PDA

View Full Version : The "Scholars" Contraversy - Inside source tells it all - gotta read


T.A.M.
27th August 2006, 09:32 AM
this is a quote posted on LC by 9/11Eyewitness 08/27/2006:


This is a letter Ginny (worked for Scholars) asked me to post on forums for her in relations to recent problems in ST911:

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

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

And who has control of the webpage? Jim Fetzer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And, undaunted, to move forward.

The August 18th assessment appears below.

Ginny



August 18, 2006
Jim --

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

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

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

It’s not about loyalty in that sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have not gotten one response from you about that.

As a consequence, one thing I’ve done is try to drag my feet as much as possible, without looking totally incompetent, on admitting new members. Why? Because I can’t stand the thought of sending decent, caring people, many of whom write quite compelling personal statements, into the forum snake pit, which is the only thing ST911 offers them by way of contact with the organization. I’ve been hoping (now, I fear, against hope) that ‘something’ would soon change for the better so that I could admit them in good conscience.

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

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

If we are set upon ‘saving democracy’, I am very, very clear about one thing: You can’t do that without a competent citizenry. And the first step in having a competent citizenry is treating people with respect.

It isn’t RESPECTFUL to invite people to join you to save their country * and then provide them no structure in which to even begin to serve a useful purpose.

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

And yet as I watch in the background, I don’t see any indication that if I approached you on these issues I would get a thoughtful, helpful response. What I see, especially lately, is very erratic, dictatorial behavior.

It’s very disturbing to me.

And now we come to the issue of Steve Jones.

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

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

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

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

What you’re going to see are four pictures:

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

(2) A picture presumably of thermite burning.

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

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

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

This is the 'detail' Jones fails to mention.

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

Why is he doing this?

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

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

But let’s say you don’t want to deal with the ‘non-glowing, silvery-gray-at-all-temperatures’ aluminum issue?

How about this one:

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

How do I know this?

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

Jeffrey Farrer:
a BYU Dept. of Physics lab manager; apparently a graduate student
Doyle Winterton:
a man in his 70s who worked as a civil engineer but has no advanced
degrees and never held an academic appointment
Joseph Phillips
we don’t really know, but he might be a vineyard owner who once
got a degree in construction engineering.

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

Now *

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

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

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

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

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

MY BOTTOM LINE:

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

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

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

I don’t know which is worse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,
Ginny Howard




Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:02:44 -0500
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: Ginny Howard <missginny@charter.net>
Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: ST911 and Membership

Ginny,

Thank you for this extremely interesting post. I had thought it was odd that new members were not showing up, but now I understand. I will see what I can do in arranging a replacement. I appreciate your assistance and am considering everything you have told me. Thanks very much.

Very Interesting, don't you think...says alot about the possible credentials of alot of the "Scholars"

Oh and here is a link to S. Jones Reply to the Reynolds/Wood Article...for an added tidbit..

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/JonesReplytoReynolds-Wood.doc

TAM

Stellafane
27th August 2006, 09:50 AM
A better person than I would not derive so much visceral enjoyment and satisfaction over seeing the 9/11 CT movement dissolve in so many different ways, in so many different places.

But I am not that person.

A-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA AAA....

Dog Town
27th August 2006, 09:56 AM
I agree it is hard not to giggle like a school girl! The end is near. I think 911 this year will be the last act in this dark comedy, of theirs!

Bwahhhhhaaaaaa!

DT

Can , or has this been posted at LC?

T.A.M.
27th August 2006, 09:57 AM
I originally got it from LC. See link

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11395&st=180

Brainster
27th August 2006, 11:59 AM
I love that she's writing to Jim Fetzer about the fact that there are liars in the Scholars for 9-11 Truth; that's like writing to David Duke to alert him that there are racists in the Klan.

