TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- War On Terror Looks Like A Fraud

War On Terror Looks Like A Fraud

Editor of the Winnipeg Sun hitting it bang on.


War on Terror looks like a fraud

By JOHN GLEESON

Contrary to the "patriots" who try to use the deaths of our soldiers in Afghanistan to stifle debate on Canada's involvement in the War on Terror, I would say that as new evidence presents itself, we would indeed be cowards to ignore it simply because we've lost troops in the field and are therefore blindly committed to the mission.

And new evidence is piling up around us, arguably strong enough to declare the whole War on Terror an undeniable fraud.

Virtually ignored by mainstream media, the Americans showed their hand this year with the new Iraqi oil law, now making its way through Iraq's parliament.

The law -- which tens of thousands of Iraqis marched peacefully against on Monday when they called for the immediate expulsion of U.S. forces -- would transfer control of one of the largest oil reserves on the planet from Baghdad to Big Oil, delivering "the prize" at last that Vice-President Dick Cheney famously talked about in 1999 when he was CEO of Halliburton.

"The key point of the law," wrote Mother Jones' Washington correspondent James Ridgeway on March 1, "is that Iraq's immense oil wealth (115 billion barrels of proven reserves, third in the world after Saudi Arabia and Iran) will be under the iron rule of a fuzzy 'Federal Oil and Gas Council' boasting 'a panel of oil experts from inside and outside Iraq.' That is, nothing less than predominantly U.S. Big Oil executives.

"The law represents no less than institutionalized raping and pillaging of Iraq's oil wealth. It represents the death knell of nationalized Iraqi resources, now replaced by production sharing agreements, which translate into savage privatization and monster profit rates of up to 75% for (basically U.S.) Big Oil. Sixty-five of Iraq's roughly 80 oilfields already known will be offered for Big Oil to exploit."

While the U.S. argues that the oil deal will give Iraqis their shot at "freedom and stability," the International Committee of the Red Cross reported this week that millions of Iraqis are in a "disastrous" situation that continues to deteriorate, with "mothers appealing for someone to pick up the bodies littering the street so their children will be spared the horror of looking at them on their way to school."

Four years after the invasion, it's becoming pretty clear that Iraq has been "pacified" solely for the purpose of economic aggression. Humanitarian considerations are moot. The awful plight of Iraq's one million Christians, who have no place in the new Iraq, underscores this ugly truth.

Afghanistan, meanwhile, has given the U.S. a strategic military beachhead in Central Asia (which "American primacy" advocates called for in the '90s) and it was quietly reported in November that plans are being accelerated for a $3.3-billion natural gas pipeline "to help Afghanistan become an energy bridge in the region."

With many Americans (including academics and former top U.S. government officials) now questioning even the physical facts of 9/11 and seriously disputing the "militant Islam" spin, with the media more brain-dead than it's been in our lifetimes, now is not the time for jingoism and blind faith in the likes of Cheney, George W. Bush and Robert Gates.

Our young men are worth more than that -- aren't they, Mr. Harper?


http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Col...13/4002082.html

the simple fact is iraq needs foreign investment in their oil infrastructure. i will refrain from further comment until i can locate a more balanced and thoughtful analysis than the one provided.

Correction, it IS a fraud . Especially when you have the leading terrorist state "fighting the war on terror." LOL, "war on terror." Only a bunch of retards could possibly consider a phrase like that to make any sense whatesoever.

Re: War On Terror Looks Like A Fraud

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Editor of the Winnipeg Sun hitting it bang on. War on Terror looks like a fraud By JOHN GLEESON Contrary to the "patriots" who try to use the deaths of our soldiers in Afghanistan to stifle debate on Canada's involvement in the War on Terror, I would say that as new evidence presents itself, we would indeed be cowards to ignore it simply because we've lost troops in the field and are therefore blindly committed to the mission. And new evidence is piling up around us, arguably strong enough to declare the whole War on Terror an undeniable fraud. Virtually ignored by mainstream media, the Americans showed their hand this year with the new Iraqi oil law, now making its way through Iraq's parliament. The law -- which tens of thousands of Iraqis marched peacefully against on Monday when they called for the immediate expulsion of U.S. forces -- would transfer control of one of the largest oil reserves on the planet from Baghdad to Big Oil, delivering "the prize" at last that Vice-President Dick Cheney famously talked about in 1999 when he was CEO of Halliburton. "The key point of the law," wrote Mother Jones' Washington correspondent James Ridgeway on March 1, "is that Iraq's immense oil wealth (115 billion barrels of proven reserves, third in the world after Saudi Arabia and Iran) will be under the iron rule of a fuzzy 'Federal Oil and Gas Council' boasting 'a panel of oil experts from inside and outside Iraq.' That is, nothing less than predominantly U.S. Big Oil executives. "The law represents no less than institutionalized raping and pillaging of Iraq's oil wealth. It represents the death knell of nationalized Iraqi resources, now replaced by production sharing agreements, which translate into savage privatization and monster profit rates of up to 75% for (basically U.S.) Big Oil. Sixty-five of Iraq's roughly 80 oilfields already known will be offered for Big Oil to exploit." While the U.S. argues that the oil deal will give Iraqis their shot at "freedom and stability," the International Committee of the Red Cross reported this week that millions of Iraqis are in a "disastrous" situation that continues to deteriorate, with "mothers appealing for someone to pick up the bodies littering the street so their children will be spared the horror of looking at them on their way to school." Four years after the invasion, it's becoming pretty clear that Iraq has been "pacified" solely for the purpose of economic aggression. Humanitarian considerations are moot. The awful plight of Iraq's one million Christians, who have no place in the new Iraq, underscores this ugly truth. Afghanistan, meanwhile, has given the U.S. a strategic military beachhead in Central Asia (which "American primacy" advocates called for in the '90s) and it was quietly reported in November that plans are being accelerated for a $3.3-billion natural gas pipeline "to help Afghanistan become an energy bridge in the region." With many Americans (including academics and former top U.S. government officials) now questioning even the physical facts of 9/11 and seriously disputing the "militant Islam" spin, with the media more brain-dead than it's been in our lifetimes, now is not the time for jingoism and blind faith in the likes of Cheney, George W. Bush and Robert Gates. Our young men are worth more than that -- aren't they, Mr. Harper? http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Col...13/4002082.html

