Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Why Is Steven Jones on the Skids?

I was thinking about it this evening. When James and I first started this blog I was initially quite apprehensive about taking on the "Scholars" for 9-11 Denial. Unlike most of the Deniers, I do have some respect for true experts in a field and it worried me that there was a group apparently made up of respected scientists who were buying into this nonsense. Steven Jones, especially, worried me because I was a physics major when I started college and just couldn't handle the upper level material in that field; obviously this guy's got some smarts.

Hearing Uncle Fetzer on the Alan Colmes show made me feel a lot more comfortable. While he's got an impressive resume, when it comes to 9-11 he's about as gullible as Dylan Avery, if better at debating in an adversarial climate.

And indeed, when you poke into all the supposedly brilliant minds investigating 9-11, you find that they all repeat the same garbage. David Ray Griffin has a list of 115 supposed lies and omissions in the 9-11 Commission Report. And if you read it, it's almost all stuff we've debunked here easily--like that six hijackers are alive, or that the manifests didn't include any Arab names, or that Larry Silverstein said "Pull it". Just moronic stuff, stuff that a high schooler could debunk (and indeed, several have).

So why is Steven Jones headed out the door? Well, first because he's the only big credential in the Scholars who's pushing the thermite/thermate solution. You've got Fetzer, Reynolds and Wood talking about the beam weapon from space. Yeah, it sounds nutty as hell, but it's the kind of thing that actually gets people's attention. It can be marketed, with factoids that I'm sure Uncle Fetzer is boning up on right now, like that the Pentagon spent X billion back in the Reagan years on Star Wars. It "explains" the light flashes in Rick Siegel's 9-11 Eyewitness movie.

You also have concern, expressed by many Deniers, that the movement can't put all its eggs in the Controlled Demolition basket. Remember, Controlled Demolition was a fairly early conspiracy theory that was largely considered a dead letter among 9-11 Deniers until Jones brought it back to prominence.

I suspect that Steven Jones is pretty much washed up in this movement. He's not flashy enough for a group raised on Alex Jones and Uncle Fetzer. Most of my fellow debunkers probably feel the opposite, but that's because they're analyzing it rationally. See the problem?

41 Comments:

At 21 November, 2006 16:52, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Very well written!

 
At 21 November, 2006 17:17, Blogger Dog Town said...

Note to S.Jones, we have cookies!

 
At 21 November, 2006 17:34, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

Every truther I have spoken to backs Jones over Fetzer.

Have a look at the LC forum, everybody is emailing Fetzer about how ridiculous this star wars shit is

 
At 21 November, 2006 17:43, Blogger Alex said...

Remember, Controlled Demolition was a fairly early conspiracy theory that was largely considered a dead letter among 9-11 Deniers until Jones brought it back to prominence.

So was the starwars laser beam. The three conspiracy theories that I heard by week 3 of the attacks were:

1) Controlled Demolition
2) Mini-nukes
3) Lasers/X-Ray lasers/Gravity Wave Devices from space.

All of the conspiracies seem to come in waves. Initially it was just a bunch of loons all throwing around their own pet theories. Then a few of the more prominent deniers will latch on to a particular theory, and all of a sudden, everyone's attention is focused there. Ofcourse, eventually, once we've pounded that theory into the dirt, another prominent denier will latch on to a different theory, and suddenly they're all off again supporting the new theory. It'll be the same thing with Judy's lasers. Give them a year to work it out of their system, and then they'll abandon her too, and latch on to my gremlin demolition theory.

 
At 21 November, 2006 17:49, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Alex,
It is a real shame that you make light of the PROVEN theory still floating out out there!!

Do you remember the VERIFIED PICTURE of the giant espresso pot?
It was founnd in NEW ZEALAND!!

Well this was accidentally discouvered and it turns out that
Starbucks (notice how "star" is in the name?!?!) has been in development of his and tested it successfully on the towers!!

Have you notived how many MORE STARBUCKS have been built since 9-11?

Gremlins...YA RIGHT!!

You must be a disinfo agent!!

 
At 21 November, 2006 18:31, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Have a look at the LC forum, everybody is emailing Fetzer about how ridiculous this star wars shit is

Geeee go figure!

 
At 21 November, 2006 18:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pat,

Your analysis does not even scratch the surface. I'm not saying that to slam you. I'm saying it because it true.

Why do I say this? The top reason is you putting forward the idea the Controlled Demo was waining prior to Jones shot in the arm. You simply could not be more wrong.

It's understandable, given the fact that you came late to watching the developments. You still have not done basic reading. You sleighting of DRG shows a lack of familiarity with his books and speeches.

I understand you have a limited amount of time to devote. I realize that you don't have much respect of the questions that we "deniers" hold dear. It's not surprising that your analysis, which gathers so much praise from the other clueless ones who act as a senseless cheering section, is really something that shouldn't pass muster.

 
At 21 November, 2006 18:52, Blogger Alex said...

Your analysis does not even scratch the surface. I'm not saying that to slam you. I'm saying it because it true.

Favourite excuse of the clueless.

"Like...wow man...you, like, you're totally missing the bigger picture man. Like, really, man...you need to, like, chill and stuff. I've studied this stuff for tw....thr....FIFTEEN years, man....like, yeah...."

