Support 911Blogger


The Responsibility of the Academy to Illuminate the Truths and Lies of 9/11


A University class taught by Prof. Anthony J. Hall from McMaster University to Lethbridge University on March 2, 2011 using skype. The participants are listed in order of appearance:

Anthony J. Hall is a Professor at the University of Lethbridge (Alberta) where he is the Coordinator/Instructor of the interdisciplinary program of Globalization Studies. He received an Alberta Book Award in 2004 for "The American Empire and the Fourth World."

Joshua Blakeney is Dr. Hall's graduate student (MSc) and Media Coordinator of Globalization Studies at the University of Lethbridge. He is the recipient of the Queen Elizabeth II Graduate Scholarship to study the origins of the Global War on Terror.

Niels Harrit is Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen (Denmark) where he has conducted research on metal complexes and taught for over forty years. He is the lead scientist of the nine-author European, Australian and American peer reviewed study based on the discovery of millions of microscopic red gray chips in the World Trade Center dust. These chips were found to be unburned nanothermite, an ultra high tech incendiary explosive produced by the military which is capable of slicing through steel beams. He has delivered over 90 lectures across the world, including Sweden, Norway, England, Holland, Australia, Spain and the US. He is currently lecturing on evidence for controlled demolition of WTC Building 7 across Canada at five major institutions - University of British Columbia, University of Victoria, McMaster University, University of Western Ontario, and University of Toronto.

Graeme MacQueen is Professor Emeritus of the Religious Studies Department at McMaster University (Hamilton, Ontario). He was one of the founders and directors of McMaster's Centre for Peace Studies, a founder and co-director of the Centre's War and Health programme committee, and was co-director of the three year Health of Children in War Zones project funded by Health Canada. The project was active in three war zones. With colleagues, he has expressed some of the principles utilized in the war and health work of the Centre for Peace Studies in Peace and Change (1997), British Medical Journal (1998), Medical Crossfire (2000) and The Lancet (2001).

Laurie Manwell is PhD candidate in behavioral neuroscience and toxicology at the University of Guelph and a BEd candidate in education at Wilfrid Laurier University (Waterloo). She has published research on the effects of drugs on learning, memory, and behaviour (Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behaviour), on information processing (Psychonomic Bulletin and Review), self-esteem, emotion, and motivation (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology), and cellular and molecular biology (Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology). She recently published an article on the social psychological implications of 9/11 for a special issue of American Behavioral Scientist (2010) including five other articles on State Crimes Against
Democracy (SCADs) with colleagues from the US (Lance deHaven-Smith, Matthew Witt, Christopher Hinson) and Australia (Alexander Kouzmin, Kyme Thorne).

Michael Truscello is Assistant Professor in the Department of English at Mount Royal University (Calgary, Alberta). His research interests include digital media (software theory; free and open source software; rhetoric and science and technology; social media), post anarchism and alternative media.

Colin Salter is an Assistant Professor at McMaster University in Canada (Hamilton, Ontario). He has a broad interest in the dynamics of disputes including scientific and technological controversies, though he is more directly interested in those surrounding animal, environmental and/or social justice issues.

speculation weakens the argument

I really enjoyed this conversation - good to see this group of people gathered together, furthering free and democratic debate.

I have one bugbear - and that is the opening statement by grad student (Joshua if I'm not mistaken?). Anthony Hall handed over the opening statement to this guy (acknowledging he was junior to the others) and this young student proceeded to issue the following ill-advised speculative statement, unsupported by evidence: "Israel's fingerprints are all over 911".

Does this not gift people like journalist Jonathan Kay, who label us speculative or 'anti-Semitic'? This statement made our group cringe - I was watching with a couple of grad students. None of us is lucky enough to be on a $7700 scholarship, but we would never have presumed to make such a (non-scholarly) generalisation.

We wondered why Hall gave this junior the all-important opening statement and did not rather allow the always articulate and careful Dr MacQueen to set the stage?

This is posted in the spirit of constructive criticism, by the way. I'd be interested to hear what others think.

Joshua would like to respond

My friend Joshua asked me today if I could post his response to Simple Truth but I declined respectfully for all parties.

I've directed Joshua to respond with his comments to 9/11 Blogger moderators using the http://911blogger.com/contact method for non registered commentators .
So hopefully you'll have Josh's response very soon .