I don't even know where to begin with this.

The author is obviously delusional in blaming Harper since it wasn't him that committed the troops in the first place.
Secondly, Afghanistan is a much different case than Iraq which is why we're there.
Trying to intertwine both with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) is ludicrous AND suggesting that people are questioning 9/11 facts like it's mainstream is just dumb.
The only ones questioning are the small minority that jump up and down like a f$@#in' Jack Russell terrier until they get some attention.
The U.N. voted involvement in Afghanistan because of the oppressive war lords ruining the country and for not handing over Bin Laden when asked by the Security Counsel.
It's THEM you should be mad at, not us for trying to help!

liberals....you get a little dirty doing some work and all they do is whine and blame someone else...

Re: Re: War On Terror Looks Like A Fraud

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Trying to intertwine both with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) is ludicrous AND suggesting that people are questioning 9/11 facts like it's mainstream is just dumb. liberals....you get a little dirty doing some work and all they do is whine and blame someone else...

LOL, 84% of American's don't buy the official 9-11 story dumbass :

quote:

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research Americans Question Bush on 9/11 Intelligence October 14, 2006 Many adults in the United States believe the current federal government has not been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 53 per cent of respondents think the Bush administration is hiding something, and 28 per cent believe it is lying. Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks, down five points since May 2002. Al-Qaeda operatives hijacked and crashed four airplanes in the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people. In October, after Afghanistan�s Taliban regime refused to hand over al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the U.S. launched the war on terrorism. On Aug. 6, 2001, a Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." mentioned "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." On May 17, 2002, Bush discussed the situation, saying, "The American people know this about me, and my national security team, and my administration: Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people." On Sept. 11, Bush referred to the attacks, saying, "Five years after 9/11, our enemies have not succeeded in launching another attack on our soil, but they�ve not been idle. Al-Qaeda and those inspired by its hateful ideology have carried out terrorist attacks in more than two dozen nations. And just last month, they were foiled in a plot to blow up passenger planes headed for the United States. They remain determined to attack America and kill our citizens�and we are determined to stop them." Polling Data When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying? Oct. 2006, May 2002 Telling the truth 16%, 21% Hiding something 53%, 65% Mostly lying 28%, 8% Not sure 3%, 6% Source: The New York Times / CBS News Methodology: Telephone interviews with 983 American adults, conducted from Oct. 5 to Oct. 8, 2006. Margin of error is 4 per cent.

Source: Angus Reid
And most of the world population doesn't eigher LOL.

Re: Re: Re: War On Terror Looks Like A Fraud

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z LOL, 84% of American's don't buy the official 9-11 story dumbass :

to me, that just shows how ordinary your (very) average american is in the mental capacity department

plus, theres a BIG difference between believing the administration may have hidden facts from the public, and arguing the administration actually helped carry out the attacks. you cant use polls regarding the former to prove the latter.

84% of americans you say? are these the same bright souls that voted for bush in the first place? well, they MUST be right!

Re: Re: Re: War On Terror Looks Like A Fraud

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z LOL, 84% of American's don't buy the official 9-11 story dumbass : Source: Angus Reid And most of the world population doesn't eigher LOL.

We're talking about two different things.
I'm referring to the nut jobs and the facts about how the towers actually fell.
You're referring to the conjecture that led up to that event.
'dumbass'

Re: Re: Re: Re: War On Terror Looks Like A Fraud

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r We're talking about two different things. I'm referring to the nut jobs and the facts about how the towers actually fell.

LOL, you're still the dumbass .

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: War On Terror Looks Like A Fraud

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z LOL, you're still the dumbass .

Sorry...you lost me...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: War On Terror Looks Like A Fraud

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z LOL, you're still the dumbass .

