Experts: Health Hazards in Gulf Warrant Evacuations

Truthout
22 July 2010


George Barisich has been a fisherman in New Orleans for over 40 years. Some experts are concerned that toxic chemicals being used to help clean up the oil spill in the Gulf are seriously endangering the health of those living near the water.

When Louisiana residents ask marine toxicologist and community activist Riki Ott what she would do if she lived in the Gulf with children, she tells them she would leave immediately. "It's that bad. We need to start talking about who's going to pay for evacuations."

In 1989, Ott, who lives in Cordova, Alaska, experienced firsthand the devastating effects of the Exxon Valdex oil disaster. For the past two months, she's been traveling back and forth between Louisiana and Florida to gather information about what's really happening and share the lessons she learned about long-term illnesses and deaths of cleanup workers and residents. In late May, she began meeting people in the Gulf with symptoms like headaches, dizziness, sore throats, burning eyes, rashes and blisters that are so deep, they're leaving scars. People are asking, "What's happening to me?"

She says the culprit is almost two million gallons of Corexit, the dispersant BP is using to break up and hide the oil below the ocean's surface. "It's an industrial solvent. It's a degreaser. It's chewing up boat engines off-shore. It's chewing up dive gear on-shore. Of course it's chewing up people's skin. The doctors are saying the solvents are making the oil worse."

In a widely watched YouTube video, from Project Gulf Impact, a project that aims to give Gulf residents a voice, Chris Pincetich, a marine biologist and campaigner with the Sea Turtle Restoration Project, said Coast Guard planes are flying overhead at night spraying Corexit on the water and on land.



Ott says people who are experiencing discomfort of any kind, especially children, pregnant women, cancer survivors, asthma sufferers and African-Americans because they're prone to sickle cell anemia, should wear a respirator and see a doctor that specializes in chemical poisoning immediately. She also recommends contacting the detox specialists at The Environmental Health Center in Dallas, Texas. "People don't have the information to know that the burning sore throat is actually chemical poisoning," she said. "And this isn't getting any attention, but it's very important. There are no vaccinations for chemical poisoning. None."

Because she's gotten to know the locals and has done a number of national media interviews, she's now receiving a barrage of daily phone calls and emails from people who are concerned and don't know where else to turn. She recommends they read this Sciencecorps resource about potential health hazards.


In the video above, author and journalist Summer Burke talks about her experience being sprayed with the toxic dispersant Corexit.

Ott shared these stories on a recent trip to the Bay Area with Diane Wilson, former Texas shrimper turned rabble-rousing activist. Ott was coughing and constantly clearing her throat during our two-hour conversation. "I can still smell the oil," she said.

Media outlets have been reporting on public health concerns and taking water quality samples, but Ott says they've only scratched the surface. "If I were in charge of the media, I would be talking be about public safety and public health every day. They should also be exposing the truth about how our federal standards are outdated and no longer protective of public health or worker safety. We knew in 1989 that OSHA had a loophole in it that's big enough to drive every single sick worker through. It exempts the reporting of colds and flus. That loophole has not been closed since Exxon Valdez."

Ott expressed her concerns during a May meeting with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Lisa Jackson. "I was sitting across from her. She said, quote, 'I am walking a fine line between truth and hysteria. We don't want to create a panic.' This shows you how much our government is beholden to oil and cannot imagine a future without oil. We the people have got to imagine this. We have to. This is way worse than people think."

On Tuesday, Mother Jones' Kate Sheppard reported that Hugh Kaufman, a whistleblower who works as a senior policy analyst in the EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, is accusing the agency of deliberately downplaying public health threats and its own role in regulating the chemicals being dumped into the Gulf "to protect itself from liability and keep the public from getting too alarmed."

The cause for alarm can't be more apparent. In addition to the health problems people are already experiencing, WKRG News 5 reporter Jessica Taloney recently collected samples of water and sand from five Alabama beaches and took them to a local lab to be tested.

Bob Naman, a chemist with nearly 30 years of experience, told Taloney that he wouldn't expect to see more than five parts per million of oil and petroleum in the water. The sample of the water taken in Gulf Shores beach, where adults and kids were swimming and playing, showed 66 parts per million. The sand had 211 parts per million. When Naman began to test the sample collected from Dauphin Island Marina, it exploded. "We think that it mostly likely happened due to the presence of methanol or methane gas or the presence of the dispersant, Corexit."

"What's going on in the Gulf is the same cover-up that was going with the 9/11 environmental issue," the EPA's Kaufman told Sheppard. "The Bush White House ordered EPA to lie about the environmental and public health situation at the World Trade Center because of economic ramifications. So they did."



On Democracy Now!, Kaufman accused the EPA of being "sock puppets for BP in this cover-up."

I called Kaufman to find out if he agrees with Ott's decision to sound the alarm about evacuations. The short answer? Yes. "If you're getting sick, it's because you're being poisoned," he said. "Those chemicals can cause cancer 20 years down the line and that's why Riki Ott is saying some areas have to be evacuated. That's true. We don't know how bad it is because the EPA is not doing adequate air testing. They're taking some measurements so they can tell the public that everything is safe [when in fact the public has] an increased risk of getting cancer and dying early. They're pawns in a money game."

Kaufman and Ott both say the media need to follow the money. The reason why the EPA is covering this up, they say, is because the cost to BP would be astronomical. "The dispersants hide the oil," said Ott. "If you put dispersants in the water, you don't know how much oil was really spilled. Oil fines are based on how much oil was spilled, so it's all about money."

If a group listed as a terrorist organization had caused the oil disaster, Kaufman says their assets would be seized immediately and their members would be arrested. So, why hasn't the US government seized BP's assets? Kaufman points to an April Vanity Fair article about Larry Fink, one of the most powerful men on Wall Street. Fink's BlackRock money-management firm controls or monitors more than $12 trillion worldwide, including a billion shares of BP. According to the article, BlackRock "has effectively become the leading manager of Washington's bailout of Wall Street," thanks to Fink's close relationship with former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.


The “psychologically astute” Larry Fink, photographed at BlackRock headquarters in February.

"It's all about money," says Kaufman. "Follow the money."

So, where does this leave the people whose lives have been destroyed by this disaster? Where does this leave the people who will face long-term health problems? Where does this leave our oceans, wildlife and environment? What's next?

"The more the public knows, the more the media cover it, the more the people tell officials to help, the better it is," says Kaufman. "It's a game of momentum."

Ott says she plans to stay in the area to assist where she can (getting respirators for workers is near the top of her list), get the truth out and continue the conversations and community meetings she's having with self-described Tea Partiers, evangelicals and fifth and sixth generation fisherman. "Here's something positive for you," she said. "I'm starting to hear, 'We all live on one planet and there really is a climate crisis here. This can't continue.' I'm having conversations with the Christian Right. I'm staying in an oilman's camper. Oilmen are starting to see that we need alternatives. I'm having tea party people come up to me and say, 'How can I help?' Corporations want to divide the nation into red and blue, Democrat and Republican. I'm seeing that crashing down. The frames are dissolving. The South is rising. I'm talking about the Deep South. This is the most hopeful sign I'm seeing."

Former shrimper Diane Wilson hopes to see more direct action. "This is a crisis. If this oil gusher does not move people to force a change in Washington, then it will never happen. We are seeing the end of the United States as we know it. If people hold their planet dear, they better be out there. Folks are too well behaved. We need to be unreasonable."

Read More

Shahzad’s charade continues

Jerry Mazza
Online Journal Associate Editor
21 Jul 2010



About 8 a.m. a week ago, I’m watching NY1 TV and here comes a video segment on Faisal Shahzad, post full-confession, showing him in previous days with reputed Taliban members. He’s in native dress, a Kalashnikov on his hip, back to camera, as they climb a rocky slope in Pakistan, or was it a back lot at Paramount? Anything’s possible.

