Huh? Can't you distinguish between a polite request and a demand?

Where do I "insist" that we ought to focus exclusively on the points raised in my posts? My exact words were: "can we now get back to the 'conversation in Hebrew' debate please?" I was politely requesting that we return to the topic of discussion - Haas, Jones and the 'conversation in Hebrew.' I did not "insist" on anything Debus. Please do not quote me as saying things that I clearly haven't said.


You were 'vaguely' referring to Eric Hufschmid? 'Vaguely'? I quote from your third post:


From your fourth post:


From your fifth post:


From your most recent post:


Your references to Eric Hufschmid can hardly be considered 'vague' Debus. On the contrary, your statements regarding Hufschmid are vividly clear. Crystal is opaque by comparison. It is evident by your own words that you consider Eric Hufschmid as someone who is psychologically imbalanced. Are you a psychiatrist? Do you hold any professional qualifications in the field of the mental health? If the answer to these questions is 'no', then you have neither the training or expertise to pronounce judgement on the state of anyone's mental health.


Believe Me Debus, I have examined your words with very close scrutiny and deep analysis...as you are about to discover. I suggest that you practice what you preach.


I seem to support the individuals in question? 'Seem' to? I think that my support of Smith, Hufschmid and Bollyn couldn't be more open! And the reason that they have my support is because I believe that they are indeed people whose research can be trusted. I share the trio's belief that thermate was used to bring down the World Trade Centre. My own research is in accord with that of Smith, Hufschmid and Bollyn. This, of course, places me in direct conflict with yourself on the question of how the twin towers were demolished as I do not subscribe to your outlandish 'mini-nukes' theory.


As I stated in my fourth post of this thread, I care not one hoot about the personal lives of others. Nor do I care if Smith, Hufschmid and Bollyn believe Michael Collins-Piper prefers Jewish men to American women. What they think of others, and what you in turn think about them is of no consequence as far as I am concerned. I form my own opinions of people based on my own perceptions. I am interested only in the research that Smith, Hufschmid and Bollyn have produced regarding 9-11 and Zionism.

You enquire as to why I mention their names. If you examine the context in which I initially referred to Smith, Hufschmid and Bollyn in my third post, it can be seen that I was contrasting them with Alex Jones. I drew attention to Jones' attempt to re-invent himself as as someone who is exposing Israel's involvement in 9-11, and stated that I did not anticipate Jones being able to outmanoeuvre Smith, Hufschmid and Bollyn on the issue of Israel and 9-11. I stated quite clearly that Jones is dishonest and evasive so far as Israeli involvement in 9-11 is concerned, and that he cannot be trusted to tell the truth - an opinion with which you are in full agreement. I then stated that I consider Smith, Hufschmid and Bollyn to be honest researchers who can be trusted to expose Israel's role in the 9-11 attacks.

You have devoted much space to Smith, Hufschmid and Bollyn. My initial references to these individuals were contained within two sentences, and were made within the context of the topic under discussion - Ed Haas, Alex Jones and the 'conversation in Hebrew'. You took two sentences of my post and used what I said as a launching pad for your attacks on Smith, Hufschmid and Bollyn.

Your response to the comments I made about these researchers is completely out of all proportion. You have managed to squeeze almost three posts worth of material out of what was said in two sentences. I have to applaud you though Debus - that was some feat. It is abundantly clear that you would prefer to discuss Smith, Hufschmid and Bollyn than you would Haas and Jones.

You ask if Hufschmid is to be believed regarding the accusations that he has made against Michael Piper-Collins and the American Free Press, and if Smith is also to be believed regarding the allegations he has levelled against John Kaminski. I refuse to answer your questions. I have already stated unequivocally that I don't give a toss about what Hufschmid and Smith think of Collins-Piper and Kaminski or what they in turn think of Smith and Hufschmid. Nor do I care in the slightest about your opinions of Smith, Hufschmid and Bollyn.

