An analysis of the Scholars for 9/11 T&J's absurd & questionable member roster

[RKOwens4]

I decided to do my own analysis of the roster for the members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.

-Of the approximately 600 names on Scholars’ roster, only 169 members list the university they’re affiliated with (by my count). 31 of these 169 are current students. The other approximately 72% either explicitly list n.a. when it comes to degree and university affiliation, or state that they have a degree but don’t list the university, making it impossible to verify anything at all about them.

-Of the 28% who do affiliate themselves with a university, approximately 50% explicitly list the field/industry for their degree as something entirely unrelated to anything relevant to investigating 9/11 by any stretch of the imagination, such as Dental Assistant, Video Animation, Fashion Merchandising. Of the remaining 50%, many have degrees in questionably-related fields such as theology or history, while still more do not list what their Ph.D. or B.A. is in, leaving us to guess.

-Of the roughly 600 members, 35 associate themselves with some field of engineering. Of these 35, only 24 list the university in which they received their degree. This doesn’t necessarily discredit the other 11, it just makes it impossible to verify their affiliation with any university. Of these 24, 9 list their field of engineering as civil/mechanical/construction engineering. All others are in fields such as electrical or chemical engineering. Still many of these 9 are questionable:

-1.) “Richard Garrison” says he has a civil engineering degree from Purdue University. Yet, although Purdue’s website does confirm that he graduated from there (in December 2007), it says he has a degree in Architectural Technology.

-2.) Couldn’t find anything connecting Warren Fisher to a South African Mechanical Engineers Certificate of Competency.

-3.) Could find no source confirming that Jason Griffin is a member of the ASCE, but in doing a google search I came across a JREF posting that Jason Griffin is listed on ASCE’s directory, available only to members.

-4.) Couldn’t find any source confirming Ted Muga as a Southern Methodist University grad.

-5.) Same situation for Enzo Valenzetti

-6.) Same with Kenneth Wrenn

-7.) Same with Vic Nott. Nothing for a Victor Nott either.

-8.) There is a classmates.com page and a linkedin.com page (both created by the user) stating that Mark Robinson has a degree from the Oregon Institute of Technology, but nothing further.

-9.) Nothing connecting Terri Creech to the University of Oklahoma

Of course, this doesn’t mean that these people have no affiliation with these universities/programs. Typically universities list their professors, so if the majority of these 9 people with relevant alleged engineering degrees (again, only 9 out of 600) have any affiliation with these schools, it’s as a graduate, not a professor. Whatever the case, it goes without saying that there’s much to question about the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice’s member roster. I didn’t look into the members with backgrounds in physics. If anyone else has further info on possibly bogus members, please list them below.

UPDATE: I just noticed that they actually list Arthur Scheuerman, a retired Batallion Chief of the FDNY, as one of their members. For those of you who don't know, Arthur Scheuerman recently did a Hardfire show with Mark Roberts and Ronald Wieck, AGAINST the 9/11 conspiracy theories. These "scholars" for "truth" are so desperate to try to be able to say that members of the FDNY support their claims, that they're taking FDNY firefighter names and adding them to their list themselves.

[boloboffin]

Here is some more information on Enzo Valenzetti (http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/Enzo_Valenzetti).

[John Blonn]

Here is some more information on Enzo Valenzetti (http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/Enzo_Valenzetti).

Perhaps the other 'unknown' members of Scholars listed in the OP were on board Oceanic Flight 815? Quick! Get the flight manifest!

[Calcas]

I signed up over there as an engineer and I'm still listed.

I simply googled someone and used their creds.

I know, I'm so ashamed.

I just wanted to see what kind of inside info they might be sharing. The poor "real" guy probably has no idea he's listed as kook supporter.

Alas, other than spams for donations, I don't receive anything from them.

I think I'm also listed under a different name as an architect "student."

LOL.

[Minadin]

Nice find, Bolo.

@ Calcas - one of the reasons I haven't signed up under any name is that I might actually lend their organization some credibility.

(ack!)

[RKOwens4]

Nice find, bolo. I typically searched Google for the name and school listed, such as "Enzo Velenzetti" and "Catholic University of Leuven", but the Wikipedia article says nothing about any links to a Catholic University of Leuven. If the Scholars entry was correct, you'd think he'd list his university as Princeton University, rather than some university no one's ever heard of.

[Calcas]

@ Calcas - one of the reasons I haven't signed up under any name is that I might actually lend their organization some credibility.

(ack!)

I know.

But, it was over a year ago and I'm still listed.

And, you used the word "credibilty."

LOL. Like names (fake or real) on a website actually provides any.

[RKOwens4]

Dear Lord, it gets worse. I just noticed that they actually list Arthur Scheuerman, a retired Batallion Chief of the FDNY, as one of their members. For those of you who don't know, Arthur Scheuerman recently did a Hardfire show with Mark Roberts and Ronald Wieck, AGAINST the 9/11 conspiracy theories. These "scholars" for "truth" are so desperate to try to be able to say that members of the FDNY support their claims, that they're taking FDNY firefighter names and adding them to their list themselves.

This disgusts me to no end.

[CurtC]

Last year when ae911truth started I didn't sign up with a fake name, but instead posted here at JREF that I had, and gave the name here of someone I found on their site's roster. The next day that poor sap was gone.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Nice find, bolo. I typically searched Google for the name and school listed, such as "Enzo Velenzetti" and "Catholic University of Leuven", but the Wikipedia article says nothing about any links to a Catholic University of Leuven. If the Scholars entry was correct, you'd think he'd list his university as Princeton University, rather than some university no one's ever heard of.


Oh, man... :( That's not Wikipedia. The Enzo Valenzetti that boloboffin linked to is a fictional character in the Lost (the television show) universe, specifically their "alternate reality game" that played out a couple years ago.

[Jonnyclueless]

Last year when ae911truth started I didn't sign up with a fake name, but instead posted here at JREF that I had, and gave the name here of someone I found on their site's roster. The next day that poor sap was gone.

I don't know why but I took great delight in that post. it gave me a nice chuckle. And the irony being that it was probably a fake profile anyways.

[BigAl]

On a tangent, search j911s pdf files for ellipses, "...". I found more than 100, most of them were in citations to FDNY quotes. In essentially all cases, when the original text was found, the text that was omitted ran contrary to the assertion the quote was supposed to support. Somehow, when a Twoofer is presented with both versions, it makes no impression on them, whatsoever.

[RKOwens4]

So Enzo Valenzetti is an entirely fictional character? This is even more pathetic than I'd thought. Or more hilarious. I'm not sure which.

[GregoryUrich]

I decided to do my own analysis of the roster for the members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.

-Of the approximately 600 names on Scholars’ roster, only 169 members list the university they’re affiliated with (by my count). 31 of these 169 are current students. The other approximately 72% either explicitly list n.a. when it comes to degree and university affiliation, or state that they have a degree but don’t list the university, making it impossible to verify anything at all about them.

-Of the 28% who do affiliate themselves with a university, approximately 50% explicitly list the field/industry for their degree as something entirely unrelated to anything relevant to investigating 9/11 by any stretch of the imagination, such as Dental Assistant, Video Animation, Fashion Merchandising. Of the remaining 50%, many have degrees in questionably-related fields such as theology or history, while still more do not list what their Ph.D. or B.A. is in, leaving us to guess.

