[Peace-discuss] [sftalk] [OccupyCU] News Gazette article on 9/11 Truth Conference, Sept. 22, Urbana Free Library
Ricky Baldwin
baldwinricky at yahoo.com
Fri Sep 20 16:29:39 UTC 2013
I haven't read Fetzer's book on the evolution of intelligence, which does interesting, but if I have read Chomsky's writings on the Kennedy assassination and 9/11, as well as a decent amount about Chomsky's linguistics, and I have to say I think Fetzer mischaracterizes Chomky's arguments badly.
...although not as badly as the offhand remark by Wayne below that Chomsky supposedly seems to support 'big government.' And you can't really talk about an idea unless you have a fair representation of it.
Just for a brief example, Chomsky argues that US policy was fairly consistent on some major concerns before, during, and after the Kennedy Administration. Fetzer points to what Kennedy may have been going to do. Think about the difference. Ultimately, of course, I do not know what happened to Kennedy in 1963 for sure, but Chomsky makes a compelling case and not just about the supposed effect on policy. I'm not going through it all here. You can read it for yourself. Fetzer's comment at the end of this "rabbit hole" interview is a good one - he encourages people to find out what's going on for themselves, as does Chomsky. They also both encourage critical thinking, which is needed in this thread.
Another important argument worth mentioning, though, about some of this type of what are generally known as 'conspiracy' theories - although Fetzer is correct that the official story about who brought down the Twin Towers is also a conspiracy, in fact - is the number of people who would be needed to keep it quiet and running smoothly. Andrew O Baoill mentions it below.
The number of people who would have to be involved in keeping quiet the alleged faking of the moonshots is astronomical (no pun intended). But more importantly, the number of people Fetzer describes as keeping quiet about 9/11 is pretty incredible, too. First would the planning and execution of such an act - a hoax, mind you, on a scale that has never before been attempted as far as we know (and much smaller ones, like the Gulf of Tonkin and the weapons factory/baby formula destroyed by US cruise missile attack, have been found out). Such an undertaking would require an extensive network of conspirators in various part of the world just to get certain individuals on the planes, create phone conversations that could be intercepted, etc., hijack the planes and make it through various levels of security, and either load huge amounts of explosives and such into the towers past security (or with their collaboration, too?) or develope a
theoretical version of nanothermite which includes unknown stuff at the atomic level or use an unknown material or keep all kinds of super weapons quiet. Such a thing could be just possible, but no good evidence of it exists, and since it's a pretty big claim, we'd want some pretty good evidence. There's an awful lot of speculation here mixed in with the questions about the official story.
Everything would have to come off pretty much without a hitch, too, which defies experience with so many previous schemes that it's hard to even see how anyone could buy it. (The official story, by contrast, does include the ordinary human error we have come to expect. The third plane was diverted the hijackers couldn't control the passengers, a couple calls got out, fighters scrambled but didn't know where to go, etc.)
Fetzer also claims in the "rabbit hole' interview that any structural or mechanical engineer with any training to speak of, or words to that effect, should know that the official account can't be even remotely correct - and that they are virtually ALL (thousands of people) keeping quiet because they are afraid they'll lose government contracts and the like. The 'truthers' are alway saying the official story is "not possible." Well, so was flight, breaking the sound barrier, and so on. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But which story is more feasible, the official story that a small conspiracy was able to crash three planes - two into their intended targets - and destroy big buildings and kill lots of people, or a much much larger conspiracy was able to not only do all that as well as fake such an event in plain view of the entire world, with the addition of engineering whatever is actually supposed to have brought the towers down?
Given how many spy operations have been exposed recently - British spying on Belgian phones in the news today, reporters hacking famous people's phones, all the way back to Watergate and before - it seems hard to believe that there wouldn't be a squealer or just a little hard evidence of some of these things. OK, that's just a really big pile of questions, not proof that Fetzer's wrong. But for my 2c what he and the 9/11 'truthers' are asking us to believe is a lot bigger with a lot less evidence than the official story. That leaves me, anticlimatically, with the official story. We all saw it on TV. It sure looked like what the officials tell us. I read and watch Youtube to get what the 'truthers' say, and it just isn't good enough.