Agreed

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: War On Terror Looks Like A Fraud

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Agreed

When two or more "dumbass gather": Hardcore Trancer will soon come..

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: War On Terror Looks Like A Fraud

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Sorry...you lost me...

He is referring to how the CIA used holograms of airplanes to make us think planes were hitting the towers while it was in fact George W. Bush himself up there planting the explosives that brought the towers down. Didn't you see how the debris blew outward from the building? That's proof, proof I say, that the explosion came from inside the towers. If a plane had hit from the outside all the debris would have been directed inwards and none would have hit the ground. Its proof that George W. Bush blew up the towers.

Fucking idiots, that's exactly what they sound like spouting their 9/11 cover up theories.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: War On Terror Looks Like A Fraud

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Fucking idiots, that's exactly what they sound like spouting their 9/11 cover up theories.

so true!

quote:

He is referring to how the CIA used holograms of airplanes to make us think planes were hitting the towers while it was in fact George W. Bush himself up there planting the explosives that brought the towers down. Didn't you see how the debris blew outward from the building? That's proof, proof I say, that the explosion came from inside the towers. If a plane had hit from the outside all the debris would have been directed inwards and none would have hit the ground. Its proof that George W. Bush blew up the towers.

Holograms? Yeah you must be high.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Holograms? Yeah you must be high.

I don't know how you could have possibly missed the sarcasm in my post

Editor John Gleeson is not slowing down one bit. Here is his article in today's Winnipeg Sun which is/was a right wing type of paper. The article was also published in the Edmonton Sun and Toronto Sun.


Scholars Debate 9/11 Findings


JOHN GLEESON
Winnipeg Sun
Wednesday April 18, 2007


An unbiased observer doesn't need to look beyond what's happening on the ground today in Iraq and Afghanistan to conclude the War on Terror has been a brutal, manipulative means to a transparently self-serving end.

None of this is news, however, to proponents of "9/11 Truth," a worldwide movement that seems to keep growing despite an unofficial media blackout on their questions and investigations. So what are these "Truthers" saying?

Many people were quick to declare 9/11 a possible "inside job" based on the visible facts themselves, in particular the blanket failure of air defence, which even former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura said defied all logic and precedent. They also seized on the history (largely unknown in North America) of Pentagon-linked "false-flag" terrorist attacks in Europe during the Cold War, and CIA involvement with al-Qaida operations.

With the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, it was seen that 9/11 was amazingly fortuitous to the Bush administration, elements of which had been looking for excuses to invade both countries -- for purely strategic-commercial reasons -- in the months and years prior to the attacks.

But it was the release of the 9/11 Commission Report in 2004 that breathed full life into the 9/11 Truth Movement -- because it was now apparent to many that the "official story" relied on massive distortion and evasion.

The most dramatically disputed aspect of 9/11 is the question of what the world really saw that day in New York City, when three steel-frame high-rises -- the 110-storey Twin Towers and the 47-storey WTC 7 -- collapsed at near free-fall speed neatly into their own footprints.

In 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out (Olive Branch Press, 2007), former Brigham Young University physics professor Steven Jones argues forcefully that the nature of the collapses, the presence of large pools of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, witness accounts of hearing explosions -- that these and other factors point to the conclusion all three buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.

This view, though rejected by Popular Mechanics and defenders of the status quo, has won support from engineers and academics from other disciplines. For instance, John McMurtry, a philosophy professor emeritus at the University of Guelph and fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, credits Prof. John Valleau of the Chemistry-Physics Research Group at University of Toronto for drawing his attention to "this scientific anomaly." McMurtry concludes: "The instant and inexplicable collapses of the WTC buildings in uniform demolition style could not be explained by fire (plus, in the case of the Twin Towers, the impact of the airplanes) without contradicting the laws of engineering physics."

David Ray Griffin, a former theology professor from California who has become a leading voice of 9/11 dissent, also points to the destruction of evidence after the collapse -- most of the steel was quickly hauled away and shipped to Asia, where it was melted down.

"Although it is normally a federal offence to remove evidence from a crime scene, the removal of the steel, which was carefully overseen, was facilitated by federal officials," Griffin wrote.

You can see why these scholars are calling for an independent, preferably international investigation into 9/11.


http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Col...18/4055849.html

http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/2...055550-sun.html

quote:

Originally posted by culorut In 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out (Olive Branch Press, 2007), former Brigham Young University physics professor Steven Jones argues forcefully that the nature of the collapses, the presence of large pools of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, witness accounts of hearing explosions -- that these and other factors point to the conclusion all three buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. This view, though rejected by Popular Mechanics and defenders of the status quo, has won support from engineers and academics from other disciplines. For instance, John McMurtry, a philosophy professor emeritus at the University of Guelph and fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, credits Prof. John Valleau of the Chemistry-Physics Research Group at University of Toronto for drawing his attention to "this scientific anomaly." McMurtry concludes: "The instant and inexplicable collapses of the WTC buildings in uniform demolition style could not be explained by fire (plus, in the case of the Twin Towers, the impact of the airplanes) without contradicting the laws of engineering physics."

