Eric Hufschmid Indicted!
Eric Hufschmid (and Daryl Bradford Smith) claims that he didn't include the fact that Israel and Zionists were behind 9/11 in his book "Painful Questions" and in his video "Painful Deceptions" was because he didn't know about it at the time.
Well, well...!!! Eric's good buddy, Christopher Bollyn, says otherwise.
Here is an excerpt of an email from Bollyn to Michael Collins Piper:
---------------------------------------
> Mike, et al:
>
> I am not part of any team with Hufschmit and
> Smith. I and AFP helped Eric with his book before
> it was published
---------------------------------------
I then emailed Piper asking when Bollyn and AFP knew about the Israeli/Zionist connection to 9/11.
Here is the timeline from Piper:
---------------------------------------
The first issue of American Free Press following 9-11 was mailed out on September 14 (and dated September 24).
That issue contained a front page editorial by Willis Carto asking whether the CIA and the Mossad had any foreknowledge of 9-11. That same issue had an article by me entitled "Mossad Link to First WTC Bombing Raises Eyebrows."
The next issue of American Free Press, dated October 1 (which was mailed out on September 21, meaning that it was probably finished at the AFP office as early as September 19 or September 20) had a front-page headline: "Did Israelis Have Foreknowledge? Odd Occurrences Suggest Mideast Nation Knew of Attack Beforehand; Suspected Israeli gents Held by FBI." The article was by . . . Christopher Bollyn. It told the storyof the "dancing Israelis" picked up in the New York area.
That same issue of AFP had an article by me pointing out that on September 10, the day before 9-11, The Washington Times had an article saying that US Army School for Advanced Military Studies had issued a report saying that Israel's Mossad could stage an attack "and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act." That article also detailed a long historical list of Israeli "False Flag" operations.
The October 15 issue of American Free Press (which was mailed on Oct. 5) had a small headline story on page two saying "More Evidence Says Israel Knew . . ." and told the now-famous story of the Israeli office of Odigo receiving advance warning of the World Trade Center attack. That issue also had an article by Christopher Bollyn indicating that "evidence" blaming "Muslim terrorists" for the 9-11 attack appeared to be fraudulent. Thus, of course, Bollyn was suggesting that the official story was, likewise, a fraud.
The October 29 issue of American Free Press (which was mailed on October 29) had an article by me (Michael Collins Piper) entitled "Israel's Secret Agenda: Funding Arab Terrorism" obviously suggesting that IF some Arabs and/or Muslims had been involved in the 9-11 attacks that they could have been being manipulated by Israel. This was a detailed article citing multiple "mainstream" sources ranging bak as far as 1972, all demonstrating the possibility of the Mossad having ultimately been behind 9-11, using Arab 'fronts."
The November 5 issue of American Free Press (mailed on October 26) contained a detailed full-page article by me (Michael Collins Piper) demonstrating how the Zionist-controlled media had repeatedly distorted what people had been saying surrounding the story of 4,000 "Jews" or 4,000 "Israelis" who had supposedly not shown up for work at the World Trade Center. This article also freely discussed the strong possibility of Mossad involvement, based on all of the varying details about 9-11 that were popping up.
The November 15 issue of American Free Press (mailed on November 2) featured an article by CHristopher Bollyn referring back to the Dancing Israelis that he had previously written about.
So there's no question about it: American Free Press was on top of the Israeli connection from the first . . . and Bollyn was fully aware of what AFP was reporting, consulting with AFP regularly, and also writing about it on his own.
So for Daryl Bradford Smith to have told James Condit, Jr. that "there was no evidence" (or words to that effect) about Israeli involvement in 9-11 back in 2001 is either evidence of his total ignorance (which is rather revealing, considering the fact that he is the guy who claims to have brought everything into the open in the first place) or it's evidence that he's a liar (which he's proven to be time and again).
---------------------------------------
This is Daryl's interview with Jim Condit Jr to which Piper refers to in the above email.
http://www.iamthewitness.com/mp3/DarylBradfordSmith_Jim_Condit_22Apr2007...
Listen especially to minute 27 through minute 29. Jim Condit Jr notes that Eric didn't include the Zionist connection to 9/11 in his book and video. Daryl says Eric didn't include it in his book and video because it wasn't well known.
---------------------------------------
BTW, I have the actual email (I have forwarded it to others).
Suzette
If you're so hot to indict Eric Hufschmids' ass, why don't you just go right over to his place and whip it, Wimpette ?
