"You got shortchanged on this History Channel program...."

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

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

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


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

You said it -- I, we -- were short-changed -- out of two hours, scientists and engineers from the 9/11 Truth community were given just a couple of sentences. I would like to see the scientists and engineers who have contributed mightily to the 9/11 truth movement given more time on-air. Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, Tony Szamboti, Jim Hoffman, Gordon Ross, Cate Jenkins, Greg Jenkins, Kenneth Kuttler, Crockett Grabbe, David Griscom -- I could go on. NONE of these scientists and engineers for 9/11 truth were interviewed or at least none of them were given time. A couple of sentences in two hours of stuff...

OTOH, I was pleased to see the discussion on the Mineta testimony (which appears prominently in three papers in the Journal, and which I also emphasize in talks such as at the Vancouver BC conference). They tried to wiggle out of that by saying that perhaps Mineta meant flight 93, 50 miles out etc -- but Mineta (bless him) made it clear before the Commission that he was talking about the flight approaching the Pentagon. And he stuck by his testimony about the Cheney behavior -- something new that comes out in the History channel piece. I thought David Ray Griffin did well on this point also -- why this could not be an order to shoot down the approaching plane.

Let's watch how hits on the major 9/11 sites pick up now... particularly at the Journalof911Studies.com interests me.
I would also like to thank those who have been improving several Wikipedia sites related to 9/11 (not me -- but I've noticed).

Steven Jones

History Channel Doc Was A Draw At Worst

I was somewhat stunned at how well we came out looking at the end.

And even though 'they' held back some of our best material (Steve's thermite research), I'd say we earned a draw at worst.

We are now officially on the map for good because they tried and in my view failed to knock us off of the cyber-world map.

I thought for sure 'they' were holding onto a few aces for an opportunity that the History Chennel doc would provide and yet, they didnt play them because I think 'they' are out of aces.

I suspect that the 'official' conspiracy folks are finished as a viable opposition to us.

The doc rattled off quite a good number of points of ours and yet their 'Expert Opinion' rebuttals wound up simply being opinions being offered mostly by a just out of college looking 'Research Editor' of PM's.

The Minetta segment airing was a real surprise to me as well as the admission that NIST was contemplating the controlled demo hypothesis for WTC 7.

And showing WTC 7 falling in the same fashion as other actual building demo's didn't hurt either.

Don't fret kids - in the long term this doc was a win for us.

The other side didn't debunk anything as much as they tried at times to make it seem that way and I think many more minds were opened up to our views.


Here is a hot media tip for leaders of the 9/11 Truth movement, including my hero, Dr. David Ray Griffin.

When you do interviews with hostile national media, stick to the most basic, most provable facts of 9/11 like WTC 7, controlled demolition, or failure to intercept, and do not speculate.

The overall effect of the show last night is good, more people will investigate 9/11.

But I can tell you the big loser was David Ray Griffin, who was the victim of character assassination.

Please not that Jim Hoffman was not on the show.

character assassination

What did they say about DRG?

Wasn't it DRG who was

Wasn't it DRG who was talking about voice-morphing technology on that program? I think that type of thing should be avoided by certain prominent individuals in the movement. Anyone else notice how they weaved together clips from Loose Change with statements from those they were interviewing to make it seem like everyone had gotten their ideas from LC? I think it is important that researchers identify their areas of expertise and research and try not to restate ideas put forth by others, ideas that might not be necessary to move the movement forward. You can refuse to answer their questions, like Steven Jones often does, by stating that topic is not something you specialize enough in, or have researched enough about, to discuss. We don't benefit from having a single party line that includes voice-morphing technology. Isn't it enough to prove that the cell phone calls couldn't have taken place? I'm not even sure if proving that is necessary for our goals.

All in all, I think their motives and bias should have been clear enough to both those within and outside of the movement. It should be extremely easy to pick apart and refute. I just wish we didn't give them any additional tricks to use by straying into topics which are unnecessary. Considering it was 2 hours long, most guests were much better about that than they have been in the past. Kudos and sorry to Steven Jones that you didn't get more time to discuss your research. Partway through, I was starting to think they wouldn't interview you at all!

they obviously fear you and

they obviously fear you and your work Professor. keep it up.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Show "Couldn't they find any experts to debunk Prof Jones ?" by NJcpaTOM

I concur with Webster Tarpley also...

