Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Len, I realise that nobody here was accusing me of ANYTHING, in fact Steve was attempting to be kind in his comments about Jack and myself, But because of the nature of my work I have to err on the side of caution. I find anti-semites, and racists of any stripe to be simple pond life, and have never had any time for their disgusting credo, and message of hate. as I hold yourself, Evan and Steve in high regard I will continue the debate, sorry for "freaking out" but I hope you understand my position now. Steve.

[Len Colby]

The Mossad is pervasive, however, in many nefarious activities.

True but the same could be said about the CIA or MI6 etc. Also there all sorts of nuts out there many of them associated with neo-Nazi's who blame the Mossad for everything from the murders of JFK*, RFK*, MLK*, Rafi Hariri and John-John, to the attempt on Bush sr., the Bali bombings, Lockerbie, 9/11, Watergate*, the Lewinski scandal*, the London and Madrid bombings. and the priest sex abuse scandals in the US*

Your friend Fetzer linked an article from an anti-Semitic website written by a neo-Nazi making the accusations marked with an * off the menu bar of the homepage of his website because he found it "interesting". The author ascribes the JFK Assassination to a 'Jewish conspiracy' although he never uses those words, between the Mossad, Jewish mobsters, the Bofman family and other Jews. No non-Jews are mentioned as players in the murder.

(This article http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters/piper1.htm

is linked off of the Home page of Fetzer's site http://assassinationscience.com/ see the "The American Media" link)

I found a few other articles with anti-Semitic content. I am not suggesting he is anti-Semitic just that he should show better judgement in deciding what to put up on his website.

And Jack even you started the "Who killed John-John" with a link to a ridiculous article alleging the Bushs, Clintons and Mossad teamed up to kill the son of JFK, I still can't figure out if you put that up as a joke or were serious.

blue text added in edit

Edited October 22, 2005 by Len Colby

[Gerry Hemming]

Whoa, folks thats my last post on this subject, some of my clients at work are of Jewish extraction,and as the theraputic relationships I attempt to biuld are based on trust, and cooperation it is professional suicide for my name to be linked with anti-semetic beliefs in any way shape or form, I know this is not what was meant, but inferences are so easily drawn, and once formed, damned difficult to dispel. I dissassociate myself from any web-sites, weblogs, books or articles, that attempt to link the events of Sept 11th 2001 to any kind of Jewish conspiracy, cabal, or assorted nonsence.. Stephen Turner.

------------------------------

Stephen:

There is no such thing as being "of Jewish extraction"!! People are not born Jews as an ethnic entity, but practice the faith mostly because they have been raised to practice same, by their parents, or other religious family members. There are NO DNA markers that would indicate Semite identity in the vast majority of those who have practiced Judaism over the last 1,000 years. However, there are experts of the "Barry Sheck level", who claim that Palestinians, Jordanians, et al. DO INDICATE definite DNA "Semite/Hamite" genetic markers.

Those members of my extended family, who have "converted" to Talmudic teachings and the Torah, would argue against ANY said ethnic identity !!

I have to chuckle at Jack's "..some of my best friends are Jewish.." because long before "Archie Bunker"

["All in The Family" television series] left the United Kingdom's "Telly" for the Colonies -- That very expression ["some of"] was considered to be a serious racial epithet !!

While I have sent infrequent articles to Fetzer, until now I had not rechecked his website. It is astounding that anybody with an I.Q. above room temperature, would fall for the wing-nutter conspiracy crap about the "takedown" of the WTC complex !! I was an ironworker during the 1960s & 1970s, and I had many opportunities to work the "High Steel" ["Red-Iron"] as a "Bridgeman" and "Connector" on high-rises.

Most simply put, the mob controlled unions & Port Authority traitors, failed to complain -- about the below minimum "Building Code" violations in the design, engineering, and architecture; but moreover, kept quiet about the use of "bar-joists" as floor deckings, coupled with the "cheapo" blowing on of insufficient fire-proofing chemical upon said steel. The so-called fire-proofing was blown on by cheap copies of the real blowers, and were nothing more than glorified "hair-dry blowers". The "load-bearing" components were the "central core" and the "outer steel framing" -- and when "pre" or "post-stressed" concrete beams, slabs, and shear-walls were not implemented, structural failure was guaranteed !!

