Jim Fetzer & Conspiracies

[jfetzer]

No idea, I didn't click any of them as I know they are worthless out front. If he cannot present his arguments in his own words here, then he has no arguments.

But he has "presented his arguments in his own words", where the question becomes the virtue of repeating his arguments again and again. Take on JFK. He has three books of over 500 pages length and dozens of articles on VT, to cite one example. They average about 15 pages in length. If we assume there are, say, 30 of them, then that is 450 pages of arguments "in his own words". Arguments and evidence don't "disappear" because you won't look at them.

I have presumed that, rather than repeating all that work, he could summarize his positions on various issues and offer links for more detailed substantiation. Let me offer an example. I have just observed that Lee was caught in a famous photograph taken by AP photographer during the shooting. He is in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository.

If he was in the doorway, then we wasn't on the 6th floor shooting at JFK. Which means not only was he not only NOT the "lone demented gunman" but he wasn't even ONE OF THE SHOOTERS. The proof involves looking at the shirt, the tee-shirt, height/weight/build of the man in the doorway versus those of the alternative the government has promoted, Billy Lovelady.

Doorman is wearing a richly textured, long sleeved shirt that is splayed open and a tee-shirt that looked as though it had been tugged at the neck. Billy said it was odd people should confuse them because he was 2-3" shorter and 15-20 lbs heavier. He was asked by the FBI to come in and show them the shirt he had been wearing, which he did on 29 February 1964.

It was a short-sleeved, red-and-white vertically striped shirt, not at all like the shirt on Doorman. Lee Oswald, however, when he was arrested, was wearing a richly textured, long sleeved **** that was splayed open and a tee-shirt that looked as though it had been tugged at the neck. There is more, which we have elaborated in detail in articles like the following:

“JFK SPECIAL: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” (with Ralph Cique)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/01/25/jfk-special-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/

“What happened to the body: A cover-up on the fly” (with Douglas Horne)
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-happened-to-jfks-body-cover-up-on.html

“JFK SPECIAL 2: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” (with Ralph Cique and Clare Kuehn)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/13/jfk-special-2-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/

“JFK SPECIAL 3: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” (with Ralph Cique)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/05/05/jfk-special-3-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/

“JFK SPECIAL 4: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” (with Richard Hooke)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/06/11/jfk-special-4-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/

“JFK SPECIAL 5: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” by Ralph Cique (with Jim Fetzer)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/06/12/jfk-special-5-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/

“JFK Conspiracy: The bullet hole in the Windshield”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/06/28/jfk-conspiracy-the-bullet-hole-in-the-windshield/

“JFK believe it or not: Oswald wasn’t even a shooter!”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/11/14/jfk-believe-it-or-not-oswald-wasnt-even-a-shooter/

Now I suppose a mountain of specific, detailed and copiously documented proof is not going to make a difference to those who are unwilling to look, which is one more reason I despair over a forum whose members are so very closed minded that THEY WILL NOT EVEN LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE. So I will do what I can to explain what's going on and why these attacks on me could not be less well-founded for the benefit of serious members of JREF.

 

[LSSBB]

So is every former Marine complicit in the assassination or in covering it up? This is very typical of the quality of posts on this thread.if you had studied his work, you would know that Lee was framed using fake photographs, a planted weapon and a host of other fabricated evidence. He wasn't even on the 6th floor but was captured in a famous photograph taken by AP photographer James "Ike" Altgens, which we have discussed extensively.

On the "backyard photographs", see "Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald" co-authored with Jim Marrs, http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/19/framing-the-patsy-the-case-of-lee-harvey-oswald/ He has published at least a dozen articles about Lee's having been captured in the Altgens' photo on Veterans Today. One that summarizes the evidence and also discusses the revision of the Zapruder film is "The JFK War: The Challenging Case of Robert Groden", http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/04/14/the-jfk-war-the-challenging-case-of-robert-groden/

Some assistance from Merriam-Webster, since there seems to be some difficulty detecting this in conversation :

sar·casm
Pronunciation: \ˈsär-ˌka-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwarəs- to cut
Date: 1550
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm

By the way, dear readers, if you travel to Veterans Today, please be advised to get your anti-Semitism vaxx shots first. It's quite the site for the darkest of conspiratorial imaginings. I recommend avoidance, personally.

