Alex Jones - COINTELPRO? Fascist Tool?

[Laura]

Alex Jones and 911 Scholars: The Parable of the Good Shepherd

Now that I have a few more minutes, I'll try to get a few more emails from the exchange up so that we can get into the good stuff...

The next email in the folder was from Rosalee Grable. Actually, until I started this project, I hadn't read this email. Somehow it got lost in the shuffle until I moved them all from my inbox to their own folder. It was to me, and perhaps the fact that I did not respond to it had something to do with the later attitude of the "Webfairy." Who knows? In any event, I would have answered "NO," since I don't have the time...

Date sent: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 21:33:31 -0500
From: Rosalee Grable
To: Laura Knight-Jadczyk
Copies to: [SNIPPED LIST OF RECIPIENTS]
Subject: Re: 9/11 & The "veiled" sarcasm was not lost on me.

Does this mean you would be willing to host the debate?
Equal rules of evidence for both sides.

The next day, Mr. Roginsky wrote back:

Date sent: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 01:52:13 -0400
From: Jacob Roginsky
To: holmgren@**, Laura Knight-Jadczyk
Copies to: [SNIPPED LOOONG LIST OF RECIPIENTS]

Subject: Re: 9/11 & The "veiled" sarcasm was not lost on me.

Thank you, Mr. Holmgren.

It seems to me we should first agree on 1) the focus, 2) the rules, 3)
the format, and 4) the place of the debate.

Allow me to begin by offering my thoughts on the items 4 and 1, in the
same order.

PLACE OF DEBATE
Perhaps it would be best for us to create a small yahoogroups list that
would include all individuals and lists we deem desirable as recipients
of our exchanges, but without the posting privileges. Those who wish
to provide input may contact you and me -- jointly or individually --
off the list.

I initially offered to debate directly in the APFN forum. However, I
since received hostile communications from Mr. APFN, who seems to think
he could intimidate me, and realized (as well as recalled from the past)
that his forum is unsuitable for any truth-finding and/or intellectual
pursuit. Of course, the APFN list should be included as a recipient of
our exchanges. The main forum of my organization, A Matter of Justice
(AMOJ), ought to be included as a recipient of our exchanges as well,
especially given its wide distribution, which seems to be one of your
conditions for participating in the debate.

DEBATE'S FOCUS
The focus of the debate ought to be that which started this thread,
although I am open to reasonable suggestions of other kinds. What has
started this thread were the discussions in the AMOJ forum on whether
or not the 9/11 conspiracy theories and claims espoused by various
individuals and organizations are meritorious. Some of our members are
in full or partial support of such conspiracy theories and claims, while
others, including myself, have found them to be woefully inadequate and,
in most cases, downright fraudulent. Someone forwarded our messages to
APFN, where our forum was apparently mocked with a sarcastic remark that
we have resolved all the 911 conspiracy issues. I responded with a
proposal to debate the best conspiracy theorist on the APFN list. You
know the rest. It seems then that the focus of the debate ought to be
the merits of those 9/11 conspiracy theories and claims which you
consider to be most meritorious.

Your thoughts, positions as to the above two items?

Jacob Roginsky

>On 8 Jul 2006, at 17:53, Rosalee Grable wrote:
>
>>Gerard Holmgren holmgren@iinet.net.au
>>would be more than happy to debate Roginsky at any forum which would be
>>widely distribuited and free from interference.

At this point, Gerard Holmgren responded:

From: "Gerard Holmgren"
To: <apfn@apfn.org>, "'Laura Kht-Jadczyk'"
<jrogins@***>,
"'9/11 Bahram Maskanian'" <ethics_in_action@***>
Copies to: [SNIPPED LIST OF RECIPIENTS - WHICH HAS BEGUN TO GROW AND MORPH A BIT]
Subject: Sept 11 debate. Holmgren vs Rogisnsky - organizing.
Date sent: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 18:18:43 +1000

I think that the place of debate could be any forum which meets the
following conditions.

It is viewable to anyone on the internet.

We appoint two administrators. You choose one, I choose one. The debate may
only be edited or removed with the agreement of both administrators. I'm not
sure at this stage about the exact logistics of how we would enforce that,
but we can work that out together if we have mutual agreement on the
principle.

The other option is that it could be posted simultaneously on two sites, one
approved by me and the other by you.

The rules:

Perhaps this is better described as an agreement on some of the debating
methodology.

Each side faces equal burden of proof. Neither side can assume its own
conclusions to be a default truth which places the onus on the other to
disprove. We start at 0-0 for *both* views.

Clear distinction is made between "proof" and "credible evidence". All too
often the two are confused with each other. There can be such a thing as
proof and where appropriate it should be recognized as such. However, it
should also be recognized that one can still present evidence which stops
short of proof, rated as "overwhelming", "strong", "moderate" or even
"circumstantial", which may well represent grounds for a reasonable person
to endorse a certain view or at least entertain it as a serious possibility.

The term "conspiracy theory" will not be used by either side. Since
conspiracy is defined as a plan to commit a crime, and that we all agree
that whoever committed the crimes of Sept 11 planned it with more than one
person, then any theory as to who committed the crime is by definition a
conspiracy theory. Therefore the phrase is meaningless and will not be used
by either side.

There is a general agreement that simply proving that something is possible
does not constitute evidence that it actually happened. Proving it
impossible, of course constitutes proof that it did not happen, but proving
it possible does not in itself provide any evidence for it.

[[ It seems then that the focus of the debate ought to be the merits of
those 9/11 conspiracy theories and claims which you consider to be most
meritorious.]]

Given the above, the onus is equally upon you to provide evidence for your
conspiracy theory (Arabs hijacking planes etc)

We start at 0-0 for *both* views.

[[The focus of the debate ought to be that which started this thread, ]]

The focus of the debate should simply be whatever either of feels is valid
to be presented as evidence for our case.

We should each begin with a bullet point of our conclusions about what we
believe happened on the day, and the evidence for it. Such an intro of
course does not require that the points of evidence be substantiated in the
introductory statement. We merely introduce a summary of the case which we
will argue.

There will be no "fruit looping".

"Fruit looping" is an evasive method of debate, which is described here

http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/mad.html

Because this is a multi faceted debate, it may be reasonable at times to say
"lets put that aside for the moment, so that we can focus on this." As long
as the departure from the previous debate is "bookmarked " so to speak, as
still requiring resolution and to be eventually returned to and picked up
again *from the point where it was left*.

These are not necessarily my final thoughts on the matter, but I will let
you know if more come to mind.

 

[Laura]

Alex Jones and 911 Scholars: The Parable of the Good Shepherd

Next batch of emails.

From: "William C. Carlotti"
To: <holmgren@***>, "Laura Knight-Jadczyk" "Jacob Roginsky"
Copies to: [LIST OF ENDLESS RECIPIENTS SNIPPED]
Subject: Re: 9/11 & The "veiled" sarcasm was not lost on me.
Date sent: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 07:53:06 -0400

It seems to me that the government's entire conspiracy theory ought to be included in the discussion
not just their theory of the building collapse--Bill

From: "William C. Carlotti"
To: <apfn@apfn.org>, <holmgren@**>,
"Laura Kht-Jadczyk", <jrogins@**>, "9/11 Bahram Maskanian" <ethics_in_action@**>
Copies to: [LIST SNIPPED]
Subject: Re: 9/11 - "THE NATIONAL DEBATE IS ON"....LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!
Date sent: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 08:10:49 -0400

THE GENESIS OF GENOCIDE

Marjorie Cohn's article, "Israel Creates Humanitarian Crisis" in Counterpunch on July 4, 2006 has
perpetuated the fiction promoted by the Jewish Israelis that the recent attack on Palestine in Gaza
is a "collective punishment". Cohn further enhances the fiction with erudite references to all the
violations of International Law that such an action would comprise.

