[Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] 9/11 inside job....

Fri Jul 26 23:07:23 UTC 2013

Can your engineers explain how a Boeing 757 went through only a fifteen foot wide whole in the Pentagon, while only damaging two windows on the second floor. Photos prove this beyond doubt. The building section did not collapse for more than a half an hour after it was struck.  There was absolutely no damage to the lawn.  There was no damage from massive engines...etc  on and on. Watch videos by Bill Lear of Learjet.  I'll say it again... but with no connection to polls.... Zionists murdered 3000 people on 9/11.

________________________________
 From: Ricky Baldwin <rbaldwin at seiu73.org>
To: Stephen Francis <stephenf1113 at yahoo.com>; Chris Goodrow <c_goodrow at hotmail.com>; "peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>; "davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net" <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net>; occupycu <occupyCU at lists.chambana.net> 
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 3:33 PM
Subject: RE: [OccupyCU] 9/11 inside job....

I think the question of polls is not the biggest point here.  Although misunderstanding things like (1) how polls work, and (2) what polls have indicated, are potentially symptoms of the same thinking, the most worrying thing in my opinion is the continued assertion of statements like this one:

"It can easily be proven that Zionist's murdered 3000 people on 9/11." [below]

The statement is obviously nonsense if referring to the World Trade Center.  Even if it is true that "Zionist's murdered 3000 people on 9/11" -- which they may have done in the Occupied Palestinian Territories or somewhere, but I don't know it for a fact -- the remark that "It can easily be proven" might as well read "The flying spaghetti monster told me".  The meaning would seem to be that the statement about who killed these people is clearly true and convincing evidence shows it.  In reality, nothing of the kind is credible (like the friend of a friend who allegedly has seen fairies, or some other incredible thing, but never seems to show up in person with any proof) .

There are reasons to question the US government's handling of the attacks, and certainly its response, and maybe to doubt the official story about what happened to the World Trade Center, at best.  Even those claims to undermine the official story, at least the ones I've seen, tend to be wildly exaggerated, (e.g. statements to the effect that it is "impossible" for the airline fuel in those planes to start a fire hot enough to bring down the buildings).

Statements of this type are generally made by people with considerably less education and experience in the fields involved than the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering who have concluded that the buildings were not destroyed by planted explosives, but by a series of events triggered by the planes hitting them (e.g. Bazant, Zdenek P. and Mathieu Verdure. "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" in Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, Volume 133, Issue 3, pp. 308–319, March 2007).

But even if we agree that the official story has flaws, or were wholly untrue, this does nothing at all to prove any particular alternative story.  I've seen arguments that George Bush planned it in order to start a war and demolish civil liberties (in the manner of the Reichstag fire of the early 20th century), or that Israeli agents set bombs in the building in order to draw the poor innocent US into a war against their enemies in the Muslim world, or oil companies such as Unocal were behind it for reasons of piping.   Maybe it was extraterrestrials or Belgium and the Queen of England as a ploy to undermine US sovereignty (I haven't checked with the Larouchies).  There is scant evidence, as far as I know, for any of these so-called "conspiracy theories" -- much less than the evidence for the official story, we have to admit.

Rational people will admit whichever way the most evidence leans, except MAYBE if they have personally witnessed something they can't prove - and even then, enough evidence ought to suggest to a rational being that he or she could be mistaken in what he or she believes he or she remembers.

Objectors to these theories often cite "Okham's razor" -- which may appear as an appeal to unwarranted authority, but in reality the basic idea boils down to something a fellow birdwatcher once said to me: "What's common is common."  In other words, we might want to find a more interesting explanation, given some uncertainty or leeway, but the most likely scenario is generally ... you guessed it, the most likely scenario.

And in this case, the most likely scenario is that the government neglected reports and other signs and possibilities - either through incompetence or misplaced priorities, or both -- and failed to take certain measures, INDIRECTLY allowing certain individuals to cause a great calamity in somewhat similar ways that have led to the terrible deaths of civilians around the world for decades -- in trains and train stations, bars and buses, etc. -- and from which the US was largely shielded until 2001.  Since it happened to us, we think it was something very special, so it must have special causes.  But probably not.

