9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

The "4,000 Israelis and Ariel Sharon Saved" Article in Alpha One

I have now received a translation of the portion of the Greek newspaper that I have
scanned and published below from Evi Martyn, an internationally celebrated pianist, who
was born in Greece and who provided me with the copy that I have scanned. If any
questions remain, let me know, because she has offered to address any remaining issues.
I believe this settles the matter--the challenges issued by Michael Morrissey, who has
not only deleted his posts here by resigning as a member but has also banned me as
a member of 911aletheia.ning.com--quite decisively! I will indicate each part of the page
to which the translation pertains, starting with the running head at the very top left:

"Euripides: 'Accept the time' [roughly, we must accept what happens]"

At the top right of the running head, it states:

"Weekend 22-23 September 2001 Alpha One" [the name of the newspaper]"

The heading of the article cross most of the page:

"ISRAELI PRESS: We Saved 4,000 of Our Own and ARIEL SHARON"

The subheading in smaller type to the right/center of the page:

"Confirmation of the Information and Updating [by] All European Governments Asked of the
Foreign Minister George Papandreou [and] the President of L.A.O.S., G. Karatrzaferis"
[where "L.A.O.S." stands for Secular Christian Alert, a Greek political party]

First paragraph (summary paragraph) at the top of the first column:

"The confirmation of Israeli Press [reports] in regard to the absence of 4,000 Jewish
people who worked in the Twin Towers the day of the attack is asked of the Greek Foreign
Minister [and] the President of L.A.O.S., Mr. Karatzaferis, in a petition to the Greek
parliament."

The story begins with the second paragraph of the first column and continues as follows:

"The complete text of the question is as follows:

"Because our country, like the rest of the countries of the planet, under the new dogma
[policies] of the Americans, as we all heard President George W. Bush announce to the
Congress: 'Nations must choose--they are either with us or with the terrorists.'

"Because since September 11, the day of the tragic events in [shift to next column] New
York and Washington, new conditions have arisen that affect our country as well,
particularly because of the 2004 Olympiad in Athens, and due to the fact we are neighbors
with Arab countries, I bring to your attention the following:

[Here begins the paragraph whose first part is outlined by pen]

"Two Israeli newspapers, the 'HA'APETZ' on Tuesday, September 18, and 'YADIOT AHRANDT' on
Wednesday, September 19, refer [discuss/assert/describe], among other things, to the
following:

"4,000 Jews who work [shifting to the next column] in the Twin Towers did not show up for
work the day of the attack. Also the visit of Ariel Sharon to New York, who was going to
attend a Zionist celebration that day, was cancelled. In addition to that, 5 Jews were
arrested four hours after the event, when they were caught recording the disaster.

"According to these newspapers, the 4,000 [shifting to the next column] Jews and Ariel
Sharon were prevented by the Secret Service of Israel [presumably the Mossad], which had
advanced knowledge, and consequently they were saved.

Final heading in the fourth column: "Questions for the Foreign Minister"

"1. Are you aware of these publications?
"2. Have you confirmed their reports?
"3. Have you notified accordingly the rest of the 14 European governments?
"4. How are you going to handle this matter in view of the threat of an endless war?"

I shall now copy what I have published here and sent it to Evi Martyn to verify that I
have accurately conveyed her translation. She also observed that the photograph at the
top center of this article is of Mr. Karatzareris, the president of L.A.O.S.

Views: 243

Comment

You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by James H. Fetzer on September 4, 2009 at 8:03am
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 08:00:29 -0500 [08:00:29 AM CDT]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: "Kevin Barrett" , "Michael Morrissey" , "Jack & Sue White" , "Alex LLoyd" , jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Re: "4,000 Jews/Israelis and Ariel Sharon Saved" (corrected)

All,

In case Kevin, especially, can't make his way to 911scholars.ning.com
to view the original copy of the article, which Evi Martyn found in the
newspaper Alpha One that she purchased personally in Athens during her
visit the weekend of 22-23 September 2001, I have attached the scan. I
reiterate that she was born in Greece and translated the article for me.
I would agree that it is more probable that those who were warned not to
be in the vicinity--like the elderly woman who called me a few years ago
to tell me that her rabbi had told the members of their synagogue not to
go into Manhattan that day--were not told why, but that hardly seems to
matter. When we have such striking, first-person reports about proof
of this kind, I am bewildered at the kind of resistance that Michael
and Kevin have displayed, which is reinforced by Kevin's observations,
which Michael in other contexts will no suppress, dispute or deny, of
multiple additional proofs that Kevin himself has described as follows:

> For what it's worth, I think the evidence does show that many Israelis
> were apparently forewarned, that the one or two Israeli deaths is
> obviously considerably lower than would have occurred without such
> warnings, that the Odigo and Zim stories support this interpretation,
> and that the Mossad agents photographing themselves flicking cigarette
> lighters in front of the burning Towers were obviously celebrating an
> event they, or their agency, had helped perpetrate.

Jack has pointed out that I have produced more than enough evidence that
this article appeared in Alpha One that day, which he has put as follows:

> Now that you have SETTLED the EXISTENCE of the story of alleged
> foreknowledge of the Israeli secret service, we should move on to the
> NEXT step of WHAT DOES THIS MEAN instead of wasting time arguing with
> idiots. The next question is IF THE MOSSAD KNEW, HOW DID THEY KNOW, WHAT
> DID THEY KNOW, AND HOW DID THEY LEARN IT. And is the report true? The
> question of the newspaper report is SETTLED.

I appreciate every word. The reason I persist about this is (a) that the
parties to this dispute (Michael and Kevin) are not "idiots", (b) never-
theless, Michael has induced Kevin to asserts that the very idea that 4,000
Jews/Israelis were warned is "absurd", (c) that there is no objective basis
for that assertion, which is contradicted by the evidence I have produced,
and (d) that Michael methods in inducting Kevin to make that assertion are
important to understand. In my opinion, Michael had to gently influence
Kevin in this direction by suppressing, distorting, or otherwise ignoring
the arguments and evidence I had already advanced. He did that, in part,
by simply deleting the threads where I had argued the case, where I had
not minced words and had made him look silly! I persist about this for
the reason that his modus operandi needs to be exposed and understood by
every one of us, because this is a nice, clear case of someone with an
agenda posing as a reasonable researcher who is manipulating evidence of
Israeli complicity in the events of 9/11--succeeding in taking Kevin in!