T.A.M.
27th August 2006, 12:01 PM
ROFLMAO...oh so true

Grundar
27th August 2006, 12:21 PM
That thread is comedy gold. :D

solgrabber:
Evidence of fusion devices at the WTC:

1. pulverization of 99% of concrete into ultra fine dust as recorded by official studies. Concrete dust was created instantly throughout the towers when the fusion device million degree heat rapidly expanded water vapor in the concrete floors.

2. Superheated steels ablating (vaporizing continuously as they fall) as seen in video clips of the towers collapsing. This requires uniform temperatures roughly twice that of thermate.

3. 22 ton outer wall steel sections ejected 200 meters into the winter garden. Cutting charges cannot provide the energy required.

4. 330 ton section of outer wall columns ripping off side of tower. Cutting charges cannot provide energy required.

5. Molten ponds of steel at the bottom of elevator shafts (WTC1, WTC2, WTC7) Thermate is impractical for lower level demolition due to the thickness of the 47 steel columns.

6. The spire behavior (stands for 20-30 seconds, evaporates, goes down, steel dust remains)

7. Sharp spikes in seismograph readings (Richter 2.1 and 2.3) occurred at the beginning of collapse for both towers. Short duration and high power indicate explosive event.

8. A press weighting 50 tons disappeared from a basement floor of Twin Towers and was never recovered from debris.

9. Wide area electrical outage, repairs took over 3 months. Fusion devices cause EM pulse with Compton Effect.

10. Fires took 100 days to extinguish despite continuous spraying of water. Thermate would cool down much faster.

11. Brown shades of color in the air due nuclear radiation forming sulfuric acid. TV and documentary footage changed the color balance to blue to disguise this fact indicating complicity in the coverup.

12. Elevated Tritium values measured in the WTC area but not elsewhere in New York. Official studies stated that 8 EXIT signs from two commercial Boeing jets were responsible. This is why the "no commercial planes" line of inquiry is very important and should not be ignored or attacked. It can provide conclusive proof of fusion devices and therefore US/Israeli military involvement.

13. Pyroclastic flow observed in the concrete-based clouds. Only found with volcanic eruptions and nuclear detonations. Jim Hoffman unfortunately missed this obvious observation in his papers.

14. Huge expanding dust clouds 5 times the volume of the building indicating extreme levels of heat generated far in excess of traditional demolition explosives.

15. Rubble height was some 10% of the original instead of 33% expected in a traditional demolition. Fusion device removal of underground central steel framework allowed upper framework to fall into this empty space and reduce the rubble height.

16. No survivors found, except some firefighters in one corner pocket in the rubble who looked up to see blue sky above them instead of being crushed by collapsing debris. Upward fusion flashlight beam of destruction missed this pocket but removed debris above firemen.

17. 14 rescue dogs and some rescue workers died far too soon afterward to be attributed to asbestos or dust toxins (respiratory problems due to alpha particles created by fusion that are far more toxic)

18. Record concentrations of near-atomic size metal particles found in dust studies due to ablated steel. Only possible with fusion.

19. Decontamination procedure used at Ground Zero (hi-pressure water spraying) for all steel removed from site. Water spraying contains fusion radiactivity.

20. No bodies, furniture or computers found in the rubble, but intact sheets of paper covered the streets with fine dust. Items with significant mass absorbed fusion energy and were vaporized while paper did not. Paper and Powder theory.

21. 200 000 gallon sprinkler watertanks on the roofs of WTC1 and WTC2, but no water in the ruins. Heat of fusion devices vaporized large reservoirs of water.

22. reports of cars exploding around the WTC and many burned out wrecks could be seen that had not been hit by debris. Fusion energy blast and EM pulse caused electrical components in cars to explode and burn vehicles far from WTC site.

