Mail Campaign to Professors + Requesting Media Coverage for Upcoming Prof. Jones Presentation

The following email was recently emailed to 700 professors in structural engineering and physics related fields.

Dear Professor:

You are one of seven hundred professors receiving this email. You were chosen for your expertise in structural engineering or related field.

I write this letter asking your help concerning the events of September 11, 2001. Although I try to support my government’s version of events, some new information has surfaced that requires attention.

There is now evidence supporting the theory that the World Trade Center was taken down by controlled demolitions. This contradicts the official government version which states the 9/11 WTC collapses were due to airplane strikes and fire. One example:

NIST WTC 7 Report - Page 6: "An initial local failure at the lower floors (below Fl 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris ... " Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf

On 9/11, three buildings collapsed at the WTC. The Twin Towers, both hit by airplanes, collapsed in the morning. The third collapse was WTC 7, a 47 floor steel framed skyscraper. WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane. Yet it collapsed almost symmetrically, at near free fall speed, into its own footprint, at approximately 5:20 PM.

CBS News video clip of the WTC 7 collapse:

Also interesting are the dozens of reports of explosions, bombs, and flashes in the Twin Towers. In one such example, a FDNY Assistant Commissioner says:

"I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down."

Q. "Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?"

A. "No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw."

Source: New York Times - Oral Histories: pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110008.PDF

BYU Physics Professor Steven Jones has a paper out for peer review, where he discusses many more abnormalities: 'Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?'

Professor Jones presented his theory at a seminar at BYU in September 2005. The sixty attendees included faculty from Physics, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Psychology, Geology, and Mathematics departments. Jones convinced all sixty people that there should be a new 9/11 investigation.

Jones was also covered by several mainstream media outlets, including:
MSNBC's 'The Situation': Video:
KUTV (Salt Lake City CBS affiliate): Video:
Deseret Morning News:

Professor Jones will conduct another lecture concerning the WTC controlled demolition theory on Feb 1, 2006. Please contact him and discuss the evidence!

The following forum thread contains a huge compilation of WTC controlled demolition quotes and videos. Feel free to respond in the thread with any information or comments. Registration is not required:
[original link removed so that initial response can be measured]

I encourage the recipients of this letter to check the information. I ask for those with the knowledge, professionalism, and courage to examine the evidence and speak up in whatever way they consider appropriate.

Thank you very kindly for your assistance.

City, State

I encourage everyone to print out a few copies and drop them by your local professor's mailboxes. Be sure to check the forum link as listed above to see what is probably the most comprehensive list of first hand accounts to demolition on 9/11.

Also, since Jones' presentation is coming up (Feb. 1st) it would be a great idea to push the local media in Utah to cover his presentation. This includes local papers, news broadcasters, and independent media.

You can find a comprehensive list of local media contacts here:

Thanks to CB and Stallion4 for putting this together, hopefully some good contacts will come from it!

Anonymous, below is my reply

Anonymous, below is my reply to you from a thread about a week ago (see ). I posted the below in said thread just alwhile ago, but I post it here also so that you will have a better chance of seeing my below reply.


Anonymous, this whole issue started with Jon Gold questioning Alex Jones for "promoting" Stanley Hilton. Alex Jones has also "promoted" Michael Ruppert and David Ray Griffin.

For all I know Stanley Hilton is a government operative who is being used to intentionally lose the 9/11 case he brought against Bush, et al. The issues concerning what appears to be a pod on the second plane that struck the World Trade Center is certainly not the strongest evidence that the 9/11 truth movement has, but then that's hardly the only thing that Stanley Hilton has spoken on regarding evidence in the case. But it's interesting to note that the judge in the case threw the case out not for lack of evidence, but due to the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity.

As far as the documents referred to in your quote of Stanley Hilton, 199I-WF-213589 would qualify in reference to the first quote, with 199I-WF-213589 and "Rebuilding America's Defenses--Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century: A Report of The Project for the New American Century" of September 2000 qualifying for the second quote.

At any rate, I find the page you reference to be ironic in that it presents Michael Ruppert as being some sort of paragon of truth, when he is guilty of promoting as gospel truth some very odious elitist agendas, such as the elitist "Peak Oil" scam and that the obvious murder of Gary Webb couldn't be anything other than a suicide, and even viciously attacked Alex Jones for presenting evidence that Gary Webb was indeed assissinated.

