Len Colby

“You have found one fault in my arguments, Len. Congratulations are in order. It has only taken you a year” Your memory seems to be failing you once again as I have pointed out numerous errors in your arguments as the long list of points and questions I have raised that you refuse to reply to serves as evidence. “The attack on the USS Liberty did receive some coverage in the US mass media. I doubt it received a level of coverage equivalent to the shoot down of KAL 007. I don't have the time or resources to do a comparison that proves that - but I'd wager good money on it.” You could be right, I meant to say the coverage both incidents got in the NY Times was roughly similar based on the number of articles they got in the subsequent 2 months. The Iranian case got a similar amount of coverage in the Times as well. “Mass media coverage of the Liberty assault may have been comparable to coverage of the shoot down of the Iranian civilian airliner - or to coverage of the lethal Israeli attack on a Libyan civilian airliner in 1973.” Hum an anonymous account which doesn’t cite any sources from an obscure obviously partial website. Yes the shoot down was horrific unjustified just as the KAL an Iran Air shoot downs were. The circumstances were quite similar to the KAL incident, a flight crew mistakenly flying their plane over “enemy” territory near sensitive locations at a time of heightened tensions, internationally recognized signals from fighters to land given but either not seen, recognized or obeyed. No evidence is given for the assertion that the order was made by “Israel’s leader” or went any higher than the Chief of Staff of the IDF Less biased accounts can be read here http://aviation-safety.net/database/record...1-1〈=en http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Arab_Airlines_Flight_114 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...03879-1,00.html (not at all sympathetic to Israel but more balanced than Sid’s link) http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/640/eg7.htm (from an Egyptian newspaper) http://www.libyanwritersclub.com/uk/?cat=14 (“reprint” of an al-Jazeerah condemns Israel but still less inflammatory) “However, the coverage it did receive amounted to promotion of the bogus story that the USS Liberty attack was an accident. That simply wasn't true.” Whether or not it was a case of mistaken identity or not is of course hotly disputed. It is not established fact that it wasn’t as you imply. “Was the mass media misled by US and Israeli Government officials who deliberately lied? I'm sure that happened to some extent. But the US mass media also showed no enthusiasm for digging beneath the official story and uncovering the truth.” Begging the question. “No protests from the media, for example, that the US Navy blocked all testimony about Israeli actions. In the words of James M. Ennes Jr, the lieutenant on the bridge of the USS Liberty on the day of the attack, discussing the Liberty attack in 1993:” I am not familiar with this aspect of the story. I’ll have to look into it when I find the time. Is there any corroboration of Ennes’ account? ”Intimidation by the Israel Lobby also played a role in the cover-up.” See if you can come up with evidence to back this assertion. ‘To support Liberty survivors in their quest for justice was not a great career step for US politicians. <SNIP> Adlai Stevenson later ran for Governor of Illinois. He was strongly opposed by Israeli and Jewish interests.” Evidence? “He lost. Many feel it was his support for the Liberty that cost him the election.” Who feels that way? ‘Many people’ still think Bush is a good president and invading Iraq was a good idea. Stevenson lost to James R. Thompson, the incumbent; it is very uncommon for the incumbent to loose reelection barring some extenuating circumstances. Thompson it seems was very popular serving from 1977 – 1991 longer than anyone else. He won his first term by 1.3 million votes, 65 – 35 % the biggest margin in “over a century”, was reelected in 1978 with 60% of the vote, he got 60% of the vote again in 1986 (also against Stevenson) in 1982 however Thompson won the closest election in state history 1/7 % (5074 out of 3.7 million votes) ahead of Stevenson and this was possibly due to fraud. Illinois elected Republican governors in 7 consecutive elections from 1976 – 1998, they elected a Democrat in 2002, for the first time in 30 years, largely because the Republican incumbent who was not running for reelection had been indicted on bribery charges So the big bad Israel lobby 1) caused Thompson to get 10 – 15% LESS in 1982 than he did in the other three lections and his party to come closer to loosing than any other election between 1972 and 1992 2) didn’t prevent Stevenson from getting the nomination of the Democratic party (the party in which presumably they were strongest in during the 80’s). Stevenson in fact got 100% of the primary vote in 1982 thus presumably he was unopposed (Thompson though. http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/1976/ii761205.html http://genealogytrails.com/ill/governors.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adlai_Stevens...olitical_career http://www.unc.edu/~beyle/Expenditures/1982.doc http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/ti...amp;match=exact http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/1991/ii910317.html “Many also feel it was Stevenson's experience with the Liberty that has intimidated other Members of Congress who might otherwise support the survivors.” No evidence has been presented to support the almost certainly false theory that Stevenson lost the election due to speaking up about the Liberty let alone that it intimidated others from speaking out. ”Finally, Len, you wrote: There was no reason to believe the Israelis would intentionally attack their most important ally and benefactor one of the few countries that would sell them weapons and one of the two most powerful nations on earth. Even now 40 years later I still haven’t heard any realistic motive for them to have done so. I agree with the first of those two sentences. Once again, Len, you are partly right! The second is more problematic, to say the least. Anyhow, this is already a long post. Let's leave the topic of motive for further posts...” I’m anxious to hear your proposed motive!

