Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Lifting the Fog on 9/11: Experts Present Scientific Evidence at UC Berkeley
An all day symposium, titled "Lifting the Fog", took place Saturday at the Valley Life Science Building at UC Berkeley. To an auditorium full of attentive listeners, a number of experts (most notably Dr. Steven Jones, a renowned physicist) gathered to present their findings about the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001.
Symposium examines the 9/11 World Trade Center disaster with focus on using the Scientific Method
November 11, 2006
University of California at Berkeley
The panelists described how they used the Scientific Method (investigation involving observation and theory to systematically test scientific hypotheses) to reach conclusions that the official government explanations about the 9/11 Disaster were outrageously flawed.
For each, the "devil was in the details." Each described how they had arrived at a personal epiphany regarding the government's reluctance to tell the truth about 9/11 after realizing that official documentation was riddled with misleading and obscured assumptions and conclusions that could neither bear scrutiny nor be duplicated by experimental testing.
Rather than focus on laying blame on the government, however, the panelists largely argued that the public unite to demand wider investigation of the 9/11 disaster. They also expressed the hope that their own findings would be published and be examined-- to stand or fall on their own merit.
It is hoped that this presentation will soon be made available for broadcast. On the internet, look for it in the future at KPFA http://www.gunsandbutter.net/index.php or TUC Radio http://www.tucradio.org/
Here are some other useful links to learn more about the event, its panelists and their discoveries:
Lifting the Fog
The Scientific Method Applaied to the World Trade Center Disaster
http://liftingthefog.org/press.html
Steven Jones, PhD
http://www.journalof911studies.com
Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Collapse? [PDF]
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf
Jim Hoffman, M.F.A.
9-11 Research
http://911research.wtc7.net/
Mickey S. Huff, M.A.
RetroPoll.org
http://retropoll.org/
Janette MacKinlay
Fortunate, a Personal Diary of 9/11
http://www.theneedtoremember.com/gallery_books.html
Nate Mudd, J.D.
SimmonsCooper, LLC (The office of the attorney who specializes in asbestos litigation for victims' compensation and rights)
http://www.simmonscooper.com/
Jenna Orkin, M.A., J.D.
World Trade Center Environmental Organization
http://wtceo.org/
Peter Phillips, Ph.D.
Project Censored
http://www.projectcensored.org/
Paul W. Rea, Ph.D.
Still Seeking the Truth about 9/11
http://www.peaceproject.com/books/BK22.htm
Here are some photographs of the event (taken from the 2 - 5 Sessions in the afternoon and evening). Quotations are taken from the website for Lifting the Fog.
November 11, 2006
University of California at Berkeley
The panelists described how they used the Scientific Method (investigation involving observation and theory to systematically test scientific hypotheses) to reach conclusions that the official government explanations about the 9/11 Disaster were outrageously flawed.
For each, the "devil was in the details." Each described how they had arrived at a personal epiphany regarding the government's reluctance to tell the truth about 9/11 after realizing that official documentation was riddled with misleading and obscured assumptions and conclusions that could neither bear scrutiny nor be duplicated by experimental testing.
Rather than focus on laying blame on the government, however, the panelists largely argued that the public unite to demand wider investigation of the 9/11 disaster. They also expressed the hope that their own findings would be published and be examined-- to stand or fall on their own merit.
It is hoped that this presentation will soon be made available for broadcast. On the internet, look for it in the future at KPFA http://www.gunsandbutter.net/index.php or TUC Radio http://www.tucradio.org/
Here are some other useful links to learn more about the event, its panelists and their discoveries:
Lifting the Fog
The Scientific Method Applaied to the World Trade Center Disaster
http://liftingthefog.org/press.html
Steven Jones, PhD
http://www.journalof911studies.com
Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Collapse? [PDF]
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf
Jim Hoffman, M.F.A.
9-11 Research
http://911research.wtc7.net/
Mickey S. Huff, M.A.
RetroPoll.org
http://retropoll.org/
Janette MacKinlay
Fortunate, a Personal Diary of 9/11
http://www.theneedtoremember.com/gallery_books.html
Nate Mudd, J.D.
SimmonsCooper, LLC (The office of the attorney who specializes in asbestos litigation for victims' compensation and rights)
http://www.simmonscooper.com/
Jenna Orkin, M.A., J.D.
World Trade Center Environmental Organization
http://wtceo.org/
Peter Phillips, Ph.D.
Project Censored
http://www.projectcensored.org/
Paul W. Rea, Ph.D.
Still Seeking the Truth about 9/11
http://www.peaceproject.com/books/BK22.htm
Here are some photographs of the event (taken from the 2 - 5 Sessions in the afternoon and evening). Quotations are taken from the website for Lifting the Fog.
For more information:
http://liftingthefog.org/index.html
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Thanks for the pics - that was an excellent event!
This event sounded very intriguing. Unfortunately, the 9/11 panels at U.C. Berkeley convened on the same day that I had already committed to the Green Festival in San Francisco.
It's good to hear that there was a healthy turnout for the presentations, and I hope that CDs or DVDs will be available eventually. Many thanks to Robert Livingston for the summary.
It's good to hear that there was a healthy turnout for the presentations, and I hope that CDs or DVDs will be available eventually. Many thanks to Robert Livingston for the summary.
For more information:
http://www.devildingo.net
It's time to have a show like this one out on the road. Travel the country and spread the word. It's very improtant that professors in academia and citizen reseachers unite to create an ongoing road show to educate the public. Every 911 Truth branch throughout the country would love to have a show like this come into their State.
Keep going with it !!!
Keep going with it !!!
For more information:
http://dnowak3@verizon.net
Given that the buildings were destroyed with explosives, it is not logical to assume that the perpetrators would not have used the available remote control technology to control the airliners, relying instead on young Muslims to kill themselves in support of the plot. Further, the debate between the "cruise missile" and "airliner impact" at the Pentagon groups is another distraction; clearly, the airliner was destoyed an instant before impact with explosives, to eliminate evidence that there were no Arabs in the cockpits, and that the planes had been controlled remotely, just as all three other airliners were completely destroyed. Therefore, the cell phone and airfone calls from the planes were faked, or (as in the case of the call from Barabara Olsen) made up. Elementary, my dear Watson.
that must have been.
I think the real truth is buried under the grassy knoll.
I think the real truth is buried under the grassy knoll.
Thank you so much for hosting this event. The truth will set us Free.
Something's happening, and you don't know what it is, do you, Dr Jones? He evaded questions from the audience which call his assertions of thermite/thermate as the demoltion method (eg the big smooth hole in WTC6), and countered evidence raised to the effect that the buildings were rendered into dust in mid-air, not only the concrete (which he and Hoffman agree) but most of the steel, by attacking the researcher who did this work, Judy Wood, slandering her as a "no plane" advocate, when in fact her stance is "no big Boeings". Her work is at
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com See Star Wars Beam Weapon, the data are amazing, even if you (like me) are uncertain about what exactly was used.
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com See Star Wars Beam Weapon, the data are amazing, even if you (like me) are uncertain about what exactly was used.
Thank you for the great report and photographs!
DID THEY SPECULATE ON WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THE PEOPLE ON BOARD THE PLANES?
the arguments are so heated, what we all deserve is some real answers and some real independent research with funding!!! let the push for truth commence....we will have the truth revealed sooner than 25 years later!
beautiful to see you all there fighting for a compassionate loving america
beautiful to see you all there fighting for a compassionate loving america
It was a very good presentation.
No, they did not speculate on what happened to the people aboard the planes.
They presented factual evidence, and refuted government theories using facts and science, and proposed alternate theories based on facts and science.
Regarding areas where there is insufficient data, they attempted in general to avoid speculation except when asked, and even then the speculation was limited and qualified.
What was quite apparent from the event was that many of the government's assertions are wild speculations that have no basis in fact, and are either based on no supporting evidence, or in many cases, are opposed by the existing evidence. The government has done a good job of trying to confuse the public with its misleading reports.
The official story is the original conspiracy theory and the wildest one of them all.
Please do not check out the article linked by another commenter here about energy beams. That is information published on the web by someone who appears to be a disinformation artist who I believe is trying to discredit 9/11 truth through guilt by association with her. She was not part of this conference, and is not a main player in this movement. I did not hear anyone in the conference who supports that theory.
No, they did not speculate on what happened to the people aboard the planes.
They presented factual evidence, and refuted government theories using facts and science, and proposed alternate theories based on facts and science.
Regarding areas where there is insufficient data, they attempted in general to avoid speculation except when asked, and even then the speculation was limited and qualified.
What was quite apparent from the event was that many of the government's assertions are wild speculations that have no basis in fact, and are either based on no supporting evidence, or in many cases, are opposed by the existing evidence. The government has done a good job of trying to confuse the public with its misleading reports.
The official story is the original conspiracy theory and the wildest one of them all.
Please do not check out the article linked by another commenter here about energy beams. That is information published on the web by someone who appears to be a disinformation artist who I believe is trying to discredit 9/11 truth through guilt by association with her. She was not part of this conference, and is not a main player in this movement. I did not hear anyone in the conference who supports that theory.
A few second-rate academics or community college instructors riding a train powered by yet another conspiracy theory.