Cheers!

Niels Harrit nods along including when Joshua says

"I began to realise that the Israel/Palestine conflict; the assault against the Arab and Muslim peoples in the country that was wiped off the map, Palestine and 9/11 are not two separate issues..." at that, Niels' eyebrows go up.

Joshua also mentions not having known what hit the pentagon without clarifying that we do now know- poor research! - Dr. Frank Legge and Warren Stutt's peer-reviewed paper on the pentagon is available online:
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-01-08/new-paper-journal-911-studies

+ a bushism ! :
"I think when one thinks about how ridiculous it is that we get..."

student report-
could do better !

It's great to see these two great minds together

Off the topic a bit, just discovered this photo today, added this YouTube video for folks here to see Joshua in action...
We are very fortunate to have both Joshua and Anthony in Alberta fighting for 9/11 truth. That's my thought.

Joshua Blakeney and Former British MP- George Galloway - March 13 - 2011
http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/197593_10150450175120175_...

5 months earlier in Calgary Alberta Canada last November...
George Galloway asked about 9/11 by Anthony J. Hall and Joshua Blakeney in Calgary (part 1 of 2)

They failed to correct

Galloway's sad attempt at debunking. He tried to claim it ridiculous to assert that Ahmed wired the money to Atta while at the SAME TIME being in the US on the day of the attack. He could have been easily corrected and schooled on the fact that no one claims the money transfer and the visit happened on the same day. Simple as that. He did wire the money and did come to the US on the day of the attack. Galloway's description of it was straw-man twisted garbage. I'm starting to doubt calling them "great minds" personally. See Joshua's antisemitic stuff below as well as his non-responses to criticism.

Just to clarify that I have made no anti-Semitic remarks

I just edited this You Tube video which contains all my contributions from the Skype conference. kdub's claims that I am propagating "antisemitic [sic] stuff" are fraudulent and defamatory.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=20fJtsWIMCQ

Why won't you just respond to the comments below

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-03-08/responsibility-academy-illuminate-...

Which I reference why your hasty generalizations come of as Anti-Semitic. Regardless of your intentions, this is the reality. Would you mind responding to that as well as to loosenukes thoughtful points? Will you still continue to endorse and reference Kevin Barrett, whom people have shown you in this thread displays incredibly offensive behavior and embraces awful research (to put it lightly)?

I could not agree more simple truths.

You didn't even mention that right before he drops his comment about Israel's hands being ALL OVER 9/11, the VERY FIRST example he gives is about the "mysterious explosion" at the pentagon. What's also off here is that he is trying to say how he doesn't want to be called a conspiracy theorist and how he is attacked for doing so. Then he says he says that he, as a marxist , is a by definition of conspiracy theorist. And in between these conspiracy theory defining introduction he drops his two "theories." That's what he did when he brought up both "israeli fingerprints" as well as a real "mysterious explosion" at the pentagon. These are both Conspiracy Theories. There were not statements made to back them up. the connections that some claim to draw between Israel and 9/11 need to be spoken of in a factual display and reference only. Saying "israeli finger prints are all over 9/11" is a GROSS and FALSE overstatement. There is NO QUESTION that it weakens ones argument to make audacious (cause that's what statements like these are without back up). It is a false statement because we don't know what happened on 9/11, and there isn't proof of Israeli connections to an 'all over' degree. The alleged "mysterious pentagon explosion" is not a mystery to the average American. It is not a mystery to the people who have covered this subject to help clear up any mystery's for years now! Letting our own personal agenda's get the best of us is a one way ticket to discreditable land. I understand people are passionate about all kinds of issues and tops, but if you go to a public forum to talk about 9/11, and don't bite your tongue on your theories and your issues....9/11 truth loses, EVERYTIME!

Congratulations to Canadian student for scholarship to study 9/1

This is what we need, more studies on 9/11, hopefully published in peer reviewed journals.

To clarify

Further to my previous comment, I do not want to unfairly pick on Dr Hall's graduate student.