No explanation of what he's missing, no analysis of the positive and negative aspects of his case, just, "like, you're wrong, man....".

 
At 21 November, 2006 18:54, Blogger pomeroo said...

Bg inadvertantly gives away the game when refers to "the questions that we 'deniers' hold dear." That's the point. The loons cherish these questions like tattered old underwear that, although revolting to everyone else, they just can't bear to part with. It's pure emotion. There isn't a single question the tinfoil-hatters can ask that hasn't been answered in great detail. Their insane fantasy won't allow them to accept any answers that make use of actual evidence.

The demolition theory was always incredibly stupid. Apart from the overwhelming evidence against it, the purely logical objections bury it: Why the hell would the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy knock down buildings AFTER starting their war? The liars can spin their rationalizations all day long, but they can never hope to pass through that brick wall.

 
At 21 November, 2006 19:56, Anonymous Anonymous said...

pomeroo,

Let take only one issue. Are you saying you can explain how WTC 7 fell?

 
At 21 November, 2006 20:01, Blogger Triterope said...

Your analysis does not even scratch the surface. I'm not saying that to slam you. I'm saying it because it true. You simply could not be more wrong. You still have not done basic reading. It's not surprising that your analysis is really something that shouldn't pass muster.

Your bad manners are exceeded only by your bad manners.

 
At 21 November, 2006 20:03, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me do a reality check.

Is anyone here aware that Kean and Hamilton wrote a book which said they know the military lied to the 9/11 Commission?

 
At 21 November, 2006 20:04, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Actually, BJ may be right for a change, although not for the reasons he claims. "Controlled Demo" will probably live on because it gives these clowns the veneer of being "scientific". As dumbfuck Mathew Horton "Sendmeabuck" Woodson was trying to claim, it was "simple physics" that explained the controlled Demo. Not that he is any more authoritative than a sand rat, it just sounded better.

At least controlled demolitions actually happen, which doesn't prove the Deniers dopey theories but they are more plausible for those who just want to believe in this crap.

Steven Jones also had the virtue of not being a readily identifiable America-hating kook or have a drug addiction or have any other pathologies associated with many of the Deniers.

Of course, he also claims to have proven Jesus came to North America, so why do his views on WTC matter? The answer is "they don't" but he makes a better messenger and he has a "better" message from a PR standpoint. So, while he deserves to return to obscurity, I suspect we haven't seen the last of him.

 
At 21 November, 2006 20:05, Blogger telescopemerc said...

I remember when this blog first started (it wasn't that long ago). The target then was the ever present 'Loose Change' and not much else. In the comments sections, the troothers would complain that 'Loose Change' was 'kids stuff', and we should be answering to the allmighty SCHOLARS. They had degrees and stuff.

Soon more things came to light. The Scholars weren't made of iron, they had very few experts, those experts were acting goofy, and the other members were too busy inflating resumes when they weren't making complete asses of themselves.

Especially fond of making an ass of himself was Fetzer. It got to the point where this blog had a comment about something stupid he did or said almost ever other day.

"boo-hoo" Cried the Troothers. "Its not fair! You're picking on Fetzer too much". These were the same voices that told us to pay attention to Fetzers game, as the previous one was just 'kids stuff'.

Other groups were touted, but never got off the ground (they were mostly groups made up of 'members' unwittingly drafted via the usual troother method of quote mining and ignoring context.) "Boo-hoo" cried the troothers, its not fair that we can't get our act together!

In the meantime, the usual crap is spread in cut n'paste form. When the troothers step outside their approved scripts they invariably invent fantasies that get themselves into their own cesspools filled with their own makings.

I've heard troothers tell me of Chinese Structural Engineers who 'ran a 50 million dollar computer sim' and found that the building couldn't have collapse, and soon the whole world of Engineering would hear their piper's song of trooth. When confronted for evidence, they got belligerant. I'd almost say it was trolling, but they were dead serious that their fantasy was Gawd's truth.

This was not an abberation, this was typical. Every conspiracist thinks he or she is the sooper genius who knows the 'real world' unlike us mindless 'sheeple'. They all strive to stand out in a world of madness, and the only way to do that is to make crazier claims than the last guy. Star Wars Beams! Chinese SEs! Planes that can't turn! Exploding Light poles! Thermite in the concrete! Sulfur is rare! It only gets worse. The latest hero to troothers is the one making the last nutty claim. And every troother wants to be that hero. The result is inevitable.

 
At 21 November, 2006 20:06, Blogger Dog Town said...

Your bad manners are exceeded only by your bad manners.

Well, to be fair, his stupidity runs a close second! A photo/you tube finish, so to speak!

 
At 21 November, 2006 20:13, Blogger CHF said...

Hey pd,

I was reading over the CS threads and realized that you never explained to me where those "key points" are that could pulverize concrete.

So....you gonna?

 
At 21 November, 2006 20:15, Blogger CHF said...

questions that we "deniers" hold dear.

Bingo. Thank you, bg.

You hold them dear alright; which is why you keep asking them 1,000 times after they've been answered.