Is the US government responsible?  Of course.  But it's responsible for its foreign policy for decades that led to this event (thwarting self-rule in numerous countries for the purposes of its own rich elites, backing terror states like Israel, Iran under the Shah, Iraq under Saddam at one time, etc.), for training terrorist guerrillas in Afghanistan and elsewhere (many not directly related to this incident: Nicaragua, etc.) -- and therefore for the horrific deaths of around 3000 of its own people who, perhaps most tragically, were most likely pretty ignorant of why they were dying.

The US government also, naturally, promotes this sort of ignorance, about world affairs and the role of power in the world, and about what people can do together (e.g. the myth that Rosa Parks just decided she was too tired one day and sat down, etc.).

And this, in my opinion, leads to the vastly more important point of how we effect change.  If history is any guide, very little ever happens because of few people had a good idea one day and decided to start meeting to discuss what's wrong with the world.  People have been doing this ever since beer became widely available, and before.  There are some very thorough studies of how change can be brought about and how it cannot usually happen -- e.g. by Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward (Poor People's Movements, Why Americans Don't Vote, Why Americans Still Don't Vote, Regulating the Poor), by Kate Bronfenbrenner (Organizing to Win), Fred Ross (Conquering Goliath).

People will come up with all sorts of explanations for why people are not in the streets, why they don't insist on better government, and so on, (and some of these raise good points) but the simple fact is that people are not there because they have not been organized to be there.  They are not doing those things because they are not organized to do those things.  The people who run this country have one great advantage over the rest of us - far more important in my opinion than the fact that they are rich,  or that they control the media, the police, the military, the legal system -- all these are secondary to the more important fact that they are very well organized, "wall to wall" as we say in the labor movement, -- and we are mostly not.  That is a hard pill to swallow, but swallow it we must if we are to do what must be done.

Ricky
________________________________
From: OccupyCU [occupycu-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Stephen Francis [stephenf1113 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 5:47 AM
To: Chris Goodrow; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net; occupycu
Subject: Re: [OccupyCU] 9/11 inside job....

Chris
Yes, I have to work harder at keeping my emotions out of my beliefs when it comes to public comments.  I don't post much, but have been making a private effort over the last few months to consolidate my views and prepare them for public consumption.
In fact, I've embarked on an ambitious effort to learn more mathematics in this regard.  I was struck about a year ago by the comments by Roger Penrose (one of the most respected living mathematicians) on his concepts around 'truth'.  Just to be brief, Penrose lectures on three kinds of truths: a Platonic mathematical world, a mental world and a physical world (see book 'The Road to Reality' by Penrose.  The way axioms, theorems and postulates are used in mathematics is a good lesson on how to conduct one's own thoughts so as to keep conjecture out of the conversation.  I will be more careful.
And about polls.  Yes, they are unreliable when done incorrectly, but also can reflect the distortions and deviations from the truth that a society has as a whole.  The American populace is one of the most duped in the world, especially about religion (Creationism), world politics, and Sadam Hussein... you name it.  Polls definitely reflect this.
There is a vast amount of classified information that has been withheld from public view, including all the surveillance tapes made of the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11.  If these and other massive amounts of information concerning the Israelis, Saudi Arabians etc... was released, we would not be quibbling about 20,30 or 40 percent doubting the official version of 9/11.  Cheney, Bush, Barak, Olmert and would all be in jail.
Steve

________________________________
From: Chris Goodrow <c_goodrow at hotmail.com>
To: Stephen Francis <stephenf1113 at yahoo.com>; "peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>; "davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net" <davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 8:22 PM
Subject: RE: 9/11 inside job....

30% of US citizens doubt the official story about 9/11 ---> 30% of the world's population believe that zionists killed 3000 people on 9/11 ---> inside job

I would argue that we're not talking about a few easy steps to get from one to the other. Also, your use of the exaggeration is very troubling to me. If you're going to cite polls and change the wording to help your argument, then we have a serious issue which could result in credibility issues for what you're trying to convey. Also, as far as doubting the official story about 9/11, what exactly does that mean when people feel that way? I think there is a broad spectrum that people could fall into in doubting the official story. One end of that spectrum is that the government wasn't diligent in preventing it, which is a far cry from being responsible for it.