Jewish Nationalists led by the Zionists have occupied Palestine in an ongoing and continuing drive
to absorb the whole of Palestine and portions of the lands of a number of their other neighbors
including Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon.

According to Prime Minister Ehud Ohmert of Israel in his address before the joint meeting of the
United States Congress on May 24 of 2006 Address to
Congress<http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Speeches+by+Israeli+leaders/2006/Address+by+PM+Olmert+
to+a+joint+meeting+of+US+Congress+24-May-2006.htm>


"For thousands of years, we Jews have been nourished and sustained by a yearning for our historic
land. I, like many others, was raised with a deep conviction that the day would never come when we
would have to relinquish parts of the land of our forefathers. I believed, and to this day still
believe in our people's eternal and historic right to this entire land."

In the parlance of Israeli Jews the "entire land" is Eretz Israel which they claim is defined in
that book of short stories that has become known as the bible. According to the Jewish Nationalists,
the boundaries of Eretz Israel are defined in Ezekiel's short story 47:13, a definition of borders
that includes the whole of Palestine, and parts of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt.

What is not often mentioned is the fact that this biblically defined land that the modern day Jews
claim as their "entire land" was acquired, according to the short story accounts, by the genocidal
slaughter of the peoples of seven other nations that occupied the land that these modern Jews now
claim by "historic right".

According to the short stories that were written by those that Prime Minister Ehud Ohmert claims are
the "forefathers" of modern Jews,


In Deuteronomy 7:1-36, ".the Lord thy God shall have destroyed many nations before thee, the
Hethite, and the Gergezite, and the Amorrite, and the Chanaanite, and the Pherezite, and Hevite, and
the Jebusite, seven nations much more numerous than thou art,.thou shalt utterly destroy them. Thou
shalt make no league with them, nor show mercy to them: and shall slay them until they are utterly
destroyed.and thou shalt destroy their names under heaven: no man shall be able to resist thee,
until thou destroy them."

In I Samuel 15:3, "Now therefore go, and smite Amalec, and utterly destroy all that he hath; spare
him not, nor covet any thing that is his; but slay both man and woman, child and suckling, ox and
sheep, camel and ass."

In Numbers 31:1-35, ".the Lord spoke to Moses saying: Revenge first the children of Israel on the
Madianites.when they fought against the Madianites and had overcome them, they slew all the
men.Therefore kill all that are of the male sex, even of the children: and put to death the women
that have carnally known men.But the girls, and all the women that are virgins save for
yourselves.and the spoils which the army had taken, was.thirty two thousand persons of the female
sex that had not known men."

In Numbers 33:50-52, ".the Lord said to Moses: Command the children of Israel.When you shall have
passed over to Jordan, entering into the land of Chanaan, Destroy all the inhabitants of that land:
beat down their pillars and break in pieces their statues, and waste all their high places."

In I Samuel 27:8-9, "And David and his men went up, and pillaged Gessuri, and Gerzi, and the
Amalecites; for these were of old the inhabitants of the countries.David wasted all the land, and
left neither man nor woman live."

In Isaiah 13:15-18, "Every one that shall be found shall be slain; and every one that shall come
to their aid, shall fall by the sword. Their infants shall be dashed in pieces before their eyes:
their houses shall be pillaged, and their wives ravaged.with their arrows they shall kill the
children, and shall have no pity upon the sucklings of the womb, and their eye shall not spare their
sons."

These passages from the book of short stories written by the Israelites that modern Jews, according
to the Prime Minister of Israel, claim as their "forefathers" are passages that define the worst
GENOCIDE ever recorded. They are the ICON of GENOCIDE.

There is no other written description of genocide from the victims or the perpetrators of subsequent
genocides, including those of the Tasmanians and the Native Americans and of the African slave trade
or of Europe's Jews, that are so thoroughly and completely definitive.

Now it is quite true that the German Nazis in the process of a war that produced 45,000,000 victims
attempted a similar genocide of European Jews. As an act of conscience, the nations of the world, in
response to that genocidal attempt, joined together in 1947-48 to partition historic Palestine to
create a homeland for Jews.

Yet Jewish Nationalists, led by Zionists driven by an unconscionable zealotry, are in the process of
recreating, in the manner typical of settler regimes, the genocide perpetuated by those that Prime
Minister Ehud Ohmart claims are the "forefathers" of modern Jews.

The definitive description of the process with which the Zionist zealots are proceeding was written
by Vladimir Jabotinsky in his essay published in the 1920's entitled THE IRON
WALL<http://www.marxists.de/middleast/ironwall/ironwall.htm>

It reads, in the current actions of the Zionist led Israeli Jews, like a description of the modern
events and its conclusion mirrors precisely the current Zionist actions,


"Thus we conclude that we cannot promise anything to the Arabs of the Land of Israel or the Arab
countries. Their voluntary agreement is out of the question. Hence those who hold that an agreement
with the natives is an essential condition for Zionism can now say "no" and depart from Zionism.
Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance
of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only
under the protection of a force independent of the local population - an iron wall which the native
population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any
other way would only be hypocrisy."

Any attempt that ascribes motives to the actions of the Israeli Jews led by Zionist zealots to such
transitory motives as "collective punishment" outside of the context of the zealot's continuing
drive to recreate an Eretz Israel of biblical proportions smothers the genocidal activities of this
deplorable and despicable settler regime in a fog of nonsensical verbiage.

http:(2slash)billsboard(dot)blogspot.com/

Which was followed by more of the same:

From: "William C. Carlotti"
To: "9/11 DOUGLAS CLARK" <bushsept11mastermind@***>,
"9/11 Dr. Bob Bowman" <DrBob@****>,
"9/11 Dr. Jay Lighbearer" <theaquariandr@****>,
"9/11 Ed Truncellito" <ed@****>
Copies to: [MORPHING AND GROWING LIST SNIPPED]
Subject: THE GENESIS OF GENOCIDE!
Date sent: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 08:15:55 -0400

!!


THE GENESIS OF GENOCIDE

Marjorie Cohn's article, "Israel Creates Humanitarian Crisis" in Counterpunch on July 4, 2006 has
perpetuated the fiction promoted by the Jewish Israelis that the recent attack on Palestine in Gaza
is a "collective punishment". Cohn further enhances the fiction with erudite references to all the
violations of International Law that such an action would comprise.

Jewish Nationalists led by the Zionists have occupied Palestine in an ongoing and continuing drive
to absorb the whole of Palestine and portions of the lands of a number of their other neighbors
including Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon.

According to Prime Minister Ehud Ohmert of Israel in his address before the joint meeting of the
United States Congress on May 24 of 2006 Address to
Congress<http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Speeches+by+Israeli+leaders/2006/Address+by+PM+Olmert+
to+a+joint+meeting+of+US+Congress+24-May-2006.htm>


"For thousands of years, we Jews have been nourished and sustained by a yearning for our historic
land. I, like many others, was raised with a deep conviction that the day would never come when we
would have to relinquish parts of the land of our forefathers. I believed, and to this day still
believe in our people's eternal and historic right to this entire land."

In the parlance of Israeli Jews the "entire land" is Eretz Israel which they claim is defined in
that book of short stories that has become known as the bible. According to the Jewish Nationalists,
the boundaries of Eretz Israel are defined in Ezekiel's short story 47:13, a definition of borders
that includes the whole of Palestine, and parts of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt.

What is not often mentioned is the fact that this biblically defined land that the modern day Jews
claim as their "entire land" was acquired, according to the short story accounts, by the genocidal
slaughter of the peoples of seven other nations that occupied the land that these modern Jews now
claim by "historic right".

