my opponents, on 09/11 and every other issue, are almost pathetically laughable. Thus, Mr. Welch trots out the nonsensical NTSB report on 09/11 as “proof” that there were no internal explosions within the trade centers. Laughable. He ignores the opinions of thousands of reputable scientists and engineerrs on 09/11 the same way he ignores Leuchter, Luftl and Rudolf on “gas chambers”. Truly, those who have degrees and credentials do not have to face facts they do not like.
Ron and Fangbeer I simply ignore. They have no reasoning ability and cannot be expected to have any. But Mr. Welch truly offends me. Educators are entrusted with the education of tender minds. They have a professional duty to impart the mechanics of thinking to their pupils. They are obligated to be widely read, knowledgeable and as accurate as possible. Mr. Welch, a pretentious ass, fails in his professional duties on all counts. He knows nothing while thinking he knows everything, he cannot disprove easily verifiable information on disproportionate Jewish involvement in communism, he ignores the abundantly documented statements of leading British statesmen on why they issued the Balfour declaration, he pretends that the Zionist movement did not constantly pressure British statesmen to achieve its aims in Palestine, he ignores the innumerable lies that the English told about the First World War, he refuses to read English revisionist historians like Charmley and Irving on WW2, and he cannot deal with provable chemical and forensic facts on German labor camps.
Of course, it would be totally unfair to single out Mr. Welch as unique. He is an all too typical example of the kind of intellectual whore who proliferates at our institutions of higher stupidity. For that very reason, he is worth taking apart ruthlessly. Mr. Welch has zero knowledge of either primary sources such as documents or secondary sources such as reference works. Not merely does he dismiss revisionist volumes as not to his liking, he also ignores information, “admissions against interest”, as the lawyers put it, from reference works of his own side. Thus, the erudite Mr. Welch will claim that there is no evidence for deep Jewish involvement in communism when, in fact, dozens of reference works by Jewish authors show that there was such involvement. He will claim that Zionism exercised no international power during the pre-Israel days - and then ignore the enormous international pressure that was exercised at Lake Success in New York during the partition of Palestine resolution. He can’t even read the documented statements of President Harry Truman about the enormous Jewish pressure that was exerted on him - and how he sold out to get Jewish votes and money. Presumably, he reads Roberta Wohlstetter, Gordon Prange and Donald Goldstein on Pearl Harbor - and dismisses George Morgenstern, Harry Elmer Barnes, John Toland, Percy Greaves, Frederic Sanborn, James J. Martin and others as “revisionist quacks”.
Joseph Welch is such an enlightened, well-informed man. No doubt he has consulted Eugene Lyons and Malcolm Muggeridge on the outrageous pro-Sovietism of the 1930’s. Undoubtedly he had read James J. Martin’s magisterial two volume hisory “American Liberalism and World Politics”, documenting the double-think and circular stupidities of intellectuals such as himself between the two world wars. He harps constantly on the need to do “research” - and yet he has never consulted a single one of the thousands of intelligence reports post-WW1 on Jewish involvement in communism - nor has he bothered to consult the overflowing evidence of coercion and distortion that was employed at Nuremberg to reach pre-determined conclusions.
Anyone can be forgiven lack of knowledge. But for a supposedly educated man to sneer at those who have sought and found knowledge - because their researches offend his world view - those are the attitudes of a bigot and a charlatan hiding behind his credentials. Mr. Joseph Welch is precisely such a bigot. He should be drummed out of his profession, never to be heard from again.
“He ignores the opinions of thousands of reputable scientists and engineerrs on 09/11 the same way he ignores Leuchter, Luftl and Rudolf on “gas chambers””
Thousands, huh? Should I take that to mean the same as when you say “everyone in Europe?”
I don’t know about Joseph, but I did not ignore Leuchter. I pointed out that he was wrong. I explained why he was wrong. I provided access to studies that directly support my claims. I pointed out that his study, and his opinion of that study was thrown out of a court of law as being of “no greater value than that of an ordinary tourist”
Your only defense was that 2 other people agree with him, and that I was circumsized (sic). You did not resolve the issues that have been raised with why he was wrong, nor did the other two dudes. I suspect this is because, as you stated regarding controlled flight, you didn’t understand a word of what you were talking about.
But we’re idiots for not agreeing with something that you don’t understand.