I don't need to physically whip Hufschmid. The facts whip him perfectly well. Besides, I think Eric might lean this way.
Very interesting. This timeline includes some additional information that was not included in the May 16 Piper Report.
The Washington Times article of September 10, 2001, which gave details of the SAMS report on the Mossad, is available here.
It was September 10, 2001, that Rumsfeld admitted that they could not "track $2.3 trillion in transactions" at the Pentagon, whilst Rabbi Dov Zakheim was Comptroller. Zakheim was previously involved with a company that produced "Flight Termination Systems" for remote control of aircraft via a Command Transmitter System.
The "Dancing Israelis" were arrested within hours of the attacks, and Benjamin Netanyahu said on the same day that the attack was "very good" for Israel.
The 28 September 2001 Washington Post carried a report on the Odigo warnings.
And how long could they have hidden the fact that the WTC had been acquired - and insured - by Zionists a mere six weeks prior to the attacks? (The first change in management in 30 years.)
It's not like the information on Zionist involvement took months and months to surface. And even if it had, why didn't Eric publish new revisions of the book and video that did feature it? And when Bollyn was on CNN and was asked who did it, why did he reply, "I wish I knew"?
Perhaps Eric was hoping to find a mainstream publisher for which the implication of Zionists in 9/11 would have been (and still is!) a big taboo?
So yeah, I guess I'm suggesting that he could have initially tried to sell-out but thankfully failed... and focused his subsequent efforts on the most logical suspects rather than on getting a coveted book deal and mainstream sucess.
Wimpette - Sorry, but you don't realize what the issue is.
THE ISSUE IS , we don't need you, or any of the current infestation of overweaning maggots that you brought with you, on this excellent site. We were doing just fine before you got here, and we'll be doing even better yet when you're gone.
Unfortunately, due to our exceptionally high standards,
we've always been prone to infestations such as these.
But we always manage to prevail, somehow.
THE ISSUE IS -THERE IS NO MORE ISSUE.
THE MESSAGE IS - GO WHIP IT SOMEWHERE ELSE.
Boy, this is getting sicker by the moment. I love it!
So much for free speech, Quasi do do.
Nina,
Eric self-published his book in Sept 2002. The publisher is Endpoint Software which is the name of Eric's business.
http://members.aol.com/m9685123/index.html
Note the same address here to order "Painful Questions".
http://www.erichufschmid.net/PainfulQuestionsChecks.html
-----------------------------------------
Quasi,
How about you address the fact that I have provided proof that Eric is a Zionist Denier? All you are offering are ad hominem attacks.
Right, and do you know if he sought or was ever interested in an outside publishing deal?
It IS curious that Eric would pursue the Loose Change kids with such vengeance for avoiding the radioactive Zionism = 911 topic when he'd done the same thing with regards to his book. Hmm...
Why all this fervor to discredit Eric and Daryl, could it be that they focus squarely on Zionism and it's agents? In retrospect, are they ANY other 9/11 DVD's that mention the Israeli connection? Perhaps all the other guys that don't mention it in theirs are Zionuts too? The important thing is that they're spreading the word now, and that those who don't or that keep distracting us with bullsh*t shilly shoaps are the most likely agents of Zion; the scheckel schilling usurpers.
Why not continue the discussion in the 'DBS Indicted' thread? Why not keep it all in one place, so as to easily conserve it for posterity? This blog entry is just a repost from that thread anyway -- what was the point?
They are having issues with that one. Too many troubles coming from that thread. Too much info going into one place. I say cut em into one thread. Lets keep it in the one 1154 thread. I think this will do. This is our site not Daryl and Eric's. Allowing the Eric & Daryl show to promote there shows on this site is bad. However that is happening now and i think we all need to deal with it with out delay.
I say one thread for DBS Et Al.
One thread to work out this issue. One single thread on the DBS issue to have handy for the Duped to see.
First you take D.C. Then you take New York.
Proof that Eric is a zionist denier?
Err...why did AFP then promote Loose Change, whose alleged creators are jewish, if they were so up front about the zionist connection?
What DBS/Eric say about people like Piper is exactly accurate, they do talk about Israel-connection, but DOWNPLAY it. When DBS/Eric talk, they don't DOWNPLAY anything. That is not denial or trying to shift the blame.
