Monday, June 19, 2006

More On the "Scholars" for 9/11 "Truth"

The Chronicle for Higher Education has a good article on the "scholars", and Steven Jones specifically. No surprise why they are considered jokes among the academic community. H/T Michelle Malkin.

The Brigham Young college of engineering issued an even stronger statement on its Web site. "The structural engineering faculty," it read, "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." However, his supporters complain, none of Mr. Jones's critics at Brigham Young have dealt with his points directly.

While there are a handful of Web sites that seek to debunk the claims of Mr. Jones and others in the movement, most mainstream scientists, in fact, have not seen fit to engage them. "There's nothing to debunk," says Zdenek P. Bazant, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Northwestern University and the author of the first peer-reviewed paper on the World Trade Center collapses.

"It's a non-issue," says Sivaraj Shyam-Sunder, a lead investigator for the National Institute of Standards and Technology's study of the collapses.

Ross B. Corotis, a professor of civil engineering at the University of Colorado at Boulder and a member of the editorial board at the journal Structural Safety, says that most engineers are pretty settled on what happened at the World Trade Center. "There's not really disagreement as to what happened for 99 percent of the details," he says.

In keeping with their rigorous academic standards, they dismiss anything which may contradict their views, without even looking at it:

911myths.com, a Web site run by a software developer in England, is one of the few venues that offers a running scrutiny of the various claims and arguments coming out of the 9/11 Truth movement. Mr. Fetzer has heard of 911myths .com, but he has never visited the site.

"I have been dealing with disinformation and phony stories about the death of JFK for all these years. There's a huge amount of phoniness out there," he says. "You have to be very selective in how you approach these things."

42 Comments:

At 19 June, 2006 10:30, Blogger CHF said...

"The Brigham Young college of engineering issued an even stronger statement on its Web site. "The structural engineering faculty," it read, "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

Ha! Engineers...what do they know about building collapses?

The arrogance of CTers is unreal.

You'd think these people would start to wonder why their most "realiable" sources believe in Jesus-visted-America and the-USA-wants-to-bomb-Jupiter theories.

They're a friggin joke and they don't even know it.

 
At 19 June, 2006 10:36, Blogger James B. said...

It is not the US "wants to bomb Jupiter", the guy believes the US actually "has bombed" Jupiter! With those top secret anti-matter weapons, I read about them in a Dan Brown novel.

 
At 19 June, 2006 10:48, Blogger Falco98 said...

In keeping with their rigorous academic standards, they dismiss anything which may contradict their views, without even looking at it.

You might want to tweak your wording here to make sure the reader knows what this sentence is referring to, and perhaps a tad bit more context for the following paragraph.

At first, i thought the "in keeping with their rigorous academic standards..." was a quip on the academics mentioned in the prior paragraph who say 'we don't even engage them', which is something i'd think a CT would say.

 
At 19 June, 2006 10:54, Blogger James B. said...

Yeah, that had occured to me. There is a bit of a difference though, in the first case it is people with relevent academic standards who are arguing the general accepted view. You aren't going to find Steven Hawkings arguing gravity with "psychic" commmunity college dropout. All the evidence supports your thesis, and until someone actually credibly challenges it, it is their obligation to provide the proof.

If you are supposedly a "skeptic" who is "openminded" and dedicated to exposing the "truth", then it is ridiculous to only grab on to the 1% of the evidence that supports you and automatically dismiss the other 99%.

 
At 19 June, 2006 11:02, Blogger Falco98 said...

well i just mean, end the sentence "looking at it:" (with a colon instead of a period, to direct attention to the following paragraph). It didn't become clear that this was your intention until i read the actual chronicle article.

 
At 19 June, 2006 11:03, Blogger telescopemerc said...

Whats more fun is all the CT'ers who keep trying to hand Jones' paper to the top people at NIST, assuming that they have never hread of Jones wonderful and fact-free science.

The truth of the matter is that they have read Jones' nonsense, and it has no impact. The paper is bad physics and worse engineering. Given Jones' avoidance of peer review of his paper, its also just plain bad scientific methodology.

 
At 19 June, 2006 11:06, Blogger James B. said...

Grammatical point taken.

 
At 19 June, 2006 11:52, Blogger Bryan Hickman said...