One of the hundred reasons that the American taxpayers were stuck with paying out for this homicidal negligence was: The Jap firm involved has a nexus with the"Yakuza" crime cartel, which dates back to the MacArthur days in post WWII, wherein he let these war criminals off of the hook [selectively] at the insistance of Truman's cohorts.

More on this 9/11 CT crap later. Being an ironworker is no big credential, but I was a partner [with Peyton Marshall Magruder] in a "General Engineering Construction" firm [Technicon, Inc.]; a heavy time pilot; a former air traffic controller; and currently a member of a professional association which includes among the membership -- many of those very same FAA/ATC & military controllers, involved directly in the 9/11 matter, and have since learned to keep their mouths shut, or risk vilification by wing-nutter CTs.

Cheers,

Gerry

_____________________________

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Gerry, I stand corrected, that should have read"Some of my clients are of the Jewish faith." Steve.

[Len Colby]

Gerry, I stand corrected, that should have read"Some of my clients are of the Jewish faith." Steve.

Steve, I think you were closer to the truth the first time. Being Jewish is both an ethnicity and a religion. Or perhaps I should say ethnicities since there a few groups. The biggest is the Ashkenazim - those whose families came from northern, central and eastern Europe, their 'distant cousins' the Sephardis whose families came from the Mediterranean / Middle East and some smaller some times racially distinct groups like the Falashas [Ethiopian Jews] Asiatic Jews. There is a good article in wikipedia on the subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions.

There are also people who aren't ethnically Jewish but are converts [like Gary's relatives]. Their is probably no other ethnic group that is harder to define. I consider myself a cultural Jew or ethnically Jewish despite atheist/agnostic. All my ancestors as far back as can be traced were Jews but I don't believe in God, I met an African-American woman in NYC who converted to Orthodox Judaism and there are people of "Jewish extraction" but have renounced there heritage converted to Christianity and become anti-Semites like Israel Shank and R. Leland Lerman. So saying who and who isn't Jewish can be complicated.

You could say "Some of my clients are Jewish" and that would cover converts and people like me.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

To try and return to the original thrust of this topic, research, like any scientific discipline, needs to be constantly tested using ones original hypothesis. ie my hypothesis might be stated as, "It is a provable fact that historically governments have acted against the best interests of their citizens for strategic, and finacial considerations.Given their stated aims, (PNAC) and their desire to control oil interests in the middle east I BELIEVE that the Bush administration deliberately created an environment that invited terrorist attacks against mainland America, and used such as a justification for 1, invasion of Afganistan, and Iraq. 2, to demonise political opponents as unpatriotic. 3, to portray Bush in a more positive light as a war leader. 4, to allow easy passage of anti-democratic legislation (Patriot act) 5, for the continued enrichment of political fellow travellers, and corporate America in general." My research journey thus far has taken me to some strange shores, it now appears to me that at their farthest ends it is almost impossible to distinguish left, from right, and a constant theme here is anti-semitism "protocols of the elders of zion" The Illuminatti""One World government" through either Communism, facism, Capitalism, or a strange hybrid of all three, with of course Jews at the head. People who fail to constantly test their hypothesis inlight of new information, or who simply want easy answers find this strange brew compelling, it requires little of them, and as Len stated at the beginning of this thread resembles, at its end, the more dogmatic of religious belief. researchers need to beware who they get into bed with philosophically, as the old saying goes, "never make friends in the dark. Steve.

[Len Colby]

The problem with Bush seeing the second strike, and thinking it was a replay of the first is he would have had to not notice the thick black smoke literally pouring from the North tower,not very likely IMHO.. Steve.

Steve,

You're right, I watched an excellent BBC documentary about what happened to the WTC on 9/11. Even a moron like Bush couldn't have missed that.

