GENIUS FORUMS

I am sorry for all the innocent hard working and honest jews that got caught up in the drag net that was thrown over the Germany because of zionist shits like you and lost their lives. . .

I am also sorry for the lazy, dishonest jews who were tortured and killed, and so should you.

Alex Jacob wrote:Nazi Archive Made Public

wrong, it hasn't been made public yet stupid. That article was in 2006 and it still hasn't happened has it.

Faust13 wrote:

Alex Jacob wrote:Nazi Archive Made Public

wrong, it hasn't been made public yet stupid. That article was in 2006 and it still hasn't happened has it.

The Vatican is busy dusting it off (removing their fingerprints) and Pope Benedict's own sordid past...

ps- Maybe in the next lifetime (and beyond).



Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971

.

""When we see a man who inclines to two sides, we say he's not a Jew, but he acts like one." Epictetus. 50-130AD. Jews have not changed a bit in 2000 years. Yes there are Zionists, and yes Jews were involved in planning the falseflag event known as 911. But if each Jew can hold two contrary opinions, the entire set has twice as many ideas, and so there is no organized global conspiracy exclusively run by Jews to dominate planet such as is outlined in the 'Elders of Zion'.

Not that there mite not be some Jewish wax jobs with that idea. But 911 was carried out with the active participation of a number of Christians in powerful positions. And the only reason this is not pointed out is that people are too chicken shit to criticize such a powerful group, and try to put all the blame on the Jews. Which they've been doing since Epictetus.

We dont have a "Jewish problem", we have a "Christian problem". We have a Christian president who threatens to destroy the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, not a Jewish one. And he is using the Iranian threats against Israel to justify plans for yet another war. A non-Christian president would not giva fuck what happens to Israel. He would not be waiting for Jesus to return there. He would not care if it looks like the Jews fulfill prophecy there.

And it was Christians in his administration who conspired with Jews to pull off 911 to empower, as we have seen, their draconian efforts to control the American masses. Who, I admit, could do with better case management. As for Israel, what it is, which the Arabs clearly see, is an American colony, a beachhead that has been, and is being used, to invade, as we see, the heart of Islam.

Which would not be necessary but for the fact that Islam cant promise a reliable supply of oil to the world without an external enemy like the Jews and Yankees to unite them. If Israel were destroyed, the rest of the Islamic world would be at each other's throats as we now see in Gaza and the West Bank. As Machiavelli said, "The only time the Italians [Arabs] had any peace was when the French King [American president] threatened to invade."

Osama Ben Ladin is correct, Christian troops are in the sacred land of Mecca, and they are positioned where they could go to the Haj at any time and take control of it. Nobody says a word, if push comes to shove, before the Jews finish leaving the Holy Land, an American or Jewish Nuke will land on the Haj, and remove all doubt about the supremacy of Allah.

What we are watching now is the tricky process of converting the Islamic world to secular consumerism while at the same time preventing the opposition to that from destroying the production and delivery of oil. 911 was planned to actively engage Americans in that struggle; altho it also made some Wall Street Jews and Christians a lot richer.

If the "Elders of Zion" were actually in charge, this whole process would have been much more effectively done. Its been the necessity to rely on stupid Christian jackasses that has slowed things down.

You allude pretty often to supposed Israeli involvement in 9/11. But other than anectodal evidence and supposition, what information can you provide that links Israel or Mossad (or any Israeli secret organization) to this event? I mean, some hard facts, some tangible evidence.
___________________________________________

Chomsky on 9-11 Conspiracy

Video Interview No 1

Video Interview No 2
___________________________________________

'Anyone who knows anything about the sciences would dismiss the 'evidence' presented by the 9/11 conspiracy theorists'.

Well, you heard it here first, folks. I don't know, maybe I am as deluded as he is, or perhaps I am receiving payola from the CIA? but the theory just seems to outlandish to me. Almost fantastically impossible to coordinate planes being flown into buildings with a controlled demolition of the same buidlings.

