Neo-nazis driving the 9/11 "Truth" movement?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Crosspost from my blog:

As can be seen in previous entries, I have been confronting Sept. 11th conspiracy theorists on their ideas that the 9/11 attacks were not carried out by 19 militant Islamic hijackers. Over the last couple of weeks I have taken to referring to them as "9/11 deniers", "Al-Qaeda shills", or "terrorist deniers" since they commit many of the same logical fallacies as Holocause deniers. Imagine my surprise when, this week, some information comes before me that shows that this parallel my not be quite as coincidental as I initially thought. http://arkanwolfshade.spaces.msn.com...t&_c02_owner=1

On the JREF (James Randi Education Foundation) forums, which I frequent, the following post was made http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...85#post1794085
"Those of you who've seen Loose Change or read my critique of it are aware that one of its main sources of disinformation is the American Free Press. The AFP is relatively new, and lists its predecessor as a publication called the Spotlight. I did some Googling on the Spotlight but didn't turn up much in my brief search. A reader has just emailed me with some very interesting (and not surprising) information, reprinted with permission:

"Anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools."
-August Bebel

I just finished reading your excellent rebuttals to Loose Change and Loose Change 2, posted on 911Myths.com. I wanted to congratulate you on a job well done. I'd like to point out one thing, if I may, regarding your description of The American Free Press (AFP), which you correctly note is an "anti-Zionist", conspiracy-obsessed online publication. What you failed to note and what I think is of great importance in demonstrating the lengths to which Avery et al are willing to go to force the square pegs of history into the round holes of their claim, is that The AFP is not simply anti-Zionist(which I, personally, do not object to in and of itself) in orientation but is, in fact, the spin-off publication of the now defunct domestic neo-fascist organization, The Liberty Lobby, founded by American quasi-Nazi and conspiracist, Willis Carto. Formerly known as The Spotlight, The AFP is a perfect example of the "old wine in new skins" PR campaigns that many neo fascists and Third Positionist organizations have undertaken over the last few decades (perhaps best embodied by the current suit-and-tie public face of former (?) Klansmen and American Nazi, David Duke). While the pages of The AFP do not openly endorse things like Nazi-skinheads, Aryan Nations summerfests, Holocaust denial books and organizations, or sell Third Reich marching music CD's and Tapes, (unlike its former incarnation, The Spotlight) the fact that they proudly announce that their publication is "brought to you by the former staff of The Spotlight, who are now the publishers." should be more than enough reason for any serious researcher to keep a light year's distance between themselves and such a crackpot publication. Well, that and the piss-poor journalism advanced by its roster of rambling, reactionary, closeted and not-so-closeted Swastika-saluting scribes. Again, can someone tell me why Avery and his pals are relying so heavily on the neo-fascist AFP as a main source for LC2E? Could it be that they themselves, along with a growing number of so-called "alternative" researchers are, in some way, anti-Semites, or simply just fools? Is there a difference?

"Pope" Ralph Hernandez"
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...53#post1794085

AFP is probably as heavily referenced by 9/11 CT'ers as S. Jones' paper (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html) (1)
Now, not wanting to commit the same errors in thinking that the 9/11 CT'ers commit, I did not want to take this at face value and decided to do some investigation. Here's what I have uncovered so far.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/htm...l_meeting.html
In 2000, when yours truly was with the now defunct Spotlight, it was positively determined that Bilderberg would meet in the area of Brussels, Belgium, June 1-3. But the precise location was unclear.

http://64.233.167.104/custom?q=cache...29003121141183
http://www.americanfreepress.net/Liberty_Supplement.pdf
Final Notes . . .
American Free Press newspaper (and before it
The Spotlight) were the only newspapers in America
we know of to expose the facts about this brutal and
wanton attack before the truth was aired on the
Discovery Channel more than 30 years after the

http://www.americanfreepress.net/htm...rs_strike.html
The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington July 19, under auspices of the We the People Foundation, by Mark Lane, longtime general counsel to the now-defunct Spotlight and its publisher, Liberty Lobby.

So, there is a conclusive, and short, trail from AFP back to Liberty Lobby who is one of the biggest neo-nazi/Holocause-denier movements to have blighted the US landscape. (for a good summation of their antics I suggest reading Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things, or at least pick it up from the library and check out the chapters on Holocause deniers.

My concerns about this connection are twofold:
1) The neo-nazi/neo-fascist movement in the US is, unfortunetely, reletively strong due to our protection of speech (no matter how stupid or irrational). With this backing the 9/11 "Truth" movement will be able to reach a sizeable audience.

2) If people become involved in the 9/11 "Truth" movement and begin looking at AFP as a source of credible, "unbiased", and independent information this would provide the neo-nazi/fascist movement with exposure and opportunity to indoctrinate new people into their movement.

With these concerns in mind, I plan on digging further into this connection and trying to establish just how deep it runs.

My next step will be to look into prisonplanet.com (Alex Jones' website) and see how tight the ties are between it and AFP.

- Arkan

(1) Jones' paper does not have the backing of the academic or professional communities:
Critiques of Jones' paper by experts in the field:
http://www.netxnews.net/vnews/displa.../443801bdadd6e

"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
http://www.et.byu.edu/ce/people/peop...iller/vita.php

"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." - The College of Engineering and Technology department
http://www.et.byu.edu/index.php?m1=faculty&n=2

http://www.et.byu.edu/index.php?m1=faculty&n=2

"But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F."

