Is it racist to go along with the hijacker legend?

[Keith Mothersson]

[Lengthy Draft Paper published for initial consultation – help needed, please advise; discussion hopefully also at http://www.truthforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=155]

‘There comes a time when silence is betrayal’ (Martin Luther King) -

Is it racist and/or Islamophobic to continue to subscribe to the official story of 9/11? Should we not denounce it as a racist rumour?

Context 1: Attribution of Muslim culpability for 9/11
Within 40 seconds of a fiery hole opening high up in the South Tower (from whatever cause) Fox News had discerned Bin Laden’s fingerprints all over it.

Mainstream media editors immediately tasked Middle-East photo-journalist contacts to ‘go out into the street and take pictures of Arabs rejoicing’. No such pictures being forthcoming, some US papers deceptively recycled old pictures of Palestinians celebrating a local victory in their Intifada as proof of how much ‘these people hate us and our way of life, that they should celebrate such a terrible tragedy’ (initial 9/11 death toll then being placed around 10,000).

Immediately after 9/11 it was announced that a suitcase had conveniently turned up containing a Boeing Flight Manual and a ‘Koran’, as well as Mohammad Atta’s ‘devout Muslim will’ and a list of his 18 Arab collaborators.

Subsequently Friday, 28 September the Karachi-based Urdu-language newspaper, Ummat, carried an important interview with Bin Laden in which he categorically denied responsibility:

"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.”

Bin Laden went on to canvass various possible suspects, including Israel and the intelligence services, who were in dire need of an evil enemy to replace the Soviet Union. (of course Bin Laden had had many dealings with the CIA himself!, but in this interview he burns his bridges, since he realises the US are out to kill him in ernest now)

“Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed. …. Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks.” (http://www.public-action.com/911/oblintrv.html)

This denial received no publicity in the West, where fake ‘Bin Laden’ videos were given ready credence, e.g. ‘co-incidental’ autumn 2001 find in an abandoned ‘Al-Qaida office’ in Jalalabad of a homemovie featuring a broad-nosed ‘fatty Bin Laden’ boasting of his prescience that the hijacked planes would surely bring the Towers down entirely. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41UAnkQARFs&NR=1.

This ‘smoking gun confession’ was solemnly relayed at face value by Western media, but met with huge derision in the Middle East, one reason why the spooks switched from an actor to computerized Forest Gump meets JFK style videofakery from 2002 onwards.

Context 2: Islamophobia in the UK post 9/11 and 7/7
I have just watched Peter Oborne’s C4 Dispatches programme on July 7th 2008, in which the following poll results were announced:

61 percent of British Muslims believe hostility to them has worsened since the London bombings.
36 percent report that they or a family member has suffered abuse in that period.
51 percent of British public blame Islam for the London bombings
26 percent see the presence of Muslim in Britain as a threat to national security.
70 percent agree that hostility to Muslims has increased since 7-7.

69 percent of media stories show Muslims as a source of problems (Cardiff University study).

For all Peter Oborne’s commendable concern, he never once stopped to consider whether the story of the London bombings was fundamentally true or false, or possibly some yet to be determined mixture of truth and falsehood – this despite a Channel Four poll of June/July 2007 which revealed that almost three in five British Muslims believe the government hasn't told the whole truth about the July the 7th bombings. Nearly a quarter don't believe the four men identified as the London bombers were responsible for the attacks - and more than half say the intelligence services have made up evidence to convict terrorist suspects. http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/religion/survey+governme nt+hasnt+told+truth+about+77/545847

Many non-Muslims are of like mind, though in smaller, but still significant percentages. (On the July 7 murders see the devastating critique of the official narrative on the impeccably factual website www.julyseventh.co.uk and its associated discussion forum, which carries extremely well-informed and sharp analysis of e.g. terror scares and trials.) Similar skepticism is widespread concerning September 11, and even more so in the US, where one CBS/New York Times poll of November 2006 showed only 16 percent still satisfied with the official story.

At a time when the lucrative Terrorism Industry are warning that ‘it is not a matter of if but when there will be another large scale terrorist attack in the UK’, many young Muslims are afraid to speak out or go on the internet to search out alternative perspectives, for fear of being branded disloyal. Relatively few Muslim community leaders have joined Dr Naseem, Chair of Birmingham Central Mosque, in calling the official accounts of both 9/11 and 7/7 into serious question. The result is that many young Muslims lack role models and confidence to express their faith publicly and politically –

“ When asked: 'What kind of jihad is better?'’ Muhammad replied, 'A word of truth in front of an oppressive ruler!' " Sunan Al-Nasa'i, Hadith 4209.

This understandable reaction - for lack of confidence that they will experience solidarity from supposed allies - this holding back by Muslim community leaders from voicing genuine views which are very widely held in many Muslim communities may carry serious public mental health implications, and is surely a contributory driver for alienating young people, with the twin risks that they might either incorporate negative ‘war on Terror’/’Clash of Civilisation’ stereotypes into their own sense of identity, or become vulnerable to those who might seek to recruit them for terrorist ends (who may be ‘genuine’ religious extremists and/or quite possibly linked in with devious and sinister games of the security services).

It is therefore vital that Muslims find community leaders and reliable non-Muslim allies to take the lead in the fight back, not just against the war(s) but also against the lies which led to the wars. But at present sections of the State’s Terror industry see the internet as a breeding ground of extremism, and not also a vital resource for understanding our society, especially when a) the mainstream media carry lies about Muslims and b) even non-Muslims who seek to expose wrong-doing by the powerful are routinely ridiculed as ‘conspiracy theorists’.

The struggle (jihad) for truth is a spiritual discipline for the sake of society as a whole and our own sanity, and if we are Muslims, our own self-respect. If Muslims who oppose 9/11 propaganda can be free to organize politically as Muslims opposed to all forms of terrorism (properly so-called) – in their own communities, in society at large and in interfaith contexts, without this being seen as an inherently subversive activity, this will be the exact opposite of any kind of ‘precursor activity’ to terrorism.

Understanding 9/11 and 7/7 could be the real keys to ‘tackling terrorism’ and reducing non-Muslims’ fear of Muslims, which is being whipped up by the usual suspects for geo-political advantage. If the 9/11 story is founded on a racist lie, it is vital that Muslims and their allies stop accepting it and instead challenge the leaders of ‘progressive opinion’ to say why, in the absence of credible court-worthy evidence concerning the perpetration of the September 11 Act of Mass Destruction, they give continued credence to very much the same fasiqs who brought us tales of Saddam’s WMD.