(How am I going to explain away Building 7 though? Hmmmm. If the CIA gives me another few hunded thousand I'll rush to the cause...)

Faust13 wrote:

Alex Jacob wrote:Nazi Archive Made Public

wrong, it hasn't been made public yet stupid.

Yes, it has, asshole.

17.5 mln victims. Of them, most likely around 6 mln dead jews. It will take years to go through all those records, but they are public, and if I were you or hsanddman, I would be finding some new lie to hang my anti-semitism on, 'cuz Holocaust denialism will be even less plausible now (as incredible as it would be, given how insanely implausible the denialists' claims are now).

Alex Jacob wrote:You allude pretty often to supposed Israeli involvement in 9/11. But other than anectodal evidence and supposition, what information can you provide that links Israel or Mossad (or any Israeli secret organization) to this event? I mean, some hard facts, some tangible evidence.
...
(How am I going to explain away Building 7 though? Hmmmm. If the CIA gives me another few hunded thousand I'll rush to the cause...)

Cui Bono? That starts with Silverstein who had the lease on the WTC contract that was insured up to the hilt when the hit came. I mean, if the dude had leased a chain of delis that suddenly were all destroyed, the insurance investigators would be all over his ass. The only thing Silverstein did that has put them off, was the sheer scale of the scam.

Swiss financial investigators reported an unprecidented number of put calls just prior to 9/11/01, on airlines and other stocks that were, as intended, particularly hard hit by the panic. There are reports in the USA that some of those calls were by members of the military, intelligence agencies, and the Bush administration. Since there is no official investigation, despite the public report from the Swiss, we must consider a deliberate effort to keep a lid on it.

The success of 911 gave them the courage, 15 months ago, for the big 4 precious metals houses to collude, and during that July, the price of silver dropped from 15$ to 9$ over night. One of my correspondents lost 20 grand on that deal. The SEC which is spozed to investigate this kind of thing has done nothing. Enuf of this kind of thing has gone on long enuf that small investors have fled the big markets and invested in real estate, where they thot they knew what they owned.

We will see. It is not only WTC 7. Take a look at this photo. Its one of many I remember that was posted, but I didnt realize what I was looking at till later. http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/molten_steel.jpg ; I usta work in vehicle repair and machine shops. Still have my own welding torch. You cant get that color orange, much less yellow, in steel burning Jet fuel, or any other hydrocarbon without, at the very least, providing pressurized oxygen to the point of combustion.

Some other chemical was combusting next to that steel to make it that color. [that's a period] So then, we ask, who had access to the towers to install the chemicals? Ask Silverstein who ran the security services. We've not had an official legal procedure where he could be put under oath and penalty of perjury to answer. But I dont think it was fellow Jews. That kind of thing is done by Christians, like those who ran Blackwater.

I grant that it'd take a long time to wire up the Twin towers for demolition. But- you dont havta use wire anymore. If cost is no problem, and it isnt for the CIA, then providing hundreds of wireless receivers to activate the detonation is simple. The Jihadim do it all the time in Iraq; its not rocket science. The guys who were installing the devices didnt even havta know what they were doing. If some CIA honcho told them that they were installing sensitive data receivers on critical structural elements, the grunts would have done the work, and kept their mouths shut. And kept quiet about it ever since. If you want to know why, ask Senator Wellstone or Vince Foster. Or even JFK.

The CIA is the American Praetorians. And like General Jack said, "You want the truth? You cant handle the truth." There are things that need to be done, like 911, to motivate the empire to act to aggressively defend its interests, in this case the Islamic oil, and sheeple cant deal with the guilt that comes from the exploitation needed to provide their lifestyles. Ask Machiavelli. Of course, the details are all ambiguous; but the psychology behind the system has not changed a bit since his time. We dont need to know just who did what when. All we have to do, is understand how empires work.