Then there is this video in an AP piece on NorthJersey.com, showing him reading verses from the Koran, and telling us how he will carry out a “‘revenge attack’ against the US to avenge the deaths of Muslims killed in Afghanistan and Pakistan by the US, and that he hopes his actions will touch the hearts of Muslims.” I’m thinking, Shahz, we heard you the first time, in the courtroom.

I mean this guy already pleaded guilty to carrying out the botched Times Square bombing, relinquished his Miranda rights, and was ready to do the time for the war effort, insisting no deals be cut. Yet all that had been lacking in the panoply of film and tape clips and photographs were shots of him with the Taliban and holding a machine gun and holding or reading from the Koran. Well, from my mouth to G-D’s ear, not that I have a direct line.

Video of Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad surfaces


But I had mentioned in at least two of my previous stories about him, Shahzad: American dream or nightmare bomber (where there’s an all-American-boy face smiling at you) and in ‘Manchurian Candidate’ Shahzad confesses all, that “Later that summer, Shahzad goes home to Pakistan with wife and kids. There, the US government claims, he joins a military training camp, yet I don’t see a picture of him in any military gear, glaring as he holds up a Kalashnikov (italics mine).

Regarding his all-inclusive confession I wrote, “It’s as if the DOJ or CIA had read either my or other writers’ articles about Shahzad and addressed all the issues in his confession.” And now, here he is on screen, in scenes snatched from a 40-minute video no less, like a rock star, airing on Dubai-based TV station Al-Arabiya News Channel, purportedly released by the Pakistani Taliban (and how about to American Idol?).

His recitations from the Koran are soft-spoken as he sits on the ground in a black turban, military fatigues, with a machine-gun next to him. Previously, he had mentioned he received all of five days’ training in explosives before returning to the US in February to pull off the bomb plot, and with funding from the militant group. Luckily, they forgot to tell him to use a blasting cap in his Pathfinder pastiche of a bomb.

What’s more, we’re told he received $5,000 in cash on February 25 from “an unnamed co-conspirator and another $7,000 on April 10, “sent at the c-c’s direction,” lunch money for some of our home-grown terrorists.

In this image provided by CBS Attorney General Eric Holder listens to a question from CBS News’ Bob Schieffer during a July 8, 2010, taped interview on “Face the Nation” in Aspen, Colo.

But man oh man, how are you supposed to believe this stuff? Including Attorney General Eric Holder, in video clips, patting himself and law enforcement on the back for catching this dangerous dude who could have inflicted all kinds of damage on those innocent people walking through Times Square, actually the south side of 45th Street west of 7th Avenue, parked in an illegal zone in the heart of Tin Pan Alley, where drama queens and kings are born, and somehow the cops didn’t ticket his car, with no driver in it, the motor running and lights on. But a Muslim Vietnam vet, selling T-shirts, saw smoke coming out of the SUV and called the cops.

I mean, give me a break guys. I understand you want all the fear of a terrorist sneaking among us but not the blowback of an actual 9/11-style massacre with all the agita that entails. So you come up with these little scenarios, the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, and the Pathfinder bomber, but none of these bright lights have blasting caps, so their well-touted ops all fizzle out in smoke.

Yet, you (our protectors) keep feeding the fuel to the urban legends, caught in your own underwear time after time. Let it go already. What are you feeding this guy, safety for his family, as in you won’t drone-bomb the comfortable home of his father, a former, high-ranking Pakistani air force officer in Pashto. Also, you had to have this DVD in the can before he even did it. It would be awkward putting him in front of a film crew after he botched the bomb. I can hear the sniggering in the background.

Anyhow, whoever is writing this stuff needs a replacement. It’s tired; it’s old; it’s a waste of time and money. And it grabs all that space in the press and on TV that could be allotted to listening to Obama’s promises and BP’s lies, the banking reform bill that’s has made Wall Street even more free-wheeling than before, derivatives wilder than ever, no Glass-Steagall Act, no interstate bank prohibitions, etcetera. But there are more restrictions on the doctors many of you want to use, thanks to the healthcare “reform” bill, and so on. Bullshit talks and the truth walks, really slow these days. And by the way, our taxes are going up.



But I will be looking for the next episode in “The Adventures of Faisal Shahzad, Times Square Car Bomber.” In fact, we have to get him back on Broadway, either in a big musical, or some George Clooney-type Middle Eastern intrigue film. Clooney can play his handler now that George has joined the Council on Foreign Relations. He’ll learn all the ropes.

I mean, it is a strange world, children, so be careful and don’t get in other people’s cars if they stop and offer you candy. There are crazy people out there, nasty people. And look what they did to this poor patsy who came here in 1998 at 19 years of age, got himself a B.S. in computer science, and an MBA, and went to work for a financial firm, to support himself, his wife and soon to arrive two kids.

I guess we just can’t stop ragging on the rag-heads (sorry, Shaz). But somebody’s got to take the ongoing rap for the endless War on Terror. And I guess it’s you and yours, from Beirut to Kandahar to Pashtu to Timbuktu; you who have to eat the dirt of this “dumb war” as our president put it when he was a candidate and said he would stop it immediately. But he lied.

But then Gordon Duff, editor of Veterans Today, and a 100 percent disabled Marine Vietnam veteran, whose work’s been featured on TV and radio, including Al Jazeera, and whose articles have been carried by news services around the world . . . Gordon has this great new article America’s Tarnished Military Partnership With Israel, sub-headed Our Unreported “Cold War With Israel.” It’ll make the hair stand up on the back of your neck if you read it. And it might get you thinking about who was really responsible for 9/11 and the havoc that ensued.



Here’s a sample. Consider it food for thought: “With the dozens of conspiracy theories and a weak and implausible cover story, one the 9/11 Commission itself eventually rejected, only one plausible answer was left, an answer very much ‘not for public consumption.’ Few Americans know that a team of Israeli intelligence agents were arrested on 9/11 after being observed using ‘video’ equipment to record the planes crashing into the towers. After the disaster, the Mossad agents, soon to be arrested and released by the FBI, began celebrating as though they had completed a successful operation. This enraged New Yorkers who mistook them for terrorists. In fact, New Yorkers weren’t wrong.

“Only top members of America’s military knew the truth, the ‘dancing Israelis’ had remotely guided the two planes into the World Trade Center, not simply videoing, itself proof of guilt. Military pilots, in particular, knew the planes were nearly impossible to maneuver at those speeds without Israeli designed auto-pilot systems, not unlike those used on Tomahawk/Cruise missiles. Behind a flurry of ‘conspiracy theories,’ many totally implausible, some obvious to military leaders as part of an elaborate deception plan requiring widespread control of media assets, more subtext came to light.”

So, do yourself a favor. Check out Duff. He’s a guy that’s been there and back. And let’s hope Shahzad wakes up one these days from whatever he’s on. Given the way things work, I’m sure he’s playing this game to keep his family alive. Somewhere on the road of life, he got in the wrong car.

Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer and life-long resident of New York City. Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net. His new book, “State Of Shock: Poems from 9/11 on” is available at www.jerrymazza.com, Amazon or Barnesandnoble.com.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6136.shtml

Read More

Gilad Atzmon: Give History a Chance!

Here is Gilad Atzmon's talk from the "Debunking the 'War on Terror'" conference with Ken O'Keefe, James H. Fetzer, and Kevin Barrett.

AN INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM

DEBUNKING THE "WAR ON TERROR":
THREE PERSPECTIVES

The "war on terror" has been justified by 9/11, by religious and moral arguments, and by political persuasion. These speakers will address the crucial arguments for war: Have we been told the truth about 9/11? Do religion and morality support these wars? Does an analysis of the political language employed to justify them reveal a hidden agenda? They will demonstrate that the "war on terror" is a complete and unjustifiable fraud.

EXPERT SPEAKERS and POLITICAL COMMENTATORS:

Ken O'Keefe (Ireland/Palestine), Master of Ceremonies

James Fetzer (US), Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth
"Are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?"