I know it is tedious and repetitious, but Morrissey's modus operandi has
to be understood. That someone of the intelligence and dedication of a
Kevin Barrett could be so skillfully manipulatated into making such a
crude and baseless remark--that 4,000 were warned is "absurd"!--counts
as a great triumph in his world of shady dealing, which of course he can
now use to discount me. Even Kevin seems to think that he is in a better
position to appraise the evidence here (i) even though he has much less
familiarity with the argument and its nuances than do I, (ii) even though
my areas of expertise are overwhelmingly more relevant to assessing the
logic of the case, when neither he nor Michael seem to remotely grasp the
concept of a prima facie case, and (iii) even though he wants to accept
his own subjective impressions of what is or is not true or reasonable to
believe in this case, when the objective evidence is conclusive about the
article and its authenticity, has caused me pause. If Kevin Barret can-
not sort this out when the proof I have adduced and the arguments I have
presented are this clear-cut and powerful, then the 9/11 movement cannot
possibly sort out what actually happened when confronted with operators
of the caliber of a Morrissey. It is that simple and straightforward.

Jim
Comment by James H. Fetzer on September 3, 2009 at 10:30pm
ate: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:56:30 -0500 [08:56:30 PM CDT]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: "Kevin Barrett" , "Michael Morrissey" , "Jack & Sue White" , "Alex LLoyd" , jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: National Geographic two hour non sequitur (expanded)
1
Kevin,

Just to make a few rather obvious points:

(1) I have established a prima facie case;

(2) unless rebutted, its contents stand;

(3) those opposed bear the burden of proof;

(4) there is additional confirmatory proof;

(5) Morrissey has destroyed the crucial threads;

(6) Morrissey has not had the 500-words translated;

(7) Morriseey has abandoned his responsibilities.

One of us went to great lengths to make sure it
was scanned and posted and translated by a native
speaker of Greek. Its content speaks for itself.
It cites two Israeli newspapers with the dates of
their publication. It raises serious questions
about the content itself. It is bizarre in the
extreme to suggest that a newspaper would make
itself vulnerable to criticism--even ridicule--
by faking a report like this. Every argument he
has advanced, I have rebutted. He has even let
his translator (named "Wayne") off the hook for
this tiny, 500-word project. That is not what
we expect from a dedicated seeker after truth.

He scuttled the threads in which these issues
were examined in excruciating detail. That is
why he can dupe you by not letting you know of
the existence of this prior exchange, which he
deleted on both sites while banning me. You
might consider why you are upset with me and
not upset with him. I have fulfilled my own
responsibilities by presenting a prima facie
case. It is not my duty to refute what I've
already established. If he wants to overcome
the presumption that I am right, that is his
burden, not mine. I would appreciate if you
would think more clearly about all of this
and not appeal to your own subjective views,
as if they could overcome objective evidence.

Thank you!

Jim

Quoting jfetzer@d.umn.edu:


Kevin,

I am not used to this degree of irrationality from someone whom I know
and trust. Morrissey is another matter entirely. We had an extensive
discussion of this issue on parallel threads, one on his alethetia, one
on 911scholars. I rebutted every argument he posted! So he took down
the thread from alethetia, banned me from the site, and resigned from
911scholars, which meant that his blog, which included this thread, was
wiped out! What we have now is but a fragment of the previous thread.
Is that the kind of conduct you would expect from an honest researcher?
Why don't you ask Michael precisely what he thought he was doing? He
might have taken it off his own site, but removing it from mine--even
though he was able to do it because it was on his own blog--was about
as clear a corrupt act as I have ever witnessed in 9/11 research apart,
of course, from the production of THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT itself!

Please note the meaning of "Prima facie". In this case, it comes from
Wikipedia, but there is nothing unusual about this definition. What he
is attempting to do--and you are falling for it, alas!--is to shift the
burden of proof, so that I not only have to pose a prima facie case but
do the additional research to bolster it! That is not required under the
law and logic certainly does not dictate it. Michael has gone so far as
to claim that he has no idea what the article says because he can't read
Greek! This is like his dismissal of Charles Boldwyn's mathematical proof
that the Twin Towers cannot have collapsed because HE PERSONALLY was not
able to follow it! Do you see a pattern developing here? Something is]
very wrong with Morrissey. It took me a while to figure it out. And he
is a LINGUIST! He even said he had an expert handy to translated it, but
then somehow this "expert" disappeared, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE TOO TEDIOUS!
Well, the article isn't more than 500 words. How tedious can that be?

I have established a prima facie proof. The obligation falls upon those
who would deny it to advance proof to the contrary. Your subjective sen-
sibilities--that it would be "absurd"!--alas, does not count as evidence.
Which is why I am so puzzled by the intensity of your response. Where
does reason leave off and your subjective sensibilities click in? HOW
CAN YOU POSSIBLY KNOW THAT THE CONTENTS OF THIS ARTICLE ARE FALSE? Of
1course, you can't. You even admit to the existence of evidence that is
consistent with the content of this article, namely: that there is lots
of proof that Israelis were warned. Well, stupid things happen all the
time--like framing Oswald with a weapon that cannot have fired the shots
that killed JFK--but I guess I only have to consult your subjective sens-
ibilities to discover that that is "absurd", too, even thought it is fact.
So what has become of your commitment to logic and evidence? Consider:

Prima facie (pronounced /ˈpraɪmə ˈfeɪʃiː/, from Latin prīmā faciē) is a Latin expression
meaning on its first appearance, or by first instance; at first sight. The literal
translation would be "from first face", prima first, facie face, both in the ablative
case. It is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter
appears to be self-evident from the facts. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie
denotes evidence which — unless rebutted — would be sufficient to prove a particular
proposition or fact.
Most legal proceedings require a prima facie case to exist, following which proceedings
may then commence to test it, and create a ruling. This may be called facile princeps,
first principles.