“Ye who are conscious of God – if a fasiq [untrustworthy violent person] comes to you with alarming news, make sure you verify their word, lest you afflict people out of your ignorance, and regret your actions.” Holy Qu’ran, 49:6

Context 3: What's the logic of this charge?
In an e-mail thread about the Future of the 911 Truth Campaign, a colleague, call him S, wrote:

[Keith Mothersson]

Hi Keith,

This is excellent. I just skimmed through it and I shall have a deeper look at it tonight. I shall share this with my Brothers and
Sisters. Meantime, I am sure Paul and Ants will place this on the website.

Regards

Riaz Ahmed

www.al-balaagh.com
www.people-power.net

[Keith Mothersson]

[The next sequence of replies and replies to replies are posted up on this site from an e-mail discussion- with participants' agreement - please join in the debate, which we hope will be deep, far-reaching and CIVIL, please!]

When Timonthy McVeigh was given the blame for the OCK Bombings, was this the white race turning on itself?

Is it racist to say that the 93 WTC Bombings involved genuine Islamist Terrorists, albeit facilitated by the US Gov, seeing as any suggestion that Islamist Terrorism exists is racist (meaning most Egyptians and Algerians, who have seen heavy terror campaigns in their own nations are self hating Muslims)?

My points have not changed:

1) There is no conclusive evidence for hijackers, true

2) Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence

3) Since the evidence is not there, either for or against HiJackers, the TM should not even bother with this side of the story

4) You are not only demanding that the TM argues something we cannot prove (that there were no hijackers) but that anyone who refuses to is a racist.

This is getting as boring as it is offensive.

S

[Keith Mothersson]

Dear Stefan,

It appears to me that you miss a point. No one blames the "white race" for Timothy McVeigh, but today Islam and Muslims are singled out by innumerable books, articles, caricatures and Hollywood movies as violent people, prone to terrorism. It is now almost an act of faith to accuse an organisation pretending to represent Islam (Al Qaeda) for numerous terrorist acts around the world, including 9/11, the London, Madrid and Bali bombings and what have you. Because of this, it is important to expose the absence of evidence in all of these cases.

In the case of 9/11, the absence of evidence is so manifest and so total that it becomes irresponsible to remain neutral or agnostic. Neutrality would have been justified if the Government were uncertain who of two different groups committed the crime. But in this case, all the evidence that could solve the mystery is in the hands of the government. Its refusal to produce that evidence is a clear signal of wrongdoing. There is simply no other explanation for such refusal to produce incriminating evidence.

If you then add to the absence of incriminating evidence, the numerous positive evidence that exists, including testimonies of explosions in the three WTC buildings, the simultaneous aircraft hijacking exercises conducted at the same time on 9/11, the failure to investigate the crime and the failure to convict anyone for the crime, one must be acting in bad faith if one refrains from accusing the US government for this crime.

I have no issue with the demand for a new investigation. I think it is a good tactic, taking into account the hesitation of many to conclude that the official story is a fraud. I do not believe, however, that such an investigation will be carried out for the simple reason that the US elite will oppose a truly independent investigation with subpoena powers. For these reasons, I believe that putting the heat on US officials, Congresspeople, journalists, academics and other people who have shamefully accused 19 innocent people of mass murder, is much more useful. I say innocent for the simple reason that a person who has not been found guilty in due process remains innocent. The guilt of the 19 persons named by the FBI has never been established. Such defamation is inacceptable and any person voicing such accusations should be named and shamed.

Elias

[Keith Mothersson]

Elias,

Thanks for your thoughts, some comments below:


Stefan

[Keith Mothersson]

Dear Keith and Elias

I am not sure you are not both making a mistake about this No Muslim Hijackers presumption. I decided to take it up with Ian Henshall.

Ian maintains it is standard FBI practice not to reveal evidence which they might later need to defend their position in a court of law. If, in advance of a case, you reveal to your opponents what your trump cards are, you give them the opportunity to prepare their case in such a way as to take account of your trump cards. The government could have compelling evidence that there were Muslims involved, such as photos of the alleged hijackers boarding the flights, videos of a Boeing hitting the Pentagon, passenger manifests (which have not been published; only media accounts of who was on the flights have and, according to Ian, some faked manifests on 9/11 debunking sites) .

The current sniping by us truth campaigners is nothing to the pressure the authorities would be under when facing prosecutuon. That is when they would need evidence they may now be hiding.

Ian also argues that failure to come up with this evidence so far could be tactics in order to allow truth campaigners to speculate publicly and to take positions which could later be demolished by revelation of the evidence they are yet witholding - later revelations which, in the public eye, would "prove" that 9/11 sceptics were wild fantasists.

Anyone knowingly engaged in such a conspiracy would be mindful that at some stage in future they might have to defend themselves in a court of law. They would not reveal the compelling evidence until that time came.

Another technique often practised by intelligence services, which Annie Machon has several times confirmed to me, is to encourage campaigning groups to take the most radical positions so that they will be discredited in the public eye. This is often the work of opinion-forming infiltrators.

I was initially impressed by your argument, Elias, that after nearly seven years the fact that they have not produced such evidence to defend themselves suggests they have none, but I think Ian's argument trumps yours unless you have a good means of rebutting it.

Keith, you keep talking about anti-Moslem blood libel. Surely it is indeed a libel to attribute to all members of a religion, or of an ethnic group, certain evil characteristics displayed by certain criminals who happen to belong to that group. Hence it would be a libel to imply that all Christians are guilty of the Crusades, of the slave trade, of European imperialism, of the genocide of native Americans and of native Australians - Likewise to imply that all Jews are guilty of aggressive expansionist Zionism. There are racist overtones to all such generalisations and they must be opposed. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "blood-lible" - a libel attributed to a certain ethnic group, perhaps, even though modern science knows that blood groups have little correspondence with ethnic groups and that Moslems are not an ethnic group in any case (though in the ignorant British public eye they may well be regarded as such).

So I believe that the false attribution of guilt to Islam must be opposed, but to insist that no Muslims had anything to do with the 9/11 or the 7/7 attacks, not even as manipulated patsies who naively thought they were doing some drug trading for money or somesuch, is possibly to walk into a trap. If you walk into that trap you damage the cause of opposing the Islamophobic libel.

And is your argument that Muslims never commit acts of "terrorism"? What about Hamas who proudly acknowledge their "freedom fighters"? What about Al Aqsa brigades? What about the alleged cash transfer from the Pakistani ISI's Ahmed Omar Sayed Sheikh to Mohammed Atta? Are these people not at least nominally Muslim, whatever certain pious Muslims may say about how no true Muslim would ever do such wicked things?

