In any discussion about CD, it's important to note that the question of how those buildings came down IS important to A LOT of 9/11 family members. Therefore, the question should be important to the 9/11 Truth Movement. However, the question does NOT define this cause, and never has.
TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum
"Steven Jones is an agent" SPAM (57 posts)
-
Posted 14 years ago #
-
note to all:
it was not my intention to see this conversation devolve down into a debate about CD. There are passions on both sides of this issue - and this debate seems endless.
but - as a TRUTH MOVEMENT advocate i do hope to be as meticulous as possible in advocating movement 'positions.' I DO speak publicly at 9/11 Truth events. I have even been on TV discussing the subject. So - i DO have a VESTED INTEREST in UNDERSTANDING the CURRENT STATE of the RESEARCH.
if i do not EDUCATE MYSELF - ask questions - and challenge those who present research - how am i expected to learn and protect the integrity of the facts that i MYSELF present?
i DO want to understand the nano-thermite issue because it IS one of the most common/popular facts that 9/11 Truth activists seem to be presenting these days.
having reviewed the subject - including Vickie's responses - over the last several days - i have come to the following conclusion:
Unfortunately, as of yet, there is no independent verification of Dr Jones' findings. Most of the information Vickie has provided us with stops just short of verifying the actual presence of nano-thermite in the WTC dust. And while it is true that various ASPECTS of his methodology and findings are supported - unfortunately - the opinions i have read do not in fact verify his ultimate conclusion of the presence of nano-thermite in the WTC dust.
Personal Opinion: I have none. I am not a scientist. I pass no judgment on Dr Jones' expertise or ethics. He may be right. He may be wrong. He may be honest. He may be dishonest. I have no way of knowing. That is the only thing i DO know as a fact.
Recommendation: the significance of Dr. Jones' claims cannot be understated. If true, the presence of nano-thermite potentially provides the 9/11 Truth movement with hard evidence of CD. But - it is not unreasonable to expect that a finding of THIS MAGNITUDE be VERIFIED. Anything short of this requires that the 9/111 Truth Movement advocate the presence of nano-thermite in the WTC dust based on TRUST. And this is not acceptable. The chain of custody of the sample itself - as well as the methodology of his study - plus his ultimate conclusions - all present challenges in this regard.
Plus - additional challenges were described by Vicky:
this is science that people have lost their jobs over because of the political ramifications of it, and there aren't many areas like that in the professional world today. If you can think of an extremely controversial scientific study that investigators HAD TO ACTUALLY DO ON THEIR OWN, with no grant funding, please let me know.
Well - we are all aware that the subject matter is loaded. But - I would recommend the following facts and approaches:
1 - There are thousands of chemical engineers, physicists and laboratories worldwide qualified to render a professional opinion on this. The idea that ALL of them lack the courage and objectivity to render an opinion on this somewhat strains credulity.
2 - Dr. Jones' paper could be stripped of all references of the political ramifications of the study. A paper could in fact be prepared in a blind study of Sample X - with NO references to the WTC or 9/11 - to prevent bias. This paper could be submitted for peer review based PURELY on the chemistry and methodology of the study - without any of the baggage associated with references to 9/11.
3 - Similarly, samples of WTC dust could be submitted, in a blind study, to laboratories equipped to perform the relevant spectral analysis and chemical analysis - similar to Dr. Jones' - again, without the baggage and bias associated with identifying these samples as being WTC dust.
4 - To my knowledge this has not been done - and I am somewhat perplexed by the failure of the 9/11 Truth's scientific community to do so.
Final conclusion: GIven the enormous ramifications of DR. Jones' study - and the widespread commitment activists have made in supporting it - EVERY CONCEIVABLE EFFORT POSSIBLE MUCT BE MADE TO VERIFY HIS FINDINGS.
IT IS SIMPLY UNACCEPTABLE TO SUBJECT THE 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT TO THE POSSIBLE EXPOSURE ASSOCIATED WITH ADVOCATING FACTS THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED. AND GIVEN THE STAKES - AND UNDERLYING PREMISE THAT ELEMENTS OF THE US GOVERNMENT DEMOLISHED THE WTC KILLING 3,000 PEOPLE, FAILURE TO PURSUE AND PROVIDE US WITH VERIFIABLE, INDEPENDENTLY REVIEWED, SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF DR JONES' FINDINGS AMOUNTS TO A DERELICTION OF RESPONSIBILITY. FURTHERMORE - CONTINUED CLAIMS THAT DR. JONES' WORK HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE TRUE - WHEN IT IN FACT HAS NOT BEEN - PRESENTS A SERIOUS RISK TO THE CREDIBILITY OF THE 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT.
respectfully - john A
Posted 14 years ago # -
Good points John. Back to the topic of this thread.
