Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

9-11 Accountability Conference Hosted by Holocaust Denier!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
Brainster Donating Member (81 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:00 PM
Original message
9-11 Accountability Conference Hosted by Holocaust Denier!
Edited on Thu Feb-01-07 12:04 PM by Brainster
Okay, this story broke today in the Phoenix New Times (an arts & entertainment weekly known for its excellent investigative journalism) and Screw Loose Change, the largest blog devoted to debunking 9-11 Denial. The 9-11 Accountability Conference, which is scheduled to feature some of the biggest names among 9-11 Conspiracy Theorists, is being directed by a man named Eric D. Miller. Mr Miller has written a few 9-11 tracts (calling them books would be an exaggeration). His latest "work" is entitled The Puzzle of Auschwitz, which can be downloaded for free at his website. (Not linking, but if you look up "what really is the matrix" on Google, you'll find it pretty quickly).

Among those scheduled to attend are the biggest names among 9-11 CTs--Steven Jones, Kevin Barrett, the Loose Change boys, Sofia from 9-11 Mysteries, Bob Bowman, Phil Berg, Webster Tarpley, Alex Jones. This comes on top of last night's Paula Zahn segment on the links between 9-11 CTs and anti-Semitism.

Accountability indeed!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Taxloss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. Fancy that. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
2. Well hey
What do you know. Knock me over with a feather. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Anarcho-Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
3. I'm shocked
not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
4. I wonder if the Truthers will condemn this?
I wonder if the Truthers will condemn directly association between the 9-11 Truth Movement and holocaust revisionists as morally reprehensible or if they'll happily expose the bigotry that is at the heart of the movement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
5. Totally f*cked!
So some quick research reveals Eric D. Miller is indeed a Holocaust denier, a moron, and one of the worst writers imaginable.

Check out the ludicrous malapropisms starting with the first sentence of his Auschwitz book:
http://www.lulu.com/browse/preview.php?fCID=585818

Yes, there is a push on by right-wingers and professional anti-Judaists to take over the 9/11 truth movement, and most of the activists are being total sheep, failing to question anyone who labels themselves a 9/11 truthseeker or inside-job believer.

This has a lot to do with my splits with many who now call themselves the 9/11 Truth movement. I'm very happy I haven't been involved in Arizona.

Here is a conference I co-organized, by comparison:

Free video: http://911busters.com/a911-Commission.html

DVD http://911truthstore.com/911truth/catalog/9-11-Citizens...

I'm even going to grant you that those are indeed a few of the current "biggest names" among 9/11 CTs, though I hear many of them are not actually going to Arizona. Insofar as they didn't figure out who Eric D. Williams was in advance of accepting a speaking opportunity, that's in my book almost as bad as knowing. People should be able to google whoever they're dealing with and not enter into such "compromises." At any rate, look for most of those speakers not to even show.

Then again, I have never been a "CT," as this term is thrown like a blanket over anyone who applies the tools of skepticism to the Official Conspiracy Theory. "9/11 CTs" are a phenomenon that today exists in symbiosis with 9/11 OCTs. Loose Change specifically exists to provoke a reaction as a means of getting attention, and ultimately gives rise to a Screw Loose Change. Both rise together, and steal the sun and air from logical examination of 9/11. (It kind of reminds me of Democrats v. Republicans.)

This is even more true of the full whack-jobs a la Judy Wood, who wouldn't be known at all if the semi-professional debunkers weren't around to act as her promotional wing (good work). (Sadly, this isn't true of Eric D. Williams and his conference. He managed to put his conference together, at least this far, and it's a serious problem for all who associated themselves with him.)

At any rate I notice we don't have a "Screw 9/11 Press for Truth." Now why is that?

Meanwhile, the biggest names in rigorous 9/11 skepticism are an entirely different set, and they have for the most part not tainted themselves by these associations: Paul Thompson, Nafeez Ahmed, Michel Chossudovsky, Mike Ruppert, Mike Berger (Improbable Collapse and 911Truth.org), Peter Dale Scott (who sadly looks to be in Phoenix, though I bet this is false advertising), Mike Kane, Mike Richardson... our own Kevin Fenton.

I'd like to see "Screw Loose Change" try to take this on:

http://Justicefor911.org
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taxloss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Thank you, Jack. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. 9-11 Press For Truth is nowhere near as egregious as Loose Change
Edited on Thu Feb-01-07 02:33 PM by salvorhardin
It's still wrought with factual errors and logical fallacies, but I thought the first 2/3 of it were not that awful. Screw Loose Change did do a partial review. I've been meaning to review it myself (I have watched it), and I do have some positive things to say. Unfortunately, I've got a lot of stuff going on right now that has seriously cut into my online time (damn our reptoid task masters).
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/09/9-11-press...

I do disagree with you though about the symbiotic relationship between Loose Change and debunkers. Because Loose Change is almost entirely based on anti-semitic sources (the repeated use of Willis Carto's American Free Press in the movie itself) it needs to be debunked and exposed. Avery and Bermas are nothing but bigoted grifters profiting off tragedy. Screw Loose Change on the other hand is not.