I note that Joseph addressed each of your wild 9/11 claims in the same way I addressed Leuchter. Many of them before you even claimed them here. Here on Counterknowledge Joseph’s been documenting and responding to a hoard of so called truthers, with your questions not exactly being groundbreakingly new to the discussion.
When you get bored of accusing us of ignoring you, perhaps you’ll take a moment to read them.
Fangfuck:
As I’ve pointed out before, you are actually stupid enough to believe what you write. Pathetic.
I read your so-called refutations of Leuchter, Luftl, Rudolf, et. al. with amusement - and devastatingly destroyed your apologetics. You claimed that the reason that only minute (infintesimal, actually) traces of hydrogen cyanide residue were found in the so-called “gas chambers” was because so much less Zyklon B was needed to kill bugs than humans. When I pointed out to you that the “witnesses” to the “gassings” all said that huge amounts of Zyklon B were poured into the chambers, you had nothing to say in response - and still don’t. Apparently you argue that:
(1) The witnesses are tha absolute proof that “gassings” occured
and
(2) that the witnesses cannot be trusted on a key point of testimony because that would destroy your camoflauge.
Kinda want your “logic” both ways, don’t you, jerk brain?
You ignore that the two defenders of Leuchter were not two stray individuals but highly trained scientists, one with many years of testifying in court cases as president of the Viennese Society of Engineers and the other a very skilled chemist with impeccable credentials (the thing you accuse Leuchter of lacking).You further ignore the out-and-out fraud committed by the Polish scientist who also found precisely the same abscence of cyanide in the so-called “gas chambers” - and who then fudged his results to get the conclusion he wanted. Then, you came up with the hocus-pocus that the Prussian Blue failed to form because it supposedly doesn’t combine with the plastics on the wall surfaces. Then you claimed that exposure to the elements washed away the Prussian Blue - ignoring all the documented cases that Rudolf came up with showing that Prussian Blue resists the elements quite nicely.
You never stop lying, do you, Fangfuck?
And oh yes, those court cases that just “prove” everything. Just like the discredited 09/11 report “proves” what happened to rwo towers. True, the questions I have been possing are not exactly new. But neither are the fraudulent “answers” you and ivory tower liar, Joseph Welch, have been posting in rebuttal.
I can’t wait until Welch gets done with his utterly exhausting ten hour a week teaching schedule to read what I wrote about his pseudo-scholarship. I predict he will be foaming at the mouth and shitting in his pants - like the official hirstory lie boy he is.
A RIGHTEOUS JEW
Jews have done so much evil over the centuries that it is difficult to believe that there is any good in any of them. But there are always a few. One of the most intellectually honest Jews around is the Toronto Sun columnist Eric Margolis. Mr. Margolis is only half-Jewish but he nevertheless exemplifies the principle that an individual Jew may have merit. Jewish or not, Margolis is the rarest of public commentators – a man who actually knows what he is talking about. The average journalist knows nothing of the past as he lies about the present. Eric Margolis has actually studied history – and knows what is being covered up. Thus, Margolis will candidly acknowledge that Soviet communism was a disproportionately Jewish movement. He is also honest enough to admit that it was precisely the Jewish involvement that got all Jews into trouble.
Eric Margolis is not a reflexive anti-Nazi like so many of his colleagues. As a former teacher of military history, he writes frequently with admiration for the fighting prowess of the Wehrmacht. He is also something of a historical revisionist. Margolis has written columns pointing out that the German army was basically destroyed on the eastern front by the Red army and that the D-Day invasion had little effect on the ultimate outcome of the war. He further emphasizes that the military performance of the Americans and British against the Germans was actually not too good. Despite having overwhelming numerical superiority and complete command of the air and sea, it took the allies over forty-four weeks to cross the same territory that the Germans crossed in only six weeks in 1940. The German divisions in France were badly under strength and had totally inadequate tank support. Despite this, the Germans because of superior determination and fighting skills caused the invading armies the severest difficulties.