Morrissey wants to evade the issue by shifting the burden of proof. Don't
fall for it. If you now join him, you will likewise be abandoning reason.
He has a motive, which--believe it or not--appears to be to suppress or to
distort every piece of evidence that might implicate Israel in 9/11. And
precisely where do you get the absurd idea that this came from a graduate
student? It was purchased in Greece by an internationally acclaimed concert
1pianist, Evi Martyn, on the weekend it was published. She has translated
it and I had it scanned in so everyone could see it for themselves. I've
fulfilled my responsibilities, even interviewing her on "The Real Deal".
You, to the best of my knowledge, do not share Michael's motives. I have
higher expectations of your capacity to respond to evidence in a rational
fashion. Do us all the favor of not abandoning that standard here and now.

Jim

Quoting "Kevin Barrett" :

Jim,

As an illustrious professor of scientific reasoning, critical thinking, and so on, if
you cool down for a few moments you may notice that it's you, not me, who is shooting
off his mouth without knowing what he is talking about.

But I can't quite understand this eagerness to
dismiss evidence of Israeli complicity that was apparently published
in TWO Israeli newspapers. Just for my edification, precisely how
do you KNOW that this report, which Evi obtained from the paper when
she was in Athens that weekend, is FALSE?
I don't. But I have no reason to believe it's true either. I know nothing about the
Greek paper or its reputation for reliability or lack thereof. As a secondhand report,
this needs to be sourced to the Israeli papers themselves, as Elias said, especially
since it does seem improbable that Israeli papers would print such a story. Would you
accept this kind of leaping to an incendiary, improbable conclusion from a secondary
source whose bona fides are unknown, without seeking the primary source, from a
graduate student?

Kevin

I can't want to hear the
response. You are really making a blunder if you take Morrissey at
face value. He would not even allow a mathematic study of why the
Twin Towers could not have collapsed because it had appeared on an
anti-Semitic web site! As I explained to him then, that is a nice
example of the genetic fallacy, which dismisses an argument based
upon its source. In this case, it did not even originate there,
but only appeared there. If the argument is correct, it remains
correct--and that is the case, even if Adolf Hitler himself had
written it! I was simply stunned by his overly zealous anti-anti-
Semitism, which he is using as a club to bash research that might
implicate Israel in the events of 9/11. You might want to take a
look via google at my article, "Is 9/11 research 'anti-Semitic'?"

Jim

Quoting "Kevin Barrett" :

Jim,

Saying "4000 Jews were warned" IS insane. I agree with Elias that the Greek
newspaper report is not evidence of anything, and is in fact almost certainly a
sloppy rendition of the Jerusalem Post story, or possibly a Mossad plant to
discredit actual evidence of Israeli foreknowledge. While it is not quite
impossible that the Haaretz and Yadiot Ahrandt articles could exist and say what
the Greek report claims, it is so improbable that we would need to see archived
copies of those newspapers to credit the claim. In the unlikely event this turned
out to be true, it would still be insane to translate the Greek word as "Jews"
rather than "Israelis," given the sensitivities and common usage in American
language and culture.

For what it's worth, I think the evidence does show that many Israelis were
apparently forewarned, that the one or two Israeli deaths is obviously considerably
lower than would have occurred without such warnings, that the Odigo and Zim
stories support this interpretation, and that the Mossad agents photographing
themselves flicking cigarette lighters in front of the burning Towers were
obviously celebrating an event they, or their agency, had helped perpetrate.

Kevin

PS Calling Michael "despicable" and me a "sap," and insulting the admirable Elias,
does not make your weak argument any stronger.


On Sep 3, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Jack & Sue White wrote:
Jim...you have presented solid evidence that this report existed. I accept that,
and most on this email list should.

That said, we must accept that this is a newspaper report and is only as good
as its sources. It is not an "official" report. We must also accept the possibility
of disinformation.

Now that you have SETTLED the EXISTENCE of the story of alleged foreknowledge
of the Israeli secret service, we should move on to the NEXT step of WHAT DOES
THIS MEAN instead of wasting time arguing with idiots. The next question is
IF THE MOSSAD KNEW, HOW DID THEY KNOW, WHAT DID THEY KNOW,
AND HOW DID THEY LEARN IT. And is the report true? The question of the
newspaper report is SETTLED.

This reminds me of the JFK case, where endless arguments ensue over a
single point, wasting valuable time. For instance, I have se1en thousands of words
wasted arguing over the hole in the windshield. You and I believe there WAS a
hole in the glass. The matter is SETTLED. Arguing with a few dissenters over
single data points stands in the way of more productive thinking.

An idiot convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

Jack


On Sep 3, 2009, at 2:23:26 PM, jfetzer@d.umn.edu wrote:
Kevin appears to be developing his propensity to shoot off his mouth when
he has no idea what he is talking about. I find that extremely offensive.
How did you manipulate him into doing this? That kind of conduct is quite
consistent with my take on your character and duplicitous behavior here in
relation to any indication of Israeli complicity in 9/11. Are you going
to get Kevin to assert that any such indications are also "insane"? You
are a truly despicable person, Michael. You are playing Kevin for a sap.

9/11 Scholars Forum
Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

The "4,000 Israelis and Ariel Sharon Saved" Article in Alpha One
Posted by James H. Fetzer on August 17, 2009 at 1:30pm
Comment by James H. Fetzer on August 21, 2009 at 9:32am
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:18:07 -0500 [09:18:07 AM CDT]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: "Elias Davidsson" , "Anthony Lawson" , jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Re: Were Israelis/Jews forewarned not to come to work on 9/11?

Elias, whom I admire, has sent me a response that appears to me to be absurd:

My statement of "canard" is based on three distinct points:

(a) No evidence has been produced that the Israeli newspapers actually printed this
story. It is not my duty to look for this evidence. It is the duty of
those who claim they did, including the Greek newspaper and those who believe that the
Greek newspaper is making a true quote. It is the duty of those who make a claim to
prove their claim.