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Professor Williams received his BSE from Princeton University in 1955 and his PhD from California Institute of Technology in 1958. He then taught at Harvard University until 1964, at which time he joined the UCSD faculty. In January 1981, Professor Williams accepted the Robert H. Goddard Chair in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton University, where he remained until 1988, when he returned to UCSD to assume his present position. His field of specialization is combustion, and he is author of Combustion Theory (Addison, Wesley, 2nd ed., 1985) and co-author of Fundamental Aspects of Combustion (Oxford, 1993). He is a deputy editor of Combustion and Flame and a member of the editorial advisory boards of Combustion Science and Technology, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science and Archivium Combustionis.
http://www-mae.ucsd.edu/RESEARCH/WILLIAMS/williams.html



Soon after Mr. Jones posted his paper online, the physics department at Brigham Young moved to distance itself from his work. The department released a statement saying that it was "not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." (Mr. Jones's paper has been peer-reviewed by two physicists and two other scholars for publication in a book called 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, from Olive Branch Press.)

The Brigham Young college of engineering issued an even stronger statement on its Web site. "The structural engineering faculty," it read, "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." However, his supporters complain, none of Mr. Jones's critics at Brigham Young have dealt with his points directly.

While there are a handful of Web sites that seek to debunk the claims of Mr. Jones and others in the movement, most mainstream scientists, in fact, have not seen fit to engage them.

"There's nothing to debunk," says Zdenek P. Bazant, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Northwestern University and the author of the first peer-reviewed paper on the World Trade Center collapses.

"It's a non-issue," says Sivaraj Shyam-Sunder, a lead investigator for the National Institute of Standards and Technology's study of the collapses.

Ross B. Corotis, a professor of civil engineering at the University of Colorado at Boulder and a member of the editorial board at the journal Structural Safety, says that most engineers are pretty settled on what happened at the World Trade Center. "There's not really disagreement as to what happened for 99 percent of the details," he says.

Thomas W. Eagar is one scientist who has paid some attention to the demolition hypothesis — albeit grudgingly. A materials engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mr. Eagar wrote one of the early papers on the buildings' collapses, which later became the basis for a documentary on PBS. That marked him for scrutiny and attack from conspiracy theorists. For a time, he says, he was receiving one or two angry e-mail messages each week, many accusing him of being a government shill. When Mr. Jones's paper came out, the nasty messages increased to one or two per day.

So Mr. Eagar has become reluctantly familiar with Mr. Jones's hypothesis, and he is not impressed. For example, he says, the cascade of yellow-hot particles coming out of the south tower could be any number of things: a butane can igniting, sparks from an electrical arc, molten aluminum and water forming a hydrogen reaction — or, perhaps most likely, a spontaneous, completely accidental thermite reaction.

Occasionally, he says, given enough mingled surface area, molten aluminum and rust can react violently, à la thermite. Given that there probably was plenty of molten aluminum from the plane wreckage in that building, Mr. Eagar says, it is entirely possible that this is what happened.

Others have brought up this notion as well, so Mr. Jones has carried out experiments in his lab trying to get small quantities of molten aluminum to react with rust. He has not witnessed the reaction and so rules it out. But Mr. Eagar says this is just a red herring: Accidental thermite reactions are a well-known phenomenon, he says. It just takes a lot of exposed surface area for the reaction to start.

Still, Mr. Eagar does not care to respond formally to Mr. Jones or the conspiracy movement. "I don't see any point in engaging them," he says.

Hence, in the world of mainstream science, Mr. Jones's hypothesis is more or less dead on the vine. But in the world of 9/11 Truth, it has seeded a whole garden of theories.

http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.ph...jn728rfkn21t9l

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Coming in again with the mormon insider angle on this; Jones just gets himself in deeper and deeper every day. Spiritually speaking.

As pointed out on the main Loose Change thread, Jones goes to a known stormfront.org groupie for defense against 911myths.com on page 24 of this document: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/...AnsQJones1.pdf

Going from talking up a holocaust denier to quoting mormon scripture in the same document would provoke nothing but revulsion and disgust among the overwhelming majority of the members of the church. If Jones's dancing with the devil were heavily publiscized, I can garantee he would either pull and apologize for the Rajter honorable mention or he would be facing a "stake disciplinary council". No small thing for any member of the church.

[Gravy]

Good Job, Arkan. Here's a collection of Spotlight articles I found traces the relationship between the Institute for Historical Review, the Holocaust Revision group founded by the Spotlight/AFP founder Willis Carto, and the Church of Scientology. Once things went sour, the Spotlight started accusing the CoS of being run by an alliance between the ADL and Mossad.

I feel icky. (Better than feeling Icke, I suppose.)

http://www.lermanet.com/cisar/carto/spotlight.htm

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by Gravy

Good Job, Arkan. Here's a collection of Spotlight articles I found traces the relationship between the Institute for Historical Review, the Holocaust Revision group founded by the Spotlight/AFP founder Willis Carto, and the Church of Scientology. Once things went sour, the Spotlight started accusing the CoS of being run by an alliance between the ADL and Mossad.

I feel icky. (Better than feeling Icke, I suppose.)

http://www.lermanet.com/cisar/carto/spotlight.htm

Over on s15invisionfree my posting of this information ended up with defense of "Godwin's law" and "I bet Arkan's the neo-Nazi". Granted, I've been rather abrasive over there lately, but oh well.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

he would be facing a "stake disciplinary council". No small thing for any member of the church.

Why do I wish that was literal?

-Andrew

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Hehe.

The mormon church is organized into "wards" of 200 to 500 members. Six to eight of these wards are in turn organized into "stakes". We do not burn people at, nor do we impale people with stakes, I'm afraid.

As a holder of the Melchizedek priesthood, any issues that would require formal attention, like using a church owned webserver to host his rubber stamping of a anti-semitic holocaust denier, Jones would bypass the ward level and get sent straight to the stake high council.

[Jeff Corey]

As Vlad the Impaler once said, "I want the stake well done."

