Professors Jones and Fetzer respond to Moseley's attack piece

Professor Steven Jones Urgently Asks For Help Regarding Personal Attacks

...Those publishing this essay should check my actual comments on the C-SPAN broadcast. I made no such statement that "there is no peaceful way to achieve the group's goals." This is FALSE, UNTRUE, AND TOTALLY NOT WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID, NOR DO I IN ANY WAY SUPPORT THIS STATEMENT AT ALL.

I need your help. I have a meeting here now ==very serious -- about my standing here -- in 1/2 hour. I must prepare.

Please find out who to write to, to protest these untrue statements, so that after my meeting I will be able to respond. If you would respond in my behalf, I would deeply appreciate that. These lies need to be challenged, for anyone can listen to CSPAN and determine that I did not make the alleged comments...

- Steven Jones.

Truth Seekers, not Bush Bashers

"9/11 Bush bashers" by Jon Moseley, worldnetdaily (16 August 2006), alas, is reprehensible and irresponsible in almost every respect. He abuses language and logic and attempts to smear me without justification in an apparent effort to mislead the public from appreciating the objective and scientific findings about the events of 9/11 that have been established by Scholars for 9/11 Truth, an organization that I founded and co-chair with Steve Jones, a physicist from BYU, who has done extensive studies of how the towers were in fact destroyed.

Moseley has been fanatical, even obsessive, about posting attacks upon members of Scholars. To verify my impression, I did a search on recent Moseley posts. On 15 August 2006, for example, he posted 15 attacks. On 1 August 2006, 22...

- Jim Fetzer.


Contact World Net Daily here.

I wrote to Mr. Moseley,

I wrote to Mr. Moseley, citing his blatent lying. You should see his pathetic back pedaling when I sent him the statement of what Dr. Jones actually said. Moseley is a vicious liar, pathetic.

I have posted that dialogue here:

"I need your help. I have a

"I need your help. I have a meeting here now ==very serious -- about my standing here -- in 1/2 hour. I must prepare."


What does this mean? Does Professor Jones have a meeting about his standing at BYU?

This is unclear.

My letter to WorldNut

My letter to WorldNut Daily:


I am horrified at your publication of Jonathon MoseleyÂ’s slanderous remarks aimed at defaming and ridiculing Dr. Steven Jones and others associated with the 911 truth movement.

How can you possibly think that no one has a copy of the CSPAN broadcast from which Mr. MoseleyÂ’s misquotes/lies were crafted?

You will not prevail. America is awake now. And we are watching you. Dr. Jones and his associates have my total support and you can be sure that there are many thousands more like me.

Most sincerely,

Joel Howard

EVERYONE HERE should be on

EVERYONE HERE should be on this NOW!!!!!!

reprehensor, here's the

reprehensor, here's the clown's email dude;

"Jonathon Moseley is executive director of the U.S. Seaports Commission"

Dr Jones said after his byu

Dr Jones said after his byu meeting that....

"Thank you, and let me say that my mtg here went fine... Academic freedom is still alive and well here."

People like Jon Moseley are

People like Jon Moseley are very dangerous to the movement. The scandalous remarks he made are beyond ridiculous. I watched the C-SPAN and have a copy on disk. The softspoken Dr. Jones made nothing even close to the comments which were attributed to him by Moseley. Does this idiot think there is no record of the transcripts from this conference. He is an embarrassement to the human race. I'll gladly send my DVD of the conference to Dr. Jones but I don't think he'll need it. Keep up the good fight Steven, we need you.

Here's Alex Jones' show from

Here's Alex Jones' show from today interviewing this guy;

Goto 1 hour and 31 minutus 40 secs;

wow --- jones is being

wow ---

jones is being purposely misquoted so as to make him appear violent

ha ha-->this is all being preserved in cyberspace for the record

jones dont have to worry about nothing

jon mosely is a desperate

jon mosely is a desperate fuckwad throwing empty punches in the air

this only increases our virtue while adding yet another evil stupid thing to the list for the pnac/fake msm fucks---

they come off like the scum they are


Anyone catch Kean/Hamilton

Anyone catch Kean/Hamilton on MSNBC just now? If you didn't, it was mostly what you'd expect from Chris Mathews - he avoided the tough questions and let these guys off easy.

I've demanded a retraction

I've demanded a retraction by their editor. Everyone here should do the same

so that after my meeting I

so that after my meeting I will be able to respond.

what's to respond? simply say that you were misquoted and then set the record straight.
anyway, welcome to propaganda 101.

here is some email addresses

here is some email addresses from the columlist of Worldnetdaily
and one link to a story of intrest to us here....Now i have many other addresses from the BYU faculity

Armed pilots banned
2 months before 9-11
FAA rescinded rule allowing guns in cockpits just before terror attacks

....The FAA adopted the armed pilot rule shortly after the Cuban missile crisis of 1961 to help prevent hijackings of American airliners. It remained in effect for four decades.

But in July 2001 – just two months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks – the rule was rescinded..... ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;

1. Get lawyer. 2. Demand

1. Get lawyer.

2. Demand retraction through lawyer.

3. Sue for libel.

4. Repeat as necessary.

I'm serious, though. There should be no pussyfooting around.

Qucik prediction; this

Qucik prediction; this movement isn't going to make it to 9/11/06

I have never in my life seen so much in fighting, back biting and self serving bullshit in my life.

Your doing their work for them, no lie.

Fetzer was ambushed and unless I hear a recording in his own voice I absolutely do not believe he ever said any such thing.

Expect more of this.

OT: does anyone have a link

OT: does anyone have a link that says the fuel tanks of the jets that hit the WTC were not full?

Jim Fetzer kicks this jokers

Jim Fetzer kicks this jokers ass on Alex Jones' show lol.

While we are on the topic of

While we are on the topic of hit pieces..

'9/11 Conspiracy Theories -- The Latest Popular Political Lie'

Even though mosley was

Even though mosley was wrong, Fetzer was clearly enraged this morning on the Alex Jones show. Fetzer does not maintain his cool. Mosely was very calm and Fetzer repeated over and over that Mosely acted like a 15-year old. This didn't help Fetzer's side or the 9/11 Truth movement at all.

"People like Jon Moseley are

"People like Jon Moseley are very dangerous to the movement."

Moseley is a tick fart to the hurricane force winds of truth.

The man doesn't know a Newton from a fig.

boast: I say that you could allow the entire wings AND cabin to be full of lamp oil.... without a compressor section and bypass cooling effect to keep from melting the hot section, ya can't soften structural steel with a months worth of smokey burning.

DOJ appeals after Judge

DOJ appeals after Judge rules NSA wiretaps illegal

Published: Thursday August 17, 2006

Print This Email This

The US Department of Justice is appealing a ruling today by a A US district court today that the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretap program is unconstitutional, RAW STORY has learned.

In an injunction ordered an immediate halt to the program, US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor tore into warrantless surveillance, which she found "violates the Separation of Powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III."

The government is also, under the ruling, barred from monitoring Internet communication without warrants.

but of course the judge is a

but of course the judge is a liberal so the mcmedia will spin this as further proof that democrats are weak on terror. god bless this judge, at least we still have some justice.


THEY have been the perveyors of conspiracy theories for yearrrrrrrrrrsss .

TWA Flight 800 wasnt brought down by a missile, yet they insist "al Qaeda" did it.

They hate 9/11 Tru thers, but then they say Pakistani ISI was involved, pilots were banned from having gu ns 2 months before, and that the government did WTC 1993. I kid you not!

WTF is up with these clowns?
WND and Newsm ax come off as wayyy more delusional conspiratory than Prisonplanet ever could.

WND *IS* a conspiracy theory site!
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Just in case the NSA is

Just in case the NSA is still reading what I write....

Fuck you... again!

My email: Jonathon, This

My email:


This quote (below) of yours alleging Dr. Steven Jones is advocating violent overthrow of the government is completely untrue and founded... Too bad for you the event was taped and shows Dr. Jones making no such comment. You are ridiculous.

"Professor Steven Jones of Brigham-Young University accused George Bush of being a dictator, mimicking the preamble of the Declaration of Independence. When asked if violent revolution was necessary, this scientist declared – in front of national TV cameras – that there is no peaceful way to achieve the group's goals. In the context of the question, professor Jones was calling for the violent overthrow of the government."


JONES: "I asked you

JONES: "I asked you yesterday if you had heard of Operation Northwoods and you said you had heard me talk about it but that you didn't know about it - I mean shouldn't you go find out if my claim about an official US government document to carry out 9/11 style attacks - shouldn't you go find out if that exists or do you just decide that doesn't exist?"

MOSELEY: "Well I don't believe it exists."

oripped this fool.

got cut off, i meant to say,

got cut off, i meant to say, Alex Jones ripped this fool.

pocky, they only believe

pocky, they only believe conspiracy theories that involve BIll Clinton.

For example, when Fetzer is

For example, when Fetzer is discussing the allegation that Professor Steven Jones advocated violence, Moseley abruptly switches subjects by stating, "just like the no planes hit, we didn't see what we saw, it was on national television - we didn't see it because there was some kind of mind control."

thanks Nico. asshole.

Nico is a turd. My brother

Nico is a turd.
My brother in law SAW the second plane hit in person. Obviously I have no proof of that, but it's funny seeing someone devote so much time to something that I KNOW is bullshit. The ONLY explanation is that he's a disinformation agent. A willing one.

My letters to both Moseley

My letters to both Moseley and the editor of WND--
_____ Original Message _____
From: Neil Slade
To: Jonathon Moseley
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: false information

Here is from your article:

"Professor Steven Jones of Brigham-Young University accused George Bush of being a dictator, mimicking the preamble of the Declaration of Independence. When asked if violent revolution was necessary, this scientist declared – in front of national TV cameras – that there is no peaceful way to achieve the group's goals."