But I am concerned people who are against loosely conflating issues will switch off after listening to three minutes of Blakeney's opening which
(a) links 'the Israel-Palestine issue' directly with 911 without a single piece of supporting evidence
(b) claims there are 'Israel fingerprints all over 911' without a single piece of supporting evidence

These loose claims tend to taint discussion and are best avoided in serious discourse. If you have compelling evidence - that's another story, of course and you need to carefully present that with verifiable references.

I notice Dr Hall mildly admonished his student on-camera straight afterwards. Too late, in my opinion, as the potential damage (turning people away throught the use of non-scholarly conflation, getting them to switch off right at the beginning) had possibly been done. Disrespectful to the oher senior academics in the room, who have already done much spadework on the subject.

Am I being over-sensitive? Does it matter if potentially polarising generalisations are voiced immediately prior to statements by some of our strongest spokespeople like Dr MacQueen, Dr Harrit, Prof Manwell?

Show "Response From Joshua Blakeney to Simple Truths " by Joshua Blakeney

"I am not claiming that I

"I am not claiming that I have proof Likudniks did 9/11"

if u don't have proof, it's good not to say so - and if you do, links are better.

"but I do claim that Likudnik fingerprints are all over 9/11. ... I think those who really aspire to find out who orchestrated 9/11 should contemplate the vast literature which suggests that the Global War on Terror was primarily a construct of a Likudnik faction which used the political tactic of entryism to guide Republican Middle East policy towards what they perceived were Israel's interests."

As support for this claim, you say you "mentioned for example Larry Silverstein's close relationship with Netanyahu. I mentioned the Mossad agents apprehended after dubious activity in NYC on 9/11. I provided an historical context by partially adumbrating Israel's extensive history of false-flag terrorism. I mentioned the Likudnik inclination of many neocons."

There's also the DEA report about the Mossad art students who lived near the Atta et al in FL (got $100K wired from Saeed Sheikh and [EDIT for sp.: Mahmood Ahmed] head of the ISI) and NY/NJ, and Al-Hazmi and Almihdhar who were helped by incl lived with FBI informants and Saudi agents and Royalty in CA, and who the CIA and other intel agencies were monitoring overseas, knew were in the US and on a number of occasions failed to share or hid info from the FBI. The alleged hijackers were let in and out of the US w/ expired, fraudulent and ineligible applications. Some of this stuff is even in the Commission Report, but the Bush Administration had final review of the report and withheld material is not identified, unlike the JICI report which has 28 redacted pages primarily on Saudi links.

"In any investigation the first question which should be asked is: cui bono?"

the Commission ignored their own conflicts of interest and failed to investigate Israel's links. However, this has all been documented and there's no new information. Certainly Israel's role would be a part of any honest investigation, but so should the Saudi GID/Royals and Pakistani ISI questions and evidence, and also the evidence that the MIC, the people who failed to stop the alleged plot at the border, despite plenty of warnings and intel, who failed to intercept the planes, and who knows who mined the towers, but people in the US MIC could and not many others could for sure. In addition, people in the MIC benefited enormously; everything from promotions, raises, increased authority and budgets, two wars, over a million dead, a global 'war on terror', limits on congressional and public oversight, warrantless spying, torture, indefinite detention, no accountability and a story that the pols, pundits, MSM pretend is credible.

Plenty more here http://911truthnews.com/the-facts-speak-for-themselves/

A new investigation or truth and reconciliation commission would look into all these things and more. To focus just on Israel is a mistake, in addition to giving people the excuse to pull the anti-semite card.

Focus

Thanks Erik for your comment. I have only one point:

Joshua said:
"I think those who really aspire to find out who orchestrated 9/11 should contemplate the vast literature which suggests that the Global War on Terror was primarily a construct of a Likudnik faction which used the political tactic of entryism to guide Republican Middle East policy towards what they perceived were Israel's interests."