 

[jfetzer]

Doesn't mean we have to take your word for what you publish.

I'd like to see you defend your "no-plane" claims in the appropriate threads. By defend I don't mean handwave away all evidence you deem damaging to your opinion.

Nice "straw man"! I don't care if you disagree with me. But how can you do that without actually knowing what I have said to decide if you agree OR disagree?

The staggering number of pointless posts that are based upon rumor, speculation and guessing about my views is beyond belief! You need to read and study my work BEFORE you attack it.

So, as I have observed before, just cite something I have said. Explain why I have said it. Then tell us what I have wrong and how you know. None of you is doing that, which means that you have no basis for your attacks.

I have expended a huge portion of my post-retirement life on these questions and do not suppose that I have everything right. So do us all a favor by going to my work and reviewing it so we can learn if I have something wrong.

 

[DGM]

Nice "straw man"!

That's not a "strawman".

I have no doubt you just expect people to believe you.

So you will not defend your "no-plane" position in the appropriate thread?

 

[jfetzer]

The concept of an argument with you is normally quite simple: you gullibly spread highly speculative claims other people have made up, someone refutes them and you completely ignore it, then you simply continue to spread those claims as if nothing happened. What I hardly ever see you doing, though, is try to actually substantiate the "wild and reckless charges" you have adopted, like those against jews (or "zionists", as you people prefer to say these days).

Just one example is your German Red Cross holocaust numbers claim, mentioned earlier in this thread.

We discussed this in that Yahoo group (well, I discussed it - you kept dodging and changing the topic). Here's what you were told one year ago after I looked at the documents in question [don't click on this link if you mind ending up on a Nazi web site - I'm obviously not talking to you here, Fetzer]. Documents which apparently neither you nor the google-powered, openly nazi-biased amateur Holocaust "researchers" who fed you this story can even read because neither of you understands German.

You still bring up this German Red Cross claim even though you should know it's false, even though you should know that the numbers on the documents only represent the data of ONE registration office - a registration office which uses this data to offer death certificates when family members or others ask for one for whatever reason. If that's not flat-out lying, it suggests - with all due respect to Rule 10 - the possibility of some faulty wiring in your synapses as far as defending your political world view against anything that might challenge it is concerned. Both of this would be a rather sad display for a man who, at one point, was apparently allowed to teach young people "critical thinking", of all things.

At this point, even in the conspiracy world beyond that strange anti-semite fantasy news site where you publish most of your stuff, you seem to have talked yourself into a corner in which you really need the attention that this thread here provides you with. It's the only purpose it seems to have at this point, as actually trying to discuss with you normally feels like talking to a random text and link generator. If you feel like proving me wrong, how about you start with the above-mentioned Red Cross documents issue. As others have pointed out already, there's a Holocaust denial thread here where you can show that you "don’t offer conclusions that are unsupported by evidence":

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279600

Oh, the irony. It's almost like your just trolling.

This is good because it is relatively specific. Let's focus on the Holocaust. It is an area of recent interest to me, which means that I have a lot to learn about it. There are many documents, studies and records, including those of the International Committee of the Red Cross, whose records of deaths from all causes across the internment camps totals about 271,000. Here is an article about it, but there are many sources: http://www.rense.com/general69/factua.htm

One of the best concise articles about the Holocaust is by Robert Faurisson,
"Against Hollywoodism, Revisionism", http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/2012/02/against-hollywoodism-revisionism.html But of course you want to attack me for my views, which, interestingly, I recently presented during the conference on "Academic Freedom: Are there limits to inquiry? JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust". In an hour's time, I discuss and present evidence about crucial aspects of all three.

I began today working backwards (apart from one early post) and missed this one until just now. But I like this and would be very glad to pursue it and the specific issues I raise in "Are there limits to inquiry? JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust", http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/0...-limits-to-inquiry-jfk-911-and-the-holocaust/ Mine is the last presentation, but my introduction to the conference is also important in this context. Check it out and let's move forward from there.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Deleted. Response was being cross-posted as I was typing.

