Saturday, February 03, 2007

Williams Out?

That's what they say at the 9-11 Accountability Page.

As a result of the controversy surrounding Eric D. Williams, he has stepped down from involvement in the 9/11 Accountability Conference. The 911 Accountability Conference does not support Holocaust denial, nor does the 9/11 Truth Movement. No other speaker listed here is known to have published works related to the Holocaust.


They've made a hasty job of taking his name down, but he's still mentioned on the Exhibitor's Page as of 10:00 MST tonight:

There will be room for 32 spaces on a first-come/first-serve basis, consisting of anywhere from one to five 6’ skirted and draped tables with one to two chairs per booth. You will find a copy of the basic floor plan below. Please contact myself, Eric D. Williams, to secure your location. If you prefer a table in the hallway near registration, please contact me.


In fairness I suspect that's just an oversight, although they haven't put together anything on whom to make the checks payable to.

Update: See also the Feathered Bastard, who makes many excellent points:

Williams’ book was poorly written, poorly researched and in much need of a copyeditor to judge by the malapropisms, atrocious grammar, and frequent misspellings. He says the only thing he’s guilty of is “thought crime.” Actually, he’s guilty of something his fellow 9/11 conspiracy theorists are guilty of: Writing about and claiming expertise in a subject they are not qualified to address.

Ultimately, Williams is a coward. It’s obvious from his statement that he still believes that the systematic murder of the Jewish population of Europe under the Nazi regime did not take place. So why pull your book, Eric, when you still believe in what you wrote? Why not have the courage of your unsavory opinions? This is what annoys me about his ilk. Hit them with opposition, and they run and hide. At least until no one is looking at them any more.


Highly recommended!

26 Comments:

At 03 February, 2007 21:22, Blogger texasjack said...

I smell a conspiracy. I just want to know who gave the shootdown order..." a young man came in and said "Williams is 50 miles away...he is 30 miles away...he is 10 miles away. Does the order still stand?" Barrett whips his neck around and says "Of course the order still stands!"

 
At 03 February, 2007 21:37, Blogger Pat said...

LOL!

 
At 03 February, 2007 21:38, Blogger ewing2001 said...

http://www.911bloglines.com/aggregator/sources/1
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=2734

Eric Williams gets 'Kissingerized' to give Arizona 9/11 Spooker Conference heads up
5 hours 23 min ago

Convenient mole gets axed to script a new '9/11 Truth Breakthrough'

Kevin Barrett (Fulbright Program, AIG) still listed, though linked as "Holocaust Fundamentalist" by Ruppert supporter oilempire.us:

"... Irving, Zundel, Rudolf and others, need and deserve our unwavering
support if we intend to remain even nominally free. Kevin Barrett..."


http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=2724
Some clown imposters as "ewing2001blogspot.com"

 
At 03 February, 2007 22:19, Blogger shawn said...

So is this ewing the real one or is non-spamming one the real one?

 
At 04 February, 2007 01:47, Blogger Cl1mh4224rd said...

Links + copy-n-pasted text = The Ewing SpamBot 2001

Actual, human conversation = imposter

 
At 04 February, 2007 04:36, Blogger BG said...

The following is an object lesson in what the SLC Blog represents. Rather than discussion the truth of 9/11, the technique used is simply smear.

What you are doing is equivalent to me posting this link to a youtube video as a way to debunk atheism.

 
At 04 February, 2007 05:05, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

BG, you know as well as I do that all the major conspiracy tropes - controlled demolition, WTC7, cameras at the pentagon, living hijackers, Osama videotapes, passenger manifests, all of it - have been discussed to death on this blog. If you think they've ignored these subjects, then you haven't been reading this blog at all.

Look at Adri Mehra's articles - it's the same old crap Pat and James were debunking all last year. If your side can't come up with any more entertaining horseshit - and give him credit, Killtown seems to be really trying - you can't blame the posters here for finding amusement in less significant matters.

 
At 04 February, 2007 06:23, Blogger BG said...

Der Bruno Stroszek said...

I give you credit, Bruno....for your articulate, mostly reasonable comment.

However, Killtown is another story: The latest stuff is only creditable if you want to encourage mockery, which is exactly the nature of the posting here at SLC Blog which I'm knocking.