(b) The claim that 4,000 "Jews" were forewarned of 9/11 is utterly ludicrous and it is
totally absurd to believe that any Israeli newspaper would print
such a story, particularly if it were true, for the simple reason that this might cause a
terrible backlash against the Jewish community in New York.

(c) Planting false stories is a routine job of intelligence services. This story was
obviously planted in order to supplant the real story published in Jerusalem Post, which
could have had severe consequences, if widely reported. The false story ensured a
strawman that the world press could easily knock
down as an example of antisemitic fantasy. The Zionists love to plant such
stories that they can easily dismiss.

Elias

This is quite remarkable to me. Elias discounts the article in Alpha One
as not even counting as "evidence"! That is stunning. It is obviously
prima facie evidence that deserves to be accepted in the absence of new
proof to the contrary. It is irresponsible both under the law and in
logic to simply disregard evidence like this, as I have explained now
several times. I cannot imagine how he could misunderstand my points:

Quoting jfetzer@d.umn.edu:

Elias,

One question. You cite The Jerusalem Post, not the papers Alpha One cites
as they are discussed in the article Evi translated on 911scholars.ning.com:

"Two Israeli newspapers, the 'HA'APETZ' on Tuesday, September 18, and 'YADIOT AHRANDT'
on Wednesday, September 19, refer [discuss/assert/describe], among other things, to the
following:

"4,000 Jews who work [shifting to the next column] in the Twin Towers did not show up
for work the day of the attack. Also the visit of Ariel Sharon to New York, who was
going to attend a Zionist celebration that day, was cancelled.
In addition to that, 5 Jews were arrested four hours after the event, when
they were caught recording the disaster.

"According to these newspapers, the 4,000 [shifting to the next column] Jews and Ariel
Sharon were prevented by the Secret Service of Israel [presumably
the Mossad], which had advanced knowledge, and consequently they were saved.

Final heading in the fourth column: "Questions for the Foreign Minister"

"1. Are you aware of these publications?
"2. Have you confirmed their reports?
"3. Have you notified accordingly the rest of the 14 European governments?
"4. How are you going to handle this matter in view of the threat of an endless war?"

These are very strange statements to publish if Alpha One were not certain of its
sources, which, of course, you dispute. But apart from The Jerusalem Post, have you
done anything to falsify the presence of the articles from either HA'APET on Tuesday,
September 18, 2001, or else YADIOT AHRANDT on Wednesday, September 19, 2001?
Because if you have not done that--and I have the sense that you are disinclined to do
so because you simply don't believe it--then how can you possibly justify the use of the
term "canard"? You are making a claim that you cannot substantiate in the face of
contradictory evidence.

Jim

The explanation appears to be implicit in what he had sent to me previously:

On 21.8.2009, at 11:00, jfetzer@d.umn.edu wrote:

Elias,

I would like to add this note from you to our discussion thread. May
I have your permission to do so? I think it sharpens the issues.

Warm regards,

Jim

Quoting "Elias Davidsson" :

Dear Jim,

I would appreciate if you would not misconstrue my opinions. I did not agreed
that the Greek article and newspaper are "authentic". I just said that I have
no reason to dispute its authenticity. There is a slight difference here,
which is nevertheless relevant. What my comment meant is that I do not
dispute your claim that the Greek paper did publish a news reports in which
it cited two Israeli newspapers. I did not see this Greek paper, cannot read
Greek and have no way to check it. However, even if the Greek paper did
actually print the story as reported by you and others, it does not mean that
the story is true. In order to prove its truthfulness, it would be necessary
to check the Israeli papers, the sources.

As I told you, I would have to go to some lengths to find the originals of
those Israeli papers. I have no time left for that. I think those who are
keen to demonstrate the truth of the Greek story should spent time in
unearthing the Israeli originals. I read Hebrew and would be able to check.
Perhaps there are copies of those papers in the Library of Congress, which
could be photocopied. Or you may find archives of these newspapers somewhere.
As the story sounds to me like a fabrication, I do not wish to spend my time
to disprove it.

Elias

If Elias Davidsson does not dispute that this article appeared in Alpha One,
then he is granting the existence of prima facie proof that the story did
appear in the Israeli newspapers it cites. In the absence of contradictory
rebutting evidence, there is no basis to dispute its accuracy--other than,
of course, Elias Davidsson's disinclination to believe it. I am sorry to
report that our subjective impressions of truth an no substitute for the
existence of objective contrary evidence, which is the case here. And I am
a bit perplexed that he would beg off responsibility because he cannot read
Greek! I have provided a translation by a notable musician, who is Greek,
and who happens to be the person who purchased the paper in Greece at the
time. Michael Morrissey originally solicited the assistance of a "Wayne"
for the purpose of translation, but (according to Morrissey) he "begged
off" because translating it would be "tedious"! The article is probably
less than 500 words long. How "tedious" can that be? One of us might as
well shrug off anything you were to turn up in a paper published in Hebrew
on the grounds that we can't read Hebrew! Elias, you are better than this.
You arguments are deplorable. I hope you will reconsider, because this is
a level of scholarship far below that for which I have so long admired you.

Jim
Comment by James H. Fetzer on August 21, 2009 at 8:41am
On 21.8.2009, at 13:09, jfetzer@d.umn.edu wrote:

Elias,

One question. You cite The Jerusalem Post, not the papers Alpha One cites
as they are discussed in the article Evi translated on 911scholars.ning.com:

"Two Israeli newspapers, the 'HA'APETZ' on Tuesday, September 18, and 'YADIOT AHRANDT'
on Wednesday, September 19, refer [discuss/assert/describe], among other things, to the
following:

"4,000 Jews who work [shifting to the next column] in the Twin Towers did not show up
for work the day of the attack. Also the visit of Ariel Sharon to New York, who was
going to attend a Zionist celebration that day, was cancelled.
In addition to that, 5 Jews were arrested four hours after the event, when
they were caught recording the disaster.

"According to these newspapers, the 4,000 [shifting to the next column] Jews and Ariel
Sharon were prevented by the Secret Service of Israel [presumably
the Mossad], which had advanced knowledge, and consequently they were saved.