 

[abaddon]

But he has "presented his arguments in his own words", where the question becomes the virtue of repeating his arguments again and again. Take on JFK. He has three books of over 500 pages length and dozens of articles on VT, to cite one example. They average about 15 pages in length. If we assume there are, say, 30 of them, then that is 450 pages of arguments "in his own words". Arguments and evidence don't "disappear" because you won't look at them.

I have presumed that, rather than repeating all that work, he could summarize his positions on various issues and offer links for more detailed substantiation. Let me offer an example. I have just observed that Lee was caught in a famous photograph taken by AP photographer during the shooting. He is in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository.

If he was in the doorway, then we wasn't on the 6th floor shooting at JFK. Which means not only was he not only NOT the "lone demented gunman" but he wasn't even ONE OF THE SHOOTERS. The proof involves looking at the shirt, the tee-shirt, height/weight/build of the man in the doorway versus those of the alternative the government has promoted, Billy Lovelady.

Doorman is wearing a richly textured, long sleeved shirt that is splayed open and a tee-shirt that looked as though it had been tugged at the neck. Billy said it was odd people should confuse them because he was 2-3" shorter and 15-20 lbs heavier. He was asked by the FBI to come in and show them the shirt he had been wearing, which he did on 29 February 1964.

It was a short-sleeved, red-and-white vertically striped shirt, not at all like the shirt on Doorman. Lee Oswald, however, when he was arrested, was wearing a richly textured, long sleeved **** that was splayed open and a tee-shirt that looked as though it had been tugged at the neck. There is more, which we have elaborated in detail in articles like the following:

“JFK SPECIAL: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” (with Ralph Cique)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/01/25/jfk-special-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/

“What happened to the body: A cover-up on the fly” (with Douglas Horne)
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-happened-to-jfks-body-cover-up-on.html

“JFK SPECIAL 2: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” (with Ralph Cique and Clare Kuehn)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/13/jfk-special-2-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/

“JFK SPECIAL 3: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” (with Ralph Cique)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/05/05/jfk-special-3-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/

“JFK SPECIAL 4: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” (with Richard Hooke)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/06/11/jfk-special-4-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/

“JFK SPECIAL 5: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!” by Ralph Cique (with Jim Fetzer)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/06/12/jfk-special-5-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/

“JFK Conspiracy: The bullet hole in the Windshield”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/06/28/jfk-conspiracy-the-bullet-hole-in-the-windshield/

“JFK believe it or not: Oswald wasn’t even a shooter!”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/11/14/jfk-believe-it-or-not-oswald-wasnt-even-a-shooter/

Now I suppose a mountain of specific, detailed and copiously documented proof is not going to make a difference to those who are unwilling to look, which is one more reason I despair over a forum whose members are so very closed minded that THEY WILL NOT EVEN LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE. So I will do what I can to explain what's going on and why these attacks on me could not be less well-founded for the benefit of serious members of JREF.

Every single link is to the crank veterans today crackpottery. I will not click any of those on general principle.

 

[abaddon]

This is good because it is relatively specific. Let's focus on the Holocaust. It is an area of recent interest to me, which means that I have a lot to learn about it. There are many documents, studies and records, including those of the International Committee of the Red Cross, whose records of deaths from all causes across the internment camps totals about 271,000. Here is an article about it, but there are many sources: http://www.rense.com/general69/factua.htm

One of the best concise articles about the Holocaust is by Robert Faurisson,
"Against Hollywoodism, Revisionism", http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/2012/02/against-hollywoodism-revisionism.html But of course you want to attack me for my views, which, interestingly, I recently presented during the conference on "Academic Freedom: Are there limits to inquiry? JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust". In an hour's time, I discuss and present evidence about crucial aspects of all three.

I began today working backwards (apart from one early post) and missed this one until just now. But I like this and would be very glad to pursue it and the specific issues I raise in "Are there limits to inquiry? JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust", http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/0...-limits-to-inquiry-jfk-911-and-the-holocaust/ Mine is the last presentation, but my introduction to the conference is also important in this context. Check it out and let's move forward from there.

Three citations in that post.

Rense? It is to laugh.
Faurisson? Even worse.
Veteans today? Laughably risible.

Is there anything you will not believe?