-Of the roughly 600 members, 35 associate themselves with some field of engineering. Of these 35, only 24 list the university in which they received their degree. This doesn’t necessarily discredit the other 11, it just makes it impossible to verify their affiliation with any university. Of these 24, 9 list their field of engineering as civil/mechanical/construction engineering. All others are in fields such as electrical or chemical engineering. Still many of these 9 are questionable:

-1.) “Richard Garrison” says he has a civil engineering degree from Purdue University. Yet, although Purdue’s website does confirm that he graduated from there (in December 2007), it says he has a degree in Architectural Technology.

-2.) Couldn’t find anything connecting Warren Fisher to a South African Mechanical Engineers Certificate of Competency.

-3.) Could find no source confirming that Jason Griffin is a member of the ASCE, but in doing a google search I came across a JREF posting that Jason Griffin is listed on ASCE’s directory, available only to members.

-4.) Couldn’t find any source confirming Ted Muga as a Southern Methodist University grad.

-5.) Same situation for Enzo Valenzetti

-6.) Same with Kenneth Wrenn

-7.) Same with Vic Nott. Nothing for a Victor Nott either.

-8.) There is a classmates.com page and a linkedin.com page (both created by the user) stating that Mark Robinson has a degree from the Oregon Institute of Technology, but nothing further.

-9.) Nothing connecting Terri Creech to the University of Oklahoma

Of course, this doesn’t mean that these people have no affiliation with these universities/programs. Typically universities list their professors, so if the majority of these 9 people with relevant alleged engineering degrees (again, only 9 out of 600) have any affiliation with these schools, it’s as a graduate, not a professor. Whatever the case, it goes without saying that there’s much to question about the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice’s member roster. I didn’t look into the members with backgrounds in physics. If anyone else has further info on possibly bogus members, please list them below.

UPDATE: I just noticed that they actually list Arthur Scheuerman, a retired Batallion Chief of the FDNY, as one of their members. For those of you who don't know, Arthur Scheuerman recently did a Hardfire show with Mark Roberts and Ronald Wieck, AGAINST the 9/11 conspiracy theories. These "scholars" for "truth" are so desperate to try to be able to say that members of the FDNY support their claims, that they're taking FDNY firefighter names and adding them to their list themselves.

You missed some mechanical engineers:

Tony Szamboti
Rob Steinhofer
Jose Molina
Andreas Hedqvist

That you can't find anything on the internet supporting their degrees is not surprising. I know my university does not show any info unless you register on the alumni site and still they don't show the degree.

I don't find it strange that Scheuerman is a member. S911TJ has other members that don't think CD is a viable hypothesis, myself included.

That some morons have submitted false information to a fledgling organization with no budget doesn't impress me either. Also, I suspect that it would be prosecutable so I would advise saboteurs to withdraw their memberships because we do have lawyers in the membership.

Furthermore, your characterization of the membership as absurd and questionable is unfounded and nothing more than "poisening the well". I think it would suffice to challenge the claims of of the organization if you are so able. If you are not, then why not retain some sense of personal dignity and refrain from such attacks.

[Sporanox]

Ahem.

I don't find it strange that Scheuerman is a member. S911TJ has other members that don't think CD is a viable hypothesis, myself included.

In response:

UPDATE: I just noticed that they actually list Arthur Scheuerman, a retired Batallion Chief of the FDNY, as one of their members. For those of you who don't know, Arthur Scheuerman recently did a Hardfire show with Mark Roberts and Ronald Wieck, AGAINST the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

[gtc]

That some morons have submitted false information to a fledgling organization with no budget doesn't impress me either. Also, I suspect that it would be prosecutable so I would advise saboteurs to withdraw their memberships because we do have lawyers in the membership.

What law says you are not allowed to post false information on a website? How many lawyers do you have in the movement and do any of them actually practice law?

Furthermore, your characterization of the membership as absurd and questionable is unfounded and nothing more than "poisening the well". I think it would suffice to challenge the claims of of the organization if you are so able. If you are not, then why not retain some sense of personal dignity and refrain from such attacks.

The Scholars for 9/11 Truth organisation was set up to lend a veneer of credibility to an idea that is, lets face it, absurd. Your spelling and grammer suggest to me that the Scholars are as liable to achieve success as the rest of the misfits, oddballs and lackwits that form the truth movement.

By the way, how do your academic qualifications give you an insight into events of that day?

[Sporanox]

We should probably note that Tony Szamboti has been up the creek without a paddle in regards to this forum, as well. Specifically, his conspiracy theory didn't hold water.

[beachnut]

You missed some mechanical engineers:

Tony Szamboti
Rob Steinhofer
Jose Molina
Andreas Hedqvist

That you can't find anything on the internet supporting their degrees is not surprising. I know my university does not show any info unless you register on the alumni site and still they don't show the degree.

I don't find it strange that Scheuerman is a member. S911TJ has other members that don't think CD is a viable hypothesis, myself included.

That some morons have submitted false information to a fledgling organization with no budget doesn't impress me either. Also, I suspect that it would be prosecutable so I would advise saboteurs to withdraw their memberships because we do have lawyers in the membership.

Furthermore, your characterization of the membership as absurd and questionable is unfounded and nothing more than "poisening the well". I think it would suffice to challenge the claims of of the organization if you are so able. If you are not, then why not retain some sense of personal dignity and refrain from such attacks.
There are many false names at those truth sites. When they go to stand up an army, it will be thin.

All the members at these 9/11 truth places have some sort of political bias that pops out and makes them gravitate to false information on 9/11. Must be a sickness or something that makes the sign a petitions claiming they have "ample evidence" and fail to see they are liars! They have exactly zero evidence. They can not support one idea with evidence. How lacking of knowledge on 9/11 issues do you have to be to join such a fraudulent group, any 9/11 truth group?

Tony puts the political tripe as does Jones, in his papers; supposedly scientific papers laced with veiled or outright political tripe. Scientific they are not!

Papers filled with errors and false are the major products of 9/11 truth. Jones even made up the thermite with zero evidence; now trying to back in anything he can to keep his pathetic fantasy going.

Too bad you lack "ample evidence", your movement is the anti-knowledge group. Just want to be anti-war people and a few looking to make a buck off of gullible people lacking knowledge who love to buy hearsay books based on false information, or pure fictional DVD videos of junk, and bad science and physics lace DVD of "truth". Ironic and pure fiction is 9/11 truth's name and products.

Still looking for the "ample evidence" you already have?

[johnny karate]

That some morons have submitted false information to a fledgling organization with no budget doesn't impress me either.

Yeah, that's it. It's a budget issue. It's not that this fraud of an organization is looking to inflate their numbers by any means necessary to lend them the appearance of importance and credibility.

Too bad they don't have access to some of that sweet NWO money that RKOwens4 must have used to fund the massively budgeted background check he did on their membership.

[T.A.M.]

You missed some mechanical engineers:

Tony Szamboti
Rob Steinhofer
Jose Molina
Andreas Hedqvist

That you can't find anything on the internet supporting their degrees is not surprising. I know my university does not show any info unless you register on the alumni site and still they don't show the degree.