But you said nothing about Israeli involvement, which you often refer to. Also, nearly all of what you mentioned is completely anecdotal. If Silverstein bought insurance because he knew of the plot, you can bet that the insurance company would have many very good reasons to bring forward the evidence, to make the effort to deny the claim. As Chomsky (*full prostrations*) indicates, there is the very strong factor of extreme improbability that this was a planned event of the sort indicated over the internet. It is far more probable that someone might have known of the plans and allowed it to happen, and then used the event, Ju-Jitsu style, to then bring out an attack on the enemy far beyond anything they might have imagined, than to have planned a devastation of that magnitude so to be able to attack Afghanistan or Iraq. Too many people required, I think, and the whole problem of Murphy's Law.

The thing is---and I wonder if you see this---that there also very clearly exists a need to believe, or rather a will-to-believe that this was a conspiracy. It fits into a style of thinking, a way of perceiving the world, and quite frankly this conspiracy mentality is a sort of virus of thinking that spreads everywhere fast. Suddenly, the whole world is infested with ghosts and goblins, the result of which is a sort of confirmation of powerlessness, and of something out of control.

Any denial of these theories only fuels the 'will-to-believe' and it fast turns into a contagion...

And if you really wanted my opinion, and as Chomsky says, it diverts everyone from a genuine and real understanding of the things that 'power systems' as he calls them have done and are doing in the world. I mean even if you are not a leftist-anarchist commie and really are on the side of power come hell or high water, you still should know how power functions and why. (The Right would do well to read Chomsky, or perhaps they too do, like good Machiavellians). If one really wants to make that sort of analysis (as is Chomsky's bent, for example the confessional kind of admission in Power and Ideology---The Managua Lectures, which is an extremely compelling essay on power), one needs only very simple premises, nothing outrageous. Why resort to all this freaky, over the top conspiracy crap when the real facts---if one accepts them---are sufficiently chilling? (I view Chomsky as a quintessential Machiavellian myself, he sees into the heart of darkness and like some Cassandra and tells 'the truth about power'. But it also seems to move toward a sort of furor, an ardency that makes me suspicious, plus he moves his hands weirdly and too emphatically. If his critiques were universal he would have more credibility, in my book.)

The Most Important Chomsky Interview, prepare to have your world turned on end...
_____________________________________________

Instruments of Statecraft

I'm not as clear as I hope to be, and frankly there is not time to write it all out, nor your time to read it. But a few points:

I am not saying that the Israeli, or even the US goverment or CIA were organizationally involved. It did not take nearly as many people of either the conspiracy theorists, or their critics, to pull off. Nor was there any need for these larger organizations to know. Bush didnt even have to know. Those who put him in office knew what kind of fool he was.

The New World Order is a Machiavellian balance of states with a mutual economic interest that has been increasingly threatened by the ongoing, and increasing, amount of oil money falling into the hands of the Jihadim. One thing that tipped me off was a senate hearing where a banker noted that no more high rise towers would be built because nobody would insure them. There had been a number of strikes against these Capitalist monuments all over the world even before 911.

This is a real big deal to the dudes who live in penthouses and work in high rise office suites. Again: cui bono. The rational thing to do would have been to abandon the steep pyramidal power structures as well as the high rises and disperse power across the landscape, as we now see in suburban fringe office parks. But the male egos in charge of the global economy could not see that. They needed some event to mobilize the American military to take control of the oil money so that it'd quit flowing into the hands of the Jihadim.

The various tools, Mossad, the CIA, the Neocons, Silverstein & Wall Street, the American military, et al, would not look a gift horse in the mouth that promised, and indeed delivered, more power and wealth into their hands. And to a large extent, the military adventure in the Persian Gulf oil region has actually worked. The amount of oil money falling into the hands of the Jihadim has been reduced, and the invasion as shifted their focus from the periphery of the Islamic world, where terrorism had been driving up insurance rates, to its heart. And there, as we see, tribalism has destroyed the unity that the expansionism of Islam formerly had.