According to the short stories that were written by those that Prime Minister Ehud Ohmert claims are
the "forefathers" of modern Jews,


In Deuteronomy 7:1-36, ".the Lord thy God shall have destroyed many nations before thee, the
Hethite, and the Gergezite, and the Amorrite, and the Chanaanite, and the Pherezite, and Hevite, and
the Jebusite, seven nations much more numerous than thou art,.thou shalt utterly destroy them. Thou
shalt make no league with them, nor show mercy to them: and shall slay them until they are utterly
destroyed.and thou shalt destroy their names under heaven: no man shall be able to resist thee,
until thou destroy them."

In I Samuel 15:3, "Now therefore go, and smite Amalec, and utterly destroy all that he hath; spare
him not, nor covet any thing that is his; but slay both man and woman, child and suckling, ox and
sheep, camel and ass."

In Numbers 31:1-35, ".the Lord spoke to Moses saying: Revenge first the children of Israel on the
Madianites.when they fought against the Madianites and had overcome them, they slew all the
men.Therefore kill all that are of the male sex, even of the children: and put to death the women
that have carnally known men.But the girls, and all the women that are virgins save for
yourselves.and the spoils which the army had taken, was.thirty two thousand persons of the female
sex that had not known men."

In Numbers 33:50-52, ".the Lord said to Moses: Command the children of Israel.When you shall have
passed over to Jordan, entering into the land of Chanaan, Destroy all the inhabitants of that land:
beat down their pillars and break in pieces their statues, and waste all their high places."

In I Samuel 27:8-9, "And David and his men went up, and pillaged Gessuri, and Gerzi, and the
Amalecites; for these were of old the inhabitants of the countries.David wasted all the land, and
left neither man nor woman live."

In Isaiah 13:15-18, "Every one that shall be found shall be slain; and every one that shall come
to their aid, shall fall by the sword. Their infants shall be dashed in pieces before their eyes:
their houses shall be pillaged, and their wives ravaged.with their arrows they shall kill the
children, and shall have no pity upon the sucklings of the womb, and their eye shall not spare their
sons."

These passages from the book of short stories written by the Israelites that modern Jews, according
to the Prime Minister of Israel, claim as their "forefathers" are passages that define the worst
GENOCIDE ever recorded. They are the ICON of GENOCIDE.

There is no other written description of genocide from the victims or the perpetrators of subsequent
genocides, including those of the Tasmanians and the Native Americans and of the African slave trade
or of Europe's Jews, that are so thoroughly and completely definitive.

Now it is quite true that the German Nazis in the process of a war that produced 45,000,000 victims
attempted a similar genocide of European Jews. As an act of conscience, the nations of the world, in
response to that genocidal attempt, joined together in 1947-48 to partition historic Palestine to
create a homeland for Jews.

Yet Jewish Nationalists, led by Zionists driven by an unconscionable zealotry, are in the process of
recreating, in the manner typical of settler regimes, the genocide perpetuated by those that Prime
Minister Ehud Ohmart claims are the "forefathers" of modern Jews.

The definitive description of the process with which the Zionist zealots are proceeding was written
by Vladimir Jabotinsky in his essay published in the 1920's entitled THE IRON
WALL<http://www.marxists.de/middleast/ironwall/ironwall.htm>

It reads, in the current actions of the Zionist led Israeli Jews, like a description of the modern
events and its conclusion mirrors precisely the current Zionist actions,


"Thus we conclude that we cannot promise anything to the Arabs of the Land of Israel or the Arab
countries. Their voluntary agreement is out of the question. Hence those who hold that an agreement
with the natives is an essential condition for Zionism can now say "no" and depart from Zionism.
Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance
of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only
under the protection of a force independent of the local population - an iron wall which the native
population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any
other way would only be hypocrisy."

Any attempt that ascribes motives to the actions of the Israeli Jews led by Zionist zealots to such
transitory motives as "collective punishment" outside of the context of the zealot's continuing
drive to recreate an Eretz Israel of biblical proportions smothers the genocidal activities of this
deplorable and despicable settler regime in a fog of nonsensical verbiage.

http://billsboard.blogspot.com/

 

[Laura]

Alex Jones and 911 Scholars: The Parable of the Good Shepherd

Next person chiming in (reveals also that the discussion was being shared with some yahoo groups):

Date sent: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 08:03:31 -0500
From: Jon Roland
Organization: Constitution Society
To: AMOJ_MAIN@yahoogroups.com
Copies to: holmgren@iinet.net.au, Laura Knight-Jadczyk
Subject: Re: [AMOJ_MAIN] Re: 9/11 & The "veiled" sarcasm was not lost on me.

Before you can have a proper debate you need to agree on a proposition,
"Resolved, that ..." and it doesn't seem to me that there is agreement
on how to frame the question.

For example, one could debate the proposition, "Resolved, that the
evidence does not support the standard explanation of four airliners
being hijacked by Middle Eastern terrorists and flown into the World
Trade Center, the Pentagon, and crashed into a field in Pennsylvania."
That would not require argument for an alternate theory, but only that
the standard model is suspect. The proposition could also be broken out
into separate incidents, with inconsistency for any one of them calling
into question all the others.

A more difficult proposition would be "Resolved, the evidence is more
consistent with [theory x]", in which "theory x" is something like "U.S.
government agents flew the planes" or "U.S. government agents flew
something other than planes, such as missiles" or "most of the damage
was caused by explosives planted in the target buildings rather than by
the aircraft".

The point here is that there are many alternatives for how to frame a
debate and the alternatives need to be agreed upon if it is to bring
enlightenment and not further confusion.

-- Jon

----------------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757
512/374-9585 www.constitution.org jon.roland@constitution.org
----------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Laura]

Alex Jones and 911 Scholars: The Parable of the Good Shepherd

Date sent: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 08:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Richard Pierce
Subject: Re: [apfn-1] 9/11 - "THE NATIONAL DEBATE IS ON"....LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!
To: [STILL MORPHING AND ENDLESS LIST OF RECIPIENTS SNIPPED]

Debate??? Five years now and we still only debate. The Fed govt is probably gearing up for another
9-11 type assault on the US and/or the world and then we can debate that one too. Lovely.

 

[Laura]

Alex Jones and 911 Scholars: The Parable of the Good Shepherd

For some reason, the list of recipients from this one was seriously truncated AND morphed. This guy must have really wanted to keep his comments restricted to only a few "select" persons. Still, it was a pretty long list.:

From: Wtcqd2000@aol.com
Date sent: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 12:41:18 EDT
Subject: Re: [apfn-1] 9/11 - "THE NATIONAL DEBATE IS ON"....LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!
To: [RECIPIENT LIST SNIPPED]

Most of the below people are NOT "Israeli" they are Americans who have some
serious explaining to do at a full blown 9/11 investigation.

This "jewish" angle, you espouse, has been the single most damaging thing to
the truth movement. YOU and others LIKE YOU, have more than anyone else,
caused people to turn away from 9/11 questions, because you always like to look at
people's "jewish heritage," or "religious status" rather than just following
FACTS. You make us look like anti-semetic wing nuts.

Yes, every angle should be investigated where the chips fall. But, this idea
that Israel somehow did something under the noses of American officials, and
that they are the main conspirators is nuts. They may be involved, but the
investigation should begin with AMERICAN OFFICIALS, and then follow the trails
of evidence.

IF YOU ARE NOT COINTEL PRO, YOU ARE ACTING LIKE IT !!