Who Are the Scholars for 9/11 Truth?


As Pat and I get further into this subject, we will inevitably get into people not directly involved in the movie, but those that feed the frenzy of conspiratorial theory. One such organization is the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth", who pop up with increasing frequency as some type of "expert" authority for the 9/11 "truth" movement. Sort of a Jedi Council for conspiracy nutbars. So I decided to look into them further, and see just how authoritative they are.

A look at their website reveals they are certainly full of themselves. Boldfaced headlines scream out the word, "experts" at every turn:



EXPERTS CLAIM OFFICIAL 9/11 STORY IS A HOAX

Scholars for 9/11 Truth call for verification and publication by an international consortium.

Duluth, MN (PRWEB)
January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.


Their most famous member, and co-founder, is Steven Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University. He has become famous for publishing a paper on the WTC collapse. Thus far this paper though, has only been reviewed, not in a journal on physics, or structural engineering, but in a Marxist journal of political economy. BYU itself has rejected his work. Dr. Jones primary research has been, not in structural engineering or the reaction of metals to heat, but in cold fusion, which even in the physics community is regarded as bordering on alchemy. Even more bizarrely, his other famous published work was one right out of the World Weekly News, claiming that Jesus visited Central America based on ancient Indian artwork.

So maybe the "scholars" have other "experts" from whom Dr. Jones (Indiana?) is relying on, so I decided to look over their list of "full members" described here as:



Currently, S9/11T has four categories of members: full members (FM), who have or have had academic appointments or the equivalent;



I compiled the list of members and categorized them by specialty, position and institution, which actually was rather difficult. Oddly enough many of the members don't list their qualifications or university, which is quite strange, since every professor I have ever met is more than happy to go on for hours about their academic credentials.

I came up with a list of 76 members, expecting it to be full of Ivy League engineers and distinguished Middle Eastern scholars, experts bent on proving that the US government, and not Osama bin Laden attacked the World Trade Centers. I was wrong.

Out of the 76 "experts" the most common academic discipline was philosophy, with 9 members, including a co-founder. Since 7 members did not even list an academic discipline, this was 1/7 of their credentialed membership. English/literature and psychology came in next with 5 members each. Even theology and "humanities" came in with 4 and 3 members respectively. Among actual scientific fields, physics was way in front, with 5 members, including the aforementioned Dr. Jones. I am not sure as to their academic credentials though, at least one of the "physicists", Jeffrey Farrer, isn't even a professor, he is a lab manager at BYU. One has to wonder whether Steven Jones' janitor is also listed as an associate member?

So how many engineers do they have? Out of the 76, a grand total of 2. Jean-Pierre Petit, a French aeronautical engineer, who despite the obvious handicap of being French actually seems to have a relevant qualification. Curiously enough though, he doesn't seem to have written a single word on 9/11. He has written though, on a mysterious plot by the US military to bomb Jupiter with anti-matter weapons!

The second engineer is Judy Wood, who has been mentioned in the comments here for her bizarre billiard ball from the top of the World Trade Center theory. OK, Ms. Wood is an actual Mechanical Engineer at Clemson, but thus far her work has been primarily focused on the stresses of dentistry. A fascinating field no doubt, but hardly relevant to planes crashing into buildings.

So how many structural engineers are listed? Absolutely zero. How many experts in Middle Eastern studies, or the Arabic language? Also zero. But they do have a professor of social work!

So I thought, maybe I am being too narrow minded? Maybe these are just America's best and brightest minds, even if they are working out of their fields of specialty. Noam Chomsky at least, regardless of what you think of his kooky politics, is a respected professor of linguistics at MIT. So I looked up this list of the top 20 universities in the world (17 located in the US) from the Economist, expecting to find the schools of our distinguished scholars to be well represented on it.

Wrong. A total of one professor, Kevin Barrett, a Professor of Folk Lore at the University of Wisconsin-Madison was represented.

Total number of "scholars" from the Ivy League, zero. Total number of "scholars" from Tunxcis Community College, one.

James B. - Screw Loose Change Blog

Update...

The Schisms Continue


Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood Take On Professor Jones

The 9-11 Denial Movement continues to fragment into factions. Reynolds and Jones have had some skirmishes before over the "no-planers" (Reynolds is one, Jones is not), but it's broken out into full scale war now. Reynolds and Wood go after Jones with both barrels. We learn a little more about the "peer review process" at the Journal of 9-11 Studies:


Among other activities, Jones initially was responsible for the scholars' discussion forum and he and Judy Wood instituted a "peer-reviewed" Journal of 9/11 Studies. Jones appointed the advisory editorial board, later Kevin Ryan as co-editor and chose the "peers" to review manuscripts. Peer-review normally boosts the prestige of academic articles because professors within the same discipline review manuscripts but in this case there is little or no such review, even when offered. That fact convinced Wood to resign.


Say it ain't so, Judy!