The question rests on whether the political insights of Gibbon and Machiavelli are still correct. If you think so, then 911 walks like the duck it is. I dont need to know precisely who was involved, and I frankly doubt that any man, who took part in the planning or execution, does either. There are those who understand how these organizations work, and depended on it. My case does not rest on any of the particular conspiracy theories you read about on the net, so a successful refutation of any of them does not rebut my argument.

Read the studies on obedience by Milgram, on authority relationships by Zimbardo, on group think by Janis. People will behave reliably in irrational, inhumane, and delusional ways. They will, quite literally not believe their own eyes. Milgram showed us how ordinary Americans will murder other innocent Americans if they think they are ordered by a higher authority to do so. It is not hard to find men that will follow such orders, especially if, as in the case of 911, they did not actually have to watch people die. It is also perfectly understandable how, after realizing what they have done, they choose to keep quiet about it, and suffer only the guilt of their own conscience rather than the infamy of exposure.

However, if you look into this, you will see how some who were in responsible positions of the American power structure, after going into retirement, and therefore no longer subject to the group think of their former careers, are now coming forth on the net to post what they think they know about what was going on.

Its not like after the JFK assassination with the Internet, where people in a position to know didnt have a facile means to compare information with others who were also in critical places at critical times. And if the current housing crisis, or any such similar economic problem gets out of hand- that'll make people rethink what they've been doing, and what they know about what others have been up to... at the very time when the organizational power to repress is distracted by trying to cope with crisis.

There's a reason GW Bush bought a ranch in the boondox of Paraguay.

Alex Jacob wrote:
The Most Important Chomsky Interview, prepare to have your world turned on end...

Instruments of Statecraft

Jacob: Permit me to retort

Which one of these 4 describes you the best?. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnqWs8pAsRk

The sexy blond Aryan girl
The black mail boy in suit
The black sista from Queens
The panicky jew in glasses

Shrinks.. lol. Don't miss part 2 of that vid, a must watch -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT4Kl1WJYTU

When you done with that, watch the 1st part again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuNC2uqly6I

Well, daybrown, you didn't respond to an important point: the nature of paranoid ideas, stemming directly from anectdotal 'evidence', that is fueled by psychological factors, and that spreads like a contagion, that moves from person to person like a virus. Unfortunately, your analysis could very easily fit into that sort of view of reality. If I am saying anything (and I do not say that I have any definite answers about any of this), I am saying that one needs a very sober head to look into the facts of rulership and ownership---'power systems'.

In the background of almost all these conspiracy theories, I think this is true, you can find the basic outline of a critical analysis of 'power systems', and Chomsky is a ring-leader in the forming of this idea, or the description of this fact. In most instances the inspiration for the criticism comes from the left wing. This sort of analysis is a 'dangerous tool' because it originates in an idealistic center, but also a more complex territory that can include 'ressentiment', a denial of one's own complicity in power-systems (what has produced us), and also a sort of naivety about some basic and perhaps unchangable features of power in our world.

Personally, I have concluded that Chomsky and others like him, because of an incompleteness of their analysis and their own unreal idealism, allow their doctrines to fuel a sort of mental activity that is not 'wholesome'. Again, if there is going to be a critical analysis it has to be very sober, very factual, based in what is attainable, and if it is possible (it may not be), it has to avoid and resist 'psychological inflation'.

I actually get the feeling when certain people reveal their ideas about the world, that the essential energy they express, or that grips them, is akin to a sort of mystical ecstacy, a kind of perception that is strangely intoxicating, in which there is a sort of immediate benefit, a relief from tension. If you feel you *know* something, some quintessential truth, it gives you some power to keep on keeing on. But it also gives you a story to share with others. You can meet with others and 'read from the lists of horror' (Chomsky's lists for example), which is cathartic and enriching activity, offering a tangible sort of satisfaction.