<< This debate is for naught as long as it does not contain an Israeli
component. Failure to identify the ramifications of this issue
guarantee a just investigation will not be conducted. The roles of
Silverstein/Sharon, Zakheim, Perle, Wolfowitz and other sublieutenants
of the financial power structure reveal the all-encompassing deception
that everyone KNOWS happened: 9/11 was a dog-and-pony show to justify
endless war in their dulled eyes of the masses. >>

So, basically, with this post the "name calling" was officially launched. And we notice the particular subject it was launced upon: Israeli involvement in 911 was NOT to be touched. Notice the disingenous explanation of this guy:

"Silverstein, Zakheim, Perle, Wolfowitz ... are NOT "Israeli" they are Americans..."

Was this guy born yesterday?

 

[Laura]

Alex Jones and 911 Scholars: The Parable of the Good Shepherd

Now, as I look at this collection of emails, I notice that many of the next FORTY EIGHT posts in the folder haven't even been opened and read... This period extended from July 10 to the 24th. I was reading some of them (and I will designate those I did read), and those few indicated to me that this was a nowhere activity, spinning of the wheels, and I really didn't have time to bother with such nutzoids. So, as soon as I get a few more minutes, I'll continue with posting this exchange. It will be intermittant due to the fact that I am really busy with research, but I do think that everyone should know what kinds of discussions and exchanges and ideas are driving the 911 Truth Movement so whenever I take a break, I'll kick in another three or four of them.

 

[Laura]

Alex Jones and 911 Scholars: The Parable of the Good Shepherd



Okay, next in the sequence:

Date sent: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 13:12:38 -0400
From: Jacob Roginsky
To: johndoraemi@**, holmgren@**
Copies to: Laura Knight-Jadczyk, AMOJ_MAIN@Yahoogroups.com,
[AND THE LONG LIST OF RECIPIENTS]
Subject: Re: 9/11 & The "veiled" sarcasm was not lost on me.

Dear Mr. Doraemi:

I intend to carefully, honestly, and respectfully review all that comes
to me during the debate by way of Mr. Holmgren. However, I an against
permitting the debaters, Mr. Holmgren and myself, to engage or be
engaged by non-debaters during the debate and the preparatory process
(now). My experience tells me that such would quickly deteriorate into
a zoo, with everyone cluttering the "field" with their theories, making
it difficult to see who is debating whom and what are the current
issues. I am already seeing signs that such dynamics are about to break
loose here, with non-debaters sending their opinions to everyone on the
above large list (AMOJ_MAIN@yahoogroups.com does not see them because
our list is moderated). I am, however, for a rule that would permit
the submission of suggestions, information, and arguments by
non-debaters to the debater of their choice for consideration, but doing
so off the larger lists. I am also for permitting the creation of the
behind-the-scenes team so as to aid the debaters with their arguments
and research.

I also noticed objectionable language in your post. Such should not be
part of any truth-finding process. All of us must commit to
establishing and maintaining an atmosphere of civility and good will
toward each other, so that we would not end up devoting significant
energy to unproductive and counterproductive activities, such as dealing
with insinuations that a debater is a disinformation agent. Using
abusive language, such as telling list members to f. off ought to be
grounds for removal of the offender -- totally unacceptable conduct.

Sincerely,

Jacob Roginsky

johndoraemi@yahoo.com wrote:

Some of us of us have been debating the fact of US government complicity
in the 9-11 attacks since 2002, some since the attacks themselves.

Debate this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 2002408586

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … h+and+lies

Watch the films and get back to me. I have no time for shill trolls who
live to paint their excrement on bulletin boards.

My blog is full of 9-11 facts you have never seen or considered. Educate
yourself before you get up on your high horse. Unless you're some
disinfo agent, in which case, -flick- off.

Better still would be for you to put up your conspiracy theory of what
you think happened on 9-11, and I, or a lot of other people will show
you why it's impossible.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make 'em drink!

It�EUR^(TM)s time for The National 9/11 Debate�"�.
<http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495;article=102699;search_term=9/11>
MUCKRAKER REPORT Wed Jul 5, 2006

For the most part ....you are a wast of time!!!!

jrogins@va.metrocast.net wrote:

The "veiled" sarcasm was not lost on me.

If you are a true truth seekers, why don't you identify your best
speaker for the
9/11 conspiracy claims and let me debate

him in your forum, one claim at a time. Let us see how well he
can defend his views.
I promise the debate will be a good learning experience for all.
So, why don't we
hold a truth-finding debate?

Jacob Roginsky, President jrogins@va.metrocast.net
A Matter of Justice Coalition
=======================================================================
Subject: Re: 9/11 - Everything discredited by our discussion on AMOJ
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 19:10:25 -0400
From: Jonathon Moseley ruthercap@earthlink.net
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?i … cle=102508




______________________________________________
John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State at:
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

 

[Laura]

Alex Jones and 911 Scholars: The Parable of the Good Shepherd

This was, apparently, a response to the Jacob Roginsky emails which started the whole thing. This gentleman - Alex James - did such a fine job dealing with the subject that I figured if Roginsky couldn't get it after this, there was no point in debating him. It was pretty clear to me that Roginsky had been "Ponerized" already.

From: "Alex James"
To: "'Jacob Roginsky'"
Subject: RE: 9/11 & The "veiled" sarcasm was not lost on me.
Date sent: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 20:29:33 +0300

The Skeptic's questions to the 9/11 Truth Seeker are in "quotes"

"It is like a religious cult for you"

I find that hilarious. Did you know that the latest nationwide Zogby poll, conducted on May 22nd, shows that 42% of adults in America believe that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up? This amounts to 70 million people! Sir, please...can you, with a serious face, call 70 million people a "cult"? And the tens of million Europeans who believe there's a cover-up? All "cultists", too?

"You keep talking about your people visiting Mahathir and Chavez. Don't you think that it is a little odd that the foreign leaders that are signing on to the 9/11 conspiracy theory bandwagon are all America haters?"

Wrong. Mahathir and Chavez are just two of scores of members of foreign governments who have been exposed to the FACTS about 9/11. Members of parliament in Germany, Sweden, UK, France, Belgium, Denmark, and Holland are some of the EUROPEANS who have watched the various 9/11 movies and expressed VERY serious concerns about the US government's "official" story. I'm sure it will shock you to know that The Hon. Andreas Von Bulow, the former German Minister of Defense, is a member of Scholars For 9/11 Truth. Von Bulow, a 25-year parliamentarian and member of Helmut Schmidt's cabinet, was also head of the German secret service at one time. He states unequivocally that 9/11 was an inside job, and that the command center for the operation was Mayor Giuliani's fortified bunker in Building 7, which is one of the reasons why that structure had to be demolished. [The other reason, of course, was to ensure the destruction of mountains of evidence contained in NSA, CIA, DEA, and ATF files relating to corporate fraud, money laundering, and drug trafficking. What's not commonly known is that all of these agencies, among others, were all occupants of Building 7.]

The 9/11 panel that toured various American and European cities was organized, funded, and led by millionaire philanthropist Jimmy Walter - who, by the way, has invested over $6M of his personal funds in the movement. Walter also produced the excellent DVD, "Confronting The Evidence", over 600,000 copies of which have been distributed FREE worldwide. Of course, the 9/11 Truth movement has since grown into a spectrum of independent organizations.