I concur with your summary, Webster: "I would urge people in the movement to ponder why specifically these themes were so totally excluded from a broadcast which was otherwise reasonably wide-ranging. I would argue that our oligarchical enemies in the invisible government are very much afraid of issues like the Jones thermite-thermate thesis, “Angel is next,” Bush’s movements on 9/11, the 25+ drills of 9/11, and the new 9/11. They do not much like to hear the invisible government itself talked about, either. Based on this, I would appeal to the 9/11 truth movement as a whole to redouble its attacks on precisely these themes to maximize the damage to the myth-mongers. Hammer them home mercilessly, for their power is enormous. We need to focus on the best scientific-technical evidence, and the best political evidence, as represented by these issues."

I would add -- let's keep pushing the Mineta testimony as it relates directly to the lack of air defenses that day and to VP Cheney's angry retort "OF COURSE THE ORDERS STILL STAND! HAVE YOU HEARD ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY?" The HC interviewers added (helping our quest for 9/11 truth) that Mineta stands by his testimony -- that is a strong point! Impeachment of Cheney should likewise be pursued vigorously, to find out just what those orders were and why they still stood -- with no protection of the Pentagon and NO warning of the people inside it (per testimony of April Gallop who was inside, almost killed). And let's hear from that young man whose conscience led him to stand up and confront the great Cheney...

Open letter to Prof. Jones

Dear Mr. Jones,

While fully agreeing that Mineta's testimony is of utmost importance for uncovering of the structure of the 9/11 attacks, I ask you not to neglect the possibility that Mineta didn't tell the truth just because you see no obvious motive for him to lie.

The problem is that Mineta's statement is not confirmed by anyone else. It is not confirmed by Cheney himself (as claimed by many), it is not confirmed by David Bohrer, the White House photographer (as claimed by many), and Richard Clarke's account is very ambigous, to say the least. And finally, Mineta is contradicting himself in an interview from June 2006 regarding his arrival time at the White House. I have gathered the evidence and the underlying sources on my blog:


I'd like to emphasize that the Mineta testimony IS very important, and it's not my intention to kill a very promising investigative path. But I don't think it's a good idea to impeach Cheney because he lied about his whereabouts on the morning of 9/11 (I'm sure he didn't).

Here's the worst case scenario: The political pressure gets so big that Cheney is finally impeached for lying about his actions on 9/11. The issue is properly investigated, people like David Bohrer are interviewed and confirm Cheney's version, and Mineta himself backtracks, says sorry and suddenly remembers that it was not Flight 77, but Flight 93 (or the "projected flight path" of Flight 93). The case is closed, and all the respectable figureheads like DR Griffin, Peter Dale Scott and now Ray McGovern promoting the impeachment are discredited, resulting in a big backlash.

I've been accused by many people of spreading disinformation, but none of these people bothered to take a thorough look at my blog. The Mineta case is very tricky and has the potential to reveal the false flag structure of 9/11. I agree completely with Peter Dale Scott that Cheney directed the attacks out of the White House bunker, I just disagree on the details.

Please take your time and take a look at the last four entries of my blog.

Woody Box

9/11 History Program

When the student is ready the teacher will come.

Did you notice that each time before they went to a commercial they let the 9/11 Debunkers have the last say. They also had the last say at the end of the show. This was purposely done for the viewers to think about what was last said by the debunkers. They certainly favored the 9/11 Debunkers in this program. Take Care Matt

They are afraid of science...

The HIST channel's obvious omission of other 9/11 experts shows that they are afraid of science and want to merely deal with "theories." As such, no mention of thermite or published articles. Their intent was to pretend that it is "amatuers vs. experts" rather than expert vs. expert. Did they even acknowledge you as a physicist? Or just Steven Jones?

Also I was wondering if there are plans to publish Journal of 9/11 Studies papers in a book? All the better if we all have a book to hold up against the fraudulent Kean Commission report that is based in science. I've already written to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth to see if they would publish their findings.

A book?

Not a bad idea, McGee... We'll think about it.
A thought:
"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall - think of it, always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Gandhi launched his non-violent resistance movement on 9/11 1906.

You and Tarpley are right, Prof Jones

Shallow hit pieces do us good as talking points in our encounters with the "squeemish", but also in revealing valuable insights into the remaining defenses available to the official defenders... never thought I'd hear myself say, "Go Thermate!"

My questions:

What is the status of the NIST RFC's?

Can we help move them along?

Personally, I thought there would have been no HC hit piece if either your or Judy Wood's RFC's had official responses... They cannot answer these competently without direct exposure, we need to get them out!

BTW, you and William Rodriguez are my two favorite American Heroes right now-bless you both!

Judy Wood's RfC is a hoax --

Judy Wood's RfC is a hoax -- she suggests that space weapons destroyed the WTC.

Thanks Steve

>>You said it -- I, we -- were short-changed -- out of two hours, scientists and engineers from the 9/11 Truth community were given just a couple of sentences.