Between Michael Ruppert and Stanley Hilton, if one had to pick one as being a government operative, I would pick Michael Ruppert. But for all I know both of them are, or for that matter both of them aren't.

Alex Jones, Professor Jones,

Alex Jones, Professor Jones, they're both heroes in my book. Btw, anyone else noticed some very stark 9/11 truth references in some prime time animated shows? Particularly American Dad and The Boondocks. Maybe it's the mainstream picking up on popular conspiracy fodder?

Firstly, I think it's about

Firstly, I think it's about time we stop using the word "conspiracy" to describe the 9/11 discussion since it is quite obvious that the only conspiracy in this subject is the official story.

Secondly, I think it's great you guys in the US are activelly involved in bringing this to the atention of professionals that have the potential to discredit even more the oficial story.

I live in the UK and I would like to get involved more activelly. I already have a blog but even close friends are reluctant to look into it. Is there anything I can do to help spread the truth? Any suggestions are more than welcome.


well, you guys just had your

well, you guys just had your own little 911 last year... maybe you should start with that to get people to look into it...

i think we are running out of time fast so the more people that know the truth in the UK the better...

ER also had a show in which

ER also had a show in which a terrorist blew up a plane in flight over the city. One doc's response as he saw it happen in the sky was "so much for consipracy theories..."

A recent episode of My Name is Earl had the main character spending his freetime watching buildings being demolished on TV. In one clip, they showed a building collapsing from start to finish - the first I have seen on TV since 9/11.

I recommend this

I recommend this one:

God bless America!

pockybot, what 9/11 truth

pockybot, what 9/11 truth reference was in American Dad? i saw the Boondocks commercial,that was great, i also have a Boondocks strip from about a year ago where Huey yells at some guy that there were explosives in the towers.

The episode called "Homeland

The episode called "Homeland Securities", where the CIA dad blames recent neighborhood "terrorist attacks" on his new Arab neighbors(forcing them in a gulag) til they find evidence the CIA was at the scene(in this case, a CIA jacket) The episode ends with a spoof of the Abu Gharib photos. It's interesting to note Seth Macfarlane almost died on 9/11, but barely misses his Flight 11 seat(yep, the same flight 11 that crashed into the north tower) because he was hungover.

yeah, i remember hearing

yeah, i remember hearing about that, i wonder if Mr. Mcfarlane has looked into 9/11 at all since it affected him like that.all i know is that it would have been a damn shame to lose a funny motherfucker like that.that would have been like pouring salt on the already raw 9/11 wound.

Some wargames taking

I hate sounding

I hate sounding melodramatic, but was Halliburton just awarded a contract to build the new internment camps for what appears to be the new "Gestapo"?

What kind of crazy fool

What kind of crazy fool would believe in "Peak Oil". I don't see any evidence of it. Oil bubbles up from the core of the earth and there is an infinite supply of it.

Michael Ruppert is just lucky that all of his predictions are coming true and CNN is just unluckey that they keep interviewing Frank Gaffney.

Anybody got any Euros they would sell me?



How 'bout some greasy oily

How 'bout some greasy oily freedom instead (music),%20Oily%20Fre...

no need to call those who

no need to call those who beleive in 'peak oil' fools.. if you disagree post references, but no need for name calling.. those on both sides of the issue deserve the ability for friendly discussion, not pointless bashing.

"" What kind of crazy fool

What kind of crazy fool would believe in "Peak Oil". I don't see any evidence of it. Oil bubbles up from the core of the earth and there is an infinite supply of it.

Michael Ruppert is just lucky that all of his predictions are coming true and CNN is just unluckey that they keep interviewing Frank Gaffney.

Anybody got any Euros they would sell me?



Edward Rynearson, I assume that's intended as sarcasm.

I don't know what predictions of Michael Ruppert you're referring to when you say "all of his predictions are coming true," but when one spews a globalist elite agenda such as the odious "Peak Oil" scam then it's not difficult for one's predictions to come so-called "true" on the major media surface, since the globalist elite are working quite hard to manufacture the world chaos which they require to usher in their own brand of so-called "order." Perhaps you would care to elaborate on what predictions you are referring to, specifically.