Kevin Barrett (US), Co-Founder, Muslims for 9/11 Truth
"Islam, Neoconservatism, and the Unwarranted 'War on Terror'"

Gilad Atzmon (UK), Jazz Musician and Political Commentator
"From Promised Land to Promised Planet: Zionism and Neoconservatism"

For more, visit http://religionandmorality.net/DWT/DebunkingWT.htm

6:30-9:30 PM, 14 JULY 2010, FRIENDS HOUSE
(OPPOSITE EUSTON STATION)



"GIVE HISTORY A CHANCE" BY GILAD ATZMON

A talk presented during the"Debunking the 'War on Terror'" Symposium held on July 14th, 2010, at Friends House, Euston Station, London UK.

The War on Terror Within

1. The more pain we inflict on others the more we become familiar with evil, aggression and brutality.

1.1 The more cruel we are towards others, the more devastated we are by the possibility that the subjects of our brutality may also be as nasty as we happen to be.

1.2 According to Freud this is what projection is all about.

1.2.1 Otto Weininger refines it, ‘we hate in others, that which we don’t like in ourselves’ he says.

1.3 As it happens, the dynamic of projection is amplified once the subject of our terror is hopeless and defenseless.

1.3.1 The reason is obvious. The more hopeless the subject of our terror is, the more we are inclined to face our relentless viciousness first hand.

2. Israeli treatment of the Palestinians is a devastating example of the above. The more hopeless and defenseless the Palestinians are, the more vicious the Israeli becomes.

2.1 And yet, the more vicious the Israeli is, the more he or she is horrified by ‘terror’.

3. In reality, the Israelis are actually horrified by their own cruelty which they project onto others.

4. The recent cold-blooded murder of 11 peace activists in the high seas by Israeli Navy commandos was nothing but a shocking exposure of that lethal dynamic. The more ethically transparent, innocent and harmless the humanitarian mission to Gaza is, the more lethal the Israeli becomes.

The English Speaking Empire

5. In fact, Israel is just a micro-cosmos of this kind of brutal vicious circle.

6. The so-called ‘War Against Terror’ is in fact a war against the terror within.

6.1 We attack, rob and plunder innocent people and innocent nations. Yet, the more pain we inflict on them the more terrorised we become by our own endless brutality.

Jesus Christ Super Star

7. Jesus taught us how to dismantle our vindictive projection. ‘Turn the other cheek’, he preached, in opposition to the infamous Old Testament’s ‘eye for an eye’.

7.1 Turning the other cheek, is commonly realised as a means to counter an aggressor. However, it maybe the only possible measure to dismantle the ‘terror within’, that same aggression that brews inside us as we become vindictive.

7.1.1 By turning the other cheek we may manage to defuse the violence within us. We replace it with acceptance, we disarm ourselves. We give peace a chance.

From Promised Land to Promised Planet

8. Zionism presented itself initially as a Jewish nationalist patriotic movement aimed at becoming both a homecoming and a dwelling.

8.1 Zionism vowed initially to collect Jews from around the world and to bring them to Palestine. It was inspired by the idea of a national home in a ‘promised land.’

8.2 This is definitely not the case anymore. Zionism took a different route. It actually expects the Diaspora Jews to mount pressure on Western governments and media. Wolfowitz was very productive in shaping America’s interests and desires, as was David Aaronovitch in championing ‘moral interventionist’ wars in The Times, David Miliband fulfilled his duty fighting to amend British Universal Jurisdiction within the British cabinet to allow Israeli war criminals to visit this Kingdom. Alan Dershowitz managed to transform the American academic world into a Yeshiva. Haim Saban, the Israeli American tycoon, bankrolls the Democratic party when he isn’t buying American media outlets or funding a new think tank.

8.3 The Israelis realised a long time ago that it is far cheaper to buy the entire Western political system than buy a single tank.

8.4 Zionism has become a global movement with global interests.

8.4.1 It drifted from the discourse of ‘promised land’ into the politics of ‘promised planet’

8.5 Consequently, British and American soldiers are dying in growing numbers fighting Zionist wars.

8.6 More concerning is the fact that British and American people have been made complicit in a genocide driven by Zionists.

8.7 However, the most troubling issue here is the fact that Brits and Americans are driven by an Old Testament vindictive ideology, namely an ‘eye for an eye’. One would have expected that considering the Christian foundation of Britain and the USA these countries would be inspired by compassionate Christian ideas such as ‘love your neighbour’ and ‘turn the other cheek.’

The Open Society and Its Enemies

9. Historians will have to find out at what point in time British and American political power and media gave up on compassion and peace.

9.1 Yet, in order to do so, historians must be free to think and to say what they think.

9.1.1 We must, therefore, restore the respected notion of history and the notion of historical research. We have to make sure that every chapter in our past is academically accessible. We also must reinstate freedom of thought, speech and expression. These crucial and elementary human rights have been jeopardised in the name of political correctness and legislation.

9.2 History is founded on the belief that a deeper understanding of the past may help us to shape our future.

9.3 Such an idea is transparent enough to support the realisation that history can lead to peace and reconciliation. We can simply try to amend the horror of the past by adopting a peaceful thinking.

9.3.1 To turn the other cheek is to some extent a product of proper historical realisation. It suggests that violence leads to more violence, yet, endurance and self control bring peace about.

10. Devastatingly enough, Britain and America implement the opposite lesson. Rather than aim towards peace and reconciliation, we are actually committing more and more crimes in the name of the past. Like the Israelis who kill in the name of the Shoa, we kill in the name of ‘democracy’, ‘moral interventionism’ and even ‘coca-cola’. As if this is not enough, when we run out of reasons, like the Israelis we kill in the name of Jewish suffering.

11. It doesn’t take a genius to gather that the proponent of these precepts in our midsts are devoted Zionists. It doesn’t take a genius to gather that Wolfowitz’s Doctrine lead to the war in Iraq. It is literally transparent that the ‘moral interventionism’ that is advocated by David Miliband, Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen is a pretext for violence. It is not exactly a secret that when Britain was taken into illegal Iraq war, Lord Levy, a Zionist by admission, was Labour's No 1 fund raiser.

Give History a Chance

12. Our vision and re-vision of the past can shape our future, and yet, our vision of the future can also shape our past.

12.1 I will try to enlighten this complicated idea through a simple yet devastating hypothetical and imaginary lethal war scenario:

We, for instance, can envisage a horrific situation created by an imaginary hypothetical Israeli nuclear attack on Iran in which millions of innocent people die every day. I guess that amongst the few survivors of such a horrific reality, some may be so bold to insist that ‘the history of Jewish suffering might make sense after all.’

Again the above scenario is a product of the imagination, it by no means justifies Jewish suffering, and yet, such a vision of a ‘possible’ horrific development should ideally stop Zionist enthusiasts from advocating a war against Iran or anyone else. However, the above fictional scenario should help us to grasp how a vision of the future can also amend or transform our comprehension of the past.

12.2 At the moment our history books are sealed and cemented. We cannot engage in a real study of our most relevant past and we are therefore denied the right to consider its meaning.

12.3 Consequently, we have failed to encompass the real ethical meaning of world war II and the holocaust in particular. Similarly, we are silenced when it comes to the events that led towards the 2nd Iraq War. We are supposed to wait for the current Iraq Inquiry with the almost absurd hope that rabid Zionist Martin Gilbert will be kind enough to show us the truth.

13. With history being squashed it is hardly surprising that the same people who flattened Hamburg, Pforzheim, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki continued to do the same in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

14. Similarly, the same lobbies that pushed Britain and America to a deadly confrontation with the Mulsim world are now pushing us to flatten Iran.

15. To save the world and to bring peace about, we must learn our past and we must be free to so. Revisionism is the means towards a better future.