 
At 04 February, 2007 06:23, Blogger telescopemerc said...

The following is an object lesson in what the SLC Blog represents. Rather than discussion the truth of 9/11, the technique used is simply smear.

Discussion has been done already. Pay attention. Its not SLC's fault when they point out that you guys luv da Nazis.

 
At 04 February, 2007 06:24, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Rather than discussion the truth of 9/11, the technique used is simply smear.

What "truth" would that be? Like the Holocaust Deniers, you fruitcakes just make up most of your argument. "Ooh, the WTC COULDN'T have been brought down by the planes, so knowing America is evil, it must have been a controlled demolition!!!!" That isn't any more "truth" than claiming the moon is made of Swiss cheese.

 
At 04 February, 2007 06:27, Blogger telescopemerc said...

However, Killtown is another story: The latest stuff is only creditable if you want to encourage mockery, which is exactly the nature of the posting here at SLC Blog which I'm knocking.

So instead of whining about it here why don't you fliupping take steps at the source to clean you own house of the crap being spewed? Nope, can't have that, so bg will just moan and spam links.

Honestly, you are like a guy complaining about how his neighbors think your lawn is a mess when its your buddies throwing bottles and trash on it.

 
At 04 February, 2007 06:46, Blogger CHF said...

Sorry BG,

but your Twoof has been discussed to death over the past year. None of it panned out so your movement's Nazi links are far more interesting.

 
At 04 February, 2007 07:02, Blogger BG said...

your buddies throwing bottles and trash on it.

It was established quite a while ago (in comments here) that I am institutionalized and have no friends.

Honestly, the idea that any leading figure of 9/11 truth is my "buddy" or that I have the ability to rein in their behavior is a non-starter.

I have criticized and will continue to criticize anyone whose approach, logic, or conclusions are dubious. I would include the following (among many more) list:

Fetzer
Blood
A. Jones
Richard Grove
Meria Heller
Killtown
Webfairy
Sander Hicks
Nico Haupt (ewing2001)
David Ray Griffin
Mike Ruppert
John Conner

those who claim Loose Change is perfect

Sofia ? (9/11 Mysteries)
Kevin Barrett

If any of you want to jump in and suggest all the others who I'm leaving out, jump in. I would probably agree with questions about many others.

 
At 04 February, 2007 07:12, Blogger telescopemerc said...

I have criticized and will continue to criticize anyone whose approach,

Not from where I am standing you haven't. All i've seen you do here is post irrelevant spam links and whine everytime someone points out that the whackjobs are on your side of the fence.

Care to point out where you have criticized these folks on this blog? I sure as heck haven't seen it.

 
At 04 February, 2007 09:29, Blogger BG said...

elescopemerc said...

I have criticized and will continue to criticize anyone whose approach,


The short document, linked here demonstrates a case where I attacked Fetzer and A. Jones in responding to "Joan" who was a commenter here (and a fellow skeptic).

 
At 04 February, 2007 09:57, Blogger Alex said...

If you don't want to be associated with lunatics, STOP LINKING TO THEM. All you ever do is paste irrelevant links to people who are even crazier than you are. What the hell did you expect???

 
At 04 February, 2007 10:07, Blogger Cl1mh4224rd said...

BG wrote: "I have criticized and will continue to criticize anyone whose approach, logic, or conclusions are dubious. I would include the following (among many more) list:

[...]
Nico Haupt (ewing2001)
[...]"


Odd... I don't see any of that going on here, and both of you "comment" on the same submissions fairly often.

 
At 04 February, 2007 10:10, Blogger telescopemerc said...

The short document, linked here demonstrates a case where I attacked Fetzer and A. Jones in responding to "Joan" who was a commenter here (and a fellow skeptic).

Phhht. That's just plain pathetic. Here's one of your comments leads to:

"I just can't see how he can be helping the cause with being so sloppy and emotional."

and

"Alright, already. Fetzer is sloppy."

Now mind you, 'sloppy' is response to Fetzer's comments that all structural engineers should go to HELL because they don't agree with him. This is a statement that requires much harsher condemnation, but I won't see it from you or anyone on the truther side. To call this 'on the record as being critical of person x' is just plain PATHETIC.