For the past couple of days this forum has been spammed by the person who wrote the original e-mail that is the subject of this thread and also one of his peers. Both of them directly promoting Judy Wood.
I immediately deleted all their posts and blocked them from the site as it was readily apparent to me that they weren't remotely genuine, despite their all to typical surprise and disappointment.
I've had an e-mail exchange with Abraham and here are the highlights:
I said:
Abraham,
LOL!!!
First of all, the fact that you've been banned from so many forums speaks for itself. The fact that you are able to justify that as some kind of persecution would be pitiful if I was taking what you say at face value for even a second.
Second, your feigned surprise at being called out is so textbook, and sounds EXACTLY like responses I've received from people like Kevin Barrett and Craig Ranke, both people who have absolutely no credibility whatsoever.
Third, reading your post it's fairly evident to me that you don't believe or care about a word your are saying. I'll leave just a crack in the window open for the possibility that you have some deep psychological need to be a part of the outgroup within an outgroup. I call it fringe lust and it's also pitiful. But otherwise you are either working for someone or have been duped by that person.
Bottom line: The "work" of Judy Wood wouldn't been convincing to your average middle school student and certainly not someone with your level of logical education. I don't buy it for a second, and am thankful that unlike most people in this movement, I am willing to just be honest about transparent disinformation and the dupes and agents who promote it and immediately ban these people from my site.
So you can skip the artificial self-righteous indignation and surprise at how I've treated you and just get lost.
- J
And he said:
Wow you must be disinfo because you have judged me despite my attempts to try and show you that I am a genuine person.
Rather than take advantage of those options to learn more about me to see if your assumptions are true or false, as any true investigator or researcher would do, you have prematurely judged me and banned me from your forum.
You do not seem to be very concerned with finding the truth about 9/11, so I will stop wasting my time trying to discuss it with you.
I will be saving these emails and adding them to the list of so many people that are trying to suppress the research of Dr. Wood.
Good bye,
-Abe
That has to be the most canned and textbook response I've every read. It really does sound like they get this crap about of a handbook. Needless to say, I am thrilled at being able to demonstrate ZERO tolerance for the promotion of Judy Wood, specifically by people who claim to have college degrees in neuroscience.
Posted 14 years ago # -
i agree -
but i have to ask... what exactly is this canned spam smear campaign trying to accomplish? because - if it is designed to discredit Dr. Jones - it just seems a little counter intuitive that they trot out the research of Judy Wood to do it. I mean - who in their right mind is going to support the batshit crazy space-beams lady over Dr Jones?
Wood is helpful in discrediting the movement as a whole. But - this specific smear campaign against Jones makes no sense.
It almost seems like this is a deliberate attempt to accomplish the exact opposite of discrediting Jones.
Posted 14 years ago # -
If Jones was at all shady, and I'm not suggesting he is, this would be one way to bolster his credibility by comparison. The whole Nico and Les maneuver. But I don't really think that's what's going on.
Instead I think it more likely that this is just an attempt to either piggyback Judy Wood onto Steven Jones's search results either simply to get her more attention to the detriment of the movement or to undermine Jones by association. Reminds me a bit of Ed Kendrick and his intent to associate 'Jews did 9/11" with 911truth.org.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Personal Opinion: I have none. I am not a scientist. I pass no judgment on Dr Jones' expertise or ethics. He may be right. He may be wrong. He may be honest. He may be dishonest. I have no way of knowing. That is the only thing i DO know as a fact.
That's a legit point of view. I have an extensive interest in medical science, but I would never, EVER take the liberty of diagnosing someone. If somebody asked me for my medical opinion, I'd say "See a doctor." Having an interest and an attempt to understand something is not the same thing as being qualified and credible at understanding it. We all try to understand the work of Dr. Jones, certainly, but few of us are qualified to preach it's legitimacy.
but i have to ask... what exactly is this canned spam smear campaign trying to accomplish? because - if it is designed to discredit Dr. Jones - it just seems a little counter intuitive that they trot out the research of Judy Wood to do it. I mean - who in their right mind is going to support the batshit crazy space-beams lady over Dr Jones?