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

http://arkanwolfshade.spaces.msn.com...t&_c02_owner=1

Quote:

Another high profile website that is often cited as a source of information for the 9/11 "Truth" movement is Alex Jones' website, prisonplanet.com Given what I have recently been enlightened to with regards to americanfreepress.net I decided to do some digging into Jones and see what skeletons might be in his closet.

First question up is, does Jones' have any high visibility interaction with AFP? Meaning, does he reference AFP or its affiliates. Let's do some digging:
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-...isonplanet.com
This is a google search of the prisonplanet.com website for "american free press"
Here is the first page of hits:
National Geographic Channel and 9/11 Propaganda
The uncanny similarities between the Murdoch film and the subsequent events of 9/11 is a subject American Free Press has investigated, but one which has ...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...Propaganda.htm - 54k - Cached - Similar pages

Bilderberg Exposed In Europe; Exclusive Reports Confirmed
Tony Gosling, a European Bilderberg-hound-in-training, promptly faxed the documents to American Free Press. Gosling is one of many in Europe who have ...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/bilderbe...in_europe.html - 10k - Cached - Similar pages

U
Exclusive to American Free Press. By Christopher Bollyn. CHANTILLY, Va. ... Both Miller and Smith were aware of Bilderberg from reading American Free Press. ...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/us_media...spirators.html - 6k - Cached - Similar pages

Bilderberg Group Meeting 2004: Stresa, Italy, June 3-6
American Free Press http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...104silentmedia. htm. Cyprus represented for first time at secret Bilderberg meeting: ...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives...rberg_2004.htm - 39k - Cached - Similar pages

Who Is Bilderberg?
By the Staff of American Free Press. The Bilderberg Group takes its name from the hotel in Holland where the group met in 1954, during the earliest period ...
www.prisonplanet.com/who_is_bilderberg.html - 14k - Cached - Similar pages

BILDERBERG PLOTTING
Exclusive to American Free Press. By James P. Tucker Jr. When Bilderberg luminaries seal themselves off behind armed guards at the Westfields hotel in ...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/bilderbe...wack_iraq.html - 19k - Cached - Similar pages

Unexplained 9-11
Exclusive to American Free Press. By Christopher Bollyn. A massive explosion, witnessed by millions of television viewers on CNN, evidently devastated World ...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/unexplai...tc_complex.htm - 23k - Cached - Similar pages

Berg Lawsuit Filed On Behalf Of Another WTC Bombs Witness
American Free Press/Greg Szymanski | May 24 2005. Philadelphia lawyer Phil Berg has never tried to climb Mt. Everest. In the past, he’s always attempted ...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...mbswitness.htm - 43k - Cached - Similar pages

Ansar al-Islam leader threatens to document his links to US
"I had a meeting with a CIA representative and someone from the American army in the town of Sulaymaniya (Iraqi Kurdistan) at the end of 2000. ...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/news_ale..._general1.html - 6k - Cached - Similar pages
Bilderberg Pushing World TaxExclusive to American Free Press. By James P. Tucker Jr. High on the Bilderberg agenda this year is the creation of a United Nations “Financial Action Task ...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/bilderbe...world_tax.html - 9k -Cached - Similar pages


Okay, so it appears he does at least reference their articles. Let's dig deeper. What about Liberty Lobby, AFP's parent publisher?
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-...isonplanet.com
Hrm, sure enough. Not as many hits, but they are there.

What about Liberty Lobby's founder, Willis Carto?
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-...isonplanet.com
"Your search - willis carto - did not match any documents. " Well, nothing there. Something in there defense at least. No hits either on IHR, "Institute for Historical Review" or "Noontide Press". Looks like Jones may just not be aware that he is citing known history revisionist publications.

Based on what I have found in this cursory snooping I can't say I'm willing to make any accusations against Alex Jones beyond that ofquoting dubious sources.

Check back as I investigate more into this possible link between fascism and the 9/11 movement.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

Crosspost from my blog:

As can be seen in previous entries, I have been confronting Sept. 11th conspiracy theorists on their ideas that the 9/11 attacks were not carried out by 19 militant Islamic hijackers. Over the last couple of weeks I have taken to referring to them as "9/11 deniers", "Al-Qaeda shills", or "terrorist deniers" since they commit many of the same logical fallacies as Holocause deniers. Imagine my surprise when, this week, some information comes before me that shows that this parallel my not be quite as coincidental as I initially thought. http://arkanwolfshade.spaces.msn.com...t&_c02_owner=1

On the JREF (James Randi Education Foundation) forums, which I frequent, the following post was made http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...85#post1794085
"Those of you who've seen Loose Change or read my critique of it are aware that one of its main sources of disinformation is the American Free Press. The AFP is relatively new, and lists its predecessor as a publication called the Spotlight. I did some Googling on the Spotlight but didn't turn up much in my brief search. A reader has just emailed me with some very interesting (and not surprising) information, reprinted with permission:

"Anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools."
-August Bebel

I just finished reading your excellent rebuttals to Loose Change and Loose Change 2, posted on 911Myths.com. I wanted to congratulate you on a job well done. I'd like to point out one thing, if I may, regarding your description of The American Free Press (AFP), which you correctly note is an "anti-Zionist", conspiracy-obsessed online publication. What you failed to note and what I think is of great importance in demonstrating the lengths to which Avery et al are willing to go to force the square pegs of history into the round holes of their claim, is that The AFP is not simply anti-Zionist(which I, personally, do not object to in and of itself) in orientation but is, in fact, the spin-off publication of the now defunct domestic neo-fascist organization, The Liberty Lobby, founded by American quasi-Nazi and conspiracist, Willis Carto. Formerly known as The Spotlight, The AFP is a perfect example of the "old wine in new skins" PR campaigns that many neo fascists and Third Positionist organizations have undertaken over the last few decades (perhaps best embodied by the current suit-and-tie public face of former (?) Klansmen and American Nazi, David Duke). While the pages of The AFP do not openly endorse things like Nazi-skinheads, Aryan Nations summerfests, Holocaust denial books and organizations, or sell Third Reich marching music CD's and Tapes, (unlike its former incarnation, The Spotlight) the fact that they proudly announce that their publication is "brought to you by the former staff of The Spotlight, who are now the publishers." should be more than enough reason for any serious researcher to keep a light year's distance between themselves and such a crackpot publication. Well, that and the piss-poor journalism advanced by its roster of rambling, reactionary, closeted and not-so-closeted Swastika-saluting scribes. Again, can someone tell me why Avery and his pals are relying so heavily on the neo-fascist AFP as a main source for LC2E? Could it be that they themselves, along with a growing number of so-called "alternative" researchers are, in some way, anti-Semites, or simply just fools? Is there a difference?

"Pope" Ralph Hernandez"
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...53#post1794085

AFP is probably as heavily referenced by 9/11 CT'ers as S. Jones' paper (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html) (1)
Now, not wanting to commit the same errors in thinking that the 9/11 CT'ers commit, I did not want to take this at face value and decided to do some investigation. Here's what I have uncovered so far.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/htm...l_meeting.html
In 2000, when yours truly was with the now defunct Spotlight, it was positively determined that Bilderberg would meet in the area of Brussels, Belgium, June 1-3. But the precise location was unclear.

http://64.233.167.104/custom?q=cache...29003121141183
http://www.americanfreepress.net/Liberty_Supplement.pdf
Final Notes . . .
American Free Press newspaper (and before it
The Spotlight) were the only newspapers in America
we know of to expose the facts about this brutal and
wanton attack before the truth was aired on the
Discovery Channel more than 30 years after the

http://www.americanfreepress.net/htm...rs_strike.html
The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington July 19, under auspices of the We the People Foundation, by Mark Lane, longtime general counsel to the now-defunct Spotlight and its publisher, Liberty Lobby.

So, there is a conclusive, and short, trail from AFP back to Liberty Lobby who is one of the biggest neo-nazi/Holocause-denier movements to have blighted the US landscape. (for a good summation of their antics I suggest reading Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things, or at least pick it up from the library and check out the chapters on Holocause deniers.

My concerns about this connection are twofold:
1) The neo-nazi/neo-fascist movement in the US is, unfortunetely, reletively strong due to our protection of speech (no matter how stupid or irrational). With this backing the 9/11 "Truth" movement will be able to reach a sizeable audience.

2) If people become involved in the 9/11 "Truth" movement and begin looking at AFP as a source of credible, "unbiased", and independent information this would provide the neo-nazi/fascist movement with exposure and opportunity to indoctrinate new people into their movement.

With these concerns in mind, I plan on digging further into this connection and trying to establish just how deep it runs.

My next step will be to look into prisonplanet.com (Alex Jones' website) and see how tight the ties are between it and AFP.

- Arkan

(1) Jones' paper does not have the backing of the academic or professional communities:
Critiques of Jones' paper by experts in the field:
http://www.netxnews.net/vnews/displa.../443801bdadd6e

"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
http://www.et.byu.edu/ce/people/peop...iller/vita.php

"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." - The College of Engineering and Technology department
http://www.et.byu.edu/index.php?m1=faculty&n=2

http://www.et.byu.edu/index.php?m1=faculty&n=2

"But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F."

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Professor Williams received his BSE from Princeton University in 1955 and his PhD from California Institute of Technology in 1958. He then taught at Harvard University until 1964, at which time he joined the UCSD faculty. In January 1981, Professor Williams accepted the Robert H. Goddard Chair in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton University, where he remained until 1988, when he returned to UCSD to assume his present position. His field of specialization is combustion, and he is author of Combustion Theory (Addison, Wesley, 2nd ed., 1985) and co-author of Fundamental Aspects of Combustion (Oxford, 1993). He is a deputy editor of Combustion and Flame and a member of the editorial advisory boards of Combustion Science and Technology, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science and Archivium Combustionis.
http://www-mae.ucsd.edu/RESEARCH/WILLIAMS/williams.html



Soon after Mr. Jones posted his paper online, the physics department at Brigham Young moved to distance itself from his work. The department released a statement saying that it was "not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." (Mr. Jones's paper has been peer-reviewed by two physicists and two other scholars for publication in a book called 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, from Olive Branch Press.)

The Brigham Young college of engineering issued an even stronger statement on its Web site. "The structural engineering faculty," it read, "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." However, his supporters complain, none of Mr. Jones's critics at Brigham Young have dealt with his points directly.

While there are a handful of Web sites that seek to debunk the claims of Mr. Jones and others in the movement, most mainstream scientists, in fact, have not seen fit to engage them.

"There's nothing to debunk," says Zdenek P. Bazant, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Northwestern University and the author of the first peer-reviewed paper on the World Trade Center collapses.

"It's a non-issue," says Sivaraj Shyam-Sunder, a lead investigator for the National Institute of Standards and Technology's study of the collapses.

Ross B. Corotis, a professor of civil engineering at the University of Colorado at Boulder and a member of the editorial board at the journal Structural Safety, says that most engineers are pretty settled on what happened at the World Trade Center. "There's not really disagreement as to what happened for 99 percent of the details," he says.

Thomas W. Eagar is one scientist who has paid some attention to the demolition hypothesis — albeit grudgingly. A materials engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mr. Eagar wrote one of the early papers on the buildings' collapses, which later became the basis for a documentary on PBS. That marked him for scrutiny and attack from conspiracy theorists. For a time, he says, he was receiving one or two angry e-mail messages each week, many accusing him of being a government shill. When Mr. Jones's paper came out, the nasty messages increased to one or two per day.