Personally, I am beginning to conclude that a significant aspect of criticism of this sort, or the way it is presented, or those to whom it is presented, has a destructive side, in the sense of not helpful. It seems to lead to, or perhaps it stems from, a distorted idea of one's place and role in the world. Instead of being intimately complicit, one has the luxery of ascending with the truth-telling angels to a special cloud above everything, where one makes judgments based on incomplete evidence, among individuals who have no ownership interest nor, it would seem, real involvement the affairs of the world, and even perhaps little interest in participation. (One can stay home and await the Rapture...)

(That is just a sketch of one facet, there are others and they are positive ones).

In my personal case, I do not think I am closed to analysis of 'power-systems' or in looking at their darker side, in precisely Chomskian terms. (Nor about Israel I should add). Those terms seem to me to be the essence of Maciavellian analysis. The book 'Instruments of Statecraft', therefor, describes a very real thing, a very real tool of politics, and is part of a realistic view of 'power-systems', and our power-system. One has to know these things, I think, and all the other (positive) sides of these 'power-systems' in order to...what is it? Understand the world? (It is a complex of motivations I think). But what one doesn't need is the paranoid, mystical fantasy, the cartoonish depictions, being captured psychologically by deeply attractive narratives that function whether they are 'true' or 'false', where it really doesn't matter if they are true or false.

The other thing that interests me is how narratives are often semi-truthful, that is, they have a relationship to 'reality' (otherwise they would be merely ridiculously and obviously false) but yet are pumped up by imaginary factors, or by outright lies and misrepresentations. I think that many people of the university class, in fact, have a lens of view of reality that is oddly distorted. I mean, we are all in this in that sense, and that (for me) is one of the realities of 'post-modernism as a condition'.

I am not sure what the 'cure' for this is or if there is one....

PS: What complicates, tremendously, the issue of 9/11 (in terms of visible evidence, what can be clearly seen) is the collapse of Building 7. Even that Dutch fellow, after demonstrating how the two towers fell (without having been wired), cannot figure out how Building 7 could have fallen only a few hours later. What I couldn't understand is if he thought 30-40 men could wire the building in a number of hours on the same day.
_______________________________________

hsandman: What I definately ain't is some skinhead from wherever the fuck it is you hail from, bro!

I'm going to be the next Hitler. I'm going to kill all the Jews and 1 clown.

Dan, if you're in a killing spree, why not kill all conservatives instead? You'd actually do the world a favor.

Well, I was hoping for a specific response, namely, "Why the 1 clown?" To which I was then going to reply: "See! No-one cares about the Jews!"

Kind of needed a sock-puppet to pull it off, I suppose.

Jacob wrote:What I couldn't understand is if he thought 30-40 men could wire the building in a number of hours on the same day.

Do you think, he thought that plausable?

Who was doing the wiring? The firefighters? Good one bro! =)

Talking about the "next Hister", here's some news in the anti-anti-Semitic department:

Iran Holocaust drama is a big hit - BBC News

The central character is an Iranian diplomat, who provides false Iranian passports to enable Jews to flee the Nazi-occupied France, a sort of the Iranian Schindler. He even has a love affair with a Jewish woman.

Most Iranians, even those taking part in the most ardent anti-Zionist demonstrations, would be quite shocked at any accusation that they are anti-Semitic.

Indeed, welcome to the blessings of the average level of Western discourse.

"Do you think, he thought that plausable? Who was doing the wiring? The firefighters? Good one bro!".

He said he thought it would take a year to set explosives in the Twin Towers (which sounds excessive, but he should know). In any case, it would take a long time. And then how could you know exactly where the planes would hit if this were a planned affair? Imagine the complexity, the variability. You would have to have pre-establsihed various sets of explosive-firing scenarios for different strike points of the planes, and make decisions on the fly. So, looked at through the eyes of this demolitions expert, the buildings fell naturally as a result of the airplanes hitting them. It is the simplest and best explanation of the physical event. In order to explain the event, that is all the theory one needs.

Yet it says nothing about the complexity of the conspiracy, if there were other groups involved, and if there was direct foreknowledge by intelligence agencies, and all the rest. But, at least considering the opinion of this one man, those towers likely fell because of the plane damage.