Read More

Wikipedia as a 9/11 disinformation op

Jim Fetzer
Online Journal Contributing Writer
6 July 2010

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6078.shtml

MADISON, Wisconsin -- When I founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a loose affiliation of experts and scholars with diverse backgrounds, including faculty in the humanities, the natural sciences, the social sciences, engineers, pilots, and citizens concerned to learn the truth about 9/11 in December 2005, I invited Steve Jones, a professor of physics at BYU, to be my co-chair. The society took off like a rocket and soon had more than 300 members divided in four categories, full members, associate members, student members, and society associates.

Some were rather prominent, including:

Morgan Reynolds , Texas A & M Professor Emeritus of Economics, the former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor for President George W. Bush, and former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis;

Wayne Madsen, former officer in the US Navy, consultant to the National Security Agency, senior fellow of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and today a noted investigative journalist and editor of Wayne Madsen Reports;

Robert M. Bowman, former Director of the U.S. “Star Wars” Space Defense Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, a former Air Force Lt. Colonel with 101 combat missions and former Florida congressional candidate;

Lloyd DeMause, distinguished scholar and Director of The Institute for Psychohistory, President of the International Psycho-historical Association and Editor of The Journal of Psychohistory, who would soon withdraw;

Andreas Von Buelow, former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years; and,

Webster Tarpley, a Princeton graduate and Fulbright Scholar, who is the co-author (with Anton Chaltkin) of George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, and of 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in the USA.

It was a great success from the beginning, probably in part because one co-chairman represented the natural sciences and the other the humanities, in which I had already published 20 books in the philosophy of science and on the foundations of computer science, AI and cognitive science, as well as editing three books on the assassination of JFK and co-authoring another on the plane crash that killed Sen. Paul Wellstone. By the end of June 2006, articles about 9/11 had grown in number from a flat line to the point where mainstream journalists were attempting to trivialize the movement.

Fetzer on 9/11

Perhaps the highlight of that year for the Society was an event that was sponsored by Alex Jones in Los Angeles, “The American Scholars Conference,” which took place from 24-25 June 2006 at the Sheraton Downtown. On my way in to the hotel, I was called by a producer for “Hannity & Colmes,” who told me they wanted to feature me as a guest to learn what Scholars had discovered about 9/11. It would turn out that that was not the case, where they really wanted to use me as a prop for an attack on courses in colleges that dealt with 9/11. What they didn’t understand was that, while I often talked about 9/11 in my courses, I had no course on 9/11, which enabled me to take control of the program, much to the dismay of Ollie North, sitting in for Sean.

Fetzer on "Hannity & Colmes"

The conference drew more than 1,200 from around the world and was regarded as a great success. Perhaps the most important event that occurred there -- from both the point of view of Scholars but also for the public -- was a five-person panel discussion held on Sunday, where 4 members of Scholars -- Steve Jones, Bob Bowman, Webster Tarpley, and I -- spoke while Alex Jones moderated. It was during this panel that I presented my “Top 10 Reasons the Hijackers are Fake.” But what made a difference is that C-Span was there to record the panel discussion, which it would broadcast at least seven times subsequently at decent times, which appears to have broken the glass-ceiling -- an implicit state of discourse -- that had previously inhibited the public from discussion of 9/11. It was therefore, in my opinion, a significant cultural event.

Fetzer / 9/11 Panel Discussion

“Hannity & Colmes” would feature me again as well as Bill O’Reilly on “The Factor,” while I was making many radio appearances, which are archived under “Past Events” on the Scholars web site. But my concerns about Steve’s fixation on thermite as the key to understanding the “collapse” of the Twin Towers was growing, especially as I became more and more familiar with the work of Dr. Judy Wood, a former professor of mechanical engineering at Clemson. Judy has a background in applied physics, in structural engineering, and in materials engineering science, which are precisely the academic disciplines that are most relevant to understanding what happened to the World Trade Center on 9/11. When I interviewed her on my radio program during a visit to Tucson on 11 November 2006 and expressed keen interest in her approach, I experienced immediate feedback that was negative. No one seemed happy about it.

Talking about "Hannity & Colmes"

Most of Steve’s fans, alas, do not understand that the adequacy of any theory about the destruction of the WTC can only demonstrate its superiority in comparison with alternative theories. Steve himself has fostered the impression that it is possible to evaluate a single theory independent of its alternatives, which is not the method of science. Science proceeds in four stages, from PUZZLEMENT to SPECULATION on to ADAPTATION (of hypotheses to evidence) and then, when the evidence has “settled down” and points in the same direction, to EXPLANATION. In order to insure that the true theory is not excluded from scratch, it is indispensable to the success of science that every alternative explanation be considered -- from thermite with conventional explosives to mini-nukes to lasers, masers, and plasmoids. As I have also explained, I am not committed to which is the right explanation but to the need for their study.

Fetzer on "Hannity & Colmes" 2nd time

December was a fateful month for Scholars. Most students of 9/11 are unaware that a faction favoring Jones appropriated the membership list and conducted a fake poll, which they insisted showed that most of the members disapproved of the manner which I had been running the society. I believe this was largely motivated by my removing Steve from supervising the forum after an odd incident in which a post being submitted by Rick Siegel was deleted, when Steve would not tell me who had deleted it. They subsequently froze the web site and forced me to create a new one at 911scholars.org, even though I had been the only person to post any articles on st911.0rg from its conception. The history of these events has been archived on the new site. At the same time this faction was busy demonizing me, I flew to Athens to appear on a 3 ½ hour television program about 9/11, which was being hosted by the leading investigative journalist in Greece, and being broadcast worldwide by satellite.

When I turned to the Wiki article on “9/11 Truth Movement,” therefore, I suppose I should not have been surprised that it read as though it were frozen in time since late 2006/early 2007. It stated that I was “advocating” theories about the use of directed energy weapons or small nuclear devices “that were insufficiently supported by evidence and were exposing the group to ridicule.” Except, of course, I was not “advocating” those theories, but only advocating their study! In fact, insofar as they represent distinct explanations of how it might have been done, it would have been inconsistent on its face for anyone to have been advocating them both, much less a professional philosopher who had spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning in college and university courses. I was also astonished to learn that I had been banished from the 9/11 movement for my alleged offenses, to wit:

Scholars for 9/11 Truth (CURRENT)

The original Scholars for 9/11 Truth, founded by James H. Fetzer and Steven Jones on December 15, 2005, was a group of individuals of varying backgrounds and expertise who rejected the mainstream media and government account of the September 11 attacks.[3][94]

Initially the group invited many ideas and hypotheses to be considered, however, leading members soon came to feel that the inclusion of some theories advocated by Fetzer -- such as the use of directed energy weapons or small nuclear bombs to destroy the Twin Towers -- were insufficiently supported by evidence and were exposing the group to ridicule. By December 2006, Jones and several others set up a new scholars group titled Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, whose focus was in the use of the scientific method in analysis.[95] The original members took a vote on which group to join and the majority voted to move to the new group.[96] By 2007, James Fetzer had been openly rejected by the 9/11 Truth Movement, banned from and criticized on popular forums[97][98][99][100] and no longer invited to public 9/11 events.

All in all, this was both historically inaccurate and seriously misleading. I had not only been flown to Athens to appear on an historic television broadcast in 2006 but I had organized the first conference sponsored by Scholars in Madison in 2007, edited its first book and produced its first DVD. In 2008, I would be flown to Buenos Aires to present three lectures on 9/11 and one on JFK, which received quite considerable coverage in the press, including two articles in TELAM, the official press service of the Republic of Argentina. In 2009, I was flown back to Buenos Aires for a major event on 9/11 held at The National Library, with more than 200 in attendance and six or seven television cameras. And in 2010, I have organized a symposium being held at Friends House in London with Kevin Barrett and Gilad Atzmon, where Ken O’Keefe, hero of the Israeli assault on the Miva Marmara, is Master of Ceremonies.