But yes, thank you JackRiddler for criticizing this "conference".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Press for Truth is logical and factual. Based on mainstream news.
Edited on Thu Feb-01-07 04:42 PM by petgoat
Name one quibble you've got.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. See the link in my previous post.
Edited on Thu Feb-01-07 04:46 PM by salvorhardin
Screw Loose Change points out several. Here is just one example:
We are introduced to three of the four Jersey Girls, 9-11 widows from the Garden State. Note particularly the soft music as they are introduced. The voice over notes that these widows had questions. At the top of their list is the question of "Why had the US military defenses failed to stop any of the four hijacked planes?"

Here the film engages in a little casual dishonesty. First we are shown a clip that the first hijacking was reported to the military at 8:38 AM (true). Then the announcer intones, "The last plane was reported to have crashed in Pennsylvania just after 10:00 AM (true enough, but the screen says 10:06, which is false; the 9-11 Commission concluded that the plane crashed at 10:03). One of the Jersey girls laughs and says, "That's almost two hours, that planes were flying around the skies of the United States with no military response."

And that is a lot of crap. First, even if we use their times, that's not even an hour and a half. And anyway, the question is not how long the air defenses had to react to all the hijackings, it's how long they had to react to each individual hijacking. As we know, that's not a very long time.

Flight 11: NEADS notified at 8:38. Crashed at 8:45.
Flight 175: NEADS notified at 9:03. Crashed at 9:03.
Flight 77: NEADS notified at 9:34. Crashed at 9:37.
Flight 93: NEADS notified at 10:07. Crashed at 10:03.

As you can see most advance warning that NEADS (Northeast Air Defense Sector, a unit of NORAD) had for any of the hijacked planes was seven minutes for Flight 11. The notion that our air defenses could have intercepted any of these planes with that little warning is completely unrealistic.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/09/9-11-press...


Will you speak out against this conference? Or do you support Eric D. Miller?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. That's the usual calibre of debunker work, which is to say--stupid.
Edited on Thu Feb-01-07 05:12 PM by petgoat
In saying "almost two hours" with no response, the widows were starting the clock
at 8:13, when Flight 11 started acting funny. 8:13 to 10:06 is almost two hours,
and to accuse the widows of "casual dishonesty" is shameful.

The "debunking" then goes on to frame the interception issue dishonestly, saying
there should be a separate clock for each hijacked flight.

Baloney. As soon as you had more than one hijacking, we knew we had a military
incident. According to Laura Brown the FAA phone bridge discussed all flights of
interest, so the Pentagon knew about flight 77 long before 9:24.

NORAD personnel testified that flight 93 was known to be hijacked as early as 9:16.
This is discussed in last summer's Vanity Fair article by Michael Bronner:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/nor...

And as for the 10:06 crash time for flight 93, I don't see how your guys can say
that's false. That was the time reported in initial reports, and that is time
corroborated by the seismic evidence (which is otherwise unexplained).

I started in this business when I decided I'd go look for the lies in Fahrenheit
9/11. Having cut my teeth on Dave Kopel's "59 Deceits" site, I know a bullshit
snow job when I see one, and these debunking sites are bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #20
28. Oh come off it
Edited on Thu Feb-01-07 07:36 PM by salvorhardin
You know very well that Screw Loose Change is accusing the makers of 9-11: Press For Truth of casual dishonesty, a charge with which I agree, and not speaking against the Jersey Girls. Stop twisting other people's words petgoat. That's a perfect example of the kind of intellectual dishonesty that both Loose Change and Press For Truth engage in. You're smarter than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Complete hogwash
You know very well that Screw Loose Change is...not speaking against the Jersey Girls.

It says the film engages in casual dishonesty, when the so-called "load of crap" in the paragraph is
the statement by one of the Jersey Girls that there was no air defense for almost two hours.

Screw Loose Change is speaking against the Jersey Girls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MervinFerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #29
37. Continuing your usual eloquence and rationality, Mr. Goat?
Run along now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Contrite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #14
46. FAA established phone bridges earlier than 9/11 commission claimed
Edited on Fri Feb-02-07 01:21 AM by Contrite
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a85...

(8:50 a.m.) According to a statement by two high-level FAA officials, Within minutes after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Center, the FAA immediately established several phone bridges that included FAA field facilities, the FAA command center, FAA headquarters, DOD, the Secret Service, and other government agencies. The FAA shares real-time information on the phone bridges about the unfolding events, including information about loss of communication with aircraft, loss of transponder signals, unauthorized changes in course, and other actions being taken by all the flights of interest, including Flight 77. Other parties on the phone bridges in turn shared information about actions they were taken. The statement says, The US Air Force liaison to the FAA immediately joined the FAA headquarters phone bridge and established contact with NORAD on a separate line. <9/11 Commission, 5/23/2003> Another account says the phone bridges are quickly established by the Air Traffic Services Cell (ATSC). This is a small office at the FAAs Herndon Command Center, which is staffed by three military officers at the time of the attacks (see (Before 9:03 a.m.) September 11, 2001). It serves as the centers liaison with the military. According to Aviation Week and Space Technology, the phone bridges link key players, such as NORADs command center, area defense sectors, key FAA personnel, airline operations and the NMCC. If these accounts are correct, it means someone at NORAD should learn about Flight 77 when it deviates from its course (see (8:54 a.m.) September 11, 2001). However, the 9/11 Commission will later claim that the FAA teleconference is established about 30 minutes later (see (9:20 a.m.) September 11, 2001). The Air Force liaison to the FAA will claim she only joins it after the Pentagon is hit (see (Soon After 9:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001).