You'd think these people would start to wonder why their most "realiable" sources believe in Jesus-visted-America and the-USA-wants-to-bomb-Jupiter theories.

Come now, no need to mock all Mormons because one happens to be an idiot. Brigham Young is a Mormon school and has officially disavowed Jones' claims.

 
At 19 June, 2006 12:03, Blogger nesNYC said...

"The Brigham Young college of engineering issued an even stronger statement on its Web site. "The structural engineering faculty," it read, "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

This has since been retracted and the person who wrote them bought up on charges.

 
At 19 June, 2006 12:05, Blogger telescopemerc said...

This has since been retracted and the person who wrote them bought up on charges.

That's a lie. Post the retraction and evidence of charges.

 
At 19 June, 2006 12:06, Blogger nesNYC said...

911myths.com, a Web site run by a software developer in England, is one of the few venues that offers a running scrutiny of the various claims and arguments coming out of the 9/11 Truth movement. Mr. Fetzer has heard of 911myths .com, but he has never visited the site.

Again, 911myths is nothing but conjecture, opinion and faulty on the facts. In essence, all they do is echo the official propaganda without the same scrutiny they hold the supporters of the official fantasy.

 
At 19 June, 2006 12:20, Blogger nesNYC said...

That's a lie. Post the retraction and evidence of charges.

Here:

5. [The following was posted at the web site of the BYU Fulton College of Engineering and Technology from November 2005 to April 2006, when it was removed without explanation.]

As for charges, I got that wrong, but there is a call for charges to be filed for defamation and preventing the academic process of this topic:

There are additional reasons for deleting the unprofessional and unethical statement. First, although I am not a member of American Society of Civil Engineers, I am permitted, according to the ASCE code, to lodge an ethics complaint against an engineer. (The ombudsman for formal complaints to ASCE is: tsmith@asce.org).

Second, no dean has the right to represent individual faculty, much less the entire faculty of BYU’s Engineering College, on the issue of whether they do (or do not) "support" a colleague’s research, whether published or in-progress. The offending statement is a breach of collegiality, and seems as well to infringe upon Professor Jones’ academic freedom.

Most poignantly, it is inconsistent with the code of ethics of the American Society of Civil Engineers, by which you, as dean of the Engineering College, are bound, given that your web site claims to represent the opinions of an entire faculty of BYU engineers.

Sincerely yours,

Richard McGinn

… mcginn@ohio.edu

CC: ASCE Ombudsman

AAUP Committee on Academic Freedom


The whole thing is here:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Comments_Jones_05May2006.html

 
At 19 June, 2006 12:31, Blogger BG said...

WingTV's Biggest Alternative Media Shills

 
At 19 June, 2006 12:56, Blogger telescopemerc said...

Several problems:

1) The letter says that he could press charges (he is wrong). Not that this was done. By all indications, this never happened.

2) There is no indication that the letter had any real effect on the statement by Fulton. The lack of an explicit retraction is key here. That being the way engineers operate.

3) Jones is not an engineer. He does not enjoy the protection of ASME. The codes that were cited in the full letter were specifically for the competitive protection of engineers from other engineers, not to protect those outside the profession who 'stray'into their field.

4) Even if Jones were an Engineer, there is no indication that anything stated by Fulton violates the ASME.

In short. There has been no retraction by Fulton, no charges filed. Merely some drum-beating by Mr. Mcginn, and some lies told by nesync.

 
At 19 June, 2006 13:14, Blogger nesNYC said...

Jones is not an engineer. He does not enjoy the protection of ASME.

Read again, that's not what McGinn is arguing. If you got that wrong, then no wonder you're lost.

 
At 19 June, 2006 13:37, Blogger telescopemerc said...

Read again, that's not what McGinn is arguing. If you got that wrong, then no wonder you're lost.

He argues that and claims in his letter that what Fulton's Dean was diong was a violation of Canon 5.

Certainly he argues other things as well, none of which are relevant nor the violations he claims.

No that it matters. No ethics complaint was filed let alone acted upon. Nor was a retraction made.

 
At 19 June, 2006 15:33, Blogger nesNYC said...

Nor was a retraction made.

I would call pulling said passage from website a retraction.