But if you want to go down the road of predictions demonstrating a commentator's credibility, then Alex Jones blows Michael Ruppert out of the water every which way from Monday and back again to Sunday. Alex Jones has been speaking out against government-staged terrorism a lot longer than 9/11, and Alex has been doing a lot of the hard leg-work such as his infiltration of Bohemian Grove, where he video-taped the ruling elite's obsession with dark, occultic rituals, and his video-taping of a number of U.S. military training drills in working with U.N. soldiers in confiscating U.S. citizen's firearms and rounding us up into FEMA camps (of which drills were video-taped before the 9/11 attacks). Alex Jones was saying many years before the 9/11 attacks that the U.S. government is going to stage more terrorist attacks in order to usher in the globalist's self-termed New World Order.

Alex Jones was saying two months before the 9/11 attacks that the globalist elite were going to attack the city of New York and blame it on CIA asset Osama bin Laden. Alex Jones had a campaign in July into September 2001 asking people to call the White House and Congress to tell them that we know that the U.S. government is planning to carry out terrorist attacks in order to blame CIA asset Osama bin Laden, and Alex called this campaign "Operation Expose the Government Terrorists."

Below you can see video of a July 25, 2001 Austin, Texas cable access show of Alex Jones talking about his Operation Expose the Government Terrorists:

As well, Alex Jones was saying that the 9/11 attacks were a government-staged attack on day one, i.e., on the very day of September 11, 2001 itself. (Even I was saying this same thing that very morning to my coworkers at the time, even though I had only heard about the first plane strike via the mainstream media radio on my drive to work, and only heard about the rest that morning second hand from my coworkers. But then, I was already quite well educated about the Luciferian New World Order of the New Age.)

Alex Jones has done more for the 9/11 truth movement than anyone. Indeed, no one else even comes anywhere remotely close to Alex Jones when it comes to this. But that's because he is educated about the whole New World Order agenda, whereas many of the people posting on this blog are still naïve babes who are easily deceived by government propaganda. They don't realize that what is occuring now has been in the works for a long, long time.

And so such naïve babes fall for the government propaganda that we're all going to drop dead any second now unless the government steps in to run all our lives, necessitating massive increases in funding, power, and control for the government. Whether it has to do with the "Peak Oil" scam or the phoney "environmental" movement, such naïve dupes just eat it up. They don't comprehend that the 9/11 attacks have little to do with the Bushes or the neo-conmen. The globalist elite can throw such puppets away like a used condom and the agenda will still move forward. But the naïve babes believe in the fairy tale told to them growing up, that if they can just get the "right" people into office, and get the "baddies" out, then things will be better.

Such naïve babes have a very short outlook, politically speaking. Whereas the globalist elite play them like a fiddle, and in the chess board of life are many moves ahead of them. That's because such naïve dupes have had their entire Weltanschauung shaped since birth by the ruling elite, and the ruling elite have put in place many seemingly different political avenues which all lead to the same end.

The worst thing that ever happened to the cause of liberty was and is so-called public "education" (i.e., miseducation). This most definitely includes the universities (as well as so-called "private" schools), which are beholden to government. The Prussian-model miseducation system has worked very well for the ruling elite. Add to that the mass media and it becomes very hard for people to break out of their conditioning and see the entire picture.

As well, I don't merely claim that the "Peak Oil" scam is a globalist elite scam, I *prove* it, up one side and down the other. For just a tip of the massive iceberg of the hardcore evidence proving that, see the below article by me:

"The 'Peak Oil' Scam," December 5, 2005:

The "Peak Oil" scam is nothing more than an globalist elite agenda to psychologically prepare the masses to accept genocide, eugenics, and enforced population reduction (i.e., murdering off segments of the world's population), all on a massive scale.