Absent something better than what I've seen so far, I'd have to include the 'truther' movement with the 'birther' movement that is severely under-convincing.
Ricky Baldwin
"Speak your mind, even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
________________________________
From: James Fetzer <jfetzer at d.umn.edu>
To: E. Wayne Johnson 朱稳森 <ewj at pigsqq.org>
Cc: Stephen Francis <stephenf1113 at yahoo.com>; "andrew at funferal.org" <andrew at funferal.org>; "sftalk at yahoogroups.com" <sftalk at yahoogroups.com>; "peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>; David Gehrig <david-cu at nukulele.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 11:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [sftalk] [OccupyCU] News Gazette article on 9/11 Truth Conference, Sept. 22, Urbana Free Library
It actually very simple. I am interested in evidence-based history.
I resent the lies and the lying liars who feed them to the public,
where they are aided and abetted by many exactly like Gehrig.
Fetzer on Chomsky: Linguistics & 9/11 - YouTube
► 7:15 www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gFB4VjcmJwAug 2, 2007 - 7 min - Uploaded by Yoryevrah
James H. Fetzer, prof. of philosophy (U.of Minnesota, Duluth, ret.), critiques Noam Chomsky's ...
Dr. Jim Fetzer/ Noam Chomsky's faulty LINGUISTICS ... - YouTube
► 27:21 www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKKDmuqMOaAApr 27, 2007 - 27 min - Uploaded by paulagloria
Noam Chomsky has let down many truth activists and given clear indication of working with ...
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:44 PM, "E. Wayne Johnson 朱稳森" <ewj at pigsqq.org> wrote:
>Mr. Gehrig, like his idol and mentor Mr. ne' Heidler/Schickelgruber, is a really nice guy actually, just poorly understood as such. It is not appropriate to generalize from Gehrig and make somebody else's Kampf our own kampfire. But- The sinking of the Maine. The Kennedy assassination(s). The Gulf of Tonkin incident. The murder of MLKJr. The various nefarious acts of the CIA The 9/11 questions. etc., etc., etc. Mother, should I trust the Government? Chomsky et al seem to want better Government. Some of us think that no Government at all would be better, but it seems that Men are not ready for that. People like Fetzer do serve a useful function in the Society. They throw out a net and get many fishes, some good some bad. It's not up to veebleFetzer to sort them out. That's up to you the reader. Mr. Francis has seen the Government at some of its worst, up close, and personal-like. It's reasonable for him to mistrust it. The mime of disease in
the amerikan society is something like the persistent infection produced by Pestiviruses. The host cant quite get pissed off enough to get rid of the infection, and the bug doesnt kill the host. The host gives birth to diseased and deformed and weakened offspring a percentage of which become persistently infected and maintain the infection through generations. Somehow the amerikan society gains various benefits from the memes and clings to the them, even defends the virus from threats.
> On 09/20/13 10:52, Stephen Francis wrote:
>You've confirmed my point by making light of it...you have
no idea what those experiences bring to a person.
>>
>>________________________________
>> From: David Gehrig mailto:david-cu at nukulele.org
>>To: Stephen Francis mailto:stephenf1113 at yahoo.com
>>Cc: mailto:sftalk at yahoogroups.com mailto:sftalk at yahoogroups.com; mailto:andrew at funferal.org mailto:andrew at funferal.org; mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; Jim Fetzer mailto:jfetzer at d.umn.edu
>>Sent: Thursday,
September 19, 2013 7:07 PM
>>Subject: Re: [sftalk]
[OccupyCU] News Gazette article on 9/11 Truth Conference, Sept. 22,
Urbana Free Library
>>
>>
>>What's disgraceful, Fetzer, is you.
>>I'd like to believe that at some point Steve will figure out
why. But as long as you keep him barking-mad up the wrong tree, I don't
expect it.