This is why you kooks are a laughing stock: you don't know when to MOVE ON.

 
At 22 November, 2006 07:18, Blogger ScottSl said...

I don't think Jones is out, however I have noticed more "laserbeamer's".

 
At 22 November, 2006 09:46, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Pomeroo- There isn't a single question the tinfoil-hatters can ask that hasn't been answered in great detail.

Your joking right?

1.Why doesn't the NTSB data match the official flight path for Flight 77?

2.Why is the NIST testing for blast scenarious at WTC 7?

3.What was Cheney referring to when he stated "Of course the orders still stand.
Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

4. Why hasnt' the FBI investigated Atta's contacts, whereabouts, and ties to drug smuggling in South Florida?

5. What explanation is there for the explosions going off prior to the collapse of the WTC 1, 2,and 7?

6. What caused molten steel to flow like lava at the WTC site?

7.Will the Federal Government explain the extent of the war games and the live hijacking drills taking place on that day?

8. Why won't the NIST release the computer models they used in their study along with the other evidence?

9. Why can't the NIST reports be used in a court of law as evidence?

I could go on, but you get the gist of questions that haven't been answered by the Federal Government that should have been.
Pomeroo you may want to revise or basically shit can your statement.

 
At 22 November, 2006 09:58, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Geez even more evidence pointing to a possible CD of WTC 7. Enjoy calling these guys idiots, tinahtters, liars etc.


From Google Video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?
docid=1229980855390507741&q=
wtc+7+video&hl=en

This video shows a bunch of Ground Zero rescuers hearing an explosion and commenting about the WTC 7:

Rescuer 1: “It’s blowin’ boy. Did you hear that?” Rescuer 2: “Keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down soon.” Rescuer 3: “The building is about to blow up. Move it back!” Rescuer 4: “Move it back here. Alright guys? Sorry.” Rescuer 3: “We are walking back. There’s a building about to blow up. (Inaudible), debris coming down.”

The explosion is the same one caught on this video showing police talking on a pay phone, only the explosion is much louder. You can also see the same “striped” building @ :09 on the lefthand side: “WTC rescuers at pay phone hear loud explosion“ -

 
At 22 November, 2006 09:59, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 22 November, 2006 10:06, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Lets not forget the explosions heard on Rick Siegel's 9-11 Eyewitness movie.http://video.google.com/
videoplay?
docid=-3201591890178435982&q=wtc+7+
video&hl=en


Dam its that pesky video evidence that Mac was referring to earlier.

 
At 22 November, 2006 10:26, Blogger CHF said...

swing,

you're a moron.

What blast scenario should NIST look at for WTC7? The one where the explosives are so much quieter than usual and somehow manage to lean the building over before blowing it up? The one where the bad guys demolish it SEVEN HOURS after the towers fell?

You really don't seem to grasp just how LOUD demolition charges are. You wouldn't have only a few people hearing "explosions" if charges went off. All of southern NYC would have heard them.

Cheney was referring to flight 93 when he made when his statement - BEFORE he knew it had crashed.

What explanation is there for the explosions going off prior to the collapse of the WTC 1, 2,and 7?

Explosions in a fire? No way! Perhaps you should ask yourself why the buildings didn't fall down right after these "bombs" went off.

What caused molten steel to flow like lava at the WTC site?

THERE WAS NO MOLTEN STEEL! It was ALUMINUM.

Lets not forget the explosions heard on Rick Siegel's 9-11 Eyewitness

You mean the ones where wind blows across the mic? The explosions that no mics CLOSER to the towers caught? Yeah let's investigate that!

Please, Swing - take this "proof" of yours to court. It'll make great comedy.

 
At 22 November, 2006 10:36, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

CFG, can you cite the information for this: Cheney was referring to flight 93 when he made when his statement - BEFORE he knew it had crashed.

What was that order and where is your reference?

What caused molten steel to flow like lava at the WTC site?
Update your research you moronic imbecile. I posted the video in a different thread of firefighters making that statement and it wasn't aluminium. Molten steel and molten aluminium look totally different.

Explosions in a fire? You moronic motherfucker, look at the statement. Prior to the planes hitting.

You mean the ones where wind blows across the mic? Nope, dumbass, the same one that is heard in two other videos. Dam your dumb.
Stop posting stupid shit that your clueless on.

 
At 22 November, 2006 10:54, Blogger CHF said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 22 November, 2006 10:57, Blogger CHF said...

swing,

Mineta's timeline points to Flight 93 and NOT flight 77.

According to Mineta's claim, he

- saw the second impact.
- returned to the conference room, told his visitor what had happened and ended his meeting.
- received a call from United Airlines.
- made a call to American Airlines.
- received information from Mr Flaherty.
- heard he had to go to the White House.
- left his building, got into his car, drove to the White House, went through security.
- went to the situation room for a quick word with Richard Clarke.
- escorted to the PEOC.
- established two phone links.

All between 9:03 and 9:26!

Check out Mike Williams letter posted near the top:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?
blogID=25239004&postID=11625571415
0523578&isPopup=true

And please explain to me, swing, how molten steel could be caused by a demolition. And calculate how much explosives would be needed and how LOUD they would have to be.

