I just received an email from 9/11 researcher James Gourley:
Steve,

You got shortchanged on this History Channel program. You got to say about 2 sentences at the beginning. Did you tell them about the dust? My girlfriend keeps yelling at the TV about the dust.

This thing is so aggravating to watch. Did you see it?

James

Yes, James, I saw it. And yes, I EMPHATICALLY told them about the dust -- the iron-rich microspheres especially, and the molten metal beneath the rubble of the Towers and flowing out the South Tower just before it collapsed. And the many fine, peer-reviewed articles in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Somehow all those points were missed by these guys... as they hit on the "softer" areas of 9/11 research -- flight 93 (shot down..), missile hitting the Pentagon? and so on...

Greg Palast responded to me on 9 Aug 2007: "An apology and hope for reasoned discourse " For the record, here is the exchange (in brief – several people had input to Greg and I including Peter Phillips, David Ray Griffin, Jack Blood, “Galen”, and Ron Rattner).

1. Dr. Jones email to Greg Palast (12 June 2007):
Dear Mr. Palast,

On May 10, 2007, in an INN TV interview, you made statements which were blatantly defamatory when you called me, by name, a "complete and utter fraud" and a "fruitcake." I demand either a retraction or substantiation of your accusations -- publicly.

A lawyer friend affirms that your statements, available here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=r2oFTiEpIBQ , constitute "malicious defamation."

You taunted: "Mr. Jones, come at me!"
Here I am.

I am ready to respond to your specific objections to my papers, or issues you wish to raise which support the "official story" of the Bush/Cheney administration, after you have first verified that you have actually read what I have written on the subject of controlled demolition at the World Trade Center:

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

In March 2007, blueprints of the WTC Towers finally became available due to release of materials by a whistleblower who asked to remain anonymous. On the same disks of data were found “coded” or essentially unreadable simulations relating to the Tower 2 collapse. In a paper published today in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, Michael H. presents results of his “cracking” of the Weidlinger files and code.

The author writes: “"POVfiles" is in reference to the fact that the output of this simulation software is in POV-Ray format, and that "1780msTO1880ms" is in reference to the output models being 1780 milliseconds to 1880 milliseconds after the initiation of collapse. Problems quickly arose because POV-Ray would not open them, and they were too large to be opened in most text editors, but I was eventually able to get them to work. On this page, you will find my report on the model renders, followed by a render walkthrough, should you desire to render these 3-d models yourself…. The model contained in the files sent to Dr. Jones is quite detailed; the geometry is the output of Weidlinger Associates' Flex simulation of the World Trade Center Two collapse.”

I get the question frequently: “WHEN will the big crunch come?” Today I received via email from 9/11 researcher Nila S. the following prediction: “brace yourselves: The next major False Flag op’s just round the corner... They must—and will—strike before September 11...”

Let me open that question up-- how would you vote? Dig out your crystal ball and indicate your predictions of the “likelihood” the big crunch will be noticeable by the general public (I put my guesses along side as examples):
1. August or September 2007 (30%, sorry Nila)
2. By the end of 2007 (40%)
3. By June 30, 2008 (60%)
4. By the 2008 election (Nov.) (80%)
5. By the end of 2012 (99.99%)
6. Go ahead -- add a date and your likelihood prediction:

Even a 30% likelihood is enough to get me going on preparing... What else can I say to persuade you to get to store up some food, water, and warm clothes (just a start)?

Just received the following email. I was interviewed for this History Channel Documentary on 9/11 "conspiracies" at the conference held at the University of Texas at Austin in April. I believe Webster Tarpley and Alex Jones and others at the conference were also interviewed. Curious to see how much of our comments get through... In any case, a 2-hour documentary on the 9/11 Truth community etc. ought to be interesting... Don't know who they interviewed for the "other side.."

Hi Professor Jones,
I just wanted to let you know that our 2 hour documentary, "The 9/11 Conspiracies," is now set to air on August 12 at 8pm. Once it airs, we can send a copy to you; just pass along the best address to send to you. Thanks so much for doing the interview.

Best regards,
Brad Davis

Picture (Metafile)
Bradley Davis
Producer, NBC News

(Note that Brad is with NBC News, but said that the documentary would air on the History Channel. 8pm -- I think that is Eastern Time.)

Why Did the World’s Most Advanced Electronics Warfare Plane Circle Over The White House on 9/11?
By Mark H. Gaffney
(July volume of the Journalof911Studies.com )

The editors just received word from the author that his paper had to be taken down until further notice, pending approval of posting of some of the photographs in his provocative paper. We did so at the request of the author, who is awaiting approval from CNN to display the photographs of the military plane in question. The editors will restore this paper as soon as approval is received.