 
At 19 June, 2006 15:56, Blogger default.xbe said...

no, that would be a deletion, a retraction would dean posting a new statement retracting the old one (essentially saying he was wrong) AFAIK no such second statement was made, hence no official retraction

 
At 19 June, 2006 18:44, Blogger telescopemerc said...

I would call pulling said passage from website a retraction.

No, it is not.

 
At 19 June, 2006 18:48, Blogger Chad said...

I would call pulling said passage from website a retraction.

Would you not then say Dylan Avery "retracted" his stance on the pod/missile theory when he took it out of LC2E?

 
At 19 June, 2006 19:08, Blogger Chad said...

Let me help you out with the answer to my question Nesnec.

From LC2E:

The "Pod" is by far the most controversial aspect of the 9-11 movement.

After including it in the original Loose Change, certain groups and persons made it their personal duty to e-mail us and let us know just how bad of an idea it was.

However, much to their chagrin, the segment was not deleted because of them.

Rather, it was deleted in lieu of the new introduction.

We had all intention of including the sequence on this DVD, however, due to space limitations, it has been left on the cutting room floor.

We mean no disrespect to Phil Jayhan, Dave VonKliest, or anyone else who has stood by this evidence.


Please explain to me how that's a "retraction".

... And try to keep the Joos out of it.

 
At 19 June, 2006 22:34, Blogger shawn said...

Hell, the one little bit of integrity they had was just washed away. They still buy into the pod theory (which makes no sense whatsoever).

 
At 20 June, 2006 04:04, Blogger nesNYC said...

Would you not then say Dylan Avery "retracted" his stance on the pod/missile theory when he took it out of LC2E?

Yes I would. He definitely now sees the "pods" as a speculative distraction and hopefully, he'll take out other non-issues on the final cut.

 
At 20 June, 2006 04:43, Blogger Chad said...

Yes I would. He definitely now sees the "pods" as a speculative distraction and hopefully, he'll take out other non-issues on the final cut.

So you can retract something you still believe to be true? 'Cause retract means "disavow".

I ask again. Does this sound like a retraction:

We had all intention of including the sequence on this DVD, however, due to space limitations, it has been left on the cutting room floor.

 
At 20 June, 2006 04:47, Blogger Chad said...

And for the record Nesnyc, I agree with you. I think it IS a retraction.

My point in all this is that Avery doesn't appear to have the sack to admit that he's wrong.

 
At 20 June, 2006 05:33, Blogger Alex said...

Let's look at that letter

Second, no dean has the right to represent individual faculty, much less the entire faculty of BYU’s Engineering College, on the issue of whether they do (or do not) "support" a colleague’s research, whether published or in-progress.

While technicaly correct, all that this statement really means is that the dean should not have taken it upon himself to represent the faculty. It certainly doesn't mean that anyone disagrees with his statements though, and no actual engineers wrote any letters of complaint, which should tell you something.

The offending statement is a breach of collegiality, and seems as well to infringe upon Professor Jones’ academic freedom.

Bullshit. He's still free to spread his filth, and other faculty members are allowed to state that he's full of it. Freedom of expression by one individual is never a limitation on the freedoms of another.

 
At 20 June, 2006 05:46, Blogger telescopemerc said...

What I certainly don't see a retraction of is nesync's lie:

"This has since been retracted and the person who wrote them bought up on charges. "

 
At 20 June, 2006 15:53, Blogger proFeign said...

Hey guys, I'd take more of these opinions more seriously if they were written by lawyers or engineers and could reliably comment on any of the stuff contained herein. I will point out to you three factual things below. There are, of course, many other factual things that can be proved but for the purposes of this post I am keepin’ it short.

I am an engineering student in his fourth year at a top-twenty US ABET-certified engineering school and would like to discuss Professor Jones’ statements. He follows the scientific method and draws _no concrete conclusions regarding that happened_! He is merely pointing out that alternate hypotheses regarding NOTHING except the buildings collapsing follow more reliably what was observed IRW that day and that a more comprehensive investigation is needed.

Aside: my own personal opinion is that the first edition of Loose Change was largely crap and his claims about the “pod” and similar claims by other websites and movies are too flimsy to warrant much focus when there is an enormous body of more concrete evidence regarding other things that happened that day.