Here's a bunch of pdf ebooks on 9/11 and related
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2006/10/119635.shtml
9/11 - Descent into Tyranny by Alex Jones
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119636.pdf
The New Pearl Harbor - Disturbing Questions about the Bush Admin. and
9/11 by David Ray Griffin
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119637.pdf
9/11 Synthetic Terror - Made in the USA by Webster Griffin Tarpley
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119638.pdf
America's Secret Establishment - An Introduction to Skull and Bones by
Antony Sutton
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119639.pdf
NATO's Secret Armies - Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe
2005 by Daniele Ganser
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119640.pdf
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2006/10/119635.shtml
9/11 - Descent into Tyranny by Alex Jones
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119636.pdf
The New Pearl Harbor - Disturbing Questions about the Bush Admin. and
9/11 by David Ray Griffin
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119637.pdf
9/11 Synthetic Terror - Made in the USA by Webster Griffin Tarpley
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119638.pdf
America's Secret Establishment - An Introduction to Skull and Bones by
Antony Sutton
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119639.pdf
NATO's Secret Armies - Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe
2005 by Daniele Ganser
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119640.pdf
For more information:
http://uads.org/u/looyah
A conspiracy occurs when two or more people secretly plan to commit a crime. Hence, the 9/11 hijackers and their accomplices were part of a conspiracy.
Now, as far as the US govt conspiring to commit a crime, we at least know that our govt is capable of it and has done it in the past.
Iran-Contra. Watergate. There's two solid cases of the US govt engaging in a conspiracy to do something illegal.
So, rather than call people "loons", why not simply admit that a wider investigation is needed, one involving govt and non-govt people.
Let's see where the facts lead us before we start yelling "Bush did it" or "9/11 conpiracy theorists are nuts."
Now, as far as the US govt conspiring to commit a crime, we at least know that our govt is capable of it and has done it in the past.
Iran-Contra. Watergate. There's two solid cases of the US govt engaging in a conspiracy to do something illegal.
So, rather than call people "loons", why not simply admit that a wider investigation is needed, one involving govt and non-govt people.
Let's see where the facts lead us before we start yelling "Bush did it" or "9/11 conpiracy theorists are nuts."
And they are doing real science on 9/11, as opposed to non-science which is what the gov't has conducted and made reports of.
If you want to talk about second-rate scientists (or third or fourth rate - better yet: liars) just look at the government reports on 9/11 like NIST.
If you want to talk about second-rate scientists (or third or fourth rate - better yet: liars) just look at the government reports on 9/11 like NIST.
Jim Hoffman was one of the earliest outed limited-hangout disinfo agents. Then, last year, along came Steven Jones, who pushed a limited-hangout "thermite theory" (the physics-denying physics professor doing chemistry) Carol Brouillet is similarly tainted, but in a non-technical way. I don't know [about] all the shrouding-in-fog panelists, but it's quite possible that they're all on the government payroll (fake opposition fools most of the people most of the time; just trust and leave it to Peter Phillips to tell everyone just what the government+media has censored, right...?)!
Just a coincidence that the known panelists all side with and support each other and (denounce anyone who does not agree with) the Official Government Conspiracy Theory regarding what airliners/flights crashed on 9/11? Not bloody likely. Hoffman has been caught gatekeeping the contrary evidence in order to try to support the OGCT. Gatekeeping (omitting key big-lie-piercing info under the guise of telling someone "everything he needs to know" is a form of lying, a form of disinformation) like Hoffman's is an act of treachery and deceit and betrayal.
It's quite possible that Steven Jones was "retired" from BYU not for fake-opposing the lying government but for having told an outright blatant lie about physics, of all things, thereby reflecting badly on all BYU physics professors. (Pretty much all college professors do not speak out about 9/11; theirs are lies of omission, complicit silence, but even they don't want to be associated with a liar like Jones.)
Steven Jones biggest 9/11 sin, by far, is his "thermite theory". While it's quite possible, even likely, that thermite was involved in bringing down the WTC skyscrapers, "thermite" (/thermate/superthermate/superduperthermate) is wholly inadequate and insufficient to account for any of the highly unconventional evidence left behind (we've all seen "controlled demolition" before, but that's never caused huge pyrocastic debris flows [which is a far cry from a mere "dust cloud"] or molten metal left behind weeks afterward, nor fires which could not be extinguished for months). Undeterred, using some pseudo-scientific method, Jones ingores all those data points, and the fact that "thermite" cannot account for any of them, and misdirects people's attention towards his incredibly bogus, anti-scientific opinion. Dr. Jones, instead of connecting the dots, ignores and disconnects them! (Jones also did and suppressed an investigation into the incredibly-tiny size of the particles -- evidence of molecular dissociation -- contained in the WTC dust sample in his possession. There is no known "pulverization" mechanism which can account for so many such tiny ([near-]molecule-sized!) particles, another fact conveniently ignored by Disinfo Agent Dr. Steven Jones.)
People like that will, with a straight face, even, tell you that they can account for all the highly-unconventional evidence with conventional weaponry. They are lying. They are liars! They conceal truths under the guise of revealing them, SOP for gatekeepers.
Once we know that we cannot blame the "collapses" on "airplanes", hijacked or otherwise, it is illogical to blame 9/11 on "hijackers". Good 9/11 presentations make it utterly impossible to go on blaming "suicidal Muslim hijackers" for 9/11. These "liftingthefog" disinfo agents, including the too-cute-and-perky-to-possibly-be-a-Disinfo-Agent-Brouillet, consistently try to do the opposite, and omit the info/evidence which makes it impossible to go on blaming/hating "Muslim hijackers". (Carol was one of the 2006 fake 911 'truth' Congressional candidates who refused to question Bush about Bush's own, repeated, incriminating 9/11 witness statements, part of a long tradition of fake opposition to generations of Bush family treason -- same as "impeachment is off the table" Queen Of Collusion Nancy Pelosi...)
That is how/why, even though the so-called "lifting the fog" participants claim and appear to be opposing the OGCT, they are, in actuality, supporting the very core of the government's stack of lies known as 9/11. Even as they promote a slightly-less-unbelievable account of the events of 9/11, differing as narrowly from the OGCT as they think they can get away with, they are saying, "Nothing terribly unconventional to see here, Citizen. Move along." -- the basic patter of all gatekeepers.
Connect the dots, including the missing ones, and the truth emerges.
For more information:
http://911u.org/Physics/
Real Sept 11 research – not the limited hangouts of the liars and plagiarists at this spook conference
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/research.html
The Dark side of Professor Jones
http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eholmgren/darkside.html
Professor Steven Jones trashes the demolition evidence
http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eholmgren/jonestrashesdemolition.html
Scholars For 9/11 Plagiarism and Dinsinformation
http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eholmgren/scholars.html
Jim Hoffman Trashes the Sept 11 Stand Down evidence
http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eholmgren/hoffmanstanddown.html
How Mark Robinowitz and Jim Hoffman Lied about the BTS Data
http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eholmgren/rabidbts.html
Hoffman the Plagiarist
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/320469.shtml?discuss#186867
Hoffman the Spook
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/320469.shtml?discuss#186880
How Hoffman Distorts Evidence
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/320469.shtml?discuss#186929
The Truth About Truthlings. The 9/11 Double think Movement
http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eholmgren/slithering.html
The (Phantom) Planes Meme
http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eholmgren/meme.html
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/research.html
The Dark side of Professor Jones
http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eholmgren/darkside.html
Professor Steven Jones trashes the demolition evidence
http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eholmgren/jonestrashesdemolition.html
Scholars For 9/11 Plagiarism and Dinsinformation
http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eholmgren/scholars.html
Jim Hoffman Trashes the Sept 11 Stand Down evidence
http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eholmgren/hoffmanstanddown.html
How Mark Robinowitz and Jim Hoffman Lied about the BTS Data
http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eholmgren/rabidbts.html
Hoffman the Plagiarist
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/320469.shtml?discuss#186867
Hoffman the Spook
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/320469.shtml?discuss#186880
How Hoffman Distorts Evidence
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/320469.shtml?discuss#186929
The Truth About Truthlings. The 9/11 Double think Movement
http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eholmgren/slithering.html
The (Phantom) Planes Meme
http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eholmgren/meme.html
For more information:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Because the media and government has been so remiss in authoritatively addressing the issues surrounding the 9/11 disaster-- it seems only natural that many theories about how they were caused etc. can be advanced.
That is why (as brought up in this conference in Berkeley) it is necessary to weigh all available information using the best deductive and inductive logic, and the Scientific Method. Through conferences and public presentations such as this one, and further-- through publication of information that can be reviewed and tested-- then, maybe, if we are honest and open-minded-- we may begin to discern truth from untruth and truth tellers from misleaders.
In the normal clash of personalities and styles, etc. there is plenty that rubs me the wrong way-- and allows doubts to linger in my mind. However, over time, I've found... the truth will most certainly "out".
In one form or another I've been marginally acquainted with the work of some of the people who appeared at the "Lifting the Fog" symposium. Do these people have links to nefarious organizations? I would say: no more than they might be "six degrees from Kevin Bacon."