I think we should look closer at these issue. Only if we look at the history we can safely assume that 9/11 wasn't something really new for the ones who used similar concepts all along...Hints: Irgun, King David Hotel Bombing, Lavon Affair, USS Liberty, Diana Ralph, Craig Murray and his allegations about Entebbe and PFLP...
http://911blogger.com/news/2007-07-28/1979-birth-year-international-terr...
http://911blogger.com/news/2008-06-29/islamophobia-and-war-terror-contin...
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2007/06/entebbe-revised-edition.html

And this is underreported at 911blogger. It's most important because of the theorethical concept, which accompanied motive, means and opportunities.
Let's say: Mix the MIC (and if you look closer it's only a handful of companies who are suspiscious over the top) with the "Vulcanoes", the "Team B" players, the PNAC's, the "noble lie" believers together with the "Safari Club", and look closer at some of their actions which were dismantled over time, BCCI, Iran-Contra, the sowjet hidden topsecret arms and so on, and someone could not say "There is no possibility that anyone other than Osama did carry out the attacks" anymore. Because such theoretical dismantling is amiss, we have such a difficult standing to overwhelm cognitive dissonance. In playing the "antisemite" card or warn about this in relation to all of this does us no favor!

"Only if we look at the

"Only if we look at the history we can safely assume that 9/11 wasn't something really new for the ones who used similar concepts all along...Hints: Irgun, King David Hotel Bombing, Lavon Affair, USS Liberty, Diana Ralph, Craig Murray and his allegations about Entebbe and PFLP..."

Connection to a previous false flag attack isn't proof of connection to another one, nor does it prove that 9/11 was one. However, documented plans and operations can expose falsehoods and omission of relevant info from the official narrative, and can provide clues useful in a real investigation.

Sitting-Bull, you've noted a number of incidents w/ Mossad/Israeli links, but what about ones the US MIC/US elites are linked to? The Maine, used to justify the Spanish-American war, the annexation of Hawaii, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods, JFK assassination blamed on Oswald, MLK on Ray, RFK on Sirhan, the use of 9/11 to justify the invasion of Afghanistan w/o publicly presented evidence of Al Qaeda/Bin Laden role, the WMD/Hussein links to 9/11 lies to justify Iraq, etc.

So why are you singling out Israel/Mossad? Especially when they aren't responsible for US intel, law enforcement, investigations and defense?

"And this is underreported at 911blogger. It's most important because of the theorethical concept, which accompanied motive, means and opportunities."

I disagree; you provided links to posts where some of these things are covered, and all the evidence linking Israel to 9/11 has been covered and discussed here. If anything isn't, submit a post. And, while 911blogger does post oped pieces, this site is oriented toward credible research and news coverage. Personally, I don't see a need for a steady stream of oped pieces focusing on the same old and relatively small amount of evidence indicating some kind of Israeli role in connection w/ 9/11. Repeating old news and focusing on the Israel evidence is certainly titillating to those who seek to demonize Jews and blame 9/11 entirely or primarily on Jews. It's also useful to those who wish to frame the 9/11 truth movement as anti-Jew, thus discrediting it.

Josh:"I am not claiming that

Josh:"I am not claiming that I have proof Likudniks did 9/11"

Loose Nuke: if u don't have proof, it's good not to say so - and if you do, links are better.I also affirmed that I wasn't claiming that I had full evidence that Israeli agents were behind 9/11.

my comment: Look he also used the same psuedo-back peddle here:

 "I also affirmed that I wasn't claiming that I had full evidence that Israeli agents were behind 9/11."

See the point is Joshua that your big bold theoretical conclusions are going to be taken as offensive, by not just Jew's, but all thoughtful people because they are FALSE.

" I mentioned the Mossad agents apprehended after dubious activity in NYC on 9/11."
Doesn't at all imply that they were ALL OVER IT.

" I provided an historical context by partially adumbrating Israel's extensive history of false-flag terrorism."

Appealing to history? Well to bad this doesn't prove anything directly with 9/11, let alone befitting of "fingerprints all over."

"I mentioned the Likudnik inclination of many neocons. "
Oh yea? Cause some of them are jewish?

"I also affirmed that I wasn't claiming that I had full evidence that Israeli agents were behind 9/11."
If you are not claiming this you need to re-think about the way you present these ideas. The bold claims you make come off as that YOU somehow have full evidence.