23. EM pulse was recorded by broadcast cameras with high quality electronic circuitry. This occurred at the same time as the seismic peaks recorded by Lamont Doherty during the beginning of the collapse. This is due to the Compton Effect and resulted in a large area power outage at the WTC.

the quest:
In general, I have to agree with most regarding the 2nd tower and NPT or even discussing the video/photo evidence is controversial, but the issue is much more complicated than that. The god's honest truth is that NO ONE definitively knows what happened with the 2nd tower strike. No one. Except the perps. That event was performed with more smoke and mirrors than anyone can shake a stick at. We also have almost as many opinions on what happened. Because we don't know who, if anyone here is a disinfo agent, we must be careful when using those terms. Personally, even I would like to know who KT is about now but aside from the obvious JREF'rs, I can't think of anyone that I would look at and say "disinfo agent!". Some of our best contributors and senior members question what happened with the 2nd tower strike. That does not mean we/they were NPT'rs but rather we/they reserve the right to question the event freely. For what it's worth, personally, I don't mind if we drop it altogether. It can be debated elsewhere. We have a mountain of evidence available in the form of controlled demos and no plane at the Pentagon and Shanksville. The problem is that there are not only members here that think it's worth discussing, they don't see any harm in it. There are also others that, even if they don't agree with NPT, they are not threatened by the discussion and feel that those that wish to discuss it should have the right to do so. In the meantime we have one member posting his 'evidence' all over ALT of PODs and missles. These photos and videos from Cameraplanet, CNN and Der Spegel have never been verified for thier authenticity. Don't you think that's relevant? There are others yet, that see the MSM 'evidence' as infallible yet they don't see a POD much less a missle. However, I don't want to get into the technical merits of this debate. I feel we should either decide if LC is an activism site that is going on what we currently feel is provable and leave the research to others or decide if research and debate is done here as well. Unless we make a decision on this, flare-ups ike those we experienced over the last few weks will likely continue.

That is our predicament.

P.S. If you're going to knock those that specualateded on NPT or even those that question the MSMphoto/video evidence like myself, please share YOUR opinion on what happened at the 2nd tower strike.

still the quest:

No one is bashing anyone. Questions are being asked. However, you are welcome to your opinion
He is talking about the LC forum. :rolleyes:

bingo:
1. Yes, it was written to discredit Jones' research.
2. Yes, because the thermite research Jones performed is weak.
3. The mini-nuke theory attempts to explain phenomena such as steel turning into dust, pulverization of concrete, molten pools, burned-out cars, EMP pulses, horseshoe-shaped steel beams. Thermite doesn't begin to explain it.
4. 'No Boeing at the Pentagon' is not controversial among truthers and is widely accepted.
5. The Shanksville hoax is one of our biggest smoking guns. Re the excellent work of Killtown on this subject.
6. The 'no-plane' issue cannot be discussed on this forum.



openeyes:
This is getting ridiculous and people seriously need to start getting banned.
thats more like it. :)

To be fair some of the quotes are not the full post.

/Hans

Brainster
27th August 2006, 12:48 PM
this is a quote posted on LC by 9/11Eyewitness 08/27/2006:

Oh and here is a link to S. Jones Reply to the Reynolds/Wood Article...for an added tidbit..

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/JonesReplytoReynolds-Wood.doc

TAM

Oh, man, I love that no-plane debunking, especially the bit about oscillation of the South Tower. Once again the 9-11 Deniers come through with solid analysis and research when it's not their own pet theory.

I also chuckled at this:

I could go on, but the fact is that as editor of the Journalof911Studies.com, I have invited Morgan Reynolds and whoever he wishes to join him, and another author to write papers on BOTH sides of this issue – did REAL planes hit the Twin WTC Towers, or not? Both sides agreed. In this way, readers will have two peer-reviewed scholarly papers side by side, both confronting the evidences presented above and whatever other evidences they wish to bring in – and then the reader can judge for himself or herself.

Because of course, we can put together scholarly, peer-reviewed papers on both sides of the no planes issue.:eek:

BTW, anybody want to bet that "whoever he wishes to join him" will turn out to be Rick Rajter?

brumsen
27th August 2006, 01:14 PM
As a former member, one thing jumped out at me from Ginny's email:

This ‘structure’ * if one can call it that * is completely inadequate for meaningfully supporting a membership in the hundreds * unless those numbers are intended only to serve as window dressing for a few public personalities.
Once I had understood this - after trying to discuss with Fetzer some public statements he had made - I was out of there.