If it would make you feel any better, Walter's group moved on to South America and Asia only once they had completed their tour Europe. Insofar as the "cultists" to whom you refer, some of the noteworthy individuals in the greater 9/11 Truth movement (including those on various panels at international symposia) include:

* Former Chief Economist under George W. Bush, and professor at Texas A&M, Morgan Reynolds

* Former Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the U.S. Air Force, under President Reagan, and combat fighter pilot Col. Robert Bowman (Caltech Phd in aeronautics and nuclear engineering)

* Former CIA Intelligence Advisor to Reagan and George HW Bush and founder of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, Ray McGovern

* Former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Research Fellow at Stanford's Independent Institute, and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, Paul Craig Roberts

* Former Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces, and chief of the department for General affairs in the Soviet Union 's ministry of Defense, General Leonid Ivashov

* Former MI6 British Counter Intelligence Officer, David Shayler

* Historian, international terrorism expert, and author, Webster G. Tarpley

* Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, former Marine Corps officer, author or editor of more than 20 books, and co-chair of Scholars For 9/11 Truth, James Fetzer

* Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, and co-chair of Scholars For 9/11 Truth, Steven Jones

* Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion & Theology, Claremont Graduate University, and author or editor of some 30 books, including "The New Pearl Harbor" and "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions" David Ray Griffin

* Professor of mathematics, University of Western Ontario, and founder of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven (SPINE), A.K Dewdney

* Aircraft crash investigation authority, USAF Col. (Ret) George Nelson

* Former chief Pentagon arms negotiator for the Middle East, USAF Col. (Ret) Don de Grand-Pre

* Numerous research scientists and academics from major universities around the world, hundreds of experts with PhDs, current and retired airline and military pilots...



If you would deem the above-mentioned individuals to be "cultists", then I shall unreservedly declare my pride of membership in their cult.

Sir, the reason the 9/11 movement is sweeping around the world is not to round up "enemies of America". The movement is spreading abroad because HUNDREDS of petitions to the US Congress have been IGNORED. If we cannot get the attention we demand in this country, we fully intend to hoist our case on to the international stage. After all, polls show that over SEVENTY PERCENT of Europeans believe 9/11 was an inside job.

"How do you get your cultists to believe that when five years after the fact the Oil in Iraq still belongs to Iraq?"

The illegal invasion of Iraq was about the oil, but not for the oil. We didn't go in to grab the oil. Just the opposite.

We went in to control Iraq's oil and make sure we didn't get it. Note that the price of oil went for $15 to $75 quintupling the $ purchase requirements, i.e. from over $600 million daily to over $3 billion daily.

To get the whole picture, you need to go back to 1920, when the major oil companies sat in a hotel room in Brussels and drew a red line around Iraq and said, "There'll be no oil coming out of that nation." Why? If they don't suppress oil coming out of Iraq, the price of oil will collapse. Saddam was a serious thorn in their side because he refused to play ball.

There is a 323-page plan, written by Big Oil, which is the secret but official plan of the United States for Iraq's oil. It was written out of the James Baker Institute in coordination with a secret committee of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). It's all about a plan to control Iraq's oil and make sure that Iraq has a system which "enhances its relationship with OPEC."

In other words, the whole idea is to maintain the power of the US$ as a world currency that is printed because OPEC demands US$ for its oil which it promptly recycles back to the Federal Reserve thus allowing the US military-industrial feudal complex to get something for nothing. And this is one of the reasons "we" absolutely hate Hugo Chavez - and why Venezuela could well end up being the next nation (after Iran) on the Neocon's list to be accused of possessing hidden caches of "WMD".

As you'll see in the recent issue of Harper's, Chavez has asked OPEC to officially recognize that he has more oil than Saudi Arabia. This is a geopolitical earthquake. And the inside documents from the U.S. Department of Energy, which is also in Harper's, say, yes, Chavez has got more oil than Saudi Arabia.

We're paying $3 a gallon. ExxonMobil is collecting $3 a gallon. When Bush came into power, oil cost $15-$18 a barrel. Bush has successfully built up the price of oil to over $70. That's the "mission accomplished" he announced. He didn't make a mistake here. That was the "mission accomplished" in Iraq.

ExxonMobil, after Enron, is the biggest lifetime donor to the Bush campaigns. The value of its reserves, because of the Bush wars and Bush actions, has gone up by almost $1 trillion in value. Just one company. A trillion-dollar windfall to a single company!

Harper's actually got their hands on two different plans for Iraq's oil, a 101-page plan and a 323-page plan, which is all about, in great detail, what we are going do with Iraq's oil. And guess what? The number of Iraqis involved in writing this crucial document is exactly ZERO. So much for bringing "freedom and democracy" to the Iraqis.

It is now generally known what occurred in the secret discussions between the oil companies, Ken Lay and Dick Cheney. The verdict is about to come down. Why was Cheney in the meeting with oil companies, looking over the maps of Iraq? He was on this committee drafting up the program for what to do about Iraq. And for their plan to work, they absolutely had to get rid of Saddam because he was totally destabilizing the oil markets by jerking prices to low levels.

Sir, wake up! As numerous administration whistleblowers have revealed, the plan for the invasion of Iraq was on the drawing boards LONG before 9/11. 9/11 was the trigger event to set that plan in motion by rallying the necessary support of the American populace.

Do you see all those flag-festooned Hummers and pickups on the streets piloted by seething armchair-Rambo-like lunatics? This could never have happened if the nation didn't suffer another "Pearl Harbor" -- aka Nine-Eleven. The Neocons used 9/11 to terrify the American public, galvanize combative emotions, and win their support for the invasions of two sovereign nations.

You know what's a real tragedy? A full one-third of the US population actually believes that Iraq was behind 9/11 and that Bush found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Clearly, a large percentage of us believes Iran has nuclear weapons and that America is in danger of being attacked by Iran.

No democracy can work when people take their responsibility as citizen so lightly as to be so totally and utterly ignorant.


"Claiming that the President is responsible for the mass murders is ludicrous"


I've repeated this to you before, but you continue to ignore it: 9/11 is beyond Republicans. It is beyond Democrats. It is beyond "politics" as we know it. It rises FAR higher. Quite frankly, I wouldn't be shocked if even Bush didn't know about all the details in advance. However, it is a fact the man has racked up $2 trillion in extra debt, and someone's got to pay for that. That said, I refuse to get drawn into a "political" debate on 9/11, because that would be a simplistic and ignorant approach to understanding the forces behind this diabolically treasonous event.


"I wonder if you were 'converted' to your way of thinking about 9/11"


Absolutely -- but not in the way you insinuate it, i.e., naively joining some rah-rah crusade of conspiracy crackpots. As a matter of fact, I did not give the subject a second thought until October 2004, when I was directed me to a website that showed a brief clip re the attack on the Pentagon (www.pentagonstrike.co.uk). As a pilot and aeronautical engineer, I was quite shocked by the claims, and initially thought it was nonsense. I actually set about fully expecting to DISPROVE what these "conspiracy nuts" were claiming. So I put on my engineer/pilot's cap and started to dig. The more I dug, the more foul-smelling things began to get. And then someone directed me to a website (http://911research.com/talks/b7/videos.html ) on the mysterious collapse of WTC Building 7, a building that was not struck by an aircraft, yet fell like a pillar of sand in 6.5 seconds into its own footprint. As I watched the video in utter disbelief, the whole "official conspiracy theory" began to fall apart right before my eyes.


"Are you one of the originators of the theory?"


Sir, you give me far too much credit. Minds far brighter than mine saw through this farce the moment it occurred. I'm a real "late bloomer". The closed-minded fool I was, it took me three years after 9/11 to catch on. I, like everyone else, believed what I was told. I vividly recall the day someone asked me whether I knew about the "9/11 cover-up". I truly thought what the chap meant was some financial scandal concerning compensation to widows or some such! No, I'm by no means one of the "originators" of the "theory". I am simply one little blade of grass in a huge, expansive, ever-growing meadow...there are literally TENS OF MILLIONS of people out there demanding that the 9/11 investigation be re-opened.