Also, please note the letter by Steven W. S., "A Response to the Bennett/Manwell Exchange."
The author writes: "I believe that James Bennett’s questioning of Laurie Manwell's interpretation of the
Angus-Reid poll is unwarranted nit-picking. More importantly I feel that it is also an invalid criticism."

More: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/b/ResponseToBennettManwellExchange.pdf

I have been thinking a great deal in recent weeks about the unfairly accused -- and attacked -- Muslim people. While we seek justice for the true 9/11 perpetrators, we must also seek recompense for victims. This, too, is justice. I propose a humanitarian outreach from the 9/11 Truth community to Iraqi refugees, victims of the 9/11 wars, giving us a very positive goal.

Will you join me?

For background, there appears serendipitously today in the BBC News an article which discusses the Iraqi refugee crisis – and notes that “More than two million Iraqis have left their war-ravaged homeland. The UN says about 50,000 more people leave Iraq each month, mostly to Jordan and Syria which want international help to ease the burden on their services. [snip] "The humanitarian duty calls upon all of us to look more seriously at the size of the problem and acknowledge that there is a real humanitarian crisis," Muhammad Hajj Hamoud, secretary general of Iraq's foreign ministry, told the summit for Iraq's neighbours, as well as the UN, US and UK.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6916791.stm

Five papers were added to the Letters section of the Journal of 9/11 Studies today, as the pace for publication continues to grow. Five papers in one day:

Prof. Graeme MacQueen: Sonic Booms in the Collapse of the Twin Towers?
Gordon Ross, ME: Response to "Anonymous": Partial Logic - Partial Answer
Anonymous: Letter to Gordon Ross (NB: 'anonymous' authorship is strongly discouraged)
Arabesque: 9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Definitions and Examples
Dr. Steven Jones Replies to James Fetzer

There are now about seventy papers total in this peer-reviewed Journal.

The Journal of 9/11 Studies proudly publisheses a peer-reviewed article by Laurie A. Manwell, M.Sc., which deals with overcoming psychological barriers regarding 9/11 truth. The title is: Faulty Towers of Belief: Part I. Demolishing the Iconic Psychological Barriers to 9/11 Truth. http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/FaultyTowersofBeliefPart_I.pdf

A reviewer (Professor) from the University of Waterloo stated:

“This is an excellent paper. The material is convincingly
presented; the argument becomes increasingly intriguing and persuasive
as it moves along…. The real strength of this paper is that it lays out the
complex issues without flinching from the overwhelming differences that
prevent sane discourse on the "truth" of 9/11, while at the same time
maintaining such equanimity.
“The importance of this approach can't be overemphasized. Unless
we get beyond the problems so thoroughly identified in this paper,
how, for example, can we talk about the three towers of the World
Trade Center falling in so short a time, just as though they were a
nicely controlled demolition…?”

A collaboration of group 9/11 family members and researchers challenging the official reports of the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11/01 has filed a Request for Correction (RFC) with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). This RFC is published in the June, 2007, volume of the Journal of 9/11 Studies: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/RFCtoNISTbyMcIlvaineDoyleJonesRyanGageSTJ.pdf

The Request asserts that the NIST Final Report violates information quality standards, draws a conclusion that is inconsistent with its own computer simulations and physical tests and available evidence contrary to it. The Request also says that if this bias is corrected, the NIST simulation clearly indicates that the Towers should not have completely collapsed with such rapidity due to plane damage and fire. The obvious alternative, which the group says should be seriously studied by NIST, is explosive demolition.

Dr. Cate Jenkins holds a PhD in Chemistry and works for the Environmental Protection Agency. She has written an important article -- a Request for Senate Investigation regarding the WTC Dust, here:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/DrJenkinsRequestsSenateInvestigationOnWTCdust.pdf

In an addendum, she also requests an FBI investigation:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JenkinsRequestFBI_Investigation_WTC-Dust.pdf

The reader will note that Dr. Jenkins is not reluctant to criticize EPA and other officials and politicians in her quest for correct science regarding the toxicity of the WTC dust -- and fairness for those people who were injured by that toxic dust. Hundreds even thousands were hurt by the stuff. In an email, Jenna Orkin writes:

"I've worked with and relied on Cate Jenkins for over five years. As far as I know, her science is sterling and she is among the handful of people who spoke up forcefully and truthfully in the beginning when it counted the most but few were able or willing to do so.