Then compare the answer to your "evidence."

Your "molten steel" is a non-point for the simple fact that your own retarded theories CAN'T ACCOUNT FOR IT!

 
At 22 November, 2006 11:09, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

No comment on anything else? Hmmm

To be honest, I don't know what caused the molten steel to flow like lava. That's that quote from firefighters on the scene. I do know that hydrocarbon fires don't account for that type of steel behavior. If they don't, what does?

Speaking of no points to be made:
You are debunked.

According to Mineta's testimony to Comm. Hamilton:

From C-SPAN ya genius.

Mineta responds to an opening question by Commissioner Hamilton about the events in the PEOC and an alleged shoot down order. He describes a conversation between Cheney and a young man:

Mineta: "During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President...the plane is 50 miles out...the plane is 30 miles out....and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president "do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??"

Mineta explains that while he had not known it at the time, he had surmised that the standing order the young man asked about must have been a shoot down order. Hamilton, looking a bit confused, seeks clarification about which flight the conversation was regarding, and Mineta once again clarifies that it is the flight that hit the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m. on September 11.

Now,CF, update your research you village idiot, you!
Your timeline doesn't mean shit. You loose.

 
At 22 November, 2006 11:15, Blogger Stevew said...

How many times do these stupid questions have to be answered?
All have been debunked by experts over and over. Repeating them over and over and never looking at the real evidence does not make them true. The toofers think if they keep asking them some body might believe their crap. Instead of asking those same stupid questions. Hey toofer's. How about a detailed explaination to back up your claims and back it up with real experts and scientific evidence that is equal to what has been put fourth by the real experts? How about the toofer's giving us some qualifications in building design and destruction? How about the toofer's giving us some qualifications in aircraft investigations and what crashes they have investigated?

 
At 22 November, 2006 11:22, Blogger Alex said...

I do know that hydrocarbon fires don't account for that type of steel behavior. If they don't, what does?

X-RAY LASERS AND PHOTON TORPEDOES!

I DEMAND THAT BUSH IMMEDIATELY SUBPOENA CAPTAIN JEAN-LUC PACARD!

 
At 22 November, 2006 11:40, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Stevew, were you going to address any of those issues? Nah I didn't think so. Your same blanket statement that cries for help from your cronies. Great detraction though. You do a whole lot of nothing with that statement, then again it looks like the rest of the bullshit you spout. Those questions haven't been debunked at all ya idiot. Which is why I asked them. Mostly due to newly released eyewitness video. Lets hear your theory as to what turns steel into molten material that looks like rivers of lava? Hey and guess what, the 'experts' you fail to mention can't answer that either because the science behind hydrocarbon fires doesn't account for the behavior of said material. And how do I know that, I've got the Manual of Steel Construction sitting at my desk as I type this. 8th edition and from the AISC with a nice red cover. There is a nice chapter on the effects of fire on steel. You should read it sometime instead of spouting bullshit.

Just watched another person discuss huge explosions PRIOR TO COLLAPSE in WTC 6 of all places. I've never seen that one before.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?
docid=-999558027849894376&q=label%3
A911+mysteries

Alex, we agree! Beam weapons and all that is left to the fringe. Come to think of it, maybe a UFO did work on the WTC! LOL!
Are coming to a middle ground here Alex?? ;)

Hey I do have perception changes though coming to this site. For example the Silverstein comment.

What gets me however no matter what facts a person posts, if it doesn't fit the OS, no one here can think critically for a second a state..."Hey that is a little odd." Or "What did do that?" or any type of critical thinking of that nature.
That I guess is the suprising part of bloggin' with you guys. No open minds I guess.

 
At 22 November, 2006 11:56, Blogger ewing2001 said...

http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=2127

911blogger.com/"GeorgeWashington" outed as a front for Professor Steven E. Jones
http://911closeup.com/nico/911blogger_jones.html
by ewing2001
November 22, 2006




Things do continue heating up within the 9/11 Scholars.

While 911bloglines.blogspot tried to figure out the real identity of "GeorgeWashington", one of the 4 moderators of 911blogger.com, coincidentally his background confirmed also a further close association to Professor Steven E. Jones.

In the past, "GeorgeWashington" posted very often articles or blogs filled with direct or even personal information of Steven E. Jones.

Here are just some examples:

http://www.911blogger.com/taxonomy/term/443

Live Webcast of Steven Jones' UC Berkeley Conference



http://www.911blogger.com/node/4167
Denver Post gave a fair shake to Steve Jones' recent talk

Submitted by GeorgeWashington on Fri, 09/08/2006:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/2657 "...I spoke with a Salt Lake City resident close to Professor Jones, who said that we should NOT write heated or nasty letters to BYU right now. He is helping to organize a campaign to help Professor Jones that will be more effective..."

(see also http://911blogger.com/blog/4 )

At one point GeorgeWashington also posted once an "updated" analysis of Professor Jones at 911blogger.com, immediately after some research revealed his past with Los Alamos. In this analysis Jones declared 9/11 TV Fakery as unacceptable, allegedly decided by the majority of forum members of st911, which turned out to be as a lie.