"Suppose, for example, we would rebuild WTC 1, and demolish it with explosives just to study how it would fall"


Sir, if an engineer or physicist needs to determine how long it would take for an apple to fall a certain distance from a tree, he doesn't need to grow an apple tree and wait for it to bear fruit in order to figure it out.


Employing very simple mathematical formulae based upon the law of gravity and the principles of aerodynamics, s/he can determine the time, to within 1/1000th of a second, on a blank sheet of paper. You either don't understand the most rudimentary explanation I presented you in my earlier email, or you refuse to do so because you know it will open up a can of worms that you'd much rather avoid altogether.


Let me repeat: It is IMPOSSIBLE (there is no other word) for the roofs of the towers to have struck the ground in exactly the same time as a ball dropped from the same height. Why? The roof would have to crush, tear and plow through 110 levels of steel columns, walls, floor slabs, office equipment, etc. before it could reach the ground. The ball would simply drop through AIR.


How could the roof and the ball both hit the ground in exactly the same time? The ONLY way the roof could have hit the ground in 9.4 seconds would have been if nothing existed beneath it but AIR. And that's what explosives do: blow everything out of the way so that there is nothing to resist the fall.


Forget the math. Look again at that photo I sent you, very carefully. Or, watch the video again - this time with a stopwatch in your hand. The explosives were triggered in a precise vertical sequence so that the floors and supports were getting blown out of the way just as the mass above them was falling. All you have to do is LOOK. And think.


"You say that you know how fast a building built like the towers should fall. I say there is no way you can know that because there has never been a building, built like that, fall before"


Yes, of course there is a way to know. Determining the LONGEST time it would take for a building to fall under these circumstances could be quite complex given the myriad variables, but calculating the FASTEST POSSIBLE time if nothing impeded its fall is a piece of cake.


You see, when it comes to "freefall", apples and buildings fall the same way. They both obey the same LAW -- the Law of Gravity. Every falling object is ruled by this fundamental law. Bricks and feathers fall at the same rate in a vacuum (one of the first thing a kid learns in science class, remember?).


A scientist does not have to grow a tree or reconstruct a building to arrive at a determination of FREEFALL time. He calculates it, like he does everything else. For instance, how does an engineer design a parachute? Does he strap a piece of cloth onto some hapless twit and toss him out of an airplane? Of course not. He calculates the forces involved on paper before cutting and sewing an appropriately DESIGNED piece of fabric. Entire airplanes are designed on paper before they ever leave the ground. ANY engineer worth his salt knows the MAXIMUM speed at which a building can fall: It is the same as that for an apple - except, unlike a building, the falling apple is not resisted by any structure beneath it. Therefore, it should, and will, fall a lot faster than a building - unless the bottom of the building was being "blown out" as it fell!


This isn't magic we're talking about, it's simple science. No, we certainly do not need to re-construct the towers to figure this one out.



"A ten-year-old child can see the difference when shown the videos"


I don't know about the kids in your neck of the woods, but when he was 13 (two years ago), my son figured it out all by himself. (I'm sure being a straight-A student in an all-Honors curriculum -- and a chess champion to boot -- helped, but that's beside the point).


Now, here's a challenge that might interest you: the aforementioned philanthropist, Jimmy Walter, announced THREE YEARS AGO that he will pay $1 million to the first person to prove, through a detailed mathematical analysis, that explosives were NOT used to destroy the World Trade Center. This offer has even been distributed to the engineering faculties of major universities around the world. Guess what -- NOT ONE SINGLE TAKER. Why? Because it is IMPOSSIBLE for the towers to have collapsed the way they did WITHOUT explosives, and anyone who analyzes it for any length of time will figure this out very quickly.


Here's a challenge to YOU: Why don't you commission an engineering whiz to respond to Mr. Walter's challenge, win the million bucks and split the purse? After all, the money is going begging. And remember, Walter is not asking anyone to construct another tower! He's only asking for a detailed mathematical analysis.


"I cannot tolerate your conspiracy theory..."


The only "conspiracy theory" is the "official" version of 9/11 - that 19 amateur Arabs armed with boxcutters, led by a man on a dialysis machine in a cave in Afghanistan, outwitted the multi-trillion-dollar defense apparatus of the most technologically advanced superpower in our solar system by flying FOUR jumbo jets around the country for TWO HOURS without triggering ONE single fighter intercept. Never mind that these nineteen brigands boarded the four aircraft without reservations, without issued tickets, without boarding passes, without ID checks, and without their names appearing on a single passenger manifest. (Let's overlook the little fact that seven of the nineteen are proven to be alive and well in the Middle East today.)


You see, there's simply too much material to cover in an email. Besides -- and not meaning to appear condescending -- I will say this: I have spent FAR more time with YOU on this subject than I have with ANY other person.


May I suggest, first and foremost, you forget about the "who, why and how" of 9/11, and stick to science, logic, and common sense regarding the actual events. That's the ONLY intelligent way to begin to approach this subject. The moment you think about the "plot", you quickly lose sight of the FACTS. Stay focused, and let the NEW investigation we seek determine the "who, why, and how".


For now, all you need to realize is this: not only is the "official" story, point for point, an outright, demonstrable lie, it is impossible.


As a primer to continued discussion, I must request that you read "The New Pearl Harbor", and "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions", both by Prof. David Ray Griffin.


If you do NOT read these two books - generally considered the definitive treatment of the subject -- I respectfully ask that we conclude this dialog forthwith.


Our exchanges would be futile if the foundation is not first properly set. Indeed, it would be a complete waste of our time.


But for the moment, may I suggest we forget about the Twin Towers altogether. Let's forget about freefall times. Let's even forget about the lakes of MOLTEN METAL in the basements [even a hundred million gallons of kerosene couldn't have done that.]


Instead, do me a favor and visit http://911research.com/talks/b7/videos.html and watch the collapse of Building 7, a 47-storey steel-framed skyscraper, from THREE DIFFERENT camera angles. Perfect, demolition style symmetrical collapse at the speed of gravity.


I'll even send you PBS footage of the building's owner, Larry Silverstein, ADMITTING ON CAMERA that he gave the order to "pull it".


Then, tell me with a straight face that what you see is NOT a controlled demolition. Now, planning and configuring a building of this type and size for a pull would literally take MONTHS. It absolutely could not have been set up for a pull on the day of 9/11. It was done before. The structure was pre-configured for a pull months in advance, likely during its construction phase. Look at all of the skyscraper fires in history, including the very recent ones. None of the buildings collapsed due to fires which burned for much longer periods and more intensely than WTC 7.


WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS?


Sir, this is why 42 percent of Americans polled by Zogby last month - 70 MILLION of our compatriots -- want the 9/11 investigation re-opened.


If you agree Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition, your journey of discovery is ready to begin. If you don't, I'm afraid your state of denial and cognitive dissonance is incurable.
#########################################################



http://en.ce.cn/Insight/t20040611_1050107.shtml

China's demand is not big enough to influence the global crude oil price, Last Updated(Beijing Time):2004-06-11 09:32 By He Zhenhong

Just like a "bad boy", the high oil price has always been regarded as a threat to the global economic growth. For the time being, the price of crude oil has remained as high as more than US$ 40 per barrel for many days, such a "bad boy" is getting more and more abhorrent to the market.

While domestic scholars criticize China for its silence in face of the rise and fall of the global oil price, a different voice sounds louder and louder which claims that the oil demand in China is becoming a key factor in the rise of oil price. Daniel Yergin, an oil analyst and the chairman of the Cambridge Energy Research Associates, even uses the phase "paroxysmal demand" as he thinks that China has played a determinative and unpredictable role in the world oil market.