You obviously didn't digest what I previously said, so let me say it again, loud and clear so that there can be no future misunderstandings - I don't give a fuck. My support of Smith, Hufschmid and Bollyn is based entirely on the quality of research that they have produced on 9-11 and Zionism, and not on what personal opinions they hold towards other people and their employers.

I reiterate my central point. With regard to Israel and 9-11, my experience is that Alex Jones cannot be trusted. Smith, Hufschmid and Bollyn, however, certainly can be trusted to expose Israel's crimes. If you believe that the trio's research on 9-11 is flawed in any way, then, why not focus your criticism in this direction instead of concentrating exclusively on their personal opinions of Collins-Piper, Kaminski, W.I.N.G . TV and the American Free Press?

You then ask if I think: "going to the police and telling them about Silverstein and our suspicions about him and about other Zionists, is the best way to fight the Zionists," before stating that this is what I am implying. You are the one who is making implications here Debus, not I. Nowhere in any of the posts that I have made on this thread do I mention anything even remotely connected with what you claim I am 'implying'. I have implied no such thing, and would be most appreciative if you would kindly desist from making insinuations about what I haven't said. Please restrict your comments to what I have actually said rather than what you imagine me to have said.

In any event, I do not believe that informing the police of the role that Silverstein and his co-Zionists had in the 9-11 attacks is THE best way to counter the Zionists. I do, however, view Hufschmid's idea as but one of an array of weapons that those seeking to bring the perpetrators of 9-11 to justice have at their disposal. If the police are not made aware of the crimes committed by Silverstein and his co-conspirators, then how can they ever be charged, tried, and, hopefully, executed, for their evil deed? Hufschmid, correctly in my view, makes the point that the police are as much the victims of Zionism as the rest of us are, and need to be educated. Compare this with the fear-mongering and negative publicity that Alex Jones promotes regarding the police.

9-11 was a crime, the people who executed that crime are therefore criminals, we know the identities of some of the criminals involved, and where does one go when one wishes to report a crime and criminal activity? Yes Debus...that's right...the police. Why, then, do you pour so much scorn on Hufschmid's idea? What is so "whacky" about a citizen reporting a crime and the criminals who committed that crime to the police? It strikes me that you are doing all that you can to dissuade people from going to the police. This, I find, rather suspicious.

Living as I do in Britain, I can hardly trot down to my local nick to inform the Rozzers of how Silverstein and his fellow Zionists blew-up the towers and building 7 with thermate. They would probably laugh at me. And if I were to tell the Old Bill that not only did Zionists blow-up the World Trade Centre, but that they did so using 'mini-nukes', then I would be running a serious risk of being detained, placed in a straight-jacket, sectioned under the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983, and escorted by men in white coats to a padded cell in the nearest nut-house.

Given that 9-11 happened on American soil and is an American experience, the onus lies exclusively with the American people to identify the culprits behind the attacks and ensure that they are held accountable for their barbaric crime. You mock Hufschmid and dismiss his idea as "whacky", but offer no other intelligent suggestions. What do you propose should be done? What is your plan of action for combatting the Zionists? Why should anyone consider you as a voice of reason and sanity when you are promoting the notion that Israel blew-up the World Trade Centre with mini-nukes?


As I have already stated, I devoted all of two sentences to Daryl Bradford Smith, Eric Hufschmid, and Christopher Bollyn when I initially mentioned them. My post is NOT all about whether we can trust "a researcher" or not. My post is concerned with whether we can trust Ed Haas and Alex Jones. On all known experience, Jones cannot be trusted to divulge the full story and give an honest account of the crimes committed by the state of Israel. I therefore see no logical reason as to why he should be trusted with the 'conversation in Hebrew'. It isn't Daryl Bradford Smith, Eric Hufschmid, and Christopher Bollyn who are peddling stories about former IDF veterans stumbling across conspiracies being discussed in graveyards - it is Alex Jones and Ed Haas.