[Keith Mothersson]

Dear Noel,

The argument according to which it is "standard FBI practice" not to reveal evidence which they might later need to defend their position in court of law", is an extremely broad claim that would have to be demonstrated empirically, and then applied in particular to the case of 9/11. In many cases of socalled terrorism, the allegations initially made had to be dropped later. Even the evidence released at the Moussaoui case, where the US authorities used the opportunity to "release evidence" regarding the phone calls, items allegedly collected from the crash sites and other such "evidence", has been unconclusive, lacking a chain-of-evidence, and proving nothing. To give to the US authorities the benefit of the doubt, namely to imply or suggest that they actually possess all the required evidence to prove their case but have not done so for seven years, challenges credulity. To suggest that failing to release that evidence is primarily or even partly a tactic to defeat the 9/11 truth movement, is a theory that must be argued rationally and demonstrated empirically. Otherwise it remains nothing but a figment of the imagination.

The fact that not even one person testitied to have observed the boarding of the four aircraft on 9/11 (including the boarding of the passengers) can hardly be considered a trick against a movement that did not exist on 9/11. The arguments you and Ian offer do not convince me in the least. I know of no case where a government who possessed incriminating evidence about criminals refrained from presenting such evidence for years in the face of mounting suspicion around the world - unless such evidence would have hit the government itself.

As for the theory that the 19 alleged hijackers had been patsies who participated in the scam, this is most likely true. But this does not necessarily or even probably mean that they knew their real role, nor that they acted unlawfully. More probably they were hired to do this or that and thereby leave a trail of evidence. In any case, there is no base to accuse these people of mass murder. For this reason I insist that the affirmation that "there is not a shred of evidence that Muslims or Arabs participated in the mass murder of 9/11", is true and I consider extremely unlikely that the US authorities possess any credible evidence to incriminate these 19 individuals of mass murder. If anyone can point to such evidence, he is welcome to publicize it.

There is another aspect of this matter that we must consider: Our own security. The events of 9/11 were a an act of mass murder. The US has failed to identify the perpetrators by failing to prove who boarded the aircraft on 9/11 and failing to identify the crashed aircraft. This means that there is a high probability that the perpetrators have neither died nor been arrested, but are still capable to commit further crimes that endanger us all. In addition, the preponderance of the evidence, including suspicious demeanor by US officials, suggests that US officials rather than foreigners orchestrated the mass murder. The stakes are too high for waiting until the end of times when the US authorities would deign to release evidence in their possession. The time has long elapsed for the US authorities to prove their allegations. They already attacked a UN member state, Afghanistan, without producing any proof for the simple reason that they do not possess any such proof. I believe that I do not need to rehearse these facts for you folks. If you really believe that the US authorities keep all that evidence for a rainy day, enjoy your new religion.

Elias

[Keith Mothersson]

Dear Stefan - also Noel and Elias,

I propose to post out the recent sequence of e-mails on the two sites this one
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15222
and this:
http://www.truthforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=155

Please let me know if you have strong objections to my doing so, it is an important debate, IMO.

I completely agree with Elias'es argument.

In the context of what Nafeez called 'Terrorism as Historical Geostrategy' (War on Truth , Chapter 16) I have never said that no extreme fundamentalist fanatical terrorist fantasies might not have been in play since Operation Bojinka (circa 1995) or before, very possibly seeded by 'the West' [e.g. I have information that a British officer was trying to recruit for a special operation involving flying a big plane] or else home-grown or a bit of both. Maybe some preliminary dabblings, list-making, preliminary team-building, etc - that is to be expected and normal because of our normal human propensity to imagine revenge when wronged, and because of the scale of geopolitical oppression of Muslims/poor people globally.

The question is whether any such stuff [if so how much, how big, how current] comes to fruition without selective and shaping pressures amounting often to encouragement/control by bigger players from the likes of CIA/MI6/Mossad, etc .

Of course the FBI found some 'real religious fanatics' to entrap, manipulate, give explosives to in 1993 - which in my opinion was already a deliberate part of the build up to what became Sept 11, e.g. opportunity for shake-up of security arrangements to allow the Bush crime family an entre; plus planting of the 'meme' that these fantical nutters want to kill us and hit our biggest buildings. The 'Clash of Civilisations' essay comes out that same year.

But there is no proof that the men who were attending flight schools intended to kill a lot of people, they may just have thought to make a killing financially from learning to fly drug runs for the CIA etc - which Atta had already been doing - the only experienced pilot among them. Their handlers wanted them to go around being 'good-time guys', i.e. loud. They themselves knew they had 'protection' but not the context in which this protection existed, though the US-military-trained leader and drug-runner Atta may have had a different sense of what was supposed to be unfolding than all/most of 'the others' [which others?] .

There is zero evidence of 'the 19 Arabs' boarding any of 'the Flights' that day. And every reason for the FBI etc to have shown pictures if they had them, certainly as soon as doubts about the official story began to be voiced widely.

Why keep giving the benefit of purely theoretical doubt to proven liars? Extreme reluctance to conclude against Power suggests psychodynamic pressures in play, an impression which is only strengthened when - after Stefan asking 'what is the logic of [my] argument', I laborously spell it out, but then you continue to impute positions to me that I have explicitly repudiated in that very spelling out: VIZ:

" This is not a matter of 'white' self-hatred, nor an attempt to guilt-trip anyone. .... "

" Nor am I saying that there have never been Arab or fanatical Muslim terrorists, even suicide murderers. (*** see note below) Without getting into arguments about individual instances – which are genuine examples of ‘Islamic extremist terrorism’ and which are examples of false-flag terrorism run by the CIA or MI6 or Mossad? - such kaffaur-hating and/or desperate and/or confused people do exist and have sometimes done the things they are frequently accused of doing! We should have no problem acknowledging this category ....."

(An example of why I kept the category as an open one, but declined to get into arguments about how many alleged instances should properly be assigned to that category - is the Algeria case which you cite, Stefan, since Nafeez Ahmed makes clear that the bulk of the terrible killings in the 90's should be attributed to elements within the State, - often military units whose commanders wanted to clean up by grabbing land - and with the French and other secret services well aware of the Algerian state's involvement; and the leadership of the Armed Islamic Group 'a creature of the Algerian secret services' (p 67, War on Truth).

But if there is a bombing in Algeria next week (God forbid), we have to bear all possibilities in mind and steer by evidence, and reason, guided by historical precedents ony to a certain extent (e.g. formulation of initial rebuttable hypothesis that most Terrorism is State terrorism, carried out for 'reasons of State' and cynical motives not out of misplaced religious zeal).