No, another this jumped out as well:
My final observation is that the leadership (Jones and Fetzer) have abused the trust placed in them (too willingly) by the ST911 membership. It is therefore up to the MEMBERSHIP to re-establish it's commitment to high standards of integrity in thought and action, and to bring these men to account.

As if that's ever going to happen. Take the leadership up on something and you're out (http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/JoinUs.html).

Membership is a privilege, not a right. Should either of the chairs conclude that an individual's participation tends to undermine the objectives of the society, that person's membership may be suspended and she may no longer access the forum or be identified with Scholars of 9/11 Truth.

defaultdotxbe
27th August 2006, 01:25 PM
anyone else notice sun zoo is now unregistered? who won the pool?

Abbyas
27th August 2006, 01:30 PM
Brumsen,

You and I may not agree with much re:911. However, I sincerely applaud you for not going along with Fetzer's scholars just because they have the same views.

steve s
27th August 2006, 02:08 PM
That thread is comedy gold. :D

solgrabber:
Evidence of fusion devices at the WTC:

1. pulverization of 99% of concrete into ultra fine dust as recorded by official studies. Concrete dust was created instantly throughout the towers when the fusion device million degree heat rapidly expanded water vapor in the concrete floors.

3. 22 ton outer wall steel sections ejected 200 meters into the winter garden. Cutting charges cannot provide the energy required.


So apparantly there was a nuclear bomb on every floor of the WTC? You think people would have noticed 200+ nukes going off at once.

16. No survivors found, except some firefighters in one corner pocket in the rubble who looked up to see blue sky above them instead of being crushed by collapsing debris. Upward fusion flashlight beam of destruction missed this pocket but removed debris above firemen.

L. Ron Hubbard couldn't even come up with stuff this good. I'm going to start slipping the phrase "Upward fusion flashlight beam of destruction" into every conversation I have.:D

23. EM pulse was recorded by broadcast cameras with high quality electronic circuitry.

Ignoring the fact that the EMP would have fried said circuitry in those cameras.

Steve S.

sleahead
27th August 2006, 03:04 PM
So apparantly there was a nuclear bomb on every floor of the WTC? You think people would have noticed 200+ nukes going off at once.

Yep. And the irony here is that Professor Jones, whose field this is, has actually examined steel from the towers for radioactivity. If a nuclear device was used, the steel would be irradiated and would be radioactive. He found no radioactivity beyond the normal backgound level. Thanks for debunking that one, Prof Jones.

R.Mackey
27th August 2006, 03:06 PM
Good recap.

For some reason, I keep forgetting that in a previous life, Steven Jones was a cold-fusion researcher.

This I don't understand. I've spent long periods of time researching things that didn't work out, too. But a real scientist doesn't cling to them if the results are simply wrong. If one does, one is either dishonest (if one distorts the results), or a piss-poor researcher (if one can't understand them). Science takes care of its own, but only if you adhere to its principles.

Sword_Of_Truth
27th August 2006, 03:54 PM
So is it safe to assume that this guys (http://www.911blogger.com/node/2257) resume is all padding as well?

Given that he appeared first on Fetzer's radio program, do we dare take his credentials at face value?

T.A.M.
27th August 2006, 04:24 PM
Beyond having an engineering degree, i wouldn't take anything for granted with him...

gumboot
27th August 2006, 04:51 PM
That thread is comedy gold. :D


3. 22 ton outer wall steel sections ejected 200 meters into the winter garden. Cutting charges cannot provide the energy required.

4. 330 ton section of outer wall columns ripping off side of tower. Cutting charges cannot provide energy required.


Hmmm... it needed more energy than cutting charges. And what is the only thing on the entire planet more powerful than cutting charges? FUSION! It's so obvious.



11. Brown shades of color in the air due nuclear radiation forming sulfuric acid. TV and documentary footage changed the color balance to blue to disguise this fact indicating complicity in the coverup.