1.) BYU students and faculty do not all believe the same things by default and certainly it cannot be said that each of them believes literally in the Mormon scripture.

2.) He shows (with pictures; check it out) that thermite can withstand temperatures over 1500°F without igniting. Also it is demonstrable that RDX/C-4 can be burned safely without detonation.

3.) Anyone viewing the “Screw Loose Change” video ought to critically regard the annotations, for some of them are laughably not based on fact or evidence of any kind. An example (the two things regarding thermite and C-4 I just mentioned [look them up for yourself] will now become important) is when he pauses to insert full-frame notes and it states that "WTC 7 could not have been bombed; there were fires everywhere and these would have set off the explosives. Demolitions are delicate operations."

For me to take any criticism seriously, especially on an engineering or science front, somebody had better present NOTHING but substantiable fact, and if they do not their entire argument and all ancillary arguments are drawn into question.

This is the way it works IRW for engineers; if your credibility is in question for any statement you represent as factual that is in fact not factual, your entire body of work is then regarded as potentially unreliable.

In closing I would like to say that unless you can categorically refute everything that Professor Jones claims in his paper and are in possession of the credentials to do so credibly (e.g. Mechanical Engineering degree/CivEng degree/Structural Eng degree or happen to be an explosive demolition expert) then your argument is handicapped considerably from the outset. Even engineers take other engineers claims skeptically until they can be proven by a paper such as this, and Prof. Jones’ paper has not been credibly publically attacked to my knowledge, and therefore stands as reliable evidence of the things he claims to be demonstrating. The call for a serious investigation is wholly justified in my opinion, and his theories and hypotheses are substantiable and considerably more likely than any of the official stories.

Get facts straight, do appropriate scientific analysis, and then, and ONLY then, come forward and release your findings to the public. But you’d better be prepared to argue personally with this guy if you want to get up and criticize him publically. I’m sure he’d be happy to discuss this with you, but ask yourself: do I know enough to really think I can win a physics argument with a university physics professor? Or are my opinions just that?

 
At 20 June, 2006 16:45, Blogger proFeign said...

PS his comments were more along the lines of physics and material science (make sure you know what microstructure and eutectic compositions are before trying to poke holes in his paper) than engineering. It should also be noted that mechanical and structural engineering are simply physics with more focus on relatively basic physical principles such as you might learn in an early college physics class. Dynamics, vibrations, and statics (if you don't know what this is [statics: mechanical analysis of nonmoving structures/trusses]) you shouldn't even think of commenting on construction of a building; you simply do not have the physics/engineering background to understand even a small percentage of the loading issues that are central to any collapse analysis. If you can explain to me (with pictures) what a truss is, and how to calculate oblique loading (like from wind on a surface) or even a simple conservation of energy analysis of a collision between two billiard balls then I will listen to you. Otherwise shut the hell up and think a little longer before calling into question the reputation of someone that specializes in a field you do not understand.

 
At 20 June, 2006 17:11, Blogger shawn said...

"WTC 7 could not have been bombed; there were fires everywhere and these would have set off the explosives. Demolitions are delicate operations"

What's wrong with any of these statements? The fires would've destroyed the mechanisms used to detonate any explosives, if not the explosives themselves.

 
At 20 June, 2006 17:12, Blogger shawn said...

Otherwise shut the hell up and think a little longer before calling into question the reputation of someone that specializes in a field you do not understand.

That sounds an awful lot like a priest saying "Don't question us, we know exactly what God wants!"

And we'll call anyone's reputation into question when he uses faulty logical and specious reasoning.

 
At 20 June, 2006 18:33, Blogger telescopemerc said...

It should also be noted that mechanical and structural engineering are simply physics with more focus on relatively basic physical principles such as you might learn in an early college physics class.

The two fields are related, but they are not transposable. Stephen Hawkins is perhaps the smartest physicist in the world today, but I would not want to enter a skyscraper designed by him. Conversely, I would not expect a good exploration of stellar death from a structural engineer.

Jones' work is terrible physics and horrible engineering. He makes mistakes a high school student can see through (The 2nd law of thermodynamics does NOT mean 'Things topple over'). Add to that a serious misunderstanding of basic concepts like the amount of masses invovled, (and what kept them from moving in the first place), his attempt to sell a picture of concrete with rebar sticking out of it as being cooled, formerly molten steel, and his misunderstanding of how buildings fail, well, I can safely say the man is way off base.