The claim I was no longer being invited to domestic 9/11 events was equally false. I had not only presented a lecture on the moral, religious, and political dimensions of 9/11 in Chicago in 2006, but debated Mark Roberts on “Hardfire,” a cable television program, in April 2007, a program that has often been rebroadcast; presented a lecture on how the media manipulates 9/11 at Cooper Union in New York in 2007 and another on 9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda during a Ron Paul “Freedom Rally” before the Capitol in Washington, D.C. on 15 April 2008. In 2009, I was invited to Portland by the 9/11 group there (to present talks on 9/11 and JFK) -- and to Seattle by the 9/11 group there, where they are archived on my blog. This is not to mention talks at the University of Wisconsin Madison and UW Milwaukee and a host of other presentations -- TV, radio, lectures -- which are listed under “Past Events” on Scholars.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice has many accomplishments, but why should I be the whipping boy? So I tried to make the section on Scholars for 9/11 Truth truthful:

Scholars for 9/11 Truth (PROPOSED)

The original Scholars for 9/11 Truth, founded by James H. Fetzer and Steven Jones on December 15, 2005, was a group of individuals of varying backgrounds and expertise who rejected the mainstream media and government account of the September 11 attacks.[3][94] Fetzer, a philosopher of science of considerable academic distinction,[95] encouraged the study of a broad range of alternative theories, which eventually led to conflicts with Jones, who was propounding the use of an incendiary called “thermite” as holding the key to understanding the “collapse” of the Twin Towers, which Fetzer found unconvincing as a complete explanation of the towers conversion into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust.[96]

As a philosopher, Fetzer took a “big tent” approach and encouraged the study of alternative explanations, such as mini-nukes, lasers, masers, and plasmoids. Those close to Jones regarded some of the theories whose study was advocated by Fetzer -- such as the use of directed energy weapons or small nuclear bombs to destroy the Twin Towers -- as insufficiently supported by evidence and exposing the group to ridicule. In December 2006, Jones and Fetzer separated in the midst of considerable tension.[97] The new (Jones) group calls itself Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. Both groups focus on the use of the scientific method, but there are differences in emphasis.[98][99] Fetzer has continued to advocate the study of a broad range of alternative theories, especially in the new Scholars forum.[100]

In spite of the controversy, Fetzer has continued his efforts[101] and organized the first Scholars conference, “The Science and Politics of 9/11,” in Madison in 2007 and published the first book from Scholars and its first DVD. [102] [103] He was invited to Buenos Aires for lectures on 9/11 and JFK in 2008.[104][105] In 2009, he was flown back to Buenos Aires and presented the principal lecture during “The International Conference for 9/11 Truth and Justice” held at The National Library on September 11th.[106] While Fetzer remains controversial for his willingness to consider hypotheses and theories about the destruction of the World Trade Center and the possibility of video fakery on 9/11,[107][108][109][110][111] he has replied to his critics on various occasions[112][113] and continues to make presentations, including a symposium in London on the “war on terror,” where he will be addressing whether wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are justified by 9/11.[114]

My revision was deleted within minutes, which telegraphed that Wiki was not going to allow me to fix the record. I waited a day and tried again, where my attempts to correct factual inaccuracies and historical blunders were rejected again and thereby confirmed it. Because the editors have my revisions, moreover, which are thoroughly supported, they know that what they have about Scholars on this page is inaccurate and misleading. No doubt, many members of the 9/11 Truth Movement regard me as controversial, but most of them do not know my views. Some of the attacks on me have been reprehensible and I have publicly responded to them more than once.

But my complaint is not with those in the movement who are trying to subvert the search for truth but the role of Wiki in these activities. No one who has read what I have explained here or has checked the citations I have provided can seriously doubt that the Wiki discussion about Scholars for 9/11 Truth is historically inaccurate and seriously misleading. The only reason for keeping such rubbish on its pages would appear to be to trash one of the few in the movement who understands the nature of scientific inquiry and why it is essential to finding the truth about the events of 9/11.

Reading further through the Wiki entry, I discovered another caricature of my views:

Internal critique (CURRENT)

While there is general agreement within the movement that individuals within the United States government (but not necessarily the government as a whole) are responsible for the attacks, alternative theories differ about what may have happened.[3] There have been a number of articles and responses written by members critiquing the methods and theories of other members, often in a scholarly format, as in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.[119][citation needed]

While Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice states that they advocate the use of the scientific method and civil research activities over public debate,[120] Jim Fetzer’s group, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, has said that the scientific method is unnecessary and that any imaginable theory is worthy of advocating to the public. For example, reporting on a conference involving Fetzer’s group, a Madison Times article stated: “By Sunday the conference had covered weather control, weapons from space, and the idea that the planes that struck the towers never existed at all.”[121]

No one with any understanding of the nature of science, much less a professional philosopher of science whose 29th book, The Place of Probability in Science (2010), has just appeared, would adopt such a stance. There seems to be confusion in the minds of some of my critics between the stages of Speculation and of Explanation in the evaluation of alternative theories. It is indispensable that, when confronted with a puzzling phenomenon that does not fit within our background assumptions, all of the alternative possibilities be elaborated for consideration and evaluation. Taken as stated here, the position attributed to me is simply absurd, since it would commit me to every available explanation -- thermite & conventional explosives and mini-nukes and lasers and masers and plasmoids! The disinfo agents thus appear to have gone a bridge too far in their efforts to discredit me. So I have also proposed this revision:

Internal critique (PROPOSED)

While there is general agreement within the movement that individuals within the United States government (but not necessarily the government as a whole) are responsible for the attacks, alternative theories differ about what may have happened.[3] There have been a number of articles and responses written by members critiquing the methods and theories of other members, often in a scholarly format, as in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.[124][citation needed]

Scholars for 9/11 Truth no less than Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice advocates the use scientific method as fundamental to research on 9/11.[125] As a profession philosopher of science with substantial publications,[126] Fetzer has emphasized that science can only proceed by considering a full range of alternative hypotheses.[127] No theory can be established without demonstrating that its explanatory power is greater than that of its alternatives.[128]

During the first Scholars conference, “The Science and Politics of 9/11,” held in Madison in 2007, a wide range of alternative hypotheses were discussed. [129] A Madison Times article, whose author did not appear to have a scientific background, caught something of the flavor of the debate when it reported, “By Sunday the conference had covered weather control, weapons from space, and the idea that the planes that struck the towers never existed at all.”[130]

Now I freely admit that the only advantages of my revisions of the Wiki article on “9/11 Truth Movement” is that they are true and more accurate and complete than those they would replace, if they had been allowed to stand. That, of course, was in doubt, since I have experienced many difficulties in the past simply in maintaining my own entry in Wiki, where, because I have introduced corrections to mistakes in earlier versions of my own entry, it has been cited for a “lack of objectivity” and a possible violation of Wiki’s standards of neutrality in spite of copious documentation. Indeed, within two hours of posting these revisions, the page was reverted to the earlier version. Since Wiki’s editors have my revisions and the documentation that supports them, they know the information about Scholars and me is seriously and irredeemably flawed. I naively thought misleading the public was not Wiki’s goal.

Perhaps some may suppose that, even though I have many accomplishments to my name as my vita displays, perhaps I am not very good at dealing with conspiracies. I would recommend testing that opinion by reviewing my work (with Jim Marrs) on the photo fakery used to frame Oswald, the assassinations of JFK and RFK, and the distinction between conspiracies and conspiracism. Or go to OpEdNews and enter my name. Pick a subject you know well and compare what I have had to say about it. The Wiki strategy is simple. By smearing some of the best qualified analytic minds in the movement, 9/11 Truth will become befuddled and factionalized. After all, the only way to resolve complex controversies is to confront them and sort them out. But if you can marginalize those who have the background and ability to carry out that challenging task, the vast majority of “truthers” will never know the difference. Indeed, attacking me because I am dealing with controversial aspects of 9/11 is a bit unreal. Most Americans already think challenging the official account is controversial!