James will be pleased to hear that the Keebler Elves return:


Figure 3(c): If the tower is viewed as a "towering tree" and the Keebler Elves carved out a residence, no measurable weakening would occur. If their cookie oven set fire to the tree, it would be inconsequential.


Brilliant! They proceed on with a debunking of the Thermite/Thermate claims (which I'm not as confident will be substantive), and accuse Jones of propping up the Official Government Conspiracy Theory:


This statement raises two problems: first, Jones gives credence to the loony OGCT that "19 young Arabs acting at the behest of Islamist extremists headquartered in distant Afghanistan" were involved or caused 9/11. It makes no sense to embrace parts of the government's unproven story without independent proof.


I also love this part of Reynold's paper:


Collectively we are engaged in a struggle to expose the government's lies about 9/11. The physical sciences and analysis are key to this project. The only investigation worthy of the name has been conducted on the internet by researchers like Thierry Meyssan, Gerard Holmgren, Jeff King, Rosalee Grable, Kee Dewdney, Nico Haupt, Killtown, and "Spooked" who proved no Boeing 757 went into the Pentagon, flight 93 did not crash in the designated hole near Shanksville, PA, and the WTC towers were demolished by explosives.
Oh, yeah, that Spooked has done some terrific research!

Pat
- Screw Loose Change Blog

Scholar Scorecard


Well the "Scholars" for 9/11 "Truth" seem to be the big story of the day. Exactly 3 months ago today I did my first major post on the "Scholars", where I counted and categorized the 76 Full Members of the organization. They have been receiving a lot of press lately, CSPAN, the AP, the NY Times, FoxNews etc., and they have been bragging about their growing momentum, since according to them, 70 million Americans support them.

So I decided to do another count of their Full Members, and found out that after 3 months of unprecedented growth and momentum their ranks had swelled from the previously mentioned 76 to.... 77.

Wow, if they keep this up, at this rate they will be in triple digits by 2012.

They have actually picked up 7 new members.


Anicha Bay - Visiting Professor of English, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, South Korea
Don Bustion - Attorney, Adjunct Professor, Southern Arkansas University
Joseph Diaferia - Political Science and History, State University and City University, New York
Kenneth Kuttler - Mathematics, Brigham Young University
Joseph M. Phelps - Structural Dynamicist Charter Member, Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers
Karen Sugrue - Sociology, Limerick Institute of Technology, Ireland
Doyle Winterton - Civil Engineering Structural Engineering

Most notable in this are the two "civil engineers". I cannot find any reference whatsoever for Doyle Winterton, despite the unusual name. I did find Joseph M. Phelps, and he does appear to be who they claim. They are leaving out the fact that he is also 82 years old, and running a 9 hole golf course in Florida. Probably a nice enough guy, but he might be a little past his prime.

To offset that they lost 6 members. Reynolds and Wood of course everyone knows. The only other notable loss was Jeffrey Farrer, who actually didn't leave the organization, but got demoted all the way from a Full Member to a Student Member. Could this have anything to do with me pointing out previously that he was not a professor, but a lab manager for the physics department at BYU?

Update: This is not verifiable proof, but Pat and others have found a Doyle Winterton in Provo, Utah. It looks like he might have sold a stereo to Steven Jones or something. As for why his entry just says "Civil Engineering Structural Engineering " instead of an actual title or position, well according to the Utah Department of Licensing he had a license as an "engineer in training" but it expired in 1999. Who is next, Steven Jones' pool boy?
James B. - Screw Loose Change Blog

Now it seems the "scholars" have uncovered the obvious...

The Continuing Demolition of the Scholars
Here's some stuff from Ginny Howard, apparently about to become a former member of "Scholars" for 9-11 Denial:
This is a letter Ginny (worked for Scholars) asked me to post on forums for her in relations to recent problems in ST911:

QUOTE:
Below is the lengthy e-mail I wrote Jim on August 18th which lays out the serious problems I had identified in ST911 and explains the situation Jim refers to from my point of view (followed by his response). However, this was NOT the first time these issues were broached; there had been a full airing with Jim of some of the most striking ones in what could be called The 'Two Great Engineers' Saga, which occurred right at the first of August. During this event, which involved Steve trying to insert into Full Membership status (i.e., those with full academic credential)-- on the basis of claims that proved to be FALSE or UNVERIFIABLE and that he had to KNOW were so -- two people who had not even applied for membership! Jim wanted me to accede to Steve's demands on the issue; I refused.

What is MOST telling to me about this whole situation is that, with Judy Wood now removed as webmaster (on trumped-up charges), guess who are now listed as Full Members? That's right! Those 'two great engineers' (nothing intended against them personally), Srs. Winterton and Phelps -- one an elderly gentleman with a B.S. in civil engineering; the other of which we know nothing about. Check it out yourself. [In case these names are removed from the FM roster, the page as of today has been captured.]

And who has control of the webpage? Jim Fetzer.

SO: What this means is that Jones is perfectly willing to LIE about credentials to pad the roles of ST911, and Fetzer is perfectly willing to ACCOMMODATE those lies even after he has been informed in no uncertain terms that that is EXACTLY what they are.