Stefan, I experience it as you who is bringing this 'self-hating' angle into things. I simply say that when there is no evidence to link the putative bombing in Algeria next week to Islamist extremists, and there is evidence of the Algerian authorities planting and destroying evidence, plus plenty of Cui bono factors pointing in their direction and none or hardly any to religious zealots, .... then it should be presumed to be an instance of Islamophobia to conclude that people motivated by their interpretation of Islam were behind it (racism category a), I called it in my original essay, or group-hate discourse category A, I could have called it: i.e. having to do with the reason the story is perpetrated, actively sold for political/ideological gain).

And not to see this and to give this racist/Islamophobic (category A) manouvre a degree of cover, effectively if not in intention, I grant you, by saying 'well we have no proof that some Islamist extremists weren't behind it' IS in my opinion to fall into a softer categories of mistake/limiting human error/racism as vulnerability via unconscious fear of concluding against Power or in the putative Algerian example, Islamophobia as unconscious assumption that Islam is more of a threat than 'secular' Military regimes supported by 'the West'.

I am trying to persuade you, Stefan, not bully you. My guess is that you see it as a matter of bullying because for you the question of racism is all tied up with self-righteous judgmentalism - extreme execration - whereas I am inviting you to consider that - [no big deal , lots and lots of us suffer from it to some extent or another (hopefully diminishing through time), it is the default positionn for normal conditioning in the Imperialist West] - you may have incurred some unexamined assumptions predisposing you to give the benefit of any doubt (or imagined doubt) to Power, and to conclude against the racial/ethnic Other or religious Other, which have led you to bend over backwards not to conclude against Power and publicly advance as a firm but still in principle rebuttable conclusion that no Arabs were involved in any hijackings and no devout Muslims either [and even had there been most people who died that day were killed by other social actors using serious Hitech not remotely available to non-State actors].

Finally on Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma bombing. I haven't studied Oklahoma enough to know whether one can rule out McVeigh or not, but it IS clear I think that the truck bomb attributed to him couldn't have killed the bulk of those who died that day, whether the bulk of those deaths should be attributed to additional conventional explosives or trialing of Directed Energy Weapons, I also don't know.

There may have been a Plan A to blame 'the bombing' on links to the Middle East, which went wrong when McVeigh was arrested. But Plan B was also perfectly functional and was almost certainly part of the original mix: for the elite media to construct the poor whitesas given to cults (Waco), violence and crazy extremist conspiracy theories - these being what one elitist prof has called 'the poor man's cognitivie coin'. So I would say that readiness to swallow the official story has a degree of unconscious classism powering it, and some Category A Classism in the initial frame-up/promulgation probably.

Best wishes, Keith

[Keith Mothersson]

Dear friends,

There is a rule of thumb that we should all use when confronted with a case of alleged terrorism.

If there is no credible organisation claiming the act
AND if there is no specific demand made by that organisation
AND if the act is targeted randomly at civilians
AND if the alleged perpetrators die in the act,

the presumption must be made that the act was staged by intelligence services in order to attribute it to others.

The reasoning behind the above is that bona fide terrorists believe in their cause, are proud to fight for their cause, are willing to claim their act and have specific grievances or/and demands to make. In the overwhelming majority of socalled terrorist acts committed around the world for the last 20 years, the alleged perpetrators have remained in the shadow, no specific demands were made, and the attacks were clearly counter-productive from the alleged perspective of the perpetrators (calling forth widespread revulsion and counter-measures).

The presumption made in such cases IS rebuttable, but only if the guilt of the alleged perpetrators is proved beyond reasonable doubt, as is the standard in criminal law. If such proof is not forthcoming, the presumption must be upheld and the suspicion attaches to those who profit from the attacks.

Elias Davidsson

[Keith Mothersson]

Yes Keith

Please post the debate. I really think we need to get to the bottom of it and I wish Ian Henshall would participate, though he seems reluctant to do so. I'm in close contact with him at the moment and he is extremely busy setting up the new inquiry campaign and ..... . Everyone is making good points. Also this debate is being carried on civily by campaigners who respect each other, as such debates should. The last such e-mail exchange like this I was involved in was [one] in which many intolerant bad-tempered ad hominem things were said and consequently got nowhere.

Best

Noel

[Keith Mothersson]

Hello Elias,

I agree with quite a lot of what you say, but then I am someone
fairly well informed about the sort of things the CIA and the
Pentagon get up to. However you are wrong to say that they have not
produced any witnesses to the boarding of the planes: the 911
Commission has one (yes I agree it is highly suspicious that they
have only one), there is a witness and video evidence for Atta on the
connecting flight and there is the claimed evidence of the Dulles
tape, and of course there are the claimed mobile phone calls which
you and I know probably did not take place. My point is that to claim
this all adds up to "no shred of evidence" will not resonate with
those who are inclined to trust the authorities and the media. As we
say in the vernacular which arguments we put are a matter of horses
for courses.

Best wishes

Ian

[ian neal]

Whilst there is a multitude of mainstream journalists parroting the official line, who within the '9/11 truth movement' is 'going along with the official legend' i.e. accepting that the evidence proves beyond all reasonable doubt the guilt of the 19 named 'hijackers'?

Answer: no one (with one or two possible exceptions amongst the family campaigners). Certainly Ian Henshall has not said this.

So I'm at a loss to understand your point Keith. Who is it that you have a problem with? Perhaps you can quote them to illustrate your point? Who specifically are you suggesting is racist and on what evidence?

What is it you are actually saying? That the 19 accused absolutely in no way at all had anything to do with 9/11? That it is proven that they are definately, 100%, without a shred of doubt innocent of any involvement? Do you claim the same for the July 7 four? You may believe this to be true. You may believe the evidence the authorities have provided to support their 'conspiracy theories' is laughable (flame proof passports, arabic flight manuals, copies of the Koran and wills conveniently found). But to believe this is different from claiming it is proven there was definately no muslim involvement in anyway.

But as Stefan says the absense of proof is not the same as proof of 'no muslim involvement'. It is not as if there are only 2 possible options.

[Keith Mothersson]

Ian, I am sorry to say but you seem not to have read my original article. Please refer to it again, with some of the same considerable care that I wrote it. NB I am focussing on 9/11 here. Another argument about 7/7, which is much murkier, and I would only say it is racist to deny the possibility of state involvement, rather than, as for 9/11, that it is racist for us to continue to leave the door open to the possibility that Muslim Arabs killed those people that day.