The posting of this blog provoked some outrage of Prof. Jim Fetzer. The blog at 911blogger.com was removed for some hours, but later added again.


It turns out now, that "GeorgeWashington" who also runs georgewashington.blogspot.com and calling himself "Patriot and leader", is actually Alex Floum aka attorney@email.com, who also organized the early press releases of st911.org, as seen here:

http://www.williambowles.info/911/911_scholars.html

Alex Floum was also former member of "9/11 Science and Justice Alliance" (2002-2006).

Their members (among them Jeff King, Gerard Holmgren, Jeff Strahl, Rosalee Grable, "FONEBONE" and many others) established the early and traditional evidence on Controlled Demolition, which was blocked for years from 911truth.org and other well known authors of the 9/11 Truth Movement, often also self appointed leaders of this very same movement.


Floum aka GeorgeWash was also well aware of the early so called "no-planes" research, which investigated on the forensic evidence against a Boeing crash into the South Tower. He also knew the argument about "9/11 TV Fakery", which is an expanded video research. see http://www.911tvfakery.net

Nevertheless Floum aka "GeorgeWashington" argued against it on 911blogger.com, similar like Professor Jones.

Jones once blocked a scientific paper of Rick Rajter (st911) on that matter, together with 2 "anonymous" undisclosed members. Instead Jones decided to release an outdated unscientific paper of Eric and/or Brian Salter.

The Salter Brothers themselves once "obtained" unedited footage, which seemed to be altered.

Instead of showing the original camera feed of FOX5 which had an exploding South Tower in it, but no plane, unknown persons added the camera from FOX11, showing a helicopter zooming into the Tower, obviously then also followed by an incoming graphic aircraft silhouette, which was explained as a CGI, see also http://911logic.blogspot.com

GeorgeWashington aka Floum, obviously very close to Jones, furthermore once even declared the "no-planes" research as "dead", when he mirrored his article " No Planes Theory: R.I.P." (September 12, 2006) on 911blogger.com as a start page blog. http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/09/no-planes-theory-rip.html

During the same time, attacks against 9/11 TV fakery had been also orchestrated by Nafeez Ahmed and Paul Joseph Watson (Prisonplanet), both from England.

Since then, the popularity of this oppressed research (declared by Washington Post as an unpopular "stringe theory") shared also the alleged controversy of the "directed energy weapon" research, which is extensively described at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_energy_weapons



Directed Energy Weapons is part of a well-known U.S. Government program, linked to Raytheon or Ionatron (Maker of directed-energy weapons), but also U.S. Department of Energy, also called "The E-Bomb".


J. Douglas Beason, author of the book: "The E-Bomb: How America’s New Directed Energy Weapons Will Change the Way Wars Will Be Fought in the Future" (Da Capo Press, October 2005) describes this research:

The United States is involved in a new generation of weapons that discharge beams of energy, such as the Airborne Laser, the Active Denial System, as well as the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL).

Beason is also Director of Threat Reduction at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/060111_e-weapons.html"The good news is that directed-energy exists. Directed-energy is being tested and within a few years directed-energy is going to be deployed upon the battlefield," Beason reported.

The U.S. Army’s Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) was also tested in White Sands, New Mexico and linked to the so called "Star Wars Program". http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/higher_ground_040222.html


The program itself was also linked to "Project Trailblazer", a mapping and zoning surveillance program, contracted by NRO and NSA during 1998/99 to several companies, among them BoozAllen Hamilton and BTG Inc., which were working on it in the Pentagon, while attacked on the morning of 9/11.

5 Employees got killed. Other companies like Veridian (Neil Armstrong, ex NASA) received other contracts.

Armstrong's sister June is married to the uncle of 9/11 researcher Jim Hoffman (who once was removed as a member of "9/11 Science + Justice Alliance", after he plagiarized and misconstructed some research from members of this group)



The connection of Floum aka GeorgeWashington with prominent 9/11 Truth VIPs is furthermore interesting as since Floum once also tried to broker some legal issues between the Loose Change team and other 9/11 resesarchers, who are also members of st911.

More stunning is that Floum's law company has also clients *directly* linked to the U.s. Department of Energy.
http://attorneypages.com/details.php/44683_2044685_651_254_101.htm

http://www.schinner.com/html/the_schinner_law_group_-_clien.html



The Schinner Law Group works with Fuelsell Technologies. This is one of many companies, who are dealing directly with the U.S. Department of Energy as seen here:

http://www.fuelselltechnologies.com
http://www.fstenergy.com/
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/annual_progress05_storage.html



Scott Redmond, Founder developed this product for F500 & U.S. Govt. agencies. Dr. Nick Tran works for a Naval Research Lab.


Redmond works directly with Carole Read and Paul Bakke (both DOE). http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress05/vi_g_4_redmond.pdf

Paul Bakke furthermore was Peer Review Panel member at the FY 2005 DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Merit Review, held on May 23-26, 2005, at the Gateway Crystal Marriott in Arlington, Virginia. This meeting was also attended with Rod Borup, Cathy Padro and Ken Stroh, all three further members of Los Alamos National Laboratory.