And oh God, you bring up Kevin Barrett in the same breath you are trying to say you are NOT anti-semitic. I'm offended. Douglas Hilton posted this later in the thread, but Joshua it would help you to read it a couple times.
http://911truthnews.com/a-response-to-kevin-barretts-attacks/

I'm sick of "real live" anti-semitism being insidiously snuck in through hasty generalizations. It frankly hurts any solutions to the Palestinian conflict Joshua wants to fix. It uses both the Palestinians and the Jew's to spread ones own personal bigotry. There is no need to cloud real issues this way. If we stick to hard facts, then minds open and solutions begin. Furthermore, to help clarify where I'm coming from, I'm a Jew, who supports a two-state settlement with real hegemony. Joshua has failed prove his conspiracy theory. He has even attached a link to a researcher who has grown to help define modern anti-semitism. Time to shape up our truth.

I'm proud that I and some others here

called you out on your racist garbage.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/03/23/israels-fingerprints-are-all-ove...

Amazing that you have made this your platform. You are fueling the conflicts you claim to be against as I have illustrated above. You keep reposting Barrett links. I am disgusted.

Like Michael Parenti

I don't think empires happen by accident- not the Roman empire, not the British empire and not the American empire.
Western industrialists and bankers through funding the rise of the Nazis struck at the region of Rothschild power where that king-maker banking family then lost control of central banks it had in european countries and for example in Austria lost all its mansions/chateaus, not to be returned to them for 50 years after WWII, and the Western industrialists caused the conditions which made people willing to form Israel which is dependent on U.S. support.
I wouldnt believe the legend that the West has an entity, Israel, with which it shares common cause just because thats how things worked out after WWII. Like I said, I don't believe that empires spread by accident. I think that Israel is the spread of American empire by proxy into the near middle east.
Israel is willingly populated by people who have a belief about why they're there and beliefs are great for motivating the masses incl Israel's masses but I think that Israel is a vulnerable client state built by the west for the west.
To say this outpost of empire is controlling the empire is putting the cart before the horse.
There can of course be people within the government/industry of Israel and within The Mossad who see common cause with the Neocons but when one talks about whose fingerprints are all over 9/11 one needs first of all to mention Dick Cheney.
I'm not aware of Silverstein being involved in the masterminding of 9/11. He may be guilty of assisting a coverup and he certainly did profit but all we have on him is what he said after the events of that day "pull it" . So he could be proven to have lied about that but perhaps he feared for his life at the hands of the neocons. Perhaps he's an opportunist. Is his manner of insuring the WTC absolute stand-up-in-court proof positive that he was in on 9/11 ?
This Israel avenue merits some consideration of course but doesn't yield any where near as much fruit as looking at the neocons where we can name names, and hopefully one day someone will act on the hard evidence in Crossing the Rubicon which has 1000 footnotes for you to research,and which IS stand-up-in-court proof positive of, just for starters, the guilt of Dick Cheney.

About hard evidence:

from 9:09 in the following:

Kevin Barrett

is persona non-grata here with good cause

http://911truthnews.com/a-response-to-kevin-barretts-attacks/

Joshua, represent better for the UK

Look forward to meeting you some time - at Dave Cameron's place perhaps !

Civil Disobedience for 9/11 Justice at Downing Street

Thanks for the response

I appreciate your response Joshua. It wasn't your later comments that (particularly) irked me, though I take issue with some of them. On those, I share the views expressed here by Douglas and Loose Nuke.

It was the fact that an opening statement (imo) sets the tone for further discussion and send signals as to whether we should take seriously the comments that follow.

You refer to the anti-apartheid struggle, so let's look at a hypothetical: Let's say three heavyweights - like Sisulu, Tambo and Slovo - had been lined up to speak to a global audience during the anti-apartheid struggle and a student had opened the floor with a talk about how 'US Republican Party fingerprints' were all over events like assassinations and waterboarding at Vlakplaas. If you look back at that history, it is remarkable how the core leaders of that struggle stuck rigorously to the facts, measured their words in public statements and earned respect for it..

I am of course aware that the 'anti-semitic' card can be played like the 'racist' and 'conspiracy nutter' card in order to shut down and belittle debate. Unfortunately, many are sensitive to its insidious effect.

I respect your decision to plough on in the face of this. My point is that one has to be aware of how loosely uttered words - unbacked by hard evidence - can be twisted and used to choke both you and those in your vicinity.

I think one has to be especially careful of this in discussion of 11/09 - where cognitive dissonance and a mainstream media blackout means many are stuck in the '911 discussion is for nutters' meme. Some people are quick to look for signs of 'irrationality', 'anti-semitism', or 'sweeping generalisations' to use as a stick against your argument. In any event that's what I have been up against, though recently, in my part of the world, there is far more of a growing awareness of the lies the world was fed.