This puts in stark relief the noteworthy lack of integrity that informs the work of ST911. That is, if there is not even an INTENTION to maintain integrity in the membership roles, how can anyone trust there is integrity anywhere else? As I have said more than once, Scholars for 9/11 TRUTH cannot succeed when founded on a pack of LIES.

Speaking of which -- with respect to Jim's claim of 'embracing' me because I was Judy's friend, IMV, I was recruited as membership secretary because I was perceived as a convenient and willing dupe (though no more). Also, as you will see, my actions were not based merely on my 'opinions' about Steve, but rather on a considerable amount of evidence of the general dysfunctionalilty of ST911, as well as the 'quality' of its leadership.

I do need to make one correction about the e-mail below. At the end of it, I said I would continue to work on the applications. In fact, conditions with Jim and ST911 rapidly deteriorated, such that I became even LESS sanguine about the quality of ST911 and about the advisability of continuing to support it. Thus, mostly what I did afterwards was to send out letters of receipt and enter names in the address book. (I, of course, also spent time gathering together materials to inform the new membership secretary, Dave Doering, of the situation and to provide the necessary files so that he could carry on -- if he chooses to do so.

THUS, sadly, ST911 appears to be an organization with a corrupted leadership. If I were a betting woman, I'd put my money on the proposition that it is in fact a creation of, by, and for the perps. Unfortunately, some good people have already been hurt and others will be because we allowed ourselves to be taken in by the attraction of 'credentials' -- without paying sufficient attention to verify the quality and integrity they should have stood for.

Under the circumstances, I believe the only way to limit the damage of this awful situation is for the 9/11 Truth Movement to distance itself as quickly as possible from such low-down chicanery.

My final observation is that the leadership (Jones and Fetzer) have abused the trust placed in them (too willingly) by the ST911 membership. It is therefore up to the MEMBERSHIP to re-establish it's commitment to high standards of integrity in thought and action, and to bring these men to account. I suggest members begin to organize themselves to figure out how this can be done in a way most supportive of the long-term health of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

And, undaunted, to move forward.

The August 18th assessment appears below.

Ginny



August 18, 2006
Jim --

This is a long e-mail; I hope you read it, thoughtfully, all the way through.

For my part, I have been thinking quite a bit about the current situation with ST911.

I do not accept your frame. For me this is not about who I�m more �committed� to: �my friend� or �the society� (i.e., �Jim Fetzer�).

It�s not about loyalty in that sense.

Instead, I�m evaluating the situation according to a set of criteria which include the following:

(1) Does the organization have a structure that can accommodate a growing membership and provide reasonable avenues to make use of members� gifts and talents? Is it able to adapt appropriately as it grows and meets new challenges?

(2) How savvy is the leadership in handling the trolls and operatives who inevitably infest the membership of any organization like ours and then try to take over and create an ineffective mess?

(3) How willing is the leadership to create a strong, clean advisory counsel so that problems, issues, and potential actions and directions can be viewed from a variety of perspectives and decisions arrived at by wise, informed consensus?

(4) When indications of serious problems arise, can the leadership objectively evaluative the data and handle the situation in a timely, effective manner, or will problems be allowed to fester until they blow up?

I believe that, however ST911 was originally conceived, its rapid growth and public image, not to mention the fulfillment of its purpose, require the attention, organizational structure, and leadership I am suggesting. Ad hoc is no longer 'good enough'. However, what I believe I am currently seeing with ST911 is an organization without effectiveness in any of these areas.

I know, for example, that I have more than once expressed my strong dismay at the quality of the forum and at the idea that decent new members are to be turned loose there, where discussions * best I can tell * are dominated by trolls with the primary purpose of wasting people�s time and confusing them about the issues.

I have not gotten one response from you about that.

As a consequence, one thing I�ve done is try to drag my feet as much as possible, without looking totally incompetent, on admitting new members. Why? Because I can�t stand the thought of sending decent, caring people, many of whom write quite compelling personal statements, into the forum snake pit, which is the only thing ST911 offers them by way of contact with the organization. I�ve been hoping (now, I fear, against hope) that �something� would soon change for the better so that I could admit them in good conscience.

I also notice that the entire �leadership� of ST911 seems to consist of you * with Judy and me in the only subsidiary roles * covering membership, website, and forum moderating * i.e., virtually the entire �substance� of the organization per se. (In my case, I know there�s WAY too much membership work for me to do alone.) This �structure� * if one can call it that * is completely inadequate for meaningfully supporting a membership in the hundreds * unless those numbers are intended only to serve as window dressing for a few public personalities.

And this gets at another key issue for me: RESPECT.

If we are set upon �saving democracy�, I am very, very clear about one thing: You can�t do that without a competent citizenry. And the first step in having a competent citizenry is treating people with respect.

It isn�t RESPECTFUL to invite people to join you to save their country * and then provide them no structure in which to even begin to serve a useful purpose.

In my role as membership secretary, this has been tearing me up.