This is a lie.
You are directly abd faslely attributing this statement specifically to Steven Jones, and he made no such statement, easily shown by viewing the tape, which I have done.

We all know the kind of liar you are now- not only when you wrote your article, but in your response to me.
I hope he sues your ass in court.

Don't bother sending me any further nonsense in which in your twisted brain you try to weasle out of the inescapeable obvious truth about the type of person you are.

There are surely millions of idiots in this world that believe the kind of pure crap you sling, but I am not one of them.

Neil Slade

_____ Original Message _____
From: Jonathon Moseley
To: Neil Slade
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: false information

IF I misquoated him, sure.

But I did NOT misquote him.

Note that I carefully explained that "IN THE CONTEXT OF THE QUESTION" posed to the panel, Steve Jones was agreeing by his answer that there was no peaceful path to achieve the group's goals.

Almost the entire second half of the 9/11 panel was a discussion about how Bush is a dictator, a shadow government has taken over control of the government, we need to overthrow the governemnt, etc., to which Professor Jones eagerly jumped on the bandwagon.

The panel was asked (paraprhasing) "Can the group's goals be achieved without a violent revolution?" (or by a peaceful revolution). To which Steve Jones responded with a litany parallelling the Declaration of Independence -- the justification for revolution -- and then answering the question "no."

Everyone knows that the litany of abuses in the Declaration lays out the case for violent revolution against King George.

Jones intentionally mimicked that pattern, for that very reason, in response to a question on revolution.

And then he answered "no" to the question whether there is any peaceful path to achieve the group's goals.

Jon Moseley

_____Original Message_____
From: Neil Slade []
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 04:20 PM
To: 'Jonathon Moseley',
Subject: Re: false information

>Professor Jones' comments are on tape. They were broadcast on national TV, for all to see.

You have manufactured an absolute falsehood in your column, and have falsely attributed statements to Jones which he in no way, not even close, has said either on that broadcast nor on any other occassion.

Are you man enough, respectable enough, responsible enough to say, print, acknowledge "I misquoted Mr. Jones, and attributed something to him that he did not say?"

We shall see.

I would suggest you do so quickly, because without a retraction, he would easily be able to sue you for liable and proof is elementary and solid.

_____ Original Message _____
From: Neil Slade Jonathon Moseley
Cc: Jones, Steven ;
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: false information

By the way, I have looked repeatedly at Mr. Jones scientific writings and public presentations regarding the WTC building collapses.

Although I am not a physicist, my work is in brain and behavior science, and I am familiar with science, the scientific method, and credible scientific presentation.

Mr. Jones is a scientist, first and foremost, and takes extraordinary care in researching and presenting his facts. If you take the time to very carefully review in detail all of his presentations, you will find, as have those of us who are conscientious researchers in this topic of 9/11, that he is meticulous in shying away from unsubstantiated speculation.

Mr. Moseley, you have made some grievous errors in your column in regards to Mr. Jones' presentations and such erroneous contributions as your column in WND serves no purpose to anyone looking for truth in regards to what occurred on 9/11, on either side of the argument.

_____ Original Message _____
From: Neil Slade
To: Jonathon Moseley
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: false information

No, you've got the NAMES and COMMENTS mixed up.

Check WHO is SAYING what

watch the video again.

You've got it all wrong.

Sorry to INFORM you.


Besides the absolutely wrong quote you attribute to Jones, and I have the CSPAN broadcast here, as does anyone who wants to view it online--- as I have done twice....

there are many unsubstantiated theories out there, i.e.

just like WMD in Iraq, Bin Laden behind 9/11 attacks (although the FBI still doesn't have any evidence), etc etc etc- good lord, people will say anything, as you have demonstrated in your article.

But by placing everything in one column, you try to show that everything belongs in the same bag, that everyone believes the same thing. Intelligent people understand how to discriminate one thing from another.

The biggest conspiracy is the government account, that is certain. There are more holes in the official account than in a thousand pounds of swiss cheese, and your article doesn't even begin to tap into what intelligent, thoughtful, qualified researchers have shown.

Now when you discover your mistake about what Jones said, you better offer a few retractions and substantial apologies to Jones for starters. You done much more to discredit yourself as anything else.
_____ Original Message _____
From: Neil Slade
To: Jonathon Moseley
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: false information

No, you've got the NAMES and COMMENTS mixed up.

Check WHO is SAYING what.

You've got it all wrong.

Sorry to INFORM you.

_____ Original Message _____
From: Jonathon Moseley
To: Neil Slade
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: false information

Professor Jones' comments are on tape. They were broadcast on national TV, for all to see.

OH, I FORGOT... You're a conspiracy theorist.

So I didn't REALLY see and hear what I THOUGHT I saw and heard.

I suppose it was all mind control that made millions of people hear Professor Jones agree that violent revoluton to overthrow the government is the only way to achieve the group's aims.

Pay no attention to what was broadcast on national television.

NOW, I DID HIGHLIGHT in my extremely short article (pressured to fit into 1500 words) that there are MULTIPLE inconsistent theories out there.

If you read closely, there are whacko theories that other people subscribe to, that are different from what Jones and Fetzer are saying.

However, Fetzer and Jones are big enough fakes on their own. Their theories are nutty enough without confusing them with other people's equally-false theories.

Jon Moseley

_____Original Message_____
From: Neil Slade []
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:14 AM
Subject: false information

I read what you said concerning Steven Jones' comments on CSPAN--

this is totally incorrect, and a total misrepresentation of what the man said in many respects.

Your article is full of false information.

You can fool fools, but not people who know even the most rudimentary facts about 9/11.


The Amazing Brain Adventure

this is the letter i sent,

this is the letter i sent, if anyone needs inspiration. lets flood this bozos mailbox. he makes me mad. maybe you could make this kinda slander stick on alex jones or maybe fetzer, but steven?!? the guys a pussycat! (a pussycat with cajones, i know, but you get the idea, ive never seen steven even look angry)

it was with dismay that i read an article reguarding the '911 truth movement' authored by you and containing this paragraph early in its text...

"Professor Steven Jones of Brigham-Young University accused George Bush of being a dictator, mimicking the preamble of the Declaration of Independence. When asked if violent revolution was necessary, this scientist declared – in front of national TV cameras – that there is no peaceful way to achieve the group's goals. In the context of the question, professor Jones was calling for the violent overthrow of the government."

dismissive and derisive articles on those investigating the 911 attacks are nothing new, but i found it quite shocking to see someone so mis-quoted on a website with the reputation that world net daily carries. i would like to remind you that recent polls estimate the one third of the U.S. population now calls our current view of 911 into question. i myself would estimate that one tenth of the country follows this issue very closely and will be able to discern this mis-representation.

Steven E Jones is a professor at BYU. he is rather softspoken and dedicated to his profession. he has the deserved respect of people in the '911 movement' as well as those who share his chosen field.

You sould be aware that the video broadcast that your article claims to paraphrase is availible from c-span and can be viewed on the internet at various common sites such as google video and you tube. though your readers who are not familiar with this issue will, in all likeliness, accept this paraphrasing as accurate, by publishing this article you are not only doing a disservice to them, your readers, but damaging your own integrity and integrity of the journals you work for.

if you disagree with the evidence and the ideas that these people are presenting, as many do, you would be wise to debate them with facts and logic, rather than to resort to distortion and outright lies.

as it is this article deserves to be redacted, not because of its point of view but on the false presentation of fact which anyone with a mind to do so can check and find extremely lacking. furthermore in todays political enviroment the fact that you present a peaceful and rational professor as inciting a violent revolution is irresponsible and indeed moraly reprehensible.

you owe professor Jones an apology for slander and it can only reflect well on you to give him one.

I seem to remember Professor

I seem to remember Professor Jones going to great lengths to express his love for his country and faith in the Constitution. Can anybody dig up some of these quotes? They would serve as excellent counter-arguments.

Also, what is the deal with Jon Gold? Was he kidding? What's the scoop?

Not only THAT I received the

Not only THAT

I received the following reply from Moseley-- a total slimeball, certainly.

_____ Original Message _____
From: Jonathon Moseley
To: Neil Slade ; Jonathon Moseley ;
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: false information

By the way, you describe Professor Jones as very scienctific and balanced.

Have you examined Professor Jones' article that Jesus Christ BODILY, AS A MAN, visited the Native Americans in America 2000 years ago by traveling from the Middle East?

I am a Christian, and I believe that Jesus can visit us in spirt anywhere, any time.

But claiming -- in his capacity as a scientist -- that Jesus traveled to the America's is not what I woudl call mainstream.

Jon Moseley

Good grief.
This is really showing how low you are, when you use this to defend your undefendable position of slander.

By definition all Christians believe that Christ was born from a VIRGIN BIRTH.

And that Jesus ROSE FROM DEATH in physical form after burial.

Sounds to me like George Bush and every bible thumping Christian on the planet such as yourself is not only not scientific, but believes Christ was capable of ANYTHING since he was the Son of God.

Christ visiting America last century isn't any stretch at all for God, or his son, especially if that is a traditional part of the Mormon faith.

You are using your religion to further justify your slander. Not only is it not relevant, but it makes you look like an even bigger slimeball.

Tell you what, let's leave religion and Mormon bashing out of our scientific look at 9/11.

By the way, you already lost total credibility with me with your last email.

I hope the WND editor has enough brains to retract your article as the fiction it is, even if you do not own enough working neurons to do this yourself.

excellent Neil.

excellent Neil.

Fetzer doth protest too

Fetzer doth protest too loudly. Fetzer knows he's a liar of the first degree.