I began this thread so that a discussion could take place about the claims being made by Haas and Jones regarding Israeli foreknowledge of 9-11. You, however, are more concerned with discussing Smith, Hufschmid, and Bollyn. You have devoted more space on this thread to attacking them than you have in presenting an analysis of the claims made by Haas and Jones.

I did not begin this discussion to debate the relative merits of Daryl Bradford Smith, Eric Hufschmid, and Christopher Bollyn. I started the thread to discuss the 'conversation in Hebrew', but after staying on-topic for your first two posts, you then switched the direction of the thread towards a discussion of Smith, Hufschmid, and Bollyn's personal opinions of Michael Collins-Piper, John Kaminski, Scott Makufka and Lisa Giuliani. You took what I said in two sentences and then made three subsequents posts - almost all of which were entirely devoted to attacking Smith, Hufschmid, and Bollyn.

I'm relieved to hear that you approve of it being, "entirely within the scope of this thread to discuss Alex Jones ad nauseum in relation to the Haas story." I'll bear that in mind when I post the next installment of the 'conversation in Hebrew'. Thank you for reminding us of what the topic of this thread is Debus.

If you would like to continue debating Smith, Hufschmid and Bollyn, then I repeat my previous request that you begin a thread elsewhere in the forum on this particular topic. If you were to set-out your case against Daryl Bradford Smith, Eric Hufschmid, and Christopher Bollyn in detail, and furbish supporting evidence - as I have done with my case against Haas and Jones - then I would be delighted to engage you in debate. What I will not do on this thread is enter into any further discussion of Daryl Bradford Smith, Eric Hufschmid, and Christopher Bollyn.

You, of course, are free to continue off-topic. I can't prevent you from doing so nor will I attempt to. Don't, however, expect me to address any further comments that you may make or answer any questions you might ask regarding Smith, Hufschmid and Bollyn. Should you do so, you will be talking with yourself. I have nothing further to say about Smith, Hufschmid and Bollyn. I'm sure you have though.


Once again, you misrepresent the facts by falsely claiming that I have said something that I haven't said, and once again I ask you to desist from doing so. Once again, I ask you to contain your comments to what I have actually said rather than what you imagine me to have said. Where in any of my posts on this thread do I say who I, "think should be tarnished and who shouldn't be tarnished?"

You introduced the word 'tarnish' to the conversation when, in your sixth post, you opined that:


You then justify your opinion by stating that, "It depends whether there is any good substantiation for the 'tarnishing'." What you consider to be "good substantiation" is, as the case with personal opinion, entirely a subjective issue. What you believe to be "good substantiation" might be "bad substantiation" when viewed through someone else's eyes. Your opinion is exactly that - an opinion. Your opinion is not a universal law by which positive or negative substantiation of 'tarnishing' is to be determined.

My point was, that while you accuse Smith and Hufschmid of 'tarnishing' themselves by attacking others in the alternative media, you too are guilty of doing what they have done, therefore if they 'tarnish' themselves in attacking Collins-Piper, Kaminski, Scott Makufka and Lisa Giuliani and others, then logic decrees that you must also 'tarnish' yourself whenever you attack Smith and Hufschmid.

Equally, if your opinions of Smith and Hufschmid are to be taken as the deciding factor in determining what is and what isn't 'tarnishing', then I must also 'tarnish' myself when I attack Alex Jones. And if in attacking Alex Jones I 'tarnish' myself, then Alex Jones also 'tarnishes' himself whenever he refers to others as 'Neocon scum', 'or Satanic vermin'. In the final analysis, I don't mind if I am labelled as 'Quo the tarnisher' - it really doesn't bother me at all. I would be much comfortable wearing this badge than I would be wearing a badge with 'Zionist deceiver' written on it. And that brings me to my next point...