The bastard lied. [As if that is a surprise he lied about Iraq and various other things]

Len

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Len, I think I may know why Bush told this lie. (If lie it was) He is a guy who has never really done any thing with his life apart from become President of the USA, and really has very little idea of the various protocols that are expected from the holder of this post. so he gets by with his everyman act, Reagan used a very similar varient of the same, you know the score,"I'm just like you" I feel your pain" "Trust me I understand you" Its the trick of the populist politician the World over. I think joining in with the pain of 911 just proved to good a trick not to play. I think the words were probably out of his mouth before his brain became engaged, and having said it once, when asked the same question, had to tell the same lie. Its just a shame that the craven lap-dogs of the Media did not ask him to explain himself when he first uttered this immortal phrase.. Steve.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Lets look at the performance of the Secret Service on the day in question, I have to admit that after giving this much thought my original position has modified somewhat. Here,s how my original thinking went. After the second Tower has been struck it becomes obvious that a serious terrorist attack is under way, the administration later admitted that at this point they had no idea how many planes had been hijacked, nor their intended targets, at this point it is the S/S main priority to remove the President to a place of safety, as they signally failed to do this they must have known that Bush was in no danger, ergo the only way of knowing this for sure is foreknowledge of the attacks, we can call this theory" Why didn't the dogs bark"

I now have a problem with this, after putting aside my personel dislike of Bush, and testing my hypothesis, something occured to me. Why would the mastermind who planned this( and it sure wouldn't be Bush) not ensure that everything played out by strict protocol, If I had been in, Oh lets say Roves shoes, I would have made sure that a phalanx of S/S agents got him out pronto, make everything look like normal procedure. Bush could then have made a grand speech, with his arms around a couple of the children, and then departed for Washington DC in Airforce one. In other words he gets to look resolute, and statesman like, rather than the scared little rich boy running away. We can call this theory "Usual Bushian f*** up."

What do members think? Steve.

[Matthew Lewis]

Keep in mind also that he wasn't in as much danger as some would like you to believe. Whenever the President goes somewhere, he is accompanied by an AWACS and fighter escort. The airspace above him wherever he is is also temporarily restricted to all traffic. Even forgetting about all of this, the inaction of the SS does not prove that Bush knew anything. All it proves is the SS did not act like some people looking back on the event feel they should have. Maybe they had a good reason for delaying, maybe they didn't, maybe they were waiting until Air Force 1 was ready until they moved him, maybe they were under orders from a third party. The point is there is no proof one way or the other. It is circumstantial evidence at best. Sure you can look back at it and say you would have done something different but you also have the benefit of looking back at it. It is very possible that at the time, the SS had a very good reason for not immediately whisking him away and their inaction (if that is what it was, you don't know they weren't doing things behind the scene, perhaps securing a police escort to the airport?) doesn't prove a thing.

[Len Colby]

Whenever the President goes somewhere, he is accompanied by an AWACS and fighter escort.

I don't think that was true in this case. Airforce took off WITHOUT fighter escort. this fed a lot of speculation by CT types. The explaination given bu the Bush camp was that they felt he was safer in the air. Also fighters and AWACS wouldn't do much good if Bush were to be the victim of a landbased or missile attack.

Bumbling rather than a conspiracy is the most likely explaination.

Len

[Len Colby]

Lets look at the performance of the Secret Service on the day in question, I have to admit that after giving this much thought my original position has modified somewhat. Here,s how my original thinking went. After the second Tower has been struck it becomes obvious that a serious terrorist attack is under way, the administration later admitted that at this point they had no idea how many planes had been hijacked, nor their intended targets, at this point it is the S/S main priority to remove the President to a place of safety, as they signally failed to do this they must have known that Bush was in no danger, ergo the only way of knowing this for sure is foreknowledge of the attacks, we can call this theory" Why didn't the dogs bark"

I now have a problem with this, after putting aside my personel dislike of Bush, and testing my hypothesis, something occured to me. Why would the mastermind who planned this( and it sure wouldn't be Bush) not ensure that everything played out by strict protocol, If I had been in, Oh lets say Roves shoes, I would have made sure that a phalanx of S/S agents got him out pronto, make everything look like normal procedure. Bush could then have made a grand speech, with his arms around a couple of the children, and then departed for Washington DC in Airforce one. In other words he gets to look resolute, and statesman like, rather than the scared little rich boy running away. We can call this theory "Usual Bushian f*** up."