Fetzer has been lying about 9/11 since day one.

love the ironic name

love the ironic name "rational".

dear lord, Hamilton is on

dear lord, Hamilton is on Hardball and was just asked: "Do you think we could ever construct a building that could withstand such a horrific attack from the planes"

Hamilton: "It would be extremely expensive."

Ugh, this interview is horrible..

What is extremely

What is extremely instresting is that Moseley represents Fetzer and you 9/11 consiprabums EXACTLY as you represent yourselves. So it is particularly amusing that Fetzer, of all people, and you nutters would be SO upset at being represented as you represent yourselves.

Don't you all agree?

BTW, where in hell is Jon Gold's refutation of the NIST report?

Hamilton: "It would be

Hamilton: "It would be extremely expensive."

Ugh, this interview is horrible..

Because you actually think it would be inexpensive?

rational, Don't bring up

Don't bring up NIST again until you offer a scientific refutation of BYU Profess of Physics Steven E. Jones.

1. Get lawyer. 2. Demand

1. Get lawyer.

2. Demand retraction through lawyer.

3. Sue for libel.

4. Repeat as necessary.

I'm serious, though. There should be no pussyfooting around.
casseia | 08.17.06 - 6:07 pm | #


rational, 9/11Truth = Peace


9/11Truth = Peace

Any questions?

I am horrified at your

I am horrified at your publication of Jonathon MoseleyÂ’s slanderous remarks aimed at defaming and ridiculing Dr. Steven Jones and others associated with the 911 truth movement.

Now that is truly a really stupid statement when Moseley stated exactly what Fetzer claims and represented mFetzer and Jones 100% as they represent themselves.

It seems you guys have problems understanding what Fetzer claims.

Don't bring up NIST again

Don't bring up NIST again until you offer a scientific refutation of BYU Profess of Physics Steven E. Jones.

You forget that Jones HAS to refute NIST. You also forget that Jones himself admits that he himslef has not refuted NIST.

Have fun eating your own words.

Because you actually think

Because you actually think it would be inexpensive?
rational | 08.17.06 - 7:57 pm | #

No, it would probably cost about as much as it cost to build the WTC.


The incompetence of these trolls is ridiculous. At least do your research first, shill.

9/11Truth = Peace When you

9/11Truth = Peace

When you get around to stop fighting the truth, the world will be a far better and more rational place.

rational, Professor Jones


Professor Jones has ripped NIST to shreds.

So has Jim Hoffman.

Care to refute their assertions?

My guess is you will just keep spouting ad hominem attacks. (Hint, that isn't very persuasive)

anonymous said

anonymous said stupidly,


The incompetence of these trolls is ridiculous. At least do your research first, shill.

The incompetence of irrational people like you is stunning. Millions of people have actually SEEN the videos of WTC 1 & 2 WITHSTANDING TWO AIRPLANE IMPACTS AS DESIGNED.

Your stupidity and incompetence is noted for the record, A.

When you get around to stop

When you get around to stop fighting the truth, the world will be a far better and more rational place.
rational | 08.17.06 - 8:04 pm | #

"better and more rational"

Notice you don't say "more peaceful."

"OT: does anyone have a link

"OT: does anyone have a link that says the fuel tanks of the jets that hit the WTC were not full?
boast | 08.17.06 - 6:17 pm | # "

No link. But according to the official story, Flight 11 & Flight 175 were both in the air for 49 minutes each, from take-off to impact.

So, however full the tanks may have been at impact, they clearly were not full. Since each plane used fuel to: take-off & fly for 49 minutes.

I have no idea how much fuel would be used for take-off and 49 minutes of flight.

Why do you ask?

If it's because of someone using the tired "the planes had full fuel loads" nonsense in a heated 9/11 discussion or argument, just tell them what I wrote -- it'll shut 'em up quick.

Let's be clear on this

Let's be clear on this point, rational.

You do not dispute that 9/11Truth is a PEACE MOVEMENT, correct?

rational, Was the WTC

Was the WTC designed to EXPLODE within an hour of impact?

Professor Jones has ripped

Professor Jones has ripped NIST to shreds.

LOL. No, he hasn't. Instead Jones has been ripped to shreds. Anyway, Jones admits on his website that he hasn't refuted NIST. Golly.

So has Jim Hoffman.

No way. Jim Hoffman made fundamental errors already discussed. No one belivbe incompetents and non-experts except those who desperately need to.

Care to refute their assertions?

You'd better catch up, sonny. They have NEVER refuted the evidence.

(Actually, you know that but can't admit it.)

Dear Mr Moseley, like many

Dear Mr Moseley,

like many of my countrymen (I'm a Finn), I watched the C-SPAN 9/11 Scholars Symposium broadcast via the Net with great interest, and I can say with certainty that nowhere did Dr Jones say what you accuse him about saying. I think you owe him both a retraction and an apology. All I heard Dr Jones say was to express his love for his country and his faith in its Constitution.

As regards wild conspiracy theories, I (again, like many of my countrymen) think that any adult person who thinks *this* was caused by office fires is certainly entertaining such a theory:

I used to say that even a yound kid could see that WTC 7 was professionally brought down -- and my 12-year-old nephew actually did see that.

A Finnish (below translated into English) WTC 7 site shows that the 6.5-second total collapse of the 47-story skyscraper could only have been resisted by *air*. As you can very well understand, the collapse time was too short for virtually *any* structural resistance (as the free fall time would have been 6 seconds). One doesn't have to be a Doctor of Engineering to realize that, but the site does link to a more detailed WTC 7 analysis by a Finnish Doctor of Engineering Heikki Kurttila. The site can be found here:

The whole world is laughing at NIST's protracted "investigations". Almost five years from the event, they still haven't come up with an explanation. All they can say is "We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7" (NIST lead investigator in the March 2006 issue of New York Magazine). Not that there is much to examine, as the steel debris was sold as scrap by the time (May 2002) FEMA finished its preliminary, inconclusive analysis -- analysis that called for further investigation! That is ridiculous. Some "investigation"...

Yours sincerely,
Helsinki, Finland
P.S. Is a building were to collapse here in Helsinki, absolutely no part of it would be recycled until the very final investigation report had been published.

Was the WTC designed to

Was the WTC designed to EXPLODE within an hour of impact?

Please show us any building designed to collapse or "explode."

I DARE you.

WTC 1 & 2 - as everyone who cares about the truth already knows - was designed to survive the impact of a 707. Both towers survived the impacts of 767s or do you want to pretend they collapsed instantly in front of all these people, anonymous?


Notice you don't say "more

Notice you don't say "more peaceful."

I don't need to. Anyone knows "better and more rational" is more peaceful. Except 9/11 conspirabums.

I think you owe him both a

I think you owe him both a retraction and an apology. All I heard Dr Jones say was to express his love for his country and his faith in its Constitution.

You forgot that actions speak louder than words. Fetzer and Jones are frauds and liars about 9/11.

ALWAYS have been.

rational, You


You lie.

12. Problems in the NIST Report: Inadequate Steel Temperatures and Tweaked Models

I have read through the hundreds of pages of the Final NIST report on the collapses of the WTC Towers. (NIST, 2005) It is interesting to note that NIST “decoupled” and delayed their final report on WTC 7, which is overdue as of this writing (NIST, 2005; NISTb, 2005). I agree with some of the NIST report; for example:

Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact, standing for 102 min and 56 min, respectively. The global analyses with structural impact damage showed that both towers had considerable reserve capacity. This was confirmed by analysis of the post-impact vibration of WTC 2Â… where the damaged tower oscillated at a period nearly equal to the first mode period calculated for the undamaged structure. (NIST, 2005, p. 144; emphasis added.)

At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000oC was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500oC or below.” (NIST, 2005, p. 127, emphasis added.)

NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers… All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.” (NIST, 2005, p. 140, emphasis added.)

However, I along with others challenge NISTÂ’s collapse theory. NIST maintains that all three building collapses were fire-initiated despite the observations above, particularly the fact that fire endurance tests with actual models did not result in collapse. In a paper by fire-engineering experts in the UK, we find:

The basis of NISTÂ’s collapse theory isÂ… column behaviour in fire... However, we believe that a considerable difference in downward displace between the [47] core and [240] perimeter columns, much greater than the 300 mm proposed, is required for the collapse theory to hold trueÂ… [Our] lower reliance on passive fire protection is in contrast to the NIST work where the amount of fire protection on the truss elements is believed to be a significant factor in defining the time to collapseÂ… The [proposed effect] is swamped by thermal expansion Â… Thermal expansion and the response of the whole frame to this effect has NOT been described as yet [by NIST]. (Lane and Lamont, 2005.)

I agree with these pointed objections, particularly that the “response of the whole frame” of each building should be considered, especially heat transport to the whole frame from localized fires, and that the “core columns cannot pull the exterior columns in via the floor.” (Lane and Lamont, 2005)

The computerized models of the Towers in the NIST study, which incorporate many features of the buildings and the fires on 9-11-01, are less than convincing. The Final report states:

The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases (which became Case A for WTC 1 and Case C for WTC 2) were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events. (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)

The NIST report makes for interesting reading. The less severe cases based on empirical data were discarded because they did not result in building collapse. But ‘one must save the hypothesis,’ so more severe cases were tried and the simulations tweaked, as we read in the NIST report:

The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,Â…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted... (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)

The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns. (NIST, 2005, p. 180; emphasis added.)

How fun (perhaps) to tweak the model like that, until the building collapses -- until one gets the desired result. But the end result of such tweaked computer hypotheticals is not compelling. Notice that the “the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted” (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added) to get the perimeter columns to yield sufficiently – one suspects these were “adjusted” by hand quite a bit -- even though the UK experts complained that “the core columns cannot pull the exterior [i.e., perimeter] columns in via the floor.” (Lane and Lamont, 2005; emphasis added.)