Final heading in the fourth column: "Questions for the Foreign Minister"

"1. Are you aware of these publications?
"2. Have you confirmed their reports?
"3. Have you notified accordingly the rest of the 14 European governments?
"4. How are you going to handle this matter in view of the threat of an endless war?"
1. Ha'aretz and Yediot Aharonot (correct spelling in English) are known daily newspapers
in Israel. Ha'aretz has also an English edition. You just google it.
2. I have not seen any such reports in these newspapers and have no time to look for
these reports in these old newspapers. Someone should do so.
3. What should I notify to European governments?
4. What should I handle "in view of the threat of an endless war"?

These are very strange statements to publish if Alpha One were not certain of
its sources, which, of course, you dispute. But apart from The Jerusalem Post,
have you done anything to falsify the presence of the articles from either
HA'APET on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, or else YADIOT AHRANDT on Wednesday, September
19, 2001? Because if you have not done that--and I have the sense
that you are disinclined to do so because you simply don't believe it--then
how can you possibly justify the use of the term "canard"? You are making
a claim that you cannot substantiate in the face of contradictory evidence.

Elias Davidsson has replied:

My statement of "canard" is based on three distinct points:

(a) No evidence has been produced that the Israeli newspapers actually printed this
story. It is not my duty to look for this evidence. It is the duty of those who claim
they did, including the Greek newspaper and those who believe that the Greek newspaper is
making a true quote. It is the duty of those who make a claim to prove their claim.

(b) The claim that 4,000 "Jews" were forewarned of 9/11 is utterly ludicrous and it is
totally absurd to believe that any Israeli newspaper would print such a story,
particularly if it were true, for the simple reason that this might cause a terrible
backlash against the Jewish community in New York.

(c) Planting false stories is a routine job of intelligence services. This story was
obviously planted in order to supplant the real story published in Jerusalem Post, which
could have had severe consequences, if widely reported. The false story ensured a
strawman that the world press could easily knock down as an example of antisemitic
fantasy. The Zionists love to plant such stories that they can easily dismiss.

Elias
Comment by James H. Fetzer on August 21, 2009 at 8:17am
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 08:09:21 -0500 [08:09:21 AM CDT]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: "Elias Davidsson" , "Anthony Lawson"

Subject: Re: Were Israelis/Jews forewarned not to come to work on 9/11?

Elias,

One question. You cite The Jerusalem Post, not the papers Alpha One cites
as they are discussed in the article Evi translated on 911scholars.ning.com:

"Two Israeli newspapers, the 'HA'APETZ' on Tuesday, September 18, and 'YADIOT
AHRANDT' on Wednesday, September 19, refer [discuss/assert/describe],
among other things, to the following:

"4,000 Jews who work [shifting to the next column] in the Twin Towers did not show up for
work the day of the attack. Also the visit of Ariel Sharon to New York, who was going to
attend a Zionist celebration that day, was cancelled.

In addition to that, 5 Jews were arrested four hours after the event, when
they were caught recording the disaster.

"According to these newspapers, the 4,000 [shifting to the next column] Jews and Ariel
Sharon were prevented by the Secret Service of Israel [presumably the Mossad],
which had advanced knowledge, and consequently they were saved.

Final heading in the fourth column: "Questions for the Foreign Minister"

"1. Are you aware of these publications?
"2. Have you confirmed their reports?
"3. Have you notified accordingly the rest of the 14 European governments?
"4. How are you going to handle this matter in view of the threat of an endless war?"

These are very strange statements to publish if Alpha One were not certain of
its sources, which, of course, you dispute. But apart from The Jerusalem Post,
have you done anything to falsify the presence of the articles from either
HA'APET on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, or else YADIOT AHRANDT on
Wednesday, September 19, 2001? Because if you have not done that--
and I have the sense that you are disinclined to do so because you simply
don't believe it--then how can you possibly justify the use of the term "canard"?
You are making a claim that you cannot substantiate in the face of contradictory evidence.

Jim

Quoting jfetzer@d.umn.edu:

Let me add that I strongly endorse the additional research you propose at
the end of your piece in order to bring greater clarity to the situation:

1. How did the Israeli Foreign Ministry obtain in such a short time a
list of 4,000 Israelis believed to be around the WTC?
2. What became of those 4,000 Israelis? Were they actually in or around
the WTC at the time of the attacks?
3. How are we to reconcile the suspicion of 4,000 Israelis around the WTC
and the final tally of one dead Israeli (who was not even an employee)?
4. What prompted Zim to move its operations from the WTC just weeks prior
to 9/11?
5. How many Israeli citizens actually worked in the WTC complex and
where?

Once we have accomplished research of this kind, we might be in position to
characterize one view or another as a "canard". For now, they are opinions.

Quoting jfetzer@d.umn.edu:

Elias,

I was just a bit surprised to find this new statement from you in a post
by Anthony Lawson. When did it appear here? I missed it completely. I
think it is just a bit much to describe the assertion under dispute as "a
canard", which implies we know the truth of the matter. Indeed, we must
not only know it to be true but with some certainty. You've made mistakes
of your own, in my opinion, where, for example, you have argued "Ha'aretz
would certainly not publish a news story that would suggest that Jews were
forewarned of the attacks." You were addressing the period following the
9/11 attacks, of course. However, Ha'aretz has recently done what you've
implied that it would never do in the following article of recent vintage:
_________________

HAARETZ.com
Subscribe to Print Edition | Thu., August 20, 2009 Av 30, 5769 | | Israel Time: 16:05
(EST+7)

Odigo says workers were warned of attack

By Yuval Dror

Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages
two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would
happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement,
including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the
attack.

Micha Macover, CEO of the company, said the two workers received the messages and
immediately after the terror attack informed the company's management, which
immediately contacted the Israeli security services, which brought in the FBI.

"I have no idea why the message was sent to these two workers, who don't know the
sender. It may just have been someone who was joking and turned out they accidentally
got it right. And I don't know if our information was useful in any of the arrests the
FBI has made," said Macover. Odigo is a U.S.-based company whose headquarters are in
New York, with offices in Herzliya.