I don't, like many people involved in this subject, spend my waking days pursuing 9/11 Truth, although I wish I had more time to. The government reports are too flawed, the press too opaque, and and the "onion layers" too dense for me (although Janette MacKinlay said that is part of their fascination).
Ultimately-- we must rely on the facts that we know, and stack arguments against each other to make an informed judgment. Ultimately, too-- we must use our own experience from studying human character to make our own personal judgments about the motives of the persons we come into contact with. I saw nothing nefarious or negative in the people making presentations. I saw only strong desire to be more open to expanding knowledge and encouraging debate. I saw a deep shock at being mislead by a government and institutions in which they had formerly put their trust.
Likewise, I sense something petty, if not something slightly ulterior in the motives of the "student of 9/11" and Gerard Holmgren (although I admire him for at least signing his name).
Am I wrong? I hope others reading here will use their intellectual capabilities to sort out what are the best arguments-- what needs to be responded to, and what needs to be ignored.
I have no reason to doubt the good intentions and scholarship of any of the persons who appeared at this forum-- even if I myself might differ with some on certain points. This was a very valuable symposium-- especially bringing the subject out into public discourse (which naturally subjects it to all sorts of criticism, good and bad).
In darkness-- one often finds just more darkness. I found the arguments given by Steven Jones and Jim Hoffman and the others at this symposium very compelling, and far from being "over the top". Their arguments, for me, were enlightening. Readers here should ask themselves: "Do I understand more? Or less? Can I, myself, ask more informed questions about the subject-- and do I have new facts-- ones that are irrefutable? Ones that I can act on as an informed citizen?"
There are many aspects to the study of what happened.
It is worthwhile, I think for people to compare all arguments as is practical-- be skeptical-- but don't get lost.by ad hominem and hearsay propositions. We need to know more about the truth of what actually happened on 9/11/01.
That is why (as brought up in this conference in Berkeley) it is necessary to weigh all available information using the best deductive and inductive logic, and the Scientific Method. Through conferences and public presentations such as this one, and further-- through publication of information that can be reviewed and tested-- then, maybe, if we are honest and open-minded-- we may begin to discern truth from untruth and truth tellers from misleaders.
In the normal clash of personalities and styles, etc. there is plenty that rubs me the wrong way-- and allows doubts to linger in my mind. However, over time, I've found... the truth will most certainly "out".
In one form or another I've been marginally acquainted with the work of some of the people who appeared at the "Lifting the Fog" symposium. Do these people have links to nefarious organizations? I would say: no more than they might be "six degrees from Kevin Bacon."
I don't, like many people involved in this subject, spend my waking days pursuing 9/11 Truth, although I wish I had more time to. The government reports are too flawed, the press too opaque, and and the "onion layers" too dense for me (although Janette MacKinlay said that is part of their fascination).
Ultimately-- we must rely on the facts that we know, and stack arguments against each other to make an informed judgment. Ultimately, too-- we must use our own experience from studying human character to make our own personal judgments about the motives of the persons we come into contact with. I saw nothing nefarious or negative in the people making presentations. I saw only strong desire to be more open to expanding knowledge and encouraging debate. I saw a deep shock at being mislead by a government and institutions in which they had formerly put their trust.
Likewise, I sense something petty, if not something slightly ulterior in the motives of the "student of 9/11" and Gerard Holmgren (although I admire him for at least signing his name).
Am I wrong? I hope others reading here will use their intellectual capabilities to sort out what are the best arguments-- what needs to be responded to, and what needs to be ignored.
I have no reason to doubt the good intentions and scholarship of any of the persons who appeared at this forum-- even if I myself might differ with some on certain points. This was a very valuable symposium-- especially bringing the subject out into public discourse (which naturally subjects it to all sorts of criticism, good and bad).
In darkness-- one often finds just more darkness. I found the arguments given by Steven Jones and Jim Hoffman and the others at this symposium very compelling, and far from being "over the top". Their arguments, for me, were enlightening. Readers here should ask themselves: "Do I understand more? Or less? Can I, myself, ask more informed questions about the subject-- and do I have new facts-- ones that are irrefutable? Ones that I can act on as an informed citizen?"
There are many aspects to the study of what happened.
It is worthwhile, I think for people to compare all arguments as is practical-- be skeptical-- but don't get lost.by ad hominem and hearsay propositions. We need to know more about the truth of what actually happened on 9/11/01.
Peter Phillips says is for 9/11 truth at events like this conference, but at a World Can't Wait rally in San Francisco last month, and during interviews on Pacifica Radio, esp KPFA Berkeley, he attacks Bush for "failing to prevent 9/11 and then capitalizing on it". Sounds to me like helping to spread 9/11 LIES, not "truth".
[[DID THEY SPECULATE ON WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THE PEOPLE ON BOARD THE PLANES?]]
Well for a start here is official documentation that no such flights as AA11 or 77 existed that day.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html
And here is how Hoffman lied in attempting to throw smoke at this documentation
How Mark Robinowitz and Jim Hoffman lied about the BTS data
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/rabidbts.html
Independent of the evidence above, here is proof that the media published fake passenger lists for the fictitious flight 11
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/fake.html
Here is offical documentation that the planes which flew UA 175 and 93 that day were apparently still registered and valid more than four years later.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/aircraftregistry.html
And as a precursor to asking what happened to them (whoever "they" are), lets first establish what did not happen to "them".
Even conceding that it existed, AA 11 did not hit the Nth tower
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/nthtower.html
Even conceding that it existed, AA 77 did not hit the pentagon
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/pentagon.html
UA 175 did not hit the Sth tower
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/sthtower.html
Here is how Steven Jones lied in atttempting to throw smoke at this evidence.
What Kind of plane is it Professor Jones ?
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/whatkindofplane.html
UA 93 did not crash near Shanksville
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/93.html
Did anyone at the conference ask Steven Jones about what kind of weapons systems he worked on during his time at Los Alamos ?
Did he by any chance have something to do with the technology which was used to disintegrate the towers to dust while they still standing ? Los Alamos is after all, where that kind of weaponry is being dveloped.
Think about it. The message of the general idea of an "inside job" is that "the enemy is within". Don't look for external threats. the people who pose as your saviors are the ones who actually did it.
Do you seriously think that this situation exists only on one level ? That the enemy is not also "within" in relation to the "truth" movement ?
Do you seriously think that they did S11 and then just left the "movement" alone to develop in its own way ?
OK, so how do you know who's who ? How do you know, that I'm not the spook ?
Good question.
Here's how you find the answer for yourself.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/critthinking.html
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/truthhero.html
Well for a start here is official documentation that no such flights as AA11 or 77 existed that day.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html
And here is how Hoffman lied in attempting to throw smoke at this documentation
How Mark Robinowitz and Jim Hoffman lied about the BTS data
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/rabidbts.html
Independent of the evidence above, here is proof that the media published fake passenger lists for the fictitious flight 11
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/fake.html
Here is offical documentation that the planes which flew UA 175 and 93 that day were apparently still registered and valid more than four years later.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/aircraftregistry.html
And as a precursor to asking what happened to them (whoever "they" are), lets first establish what did not happen to "them".
Even conceding that it existed, AA 11 did not hit the Nth tower
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/nthtower.html
Even conceding that it existed, AA 77 did not hit the pentagon
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/pentagon.html
UA 175 did not hit the Sth tower
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/sthtower.html
Here is how Steven Jones lied in atttempting to throw smoke at this evidence.
What Kind of plane is it Professor Jones ?
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/whatkindofplane.html
UA 93 did not crash near Shanksville
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/93.html
Did anyone at the conference ask Steven Jones about what kind of weapons systems he worked on during his time at Los Alamos ?
Did he by any chance have something to do with the technology which was used to disintegrate the towers to dust while they still standing ? Los Alamos is after all, where that kind of weaponry is being dveloped.
Think about it. The message of the general idea of an "inside job" is that "the enemy is within". Don't look for external threats. the people who pose as your saviors are the ones who actually did it.
Do you seriously think that this situation exists only on one level ? That the enemy is not also "within" in relation to the "truth" movement ?
Do you seriously think that they did S11 and then just left the "movement" alone to develop in its own way ?
OK, so how do you know who's who ? How do you know, that I'm not the spook ?
Good question.
Here's how you find the answer for yourself.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/critthinking.html
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/truthhero.html
For more information:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
[[Who are we to believe]]
You don;t need to "believe" or "trust" anyone. In fact you shouldn't. Including me. With the right methodology of critical thinking, you can put everyone to the test - including me.
I invite the test.
Here it is.
Disinformation and the art of critical thinking
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/critthinking.html
How to be an instant truth hero by just making stuff up
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/truthhero.html
In the light of the article above...
What Kind of plane is it Professor Jones ?
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/whatkindofplane.html
(Perhaps he dropped his notes in the thermite bucket, and that's why can't provide the documentation...)
You don;t need to "believe" or "trust" anyone. In fact you shouldn't. Including me. With the right methodology of critical thinking, you can put everyone to the test - including me.
I invite the test.
Here it is.
Disinformation and the art of critical thinking
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/critthinking.html
How to be an instant truth hero by just making stuff up
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/truthhero.html
In the light of the article above...
What Kind of plane is it Professor Jones ?
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/whatkindofplane.html
(Perhaps he dropped his notes in the thermite bucket, and that's why can't provide the documentation...)