Building 7, to me (and to the demolitions expert, and to the rest of you I assume) looks very, very much like a planned implosion, a deliberate implosion. And it definitely points in the direction of foreknowledge of the attack. But even if Building 7 fell because of implosion, that does not automatically mean that the Twin Towers also were imploded, or implosion was combined with the airplane strike. It is not impossible---I merely suggest it---that Building 7 could have been deliberately imploded as a result of a decision made after the planes had struck, and it does does not automatically imply that, therefor, the whole event was an inside operation.

Why 7 hours for the building to come down? If everything were so brilliantly correographed, down to the fine details, why would they have waited 7 hours to bring down the building? Why risk what looks like an obvious implosion, a textbook case, when it really doesn't matter if the building falls or not? The risk of an obvious implosion, on film, seems counter to the possibility. It would make more sense to have imploded the building far sooner, to coincide with the collapse of the towers.

In that 7 hour span, it is not impossible that someone made a decision to implode the building, and I think this is what is implied when Silverstein talks of 'pulling' it. It seems extremely unlikely, to me, that it could have been wired in 7 hours, and then why would it even be important to make it fall considering the devastation? I don't feign to know. However, Building 7 is the evidence that most likley points to a broad conspiracy, in my opinion.

Did any of you ever read the theory of the British lawyer who represented James Earl Ray? That James Earl Ray had been 'recruited' years before by some mysterious personages who (according to this story) gradually engaged him in different activities, told him to go here and do this, then there and do that, and finally to buy a weapon and rent a room near MLKs hotel and wait for further orders. He then describes a whole covert-op scenario of various teams of shooters who come in and set up sniper nests in 2-3 different locales, one of them being in another room below the room LHO had rented (where the killing shot supposedly came from), and when they have finished, military style, the teams of shooters retire and leave LHO holding the bag, with all the evidence pointing at him. Sort of a textbook case about how such things are done.

In a similar way, as I see things, it would not be impossible to have engaged this Al Queda team in a similar way. To 'recruit' them, to sponsor them, to keep a watch over them, to allow them to gain access, and to manage them over the years it was necessary to gain the knowledge to carry out the attack, and then to essentially allow them to carry out the attack, and as I said, to use that event Ju-Jitsu style to unleash an unreally devastating blow against a 'real' enemy (to begin a whole cycle of war with wide-reaching and long-term implications), a plan that has a certain brilliance to it. But though this plan, if it happened that way or something similar, is just the same as being involved in the event yourself (carrying it out yourself) it is also significantly different from that, and these are important differences. To allow someone to attack you is different, significantly, from attacking yourself. It would be much smarter to use someone else than to try to undertake it yourself.

And finally, even if the whole event was planned, there is no reason why it was anything more than a strictly American plan, and no good reason why it must be made into an exclusively anti-semitic narrative, which is mostly my point. If 'cui bono' is the question, it is all the world's 'power-systems' who can tighten the screws, but exclusively the power-system of the US that benefits, broad as it might be, inclusive of other powers as it might be. Chomsky describes the US economy as a 'Pentagon system' with Pentagon spending as one main engine in the economy, and it sounds plausable to me.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Most Iranians, even those taking part in the most ardent anti-Zionist demonstrations, would be quite shocked at any accusation that they are anti-Semitic.

Indeed, welcome to the blessings of the average level of Western discourse.

Indeed. Wonders such as this study, which found that the overtly anti-zionist sentiment is strongly correlated with anti-semitic sentiment.

No, not all anti-zionists are anti-semites (though the line is awfully thin, what with the peoples' right to political self-determination, and Israel being its instantiation for the jews). However, by and large, anti-zionism these days serves as nothing but a gossamer veil camouflaging the underlying anti-semitism.

Good grief. Let me say it again since so many of you missed it. You do NOT have to wire the building! Hello? Give me the kind of resources the CIA has and a couple dozen dudes who know how to do things and keep quiet about it, and we'll do the building... no hold on pay attention: wirelesslessly.