Actually Mark wrote that, are you his sock puppet or do you not remember what you did and didn’t write? No you'd be (or Mark would be) standing on quicksand! The amount of coverage the story received at the time was comparable to shootdowns of KAL 007 and Iran Air 655. Perhaps that’s because “news and CURRENT affairs” are by definition of recent events not ones that happened 20 – 40 years ago. Such coverage focused on Arab/Islamic terrorism because that is the meilu that OBL rose out of. I don't remenber much discussion of the IRA either. As for the Lavon Affair the planned bombings were only meant to inflict property dammage This report was featured on the front page. However, at least in the lead paragraph, it: (1) uncritically promoted the notion that the attack was accidental There was no reason at the time to doubt that the attack was a mistake, in a similar vein it was assumed the US Navy erred when it shot down an Iranian airliner. Though the Reagan administration milked it for propaganda purposes must people made a similar assumption about KAL 007. All three events received a comparable amount of coverage in the NY Times. http://tinyurl.com/3x8h4c , http://tinyurl.com/244kug 1) The crew had not yet spoken out and when they did the Times covered it. http://tinyurl.com/33ghfm 2) There was no reason to believe the Israelis would intentionally attack their most important ally and benefactor one of the few countries that would sell them weapons and one of the two most powerful nations on earth. Even now 40 years later I still haven’t heard any realistic motive for them to have done so. It’s normal for the number of casualties to be inaccurate in preliminary accounts and normally the earliest numbers are undercounts. Just about every time a natural or manmade disaster strikes we are rejoined with an ever grown number of fatalities. In case you failed to notice, that was an editorial. The editorial page of the Times gets almost as much attention as the front page. No there were over 20 more stories about the incident through July 31 including one on page 1, coverage was roughly comparable to that surrounding the two most famous shoot downs civilian airliners.In a few years how many people will talk about the death of Pat Tillman or the Canadian troops bombed by the US? How many people know that after D-Day the RAF attacked 6 ships from the Royal Navy in broad daylight of the French coast sinking 2 and damaging 2 others resulting in 78 deaths and 149 wounded. http://www.halcyon-class.co.uk/FriendlyFir...iendly_fire.htm How many know that a US destroyer accidentally fired a torpedo at the USS Iowa while US President Franklin D. Roosevelt was on board? http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-w/dd579.htm Are wartime attacks on enemy targets supposed to be humane? "…on a US naval vessel have received similar treatment in the US media had the Eygptian or Syrian armed forces been responsible for this 'accidental' attack? I think not." No it wouldn’t have but that’s because the US and Israel were allies and relations with Egypt and Syria strained to say the least. If theoretically Kuwaiti or Saudi forces had attacked an American target shortly before either Gulf war it would have been perceived as accidental and but if Iraqis have done so it would have been perceived differently. Assuming the Iranians really thought the British sailors were in their territorial waters don’t you think they would have reacted quite differently if it had been Russian sailors?

That’s a rather tenuous motive for such a risky operation and based on logic that is rather dubious to say the least it smacks of trying to get the evidence to fit a pre-conceived notion rather than finding an explanation that conforms to the evidence. 1) Why would Israeli particularly care what relations were between Mexico and Syria for example? Why would we expect such an attack to worsen such relations. 2) Cite an example of a country that wasn’t already a strong ally of Israel whose relations with Arab nations worsened after suffering a terrorist attack. In Spain we saw the contrary, the Madrid bombings led directly to that country pulling out of Iraq, attacks in the UK and Italy led to increased pressure for them to pull out of Iraq and Afgahistan. In the 70’s and 80’s European governments were infamous for giving in to the demands of terrorist groups 3) Few people reasonably doubt Iran and Syria’s ties to terrorist groups like Hezbollah but they rarely attack Western targets The circumstances especially their conspicuous behavior don’t fit the planned terrorist attack scenario. There are numerous easier and less risky ways they could have done more damage. See if you can come up with a better reply than “I don’t agree” and ‘I can’t explain’ (“Who knows what the grand plan was?”) The grenades thing also makes the terrorist attack scenario seem very unlikely unless they were on a suicide mission. The congressional compound was described as heavily secured, how far do you think they would have gotten if the stated lobbing grenades? Sunke’s gun was licensed he was also the employee of a Mexican security company how familiar are you with Mexican law and what normally happens in that country? Nice sidestepping of the USS Liberty issue, Len. Most apologists for Israeli bellicosity show similar nifty footwork. Debating the Liberty issue would take more time than I have available right now especially if I would be doing so with Sid who has a tendency to change the subject or simply not reply when the facts don’t go his way. One problem with the belief the Israeli’s knowingly attacked an American ship is that I have yet to see a realistic motive proposed for them having done so. I haven’t really had time to look into the Hicks case in depth but it seems to me his punishment was overly harsh. His biggest crimes were supporting and fighting for one of the world’s most brutal dictatorships and aiding al-Qaeda (according to media reports he translated some of the group’s training material into English. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/11/1086749867034.html )Can you cite any evidence for your belief that he was punished due to his conversion and opposition to Israel? I never even head any references to what he has to say about that country though I doubt it’s favorable. Total casualties of the 2002 Bali bombings were over 400 and over 200 people from all over the world including 88 Australians were killed. I believe it was the greatest number of Australians killed or wounded in a single peacetime incident. Bali is a popular destination for Australian vacationers. Indonesia is a neighbor of Australia with about 12 times its population. It had only recently emerged from decades of oppressive dictatorship and was politically unstable, 9/11 has happened just over a year earlier, the prospect of the rise of radical Islam there must have been a frightening prospect for most Australians. There is no hard evidence the Mexicans had foiled an attempted terrorist attack. I never said that I said “He (MC Piper) claimed that Meyer Lansky was the true head of the mob a claim I've never seen elsewhere.” Organized crime was never a subject that especially interested me, I was wrong I admitted it. Funny how you keep harping on that as if it was the only factual error you could find 1400 posts. See my reply to the same point in my previous post. The NY Times ran several stories about the incident in 1967 including at least 2 on the front page. http://tinyurl.com/33ak44 http://preview.tinyurl.com/33ak44 "Sid's point about the double standards of the West in the war on terror is proven beyond reasonable doubt." There are people who believe that the LNT/SBT, “Chemtrails” and the “Apollo Hoax” are “proven beyond reasonable doubt”.