Yes Debus, I had noticed that Daryl 'tarnished' you, and I offer you my deepest condolences. I really do sympathise with you - I too would feel 'tarnished' if someone accused me of being a Zionist deceiver. In fact, not only would I feel 'tarnished', I would also feel thoroughly embarrassed and completely ashamed. I might even contemplate jumping off a tall building or throwing myself under a train. I might even contemplate doing a bin Laden and go off to hide in a cave. I doubt if I would be able to live with the shame of being accused of being a 'Zionist deceiver'. There is no chance, however, of anyone ever being able to pin a charge of 'Zionist deceiver' on me and making it stick. There is more chance of Rangers winning the Scottish Premier League this season, or of Israel blowing up skyscrapers with 'mini-nukes'.

Here's what your nemesis has to say about you:


Strong words indeed Debus. If anyone were to ever blacken my character by calling me a 'Zionist deceiver', I'd be defending myself most voiciferously against the charge. I would be protesting my innocence, and be going out of my way to show the world what a bad, bad man Daryl Bradford Smith was for daring to cast aspersions over my good name. Under no circumstances whatsoever would I allow his accusations to go unanswered. You have certainly gone out of your way to convince us that Smith is bad, but I have yet to read your rebuttal of his accusation. Your strapline is, "challenge: please try and rebut this theory!" Well Debus, I offer you a challenge: rebut this accusation!

Is there any truth in what Smith is saying or are you just another victim of his irresistible urge to 'tarnish' people who he suspects as being agents of the bad guys? Smith, however, is not alone in his suspicions. I see from posts made on this thread, and from threads elsewhere on this forum, that other members of NOLAJBS believe you to be a shill, and, frankly Debus, I too harbour serious doubts about your integrity and your motives.

"They send you in the wrong direction, or say something absurd to make you look like a fool." I wholeheartedly agree with Smith here. I've been observing, with interest, your posts on the 'mini-nukes' thread, and you could certainly be accused of sending people in the wrong direction. As you already are aware, I am with the thermate school of thought. I have carefully considered all competing theories, and the evidence for thermate is the most convincing. Jet fuel and 'mini-nukes' are just a bit too much Alice in Wonderland for my liking.

You have definitely uttered some absurd statements Debus, and you have tried your level best to make me look like a fool. You have failed miserably though, and have succeeded only in making yourself look a prize tit. You won't find it easy to score brownie points at my expense. On the contrary, you will find me to be a formidable opponent. I pull no punches and I take no prisoners. I make a much better friend than enemy.

Smith's last two points are particularly salient. NOLAJBS has certainly been infiltrated, but show me a 9-11 forum where Zionist agents aren't active polluting the boards with theire lies and deception. That is all they have - lies and deception. The fake Don L. Rondeau post shows that we have trouble-makers in our midst. That such miscreants think that they can operate undetected is testimony of their chutzpah. But they inevitably blow their cover and expose themselves. They aren't too difficult to spot when you know how to spot them.

"They are trying very hard to become the leaders of the truth movement," states Smith. Now go back and re-read my posts Debus. Is this not precisely what I am accusing Haas and Jones of doing regarding Israeli involvement in 9-11? Have I not already stated that the theory that I'm working from regarding the 'conversation in Hebrew' is that Alex Jones is trying to re-invent himself as an exposer of Israeli foreknowledge of 9-11 when, in actual fact, he is engaged in a damage-limitation exercise? I am determined to thwart Jones, make no mistake about that.

"Don't let a Zionist become a 9/11 truth seeker," advises Smith - and sound advice it is too. Should I acquire proof that Smith is correct in his assessment of you, then rest assured Debus that I will come after you too. You will be exposed. Make no mistake about that either. That is a promise.


There you go again Debus. You just can't stop doing it, can you? Are you a compulsive person by nature or do you just get a kick out of antagonising people? You imagine implications where none exist. Indeed, the implications that you claim to be mine are, in fact, the product of your own over-fertile imagination. For the last time, I ask that you refrain from making assumptions about what might be inferred by my thoughts and words. If you are vague about anything that I say, then all you need do is ask for clarification.