Conversation with Harold Channer

So where do we stand? Wiki pretends to objectivity that it does not respect. Even by its own standard of verifiability, my revisions satisfy that criterion, while what it publishes does not. It has no citation for its fantastic allegation, “Jim Fetzer’s group, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, has said that the scientific method is unnecessary and that any imaginable theory is worthy of advocating to the public,” for the simple reason that it is not true. The very idea that a professional philosopher of science would take such a stand is absurd. So Wiki must be aware that it is making assertions that it knows to be false with the intention of misleading its readers. And since that is the case, as has been demonstrated here, Wiki is functioning as a disinfo op in relation to 9/11. Surely a publication that bills itself as “an encyclopedia” should do its best to insure the accuracy and completeness of its entries. Based upon my experience, there appears to be a political agenda that overrides those concerns.

James H. Fetzer is also the editor of assassinationscience.com and the co-editor of assassinationresearch.com. He has a blog at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com.

Read More

Do you feel independent on Independence Day?

Jerry Mazza
Online Journal
4 July 2010


July 3: Fireworks explode over Butte, Mont., as part of the city's Fourth of July celebration.

Before “Old Glory” gets raised, the burgers and dogs go on the grill; before the potato salad and coleslaw and other goodies get heaped on your plate, let me lay this pickle next to them . . .

First, do you feel independent if you’re one of the 10 to 20 percent of America’s unemployed facing your benefits being cut?

Do you feel independent if your voices expressed in the US government, the Congress and President, seem to be in the pockets of all those multi-large corporations they should be monitoring?

Do you feel independent if you have a financial bill that doesn’t renew the Glass-Steagall Act, which would separate big banks, including “too big to fail banks” into either commercial banks or investment banks? This would help make investment banks small enough to fail and not blow their depositor’s money plus investors’ cash.

Do you feel financially independent since the loopholes in derivatives have not been properly addressed in the financial bill? Finance guru Martin Weiss gives you a list of derivatives he calls the Derivative Monster: Alive and Kicking Despite Reforms.


Revered memory: a modern Tea Party tax protest.

Do you feel independent if you’re always worried that your bank or brokerage is going under? Or that your pension will be cut? Or that Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare will be cut, as they have been since the trio’s inceptions?

Do you feel independent if you think the stock market, our economy or the world’s economies are going to fail due to the excessive debt incurred by the financial and government sectors?

Do you feel independent with the Fed printing your country’s money pell mell and the Treasury spending it on bailouts?

Do you feel independent if you’re facing or have gone through foreclosure as millions of Americans have, victimized by mortgage companies who gave you a loan that you couldn’t pay for, or time-bombed it with exploding charges, or both?

Do you feel independent if the recent Health Reform Bill will give away upwards of $400 million dollars to insurance companies to supposedly cover the uninsured; that is, those who can’t pay for insurance when Medicare could have been expanded into a single-payer plan to cover those Americans at a much lower cost?

Do you feel independent if you can’t pay for coverage and you get fined, but need the money for other priorities like food and shelter?

Do you feel independent if a bridge has fallen in your area, your infrastructure is crumbling, your municipal bond issues failing, signifying bankrupt state and city governments?

Do you feel independent when you’re government will be spending $3 trillion dollars next year, with 53 cents of every dollar for defense, leaving 47 cents per dollar for everything else?

Do you feel independent when the national debt is $12.5 trillion? Or do you feel owned by China and other creditors?

Do you feel independent when the majority of Americans voted for Obama “to stop the dumb wars” while he’s escalated the Afghanistan war that spilled into Pakistan?

Do you feel independent about the Senate debating giving him $33 billion more for war, that is, on top of the $30 billion he got a short while back?

Do you feel independent when no one in government seems to be listening as you say “not,” as if they’re deaf, dumb and blind?

Do you feel independent when Internet Czar Cass Sunstein wants to fine you if you write something that’s not the government party line, or wants a pop-up leading you back to the US point of view like a Viagra ad when you’re looking for the truth?

Do you feel independent when you know the NSA has the right to monitor all foreign and domestic calls you make or emails that you write? Do you feel independent knowing Big Brother is looking over your shoulder 24/7?



Do you feel independent when you hear about internment camps for protestors being built around the USA?

Do you feel independent when Arizona police can stop you if you’re Latino just for the hell of it?

Do you feel independent when a major oil company, BP, can’t stop a major oil disaster in the Gulf in more than two months, and doesn’t seem to have a clue, no matter what the government says to them?

And do you feel independent when the Minerals Management Service, established to prevent disasters like this was in bed (literally) with BP, reducing standards, failing to have plans let alone back-up plans for dealing with the noxious results?

And do you feel independent when Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking) for natural gas can poison your drinking water with some 596 toxic chemicals, with the possibility of some 40 trillion gallons of chemically infused water created by the drilling so far.

Do you feel independent when you turn on your faucet and the gas-infused water that pours out can be set on fire with your cigarette lighter?

Do you feel independent when your major city is next on the list to have fracking and poisoned water flow from reservoirs to the populace?

Do you feel independent to know that in 2005 Vice President Dick Cheney exempted fracking from many long-standing environmental regulations, most notably the Safe Drinking Water Act?



Does the sum total of this short list of questions and another a hundred times longer that you or I could compile make you feel independent?

Or does it make you feel as if you’re living in a country whose government is occupied by an army of corporate lobbyists representing private interests far beyond your power -- and you must remain silent and cross-eyed?

Does it make you feel independent that all the massive tax cuts have benefited just the wealthiest people in our country? And that many of these people want to cut your Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, corporate pension or health plans, for more personal enrichment?

Does it make you feel independent to know the middle class is being wiped out to enrich the wealthy?

Do you feel independent knowing that the working class is struggling to keep its head above water?

Do you feel independent knowing that all this was a plan inaugurated by right-winger Ronald Reagan in 1980, the president who quadrupled the deficit with bigger military spending and tax cuts? What’s wrong with that picture?

Do you feel independent knowing Democrats (the working man’s party) all along the way have joined in to bloat the military and cut social programs, including public school education at every level?



Do you feel independent when the Tea-Baggers ask the government “to get off their backs” instead of asking government “to get on the case” and make laws and regulations to control free-trade, which is definitely not free of corruption, and outright “Wall Street-style stealing” in countless ways from the US taxpayer.

Do you feel independent knowing that depleted uranium (DU) used in US Weaponry to increase its “bang” or “protective” ability is poisoning the US military, as well as the people of Central Asia and the Mideast; and that writers like myself will be maligned by Department of Defense assets for writing this?

Do you feel independent not being told DU is made with Uranium 238 that aerosolizes when it explodes on impact into the atmosphere, poisoning earth, air and water as well as the human and animal immune systems?

Do you feel independent knowing that your mainstream media won’t report on most of these issues because they are controlled by the dollars of multi-national corporations who don’t want to rock the entertainment rowboat with reality?

Do you feel independent knowing that the 9/11 Commission was not independent and that each member was tied to the Bush administration, and that its report should properly be called the 9/11 Commission of Omissions’ Report?

Do you feel independent knowing that 9/11, compromised as it was, was the inciting incident for the “War on Terror,” which movie is still running in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and so on, having swallowed $3 trillion so far and 3 million lives?

These are only a few of my favorite questions concerning your independence and mine on July 4, 2010, Independence Day, as it was named by our forefathers, the signers of the Declaration of Independence, the framers of our Constitution.

Oh, and by the way, do you feel independent knowing that the USA PATRIOT ACT was and is unconstitutional and that torture and rendition are still sanctioned, and that the president now has the power to send assassination teams to anywhere in the world to kill whomever he deems involved with terrorism. Is that not a form of terror itself?