I also agree with Kevin RyanÂ’s objections regarding the NIST study. Kevin Ryan, at the time a manager at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), makes a point of the non-collapse of actual WTC-based models in his letter to Frank Gayle of NIST:

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last yearÂ… they suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your teamÂ… I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these testsÂ… indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused byÂ… burning [jet fuel, paper, etc.]. (Ryan, 2004)

That models of WTC trusses at Underwriter Laboratories (UL) subjected to fires did NOT fail is also admitted in the final NIST report:

NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towersÂ…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsingÂ… The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11. (NIST, 2005, p. 141; emphasis added.)

So how does the NIST team justify the WTC collapses, when actual models fail to collapse and there are zero examples of fire-caused high-rise collapses? Easy, NIST concocted computer-generated hypotheticals for very “severe” cases, called cases B and D (NIST, 2005, pp. 124-138). Of course, the details are rather hidden to us. And they omit consideration of the complete, rapid and symmetrical nature of the collapses.

Indeed, NIST makes the startling admission in a footnote on page 80 of their Final Report:

The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached...(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)

Again, on page 142, NIST admits that their computer simulation only proceeds until the building is “poised for collapse”, thus ignoring any data from that time on.

The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse. ...(NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)

What about the subsequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of the buildings? What about the observed squibs? What about the antenna dropping first in the North Tower? What about the molten metal observed in the basement areas in large pools in both Towers and WTC 7 as well? Never mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all any data after the buildings were “poised for collapse.” Well, some of us want to look at ALL the data, without "black-box" computer simulations that are “adjusted,” perhaps to make them fit the desired outcome. An hypothesis which is non-refutable is non-scientific. On the other hand, Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation which addresses and satisfies ALL the evidence is most probably correct.

13. NIST's Failure to Show Visualizations

An article in the journal New Civil Engineering (NCE) lends support to concerns about the NIST analysis of the WTC collapses. It states:

World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators. The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the tower has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) pub

Good night for now. Please

Good night for now.

Please remind Jon Gold that hiding from refuting NIST is hurting his credibility even more than he's already hurt it.

And remember, thinking so irrationallly and believing 9/11 conspiracy nonsense as you all do is just an exercise in making fools of yourselves. Please consider joining the real world and start thinking rationally.

This message is sponsored by ALL Americans.

This message is sponsored by

This message is sponsored by ALL Americans.
rational | 08.17.06 - 8:22 pm | #

Thanks for the laugh.

Nice refutation of Jones, by the way.

Remember, Anonymous, it's

Remember, Anonymous, it's time to stop the nonsnese. NIST has not been refuted in any way on the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 by anyone expert. None disagree with it.

Good night and remember - the real world is asking you to rejoin humanity.

Sorry, rational, but your

Sorry, rational, but your obvious lying will not be very convincing to the "newbies" you are trying to discourage from pursuing truth.

Good night and remember -

Good night and remember - the real world is asking you to rejoin humanity.
rational | 08.17.06 - 8:25 pm | #

Care to debate "humanity" in this day and age, rational?

rational, I take it your


I take it your support the official version of what transpired.

Do you also agree that muslims should be profiled in airports? Is this the "real world" you are asking me to "rejoin"?

If so, you can take your "real world" and stick it up your real ass.

C.R., This "rational"

This "rational" character is a lying troll here to deceive rookie Truthers.

Debating him is like debating a 4-year old. What he doesn't realize is that his lying only strengthens our arguments.

I would LOVE to ask Mosley

I would LOVE to ask Mosley one question:

Why are you bashing us so called "conspiracy theorists" when I have found over a hundred conspiracy theory articles you guys report as "news" over the years?

You even SAY the first WTC 1993 attack was US orchestrated!

So let me guess Mosley: If Clinton was president, the right wingers would be all over tv saying it was an inside job!

This is truly unbelievable.

Oh and Steven Jones couldnt be ANY more docile and pacifistic. the 9/11 truth movement, UNLIKE the "black bloc" or animal/eco "rights" groups, is a non violent PEACE movement opposed toward war and violent corruption. We are NOT left OR right.

It's those ultra left and ultra right wing "protest" groups(animal liberation, eco liberation, violent anti abortionists, neo nazis, etc)
that are the violent ones.

"Its sad for our country,

"Its sad for our country, but we aren't done, we still have the Constitution, we still have remedies. And we can keep that if we work together"

VIDEO CLIP- Give it a few min to load...its slow.

At the 1:31 Min. mark (last third of 2-3 min clip)

STEPHEN JONES- "Its sad for

"Its sad for our country, but we aren't done, we still have the Constitution, we still have remedies. And we can keep that if we work together"

VIDEO CLIP- Give it a few min to load...its slow.

At the 1:31 Min. mark (last third of 2-3 min clip)

World Net Daily itself is

World Net Daily itself is backing down.

Here is my email to Mr.

Here is my email to Mr. Moseley,

You are going to prison for a long time when we expose the governemnts lies about 9/11 and your parroting of their lies. I Can't wait to see you in a orange jumpsuit you scum sucking filth. Anti-american piece of garbage. You are destroying AMERICA FILTH!

Paul Revere

Has anyone else noticed that

Has anyone else noticed that the new History Channel stuff seems to be dedicated to debunking some of LC2E's more dubious claims? (Cleveland, gold motive for WTC, etc...)

Newsflash to propogandists: when you focus on straw-men, it only reinforces the validity of the core arguments (C.D., stand-down, etc...)

Editor's note: In paragraph

Editor's note: In paragraph four of this column, the author makes an assertion about professor Steven Jones' remarks at a 9/11 symposium broadcast by C-SPAN. A review of the program online evidenced no such comments by Jones.
By Jonathon Moseley

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, bastard had to eat his words.

Stephen Jones 1 min 53 sec

Stephen Jones
1 min 53 sec

"Its sad for our country, but we aren't done, we still have the Constitution, we still have remedies. And we can keep that if we work together"
-Stephen Jones


Some weeks ago there was

Some weeks ago there was discussion here about what slogan would be best for flyers, blogads etc., we all know the 9/11=inside job, but how about

"9/11 = Made in U.S.A."


irRational+NIST(Neocon Insider Slanted Truth)=Eyes wide shut.
By the way irrational tell us why your guru Dietrich Snell left out some pretty damaging evidence that would have caught the perps.."if" they hijacked the planes. he had evidence concerning Tariq Rani,sent to him in 1994 about the bojinka plot to blow up airplanes simultaneously over the pacific,The other name that showed up with this guy was Yousef..recognize that name? This evidence was known to John Negroponte,Ambassador to the Philippines at the time.But Dietrich Snell,who was senior Couinsel to the 9/11 commission did not even bother to reveal any of this in the 9/11 report.
We can pick your story apart piece by piece or whole pages,whatever. Checkmate


Rational Shit-For-Brains:

Where were you last night? I checked my math this morning just in case you wouldn't. You didn't. Fuck off.


The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) issues the final report of its three-year, $16 million study into the WTC collapses on 9/11. NIST has produced over 10,000 pages of findings. However, the NIST’s account only examines events up to the initiation of each collapse; the investigation “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.” [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 82] NIST makes no mention of molten metal found at the collapse site in the weeks and months after 9/11, which has been described in numerous reports (see September 12, 2001-February 2002).

FEMA releases its report of the WTC collapses. It concludes, “[W]ith the information and time available, the sequence of events leading to the collapse of each tower could not be definitively determined.” On Building 7: “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.” [Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002]

In the month following 9/11, a significant amount of the steel debris from the WTC collapses is removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at a recycling plant or shipped out of the US. [US Congress, 3/6/2002] Each of the twin towers contained 78,000 tons of recyclable steel. Much of this is shipped to India, China, and other Asian countries, where it will be melted down and reprocessed into new steel products. Asian companies are able to purchase the steel for just $120 per ton, compared, for example, to a usual average price of $150 per ton in China. Industry officials estimate that selling off the steel and other metals from the WTC for recycling could net a few tens of million dollars. [New York Times, 10/9/2001; Reuters, 1/21/2002; Reuters, 1/22/2002; Eastday, 1/24/2002; CorpWatch, 2/6/2002] 9/11 victims’ families and some engineers are angered at the decision to quickly discard the steel, believing it should be examined to help determine how the towers collapsed. A respected fire fighting trade magazine comments, “We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence.” [Fire Engineering, 1/2002] Rep. Joseph Crowley (D) will later call the loss of this evidence “borderline criminal.”

This is a psyop to make

This is a psyop to make Jones seem legit.

The next setup against Prof.

The next setup against Prof. Jones, whether he is actively in the know or not, is already designed, when he was caught by 2 other 9/11 Scholars Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds with another flaw in his paper. Contrary to what Professor Jones said, molten aluminum sometimes does indeed glow in daylight.

When confronted by Reynolds in Fetzer's radio show, Fetzer cut him off the phone and Jones downplayed the issue.

The Steven/Alex Jones tandem is a joke. The thermite UBERALLES hype is a damn setup and you ate it.

But to make you happy, US Media is fooling you by putting a 9/11 Truthling every week on their channels. Strange, that Jones didn't get any invitation, though he was responsible for all this in the first place. Odd, that O'Reiley never even mentioned his name.

Because EJones is protected by those:
Canada's National Laboratory for Particle and Nuclear Physics partners.php
Collaboration Agreements:

# Comision Nacional de Energia Atomica(Argentina)
# International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna (Austria)
# Institute of Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Sofia (Bulgaria)
# Institute of Nuclear Physics(Kazakhstan)
# Institute of Nuclear Physics(Uzbekistan).....

# Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (USA)
# Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (USA)
# Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)
# Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (USA)
# CERN, Geneva (Switzerland)
# INER (Taiwan)

High Energy Accelerator Research Organization

The scientific Research Society ...2000.bios.shtml

John Browne
John C. Browne has been director of Los Alamos National Laboratory since 1997. He came to the laboratory in 1979 as a group leader in the Physics Division...