You claim that I implied your post was, "about calling them (Smith, Hufschmid and Bollyn) names." Did I? I think not Debus. I asked a simple, direct question:  And do you Debus not tarnish yourself when you attack this trio? Where is the implication here Debus? What exactly does my question imply? I had already stated prior to asking this particular question that I considered your interpretation of the word 'tarnish' to be subjective and a matter of personal opinion. If you believe that Smith and Hufschmid 'tarnish' themselves when they attack other people, then it stands to reason that you must also 'tarnish' yourself when you attack them. You appear to have a problem in getting your head around this simple piece of logic.


Oh really? This link will take you to a video posted on Google titled 'David Icke: The Lizards And The Jews'. This video is actually part of the 'Secret Rulers Of The World' series. Fast-forward to 10 mins 15 secs and you'll see Alex Jones makes an appearance. Gone is Jones' usual angry, motormouth facade. Gone is his fake radio-voice. Jones sounds more like Jody Foster than he does Rush Limbaugh. Listen to what Jones has to say about David Icke. As you were saying Debus...


Are you quite sure about this Debus? Absolutely positive are you? Back in 2000, Jones deceived a member of the Gray family of Trinidad, Texas. Jones reneged on a promise that he had made to John Gray regarding video film Jones had shot at Mr. Gray's home. Jones then subsequently pestered Mr. Gray to grant 20/20 permission to film at his house. Mr. Gray denied Jones his requests. Jones then tells Mr. Gray that he has done "something bad." He confesses that he has sold the video to 20/20 for $700.00, but it turns out that Jones has flogged the video to 20/20 and trousered $25,000 in the process. Not bad for a few days work, eh Debus?

So please spare me the Alex Jones wouldn't do this and Alex Jones wouldn't do that bullshit. It is hard to make a case for someone who professes themself to be a Christian and then rips a fellow Christian off for twenty-five grand. Oh Yeah, goody two-shoes Jones is well-up for deception if big bucks are involved, but oh no, Saint Alex of GCN wouldn't lower himself to the level of those no-good, degenerate bums over at I Am The Witness. Get real Debus.

You attempted to cast Jones in a positive light so that you could then portray Smith, Hufschmid and Bollyn in a negative light, but your ploy backfired, and once again you end-up looking a complete tit. You look a bigger tit still, when you later (falsely) accuse me of adopting the very same tactic that has just exploded so spectacularly in your face.


Bollocks. You are not criticising their work - you are criticising them! In your posts, you have chosen to cast the spotlight upon Smith and Hufschmid's characters rather than upon the volume of their work. Smith and Hufschmid have published several articles exposing Alex Jones, who, I will again remind you, is central to this thread. But do you make any reference to these articles? No, you do not. You discuss only the work that is pertinent to Collins-Piper, the American Free Press and W.I.N.G. TV. even though the latter mentioned have got absolutely zilch to do with the 'conversation in Hebrew'.


Huh? What on earth are you waffling on about? I began this thread by posting what I had unearthed regarding Ed Haas. I felt this was the correct approach considering it was Haas who introduced the story in the first place. In that opening post, I then moved on to Jones after I had shed some light on Haas and his co-author Don. L. Rondeau. Again, this I felt was the correct procedure given that Jones had by that point promoted Haas' story and given him air-time to explain himself. The spotlight was put on Jones during the course of my opening post on this thread yet here you are accusing ME of switching the thread.

I'll give you your due Debus, you have more front than Blackpool Promenade. You are one cheeky sonofabitch. It was YOU who hijacked this thread. You really do have a knack for projecting onto others that of which you yourself are guilty. Now who else do we know of who blame others for deeds which they themselves have done?

I started the discussion in the first place, not you. I mentioned Smith, Hufschmid and Bollyn briefly in two sentences, and YOU took that as your cue to embark upon a diatribe against Smith, Hufschmid and Bollyn which spanned almost three posts. You exhibit chutzpah of the highest order in accusing me of what YOU had done. Are you completely without shame?