Even the stupid jihadim can figure that out; they've been doing it in Iraq with IEDs.

Offline:>If you feel you *know* something, some quintessential truth, it gives you some power to keep on keeing on. >
But I dont claim to know how it was done. All I claim to know is not how it was done, and I find it curious that there has not been a official investigation given all the posters on the nets asking questions.

I even saw a quote from a 911 commissioner admitting that they were clearly lied to. Got that? Officials in the government admitting that perjury was going on, but nobody is being charged, much less even having it looked into.

No. What I do know comes from my psych degree and an ongoing interest in the field that made me aware of the studies by Milgram, Bandura, Zimbardo, and Janis. I understand how people respond in group settings, and will do things that are totally against their own personal moral values. Drill instructors teach men how to murder at boot camp.

Understand I am not advocating that there be a new 911 investigation. Nobody gives a fuck what I think. What I am trying to do, is suggest what the effect of not having one will be, or how any that does get started could open up a can of worms so vast that it could result in the dissolution of the Untied States of denial. I've further been saying that if there is economic crisis, then the whole thing will be opened up to provide scapegoats. Which may, or may not work to keep the nation together.

I did get a letter from Sen David Pryor, a standard bulk mailing which does admit, at the end, that he is keeping an eye on the reports related to 911 as they come in. He does not say he's ready to open public hearings. You mite try to write him as I have, reminding what his predecessor, Fullbright, did regarding the Vietnam war. Some senator hasta be first to blow the whistle.

When I factor in Machiavelli and Gibbon with modern sociology and psychology, I can see the systemic factors that resulted in 911, but not the identities of those actually involved. There's been lotsa accusations posted, and I'd like to see them appear to present their certification and testify under oath. Anyone can say anything online. That is not "evidence".

You mite warn the senators too that as the boomers retire, and come out of group think, this whole 911 thing will blow wide open. Forget what Bush knew, and when he knew it. His trip is about over, and it wont matter for the future what we do, or dont do, to him. No. Ask what Hillary knew, and when she knew it. That bitch didnt get where she is by not knowing what the fuck was going on, and coming down.

vicdan wrote: Wonders such as this study, which found that the overtly anti-zionist sentiment is strongly correlated with anti-semitic sentiment.

You mean the conclusion: "when an individual’s criticism of Israel becomes sufficiently severe, it does become reasonable to ask whether such criticism is a mask for underlying anti-Semitism" which is to you "strong correlation". Not to mention it's based on responses from 5000 people from Europe's 700,000,000, hahhahah.

However, by and large, anti-zionism these days serves as nothing but a gossamer veil camouflaging the underlying anti-semitism.

One study deserves another: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

Many of the key organizations in the Lobby, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the American Jewish Committee and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, are run by hardliners who generally support the Likud Party's expansionist policies, including its hostility to the Oslo Peace Process.

No discussion of how the Lobby operates would be complete without examining one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-Semitism. Anyone who criticizes Israeli actions or says that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over U.S. Middle East policy — an influence that AIPAC celebrates — stands a good chance of getting labeled an anti-Semite

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:You mean the conclusion: "when an individual’s criticism of Israel becomes sufficiently severe, it does become reasonable to ask whether such criticism is a mask for underlying anti-Semitism" which is to you "strong correlation".

Actually, liar, you should have paid attention to this passage in the conclusion:

From a large survey of 5,000 citizens of ten European countries, we showed that the prevalence of those harboring (selfreported) anti-Semitic views consistently increases with respondents’ degree of anti-Israel sentiment (see Figures 2 and 3 and Table 3), even after controlling for other factors. It is noteworthy that fewer than one-quarter of those with anti-Israel index scores of only 1 or 2 harbor anti-Semitic views (as defined by anti-Semitic index scores exceeding 5), which supports the contention that one certainly can be critical of Israeli policies without being anti-Semitic. However, among those with the most extreme anti-Israel sentiments in our survey (anti-Israel index scores of 4), 56 percent report anti-Semitic leanings.