...From 1993 to 1997, Browne was program director for Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE) and energy research programs, responsible for overseeing LANSCE research and operations and for coordinating the Department of EnergyÂ’s Office of Energy Research programs.

and his Sonoluminescence clan who patented Prof.Jones' 90s research for the Department of Defense, yet the Dod didn't cancel his clearance yet, though he turned into a "conspiracy theorist".

This guy has classified knowledge in his brain and they don't care that he runs the 9/11 Truth Movement???
LOL, only a fool believes that... thruFD3398

1995.03.02 / jonesse@vanlab / RE: Sonoluminescence and Fusion Originally-From: Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion Subject: RE: Sonoluminescence and Fusion Date: 2 Mar 95 13:32:16 -0700 Organization: Brigham Young University Dear colleagues: There have been several postings lately regarding sonoluminescence(SL), and a possible connection to fusion. Our work continues on searching for neutron emissions associated with bubble cavitation in sound fields, using our sensitive neutron detectors, deep underground, in Provo Canyon (Utah). I should report that we have not yet detected any neutron emissions from SL, in deuterium-filled bubbles in aqueous solutions. We have, however, achieved both multi-bubble and single-bubble (clock-like) SL using D2 bubbles.

Terry Bollinger and I suggested a possible connection between SL and fusion back in 1992 on this net, and I spoke briefly on the subject at the ICCF-3 meeting in Nagoya in October 1992. But nothing has panned out yet. We have not given up still.

Observations of Single-Pulse Sonoluminescence
M. J. Moran, R. E. Haigh, M. E. Lowry, and D. R. Sweider
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore so...olum_paper.html

Sonoluminescence (SL) is the emission of flashes of light by imploding air bubbles in liquid...
...These results leave open the possibility that the SL source is substantially hotter than the 10,000 K that was implied above...
If the source temperatures actually are substantially hotter than 10,000 K, then, as numerous authors have speculated,4,5,6 SL might prove to be a fascinating approach to inertial-confinement fusion.

More in the context of Sonolumiescence:

Meeting the Energy Needs of Future Warriors (2004) 73.html

Robert J. Nowak is a consultant and former program manager at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Office of Naval Research. He has directed and supported research in fuel cells, batteries, capacitors, energy harvesting, fuel processing, thermal energy conversion, microengines, hydrogen storage, biofuel cells, sonoluminescence, and biomolecular motors. Dr. Nowak initiated the DARPA Palm Power program, which focuses on portable power research and development for a variety of DOD missions...

Hmmm... Who do I believe? 1)


Who do I believe?

1) Steven E. Jones, Brigham Young University Professor of Physics


2) Dumb-ass shill Nico Haupt

Tough decision.

Let's ask this

Let's ask this again:

Anonymous= faceless coward, ZERO 9/11 Research 2001-2006

Prof.jones = Los Alamos Weapon affiliation, ZERO OWN 9/11 Research 2001- 2006

or Nico Haupt, see background below
(where's your evidence on the shill label?)
My "9/11 media activism- and -research bio:
Nico Haupt aka ewing2001
New York City

I started to research on 9/11 on the morning of Sep11th at around 8:53 AM EST with two discussion threads on an canadian forum.
I mirrored "the attack..." and "the investigation continues..." later on my research board at ("Ground Zero Forum").

On the morning of Sep11th one correspondent wrote me about 'prior knowledge'.
I also immediately thought that the Twin Towers collapse was the result of 'calculated' controlled demolition.
I furthermore wondered if at least one clip from CNN (not shown live, but later as an "exclusive") was the result of 'dramatized' tv fakery.
I didn't believe that Bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11.

The forum at delphiforums is still up, but meanwhile moderated by someone else or deserted since 2004/05.

Other stations:

-September 2001
Establishment of the "9/11 Skeptics ring" with 40-50 members, plus associated chat room with 100 members

November 2001- December 2002
(9/11 section)

December 2001
-First public lecture about 9/11 in NYC, with focus on an own timeline, irregularities and PNAC.

-Various Radio/TV- interview appearances incl. at Erskine,, Jeff Rense, Keidi Obi Awadu,
DER SPIEGEL, some european stations and papers, and WING TV.
DER SPIEGEL (mirror)

-first endorser of the "people's 9/11 commission"
-co-signer "petition to investigate 9/11 oddities"
-co-founder of 9/11 Truth Alliance
-co-founder "ShadowGovernment TV", public access NYC
-co-founder of "9/11 Science and Justice Alliance" (2002-2006),
together with Jeff "Plaguepuppy" King, veteran controlled demolition researcher at
The findings of this group inspired, WING TV, the former Hufschmid/Walter tandem, David Ray Griffin, Craig Hill of the Green Party, Professor Jones and the 9/11 Scholars
-member of Guerrilla News,, and many other 9/11 portals.

May 2002
-co-organizer of 3-day "9/11 skeptics panel" within an artist event on Times Square/Chashama Theatre.
Two weeks later George Bush confirmed "prior knowledge" ("Bush knew", NY POST)

-chief editor of (inn.) (2003-2005)

-main researcher and editor at on Satellite Dish TV, produced by Lenny Charles and Tom Kiely.

-online publisher of "9/11 skeptics encyclopedia" (2000 keywords on 800 pages).

Integrated into during 2004

-Co founder of New York's 9/11 meetup

-co-founder of (i left them during spring 2004)

Guest speaker at the "SF 9/11 Inquiry".
Incl. one host session with Barbara Honegger ("October Surprise"), with focus on "terror drills" and "plane swaps".
Almost two weeks later, finally NORAD started to confirm some of their terror drills. (Source: POGO)

-2nd time speaker attendance at H2K 2004 Hacker Conference about 9/11 Information hacking vs. Disinfo"
(2002 First Time appearance at H2K 2002)

-During 2004 weekly updates about the 9/11 Truth Movement at
-joining 9/11 Truth Action at
-regular correspondence with international 9/11 truth activist- and investigative projects in U.S., Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Iceland, Denmark, Austria, Netherlands, Belgium, England, Scotland, Wales, Russia, Switzerland, Croatia, Czech Republic, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and other countries.

-September 2004
Co-advisor of "Confronting the Evidence", a public produced by Jimmy Walter ( and INN World Report, at the Grand Ballroom, NY (2000 guests).
Some weeks later, POPULAR MECHANICS started to work on an article to debunk the content of the guest speakers of this event.

-co-founder "TEAM 8+"

official announcement to retire as investigative journalist, activist and researcher

Continuing limited projects at "9/11 Inside Jobbers Yahoogroup"

"...Inside Jobbers is an ad hoc think tank stemming from 9/11 research and activism. In the absence of any investigative journalism and any real remaining "independent" media sources, this group is the premiere source for analysis of current events; specializing in 9/11, false flag terrorism, psy-ops, and geo-political NWO policy watch.

Our goal is the exposure of the monumental crime of 9/11 as a military operation and media hoax, with hope of ending any further aggression under the guise of the frame-up on humanity - aka "the War on Terror"..."

Continuing projects at

"9/11 Inside Jobbers Yahoogroup"


Launching 9/11close up -CGI section,
also promoted at Universal Pictures "United 93" forum, Washington Post William Arkin blog and ABC News Forum.

NY 9/11 meetups

Guest at Webster Tarpley show, together with Dr. Jeff King a.k.a. Plaguepuppy

June 2006:
Launching and 9/11 Truthling Community Guide

First public appearance at a event since leaving the group in Spring 2004.

August 2006
9/11 TV Fakery Conference at st.marks/ny911truth

I am getting really sick of

I am getting really sick of Nico.

jack wrote: "...I am getting

jack wrote:
"...I am getting really sick of Nico.
Jack Bauer | 08.17.06 - 10:21 pm.."

I am not here to win a popularity contest. I am journalist, video- and computer engineer and 9/11 researcher.

And that's where i will continue.
You have something more useless to say, bootlicker?

boast: I say that you could

boast: I say that you could allow the entire wings AND cabin to be full of lamp oil.... without a compressor section and bypass cooling effect to keep from melting the hot section, ya can't soften structural steel with a months worth of smokey burning.
Erin S. Myers

in a world where an aluminum wingtip and a plastic nosecone can slice right thru that same structural steel? why not lamp oil?

easy there nico - you're

easy there nico - you're distracting him from dwelling on poor kevin barrett's plight!

Hmmm... Who do I believe? 1)

Who do I believe?
1) Steven E. Jones, Brigham Young University Professor of Physics
2) Dumb-ass shill Nico Haupt
Tough decision.
well, i bet jones knows more about physics than anyone does but at the same time i bet nico knows more about video fakery than anyone does.
so your tough decision really isn't such a dilemma is it?

"...easy there nico - you're

"...easy there nico - you're distracting him from dwelling on poor kevin barrett's plight!..."

LOL, that's right :)

Barrett is now playing the fall guy for Jones, while Jones will hide in United Kingdom during the 9/11 anniversary, maybe already hooking up with these dutch - and british scientists (Delft + Edinburgh) on their own CD "investigation".

People here cannot even read.
Jones was working on weapons hotter than 10,000 K (Sonarlumiscence), yet with all his DoD knowledge, he still claims, that thermite/thermate produced the pulverization at WTC1/2??

Oh yeah and the truth about 9/11 was already officially delayed in the good ole "america isn't ready for the truth" Hence tradition, since LCIII will only premiere in 2007 at Sundance.

2007- that's also when Greening wants to speak out. Delay- delay- delay, while US, Russia and China prepare their final endgame.

oh greening is going to

oh greening is going to speak out?
well he has to wait and see what the other guys come up with first so he can compose another debunk pdf that doesn't really debunk -

Here is something for

Here is something for Nico;

A former State Department security officer has given CounterPunch a detailed memoir and documents that point to very curious conduct by the CIA, Secret Service and FBI in the Philippines following warnings of an assassination bid on President Clinton during his November 12/13, 1994 visit to Manila.