Eric Margolis is not going to challenge the holy of holies, the so-called Holocaust. That would be extremely imprudent, given the proliferation of “hate” and thought crimes laws in Canada. But he does candidly admit that the Holocaust is being misused for political purposes. One reason Jews do not like to hear about the Ukrainian famine and other Soviet atrocities where millions died is that it would detract from the uniqueness of the alleged “six million”. (The other reason they do not like to hear about it is that the killers were mainly Jews in commissar’s uniforms.) Margolis also denies that the Holocaust in any way justifies Israel’s mistreatment of the Palestinian of the Palestinian Arabs. Unlike so many journalists who quail before the power of the Zionist lobby Eric Margolis, the Jew, candidly admits that his fellow Jews who colonized Palestine from the Arabs are in the wrong. Again and again, he condemns the Israelis for their brutal oppressions, including the recently concluded massacre in Gaza. Margolis condemns Palestinian violence too but never loses sight of the fundamental problem – a Jewish state squatting on stolen Arab land.
There are many other positive aspects to the writings of Eric Margolis. He rejects the war on terror as basically bogus and rightly emphasizes the amazing hypocrisies of U.S. policies. Thus, he notes that the same Mujhadeen in Afghanistan that the U.S. now condemns as “terrorists” were considered by the Reagan administration as “freedom fighters” against the Soviet invaders of Afghanistan back in the 1980’s. The same Sadaam Hussein who was hung by the Americans as a “criminal” was a CIA agent of America during the 1970’s and 1980’s – committing with our assistance and instigation the very actions we later labeled crimes. Margolis writes with amazing acumen on the economic insanity of both the Bush and Obama administrations. The United States are effectively bankrupt, Americans have no savings – and yet, America continues to fight wars and police the world as though it was still the richest nation on earth.
Eric Margolis, in short, is a beacon of truth and common sense in a profession usually noted for its Walter Duranty style intellectual prostitution. (And yes, Margolis has mentioned Duranty while writing on the Ukrainian famine.) While it would be going too far to contend that Eric Margolis tells the truth about everything, he is so far above the other members of his profession in historical acumen and intellectual integrity that he should be regarded as the rare treasure of truthfulness that he is.
Ha No Ver
I said Carter misstated fact, not “mistated times and dates.”
Carter wrote on p. 57: “The 1949 armistice demarcation lines became the borders of the new nation of Israel and were accepted by Israel and the United States, and recognized officially by the United Nations.”
This is false. The “1949 armistice” line did not become the “accepted” borders of Israel.
Carter wrote on p. 215 that “[An option for Israel is] withdrawal to the 1967 border specified in UN Resolution 242 and as promised in the Camp David Accords and the Oslo Agreement.”
This is false. The 1967 armistice lines were not drawn as permanent borders; they were cease-fire lines.
Carter wrote on p. 62: “The Israelis have never granted any appreciable autonomy to the Palestinians.”
This is false. After the Oslo Accords of 1993 the Palestinians achieved control of political, civic, security, medical and media institutions in all of Gaza and 40% of the West Bank.
Carter wrote on p. 148 (using copyrighted maps from Dennis Ross) [that the maps are] “Palestinian Interpretation of Clinton’s Proposal 2000″ and “Israeli Interpretation of Clinton’s Proposal 2000.”
Carter mislabeled the maps. Dennis Ross, who was there and drew up the original version of the maps said Carter got it backwards, the ”Palestinian interpretation” was from an Israeli map presented during the Camp David summit meeting in July 2000, while the ”Israeli interpretation” is an approximation of what President Clinton subsequently proposed in December 2000.
Carter wrote on p. 121 that “[an] Israeli settler uses five times as much water as a Palestinian neighbor, who must pay four times as much per gallon.
That is false. Sharif Elmusa, the water negotiator for the Palestinians, said Palestinians in the West Bank pay approximately $1 per CM for domestic water, “virtually identical with the price in Israel.”
There are many more, so many in fact, that Carter has promised to have the book re-published to get rid of all of the mistakes.
And all of these historical misstatements have nothing to do with the bigger criticism of his ignoring terrorism, and the effect the most powerful lobbying group in America has had on his opinions.
“When I pointed out to you that the “witnesses” to the “gassings” all said that huge amounts of Zyklon B were poured into the chambers”
This is no argument. It’s an anecdote. What’s a huge amount? How do you apply a witness’s description of a huge amount to a quantity in an experiment? You don’t even argue about the difference between the amounts used on bugs and humans. You just argue that a huge amount was used? That is far from a devastating rebuttal.
“Apparently you argue that:
(1) The witnesses are tha absolute proof that “gassings” occured
and
(2) that the witnesses cannot be trusted on a key point of testimony because that would destroy your camoflauge.”