As an instant messaging service, Odigo users are not limited to sending messages only
to people on their "buddy" list, as is the case with ICQ, the other well-known Israeli
instant messaging application.

Odigo usually zealously protects the privacy of its registered users, said Macover, but
in this case the company took the initiative to provide the law enforcement services
with the originating Internet Presence address of the message, so the FBI could track
down the Internet Service Provider, and the actual sender of the original message

----- Forwarded message from captainmay@ . . . -----
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 23:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Captain May" . . .
Subject: Re: Request for source . . .
To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Here's your reference, Jim. I'm just now getting back to old correspondence. Yours, Eric

"Odigo says workers were warned of attack"
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=77744&contrassID=/has%5C
__________________

I assume that, as cautious and thorough as you are, you have read this:
http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-4000-israelis-and-ariel.
What I may or may not have made sufficiently clear is that, in my view,
there is an alternative explanation, namely: once the Mossad realized
the story was getting out--after having been published in not just one
but two Israeli newspapers and being picked up by Alpha One and other
international newspapers--it undertook a sanitizing mission by rework-
ing those copies of the originals that were to be archived. This may
seem a bit of a stretch, but it is surely no more of a stretch than to
suggest that Alpha One would publish a major story about this and cite
two Israeli newspapers as its source--including their dates of publi-
cation--when that could have been so readily refuted at the time. I
therefore request that you withdraw the inflammatory charge that any-
one who continues to support this position is endorsing a "canard" and
betraying the 9/11 movement. That is just a bit much for you to claim.

Warm regards,

Jim

P.S. Anthony and I are in agreement about this. And I guess that I
am not surprised that Michael Morrissey would continue to make
outlandish charges. I invite you, Michael, to list all those
"names in the book" I have called you, because you have most
certainly not acted as an honorable man in deleting the entire
thread about this matter on 911scholars.ning.com and removing
me and my replies to you about this from 911aletheia.ning.com.
These were, in my opinion, despicable acts, which reeked of a
man who is intellectually dishonest and trades in deception.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on August 21, 2009 at 8:13am
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:09:35 +0700 [04:09:35 AM CDT]
From: "Anthony Lawson"
To: "Michael Morrissey"

Who wrote what? What point is he trying to make?

Some Jews must have been forewarned, otherwise there would have been more than one visiting Jew killed in those two huge buildings which were dedicated to international trade and finance, as the title of the entire complex implies, and which were situated in, arguably, the most important financial city in the world. Give me a break!

Given the potential working-day population of the Twin Towers, and the relatively low loss of life, anyone who thinks that some people, Jews among them, were not forewarned are not thinking straight.

Anthony

2009/8/21 Michael Morrissey

Elias Davidsson writes below:

"Anyone who, in spite of the facts presented here, continues to promote the canard that 4,000 Jews were forewarned not to come to work on 9/11 must be suspected of doing so in order to damage the 9/11 truth movement."

Jim Fetzer has called me every name in the book for questioning his doing exactly that, and I don't want to lower myself to his level, but I am beginning to think that he and his ex-military buddies (May and Fox) are more than just very sick puppies.

What is the function of a lightning rod? It protects the house by attracting all the lightning and sending it harmlessly into the ground. The no planes and fakery issues are lightning. The issues of foreknowledge and governmental responsibility are lightning. On the latter, emphasizing Israeli complicity, and especially insisting on promoting lies such as the one about "Jews" being forewarned, effectively send these issues into the ground of "anti-Semitism." It's intellectual suicide, but soldiers will give everything for their "country."

On 20.08.2009, at 02:09, Elias Davidsson wrote:

Dear all,

I urge you to stick to facts. Here are a few mainstream news regarding an Israeli connection to 9/11:

Report 1:

On September 12, 2001, the Jerusalem Post, an Israeli newspaper, published a story according to which the Israeli Foreign Ministry expressed its concern about the fate of approximately 4,000 Israelis suspected to be in the World Trade Center area. I possess a printout from this news report. Here is the text of the report issued on Sept. 12, 2001 8:15 Israeli time:

"The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem has so far received the names of 4,000 Israelis believed to have been in the areas of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon at the time of the attack.

The list is made up of people who have not yet made contact with friends or family, Army Radio reported.

Telephone connections between Israel and the New York City and Washington, D.C. areas has been sporadic and unreliable since the multiple attacks yesterday.

The thousand people are estimated to have been killed in the New York attacks and another 800 in Washington. Several hundred also went down with the hijacked planes."

Report 2:

On September 13, 2001, the Jerusalem Post published a story about Israeli workers of Zim Israel Navigation Company who were luckily spared deaths on 9/11. Here is the text of the story written by Miriam Shaviv:

"More than 200 workers at Zim Israel Navigation Company counted themselves luck Tuesday, having been moved out of their WTC offices by the company just two weeks ago.

At the same time, Israeli company ClearForest, whose international headquarters were located in the 47th floor of One World Trade Center, reported that none of its staff was hurt when the building collapsed. "When we watched the pictures, we felt so lucky," Zim spokesperson Dan Nadler said. "Our entire US operations were run out of the 16th floor."

Zim left so recently that CNN, on its Web site, still lists the company as one of the businesses in the WTC.

Zim moved its US corporate headquarters to Norfolk, Virginia. "The aim was to save on rent," said Nadler. "We bought a modest building instead of paying New York rates."

Nadler said the company is unaware of any other Israeli firms in the building, but said he is sure "there are other Israelis working there."

Meanwhile, Sigal Srur, ClearForest's director of human resources, said that four or five of the company's 18 workers were in the building when it was hit. "They got out at the last minute, and two who were lightly injured with scrapes have already been discharged from the hospital," she said from the company's Or Yehuda R&D offices.

According to Srur, the company lost "mostly marketing and business development material. Luckily, unlike many US companies which were toally wiped out, our R&D is here, so all of our technology is here."

She said that the company is already looking for temporary offices in New York and emphasized that the company's new permanent offices be located in New York."