I don't find it strange that Scheuerman is a member. S911TJ has other members that don't think CD is a viable hypothesis, myself included.

That some morons have submitted false information to a fledgling organization with no budget doesn't impress me either. Also, I suspect that it would be prosecutable so I would advise saboteurs to withdraw their memberships because we do have lawyers in the membership.

Furthermore, your characterization of the membership as absurd and questionable is unfounded and nothing more than "poisening the well". I think it would suffice to challenge the claims of of the organization if you are so able. If you are not, then why not retain some sense of personal dignity and refrain from such attacks.

4 more mech engineers...WOW!! I am impressed. Now they have almost as many as ONE TEAM of the NIST Report.

Are you implying that Scheuerman, while not supporting CD, doubts the official narrative of 9/11? You have proof to back up this suggestion?

Whether a university site provides degree information on individuals or not, the honest thing for a joining member to do, when supposedly lending their academic credentials to an organization for credibility, is to post the school at which they received their degree, for verification.

Your WEAK comment that a "budget" is the reason that organization could not properly vet the credentials of those joining their site is...well...too weak for any comment beyond "Bullcrap!"

There is no "Poisoning the Well" by vetting their membership, which they use, flaunt, and promote to supposedly enhance their legitimacy (lol on that one).

TAM:)

[uk_dave]

There are only two possible reasons for why a website organisation, purporting to be a serious campaigning vehicle for professionals to voice concern about an accepted scenario, would not ensure that those who sign up are provably within the remit of their title:

1. They don't care so long as they get the numbers and keep their fingers crossed that no one finds them out

2. They're too stupid for words.

[GregoryUrich]

Yeah, that's it. It's a budget issue. It's not that this fraud of an organization is looking to inflate their numbers by any means necessary to lend them the appearance of importance and credibility.

Too bad they don't have access to some of that sweet NWO money that RKOwens4 must have used to fund the massively budgeted background check he did on their membership.

This thread seems to have attracted the more lack-luster JREFers who lack critical thinking skills and simply get off on putting other people down. If the organization was trying to inflate anything, I assure you we would have alot more PhDs and in the more pertinent technical fields.

Note that RKOwens didn't prove anything other than that the information cannot be found online. In terms of the quality of his work, it took me about 2 minutes to show that his data was off by 44%. A careful researcher no doubt.

[gumboot]

There are only two possible reasons for why a website organisation, purporting to be a serious campaigning vehicle for professionals to voice concern about an accepted scenario, would not ensure that those who sign up are provably within the remit of their title:

1. They don't care so long as they get the numbers and keep their fingers crossed that no one finds them out

2. They're too stupid for words.


That's a false choice fallacy. It could also be:

3. All of the above.

[gumboot]

In terms of the quality of his work, it took me about 2 minutes to show that his data was off by 44%. A careful researcher no doubt.


He's a fledgling researcher with a very small budget...:rolleyes:

[johnny karate]

This thread seems to have attracted the more lack-luster JREFers who lack critical thinking skills and simply get off on putting other people down.

The irony in that sentence is staggering. And say what you will about my lack of critical thinking skills, but I have I plenty of luster.

If the organization was trying to inflate anything, I assure you we would have alot more PhDs and in the more pertinent technical fields.

Sure, if they wanted wanted to inflate their numbers by being blatantly fraudulent. But what we're talking about is this particular organization's rather dubious screening process. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt by assuming that they merely accept anyone who signs-up as opposed to just out and out lying.

Note that RKOwens didn't prove anything other than that the information cannot be found online. In terms of the quality of his work, it took me about 2 minutes to show that his data was off by 44%. A careful researcher no doubt.

Math isn't my strong suit, so you'll have to explain where that 44% figure comes from, and to what particular set of data you are referring, since RKOwens presented a lot. Furthermore, I have carefully inspected your post and found it to be 32% wrong.

And the fact that some of the information couldn't be found on-line was kind of the point. No one looking at the roster has anyway to verify who those people are. Seems like kind of an important thing for an organization seeking credibility to provide.

[gtc]

If your research skills are so good, how come you think 9/11 was an inside job?

[GregoryUrich]

What law says you are not allowed to post false information on a website? How many lawyers do you have in the movement and do any of them actually practice law?

The Scholars for 9/11 Truth organisation was set up to lend a veneer of credibility to an idea that is, lets face it, absurd. Your spelling and grammer suggest to me that the Scholars are as liable to achieve success as the rest of the misfits, oddballs and lackwits that form the truth movement.

By the way, how do your academic qualifications give you an insight into events of that day?

The lawyers are probably all fake so nothing to worry about.

I believe we are talking about Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice which split from the original Scholars for 9/11 Truth for a number of reasons. The organization and it's membership are more about research than a facade of credibilty. I think our web site would be alot slicker if we were just trying to sell absurd ideas.

I acknowledge that our affiliated journal has published a few papers with egregious mistakes. Consequently, I would urge anyone to contribute opposing views to the Journal of 9/11 studies. I believe the open discussion of these ideas will eventually result in corrections that most people can accept.

Every engineer learns enough physics and mechanics to be able to see that Bazant and Zhou did not prove anything. Careful analysis has shown that they were indeed so far off (15x) that questions were in fact warranted. Personally, I have enough knowledge of mechanics to demonstrate that Newton's Bits critique of Ross (after all the back patting here at JREF) was flawed to the extent that it didn't prove anything. Newton's Bit acknowledges this but we both agree the Bazant's ultimate conclusion (although not supported in Bazant's article) is correct.

[GregoryUrich]

The irony in that sentence is staggering. And say what you will about my lack of critical thinking skills, but I have I plenty of luster.

Sure, if they wanted wanted to inflate their numbers by being blatantly fraudulent. But what we're talking about is this particular organization's rather dubious screening process. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt by assuming that they merely accept anyone who signs-up as opposed to just out and out lying.

Math isn't my strong suit, so you'll have to explain where that 44% figure comes from, and to what particular set of data you are referring, since RKOwens presented a lot. Furthermore, I have carefully inspected your post and found it to be 32% wrong.

And the fact that some of the information couldn't be found on-line was kind of the point. No one looking at the roster has anyway to verify who those people are. Seems like kind of an important thing for an organization seeking credibility to provide.

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend your sense of luster.

I haven't really looked into it, but I don't think there are many organizations that provide a way for the public to verify the credentials of their members. So why is this organization attacked for the same standard?

I agree that the organization should be better at verifying credentials. AE911T is better, for example, and I'm still not a verified member because I haven't gotten around to scanning my diploma. Regardless, I assure you there is no nefarious intent at S911TJ.

[GregoryUrich]

If your research skills are so good, how come you think 9/11 was an inside job?

I haven't suggested that my research skills are better than anyone elses and I'm not sure it was an inside job.

I think it is worth investigating because the Bush administration clearly new about the specific threat before hand and arranged one of the most complicated military exercises in history to conicide with possibly the highest terrorist threat level in history. Afterward, they lied about foreknowledge, obstructed the congressional inquiry and resisted the creation of the commission.

[Swing Dangler]

I signed up over there as an engineer and I'm still listed.I simply googled someone and used their creds.
I know, I'm so ashamed.
I just wanted to see what kind of inside info they might be sharing. The poor "real" guy probably has no idea he's listed as kook supporter.
Alas, other than spams for donations, I don't receive anything from them.
I think I'm also listed under a different name as an architect "student."
LOL.