The bid was organized by the 1993 WTC bomber Ramzi Yousef, at the direction of, and with financial support from, Osama bin Laden (who was indicted for the plot by a federal grand jury in August 1998).

A Pakistani linked to that Manila plot, and also to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency may still be at large. The security officer charges a U.S. cover-up of possible involvement by the Pakistani ISI in the 9/11/01 attack on the Trade Towers. Although given these same leads, the Official 9/11 Commission failed to investigate them.

This past December, Sam Karmilowicz finished a 21-year career as an officer in the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security. Back in 1994 he was working as an Assistant Regional Security Officer at the U.S. Embassy in Manila, when John D. Negroponte was the ambassador. These days, Negroponte is the U.S. Director of National Intelligence.

On the morning of September 18, 1994, Karmilowicz recalls, "the U.S. embassy received a telephone call from an anonymous person (who spoke with a distinct middle eastern accent) concerning his knowledge of an assassination plot against President William Clinton, who was scheduled to visit Manila that coming November."

The embassy switchboard relayed that and a subsequent call to Karmilowicz, and the caller provided him the name of a Pakistani businessman, Tariq Javed Rana, as being one of the leaders of the plot. The source told Karmilowicz that Rana was facilitating the importation of explosives and operatives into the Philippines to complete the mission by paying bribes to Philippine government officials of the Immigration and Customs bureaus. He said the bribes were paid in counterfeit U.S. currency.

The first call was promptly reviewed in the embassy that same day by members of the embassy emergency action committee (EAC) chaired by Raymond Burghardt, the Deputy in Charge of Mission under Negroponte. The FBI, Secret Service, CIA, DEA, and DIA were all members of the committee. At the conclusion of the EAC meeting, embassy law enforcement and intelligence officials were instructed to inform the Philippine authorities and to initiate an investigation to determine the credibility of the threat. (Burghardt went on to become US ambassador to Vietnam and now heads the East-West Center, based in Honolulu.)

"A few weeks afterwards", Karmilowicz says, " high ranking officers of the CIA and Secret Service came into my office and informed me that they had conducted an investigation concerning the threat and concluded that the allegations against the Pakistani, Rana, were a hoax in order to have the police harass him. They offered no motive or information as to why such a 'hoax' would be perpetrated or who might be behind it.

"While all this was going on, I was supervising and managing the embassy's surveillance detection unit responsible for the security of our housing compounds and annexes, including looking for suspicious persons or activity. I was also assigned the task of coordinating and providing protective security arrangements for visiting dignitaries and VIPs. As such, I had a professional responsibility to know whether the Pakistani suspect, and or any of his accomplices, was a credible threat against U.S. persons and/or interests in the Philippines. "The U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies may have dismissed this intelligence data as a hoax while secretly following up the leads ... or they may just have been incompetent and let the future 9-11 terrorist masterminds slip through their fingers. Either way, they seem to have been incompetent because, if they were secretly monitoring these suspected (later confirmed) terrorists, then they obviously did a poor job of it."

A few days before that first call, the Pakistani man named in the plot, Tariq Rana, had been featured in the Philippine press, which reported that he was a suspect in an illegal drug manufacturing ring. In response to these allegations, the public affairs section of the Pakistani embassy in Manila issued a number of statements vigorously denying the allegations against their national, claiming that he was a law-abiding citizen and a close relative of members of Pakistan's parliament and military establishment. Shortly after he issued these statements the Pakistani public affairs officer was recalled to Pakistan.

President Clinton arrived in Manila on November 12, 1994, and his two-day visit passed without incident. Then, one week before Pope John Paul II's visit to Manila in mid-January, 1995, police claimed a fire occurred in Room 603 of the Dona Josefa apartment building in Manila and that they discovered bomb-making chemicals and other evidence during a search of the apartment. Several people of Middle Eastern origin were staying in the apartment at the time of the fire and one of these persons was later identified as Ramzi Yousef, the 1993 World Trade Center bomber. Yousef is the nephew of Khaled Shaikh Muhammad, who was arrested in 2003. Muhammad subsequently disclosed under interrogation that he had planned the 9/11 attacks with Yousef in Manila at that time.

Ramzi Yousef fled the Philippines immediately after the apartment fire, and was arrested in Pakistan a month later. In 1998, Agence France Press (AFP) reported that Yousef confessed to federal authorities while in prison that he had in fact planned to assassinate Clinton when the president was visiting the Philippines but gave up because of tight security. Secret Service sources also report that large sums of counterfeit U.S. currency were entering the Philippines during the time of the plot. Clearly, the information passed to Karmilowicz was accurate and not a hoax as claimed by the CIA and Secret Service.

In conjunction with the fire at Yousef's apartment, the Philippine press also reported that a similar fire occurred at the business establishment of Tariq Rana. An article in the Manila Chronicle indicated that the police found the same chemicals in both fires - chemicals that are used to make nitroglycerin. Yousef used nitroglycerin to bomb Philippines Airlines Flight 434 on December 11, 1994 as a test run for the so-called "Bojinka"plot. The explosion tore out a two square foot portion of the fuselage and ripped almost in half the body of 24-year old Haruki Ikegami, a Japanese businessman occupying the seat under which the bomb was placed. The bomb used on Flight 434 had one-tenth the power of the bombs he planned to use in the first phase of his Bojinka project, which was to simultaneously bomb 11 American aircraft over the Pacific Ocean.

Rana was arrested in April 1995 by Philippine authorities and charged with business fraud, although his current whereabouts are unknown.

Not all the Al Qaeda operatives successfully escaped arrest following the January 6, 1995 fire at the Dona Josefa apartment building.

According to Peter Lance's book Cover Up, Ramzi Yousef instructed one of his accomplices, Abdul Hakim Murad, to return to Dona Josefa during the early morning hours on the day of the fire to retrieve his laptop computer, which contained all the details of the Bojinka plot, plus other incriminating information. The Philippine police, who had staked out the building, subsequently arrested Murad and transported him to Camp Crame, the headquarters of the Philippine National Police Intelligence Group (PNP). During the period of Murad's captivity, Lance says Murad "was harshly treated, perhaps even tortured, forced to ingest massive quantities of water".

Murad remained in Philippine custody until on or about May 11, 1995, when he was rendered to the U.S. to face criminal charges. However, before the rendition, the U.S. embassy sent Karmilowicz to Camp Crame to pick-up an envelope containing evidence that the PNP had collected from Murad. Upon his return to the embassy, Karmilowicz was instructed to transcribe the chain of evidence and to express mail the materials to a U.S. Justice Department Office in New York City. Mike Garcia and Dietrich Snell, the Assistant U.S. Attorneys who prosecuted Murad, almost certainly had access to the materials that Agent Karmilowicz sent to the Justice Department, although it is unknown what, if anything, was done with the evidence.

Pakistan's ISI and, indirectly, the CIA had much closer ties to the Taliban and al Qaeda than the American public was allowed to know. It is common knowledge that Osama bin Laden may be hiding in the rugged Pakistani mountains bordering Afghanistan. However, most Americans probably are not aware or do not remember that major al Qaeda players Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Shaik Mohammed were both hiding in Pakistan when they were captured in 1995 and 2003, respectively, as was Mir Aimal Kasi, the assassin who attacked CIA employees in their cars outside CIA headquarters in Langley, VA in 1993.

Pakistan had been playing a double game until the events of September 11 forced the situation. Pakistan had supported the rise of the Taliban in the power vacuum left by the departure of the Soviet occupation army at the end of the 1980s. Pakistan supported and even used al Qaeda terrorist training camps to train its own operatives for use in the Kashmir dispute. There are other examples of Pakistan's possible links to terrorism and infiltration of the ISI by al Qaeda, such as the alleged funneling of money from ISI director General Ahmad Mehmoud to 9/11's Mohammed Atta. The Wall Street Journal reporter, Daniel Pearl, was kidnapped and murdered in Karachi, Pakistan while he was investigating these al Qaeda-ISI links.

Karmilowicz went on

Mike Anti-Neo-Con, thanks

Mike Anti-Neo-Con,

thanks for asking, but i talked about the ISI connection for years, also on my old blog at 911skeptics.blogspot and declared it as a distractive part of the 9/11 "plotline" which has nothing to do with the military operation of 9/11.

The Pakistan-9/11 "connection" therefore functions as another limited hangout (also see Goss etc...) and works furthermore into a setup against Pakistan, in the long run for a nuclear situation between them and India (Lockheed).

Pearl's case was interesting, i researched on him too and it's all available via google. Clear that he was killed by CIA/ISI, because he found out about the phony identity of KSM.

Again, this is a distraction and i'm not here to talk about this.

I recommend Prof. Chussodowski's writings on that matter, which are more isolated.


nico aka ewing2001

On that note however VERY

On that note however VERY important, also the recent "shampoo 8/11" false flag works into a setup against Pakistan
Aug 13 200
March 2006: Pakistan had prior knowledge about "Shampoo 8/11"- reported back in March 2006 on ABC and on Team8+

Team8Plus wrote about alleged 'shampoo 8/11' ringleader Matiur Rehman already back in March 2006 in our series "Scripting "Terror Soap": Yemen, UAE etc..."

In one report this alleged terror attack against the U.S., here called "Shampoo 8/11"
was already announced:

New 2006 Terror Soap No.3:
A new "Al-Quaeda leader" from Pakistan

Pt. 1- the new "terror leader"
March 2, 2006

March 1, 2006 Pakistani officials have told ABC News that they believe they have indications that a new terror attack is being planned there against the United States...