?!

0:11:02
Joshua Blakeney
"Israel's fingerprints are all over 9/11."

1:39:28
Joshua Blakeney:
"I didn't say Israel was behind 9/11."

I think the two quotes would easily seem at odds with each other to many people.

innocent until proven guilty

To say that someone's fingerprints are all over a crime is not to say they are definitely guilty of the crime. If I had said "Israel was behind 9/11" (as Prof. Truscello misinterpreted my words) I would have been implying that it had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Israel did 9/11. I did not claim this. I think most astute readers would not conceive of the two statements cited as being at odds with each other. I think most lawyers and judges would be able to distinguish between someone being guilty of a crime and someone's fingerprints being all over a crime. Sometimes it is the case that the fingerprints are those of the criminal. On other occasions the fingerprints are not those of the criminal.

I'm merely attempting to keep the Likudnik faction on the suspects list as we move into the important period of the 10th anniversary. Thus, I employed the more benign statement that "Israel's fingerprints are all over 9/11" which seems irrefutable to me. I would like to see the individuals who constitute the Likudnik faction brought before a court of law. They are innocent until proven guilty nonetheless.

I found this interesting analysis of the post 9/11 world order by Naomi Klein yesterday she opines:

"Common wisdom has it that after 9/11, a new era of geo-politics was ushered in, defined by what is usually called the Bush doctrine: pre-emptive wars, attacks on terrorist infrastructure (read: entire countries), an insistence that all the enemy understands is force. In fact, it would be more accurate to call this rigid worldview the Likud doctrine. What happened on September 11 2001 is that the Likud doctrine, previously targeted against Palestinians, was picked up by the most powerful nation on earth and applied on a global scale. Call it the Likudisation of the world: the real legacy of 9/11." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/10/russia.comment1

Blakeney's application of semantics to questions of 9/11 guilt

Mr. Blakeney, you have not responded to my reply to you above.

Re: your comment immediately above - The phrase 'fingerprints' in common usage implies the speaker believes in the guilt of the party possessing the fingers that left the prints, and most people are going to take Blakeney's statement in the way Truscello 'misinterpreted' it - especially as Blakeney said "Israel's fingerprints are all over 9/11."

Mr. Blakeney, you seem so certain of the 9/11 complicity of a 'Likudnik faction', despite asserting they're "innocent until proven guilty," that you say, "I would like to see the individuals who constitute the Likudnik faction brought before a court of law." I agree that an honest investigation would pursue evidence and questions wherever they lead, but you have not cited evidence that would justify charges and a court case against a 'Likudnik faction', let alone evidence that would lead an impartial jury to conclude guilt beyond reasonable doubt, or even that there's a preponderance of evidence.

If it's evidence you find persuasive, what of the evidence of logistical and financial support by US allies such as Saudi Arabia's Royals/GID and Pakistan's ISI?
What about the role of the US MIC and certain parties in the Bush Administration, INS, CIA, FBI, NSA, FAA, NMCC, NORAD and Secret Service? These are US citizens who swore an oath to defend the Constitution. These agencies and personnel were tasked w/ the nation's defense and failed to disrupt the plot. After 9/11 those who 'failed' were rewarded and given license to wage wars w/o oversight, while whistleblowers were threatened and punished. Some of those who failed acted bizarrely and in ways that helped 9/11 happen, and/or obstructed investigation of the plot. Some of these people are neocons and American Jews, but most of the persons of interest are not Jews or Likudniks. There's a wealth of evidence pointing to a role by persons other than Islamic radicals, that is far more damning than the small amount pointing to Israeli 9/11 foreknowledge and possible Bush Administration-linked Jewish American neocon assistance of the plot. http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Mr. Blakeney, you say, "I'm merely attempting to keep the Likudnik faction on the suspects list as we move into the important period of the 10th anniversary." What is the reason you are so intently focused on Israel, and not on the non-'Likudniks'?

Joshua

Best to go with the hard evidence.

Have you read Crossing the Rubicon ?

I still think

the two quotes would easily seem at odds with each other to many people.