>>Also, by the way, Dr O-boyo, can I shoot at you? That will
render all of your opinions correct, apparently. Cheaper than a second
PhD!
>> @%<
>> On Sep 19, 2013, at 8:52 PM, Stephen Francis <stephenf1113 at yahoo.com>
wrote:
>>From James Fetzer Ph.D.
It is disgraceful to see an academician abuse his position to curtail
debate on the most important event of the 21st C. by "installing
filters". He dismisses my research WITHOUT EVEN STUDYING
THE EVIDENCE. I am quite confident he has not read any of the links that I have provided about 9/11 or Sandy Hook or the Boston bombing, for example. By embracing the moon landings without
considering the arguments, he is embracing the occurrence of a series of events that are neither physically nor aerodynamically possible--very much as THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT was based upon any number of additional impossibilities. This is the easy way out: avoid the evidence and the issues at all cost since they may show that beliefs he has entertained are indefensible.
He does not even appreciate the hypocrisy in attacking me without bothering to study any of my arguments on any of these questions. I am overwhelmed with contempt for the contemptible fashion in which he obviates the standards of reason and rationality by the expedient of cutting off discussion and debate and adopting the ostrich policy. When there is too much heat, he shuts down the kitchen. The man is a perfect example of an intellectual bully and a coward who abuses his position to give a false impression of principle, when he is demonstrating that he possesses none. And that is manifest in his infatuation with Noam Chomsky, where he seems oblivious of his mentor's gross intellectual deficiencies:
>>>Fetzer
on Chomsky: Linguistics & 9/11 - YouTube
>>>
>>>►
7:15 www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gFB4VjcmJwAug 2, 2007 - 7 min - Uploaded by Yoryevrah
>>>James H. Fetzer, prof. of philosophy (U.of Minnesota, Duluth,
ret.), critiques Noam Chomsky's ...
>>>Dr.
Jim Fetzer/ Noam Chomsky's faulty LINGUISTICS ... - YouTube
>>>
>>>►
27:21 www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKKDmuqMOaAApr 27, 2007 - 27
min - Uploaded by paulagloria
>>>Noam Chomsky has let down many truth activists and given clear
indication of working with ...
>>>
>>>
>>>Jim
>>>James
H. Fetzer, Ph.D. McKnight Professor Emeritus University of Minnesota Duluth
>>>http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer
>>>
>>>________________________________
>>> From: Stephen Francis <stephenf1113 at yahoo.com>
>>>To: "sftalk at yahoogroups.com" <sftalk at yahoogroups.com>
>>>Cc: "david-cu at nukulele.org" <david-cu at nukulele.org>; "peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>;
Jim Fetzer <jfetzer at d.umn.edu>
>>>Sent: Thursday,
September 19, 2013 5:34 PM
>>>Subject: Re:
[sftalk] [OccupyCU] News Gazette article on 9/11 Truth Conference,
Sept. 22, Urbana Free Library
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You (Mr. Ó Baoill) speak so
eloquently in your lofty address to the issues of the day. You and all
your fellow Chomskyites speak the same language in that your really not
communicating ideas but rather reinforcing each others Chomskyism. It
must feel good and you are all so proud of yourselves as you flitter
amongst prose that glitters in the eye. You've probably never been
handcuffed and thrown down on the floor of a cage inside a dangerous
prison because of your glittery flittery. You've never been shot at
with rifles held by moronic souls who knew no better than to do what
their daddy told em. You've never been hungry or felt the mad pounding
in your chest as your heartbeat races knowing that your next word will
mean freedom or jail. You've never seen the look on a grown man's face
looking into the sentence on a official looking piece of paper that
says Vietnam is your next home. You've never heard the screams of
nightmares of groan men as they fight back the demons of heroin.
Please continue with your Chomsky bedside manner and keep your eyes in
the clouds of academic loft, because we know where the comfort of your
words come from.