...Pakistani military officials say Matiur Rehman, 29, a Pakistani militant, is behind the new plans for an attack against the United States.Pakistan has posted a 10-million rupee (about $166,000) award for his capture..."


Ringleader "suspects" framed for the next follow-up false flag for WW3-5?
London, Aug. 13

"...While authorities in Pakistan believe they have nabbed the main players in the plot, the official said there are two or three people still at large, including Matiur Rahman, a senior figure in the al-Qaida-linked Pakistani militant group Lashkar-e-Jhangvi. Rahman's name was mentioned by one of the detainees during interrogation...

The 'other' dead Matiur Rahman- inspiration for the name?
Operation '8/20 Blue Bird 2'?

Matiur Rahman (Bangla: ম) or Shaheed M. Matiur Rahman (born February 21, 1945 in Dhaka - died August 20, 1971) was a Flight Lieutenant in the Pakistan Air Force when the Liberation War broke out...

...On August 20, 1971 he attempted to pilot a T-33 trainer from Karachi, Pakistan to India in order to defect from the Pakistan Air Force and join the liberation movement of Bangladesh. The T-33 aircraft was code-named 'Bluebird'. He didn't make it though, as, reportedly, the other pilot Rashid Minhas in the plane forced it to crash.

The plane crashed in Thatta, a place near the Indian border. His body, which was found near the crash site was reportedly buried at the graveyard of fourth class employees at Masroor Air Base, Pakistan..

Mike Anti-Neo con, the info

Mike Anti-Neo con,

the info about Sam Karmilowicz appears to be interesting, but please bear in mind that Alexander Cockburn of Counterpunch likes these intellectual traps.

Cockburn himself was once linked to Scientology and i personally see a string gatekeeper stink at Counterpunch.

We wouldn't be here talking

We wouldn't be here talking about any of this if leads were followed up,but when you have something out there by the Leo Strauss lovers and find investigations that present the perfect situation for the "Project of the New American Century", then here becomes the way to achieve the "New Pearl Harbor". The rest of it is details. And who bought those "put" options?

Perhaps you can also explain

Perhaps you can also explain why there was so many Mossad agents following the "hijackers" around.And none of them said,"Pssst,Hey,United States! You got some KNOWN terrorists here and Atta is staying down there in Venice,Florida.You should check that out". 120 Israeli's and the FBI's investigations are stopped with no further follow ups allowed,and they were sent back,or so they say they were sent back

All of it, james. It's all

All of it, james. It's all wrapped in blatant lie after lie. The confluence of endless absurdity is the stroke of brilliance in an inspired plan to obscure. Inspired by who or what I can not say, being agnostic has it's drawbacks.

The daylight glow in SOME aluminum (and not sometimes, but some conditions) is a valid point, Nico. I use tungsten-inert-gas welding with auto darkening hoods.... if the settings are off, I can catch a momentary glimpse of "glow" so long as the work spot is still bathed in gas jacketing. This "glow" is only momentary before the physical properties of aluminum wick such florescing heat away, fast.

I also use a plasma cutting torch on an automated gantry allowing me plenty of opportunity to observe the cutting with aluminum slag at 5000+ deg F. The slag is instantly dull-dusty, whereas hot steel slag of the same temperature fills the room with light as it bounces and spills upon the floor. The aluminum does not carry light more than a few feet, traveling 100 feet per second, and lands upon the floor cold. That which is emitting light, is burning into powder and vapor with oxygen. It forms more of a cloud, and not a glowing flow.

I will conduct an experiment of throwing plasma heated aluminum up into the air. See what I see.

Is this whole debate because of the cascading material seen from the buildings, low in the rubble pile, or what?

Wasn't there a B-25 bomber

Wasn't there a B-25 bomber that flew into the empire State building back in 1947? there was fire on 4 floors,but the building did not collapse. so...did that fuel burn like kerosene? Why didn't that building collapse? And that was almost 60 years ago. answer that one...and what was that burning in the corner of the south tower? It had the same exact characteristics of Thermite.

The Jones attack has been

The Jones attack has been RETRACTED by the WND editor

Glad to see the retraction and correction by the editor of WND concerning inappropriate accusations about comments made by Dr. Steven Jones.
This is a responsible and honest correction.

Thank you.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion of subjective information, and facts under investigation, but clearly,facts that are obviously wrong such as in this case, should not be presented by responsible parties.


One question however.... my curiosity......

The name of Jon Moseley is spelled differently in the WND article than elsewhere on the web.

Is this a TYPO?

Just wondering.......

The author of the WND article spells his name
"Jonathon" Moseley

but if we look at and here

Where we can see an actual picture of
"JONATHAN Moseley" the first name is spelled differently

Who spells their name two different ways on two different web pages simultaneously on the web? Kind of strange....

Is the author of


the same person spelling his own name two different ways?


the response email----

_____ Original Message _____
From: Jonathon Moseley
To: Neil Slade ; Jonathon Moseley ;
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: false information

Mike Anti-Neo-Con, i even

Mike Anti-Neo-Con,

i even did more than just research on Leo Strauss. I traced back the complete influences of him and all other neocons plus their own scholars.
I did that at the philosophical research group of, and often mirrored it on the PRAVDA Forum.

The whole neocon research, especially on Wohlstetter (RAND) showed much more important things than what gatekeeper William Rivers Pitt ( presented when he plagiarized my PNAC research back in 2001/02 at

I was the first who brought the link between Perle and his father-in-law, Albert Wohlstetter.
RAND also manipulated the very first 9/11 panel meeting by dictating the agenda: "It's time to move foward".

And guess, who organized a room next to this panel? Ex- NSA Guy Vantresca- for Kyle Hence and John Judge, both licking up the RAND folks!!

More on Wohlstter here:

Wohlstetter-Wolfowitz-Bloom Connection
October 12, 2001

At the University of Chicago, Wolfowitz became the prot?g? of Albert Wohlstetter, the conservative nuclear strategist. Wohlstetter believed that it was not only possible, but necessary, to rationally study atomic war. That ability to think about the unthinkable rubbed off on Wolfowitz. (Wolfowitz also studied with Allan Bloom. Saul Bellow apparently modeled a character in Ravelstein, his novel about Bloom, on Wolfowitz.)

Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy (1988)

"...For the past fifteen months, a group of this country's leading experts on military and international affairs has been attempting to produce what many critics believe was impossible for the Reagan administration to achieve: an "integrated" and "long-term" strategy that would prepare the US to meet the changing "security environment" for the rest of this century and the early decades of the next. Co-chaired by Fred C. Ikl?, who has just retired as the under-secretary for defense, and by the strategic analyst Albert Wohlstetter, the Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy includes inter alios such notables as Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Anne Armstrong, and General Andrew Goodpaster..."

I have not much to say about Mossad, because they also represent the 9/11 plotline, not the complete military operation. They observed the actors and stand-ins who officially got presented as the 9/11 suspects, but so what?

The whole observation was part of legitimize the profiles of the alleged suspects. Once again, this works just as a distraction. The analysis and research of team8plus on the suspects itself is much more interesting, because it shows that they altogether had doubles and stand-ins.

The updated research of our member JohnDoe II was also promoted here at 911blogger.
Needless to say, noone of them "hijacked" any plane, therefore i will not respond to that point either....

B-25 runs on high-octane

B-25 runs on high-octane gasoline. They might be been Wasps or Twin (double) Wasp Round (radial) motors. Also, known as an extraordinarily hard airframe.

No offense, anybody....... gotta get past debating weather jets, bombers (airframe), gas or kerosene can significantly threaten steel structures..... the aircraft and fuel is just no match.

is this whole debate because

is this whole debate because of the cascading material seen from the buildings, low in the rubble pile, or what?


see ya....

see ya....

People, please don't feed

People, please don't feed the troll.
For the newbies here, get a grasp at our "rational" fellow by looking at his disinformation guide.

No offense, anybody.......

No offense, anybody....... gotta get past debating ...... significantly threaten steel structures..... the aircraft and fuel is just no match

ok excellent! obviously the towers were destroyed by design -
i'd like to see if i'm understanding what nico meant by prof. jones being a limited hangout - i think that nico is suggesting that since jones has spent his entire career involved with new weird science, he (jones) knows full well or at least suspects what was the device that caused the powderization of all the concrete - i think that nico feels that since jones knows what's up with that already, (and how can he not?), the fact that he (jones) is wasting his time dwelling on thermate means that his (jones') true intention is to stall and distract from the revelation of the new weird science' involvement with the wtc.

maybe i'm way off base but i think that is what nico means by jones is a limited hangout.

So..what that means is none

So..what that means is none of them flew the planes,therefore this turns to the remote control possibility.(and I agree Erin,if jet fuel can do that to a 100+ story skyscraper,Then Mark Loaiza may be in the market to buy some boeing jets for his next demolition job). But the question remains...who bought the put options?

no wait a minute myers - i

no wait a minute myers - i truly don't get what you meant here:

is this whole debate because of the cascading material seen from the buildings, low in the rubble pile, or what?

was there a rubble pile already there when that stuff was seen cascading from a window?

Last late night update,

Last late night update, fresh from the new blog from Malaprop, the latest official supporter of the topic, this time from the forensic angle again:
Thursday, August 17, 2006

This picture tells why they had no choice but to fake the planes.

The guy describing the exterior of the WTC using the "mosquito net" analolgy was lying.....his unforgettable "pencil" piercing-the-mosquito-net demonstration, was a lie, too.

After all, the guy IS an employee of Silverstein.They avoided any discussion of the exterior construction, and just try to find good photos of the walls. Lucky to have this one. And the blueprints of the towers hidden.Each one of these steel columns is 14" square, and three of them anchored to two steel plates weighs seven tons each. and the openings were on 39 inch centers. That leaves only 26-inch openings! ...