You will see there that i do not deny the existence of some people in the category of 'Islamic' fanatics. I do deny that there is any evidence that people in this category can be materially connected - outside of the racist smear-story - with the deaths of the people in Manhattan that day.

a) because those deaths took place due to hiTech which left not a squashed filing cabinet, almost no rubble at all under the twin towers - technolgoy able to zap huge buildings into Towers of Dust (google it) can only be from US military, who had every motive to fake up appearances, plant psyop stories about 'the pile' and molten metal'. Nobody comes close to Judy Wood in looking really closely at the full range of the evidence - yet people say she is the speculative one!

b) because there is strong evidence that NO places hit the twin towers, as per Building 7 (though the latter did at least have a respectable pile of rubble under it). Refer Morgan Reynold's presentations and arguments about the implausibility of soft planes entering with no deceleration into steel and concrete building and all be burned up and no bits fall off and then office workers come wave at the raging inferno holes. Plus September Clues and 911 Amateur show lots of evidence for videofakery (though there could theoretically be videofakery and real planes). There has been a lot of work done on the 'thousands of witnesses' legend, to my mind satisfactorily.

c) now even if there were hijacked planes, it could have been done electronically;

d) and even if there were real passengers aboard 4 real Flights that were neither electronically hijacked nor switched in midair, there is no reputable or credible evidence that there were any Muslim hijackers among them - no CCTV, no eyewitenesses prepared to come forward, no boarding pass stubs, no dna, no credibility to hearsay reports via mobile phones.

e) all you are left with is evidence of some Arabs being pointed to as connected to 9/11! - e.g. Atta trained by the US military, some other Arabs training in drug-connected 'flight schools' trailed/assisted by US and Israeli intelligence, going around being party animals, and picking fights memorably all over the place - in no way devout Muslims.

f) since the evidence of planting is so overwhelming (the Atta suitcase with Qur'an, devout will, list of confederates, some still alive, etc) and the Cui bono? all points to those who wanted a war pretext against oilrich wogland, it really beats me why you and other good people still allow this racist legend the tiniest toehold of potential credibility.

Note that I am not denying that some Al-Q type operatives and fantasists may have been rumouring and even dabbling in 'preparations' etc for use of planes as suicide missiles against high-value targets for years, since Bojinka. A buzz had been put around some 'radical' Islamist circles of something big in the offing - but put around by whom? and so what? The fact that these deranged fanatics may well exist - as also Jewish and Christian and Hindu and Buddhist fanatics, etc - along with their CIA eggers on and aiders and abetters and protecters and positioners - is beside the point, regardless of how many and to what degree bona fide motivated by (a false version of) Islam, or mostly steered/duped etc by Western State agencies.

I am not saying that no testimony exists to support the racist legend - of course some would be created, false witness if of gthe essence of false-flag terrorism! But I am saying that on the overwhelming balance of probability, this 'evidence' should be deemed to be unreliable, if not outright lying.

Who is being racist? Reread the original article and you will see that i identify different kinds/levels of racism, from the most cynical Elite racism to those of us suffering the vulnerability of growing up in a deeply racist-Imperialist society who are subconsiously susceptible to stories which impute nefarious aims to brown skinned wallahs who need action taken against them. Too crude? When big shocks occur people do tend to revert to simplistic crude scenarios, just as Bridget Dunne told me that just after 7/7 there was a BBC news 'wildlife' item, pure psyop and/or unconscious manifestation, which was all about some island where fluffy wildlife goodies were beiong menaced to potential extinction by nasty dark rat baddies.

In the same way as the cover-up isn't just by Them, but by all of us who cruise along in 911 denial, i would say that Racism isn't just done by those wicked top guys or fascist gangs, but oozes out of mainstream UK plc, including our London based media .... and is also suffered from (like influenza of the mind) by people who keep needing to hold on to some toehold of MSM consensus reality/credibility, even though it is at the expense of Muslims worldwide.

The point isn't whether this message massages your self-image (wot, me racist?), the point is whether there is any evidence [such as deserves to be respected (not savaged as blatantly false or ludicrously unlikely)], for why we should continue to give even residual succour to the core Myth that Muslim Arabs were behind 9/11.

Or are you saying that the peace movement of the West which since 1990 has killed around 8 million Muslims (Gideon Polya) isn't likely to have been infected with Islamophobia and racism?

If you good people could just concede 'me' this (and to Elias who argues much more politely than me, and to millions of Muslims who see it clear as day - though to be sure not all uniformly in the most 'educated' pro-Western circles), then don't you see we would be able to carry the argument to the Left/peacemovement/greens/liberals, making it harder and harder for them to ignore us - and then they would have to leave daddy Chomsky behind and face the bleak truth and grow up.

[Keith Mothersson]

Hello Ian,

I have some comments to make regarding the alleged evidential items you refer to:

1. I am not aware of any witness to the boarding. If you can point out to any that the Commission mentioned, please do so. None of the eight airline employees who were supposed to attend to the boarding and tear the boarding cards, were interviewed by any news outlet, by the FBI or the by 9/11 Commission. It is thus unknown whether any of the named passengers boarded any aircraft or whether they were simply herded into busses and driven to the Black Hole.

2. The video from the Portland connecting flight does not constitute evidence that any person boarded the four doomed flights. The fact that the US authorities choose to release the Portland video demonstrates their attempt to deceive the public by pretending that this is evidence from Boston. This recording, and the numerous other Portland videos of Atta, were made with the specific intent to deceive. That´s why he and Alomari were sent there (and also in order to have his bags "not make it" in Boston).

3. The video from Dulles is highly suspicious because it does not carry day, time, and camera number; the lighting appear to be from noon; the images are blurred; there are no regular passengers visible; and the source of the video has not been disclosed. It does not show the boarding of the any aircraft but passing of security checkpoint. Videos from Newark and Boston airports have never been shown.

4. The telephone calls do not provide any evidence that specific "hijackers" were on the planes. At most they suggest that "some" hijackers were in the planes, but do not prove that any of the 19 named hijackers did. The lack of hard evidence about the boarding is highly suspicious on the face of it.

5. The fact that the US authorities changed names of suspected hijackers between 11 and 14 September 2001 demonstrates that they had prepared a list of hijackers before 9/11 and that something unexpected happened forcing them to change the list between these two days. Contrary to what you assume, I believe that some of the phone calls actually took place, though we do not know from where.