>>>
>>>________________________________
>>> From: Dr Andrew Ó Baoill <andrew at funferal.org>
>>>To: sftalk at yahoogroups.com
>>>Cc: david-cu at nukulele.org; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net;
Jim Fetzer <jfetzer at d.umn.edu>
>>>Sent: Thursday,
September 19, 2013 4:14 PM
>>>Subject: Re:
[sftalk] [OccupyCU] News Gazette article on 9/11 Truth Conference,
Sept. 22, Urbana Free Library
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I was travelling, so my response on this is delayed.
>>>I've kept out of Truther threads for a variety of reasons, but
I feel compelled to interject, in case silence be taken as implying
consent and complicity. On 9/11 Trutherism, I've largely agreed with Chomsky's analysis - that
the implication of a 'massive conspiracy' has too many moving parts to
pass Occam's razor, and that in any event, it distracts from actually
useful politics, as it heads down a rabbit hole. (Incidentally, I
understand that there will be responses claiming that the the Truthers
are agnostic on the question of a central conspiracy, that it's a
grouping of analyses, etc. I'm not going to try to get into any of that
because, frankly, I have neither the time nor interest. Hence, my
silence until now, like, I suspect, many if my comrades on the list.)
>>> However, with this latest thread we move into both offensive and
ridiculous territory. Ridiculous first: Stephen says that James 'Jim' Fetzer represents his
views on every issue he can think of. Fetzer's summary of his own
beliefs include a claim that Sandy Hook was staged to garner support
for gun control. That's actually more offensive than ridiculous. I
trust the sane members of this list don't need me to elaborate. On a
lighter note Fetzer, bless his soul, clings to his belief that the moon
landings were staged. That one I did laugh at. I'll jump to my main point: I'm implementing filters to block and 'send
to trash' all future mail from Mr. Francis (and, pre-emptively, Mr.
Fetzer). It saps my time, energy, and the value I get from the
Socialist Forum lists. I suspect that others have done similarly. This
mail is not an attempt or offer to enter into dialogue with Francis or
his like. The method of debate of professed generalized conspiracy
theorists fails several of the basic rules of debate, including the
building of trust with other participants, a desire to reach consensus
with those of disparate approaches, and a rational approach to argument. I feel it important, though, to first go on record, so Mr. Francis and
his ilk not be able read silence as acceptance. Fetzer's Holocaust 'revisionism' is anti-semitic (and, more broadly,
anti-humanist), in that it distracts from central questions about the
totalizing violence and hatred that drove the 'final solution' with
evasive and quibbling side issues that provide a nod and a wink to
fellow anti-semites, while leaving just enough room for deniability.
Fetzer is gracious enough to acknowledge 'abuse' by the Nazis, but
notably goes no further - and this is his own defense to a critical
audience. There are some attempts to muddy the water, to mimic actual
scholarship that seeks to add nuance and critical analysis to
narratives of the period, but to my mind, after viewing Fetzer's own
summary of his approach, the distinction is clear. In addition, as
Belden helpfully noted, it is possible (and, I'd suggest, important) to
distinguish criticism of Israel from anti-semitism.
>>>I know there are those on this list whose families have
directly suffered in the Holocaust. My own son's family lost many
members - and as genocides are intended to, those who survived were
displaced and lost any connection to the land that had been their home.
I cannot help but wonder - briefly, but not enough to desire a response
from Fetzer/Francis/etc. - if these 'revisionists' would apply a
similar logic to the Irish experience, and seek to erase the violence
that we were subjected to through the colonial experience.
>>>
>>>Andrew
>>>Dr. Andrew Ó Baoill andrew at funferal.org
>>>On 17 MFómh 2013, at 23:20, Stephen Francis <stephenf1113 at yahoo.com>
wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'm passing Jim's response to
David Gehrig on to the group(s)...
>>>>and
would like to reiterate my enthusiastic support for James Fetzer. I
have much to learn from him. He and I are on the same page every issue
that I can think of.