Early at the beginning of this May, the International Energy Agency (IEA) pointed out that the robust growth of the world economy led to the rapid increase in the demand of crude oil and at the speed that broke the record of the past 16 years; the daily oil demand of the world amounts to 80.6 million barrels in 2004, among which China plays a role as the most primary driving force. According to the IEA's estimation, the daily increase in the world's demand for crude oil is 1.8 million barrels during the first quarter of 2004, in which the daily increase in China's demand for crude oil accounts for 1 million barrels.

Reuters quoted a Russian senior official as saying: "Actually, oil suppliers now have no capacity to satisfy the demand of China or India today."

All these viewpoints are apparently distorts.

In terms of oil consumption, the world's oil consumption is 4 billion tons at present and the daily oil consumption is around 80.6 million barrels; last year, China's oil output was 169.32 million tons and its net oil import was 86 million tons, thus its total oil consumption was 255.32 million tons and its daily oil consumption was 5.1 million barrels, only 6 percent of the total for the world.

In terms of oil trade, at present, the world oil trade volume is more than 2 billion tons and daily oil trade volume is over 40 million barrels; last year, the volume of China's net oil import was 86 million tons and that of its daily import was 1.277 million barrels, less than 3 percent of the world's oil trade volume.

It is obvious that a consumption of 6 percent and an import volume of 3 percent are not enough to have an influence over the fluctuations of international oil prices.

At the Ninth International Energy Forum, Zhang Guobao, the Vice Director of the National Development and Reform Commission, gave a clear illustration of China's standpoint. He said that the rise of international crude oil price is mainly subject to the influence from the situation in the Middle East and speculation activities in the market, and it is unrealistic for some outsiders to ascribe the rise in the crude oil price to the increase of China's demand. He analyzed that though China's net crude oil import rose quickly in 2003, the total of China's net crude oil import accounts for only a small portion of the world's total trade volume of crude oil; therefore, China's demand for oil, although being increased, is not enough to influence the global price of crude oil.

Rather than say that the Chinese factor has driven the oil price to rise, it should be better to say that the US is the dominant factor that influences the oil price. For the time being, the US's daily oil consumption is about 19 million barrels, almost 4 times that of China; In terms of per capita oil consumption, that of the US is 20 times that of China. It is clear that the US's influence on oil price is far greater than that of China.

From the geopolitical point of view, the US waged its war against Iraq in its pursuit of oil benefits first, and then, it frequently intervenes in Middle East affairs and makes trouble continuously to the world, especially to those oil producing countries.

From the perspective of oil supply and demand, the US is the largest oil consumer and importer in the world. With its annual oil import volume of 500 million tons, its dependence on oil is as high as 58 percent while that of China is only 36 percent last year.

From an economic angle, before the war against Iraq, the US exerted all its strength to lower its oil storage due to the rising oil price; but the long-lasting unsteady situation in Iraq after the war broke the US's wishful thinking. In face of a steadily high oil price, the US's commercial oil storage reached its lowest point since 1975. At the same time, in order to prevent its oil supply from breaking off, the US government decided to keep 700 million barrels of oil in reserve for the sake of national security after the 9.11. While the US's strategic storage is 640 million barrels at present, it recently picked up the speed to refill oil reserves. Now, its oil storage is increasing by 1.16 million barrels per day.

From the US's behaviors in the international oil market, it is very easy to detect the ill intention that some people in the west persist in "China threat". So it should be warned that some people with ulterior motives could change the argument exaggerating "the Chinese factor" into another version of "China threat" to achieve the aim of either creating prestige and influence for speculators or realizing certain political opinions.

It is lamentable for some Chinese scholars to cater for overseas voices blindly and agree that the increase in China's crude oil demand has driven the international oil price to rise without a careful analysis. It seems that they want to find an example to show the growth of China's economy by claiming China's driving role in the fluctuations of oil price. Hardly have they realized that the continuous rapid development of China's economy is obvious to all.


List of video documentaries on 9/11


http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=9+11&page=1&so=0


http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=911


http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=9%2F11


Iraq Veteran Speaks Out On War Crimes, "Iraqi Veterans Against the War" IVAW.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5587990522549547050


MSNBC: Moussaoui wore a torture 'stun belt' for new testimony [thus being very docile and saying the lies the government wanted people to hear; a textbook example of a PATSY]Note that even the interviewer is shocked at this! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2455375257869300730


Michael Ruppert Exposes CIA Drug Tafficking

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=416734229712600729

The FBI is on record giving the order to conduct terrorism on the WTC in 1993, via their hired gun. A two minute video summary on this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6752092058844526234 Reopen 911.org's Confronting the Evidence segment from Alex Jones on the FBI supplying explosives and detonators to attack the WTC in 1993.


1963 JFK assassination video showing the STAND-DOWN by the ones who were supposed to protect the President

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5770984395481454022&q=jfk+stand+down


1933 NY Times Headlines: "Judea Declares War on Germany"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4138523842550891901&q=1933+declares+war

History of Satanic Rituals and Child Sacrifice

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=child+sacrifice


A fantastic documentary

If you are afraid of your government all the time, and you know in your gut that this nation is headed into another realm (neo-feudal Stalinism) -- a dark place from which there is no escape -- 9/11 Vendetta is a "must watch" video. The creators of the Matrix Trilogy have taken scenes from their upcoming movie, "V For Vendetta," and created within current events an uncompromising vision of the future if the people don't stand up, speak out, and break free of the cruel and heartless fascism that is gradually bearing down on them..


9/11 Vendetta (Video) watch it here:

http://www.youtube.com/v/AJ7uFA8RwpQ

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7048572757566726569

Alex Jones Terror Storm

This is Alex Jones' explosive new movie exposing both 7/7 and 9/11 as False Flag Self Inflicted Attacks as well as providing historical background on such events as well as an overall view of our current state of eroded rights and freedoms.

www.infowars.com or www.prisonplanet.com to purchase the video as well as some of their other great material.

 

[Laura]

Alex Jones and 911 Scholars: The Parable of the Good Shepherd

The next couple of emails are from the debaters themselves, but since, by this time, I had lost interest in this as a serious debate (considering Roginsky's schizoidal paramoralims), I didn't read either at the time:

From: "Gerard Holmgren" <holmgren@iinet.net.au>
To: <jon.roland@****>, <AMOJ_MAIN@yahoogroups.com>
Copies to: "'Laura Knight-Jadczyk'" "'Rosalee Grable'" <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>, <apfn@apfn.org>
[SNIPPED LIST OF RECIPIENTS]
Subject: Debate paramters
Date sent: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 04:10:59 +1000

I think Jacob has a good point in asking that we two be allowed to sort out
the parameters ourselves, since we are the two who will be debating. I know
that everyone will have their own legitimate ideas, but if we are not
careful, this will become an endless debate about how to have a debate. I
think that Jacob and I can come to our own agreement.

I also agree that cheap shots at either of us from list recipients prior to
the debate don't really help the process.

There is a place for mass list brawling, but just for the moment, Jacob and
I are trying to organize something a little different.

Nevertheless, I thought Jon Roland's suggestion was thoughtful enough, and
helpfully intended enough that it deserved an acknowledgment.


Jon Roland wrote

[[efore you can have a proper debate you need to agree on a proposition,
"Resolved, that ..." and it doesn't seem to me that there is agreement on
how to frame the question. ]]

I think it would be better to apply that principle to each mini debate with
the larger debate.

For example, whether a big plane hit the pentagon is a self contained
debate. If it was to be resolved in the affirmative, then it would still
leave the question of whether it was actually AA 77, as a separate
proposition. And that would still leave the question of how the air force
failed to stop it, etc,etc.

So we see propositions nested within other propositions.