So Mr. Eagar has become reluctantly familiar with Mr. Jones's hypothesis, and he is not impressed. For example, he says, the cascade of yellow-hot particles coming out of the south tower could be any number of things: a butane can igniting, sparks from an electrical arc, molten aluminum and water forming a hydrogen reaction — or, perhaps most likely, a spontaneous, completely accidental thermite reaction.

Occasionally, he says, given enough mingled surface area, molten aluminum and rust can react violently, à la thermite. Given that there probably was plenty of molten aluminum from the plane wreckage in that building, Mr. Eagar says, it is entirely possible that this is what happened.

Others have brought up this notion as well, so Mr. Jones has carried out experiments in his lab trying to get small quantities of molten aluminum to react with rust. He has not witnessed the reaction and so rules it out. But Mr. Eagar says this is just a red herring: Accidental thermite reactions are a well-known phenomenon, he says. It just takes a lot of exposed surface area for the reaction to start.

Still, Mr. Eagar does not care to respond formally to Mr. Jones or the conspiracy movement. "I don't see any point in engaging them," he says.

Hence, in the world of mainstream science, Mr. Jones's hypothesis is more or less dead on the vine. But in the world of 9/11 Truth, it has seeded a whole garden of theories.

http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.ph...jn728rfkn21t9l

Good work! Don't forget to check out the nuts at WingTV; they're hardline anti-Zionist (and anti-Alex Jones). Hufschmid's a holocaust denier, as is Rajter. Also, Daryl Bradford Smith. Wing TV's a great resource in this regard, as they denounce anybody who's not on the anti-Zionist bandwagon.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Good work! Don't forget to check out the nuts at WingTV; they're hardline anti-Zionist (and anti-Alex Jones). Hufschmid's a holocaust denier, as is Rajter. Also, Daryl Bradford Smith. Wing TV's a great resource in this regard, as they denounce anybody who's not on the anti-Zionist bandwagon.

It's interesting that WingTV would by anti-Alex Jones, as his website does make reference to Bilderburg (sp?) often enough.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

It's interesting that WingTV would by anti-Alex Jones, as his website does make reference to Bilderburg (sp?) often enough.

Insufficient mention of the Zionists. What we have to remember with these CT nutbars is that they start with the conclusion. With WingTV and Huffschmid that's "Zionists did it!". Somebody posted WingTV's "best of 2005" list in the Loose Change thread the other day, and about 10 of them are negative awards to Alex Jones.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

All,

On a parallel line of investigation I will be looking at how conspiracy theorist (in general) fit, or don't fit, into Shermer's idea of the 'Messiah Myth' as described in How We Believe That one should take a little longer as, iirc, it takes up an entire chapter in the book.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

More info: Dylan has appeared on WingTV at least once for an interview regarding 9/11

http://69.28.73.17/ruppertwingtv.html
http://www.wingtv.net/thorn2006/darylsmith10.html

Stormfront.org:
forum post promoting Loose Change: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=282420
(granted, this is a very weak link, but worth mentioning)

[chacal]

Well, I've always wondered how did Adolf get so many people behind something that was so radical and so total nonsense. When I listen to Alex Jones radio show I see similarities not in the message but in the way he pushes it. The ranting style seem quite similar and I think Jones is quite skillfull in appealing to emotions and even when many of the callers don't agree him on something they never dare to oppose him because he would shout them down and accuse them of not beeing true patriots or something. Like Adolf, Alex offers clear reasons for everything, clear enemies, everybody is needed to fight the globalists, we need to work together against the evil ... He's message is not rasist but the paradigm looks quite similar to NSDAP. Atleast to me.

[MarkyX]

It's quite easy for Alex Jones to talk tough when the enemy he is facing does not exist and will never hurt him.

[Kent1]

I thought you might find this useful if you haven't read it already.

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASInt_13/4346_13.htm

There's a great pdf titled "Unraveling Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theories"

If you want to see Anti-Semitic CT'ers in action then head here...
http://www.libertyforum.org/postlist...oard=consp_911
Another common hate site is Rivero's WRH http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

Best

[WhiteLion]

Yes, even the largest "White Nationalism" forum on the net, Stormfront, has threads like so, wherein mostly 9/11 "truth seekers" pat each other on the backs and blame jews or freemasons interchangebly.

[Brainster]

SPINE is "Scientific Professionals Investigating Nine-Eleven. At first glance, it may appear that it's just another attempt to legitimize 9-11 Denial, like the Scholars (indeed, there are many overlapping members), but check out their FAQ:

Quote:

Question 6. Are you saying the Jews are behind 911?

Answer: Certainly not. Although Israel is ostensibly a Jewish state, its actions in the middle east are in direct conflict with Jewish Law, ethics and morality. The European (Khazarite) Jews may be described as double victims, suffering not only from centuries of persecution after the fall of Muslim Spain, but from the deceptive practices adopted by the Zionist planners responsible for Israel. Myths such as “a land without people for a people without land” (both questionable propositions) misled thousands of settlers in the Jewish proto-state, followed by millions later.

As a general rule, zionist organizations in the west have only one tool with which to counter revelations of the myth-building exercise. Whoever makes such claims is labeled an “anti-semite,” a peculiarly ironic charge under the circumstances.

We're not against the Jooooos, oh, no, we're just against those evil hook-nosed Zionists. Note as well that they promote Holocaust Denier Eric Hufschmid's video, Painful Deceptions.