 

[pgimeno]

What I don't understand about this "disinformation agent" conjecture is, Why would a disinformation agent spend so much time exposing governmental complicity in the death of JFK, the atrocities of 9/11, the plane crash that took out Sen. Paul Wellstone, and the fraud and fakery at Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing?

Easy. A disinformation agent to blame the government and cause distrust. That's what a group with an interest in destabilizing the government would do. It's all politics. Ace Baker (who has collaborated with Fetzer often) is on video saying that he was trying to convince the Libertarians that the 9/11 conspiracy theories would favor their cause because of causing distrust towards the government. Is that not enough motivation?

I'll see if I can find that video. It was very revealing.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I have a challenge for Mr. Fetzer:

I've started a thread to discuss assertions made about Apollo mission photographs. If Mr Fetzer can prove his point and make a convincing case in that thread I'll eat my hat. And by hat I mean my username and by eat I mean I'll change it forever.

The Apollo gnomon is a photographic reference tool. Astronauts put it down at each EVA station and shot a picture of it. This gave information on verticality, color, size and brightness. The word gnomon comes from Greek and means "that which reveals or indicates." I have taken this username seriously as a personal challenge to combat the forces of ignorance. Maybe I'm wrong and Mr Fetzer can show us all just how wrong I am.

My name is also a subtle joke. I will award one Internet to the first person to explain the joke correctly.

 

[Muc]

This is good because it is relatively specific. Let's focus on the Holocaust. It is an area of recent interest to me, which means that I have a lot to learn about it. There are many documents, studies and records, including those of the International Committee of the Red Cross, whose records of deaths from all causes across the internment camps totals about 271,000. Here is an article about it, but there are many sources: http://www.rense.com/general69/factua.htm

You say what I write is specific and still you don't seem to be able to give it a specific answer. It's almost like you're trying to prove what I wrote in the very post you just quoted by simply ignoring the arguments that were presented against a claim of yours, then repeating it. That's what I mean when I say that entering a discussion with you is like talking with a random text generator. It really is.

Here is your (repeated) claim again:

There are many documents, studies and records, including those of the International Committee of the Red Cross, whose records of deaths from all causes across the internment camps totals about 271,000.

Here is what I wrote to you one year ago regarding your claim, and what I repeated today in a post you replied to:

First impression:

1) Those scans only mention deaths that have been registered with certificates ("beurkundete Sterbefälle") in a registration office ("Standesamt"). The people that were "gassed" in the camps or shot by the Einsatzgruppen were obviously not registered that way before they were killed.

2) Those numbers were not assembled by the Red Cross but by the "Sonderstandesamt Arolsen", a registration office that issues death certificate for missing persons whose death is confirmed to that authority. The number is continually rising.

3) The first (and newer) document from 1984 has an underlined section near the bottom which - translated into English - states in no uncertain terms: "The certified numbers of the [Sonderstandesamt] don't allow cocnclusions regarding the overall number of deaths in the concentration camps." They obviously had already made their experiences with Holocaust deniers using their documents to misrepresent their data at that point.

Whoever uploaded the scans in this context is either a fraud or talking out of his ass, and he clearly either doesn't understand German or doesn't expect his readers to.

Oh, and I forgot: I think your not supposed to read those two scans as if they represented different numbers that are to be added. The newer on is simply an updated version of the older one with added numbers.

Here is the (outdated) document you are referring to in the latest version of your claim:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_s5yaZ0Ye2...edCrossRecordsShowHolocaustDeathTollFRAUD.jpg

Here is the other, slightly newer version of the above-linked document in which the number has risen to 282,000.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_s5yaZ0Ye2Mo/RrU7Ouu69KI/AAAAAAAACkI/4Ody4MwX-WY/s1600-h/paage_1.jpg

This was from early 1984. 30 years ago. I repeat, this document, a paper of the kind the registration office in Arolsen used to issue on request, says in underlined letters:

The certified numbers of the [Sonderstandesamt] don't allow conclusions regarding the overall number of deaths in the concentration camps.

How hard can it be, Fetzer, to read this, then process this and the fact that it's not the purpose of this Sonderstandesamt to assemble the overall number of jews killed by the Nazis, and then issue a reply to this from which it can be concluded how this information affects the claim you are making regarding this document and the overall number of dead in the Holocaust. Seriously, how hard?