Furthermore, do you suggest that polls equate to truth?  Here are a few polls you may find interesting.

The Newsweek<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek> magazine poll "What America Knows," conducted Princeton Survey Research Associates International, regularly asks American citizens a wide range of questions relating to world events both past and present, and a number of more trivial questions of general knowledge. On five occasions the following question has been asked:

"Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?"

  *   September 2003 responses: 47% Yes, 37% No, 16% not sure.
  *   January 2004 responses: 49% Yes, 39% No, 12% not sure.
  *   September 2004 responses: 42% Yes, 44% No, 14% not sure.
  *   October 2004 responses: 36% Yes, 51% No, 13% not sure.
  *   June 2007 responses: 41% Yes, 50% No, 9% not sure.

Those are some disturbingly increasing percentages in the yes column through the years. What should we take from that?

There was also a poll out last year that 46% of Americans believe that God created the human race in a single day 10,000 years ago. What's my point? My point is that polls certainly don't change my opinion or beliefs nor are they indicative of the truth.

Chris Goodrow
(217) 898-5039

________________________________
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 19:36:17 -0700
From: stephenf1113 at yahoo.com
Subject: 9/11 inside job....
To: c_goodrow at hotmail.com; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; occupyCU at lists.chambana.net; davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net

The phrase 'murdered 3000 people' is an exaggeration.  Obviously no poll would be worded that way.    But here's one site that I'm relying on.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/535.php  2008     Here is the relevant sentence:
On average, 46 percent said that al Qaeda was behind the attacks while 15 percent say the US government, seven percent Israel, and seven percent some other perpetrator. One in four said they do not know.
Only 46% think it was al Queda... the MSM sure has a different view .... 29% thought it was either US/Israel/other....I'm not that far off...Anti Americanism and anti Israel sentiment is substantially higher now in 2013 because of disastrous wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria...on and on... I'm sure if one disagreed with my premise they would interpret the data differently.

and from an Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth promotion .... see
THIS IS THE YEAR WE MAKE IT HAPPEN!
In spite of the fact that the 9/11 truth message has been censored by many in the media, ignored by Congress and the President, and shunned by most academic institutions, polls still show that more than 30% of US citizens doubt the official story about 9/11. Let’s reach out to the rest!
This is probably where I pulled the statistic from in the moment that I wrote the sentence.  Obviously, if you think that the official story is wrong, there's only a few easy steps toward calling it an inside job.

Stephen:
or
I would love to see some sort of documentation supporting the assertion that 30% of the world's population is convinced that Zionists murdered 3000 people on 9/11. Also, I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but most holocaust deniers do not like that term and prefer to be called holocaust revisionists. Semantics? I don't know. It does seem that many of who you reference on your page are people who are considered holocaust deniers.

David Gehrig:

I don't know that I necessarily agree that a holocaust denier (revisionist) is anti-semitic. I mean, having a distorted view of history and being wrong about it does not necessarily mean that you hate or have a prejudice against Jewish people. While I would agree that anti-semitics are more likely to be holocaust deniers, I don't think that equates to all holocaust deniers being anti-semitic.

Chris Goodrow
(217) 898-5039

I don't know that I necessarily agree that a holocaust denier (revisionist) is anti-semitic. I mean, having a distorted view of history and being wrong about it does not necessarily mean that you hate or have a prejudice against Jewish people. While I would agree that anti-semitics are more likely to be holocaust deniers, I don't think that equates to all holocaust deniers being anti-semitic.

Chris Goodrow
(217) 898-5039

________________________________
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:57:52 -0700
From: stephenf1113 at yahoo.com<mailto:stephenf1113 at yahoo.com>
To: david-cu at nukulele.org<mailto:david-cu at nukulele.org>
CC: Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net<mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>; occupyCU at lists.chambana.net<mailto:occupyCU at lists.chambana.net>
Subject: Re: [OccupyCU] [Peace-discuss] Online activism...