++++

FAA clarification memo to 9/11 Independent Commission

May 21, 2003

Within minutes after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Center, the FAA immediately established several phone bridges that included FAA field facilities, the FAA Command Center, FAA headquarters, DOD, the Secret Service, and other government agencies. The US Air Force liaison to the FAA immediately joined the FAA headquarters phone bridge and established contact with NORAD on a separate line. The FAA shared real-time information on the phone bridges about the unfolding events, including information about loss of communication with aircraft, loss of transponder signals, unauthorized changes in course, and other actions being taken by all the flights of interest, including Flight 77. Other parties on the phone bridges, in turn, shared information about actions they were taking. NORAD logs indicate that the FAA made formal notification about American Flight 77 at 9:24 a.m., but information about the flight was conveyed continuously during the phone bridges before the formal notification.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0408/S00013.htm

When asked about the contradictions over the FAA Statement in May of 03' Laura Brown referred me to the 9/11 Commission Report saying that they had access to records the FAA didn't which helped clarify what they did and when.

However, she did contradict the Commission findings by confirming that they began building the 'phone bridges' as elucidated in the statement, "within minutes after the first aircraft hit the WTC."

She reiterated the Commission's finding that the FAA conference did not reach the NMCC (National Military Command Center) at the Pentagon where command decisions should have been made immediately regarding the unfolding attack.

However, numerous press accounts have the President informed of the first attack prior to leaving his hotel on the morning of the September 11th. And the Secret Service at their own command in D.C. have a mirror of the FAA radar (see Clarke, Against All Enemies, p. 7) so they would be tracking the second plane as it turned and headed to NYC once they were informed per the FAA 'within minutes of the first strike.'

Ben Sliney, National Coordinator at the FAA, insisted after his testimony in June that in every other case he was familiar the FAA had no problem coordinating a NORAD response to an air emergency.

+++++++++++

As late as May 2003, General Arnold of NORAD, sitting alongside Gen. Myers, presented a slightly revised version of NORAD's Sept. 2001 timeline, in testimony to the Kean Commission. He revealed for the first time that NORAD was alerted about the hijacking of Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, at 9:16 a.m., a full 47 minutes before the claimed crash time at 10:03. But he stuck to the story about the other flights; in the case of AA77 which hit the Pentagon, the alert supposedly arrived at 9:24 am.

The FAA disputed Gen. Arnold's testimony with a statement of May 21, 2003. The FAA claimed that regardless of the official notification times claimed by NORAD, phone bridges were established immediately after the initial attack (at 8:46). NORAD was informed in real time throughout of all developments, including about the plane that ultimately hit the Pentagon, the FAA said.

http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/dayton_911truth.ht...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brainster Donating Member (81 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #5
19. Looks Like You're Right About the Speakers Dropping Out
Charles Goyette, a Phoenix talk show host best known among the 9-11 crowd for sandbagging a Popular Mechanics editor, has dropped out. (Actually he claims to have never agreed to appear).

Press for Truth seems to be a straight film giving an occasional wink and nod to the CT crowd, without actually getting into the tinfoil hat stuff. But it's pretty loose with the facts as well, for example trying to contrast the supposed rapid response to Payne Stewart's plane with the sluggishness on 9-11.

Not sure how to debunk a petition, sorry. I suppose I could point out that many of the "citizens" who signed it are citizens of other countries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #19
35. The petition...
Damn it, I see now the problem with "Justice" was always the lousy site design. My fault. (the complaint's a collaboration but the site's my amateur design talent at work)

The petition is actually the front page for about 30 further pages, being a complaint submitted to Spitzer in 2004. Click on "Complaint" to get there....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bryan Sacks Donating Member (732 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #19
38. The people behind 'Press for Truth' are 9/11 skeptics
Kykle Hence, for one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grateful for Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #5
23. I agree with you that this is "Totally F*cked"
It makes me very angry when people like Williams place a huge blight on the efforts of those who simply want to know the truth about 9/11.

Good to hear that it is a possibility that a lot of the speakers may not show. I hope they don't.

I also agree with you about Judy Wood ("Whackjob").

Thank you for sharing your views, JackRiddler.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bryan Sacks Donating Member (732 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #5
39. Agree that it's a mess. Will not be there or anywhere near. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KJF Donating Member (792 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 02:20 AM
Response to Reply #5
48. This is awful
What were the people in Phoenix thinking to let him near this? I hope everybody cancels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim Howells Donating Member (224 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 03:32 AM
Response to Reply #5
49. Thanks from me too, Jack
You put it perfectly. By the way I think that your
"Spinners Refuse to be Spun" piece was just about the
finest, most hilarious piece of political satire I have
ever read. I hope that you are looking for a more
permanent home for it so that it is not lost to the ages.

Tim Howells

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #49
60. wow... thanks!
Very kind words. For the most part it got a negative reaction, seen either as boring (not enough special effects) or divisive/unfair.

Here's a permanent link to it - though all of my past web writings will be consolidated at some point either at summeroftruth.org or a new site.

http://911blogger.com/node/3781
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Anarcho-Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #5
51. A sincere thank you
and a sincere thanks to other Truthers who have also expressed concern at about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bushwick Bill Donating Member (605 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
8. OilEmpire says it pretty well.
The 9/11 truth movement has suffered from some infiltration by advocates of what is euphemistically called Holocaust revisionism, who have written in defense of various aspects of Holocaust Denial and have praised neo-Nazis who seek to downplay the Holocaust.