For more information:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
When you really dig deep in 9/11, it is impossible not to wonder how pilots who vaguely knew how to fly a jet and not land it could perfectly park a monster into the Pentagon so accurately that the building's top floor fascade would hang like the kitty door on the bottom of a house's back door. In fact, the black box was found some 300 feet in the building so that means the behemoth was travelling at top speed upon impact.
The whole affair reminds me of the people back in the 60's who wanted to cover the rear ends of horses and those who think that wasn't staged to combat the censorship of graphic pornography.
The whole affair reminds me of the people back in the 60's who wanted to cover the rear ends of horses and those who think that wasn't staged to combat the censorship of graphic pornography.
Listen now:
Here is an excerpt from a speech given by Dr. Bob Bowman.
"On 9/11, at a symposium organized by dc911truth.org held Saturday, November 11, at George Mason University's Arlington campus. Dr. Bowman—who last week got 44% of the vote in Florida's 15th congressional district—makes a reasonable case for further investigation into the events of 9/11, without pre-judging the outstanding questions. It's a model political analysis for activists."
Link to complete speech by Bowman (Electric Politics):
"On 9/11, at a symposium organized by dc911truth.org held Saturday, November 11, at George Mason University's Arlington campus. Dr. Bowman—who last week got 44% of the vote in Florida's 15th congressional district—makes a reasonable case for further investigation into the events of 9/11, without pre-judging the outstanding questions. It's a model political analysis for activists."
Link to complete speech by Bowman (Electric Politics):
For more information:
http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/20...
For more information:
http://911bloglines.blogspot.com
Jim Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, interviewed Judy Wood about all this on his radio show last Sat, 11/11/06
11 November 2006
Interview: Judy Wood will be the guest on
"Non-Random Thoughts" with host Jim Fetzer
6-8 PM/CT (7-9 PM/ET and 4-6 PM/PT)
Call-in number: (800) 313-9443
Related: The Star Wars Beam Weapon
http://rbnlive.com, live page, archive, (mp3-1)(mp3-2)(all: mp3-no ads)
11 November 2006
Interview: Judy Wood will be the guest on
"Non-Random Thoughts" with host Jim Fetzer
6-8 PM/CT (7-9 PM/ET and 4-6 PM/PT)
Call-in number: (800) 313-9443
Related: The Star Wars Beam Weapon
http://rbnlive.com, live page, archive, (mp3-1)(mp3-2)(all: mp3-no ads)
By the way, that comment by "Jeff" (not the Jeff who asked Dr Jones the question he couldn't answer, by the way) that people shouldn't look at a certain site is pretty overboard for someone supposedly dedicated to 9/11 "TRUTH".
Note: this web site is evidently mal-programmed to "disappear" (not display, = bury/hide/censor/omit/gatekeep) all but the first and last 10 comments, hence the reposting of this comment...
Jim Hoffman was one of the earliest outed limited-hangout disinfo agents. Then, last year, along came Steven Jones, who pushed a limited-hangout "thermite theory" (the physics-denying physics professor doing chemistry) Carol Brouillet is similarly tainted, but in a non-technical way. I don't know [about] all the shrouding-in-fog panelists, but it's quite possible that they're all on the government payroll (fake opposition fools most of the people most of the time; just trust and leave it to Peter Phillips to tell everyone just what the government+media has censored, right...?)!
Just a coincidence that the known panelists all side with and support each other and (denounce anyone who does not agree with) the Official Government Conspiracy Theory regarding what airliners/flights crashed on 9/11? Not bloody likely. Hoffman has been caught gatekeeping the contrary evidence in order to try to support the OGCT. Gatekeeping (omitting key big-lie-piercing info under the guise of telling someone "everything he needs to know" is a form of lying, a form of disinformation) like Hoffman's is an act of treachery and deceit and betrayal.
It's quite possible that Steven Jones was "retired" from BYU not for fake-opposing the lying government but for having told an outright blatant lie about physics, of all things, thereby reflecting badly on all BYU physics professors. (Pretty much all college professors do not speak out about 9/11; theirs are lies of omission, complicit silence, but even they don't want to be associated with a liar like Jones.)
Steven Jones biggest 9/11 sin, by far, is his "thermite theory". While it's quite possible, even likely, that thermite was involved in bringing down the WTC skyscrapers, "thermite" (/thermate/superthermate/superduperthermate) is wholly inadequate and insufficient to account for any of the highly unconventional evidence left behind (we've all seen "controlled demolition" before, but that's never caused huge pyrocastic debris flows [which is a far cry from a mere "dust cloud"] or molten metal left behind weeks afterward, nor fires which could not be extinguished for months). Undeterred, using some pseudo-scientific method, Jones ingores all those data points, and the fact that "thermite" cannot account for any of them, and misdirects people's attention towards his incredibly bogus, anti-scientific opinion. Dr. Jones, instead of connecting the dots, ignores and disconnects them! (Jones also did and suppressed an investigation into the incredibly-tiny size of the particles -- evidence of molecular dissociation -- contained in the WTC dust sample in his possession. There is no known "pulverization" mechanism which can account for so many such tiny ([near-]molecule-sized!) particles, another fact conveniently ignored by Disinfo Agent Dr. Steven Jones.)
People like that will, with a straight face, even, tell you that they can account for all the highly-unconventional evidence with conventional weaponry. They are lying. They are liars! They conceal truths under the guise of revealing them, SOP for gatekeepers.
Once we know that we cannot blame the "collapses" on "airplanes", hijacked or otherwise, it is illogical to blame 9/11 on "hijackers". Good 9/11 presentations make it utterly impossible to go on blaming "suicidal Muslim hijackers" for 9/11. These "liftingthefog" disinfo agents, including the too-cute-and-perky-to-possibly-be-a-Disinfo-Agent-Brouillet, consistently try to do the opposite, and omit the info/evidence which makes it impossible to go on blaming/hating "Muslim hijackers". (Carol was one of the 2006 fake 911 'truth' Congressional candidates who refused to question Bush about Bush's own, repeated, incriminating 9/11 witness statements, part of a long tradition of fake opposition to generations of Bush family treason -- same as "impeachment is off the table" Queen Of Collusion Nancy Pelosi...)
That is how/why, even though the so-called "lifting the fog" participants claim and appear to be opposing the OGCT, they are, in actuality, supporting the very core of the government's stack of lies known as 9/11. Even as they promote a slightly-less-unbelievable account of the events of 9/11, differing as narrowly from the OGCT as they think they can get away with, they are saying, "Nothing terribly unconventional to see here, Citizen. Move along." -- the basic patter of all gatekeepers.
Connect the dots, including the missing ones, and the truth emerges.
For more information:
http://911u.org/Physics/
September the Eleventh 2001.
The World Trade Center.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Reports on the World Trade Center disaster.
The Fires.
The Pentagon.
The Response, Or Rather, Lack Of It.
General 9/11.
The World Trade Center.
In a Perfect World.
The World Trade Center Fires.
Many High Quality Videos of 9/11 (and more).
Premature Detonations of Explosives Caught on Video.
More Evidence of Explosives in the World Trade Center Towers Collapses. (0.4 MB)
The FEMA Report into the World Trade Center 7 Collapse. Its Authors Deliberately Lied!!
A Review of the Nova Article: Why Did the WTC Towers Fall? by MIT Professor Thomas Eagar. (0.6 MB)
A Review of Charles Clifton's Article: Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. (0.5 MB)
Facts about the World Trade Center, from Multi-Storey Buildings in Steel.
Some Articles about the WTC from Engineering News Record. (0.4 MB)
The Jet Fuel; How hot did it heat the World Trade Center?
Proof the Twin Towers were Deliberately Demolished.
Comments on the World Trade Center Demolition. (0.3 MB)
Tapes Tell of Firefighters Courage at World Trade Center.
The Sixty State Street building and the World Trade Center towers: A Comparison.
How do Buildings (not subject to demolition) fall? How did the World Trade Center fall?
The World Trade Center Six Explosion Myth (misinformation spread by the false opposition).
Microsoft Software simulates the crash of a Boeing 747 into the World Trade Center.
University of California, Berkeley Professor, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl Testifies.
Was Thermite used to Melt Sections of the World Trade Center Core Columns.
What went wrong with the investigation? By Eric Hufschmid (with comment).
The World Trade Center Demolitions. An Absolutely Enormous Insurance Scam!!
Calculations Say at Least 14 Tons of High Explosive Needed to Bring Down Each Tower.
WTC Construction Manager states on camera: "Towers would survive multiple jet-liner impacts."
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Reports on the World Trade Center disaster.
Table Of Contents for the FEMA World Trade Center Report.
Chapter 1 of the FEMA WTC Report: Introduction (with comment). (0.3 MB)
Chapter 2 of the FEMA WTC Report: The Twin Towers (with comment). (1.0 MB)
Chapter 3 of the FEMA WTC Report: WTC 3.