And yet as I watch in the background, I don�t see any indication that if I approached you on these issues I would get a thoughtful, helpful response. What I see, especially lately, is very erratic, dictatorial behavior.

It�s very disturbing to me.

And now we come to the issue of Steve Jones.

I have in a number of e-mails to you expressly named what this man is: A LIAR!!

This FACT is provable beyond a shadow of a doubt on a number of fronts.

Because he is the co-chair of ST911, this is a very, very serious issue.

The matter of �non-glowing, silvery-gray-at-all-temperatures� aluminum is so obvious and egregious a fabrication as to be laugh-out-loud laughable if the matter were not so deadly serious. You doubt me? Go to his PDF (you�ll need to do this fairly quickly because he keeps changing it) and visit page 69 (of 189):
http://www.journalof911studies.com/J...radeCenter.pdf (In case it�s changed, I can send you saved screen shots of the page.)

What you�re going to see are four pictures:

(1) �Molten metal� (allegedly) pouring out of a South Tower window -* though NIST states the picture is �color enhanced� (or something like that), not to mention there�s a serious question about whether the whole thing isn�t a total fake.

(2) A picture presumably of thermite burning.

(3&4) Two pictures of aluminum being poured.

These four pictures are supposed to offer conclusive �proof� that what is pouring out of the window in the (probably faked) picture is 'thermite' -- and most certainly 'cannot' be aluminum.

Now, what is the problem with this picture? The problem is that the color of molten metals is determined by temperature * not the material itself * as any high school physics student would know. Whatever is shown as pouring out the window (if indeed something did pour out) is of a MUCH higher temperature than the aluminum (which melts at approx. 660 degrees centigrade) shown in pictures 3 & 4. Why is the molasses-like aluminum silvery-gray and NOT the color of the stuff in the �window�? BECAUSE IT ISN�T ANYWHERE NEAR HOT ENOUGH!!!!

This is the 'detail' Jones fails to mention.

No way is Jones this stupid. Nope. He�s lying straight to our faces. Indeed, he lied about it to Judy back in February; he lied about it to Bonnie Faulkner and her listeners on Guns and Butter; he lied about it on your program, he lies about it on the ST911 forum (with his lies being affirmed there by his chorus of groupies); and on C-SPAN, he lied about it to the whole nation.

Why is he doing this?

More to the point, why are you not treating this behavior as the unconscionable breach of scientific integrity it is, but are acting as if Jones is being defamed when somebody calls him on it? Why instead are you not dismissing Jones from ST911 for conduct unbecoming a �scholar�, and thus protecting the long-term good name of the organization??

(BTW * as I�m writing this, I just received a copy of an e-mail from Alex Floum in which he makes the definitive assertion that Jones is an �impeccable� scientist. Again, what I want to know is, why is an �impeccable� scientist LYING about an item of high school physics that anybody can recognize as false? IMV -- �Impeccable� is as impeccable does. What I�ve just named * the evidence of which is available for the whole world to see in Jones' PDF -- is the opposite of �impeccable�.)

But let�s say you don�t want to deal with the �non-glowing, silvery-gray-at-all-temperatures� aluminum issue?

How about this one:

Jones LIES about the people he recruits as members of ST911.

How do I know this?

In THREE CASES * count them * 1, 2, 3 * that we know about * Jones has corrupted or attempted to corrupt the membership roster by getting people listed as Full Members when they did not have the necessary credentials * AND HE KNEW IT! Who are they:

Jeffrey Farrer:
a BYU Dept. of Physics lab manager; apparently a graduate student
Doyle Winterton:
a man in his 70s who worked as a civil engineer but has no advanced
degrees and never held an academic appointment
Joseph Phillips
we don�t really know, but he might be a vineyard owner who once
got a degree in construction engineering.

In the first case, Jeffrey Farrer was listed as a Full Member until Judy Wood saw that he was �thanked� as one of the students who helped in preparing Jones� PDF. (This statement, which appeared on the cover page and which I saw myself, has since been removed.) In the latter two cases Judy and I wasted an absurd amount of time preventing those individuals from being listed as Full Members -- which you were insisting that I do on Jones� recognizance alone -* BEFORE we even had their permission to be listed in the first place, which is a legal issue!

Now *

I have a GIGANTIC problem with the fact that the co-chair of ST911 is a PROVEN LIAR!!

He lies in his science, and he lies in his personal communications.

I don�t have to know WHY he�s lying; I just know that ST911�s INTEGRITY is being compromised egregiously and at the highest levels -- and that this CANNOT be good!!

I also know, for example, that there�s NO fixing the forum as long as Jones is a part of it and ST911, and is accepted as THE unquestioned scientific authority figure there.

The corruption of this man is so glaring (the aluminum issue being the tip of the iceberg) that I�ve believed up until today you would surely see it and take appropriate action.

MY BOTTOM LINE:

�Scholars for 9/11 TRUTH� will ultimately fail if it has LIARS at the helm -- and protects them to keep them there. Trying to cover up for Jones * or whatever it is you�re doing * can, at best, have a temporary effect. In the end, it will be a disaster.