The 9/11 truth movement has attracted a lot of people who want to be instant experts. Some crave public recognition. Others, no doubt, have their unique psychological reasons, some good, some not so good. But those who make very bold conclusions while being ignorant of most of the available evidence run the risk of "foot in mouth" disease, and worse, their antics can rub off on the rest of us, especially if they seek to connect neo-Nazi pseudo historians and 9/11 truth activists in common cause.

Due to these (and other) efforts to link 9/11 skeptics with Holocaust denial, there are a fair number of citizens who think that 9/11 investigation is really all about blaming "the Jews" for the atrocity, both from those who want to blame the "jews" and those who think that 9/11 investigation is anti-semitism.

http://www.oilempire.us/holocaust-denial.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
9. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Bigotry against Muslims is also not helpful.
False dichotomies don't help understand the situation at all.

Any religious group is capable of developing the zealotry that produces radical violence. It so happens that Muslim extremists were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. That is not an indictment of Islam, but of those particular extremists and the people who gave them material support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
planeman Donating Member (316 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. So the massacre of the banu qurayaza tribe is a false dichtomy?how so?

Benny Moris is an acknowledged jewish historian from TelAviv who conducted a lot of research for "righteous victims".Understanding the situation involves lookling into the history between Islam and those entities(Jewish among them)that surrounded them at that time and to the present day.If political Islam was so hostile to other religions even at the time of its inception it is no wonder that the same characteristics are exibited now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. No. Your false dichotomy resides in this sentence:
Edited on Thu Feb-01-07 04:47 PM by salvorhardin
When will people understand that only Muslim arabs had the religuose zealotry to have carried out such an attack.


Your statement creates an artificial dichotomy between the "civilized" world and the "uncivilized" Arab cultures.

Clearly we have seen across all cultures the ability to develop the kinds of religious zealotry needed to carry out atrocities such as the 9-11 attacks. For instance, the Aum Shinrikyo cult in Japan which was responsible for the Tokyo subway sarin gas attacks, or the Malleus Maleficarum and Summis desiderantes. And of course, there is not even necessarily the need for religion for these kinds of atrocities to occur. For instance, I believe Stalin's Great Purge and the Darfur conflict would fall in this category (not quite sure about Darfur). However, throughout history you've generally needed religion to work up this kind of mass insanity. Maybe with modern media and propaganda techniques religion isn't quite needed anymore.

Also I should point out that I am not indicting religion in general (not here anyway), but rather very specific forms of fundamentalist religion.

In any case, to say "only Muslim Arabs" could have done something like the 9-11 attacks is both intellectually dishonest and has the stench of latent bigotry and xenophobia.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. What religion was behind Hiroshima?
What religion was behind the Iraq sanctions that killed 500,000
Iraqi children?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Of what relevance is your post?
Edited on Thu Feb-01-07 04:59 PM by salvorhardin
What reason is there behind your post?

None that I can see. I would be surprised to see any religion that hasn't carried out atrocities in the name of its' deity or deities, and I pointed out modern secular atrocities not carried out in the name of religion. Your post is nonsensical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
planeman Donating Member (316 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #12
22. You and Boloboffin are avoiding my reference to this historical fact.

That the Jewish bani qurayaza tribe was massacred at the inception of Islam with the profet of said religion practically calling the shots.
This is in the first chapter of Benny Morris's "righteouse victims" book.
Given Benny Morris's credentials I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of this fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. You cite one instance of Islamic violence
One instance, or 10,000 does not translate into "all" Islamic Arabs any more than the medieval and early modern European witch hunts (or the Inquisition for that matter) translate into an indictment against all Christianity.

Furthermore you are ignoring the false dichotomy that has been pointed out in your stated opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grateful for Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Thank you, Salvorhardin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. And thank you for speaking out against this n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grateful for Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #26
34. You are welcome -- and I meant it,
There are those of us who just want a new investigation. I hope you agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Oh I would too.
I'm not sure there's anyone here who doesn't think the 9-11 Commission Report was a whitewash.

I just don't think we're going to get it. At least for years and even then the information we'd really want will be sealed up in the Bush Library for 50 years (or something equally outrageous).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bryan Sacks Donating Member (732 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. Keep an eye on Jan 9, 2009
The day when many of the 9/11 Commission's source documents are set to be unsealed. A certain president will still be sitting then (if he's not removed from office prior, of course), with the power to seal the documents indefinitely (from my understanding).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grateful for Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #36
54. I really hope not for all our sakes. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
planeman Donating Member (316 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #24
52. I Never said "all" Islamic Arabs are capable of 9-11.
Edited on Fri Feb-02-07 09:07 AM by planeman
I just said Islamic Arabs are capable of 9-11 and it has indeed proven to be so.On the otherhand Israelis or jews would be incapable of executing 9-11 as many of the 9-11 twoothers would have us believe.Do you agree?.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #52
53. Why?
What is the point you're trying to make? What is unique to Islamic Arabs that makes them so much more capable of pulling off the 9-11 terrorism attacks than others?

Singling out any one people as possessing some sort of edge in the human-cruelty market is bigotry. So why are you focusing on the fact that they were Islamic Arabs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
planeman Donating Member (316 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #53
59. You sir are being awfully coy.
Edited on Fri Feb-02-07 12:51 PM by planeman
I have sources to back up my assertions.what do you have?