Chapter 4 of the FEMA WTC Report: WTC 4, 5, and 6. (0.4 MB)
Chapter 5 of the FEMA WTC Report: World Trade Center Seven (with comment). (0.7 MB)
Chapter 6 of the FEMA WTC Report: Bankers Trust Building. (0.3 MB)
Chapter 7 of the FEMA WTC Report: Peripheral Buildings. (0.4 MB)
Appendix A of the FEMA WTC Report: Overview of Fire Protection in Buildings. (0.3 MB)
Appendix B of the FEMA WTC Report: Structural Steel and Steel Connections. (0.4 MB)
Appendix D of the FEMA WTC Report: WTC Steel Data Collection. (0.4 MB)
The FEMA World Trade Center Collection in PDF-document format.
The Fires.
The World Trade Center Fires (also listed above).
So What Happens When WTC Type Trusses Are Heated?
Research Results from the Cardington Test Fires (text only).
A New Approach to Multi-Storey Steel Framed Buildings Fire and Steel Construction (0.5 MB).
The Behaviour of Multi-storey Composite Steel Framed Structures in Response to Compartment Fires (0.7 MB).
The Cardington Tests and the Broadgate Fire.
Tapes Tell of Firefighters Courage at WTC.
The Cardington Reports in PDF-document format.
The Pentagon.
So what exactly did hit the Pentagon?
Media releases faked photographs of 9/11 Pentagon crash.
Why were no cars blown off the freeway by the jets exhaust blast?
So What Really Happened to the "Hijacked" Flights of 9/11?
The 9/11 "Missile Hits the Pentagon" Hoax.
The Super-Lucky Pentagon Retrofit.
The Pentagon Problem in a Nutshell.
The Essence of the Problem.
The Penta-Lawn 2000 Hoax.
Article on the Pentagon Retrofit.
The Bijlmer Crash - Joe Vialls - Caught in a Lie.
Carol A. Valentine Article Completely Wrong.
The Strange Case of the Sports Utility Vehicle at the Pentagon.
The American Society of Civil Engineers Pentagon Report.
The Response, Or Rather, Lack Of It.
District of Columbia Air National Guard Mission And Vision Statement.
New Jersey Air National Guard Mission Statement.
An example of Air National Guard efficency.
Where was NORAD on September Eleven?
General 9/11.
The Most Outrageous Conspiracy Theory Of Them All.
Collection of Eric Hufschmid's early articles on 9/11.
Osama bin Laden denies any part in 9/11.
Did Jews Frame the Arabs for 9/11?
Israelis arrested on suspicion of 9/11 involvement.
Many 9/11 "Hijackers" are Still Alive and Well.
Evidence that the Arabs are Not to blame for the WTC attack.
Urgent message to Ellen Mariani. Get a new lawyer. Fire Philip Berg.
The (pre-Presidential) Election Bin Laden Video is Obvious Fake.
Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at the WTC.
Seismic Observations During the September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack.
Sept 11th - Unanswered Questions By MalcontentX.
Investigation shows Cellphone Calls from 9/11 "Hijacked" Planes are next to Impossible
Benjamin Freedman Predicted the Present Push for WWW III in 1961, prescient eh?
Stranger Than Fiction from www.whatreallyhappened.com.
Sixty State Street: A Case Study.
So where has the site http://bb.domaindlx.com/911TheTruth/ been hiding.
How come I never heard of it before?
How come I never heard of it before?
It's good to educate yourself on how disinfo works if you decide to be involved in any 9/11 work, and this thread is as good a place as any to start on that subject.
As you can see, those attempting to attack the work of the researchers at the conference and promote the ideas that fake tv images hit the WTC instead of real planes, are not very interested in a "truth" movement, but prefer disruption and lunacy.
To see how some of this stuff works, look at these links -
http://www.oilempire.us/hoaxes.html
* who still promotes "no planes?"
* whistleblowers who do and do not promote "no planes"
* list of no plane promoters
http://www.oilempire.us/no-plane-timeline.html
The Complete "No Planes on 9/11" Timeline
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040810075752147
On Ungrounded Theories & Disinformation
As you can see, those attempting to attack the work of the researchers at the conference and promote the ideas that fake tv images hit the WTC instead of real planes, are not very interested in a "truth" movement, but prefer disruption and lunacy.
To see how some of this stuff works, look at these links -
http://www.oilempire.us/hoaxes.html
* who still promotes "no planes?"
* whistleblowers who do and do not promote "no planes"
* list of no plane promoters
http://www.oilempire.us/no-plane-timeline.html
The Complete "No Planes on 9/11" Timeline
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040810075752147
On Ungrounded Theories & Disinformation
I really like this article from http://bb.domaindlx.com/911TheTruth/
THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS CONSPIRACY THEORY OF THEM ALL.
THE OFFICIAL MEDIA/GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY THEORY.
It is blatently anti-semitic and totally stretches the bounds of believability (note that Arabs are Semites).
It goes something like this:
There is a massive Arab/Semite conspiracy to destabilize the West.
There is a gigantic network of Arab/Semite spies and agents throughout the world, at the beck and call of a BIG Semite called bin Laden.
Controlling this gigantic network of Semite spies and agents from a cave in Afghanistan (while all the time under observation by the CIA and their friends (who have produced tapes of this master plotter conversing with his mother)) bin Laden manages to destroy the two largest commercial buildings in the USA and put a significant dent in the Pentagon.
Not only this, but he is cunningly able to stand-down the United States Air Force, thus permitting this immense destruction to occur without airforce interference, which would have otherwise quickly laid waste to his plans. Such an achiever.
And not only this, but in order to sow confusion among his enemies, he publicly, and repeatedly, denies any involvement whatsoever in this amazing achievement. Such a man.
Boggles the mind, doesn't it.
Only the maddest -- probably insane -- conspiracy theorists believe this dribble.
Seriously guys, some people actually believe this crap.
IN PARTICULAR, MANY FELLOW AMERICANS BELIEVE THIS INSANE CRAP.
http://bb.domaindlx.com/911TheTruth/september-eleven/conspiracy-theory.htm
Despite the skepticism of some blogers, this conference was an important event. The official story, so-called, is an obvious whitewash. Who could reasonably argue that the 9/11 Commission gave us anything close to the truth? The skeptics are unwilling to contemplate the darkside of our so-called leadership and their willingness to create a new Pearl Harbor in order to bring about their vision of a new world order. Bravo to the panelists and their work aimed at speaking to truth!
My wife and I are very big Sherlock Holmes fans. We flew up from Los Angeles and enjoyed the conference very much. (And some of the fine restaurants in Berkeley).
Three things were made clear to us.
ONE - Just like any crime, careful scientific study, research and data gathering is the way to solve the mystery - (Steven Jones seems to be doing that and the USGS findings). After all - DNA footprints are helping catch criminals years after crimes were committed. Could the very high levels of Zinc and Barium in the dust hold the key?
TWO - There seems to be a new awakening of people to the events surrounding 9/11. A first responder Fire Fighter to the WTC was in the audience and said that he and his fellow firefighters had all watched a revealing 9/11 DVD in the fire station and that they would be talking to more firefighters about the event.
THREE - All, who smell a bad fish, can participate in the propagation of the facts that seem to be building and indicate that the Twin Towers and WTC7 were brought down by controlled demolition.
(I told 3 people today - they were surprised most when I mentioned Marvin Bush financial involvement in the WTC security company!)
However - all this trouble can be avoided by the following simple step.
Can ANYONE explain, to individuals who pride themselves on possessing an intellect higher than
a chimpanzee, how a 47 story steel building, WTC7 - not hit by an airplane and only observed
to have minimal fires came crashing down with the exact characteristics of a controlled
demolition. (As stated by Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko). PLEASE do this and then we
can all go home!
As Holmes says, "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
Three things were made clear to us.
ONE - Just like any crime, careful scientific study, research and data gathering is the way to solve the mystery - (Steven Jones seems to be doing that and the USGS findings). After all - DNA footprints are helping catch criminals years after crimes were committed. Could the very high levels of Zinc and Barium in the dust hold the key?
TWO - There seems to be a new awakening of people to the events surrounding 9/11. A first responder Fire Fighter to the WTC was in the audience and said that he and his fellow firefighters had all watched a revealing 9/11 DVD in the fire station and that they would be talking to more firefighters about the event.
THREE - All, who smell a bad fish, can participate in the propagation of the facts that seem to be building and indicate that the Twin Towers and WTC7 were brought down by controlled demolition.
(I told 3 people today - they were surprised most when I mentioned Marvin Bush financial involvement in the WTC security company!)
However - all this trouble can be avoided by the following simple step.
Can ANYONE explain, to individuals who pride themselves on possessing an intellect higher than
a chimpanzee, how a 47 story steel building, WTC7 - not hit by an airplane and only observed
to have minimal fires came crashing down with the exact characteristics of a controlled
demolition. (As stated by Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko). PLEASE do this and then we
can all go home!
As Holmes says, "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
Sammy said "How come I never heard of it before?"
The truth is that both the "sides" in the above argument are false-opposition.
The false-opposition and the false-false-opposition.
Both sides are acutely aware of the http://bb.domaindlx.com/911TheTruth/ site (and the many earlier editions of the site) and neither "side" has ever quoted it (apart from Jim Hoffman who has quoted an earlier 3-year old edition http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/index.htm).
Simon Bond said: "We flew up from Los Angeles and enjoyed the conference very much."