I don't understand the point

I don't understand the point of emailing WND. They are a very distorted political group, their journalistic pretensions notwithstanding.

Far better than contacting WND, it would be better to contact their MEMBERSHIP and to point out WND's lies and distortions on this issue and to ask them to fairly examine the facts. Obviously, WND isn't going to turn over their membership list, but "info warriors" could visit right-wing blogs and post comments, ads could be taken out, etc.

I have nothing particularly against right-wing groups, but, like left-wing groups, I value honesty and fairness; where these are lacking, I presume a hidden agenda behind what is essentially propaganda.

So, why not sue him for

So, why not sue him for defamation?

That Scholar's group is

That Scholar's group is starting to sound nutty getting involved in what the crazy media pundits say about them. They should just file a lawsuit for defamation and not get all caught up in this stuff.

Nico says "The guy

Nico says "The guy describing the exterior of the WTC using the "mosquito net" analolgy was lying.....his unforgettable "pencil" piercing-the-mosquito-net demonstration, was a lie, too.

After all, the guy IS an employee of Silverstein."

How old are the buildings? I thought that guy with the mosquito net description was part of the architectural group which did the design work WAY BACK WHEN, but that Silverstein LEASED the property relatively RECENTLY.

Nico, seriously, you are

Nico, seriously, you are ruining legitimate arguments for this movement by throwing in that you believe "NO PLANES" hit the two towers. Please STOP. If you honestly believe this then I really feel sad and can not help, but feel sorry for your lack of intelligence.

james, it was late (long

james, it was late (long day) and I misunderstood your question of my question.

This is a better way for me to ask:

Where do you think the nexus of debate concerning molten metal is:

That which I've seen footage, falling from the building, before collapse?

The reaction of steel, aluminum, iron, and ambient oxygen at temperatures above hydrocarbon fire. (incendiaries and/or high explosives)?

The reports of molten material deep in the rubble?

Someplace else?

The debate is long, tiring and filled with false leads (unintentional and otherwise).

Someone else can follow stock-tips.... not my kinda shit. But I do understand it [the money] is importance.

Take care.

An examination of the man's

An examination of the man's claim of mosquito-netting (without access to the original public record draft work) was a brilliant way to hint about the genuine construction of the towers.

Mosquito netting, analogous to a mesh of tension-able wire from anywhere along the parameter, explains in a flash (to me) how the rest of the structure was being asked to perform in the mind[s] of the engineers..

STFU, Neco..... or relax with your filling of EVERY SINGLE PERSON AS A SHILL.

You've either lost your mind with the pressure of 9.11. Very possible and I feel for you, man.... or you've been or became the shill yourself, in which case you're a total piece of shit.

If you're really on to something.... that's great! But you're killing yourself by attacking so many at once.

hahaha, Erin, i gues you see

hahaha, Erin, i gues you see my point about Nico now huh? : )

Chris, I saw the point early

Chris, I saw the point early on.... but I just needed to drive it home... for myself.

...for myself.

...for myself.

I don't feel sorry for the

I don't feel sorry for the "lack of intelligence" of Jack Bauer, who thinks that the evidence on 9/11 TV Fakery can be constantly trashed down.

Jack Bauer has nothing productive to add and is helpless like all others, who allegedly tried to debunk the issue, while there is nothing to debunk.

So they have to continue with insults which is all what they have and the "shill label".

Assuming i would be a shill "to damage the movement" and the facts are complete rubbish, why i still didn't get up all our findings into Washington Post?

Going with the opposite logic, though this is even more bizarre:
Assuming i would be a shill and have solid facts. How to proceed and why at all?
It doesn't even make sense.
Logically i would trash my own facts and turn into a "remote controller".

Jack Bauer also insulted the intelligence of the following people, who signed the petition on 9/11TV Fakery/no planes forensic evidence:

And here are their names:
Stevan Douglas Looney (Attorney), Ray "Titus" Sanborn (SA), Rick Siegel, Steven E. Jones, Michael Morrissey (University of Kassel, Germany), Brian Duncan (Fire Protection Engineering), Judy Wood, Brian Vernon, Alexander Dent, Brad Mayeux, Veronica Chapman, Andrew Johnson, Rick Rajter.

Rajter will write the paper.
He was also guest at the ny911truth event on Sunday.

Also signed:
9/11 Truth Speakers like 'Candidate' Craig Hill, Ian McFerran (UK 9/11 Truth Movement), Jimmy Walter, Rev H Thorpe Saxton, Lenny Bloom, Dennis Morrisseau (9/11 Truth Candidate), Ralph Charles Whitley, Sr.(decorated American Veteran of One), Thomas J Mattingly (McClendon Group/National Press Club DC) and others.

Haupt: I haven't trashed


I haven't trashed you, but unless you can address the chain of evidence...... with millions of billions of zillions of links..... you've got no case I'm interested in.

So until you address this...... You're unfortunately on my "Fuck Off" list.

Sorry to say that, but as for your material, no matter how many gold nuggets you promise are down in there.... I'm not interested in smelling like shit for the sake of fifty pounds of gold.

Erin, yet another insult,

yet another insult, but so what.

I have addressed the evidence on as also in a public event at

Half of the audience was convinced, that there is enough into it to have a case and continue to bring this into awareness.

Rick Rajter ( work with us together to get a paper up later this month and then you have a chance to address the findings again.

Furthermore i will try my best to continue to promote this oppresssed evidence worldwide as i did also with other stuff in the past, which is meanwhile overhyped in mainstream media and doesn't change anything yet either....

You go with the orwellians and ignorants, i go with solid facts.

nico you don't have to

nico you don't have to defend yourself or the body of work that you have produced against these guys -
and the irony of someone calling you a shill while using the name "jack bauer" or "anonymous" would actually be comical if it didn't get under your skin and cause you to once again have to point out that your work speaks for itself.

these guys are wise enough to realize the absurdity of an aluminum plane with a plastic nosecone vs. the wtc. if they find it easier to pretend that it is not absurd than they do to actually contemplate the ease with which we were all deceived by the military/media, well, that's on them. you nico are doing a good job.

professors spend their whole lives comparing notes and trying to reach some peer reviewed consensus, so the simplicity of the entire deception has probably thrown them for a loop, but the scholars are slowly figuring that out.
you guys here say that nico is a disinfo shill but i say he has made himself into a 9/11 expert. if he is hurting your movement, well that's just too bad.

awwww, james, that was so

awwww, james, that was so sweet. with friends like you, Nico doesnt need to defend himself at all.

to be fair to you guys, i

to be fair to you guys, i must admit that he attacks you as well as you attacking him. but behind all of it i see him having to fight every step of the way since 9/11 against real disinfo shills. so if he views you guys in the same light as those real disinfo shills maybe that's understandable.
maybe he's a crazy german and finds it hard to get his point across?
but you can't dismiss all the work he has done with the word disinfo.
to me the tv fakery is obvious so i support nico. but i don't think that just because you guys don't see it means that you are shills.
but one thing is truly ridiculous:
calling oneself jack bauer or superherotruth,etc. while accusing nico of being a disinfo shill.

Mr. Haupt: Here it is from

Mr. Haupt:

Here it is from me, the way I see it. If it sounds ok to you, I offer my sincere apologies and will definitely NOT keep you on my crud "fuck off" list.

TV Fakery, I KNOW it exists.

I know that some crazy-ass mind blowing shit can be done with it.

And people will, no what, I say that genuine CGI arguments are too easily nullified by other genuine CGI arguments. IF THAT IS ALL YOU'RE GOING TO HAMMER ON.

Here's the thing, for me.... using CGI TV Fakery, or just fakery, to drive deep into the minds of people that they should be affaid of flying, or that swarthy cave man want to knife them in the throat unless we submit to top-down security...... doesn't change one iota, the lack of several buildings which once stood soundly in Manhattan.

A very real war and much blood spilling in Afghanistan.

A devastating campaign against the Iraqi people.

A mind-fucking campaign against "the West".

Someone deliberately brought the buildings down, and I don't think Bin Letdown was the central character.

The evidence needed to bring these criminals to justice, just can not be hinged on CGI.

I've said to you, sincerely.... pursue CGI all you can..... present it in front of the jury.... to hammer home the level of depravity surrounding this monumental crime.

I will be looking at what airplanes can and CAN NOT do, same for giant steel building.

I'm a pilot and welder..... not a computer guy.

Take care, man.

A little info about Jonathon

A little info about Jonathon Moseley:
From the "Hawaii Reporter"
U.S. Seaports Commission Opposes Foreign Control of U.S. Ports of Entry
By Jonathan Moseley, 2/24/2006

Jonathan Moseley is the Executive Director of the United States Seaports Commission
The Commission was originally the U.S. Intelligence Council and now a project of the U.S. Public Policy Council.

(Aliases: US Public Policy Council, aka US Seaport Commission, aka US Intelligence Council, aka Safe Borders Coalition.)
US Public Policy Council
13295 Blueberry Ln
Fairfax, VA 22033-4165
(703) 378-7944
Non-Profit Organizations

He is also the author of Cold Peace. See:
Amazon shows the book published January 10, 2003,
ranked #1,460,946 in books ( a real hot seller.... )
____________________ Charity Asking For Cash To Save US Port From China
Jun 26, 2006 4:37 pm

A flood of requests.... traced...back to a charity that calls itself the “U.S. Public Policy Council” in Virginia.
____________________ Jonathon Moseley on Zoom-Info
has details about his voter registration when running for office (Republican).
My two-cents: the guy is a hack attorney, involved in fake charities with official sounding names,
a frustrated book writer, that knocks off articles for the likes of WND....

wow Dudes.... ya you



ya you there, with the button....


"Look, its a slinter.... we gota pull it out."