Naïve babes eat up the globalist elite's "Peak Oil" scam because they have been indoctrinated by the de facto nationalized mass media and the government's miseducation system (which includes so-called "private" schools and the universities) in the dogma of the phoney "environmental" movement, which was created and is funded by the globalist elite. This Gaia earth-worshiping, we're-all-going-to-drop-dead-any-momement-unless-the-government-steps-in-to-save-us crap is even in the children's TV cartoons, not to mention their school curriculum. The governments of the world have done a great job in scaring the living shit out of the masses with this crap, and naïve babes posting on this website can't get their heads around the fact that their entire Weltanschauung has been manufactured by the globalist elite. Yeah, you may take pride in yourselves that you have some "anti-establishment" viewpoints, but if you're promoting this Malthusian crap then you're still playing right into their hands.

In addition to my above demolition of the globalist elite's "Peak Oil" scam, see also the below exceedingly informative article:

"David Ray Griffin Responds & So Do I, (With Links on 'Sustainable Development' Scam)":

The government has not the slightest desire to suppress ideas that the world is headed for apocalyptic global warming, or apocalyptic global cooling, or apocalyptic polution of the environment, or apocalyptic shortage of oil, or apocalyptic viruses, or apocalyptic terrorists trying to kill us all, or an apocalyptic U.S.S.R. (or Iraq, or now Iran) waiting to nuke us, or an apocalyptic invasion from outer space, or any other similar apocalyptic ideas. It's the government that invents, promotes and funds such ideas in the first place. What better way to massively socially re-engineer world society than to convince the masses that the sky is going to fall at any near moment unless the government steps in to run all our lives, requiring massive increases in funding and power for the government in the process.

James, regardless of whether

James, regardless of whether or not "Peak Oil" is true, the world is acting like it.

I took Ed's comment as

I took Ed's comment as well-intended sarcasm :)

James, go on and start your

James, go on and start your own oil company if you believe that the current oil companies are all in one huge conspiracy and won't pump the oil out of ground to keep up with the increasing demand. You are not alone so why don't you act together and put your "knowledge" into money? You could get rich, I'm sure there are many people who would happily buy your cheap oil while the conspirators try to sell their ever more expensive oil. Let's just hope that the talk about the relationship between the use of hydrocarbons and global warming is just another elite agenda when the market is filled with your cheap oil for centuries onwards...

It has become clear that

It has become clear that Professor Doctor Steven Jones is the latest member of a group which is attempting to perpetrate a limited hangout disinformation campaign (ie, infofraud) on us all regarding the true nature of the events of 9/11.

OF COURSE some kind of explosives (but not "thermite"), plus gravity, brought the towers down!

Butit is just plain nonsense for Dr. Jones to expect us to believe that conventional chemical reactions (ie, "conventional explosives" or "thermite") were sufficient to cause the humongous release of heat energy and immense production of incredibly fine powdery dust which occurred immediately following the collapses.

Dr. Jones: please stop acting stupid on us.

Just like the RobinoHoff gatekeeping machine, Dr. Jones is working overtime coming up with bogus explanations in an attempt to keep more logical -- and revealing unconventional -- explanations from ever entering people's minds.

One needn't be a professor of physics to recognize that "controlled demolition" cannot possibly even begin to account for the observed facts:

1. The impossibly/incredibly fine powdery dust. Too much of it was too small ("nanoparticles"!) for it to have been produced by trauma from conventional explosive forces.

2. The molten metal found weeks after the demolition. Apparently Dr. Jones is now hard at work on some kind of "insulation theory" to try to account for what is, according to his theory, unaccountable.

3. The huge pyroclastic dust cloud. Once again, Dr. Jones is clearly seen to be pursuing a nonsensical theory. That dust cloud contained way too much energy for it to be explained away by even the over-exuberant-use of conventional chemical explosives -- such an explanation simply does not fit the observed facts any more than does the government's "gravitational collapse" theory!

4. The fires which subsequently burned for 99 days despite constant dousing with water. Again, this well-documented fact flies in the face of the "work" of Dr. Jones, who is straining himself and credulity in trying to ascribe conventional explanations to a most highly unconventional event.

The above evidence constitutes the signature of some kind of plasma weapon (perhaps like what has been referred to as a "tactical [non-nuclear] nuke"). Industry has harnessed this destructive plasma energy into a reusable waste disposal appliance, but we're not supposed to be able to recognize that the military has such technology at its disposal?