Gee Len. In future I'll try to cite only those sources which meet your approval. In the future you should try to cite credible sources, which independent of its politics Pravda isn’t. Then why did you seemly cite it as independent confirmation of that article? If true you were being a bit deceptive. Which is the language we expect press releases and newspaper articles from Mexico to be in. For your benefit I’ll cite and translate the appropriate sentences in the next day or so. Which less helpful a) a credible source in a widely spoken foreign language a summery of which has been provided by a member of the forum or a report in English from and obviously biased crackpot? Nice dodge, you statement that I had cited Zionist sources in my post shows how little attention you were paying. Perhaps you’d be willing to quantify your claim that “Nearly all of [my] cites are pro-Zionist.” The vast majority of my posts have nothing to do with Zionism or Israel etc, but I guess if you consider the NY Times, BBC, the Mexican Congress’ website, an explosives company website, the inventor of Kodacrome II, NIST and the Loose Change Forum etc “Zionist” sources even when what they said has nothing to do with the Middle East you’re right. Who said anything about “MILITARY style grenades”, what kind of gun would you expect a “security consultant” to use an Uzi, a 22? “In 2000, after becoming security consultant to Gen. Alexander Aguirre, former President Joseph Estrada’s national security adviser, Kintanar was designated project officer in an assassination plot against Prof. Jose Maria Sison in the Netherlands. <snip> At the time of his death, Kintanar was with two bodyguards and was personally armed with three guns: a .45 caliber pistol, an HK machine pistol and a Glock 9mm pistol (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 6 February 2003, Kintanar lost Rolex, Cash, 3 Guns, Golf Set). “ http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article117 “PROFILE: Highly trained personal protection specialist, and security consultant… <SNIP> SPECIAL SKILLS: Special weapons small/arms, qualified with a variety domestic pistols and assault weaponry” http://www.majestyenterprises.com/director...cfm?ethnicity=A “PROFILE: Highly Trained Protection Specialist with 12 Years Experience both National and International. Provided Close Quarters Protection for a Variety of Clientele that Included Foreign Dignitaries, Royal Families, Corporate Executives and Internationally Known Music and Sports Personalities. Current Security Consultant… President of Genesis Security Consultants Inc. Ontario, Canada. … SPECIAL SKILLS: Special Weapons Small/Arms Qualified (9mm. and Mp5). “ <SNIP> SPECIAL SKILLS: Special Weapons/Small Arms Qualified (38cal, 380, 9mm, 45cal, And 12 gauge). P.C. Literate, Excellent Management And Communications Skills. High Tech Security Systems Experience. 8 Years As Security Consultant…. http://www.majestyenterprises.com/director...=C&gender=M PROFILE: Former Special Agent for the Federal Bureau Of Investigation …Principle protection security and operations including principle/personnel safety, asset protection, risk management, and security requirements to successfully provide protection to FBI Directors William Sessions, Louis Freeh, Robert Mueller and Attorney Generals of the United States Janet Reno, and John Ashcroft . Experienced in conducting threat assessments,… Presently a state license private investigator and security consultant….. SPECIAL SKILLS: Special weapons’ small/arms, qualified with a variety specialized paramilitary assault weaponry. <snip> PROFILE: …Expertise in high profile Executive Protection,...Antiterrorist Consultant [certified] ...A security consultant who is multi-task and specializes in a variety of security matters to include: threat assessment, international consultation in all areas of countermeasures...A recognized security expert in the industry... SPECIAL SKILLS: Special weapons small/arms, qualified with a variety domestic and foreign para-military assault weaponry. ...A proven track record of leadership clearly demonstrated in the field of security consulting executive protection, and private investigations. http://www.majestyenterprises.com/director...=H&gender=M 1) There is no hard evidence they were going to carry out a terrorist attack, the facts seem to contradict this thesis. 2) Funny how you ignored my point that the story didn’t seem to have been picked up by Western language Arab/Muslim media or the Chinese, Cuban and Venezuelan press or even the neo-Nazi published American Free Press are they all controlled by apologists for Israel as well? Maybe they realized that the story wasn’t as newsworthy as Sid and you imagine. No, Mark you got that a bit backwards, the “art students” story didn’t get much attention till it was covered by Cameron. If you think the Fox series was “spun” to the satisfaction of the “Israel Lobby” you obviously have seen it or read the transcript. If really were so spun one wonders why it linked to, referred to and/or reproduced on most inside job, anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic websites (no I’m not equating these types of websites)

I didn't ask you for furthur examples I pointede out that your examples didn't stand up to scrutiny, Rather than defend your examples you changed the subject. I actually asked for examples of Arabs or Moslems given lengthy jail sentences in Western countries simply for possesing explkosives when their was no indication they planned to used them to harm anyone. It doesn't seem you were able to.

Let’s see Sid you started this thread off with your spin on the Shapiro case. Then when I raise doubts about your interpretation of events you change the subject to by making some sort of nonsensical reference to the leader of the 7/7 bombings, when I show the cases weren’t comparable you change the subject once again with speculation about what would happen to an Arab caught with explosives in a Western country or how the media would react if a Syrian had gone on a shooting rampage after I say why disagreed with your take on those hypothetical situations you changed the subject once again and bring up the incident in the Mexican congress after I explain why I think your interpretation is unlikely you true to form change the subject to the USS Liberty. This fits a past pattern with you, raising points and then changing the subject rather than replying when holes are poked in your case. Your contention that a phone call from some one over 20 floors above and on the opposite side of 2 WTC from fires indicated they were not hot enough to cause the trusses to sag is a case in point. I not willing to play that game with you on this issue. I imagine if I make my case that your interpretation of the Liberty incident is not the most likely one, rather than honestly argue you’ll ‘cut and run’. I seriously doubt we’ll change each other’s or anybody else’s minds. I made a post about it a while back. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=30&p=60102