Professor Steven E. Jones, who constantly refused to analyse further input of "exotic weaponry" regarding the collapse and pulverisation of the Twin Towers, used to work on such exotic weaponry while researching for Los Alamos departments on "Sonoluminescence".

Los Alamos scientists first began to work with reactor fuel specifically, uranium and plutonium during the Manhattan Project because these elements also fuel nuclear weapons.
http://www.lanl.gov/quarterly/q_fall03/nuc_renaissance.shtml

More on the Department of Energy's Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative also here:
http://nuclear.inl.gov/programs.shtml
"...The Department of Energy's Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative calls for building a nuclear reactor to demonstrate the feasibility of generating hydrogen economically by 2015. Los Alamos simulation codes will likely be used to design such a reactor and to show that it is safe...."

The Sonolumiscence- Nuclear Hydrogen Connection:
http://www.articlesextra.com/cavitation-fusion-nuclear.htm


"...In the 1930's, they already found out that such cavitation-bubbles in fluids can also be generated by sound (sonolumiscence), and that they are emitting tiny UV-light flashes when they collapse. Scientists don't know why, yet. Many of them also the Indian physicist Prof. Rusi Taleyarkhan, who does his research in the United States ? think that for a split second, temperatures of one million degrees are reached under extremely high pressure from the energy-rich light flashes occurring during the bubble's collapse. They assume that for a split second there exists a molecular plasma, similar to the one inside our sun.

Under such conditions nuclear fusion is possible without leaving radioactive waste behind in contrast to nuclear fission..."


See also
http://www.veronicachapman.com/nyc911/Jones-Kubiak.htm
Steven Jones, David Kubiak- The Los Alamos Connections
Between 1990 to 1993, Jones researched also fusion in condensed matter and deuterium, for the U.S. Department of Energy.

Jones also knows about the nuclear reactions of hydrogen. Furthermore he worked for TRIUMF (Vancouver, British Columbia), The National High Energy Laboratory, KEK (Tsukuba, Japan), and the Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory at Oxford University.
In this context it sounds more than absurde not to open up on that field of research.

In how far the "conflict of interest" of Alex Floum aka attorney@email.com regarding his clients and his close association with Professor Jones plays into all this, couldn't be determined yet.

Fact is, that Floum seems now more to be just a press person for st911.org.

Fact is also, that it was Floum who had a big input into setting up 9/11 Blogger.com.

As one 9/11 Scholar confidentially pointed out, "I think he attracted the others because of it having copies of all the latest media relating to the Scholars' activity..."

If Floum also works as a *direct attorney* of Steven E Jones, which was floating around as a rumour in some email lists, couldn't be confirmed yet, though some 9/11 Scholars seems to imply this. Among them also Judy Wood who just recently pointed out, that "he doesn't take the time to get his facts correct".

The conflict on whether Professor Jones might take over both Journal of Studies and st911.org is furthermore interesting, since Floum aka "GeorgeWashington" was also actively involved in the funding of it.

Floum registered st911.org on behalf of Schlund + Partners, which is a registrant company associated with SAIC's VeriSign.
http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=st911.org
http://registrar.schlund.info

If Floum will give this domain to Professor Jim Fetzer or Steven E. Jones, isn't clear yet. Fetzer was the founder of the 9/11 Scholars Society.

The majority of active posters at 911blogger.com already decided against Fetzer. Some anonymous bloggers even described Fetzer as a "criminal". Others demand he should give the 9/11 Scholars project immediately to Jones and resign.
The hostility against 9/11 TV Fakery research also didn't stop. Members of 911blogger.com suggested that these researchers allegedly all work for U.S. Intelligence or Robert Gates, who is currently George W. Bush's nominee to be the next United States Secretary of Defense.

This seems to be also orchestrated under the influence of the moderators of 911blogger.com


911blogger.com was created by Roger Peters aka dz aka dazinith, originally from 'Marietta, GA'.

Peters recently started to censor particular blogs on 9/11 TV fakery and banned some members, while allowing some trolls to rant against it.

He furthermore delayed the approval of some blogs related to the direct energy beam weapon research.

Rogers is a graphic design developer for X-Boxes and posted also at hiptop.com, netscape.com, gnn.tv, libertyforum.org and other public forums.

One of his earliest sponsors was a T-Shirt company called Spreadshirt.com.

Spreadshirt originates from Leipzig, East Germany but also has offices on 911 South Main St. Greensburg, PA. or Krakau/Poland, Utrecht/Netherlands or Cork/Ireland.
http://www.spreadshirt.com/shop.php?sid=20863&op=impressum
http://www.spreadshirt.com/About-Us.10.0.html

 
At 22 November, 2006 11:57, Blogger Dog Town said...

What gets me however no matter what facts a person posts, if it doesn't fit the OS, no one here can think critically for a second a state..."Hey that is a little odd." Or "What did do that?" or any type of critical thinking of that nature.
That I guess is the suprising part of bloggin' with you guys. No open minds I guess.


*Buzzer* Wrong again! You're just to retarded to realise it's all been heard before. If not it is so absurd, it only deserves ridicule.
Get it? You are not original, that is the problem!
NEXT!