[chacal]

speaking of nazis here's a video on youtube that apparently some Hufschmidt supporter has made about the LC crew. This video prooves how the LC crew is illuminati funded globalist... or something ... mmm oh yeah

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJc_Xh3oy2s


it's true

[gtc]

Originally Posted by Brainster

We're not against the Jooooos, oh, no, we're just against those evil hook-nosed Zionists. Note as well that they promote Holocaust Denier Eric Hufschmid's video, Painful Deceptions.

This is good. For far too long, those of us who think that the only thing better than cheese on a hamburger is cheese and bacon on a hamburger, have felt left out of the zionist plot for world domination.

[Hishighness]

I came to a similar conclusion in a post I did on my blog.

http://liberal4lifeblog.blogspot.com...-movement.html

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Brainster

We're not against the Jooooos, oh, no, we're just against those evil hook-nosed Zionists.

In the for what it's worth department, the Zionist movement was at its inception a subset of the set of people that includes "Jews." Many Jews in America, and elsewhere, are not enamored of the policies of some of the hard core, right wing policies in Israel, which are not infrequently labeled "Zionist."

Why would that be? Well, it is logical that since the Zionist movement created Israel (through a lot of hard work) some parties who do not wish to see Israel weakened, nor "given away our land" would appeal to being truer to the original, real McCoy, Zionist cause.

To hold Zionists in low regard does not require one to hold Jews in general in low regard, as the comments of such liberals as Naom Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein (and some of the more liberal contributors to Haaretz) are hardly supportive of Zionists. While I don't care for Chomsky's brand of "Hate America liberalism," I cannot imagine him as a Zionist.

I realize I am nitpicking over words, and that some people try to use the distinction between "Zionist" and "Jew" carelessly, or to blur it. The broad brush charge that "Zionism is equal to racism" came from the Arab League, and was sent to the General Assembly of the UN some decades ago. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, adopted on November 10, 1975 by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions), "determine[d] that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination". Revoked by Resolution 4686 on December 16, 1991.

The whole "labeling" of people is a tool of propagandists, certainly. That does not mean that there is NO distinction between a run of the mill American Jew on the streets of Manhattan, and a proper Zionist. For example, I understand that many of the New York Hassidim are vocally opposed to Zionism, and Zionist policies.

Warm Regards

DR

[Hishighness]

2 Polls from the Loose Change forum. (I S**t you not)

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

In the for what it's worth department, the Zionist movement was at its inception a subset of the set of people that includes "Jews." Many Jews in America, and elsewhere, are not enamored of the policies of some of the hard core, right wing policies in Israel, which are not infrequently labeled "Zionist."

True enough, but when somebody starts to blame 9-11 instead of, say Qana, on Zionists, then I'm automatically a little more suspicious of their motivations. I agree that you can criticize Israel without being anti-Semitic, but if you only criticize Israel then something else is going on. Eric Hufschmid, for example, never criticizes the Jews, but only the Zionists, and yet you don't have to poke around his site for long before you realize he's certainly a Holocaust Denier and probably an anti-Semite.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Brainster

True enough, but when somebody starts to blame 9-11 instead of, say Qana, on Zionists, then I'm automatically a little more suspicious of their motivations. I agree that you can criticize Israel without being anti-Semitic, but if you only criticize Israel then something else is going on. Eric Hufschmid, for example, never criticizes the Jews, but only the Zionists, and yet you don't have to poke around his site for long before you realize he's certainly a Holocaust Denier and probably an anti-Semite.

So, he hates Arabs? Tag, you're it.

I think it is well argued that the Likud party tends more toward a Zionist platform, and could without too big of a stretch be called proper Zionists.

This leaves Olmert's leadership (which I read as a novice trying to play tough and completely missing on his estimations of his enemy*) of the current fight, and of his party, as something other than Zionist. Perhaps someone could show me (I am not as well read on Israeli politics as I ought to be) that a bunch of Likudniks are driving the Lebanon war.

Do you agree, or is my assessment missing out on a fundamental nuance of Israeli politics?

*= a cursory check showed me that Olmert is one of the very few PM's of Israel who wasn't previously a general or former military officer.

DR

[Hishighness]

What I don't get is why there's still a Zionist "movement." As far as I understand Zionism's goal is the establishment of a Jewish state, well didn't the creation of Israel already fulfill that goal?

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

So, he hates Arabs? Tag, you're it.

I think it is well argued that the Likud party tends more toward a Zionist platform, and could without too big of a stretch be called proper Zionists.

This leaves Olmert's leadership (which I read as a novice trying to play tough and completely missing on his estimations of his enemy*) of the current fight, and of his party, as something other than Zionist. Perhaps someone could show me (I am not as well read on Israeli politics as I ought to be) that a bunch of Likudniks are driving the Lebanon war.

Do you agree, or is my assessment missing out on a fundamental nuance of Israeli politics?

*= a cursory check showed me that Olmert is one of the very few PM's of Israel who wasn't previously a general or former military officer.

DR

I'm with HH on this one, DR; what are Zionists if they aren't folks who advocate a Jewish homeland? There's not much of a debate over that issue in Israel. I don't get the feeling they're particularly desirous of conquering more territory; indeed giving up land for peace seems to be more their practice.

And if the anti-Zionists would like to see there be no Jewish homeland, then what they are advocating is genocide.

[WhiteLion]

Originally Posted by Brainster

I'm with HH on this one, DR; what are Zionists if they aren't folks who advocate a Jewish homeland? There's not much of a debate over that issue in Israel. I don't get the feeling they're particularly desirous of conquering more territory; indeed giving up land for peace seems to be more their practice.

And if the anti-Zionists would like to see there be no Jewish homeland, then what they are advocating is genocide.