The reason I persist on the lack of evidence about the hijackers is that the account on the hijackers lies at the center of the myth of a global Muslim terrorist conspiracy based on suicide bombers. It equally lies at the center of the myth that the 19 persons named by the FBI as hijackers acted for religious or fanatic reasons. These are foundational myths that must be smashed.

In addition I consider it shameful for anyone to espouse the allegation against the 19 "hijackers" without basing such accusation on hard evidence. I believe it is my and our duty to defend the dignity of people who are wrongly accused of murder. What would you say if your family members were accused of murder by public authorities who do not bother to produce any evidence? Would would you say to the families of victims of murder if the government deceives them about the perpetrators?

We must reject outrageous conspiracy theories, such as those peddled by the rogue regimes of the US and the UK. By presenting hard facts, I do not present any theory, only highlight what mass media have failed to report, facts that belie the official conspiracy theory.

Elias

[Keith Mothersson]

[This by Noel and the previous post (from Elias originally) actually were sent to me mid July, sorry if this sequencing confuses matters: KM]

Hello Elias, Ian, Keith et al,

I think this is an important issue and we clearly need to work out a way in which we can deal with differences of opinion. Since I want to work on a campaign for an independent inquiry which brings new people into the movement by presenting them with the most credible evidence, the line I would take would be different from that of those who, like Keith, Andrew Johnson, Justin and others, want to work out what really happened. To my mind that means that in initial, secondary and even tertiary approaches to people arguments which tend to lead them to dismiss us as mere conspiracists, not to be taken seriously, should be avoided. If insistence that there is no evidence of hijackers or of Muslims is what will stop people listening to us, then at the early stages of approaching people that argument should be avoided. I do not regard it as a racist slur on Islam to get people interested in the line that 9/11 was an inside job by avoiding this lack of evidence in the early stages of trying to convince people.

I would take no pleasure at all in being in a position to say:
"Those people were unconvinced by my arguments, but I did the morally right thing by avoiding a racist slur and avoiding accusing people against whom no good evidence has been brought, so at least I have behaved in a saintly fashion."

The time to put to people the argument that there is no hard evidence of Muslim hijackers is once they are clearly committed to the notion we have been deceived to start an endless global war.

So understanding of the 9/11 issue is grasped in stages as individuals bit by bit learn more about it. That is normal learning procedure. People cannot understand differential calculus before they have grasped basic numeracy.

If the assertion that there were no Muslim hijackers is something which puts people off taking us seriously, even though it is probably true, we do nothing to advance the cause of combating the widespread misconception that Islam is a religion of violence if we use this argument in early approaches to potential recruits to the movement.

(Of course various Koranic passages can be quoted to justify the claim that Islam is inherently violent, but various Biblical passages can also be quoted to justify the claim that Christianity and Judaism are inherently violent. For example the Almighty’s alleged instruction to commit genocide of the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15:

"15:3
Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'" )

However, the most effective approach would be different for different audiences. Ian has observed that certain Muslim intellectuals are disinclined to take the line that no Muslims were involved for fear of being seen as "in denial". By contrast Keith has noted that the ordinary Muslim at street campaign level is very attracted to our message by the assertion that no Muslims were involved.

So I think a subtle approach is needed which involves tailoring what is said to particular audiences.

Does this take us any further forward?

Best

Noel

[Keith Mothersson]

Noel, I do agree that some degree of tact and presentational tactics and timing is appropriate. But however skilful we go about things it is an illusion that core difficulties (such as unconscious investment in/capture by juicy racist myths can be surrendered/released without people getting upset and abusive probably, at least some people at some stages).

I think our way forward here is in getting better at 'suffering' anger/contempt and responding from the heart nevertheless, speaking our whole truth and gently but persistently encouraging people to notice how they have switched off and become abusive as soon as it starts, zero tolerance for scoffing, which is just early stages of Frat-abuse.

Amazement is fine, we can help people to deal with that. Incredulity too. But it is the kind of bad habit which will contaminate public discourse generally if we fall into the habit of converting amazement into fear and contempt and abuse and hatred. Truth-work includes this wrestling, not finding some magic sequence which can enable us to convince without any risk of becoming the Islamophobic equivalent of 'nigger-lovers' or 'nutters'.

Where we have long been disagreeing is this metaphor, which i first heard Stefan advance at the Leeds national gathering in May 2007.

[kbo234]

This whole debate is a bit beyond me.

It is obvious that the western onslaught on Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran (coming soon), the 'War on Terror' and the generalised attacks on Islam is 'racist' in general (hey, let's go and kill a loads of brown-skinned people).......especially when you know that 9/11 was an inside job and when you consider the history of our interventions in this part of the world

.......but the charge of 'racism' is pretty pointless because there are much more serious charges associated with such murderous aggression.

Anyway, why pick out this small aspect the big picture??

....well......not that I disagree with the substance of what you say Keith, but it makes no sense to me to pursue such a line. Where does choosing such a starting point for a charge of racism get you?

.....I would leave 'race' out of it and raise this issue as part of the manifold evidence that demonstrates that 9/11 was an inside job.

Once this is established you have got somewhere meaningful to go.

[Keith Mothersson]

I think the point of what I am suggesting is that it gives us a reason to invite - encourage - press even the good but naive people who bought the official story and then cemented it into their minds with a 'sophisticated' Blowback analysis to reconsider.

Since StoptheWar hasn't, and the Greens haven't broken the power of BigOil, maybe there is some missing factor in their analysis. Now all these people are self-identified rather cheaply as anti-racist, but a deep analysis of how we emerge socially suggests that it is likely that we will inherit vulnerabilities and blindspots by virtue of our Imperialist conditioning. So maybe it is these blindspots, this vulnerability to racist stories about bad 'coloured' men which stops them untying the cats cradle of nonsense which is the official 9/11 story, cos that is what holds it together - racism in the service of Greed and Fear and Delusion of the Big Elite/s - like the hydra-headed Military-Industrial-Intel-Media-Zionist complex.

(The MET police also make a big deal about how antiracist they are, and some at least of them must feel it strange how come they keep being told to suspect bad things form 'coloured' folk.)

If the Left/Peacemovement/Greens/Liberals began to question 9/11 as a key part of their practice and messages, the general public would shift on this, and the Myth would collapse, leading to huge unheavals and re-assessment opportunities IMO - though of course the attempt would also be made to blame it all on few bad guys like Marvin Bush and Wirt Winkler III who allowed the wicked Muslims into the gate, allowed them to wire up the twin towers with Al-Q in Iraq thermite stolen from Saddam's missiles programme, or some such Hawkscafe bs to minimise the amount of reconstruction required of the basic mythic worldview of white Amerika.

