‘Hufs’ and puffs and blows the truth down
This post is in response to the series of comments I have received to the post, “CIA-Mossad connection to 9/11 “well known” in intelligence circles, says Italian Ex-President.”
A few new viewers stopped in to drop their two cents into the commentary piggy bank, and I thank them for their contribution.
Gab wrote, “Witnessing all what came after 911 it’s not so difficult to see who have benefited from that event. Obviously not the muslims but more probably zionists. I’ve seen some other very interesting articles about this issue.” He provided a link to a nice long translation to Cossiga’s statment.
Flowerpower wrote, “Exposing the criminals has nothing to do with semitism or anti-semitism. It is called JUSTICE for the 3000 victims.”
Flowerpower then contributed about a dozen links about 9/11, all from a site quixotically titled WhatReallyHappened.com. The links are off topic, delving into WTC demolition including the fact that BCC reported that Building 7 have collapsed due to fire before it actually did. However also included is the dubious story of the Israeli phone company Odigo warning workers not to show up to work at the Twin Towers, and an irrelevant story about 9/11 and an Anthrax suspect the FBI “won’t go near.”
sega wrote, “Very interesting that an ex-President would mention Mossad/CIA as being the masterminds of the 9/11 attack. This is something that I have been aware of for almost 2 years now and I have been trying hard to explain this to many people but unfortunately you usually get called a racist/anti-Semite which is so far from the truth…” Sega then provided some relevant links to HugeQuestions.com, the work of Eric Hufschmid. “Hufs” for short.
I once found value in Hufs’ slideshow presentation titled Painful Questions, most notably: Why were agents in suits collecting airplane debris from the Pentagon lawn instead of leaving that work to the hazardous materials team? If the the Towers were burning at steel-melting temperatures then how were people able to stand at the impact hole? While Painful Questions was worth exposing myself to, overall I found that he tended to go too far, too often, by venturing into speculation in the form of a question. I saw the video Painful Quesitons three years ago and it spurred me to investigate and think for myself about what happened. Investigation took the form of watching every viewable video (in the now-unimaginable days before YouTube and Google video), and reading many articles and having many debates. At the time I considered Hufs to be an weird and super nerdy guy who cared about 9/11.
Yet three years later Hufschmid’s is on the fringe of the fringes, possibly because of the poor production value, but it seems that in the years since Hufschmid released Painful Questions he has become much more pointed, now mincing no words on the top of his website, asking “Do you know what Zionism is?” next to a picture of a Rabbi burning an Isreali flag. Take a look. It’ll make you gag, especially if you’re web designer, but also quite flustering if you’re seeking truth.
As for the Painful Questions themselves, I have decided to reject all speculation about the Pentagon because I am not a historian so it does not matter to me what exactly happened to every last detail. I also am not interested in personally determining “who dun it.” I find that pointing the finger doesn’t help solve the crime. But again the point is I am in no position to solve this crime. I can only consider if the original guilty verdict was valid. Everything else seems to be blustering possibilities in a mysterious world.
I have before read all of the websites they linked. I have been traversing the 9/11 truth “info sphere” for nearly four years. I find that the more things I’m asked to consider in a short period of time the less clear the whole picture is. Almost a case of the more you know the less you know. Certainly there is a threshold for the number of ideas a person can take at a given time. The sheer number of links flowerpower provided did nothing to lend credibility. It was merely many possible entry points, sure, but I found that what flowerpower and sega posted reeked of “meh.” If you are truthers, you must do better.
Flowerpower, those stories on WhatReallyHappened are interesting, but you’d be better off picking only the ones that are strongest. Drop Odigo, that story goes no where except into eye-rolling territory. And the 9/11-Anthrax thing is interesting, but again, it’s just too far off topic to help convince anyone of anything.
If either of you had made one good point, and provided one good link, you might have gained some ground in convincing my friend Chris, an open minded fellow with anti-establishment leanings, about the “truth about 9/11.” Instead your all-out link assault makes it difficult to make any coherant point.
The best links of that bunch, in my opinion, were the WTC7-BBC story and this one, ‘The Dog That did Not Bark‘ which is a Sherlock Holmes allusion, suggesting that the secret service’s inaction on the morning of 9/11 indicates that they knew Bush was not a target.
I must tip my hat to Gab, who made a point with one sentence and provided one link, actually contributing to the topic by providing a link to a fuller translation. Thank you good sir! I hope you come again.
As for you, sega, by promoting Eric Hufschmid you seemed to do nothing but help to hurt the chances of other people finding acceptance of 9/11 truth. Hufs is at the fringe of the fringes, much kookier and far less credible than even Alex Jones. If you want to change people’s minds, the only thing Hufschmid is good for these days is making people turn away from continuing their 9/11 investigation online because they might end up on his website again. Then again, for many the same could be said about Jones.
Here’s an interesting exerpt. Hufschmid writes in an separate article on his own website title, “Why don’t I work with Smith any longer? ”
…. Smith didn’t want me putting links to information about the Apollo moon landing hoax, and he didn’t want me talking about the issue when he interviewed me for his radio shows. Smith trusted people such as Mike Rivero, who defend the Apollo moon landing. Even after I tried to explain that Apollo was a scam, he told me that it would do more harm than good to bring up the issue. I’ve heard this argument from many people in the 9/11 movement. It’s just another Zionist trick to convince people to ignore one of their big crimes.
Another gem, which I find amusing since i’m a listener of Alex Jones, who is on on the conspiracy-friendly GCN radio network.
…The GCN radio network turned out to be a Zionist operation. In February 2006 they decided to stop allowing Smith to produce radio shows.
Hahaha…Wow…I’m not going to spend any more time on that website, obviously. But that’s the point, isn’t it? I’m “travelling down a rabbit hole to see how far it goes,” and you, sega, try to send me and all my readers down a garbage chute.