Report 3:

On September 22, 2001, Eric Lipton wrote an article in the New York Times mentioning that only one Israeli died at the WTC (he was not an employee):

"But interviews with many consulate officials yesterday suggested that the lists of people they were collecting varied widely in their usefulness. For example, the city had somehow received reports of many Israelis feared missing at the site [of the WTC], and President Bush in his address to the country on Thursday night mentioned that about 130 Israelis had died in the attacks.

But today, Alon Pinkas, Israel's consul general here, said that lists of the missing included reports from people who had called in because, for instance, relatives in New York had not returned their phone calls from Israel. There were, in fact, only three Israelis who had been confirmed as dead: two on the planes and another who had been visiting the towers on business and who was identified and buried."

These three stories have been published in mainstream publications. I have a hard copy of all three stories. They provide a sufficient ground to ask the following questions:

1. How did the Israeli Foreign Ministry obtain in such a short time a list of 4,000 Israelis believed to be around the WTC?
2. What became of those 4,000 Israelis? Were they actually in or around the WTC at the time of the attacks?
3. How are we to reconcile the suspicion of 4,000 Israelis around the WTC and the final tally of one dead Israeli (who was not even an employee)?
4. What prompted Zim to move its operations from the WTC just weeks prior to 9/11?
5. How many Israeli citizens actually worked in the WTC complex and where?

These questions should be asked and followed up. Israelis who worked or lived around the WTC should be located and interviewed about the day. Their stories should be corroborated by independent eyewitnesses. There exist, additionally, further reasons to suspect Israeli involvement in 9/11, including the arrest of five Israelis who filmed the burning WTC and much more. However it is damaging to the 9/11 truth movement to espouse unproven stories, namely that 4,000 Jews or Israelis were warned not to come to work. I suspect that these allegations have been promoted by Israel (and/or the US) as a strawman that they could easily knock down as a vile antisemitic allegation und thus overshadow the above stories (which were mostly ignored) and which provide far more ammunition to the 9/11 movement than unproven or fabricated legends. Anyone who, in spite of the facts presented here, continues to promote the canard that 4,000 Jews were forewarned not to come to work on 9/11 must be suspected of doing so in order to damage the 9/11 truth movement.

Greetings from Elias Davidsson
Comment by James H. Fetzer on August 20, 2009 at 8:27am
HAARETZ.com
Subscribe to Print Edition | Thu., August 20, 2009 Av 30, 5769 | | Israel Time: 16:05 (EST+7)

Odigo says workers were warned of attack

By Yuval Dror

Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.

Micha Macover, CEO of the company, said the two workers received the messages and immediately after the terror attack informed the company's management, which immediately contacted the Israeli security services, which brought in the FBI.

"I have no idea why the message was sent to these two workers, who don't know the sender. It may just have been someone who was joking and turned out they accidentally got it right. And I don't know if our information was useful in any of the arrests the FBI has made," said Macover. Odigo is a U.S.-based company whose headquarters are in New York, with offices in Herzliya.

As an instant messaging service, Odigo users are not limited to sending messages only to people on their "buddy" list, as is the case with ICQ, the other well-known Israeli instant messaging application.

Odigo usually zealously protects the privacy of its registered users, said Macover, but in this case the company took the initiative to provide the law enforcement services with the originating Internet Presence address of the message, so the FBI could track down the Internet Service Provider, and the actual sender of the original message

----- Forwarded message from captainmay@ . . . -----
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 23:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Captain May" . . .
Subject: Re: Request for source . . .
To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Here's your reference, Jim. I'm just now getting back to old correspondence. Yours, Eric

"Odigo says workers were warned of attack" http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=77744&contrassID=/has%5C

--- On Tue, 8/4/09, jfetzer@d.umn.edu wrote:

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Request for source . . .
To: captainmay@. . .
Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2009, 9:43 AM

Eric,

In response to posting our latest on 911scholars.ning.com, I
have had a request from a fellow in Germany who has asked for
a source for the following claim, "According to the Israeli
newspaper Ha'aretz, New York's Jewish community was tipped
off to the WTC attacks of 9/11 hours in advance." I happen
to have a copy of a Greek newspaper for 11-23 September 2001
that has a story on page 5 that appears to be reporting how
4,000 Jewish lives were saved by an early warning. I can't
read Greek but I offered to send him a fax of the article
and assured him that I would ask you about the reference. I
also featured a celebrated concert pianist, Evi Martyn, who
was traveling in Europe immediately following 9/11 and gave
me a copy of the paper. I have interviewed her on "The Real
Deal". The program is archived at radiofetzer.blogspot.com.

Warm regards,

Jim
Comment by James H. Fetzer on August 17, 2009 at 1:56pm
In response to Michael Morrissey's suggestion that Alpha One does not exist, Evi Martyn wrote back:

Jim , It is evident to me that Mr. Morrissey, whoever he is, has a definite agenda and that is to destroy
any evidence whatsoever that exists concerning this particular publication, and further more he
is a fanatic who will go to any extreme to do that. The world is full of those fanatics, who in my opinion,
never act alone, they are part of a machine set up by experts who drive the AGENDA. We call them
PROPAGANDISTS. That is who he really is, and it is unfortunate for him because his claims are
very transparent and have no real value. He assumes he is talking to beginners and idiots.

Not only I can tell you how I obtained that article but I can also tell you that I have more articles from the
same newspaper concerning the event of 911 and all the happenings around it.

First off I will tell you that I bought this paper myself when I was in Athens that week at the suggestion
of friends who were regular readers of that Newspaper No. 1 blunder for Mr. Morrissey

Second, I can also tell you that I have in my files another article ( which I also have submitted to you)
from the same Newspaper, it is marked picture No 2 in the material I have sent to you when I submitted
the whole package to you for the book you were putting together. If you can not find it I can send you
another copy. In this article not only you see the name of the Newspaper ALPHA ONE , but you can
read that is it a weekly newspaper of opinion dated September 22-23 2001, and even the price which is
0,88 Euros, and underneath that the name G. Karatzaferis adviser of publications. No. 2 blunder for
Mr. Morrissey.