bump

Gee Mark your research skills and critical thinking are as impressive as ever! Pravda in case you haven’t noticed is complete crap, they recently ran a story saying that right-wing racist TV and radio commentator Dom Imus wasn’t fired because he referred to a mostly Black woman’s basketball team as “a bunch of nappy-headed ‘hos [i.e. whores]” but because he was about to spill the beans on 9/11. You obviously failed to notice that the Pravada article was an exact “reprint” of the “La Voz de Aztlan” article originally cited by Sid’s source i.e. it is suspect to say the least. ??????? uuuuuh, in case you hadn’t noticed the story took place in Mexico, they speak Spanish there, is the Mexican government and press under an obligation to provide translations of every pronouncement? Are you insinuating that I’m mistranslating? That would be a rather dumb tactic because the likelihood that a member of this forum would speak Spanish well enough to catch me would be quite high. If I was ever intentionally misleading on this or any other forum perhaps you can point it out. If you can neither understand Spanish nor get someone who does to help you nor make sense of the computer translations from Altavista. You’ll just have to trust me. ??????? uuuuuh which “pro-Zionist” source did I cite? LOL! Why would security consultants be visiting the parliament of a Latin-American country? I can think of a few reasons that would make more sense than a false flag bombing. See below. One possibility is that is was covered by Western media but that now 5 ½ years later they don’t turn up in internet searches. Most news sites only keep stuff online for a week or two and then delete them or more likely put them in a paid archive. Perhaps it didn’t get wider attention because they didn’t deem it newsworthy. There is no evidence the story was picked up by Al-Jazeera or other western language Arab/Muslim news outlets were they swayed by “strongly pro-Israel sympathies” or even in Venezuela or Cuba. Not even the ardently anti-Israel ‘American Free Press’ published by virulently racist and anti-Semitic Hitler admirer and Holocaust denier Wilis Carto it seems to have picked it up, could it be that their was nothing to it? If the Israel lobby is so powerful and adept at keep such stories out of the news then how do you explain Cameron’s “Israeli Art Student” series on Fox or all the media accounts of Israelis getting arrested after 9/11? You won't like the source of that article, either, Len. Great another openly anti-Semitic Holocaust denying site. But yes it is an accurate translation of the accompanying Spanish text, odd though that no link was provided to the original and that the photo of the front page is too small to read anything but the headlines. But lets assume the Spanish text was what was reported in that paper. There is a possibility the report was in error the grenades and explosives weren’t mentioned in the other newspaper article or the prosecutor’s press release or even a press release from the Mexican congress the supposed target which said the contents of the attaché case were ‘unknown’ or ‘not identified’ (una maleta con contenido desconocido) and says they had one gun (“un arma de fuego”). http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:Vk8xI...l2001/oct10.htm The Diario article makes no mention of wires, detonators, dynamite or bombs (which what you get when you connect a detonator to explosives). If the 2nd newspaper account is accurate why would they have entered the grounds of the congress with this material? Let’s see: - To market their services, they could have had an appointment with a prospective client (a congressman or a person responsible for security) and say “look what we were able to bring here no problem,” - As a test to see if they could do so if they already were working for someone connected to the congress. The press and government authorities have done similar tests/demonstrations at US airports and other supposedly secure locations. Since Latin Americans are sensitive about sovereignty issues they might not want to own up to contracting Israelis (or an Israeli) for securing a government installation recently there was an uproar in Brazil because an American “security” company had been hired to spy on government officials. http://www.mre.gov.br/portugues/noticiario...&Imprime=on - To sell them to someone. Since the deal might have been exactly ‘kosher’ the buyer might not want to be publicly identified. Sid and Mark will surely scoff that none of my proposed scenarios are very probable but how much sense does theirs make? 1) What possible benefit would Israel derive from Mexico entering the “war on terror”? To get them to “commit troops and all the oil it could spare to combat Islamic terrorism” as spelled out in Sid’s first article? That reminds me of the story (probably apocryphal) the Hitler fell of his chair laughing when told that Haiti had declared war on the Axis. Mexico is not exactly known as a military powerhouse its army wasn’t even able to deal effectively with the Zapatistas. There was never a hint of an oil shortage during the Afghan war indeed two “Gulf States” pledged their assistance and Saudia Arabia and the others were unlikely to cut off supplies in any case Mexico is unlikely not to have done everything possible to meet the needs of it most important trade partner without being attacked. 2) Numerous other countries aided the US and it’s NATO allies in the Afghan war without being attacked. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_End...anistan:_Allies . Likewise 49 countries including 6 Central American ones and Colombia entered the “coalition” against Iraq. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0030327-10.html 3) If Israel (and the Bush administration) has such influence in Mexico that it (they) can get two of its “agents” who were going to blow the congress released not only without any protests from the Mexican press, government or congress but with a cover up on their part, why would it need a terrorist attack to get Mexico involved? Especially since 7 of Mexico’s neighbors entered the “WoT” without being attacked. 4) What motive for the attack would be given? Muslim extremist attacks have been against a) countries supporting Israel and/or the “WoT” (US, UK, Spain etc) predominantly Moslem countries with governments that don’t meet their approval (Indonesia, Algeria, Egypt, Turkey etc) c) non-Moslem countries with Moslem minorities seeking an independent state (Philippines, Thailand, Russia, India etc) d) Jewish or to a lesser extent Christian targets (Tunisia, Argentina, Turkey, Pakistan etc.). 5) The behavior of the “Israelis” doesn’t seem consistent with “black ops” agents on a ‘false flag’ mission. Presumably they would want to attract as little attention to themselves as possible but according to the “La Voz de Aztlan” they were posing as press photographers drew the attention of the sugar plantation workers due to their suspicious behavior. This basically correlates with an account given in a forum posting on the official Mexican Presidential cite which indicates “Salvador Gerson Smike” (sic) was taking photos of the workers and drew their attention due to his suspicious behavior, only taking photos from the waist down (“sólo les tomaba fotos de la cintura para abajo”) and was carrying a pistol (“armado con una pistola”). As with other accounts it only mentions “Smike” as carrying a gun. Why would they draw attention to themselves photographing the sugar workers? Why would one (or both) of them be carrying a not very well concealed 9mm? None on the accounts said they had a working bomb. What do we suppose their plan was to hook up the bomb after they had drawn attention to themselves? Wouldn’t the most logical thing been to have gone in with the bomb already ready discretely left it some where and left? Why enter the ground of the Congress? A car bomb or flying a plane into a target would have been much easier to pull off. Ah, how much easier life would be (for some) if all the critics of Zionism were snug in jail following prosecutions in which truth is no defence! So, if this account is correct, it wasn't a complete non-story in the Ministry of Truth, just a once-only story. Very big “IF”. The source of that post was an article called “Stranger Than Fiction: An Independent Investigation of 9/11” some times attributed to ‘anonymous’ and at others to “Dr. Albert D. Pastore Ph.D” which according to Amazon is a “pen-name”* and indeed I couldn’t find any references to any one named ‘Albert D. Pastore’ or anyone named Albert Pastore’ with the title Dr. or Ph.D that didn’t reference the article or from CT sites or forums. So it’s the an unsourced claim by an anonymous author. It wouldn’t surprise me if the story did get a brief mention on CNN though, and if it I’d like to know what exactly they said and if there was any follow up * http://www.amazon.com/Stranger-Than-Fictio...e/dp/1893302474