I know that in the times of Israel being initially formed as a state, a lot if not most of the orthodox rabbis etc were skeptical and some even hotly against it.
There are still plenty of rabbis, secular and religious jews who are against zionism, however I'm not completely certain about their interpretation of it.
The thing is, the Torah says (later resounded in the Talmud on the Diaspora) that Israel as a homeland musn't be established before the Messiah has come.

A certain well-known Rabbi Kook, who passionately embraced and supported the forming of the Israel state back in the 30'ts-40'ts and prophetic times, was branded as a heretic by the orthodox community.
Today a lot of things have changed but it's certainly not a one-dimensional issue either way.

[Hishighness]

Yeah, I wasn't trying to go all "deep" or anything it just struck me as odd that these CTers are fighting so hard against something that's already happened. It'd be like me fighting against the Stealers being given the last Superbowl by the NFL. It was a horrible time for America in general and football as a whole but it's done now.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by Hishighness

Yeah, I wasn't trying to go all "deep" or anything it just struck me as odd that these CTers are fighting so hard against something that's already happened. It'd be like me fighting against the Stealers being given the last Superbowl by the NFL. It was a horrible time for America in general and football as a whole but it's done now.

Quiet, you plebian!

[chipmunk stew]

Another poll and discussion about Holocaust denial and anti-semitism at the LC forum:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...howtopic=10695

[Axiom_Blade]

Originally Posted by Hound

However, I strongly disagree with the poster that revisionists are neo-Nazis. Revisionists are truthers when it comes to holocaust and WW2 history. Simple as that.

Ye gods. Conspiracy theories are truly a slippery slope. Once you go down that road, it never ends!

I think "truthers" shouldn't have any trouble buying any Holocaust conspiracies because they employ the same logic. There's probably a lot more Holocaust deniers among them than will admit it, since they don't want to look like neo-Nazis.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

Ye gods. Conspiracy theories are truly a slippery slope. Once you go down that road, it never ends!

I think "truthers" shouldn't have any trouble buying any Holocaust conspiracies because they employ the same logic. There's probably a lot more Holocaust deniers among them than will admit it, since they don't want to look like neo-Nazis.

Yep. Consider this analagous thinking I have seen displayed by them:
"The FBI doesn't have enough evidence to charge bin Laden with 9/11"
to this commonly used Revisionist line:
"There's no evidence that Hitler ordered the death of the Jews at the camps."

I confess, I was a little worried when I started researching/posting along this line that I was falling into a Godwinian ad hom attack because the CTers were horking me off, but as time goes on I feel more confident in my findings and conclusions.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Brainster

I'm with HH on this one, DR; what are Zionists if they aren't folks who advocate a Jewish homeland? There's not much of a debate over that issue in Israel. I don't get the feeling they're particularly desirous of conquering more territory; indeed giving up land for peace seems to be more their practice.

And if the anti-Zionists would like to see there be no Jewish homeland, then what they are advocating is genocide.

You made a few leaps there to genocide, which I find to be cloudy thinking. Zionists, as I understand it in 2006 speak, are bound and determined NOT to cede the West Bank, and NOT to give back any of the Golan Heights. Sharon's recent (at last) withdrawal from Gaza was hardly unopposed within Israel, though I think it was a smart political and strategic move.

As to the "definition" or meaning of Zionist at hand, I'll offer a different comparison.

Look at the French Nationalist (FN) aka The National Front. It is a nationalist political party in France, founded in 1972 by Jean-Marie Le Pen. Then look at the Israeli "Zionist" faction and insert "Israeli Nationalist" movement like the FN -- both chauvinist political blocs -- and I think there is a fair distinction between "Jew" and "Zionist." You can be a Jew who endorses Israel's existence and right to exist as the Jewish homeland, and not be a Zionist. Zionism reeks of chauvinism, in my opinion, in the present, and like many political movements, has transformed over the years. Is the current Republican party really The Party of LIncoln? Of Reagan, even?

While the comparison is not exact, the political blocs are similar enough for comparison. The issue is complex. If you insist on an unnecessary simplicity, you risk falling into the intellecutal trap of those who use "Jew" and "Zionist" interchangeably, which I think is unfair to a great many Jews who are not enamored of the hard right political bloc in Tel Aviv.

Some small differences do matter, ya know, like H or He on the periodic table of elements.

For HisHighness:

Quote:

What I don't get is why there's still a Zionist "movement." As far as I understand Zionism's goal is the establishment of a Jewish state, well didn't the creation of Israel already fulfill that goal?

Ah, good point, and now we get to fun with labels. Merely establishing the Jewish state did not result in the dissolution of the political bloc who (with blood sweat and tears) established it. The continued survival of the Jewish homeland in Israel/The Holy Land remains a core aim, though a Zionist faction is hardly the only party who holds that goal.

I realize that people often attach different meanings and connotations to words and labels, and perhaps my sense of it flies in the face of more common usage. A little HUmpty Dumpty semantics goes a long way.

DR

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

You made a few leaps there to genocide, which I find to be cloudy thinking. Zionists, as I understand it in 2006 speak, are bound and determined NOT to cede the West Bank, and NOT to give back any of the Golan Heights. Sharon's recent (at last) withdrawal from Gaza was hardly unopposed within Israel, though I think it was a smart political and strategic move.

It's not a leap at all. If you (general you, not specific you) desire no Jewish homeland then you are effectively calling for the elimination of the state of Israel, no? And I think ascribing the desire to hold onto the West Bank and the Golan Heights to Zionists is unnecessarily muddying the waters. Argue the policy, don't use that label which has a historically different meaning, and which just confuses folks (like me).

Quote:

Zionism reeks of chauvinism, in my opinion, in the present, and like many political movements, has transformed over the years. Is the current Republican party really The Party of LIncoln? Of Reagan, even?

Zionism did not arise in a vaccuum. We are only a few generations removed from the death camps (and before that the pogroms). It's not, "We want our own state because we're better than everybody else," it's "We want our own state because people keep killing us and taking our property."