It can easily be proven that Zionist's murdered 3000 people on 9/11.  Thirty percent of the world's population is convinced of this.  The tide is turning.  I'm not antisemitic.  I'm anti Zionist. and also not a holocaust denier, but a holocaust revisionist.  The world also is waking up to the fact that the Zionists have used the holocaust to advance their politically and financial ends like no others in the history of the world.  Their have been countless genocides and only the Zionists use for gain.... Period.

________________________________
From: David Gehrig <david-cu at nukulele.org<mailto:david-cu at nukulele.org>>
To: Stephen Francis <stephenf1113 at yahoo.com<mailto:stephenf1113 at yahoo.com>>
Cc: ocCUpy <occupyCU at lists.chambana.net<mailto:occupyCU at lists.chambana.net>>; Peace-discuss List <Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net<mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Online activism...

I see your News Follow-Up site still says that "the Holocaust is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind" and still links to videos from the world's leading Holocaust deniers.

Which is to say, you still have an overtly antisemitic site.

@%<

On Jul 25, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Stephen Francis <stephenf1113 at yahoo.com<mailto:stephenf1113 at yahoo.com>> wrote:

Hello all.  This post concerns the issue of whether spending a lot of time posting things on Facebook or local discussion lists is a productive thing to do in the world of social justice and activism.
Yesterday (July 24th)a staffer at the Facebook page 'Prepare to Take America Back' made a link to a page of my websiteNewsFollowUp.com<http://newsfollowup.com/> http://www.newsfollowup.com/obama_body_count_obama_death_list_re-election_cia_gay.htm concerning a list that is known as the Obama Body Count...etc.  The link garnered 121 shares and 174 likes in just a few hours (see http://www.newsfollowup.com/facebook.html.)  This is quite difficult to do as you all know on Facebook.  Prepare to Take America Back is a right wing conservative page that I actually don't like, but at this point any credible political attack from either side of the isle on Obama is needed.  As Jimmy Carter recently put it: "We know longer have a functioning democracy". Anyway, Prepare to Take America Back Facebook has about 120,000 likes and 216,000 people 'talking about this'.  This is nationally substantial.  It is very encouraging to me that my work is seen by people in
 these numbers.
NewsFollowUp.com<http://newsfollowup.com/> http://www.newsfollowup.com/index.html enjoys about 50,000 to 100,000 page views per month and about 10% of  NFU viewers spend almost 600 hours per month on the site..  But this is nothing compared to the 20 million or so per month that Fox News has.  ...but...  from what I can tell, the average Facebook post gets one or two likes/shares per post if any at all.  I (Facebook name Occupy Occupy) have about 4700 Facebook friends and 516 people who 'follow' me and occasionally my posts will get shared a dozen times or so but usually not and many times no shares or likes.  Even someone like the nationally known activist Cindy Sheehan only has a couple of dozen shares and maybe 50-100 likes each on her posts.  My point here is that ... is it worth it to be spending hours and hours online posting remarks that only a few people see?  I think yes is the answer, but only in the context of you being in a sea of
 protesters doing the same thing.  Individually it is pretty pathetic, but social media on a world wide basis has made a huge difference... ie Egypt, Tunisia...etc.
As you can see from the front page of http://www.newsfollowup.com/index.html my focus is on 9/11 Truth.  I just believe that this is the most important issue in modern times.  It is the 'head of the snake'.  There is mountains of proof that the Cheneys/Bushes/Zionists of the world murdered 3000 people on 9/11 which has ushered in the Patriot Act/NSA/TSA... etc.  2000 engineers and architects of the website http://www.ae911truth.org/ Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth professional prove that 3 WTC towers were demolished with explosives.  We need to put these people in jail.  Working on anything else is important but doesn't threaten them in any way.... they just keep on doing what they do.
Anyway, I'm done.  Thanks for listening.
Steve Francis
NewsFollowUp.com<http://newsfollowup.com/>

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net<mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

_______________________________________________ OccupyCU mailing list OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net<mailto:OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20130726/b8e589eb/attachment-0001.html>