 
At 21 June, 2006 05:32, Blogger MarkyX said...


"WTC 7 could not have been bombed; there were fires everywhere and these would have set off the explosives. Demolitions are delicate operations."


Thermite would've been very noticable since DAY 1, not "6 years later by some cold fusion engineer"

C4s? The destruction of the buildings would have been very noticable. We wouldn't need Alex Jones or some 22-year old wannabe filmmaker to point out slow moving "squibs" at us. C4s are a very powerful substance and would probably cause a lot more damage then it should.

Simply put, I never heard from people who do demolitions for a living using C4s. That's why I didn't mention it in the video. I would just be arguing against a non-existent fact.

 
At 21 June, 2006 05:37, Blogger MarkyX said...



In closing I would like to say that unless you can categorically refute everything that Professor Jones claims in his paper and are in possession of the credentials to do so credibly


Stop bringing up Jones.

His paper was not even reviewed by enginers, but by Research in Political Economy. He mainly dealt with Cold Fusion, and I cannot find another article that he wrote about buildings besides 9/11.

His own univesity doesn't want anything to do with him, and even a structual engineer who sent a letter stated two major key points.

I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

and


Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

 
At 21 June, 2006 05:44, Blogger MarkyX said...

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/jones.htm

 
At 21 June, 2006 07:07, Blogger Alex said...

The guy says:

"This is the way it works IRW for engineers; if your credibility is in question for any statement you represent as factual that is in fact not factual, your entire body of work is then regarded as potentially unreliable."

then IN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE he says

"In closing I would like to say that unless you can categorically refute everything that Professor Jones claims in his paper and are in possession of the credentials to do so credibly (e.g. Mechanical Engineering degree/CivEng degree/Structural Eng degree or happen to be an explosive demolition expert) then your argument is handicapped considerably from the outset."

Buddy! Make up your mind! Which is it? Do we only have to disprove one of the things he says in order to cast doubt on his work? Or do we have to "categoricaly disprove" EVERYTHING he says? You can't have it both ways, unless, ofcourse, you're a CT'er, in which case you only need one rumour to disprove the "official story", whereas your opposition needs massive tomes of evidence before you'll even admit that they may be right.

Oh, and Shawn:

What's wrong with any of these statements? The fires would've destroyed the mechanisms used to detonate any explosives, if not the explosives themselves.

What's wrong with the statement is that it makes it seem as if the C4 charges would detonate due to fire. That's, ofcourse, not the case, they'd simply burn up. That's actually a mistake I also noticed when I watched screw loose change. There's a few more mistakes, but nothing major. The main point in this case - that fire would impede the accurate demolition of the buildings - is still valid.

And, in the interest of accuracy, MarkyX:

"C4s are a very powerful substance and would probably cause a lot more damage then it should."

C4 IS a very powerfull substance, however, when used for demolition purposes, the charges are quite small. All that's required is to cut the support to the structure and then let gravity do the rest. In some circumstances you don't even need to cut all the supports, you can just cause vibrations which will basicaly shatter the structure. All of that takes a lot more skill with the stuff than I've got. My idea of blowing up a bridge is parking a truck full of C4 on top of it, pulling the pin, and running like hell. However, I've seen army engineers do the same job with about one pound of C4. You hear a little "crack" and the thing just falls apart.

Long story short, a demolition wouldn't neccesarily look much different. However, the accuracy required to plant C4 on a couple floors, and then have the aircraft fly into those exact floors? Highly unlikely. Add to that the fact that the fire would have more than likely ignited the C4, rendering it useless, and there's really no question that C4 wasn't used. Thermite is more likely, however, you've got the same problem as far as accuracy goes, and the fire would have destroyed any detonators/igniters, meaning that either the thermite itself would never ignite if the temperatures weren't high enough, or that you'd have no way of controlling WHEN each bit of thermite ignites if the temperatures did get high enough. Either way, the CT claims make no sense, but you can't disprove their nonsense by saying a demolition would have looked different.

 
At 21 June, 2006 09:43, Blogger MarkyX said...