Wow, great character traits! You will lie and impersonate a professional without his knowledge in an attempt to join an organization to get "inside" information. Not only that if you did use a "real" engineer you just added on more 'real' name to their list. Great debunking! I would have thought that a debunker would have used at least a false name, but you used a real one. How comical is that?

Why not use your real name and credentials? Never mind, coward comes to mind or at the least the lack of any credentials to be used to support your position.

[DGM]

I haven't suggested that my research skills are better than anyone elses and I'm not sure it was an inside job.

I think it is worth investigating because the Bush administration clearly new about the specific threat before hand and arranged one of the most complicated military exercises in history to conicide with possibly the highest terrorist threat level in history. Afterward, they lied about foreknowledge, obstructed the congressional inquiry and resisted the creation of the commission.

Why don't you source this claim for us? You didn't think you could just drop this and not be called on it did you?

[GregoryUrich]

Why don't you source this claim for us? You didn't think you could just drop this and not be called on it did you?

Honestly, I didn't think anyone would have an issue with that. I admit, it's my impression based on descriptions of the war games and the threat I have read. If you know differently why not just say so.

[Good Lt]

Honestly, I didn't think anyone would have an issue with that. I admit, it's my impression based on descriptions of the war games and the threat I have read. If you know differently why not just say so.

Why don't you just provide the source? It's easier for everyone to gauge the merit of your opinion if you let us all know where you are getting this super-obvious information.

Thanks.

[gtc]

Why not use your real name and credentials?

And your credentials are?

[Dave Rogers]

I think it would be helpful, Gregory, if you gave an idea of how complex the military exercises in progress on 9-11 were, and how this compares with the complexity of military exercises in progress at other times. That would at least give some justification to the assertion that this was "one of the most complicated military exercises in history", and dispel the appearance you're currently giving of having either made something up or repeated something you've seen on a conspiracist website without examining it for errors.

As for the terrorist threat level, having lived through a couple of decades in the UK where terrorist attacks were commonplace and another was constantly expected, I would argue that even the level of intelligence warnings described in the 9-11 Commission Report would not correspond to "the highest terrorist threat level in history". Did you mean, perhaps, to qualify this with the term "US domestic" at some point?

I'd be reluctant to accuse you of excessive hyperbole, but you seem to have a tendency to abandon rigour when you step outside the field of structural collapse analysis.

Dave

[Swing Dangler]

And your credentials are?

I'm not attempting to deceitfully join an organization composed of professionals, therefore the question is irrelevant.

[gtc]

I'm not attempting to deceitfully join an organization composed of professionals, therefore the question is irrelevant.

Actually the question is very relevant as the rest of your post shows:


Never mind, coward comes to mind or at the least the lack of any credentials to be used to support your position.

I'll ask you again. What are your credentials in relation to discovering the truth about 9/11?

[mrbaracuda]

And your credentials are?

He dangles swings? (Creepy name if I might say) ;)

[Swing Dangler]

Actually the question is very relevant as the rest of your post shows:I'll ask you again. What are your credentials in relation to discovering the truth about 9/11?

What are my credentials? That of course is irrelevant because you have no way to verify my credentials.


Do all debunkers suffer from reading comprehension? Please re-read the post I was responding to.

Finally, please stop the attempts to derail the thread. Thank you.

[chillzero]

I think both of you should stop bickering over this. It is irrelevant to this particular thread, and is the same hissy fit that is rehashed every time this list is discussed. The OP lists specific issues with the list, and I don't see that being addressed.

RKOwens4, have you contacted Arthur Scheuerman about his name being included here? I wonder would he have any legal redress for mis-use of his name and authority?

[boloboffin]

S911TJ has other members that don't think CD is a viable hypothesis, myself included.

Wait a minute, what?

Mr. Urich, you are also listed as a member of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, although you haven't supplied your credentials in hardcopy form according to their website. And yet you do NOT consider controlled demolition a viable hypothesis? That is the sole reason for the existence of that group.

Did you actually sign up there and change your mind? Because this is the petition you would have to have signed to become a member there:

Please Take Notice That:

On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

[applecorped]

Left a good job at McDonald’s
Still living with my mom at 23

I’ve lost a lot of hours of needed sleep
Keeping up with the woo from Avery

NWO keeps the world turning
The towers didn’t fall because of burning

Trolling, Trolling, Trolling on the river…

[gtc]

I think both of you should stop bickering over this. It is irrelevant to this particular thread, and is the same hissy fit that is rehashed every time this list is discussed. The OP lists specific issues with the list, and I don't see that being addressed.

RKOwens4, have you contacted Arthur Scheuerman about his name being included here? I wonder would he have any legal redress for mis-use of his name and authority?

I am not having a hissy fit.

Someone (and it is irrelevant which side of the debate they are on) has claimed that not providing one's creditentials is cowardly or indicates a lack of credentials. I am telling that person, if they really believe that, then they should be prepared to provide their credentials. If this has been addressed previously, then please provide the link to that thread.

This thread is about the credentials (or lack there of) of people claiming to be members of the truth movement. I can't see how this is not relevant.

Edited to add, Gregory Urich was able to answer the question without difficulty in post 27. I don't see how that post was off topic.

[gumboot]

I think it is worth investigating because the Bush administration clearly new about the specific threat before hand and arranged one of the most complicated military exercises in history to conicide with possibly the highest terrorist threat level in history.

:dl:

Please tell me you're joking?

[gumboot]

Honestly, I didn't think anyone would have an issue with that. I admit, it's my impression based on descriptions of the war games and the threat I have read. If you know differently why not just say so.


The military exercises being conducted on 9/11 have been held every year for decades, so to suggest they are "the most complicated in history" is ridiculous. They weren't even frikken field exercises for pity's sake.

My supervising officer at my officer selection course told us of observing an Indian Army field exercise that involved live maneuvering of three entire divisions. That exercise alone dwarfs the Guardian exercises that were being held on 9/11.

As for "terrorist threat level", since the USA didn't even have a terrorist threat level until March 12, 2002, the only conclusion one can make is that the terrorist threat level on 9/11 was zero.

[chillzero]

I am not having a hissy fit.
I didn't say you were.

Someone (and it is irrelevant which side of the debate they are on) has claimed that not providing one's creditentials is cowardly or indicates a lack of credentials. I am telling that person, if they really believe that, then they should be prepared to provide their credentials. If this has been addressed previously, then please provide the link to that thread.

Every time this list is discussed, someone points out that they don't check the credentials claimed. Another member will then claim that this is shockingly dishonest behaviour, and the thread derails for a while on that red herring as both sides ask for each others' credentials. The whole point is that the credentials claimed on that list are not checked, and yet are touted as both valid and supportive to the CT. That is what gets overlooked, and never addressed when this is raised.

This thread is about the credentials (or lack there of) of people claiming to be members of the truth movement. I can't see how this is not relevant.

The thread is about the credentials of people listed on a specific list. That's where I would like to see the focus remain.

Edited to add, Gregory Urich was able to answer the question without difficulty in post 27. I don't see how that post was off topic.