What would a newcomer to 9/11 truth think?

The 2 quotes to the man in the street mean more or less the same.

"fingerprints are all over" is common parlance for an insinuation of guilt

You need to consider that people will take in your words and derive meaning from them using what they most likely see as the meaning of various phrases you use.

Just finished viewing everything.

Despite my earlier comments I'm impressed overall with the presentation.
Prof Hall speaks eloquently and at length- please remember he's teaching a class so it's not a symposium where one would expect each person to have equal time on the mic- i.e. when he talks quite a lot to guide the course he's doing it as he has to keep the lecture relevant to the course and students he's teaching.
I'm impressed with Prof Hall, Niels, Laurie, Graeme, Michael Truscello and Colin Salter

Regarding the subject- The Responsibility of the Academy to Illuminate the Truths and Lies of 9/11.

Well done ! You're in academia and you're doing it !

Show "Reflections on the Experience" by Anthony J. Hall

Prof Hall

If your name is on something I'll check it out even if I don't agree 100% with you. We don't have to in order to get a new investigation.

discrediting claims and associations

Prof. Hall: "I don't always agree with Dr. Barrett but I am always attentive to the news and views he brings forward. He has long since earned his role as a committed and prolific fixture in our movement with a huge record of contributions to the stuff of 9/11 Truth. I recognize Dr. Barrett as a formidable force for 9/11 Truth whose approach to the subject is often that of a highly-accomplished academic"

Prof. Hall, perhaps you're unfamiliar with Barrett's record, which over the last several years has been a consistent discredit to the 9/11 truth movement:

"Over the past several years, Kevin Barrett has provided us with an endless series of offensive and discrediting actions: Jew baiting, Holocaust denial, advocating violence, promotion of some of the worst debunked 9/11 theories, calls for journalists to be hanged, suggesting zionists be put in concentration camps, calls for Americans to support the Taliban, accusing activists of being agents, arrests for domestic abuse – on and on and on. The corporate media love to feature him because he provides so much material with which to discredit our cause."
http://911truthnews.com/a-response-to-kevin-barretts-attacks/

And see this thread for documentation of many, many other discrediting statements and actions by Barrett:
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1887

thanks for response

I was the one who reacted with the initial hair-trigger criticism of Blakeney's words.
I have a history in the anti-apartheid struggle. We kept a sharp eye open for 'loose cannons' during that time because, intentionally or not, they had the potential to disrupt and disable. Words were precious. You measured them and used them very carefully. You did not gift the opposition.

I don't regret speaking up rather impulsively as I did because I think a helpful discussion has ensued here - hats off to 911Blogger for hosting it.

Take me as a newcomer to 911Blogger, someone learning and reading about the issue, plugging into this site a couple of times a week to try and learn more. Perhaps you are right in your criticisms of Blogger, Prof Hall. I haven't been around here long enough to know.

I live in the southern hemisphere - far from the in-house personality clashes that may take place in Canada or the US. There are many people around the world who have found a D.R. Griffin book in a local bookshop or been sent a YouTube interview that opened their eyes.

But newcomers find it hard sometimes to work out which spokespeople have integrity; which spokespeople have an agenda. From afar, we see accusations of 'crazy conspiracist' and 'anti-Semite' flying about.

'Conspiracist' is water off a duck's back around my corner of the world, for obvious reasons. Did groups of people conspire (ie work together in a non-transparent manner to further private agenda) in South Africa during the 20th century to disenfranchise, side-line and silence other groups of people? Yes. The conspiracy was proven true.

Kevin Barret? I've looked into him and certainly find the odd phrase and statement in his body of work that gives me pause. Should I judge him on this? Probably not, but for the moment I'm a little wary.

By contrast, people like Dr Graeme MacQueen and Laurie Manwell measure their words carefully, which engenders trust.

I apologise if I have misunderstood or misrepresented any part of what you have said. I see you have made very many valuable contributions yourself. I perhaps didn't fully appreciate the lecture was 'a process in action'.