Wow Sid you think you could dig up a less reliable source than “What Really Happened”? I guess there’s the source of their article “La Voz de Aztlan” which is openly anti-Semitic and frequently goes on about how “the nefarious Jews” are out to destroy Hispanic culture and take over the world citing the Protocol of the Elders of Zion* * http://www.aztlan.net/cross_la_seal.htm , http://www.aztlan.net/911_commission.htm BTW - how’s your Spanish? According to the Mexican newspaper El Universal it turns out that only one them, Salvador Guersson Schmeke, was armed with a 9mm for which he had permit and worked for a private security company which complied with all Mexican laws. No mention is made of any explosives. http://www2.eluniversal.com.mx/pls/impreso...mp;tabla=nacion This corresponds with the only source cite by your article a dispatch from the Mexican Prosecutor’s Office which only mentions Schmeke who they describe as a Mexican carrying a duly licensed 9mm but makes no mention of any other weapons. http://www.pgr.gob.mx/cmsocial/bol01/oct/b69701.html Neither source said either of them were Mossad agents or that Schmeke had served in the Israeli military. I don’t think either of them said that the Israeli was illegally in Mexico but by Spanish isn’t perfect. If you don’t understand Spanish at all you can try translating the articles with Babelfish but is comes out mostly gibberish. http://babelfish.altavista.com/tr As for the liquid bombs case we’ve been over that on another thread, from what I recall there were various indications they were planning an attack but I haven’t had time to go over that again. In any case none of the suspects have been tried yet let alone convicted. But you still haven’t met my challenge, cite a case where an Arab or Moslem has been given a lengthy jail sentence for possession of explosives when there was no evidence they were planning on using them to harm anyone. I’m not familiar with the Alabama case. I will look into it when I get the time

No Sid I am quite aware of the meaning of the word “Semitic” and you failed to consider the possibility I didn’t find your attempt at humor funny because it wasn’t rather than due to a lack of a sense of humor on my part. No I got your point nor did I ever indicate I didn't, but it was poorly made. There are many reasons other than ethnicity for Shapiro not being a suspected terrorist. Similarly as per your proposed scenario obviously anyone independant of their ethnicity trying to enter a building wearing explosives would be considered a terrorist, a suicide bomber with political and/or religious motives with known ties to terrorist groups would be considered a terrorist if they were Arab, Irish, Austalian or Brazilian. You may have a point but it would depend on the circumstances, if the Syrian was a loner with previous signs of being psychologically unbalanced and no known connections to terrorist or radical religious or political groups it probably wouldn’t be considered terrorism. A good example would be the guy who killed Mier Kahane, most people considered him to be a “lone nut” rather than a terrorist. Yes. It is one thing which, if you are a young Arab living in a western country post 2001, may well lead to a 20+ years in jail. Please cite an example of “a young Arab living in a western country post 2001” who received a lengthy jail sentence SIMPLY for “possessing explosives” in his house when there was no evidence he was “planning on using them to harm anyone”. Miracles can happen, for once you said something I can agree with, I also “believe that laws should apply equally to all” but you have failed to produce any evidence that Arabs (or Moslems) would be treated differently than someone who belonged to another ethnic group (or practiced a different religion) if explosives were found in their house.

“He is married, gainfully employed presumably doing something he enjoys, has hobbies. In that respect, he sounds very much like Mohammad Sidique Khan Simply possessing illegal explosives doesn’t make someone a terrorist suspect I agree 100%.” Let consider some important difference between Khan and Shapiro and their explosives. EXPLOSIVES “Shapiro’s” explosive were presumably found in his house, there are no indications they were going to be used for any purpose anytime in the near future or that they ever were intended to be used to harm anyone. Part of them were quite innocuous. Khan’s explosives were detonated while he was wearing them under his clothes while he was on a crowded subway (underground) train killing himself and 6 people. The attacks he organized killed 48 people and 4 terrorists. INTENT There is no indication Shapiro wanted to harm anyone. Khan indicated in his martyrdom video he wanted to kill as many people as possible. HOBBIES Shapiro’s hobbies included -studying history, -hunting, -marching around with friends dressed as “paradoxical” 18th or 19th century soldiers and engaging in mock battles and -walking around alone dressed in 19th century civilian (presumably) attire. Khan’s “hobbies” included -traveling to Pakistan and Afghanistan to get jihad training, -possible involvement in previous bomb attacks in Bali and Tel Aviv and a failed attack in London and -radicalizing his students at a local Islamic center. RELIGIOUS/POLITICAL OUTLOOK We don’t have any indications Shapiro was particularly interested in religion or politics. Khan associated with other jihadists Gee why is the former not considered a terrorist suspect like the latter? Why the “ ‘double’ standard”? Oh yes it must be because Khan was a Muslim and Shapiro is (presumably) Jewish [sid seems to have been driving at this since the “get go”] the evil Zionist controlled media and police strike again! “Now, how about a simple demonstration to prove this important point, Len? <snip> Take a walk to the nearest Town Hall with a couple of belts of explosives stapped to your waist. <snip> Remember to leave a note explaining that your logically impeccable view that "possessing illegal explosives doesn’t make someone a terrorist suspect" just in case you don't make it through the day” You’ve made some ludicrous points in the past but this time you’ve out done yourself. Possessing explosives in ones house especially when there is no evidence you are planning on using them to harm anyone is one thing wearing them strapped to ones body and trying to gain entrance into a public building or detonating them in crowded place (like Khan and his co-conspirators) is obviously something else entirely. “Using your best Semitic accent,” just what are you driving at Sid?