GregoryUrich was addressing this specific list, which is why it was on topic. He also mentioned something I alluded to myself - legal ramifications, albeit he is looking at the other side from I am. I would really like to know if someone who has been listed there erroneously can sue.

GU is interested in whether the list owners can sue those who sign up with flase names/credentials. I would have thought not, because surely they should have criteria and checking processes in place to manage this possibility?

I do think some of the last few posts are off topic, and may be reported if the thread does not get back on track. I was not posting as a mod, though - I was trying to participate.

[kookbreaker]

One thing the 'Boohoo, debunkers are putting fake names on AET' crowd seems to forget is that Richard Gage early on outright bragged about how he would be checking credentials thoroughly and that no one would appear listed who had not undergone a background check of his/her experience. This was serious business Gage all but said. He was very proud of this fact.

So, one of the ways to debunk something is demonstrate how it is not true. By submitting fake names, sometimes patently obvious fake names into Gage's entry, it was demonstrated that Gage's bragging was an out-and-lie. The fact that several of the fake names are still in place demonstrates that Gage has limited interest in correcting his claims and lies.

Several troofers have whined about this, calling it vandalism or patent dishonesty. They often complain that just because Gage doesn't do what he says he would do doesn't give us any right to submit fake names. They complain that it is akin to robbing a house because the door is unlocked. But the comparison is invalid, as there is no profit in submitting a fake name, merely the satisfaction of demonstrating a blowhard is full of crap.

One wonders about their opinions of undercover cops or reporters who are trying to expose criminal activity or corruption.This is merely a citizens version of that activity. Any efforts to call it otherwise are attempt to cover for the fact that Gage has not done what he said, nay bragged about what he would do to keep the organization legitimate.

[T.A.M.]

I would think simply signing up would not make much of a case for civil litigation, but if any comments or opinion were given with the signing up, that might be different...

However, some might argue that simply signing up to a CT site (debate it all you want, it is what it is. You can wrap it up in a "scientific persuit" bow if you want, it is still a CT site), is grounds for defamation of character...lol

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

One thing the 'Boohoo, debunkers are putting fake names on AET' crowd seems to forget is that Richard Gage early on outright bragged about how he would be checking credentials thoroughly and that no one would appear listed who had not undergone a background check of his/her experience. This was serious business Gage all but said. He was very proud of this fact.

So, one of the ways to debunk something is demonstrate how it is not true. By submitting fake names, sometimes patently obvious fake names into Gage's entry, it was demonstrated that Gage's bragging was an out-and-lie. The fact that several of the fake names are still in place demonstrates that Gage has limited interest in correcting his claims and lies.

Several troofers have whined about this, calling it vandalism or patent dishonesty. They often complain that just because Gage doesn't do what he says he would do doesn't give us any right to submit fake names. They complain that it is akin to robbing a house because the door is unlocked. But the comparison is invalid, as there is no profit in submitting a fake name, merely the satisfaction of demonstrating a blowhard is full of crap.

One wonders about their opinions of undercover cops or reporters who are trying to expose criminal activity or corruption.This is merely a citizens version of that activity. Any efforts to call it otherwise are attempt to cover for the fact that Gage has not done what he said, nay bragged about what he would do to keep the organization legitimate.

just one point though. While all of the above is valid, the list in question, IIRC is for S.Jones "Scholars for T & J" site.

TAM:)

[chillzero]

kookbreaker - thanks for wording that a bit clearer than I did.

T.A.M. - what about people who have been listed, but not by themselves?

[Pookster]

... Also, I suspect that it would be prosecutable so I would advise saboteurs to withdraw their memberships because we do have lawyers in the membership....

Why would you need lawyers to report a crime?

[T.A.M.]

kookbreaker - thanks for wording that a bit clearer than I did.

T.A.M. - what about people who have been listed, but not by themselves?

I am no lawyer, so I am only casting my opinion, but I would think that (A) you would never be able to track such a person down, as the info given would be false, and the email address likely given on sign up would be faked, and the info of where or who it really came from would not likely be divulged by the email server company, (B) I am not sure that simply signing up to a site as someone else would in and of itself be sufficient to sue over, I am not sure what the charge would be except for perhaps "Impersonating someone".

for instance, it is alleged that a user normally known as "Troy of WV" signed up over at "Loose Change" Forum some time ago as me "T.A.M.". Now I think I would have NO CASE for legal recourse in my case, as he was signing up as my online pseudonym, but even if he had under my real name, i am not sure I would have a case so long as nothing inflammatory or defaming was posted by him (although in my example he did post such things).

TAM:)

[Pookster]

Wow, great character traits! You will lie and impersonate a professional without his knowledge in an attempt to join an organization to get "inside" information. Not only that if you did use a "real" engineer you just added on more 'real' name to their list. Great debunking! I would have thought that a debunker would have used at least a false name, but you used a real one. How comical is that?

Why not use your real name and credentials? Never mind, coward comes to mind or at the least the lack of any credentials to be used to support your position.

While not necessarily something admirable or worthy of condoning, going "undercover" or assuming a false identity to determine if fraud is taking place, or if procedures are being followed (i.e. mystery shopper, etc) is not an uncommon practice. Your self-righteous indignation is duly noted though.

[chillzero]

I am no lawyer, so I am only casting my opinion, but I would think that (A) you would never be able to track such a person down, as the info given would be false, and the email address likely given on sign up would be faked, and the info of where or who it really came from would not likely be divulged by the email server company, (B) I am not sure that simply signing up to a site as someone else would in and of itself be sufficient to sue over, I am not sure what the charge would be except for perhaps "Impersonating someone".

for instance, it is alleged that a user normally known as "Troy of WV" signed up over at "Loose Change" Forum some time ago as me "T.A.M.". Now I think I would have NO CASE for legal recourse in my case, as he was signing up as my online pseudonym, but even if he had under my real name, i am not sure I would have a case so long as nothing inflammatory or defaming was posted by him (although in my example he did post such things).

TAM:)

I meant the person being impersonated. I wonder if Mr Scheuerman can sue the site for not removing his name if it is not him.

[T.A.M.]

While not necessarily something admirable or worthy of condoning, going "undercover" or assuming a false identity to determine if fraud is taking place, or if procedures are being followed (i.e. mystery shopper, etc) is not an uncommon practice. Your self-righteous indignation is duly noted though.

While that is correct, it is usually done by representative of the company in question. This is somewhat different, though I know it was likely done for good reason (to point out the flaw in not vetting online sign up lists).

TAM:)

[Pookster]

One thing the 'Boohoo, debunkers are putting fake names on AET' crowd seems to forget is that Richard Gage early on outright bragged about how he would be checking credentials thoroughly and that no one would appear listed who had not undergone a background check of his/her experience. This was serious business Gage all but said. He was very proud of this fact.

So, one of the ways to debunk something is demonstrate how it is not true. By submitting fake names, sometimes patently obvious fake names into Gage's entry, it was demonstrated that Gage's bragging was an out-and-lie. The fact that several of the fake names are still in place demonstrates that Gage has limited interest in correcting his claims and lies.

Several troofers have whined about this, calling it vandalism or patent dishonesty. They often complain that just because Gage doesn't do what he says he would do doesn't give us any right to submit fake names. They complain that it is akin to robbing a house because the door is unlocked. But the comparison is invalid, as there is no profit in submitting a fake name, merely the satisfaction of demonstrating a blowhard is full of crap.