To add injury to insult, you then accuse me of playing games. And what 'games' might I be playing? You are unspecific so I assume that you mean mind games? If so, let me tell you that if I wanted to indulge myself in a spot of mental foiling, I'd choose a more worthy and capable opponent than you. You flatter yourself Debus.


Thank you for the kudos, but no thanks. You consider my article on Jones to be "excellent," but then feel the need to take me to task on much of what I wrote. Save your insincere platitudes for someone else. Flattery doesn't work with me.

True, it does not become me. That remark is also applicable to you too Debus. Please keep this in mind the next time you develop an uncontrollable urge to go off on a three-post, completely off-topic, diatribe. Go take a look at the title of this thread. It states quite clearly 'Ed Haas and the conversation in Hebrew'. It does not say 'Daryl Bradford Smith, Eric Hufschmid, Christopher Bollyn and the 'conversation in Debus' head'.

I haven't changed the title of the thread at all. My two subsequent posts on the thread were titled 'Right on cue...as predicted!' and 'Prison Planet's Damage Control Exercise Exposed'. So what? What's the big deal Debus? What is your problem? Why the obsession with minutiae? Are you always this pedantic? Does it really matter what I chose to title my posts? Is the substance of what was contained within my posts not of greater importance than their sodding titles? You really are hard work.

You then have the brass-neck (a Glaswegian saying - it means insolence) to tell me that a two-sentence reference to Daryl Bradford Smith, Eric Hufschmid and Christopher Bollyn is "not directly related to the Haas conversation" before YOU then go off on a three-post tirade about the very same people? How dare you lecture me on what is not relevant to the thread hypocrite? What has been your contribution towards the 'conversation in Hebrew'. What have we gleaned from your posts? What useful information have you contributed?


You have turned twisting people's words into an art-form. This is what I said about Michael Collins-Piper's article that has been 'Orwelled' by the American Free Press:


You accuse me of using Michael Collins-Piper's research to "discredit Jones." You liar. I did not choose Michael Piper-Collins' 'Orwelled' article as a source - Alex Jones did, and I did not 'cite' Collins-Piper, how can I possibly cite an article that doesn't exist? How could I possibly use a non-existent article to 'discredit' Alex Jones? How is it possible for me to "quote" an article that I haven't even read?

I simply drew attention to the fact that despite there being a plethora of articles available regarding Israeli spying, Prison Planet choose to link to one that doesn't exist, and also to the fact that American Free Press have deleted their own material.

You make no comment on, or offer any explanation of, why Collins-Piper's employers have deleted his article on Israeli spying from their website. This is rather odd, don't you think? Why would American Free Press delete an article written by their flagship writer? This is not an isolated case. Piper-Collins wrote an article titled 'U.S. Army Warns: 'Israel May Frame Arabs for Terror'. The article can be viewed here (eleventh one down). Now go to the AFP website and try to find that very same article. Orwell lives.

This is what you originally said about Collins-Piper's other ghost article on Israeli spying - the one that you falsely claim I "quote" from:


You agree with my observation of Jones' deception yet conclude that I, "in essence," contradict myself. You arrive at this odd conclusion in a most peculiar way indeed. You begin your voyage of confusion by asserting that the research that Eric Hufschmid has performed "casts doubt" on the research that I have undertaken on Alex Jones. This "doubt", you allege, arises as a consequence of Hufschmid's belief that Collins-Piper's research is not worthy of trust. You then perform mental-gymnastics worthy of a gold medal by saying, "...it is Piper's research you quote as part of your support of your claim that Jones cannot be trusted."