I glad that Sid brought this highly important story to our attention and am glad the Kiwis were able to apprehend this obvious psychopath and thwart his plans. The evidence that he was indeed quite dangerous is quite clear consider the following: He: - is a French-horn player with the Christchurch Symphony - is an amateur historian - goes around alone “dressed in 19th-century attire” - is a member “Alf's Imperial Army” ‘a "paradoxical army" that fought for fun’ that goes around in 19th (or is it 18th ) century military attire http://www.wizard.gen.nz/alfsarmy.html http://web.archive.org/web/20031210142330/...ry/invadenz.jpg? -is a hunter and hunting guide so obviously he has no qualms about killing innocent little animals, killing people is the obvious next step. Obviously this the cover of an alienated terrorist intent on killing numerous innocents to achieve his goals after all he had: - 5 military flares Which he was probably planning to use to scare the residents or an old age home to death with or start a deadly sheep stamped - 2 cans of black powder Which is commonly used a) by “ceremonial regiments” like Alf’s Imperial Army which use centuries old muzzle loaders or modern replicas – I guess they want us to believe it’s just a coincidence he happened to belong to such a regiment and had a couple cans of gunpowder. I wonder how many “military exercises” the “Army” was planning. in fireworks c) for model rockets d) by the mining industry because as a low intensity explosive it spilts rock rather than shatters rock into small fragments. Heck with two cans of the stuff he could probably blow out all the windows of a good size house, scare everyone with in a several block radius or cause a stampede of kangaroos Oooops I forgot they don’t have kangaroos in New Zeeland he must have been planning to use the 5 flares and the 2 cans of powder to cause a really big sheep stampede. I bet he was gonna play his horn and fire his muzzle loader at the same time as the blasts which undoubtedly would have really freaked those sheep out and caused a gargantuan stampede, that devious psycho! - 8 sticks of Powergel Which is sold to anyone with an appropriate permit and is used in mining and avalanche control. http://www.oricaminingservices.com/product...ProductTypeID=2 I wonder how much bang you can get out of 8 sticks. I wonder if the ever well informed Mr. Walker from ‘down-under’ (as opposed to the other Mr. Walker from ‘up over’) can tell us. Yes he did have 2 anti-personnel mines I wonder if they working or replicas or deactivated authenticated ones apparently people collect such items*. You think if they were the real think we would have heard about the local bomb squad having swung into action. * http://cgi.ebay.com/MINE-ANTI-PERSONNEL-M1...1QQcmdZViewItem In any case they don’t seem to make idea terrorist weapon in a peaceful country being more suited for the battlefield. Since they have to be buried they would be difficult to plant without being noticed. He doesn’t seem to fit the profile of terrorist, which might explain the relaxed attitude of police. He is married, gainfully employed presumably doing something he enjoys, has hobbies. There are no indications he is involved in political or religious let alone extremist groups, Nor are there any indications he planned on using any of the items that we can’t even be sure are his to harm anyone. Simply possessing illegal explosives doesn’t make someone a terrorist suspect.

I would take anything in the Spotlight 'with a grain of salt'. That being said it wouldn't at all surprise me if he as head of the CPUSA which which beholded to the Soviet CP was on the Russian payroll. I don't know how this would be a reflection on other radicals. John seemed to be hinting at the opposite, that Hall was backed by reactionaries.

John How ‘tongue in cheek’ was (if at all) your post? Wouldn’t it have been easier and more effective to have called an abler opponent to debate Shayler?* Do you think the Beeb in conjunction with MI5 keeps faux wackos on call waiting to call in on such occasions? Unfortunately it seems that a good number of the people who back the inside job theory do sound like they are off their psych meds. Yes some suggest the Illuminati were responsible others that explosive charges were built into the towers or that the hole in Shanksville was dug the day before. This even applies to some the movement’s leaders who propose theories such as: - The towers were destroyed by satellite based energy beams - No planes were involved in any of the “crashes” etc etc. Shayler by the way is a “no planer” according to an article by a certain Brendan O’Neill*. Perhaps O’Neill thinking Shayler stark raving mad under estimated him. It's also possible Shayler appeared better informed because he made up or distorted facts as "truthers" often do and he did in the video linked below**. Since he backs one of the more “fringe” theories it isn’t surprising to me the show would have gotten a lot of fringe callers. How many people who supported O’Neill got through? Do you really think as you seem to suggest that some of the “inside jobbers” here really are agents sent to make other conspiracists look bad? Peter and Jack since you seemed to agree with John’s suggestion I was wondering who amongst your fellow 9/11 CTists you think are the disinfo agents? (Rhetorical question since answering would probably violate forum rules). Len Such as the guy who runs 911myths.com . He is English and IIRC a Londoner. * http://www.newstatesman.com/200609110028 ** he also supposedly expresses similar views in this video but I didn’t have the patience to listen all the way through. http://www.nopers.com/video/398/david_shay...eblower_on__911 Like Jack you seem to think I was referring to the anti-conspiracists on the forum. I was not. My comments were aimed at those conspiracy theorists who contaminate the good name of good researchers by developing what I consider to be daft theories. I was not suggesting that the BBC lined-up nut-cases to support Shayler. All they did is to let the crackpots speak. The BBC always appears to be very fair by matching one supporter with one opponent phone-caller. The cheating comes with who they select to speak. The same was true of the BBC documentary on the so-called 9/11 conspiracy last night. The three supporters of the conspiracy who appeared were wide-eyed extremists. This included our old friend Jim Fetzer. The opponents were three very rational men who took a very scientific approach to the case. It was a "no contest". The conspiracy theorists would get very few converts from this programme. Actually while Jones and Fetzer (especially the former) came off like raving lunatics, Avery came across as a complete moron, the BBC guy had to explain to him what a simile was, It’s not just that he didn’t know what the word meant he seemed to have trouble grasping the concept. He also seems to have trouble grasping the difference between a quote being "taken out of context" and being misquoted, during an interview about the BBC program he scoffed at the idea that he had quoted the coroner on Shanksville out of context because (approximate quote) 'he said all those things'. Speaking of Mr. Avery, on the Loose Change Forum “Jackchit” a mentally unbalanced English “truther” threatened the life (or at least the vision) of, Mark Roberts (aka ‘Gravy’), a NYC tour guide and a leading “debunker” . http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...?showtopic=6799Did the administrator (Dylan Avery) ban Jack? No Did he suspend him? No Did he admonish the guy? No What did he do? He told him where to find Roberts! “He's at Ground Zero, every Saturday” (same link as above) And the other “truthers” seem to approve as well! Apparently Jack was irate because he been paid a visit Social Services because someone had made an “anonymous tip that (his) children were in danger” Jack previously said the following: http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=61689 I wouldn't be surprised if Jack was one of the callers who "sounded like they needed urgent medical treatment" John referred to. That post caused a couple members of a forum Mark is a member of to become concerned about his kids. One said they would send copies of this and other internet postings of his to social services and a few weeks later he got the visit. Mark in no way encouraged the person to do this. If one looks at the link above it seems that “truthers’ ” obsessions with 9/11 have caused more than one marriage, ‘relationship’ or friendship to break up. I’ve heard about this elsewhere a bit sad if you ask me. LCF is not an ‘anything goes’ forum though, Avery recently suspended Killtown because he questioned Avery’s ban on “no planes theories” something now verboten there. http://killtown.blogspot.com/ Ironically Avery whose film is filled with so many factual errors that some “truthers” think he is a “disinfo” agent admonished Killtown to “be a careful ...researcher”! OK so on Avery’s forum he encourages threatening to kill or attack someone but you can be suspended for questioning his banning of discussion of certain subjects.

Douglas didn't specify which March, so a more precise answer would be "it's too soon to say". An even more precise answer would take into account the probable disconnect between what George Bush plans and what actually happens. Here's a recent report indicating that Nixon was kept well out of the loop over the Yom Kippur War: Book says Kissinger delayed telling Nixon about Yom Kippur War to keep him from interfering. Does anyone really imagine that if the blue meanies want to start a hot war with Iran, they'd let Dubya plan it? Kissinger would probably advise not to wake him until it's over. Sid you left out that according to the article you cited Kissinger was informed at 6 AM at which time the president was sleeping and that he told Al Haig (the president’s chief of staff) at around 8:30 who agreed that there was no need to wake him. Though the cited Reuters article said Kissinger did this to keep Nixon from interfering that wasn’t said in the Vanity Fair article on which it was based: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feature...5?currentPage=3 Altough later it reports “When Haig reported that Nixon was considering returning to Washington, Kissinger discouraged it—part of a recurring pattern to keep Nixon out of the process.” Since the war started with an unprovoked surprise attack by Syria and Egypt and the US eventually ended up providing aid to the Israelis, and the Israelis were loosing during the first day or so any delay in informing the president if it helped either side would have benefitted the Arabs, not a very NWO thing to now was it? Kissinger intervened to put pressure on the Israeli’s to make peace on terms less favorable than they wanted and could have obtained on the battlefield. Wikipedia quoted another book about the incident: "When Kissinger asked Haig whether [Nixon] should be wakened, the White House chief of staff replied firmly 'No.' Haig clearly shared Kissinger's feelings that Nixon was in no shape to make weighty decisions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War Such an interpretation is not entirely unsupported by the Vanity Fair article: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feature...5?currentPage=2 What was Kissinger up to? Trying to keep a war from breaking out it seems, what a dirty trick. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/index.htm I’m not a fan of Kissinger’s action regarding Chile and East Timor etc etc but I don’t see anything wrong with his actions that morning.

I went back over your previous posts and see that I misread your position. You did however post a link to an 'essay' by someone who backs the 'intentional provocation' theory and you are a big fan of "false flag" theories. "To clarify my position, yes, I do believe there is a conspiracy against Iran, directed mainly by the Zionist leadership, but not limited to Zionist interests alone. I think that's not a very contentious position to hold in April 2007. It's rather obvious." Not contentious among the small group of people who believe what you do. Are the warmongers currently in power in the US, UK and Israel a contemtable bunch? Yes. Is there evidence they are conspiring against Iran? I've yet to see anything to indicate that is the case. The current extremist cabal in control of Iran seem to be doing a good job of conspiring against themselves.

Were the fires on the east side of the 80th and 81st floors of the South Tower too weak to have weakened the floor trusses? Sid seems to think so. Perhaps then he can explain these photos from the NIST report and stills from a video, which show a lot of smoke and some flames coming out the windows and the perimeter columns noticeably bowing in. The bowing of the columns on the east face of the South Tower can be seen even more clearly in this video clip shot from in front of Trinity Church about 200 feet from the base of the doomed building, heavy smoke and some flames can be seen as well. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546 This is a still from the video linked above So much for the ‘the South Tower fires were weak/going out theory’. Bowing also occurred in the North Tower as can be seen in the NYPD aviation unit video I mentioned previously. Clips of the video can be seen in this excerpt of a documentary (starting 3:34 from the beginning). Not only can we hear them giving a warning that the top of the building was tilting and buckling a few minutes before the building collapsed but one of the cops on board and Jim Dyer who spoke to some of the others are interviewed and discuss what they saw, the cop said he could see “red hot” metal in the tower. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAy9oe1snbU...ted&search= I guess the red hot steel 20 minutes before collapse, smoke, flames and bowing of the columns was caused by “super (duper) therrmate”.

The author claims that the collapse theory violates the laws of physics but no qualified engineers or demolitions experts and only a couple of particle physicists agree. Once again the claim is made that the collapses occurred at close to free fall rate but that claim is simply false as has been pointed out repeatedly on this forum the took far longer than free fall time. The author is also presumably un aware of the two studies one by two professors of structural engineering from Northwestern University and the other by one from MIT that close to free fall time collapses were possible. Hand-waving by misinformed ignorant people proves nothing.

This is the only music video I've seen that has literally moved me to tears. Great cover as well. Interestingly this was the video I thought of posting a link too when I saw John's link to this thread. Cash recorded a lot of excellent material in his last years. I nearly cried when I heard he had died, likewise when I heard about June a few months earlier.

I posted a link to a similar article on another thread http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070330/ap_on_el_pr/giuliani911 I’ve had mixed feelings about Giuliani for a while, I though he did an excellent job as a prosecutor it was he more than anyone else who “put the nail” in the Mafia’s “coffin” in NYC, thought even then he struck me as an attention hound and took all the credit for something that wasn’t entirely his doing. I though he did a good job during his first term as mayor and even voted to reelect him one of the very few times I’ve voted for a Republican (and my dislike for the Democratic candidate was a major factor as well). I soon regretted having voted for him in part due to 9/11 issues mentioned in the articles. As far as his presidential aspirations he seems to be the best of the Repulicans and a vast improvement over Bush but I'd still vote for any Democrat if he were the GOP candidate. I think the 2nd thread on this topic should be erased or at least locked.

One thing's for sure - the master of bodge and spin has lost his credibility in middle Britain. Not enough torque to start a war, Tony? Back to the Israelis... The Iranians and Iraqi don’t seem to differ that much on the sea boarder as this map from Iranian TV demonstrates both sides agree that it extendens southeast from the Shatt al Arab thus the fact that the position was closer to Iran than Iraqi is irelevant. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6502805.stm The Iranian claim is undermined by the fact it seems to have given two accounts of where the British boat was the 2nd set of coordinates being closer to it shores while the first was in Iraqi waters On 24 March the Iranian government told the UK - according to the UK's Ministry of Defence - that the merchant vessel was at a different location, but still within Iraqi waters. When the UK pointed out to the Iranians that the location they had given was within Iraqi waters, the Iranians provided a "corrected" location, nearly 1 nautical mile away (1.9km) from its first position but within Iranian waters. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6502805.stm I find this excerpt of the Wikipedia entry about the incident more convincing than Murry’s editorial, there are links to references in the original (unlike Murry who doesn’t source his claims): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Iranian_...n_force_at_site Funny that Sid would cite Murry to bolster his case the incident was an intentional provocation by the British when Murry’s position seems to be that it was a misunderstanding (which Blair is exploiting). Also funny that he seems to think that a couple of people’s comments to an online editorial are at all indicative of how people in “middle Britain” feel about Blair. It could well be the case that he has indeed “lost his credibility” amongst them (I don’t trust him) but the cited evidence is woefully insuficient.

Actually Mark believe it or not our views on the Bush administration aren’t that different, I believe he and his administration intentionally “sex up” and faked the evidence against Iraq to jutify war they had previously decided upon. But just because I don’t like Bush I’m not going to say he is always 100% wrong and people who oppose his are always right, that’s too simplistic. FWIW it was Sid not I who brought the issue up here insinuating (with out any real evidence) this was an intentional provocation of Blair and his perpetual werewolf the dreaded “Zionists”. IF he hadn’t brought it up I wouldn’t have mentioned it. As in the Cold War I think both sides are to blame you accuse me of being one-sided but that epitaph seems better suited to you.

I give up on this 'debate' Len. If you want to believe that the WTC-2 fires were major, widespread and very, very, very hot, you have a perfect right to do so. That's religious freedom. Believe what you like. You’re a funny guy Sid, you make a claim refuse to back it with any evidence and then insinuate that I base by beliefs on faith. The burden of proof is in your court. The fires don't have to have been that widespread the NIST report you claim to have read only claimed the fire strong enough to weaken the trusses were on the 80th and 81st floors of the eastside of the South tower. Nor was it speculated that they were especially hot, only that they reached tempratures commonly obtained in office/residential fires (office fires tens to burn hotter than residential ones due the greater amount of flammable material per square foot (or meter) and greater use of synthetic material.

Since it seems only ONE structural engineer from any where in the world with building design experience* has publicly challenged the fire induced collapse theory, the inability of Sid and other people with absolutely no expertise in the field to understand why the core collapsed proves nothing. Peter was correct The perimeter columns bore 40% of the gravity load (i.e. static load, dead weight) and 100% of the live load, the core was responsible for supporting 60% of the building’s mass as static (i.e. motionless) load. Once the perimeter columns gave way and the upper floors started to come down the damaged core had to support 100% of the building’s mass as dynamic (moving) load. Adding to the core’s problems NIST found that the sagging trusses pulled in the perimeter and outer core columns. In the case of the former this can be documented by photos showing the columns bowing in. I remember see a video clip from a NYPD helicopter where the pilots noticed the bowing and radio a warning (this is the helicopter mentioned in the NIST and IIRC 9/11 Commission reports) I’ll try to find it. FWIW I don’t think the “core should have remained standing” argument has been put forward by any of the few “inside jobbers” with vaguely relevant expertise. * Leaving aside the fact that he a) is a political and religious fanatic, won’t say what buildings he’s designed {so we have to take his word for it he has done so}, c) claimed to be a pilot but isn’t listed in the FAA database {which casts doubt on his reliability see } d) seems not to have read the NIST report and e) is really an architectural engineer {can be the “structural engineer” of record in some states but as the name implies is not as specialized in the structural aspects of building design as a structural engineer). The only other structural engineer I know about spent his entire career designing deep sea oil platforms.

Since I asked Sid a week ago to substantiate one of his claims and he has yet to reply I decided to give this thread a little 'bump', I'm sure it just slipped his mind.