What Happened to the Jews of Medina:
As we shall see later, it was Muhammad who introduced the religious hatred. It is him who should be credited as the founder of religious intolerance in Arabia and perhaps the entire world. Muhammad is often hailed as the man who united warring Arab tribes. That may be true. But without him these tribes would have put aside their conflicts sooner or later, one way or another, just as other feuding tribes did eventually in other parts of the world. Almost everywhere, formerly hostile tribes have joined together to form sWhat Happened to the Jews of Medinatronger nations. Muhammad united the Arabs and turned them into a mighty force, which invaded other countries, devastating other civilizations and imposing their own language, culture and religion.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/jews.htm

edit-to confirm that the above article is cited by wikipedia noless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #59
61. And you did not answer the question
What is singularly exceptional about Islamic Arabs vs. any other religious or secular culture when it comes to violence? I'd love for you to explain your views.

To the contrary it's you I think who's being coy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
planeman Donating Member (316 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #61
69. Sir what i do not comprehend is how you avoid questioning my souces.
Edited on Sat Feb-03-07 10:29 AM by planeman
I posed 2 such sources: Benny Morris(a notable jewish historian) and an article that was by cited wikipedia.2 articles that give irrefutable proof that mohammed himself oversaw the death and slavery of 900 jewish men,women and children.yet you choose not to contest those but to contest me.I am taken to presume that by your silence that you imply that benny morris is a bigot and the person who wrote the aforementioned article cited by wiki are bigots.Or maybe you agree with benny moris and the author of that aforementioned article cited by wiki that mohammed slaughtered 900 men,women and children.why not ansewr the question and show how "liberal" you are.


edit for elaboration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #69
71. I'm not questioning your sources
It's just that your sources are wholly irrelevant to your argument and your sources do not answer the question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #52
62. The operative word was "only", not all.
Edited on Fri Feb-02-07 01:03 PM by greyl
You're bullshitting when you say "I just said Islamic Arabs are capable of 9-11..."

You said they they were the only ones capable of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
planeman Donating Member (316 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #62
70. sir you are mistaken.

By saying that only muslim arabs are capable of doing 9-11 does not imply that ALL muslim arabs are capable of doing 9-11.
I am most interested as to why you refuse to dispute that mohammed slaughterd 900 jewish men women and children.I take it that you belive that it really happened?that being the case why are you taking issue with me?I am merely the messenger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 05:00 AM
Response to Reply #70
75. No, I'm not. In fact, you repeated my assertion as if you agree. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim Howells Donating Member (224 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 05:51 AM
Response to Reply #12
50. And they were not religious anyway ...
THE HIJACKERS WERE NOT FANATICAL ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS (FAR FROM IT)

The keystone of the "official story" on the events of September 11 is
that the hijackers were fanatical Islamic fundamentalists, opposed to
all products of Western culture. They are presented to us as pure
warriors of Allah, prepared not only to kill, but to die for their
religion. Their supposed austere and ascetic approach to life and
death is presented to us in the will and testament of their leader,
Mohammed Atta. We find here a long list of severe admonitions
including:

... 9. The person who will wash my body near my genitals must wear
gloves on his hands so he won't touch my genitals. 10. I want the
clothes I wear to consist of three white pieces of cloth, not to be
made of silk or expensive material. 11. I don't want any women to go
to my grave at all during my funeral or on any occasion thereafter.
... {etc., etc., etc.}

{"Atta's Will Found--Suspected Hijacker Left Strict Instructions,"
ABCNEWS, October 4, 2001
http://www.911readingroom.org/bib/whole_document.php?ar... }

It could hardly be otherwise; who other than a totally dedicated
religious fanatic would be capable of deliberately incinerating
himself in such a horrific manner together with several of his closest
comrades and thousands of innocent victims?

It was soon discovered that this image was completely false. In fact,
most of the hijackers were thoroughly Americanized and enjoyed quite
wild, hedonistic lifestyles. Several of the them, including the leader
and "suicide pilot" Mohammed Atta, were frequently seen out bar
hopping, smoking and getting drunk. They sometimes engaged lap-dancers
and prostitutes:

"Feds investigating possible terrorist-attack links in Florida," Ken
Thomas, Associated Press, September 12, 2001
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/12/florida_search.htm

"Terrorists partied with hooker at Hub-area hotel," Dave Wedge, Boston
Herald, October 10, 2001
http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/bostonherald10...

In Boston the night before the hijackings the WTC hijackers tried to
engage some prostitutes, but then backed out because they decided it
was too expensive:

"Sept. 10--Hijackers said to seek prostitutes," Shelley Murphy and
Douglas Belkin, Boston Globe Online, October 10, 2001
http://web.archive.org/web/20011011012426/http://www.bo...

These are not the actions of Islamic fanatics on their way to die for
Allah! It certainly appears that the hijackers did not know that this
was a suicide mission, and were not genuine Islamic fundamentalists.