You then state that my research on Jones "shouldn't be trusted." And why not? Because you don't trust Eric Hufschmid's research, and Hufschmid, in turn, does not Collins-Piper's research. You attempt to discredit my work by deception. First, you misrepresent the facts by saying that I have "quoted" Michael Collins-Piper when I have done no such thing. Then you make a connection between Hufschmid and Collins-Piper, and attempt to discredit my research on Alex Jones via the connection that you have constructed. You, the man who claims that Israel used 'mini-nukes' to demolish the World Trade Centre buildings, are the one whose research is not to be trusted.

The fact is Debus, I have not quoted any of Michael Collins-Piper's work in any of my posts. I point-out that Jones is linking to a dead article. So I ask you again, how can I possibly quote something that does not exist and which I have not read? Moreover, where exactly is this "quote" that you refer to? You really ought to catch hold of yourself Debus and get a grip on that over-active imagination of yours. You have an extremely irritating habit of accusing people of doing things they have not done, of saying what has not been said, and twisting what has been said. You need to take a refresher course Debus. There are huge cracks appearing in your facade.

I have discussed your comments on my research with people both within and without this forum. Every single person with whom I have spoken agrees that you are a con-artist. Some go further than that though. 'Shill', 'plant', and 'agent provocateur' are three of less cruder descriptions. You're clever Debus, but not that clever. If you were as smart as you think yourself to be, you wouldn't be under suspicion.

Your straw-man arguments really are quite pathetic, and you really do need to brush-up on your skills. Your phony arguments doesn't hold any water. You attempt to discredit my research by fusing it with the research of Eric Hufschmid and Michael Collins-Piper. But you overlooked one small but significant detail. Alex Jones refuses to have Collins-Piper as a guest on his radio-show because Jones alleges that Collins-Piper has attacked him. While Jones refuses to entertain Collins-Piper, he is, nonetheless, content to link Collins-Piper's phantom article. And so the false argument you tried to use to discredit me has now boomeranged back on you, and yet again, you make a tit out of yourself. What is it with you Debus? Do you enjoy being humiliated in public?


Oh dear, you're scraping the barrel for dregs now. I utterly refute your insinuation Debus, but as Hufschmid says, all truthseekers need to be investigated. So go on, investigate me. Go right ahead - be my guest. I challenge you to produce evidence in support of what you suggest. Put-up or shut-up. Which is going to be? You cannot supply evidence because no such evidence exists. So do us all a favour and put a sock in your mouth.


I think not Debus. Au contraire, it is you who should proceed with caution. You are, as we say in Glasgow, on a sticky wicket. Your jacket is on a shaky nail. I will remind you that you are the one under suspicion of being a shill and a Zionist deceiver, not I. You can try shifting the spotlight onto me but that isn't going to get you off the hook. The more you wriggle, the harder I'll squeeze.

I'm sorry to piss on your bonfire Debus, but there is more chance of your 'mini-nukes' theory being proven correct than there is of my name appearing In Eric Hufschmid's little black book - absolutely Zero.

And now for something completely different......

Alex Jones reckons that "this is the type of story that'll get you killed," and Ed Haas ominously warns us that,  "It’s about prior knowledge people. People will kill and people will die to protect this secret. Prepare yourself." Oh yes Ed, it sure is about foreknowledge all right - Israeli foreknowledge...and of how two shills are trying ever so hard to limit the damage that Israel has incurred as a consequence of more and more people becoming aware of how Zionists carried-out the 9-11 attacks, and of more and more people getting wise to Alex Jones' deception..

Isn't it strange how discussing Israel's role in 9-11 could get you killed yet those who blame the US government manage to remain alive? Isn't it peculiar how people will kill to cover-up Israeli foreknowledge of 9-11 yet the 'Globalists', the 'New World Order', the 'Luciferian controllers', the 'German death cults', 'the super rich', the global elite', President Bush, Dick Cheney 'and the people above him' don't appear to be troubled by Alex Jones blowing the whistle on them? How much more obvious does it need to be?

So, unless the Mossad, the Shin Bet, the three dodgy geezers from the Jewish cemetery or Debus do away with me over the weekend, I will be posti