All that's required is to cut the support to the structure and then let gravity do the rest.


Very true, however what CTs suggest is taking down the support of the building and make it fall down at Free Fall speeds, you can simply use explosions from the top to the bottom (very laughable).

I'm not going to argue too much because you're the engineer, not me. But from what I understand is that demolishing a building isn't just slapping bombs in random places (like LC suggests) and everything falls into place. It's a very calculated procedure that involves drilling, wiring and so forth.

Perhaps I should've mentioned about C4s and Thermite (you aren't the first to tell me about this), but I have yet to see any proof that demolitions used to take down skyscrapers use thermite or C4s.

Here's an interview with Stacey Loizeaux, a worker for Controlled Demolition Inc.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html

And some highlights of the interview.


NOVA: What do you look for in an explosive?

SL: Velocity. You have two different types of explosives. You have low order and high order. A low order explosive is like what they used when they bombed the Oklahoma City building—that's ANFO, ammonium nitrate and fuel oil. It's a very slow, heaving explosion. It tends to push more than it does shatter. The explosive we look for is a shattering explosive. What we want to do is instantaneously remove the integrity of the columns or whatever we're working on. That's what we look for in nitroglycerin or NG-based dynamite. With a steel building, we use something called a linear shaped charge. It's the same explosive they use to sever the fuel tank off the Space Shuttle, when they launch.



NOVA: When you're underwater, how do you spark an explosive?

SL: You don't. There are very few explosives that are spark sensitive anymore. Most are shock sensitive or compression sensitive.

 
At 21 June, 2006 10:27, Blogger Alex said...

I'm not going to argue too much because you're the engineer, not me.

Sorry if you got the wrong impression, but I'm not an engineer either. I've used C4 in the performance of my job, meaning I understand it's properties and effects, but when I need something professionaly blown up I call in the real engineers. If I demolish something, it's like using a sledge-hammer to pound in a finishing-nail. It'll get the job done, but it'll be messy, create lots of damage, and it's generaly overkill. The engineers are the proper tool for the job.

But from what I understand is that demolishing a building isn't just slapping bombs in random places (like LC suggests) and everything falls into place. It's a very calculated procedure that involves drilling, wiring and so forth.

Absolutely correct - that's the way the proffesionals do it, and that's why they call it a controlled demolition. You CAN bring down a building with randomly (or almost randomly) placed charges, but only if you don't really care how it comes down. The biggest flaw in the CT argument is that they claim it was a CONTROLLED demolition. An uncontrolled demolition would have been much easier, would have achieved the same effect as far as the public reaction is concerned, and would more closely resemble the effects of an aircraft hit if you had pilots capable of flying the aircraft accurately enough. Yet the CT clowns maniacly cling to the one phrase which you can discredit just by watching the collapse. Or just by understanding the nightmare in logistics and security arrangements that a controlled demo would require. Wiring up a building for a controlled demo takes a LONG time. Wiring it up to collapse the way the WTC did would take a lot less, and would only require the evacuation of about 5 floors for a few weeks before 9/11.

I almost feel bad for explaining all this because I'm fairly sure some CT nut somewhere will latch on to it and start an entirely new theory.

 
At 22 June, 2006 05:34, Blogger MarkyX said...

I still stand by with "C4s would've been noticed" if they were actually used. We wouldn't have slow moving squibs and the seismic readings would tell a different story.

 
At 22 June, 2006 05:55, Blogger Alex said...

More than likely yeah. For one thing you also wouldn't have seen the perimiter columns bending inwards. A demolition by explosive would be instantaneous, it wouldn't cause bending.

 
At 24 June, 2006 23:55, Blogger Kurt said...

A nice message I got from "Prof." Jim Fetzer of the so-called "Scholars for Truth" when I forwarded a list of experts and organizations that could help him in his "research."

---------------

We do our own research. The world is full of simpletons and saps, where
you appear to be among the gullible. Thanks for sharing, but no thanks.

Jim

P.S. And how much of the evidence in this case have you studied rather
than citing others who are willing to kiss the government's ass?
---------------

How very "scholarly" of him!

 
At 24 June, 2006 23:57, Blogger Kurt said...

Any update on the cease and desist order against The Loose Change gang?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home