That the Republicans are no longer the party of Lincoln, I will grant you. Reagan was for tax cuts and standing tough against our enemies (while many wondered if there were any real enemies out there). Bush, ditto. Bush is actually much closer to Reagan than to his own father.

Quote:

While the comparison is not exact, the political blocs are similar enough for comparison. The issue is complex. If you insist on an unnecessary simplicity, you risk falling into the intellecutal trap of those who use "Jew" and "Zionist" interchangeably, which I think is unfair to a great many Jews who are not enamored of the hard right political bloc in Tel Aviv.

Jerusalem, you mean? Tel Aviv hasn't been the capital for some time now. I agree, Jew and Zionist should not be used interchangeably. Neither should Likudnik and Zionist. Basically I think Zionist should be considered a word describing historical figures. It's like somebody calling Americans "rebels" or "colonists", or modern white Southerners who, say, oppose Affirmative Action, segregationists.

[Brainster]

Oh, don't forget Justin Raimondo over at Antiwar.com. Raimondo's kind of an older (and smarter) Rick Rajter; they're both libertarians who hate Israel. Raimondo's probably the biggest proponent of the suspicious Israeli Art Students theory. Here's Antiwar.com's list of articles referencing this story. Most are from 2002, but that appears to be an artifact of them just not adding newer stories to the list, because I know he's written about it many times since. Read any of his recent columns on the Israeli/Hezbollah War for confirmation; he's reflexively anti-Israel. As I've said before, you can oppose Israeli actions without being a bigot, but if you always oppose/blame Israel, I gotta think there's something else going on.

[Foolmewunz]

To comment on the OP, I don't know if they're driving the movement, as such. The movement is a thing of its own, and attracting the usual assortment of nutters, kids with ennui, and serious yet misguided or misinformed types. In with that, unfortunately, are the noisier crew who seem to suffer from some sort of moral or ethical lapse, and are either directly in league with (IMO) the deniers, or are just willing to suck up information and blogs and links from anyone with a well-financed and easy to access site. While I haven't dug into every source available, I'd say the pertinent differences would be a Killtown versus a Christophera. Killtown has been shown by enough links to be a denier, and I'd have no problem in putting him in the latter grouping. Christophera, on the other hand is just a whack-job (to coin the clinical term), and while I'm open to correction, I think if he wasn't so entertaining (in a gee-I'd-like-to-thump-MY-head-against-the-wall way), and so damned annoying, we'd have dismissed him ages ago.

Most of the ranting at Christophera is of the WHY CAN'T YOU OPEN YOUR EYES variety. Towards Killtown, because of the malicious stuff he does, the denialist postings and statements on his blog, and the gross insensitivity of things like the b.s. photoshopped onto the crash site, the ranting is a little more vituperous (is that the word I'm looking for?).

As to the secret buzzword, "Zionist". I think most thinking people recognize that Zionism was a movement that had its original purpose accomplished. There are some who may claim that until the full "natural" borders are accomplished and Jerusalem is totally Israeli, the job is not complete. Within Israel and the Jewish community, Zionist nowadays has taken on a meaning of "expansionist", "imperialist", or a combination of those two, plus "militarist". There's no real definition, and for the most part, there are not a lot of people out there referring to themselves as Zionists. Someone else in another party will refer to the other guy as a Zionist.

But be assured, if used outside of politics in Israel, or political discussions in the community, here, it's just plain and simple a euphemism for "Jew".
And the way you can spot it as that the minute anyone calls a spade a spade, they have an auto-answer setup... "Did I say Jew, huh? Did I? Well, did I?" No, you used the codeword, Sparky!

Same as the euphemism for "Blacks" became "those people" or "certain people" in the early Rush Limbaugh years. Also, can anyone recall "welfare cheats"? Real big under Neo-Con tenures over the past couple of decades, and I really don't think Mr. and Mrs. Mainstream really had any difficulty AT ALL knowing what particular color those welfare cheats were.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Jerusalem, you mean? Tel Aviv hasn't been the capital for some time now. I agree, Jew and Zionist should not be used interchangeably. Neither should Likudnik and Zionist. Basically I think Zionist should be considered a word describing historical figures. It's like somebody calling Americans "rebels" or "colonists", or modern white Southerners who, say, oppose Affirmative Action, segregationists.

Sorry, it was the capital when I visited there, but that was years ago, so I will offer my apology for having not recalibrated my brain with current events. I do remember that Bonn moved to Berlin, so at least I have that going for me!

Beyond that, thanks for your insights, my own understanding is not very deep.

DR

[Axiom_Blade]

Originally Posted by FOOLMEWUNZ

But be assured, if used outside of politics in Israel, or political discussions in the community, here, it's just plain and simple a euphemism for "Jew".
And the way you can spot it as that the minute anyone calls a spade a spade, they have an auto-answer setup... "Did I say Jew, huh? Did I? Well, did I?" No, you used the codeword, Sparky!

Same as the euphemism for "Blacks" became "those people" or "certain people" in the early Rush Limbaugh years. Also, can anyone recall "welfare cheats"? Real big under Neo-Con tenures over the past couple of decades, and I really don't think Mr. and Mrs. Mainstream really had any difficulty AT ALL knowing what particular color those welfare cheats were.

Interesting. I never noticed that, but it seems to be true. I never hear politically intelligent people talking about "Zionists", it's always about "Israel." It's only the kooks who use the Z-word when talking about Israel?

What if you oppose the existence of Israel, but you're not an anti-Semite? What word do you use then?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

What if you oppose the existence of Israel, but you're not an anti-Semite? What word do you use then?

While theoretically possible, I have never, ever, heard of such a person.