:dl:

Wow, I never realised that. Now I know all I need to hide smog is to switch the "color balance to blue". That's hilarious. That's just... oh I'm speechless.



13. Pyroclastic flow observed in the concrete-based clouds. Only found with volcanic eruptions and nuclear detonations. Jim Hoffman unfortunately missed this obvious observation in his papers.

:confused:

1) Pyroclastic flows only occur in SOME volcanic eruptions
2) The WTC collapse does not involve pyroclastic flows



16. No survivors found, except some firefighters in one corner pocket in the rubble who looked up to see blue sky above them instead of being crushed by collapsing debris. Upward fusion flashlight beam of destruction missed this pocket but removed debris above firemen.


Aside from the minor quibble that they were Port Authority Police Officers, not firemen...what the **** are they on about?



20. No bodies, furniture or computers found in the rubble, but intact sheets of paper covered the streets with fine dust. Items with significant mass absorbed fusion energy and were vaporized while paper did not. Paper and Powder theory.

Tell that to the rescue workers who pulled body after body out of the rubble, hoping in vain that each one was still alive.



23. EM pulse was recorded by broadcast cameras with high quality electronic circuitry.


Are they serious?

-Andrew

Mancman
27th August 2006, 05:20 PM
16. No survivors found, except some firefighters in one corner pocket in the rubble who looked up to see blue sky above them instead of being crushed by collapsing debris. Upward fusion flashlight beam of destruction missed this pocket but removed debris above firemen.

Don't forget the two people on the 13th floor of WTC1.

Class
27th August 2006, 05:27 PM
Have they forgotten about William Rodriguez? If I remember correctly, 20 people were pulled out of the rubble alive.

Senor_Pointy
27th August 2006, 05:39 PM
I'm sorry, but what is ST911? Is it the 'scholars' for 'truth'?

Dog Town
27th August 2006, 05:41 PM
Si!

shuize
27th August 2006, 05:42 PM
"The government used small nukes on 9/11"

Dumbest. CT. Ever.

T.A.M.
27th August 2006, 05:47 PM
I am still waiting for someone to say it was aliens, or as I have always contended, the Leprachans...;)

brodski
27th August 2006, 06:12 PM
I am still waiting for someone to say it was aliens, or as I have always contended, the Leprachans...;)
actually, ask some of the real old timers around here about "Carlos" and his 9/11 UFO CT, I think he got banned back in 2002 or 2003 (way before my time). Can anyone fill in the details?

T.A.M.
27th August 2006, 06:17 PM
unrelate dquestion...
how do you change the description of "who you are" underneath your name...right now mine says critical thinker, but up above some one has "fruity" something or other...how do you change that??

gumboot
27th August 2006, 06:20 PM
Have they forgotten about William Rodriguez? If I remember correctly, 20 people were pulled out of the rubble alive.

A total of 18 (http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020909/asurvivor.html) survived the collapse.

She was buried in the rubble for more than 26 hours; on Sept. 12, around 12:30 p.m., she became the last of just four people caught in the debris to be found alive. (An additional 14, mostly fire fighters, survived relatively unscathed in a lower part of stairway B that stayed upright.)

-Andrew

brodski
27th August 2006, 06:24 PM
unrelate dquestion...
how do you change the description of "who you are" underneath your name...right now mine says critical thinker, but up above some one has "fruity" something or other...how do you change that??
You can't change it directly yourself, but if you post a request in this thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=45138&page=15 the Title Pixie/ Fairy will usually change it within a couple of days.
Leaving a saucer of milk out is optional. ;)

CurtC
27th August 2006, 09:27 PM
actually, ask some of the real old timers around here about "Carlos" and his 9/11 UFO CT, I think he got banned back in 2002 or 2003 (way before my time). Can anyone fill in the details?
Carlos watched a videotape of when the South Tower was struck. In the foreground, a common Rock Pigeon flew past, but it was blurred partly because it was not in focus, but mainly because it was moving pretty fast in the frame.