One wonders about their opinions of undercover cops or reporters who are trying to expose criminal activity or corruption.This is merely a citizens version of that activity. Any efforts to call it otherwise are attempt to cover for the fact that Gage has not done what he said, nay bragged about what he would do to keep the organization legitimate.

Doh! You beat me to it! :)

[T.A.M.]

I meant the person being impersonated. I wonder if Mr Scheuerman can sue the site for not removing his name if it is not him.

I knew who/what you meant, I guess I was just unclear in addressing it.

I do think there would be more of a recourse possible if the impersonated went after the site that didn't vet the imposter, and allowed the false membership to remain, then to go after the person doing the impersonating.

TAM:)

[Pookster]

While that is correct, it is usually done by representative of the company in question. This is somewhat different, though I know it was likely done for good reason (to point out the flaw in not vetting online sign up lists).

TAM:)

Usually, but consumer groups (and such) can/do pose as customers/clients/etc to determine if claims are true. It's a legitimate practice, as long as no laws are broken in the process.

[Swing Dangler]

One thing the 'Boohoo, debunkers are putting fake names on AET' crowd seems to forget is that Richard Gage early on outright bragged about how he would be checking credentials thoroughly and that no one would appear listed who had not undergone a background check of his/her experience. This was serious business Gage all but said. He was very proud of this fact.

So, one of the ways to debunk something is demonstrate how it is not true. By submitting fake names, sometimes patently obvious fake names into Gage's entry, it was demonstrated that Gage's bragging was an out-and-lie. The fact that several of the fake names are still in place demonstrates that Gage has limited interest in correcting his claims and lies.

Several troofers have whined about this, calling it vandalism or patent dishonesty. They often complain that just because Gage doesn't do what he says he would do doesn't give us any right to submit fake names. They complain that it is akin to robbing a house because the door is unlocked. But the comparison is invalid, as there is no profit in submitting a fake name, merely the satisfaction of demonstrating a blowhard is full of crap.

One wonders about their opinions of undercover cops or reporters who are trying to expose criminal activity or corruption.This is merely a citizens version of that activity. Any efforts to call it otherwise are attempt to cover for the fact that Gage has not done what he said, nay bragged about what he would do to keep the organization legitimate.

Please don't derail the thread. The OP is focused on Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice's membership roster, not Richard Gage and Architects for 9/11 Truth.

[chillzero]

I knew who/what you meant, I guess I was just unclear in addressing it.

I do think there would be more of a recourse possible if the impersonated went after the site that didn't vet the imposter, and allowed the false membership to remain, then to go after the person doing the impersonating.

TAM:)

Yeah. I;d like to think Mr Scheuerman would at least insist in removal of his name, which is why I asked if it had been brought to his attention. I hope someone (maybe Ron - I assume pomeroo has his contact info) would point it out to him.

[Swing Dangler]

I meant the person being impersonated. I wonder if Mr Scheuerman can sue the site for not removing his name if it is not him.

But Chillzero, Mr. Scheuerman may not even know his name is on the roster. One debunker earlier in this thread has already admitted to signing up for membership a real credentialed person. Detestable of course, but pertinent to the topic.

Who is to say a debunker or for that matter a truther didn't submit the Mr. Scheuerman name for approval?

Someone ought to contact him at least and let him know.

[Pookster]

kookbreaker - thanks for wording that a bit clearer than I did.

T.A.M. - what about people who have been listed, but not by themselves?

Using a name itself would likely not be viewed as a problem, unless sufficient additional identifying data was also given that directly points to a specific person.

[Dave Rogers]

Who is to say a debunker or for that matter a truther didn't submit the Mr. Scheuerman name for approval?

Someone ought to contact him at least and let him know.

I've sent a PM to Pomeroo, who ought to have contact details for Mr. Scheuerman since he appeared on Hardfire recently, and asked him whether he could do just that.

Dave

[chillzero]

But Chillzero, Mr. Scheuerman may not even know his name is on the roster. One debunker earlier in this thread has already admitted to signing up for membership a real credentialed person. Detestable of course, but pertinent to the topic.

Who is to say a debunker or for that matter a truther didn't submit the Mr. Scheuerman name for approval?

Someone ought to contact him at least and let him know.

Mostly, that's exactly what I was saying. (Thanks Dave Rogers for PMing pom)

Where we disagree, is that I find it less objectionable for people to test whether false credentials are permitted, than for someone to claim those listed credentials as valid without confirmation. The person in the wrong here is Gage.

[Caper]

Wait a minute, what?
And yet you do NOT consider controlled demolition a viable hypothesis? That is the sole reason for the existence of that group.


Well I'm not sure about that.

http://www.ae911truth.org/cardsorder.php

[Pookster]

Mostly, that's exactly what I was saying. (Thanks Dave Rogers for PMing pom)

Where we disagree, is that I find it less objectionable for people to test whether false credentials are permitted, than for someone to claim those listed credentials as valid without confirmation. The person in the wrong here is Gage.

Agreed. Also, I suspect any liability there may be for any damages would likely fall on Gage as well, rather than a submitter of the name (although it would obviously depend on the given situation). Not following his own procedures would put Gage in a position I'd not want to be in concerning a matter such as this.

[GregoryUrich]

I think it would be helpful, Gregory, if you gave an idea of how complex the military exercises in progress on 9-11 were, and how this compares with the complexity of military exercises in progress at other times. That would at least give some justification to the assertion that this was "one of the most complicated military exercises in history", and dispel the appearance you're currently giving of having either made something up or repeated something you've seen on a conspiracist website without examining it for errors.

As for the terrorist threat level, having lived through a couple of decades in the UK where terrorist attacks were commonplace and another was constantly expected, I would argue that even the level of intelligence warnings described in the 9-11 Commission Report would not correspond to "the highest terrorist threat level in history". Did you mean, perhaps, to qualify this with the term "US domestic" at some point?

I'd be reluctant to accuse you of excessive hyperbole, but you seem to have a tendency to abandon rigour when you step outside the field of structural collapse analysis.

Dave

I did say "probably" and I should have said "inside the US". Most of the sources I have read are spread throughout the Complete 9/11 Timeline. I'll review them and summarize when I get a chance.

[chillzero]

Perhaps you could take that to a new thread though?

[GregoryUrich]

Wait a minute, what?

Mr. Urich, you are also listed as a member of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, although you haven't supplied your credentials in hardcopy form according to their website. And yet you do NOT consider controlled demolition a viable hypothesis? That is the sole reason for the existence of that group.

Did you actually sign up there and change your mind? Because this is the petition you would have to have signed to become a member there:

I joined them a while back because I thought there were legitimate questions and there were. Now most of them have been resolved. We still haven't seen the report on WTC7 so I am reserving judgement in that case. I know...too many people involved, what's the motive, etc, etc.

[GregoryUrich]

Mostly, that's exactly what I was saying. (Thanks Dave Rogers for PMing pom)

Where we disagree, is that I find it less objectionable for people to test whether false credentials are permitted, than for someone to claim those listed credentials as valid without confirmation. The person in the wrong here is Gage.