15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, mostly from wealthy families. In
fact, most of the hijackers are typical of the wealthy, high-rolling,
hedonistic Saudis who turn up over and over again in covert operations
sponsored by the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr.
and Jr. These scandals include Iran-Contra, the Savings and Loan
Scandal (by far the most massive financial rip-off in history), the
massive money-laundering that led to the collapse of BCCI, a Pakistani
bank with strong ties to the CIA, and, more recently, the Enron
scandal. The connection to U.S. intelligence is more than speculative;
several of the hijackers had training at secure military installations
in the U.S. The locations where the hijackers received training
include:

- The Pensacola Naval Air Station
- Lackland Air Force Base
- Air War College in Montgomery, Alabama
- Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama
- The Defense Language Institute in Monterey

"Alleged Hijackers May Have Trained at U.S. Bases--The Pentagon has
turned over military records on five men to the FBI," George
Wehrfritz, Catharine Skipp and John Barry, NEWSWEEK, September 15,
2001
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT...

"Did Bush Know?--Warning Signs of 9-11 and Intelligence Failures,"
Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, May 18, 2002
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html (This is a long file. A
string search on "military sources" will take you to the right
paragraph.)

There is further compelling evidence that the hijackers were in fact
recruits of the CIA based on the manner in which they obtained their
visas to live in the United States. The National Review has published
a careful study of this question that concludes that the awarding of
visas to these applicants is "inexplicable." This is the strong
consensus opinion of several government officials with extensive
hands-on experience with the process of issuing visas in this part of
the world:

All six experts strongly agreed that even allowing for human error, no
more than a handful of the visa applications should have managed to
slip through the cracks. Making the visa lapses even more
inexplicable, the State Department claims that at least 11 of the 15
were interviewed by consular officers. Nikolai Wenzel, one of the
former consular officers who analyzed the forms, declares that State's
issuance of the visas "amounts to criminal negligence."

"Visas that Should Have Been Denied--A look at 9/11 terrorists visa
applications," Joel Mowbray, National Review Online, October 9, 2002
http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray100902.asp

The great majority of the hijackers' visas, 15 of them, were issued at
the U.S. consular office in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman,
formerly the head U.S. consular officer in Jeddah has shed light on
how and why these visas were issued. According to Springman:

"In Saudi Arabia I was repeatedly ordered by high level State
Department officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants. These
were, essentially, people who had no ties either to Saudi Arabia or to
their own country. I complained bitterly at the time there. I returned
to the US, I complained to the State Dept here, to the General
Accounting Office, to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and to the
Inspector General's office. I was met with silence ...

"What I was protesting was, in reality, an effort to bring recruits,
rounded up by Osama Bin Laden, to the US for terrorist training by the
CIA. They would then be returned to Afghanistan to fight against the
then-Soviets."

"Has someone been sitting on the FBI?," Greg Palast, BBC Newsnight,
November 6, 2001
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm

So it certainly appears that at least 15 of the 19 hijackers were CIA
recruits, trained at secure military facilities in the United States,
and operating here under the protection and sponsorship of the U.S.
government.

The hijackers' drinking and partying is certainly more typical of
youthful Westernized military recruits than devout fundamentalist
Moslems. It is sometimes claimed that they were just pretending to be
Westernized in order to "blend in" and escape detection. This makes no
sense at all. Even if they had been seen to be devout Muslims, that
would hardly make them terrorists. And they made no attempt at all to
hide their really suspicious activities, for example shopping around
for crop dusting equipment!

In one incident Mohammed Atta applied for a loan from the Department
of Agriculture to purchase a crop duster:

"Face to Face With a Terrorist--Government Worker Recalls Mohamed Atta
Seeking Funds Before Sept. 11," Brian Ross, ABCNEWS, June 6, 2002
http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/misc1.html

In the first place, it's odd that Atta bothered with a loan at all,
since it's clear that the amount of the loan was pocket change to the
people funding him. Atta used his real name, and made sure the
interviewer spelled it correctly. During the interview, Atta praised
bin Laden as "the world's greatest leader," discussed the possibility
of blowing up U.S. landmarks, including the World Trade Center, and
generally behaved like a raving lunatic. Nice blending in!

In another incident Atta spoke with James Lester of South Florida Crop
Care in Belle Glade, Florida regarding the purchase of crop dusting
equipment. Again, Atta made sure that he would be remembered: "I
recognized him because he stayed on my feet all
the time. I just about had to push him away from me."

"Virginia man charged with helping hijackers get IDs," Associated
Press, September 25, 2001
http://www.courttv.com/assault_on_america/0925_hijacker...

Far from trying to blend in, Atta operated quite openly and even seems
to have deliberately tried to draw attention to himself as a potential
terrorist. He acted as though he wanted to build a "legend" as a
terrorist, and as though he had guaranteed protection from high inside
the U.S. government. Evidence that this was in fact the case will be
discussed later.

{ continuted at link ... http://physics911.ca/org/modules/news/article.php?story... }
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #50
64. No true Scotsman fallacy.
(First, what does the crop duster story have to do with religion?)

Definition

No True Scotsman is a type of logical fallacy in which the arguer claims that elements of class X have a property, and, when presented with a counterexample Y, asserts that Y therefore does not belong to class X.

The argument is a fallacy since it redefines the class as needed to suit the argument. In doing so, it can make any claim at all vacuously true under the new definition.

