[Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] 9/11 Truth, The Elephant in the Room video ....

Wed Mar 26 16:58:32 UTC 2014

Say, Steve, I picked a copy of this graphic off your newsfollowup website a little while ago and I'm wondering if you could tell us what you meant by it. 

http://static.nukulele.org/denial/facebook_google_wikipedia_jewish.jpg

@%<

> On Mar 26, 2014, at 2:44 PM, Stephen Francis <stephenf1113 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Most of us on these threads agree on the major issues of anti-war, anti-military industrial complex, anti-nuclear, anti-discrimination, anti-1%, anti-Wall Street corruption, anti-GMO, anti-NSA, anti- on and on ... and (oh... congratulations Carol Ammons, by the way). 
> 
> We bash corporations for their greed, and blame the government for our astronomical debt, but when it comes to 9/11 Truth all of a sudden many are defending the official position (9/11 Commission joke) and going out of their way to diminish the meaning of the events on 9/11.
>  
> This is very suspicious to me and evidence of a those who do this having a hidden agenda. 9/11 Truthers blame the same people/corporations/governments for the aforementioned list as they blame for the deliberate destruction of the WTC (to start wars, etc).  There is a glaring, obvious inconsistency here.
>  
> I want to make a correction in the Academic Freedom Conference restatement I made the other day.  I said: "Dual Israeli/American citizens, for example, were deeply involved in the ownership, privatization, cleanup, rebuilding, adjudication, victim compensation, investigation and media coverage of the destruction of the WTC complex." 
> 
> This should have said - Dual Israeli/American citizens, for example, were deeply involved in the ownership, privatization, cleanup, rebuilding, adjudication, emergency management, legislation, military response, investigation, victim compensation and media coverage of the destruction of the WTC complex.
> 
> I'm sure you're all tired of my bashing Israel, but I have nowhere else to look, It wasn't the Russians, Chinese, Jesuits, Martians.
> 
> The issue is not settled.
> 
> Here is more from California.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 2:04 PM, Ricky Baldwin <rbaldwin at seiu73.org> wrote:
> I'm afraid the elephant in the room has a dfferent name.  It appears to me that much of the doubt directed at the "official version" of what happened to the Twin Towers and AA77 has a source other than sound reason.
> 
> 
> 
> The circumstantial evidence for this (the doubters who also doubt the Kennedy assassination, the moon walk, the Sandy Hook shootings, the accident that killed Paul Wellstone and other highly dubious doubts, so to speak) is not all, of course.  The view of the world that says every detail must be accounted for fully and satisafctorily by a mundane model, or we must cast the mundane model aside in favor of the fantastic, is troublesome in itself.  And the reasning that, just because the Government lied about some things, they must have lied about everything, is flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> George Bush & Co. told the world that Saddam Hussein maintained "weapons of mass destruction" in 2003.  But once the US invasion and occupation confirmed that this was untrue, the Government admitted that the expected weapons were not there.  Couldn't they have issued a false report, or planted some gas, or at least found a way to remove the UN stickers from the old weapons already catalogued and out of commission?  If this were too difficult for them to pull off, do we seriously believe that the events of Sept. 11, 2001, were easier to fake?
> 
> 
> 
> Not that telling the truth on one item means they will tell the truth on another, either, by any means.  We know that footage of crowds pulling down a statue in Iraq was staged (we have the wider frame shots, the testimony of folks who were there as the shots were set up, etc).  We also know that some of the putative justification for the US attack on Iraq in the 1990's was faked: the testimony of the young girl who supposedly saw Iraqi troops removing Kuwaiti babies from incubators (she was never there, a PR firm paid her, etc.).  But we have nothing even remotely approaching evidence that 9-11 was a hoax, an inside job, or anything other that what it appeared to be: a terrorist attack (with the caveat that the terrorists seem to have been connected to elements originally trained by US agents in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation).
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of argumentation for 9-11 doubt takes the form "Why would x happen?"  This is not evidence.  Ask almost anybody to explain, for example, the weird effects of a tornado or hurricane, and they likely cannot.  This is not evidence of funny business.
> 
> 
> 
> A minority of the argumentation consists of activities such as men in overalls coming into the building over the weekend prior to Sept .11, 2011, which we are supposed to find suspicious.  However, the individuals who say they witnessed these activities say they saw nothing unusual in it at the time.  It is only after the fact that significance seems to adhere to them, like a funny feeling someone may remember having somewhere around the time some terrible event is believed to have happened.  But there is no reason to believe this is not simply confirmational bias (e.g. a song on the radio that suits a mood or circumstance is noticed, while other songs before and after are ignored because they do not seem to fit).
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows?  The World Trade Center may have been destroyed by Bush agents, Israeli agents, extraterrestrials, a "directed energy beam," a "mini black hole," or who knows what.  I can see that such theories are *more interesting* that the apparent answer and subsequent opportunism by Bush et al.  What I cannot see, no matter how many of these videos I watch, is *why any of those explanations is better (or even equally) supported by the evidence* compared to the apparent answer.
> 
> 
> 
> Another common mistake, which may be related to this one, is to dismiss all horror stories, such as the very real evils of the old School of the Americas, extraordinary rendition, and so on, as fantastical "conspiracy theories" of the Roswell type.  We just have to look at the evidence if we don't want to be gullible.
> 
> 
> 
> Ricky
> ________________________________
> From: OccupyCU [occupycu-bounces at lists.chambana.net] on behalf of Stephen Francis [stephenf1113 at yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 1:03 PM
> To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; occupycu
> Subject: [OccupyCU] 9/11 Truth, The Elephant in the Room video ....
> 
> 
> YouTube video<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJoejNkTp4U>, 9/11/Truth<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJoejNkTp4U>
> 
> [X]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20140326/b1ce7d2b/attachment.html>