Comment about Judy Wood from The Vancouver Hearings

[James H. Fetzer]

NOTE:  I've just cleaned up recent "Comments" on The Vancouver Hearings and thought this was wroth sharing:

 

Sandra on July 3, 2012 at 7:58 pm said:

Hi Jim-

I listened to a recent show you did w/Rick Adams and wanted to let you know that I appreciated your take on what’s going on w/Dr. Judy Wood. For whatever reason, I’ve been suspicious of her for awhile–something just didn’t seem right. I never dismissed the idea of advanced weapons being used on 911, but I just didn’t find her presentation (in a few radio interviews) convincing. And I think this was simply b/c I wanted to hear her present the case based on the science, but found her to go off in other directions, like mentioning her lawsuit and making negative comments about other researchers.

Also, I greatly appreciated the excerpt below (posted at the end of this message) from this site: http://www.911vancouverhearings.com/ (please extend my thanks to whoever wrote it). This actually really gets at what has been bothering me for a long time. Though this excerpt only mentions Peter Dale Scott and Chossudovsky, it also applies to what Tarpley has been doing, not just with 911 but also w/the recent situation in Libya and now Syria. I’ve noticed that Tarpley continues to invoke the “Al-qaeda” term, which seems to give life to the notion that a bunch of muslims are getting together and becoming terrorists. And, in some ways, I think this feeds the official story about 911. It seems as though it would be much more accurate to refer to such muslims as “mercenaries for NATO” or “thugs for Western intelligence agencies,” which is what I hear other commentators say (e.g. Mark! Glenn, Jonathan Azaziah, etc), but Tarpley continues to push this “al-qaeda” line, as though muslims are getting together on their own and getting an “al-qaeda” membership card.

Anyway, just wanted to pass that along and let you know I greatly appreciate what you did w/the Vancouver Hearings, especially in terms of pushing for the role of Israel/zionists to be addressed. I’ve posted info on this over athttp://theinfounderground.com/forum/index.php (an anti-zionist forum) and it seems like people are taking an interest (I think lots of people who are awake to 911 kind of stopped following things b/c it seemed like the 911 “truth movement” was controlled/infiltrated by zionists). Also, fyi, I think it’s kind of interesting to take note of which websites completely ignored the Vancouver Hearings. I did a quick search and found that globalresearch.ca and infowars ignored the Vancouver Hearings, though both did stories on the Toronto Hearings (I’m convinced Alex Jones is controlled opposition–I’ve never heard him even mention the Israel Lobby on his show)

Thanks again for all of your work to get the truth out!
Sandra

Here’s the excerpt I was referring to:

On the first day of the Toronto Hearings David Ray Griffin established that there is no evidence that al-Qaeda or Osama bin-Laden did 9/11.

Although the video of Griffin’s testimony from September 8th is not posted in its entirety on the internet, I explicitly recall someone asking a question of Griffin during the Q&A about bin Laden and him replying that he didn’t feel any need to discuss bin Laden or al-Qaeda as they relate to the events of 9/11, because there is no evidence that they were involved in the events of 9/11.

This, like the vast majority of Griffin’s utterances, is accurate. Griffin’s assertions were supported by the excellent presentation of Jay Kolar on the morning of September 9th.

Firstly, bin Laden denied involvement in the events of 9/11; most, if not all of the alleged hijackers were not Islamists; it is unclear whether or not al-Qaeda even exists as an autonomous and coherent non-state actor; there is no evidence that t! he alleged hijackers boarded any of the flights on 9/11; and, as Wayne Madsen has revealed, British intelligence documents suggest that the alleged hijacker cells were run and operated by the Mossad.

In a proper court of law, were it established on the first day of the trial that entity X (in this case al-Qaeda) was not involved in the crimes, any subsequent references to it would be omitted so as not to waste the court’s time. Subsequent 9/11 hearings should employ such a process of elimination.

A process of elimination was not displayed during the Hearings; come the afternoon of Day 2 of the Toronto Hearings Professor Michel Chossudovsky, who came through the door at the last minute having arrived from Montreal and who spoke extemporaneously, made repeated references to al-Qaeda, bin Laden, and the complicity of intelligence agencies with Islamists, thereby implying that this was relevant to what transpired on 9/11.

Either al-Qaeda and bin Laden were! involved in 9/11 or they weren’t.
It cannot be both. Perhaps Chossudovsky was chosen to speak not because of what he says about 9/11, which reinforces the myth of al-Qaeda involvement in 9/11 leading an investigation into 9/11 on a wild goose chase, but rather because of his credentials.