(which is why the argument about thermite vs DEW is so crucial, not just because it is obvious DEW couldn't have been brought in by Al-Q - unless an evil Jinn? , but because when the dam breaks on 'Inside Job' (albeit some of it contracted out), we need to keep it rolling to get at the truth concerning 20th century Physics capture since Lord Kelvin removed Ether from his second edition near the turn of the century and Tesla had the plug pulled on his research by JP Morgan when the latter realised that deriving energy from the Quantum soup aka Ether aka Emptiness and now aka Zero Point would deprive Morgan and co of chances to monopolise stuff and make money and dominate, .... and the Hemp suppression happened soon afterwards, as peaceful motherlands of black-white unity could have emerged from bio-regional self-sufficiency which hemp and the new processing technology for hemp could have made possible all across Turtle Island.

So eyes on the prize we need to keep the scandal rolling - 911 as a process and a portal - till people reach [url]ww.waterpoweredcar.com[/url]and overunity energy devices and Hemp for Victory and alternative health tabooed knowledge and all the other stuff which could reconnect us practically and spiritually not with New Age 'prosperity consciousness' but with our original earthling nature, true abundance consciousness, true gratitude to Life/God/Nature beyond the SCAR-city anthropology and prison-world cosmology of the dominant (cancerously so) culture in the world ....

Okay, I agree this is rather off topic and I could be accused of wanting to parasitise on 911 truth to push my own hobbyhorses ....
but a) it keeps coming back to basic decency to defend the assumption of innocence of those falsely blamed for mass-murder - which is waived in our 'normnal' Western-racist cultural mindset and so the Elite(s) can keep doing FFT so long as we haven't dug out that racist mindset;

b) as I keep arguing the assumption that the 'weird stuff' [DEW/NPT/Videofakery] is ivy which may kill the tree of 911 truth could be quite false, it could be a case of companion planting! - if handled skilfully, which is necessary, I grant Noel and Stefan and co; and

c) the trail has led organically as far as I am concerned - Judy Wood's close noticing of discrepant phenomena which neither the offical story nor the Controlled Demolition people can explain [and CB Brooklyn's research into Steven Jones' role in rubbishing Cold Fusion as nutjob science, plus Jones backed by Bob Bowman ex Star Wars, plus van Romero on Day One suggesting controlled demolition to take us down that false trail, albeit he too was involved in the Directed energy professional society]

all this took us outside normal physics into the Tesla world, into the HAARP world, which inherently links to Climate Defence and Global ecology and the price of Oil and what the world would look like if the stuff we need is much of it free for the having and we don't have to slave and fight for it.

[William_Rodriguez]

[Keith Mothersson]

Willy,
I heard you tell the local press that you had met one of the hijackers some weeks earlier. You didn't say one of the men in a set of photos produced by the FBI and accused (without evidence) of being responsible. Nor did you say I saw one of the men in the pictures the FBI produced and many people believe were patsies who didn't get on any planes that day.

You have also talked of bomb(s) going off in basement several seconds before 'the plane hit'. You don't say that an explosion occurred in the basement and then you heard/felt some other kind of shock from higher in the building.

I have more I could say but this is directly to the point of whether there have been occasions - important ones - when you have recounted experience-mixed-with-hearsay. I don't care how many important roles you play, nor how many sacrifices you are making, nor how interesting your bio, nor how charismatic a speaker you are (in many people's eyes) - you DON'T just stay close to your experience alone (which to be sure is a discipline few of us are really good at) but incorporate two important aspects of the official Mythology (IMO) - namely wicked hi-jackers and planes.

I recall two people coming out of your Dundee gig and wondering about the ways and means that Al-Qaida had psoitioned the bombs in the North tower.

[kbo234]

Keith.

When you refer to planes that hit the buildings as "official mythology" do you think this is in any way helpful?

Should we not be focused on propagandising for the fact that 9/11 was an 'inside job', the way our money creation system and its Judeo-Masonic leadership create so many of our problems and the rest of the BIG picture.

You know this 'no planes' position is divisive......but, worse than that, it is trivial......it distracts and saps energy away from the big and important issues and our business in promoting awareness of them.


....one other thing. It saddens me to hear you direct criticism towards Willy Rodriguez, the bravest of the brave, a true hero, who has done far, far more than any of us here to promote the cause of 9/11 Truth.

[numeral]

A high quality, definitive version of September Clues is available for download at:

http://www.thesocialservice.it/

It features Jane Standley, starting at 26:53 into the second half.

[William_Rodriguez]

[AntonH]

That anyone can criticize William Rodriguez is beyond me.

Keith Mothersson Should be ashamed of himself...

[kbo234]

[xmasdale]

This is very sad.

I greatly appreciate the commitment and sincerity of both Keith and Willy.

In the past few months I have tried to understand the arguments of No Plane Theory, videofakery and beam weapons theory, but I have not been convinced by it. Though I do regard some of the video recordings as dodgy that does not convince me that no planes were involved, nor that beam weapons were used. Nor am I convinced that traditional controlled explosive demolition was involved. I don't think those issues will become clear until/unless some major whistle-blowers come forward.

But I don't see it as my job to explain why the WTC collapsed. I don't regard myself as capable of solving that mystery, which is why I personally want to concentrate on a campaign for an independent inquiry. Yes, I know we are unlikely to get a truly independent inquiry but nevertheless I think the act of campaigning for one will bring more information out into the open.

In any case the real issue in my opinion is to convince the public that we have been lied to about 9/11 in order to start a war and to curtail our liberties. To achieve convincement we do not all have to agree on what methods were used to demolish the WTC.

At last month's AGM of the British 9/11 Truth Campaign in Bristol it was unanimously recognised that a new British Inquiry Campaign was needed, while those who are drawn towards trying to work out how the WTC was demolished are free to work on their different task seperately with the blessing of that Bristol AGM. That meeting recognised that there are sincere differences of opinion on this issue.

I believe we need to respect those differences without characterising those we disagree with as traitors, government stooges or racists. I am opposed to the attempt by some to impose a monolithic party line on what really happened.

Sincere differences of opinion occur in any movement.

Scapegoating and oppression of Muslims is very real now as a result of the stories we have been told about the 9/11 attacks.

I have known Keith for over thirty years and I am quite certain he is sincere in his beliefs and does not in any way attempt to divide the movement.

Noel

[Keith Mothersson]

Dear Kevin, Anton,
I do agree that lots of us have worked really hard and it is inevitable that we will have disagreements. When we do we should use reason and evidence to try to focus on them and sort them out - at least until the stage where we realise that we may never sort them out.