Example:
Antagonist: "Because Christians fear God, they will act more ethically."
Protagonist: "But Jim Bakker wasn't acting ethically when he stole millions from his church."
Antagonist: "Yes, well, Jim Bakker seemed to be a Christian, but apparently, deep in his heart he was not."
www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/No_True_Scotsman


Do these confessions look atheistic to you? Have you seen them before?:

The Usual Suspects shows footage that puts a spotlight on the lives behind the 9/11 Hijackers and their Masterminds. This is something that everyone should watch, no matter what your stance is in politics or the War on Iraq. You will not find this on any mainstream media or the front page of Infowars.com NOTE: I did not create this video but asked permission to upload it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu6pZ6BPSuo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBa252lC4uA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ighjUx7H03I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfuZFU39XKI
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Absolute Hogwash
Look at Oil Empire's list of the supposed anti-semitic pillars of the movement:

* David Irving - notorious neo-Nazi pseudo-historian
* Professor Jane Christensen - a "9/11 truth" college course that wasn't true
* Eric Hufschmid (Painful Questions / Painful Deceptions)
* rense.com promotes Holocaust deniers, abiotic oil, no planes, etc
* John Kaminski
* What Really Happened (admits "no plane" is not real but promotes Holocaust deniers)
* 911-strike.com
* Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth - and their State Department (Fulbright) grant?
* thetruthseeker.com

I've never heard of these personalities, except Huffschmid, whose information is technical, not political as far as I've seen.

What Really Happened I haven't visited in months.

The slander of MUJCA I've not seen substantiated.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. You forgot Alex Jones, Dylan Avery, Michel Chossudovsky and Jason Bermas.
There are many, many more.

As far as MUJCA, and Kevin Barrett he uncritically associates with anti-semites and neo-nazis. While association is not evidence of Barrett's views or that of his group, he does not speak out against the rampant anti-semitic bigotry in the 9-11 Truth movement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. So it's the guilt-by association game, huh?
MUJCA is anti-semitic because one of its members associates with anti-semites?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. One of it's members? You mean one of it's co-founders.
Edited on Thu Feb-01-07 07:35 PM by salvorhardin
From Mujca's site:
MUJCA-NET was founded by Dr. Kevin Barrett of Madison, Wisconsin, a scholar of Islam and literature, and Imam Faiz Khan M.D. of New York City, a 9/11 first responder who teaches at Long Island Jewish Hospital. Both have been appalled by 9/11 and the ever-increasing violence it has brought us, and both are particularly unhappy with the silence of their fellow Muslims on 9/11 truth. Their Open Letter to Our Brothers and Sisters in the Abrahamic Tradition expresses their views on 9/11 truth and the reasons an interfaith effort like MUJCA-NET is so necessary.

The other endorsers of MUJCA-NET do not necessarily agree with all of the co-founderspositions. (Indeed, the co-founders themselves do not hold precisely identical views on everything.) But all of us at MUJCA-NETrecognize that the gaping holes in the official 9/11 story mandate a new and genuine investigation aimed specifically at either confirming or refuting allegations of official complicity.
http://www.mujca.com/who_we_are.htm


And I explicitly stated in my post that association does not equal evidence of Barrett's or MUJCA's views.

But Barrett uncritically supports anti-semites, neo-nazis and other noted bigots. He hosts a weekly show called Truth Jihad Radio on the Republic Broadcasting Network (or he did, RBN seems to have folded). RBN supported Christian theocracy and also hosted shows by Michael Collins Piper who writes for Willis Carto's American Free Press, Greg Szymanski of The Artic Beacon who believes the Illuminati/Freemasons control the world (a article on his blog is titled "Do You Suffer From Post Traumatic Freemason Syndrome? If You Do, Don't Read Any Further As You Will Only Get Worse!") and other unsavory characters.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060427211815/www.rbnlive.c...

Barrett cohosts a show on Genesis Communication Network (I believe this is Alex Jones' property) with Jim Fetzer called The Dynamic Duo. GCN also hosts Mike Rivero's (of WhatReallyHappened.com) program. Rivero of course made a name for himself by being the first person to use his website to promote Vince Foster murder conspiracy theories, and is a proud member of Free Republic.
http://www.gcnlive.com/pgmsDyduo.htm

So, if Barrett does not at least tacitly endorse the views of such bigots and religious zealots, then why does he associate with them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. "why does he associate with them?"
I suppose that when you're starting out with your first radio programs you kind of
have to put them on the stations that will have you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grateful for Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #9
30. OK. I am going to say this
What you are saying about Islam is just as bigoted as the anti-semitic things we have seen here in this forum. I have nothing else to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. I agree with Hope2006 on this one. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grateful for Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 12:05 AM
Response to Original message
41. IMPORTANT: Has Eric Williams pulled a bait-and-switch on conference participants?
Edited on Fri Feb-02-07 12:17 AM by JackRiddler
By the way Brainster, this guy's name is Williams, not Miller. Your mistake, the Phoenix paper has it right. But ED Williams is indeed the organizer of 911Accountability and the author of the "Puzzle" books.

This is Eric D. Williams's site:
http://whatreallyisthematrix.com /

It promotes his books, the most recent being "The Puzzle of Auschwitz" (2006).

The site was registered a while ago:

Domain Name.......... whatreallyisthematrix.com
Creation Date........ 2005-07-15
Registration Date.... 2005-07-15
Expiry Date.......... 2007-07-15
Organisation Name.... Eric Williams

I looked for older versions on archive.org (which mirrors prior versions of websites) but it returns nothing.

Anyone know when the Auschwitz book was first posted? Is it possible this guy organized the conference first, before announcing his book? Did anyone notice this "work" before today?

