“Without being able to check the evidence”. I can’t get hold of the book right now. I was quoting from memory – which, of course, is less than perfect.

I can read the Amazon reviews however. They coincide with my memory of Ahmed as a standard, party-line truther: “the complete abandonment of standard operating procedures that were in place that fateful day…. the tremendous profits earned through put options based on huge drops in American and United airline stocks… an invasion of Afghanistan had been planned as far in advance of 9/11 as 1997″. I remember this kind of thing from the book, which convinced me briefly, the kind of thing I have now rejected completely. You are right that elsewhere Ahmed comes out with milder ‘truther’ arguments, like the administration ‘took insufficient notice of warnings’.

But I’m not going to pretend this website is a forum where one can have a rational debate about these things. ’9/11 truth’ is a cult, which describes dissenters as agents of the enemy, with as much belligerence and certainty as the pre-WWII communist parties. Just look at the other comments on this issue on this page.

The most abuse I have ever received on the internet has been on deliberation.info. The Zio-lefties merely call me an ‘antisemite’ – which, from them, is a compliment – an exaggeration – it means ‘Palestine solidarity activist’.

Funny, jay accuses Roy of being sane. In jay’s universe it is disreputable.

“The London bombings, much like the attacks on New York in 2001, were a widely predicted consequence of the West’s global strategy. If we do face a future of terrorism we should at least understand the extent to which our governments have accepted this as the price of business as usual.

So let me reformulate for you:

- On one occasion, Ahmed said X
- I claimed that, on some occasion, Ahmed said Y
- X does not equal Y
- On another occassion Ahmed said Z
- Z does not equal Y
- Therefore, I’m misrepresenting Ahmed

2 direct rebuttals of your claim have been posted with links. You assert that Y was said, but provide no link, so Y is uncheckable. I find your claim unlikely and certainly do not accept it without being able to check the evidence.

- On one occasion, Ahmed said X
- I claimed that, on some occasion, Ahmed said Y
- X does not equal Y
- Therefore, I’m misrepresenting Ahmed

Roy doesn’t simply ‘have no idea’ what happened. I think he leans toward one of the ‘truther’ viewpoints.

New York Times May 1968

FALSE FLAGS?

1968

1969

2001

it is too often forgotten that the first use to which William of Ockham put his famous razor was…to shave his own beard. there is no need to make any further assumptions about a supposedly metaphorical sense of “Occam’s Razor” – this is a modern invention quite out of keeping with the spirit of Ockham’s nominalism.

i believe that Jay embraces the 19-boxcutters narrative for a similar reason – economy of effort – the 19-boxcutters story is both simple and socially acceptable, particularly in universities where one might one day apply for a teaching post. it would be sheer folly to allow the prestige of the teacher to be abused in an attempt to provoke inexperienced youths to futile questioning of a self-evident reality on which the whole of modern geo-politics is predicated.

truth or falsehood are not relevant here, since in a world whose dominant notion of reality is universally accepted to be defined by zionist-controlled outlets, the 19-boxcutters theory is, in a Popperian sense, incapable of being proved wrong, and anything that seems inconsistent with it must be vigorously suppressed in the interests of social harmony and intellectual consistency.

thus we may follow the Wiener Kreis in confidently asserting, on impeccable enpirical grounds, that any statement about the events of 911 is, strictly speaking, meaningless and must be relegated to a non-epistemic category like poetry or religion.

i think this explains why Jay speaks of those who do not accept the 911 commission report as veridical, as members of a cult. their views are articles of faith which are not susceptible to evidence-based reasoning, since the only evidence available is what has been revealed in the MSM, which unanimously supports the 19-boxcutters theory.