This is not rocket science. It�s about basic, common decency. If we don�t have that in our organization * or at least are making an honest attempt to strive for it -- we don�t have anything.

My opinion: Either Jones is a paid covert operative, which is surely what he looks like * OR he�s doing a damned good imitation of one, such that the BushCo criminal regime is getting excellent service -- for free!!

I don�t know which is worse.

There�s much more that could be said, but I�ll leave my description of the problem at this.

Now, you probably are interested in what I plan to do:

I will reiterate: I am HORRIFIED at admitting to a dysfunctional, deceitful organization decent Americans who feel honored to be a part of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (as they imagine it to be) and who want to help save their country by joining.

Still, I have taken on the duties of membership secretary, and I likewise feel a certain responsibility in that role.

Although I am no longer sanguine that, under present leadership, the concerns I have enumerated can be addressed, yet I do not wish to leave the society�s membership applications in disarray.

Therefore, I am willing to spend a few more days trying to catch up as best I can so that whoever takes over from me will at least have some sense of what has transpired in the three weeks or so I have been at this. Although I remain very concerned about what unsuspecting new members are getting into, I do not wish to inflict harm on ST911.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,
Ginny Howard

Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:02:44 -0500
From: [email protected][/email]
To: Ginny Howard
Cc: [email][email protected]
Subject: Re: ST911 and Membership

Ginny,

Thank you for this extremely interesting post. I had thought it was odd that new members were not showing up, but now I understand. I will see what I can do in arranging a replacement. I appreciate your assistance and am considering everything you have told me. Thanks very much.
So there we have it. On the one hand we have folks who are at least interested in making a plausible case that the "Scholars" are really scholarly, and we have Fetzer and Jones, the heads of the organization.

Of course, if Fetzer wanted to be honest, he would have replied something like this:

Ginny,

Thank you for this extremely interesting post. What you have to understand is that we really have no case against the Bush Administration. Almost everything we claim is a lie, so it's a little late in the game to start pointing fingers at Professor Jones, who at least is providing us with interesting lies that deceive the simpletons of the movement. Have you seen my "Top Ten Reasons the Hijackers Were Fake?" Virtually every word in there is a lie, with the arguable exception of the first reason which even I can't figure out what I was getting at.

As many of you may already know, Jones has since been removed from his teaching position with pay. I have been asked how I feel about this, am I "happy"? While I have written on Jones' deceptive suggestions, I have never once called for his removal. "Happy" isn't the right word. "Relieved" more accurately describes my emotions. I'm relieved he is no longer exposing his students to his kind of sloppy research and/or purposeful deception. No, he doesn't teach this in class but I would bet every student knows about his claims.

It doesn't matter one bit that Jones doesn't say this in front of his students. Of COURSE his students know about this part of his personal life. And of COURSE he is teaching them how to turn science on its head. I don't think he has to utter a single word on the subject. Just picture yourself a student in his class and the other children told you about this. You investigate the subject and find one or more of these things: that 1) he does incredibly sloppy research; 2) he is lying; or 3) he uncovered a plot by the government to blow up the buildings.

1) Your child now has no confidence in their teacher

2) Your child learns how to lie using science

3) Your child has not learned to do proper research and is fooled by Jones' brand of science

All this without saying a word in the classroom. While he can try to keep his class and his conspiracy theories separate, I think the reality is it will never stay separate. He is also using his tenure as evidence. We all know this.

Everyone, not just professors, should have freedom of speech in the work place until it affects the work. In this case "the work" is teaching our children science and the scientific method. It wouldn't bother me if Jones did quality research and held the views he holds. That's obviously not the case here.

...

This is not just some professor of political science arguing for or against some government program. This is a professor who is supposed to be teaching the proper use of the scientific method. The unbiased and honest research of facts. What his students see Jones practicing is far from any honest research.

This is also an indictment against the other 77 scholars who continue to follow a leader who has shown such a lack of respect for truth. They also seem to have little use for proper research. They should have uncovered Jones' blatant errors in his work. I can excuse the average internet blogger but not people who make it a point to parade the word "scholar" around as if they know more than the rest. That's just shameful in my view.




David Ray Griffin, a former theology professor from California who has become a leading voice of 9/11 dissent, also points to the destruction of evidence after the collapse -- most of the steel was quickly hauled away and shipped to Asia, where it was melted down.

"Although it is normally a federal offence to remove evidence from a crime scene, the removal of the steel, which was carefully overseen, was facilitated by federal officials," Griffin wrote.

You can see why these scholars are calling for an independent, preferably international investigation into 9/11.


http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Col...18/4055849.html

http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/2...055550-sun.html [/QUOTE]

dude pkc.....you posted that twice (though thank you for the bold text in the second one )

MrS

haha. bad work connection i blame! fixed

well the question comes down to this....how do we know who to believe?

I saw terror storm on youtube and it seemed like the movie was rather accurate and believable...but, then again, you can spin facts any way you want in order to prove whatever you want...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.