Either you didn’t understand the argument, or you are willfully misrepresenting it. I did not argue either of those things. I argued that Leuchter did not perform a credible study of the site. I argued that his hypothesis was wrong, his procedure was wrong, and his conclusion was wrong. While were on the subject of avoiding arguments, on those topics, you did not respond. Leuchter assumed that more cyanide should have been found in human gassing areas, and he assumed that it should have been found in a compound (prussian blue) that would not have been expected to form in the environment consistent with a human gassing chamber. These are the fundamental problems with his hypothesis that I addressed, and that you “avoided.”
“You further ignore the out-and-out fraud committed by the Polish scientist who also found precisely the same abscence of cyanide in the so-called “gas chambers””
I guess I did ignore that, because it’s not the case. Cyanide was found in all locations predicted, and not found in the rest of the camp areas. I did not see evidence that data was “fudged”, nor did you present any.
“Then you claimed that exposure to the elements washed away the Prussian Blue”
I did not claim this. I claimed that cyanide exposure weakly penetrates concrete. I claimed that it is not inherent for this weak penetration of cyanide to form prussian blue in all environments. I claimed that other cyanide compounds are water soluble and therefor much more sensitive to factors like weather exposure.
“ignoring all the documented cases that Rudolf came up with showing that Prussian Blue resists the elements quite nicely.”
Oh yes, your other two experts. Rudolf did show that Prussian blue resists elements. That was never up for debate. The argument over whether Prussian blue is a valid indicator for cyanide detection given the process used to expose the concrete to that cyanide. The verdict is that it is not. Markiewicz showed this in his report by actually testing the formation of Prussian blue on the sample concrete. (something Leuchter did not do). Your argument that Prussian Blue forms when all concrete exposed to cyanide in all circumstances is fallacious. Just because it formed in the delousing chambers, that does not necessarily mean that it should have formed in the gassing chambers.
“And oh yes, those court cases that just “prove” everything.”
They are pretty weighty evidence that you have no clue what you are talking about. After all, your only defense is that judges have to be obedient to their Jewish masters, or some such nonsense.
Wilburrrrrrr,
It’s little wonder you get everything wrong all the time, garbage in, garbage out.
“As a former teacher of military history.”
Margolis maintains a website in his own name, and has a biography on this website. Nowhere in his own biography, does he claim to ever have been a teacher of military history.
“Eric Margolis has actually studied history.”
How do you know that? What did he study in college? Where? What does he have a degree in?
Here are some gems from “one of the most intellectually honest Jews around.”
On Syria:
Syria brought back order and stability to Lebanon.
Interesting, in that Syria funds hezbolla a state within a state that recently attacked the sunni, the christian and druzim of beirut in order to take control of Beirut, and probably assasinated it’s former prime minister.
On Arafat:
Arafat “may have been murdered by an untraceable toxin brought to Israel from KGB’s Moscow labs.
Uh huh. Israel, which lacks the expertise to defend itself, went to the bastion of anti-palestinian support - the Russians! - to get a weapon to kill arafat, because after all, Israel couldn’t concoct something themselves they aren’t that advanced and could never kill Arafat.
Oh wait, on Israel:
Israel is manufacturing biological weapons that are specifically designed to attack the cells of victims with “distinctive Arab genes.” “Israel was developing this hideous weapon in the Nes Ziona [sic] plant outside of Tel Aviv .”
Oh I guess Israel is that advanced!
On Iran:
Ayatollah Khomeini possessed “enormous moral stature” and showed the world that “ideas and faith were more powerful than police states.”
Thank the ayatollah for their enormous moral stature, without that they wouldn’t have a police state!
On Libya:
The Libyans’ 1986 bombing of a Berlin discotheque, were in reality perpetrated by the Israelis in order to discredit Qaddafi.
Israel needed to do that of course because Libya was so well thought of in the West!
It’s little wonder you praise Margolis as a “righteous jew” he is not jewish.
Grandpa Thames
“Hanover and I have been exposing Jewish lies since this debate began.”
I said you were a liar OR mentall ill. I think you are primarily mentally ill, a side effect of which is lying.
Come on then, your list of all the intelligence agencies that believe the jews were behind 911….
…is it a very long list and that is why it is taking you so long to compile it? Or is it so short there is nothing on it?