As usual, none of your links actually addresses the question at hand, not even the one that supposedly links to an "article about it". None of them even mentions the particular number of dead you brought up or the document it is from. And again, if in your links there are particular other claims re the Holocaust that you think are important, there is a thread for this here where you can directly post them. Links are not claims and they are not necessarily proper answers either. The way you use them, more often than not they are just evasions.

 

[JayUtah]

I suspect Fetzer would run from that. He needs the peanut gallery to cover for his shortcomings.

As I stated, Fetzer declined many years ago to debate me on the subject of his Apollo claims. And I see he's largely ignoring them here too. I won't speculate about his reasons for doing so. But he seems to have made the mistake of testing the waters first before retreating.

Earlier in this debate, having only his latent writings to go on, I characterized Fetzer's approach to Apollo as simply having endorsed the claims of others whom he arbitrarily claims to be experts on the subject. Based on his limited attention subsequently, I daresay I was right all along in my characterization. He has advanced few if any arguments of his own, and has simply referred us to other claimants.

But if my prediction has any value, we will see very little if anything written further by him on the subject of Apollo.

 

[ComfySlippers]

I watched the video of the "academic conference" as linked to earlier by Mr Fetzer
(Linky-Challenged atm if anyone is brave enough to share it for me)

What an utter pile of nonsense.

The same decades-old rubbish that he "researches", (AKA copying it), with the usual shameless ego-driven self promoting Fetzerisms.

1/ JFK:
The same tired old gibberish.
Nothing to see there, move along.

2/ 9-11:
See No.1
No planes. It was nuclear weapons!

3/ Holocaust:
Utterly vile racism.

I've no idea how or why people get pleasure from spreading carp.
It's not even his own carp, it's "research" you expect a teenager who's discovered the internet to copy and spread.

ETA:
In said video he's still mentioning Jack White's infantile ramblings as being research.

 

[beachnut]

This is silly. It is the 4th of July weekend. We are doing family things. I was on when my laptop ran out. Since I have recharged it. But the quality of comments here really leaves me wondering whether this is not a complete waste of time.

Does your family knows you spread lies about 911 and mock the murder of thousands with the delusional beam weapon?

Waste of time, you lie about 911 and do zero rational research. For your lies you are able to make them up, wasting zero time using science, math, physics, engineering; you make up the lies, you make up the fake evidence. No waste on your side of the BS.

Fantasy is easy, you can't do reality. Does your family know you spread lies about 911?

The quality of your claims, low, beam weapons and dumbed down claims and lies. Better go to the family stuff, and you can lie about 911 later, and not think about the families that lost all on 911. Make up so more lies about Sandy Hook, and the Boston bombers. Ironically, as you make up nonsense about Boston bombers, they are/were some of the few who would believe your fake claims and nonsense on 911.

 

[DGM]

Because I'm nostalgic:

 

[jfetzer]

Fetzer has joined the CODOH forum and is posting in a thread that his "dear friend" Nick Kollerstrom (astro3) opened in honor of his outing, defending himself against accusations that he does not deny the Holocaust vigorously enough. After Kevin Barrett's quote stating that Fetzer now supports "responsible revisionists" that still "admit that there was a Nazi holocaust" drew criticism, Fetzer is quick to point out that those were Barrett's words, not his - much to the relief of his new buddies.

I have gone further in my research than when Kevin wrote that article, where you can find my latest views about the Holocaust (and on some key issues re JFK and 9/11) at "The Academic Freedom Conference: Are there limits to inquiry? JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust", which I have suggested several times would be an appropriate focus for discussion and debate on this thread. My impression is that Bradley Smith will be posting shortly on CODOH about it.

 

[jhunter1163]

After a review, I have not issued any further infractions in this thread, because I would have had to infract everyone. Be advised, though, that further personalization, incivility, and bickering (to include accusations of lying) will lead to either the thread being placed on Moderated status and/or other disciplinary action, possibly including suspensions. If civility in this discussion is not voluntarily maintained, it will be enforced. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[jfetzer]

I watched the video of the "academic conference" as linked to earlier by Mr Fetzer
(Linky-Challenged atm if anyone is brave enough to share it for me)

What an utter pile of nonsense.

The same decades-old rubbish that he "researches", (AKA copying it), with the usual shameless ego-driven self promoting Fetzerisms.