>>>>I
again take exception to remarks like the one below:
>>>>"Steve Francis, by his selection of Jim Fetzer and Kevin
Barrett, has made it clear that he has aligned himself with the
Jew-hating wing of trooferdom."
>>>>
>>>>I
reiterate my support for the following JEWISH organizations.
>>>>NKUSA, JewsNotZionists, JewsAgainstZion, JewsAgainstZionism, International
Jewish AntiZionist Network, American
Jews Solidarity Against Zionism, Rabbis
Against Zionism, IsraelVersusJudaism. These people created their organizations for a
specific reason of which they are highly dedicated.
>>>>See Jim's response below:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>________________________________
>>>> From: James Fetzer <jfetzer at d.umn.edu>
>>>>To: Stephen
Francis <stephenf1113 at yahoo.com>
>>>>Sent: Tuesday,
September 17, 2013 7:34 PM
>>>>Subject: Re:
[OccupyCU] News Gazette article on 9/11 Truth Conference, Sept. 22,
Urbana Free Library
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Steve,
>>>>Kindly post this as my response to the completely
unwarranted claims made by:
>>>>David Gehrig <david-cu at nukulele.org>
appears to be the epitome of arrogance
>>>>driven by ignorance. In his completely gratuitous dismissal of my positions,
which
>>>>he supports exclusively by a very odd quote taken out of context.
Does he not
>>>>know that the figure 6,000,000 was being bandied about as early as 1890 and has
>>>>'a theological or ideological origin. It has nothing to do with the
history of WWII,
>>>>including of course the Holocaust, which he may not realized would
not take place
>>>>for another 40 or 50 years. But spare me more about the Holocaust!
>>>>
>>>>I have
spelled out my position on a very wide range of complex and
controversial
>>>>subjects, about which it appears he knows
nothing at all. If he would like to show
>>>>me wrong, THEN SHOW ME WRONG. Pick the subject on which he
thinks I am
>>>>most likely to be wrong. Explain my position and why I hold it, then
spell out what
>>>>he thinks I have wrong and why. I find it completely insulting
to everyone whom he
>>>>addresses that he can make pompous pronouncements with no proof!
>>>>
>>>>Here is a thumbnail sketch of my positions on issues
that have arisen on the thread:
>>>>
>>>>9/11 was not committed by 19
Islamic terrorists who hijacked four commercial airliners and outfoxed
the most sophisticated air-defense system in the world;
>>>>the Wellstone plane crash was not an accident,
as the NTSB reported, but was very carefully contrived for the GOP to
take control of the Senate and launch wars;
>>>>the Holocaust has been exaggerated for political
reasons, including war crimes by the allies in the form of collective
punishment of German cities, which they needed to conceal;
>>>>JFK was hit four times--in the throat from in
front, in the back from behind, and twice in the head (from behind and
from the right-front)--where Lee Oswald didn't do it;
>>>>the moon landing was easier to pull off than
most realize, as the film, "Capricorn I", releals, where Stanly Kubrick
seems to have faked the landings for the government;
>>>>the Boston bombing was an obvious fraud, where
the Craft International perps had been outed by the alternative press
already the evening of the event itself; and,
>>>>the Sandy Hook event was staged to promote gun
control, which fell short but not for a lack of trying.
>>>>Check out http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/fetzer/ for
my and other's articles about them.
>>>>If anyone thinks I am wrong about any of this,
just take a look at the evidence and tell me what I have wrong and how
you know, so I can take your arguments into account.
>>>>Most of us don't have the luxury or the
background or the ability to take this on, but I am a professional
scholar who has been devoting himself to their study since my
retirement.