I remember on one of my videos on Youtube that somebody started promoting DEW crap in the comments and seemed to be direct in opposing Steven Jones. My guess is that the space-beam folks look at Jones as "the other side" of the issue. Controlled Demolition vs. Space beams. Similarly to how Jim Hoffman might be viewed as the opposition by Craig Ranke and the like.
Posted 14 years ago # -
John, yes, it looks like the French researcher did not have the equipment to do the crucial calorimetry test so could not be considered to have done a significant independent analysis. Thanks for reminding me about him, I'd forgotten what the issues were about his attempt to analyze the samples.
He was, however, able to confirm several other aspects of the experiments, such as the presence of microspheres and the presence of red/dark gray chips and chemical composition of layers. He supports the conclusions as far as his measurments can support them.
The DSC, or calorimetry measure, is crucial to get beyond what this researcher did. This is explained in 911Research's essay:
The structural and chemical analysis of the chips shows that, in every relevant aspect, they fit the description of an engineered thermitic nanocomposite. This prompts the obvious question: do the chips have the thermal characteristics of an explosive aluminothermic material? Although it might be difficult or impossible to measure the explosive power of the chips, given their minute size, it is possible to measure their exothermic behavior and thereby calculate their energy density using a differential scanning calorimeter (DSC), a device that gradually increases the temperature of a sample and records the amount of heat it absorbs or emits as a function of temperature. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explos...
Posted 14 years ago # -
The chain of custody of the sample itself - as well as the methodology of his study - plus his ultimate conclusions - all present challenges in this regard.
John, the chain of custody issue is cooked up by the debunkers. The handling of the samples was done no differently then typical scientific studies, and much research out there on the dust uses the same methods and no police were involved. The USGS did not have police escorts, the UC Davis researchers did not get dust from the police, etc. That is just not done in scientific studies, which is what this is. In fact, most studies never say anything about how the dust was obtained, only where it was found.
Here's the methods description by the USGS:
Ground sampling consisted of collecting debris from 35 locations in the WTC area, including 33 dust, 2 concrete, and 2 steel beam insulation samples. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/#Introduc...
No one who can replicate the tests has questioned the methodology. Debunkers have made all kinds of claims that are false.
I agree that there should be independent verification, and hopefully there will be. I encourage you to contact the authors and ask them about it, express your concerns so they can respond. I will send you their emails if you like.
Posted 14 years ago # -
But John, also relevant is this:
The structural and chemical analysis of the chips shows that, in every relevant aspect, they fit the description of an engineered thermitic nanocomposite.
What this is equivalent to is saying "here's the gun". A highly engineered thermitic nanocomposite should not ever have been in the WTC. So in effect, what you are saying is that if other independent labs cannot prove that that gun can FIRE, then the crime cannot be shown to have been committed that way.
If engineered thermitic nanocomposites were all around in our environment, that would be a different story. It would be as if guns were growing like weeds everywhere and so there was nothing unusual about happening to find one at a crime scene.
Posted 14 years ago # -
That's a legit point of view. I have an extensive interest in medical science, but I would never, EVER take the liberty of diagnosing someone.
Sure, John isn't a scientist.
But Steven Jones is a scientist, as are Niels Harrit and Kevin Ryan and others on the paper. Harrit and Jones are published widely. The types of analyses they conducted were done with equipment they are familiar with. They have received numerous grants from the government to conduct their research. A portion of the taxes you pay go to them, in fact, to do the research they have been doing (not the 9/11 research, but everything else), and continue to do.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Fair enough!
Thanks
Posted 14 years ago # -
Medicine is part art, part science. Sometimes diagnoses are easy, sometimes they are guesswork, even with sophisticated tools. Some types of science are like that, too.
Jones is no longer with BYU, so he's probably not getting public grants any more.
I remember reading that the bag of dust he got that he used to proclaim "thermite" came from an apologist for the Phoenix Arizona 9/11 "truth" conference (the one that was organized by a Holocaust denier). There were apparently a couple good presenters there such as Peter Dale Scott, but the conference smelled like an obvious set up.