It's not very effective denial that you publish your book and your name becomes known, and then everyone where you are featured you blame everything on zionists and jews. So much so that the real jews can have it bothe ways...they can say, "well, you didn't include zoinists in your book" and they can say "this guy is an obvious anti-semite".
The fact that both of these accusations are time and again thrown at Eric and DBS, should be indication of _something_. And it's not about zionist denial.
Another explanation to why Eric doesnt talk about zionists in his book is, tadaa, the good old ghost of anti-semitism. Eric has said he was naive at the time. Just like everyone of us, he had a difficult time to say anything bad about the jews. And he left it out either out of not knowing about it and ignoring it because of such problems, or because he didn't wanna get into trouble.
i know this is all pretty complicated but if you thought about it for a few days...you might catch onto something.
Ton, gotta swim a little faster friend. Head back on this chum trail a couple of weeks to get the answer to your question.
Look for Posiedon's Hairball Theory #3, I believe. This classic troof movement gem says that, "Smith Protects Bush-Cheney by Blaming Israel for 911." It's probably his best one and appeared after many intelligent readers had long departed.
I may have the number wrong or perhaps never even gotten around to properly cataloging and indexing the HAIRBALLS. Apologies, but it's there, "BELIEVE ME, I KNOW!" Fester
Thanks, Fester :D That's great and convincing stuff.
So i guess Daryl asking time and again "how does Bush control the media? how does Bush control media in Europe" are bullshit and don't make sense at all...
Also Bush cabal has been working for centuries and always cleverly put the blame on jews...that makes sense, too.
So it's not the jews...it's been Bush over the centuries!
i remember, btw, Dylan Avery, in Piper's show, with Eric on the phoneline, DOWNPLAYING zionists. Eric was talking about the zionist connection to them, and they basically laughed him off.
Avery made comments like "let me guess, it's the jews, right?!" and also laughed when Hufschmid mentioned Bobby Fischer.
So it's the Loose Change crowd who are the zionist deniers, and they were on Piper's show.
And Piper clearly was not supporting Eric's zionist claims.
Like Daryl has said time and again, they do sometimes talk a little about the zionist connection, but downplay it and try to revert it. This is what David Duke also does.
A few months ago he still had an essay on his site which started basically "If Osama was behind 9/11..." (and he worked on that angle, he wasn't saying how ridiculous it is...i think it was about how the arabs would've had a good reason for the attack).
Another explanation to why Eric doesnt talk about zionists in his book is, tadaa, the good old ghost of anti-semitism. Eric has said he was naive at the time. Just like everyone of us, he had a difficult time to say anything bad about the jews. And he left it out either out of not knowing about it and ignoring it because of such problems, or because he didn't wanna get into trouble.
Yeah, this is probably what I believe too. It really doesn't matter, anyway, what Eric knew or believed in 2002... it's clear that, now, in 2007, he can no longer even be mistaken for a Zionist denier.
I'm not going to mention the alleged resident of Central France or call anyone a "Zionist agent". But before this post is closed, tontheon said something that needs correcting.
It wasn't on Piper's show; it was John Stadtmiller's. The show you refer to is from July 14, 2006.
http://republicbroadcasting.org/get_archive.php?hn=Stadtmiller&yr=06
It's in two parts. In the first hour, Stadtmiller has Eric H. on the phone. Stadtmiller gets very angry at times, hanging up on Eric at one point (44:30), and also (21:30) says that if Eric was standing there with him he would have two black eyes! At 40 mins, J.S. speaks about Eric putting him at the center of his flow chart depicting the "criminal network".
In the second hour, the Loose Change boys join the discussion.
Yes, except substitute Stadtmiller for Piper. The Loose Change crowd are Zionist deniers, and it seems that John Stadtmiller is. But you cannot really expect Stadtmiller to be very supportive of Eric after Eric had published a flow chart featuring Stadtmiller at the center of the "criminal network".
Refer to the May 23 Piper Report:
http://republicbroadcasting.org/get_archive.php?hn=Piper&yr=07
...where (33:45 minutes) Piper refers to tontheon's comment, saying that none of the Loose Change boys were ever on the Piper Report, but they were on Stadtmiller's show.
For those interested in the E.H. saga, much of the show - from about 23:30 - is devoted to the topic. Listen at about 25:30, for instance, where a contradiction inherent in the position of Eric and his supporters is spelled out that we hadn't covered on the other threads. Suzette is mentioned at 27:30.
COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED.
---------------------------------------
"Money" has no value - people do.