>>>>I am not happy with what we have found, but the
core of rationality is to adapt your beliefs to the available relevant
evidence. For an explanation of how this can be done, consider
>>>>"Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and
JFK", which provides an introduction to "inference to the best
explanation" in reasoning about cases like these at http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/fetzerexpandedx.pdf
>>>>I have benefited from collaborating with
authorities in different domains, such as a world authority on the
human brain and expert on wound ballistics, a Ph.D. in physics who is
also an M.D. and board certified in radiation oncology;
>>>>an M.D. who was present when JFK was brought
into Trauma Room #1 and two days later was responsible for the
treatment of his alleged assassin in Trauma Room #2, a legendary photo
analyst and another Ph.D. in electromagnetism.
>>>>In relation to 9/11, I have similarly benefitted
from collaboration with physicists, pilots, engineers (structural,
mechanical, aeronautical, and chemical), which has enabled me to sort
things out on the basis of experts in areas where I am not.
>>>>Since David insists that I have "put my
reputation through a wood chipper", as he so cavalierly puts it, let
him choose the subject among those I've listed and SHOW WHAT I HAVE
WRONG. He can pick the subject and explain what I say about it and
why, then explain what I have wrong and how he knows. I don't think he
can prevail on any of these subjects and if he cannot, then we will
have proof positive he is the ignoramus who has no idea what he's
talking about, which is already apparent to me. So he can take up my
challenge or crawl back into the hole he came out of. The world will
know he's a total fraud.
>>>>Jim
>>>>
>>>>On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at
8:15 PM, David Gehrig <david-cu at nukulele.org> wrote:
>>>>I'm not going to get caught up in a tedious cycle of reply
to reply to reply, mostly because Jim Fetzer has already done me the
favor of putting his reputation here through the wood chipper, so
thoroughly in fact that there are hardly any large chunks left that
need addressing. So here's my sole reply to this thread.
>>>>>I long ago decided that there was an upper limit to the
politeness a Holocaust denier can expect, so I hope you don't expect
that through some sense of faux collegiality I will pretend I don't
notice how Fetzer's remarks reek of eau d'Naziboy.
>>>>>What is Fetzer's argument about the number of Holocaust
dead based on? He points to a website article of the form "What is it
with the lying Jews and their fetish about the number six million?
They're polluting the minds of white children." Here's a direct quote
from the article Fetzer found so persuasive:
>>>>>"The primary function of this insidious global propaganda
campaign is to -- quite simply -- brainwash non-Jews into a state of
abject fear and paralysis while we are ideologically, economically, and
physically enslaved by the Jewish tribe."
>>>>>Now, remember, that's an article that Fetzer not only
doesn't find racially problematic, not only finds agreeable, not only
doesn't set off his racism alarm, but finds so sunnily agreeable to his
worldview that he actually recommended it to the rest of this list as
an example of the sort of thing that shapes his thoughts on the topic.
>>>>>I've long felt that 9/11 trooferdom, while always quite
stupid, was not inherently antisemitic. It has its Jew-haters, sure,
but that doesn't mean everyone.
>>>>>Steve Francis, by his selection of Jim Fetzer and Kevin
Barrett, has made it clear that he has aligned himself with the
Jew-hating wing of trooferdom.
>>>>>The sad part is, I don't think that Steve Francis is
motivated by antisemitism. I just think he's so completely credulous,
he doesn't do the most rudimentary gut-check of the antisemitic slop
people like Fetzer feed him.
>>>>> @%<
>>>>> On Sep 17, 2013, at 3:29 PM, Stephen Francis <stephenf1113 at yahoo.com>
wrote:
>>>>>This is James Fetzer's response to David Gehrig's
post (below)
>>>>>>----- Forwarded Message ----- From: James Fetzer <jfetzer at d.umn.edu>
>>>>>>To: Stephen
Francis <stephenf1113 at yahoo.com>
>>>>>>Sent: Tuesday,
September 17, 2013 12:49 PM
>>>>>>Subject: Re:
Fw: [OccupyCU] News Gazette article on 9/11 Truth Conference, Sept. 22,
Urbana Free Library
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Someone is willfully misinterpreting, but that ain't me.