People who canont connect such highly connectable dots may not deserve to have our stolen Constitution back.

After having spoken repeatedly with Doctor Jones, it is extremely difficult to imagine that he does not know better.

911blimp, do you believe

911blimp, do you believe holograms and plasma ray guns were used as well?you think WE are dis-info?

obviously having differing

obviously having differing opinions, and adding to jones' work through conventional means of discussion are much less worthwhile than just bashing the hell out of him.. seems to be the motive operandi of some people..

i bet you disagree with Jones' opinion on God as well, perhaps he is disinfo in that fact as well?

by your definition of 'limited hangout' we would be best off for pretty much everyone who has come out in support of demolition theories to have kept their mouth shut.. when people focused on attacking do so they discourage others from being active in the field, and that is a lot worse than simply disagreeing with your opinion.

Nice attempt at

Nice attempt at avoidance/distraction/misdirection, you two, but please try to stay on-topic with your replies.

911blimp... who in the 9/11

911blimp... who in the 9/11 Truth Movement do you support? Who's work? That's not too much to ask for, is it?

i didnt realize the topic of

i didnt realize the topic of this thread was steven jones until you brought him up.

i dont have anything to add to your off-topic rant other than to say that it is alot more important that jones and others come out and state their opinions for controlled demolition than to bash them over exactly what chemical was used to do it.. and i dont see what makes your opinion anymore important than jones' or hoffmans.

seems like a waste of time distraction to argue over minute points that you bring up given the larger point they are trying to make.. of course you could argue they are avoiding the real use of plasma as part of a nefarious plot, but anyone who risks their neck to state the buildings came down from controlled demolition deserves more respect than someone who continuously issues hateful statements to others in the community..

his opinion is that a chemical like thermite could have been used, he doesnt state he knows it as a fact.. you on the other hand do state your opinion as fact, and that anyone who disagrees is a limited hangout government plant.. get over yourself.

911blimp is clearly a WingTV

911blimp is clearly a WingTV type guy, he wants to destroy the movement from the inside with his attacks on fellow 9/11 truth seekers. the guy constantly attacks others in the movement, its a real pain in the ass if you ask me.if anyone is a dis-info agent, it would be someone going on about holograms and plasma rays.Edited By Siteowner

man.. wish i could close a

man.. wish i could close a thread sometimes.. ;)

that's enough everyone..

dz, Why do you dismiss huge,


Why do you dismiss huge, well-enumerated, theory-breaking facts as "minute points"? And how does it seem "like a waste of time distraction" to consider the well-enumerated Jones-theory-busting points (one by one)? And why would you ascribe, using a criminologist's term, ulterior motivations to a scientific debate? How could/would I (want to) add to Jones' faulty work? How is it a good thing for Jones to add another layer of lie to The Big Lie? (Why do you consider Jones' conventional ill-fitting hypotheses 'good' but my unconventional thoughts and related testable hypotheses somehow undiscussably 'bad' and cause for you to so virulently/distractively/divisively/personally attack in response?)

(What is the motivation for people who wish to keep all unconventional explanations for unconventional events from ever entering people's minds?)

1. We had a very unconventional event(s) occur on 9/11.

2. We have a government who's put forth and built upon an enemy-creating impossible conventional explanation for it.

3. We have a self-righteous, vehement, slandering/libeling/labeling/marauding large gang within the 9/11 truth movement which uses lies, omissions, distortions, ridicule, social pressures, etc, to try to keep any and all thoughts of unconventional explanations from ever entering people's minds. Repeatedly. Consistently. Year-in, year-out. That is now-clearly their mission.

4. We have a still-unsolved mass murder case on our hands.

Probably all just a coincidence?

I'll get over myself, dz, when you (who runs a self-proclaimed non-side-taking site) come down off your high horse and tell us why you prefer to cheer for Jones' theory (which fits the facts only 1 iota better than does the government's impossible theory) even as you dismiss out of hand my well-stated, far superior, easily-testable theory which so elegantly connects 4 otherwise-unconnected dots (plus the 5th of the GroudZero victims' respiratory deaths from the nanoparticles which enter victims' lungs but don't come out).