And mind you, this is based on self-reporting. Who knows how many downplayed their actual attitudes towards jews?..

Not to mention it's based on responses from 5000 people from Europe's 700,000,000, hahhahah.

oooh, does the wittle baby not know what 'statistical sampling' is?..

Damn, you are an idiot...

One study deserves another: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

Hahaha. Yeah. Mearsheimer and Walt -- assholes so anti-semitic and so dishonest, that even Benny Morris, the pre-eminent israeli 'new historian' famous for attacking Israel -- accused them of dishonesty and bad scholarship.

Dude, you are an anti-semite. Accept it and move on. Don't you have some jews to level the Blood Libel against?.. Protocols to defend?..

vicdan wrote: you should have paid attention to this passage in the conclusion

Not sure what you mean. You said that it shows that the "overtly anti-zionist sentiment is strongly correlated with anti-semitic sentiment". The passage says: "among those with the most extreme anti-Israel sentiments in our survey (anti-Israel index scores of 4), 56 percent report anti-Semitic leanings". Unless for you the overtly anti-zionist sentiment equals most extreme anti-Israel sentiments. Does it? Ah well, that explains.

And mind you, this is based on self-reporting. Who knows how many downplayed their actual attitudes towards jews?..

Yeah, who knows were all the bogymen lurk?

oooh, does the wittle baby not know what 'statistical sampling' is?..

I know how to determine an appropriate sample size, and this ain't it. Even when I realize that 10 European countries do not make the 700,000,000 I mentioned earlier, but still.

Hahaha. Yeah. Mearsheimer and Walt -- assholes so anti-semitic and so dishonest, that even Benny Morris, the pre-eminent israeli 'new historian' famous for attacking Israel -- accused them of dishonesty and bad scholarship.

Yeah, great argument you have there. *rolls eyes*

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:I know how to determine an appropriate sample size,

Obviously you don't. A representative sample over 30 in size will already give you a normal curve; at that point, the question will be only over the size of the error margins. 5000 is a very respectable sample size, kiddo. Most polls we consider reliable don't even have half as large a sample size.

You can of course argue that the sampling was un-representative, but that's a wholly different beast from saying that the sample size is too small.

Yeah, great argument you have there. *rolls eyes*

I don't have to. others have ripped Mearsheimer&Walt's paper and book to teeny tiny little shreds. Benny Morris for example cited concrete examples of how the misrepresented and abused his own work. Google it if you want to -- the articles exposing their bullshit are abundant; but somehow i doubt you will be convinced by facts. Anti-semitism is not a position one arrives at rationally, after all.

I am not surprised you are in love with those two losers though. They appeal to your bigotry.

Bye.

Information is out on the internet, all you have to do is look.
The demolition operation by a team of around 25+ people per building took 7-8 months. The most likeley company who did it is the same company who cleaned it up ie. Controled demolitions inc.

Here is how it was most probably done http://911review.com/means/demolition/index.html
Here is more info on that http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidenc ... index.html

Here is how Egyptian pyramids were most probably constructed. lol
http://khufu.3ds.com/introduction/ <- there is .pdf paper on it, there too.

I just received this link in private email: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0
two points. the 911 controversy is not going away. this kind of thing gets posted all the time.
2nd, what we see here is what was shown on Italian TV. There are similar presentations in other EU nations. At some point, the anti-Americanism there, and indeed all over the world, will break out past the ability of American media to keep a lid on it.

I am puzzled as to why Al Jazeera has not been all over this. Partly, I can see how they'd like to maintain that Ben Ladin set it up, BOTOH, if they want to destroy the credibility of the Bush administration, that is the way to go. I dunno what the East Asians make of it either. But while they all stand to loose if the deception gets exposed, they all know that the danger that it will unravel is there, and this has to effect their investment decisions.

<Hsandman: The demolition operation by a team of around 25+ people per building took 7-8 months.>
that's only necessary if they have to string wire. Wirelessly, a week would be plenty.