The ramifications of those self contained debates have wider implications
within the larger debate - ie What really happened on sept 11 ?
Who did it ?

The two latter questions are too complex and multi faceted for a single
proposition.

There are some aspects of the larger question which interact with others in
a complex manner, but there are others which are reasonably self contained.

By deconstructing the larger debate into its individual component
propositions, to the extent which is sensible and practical, we follow the
above principle, without the risk of excluding relevant issues and evidence.


I must also point out that I don't claim to know everything which actually
happened on sept 11. You could pick me a fraud straight away if I claimed
that I did. I claim to know a lot of what did *not* happen. From this, some
specifics which did happen can be deduced with varying degrees of
confidence.

Others can be deduced to within a range of possibilities, but still leaving
many questions open. Some are still a mystery. So from my side of the
debate, much of the argument is along the lines of

"The Govt claims x,y,z. I propose that this claim is impossible, and leaves
us only a,b,c as the remaining possibilities."

Or sometimes.

"The govt claims x,y,z. I will demonstrate that this is unsubstantiated by
any evidence and implausible to the verge of impossibility. I cannot say
exactly what happened, as there are many possibilities, but I can say what
did *not* happen."

It's not always easy to frame such arguments with a snappy formal
proposition, although the wider question can often be deconstructed into a
composite of mini propositions, which are then added together to form the
larger picture.

This next email from Roginsky was in response to Holmgren's email (several emails back) that began:

Gerard Holmgren wrote:

> I think that the place of debate could be any forum which meets the
> following conditions.

etc.

Date sent: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 14:42:56 -0400
From: Jacob Roginsky
To: Gerard Holmgren
Copies to: apfn@apfn.org, "'Laura Kht-Jadczyk'"
[RECIPIENT LIST SNIPPED]
Subject: Re: Sept 11 debate. Holmgren vs Rogisnsky - organizing.

I see disagreement in the making here over the focus, goals, rules and
format of the debate. I hope to address Mr. Holmgren's position with
regard to the first of the above four items late tonight (USA Eastern
Standard Time).

It seems to me we should resolve to dealing expeditiously with those
outstanding issues that may be quickly resolved and gotten out of the
way. Accordingly, I propose we settle the question of the debate
forum. The proposal I made earlier for the creation of a special Yahoo
group seems to fit each debater's bill. If this solution is acceptable
to Mr. Holmgren, I ask him to acknowledge so..

I liked Jon Roland's suggestion on the classification of issues and
questions before us as "resolved," "unresolved," etc. If such is
acceptable to Mr. Holmgren, I ask him to acknowledge so.

I also propose that Mr. Holmgren and I address each other as "Gerald"
and "Jacob", except where a name confusion might arise, in order to a)
establish a friendlier atmosphere, b) make addressing the debaters
simpler, and c) eliminate potential problems with misspelling of such
difficult names as "Roginsky." If this is acceptable to Mr. Holmgren, I
ask him to acknowledge so.

Jacob Roginsky

 

[Simon]

Well, well, well, look at who has ALEX JONES as an honourary member!

Paranoia: a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others

 

[wilecoyote]

Well, well, well, look at who has ALEX JONES as an honourary member!

Um, simon, i advise you to read the related threads in this Cointelpro and disinformation section of the forum. If you don't have an agenda on this forum, maybe you will realize that we aren't paranoid enough. (What i mean by that is that in this day and age of disinformation, it is crucial that we fine tune our levels of discernment).

Plus, don't you think it would be better if you posted something more constructive than the definition of paranoia? Because, as far as i'm concerned, you are making a general accusation of the entire forum. Did you even check the link recommended by Opinmynd81?

 

[Alana]

Well, well, well, look at who has ALEX JONES as an honourary member!

Simon, you posted today for the first time, 3 one liner posts, providing your subjective - to say the least - opinion. That's what it's called noise on this forum. The owners and all of us participants here want the environment to remain noise free.

Here are the rules of this site. Please do us all the favor and read them. If you think we are all paranoid, by all means, move elsewhere.

http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/forum/misc.php?action=rules

 

[Laura]

Well, well, well, look at who has ALEX JONES as an honourary member!

Paranoia: a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others

You are right... Alex Jones is REALLY paranoid, isn't he?

But then, that's not to say that he isn't right about a lot of what he says. The best agents and liars are always careful to tell MOSTLY truth and to only deviate slightly on pre-selected points that they wish to vector.

For example, consider the following little script that was making the rounds on the net a few years back - a parody of the Fundamentalist mindset - which gives a little clue as to how these things operate:

John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."

Mary: Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?"

John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the sh*t out of you."

Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"

John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropists. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever he wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss his ass."

Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"

Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"

Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."

Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"

John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."

Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"

Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the sh*t out of you."

Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"

John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."

Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"

John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."

Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"

Mary: "Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."

Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"

John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"

Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."

John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass He'll kick the sh*t of you."

Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from him..."

Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."

Me: "Then how do you kiss His ass?"

John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."

Me: "Who's Karl?"

Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."

Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?"

John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

From the desk of Karl

1) Kiss Hank's ass and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
2) Use alcohol in moderation.
3) Kick the sh*t out of people who aren't like you.
4) Eat right.
5) Hank dictated this list Himself.
6) The moon is made of green cheese.
7) Everything Hank says is right.
8) Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9) Don't use alcohol.
10) Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11) Kiss Hank's ass or He'll kick the sh*t out of you.


Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."

Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."

Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."

John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."

Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"

Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."

Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the sh*t out of people just because they're different?"

Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."

Me: "How do you figure that?"

Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"

Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."

Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."

John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."

Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."

Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."

Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."

John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"

Me: "We do?"

Mary: "Of course we do, Item 5 says so."

Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"

John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."

Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"

Mary: She blushes.

John: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."

Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"

John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."

Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"

Mary: She looks positively stricken.

John:( He's shouting.) "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"

Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"

Mary: Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."

John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."

Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time." (Mary faints.)

John: (He catches Mary.) "Well, if I'd known you where one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the sh*t out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater." With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.

So, indeed, I certainly agree that Alex Jones and gang are excessively paranoid, that doesn't mean that everything he says is wrong.

 

[Pierre]

Well, well, well, look at who has ALEX JONES as an honourary member!

I wish with all my heart that one day people will say that we just were a bunch of paranoid freaks.

I wish with my all my heart that one day people will realize that what humanity is experiencing now was just a momentary laps of unreason and now wars, planet raping, tortures,... are definitely over.

I wish with all my heart that when Hitler came out of the blue, some paranoid freaks had stood up against this evil threat.

 

[Lucy]

Well, well, well, look at who has ALEX JONES as an honourary member!

For your viewing pleasure.

http:www.rsicc.org/Members/AlexJones/index.html

Like I said I didn't really go through the site before posting this but I have a strange feeling that this bit a yarn will lead to something worthwhile...

I did a little poking around on the site, and found this, which I found rather darkly amusing, considering all AJ's bombastic preaching about "the globalists."
From: http://www.rsicc.org/MissionStatement/index.html

We seek to present to the world a godly alternative to the U.N.-based drive for world socialist government. By the grace and inspiration of God, we aim to set forth an international government based on freedom and virtue. We vow to serve faithfully, courageously, and humbly as its nascent representatives.
As the elected body representing Remnant Saints International Patriot Alliance, we ascribe to the mission statement and Declaration of Principles of that organization. We also uphold the principle of free-will consecration. We endorse the 16 principles of unification.

Then we find this on the members page:

Cathy O'Brien-Phillips, Producer, TRANCE Formation of America, Langston, Alabama branch of Patriot Saints

Mark Phillips, Co-producer, TRANCE Formation of America, Langston, Alabama branch of Patriot Saints

Another connection between David Icke and Alex Jones...and their shared cointelpro goals and activities.