Sorry, also, that I cannot trust a scientist who thinks Mr. Bollyn (the original 9/11 writer for the white supremacist American Free Press) is a legitimate, credible source, nor someone who is willing to trust the people behind Loose Change as a primary source for anything. That isn't my understanding of "science."
If you're having a hard time persuading me of Jones's claim, and I'm predisposed to believe it, I can only imagine the objections raised by actual structural engineers and other types of scientists who scoff at the entire 9/11 "truth" issue.
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2006/04/cons...
Jeff said...
As I've posted before, my point is this: I've seen "9/11 Truth" be hijacked by speculation, whether valid or not, and the best and hardest evidence for conspiracy neglected.
I know what the collapse of the buildings look like, and I have questions about WTC 7, but we have answers about other things re 9/11 that I consider to be much more dangerous to the conspirators if only they could get some traction.
I'm talking about things like the coincident wargames including the live-fly simulation of hijackings; the al-Qaeda-ISI-CIA triangle and Omar Saeed Shiekh; Ptech; insider trading, Cheney taking on the new role of coordinating a response to terror attacks on US soil in May, 2001; the standing order for shootdowns changing in June 2001, discretion taken away from field commanders and entrusted to the Secretary of Defense (the order was rescinded after 9/11); names like Dave Frasca, Mahmood Ahmed, Wally Hilliard, Randy Glass, Michael Springmann, Robert Wright, Sibel Edmonds and Indira Singh; Atta's drugs and spooks Florida odyssey; the destruction and cover-up of evidence; Jeb Bush's hand in purging flight school records, and on and on - that's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. That's the kind of stuff I wish I was reading when "9/11 Truth" hits corporate media, but it's not, is it? ...
Do the people arguing the loudest for demolition, who suggest I accept the "official story," even know half this stuff?
Posted 14 years ago # -
Jones is no longer with BYU, so he's probably not getting public grants any more.
Speculation on your part. Have you looked at the work he's done outside of BYU?
Dr. Steven E. Jones is a former Professor of Physics at Brigham Young University where he served as Associate Director at the BYU Center for Fusion Studies. He has been a Senior Engineering Specialist at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, and Principal Investigator for experimental muon-catalyzed fusion for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects. Dr. Jones' awards include the National Merit Scholar award, the Outstanding Young Scholar Award (BYU), and the Best of What's New for 1989 (Popular Science), among others. Dr. Jones has been published in Nature, Scientific American, the Journal of Physical Chemistry, and the American Journal of Physics.
This is a short list of the much larger one on his CV.
I remember reading that the bag of dust he got that he used to proclaim "thermite" came from an apologist for the Phoenix Arizona 9/11 "truth" conference (the one that was organized by a Holocaust denier).
I'm not sure which one you're referring to, but in any case, the iron spherules were confirmed by USGS, so the molten metal aspect is not in question. It doesn't matter where one particular dust bag came from if they are all showing the same things.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Do the people arguing the loudest for demolition, who suggest I accept the "official story," even know half this stuff?
Those claiming that anyone else accepts the "official story" without that person saying they do -- whether or not they support demolition or anything else -- are just wrong and are not representative of the researchers who produce the evidence about demolition or the relevant activists working to outreach it. They are just a problem across the board. And we know who they are, for the most part. They typically are not professionals, researchers, or respected activists.
Posted 14 years ago # -
I remember reading that the bag of dust he got that he used to proclaim "thermite" came from an apologist for the Phoenix Arizona 9/11 "truth" conference (the one that was organized by a Holocaust denier).
You might mean this video starting at 27:50: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyFxECjsfBc
Posted 14 years ago # -
I think we're talking about Janette Mackinlay? She is super nice and all, but she has never been decisive on disinformation and disruption, from what I can tell. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but her associations and actions do not speak well.
Posted 14 years ago # -
I spent good times with Janette and she is real and fully committed to the cause, with a deep conviction that grows out of her experience of the day. If she fell for NYC CAN or made some other mistake, well then so did a lot of other good people. It has nothing to do with the dust. She had as many buckets of that as she could want filling her apartment on Sept. 11. She saved samples. They match what the USGS also saw. It's real dust from the disaster.
The issue and the real debate is in the interpretation: are these paint chips, is the aluminum all from the cladding, etc.?