 
At 22 November, 2006 12:15, Blogger CHF said...

swing,

his OWN TIMELINE doesn't allow for the plane to be flight 77! Get over it.

To be honest, I don't know what caused the molten steel to flow like lava.

Well then why the hell would you use it as some kind of evidence, you twit???

If your own theories don't account for molten steel then just what the f*ck do you suppose it means?

I've seen twoofers do this a lot: you make a claim (using unrealiable evidence) without bothering to explain what you think it's evidence of!

The only thing left to do is make absurd logical leaps.

'Some guys heard explosions during a massive fire so the towers were blown up.'

'There was "molten steel" according to a firefighter so therefor it was an inside job.'

Wow, can't argue with "logic" like that. This is why you kooks are such a laughing stock.

 
At 22 November, 2006 12:39, Blogger Stevew said...

Swing
Nice tapdance but the only BS comes from you people who never address the issues

Hey toofer's. How about a detailed explaination to back up your claims and back it up with real experts and scientific evidence that is equal to what has been put fourth by the real experts? How about the toofer's giving us some qualifications in building design and destruction? How about the toofer's giving us some qualifications in aircraft investigations and what crashes they have investigated?

 
At 22 November, 2006 13:20, Blogger CHF said...

Not gonna happen, Steve.

Never mind solid proof, expert backing or even a detailed chronology and narrative of what they think happened. These fuckwads don't even know what they're arguing half the time.

"There was molten steel!"

"No there wasn't and even if there was - so what? What does it mean?"

"I'm just sayin there was molten steel. I have no clue as to what it means."

"Well gee thanks for bringing that up then. If that doesn't prove an inside job, nothing will."

These people have the thinking skills of little kids. Really really stupid little kids.

 
At 22 November, 2006 13:36, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...


1.Why doesn't the NTSB data match the official flight path for Flight 77?


I await a link to a professional firm that has proven that the FDR data does not match the official flight path. Otherwise, take your nonsense elsewhere.


2.Why is the NIST testing for blast scenarious at WTC 7?


I liken it to RAID. See there are enough of you silly, but persistent "Flies" dancing around, and rathere than just swipe at you one by one, NIST will just settle the issue once and for all. trust me, none of you CT idiots will be pleased with their final report.


3.What was Cheney referring to when he stated "Of course the orders still stand.
Have you heard anything to the contrary?"


Have you asked him? If you haven't then you are just SPECULATING!!!!!


4. Why hasnt' the FBI investigated Atta's contacts, whereabouts, and ties to drug smuggling in South Florida?


Either (a) there is no evidence he has any such contacts, or (b) it is irrellivent to his role in 9/11 or (c) both.


5. What explanation is there for the explosions going off prior to the collapse of the WTC 1, 2,and 7?


Electrical Transformers, Aeresol Cans, Fuel tanks, Oxygen cannisters, Fire balls, Falling Debris, the list goes on...


6. What caused molten steel to flow like lava at the WTC site?


No proof, no proof, no proof. There is some limited proof of molten METAL (METAL, METAL, METAL). The GZ site had alot of metal there, only some of which was STEEL.


7.Will the Federal Government explain the extent of the war games and the live hijacking drills taking place on that day?


What is there to explain? Tell me? Do you know how many drills usually take place on a given day. If so, how does the number on 9/11 compare with the average?


8. Why won't the NIST release the computer models they used in their study along with the other evidence?

1. Why should they? they are not ebay or walmart. Have you requested them? I am sure if someone has, then they were given a reason why not in a follow up letter to their request. Does the answer given not satisfy? Do you have a clue about this?


9. Why can't the NIST reports be used in a court of law as evidence?


They cannot be used in Civil precedings where finances are awarded. There is no mention of whether they can or cannot be used in a criminal case (check your facts).


Lets hear your theory as to what turns steel into molten material that looks like rivers of lava?


Proof of molten STEEL would be a good first step. Then, if proven, I would simply say that contained heat from subdebris fires over days to weeks likely caused and maintained such pools of molten METAL. But that is just speculation.


Hey and guess what, the 'experts' you fail to mention can't answer that either because the science behind hydrocarbon fires doesn't account for the behavior of said material. And how do I know that, I've got the Manual of Steel Construction sitting at my desk as I type this. 8th edition and from the AISC with a nice red cover. There is a nice chapter on the effects of fire on steel. You should read it sometime instead of spouting bullshit.


Amazing, I have got a book written by Hawkings, deosnt mean I know Shaite about quantum physics.

The fires were not simple hydrocarbon fires, and you know it putz. The materials that burned in the WTC fire prior to collapse were varied in nature, and included many things besides hydrocarbons.


Just watched another person discuss huge explosions PRIOR TO COLLAPSE in WTC 6 of all places. I've never seen that one before.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?
docid=-999558027849894376&q=label%3
A911+mysteries


Amazing isnt it. Who would of though people would hear explosions in an area with 4-5 buildings on fire, and where two jet airliners had just plunged through. It is almost unbelieveable...NOT!!!


Alex, we agree! Beam weapons and all that is left to the fringe. Come to think of it, maybe a UFO did work on the WTC! LOL!
Are coming to a middle ground here Alex?? ;)


First bit of sense you have spouted.