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha …….
Well, “Disinformation.com” , (otherwise known as “Counterknowledge.com”) is at it again. Now the professional liars are trying to claim that the abscence of Prussian Blue in the mythical “gas chambers” is explained by the fact that Prussian Blue (which rapidly combines with oher surfaces) supposedly only “weakly penetrates” the concrete of the walls of the “gas chambers”. Next, I get the sophistical nonsense that “a lot” of hydrogen cyanide is a vague, unmeasurable quantity. (”What is the meaning of is?” - Bill Clinton) All this horseshit has already been destroyed by Germar Rudolf. Go join the O.J. defense team, Fangfuck.
Now for pussyboy, Ron.
Ron needs a new job title - professional quibbler.That is really all Ronnie boy is good for. When one reviews his latest round of bullshit he argues profundities like the difference between armistice boundaries and borders of a permanent state, details of maps and like nonsense - just as he argues with me over the locations of ports on the Red sea. Then he tries to pretend that Israel cannot defend itself when all it has been doing since 1948 is stealing more and more Arab land. Next, he poo-poo’s the idea that Israel sets up incidents and tries to pin them on others. Apparently he has never heard of the Lavon affair in 1953-1954 or the USS Libert incident in 1967. Real research, Ronnie Boy.
The other side is completely out of ammunition. They can only resort to the same tired arguments, again and again. As for Eric Margolis, I find more truth in any of his columns than I find in any of the upsidfe down think bullshit that you guys write.
“Now the professional liars are trying to claim that the abscence of Prussian Blue in the mythical “gas chambers” is explained by the fact that Prussian Blue (which rapidly combines with oher surfaces) supposedly only “weakly penetrates” the concrete of the walls of the “gas chambers”.”
You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. It’s apparant that you don’t understand the chemistry at all. The active ingredient in Zyclon B is Hydrogen Cyanide. It is a chemical compound that contains hydrogen and cyanide. When HCN comes into contact with a concrete wall, the CN does not penetrate. It stays on the surface. On that surface it must react with iron and oxygen (or compounds that contain iron and oxygen) in order to form Fe7(CN)18(H2O)x, or Prussian blue.
This is not something that takes place, as you put it, rapidly. Being an acid, HCN, is highly soluble, and could simply be washed off the walls before any reaction had a hope of taking place. Human gassing chambers held smaller concentrations of HCN, for shorter periods of time. In contrast, the delousing chambers held high concentrations of gas for longer periods of time. It stands to reason that they would have a greater percentage of CN compounds, including prussian blue. It also stands to reason that there would less chance to form prussian blue in the human gassing chambers.
But we don’t have to rely on reason. Jan actually tested the concrete and found this to be the case.
Wilbur,
“professional quibbler.That is really all Ronnie boy is good for.”
Is that what you argued to the Board of Education when you failed your GED. . . again? “Aww c’mon you quibblers, quit quibbling about being right all the time that’s quibbling!”
When you state your ridiculous conspiracy theories - the product of not knowing history, poor grasp of science, and laughable geography - and its pointed out that your dumb conclusions are from mistaken facts, it is no defense that others are pointing out your mistakes.
Not that I mind you sounding foolish. I’m just sayin’
Haw haw “quibblers” he done got ya there Wilbur buddy. Heh heh “quibblers” I get it.
Dangumit Wilbur,
Git your sorry butt out of them nazi websites, quit makin’ a fool of yerself in front of that danged jew boy, and start studying now or y’all aint never gonna pass that dern GED test!
http://www.robincmiller.com/pales2.htm
Fangfuck:
It is perfectly obvious that you do not know what you are talking about.
Your assertions are pure nonsense and have already been demolished by Rudolf. You are also too stupid to understand that even if your arguments were correct (they are not), the so-called “gas chambers’ still lack any means of distributing the gas, no ventilation, no heating system to raise the HCN to the evaporation point, no proper sealing and lack the space to have accomodated the claimed number of victims. In short, it is nonsense.
The delousing chambers could very easily have been converted to death chambers if such had been the real intent of the Germans. You ignore the consistency of the forensics with what the camp records actually show and instead try to confuse the technical points to get around the overwhelming evidence against the story. In short, poor little Fangfuck, you are both stupid and a liar.