Next time you go to such a conference,... ask them why they never reference http://bb.domaindlx.com/911TheTruth/,... when every other crackpot site is referenced. Ask Jim Hoffman why he only ever refers to a three year old edition of the site.
The truth is that both the "sides" in the above argument are false-opposition.
The false-opposition and the false-false-opposition.
Both sides are acutely aware of the http://bb.domaindlx.com/911TheTruth/ site (and the many earlier editions of the site) and neither "side" has ever quoted it (apart from Jim Hoffman who has quoted an earlier 3-year old edition http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/index.htm).
Simon Bond said: "We flew up from Los Angeles and enjoyed the conference very much."
Next time you go to such a conference,... ask them why they never reference http://bb.domaindlx.com/911TheTruth/,... when every other crackpot site is referenced. Ask Jim Hoffman why he only ever refers to a three year old edition of the site.
Hi James,
I believe that Jim H was unaware of the new location. Are there revisions/additions in this one?
- Reader
I believe that Jim H was unaware of the new location. Are there revisions/additions in this one?
- Reader
HEY James the bottom pic. with the shaded in RED outline of a plane showes the plane passing through the very BIG Cable Spooles on the ground how can this be HMmmmmm?
Opps I need to put the ref. pgs. in The false-opposition and the false-false-opposition. http://bb.domaindlx.com/911TheTruth/
then
http://bb.domaindlx.com/911TheTruth/pentagon/small/missile-hoax.htm
then bot.pic.
http://bb.domaindlx.com/911TheTruth/pentagon/precollapse-marked.jpg
HMmmmm? could this be an INSIDE Job Person? as I look around this site it has
some problems? WHERE are the pieces of the plane; the seats; tail; luggage; etc. I have been
in the CAP Civil Air Patrol & at crash sites.
then
http://bb.domaindlx.com/911TheTruth/pentagon/small/missile-hoax.htm
then bot.pic.
http://bb.domaindlx.com/911TheTruth/pentagon/precollapse-marked.jpg
HMmmmm? could this be an INSIDE Job Person? as I look around this site it has
some problems? WHERE are the pieces of the plane; the seats; tail; luggage; etc. I have been
in the CAP Civil Air Patrol & at crash sites.
This conference boasts about the "sceintific method " ?
What a joke. Let me give an example of the "scientific method" of Steven Jones.
In defending the official story of what hit the towers, Jones boasted that he had conducted a "careful examination " of the photos and videos of what purports to be a plane hitting the WTC and compared it with a standard 757 and found nothing wrong with the comparison.
Of course, he never provided this study to us. Because he never did it. Because he didn;t even know whaty kind of plane was being discussed!
That's right ! In the middle of boasting about how carefully he had studied the subject, he revealed that he didn't even know what kind of plane was under discussion.
What kind of "scientific method" is that?
This was a part of his "scholarly" paper for "peer review".
I wrote to him privately about it, and then he immediately excised the error from his paper, now denying that he ever did any study - *while at the same continuing to trumpet the conclusions, which his "study" had allegedly revealed* !
What kind of scientific method is that ?
Jones then attempted to erase all public record of his lie and the subsequent lie which he told to cover up the first one.
But unforntuaterly for Jones, I backed everything up up and documented it.
WHAT KIND OF PLANE IS IT PROFESSOR JONES ?
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/whatkindofplane.html
BTW, Jones *still* isn't answering questions about his involvment with the Los Alamos weapons facility.
The place where the weaponry to turn the towers to dust while they were still standing was most likley developed.
This is why Jones is the spook chosen to spread this thermite BS. Because he probably knows a fair bit about what kind of weaponry it is that needs to be covered up.
Because there's a good chance that he worked on it.
What a joke. Let me give an example of the "scientific method" of Steven Jones.
In defending the official story of what hit the towers, Jones boasted that he had conducted a "careful examination " of the photos and videos of what purports to be a plane hitting the WTC and compared it with a standard 757 and found nothing wrong with the comparison.
Of course, he never provided this study to us. Because he never did it. Because he didn;t even know whaty kind of plane was being discussed!
That's right ! In the middle of boasting about how carefully he had studied the subject, he revealed that he didn't even know what kind of plane was under discussion.
What kind of "scientific method" is that?
This was a part of his "scholarly" paper for "peer review".
I wrote to him privately about it, and then he immediately excised the error from his paper, now denying that he ever did any study - *while at the same continuing to trumpet the conclusions, which his "study" had allegedly revealed* !
What kind of scientific method is that ?
Jones then attempted to erase all public record of his lie and the subsequent lie which he told to cover up the first one.
But unforntuaterly for Jones, I backed everything up up and documented it.
WHAT KIND OF PLANE IS IT PROFESSOR JONES ?
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/whatkindofplane.html
BTW, Jones *still* isn't answering questions about his involvment with the Los Alamos weapons facility.
The place where the weaponry to turn the towers to dust while they were still standing was most likley developed.
This is why Jones is the spook chosen to spread this thermite BS. Because he probably knows a fair bit about what kind of weaponry it is that needs to be covered up.
Because there's a good chance that he worked on it.
For more information:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Gerard,
I do wish to apologise for our previous online melay.
I would like your thoughts on these points;
At the Pentagon, the FBI due to the use of a missile confiscated the camera’s tapes in near by bussiness.
Why did this not happen in NYC?
Could this be because ‘a form’ of plane was used, regardless of the weather it fits the official AA and United story?
When we met you alluded to ‘Sonic weapons” bringing down the towers and also have in this quote,
'The WTC towers and WTC 7 were brought down with controlled demolitions, and there is evidence that highly advanced technology was used – not just conventional explosives alone’
Please explain your source on this theory and does it have any evidence supporting it?
Andyman911
I do wish to apologise for our previous online melay.
I would like your thoughts on these points;
At the Pentagon, the FBI due to the use of a missile confiscated the camera’s tapes in near by bussiness.
Why did this not happen in NYC?
Could this be because ‘a form’ of plane was used, regardless of the weather it fits the official AA and United story?
When we met you alluded to ‘Sonic weapons” bringing down the towers and also have in this quote,
'The WTC towers and WTC 7 were brought down with controlled demolitions, and there is evidence that highly advanced technology was used – not just conventional explosives alone’
Please explain your source on this theory and does it have any evidence supporting it?
Andyman911
As time goes by, it is being revealed that Steven E. Jones's thermite/thermate/RDX/travelling dust sample theory does not adequately answer the many questions about the destruction of buildings in NYC on 9/11.
Jones did help popularize the the need to utilize Scientific Theory to investigate questions... but seems to have stalled in his own application of the theory in his research because he is not considering observations and evidence that do not support his conclusions.
James Fetzer of Scholars of 9/11 Truth explains that he has come to reject theories that do not explain the intense dustification of concrete at the WTC, and the strange destruction of seldom mentioned WTC buildings.
More:
http://67.15.255.19/~c911sch1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=105&Itemid=70
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYT6jKIMje8
Persons who wish to understand what happened on 9/11 need to consider all evidence and support those theories with the best explanations. They should also consider how the perpetrators of 9/11 have not ended their propaganda war with those events.
Those that wish to put 9/11 behind and accept the 571-page lie of the Official 9/11 Commision Report need to become more introspective about the possibility that they are (through threir silence and/or close-mindedness) helping the criminals get away with murder.
Looking back at this event, I am chilled to recall how many at the Berkeley event drummed the need to focus on Jones's explanation as the best scientific explanation about 9/11. Investigation and scholarship since the event in Berkeley is now showing that it probably is not.
Judy Woods's questions are favored by James Fetzer:
http://www.drjudywood.com/
Jones did help popularize the the need to utilize Scientific Theory to investigate questions... but seems to have stalled in his own application of the theory in his research because he is not considering observations and evidence that do not support his conclusions.
James Fetzer of Scholars of 9/11 Truth explains that he has come to reject theories that do not explain the intense dustification of concrete at the WTC, and the strange destruction of seldom mentioned WTC buildings.
More:
http://67.15.255.19/~c911sch1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=105&Itemid=70
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYT6jKIMje8
Persons who wish to understand what happened on 9/11 need to consider all evidence and support those theories with the best explanations. They should also consider how the perpetrators of 9/11 have not ended their propaganda war with those events.
Those that wish to put 9/11 behind and accept the 571-page lie of the Official 9/11 Commision Report need to become more introspective about the possibility that they are (through threir silence and/or close-mindedness) helping the criminals get away with murder.
Looking back at this event, I am chilled to recall how many at the Berkeley event drummed the need to focus on Jones's explanation as the best scientific explanation about 9/11. Investigation and scholarship since the event in Berkeley is now showing that it probably is not.
Judy Woods's questions are favored by James Fetzer:
http://www.drjudywood.com/
Dr. Greg Jenkins Interviews Dr. Judy Wood
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017
A Critical Review of James Fetzer's
Thinking about "Conspiracy Theories": 9/11 and JFK
by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.0, Feb. 6, 2006
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/st911/fetzer.html
See also -
http://stj911.org/perception/misinformation.html
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017
A Critical Review of James Fetzer's
Thinking about "Conspiracy Theories": 9/11 and JFK
by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.0, Feb. 6, 2006
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/st911/fetzer.html
See also -
http://stj911.org/perception/misinformation.html
It is nothing new to make someone look bad by distributing an interview or critique that lacks context.