Hey I do have perception changes though coming to this site. For example the Silverstein comment.

What gets me however no matter what facts a person posts, if it doesn't fit the OS, no one here can think critically for a second a state..."Hey that is a little odd." Or "What did do that?" or any type of critical thinking of that nature.
That I guess is the suprising part of bloggin' with you guys. No open minds I guess.


Thinking something is "a little odd" doesnt mean "oh it had to be an inside job." When most hear info that sounds odd to them, they usually go to a reputable (by normal people standards, not CT standards) source to see if they can find information to clarify.

TAM

 
At 22 November, 2006 13:47, Blogger Stevew said...

one can always hope Chf
They are so positive one would think that they would have the stuff to back it up to show they were right but all we get is the same lip service. I have asked these fools for just one qualification to show that they have some idea what they were talking about and all you get is tapdance. They talk the talk but never walk the walk

 
At 23 November, 2006 20:04, Blogger R.Lange said...

8. Why won't the NIST release the computer models they used in their study. . .?

I'd love to see any of you try to run those models on your home computers. I hope you've got a few decades to spare...

 
At 25 November, 2006 10:15, Blogger Alex said...

BG: "Dammit, why's it running so slow?!?!?!"

pdoh: "IT'S PART OF THE CONSPIRACY! THEY DON'T WANT US DISCOVERING THE TRUTH!!!"

 
At 25 November, 2006 12:44, Blogger pomeroo said...

Remember why they're called conspiracy LIARS. They're not just stupid and ignorant.

 
At 27 November, 2006 05:08, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

I await a link to a professional firm that has proven that the FDR data does not match the official flight path. So now professionals won't cut it, it has to a firm? So all the pros on the OS side can be disregarded until they are part of a firm? See 9/11pilots for truth. I'm quite certain a professional airline pilot can determine the FDR and plan don't match. Hell you can do that and your an MD right? It isn't say constructional engineering here!

liken it to RAID. See there are enough of you silly, but persistent "Flies" dancing around, and rathere than just swipe at you one by one, NIST will just settle the issue once and for all. With that logic, NIST is going to have to test for space based weapons as well and keebler elves! The reason they are testing is because their is no definitive reason as to why it collapsed and with evidence pointing to such, it simply makes sense to test for it. I'm real certain it isn't because of pesky CT flies. Come on Mac, I thought you would provide a more educated answer than that. I like your conclusion for the NIST even before the study is done though...the CT community isn't going to like what the NIST finds. Is that so? I guess you have your mind made up eh? Do you think the NIST works that way? Oh yeah that is right they do. But at least it is out in the public that they are going to test for it.

Either (a) there is no evidence he has any such contacts, or (b) it is irrellivent to his role in 9/11 or (c) both. Wrong again. There is ample evidence about Atta and I have proven so earlier in a different post using Hopsicklers personal interviews, not only that, showed where the FBI lied about such contacts in a news article posted at this site.

Have you asked him? Nope. But don't you think someone who had investigated the events of 9/11 should have. Don't you think?

Electrical Transformers, Aeresol Cans, Fuel tanks, Oxygen cannisters, Fire balls, Falling Debris, the list goes on... Sure..sure..heard from a mile plus away. Now that makes sense. Big ass can of hair spray eh? Oh and heard from 100's of eyewitnesses. Dam Mac you come up with some pretty lame excuses to defend the OS.

The fires were not simple hydrocarbon fires, and you know it putz. The materials that burned in the WTC fire prior to collapse were varied in nature, and included many things besides hydrocarbons. The contents of the fire? Whatever it was (give one of those grand excuses again Mac), make sure you throw in materials that turn steel molten according to firefighter's statements on film.

"No there wasn't and even if there was - so what? What does it mean?" CHF, catch up ya lazy bastard. Go watch the video where two firefighters describe molten steel flowing like rivers of lava. What does it mean? That something other than the contents of the buildings liquified steel. What is it? Great question. Can you answer that? Nope. Did the the 9/11 Com. answer that? Nope. Did the NIST? Nope. Perhaps the people investigating this could prehaps answer this.

Rlange-I'd love to see any of you try to run those models on your home computers. No Rlange, I was thinking maybe a University might run those same models or an independent lab to see how exactly the NIST came up with their data. If you think Rlange, that might just save some lives in the future of constructing buildings that might survive plane crashes, jetfuel, and random explosions going off in the basements of buildings. And then once the models pass different testings, they can allow the models to be used in a court of law, which at this time they are not.

CHF-Go watch the Minetta testimony on CSPAN and then go delete your blabber.

Steve Well lets see Stevew, why not provide me with a list of folks that are able to go talk to the firefighters who witnessed molten steel flowing like rivers of lava, and then they can explain what in those buildings caused that to take place. Fires weren't that hot, agreed? Nevermind, the NIST said they weren't so it isn't a debatable thing. So now Stevew go fetch those experts to prove it was items in the building that caused steel to flow like lava ok? Cause the fact is, science is on the CT side at this point. Why? Cause the most official group you can quote, the NIST, said the fires weren't hot enough to turn the steel into molten rivers of lava. Balls in your court big guy.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home