Dear Ronnie Fuck Head:
I have a B.A. from the University of California and know more history on more subjects than you ever will.
GO WITH THE FLOW
It is amazing the faith that peoples have in official versions of history. They have been lied to on so many subjects so many times that one would think that they would learn. But no, they never do. Examples are innumerable. Let us examine a few. In the investigation of the Titanic disaster the court of inquiry determined that the big, bad iceberg did it. Ignored was the fact that the shipbuilders had deliberately supplied inadequate lifeboats because of the supposed watertight doors. Also ignored was the fact that the captain deliberately steered the ship through iceberg-infested waters, that he was trying to set a speed record and that lifeboats were not launched promptly. In the case of the Lusitania the captain of the ship was blamed despite the fact that the passengers were not warned by their respective governments that the ship was armed and carrying munitions. That the ship was deliberately sent into submarine infested waters in the hope that it would be torpedoed by a German submarine (as it actually was) was also deemed irrelevant. In the case of Chappaquidick the good Senator’s claim of amnesia was accepted at face value despite the remarkable number of phone calls the Senator made while under the influence of this “amnesia”. According to the Warren Commission a single bullet made twists and turns never before seen in the process of killing John Kennedy.
The Nuremberg kangaroo court invented crimes for the occasion and prosecuted the losers for the same offenses committed by the victors. They also invented technologically impossible “gas chambers” and a mythical six million dead. The 09/11 commission has even outdone the Nuremberg charlatans by pretending that a dozen or so Arabs learned how to pilot 757’s in a Florida flight school and then flew the planes through the most sophisticated flight defense systems in the world and, with perfect timing, crashed them into two towers. The towers collapsed as in a controlled demolition and all the witnesses inside the building who heard the controlled demolitions going off were merely dreaming. At Pearl Harbor FDR deliberately isolated the base commanders from the intelligence they needed, withheld reconnaissance planes and issued “war warnings” which weren’t. The fact that he needed an attack to maneuver a reluctant country into war proves nothing. It was all the fault of the commanders, Husband Kimmel and Walter Short. On and on it goes.
Why do people keep falling for such nonsense, again and again? The answer is primarily psychological. People do not want to realize they are being lied to. It raises too many ugly questions about the world they are living in. It is also dangerous to be a “non-believer”. It can get you fired from your job, ostracized and taken to the cleaners in divorce court if wifey does not like your freethinking. No one likes to be accused of being a “conspiracy nut”. It is better to go with the flow and believe like everyone else.
BITTER LOGIC
There is an old saying that things must get worse before they get better. This is a saying well worth considering in the context of Zionism in Palestine. The treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis is, of course, abominable. But it is also an anti-Semites dream. The more outrageously the Zionists behave, the more the anti-Semitic cause gathers strength. The Jewish commissars of Soviet Russia provoked Nazism; sooner or later the Zionist bulldozers of Israeli Nazism shall provoke a similar reaction. It is already building. The wholesale butchery of Gaza produced universal loathing and retching. When the inevitable attack on Iran takes place, the reaction will be even worse.
The Jews are getting themselves into big trouble. The wiser ones sense the danger. They know they can no longer hide behind the Holocaust – and even the truth on that is getting out. They know that if they go on supporting the state of Israel and its criminal behavior, the state of Israel will become the rope that hangs them. They know it but they are not yet ready to renounce the Jewish state. Like cattle, they low uneasily. They know the anti-Semites are arguing that they are all in it together. They know that when the state of Israel blows up in their face, that the anti-Semites will scream that Diaspora Jewry has been supporting, financing, lying for and covering up for the state of Israel from day one. They can hear, even now, the argument that the crimes of the state of Israel and the crimes of American Jews are one and the same. They know that the equation of principal and accessory shall be levied at them. They know it and they know the charges are true.
People shall resist bitter logic until bitter facts leave them no choice. With world economic collapse approaching and Israel preparing to blow the Middle East apart, the stage is set. That which has been unthinkable since the end of the Second World War and the Auschwitz hoax is now not merely thinkable but inevitable. The day of reckoning of the Jewish people worldwide shall come – and the price in blood shall far exceed the mythical six million.
Wilburrrr
“I have a B.A. from the University of California and know more history on more subjects than you ever will.”
Heheh except for:
1) the difference between hitler and herzl
2) which war changed US policy on neutrality
3) the correct decade for the first US