I am a Holocaust REVISIONIST,
>>>>>>because I believe we have inherited a grossly
exaggerated account of the events that
>>>>>>are alleged to have taken place at the end of WWII. The
number of alleged "victims" of
>>>>>>the Holocaust, 6,000,000, for example, appears to be a
number that has theological or
>>>>>>ideological origins and is not historically accurate.
See, for example, a study discussing
>>>>>>the origins of the 6,000,000 myth at http://zioncrimefactory.com/the-six-million-myth/
>>>>>>Moreover, the Nuremberg Tribunals appear to have
presented a biased case to convey
>>>>>>the impression that the Nazis were responsible for the
extensive starvation of inmates
>>>>>>at internment camps, when, as Robert Faurisson, "Against
Hollywoodism, Revisionism",
>>>>>>http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/2012/02/against-hollywoodism-revisionism.html has
>>>>>>explained, that was a consequence of Allied bombing of
German cities, which interdicted
>>>>>>railroad lines and made it impossible to resupply the
camps, leading to mass starvation.
>>>>>>Ironically, the Tribunals found that collective
punishment is a war crime, which the Allies
>>>>>>appear to have been keen to cover-up by attributing the
starvation to the Nazis instead.
>>>>>>There are many other reasons to doubt the "official
account" of the Holocaust. I do not
>>>>>>DENY that Jews, gypsies and the mentally and physically
infirm were abused by Nazis,
>>>>>>but the nature of that abuse appears to have been
exaggerated for political purposes. It
>>>>>>is no coincidence that the allegation of being a
"Holocaust denier" is raised against any
>>>>>>one who is remotely critical of the actions or policies
of the government of Israel, which
>>>>>>may qualify as "anti-Zionist" but does not qualify as
"anti-Semitic". For more, I have a
>>>>>>half-dozen or more interviews on "The Real Deal" discussing Holocaust
mythology at
>>>>>>http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/.
Anyone can go there and do a search on "Holocaust".
>>>>>>I published an article about this question, "Is 9/11
research 'anti-Semitic'?" in 2009. It
>>>>>>is offensive that Zionist organizations and individuals
continue to attack all of us who
>>>>>>are trying to make sense of the evidence about the
Holocaust and to counter the false
>>>>>>account of history that these exaggerated attacks
entail, which play upon a sense of
>>>>>>Western guilt to manipulate the public to promote the
political agenda of Israel. There
>>>>>>is more that could be said here, but I would like to
think this is enough. I have most
>>>>>>recently laid out my views on these questions in an
article in Veterans Today 2013:
>>>>>>http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/06/04/anti-anti-semitism-and-the-search-for-historical-truth/
>>>>>>----- Forwarded Message -----
>>>>>>>From: David Gehrig <david-cu at nukulele.org>
>>>>>>>To: Stephen
Francis <stephenf1113 at yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>Cc: occupycu
<occupyCU at lists.chambana.net>;
"peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net"
<peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>;
sftalk <sftalk at yahoogroups.com>
>>>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 8:40 AM
>>>>>>>Subject: Re:
[OccupyCU] News Gazette article on 9/11 Truth Conference, Sept. 22,
Urbana Free Library
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Is that the same Jim Fetzer who says the Nazis only
killed 600,000 Jews in the Holocaust, based on his willful
misinterpretation of an ICRC document? Why, yes it is.
>>>>>>>You're not doing a very good job disentangling
yourself from the Holocaust denial movement, are you.
>>>>>>> @%<
>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2013, at 6:28 AM, Stephen Francis <stephenf1113 at yahoo.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hello all,
>>>>>>>>The News Gazette has published an article (and
below) on The Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference this Sunday at the Urbana
Free Library, in the auditorium from 1:30-4:45pm. Again, the speakers
are three highly knowledgeable
experts on 9/11 Truth including James Fetzer Ph.D. (founder of Scholars
for 9/11 Truth),Wayne Madsen (editor of WayneMadsenReport.com, Washington D.C.)and Kevin Barrett (co-founder of the Muslim
Jewish Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth). The
conference is hosted by UC
9/11 Truth Urbana-Champaign and NewsFollowUp.com ...