1/ JFK:
The same tired old gibberish.
Nothing to see there, move along.

2/ 9-11:
See No.1
No planes. It was nuclear weapons!

3/ Holocaust:
Utterly vile racism.

I've no idea how or why people get pleasure from spreading carp.
It's not even his own carp, it's "research" you expect a teenager who's discovered the internet to copy and spread.

ETA:
In said video he's still mentioning Jack White's infantile ramblings as being research.

This is an exceptional example of why this thread is a fraud. ComfySlippers obviously knows nothing about JFK or 9/11, because the points I make--which I PROVE using photographic studies and other evidence--are not only among the most important but also the most controversial.

On JFK, I being with a series of studies that substantiate Lee Oswald's claim to Homicide Detective Will Frits that he was "Out with Bill Shelley in front" during the shooting. In the process, I disprove that it could have been Billy Lovelady, who was actually standing beside him in the doorway.

I also prove that the CIA created fake editions of obscure newspapers to convey the false impression that the Altgens had been published the day of the assassination by producing both the real edition and the fake edition of the same newspaper.

I also explain how we now that JFK was hit four times: once in the back (by a shot from behind); once in the throat (by a shot from in front that passed through the windshield); and twice in the head during the limo stop (once in the back of the head from the Dal-Tex and once in the right/temple (from the north end of the Triple Underpass).

On 9/11, I explaln how we know that the Twin Towers were taken out by a sophisticated arrangement of micro or mini nukes, where they were blowing apart in every direction from the top down, being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust and l, unlike WTC-7, left no pile of debris.

I also summaries the evidence that none of the "official" 9/11 aircraft crashed on 9/11, including data from the BTS and records from the FAA. Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled that day and the planes used for Flights 93 and 175 were not formally taken out of service until 28 September 2005.

I explain that Pilots for 9/11 Truth have established that Flight 93 was in the air that day, but that it was over Champaign-Urbana, IL, AFTER it had allegedly crashed in Shanksville; and that Flight 175 was also in the air, but was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, LONG AFTER it had allegedly hit the South Tower.

On the Holocaust, I identify the three key propositions history records: that 6,000,000 Jews died in the gas chambers, where Zykon-B was used to kill them. None of these propositions, however, is able to withstand critical scrutiny.

There were 236 references to 6,000,000 Jews prior to the Nuremberg Tribunal, which began as early as 1890. I offer a sampler and a passage from Leviticus, which appears to have been the source of the claim. It is rooted in theology, not in history.

That is confirmed by the records of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which counted 271,301 deaths from all causes across the camps. These were labor camps, not extermination camps. Dead people cannot perform work and they were being used as slaves.

The Allies had been committing war crimes by bombing German cities, which had the effect of interdicting the railroad lines that would have been used to resupply the camps with food. This led to massive starvation, but it was not because it was Hitler's plan to exterminate the Jews.

Zyklon-B was being used as a disinfectant at those locations, but the alleged "gas chambers" do not show any residue from cyanide gas having been used in them. The story we have been told about the Holocaust thus appears to be the outcome of a political decision to blame Germany for Allied atrocities.

Not only has ComfySlippers deliberately misrepresented the content of this presentation but it reflects the importance of visual data, photos and records that are crucial to demonstrating what actually happened in all three cases. This is a nice test case of the integrity of this thread, which can be measured by this case.

i am therefore concerned that there has been so little interest shown in what I have actually published. The enormity of the discrepancy between what I have done and what is being reported here is staggering. Check it out for yourself at http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/0...-limits-to-inquiry-jfk-911-and-the-holocaust/

 

[DGM]

On 9/11, I explaln how we know that the Twin Towers were taken out by a sophisticated arrangement of micro or mini nukes, where they were blowing apart in every direction from the top down, being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust and l, unlike WTC-7, left no pile of debris.

Considering the documented steel that was collected...................

It wouldn't be too much to ask where you pulled this little tid-bit from?

I'm not calling you a liar, I'm just saying you are sadly mistaken.

 

[MileHighMadness]

Army Corps of Engineers estimate about 309,000 tons of structural steel was recovered from the three WTC sites. None of the steel showed any residue from explosives or thermite.