This may have also been the case with Professor Peter Dale Scott, who spoke of the alleged al-Qaeda hijackers boarding Flight 77, even though the speaker immediately before him, David Ray Griffin, had explained at length that it was simply impossible that “al-Qaeda hijackers” had taken control of Fight 77 on 9/11.

Michel Chossudovsky entitled his book “America’s War on Terrorism”. “Israel’s War on Terrorism” would have better encapsulated the historical genesis of the “war on terrorism”

Either al-Qaeda hijackers hijacked Flight 77 or they did not. Either Griffin is right and Scott is wrong or vice versa. The organizers–by failing to critically analyze the prior statements of Chossudovsky and of Scott–both of whom seem to be stuck in an “al-Qaeda were involved in 9/11″ analysis–allowed the Toronto Hearings to hear testimony whose relevance to the events of 9/11 is highly tenuous.

Indeed one cannot help but wonder if these individuals were chosen not because they bring forth evidence about which there is “[a] high degree of certainty; importance; and consensus”, but rather because they are big names whose credentials would make the hearings look credible–even if their testimony would regress the quest for truth and justice by taking the Hearings off course.

In other words, despite all the stated rigid criteria aimed at sorting strong from weak evidence, the organizers possibly committed the fallacy of appealing to the authority of the names of two famous researchers who are perhaps famous and less persecuted because, unlike more rigorous 9/11 researchers (for example, Barrett and Fetzer), they parrot the al-Qaeda myth thus indirectly aiding and abetting those culpable for 9/11.

In “The Road to 9/11″ Peter Dale Scott fails to consider whether or not al-Qaeda actually hijacked the planes on 9/11 and presents an implausible LIHOP analysis of 9/11. While Scott has done exceptional work theorizing about “deep events”, his empirical research is somewhat lacking, at least on the subject of 9/11.

Could it be that Peter Dale Scott’s Road to 9/11 (2007) was published by a major print house because it wasn’t subversive to those in power? After all in his works Scott has mainly emphasized the historic role played by “al-Qaeda” in the imperialism of the United States.

Whilst this history is interesting it tells us little about 9/11, which appears neither to have been done by Islamists nor to have primarily advanced Big Oil’s desired policies.

Rather, it seemingly involved the Mossad-controlled, mostly secular patsies and represented a coup d’état by a Zionist faction of the ruling class in order to implemen! t policies which departed markedly from the traditional U.S. Middle East imperial policy of fostering stability for oil markets through the propping up of Arab strongmen like Saddam Hussein.

And could Michel Chossudovsky be so highly successful because he draws attention away (perhaps for emotional or ideological reasons) from the fact that the whole “war on terrorism” was concocted by Likudnik Zionists to shift U.S. imperial policy in a direction desired by them?

The invitation extended to individuals who wrongly testified that al-Qaeda were involved in 9/11, such as Scott and Chossudovsky, appears to have been at least in part intended by the organizers to promote a favorable public reception of the Toronto Hearings.

That very objective was implied toward the end of the Toronto Hearings by steering committee member Laurie Manwell, who explained that they had gone to great length to project the Hearings in a way that would appeal to the mainstream media as a public relations strategy.

Holding up the two mediocre news reports by The Globe and Mail and The National Post on the Hearings, she candidly stated that the steering committee had “deliberately” framed the Hearings to curry favour with those whom many of us regard as 9/11-cover-up artists in the mainstream media.

Unfortunately, this provides insight into the steering committee’s methodology, which departs from recognized means of discerning truth as a court of law would do and places politics before science.

Either the Toronto Hearings were intended to prioritize the most compelling evidence (even if it was politically incorrect) as a court of law would do or the steering committee tried to fashion the Hearings relative to the bigoted, 9/11-cover up artists in the corporate media.

The controversial decision of the Toronto Hearings to include the least controversial evidence within the Truth Movement represented an abandonm! ent of the traditional approach to truth-seeking, which should be divorced from political correctness, since “controversial” evidence can be true and non-controversial “evidence” can be false or redundant.

It can be argued therefore that of the nineteen or so “testimonies” given over the four day period of the Toronto Hearings at least two, those of Scott and Chossudovsky, were mostly superfluous due to the fact that they endorsed the myth that Osama bin-Laden and al-Qaeda were involved in 9/11, even though, as was established on Day 1 by David Ray Griffin, Day 2 by Jay Kolar and again on Day 4 by Griffin, neither were actually involved.