see Facebook Event email: info at midwest911truth.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The
world has changed dramatically since 9/11. Citizens of the U.S. have
seen a precipitous erosion in basic Constitutional rights since 9/11. This
usurpation of rights has been directly tied to the creation of
government entities and legislation, such as the Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot
Act, the Military Commissions Act, the NDAA and revelation of massive
surveillance of the American people by NSA.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The first component of the
conference will be to view the widely distributed and acclaimed
documentary film by the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, 'Explosive
Evidence: Experts Speak Out'. Because AE911Truth.org is a highly significant leader
in the 9/11
>>>>>>>>Truth movement, its influential
documentary deserves careful scrutiny insofar its conclusions are widely
regarded as providing crucial evidence for future legal action.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>James
Fetzer, Ph.D., will assess the A&E documentary and report the
latest scientific findings about how it was done, where all sides agree
that the Twin Towers could not have been brought down by the
impact of airliners and resulting fires.. His analysis of the science
of 9/11 will be complemented by Wayne Madsen's analysis of who was
responsible and why. Kevin Barrett will moderate and add his
perspective to all of these issues.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>We seek to find answers to legitimate
questions about 9/11 and
to enable credible prosecutors to bring the perpetrators for these acts
to
>>>>>>>>justice. There is a vast amount of
evidence gathered to support this belief and has led to the
conclusion that neo-cons in the US were aided by the intelligence
services of other countries. Supporters of the 9/11 Truth movement, including local
members of UC 9/11 Truth Urbana Champaign, demand a new independent and
international investigation of 9/11.
>>>>>>>>We invite all to attend. The conference is free and open to the public.
Thank youSteve Francis
>>>>>>>>UC 9/11 Truth Urbana-Champaign
email: info at midwest911truth.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>News Gazette article:
>>>>>>>>Sunday
conference to focus on 9/11 attacks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Mon, 09/16/2013 - 7:40pm | The
News-Gazette
>>>>>>>>URBANA — A conference planned this weekend in Urbana
will explore issues surrounding the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
>>>>>>>>The Midwest 9/11 Truth Conference will be held at
1:30 p.m. Sunday in the auditorium of the Urbana Free Library, 210 W.
Green St.
>>>>>>>>The event is sponsored by UC 9/11 Truth
Urbana-Champaign. (see Facebook)
>>>>>>>>Admission is free and open to the public.
>>>>>>>>People who have been studying the events of Sept. 11
will talk about their perspectives on the attacks.
>>>>>>>>"According to national and international polls,
nearly 30 percent of the population is skeptical of the 'official'
version of the events of 9/11," said Steve Francis of UC 9/11 Truth
Champaign-Urbana. "The 9/11 Commission Report is viewed as a cover-up
by a significant percentage of citizens and the 9/11 Truth Movement
seeks to find answers to these questions about the real cause of those
atrocities."
>>>>>>>>The conference will begin the presentation of a
documentary film, "Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out."
>>>>>>>>James Fetzer, the founder of Scholars for 9/11
Truth, will comment on the documentary and report on scientific
findings.
>>>>>>>>Wayne Madsen, editor of WayneMadsenReport.com,
will provide an analysis of who may have been responsible for the
attacks and why.
>>>>>>>>Kevin Barrett, co-founder of the
Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth, will serve as
moderator and will add his perspective on the issues.
>>>>>>>>For more information on the event, call Fetzer at 608-354-4280.
>>>>>>>_______________________________________________ OccupyCU mailing list OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu
>>>__._,_.___
>>>Reply
via web post Reply to
sender Reply to
group Start a New
Topic Messages in
this topic (3)
>>>Recent
Activity: * New Members 1
>>>Visit Your Group
>>>
>>>Switch to: Text-Only, Daily
Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback
>>>.
>>>__,_._,___
>>
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________Peace-discuss mailing listPeace-discuss at lists.chambana.nethttps://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20130920/e4cafaa4/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list