The sample pages from the two 9/11 books are pretty lousy. A mix of the thrice-chewed, the credible-but-incompetently presented, and the flat wrong (Marvin Bush oce again starring as Chief of Security, plus some stuff about a beam weapons technology shared with Israel that's instantly therefore the only possible suspect for blowing up the Towers, etc.). The kind of thing that a lot of people in the movement who know much better have been tolerating all along in the name of unity against the deadly foe, blah blah.

But the question does arise of whether he pulled the Auschwitz trick out after getting the conference going.

All in all a cluster fuck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #41
42. It's with lulu.com
Edited on Fri Feb-02-07 12:32 AM by salvorhardin
That's a print-on-demand publisher in NC. In other words, it's a self published manuscript and every time someone orders a copy, lulu prints off another book, binds it and sends it on its' way. Or you can just download the PDF that lulu uses to print from.

And yes, Brainster posted this on the JREF forums back on January 14th where he noticed the Auschwitz book at the same time.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2258505

BTW: If you want to buy a book that you can use and is actually entertaining through lulu, you can buy a book that I was marginally involved with; The Open Laboratory: The Best Writing on Science Blogs 2006. No one is making any money off this, not even Lulu who is selling the book at cost.
http://www.lulu.com/content/631016
http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/01/the_science_blogg...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #42
43. Jan. 14th... you're not answering my question though
So none of you guys noticed this before Jan 14? Anyone remember seeing it before then? Anyone have a way of determining when the exact day of publicizing it was?

In other words, it's possible Mr. Williams first published via lulu (and thus publicized) his book right around then - i.e., after the conference had already been organized. Many of the alleged speakers were lined up by November, if I remember correctly. This would be a bait-and-switch. Don't get me wrong - many of the participants in this should have been smart enough to smell a rat anyway, just based on the quality of this guy's writing.

911Truth.org to their credit did not join up in putting this conference together.

No surprise that it should attract the likes of Mr. Foti (whose scientific credo is that whatever IT is, John D. Rockefeller and Meyer Rothschild are always responsible!). Bowman's a disappointment, then again I heard that his speech in Boston was a phillipic against the current prevalence of low-quality research. Ditto several of the others who have allowed their likenesses to be used in the conference ad. Others don't surprise me.

In the end I think this may have a good aftermath, if it finally gets 9/11 skeptics with half a brain to stop consorting with fools, opportunists, haters and provocateurs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #43
44. Sorry to disappoint
I provided what information I could.

Oh, and of course took the opportunity to plug a really good book anthologizing some of the best science writing on the web.
http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/01/the_science_blogg...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. okay, sorry
& thanks. I'm in the middle of reading 3 books and posting on several boards (like an addict!) so sorry if I don't get to your book but it sounds a lot more worthwhile than, um,

complaining about (or defending) Edwards's house

being angry about (or approving) the LiteBrite Moononites of Boston

worrying about the spanking law

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #45
47. Things have gotten a little trivial, haven't they.
:)

It's not my book though, I was only one of the panelists that helped narrow down the selection. The editor, Bora Zivkovic, made the final call.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #43
55. "stop consorting with fools, opportunists, haters and provocateurs."
If we did that we couldn't get a quorum!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #55
56. You know I'm cynical enough
to figure your observation applies to any political, artistic or business endeavor, and not just the example under discussion here. You're probably right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #56
63. Now you're saying the association is a necessary and unavoidable evil? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. oh jeez!
You're grasping, dear. A joke response to a joke. "The example under discussion here" meaning 9/11 truth's tendency to attract various idiots. (Sort of like OCT that way.)

Long before this revelation, I wasn't going to Arizona because it's obviously a Loose Change "open tent" circle-jerk. More suited to getting you and your ScrewLoose buddies excited than to addressing the open questions of 9/11, or gaining accountability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. petgoat may have been joking, but you seemed to acknowledge some truth to his joke.
It was an honest question, not a grasp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. There is truth to his joke
Insofar as any politics is sooner or later going to involve coalitions with insufferable people. But no, not Eric D. Williams. Obviously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brainster Donating Member (81 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #41
57. Yes, Williams, Not Miller--My Bad! N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Meshuga Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
58. Scary shit!
I wonder how far this "Jews were behind 911" will go? The blood libel story is still used as fact in the middle east. So are the "protocols". This is pretty fucking sad!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprehensor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-02-07 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
68. In my opinion
Williams should recuse himself from the conference. For one, I did not know about his latest book.

I make it a habit not to link to American Free Press articles, Eric Hufschmid, or Daryl Bradford Smith.

Jewish Zionist critic Alfred M. Lilienthal pretty much sums it up for me;

"The Nazi genocide was a gross tragedy. It matters little whether six million or three million, or but three Jews were killed, simply because they were Jews. It was one of the worst abominations committed against humanity."

Lilienthal still went on to critique the political uses of the Holocaust, but not the verity of the event.

Same with Finkelstein.

That's about all I have to say about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ben_meyers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #68
72. Williams can't recuse himself
He basicly owns it. The website for this conference is registered to him. Many of the "big" names are pulling out, but I just heard Jeff Faris of AAPHX say that they were going to broadcast live from the meeting on saturday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 01:41 AM
Response to Original message
73. BREAKING: Williams Removed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grateful for Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 04:31 AM
Response to Reply #73
74. Thank you for this info
Edited on Sun Feb-04-07 04:34 AM by Hope2006
exactly what should have happened.

!

on edit: will keep this kicked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Mar 31st 2020, 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC