Len Colby

There is little merit to the 1st claim. The operator who took the 911 call denied that the passenger said that. Ron you know that we’ve been over it already. Yes, we've been over it, and I wouldn't bring it up again if it had no merit. Which has more credibility, the operator's supervisor's statement on the day of the call about what was said, or the operator's denial, days or weeks later, after the FBI had been around? Why would the supervisor lie about the call? He had no reason to. Why would the operator lie later, post-FBI visit(s)? The answer is obvious. Ron you forgot or ignored that Gordon Felt the brother of Mark Felt (the person who made the call) heard the tape and said there is no mention of smoke or an explosion. Oh yeah the tape was altered Why would Cramer make such a thing up? Perhaps he was an attention seeker, what about all the people who have made dubious statements (including confessions) regarding the JFK assassination. There are also numerous attention seeking liars tied to 9/11 - Mike Bellone the supermarket manager and Ground Zero volunteer who dressed up like a fireman before audiences and told them he was the “NYFD safety director” at Ground Zero” - Lalo Chavez – Who claims he served in the USAF and was deployed to Kabul airport September 16, 2001 which was before the US invasion let alone the capture of the Afghan capitol or the reopening of it’s airport. - The guy (I can’t remember his name) who claims he is a pilot and Amtrak electrical engineer in Washington D.C. and that he saw a Global Hawk hit the Pentagon but only came forward 5 years later, never held a pilot’s license, isn’t a licensed engineer in DC, Maryland or Virginia, and whose own son and other truthers say he is an attention seeking xxxx. The fact that Cramer at first made it sound like he took the call makes the attention seeker hypothisis seem likely. Also he made his statement a few hours after the fact. Later after John Shaw, who took the call, contradicted him he said he read off a transcript. There are many things about Cramer’s version of the call that don’t make sense. How could Felt see smoke if he was locked in the bathroom? For example. Are we to believe that on the day one of the biggest emergencies they ever faced the 911 people took timeout to prepare a transcript? And then not retain a copy for theirown use? Are we to believe that everyone or most people Westmoreland Co. 911 know what happened but are silent? Before I go any further I’d like to ask the people who think the plane was shot down some questions: - How fast do you think the plane was flying? If you don’t want to venture to guess a specific speed do you think it was flying fast or slow? - Who do you think was flying? - What time do you think the plane crashed 10:06 or 10:03? I won’t answer my first question so as not to bias answers by others and of course think one of the hijackers probably Ziad Jarrah was flying and take no position as to the crash time. I would also like to see Wallace back his claims about intercepts. Len

Nowhere do they indicate what was found at the site except that it was small except that Cabell seems to be indicating the engine part was found where he was this contradicts all other counts. The Pittsburg Pulp an alternative paper from the closest major city to the crash site spoke to a weapons expert about such theories: Robert Sherman, a conventional weapons expert with the Federation of American Scientists who worked for the state department as former executive director of the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Advisory Board, and also wrote extensively about F-16s and Sidewinder missiles, looked at the missile theories on flight93crash.com and deemed it "the usual paranoid crap." "There was nothing there that gets me very worked up," he says. "Maybe [the plane] did break up. A crash is not a sanitary event. By definition, the uncontrolled impact of an airplane does strange things." Sherman said that if a missile had hit Flight 93, there would have been more evidence. "If a Sidewinder had hit it, there would have been pieces of the fan or the fuselage in a larger area," he says. "If the engine breaks up, then the fan blades are going to come off like bullets. Pieces of the wing and fuselage would be all over the place." http://web.archive.org/web/20041101190530/...ver_story.shtml Sherman’s FAS bio can be read here: http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/staff.htm Another oddity if 911research is correct the distant debris was found east of the crash site and flight 93 was flying west to east i.e. the 757 never flew over the area where the supposed debris was found. http://911debunker.livejournal.com/6447.html There is little merit to the 1st claim. The operator who took the 911 call denied that the passenger said that. Ron you know that we’ve been over it already.http://911myths.com/html/explosion_and_smoke.html The flight attendant’s husband’s account is odd but he says she called at 9:58 just about the same time as the 911 call and that “he heard a whooshing sound, a sound LIKE wind," * 5 – 8 minutes before the plane crashed. Are we to believe that the plane flew that much time holed and none of the witnesses on the ground noticed the hole. Why would such an in effective missile been used? 5 – 8 minutes would have been enough time to land the plane if there had been a live pilot aboard. Also from what I understand most air to air missles are heat seeking meaning they’d hit the engines not the fuselage. The husband didn’t mention the sound in other accounts of the call** * http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0060099097...=13&go.y=13 ** http://911myths.com/html/plane_holed.html Steve, I hope you feel that this fits into the confines of the thread also I second Ron’s request for the complete quotes and links I haven’t seen them either. Len

Actually truth be told as we can see here Jack is normally the one to instigate personal attacks. If you go through the existent threads you will observe that those of us question the 9-11 CT's rebutt such theories with the facts. Jack all to often runs away when his pet theoroes have been disproven and neither defends them or admits error. I welcome you to the forum as well. You will find that if you are polite yourself and debate fairly we (or atleast I) won't attack you personally.

Sid if you go back over my posts on this topic you'll see that I never disputed that a literal word for word translation of what he said would not be "wipe Isreal off the map" see for example my first (#28 on this thread http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=88524 ). The question for me has always been a fair translation of what he meant. Much of what you say is true, but the same could be said of most translations. It is not realistic to expect an in depth analysis on the nuances of each sentence, phrase or word. Since the translation originated with IRNA and was also used by Al Jazeera it is not accurate to blame "the Western media". I don’t see it as being “deliberate war mongering” by the media, not to say that those who a rooting for war aren’t exploiting it. Then IRNA and the president's website are guilty of this as well? Not me though my position hasn't really changed. I disagree that "Joe Public is...being taken for a ride" in this case, as I believe his words were fairly translated. He said it but I'm not sure he meant it (as I've stated before) it could just have be saber rattling rhetoric or more likely ‘preaching to the choir’. Iran could help alleviate tensions by give up on its drive for the bomb and ceasing to decorate missiles with “death to Israel” and “wipe Israel off the map” (or however you want to translate that phrase) Come on you’re not suggesting that Bush and Co. weren’t simply mistaken are you? (Just kidding) Actually even Hans Blix said he wasn’t cooperating, why exactly he didn’t is a mystery it gave Bush and Blair the excuse they were looking for. You’ve heard of double talk haven’t you? In any case that statement wasn't from the president.

The problem with theories that flight 93 was shot down is the absolute dearth of evidence to support them. Numerous witnesses saw the plane crash or shortly before or after it crashed both on the ground and in the air. None (that I know of) reported seeing: - the plane struck by a missile. - damage consistent with a missile stike. - an F-15, F-16 or other fighter in the vicinity. True a few witnesses describe seeing a white “military style jet” but their descriptions of the plane resemble that of the executive jet reported in the area and don’t match that of any fighter except possibly the A-10 “Warthog” (Ron suggested this a while ago) which is unlikely to have been used since: Its top speed of about 438 MPH is much slower that other fighters and less even than a 757. It is designed to provide air support for ground forces e.g. attack tanks etc and would not be well suited to shooting down an airborne and faster flying Boeing. One also wonders why they would use such a plane and fly it low when they could have shot flight 93 more easily, quickly and inconspicuously with an air to air fighter at high altitude. (Hopefully Evan will further elaborate on this point) Shot down theorists point to the debris field but with the exception of an engine turbine found about 1000 feet down hill from the crash site there is little evidence of anything other than lightweight debris paper, seat covers and some screws found far from the rest of the wreckage. As for the turbine one has to take into account the energy of the crash of a 100 ton aircraft at an acute angle at 580 mph (930 kph) and that of a spinning turbine providing half the thrust to keep a 100 ton aircraft airborne and flying at 580 mph and that it was found downhill from the rest of the plane.

Norouzi’s article was interesting but doesn’t really prove anything that Cole’s didn’t. No one is disputing that Ahmadinejad didn’t literally say Islam could and should "wipe Israel off the map" but said rather if we were to translate from Farsi word for word said “this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" or something to that effect. Was the former an accurate translation of what he said? I have yet to see convincing evidence it wasn’t. A good translator (and I am a highly paid one by Brazilian standards) translates for meaning. If I would translate the Portugese “puxe saco” to English as “brown noser” (or perhaps a more colorful phrase depending on my target audience) rather than as the literal ‘bag puller’ or even ‘scrotum puller’ as it means in this case because neither makes sense in English and the author’s meaning would be lost on the reader. In a similar vein it wouldn’t be easy for the average English speaker to understand what Ahmadinejad meant by “vanish from the page of time". The relevant questions are, 1) what did he mean by that phrase was he calling for relatively peaceful regime change or far bloodier ethnic cleansing and 2) was “wipe off the map” a fair translation. There is good reason to think the answer to the second question is yes. According to Norouzi that translation didn’t start with (as Sid would lead us to believe) the “Zionist controlled press”. Sid didn’t see fit to include this part of the article “The inflammatory "wiped off the map" quote was first disseminated not by Iran's enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. … It should be noted that in other references to the conference, the IRNA's translation changed. For instance, "map" was replaced with "earth". In some articles it was "The Qods occupier regime should be eliminated from the surface of earth", or the similar "The Qods occupying regime must be eliminated from the surface of earth". True he criticized foreign media (including Al-Jazeera) for not “verifying its accuracy” and alleged that “the inconsistency of the IRNA's translation should be evidence enough of the unreliability of the source, particularly when transcribing their news from Farsi into the English language” but I doubt he ever worked as a translator because “eliminated from the surface of the earth” and “wiped off the map essentially mean the same thing. According to the findings Jonathan Steele the Guardian columnist cited by Sid, the NY Times/IRNA translation might not have been as far off the mark in a literal sense as Sid, Cole, Norouzi or even Steele believe So what did Ahmadinejad mean? Sid said comments have to be understood in context, I agree in the relevant part of his speech he said: Even if one doesn’t substitute 'This regime that is occupying Jerusalem must be eliminated from the pages of history.' with “wipe Israel off the map”, “wipe Israel away”, "The Qods occupying regime must be eliminated from the surface of earth" or other translations of the phrase from occicial Iranian sources the meaning seems clear. Ahmadinejad’s defenders point that he cited the examples of Saddam, the Shan and the Soviet Union as powerful regimes that came to an end, but this doesn’t support their contention he simply meant relatively peaceful regime change. Those regimes were dictatorships which in the latter two cases were overwhelmingly rejected by the populace they collapsed because force was no longer a viable option to suppress the will of the people. Like it or not the existence of the state of Israel is supported by the overwhelming majority of the people living within its boarders, the situations are not analogous. In Saddam’s case regime change was of course not a peaceful process and came about due to invasion by a more powerful army according to Lancer there have been about 600,000 more civilian death than there would have if he had remained in power and IIRC about 2 million Iraqis have fled the country many others have been displaced internally or had their home destroyed etc all this because the balance of power shifted from Sunni to xxxxe Arabs and this was in a country where the ousted regime was probably only supported by a small minority of the population . Presumably if regime change occurred under similar circumstances in Israel the results would be even bloodier as power would be transferred for members of one ethnic group and religion to another. The violence meted out by the two main Palestian factions against each other doesn’t bode well for how well they would treat Jewish Israelis if they came to power especially if Hamas came to dominate i.e. there would be little difference between regime change and ethnic cleansing.

For the nth time, Len, no-one in the Iranian Government has called for "the killing or expulsion of the entire population of a country" (Israel, or any other country). At least, you and your chums have been unable to present evidence to that effect. " Our exchanges increasing are becoming a waste of my time. How else are we to interpret the phrase “wipe Israel away”, a translation which came from the president’s website? Can we presume the translators there speak Farsi as well as Prof. Cole? Remember that elsewhere in the speech he referred to this as an obtainable goal and that we have press accounts of banners with the same phrase and “Death to Israel” hung from missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads which most people (even Mark Stapleton) believe Iran is developing. Can you find any other experts who say they don’t think that phrase was a call to destroy Israel? And no, non-Farsi speaking English columnists don’t count. I never defended such plans; I just made the obvious observation that calling for such an attack is NOT analogous for calling for the destruction of an entire nation. According to the Beeb 11 people were killed in the Osirak raid http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5020778.stm . If I’m not mistaken the Iranian facilities are in fairly remote locations. If they were attacked BEFORE they were fueled I don’t see why we would expect anyone who didn’t work at one of them to be killed or injured. Now it's true that Petras doesn't use footnotes in that article, Len. But here's a hint. Check what's inside the brackets. They look like this ( ) You'll find reference after reference - mostly to the Financial Times Obviously I was refereeing to the passage that you posted. Even in the rest of the essay many of his claims are undocumented (though yes many others are). Your sarcasm is unwarranted since you were unable to find an exact quote on a linked page. Let’s look at the facts, something you so often avoid. I was not the person who brought up Ahmadinejad’s speech on this forum that was Peter, I was not the person who started debating what he really meant that was your buddy Sid. I merely a) transferred the debate to this thread because John complained rightly that it was off topic the Saddam thread and countered Sid’s arguments with mine. The dispute centers largely around an excerpt from Sid’s initial post on the subject which I believe undermine his position. Hopefully people who have the gall to hold views which differ from yours and those of your "ilk" can post here with out being accused of “troublemaking”. Quote where I have called for war against Iran. 1) I never argued that they would use such weapons only that they seem to have threatened to do so. 2) Ahmadinejad didn’t specify what methods should be used to achieve the “obtainable goal” of “(wiping) Israel away”. 3) I’m not sure if such talk is more than rhetoric but if it isn’t Iran wouldn’t be in much of a position to complain if it was taken seriously. But OK I have crack at it. I won’t pretend that what I say below is anything much more than unbridled speculation. I’m not saying this is what the Iranians are thinking only answering Mark’s question. How much of the region would be contaminated would depend on what types of weapons were used. IIRC the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki destroyed areas that would easily fit even Israel’s pre-1967 boarders. This would reduce though not eliminate Arab casualties. One of their main objections seems to be a non-Muslim state “in the heart of Islam” which they see as a threat to there religion, Palestinian casualties could be considered an acceptable sacrifice much like the US POW’s killed in Dresden and Hiroshima and Arabs killed in Hamas /Islamic Jihad etc shelling of Israel and terrorist attacks in that country. IF the Rafsanjani quote is accurate this might be what he meant by “damages”. I wonder how concerned the Iranian regime is with the lot of the Palestinians presumably with their billions in oil wealth they could do a lot more than they do to help them. I don’t know about Iran but Palestinians have not exactly gotten VIP treatment in several Arab countries. . I'm going away for a few days so won’t be able to spend much if any time here for a while.

This is the man who describes Sid Walker as "Herr Walker". I know you don’t agree with my assessment (others do) but in my view Sid is an anti-Semitic, Holocaust denying Hitler apologist. Thus calling him “Herr Walker” was not gratuitous. Duane labeled Craig “a Nazi” because they disagree about Apollo and Craig insulted him several times when he thought his (Duane’s) posts demonstrated a lack of intelligence, objectivity and/or knowledge of photography. IF insulting someone qualifies you as a Nazi, Duane must be one too!

Sid your research skills impress me the quote is from the linked page! Look at the “Ahmadinejad: Supporters of Israel will face wrath of Islamic ummah” article it’s just over half way through (I’d tell you the exact line but that will change with browser settings). If you still can’t find it try using your browser’s “Find (on this page)” (or equivalent function). Why isn’t calling for destruction of a counties nuclear weapons production facilities analogous to calling for the destruction of an entire country? Is that really a serious question? As for the Petras essay, political and economic analysis from a sociologist who doesn’t cite any sources [Yawn] how compelling! It's basiclly just an update of his usual "Jews run America diatribe" Ah! Thanks, Len. So you did refer to the phrase: He (the Iranian President) further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away. Trouble is, Len, that is in absolutely NO way equivalent to "Iran threatens to wipe Israel off the map" So it doesn';t make your case. Sorry for being slow on this. I thought you must have found something else on his site that actually made the case he's threatened Israel with annihilation. Apparently not. Why isn't it equivalent? Back to the schoolyard. It's about the level of analysis appropriate to this grotesque, war-justifying 'beat-up'. Imagine Jonny says to Jimmy "if you keep on picking fights and stirring trouble, you'll get beaten up!" Imagine then Jimmy tells the rest of the playground "Jonny just threatened to beat me up. Let's get him before he gets me!". Can you - Len - spot how Jimmy is trying to pull a swift one? I can. I wonder about the rest of the kids in the playground, who get most of their news from TV stations and newspapers contolled by little Jimmy's dad and uncles. Will they figure it out too? Yeah Sid the sentence was written exactly as I said it was, is that what confused you? That was obviously referring to the disputed sentence from the speech. Stop BSing you were simply unable to find it! Yeah, I think ‘wiping a country away’ sounds pretty close to annihilating it. Note in the President’s official translation it didn’t say anything about “wiping the regime that occupies Jerusalem from the pages of history” just “wipe Israel away” this coupled with banners bearing the same phrase and “death to Israel” slung from nuclear warhead capable missiles and senior Iranian government officials ‘making the observation’ that nuclear war would lead to Israel’s destruction but merely “damages” to Islamic countries all reinforce a rather ominous interpretation of his words. Why is calling for attacking a WMD production facility that would only result in property damage and perhaps a few casualties not equivalent to calling for the killing or expulsion of the entire population of a country (totaling millions of people)? Perhaps if you think real hard you can figure it out!

I'd only add that Jack White has long told me privately he thought [or knew] Lamson worked for NASA...but, HEY, lots of LHO's buddies worked for NASA too.... Well Craig, how does it feel to be 'out'....? Peter I thought you would have objected to Duane gratuitously labelling Craig a Nazi or perhaps you missed that before one of the moderators erased it. Great Duane you have now forever given up the right to complain about personal attacks. What is it now the 2nd time this week you've made a coment so inflamatory that a moderator has had to erase it ? As to your "outting" of Craig if your research had taken you so far as to read the linked bios of the other contributors you'd have seen that few (if any) are (or were) NASA employees. I guess that would have required just a little too much effort on your part. Did you ever stop to ask yourself if he really were a deep cover NASA agent why would they have named him on a NASA hosted site?

Sid your research skills impress me the quote is from the linked page! Look at the “Ahmadinejad: Supporters of Israel will face wrath of Islamic ummah” article it’s just over half way through (I’d tell you the exact line but that will change with browser settings). If you still can’t find it try using your browser’s “Find (on this page)” (or equivalent function). Why isn’t calling for destruction of a counties nuclear weapons production facilities analogous to calling for the destruction of an entire country? Is that really a serious question? As for the Petras essay, political and economic analysis from a sociologist who doesn’t cite any sources [Yawn] how compelling! It's basiclly just an update of his usual "Jews run America diatribe"

Sid you really need to pay better attention I referred to the Iranian president as wishing to “wipe (Israel) away” I based that on this excerpt from Wikipedia which YOU posted and classified as “Critical comments that are well-founded - and grounded in documented, factual information” If indeed we go to Ahmadinejad’s site* we see that is exactly how they paraphrased him in English. Perhaps someone should tell Mr. Cole. He is still the ONLY expert you could find disputing that he called for Israel’s destruction; I already acknowledged that he didn’t use the word for map. * http://www.president.ir/eng/ahmadinejad/cr...8/4/index-e.htm I already pointed this out in message #28 of this thread. As for the Rasfenjani quote it’s true that the Iran Press Service is not government run but it fits the allegation of a senior fellow in the Center for Strategic and International Studies: that “Some members of the government have even boasted how they would use them: to destroy Israel. "Islam could survive the retaliation," they insist, "but Israel would be gone forever." (post 28) The part about "Jews shall expect to be once again scattered and wandering around the globe the day when this appendix is extracted from the region and the Muslim world" doesn’t seem to leave much doubt. And fits Iran hanginging banners with the slogans: “Death to Israel” and “wipe Israel away” from missiles capable of striking Israel with nuclear warheads. As to whether or not Iran is developing such weapons you seem to be the only person here in denial regarding this, even Mark Stapleton said he thought they were. Your analogy of comparing calls by Israelis (wrongheaded as they maybe) for destruction of Iran’s nuclear weapons production capability with (apparent) calls by leading Iranian government officials for Israel’s destruction is a laughably false one.

What evidence is there that Israel made such a threat? One wonders how any country would react if the president of another was developing nuclear weapons and threatened to "wipe it away" and attended military parades where banners calling for its "death" and for it to be "wiped away" were hung from missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads to any point in its territory and other government officials called for its annihilation.

Great, military analysis from an economist with no known experience or expertise in military matters, how compelling! He is from what I gather a brilliant economist but don’t know how seriously his writing on other subjects should be taken he believes for example that Brown v. Board of Education (the May 17, 1954 US Supreme Court decision that forbade segregation in public schools) was: An Infamous Ruling …the power the Court seized in its Brown ruling can be used to mandate homosexual marriage…May 17, 1954, is a day of infamy, because it is the day Marxism triumphed over liberalism in America…Columbia Law professor Herbert Wechsler, a consultant to the NAACP in the case, said that Brown would have to be "accepted on faith" as there was no constitutional principle that justifies the ruling….Brown’s true legacy is rule by judges, the destruction of equality before the law, the replacement of persuasion with coercion, the end of freedom of conscience, and the rise of insatiable racial grievances. Osama bin Laden, no doubt, is celebrating. http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts46.html I assume he is misquoting Wechsler he seems to be quoting himself for the "accepted on faith" part (1). The only other person who claims he made such a comment is a right wing blogger who like Roberts failed to cite a source. I doubt a law professor esp. one favorable to Brown would have said such a thing since the 14 th Amendment stipulates that: “No state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (2) The court found that sending children to seperate schools on the basis or race was unequal treatment. He also wrote that “the international left has scant evidence in behalf of its demonization of Pinochet” (3) and coauthored a pro Pinochet book (4). Mr. Roberts it seems should stick to his area of expertise and we should stick to military analysis from people qualified in the subject. Is Bush planning on attacking Iran? I hope not but fear he is. The opinion of people who know what they are talking about is most welcome. Which wars are you referring to? What evidence do you have that they were (or will have been) ‘instigated and incited’ by “the Israel lobby”? 1) http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...307/ai_n9290494 2) “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...endmentxiv.html 3) http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts189.html 4) http://www.policyofliberty.net/HPdA/RobertsAraujo.html

He sounds like just another of the sleeze bags that were tied to the Nixon administration, is there any particular reason for your interest in him?

It doesn't exactly sound like they sunk a lot of money into this, it could have been cancelled or delayed for any number or reasons. If you want to insinuate that the program was canned due to external pressure you have to explain why Fox released a pro-hoax program but A & E couldn't this one. And I'd becareful they could sue you for violating your contract.

Actually I think their theory is the US was winning and would have won but not for the press or the protesters or some other scapegoat. These same idiots think the US can win in Iraq. Unfortunately I think you’re right. Len

On the Saddam thread Sid wrote (Note I edited Peter and Sid’s posts to remove portions not related to this topic): Hi Peter […] Turning now to the more current issue you raise: did the Iranian President really say that Israel should be "wiped off the map" - or were his words miscontrued and misrepresented, as I have claimed? You may wish to correspond with Professor Juan Cole and Guardian writer Jon Steele if you have superior information to theirs on this topic. If not, your confidence in the accuracy of the western mass media is touching - even a little unusual on this Forum. You mention Al Jazeera. Insofar as it has purveyed the 'wipe of the map' myth as well, IMO it has engaged in sloppy journalism. A quick search I just conducted yielded this short article, for instance. It was apparently reporting other 'Agencies' without question or comment. I'd call that sloppy - especially if no subsequent correction was issued. Remarkably, in this case Wikipedia has quite a full and accurate account of the debate over President Ahmadinejad's 2005 "World Without Zionism" speech (see below). If you read through it, I think you may agree that Ahmadinejad was calling for the end of apartheid in the Holy Land - not for nuclear attacks on anyone (those calls have come from within Israel and the USA). As for why this particular topic strayed from the execution of Saddam Hussein to Nuremberg ... it's all explained in the thread itself. John made the comparison with the Nuremberg Trials. I - for reasons I've already presented - felt an examination of Nuremberg is indeed appropriate in this context.. Out of an apparent desire to 'nail' the issue of The Holocaust, Stephen Turner started another thread dedicated specifically to the topic, last week. A brief discussion ensued therein - before the thread was closed to further discussion, presumably by Andy. I don't intend to make new points within this thread on the Nuremberg comparison... but do reserve the right to reply to ill-founded, poorly documented attacks on points I've already made. Critical comments that are well-founded - and grounded in documented, factual information - are another matter. __________________________________ Extract from Wikipedia - January 9th 2007: To which I replied:

The editors of The American Heritage English Dictionary disagree 1. a. “A person regarded as foolish, inept, or clumsy. b. A person who is single-minded or accomplished in scientific or technical pursuits but is felt to be socially inept. http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/geek Pehaps you can cite the times your critics have used such language to describe you what was the context. The only one I remember was paranoid and you were the first one to use the word. I’m sure if we comb over your posts which could find similar insults from you and especially Jack. You don’t like it when people say you ] are not knowledgeable about subjects like the Internet and photography but call others “masters of BS” and insinuate they are willfully blind, miss things so obvious a child could see them and defend the indefensible. If you truly don’t remember what “defamatory comments” John deleted you could send him a PM and ask him to remind you. I didn’t see it so I truly have no idea what it was. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=88240 (LOL I saw did PM him you really don’t remember?) LOL what a load of bunk, Evan Craig, Steve David and Kevin picked your arguments apart “Live by the swoard…” actually you’re and not paranoid they DO connive to drive people who aren’t blind to the truth like you of the Net, they get bonus checks every time an HB quits a forum

Which article? Did the author cite a source? Since you suggested NASA files are classified a good question is "how would you know what has been classified and what hasn't been ?" please provide a citation for this claim.Why would personal medial records be classified? Perhaps because they are personal information would want your medical records made public? If you answer yes you're in the majority, most people consider their medical records to he highly personal. If there was such a massive cover-up why would they release fake medical records? LOL this from the guy who complains about his opponents resorting to personal attacks, I noticed that one of his posts was so obnoxious it was edited by one of the moderators. Funny when he or Jack do it is somehow OK.

It's not, add the internet to the list of thing Duane knows nothing about. I just got back from walking my dogs, I took a quick look at the site and noticed it uses the same software as this forum so one of the moderators here should be able to say definitively whether it is possible or not here. If it isn't possible here I doubt it is there. It is my understanding that this would only be possible by installing spyware. I really doubt the moderators would commit a crime (it is illegal in the US and Brazil and I assume in the UK where the site is based as well) to be able to do this. Especially since the program would probably be detected by many member's anti-spyware programs. I also imagine the moderators have better things to do with their time. Of course they could be NASA stooges using some super secret undetectable spyware and spend 24/7 monitoring peoples' posts as they type them.

Perhaps they're psychic, I'm not sure it's possible for a moderator to read a post before it is submitted, another possibility is that they are smart enough to reply faster than you think possible. As for what some annonymous poster said about a "friend" that's not very persuasive evidence. Perhaps you can sort through your posts and find an example of what you speak, the time stamps should tell us if there is anything to your suspicions (oh yeah you'll tell us they changed them).

Just making sure, I noticed that Duane edited his 1st post on this thread AFTER Steve pointed out on the 1st thread of this series that it was a cut and paste job*. Did anybody actually see the link before hand? Evan replied that there was a link 15 minutes after Steve's post so I think it is unlikely that Duane hastily added it but you never know. * And yes I noticed the edit was made long after but the forum only lists the most recent edit.

Duane, Steve was right. You had no basis for assuming that anyone who read any of the other 4 tediously long parts of the article would read the 5th. YOU should have added the link to each one to make it clear a) you weren't the author and what your source was. "If I were attempting to plaigerize someone elses work...I would have changed the title of the article , the wording " I'm not accusing you of anything either (other than sloppiness) but this part of your defense makes little sense, plagiarism is normally done to save time and work rewording the entire article would have been very time consuming, changing the title while relatively effortless would have been ineffectual. Thus suspicion that you were claiming the work as your own was not unreasonable. But since you did indeed add the link at the end of one of the five posts I'll assume that not doing so on the other four was indeed an oversight. ”Why is it you always feel the need to accuse those you disagree with , as attempting to be deceptive in some way ? " More than a bit ironic coming from you, why do YOU so often resort to such tactics? EDIT - to turn off the 'emoticons' which changed my "" into a smiley face

No obviously he isn't on trial which is why I used quotation marks, but you have in effect been acting that capacity here; you keep "sticking up"* for him. You even tried denying he was a Holocaust denier AFTER he admitted it, after you finally figured out the obvious you changed your tune to, 'yes he's a Holocaust denier, but that's OK'. * Perhaps I should have called you his "stick-up man"