But by now, I’ve probably given you agita. I apologize, but the truth shall set you free as long as you keep asking questions and feeling independent enough to do so. Silence is the handmaiden of tyranny. Remember that today, everyday.

And have a good weekend. Maybe take a minute to make your own list of people, places, or events that don’t make you feel free. After all, the Declaration says our government derives its “just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government . . .”

#######

Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer and life-long resident of New York City. Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net. His new book, “State Of Shock: Poems from 9/11 on” is available at www.jerrymazza.com, Amazon or Barnesandnoble.com.

Read More

Ken O'Keefe Joins London Symposium

The honor of announcing that Ken O'Keefe will be joining our London symposium gives me a great sense of pride. For those who do not know, Ken stood tall during the Israeli commando raid on the Freedom Flotilla bringing aid to the prisoners of Gaza, the largest concentration camp in the world. Ken, who is a Marine veteran, captured two Israelis suspected of the murder of Turkish photojournalist during the battle on the Mavi Marmara. As the article we are featuring here explains, he was taken to Israel and beaten, tortured for two days before being released. This was a shameless example of the brutality of Israeli operations against peaceful citizens who are doing what they can to relive the suffering being endured by some 1.5 million Palestinians, who are being deprived of their human rights because of an illegal Israeli blockade.

Ken will be serving as our Master of Ceremonies and will introduce each of the speakers while relating some of his experiences aboard the Mavi Marmara along the way. The event will be held at Friends House opposite Euston Station, one of the premier venues for public meetings, where the discussion of the absence of any justification--historical, religious, moral or political--for wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan will become apparent to everyone who attends. This location appears to be especially appropriate, given the dedication of the Quakers to discouraging war and to preserving a just and peaceful world. While the presentation of the symposium does not imply an endorsement by Friends House, I could not be more delighted that it will be held there, where an audience of 500 is expected to attend.

AN INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM

DEBUNKING THE “WAR ON TERROR”:
THREE PERSPECTIVES

The "war on terror" has been justified by 9/11, by religious and moral arguments, and by political persuasion. The speakers will address the crucial arguments for war: Have we been told the truth about 9/11? Do religion and morality support these wars? Does analysis of the political language employed to justify them reveal a hidden agenda? They will demonstrate that the "war on terror" is a complete and unjustifiable fraud.

EXPERT SPEAKERS and POLITICAL COMMENTATORS:

• Ken O’Keefe (Ireland/Palestine), Master of Ceremonies
• James Fetzer (US), Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth
  "Are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?"
  
• Kevin Barrett (US), Co-Founder, Muslims for 9/11 Truth
  "Islam, Neoconservatism, and the Unwarranted 'War on Terror'"
  
• Gilad Atzmon (UK), Jazz Musician and Political Commentator
  "From Promised Land to Promised Planet: Zionism and Neoconservatism"
  

For more, visit http://rediscover911.com/DWT/DebunkingWT.htm

6:30-9:30 PM, 14 JULY 2010 FRIENDS HOUSE
OPPOSITE EUSTON STATION
ADMISSION: £5 ON DOOR FROM 6:00 PM

It is also a pleasure to present an interview with Ken on Kevin Barrett's Tuesday radio program, which is broadcast over "No Lies Radio", which is the theme of his and my research in relation to JFK, 9/11, and other issues of public concern. This interview took place on 29 June 2010, offering a first-hand report on the atrocities committed against the Mavi Marmara.

Hero Of Gaza Flotilla Goes Head To Head With Biased BBC “Israeli Firster”
Gordon Duff / 29 June 2010

For those Americans that don’t know, Ken O’Keefe is the United States Marine combat veteran who captured two Israeli’s suspected of the murder of Turkish photojournalist during the battle on the Mavi Marmara. Veterans Today staff writer, O’Keefe was captured, taken to Israel and beaten, tortured for two days before being released. Israeli’s claimed O’Keefe was planning to set up a training school for terrorists inside Gaza while on the ill fated relief mission attacked in international waters by 24 Israeli ships and dozens of American built Blackhawk and Apache helicopters. As many as 6,500 Israelis are believed to have taken part in the operation, deemed a “war crime” by maritime law experts with the British government.

Nine are known to have died, with autopsies showing “execution style ” killings and many more are still missing, fate unknown. Verified witness reports indicate that Israeli soldiers threw four wounded humanitarian workers overboard to their deaths, victims not listed on the official tally. Other victims are unaccounted for, either killed in Israeli custody, dead from lack of medical care for wounds or being held in secret detention facilities. It is believed these names were withheld because the victims had no affiliations with any Islamic organization and one or more may have been American citizens.



Over the weeks since the dramatic Mediterranean confrontation between the Freedom Flotilla and Israeli “sort of” commandos, Ken O’Keefe and I have developed a friendship. Veterans Today is always glad to bring another Marine onboard as a writer as we are overloaded with retired spies, Army people or even worse. I talked extensively with Ken prior to his famous televised interview on BBC. Ken has become representative of a large group of, what is to us younger veterans who are sick of the American policy, now increasingly discredited, of believing anything Israel says and supporting everything they do. Our contention is that Israel has suffered a coup, a military take-over which has left their democratic government as little more than a debating society while extremists are running amok, as Israeli Ambassador Oren calls them, “rogue groups.”



Increasingly, our Israeli based writers, such as former Irgun and IDF fighter, Uri Avnery, have come under physical attack, some inside Israel, some out. Ken O’Keefe was attacked in London this week. Others, many, have received death threats and more, such as Noam Chomsky, have been refused travel restrictions. Israeli nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu was arrested in Tel Aviv and put in solitary confinement and more have been subjected to cars stolen, laptops seized and homes broken into by “black bag” crews in areas as remote as Sudan and even in the US and Western Europe.



The surprise announcement by Israel through Ambassador Michael Oren that they have lost control of violent groups of right wing Likudists responsible for acts, as Oren admits, including spying on the United States, caught Mid-East observers off balance. Attempts to get information on other operations, such as the Dubai assassination or the London Bombings of 7/7, which could possibly be attributed to this ultra-nationalist cabal referred to by Ambassador Oren have been stonewalled.

This O’Keefe interview, an unsuccessful attempt at an “ambush” by a BBC “Rush Limbaugh clone” fails at its task. Continual interruptions, misstatements and eventually outright propagandizing by the BBC pundit with an embarrassing pro-Israeli agenda isn’t enough to get O’Keefe to walk away. Veterans Today thanks the BBC for allowing Ken O’Keefe an opportunity to show, not only how transparent their bias is but why underestimating United States Marines has been a foolish endeavor since November 10, 1775.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/06/29/gordon-duff-flotilla-hero-ken-okeefe-veterans-today-writer-on-bbc-hard-talk/

Read More

Conspiracies and conspiracism

Jim Fetzer
Online Journal
28 June 2010

MADISON, Wisc. -- A new study from Political Research Associates entitled Toxic To Democracy: Conspiracy Theories, Demonization, & Scapegoating, by Chip Berlet now proclaims that conspiracy theories are “toxic to democracy” because they share some portion of moral responsibility for irresponsible acts, such as the shooting of the abortion provider, Dr. George Tiller, which some have associated with Rush Limbaugh and other pro-life zealots. By adopting a sweeping stance that does not discriminate between different cases on the basis of logic and evidence, Berlet discredits himself. Since conspiracies only require collaboration between two or more individuals in illegal acts, they are as American as apple pie.

Perhaps Berlet didn’t get the memo, but according to the government, the US was attacked on 9/11 by 19 Islamic fundamentalists who used box cutters to hijack four airplanes, outfox the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, and commit multiple atrocities under the control of a guy in a cave in Afghanistan. When I published a critique of the “official account,” which suggests the facts contradict it, I used the title, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY, in the knowledge that either way a conspiracy was involved -- either one told by the government using THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT, or something far more sinister, which involved key members of the Bush administration with a little help from their friends. (See, e.g., “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda” and the PowerPoint presentation, “Was 9/11 an ‘inside job’?,” which is archived at 911scholars.org.)