The OT is about S911TJ. AE911T does verify members' credentials and Arthur Scheuerman is not listed as a member. I have taken this up with the steering commitee at S911TJ and hopefully will be able to shead some light on the issue.

[Jonnyclueless]

If Mr Urich thinks that these web sites stand a chance for a lawsuit against people falsely signing up, then I think he should consider the problem of fraud for which the sites represent. I think that would make for a far bigger lawsuit.

But of course if these "scholars" cannot even back up their own claims, then I would think it's doubleful that the lawyers among them can even read. So let them continue to masquerade around misleading people into thinking that they are a large number of experts, most of whom are dentists, hair dressers, painters etc. Let them bypass the legitimate procedures of scientific method by creating their own journal and peer reviewing themselves thus bypassing the goal of peer review which is to ensure the research is correct.

And let them continue with their absurd motto of wanting a new independent investigation. For those who don't understand the irony in this, keep in mind that these are supposedly a large group of experts who claim to be more than capable of their own investigation yet sit here demanding for one. Perhaps a lack of common sense on their part?


You can try to pretty it up all you want, but any way your dress it, there is only one word for it. Fraud.

[Sabrina]

I did say "probably" and I should have said "inside the US". Most of the sources I have read are spread throughout the Complete 9/11 Timeline. I'll review them and summarize when I get a chance.

Gregory, allow me to save you the time.

The exercises held on 9/11 were not the most complicated or involved ones in military history, and indeed probably comprised no more than 2-3,000 actual soldiers spread over several different exercises that weren't even dealing with the logistics of setting up in the field. For comparison; last year, for my annual training requirement, I participated in an exercise held in California called Pacific Warrior. All told (and I may be underestimating the total) there were probably over five thousand soldiers involved in that ONE exercise in several different locations. The Regional Readiness Command responsible for hosting the exercise was tasked with providing food, shelter, and transportation (not to mention the MWR requirements (Morale, Welfare, and Recreation for you non-military folks) they had to arrange) for these thousands of soldiers over a period of approximately thirty days. They had to arrange flights, rental vehicles (some units were coming from clear across the United States, mine included), ensure that each soldier had a bunk and had access to food and water, and try to arrange activities for the admittedly small amount of downtime we had to keep the soldiers' morale high. By comparison, the exercises held on 9/11, which did not have to worry about much shelter except for a few higher ranking folks from out of town, probably didn't have to worry about much in the way of transportation, and only had to make arrangements with the local cafeteria to be ready for an influx of soldiers during the day are relatively small potatoes.

[Minadin]

. . . other than that, though, it was HUGE!


I'm still laughing that they have listed a fictional character from a Lost sidestory.

Has anyone checked for the following names:
Zephram Cochrane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zephram_Cochrane)
Dr. John H. Watson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Watson)
Dr. Samantha Carter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Carter)

[beachnut]

:dl:

Please tell me you're joking?
He drank the Kool-Aid and signed the petition to be a dyed in the wool 9/11 extra special truther, who claims to have "ample evidence" to take Americans to trial for 9/11. His science is tainted with a bias so big, he is just discovering his "ample" lack of knowledge on 9/11 in real time as we do! He has not researched this, this is OJT of an T&J scholar; irony to the 10th power.

I doubt the members actually know the full extent of the false information Jones spreads without evidence. Some of those on the rosters have no idea they signed up, and some only exist on that internet page. You are wasting time with Greg, if he had read any of your work he would understand his statements are irrelevant for 9/11 and he lacks the ability to come prepared to even his treads. He will now report to the guys in his cult and tell them they need to check the stuff out about credentials but they will be business as usual, they can not afford to have a truthful membership rosters, members who are knowledgeable on 9/11, the list would be 3 people.

[pomeroo]

My thanks to Dave Rogers for calling this matter to my attention. I have sent an e-mail to Arthur and will post his response as soon as I receive it.


For a thorough discussion of the "war games" canard, see:

http://911myths.com/html/stand_down.html

[johnny karate]

I haven't really looked into it, but I don't think there are many organizations that provide a way for the public to verify the credentials of their members. So why is this organization attacked for the same standard?

Because sites like S911TJ are the ultimate appeal to authority. They expect people to believe their claims and take them seriously precisely because of their credentials. Therefore, verification of those credentials is crucial to the site's existence.

[SDC]

... only had to make arrangements with the local cafeteria to be ready for an influx of soldiers during the day are relatively small potatoes.

Cut by me to the conspiratorial bit.

So!! You admit that the entire scheme was to compel our armed forces to satisfy their hunger with non-standard-size root vegetables!

I don't think I've ever come across a plot so evil in its implications. So vast a conspiracy... (Hyperventilates, pitches over backwards out of desk chair.)

[SDC]

Please don't derail the thread. The OP is focused on Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice's membership roster, not Richard Gage and Architects for 9/11 Truth.

Anyone else flash back to the Monty Python's Life of Brian, at this?

What's the quote... People's Front of Judea vs the Judean People's Front? Something like that.

[gtc]

The two scholars groups even share a website. Bizarre.

By the way Swing Dangler, extending the analysis of the OP to the other groups of 'scholars' is hardly a derail. The front page of the forum would be very crowded if it was necessary to start a new thread for each group of truthers who falsely claim various credentials as an appeal to authority.

[gumboot]

Anyone else flash back to the Monty Python's Life of Brian, at this?

What's the quote... People's Front of Judea vs the Judean People's Front? Something like that.

Brian: Are you the Judean People's Front?
Reg: **** off!
Brian: What?
Reg: Judean People's Front! We're The People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front, God!
Rogers: Blighters...
Brian: Can I...join your group?
Reg: No, piss off!
Brian: I didn't want to sell this stuff, it's only a job! I hate the Romans as much as anybody!
All in PFJ except Brian: Ssch! Ssch! Ssch! Ssch! Ssch!
Brian: Oh.
Judith: Are you sure?
Brian: Oh, dead sure. I hate the Romans already.
Reg: Listen! If you wanted to join the PFJ, you'd have to really hate the Romans.
Brian: I do!
Reg: Oh, yeah, how much?
Brian: A lot!
Reg: Right, you're in. Listen, the only people we hate more than the Romans, are the ****ing Judean People's Front.
All in PFJ except Brian: Yeah!
Judith: Splitters!
Rogers: And the Judean Popular People's Front!
All in PFJ except Brian: Yeah! Splitters!
Loretta: And the People's Front of Judea!
All in PFJ except Brian: Yeah! Splitters!
Reg: What?
Loretta: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters!
Reg: We are the People's Front of Judea!
Loretta: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
Reg: People's Front! God...
Rogers: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
Reg: He's over there.
All in PFJ except Brian: Splitter!

:D

[LashL]

I suspect that it would be prosecutable


Your suspicion is incorrect.

so I would advise saboteurs to withdraw their memberships because we do have lawyers in the membership.

Oh noes!

Perhaps you should have consulted the "lawyers in the membership" before opining as you did above. Although, in light of the calibre of the "lawyers in the membership", I suppose that doing so may not have been of any assistance to you, in any event.