Yes, and indeed the purpose of this program is the same as all the FOX News broadcasts pretending to be "debates" which are actually merely a means for them to present THEIR best case . . . by standing on top of our weakest points while hiding the strongest. It's fomula and it happens like clockwork every anniversary.

Until we emphasize our strongest points on the front pages of our websites, talks and groups, and put our weakest and most debated points on the back burner, FOX and NBC can always find someone who they can stand on to refute the weakest claims to make themselves look good. Until we as a community make the distinction between what strong evidence we want to advance to the public, and what weak evidence requires more analysis and discussion before putting it out there front and center, we will always be easily ridiculed.

The easiest way to turn people off to an opponent is simply to find just one easily refutable point where he has gone out on a limb ("no passengers," "no hijackers," "missiles," etc), and that takes him out entirely for most viewers who think critically, work with professionals, and understand basics about the attacks.

They will never interview our engineers and scientists unless they can corner them on the weak claims ("no passengers," "no hijackers," "missiles," etc).

SO, if we want our engineers and scientists to get out there, we have to do it ourselves.

That means putting them front and center of our promotions to the public, making wikipedia pages, making myspace pages, continuing to write papers, submitting papers to academic journals, etc.

I think the paper submission to an academic journal has huge potential because if that happens then massive scientific debate may ensue and force media coverage.

We also have to keep our scientist and engineer groups functional and growing . . .

I was particularly bothered by

the fact that not once was it ever mentioned that the debunkers, despite their arrogance, have refused to debate the 9/11 truthers in open public. Furthermore, at the end of the program it was stated that "9/11 conspiracies" have been totally debunked by the likes of Popular Mechanics. What about "Debunking 9/11 Debunking"? It was unfortunately never mentioned and only got brief and minimal exposure during one segment wherein David Ray Griffin was being interviewed. If this is the best they can do for 9/11 2007, I must admit I'm not very worried. But I am annoyed.

My Email to History Channel

It is no surprise to me the History Channel is part of the corporate propaganda machine. The hack job you guys did on the 9/11 special last night was so obvious. Popular Mechanics journalist's are by no means experts and have committed journalistic fraud to say the least. "The debunkers, people like James Meigs whose scientific expertise stretches as far as being the editor of Video Review and Entertainment Weekly, were labeled as experts while real experts like Physicist Professor Steven Jones were stripped of any such description." -http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/history_channel_hit_piece_dirty_tricks_malicious_lies_journalistic_fraud.htm

Bradley Davis, Hearst Publishing (Popular Mechanics), GE, NBC, A&E, History Channel and all others involved with this corporate born piece of crap will all go down in history as LIARS! We The People do know the truth and you corporate slaves are far from it. Every one of you can take your corporate world and shove it were the sun don't shine. At least there all those stinking lies will be right at home. –Chris Thomas

Would like to get in touch

Dr. Jones,

Would like to get in touch with you.

I know you theory about cutting charges.

I have stayed away from viewing the collapse of the buildings. I watched them live in 2001 and was too painful. As an Arab-American of Lebanese origin who has witnessed destruction, it is very painful for me to view such imagery.

Recently, I did, it was a slow motion footage by NBC.

As a mechanical engineer who spent 7 years in R&D metallurgy and the majority of that R&D work was in powder metallurgy (atomized and chemically precipitated), I think I can be of assistance when it comes to morphology of particles.

In any case, after my viewing of that video, my Chertoff gut feeling tells me, it is a combination and not a single type of explosives. Certain things on the video were unexplainable in terms of cutting or explosive charges; there was something else going on.

When levels above the line of fracture make 15 to 20 degrees with the vertical while the levels below are still at 90 Degrees, something is fishy when the lower levels start collapsing in there footprint.

Anyway, my email is maher (at) mydemocracy.net and the website where I post my articles is www.mydemocracy.net

Feel free to contact me.

In peace,
Maher Osseiran

They didn't touch


Joe Allbaugh, the Director of FEMA, was interviewed by Bryant Gumbel of CBS news on October 10 2001:
GUMBEL: We’re seeing a lot of video of smoke pouring up from the debris.
ALLBAUGH: Correct.
GUMBEL: And we’re hearing there are places where temperatures are still approaching and sometimes exceeding a thousand degrees.
ALLBAUGH: That’s right.
GUMBEL: Why? Why do we have these hot spots? What’s going on?
ALLBAUGH: Well, you have normal debris, you know, computers, paper, you have some areas that are hot pockets because of fuel. It’s just too hot for rescuers to get into those areas. So we do not know yet what’s in those areas, other than very hot, molten material. (source_FEMA.gov)

Jumbo Jets Can Not Demolish Skyscrapers.