According to Berlet, belief in a conspiracy turns out to be the manifestation of a “belief system” that violates the principles of logic. Having taught logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years, however, the violations of logic seem to be committed by the author. Berlet commits many fallacies in the course of his study, including some stunning, easily disprovable generalizations about reasoning:

“Conspiracism is neither a healthy expression of skepticism nor a valid form of criticism; rather it is a belief system that refuses to obey the rules of logic. These theories operate from a pre-existing premise of a conspiracy based upon careless collection of facts and flawed assumptions. What constitutes ‘proof’ for a conspiracist is often more accurately described as circumstance, rumor, and hearsay; and the allegations often use the tools of fear -- dualism, demonization, scapegoating, and aggressively apocalyptic stories -- which all too often are commandeered by demagogues.” (Toxic to Democracy)

No one would deny that a certain proportion of the American public may be vulnerable to “conspiracism” in this sense, which represents the modus operandi of Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing zealots, who find conspiracies to be a ubiquitous part of public life, from left-wing efforts to spend the country into oblivion to encouraging illegal immigrants to flow into the country unabated to questioning whether Barack Obama has the qualification for office of being “native born.”

These are the kinds of “conspiracy theories” that are dime a dozen, which find gullible followers across the country by the bushel basket.



But so what? If conspiracy theories like these are supposed to be “toxic to democracy,” then democracy needs to be made of sterner stuff. Circumstance, rumor, and hearsay, after all, tend to be the starting point for more serious studies of specific events. The BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is a case in point. Who has not heard swirling rumors about Halliburton having cut corners, the BP practice of putting profits before safety, and the further catastrophes that await those who reside along the coast of the states that are most directly affected? Puzzlement over phenomena that do not readily fit into our background knowledge and preliminary understanding is the point of departure for scientific investigations that may better reveal the truth.

Suppose we were prohibited from speculation and rumor in relation to the events that have made the most difference to American history in recent time? The most important aspect of reasoning is comparisons between different theories to measure which best explains the data. Indeed, Jesse Ventura’s AMERICAN CONSPIRACES advances no less that 14 illustrations of the collaboration between two or more individuals to bring about illegal ends, from the assassination of Abraham Lincoln (where four co-conspirators were hanged from the same gallows at the very same time), to the big-money conspiracy to overthrow the government in 1934 on to Watergate, the Jonestown Massacre, the Iran-scam that gave the presidency to Ronald Reagan, drug-dealing by the CIA, and many more -- a list that can be readily expanded by the assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK, and Malcolm X (see, for example, JFK and RFK: The Plots that Killed Them, The Patsies that Didn’t).

Berlet claims (what he calls) conspiracism “must be confronted as a flawed analytical model, rather than a legitimate mode of criticism of inequitable systems, structures, and institutions of power.” He claims it suffers from four debilitating features as “metaframes” of the model:

• dualism, according to which the world is -- presumably simplistically -- divided into the forces of good and the forces of evil;
  
  
• scapegoating, according to which an individual or group of people is wrongly stereotyped with negative characteristics;
  
  
• demonization, according to which an individual or a group is taken to be the personification of evil; and,
  
  
• apocalyptic aggression, which occurs when scapegoats are targeted as enemies of the “common good” and may be subjected to violence.

What is fascinating about these categories is how well they fit many of the government’s own campaigns to convince the American people to support an unpopular course of action. After 9/11, for example, the world was divided into the forces of good (the Americans) and those of evil (the Mulsims). Members of the Muslim community were said to be fanatical and violent, contrary to the principles of the Koran. Nineteen alleged hijackers and al Qaeda were scapegoated as responsible for those atrocities. And wars of aggression would be launched against Iraq and Afghanistan, which continue to this day.



Berlet tells us that what “conspiracy theorists lack is the desire or ability to follow the basic rules of logic and investigative research.” We can all remember being told Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, but eventually even George W. Bush acknowledged that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. We were told that Iraq was in cahoots with al Qaeda, but investigations by the Senate and the Pentagon showed that that was not the case. And when Ed Haas of “The Muckraker Report” questioned Tex Tomb of the FBI about why 9/11 received no mention on a “wanted poster” for Osama bid Laden, he was told the reason was the FBI had “no hard evidence” connecting Osama bin Laden to the events of 9/11. But if Saddam was not responsible and if Osama was not responsible, then who was responsible for 9/11?

Indeed, according to THE 9/11 COMMISSION, 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. The number from Iraq was zero. So why did we attack Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia? That looks like a stunning illustration of the failure to follow basic rules of logic or investigative research. As Ron Suskind, THE PRICE OF LOYALTY, reported, George W. Bush’s first secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neil, was astonished that war with Iraq was discussed at the first meeting of the cabinet, nearly nine months before the events of 9/11. Which means 9/11 was used as a fabricated rationale to support a predetermined conclusion, which appears to have been a policy that was adopted by Bush and Cheney before their formal inauguration.

While Berlet insists that “conspiracism” fails to follow the basic rules of logic and investigative journalism, he should have explained that rumor and conjecture represent the second stage of scientific modes of reasoning, where it is crucial to elaborate all possible alternative explanations to insure that the true hypothesis is not excluded from scratch. Thus, the first stages of puzzlement and of speculation are followed by those of adaptation (of hypothesis to evidence, using likelihood measures of evidential support) and of explanation (when the evidence has “settled down” and the best supported hypothesis is entitled to acceptance in the tentative and fallible fashion distinctive of science (see “Thinking about ‘Conspiracy Theories: 9/11 and JFK”).

The essence of Berlet’s book, however, is that he believes conspiracy theories come out of psychological needs of prejudiced people, which makes them INTERNAL FANTASIES. He is thereby throwing the crime baby out with the conspiracy bath water. Conspiracies really do happen in the EXTERNAL WORLD. They are not merely internal figments of the imagination. It is true that some people embrace conspiracy theories and reveal themselves by the inability to improve or adjust their views in light of new evidence or new hypotheses. If they are scapegoating, then the internal origin of their conspiracy need is manifest. However, conspiracy crimes are commonplace and external to us. When they are the subjects of objective investigations, those who study them are governed by logic and evidence, which are basic to rationality.

Ultimately, Berlet has defined a belief system called “conspiracism” that has only tenuous connections with conspiracies. While some gullible persons may satisfy its constraints, there are vastly more conspiracies than there are examples of conspiracism. Ask what Shakespeare would have had to write about if not for plots against the kings and queens of England. How many victims of conspiracies have died in the 20th century alone? In his brilliant study, “The Silence of the Historians,” for example, David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., lists the names of more than two dozen prominent political figures -- from Franz Ferdinand and Czar Nicholas II to Salvadore Allende and Fidel Castro -- who were targeted for assassination by multiple conspirators on a single page of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (page 402).

The ultimate failure of Berlet’s study is that it succumbs to the kind of simplistic thinking that he condemns. The world is divided into forces of good (the rational thinkers) and evil (the conspiracy theorists). The evil conspiracy theorists are stereotyped as trading in circumstance, rumor, and hearsay, while the rational thinkers follow the rules of logic and investigative journalism. Their careless collections of facts and flawed assumptions are often commandeered by demagogues. And of course they can be used to incite unjustified violence against innocent parties. But this presumes knowledge of which claims are true and which assumptions are flawed. Simplistic thinking of Berlet’s kind does not advance understanding. As Michael Moore said, when asked if he was into conspiracy theories, ”Only those that are true.” Each case must be evaluated on its merits using logic and evidence.

Thanks to Mike Sparks for inviting my attention to Berlet’s study and more.

James H. Fetzer is the editor of assassinationscience.com and co-editor of assassinationresearch.com. He has a blog at jamesfetzer.blogspot.com. His academic web site is found at www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer.

Read More