Life is a compolicated rum old thing. People can do really good things at times and the same people can do really dumb things and hurt movements at other times. Hero worship and self-promotionalism won't help us reach balanced assesments, aka truth.

Intoxicated, self-indulgent Ad hominem attacks on each other won't help us, I do agree. But no one is beyond criticism, which should be focussed and spoken as soberly and factually and moderately as possible. Saying that "I have such an important role" (in effect, if not in so many words) or "I am so busy .... and therefore I don't need to answer criticism", is also ad hominem, in a way. He even once said: "Many accused me of exploiting 9/11. I am 9/11" which gave rise to a long thread on JREF
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84232.

Unfortunately Willie is a proud 'escape artist' and has tended to rely on this method of 'replying' to the numerous very specific and often polite criticisms/contradictions which Mark Roberts thinks he has noticed in Willie's accounts of what he did that day. See Robert's overall critique here: http://911stories.googlepages.com/home and for the impossible timeline which Roberts ascribes to Willie, based it seems on Willie's own accounts, see here:
http://911stories.googlepages.com/rodriguez%27stimelinewayoff%3F.

(The fact that Mark Roberts is strongly anti-'conspiracy theory' doesn't mean all his insights and detailed citations from other people there that day are worthless. Likewise he points us to some perfectly valid criticisms of Steven Jones's thermite hypothesis, IMO:
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc at page 67/68.)

[Interestingly, quite a lot of the wierd phenomena which Roberts' cites from witness statements, and Willie's own statements, are compatible with Judy Wood's hypothesis of Directed Energy/Hutchinson Effect technology used that day, but I digress.]

Willie also used this 'avoid specifics, rely on reputation and counter-attack' method to 'reply' to some very impolite and serious and swingeing criticism from Nico Haupt, which among other things raised questions about Willie's time working for a particular eite-contracts firm Huapt is suspicious of, American Building Maintenance and in the office of Rudy Guliani. The fact that Nico Haupt is often very wild and rude, doesn't mean that he isn't quite often brilliant and on the ball, digging out startling facts and connections. At any rate rightly or wrongly Willie simply relied upon his reputation and didn't answer any of Haupt's accusations. You can read Haupt's critique here and also see how Willie answered , or didn't, you decide: [url]http://www.911researchers.com/node/555[/url]

Finally Kevin, none of us can claim to know exactly where the dividing line is between obsessiveness and determination. I have decided to speak out with the truth as i understand it, and let the chips fall where they may, because I see no future for the 'mainstream' 'truth movement' - Controlled demolition plus Planes plus Hijackers probably/maybe/mustn't rule them out, except as the next line of defense (limited hangout) for the Perps to fall back to if they feel they have to. (of course that could also provide opportunities, but not if we haven't ourselves gone further).

But it seems very strange for you to chide me for being divisive when you talk of the the need to discuss the 'judaeo-masonic' control of our debt money creation system. I am 100 percent into Social Credit theory, Debt-money creation inevitably means Growthmania and imperialism and conflict and people losing out really bad, either as bankruptcies in the West or starvation in many parts of the global South.

But we do need to take a lot of care not to bring anti-semitism into the equation, and I am not sure that your Christian critique of Judaism (can't recall the reference) doesn't rely on memes and tropes which were central to the development of anti-semitism in 'Christendom' over centuries. (Rosemary Reuther's Faith and Fratricide is a good guide to the Christian theological basis of Anti-Semitism, historically.) At any rate I think that pushing social credit theory in the way you propose is bound to be much more divisive (and arguably racist, certainly racist sounding to many people) than for people to be politely asked to follow the September Clues thread which Numeral kindly supplied.

I will reply to Willie separately.
Cheers, keith

[kbo234]

I can't believe you are prepared to use things said by Mark Roberts ('gravy') in support of any idea at all.

This man, obviously a full-time employee of the darkest corner of US establishment specialises in find tiny anomalies (often syntactical) and cracks in the critics' case and artfully magnifying them to appear of 'Grand Canyon' proportions.

He will strain impressively at these gnats while studiously ignoring or denying all the camels that condemn the official narrative as a bunch of lies. With him it is just words, words, words.....words without meaning......words to make lies.

If that creep told me I had 2 eyes in my head I would start to doubt it.

Your understanding of anti-semitism, real racism, fair comment and the discernment that distinguishes them is quite different from mine. This is unlikely to change.
I do not want to re-run these debates again and while acknowledging the divisiveness of any reference to 'Jewish' issues, I make no apology for trying to oppose the use of charges of 'anti-semitism' to shut down what I see as fair debate.

Some of the best and most effective 9/11 campaigners like Anthony Lawson have been banned from this forum for making the same objections.

[Keith Mothersson]

Willie,
I raised two very specific examples of how, despite your claims, you haven't always 'just stayed close to your actual experience', but have at times absorbed other assumptions/theories into the story you tell.

I wasn't calling you particularly bad, because it is something we are all prone to do, I have often done it myself. But hopefully in a movement we can acheive higher common factor synergy IF we deal with each others' criticisms, and do so civilly and to the point.

And you will see from my earlier post to Kevin that I also have criticisms of the way you haven't really dealt with criticism of your narrative (and how it has changed over time). As also the method of being defensive when criticism arrives and changing the subject onto some minor detail together with counter-attacking (though the first criticism could have been specific, not really an 'attack' at all, just perceived as such). That too is something which I have often enough done, and please point this out to me in fujture if I do it again.

1) Anyway, let's start with me having told people on this thread that you tell the media that you saw a hijacker that day.

You then reply:

[Keith Mothersson]

I agree that we should not allow criticism of Zionists nor Israel be stifled by unfair charges of anti-semitism, but still I do believe you should check out Rosemary Reuther's book, as there is a deep strain of enti-semitism within Christendom which inveitably affects us unless we make efforts to become aware of it, and this is the case even though we may, should, also want to forefront the capitalist Debt-money Banking system, or Zionism or Israel for well-deserved criticism, as appropriate, but not obsessively pointing out the Jewish bit, and aware also of Christian Zionism and I guess Masonic movements and motifs which appear to incorporate ancient Jewish symbols, etc.

As for Mark Roberts, I think it best to take him sentence by sentence by sentence. Some things he says are true and usefully so. Like a microphage, he can be useful to clean out unclean corners of our 911 critique. He certainly seems incapable of conceding any strong points to us, but that doesn't prove he is a full time agent, though I guess he may be.

Peace!