Prof hall

perhaps you haven't gone through the links in this which is being posted on this thread now for the third time

http://911truthnews.com/a-response-to-kevin-barretts-attacks/

Kevin Barrett's bigotry and childish behavior receives it's due criticism. Your attempts to paint the picture as some it's 9/11 blogger vs Barrett are also false. How can you be upset that people are critical of someone exhibiting this kind of behavior and then attaching himself as a true rep of 9/11 truth. I'm hoping you just aren't aware of all that he has been up to. His edited photos of Anne Frank for instance are beyond offensive. http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1887&postdays=0&postorder=a... This defines modern antisemitism. Sorry

"Consistently the source of the most severe attacks have given us hints about who seems to be most zealous to maintain the draconian nature of the cover-up. That may have been a factor in Joshua's decision to begin the narrative as he did."

So a passive aggressive statement to imply that what, Israel is the "most zealous" to maintain a cover up and Josh's comment that their fingerprints are ALL OVER as his opener is the truth??? Are you still defending his claim, cause he failed to back it up in his responses. Audacious bold statements like these I explained earlier are false and thus serve to discredit the truth. Hare trigger HARDLY. What "simple truth" said was well thought out and very well observed. Opening with claims about not knowing what happened at the pentagon, immediately followed by Israel being all over the attack are complete mis-characterizations of the truth. They are conspiracy theories. They discredit 9/11 truth!! There are even racist connotations to one of them.

The only time I've ever heard Barret was on RT

On 9/11/09 [Kevin Barrett] told Russia Today TV that ... "Larry Silverstein "confessed" to blowing up WTC7, that Silverstein profited by $20 billion from the destruction of the WTC,...etc, etc

If you are lucky enough to be interviewed on TV, surely you make the most of the opportunity and go with the strongest, most relevant, points? A focus on Silverstein proves nothing..

Anyhow, thanks for the heads-up, kdub - I looked at the links you provide and my opinion of Barret has not strengthened. The FaceBook site is a cauldron and I wonder why a prominent academic like Barret would choose to waste his time there.

The best spokespeople help discussion move forward in a productive, scholarly and respectful way. People tend to recognise their integrity and learn from their delivery.

Spokespeople who continually make broadbrush, ambiguous or speculative statements tend to gift the critics and discomfort their peers.

the strongest, most relevant, points

btw,

Where RU SnowCrash ? I recall you were busy getting something ready...

Who? Me?

What am I getting ready? I have many things vying for my attention right now. Some courtesy prevents me from mentioning, and some have priority over others... :-)

Still no response

Prof Hall, you still defending Barrett?

You're defending...

Kevin Barrett? Really?

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=98480&postcount=1

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=97772&postcount=1

Poor, poor Kevin. He is the "innocent" in all of this, right? Absurd. You should probably learn what it is you're talking about before you say a word.

Legendary video by Prof. Anthony Hall: 9/11 & the Academy

thanks for the trailer

looks fine

I'll check out the 2 part video on video google

Anthony J. Hall goes public on the lies and crimes of 9/11

If I may add this historical 6 Part YouTube series: http://www.youtube.com/user/hawkeyicockburn?feature=mhum#g/c/1C65DD5A165...

Filmed September 6, 2008 "The Lies and Crimes of 911- A Canadian View of the War on Terror's Origins"
by Prof. Anthony J. Hall. Paper presented at the first of 3 'Edmonton Questions 9/11' Conferences.
Complete paper can be found at Global Research http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10117

3 "Edmonton Questions 9/11" events included guest speakers ...
- Barrie Zwicker, Dr. Kevin Barrett, Captain Bruce Sinclair of Pilots of 9/11 Truth, and most recently Dr Niels Harrit

We are very fortunate to have had all these great people in Edmonton and we wish them much success with 9/11 truth
All very cool presenters, highly recommended!!!!

Barrie Zwicker comes across as

a very nice, ernest man.

Douglas re-read this

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-27/911bloggercom-accused-leading-911-...

Barrie was part of this attack campaign on blogger. I didn't find this to be nice or honest.

.

.

...who's got it wrong

As Prof Jones commented on Blogger - he said something like " I hope my friend B Z will view this new peer reviewed evidence on the pentagon."

BZ seems to me like a nice, ernest man who has got it wrong and I join Prof Jones in hoping that the man will have a brainwave and think - "what if ?" then go read the peer reviewed stuff

Barrie- PEER REVIEWED BABY !!!!! That's where it's at !!!

Come on in - the water's lovely !!!