One needs to look at the Jenkins interview with care to realize that Wood's theories are being distorted by the context. Actually, when the context of Wood's arguments are known-- one will see that she actually deports herself quite well-- but on its own, without understanding her broad questions, investigations, and discoveries-- it is a clear hit piece without honesty or clear merit.
To learn more about Wood, one needs to look at the evidence at her website. One needs to have an open mind-- and evaluate the evidence with reason and without prejudice.
Dr. James Fetzer has always defended keeping an open mind and using reason above all else. Steve Jones' lecture about the scientific theory, while flashy in powerpoint, ultimately did little to convince me that he thought scientifically when he drew broad conclusions from a very pithy sample without a clear chain of possession. Looking back in retrospect-- I clearly remember the event as being one that pushed Jones' theories over and above all others-- and even argued that activists become unified- foremost. That is not being wholly concerned with truth.
Fetzer, before everyone else, understood the flaws in Jones' theories and political biases-- and was unafraid to say so-- which brought on a backlash from the many who had become over-enamored with Jones. Jones has contributed much to 9/11 study-- but he has hurt it also by closing people's minds to alternate theories-- which are increasingly looking better.
Truly, at one time, "no planes" and "new technology/weapons" theories seemed too incredible to be true-- but evidence continues to grow in this direction... while the thermite/thermate theory fails on many levels. Fetzer is a hero of the scientific theory in action. One needs to follow his arguments and his own evolution of discovery with care.
The 9/11 truth movement need not be a movement of true-believing fundamentalists. It needs to put critical thinking and close examination of all evidence ahead of political expedience-- or else its gains could fall like a stack of cards-- if reliance is built upon a false or defective theory.
We often hear of people having "seen" the planes that stuck WTC1 and 2-- but actual proof-- stunningly-- is very hard, if not impossible to find.
The bottom line is that the American people deserve an unbiased full investigation of all available evidence about 9/11. Anyone who wants to draw an artificial boundary around what evidence is admissable or not is not being completely honest
http://911scholars.org/
One needs to look at the Jenkins interview with care to realize that Wood's theories are being distorted by the context. Actually, when the context of Wood's arguments are known-- one will see that she actually deports herself quite well-- but on its own, without understanding her broad questions, investigations, and discoveries-- it is a clear hit piece without honesty or clear merit.
To learn more about Wood, one needs to look at the evidence at her website. One needs to have an open mind-- and evaluate the evidence with reason and without prejudice.
Dr. James Fetzer has always defended keeping an open mind and using reason above all else. Steve Jones' lecture about the scientific theory, while flashy in powerpoint, ultimately did little to convince me that he thought scientifically when he drew broad conclusions from a very pithy sample without a clear chain of possession. Looking back in retrospect-- I clearly remember the event as being one that pushed Jones' theories over and above all others-- and even argued that activists become unified- foremost. That is not being wholly concerned with truth.
Fetzer, before everyone else, understood the flaws in Jones' theories and political biases-- and was unafraid to say so-- which brought on a backlash from the many who had become over-enamored with Jones. Jones has contributed much to 9/11 study-- but he has hurt it also by closing people's minds to alternate theories-- which are increasingly looking better.
Truly, at one time, "no planes" and "new technology/weapons" theories seemed too incredible to be true-- but evidence continues to grow in this direction... while the thermite/thermate theory fails on many levels. Fetzer is a hero of the scientific theory in action. One needs to follow his arguments and his own evolution of discovery with care.
The 9/11 truth movement need not be a movement of true-believing fundamentalists. It needs to put critical thinking and close examination of all evidence ahead of political expedience-- or else its gains could fall like a stack of cards-- if reliance is built upon a false or defective theory.
We often hear of people having "seen" the planes that stuck WTC1 and 2-- but actual proof-- stunningly-- is very hard, if not impossible to find.
The bottom line is that the American people deserve an unbiased full investigation of all available evidence about 9/11. Anyone who wants to draw an artificial boundary around what evidence is admissable or not is not being completely honest
http://911scholars.org/
For more information:
http://drjudywood.co.uk/
If one seeks only that evidence which fits the official explanation, then that is what you will find. That’s not science, it’s not objective thinking, it’s not even good common sense. Contrary to NIST & the US Government, there is overwhelming evidence that the planes were the result of SFX TV fakery. Many try to suppress this obvious fact, but to exclude other theories out of hand w/o examination is to be foolish and only results in a misinformed, biased opinion.
Esoteric knowledge and symbolism aside, there were no planes entering the WTC Towers on 911. Perhaps all the related films produced before and since were made to condition the public into acceptance of the official “planes” fantasy.
Believing the government’s fairytale of planes colliding with the Towers is the main problem w/ fully understanding 911. The media was broadcasting fake, manipulated images of planes. Superimposing a plane on 911 was done w/ Wescam technology; it provided a single “live” feed from which all the TV networks broadcast. Other videos & images started to appear in the days, weeks & months following 911. All of them have anomalies & impossibilities which can only be explained by excluding planes.
Real planes would have been a potential liability for the perps on 911. It was easier to control the outcome of the event with much less risk by using the media to broadcast fake imagery. Real jets might miss their targets, get shot down, suffer pilot or computer errors, destroy or prematurely detonate any explosives, passengers could have overtaken the hijackers, and/or the plane might not inflict enough perceived damage to make a collapse believable.
A single fact which cannot be refuted is that a hollow aluminum plane (especially fragile wings) cannot slice through steel beams and concrete without any damage to the plane. News footage showing an airliner gliding into a Tower without any resistance is a cartoon. Aluminum planes are not built for impact and crumple immediately upon contact with solid objects; even a small bird can rip through a jet’s wing.
Furthermore, a large speeding jet’s vortex trails behind it creating a highly active atmosphere which follows in its path. Had a real plane impacted a WTC Tower, real film footage would have recorded the airliner’s vortex interacting with and violently dissipating the smoke from the alleged crash and the adjacent North Tower. No vortex literally means no planes on 911 (TV fakery).
During the South Tower “impact”, fake TV footage shows a WTC Tower sealing itself around the plane during the alleged penetration. Still another too incredible to believe anomaly is the width of the plane’s purported gash didn't match the width of a Boeing 757’s wing span. Another widely publicized video shot by Scott Myers shows the forward fuselage of the “jet” exiting the South Tower, though other shots later reveal no exit hole.
To consider the media footage showing a plane slicing thru steel and concrete as reality is ludicrous. There were no planes; only spoofed images, manipulated witnesses and falsified evidence. America please wake up; the media was a complicit partner that was in on the crime from the beginning. In fact, the TV psyop 911 couldn't have been pulled off without the mass media’s assistance.
Actually “no planes on 911? is the only explanation that makes any sense. There are far to many disturbing questions left unanswered which only TV fakery can address.
Besides all the other impossibilities I mentioned, why are there several “hijackers” still alive; some are even suing the US government to recover their reputation and good name.
Why have so many of the purported plane “victims” not been listed in the Social Security Death Index? …and their families not claimed the death $$benefits?
Why are there missing passenger lists and zero so-called Middle Eastern hijacker names on the flight manifest?
Why in the entire history of aviation has a plane never disappeared from a crash - yet on 911, four of them did in a single day? All plane parts are numbered; not one plane part from 911 has been identified by its number.
How could supposedly inexperienced “pilots” who couldn't even fly a Cessna…
* threaten and subdue everyone on board
* break into the locked cockpits w/ their hands
* kill all the pilots and copilots
…then navigate a large Boeing jetliner above the clouds all over several states without airport tower assistance, with nav systems & radios turned off, and fly with pinpoint accuracy into a building that they couldn't even see?
Not to mention that a Boeing 757 can't fly at 500+ MPH at sea level - the air is too thick. Call Boeing; even they admit that - and they have been recorded in phone conversations recently.
Exposing “no planes on 911? is probably the most important story to people beyond chemtrails, depleted uranium poisoning and nanotech genocide.
Americans are TV hypnotized, drugged up, dumbed down and so utterly dependent that in general they are incapable and disinterested in discovering how the media is adversely affecting their lives.
No planes on 911 and deception by the media is the Holy Grail of 911. It marks the beginning of an Orwellian double-speak mind-set which is now accepted as normal by the populace.
No-planes on 911 is highly important as it exposes the real perps behind this mass murder and offers justice to the thousands of people killed that day.
Without the covert deception by the media in collusion with the enemy in control of America’s military intelligence, 911 could not have happened.
The media was directly involved in 911 and together with a criminal government has helped diminish Americans’ freedoms and launch unending wars against innocent nations.
# # #
Esoteric knowledge and symbolism aside, there were no planes entering the WTC Towers on 911. Perhaps all the related films produced before and since were made to condition the public into acceptance of the official “planes” fantasy.
Believing the government’s fairytale of planes colliding with the Towers is the main problem w/ fully understanding 911. The media was broadcasting fake, manipulated images of planes. Superimposing a plane on 911 was done w/ Wescam technology; it provided a single “live” feed from which all the TV networks broadcast. Other videos & images started to appear in the days, weeks & months following 911. All of them have anomalies & impossibilities which can only be explained by excluding planes.
