John, Here is something real that is amiss with David Irving, I feel. Why has he chosen (or did he?) this young man to give opinions on subjects about which he obviously knows very little?  Henri.
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Henry Ayre
To: David Irving
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 12:10 PM
Subject: Sorry about the colors...

Henri,

If I find one more of your multi coloured (ie almost illegible) emails
in my system  I am afraid I put your address on a stop list. I very
rarely do so but you are testing my patience. It will make it
impossible  for you to write to me about things that matter. I see that
you have also disregarded my request that you desist from harrassing my
conference speakers.

David Irving (now writing in Key West, Florida)
pp Focal Point Publications

USA cellphone: 305 923 6259; or tollfree: 1 877 447 5678 -- email:
focalp@aol.com
***************************************************************************************************************************************
Hello, David... Is this better? My 82 year-old eyes find a dark monitor background much less troublesome than a white background. Doubtless in another 15 years or so you will concur. Many professional computer users use other than a white monitor background, realizing that the screen really isn't a sheet of white paper.  And as you yourself find on your own web pages, the use of color is useful to draw attention.  Passons.
 
During the Lipstadt debacle you were bold and thoughtful enough to provide cyberspace with transcripts of what was occurring. I was reading them - they were lengthy - sometimes at 2 and 3 AM in the morning. Using my probability analysis I quickly discovered that Judge Grey was leading you in one direction, then another. Clearly, this was a theatrical production, a show trial. I told you that and you were irritated at me. When the decision was announced it was abundantly clear that it had been written before the trial had ever begun. I also told you that. You were further irritated at me. Why is it, David, that insightful truth - nasty as it is - irritates you?
 
The Jews are predators. They have been such for centuries. They are very good at their trade. They study their prey for weaknesses. Our weaknesses are primarily our fixed beliefs and dogmas because they continually lead us into actions that are not well thought out, each as a special case. Rather we proceed as if we were dealing with a known and trusted category of events.
 
You had successfully sued other people. The Jews watched this and recognized that you had gained trust in that process. So, when you sued Deborah et al they simply bought the British court system. This was to you a totally inconceivable move. They knew that. Did Judge Grey make the wrong decision? No, of course not, he made the decision he was paid to make. From that viewpoint it was the right decision, wasn't it? Thereafter you sought to redress the 'error' in the same court system the Jews had already bought...
 
My comment is that while you are an excellent analyst of past historic events, you are much less capable in real time situations. So, is Tom Stoneburner, one of your featured speakers, a Jewish plant, a Zionist plant, a Neo-con plant? There is no 'yes' or 'no' answer to that, at least not at this present moment. Could he be? Yes. What is the apparent probability that he is? At least a bit better than 50%. Uncomfortable, that, isn't it? These are hardly gaming odds, are they?
 
Your symposium is supposed to be 'leading edge,' right? So this young gentleman will debit his address that the 'official story' on both the JFK assassination and on 9/11 are essentially true... have I understood correctly? Yet, the work that has been done on BOTH of these subjects by a very large number of very good analysts clearly indicates - with extremely high probabilities - that these two official stories are fabrications. Most of your audience will know that. Stoneburner's address will send all sorts of garbled messages to your paying guests. And he is one of your featured speakers?
 
Are you thus so uninformed about this subject matter? Or is something else or someone else forcing this decision? Don't get mad at me, David. I'm asking the right questions.
 
 
Documents on Real History

      

[] Index to the Traditional Enemies of Free Speech      [] Alphabetical index (text)

Quick navigation

Letters to David Irving on this Website

 

 

Unless correspondents ask us not to, this Website will post selected letters that it receives, and invite open debate.

Tom Stoneburner of Texas doubts, Saturday, August 14, 2004, that there are many real anomalies about 9/11

typewriter

Cell phones that work in planes

THE linked article on your website, Miracles and Wonders of 9/11 , contains some questionable things. In the claims of 'impossible' cell phone calls and the 'Pentagrass' comment, where is the documentation?

Rom StoneburnerGranted, it is a short column. However, many of the 'obvious problems' with the official story of 9/11 are nothing more than the product of overactive imaginations or planted disinformation. Where are the experts?

If the cell phone calls from planes in mid air were impossible, where are the experts from the airline and cell phone industries?

If the object that hit the Pentagon was 'really' a missile or alternate vehicle, where are the engineers and military experts?

I was briefly engaged to a young lady that worked for Dr. Henry Lee. He is probably the best forensic scientist in the US. I browsed through the Lee Institute's collection of material on President Kennedy's assassination while waiting for my fiance to finish her workday.

I saw the same bad analysis of 'obvious problems' in regard to the assassination as I see with the current crop of 9/11 theories.

Tom Stoneburner *

* A featured speaker at this year's (2004) Real History weekend in Cincinnati (September 3-6).

 

Dossier: Mysteries about the Crash of United Aurlines Flight 93
DAVID IRVING writes:

I READ the article with interest as the cell phone anomaly has puzzled me ever since the first moment.

I noticed it a few weeks ago - flying down to Miami from Chicago, a lady in the next row had her cell phone out somewhere over the Appalachians. The flight attendant hurried over: "You must put that away. Cell phones don't work in planes anyway."

That rang a bell, metaphorically speaking. I pulled out mine, furtively, and watched its face for some minutes: The words "Searching for Sprint service..." never left the screen. It could not connect, and did not until we were about two hundred feet above MIA and descending.

So how did Todd Beamer and the rest of those doomed airline passengers manage to use theirs at a time when most of the US cell phone network had crashed anyway, as it was suddenly unable to handle that morning's traffic overload?

True, I am one of those who thinks, "Well, there must be some obvious explanation I haven't thought of." None has been offered so far, except for the seat-back Airphones, at $10 a minute (but that's not what we were originally told). I guess if you suspect that you're going to be dead in a few minutes anyway you don't really care what size charge hits your Visa card.

Focal Point 2004 David Irving