By the way, Jones' so-called theory does not prove anything significant beyond what is already established by the non-theoretical proof published at (we never needed a superior theory before long-ago rejecting an impossible one!), given the fact that "thermite" and "conventional explosives" and "controlled demolition" cannot account for what was observed/recorded/documented on 9/11 anyway.

A good scientist knows that it is far easier to tear down a theory than to come up with one. That is why it is most efficient and effective to tear down the government's theory without trying to advance any more of our own than necessary. It would be hypocritical of me to reject the government's theory because it is inadequate and impossible but to embrace Jones' because it is slightly less inadequate and impossible to account for what happened.

So I do not understand why some people want to see Doctor Jones waste everyone's time trying to advance/prove some ill-fitting explains-nothing-interesting conventional "thermite" theory of his -- I recognize it for being a part of the limited hangout disinfo campaign in which we are all immersed and to which Doctor Jones' work is contributing. (And people who cannot contain themselves over that observation of mine just might be personally involved in the big RobinoHoff gatekeeping machine to which I referred in my original post in this thread, above.)

I will not make an opinionated personal counter-attack on Chris, but I will point out that I'd never heard of any "plasma ray guns" until he brought it up as he did, so I remain ignorant of such devices.

i dont see how your 5 point

i dont see how your 5 point list above and your plasma link can be considered as 'well-stated, far superior' or 'easily-testable'.. i see it as a quick beratement against Jones with little substance other than your opinion and your attacks..

as for being biased, or cheering Jones' theory.. i cheer those that risk their neck to come out in support of 9/11 skeptics.. i dont cheer him because i beleive in his opinion on thermite versus plasma or nuclear devices, we covered him because he came out on the subject of demolition, and because it was news worthy for the 9/11 community.

if you disagree with him that is great, I really don't care if you agree or disagree, nor would I judge you for your opinion. most of the 9/11 community is split on a variety of subjects.. but you can at least be somewhat respectful to other's opinions instead of your continually accusational tones..

btw, i didnt say at any point your opinion was 'bad', or that i preferred jones' opinion either.. read my comments again. my issue was your need to attack in stating your opinion.

if you would like to write up a newsworthy, well referenced report espousing your opinions and submit it we would be glad to cover it, but providing you a forum to post spiteful and intentionally arguement-provoking comments is not something we will continue to do.

You do a good job of

You do a good job of mislabeling facts as opinions here. That serves the disinfo and we-can-never-be-sure-about-anything crowds nicely. So I guess that might explain why you wouldn't care to ever see any argument-provoking comments in a comments section about a subject as controversial as 9/11...


That word applies to your posts better than it does to mine. Is it part of your nature (or your agenda or your what) to impart accusatory imagined non-scientific motives to a scientific debate?


"argument-provoking comments"

Is that what you're good for blimpy?

blimpy, your first comment

blimpy, your first comment in this thread was, "It has become clear that Professor Doctor Steven Jones is the latest member of a group which is attempting to perpetrate a limited hangout disinformation campaign (ie, infofraud) on us all regarding the true nature of the events of 9/11."

Then you went on to say that the professor was the following, "stupid, a gatekeeper, bogus, unconventional, unaccountable, nonsensical, faulty, a liar, and limited hangout."

How is that debating?

no,hes good for pushing the

no,hes good for pushing the plasma weapons and hologram theory.but yeah, WE are the dis-info agents.right.and why was my last comment edited?what did i say that was so wrong?

bah.. please leave this

bah.. please leave this thread and drop it everyone.

blimp, the offer stands on posting an article from you on your opinion as long as it is well referenced and based on facts and analysis (not just opinion), and is not primarily inflamitory or attacking.

so why did you censor what i

so why did you censor what i said again?

sorry,its me.

sorry,its me.

blimpy... one has to

blimpy... one has to question the intent of a 9/11 researcher that doesn't even give out his real name. A 9/11 researcher that doesn't give out his real name, and has no problem critiquing other researchers BY name. A 9/11 researcher who complains to the owner of a site for being asked not to use "argument-provoking comments". A 9/11 researcher asked by the owner of that site to present his "newsworthy, well referenced report ", and refuses. What 9/11 researcher refuses to present their evidence?

blimpy... here's what I want to know. Which 9/11 researchers do you respect?