You've given much more criticism to others and have happily linked to blithering nonsense, now you want to paint yourself as the rightous watchdog of the troubleseome members of the troother movement? Spare me. You coddle and enable the cranks, and if they go too far you give them the tiniest admonishment as your 'punishment'. For this you want a cookie and also want us to avert our eyes when your movement gets in bed with freaking Neo-Nazis? Give me a break.

You are disgusting and pathetic.

 
At 04 February, 2007 11:41, Blogger ConsDemo said...

In fairness to you, BG, I have noticed you have criticized other twoofers. Normally, going against one’s otherwise ideological allies that might earn someone the respect of their adversaries. For example, Chuck Hagel gets credit from the left for rebuking Bush on Iraq even though he remains a conventional Republican in almost all other respects. However, Hagel’s actions are based on rational real world reasons. The problem in your case is the entire twoofer movement is based on such preposterous assumptions and such outrageous accusations, merely knocking the idiosyncrasies of other twoofers doesn’t get you any sort of a pass because you are still one of them. It is kind of like someone saying Hitler went overboard using gas chambers but killing millions of Jews was still a good idea. Your overall world view is too repulsive to merit any sort approbation.

 
At 04 February, 2007 15:45, Blogger BG said...

You are disgusting and pathetic.

It's good to have clarity on where I stand with you......

 
At 04 February, 2007 17:09, Blogger Alex said...

lol

"well, like, thank you, it's nice to have closure. do you think I could have my purse back too?"

 
At 04 February, 2007 19:05, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

The 9/11 truth movement is like one of hitler's mistresses, with a hint of a concience...

Twoof rolls over and looks fondly into Hitlers eyes...

"What you do with your own time is your own business darling, I don't like it, but I do sharing your bed."

sad, but true.

TAM

 
At 04 February, 2007 20:32, Blogger BG said...

Cl1mh4224rd said...

BG wrote: "I have criticized and will continue to criticize anyone whose approach, logic, or conclusions are dubious. I would include the following (among many more) list:

[...]
Nico Haupt (ewing2001)
[...]"

Odd... I don't see any of that going on here, and both of you "comment" on the same submissions fairly often.

04 February, 2007 10:07


Nico's approach, on his blogs and writings, and in his comments here, is so spamalicious that I have avoided trying to engage him.

I have engaged him elsewhere and feel helpless to seek common ground.

My guess, and it is only a guess, is that his presence at SLC Blog is for further discrediting of honest 9/11 skeptics. If this is true, I see nothing to be gained by attacking him here, mainly because the the issues that he raisers are so numerous as to require quite a bit of writing.

If this isn't true (that his purpose is to discredit), I would be participating in un-neccesary infighting.

As somebody who thinks the evidence points to flying objects other than jetliners hitting the towers, rather than the faked video that Nico pushes, it seems pointless to carry on such a debate here, where basicly the majority here consider either idea equally moronic.

It's of course possible that Nico and I are both correct: was not the commercial jetliners that impacted, and faked video. Regardless, I strongly argue against the 2nd hit "nose out" (the opposite wall of the WTC) argument that Nico and others have made.

 
At 04 February, 2007 21:16, Blogger Alex said...

it seems pointless to carry on such a debate here, where basicly the majority here consider either idea equally moronic.

Well no shit. You're both saying the exact same thing: no planes hit the WTC. What are we supposed to say? "Oh, well BG thinks it was holograms, which is CLEARLY superior to the CGI argument proposed by Nico". How stupid can you possibly get? At the very least you could be honest and admit that your two theories are intellectually equal.

 
At 05 February, 2007 11:45, Blogger ewing2001 said...

Actual, human conversation = imposter

i think this shows the problem many skeptics have. how would you know if someone changes if you say they are an imposter because they improve? you only show you do not want to help people make things better because you do not believe people can be better. this is a sad outlook on your life.

and do you notice? jason's english has "improved". now who is imitating who?

 
At 05 February, 2007 23:42, Blogger Alex said...

What? Even after reading that paragraph for the fifth time, I still don't understand wtf you're going on about.

You really need to fix this multiple-personality thing.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home