"Saboteurs"? Sounds ominous. <insert scary music here> The rhetoric in your post is rather amusing, GregoryUrich, as is your not so subtle (and unfounded) threat of legal repercussions. :rolleyes:

If the organization is at all concerned about the accuracy or credibility of its membership list, the "lawyers in the membership" should be advising the organization to adopt and implement appropriately stringent procedures for additions to and management of its membership list. If, on the other hand, the organization is not at all concerned about the accuracy or credibility of its membership list, then it should continue to do exactly what it has done to date, which is to leave it wide open for anyone and everyone to simply "sign up" via the internet, without any appropriate vetting protocols at all.

[RKOwens4]

I just noticed that Unfahig Gelehrte has been added as a member to Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice's roster. Anyone want to guess what Unfahig Gelehrte translates to?

Don't blame me. The other members in this thread put the idea in my head. :)

[LashL]

Anyone want to guess what Unfahig Gelehrte translates to?

Something along the lines of "incompetent scholar"???

Don't blame me. The other members in this thread put the idea in my head. :)


:D

[jhunter1163]

I wonder if anyone ever told GregoryUrich that we here at JREF have lawyers in our membership too.

[RKOwens4]

You got it, LashL. ;)

[LashL]

I just noticed that over at the pseudo-scholars' site, they have this notice on their "Action" page:

We believe that in addition to spreading information through essays, talks and media, actions may be required to bring the necessary change to expose the truths of the 9/11 attacks. Below are actions and ideas for actions which we support and encourage you to participate in.
Support the Legal Defense Fund for Whistleblower Kevin Ryan
Help hold Underwriters Laboratories accountable for its role in testing the World Trade Center steel.
Of course, Kevin Ryan's ill-fated lawsuit against UL was dismissed last August, was not appealed by Ryan, and the time for appealing is long past.

So, the question is this: by continuing to encourage people to send money to Ryan to "help hold Underwriters Laboratories accountable for its role in testing the World Trade Center steel" when the lawsuit was dismissed 8 months ago, are the "scholars" merely incompetent (i.e. for failing to update their crappy website) or are they being intentionally dishonest?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[RKOwens4]

Unbelievable. I just tried sending an email to the main website, ultruth.com, asking them if they'll close the website and stop asking for donations, but it turns out my email didn't go through because their mailbox is full. Oh well. I sent a similar email to the Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, which went through. I'll let you know if they respond.

[RKOwens4]

Today they replied back with:

"Thanks for the reminder! We've been focused on other things and haven't updated the links recently, but need to."

Focused on other things? So taking money from unsuspecting persons who don't know that the legal case ended over 8 months ago isn't important? That's the truth movement for you, folks.

[T.A.M.]

yah, I'd like to see proof they will return all the money donated since the case was over as well.

TAM:)

[LashL]

Today they replied back with:

"Thanks for the reminder! We've been focused on other things and haven't updated the links recently, but need to."

Focused on other things? So taking money from unsuspecting persons who don't know that the legal case ended over 8 months ago isn't important? That's the truth movement for you, folks.


Nice.


ETA: Now, let's see how long they take to "update the links" and what they "update" them to...

[LashL]

Not surprisingly, the pseudo-scholars have still not found the time to "update their links" to remove the links to the bogus Kevin Ryan Legal Defense Fund crap (which they link to no less than three times - on their home page, their "Action" page, and their "Resources and References" page) but they have managed to find the time to "update their links" to add more BS about the entirely-devoid-of-science letter that they paid to have published on a vanity publishing website.

They've managed to find the time to dishonestly tout their little letter (that took five pseudo-scholars with zero civil engineering background, knowledge or expertise to say absolutely nothing new, noteworthy or science based) as a "peer-reviewed paper" - despite the fact that they were only willing to pay $600 to get their little letter published and were not willing to pay $800 for the *cough* privilege of calling it a "research article" (paper) in the same vanity publication. It is obvious that their goal was simply to buy space in a publication, as cheaply as possible, in order to dupe people into believing their little letter was actually "peer reviewed", actually a "paper", actually accepted by a legitimate journal, and actually had any basis in science. They have failed miserably in all regards. It would be sad if it wasn't so pathetic.

Yet, they still continue to encourage people to send money to Kevin Ryan to "help hold Underwriters Laboratories accountable for its role in testing the World Trade Center steel" even though Ryan's lawsuit was dismissed 8 months ago.

They are liars. It is not that they have not had time to "update their links". It is deliberate and dishonest behaviour on the part of these pseudo-scholars to dupe unsuspecting and uninformed people out of money for the benefit of one of their own - namely, Kevin Ryan.

[T.A.M.]

you know what, in this case I dunno how I feel. It is wrong for the snake oil salesmen to take money under false pretenses, but given that the whole TM is based on false assumptions and lies, how much more wrong is this. As well, if the doorknobs that are the TM cultists are stupid enough to continue to give, it is there money...

TAM:)

[LashL]

Today they replied back with:

"Thanks for the reminder! We've been focused on other things and haven't updated the links recently, but need to."

Focused on other things? So taking money from unsuspecting persons who don't know that the legal case ended over 8 months ago isn't important? That's the truth movement for you, folks.


More than two weeks have passed and the "scholars" links (three of them on three separate pages, including their front page, their "Action" page and their "Resources and References" page) are still there, not changed or "updated" at all.

These *cough* "scholars" are still soliciting donations to the "Kevin Ryan Legal Defense Fund" even though his claim was dismissed with prejudice more than 8 months ago. They are still touting his long defunct lawsuit as though it was current, despite the fact that it was dismissed with prejudice more than 8 months ago.

They are still pretending that donating to the bogus Kevin Ryan fund will "help hold Underwriters Laboratories accountable for its role in testing the World Trade Center steel" even though the court ruled that Kevin Ryan failed miserably to meet even the lowest possible evidentiary basis for his unsubstantiated claims in this regard.

These *cough* "scholars" are still touting Kevin Ryan as a "whistleblower" even though the court ruled definitively that he is not a whistleblower at all.

This is reprehensible behaviour on behalf of the "scholars" but, sadly, it is not the least bit surprising, coming as it does from members of the so-called Truth™ movement.

It will be interesting to see if the "scholars" take as long or longer than their fellow traveller and companion conspiracy fantasist, Richard Gage, took to "update" his site to remove some (very few) of his lies after being called on them.

Tick tock... tick tock...

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Wow, great character traits! You will lie and impersonate a professional without his knowledge in an attempt to join an organization to get "inside" information. Not only that if you did use a "real" engineer you just added on more 'real' name to their list. Great debunking! I would have thought that a debunker would have used at least a false name, but you used a real one. How comical is that?

Why not use your real name and credentials? Never mind, coward comes to mind or at the least the lack of any credentials to be used to support your position.

Could we have someone who is not a known nazi sympathizer (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/02/few-thoughts-on-scholarship-and-911.html) come in and attack Calcas's character, please?

[Pookster]

... They are still pretending that donating to the bogus Kevin Ryan fund will "help hold Underwriters Laboratories accountable for its role in testing the World Trade Center steel" even though the court ruled that Kevin Ryan failed miserably to meet even the lowest possible evidentiary basis for his unsubstantiated claims in this regard. ...

I wonder if at some point this reaches the level of criminal fraud.

[Confuseling]

I reckon it's the doctrine of preemption. They are collecting a legal defense fund for the upcoming trial concerning the fraudulent soliciting of donations. Quite clever, when you think about it.