Jon, its shades of WingTV,

Jon, its shades of WingTV, attack,attack, makes one question the motives of these so called truth seekers who endlessly attack others in the truth someone above said,we all disagree on at least some points when it comes to 9/11(pod issue,pentagon,arabs or no arabs?,remote control or not?,etc.) but people like you are poison to the movement if you ask add nothing by trying to drag others come off as a real elitist.

by "people like you" i meant

by "people like you" i meant blimpy,not Jon by the way.

Tim, I removed a name that


I removed a name that you used at the end of that post.. no need for name calling here.. or continuing this thread.



ouch,censorship from a 9/11

ouch,censorship from a 9/11 truth site. isnt it ironic? oh,and you can call me Chris, Tim Osman is my CIA name...........

congrats chris, i think you

congrats chris, i think you are the first (maybe the second) to be censored here.. just watch the language in the future please..

you a puritanical,

you a puritanical, evangelical christian or something? lighten up man,he had it coming anyway. censorship on a 9/11 truth site just smacks of know it does.

i dont mind profanity, i

i dont mind profanity, i just dont want people calling each other cock-suckers, or douchebags, etc. on my website. luckily that never happens here, because everyone loves everyone else! ;)

fair enough,i'll try not to

fair enough,i'll try not to counter-attack in the future. you gotta admit censorship on a 9/11 truth website is ironic though.

Look, I write as someone who

Look, I write as someone who doesn't really give a damn if there's enough oil or not, or whether it had anything to do with 9/11.
But the bit of reading around that I have done (leave Ruppert out of this) says that, yes, Peak Oil is real.
Here's a respected oil man saying so:

I've also just spent some

I've also just spent some time over at physorgforum arguing with those who support the official 9/11 explanation. They keep flinging the NIST report at people and dismissing the sorts of very reasonable concerns that Prof Steven Jones has produced. Jones does an excellent job, in my view, of the ONLY thing that can be done to get the public to review 9/11: he puts good scientific objections to the official explanation in a scientific manner and asks that proper scientific inquiry take place.

He has some chance of being heard.

Any person who talks to the public about holograms, atomic explosives or even pods attached to planes is almost guaranteeing that the real questions of 9/11 will NEVER be asked or answered at a public level. It simply is irrelevant whether or not these facts are true. There are sufficient UNCOMPLICATED objections to the official 9/11 explanation that can be pursued in order to get the public onside.

People who want to wear their tinfoil hats in splendid isolation with their own little theories need to understand that there is an obligation to get the public onside for an INQUIRY. Not hit them over the head with your 'you beaut' locally grown theory.

I wrote about this:

Virtually every 9/11 theorist is going to be wrong on some facts or other. Big deal! Until the selfish amongst us get over winning every argument and defaming others the public will never get the answers they deserve.The small number of carpers and critics at this site need to grow up and respect the rights of others to hold alternative views. If you really have to 'win' your argument at the expense of others then you should go elsewhere, so courteous adults can do some good. Personally, I don't believe in atomic explosions on 9/11 - but I might be wrong. Who cares! What I do believe in is that the public have never had the kind of inquiry they deserve - one that meets acceptable scientific, policing and legal standards. That's the target to shoot for!

"Until the selfish amongst

"Until the selfish amongst us get over winning every argument and defaming others the public will never get the answers they deserve."

You could have ended it there.

I participate in a number of

I participate in a number of blogsites on a range of matters that, for the most part, have serious, intelligent contributions. No particular rudeness is intended to any individual by my comments above. But rudeness can be frustrating. And I believe it is fair to remind people that the serious purpose behind the discussions here is not well served by personal attacks. Members of the public want to find out about 9/11. We should help them. I am sure they would like to hear ALL our views.
Best wishes to all.

Some people within the 911

Some people within the 911 truth movement act as if they have an obvious agenda against discovering (or even giving fair consideration to the possibility!) that secret weapons systems were utilized in the Sept11 attacks against We The People. (It's as if they signed some sort of secret agreement with the perpetrators to not let any 911truther ever get away with ever considering any technological possibilities newer than 1975 or so!)