To have a discussion of the political motives for 9/11 without including a discussion of Israeli geopolitics, whilst perhaps gratifying to the pro-Israel National Post, is highly displeasing to those of us who’ve worked hard to expose the multiple Israeli connections to 9/11.

The vagaries about al-Qaeda in relation to 9/11 offered by Chossudovsky and by Scott could have been replaced by more apposite testimony coming from scholars, such as Professor James Petras, a distinguished sociologist who has demonstrated that the “war on terrorism” has a lot more to do with Israel than Big Oil and who, unlike the Hearings, includes the evidence of Mossad involvement in 9/11, such as “the Dancing Israelis”, in his analysis of 9/11 and of “the war on terrorism”.

[Jeannon Kralj]

Regarding Professor Michel Chossudovsky and GlobalResearch.ca, I have known about them for a very long time.  They are not about 9-11 truth.  I even exchanged emails with Profeassor C. regarding his posting an article about Dr. Steven Jones article on thermite and pointed him to Dr. Fetzer's critique of that study.  Dr. C. wrote me back and suggested I carefully read Dr. Jones' study and come to my own conclusions.  I have read several articles by Prof. C. and Wm. Engdahl on that website that presuppose the the nanothermite gang's "truths."

 

Professor C and globalresearch gave us the the first clear and major truth that al qaeda is a CIA creation.

I will have to look up some recent writings by Tarpley, but I think it is incorrect to say he pushes Al Qaida.  I listen to his radio show every Saturday afternoon and read his articles linked from Rense.com and best I can recall he always lambasts NATO and clearly points out that NATO really is the USA.  Agree that Tarpley never ever mentions Israel and there can be no correct coverage of current Middle East status or 9-11, unless Israel's part is fully discussed and documented as much as possible.  I think Tarpley recently visited Syria and he is very much against the USA's role there.  He also visited Libya when that crisis was at its peak.

 

Sorry, but until my last comment at VeteransToday.com by Craig McKee is accepted and posted, I will not put much stock in  Mckee, or Duff or whoever it is who spiked my comment.  It appeared my comment was at first posted and then removed.  It has been about 14 hours since I submitted post, so we shall see.  I will post my comment below.

 

(The more I study the nanothermite gang and all their spawn groups and people, the more I see connections to the Zionists / Mossad / Israel connections to 9-11.  I do not think Keven Barrett or many others yet see these connections.)

 

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/07/17/a-757-actually-did-hit-the-...

 

A 757 Actually DID Hit the Pentagon! Trust Us, We’re Truthers!

More absurd arguments on the Pentagon: ‘propaganda team’ sets its sights on Griffin

 

By Craig McKee

 

_____________________________________

 

jeannonkralj

July 22, 2012 - 3:40 pm

“Kevin Ryan, David Chandler, Frank Legge, Jonathan Cole, Jim Hoffman, John Bursill, and others” are joined at the hip to that group I refer to as the “nanothermite gang.(NTG)” Dr. Steven Jones is the originator and creator of the NTG and Richard Gage and Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth are Dr. Jones’ first born child. I sometimes wonder if Dr. David Ray Griffin is not also part of the NTG since he claims that nanothermite is a “high explosive.” (““High explosives, such as RDX or nanothermite, could explain these horizontal ejections.”) Nanothermite is NOT a high explosive according to Mark Hightower’s proof.

 

I have never accepted the whole idea of the consensus panel (consensus911.org) and their “seeking consensus within the Truth movement on where the official story can be shown to be wrong.” First of all the people on that panel have a very narrow view of what constitutes something they call “the Truth movement.” Secondly “where the official story can be shown to be wrong” is also interpreted very narrowly by this group. What constitutes “wrong” is also, or should be a subject of much discussion. I do not believe that consensus can be reached on any of those issues so the output of this panel is going to be GIGO.

 

Dr. Fetzer had a guest on his radio show who worked for some time as a volunteer for Gage’s Architects and Engineers. This guest said he was commanded never ever to go near the topic of the Pentagon. That has been the clear track record of the NTG from 2005 when they started the “hard science” part of the 9-11 truth “movement.”

Now, of course, the NTG has moved on to the “controlled explosive demolition” of WTC 7, WTC7 being another topic the NTG would not touch at least for its first five years, and calling for a new investigation, and nanothermite has been left in the dust.