As to the article that we are supposedly commenting on,
by Michael Green... thank you for publishing it here.
It may be merciless, but in a sheerly logical way. The
analysis is very incisive. Green applies high standards
precisely and fairly.
In a nutshell, Dr. Jones's argument is first summarized
in a few salient points. His logic and science are self-
evident. But he's made a big mistake in the company he's
accepted at Scholars for Truth, Green argues.
The man apparently in charge of that site, Jim Fetzer,
is dismantled for a seemingly endless string of junk
statements, but Green is hardly unfair or vindictive.
Hufschmid gets a long overdue comeuppance. That the
latter is still taken seriously after all his downright
Nazi statements is surprising and depressing. (How many
times does he have to write that the Mexicans are taking
jobs away from degenerate white folk while the Zionists
sell porn to their children - oh and by the way everyone
in the 9/11 movement except Hufschmid is a Zionist plant -
before people wake up to what this guy is?)
Sadly, Green's analysis is not irrelevant and it is not
"unnecessary infighting." Dr. Jones has created a
breakthrough and brought new energy to this movement.
He has no need of alliances with purveyors of junk science
(and junk photo analysis of moon shot pictures, like this
Jack White character who is on the front page of
scholarsfor911truth). They are irrelevant and unnecessary
to what Jones does. Why should Jones weigh himself down
with them, given the already substantial task of getting
past Americans' denial?
NL | 02.08.06 - 9:09 pm |