Real planes would have been a potential liability for the perps on 911. It was easier to control the outcome of the event with much less risk by using the media to broadcast fake imagery. Real jets might miss their targets, get shot down, suffer pilot or computer errors, destroy or prematurely detonate any explosives, passengers could have overtaken the hijackers, and/or the plane might not inflict enough perceived damage to make a collapse believable.
A single fact which cannot be refuted is that a hollow aluminum plane (especially fragile wings) cannot slice through steel beams and concrete without any damage to the plane. News footage showing an airliner gliding into a Tower without any resistance is a cartoon. Aluminum planes are not built for impact and crumple immediately upon contact with solid objects; even a small bird can rip through a jet’s wing.
Furthermore, a large speeding jet’s vortex trails behind it creating a highly active atmosphere which follows in its path. Had a real plane impacted a WTC Tower, real film footage would have recorded the airliner’s vortex interacting with and violently dissipating the smoke from the alleged crash and the adjacent North Tower. No vortex literally means no planes on 911 (TV fakery).
During the South Tower “impact”, fake TV footage shows a WTC Tower sealing itself around the plane during the alleged penetration. Still another too incredible to believe anomaly is the width of the plane’s purported gash didn't match the width of a Boeing 757’s wing span. Another widely publicized video shot by Scott Myers shows the forward fuselage of the “jet” exiting the South Tower, though other shots later reveal no exit hole.
To consider the media footage showing a plane slicing thru steel and concrete as reality is ludicrous. There were no planes; only spoofed images, manipulated witnesses and falsified evidence. America please wake up; the media was a complicit partner that was in on the crime from the beginning. In fact, the TV psyop 911 couldn't have been pulled off without the mass media’s assistance.
Actually “no planes on 911? is the only explanation that makes any sense. There are far to many disturbing questions left unanswered which only TV fakery can address.
Besides all the other impossibilities I mentioned, why are there several “hijackers” still alive; some are even suing the US government to recover their reputation and good name.
Why have so many of the purported plane “victims” not been listed in the Social Security Death Index? …and their families not claimed the death $$benefits?
Why are there missing passenger lists and zero so-called Middle Eastern hijacker names on the flight manifest?
Why in the entire history of aviation has a plane never disappeared from a crash - yet on 911, four of them did in a single day? All plane parts are numbered; not one plane part from 911 has been identified by its number.
How could supposedly inexperienced “pilots” who couldn't even fly a Cessna…
* threaten and subdue everyone on board
* break into the locked cockpits w/ their hands
* kill all the pilots and copilots
…then navigate a large Boeing jetliner above the clouds all over several states without airport tower assistance, with nav systems & radios turned off, and fly with pinpoint accuracy into a building that they couldn't even see?
Not to mention that a Boeing 757 can't fly at 500+ MPH at sea level - the air is too thick. Call Boeing; even they admit that - and they have been recorded in phone conversations recently.
Exposing “no planes on 911? is probably the most important story to people beyond chemtrails, depleted uranium poisoning and nanotech genocide.
Americans are TV hypnotized, drugged up, dumbed down and so utterly dependent that in general they are incapable and disinterested in discovering how the media is adversely affecting their lives.
No planes on 911 and deception by the media is the Holy Grail of 911. It marks the beginning of an Orwellian double-speak mind-set which is now accepted as normal by the populace.
No-planes on 911 is highly important as it exposes the real perps behind this mass murder and offers justice to the thousands of people killed that day.
Without the covert deception by the media in collusion with the enemy in control of America’s military intelligence, 911 could not have happened.
The media was directly involved in 911 and together with a criminal government has helped diminish Americans’ freedoms and launch unending wars against innocent nations.
# # #
You can tell the relevance by the number of "no plane" hoax claims that are tacked on. There are a small group of people that work full time to tack on these claims to any decent article or researcher.
All of the people at this event believe that real planes were used, real people died, etc. They also believe that the WTC was demolished with explosives or incendiaries and that we don't know what really happened at the other sites, but likely a shoot-down of FL 93 and a stand down of our military jets in general.
The goal is to make you think we are all nuts.
But the latest paper on demolition has been published in a peer reviewed civil engineering journal . . .
All of the people at this event believe that real planes were used, real people died, etc. They also believe that the WTC was demolished with explosives or incendiaries and that we don't know what really happened at the other sites, but likely a shoot-down of FL 93 and a stand down of our military jets in general.
The goal is to make you think we are all nuts.
But the latest paper on demolition has been published in a peer reviewed civil engineering journal . . .
For more information:
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content....
You can read all about them here --
Discrediting By Association: Undermining the Case
for Patriots Who Question 9/11
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/patriots_question/index.html
---------------
WOOD:
Judy Wood sent in her theory directly to NIST in the form of a legal document that energy weapons from space caused the destruction of the WTC Towers:
"I assert that NIST contractors, as listed in NCSTAR 1, including by way of non-exhaustive example, those listed below, either knew or should have known of the falsity of NCSTAR 1 as it relates to the use of directed energy weapons."
Request for Correction per Section 515 of Public Law 106-554
SUPPLEMENT #2 to RFC submitted April 20,2007
FETZER:
Jim Fetzer is the primary force behind publicity and press releases for the claims of Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds, advocating endless investigation into every possible scenario imaginable.
" . . . once [Fetzer] had become convinced that thermite/thermate could not explain the extent and character of the destruction, he began encouraging investigation of alternative hypotheses, including lasers, masers, and plasmoids."
CBS PULLS "HATCHET JOB" ON SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH; February 1, 2007;
---------------
Indeed, lasers, masers, and plasmoids . . . unfortunately, it all leads nowhere. Can't imagine why he'd be leading us down a path with no end in sight, since no theory is able to be excluded and all are endlessly researched, and endless circle . . .
Discrediting By Association: Undermining the Case
for Patriots Who Question 9/11
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/patriots_question/index.html
---------------
WOOD:
Judy Wood sent in her theory directly to NIST in the form of a legal document that energy weapons from space caused the destruction of the WTC Towers:
"I assert that NIST contractors, as listed in NCSTAR 1, including by way of non-exhaustive example, those listed below, either knew or should have known of the falsity of NCSTAR 1 as it relates to the use of directed energy weapons."
Request for Correction per Section 515 of Public Law 106-554
SUPPLEMENT #2 to RFC submitted April 20,2007
FETZER:
Jim Fetzer is the primary force behind publicity and press releases for the claims of Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds, advocating endless investigation into every possible scenario imaginable.
" . . . once [Fetzer] had become convinced that thermite/thermate could not explain the extent and character of the destruction, he began encouraging investigation of alternative hypotheses, including lasers, masers, and plasmoids."
CBS PULLS "HATCHET JOB" ON SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH; February 1, 2007;
---------------
Indeed, lasers, masers, and plasmoids . . . unfortunately, it all leads nowhere. Can't imagine why he'd be leading us down a path with no end in sight, since no theory is able to be excluded and all are endlessly researched, and endless circle . . .
For more information:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/patriot...
The evidence presented by these parties really makes you stop and think. Personally I believe there are still a lot of unanswered questions. A family friend of mine is a New York City mesothelioma lawyer and she tells me all the time about the health risks associated with the inhalation of all the debris from the towers (particularly asbestos). It is truly tragic and I hope one day for a full re-investigation.
Someone in a previous post had posted a link to this vidoe that has been posted around the internet for a couple of years.
"Dr. Greg Jenkins Interviews Dr. Judy Wood "
After seeing how popular this video has become to certain members of the "Truth Movement," including Steven Jones, I ask what the purpose of promoting this video is.
1) To destroy the credibility of the truth movement?
2) To educate the public about 9/11?
3) Or was this "pre-emptive debunking" of the TRUTH -- BEFORE it was ever presented?
4) To promote the TRUTH or to HIDE it?
Hmm.........
"Dr. Greg Jenkins Interviews Dr. Judy Wood "
After seeing how popular this video has become to certain members of the "Truth Movement," including Steven Jones, I ask what the purpose of promoting this video is.
1) To destroy the credibility of the truth movement?
2) To educate the public about 9/11?
3) Or was this "pre-emptive debunking" of the TRUTH -- BEFORE it was ever presented?
4) To promote the TRUTH or to HIDE it?
Hmm.........
Only just learned this--
Janette MacKinlay had passed away in 2010. According to Jeff Prager, in his book Murderling Liberty Killing Hope-- MacKinlay had brain cancer which she blamed on 9/11.
davidjgregory.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/murdering-liberty-killing-hope.pdf
SFGate (The web portal of the San Francisco Chronicle) had nothing about her having lived close to WTC on 9/11-- or her outspokenness about it.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/01/21/MNMACKINLA21.DTL
Janette MacKinlay had passed away in 2010. According to Jeff Prager, in his book Murderling Liberty Killing Hope-- MacKinlay had brain cancer which she blamed on 9/11.
davidjgregory.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/murdering-liberty-killing-hope.pdf
SFGate (The web portal of the San Francisco Chronicle) had nothing about her having lived close to WTC on 9/11-- or her outspokenness about it.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/01/21/MNMACKINLA21.DTL
For more information:
http://www.theneedtoremember.com/artist.html
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$155.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network