What do members think? Steve.

Steve, I already made the same point on the "Do any civil engineers..." thread. I therefore claim exclusive rights to it's use on this forum.

I will send a you bill for royalties shortly!!!

To CTists Bush's behaviour that morning is evidence that he already knew. I disagree. I think if anything it is evidence he didn't know. Bush was widely criticized for not ending the photo-op immediately and taking charge. I imagine if Bush and Rove planned 9/11 they would not have put him in such a ridiculous situation. That would have scripted a way for him to look more presidential. Bush and Rove aren't stupid and if they knew what was coming they would not have squandered a chance for Bush to appear presidential and heroic. Remember when the stuffed socks in the crotch of his flightsuit on the aircraft carrier? Instead he looked like a buffoon

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Lets look at the performance of the Secret Service on the day in question, I have to admit that after giving this much thought my original position has modified somewhat. Here,s how my original thinking went. After the second Tower has been struck it becomes obvious that a serious terrorist attack is under way, the administration later admitted that at this point they had no idea how many planes had been hijacked, nor their intended targets, at this point it is the S/S main priority to remove the President to a place of safety, as they signally failed to do this they must have known that Bush was in no danger, ergo the only way of knowing this for sure is foreknowledge of the attacks, we can call this theory" Why didn't the dogs bark"

I now have a problem with this, after putting aside my personel dislike of Bush, and testing my hypothesis, something occured to me. Why would the mastermind who planned this( and it sure wouldn't be Bush) not ensure that everything played out by strict protocol, If I had been in, Oh lets say Roves shoes, I would have made sure that a phalanx of S/S agents got him out pronto, make everything look like normal procedure. Bush could then have made a grand speech, with his arms around a couple of the children, and then departed for Washington DC in Airforce one. In other words he gets to look resolute, and statesman like, rather than the scared little rich boy running away. We can call this theory "Usual Bushian f*** up."

What do members think? Steve.

Steve, I already made the same point on the "Do any civil engineers..." thread. I therefore claim exclusive rights to it's use on this forum.

I will send a you bill for royalties shortly!!!

To CTists Bush's behaviour that morning is evidence that he already knew. I disagree. I think if anything it is evidence he didn't know. Bush was widely criticized for not ending the photo-op immediately and taking charge. I imagine if Bush and Rove planned 9/11 they would not have put him in such a ridiculous situation. That would have scripted a way for him to look more presidential. Bush and Rove aren't stupid and if they knew what was coming they would not have squandered a chance for Bush to appear presidential and heroic. Remember when the stuffed socks in the crotch of his flightsuit on the aircraft carrier? Instead he looked like a buffoon

Len, my only defence is in the words of Mark Twain, when reviewing a new authors book, Quote on " His book is both original and well written, unfortunately whats original is not well written, AND WHATS WELL WRITTEN IS NOT ORIGINAL...LOL Steve.

[Steve Ulman]

Jack -

Sorry, no disrespect, but I need more proof than your word that the "CNN Video" was shot at 9:0xAM.

Do you have any?

Did you review the links I provided?

Jack -

Any luck validating that "CNN Video"?

[Len Colby]

I have to chuckle at Jack's "..some of my best friends are Jewish.." because long before "Archie Bunker"

["All in The Family" television series] left the United Kingdom's "Telly" for the Colonies -- That very expression ["some of"] was considered to be a serious racial epithet !!

My dad was born in Germany in 1915. Apparently it was common for Nazi's to say things like "I know one good Jew". Before they came to power many Jews would joke, " The bad news is that the Nazi Party is growing in popularity, the good news is that means there are a lot more good Jews around", that stopped being funny January 20, 1933.

Again I not saying anything about Jack's beliefs. It's just that his comment and Gerry's reply reminded me of my dad's story.