I also know that at least one other sample Dr. Jones got, a chunk of metal from a beam, was from the towers. At one point I carried it myself. (That is heavier than it looks!) I believe you can put aside the bad-actor suspicions and focus on the analysis: right or wrong?
One thing that disturbed me about Dr. Jones's work was his assigning significance to the diagonal cuts in beams. Workers on the pile in fact did cut the beams diagonally, with slag coming off the cuts. Did he stop basing claims on these diagonal cuts?
Posted 14 years ago # -
Dawn and I also spent time with Janette in her refurbished apartment at ground zero - and its kinda absurd to suggest that she could or would contaminate the evidence from her own private stockpile of nanothermite.
but - of course that's not the issue. from a legal standpoint the chain of evidence is flawed. samples provided by - and tested by - known 9/11 Truth activists - hardly meets the legal acid test.
but - (more buts) - the evidence is not on trial in a legal court of law. it is only on trial in the court of public opinion - and in that regard Janette's involvement should be taken out of the equation.
Dr Jones is a different story. his motivation, methodology, ethics, and conclusions are fair game - and members of the movement RIGHTFULLY should question and examine his work as thoroughly as humanly possible. I've expressed my reservations - and, so far, i have seen nothing to sway my opinions. but - the dialogue itself is important - and Nicholas is correct in requesting that we focus on the 'interpretation' of his work.
Posted 14 years ago # -
I have always maintained a philosophical (not personal) skepticism about Dr. Jones's work simply on the basis that one should be leery of what might be too good to be true and should beware of the Very Nice Man who tells you exactly what you want to hear. For that reason I have never promoted his work, let alone parroted the shrill claims of some that the Harrit paper incontrovertibly proves inside job. I want independent verification of the paper's results--not by someone recruited through truth movement channels, but preferably by labs that are asked to report on the samples without being told what they are and what they're expected to find.
John, your recommendations of a week ago are impressive. For a non-scientist to have such an understanding of the epistemic issues is striking.
The failure of Harrit's paper to make waves is surprising and disappointing. I would expect Europeans to be interested.
I was impressed by the microstructure of the material--its platelets and nodules. I did have a debunker tell me that the iron nodules were just geological hematite, and he showed me what he claimed was an electron micrograph of a geological sample showing the hematite crystals in the same stereotypical size and shape as was shown in Harrit's micrographs. I don't know how paint is manufactured but I wouldn't be surprised if they use refined geological materials.
Jones has been wrong before. When he analyzed iron from the 40-pound ingot he concluded from the lack of chromium that it was thermitic iron and not steel. Apparently nobody told him that A36 steel has no chromium. People don't tell us stuff because our tolerance for bullshit and lunacy (and lately, bigotry) has marginalized us.
I know Janette pretty well. She's a good-hearted and generous person and she has been supportive to me during times when I was taking a lot of shit in my own battles with popular 9/11 disinformationists. She's highly emotional and a sensitive artist and a partier and she does not choose her friends on the basis of their politics. She was associated with the Phoenix "Accountability" conference right from the start, probably before that Nazi guy Eric Williams wormed his way in.
Frankly I've been pretty disgusted with most of the leadership of the truth movement lately -- ever since Barrett got the endorsement of Griffin, Bowman, Brouillet, and Ryan in 2008. CIT's endorsement by Gage, Griffin and Scott was just gravy. And then Jones brings up induced earthquakes at AE911Truth's best single shot for media glory - Thank the Goddess that the media stayed away! I came into the truth movement early in 2005. If I were to come in today I suspect I would pretty quickly conclude that we're a pack of wackos.
Posted 14 years ago # -
The failure of Harrit's paper to make waves is surprising and disappointing. I would expect Europeans to be interested.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. This has been an all volunteer effort, so I'm not sure why you would think the CNN of Europe would be suddenly covering him. But in fact, he's been on numerous Dutch TV programs in the past year and in the mainstream newspapers --
Here he is on GoodMorning Denmark -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o&fea...
Here he is on Denmark's TV2 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jze33vZCpwo&fea...
Here he is on Norway State Television, with the average number of viewers 487,000 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdjotWly-c8
Here are some of the news articles --
- http://politiken.dk/indland/article684567.ece
- http://dalje.com/en-world/super-explosive-found-in...