The version of the video he watched had every other frame removed, which is common in digital video. So the bird looked like an elongated blur, then in the next frame it was still an elongated blur, but its position was different by two times the amount of elongation in one frame. I hope that makes sense.

It just so happened that the gap of where a frame was missing coincided with the location of the tower in the background, so that to Carlos it looked like it passed behind the tower. And at the speed it streaked by, had it been on the other side of the tower, it would have been moving extraordinarily fast. Carlos thought it was some kind of paranormal object. Carlos and his friend latinjral did image manipulation to try to make out what the blurry thing was, and to most of us here it looked like a hat. The joke became this paranormal hat, which you may still see referred to.

Carlos had actually sent the tape to Randi, trying to claim the million dollar prize, and was incensed that his application was refused. Much of the discussion from him was about the legal paperwork, but the JREF rightly said he had no case because there was no agreement up front stating what Carlos could do, and no test. Carlos had trouble understanding this.

It was finally resolved when a member here got his hands on the original tape, without the missing frames, and these clearly showed the object passing in front of the tower. I don't think Carlos ever admitted defeat, but as I recall we didn't hear much from him after that.

ktesibios
28th August 2006, 10:31 AM
"Upward fusion flashlight beam of destruction"

Hmm. It's a little too long for a band name, but that would be a great album title.

Bronze Dog
29th August 2006, 10:51 AM
"Upward fusion flashlight beam of destruction"

Hmm. It's a little too long for a band name, but that would be a great album title.

Here's something close to it. (http://www.homestarrunner.com/puppetjam2.html)

Spektator
29th August 2006, 10:55 AM
Re CurtC's note about Carlos: I may be mistaken, but I believe Carlos was finally banned for violating Forum guidelines, possibly the one that essentially says "Don't be an eediot, man."

brodski
29th August 2006, 11:01 AM
Re CurtC's note about Carlos: I may be mistaken, but I believe Carlos was finally banned for violating Forum guidelines, possibly the one that essentially says "Don't be an eediot, man."
I was told that eh was banned for spamming/ flooding the forum. Apparently he has been banned from other forums for doing the same, including a forum which prided itself on never banning anyone.
There is no "Don't be an eediot, man." rule, this is proven by the fact that Iammme is still here.

Spektator
29th August 2006, 04:45 PM
I stand corrected, brodski. You are right--he flooded the forum and was abusive toward the admins.

However, I do maintain that the aforementioned offenses fall within the essential meaning of the act expressed as "Don't be an eediot, man."

defaultdotxbe
29th August 2006, 04:52 PM
"Upward fusion flashlight beam of destruction"

Hmm. It's a little too long for a band name, but that would be a great album title.

i thought it sounds more like an anime weapon, japanese schoolgirl pulls out a maglite and says "Upward Fusion Flashlight Beam of Destruction!" while sparkly things spin around her, then some alien space fortress blows up

fuelair
29th August 2006, 05:52 PM
Read it, and sent an e-mail congratulating them on the LOL writing and apologised for thinking them a batch of nut cases. What a batch of nut cases!!!!!!!

gumboot
29th August 2006, 06:35 PM
"Upward fusion flashlight beam of destruction"

Hmm. It's a little too long for a band name, but that would be a great album title.


You've got a band name and your first two albums there:

Flashlight - Upward Fusion
Flashlight - Beam Of Destruction

Get writing those song!

-Andrew

Graham2001
29th August 2006, 06:59 PM
"The government used small nukes on 9/11"

Dumbest. CT. Ever.

But the idea seems to be spreading. At last we see the consequences of 11/09/01 CTs, their ideas are now being used as propaganda by Muslim Extremists.

The spiritual leader of the Islamic group responsible for the Bali Bombings is now claiming that the attacks used 'micro-nukes' supplied by the CIA. Presumably this is the same weapon the CTs claim was used to blow up the WTC.

See: http://tinyurl.com/ht3qx