Among other distractive/diversive/divisive tactics, they come up with derogatory/pejorative names, and use bogus labels, and employ attempted ridicule, and conflate opinions with facts and facts with opinions, and stomp their feet and hold their breath until they turn blue, and generally try to turn a logical discussion into an illogical food fight, even as others here say how much more they prefer an opinion that conventional chemical reactions can account for the unconventional/unaccountable (which is not much different from Aunt Matilda saying that she prefers to believe President George W. Bush about 9/11). But that shall not deter me from pointing out the nature of the limited hangout disinfo campaign in which the entire 911 truth mvmt is immersed and from which it must break free if it is to ever succeed. (And, naturally, the fellow perpetrators of this stealth disinfo campaign, even when not mentioned by name, will still vehemently dislike the nerve-touching revelations, and so they will also then tend to make personal attacks in response.)

To any impartial readers, I hope it is apparent that I did not call Professor Jones any names. I did not attack him personally. (I did dissect his bogus distractive inappropriate anti-strategic truth-opposing pseudo-scientific work. That's what scientists do for one another, which is what earns them our respect when a theory actually survives dissenting and even antagonistic peer scrutiny, which Dr. Jones' cannot.) I also hope that any honest truth-seekers still reading this anti-focused thread will be able to notice who the foul-mouthed name-calling negativists are, and what they are (not) contributing to the quest for 9/11 truth when they "come to Dr. Jones' rescue" by illogically launching personal attacks against his work's detractor instead of arguing for the questionable scientific merits of Dr. Jones' approach. That is not at all how scientific truth-finding works. But it is how the limited-hangout disinfo campaign (and food fight) proceeds.

blimpy... can't you answer a

blimpy... can't you answer a direct question? Who in the 9/11 Truth Movement do you respect? Please, just answer that ONE question.

John Gold, as I've

John Gold, as I've repeatedly explained before, "the world" is not acting like the Peak Oil scam is true. Rather, governments are acting like they always have throughout history, i.e., trying to obtain more power. The difference nowadays being that forming a one-world government and one-world religion has come into the realm of practicality for the Western governments due to the technological advances which have occured within the past century. Thus, the push by the globalist elites to form their self-termed New World Order has been stepped-up since they're getting close to achieving their goal.

JL, you have a fallacious notion of how our present world operates. Even if I had the investers to start my own oil company, we in the U.S. live under a mercantilist control-system--far, far removed from a free-market. There are so many laws and regulations in place that I would have to have many high-level politicians on my payrole before I would even stand a chance of being able to start my own oil company. And there is no chance of that happening because said politicians are already on the payrole of the establishment oil companies.

But, John Gold and JL, you two will be very happy to learn that the oil companies' profits are higher now than they have ever been in history. Below is just one example, concerning Chevron:

"Chevron 4Q Profit Up 20 Percent to $4.14B," Michael Liedtke, Associated Press (AP), January 27, 2006:

Below is an excerpt from the above article:

Chevron Corp. on Friday reported the highest quarterly and annual profits in its 126-year history, refocusing attention on the high fuel prices that have enriched the oil company's shareholders and exasperated consumers paying more to fill their gasoline tanks and heat their homes.

So the Peak Oil scam is already paying off quite well for the oil companies.

But as I've already said before, I don't merely *claim* that the globalist elite "Peak Oil" scam is a scam, I *prove* it. For just some of that massive amount of hardcore proof, see the below post by me:

"The 'Peak Oil' Scam," December 5, 2005:


For more articles written by me concerning governments and politics--and indeed, the meaning of life--see the below:

"Documentation on Government-Staged Terrorism," September 30, 2005:

The below two articles by me (published under my legal name) were originally published at

"Government Causes the Crime" by James Redford, c. October 2001:

I should mention one thing about the above article by me which might be confusing nowadays. I wrote the article in October of 2001 when the 9/11 death toll was being reported as around 7,000 people, which is the figure I mention in my said article. Now the 9/11 death toll is reported as being close to 3,000 people.

"Jesus Is an Anarchist," James Redford, revised and expanded edition, November 9, 2005:

Excuse me, Jon Gold. I wrote

Excuse me, Jon Gold. I wrote your name in my above post as John Gold.