[Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] 9/11 Truth, The Elephant in the Room video ....
David Johnson
davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net
Thu Mar 27 08:37:12 UTC 2014
Yes,
Who are ( were ) the owners of Popular Mechanics and who was one of the so
called " debunkers " employed at Popular Mechanics.
Hint.. The last names of Hearst and Chernov, as in Hearst publications and
Michael Chernov's nephew.
You need to check out David Ray Griffin's well documented book
" Debunking 9-11 Debunking " and Archietects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth
website.
But of course you won't.
And trying to lump all people who question the Bush admin and corporate
media fairytale in with known lunatics like David Ickes and intentional
disinformation is disingenuous.
Especially when you have never made an effort to look at any serious
research and facts that contradicts the " official " corporate narrative.
Respectfully
David J.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ricky Baldwin" <rbaldwin at seiu73.org>
To: "Stephen Francis" <stephenf1113 at yahoo.com>;
<peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>; "occupycu" <occupyCU at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: [OccupyCU] 9/11 Truth, The Elephant in the Room video ....
> There is another, more obvious, reason that none of those networks will
> officially go down the rabbit hole of "9-11 Truth". That reason is that
> there is no good reason for doing so. I suspect for some of those it
> would be politically uncomfortable, because they don't like to rock that
> boat. But it's hard to accuse them of having that one as primary because
> the other reason is so much stronger.
>
> I don't think any of us disputes that those people were murdered on
> 9-11-01. The question is by whom. I'm not sure if you're serious about
> the question of responsibility, but in terms of "provid[ing] information
> that it was some other force other than a combination of Israel / British
> / Israel"... um... there is the matter of the two enormous jets that flew
> into the buildings and the fact that a third crashed into the Pentagon
> following broken messages on radio and cell phone indicating that
> terrorist were trying to use the craft as a weapon. There is the matter
> of the very public burning of the towers, broadcast live and repeated on
> TV worldwide, and the eyewitness reports of many survivors that the
> buildings were on fire when they escaped. There are numerous reports by
> engineers and other knowledgeable people on such matters that, yep, it was
> pretty much what it appeared to be.
>
> Here's a small sample:
> http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/911-myths
>
> Here's another fairly thorough source explaining what the evidence shows:
> http://www.debunking911.com/
>
> And a few more salient points:
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/05/9-11-conspiracy-theories-debunked
>
> And finally, the Israeli government is guilty of many crimes, as is the Us
> government. This does not mean either is guilty of this one. Your
> assertion that the fact of disagreement on this point somehow "proves
> [your] point" only suggests that you are caught in some sort of very
> unfortunate feedback loop, i.e. everything you encounter seems to you to
> confirm your opinion. Your reason can only suffer from such a
> development.
>
> Ricky
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Francis [stephenf1113 at yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 4:48 PM
> To: Ricky Baldwin; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; occupycu
> Subject: Re: [OccupyCU] 9/11 Truth, The Elephant in the Room video ....
>
> If you want me to repeat what I said above I will, but I think it's
> unnecessary.
> Israel is under greater attack for more directions than ever before
> because of the vast number of media choices people have to decide what the
> want to pay attention to and have the will now to break through the
> propaganda provided by the MSM, Wikipedia, Facebook and Google. They
> won't touch 9/11, which is a highly significant point in itself that
> supports my view that Israel was complicit in 9/11.
>
> I'm old enough to remember watching Walter Kronkite on a black and white
> TV and realize now that I was being brainwashed. I am no longer
> brainwashed.
>
> I made the very incendiary remark about a year ago that I thought 3000
> people were murdered on 9/11 and I still hold that belief, based on a
> scientific process of evidence accumulation and analysis. No matter what I
> do, nothing changes this. If anyone can provide information that it was
> some other force other than a combination of Israel / British / Israel I
> will gladly look at that.
>
> And like I mentioned above, we (these threads) all agree on many social
> justice issues, but disagree vehemently on 9/11, which again just proves
> my point that there is a hidden agenda to shift the blame away from
> Israel. The present tide is in my favor. Who knows where it will lead.
> Just imagine if the our modern civilization really came to grips with the
> horrendous idea that 9/11 was indeed an 'inside job'. It could mean more
> than the end of Israel. This is the fear driving the conversation, I
> think.
>
> I may be actually a friend of Israel in advocating a clean sweep of the
> people who did this.
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 3:44 PM, Ricky Baldwin <rbaldwin at seiu73.org>
> wrote:
> This type of thinking is exactly what concerns me, I'm afraid, if you are
> referring to my skepticism:
>
> "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."
>
> You are making connections where none exist, like apophenia or cloud
> watching. Some of us remember the Slot-n-Wing guy who was at the
> forefront of the local pro-war counter-demonstrations over on North
> Prospect in 2003 announcing over his loudspeaker and to the press that we
> on the anti-war side were all following orders from our "foreign
> paymasters." He couldn't understand why we would oppose the invasion of
> Iraq - and in a sense looked at the question in a similar way to the
> thought process advocated by our side: cui bono? - but of course that's
> just suspicion, which as often as not seems to have more to do with
> prejudice than evidence.
>
> Some people even believe the 9-11 "conspiracy theories" are CIA/FBI/NSA
> creations to discredit the anti-war movement or distract from the real
> work of organizing around a clear agenda. I haven't seen any evidence of
> this, but it is a similar line of reasoning.
>
> If I could try to clarify my point, Jesse, imagine an allegation, I don't
> know, that Hitler was being paid by the US Government in long con to end
> the Depression and stop Communism at the Brandenburg Gate, let's say.
> There was early praise of Adolf from the later Allies, the US turned away
> a shipload of Jewish refugees, etc. The US clearly emerged from WW2 as
> the world's dominant Superpower, so the *cui bono* question works. Who
> lost the most soldiers? The Soviets. Most of Europe was relegated to
> dependency and even the Brits got taken down a notch, from "Empire" to
> "Former". But does this mean Hitler was a US puppet?
>
> Look, there's a famous quote supposedly from Hermann Goering as a POW
> about nobody wanting war and manipulating them by fear and so on. I
> happen to doubt its veracity. I agree with the statement. I just don't
> think Goering said it. Snopes calls it true, but I have my doubts.
> Doesn't mean I disagree with the goals of the people who repeat it. I
> happen to love the quote and really wish it were real. I don't make a
> fuss because there isn't much evidence either way, but don't assume that
> everyone who disagrees with your pet theory is an agent of the dark side
> or something.
>
> Ricky
>
> ________________________________
> From: Stephen Francis
> [stephenf1113 at yahoo.com<mailto:stephenf1113 at yahoo.com>]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 2:44 PM
> To: Ricky Baldwin;
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net<mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>;
> occupycu
> Subject: Re: [OccupyCU] 9/11 Truth, The Elephant in the Room video ....
>
>
> 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.
>
> [sf911truth]
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 2:04 PM, Ricky Baldwin
> <rbaldwin at seiu73.org<mailto: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<mailto:occupycu-bounces at lists.chambana.net><mailto:occupycu-bounces at lists.chambana.net<mailto:occupycu-bounces at lists.chambana.net>>]
> on behalf of Stephen Francis
> [stephenf1113 at yahoo.com<mailto:stephenf1113 at yahoo.com><mailto:stephenf1113 at yahoo.com<mailto:stephenf1113 at yahoo.com>>]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 1:03 PM
> To:
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net<mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net><mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net<mailto: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]
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OccupyCU mailing list
> OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu
>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list