- http://www.videnskab.dk/composite-1945.htm
- http://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/artikel/319661:Da...
- http://ekstrabladet.dk/nationen/article1151442.ece
- http://911review.com/cache/evidence/jp_dk_harritAr...
- http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,70529567...
Just last month he was in a debate at Copenhagen University --
http://universitypost.dk/article/911-cover-or-craz...
Overall it seems like a lot of the people posting on here are making broad claims with significant biases that are seeking to influence the readership to believe without a basis in fact.
Claiming there was not significant news coverage of the nanothermite is not accurate.
Posted 14 years ago # -
The issue and the real debate is in the interpretation: are these paint chips, is the aluminum all from the cladding, etc.?
This is what I'm talking about. You claim you cannot assess the findings yourselves, but then you continue to post the well-debunked claims and suggest they are not debunked. You don't trust Steve, you don't trust Niels, you don't trust any of them, yet apparently if a debunker makes a claim then it's valid.
To claim that the dust samples are not valid in terms of a criminal case is sort of silly when there is no criminal case being made -- there is a scientific paper that was published and it went well BEYOND the average standards for showing how the samples were obtained.
Guys, this is extremely basic -- when you obtain three different dust samples from three different people and find the same thing in all of them, that's called reliability. That is an extremely powerful indicator that a significant amount of all the dust did indeed contain nano-thermite residue.
Does it need independent verification? All scientific studies do. Look at any new theory out there in any discipline. Generally it takes a few years for findings to be replicated by other labs -- the lab has to either already have funding for that experiment or else has to write a grant to get it, then get the grant -- and it is a relatively slow process. This doesn't happen overnight. Most journal articles which are published take months or years to get through the review process.
Posted 14 years ago # -
well - when that independent verification happens - in the months or years ahead - i'll be first in line to present this evidence to the public.
but - it is my prudent determination that it has not yet reached that threshold.
Posted 14 years ago # -
The samples don't need to meet the chain of custody standards of a criminal trial to be taken as real. They are real and if something can be proven from them, then that's important, regardless of whether it can be introduced in court.
Nevertheless these discussions about CD always remind me of its futility as the central tenet of an essentially political movement.
You don't have to prove explosives were used in the towers. All you have to do is show almost everyone persuasively that the government and its investigations have always lied.
It's the official story and the credibility of the government that spun it that must be shattered.
This week has seen release of more evidence that Zubaydah is a construct. He's a brain-damaged nobody (not meaning to insult anyone, he's literally brain-damaged - war wound from the 1980s). He was captured in Afghanistan and his captors constructed him into into a "high-value" "9/11 mastermind" and key member of "al Qaeda" through torture and a boatload of CIA and FBI fabrications and exaggerations. Very easy, when the captors are the ones doing 100 percent of the talking.
Justice Department documents presented through discovery in a Canadian court (oh, look at that! a court!) show his handlers knew already a few weeks after capturing him that he was a nobody who had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 plot. He was a training camp fixer who barely had an association with the Bin Ladin cells. Under torture, he made up stories about potential terror plots that the government turned into a series of ridiculous hysterias that caused so much chaos for all of us back in 2002.
Another death blow to The 9/11 Commission Report, which never saw him but relies heavily on written CIA summaries of interrogations (under torture) of him, "KSM" and Binalshibh for the bulk of what it says about the 9/11 plot.
This at a time when Obama's still justifying Afghanistan with the exact same rhetoric about 9/11 as Bush!
This stuff is indisputable and potent, if you can push it properly it puts the government on the defensive. (Assuming anything ever will, now that rot and apathy predominate and MSM don't do investigations and ten times Watergate goes by weekly without a stir.) There were also new confirmations of Sibel Edmonds's story.
Stuff like this comes out on an almost weekly basis. Its potential to move something and reopen 9/11 (in which case your CD theories might also be proven) is a lot greater than the endless CD debate. But almost no one in the remaining "movement" seems to know shit about it. Most of them disdain having knowledge of the official story or being able to deconstruct it, they're looking for the magic key and that's why they're on the CD train.
Posted 14 years ago # -
now that's the Nicholas Levis i know and love
can you put a few links/sources in there - so some of us can actually educate ourselves?
Posted 14 years ago # -
Yes please. Thank you very much Nicholas.
Posted 14 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.