But it doesn't stop here, I have more articles from the same newspaper regarding Taliban agents being
in touch with our CIA agents in July of that year,( it is No 4 picture in the material I have submitted to
you ) and it goes on and on and on ................ No. 3 blunder for Mr. Morrissey.

As I told you Jim, you are dealing with a FANATIC who will go to any extreme, but he needs to be put
in his place, I am glad that I kept all these publication for all these years,( I am a very organized person
and I can provide this assistance to you.) Kudos to you for not lying down, taking all this but you have a
good ally in me and together we can discredit him all the way.

Unfortunately it is the practice of these people who hide the real events to always try to discredit
others when THEY WANT TO HIDE THE TRUTH..

If you check your files you will find, I am sure, all the stuff I sent to you, but don't worry, I have every-
thing in my files to destroy this fanatic, whoever he is. His last resort will be to take on the
GREEK GOVERNMENT, and I wish him a lot of luck there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let me hear from you as soon as you get this Email, if you need anything else, you know I am here.
My best to you and another bravo for standing up to these phonies!!!!

Evi

P. S. By the way I thought the issue was the existence of the article and not the existence of the
Newspaper, how is it that we got so far?? You see this is how this AGENDA works , they create
confusion. We know that all too well. E.


In a message dated 8/16/2009 8:38:21 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, jfetzer@d.umn.edu writes:

Thank you, Evi. You may be taken aback by Michael Morrissey's latest post:

"There is no newspaper in Greece called "Alpha One" as far as I can tell."

I would be glad to have a response, including how it came into your hands.

Warm regards,

Jim
Comment by James H. Fetzer on August 17, 2009 at 1:50pm
Since Evi's translation uses the term "Jews" where the term "Israelis" might have been
thought more appropriate, I asked her about that and received the following explanation:

Jim. As I indicated earlier the only four places that the word " Jew" or Jews"
are those I pointed out to you, and I hope you can find them easy in the text.
The word "Israeli" appears at the top title, ISREALI PRESS:
and later it appears again on the left column which begins:
"The confirmation of Israeli Press " and one more time on the second column
"Two Israeli Newspapers the "HA'ARETZ............................

Now to clear your mind, in Greek both words Israeli and Jew mean the SAME
THING, no difference at all, the Greeks are not sensitive at all about that issue
and as I pointed earlier using either word they make no distinction at all and
there is no PREJUDICE or BIAS and no real difference.
I know my language well and I never heard anyone make a distinction in
using either one of those two words for any reason whatsoever.
This appears to me to be a very sensitive issue with people of that origin or
religion but to the Greeks it has no bearing at all. I believe ,it sounds to me
a linguistic differentiation, or an historical issue ( according to Benjamin Freed
man , the American Jewish defector, Pg. 67 of my book The Root of the Evil.
Keep in mind, the Greek Nation today has far more important things to take
care of that play with words and worry about such things.

If there is any difference I never heard of it , but feel sure that the Greek press
is the one to answer that and not you or me.
Besides I explained that both words mean the same thing to people who read
the papers, I am the first one to vouch for that.

I hope I gave you a clear explanation, as clear as I know it myself.
Let me hear if there is anything else to help with this issue.
My best
Evi
Comment by James H. Fetzer on August 17, 2009 at 1:42pm
Elias Davidsson, who is an exceptional scholar, offered a very interesting take on this
in an email to me 15 Aug 2009: "I have never seen any indication, except this one, that
Israeli newspapers, such as Ha'aretz, printed the news about 4,000 Jews not appearing to
work in the WTC on 9/11. Although I did not yet have an opportunity to search the
archives of Ha'aretz, including their hard print version (which is perhaps stored in the
Library of Congress), I would be extremely surprised if Ha'aretz would publish such a
story: First, Ha'aretz could not know how many "Jews" worked in the WTC for there is
nowhere such a register; secondly, the story is wrong, because many Jews actually died in
the WTC, so apparently at least these went to work; and thirdly, Ha'aretz would certainly
not publish a news story that would suggest that Jews were forewarned of the attacks.
So, beside the fact that no one has produced any Ha'aretz article saying those things,
such a story in Ha'aretz would be extremely unlikely.

"We are dealing here with a similar phenomenon as with the absence of evidence of the
hijackers in the 9/11 aircraft. In addition to being no evidence of their boarding, it
is most unlikely that they committed the crime. On that base we accept to discount their
presence on the aircraft unless we see compelling evidence that they did.

"If I ever come across a Ha'aretz report about 4,000 Jews not appearing to work in the WTC
on 9/11, I promise you an apology and I would certainly post it on my website for the
simple reason that I am driven by the quest for the truth.

"What I actually believe has taken place is that some organization, or even the Mossad,
has leaked to some Arab and/or Greek media the canard that 4,000 Jews did not appear to
work on 9/11, as a strawman to be knocked out. In the leaked story, Haaretz and another
Israeli paper were quoted. The source may have been considered by these secondary media
outlets as sufficiently credible that these media did not check for the original. As this
story appeared, the Western press threw itself on this planted story as one more example
of anti-semitic unfounded allegations. Meanwhile almost no Western media reported about
what the Israeli foreign ministry's said about 4,000 Israelis believed to be in the
vicinity of the WTC, which was a true story, confirmed to me by the editor of the
Jerusalem Post and of which I possess a copy. This story certainly raises questions:
From where did the ministry get the figure 4,000? How to explain the discrepancy between
this figure and the fact that only one Israeli national died at the WTC and he was not
even an employee (story of the New York Times). So there are certainly grounds to ask
these questions about Israeli involvement in 9/11, but not sufficient evidence to make
any definite conclusions, for we do not really know where these 4,000 Israelis actually
worked and whether they were in danger.

"What is not disputed is the arrest of five Israelis filming the burning WTC and their
subsequent deportation to Israel. Nor is it disputed that over 200 socalled Israeli art
students were roaming around the US and were arrested and suspected. So there are
certainly grounds to suspect Israeli involvement in 9/11, but not sufficient evidence to
specify the degree and nature of such involvement."

© 2017   Created by James H. Fetzer.  

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service