Open Letters to Greg Palast
"It's not a question of belief, it's a question of whether I have any other information... Look, I gotta tell ya Lenny, I'm just sort of stuck with this one. I'm an investigative reporter, if I haven't investigated it, and I report on it, then I'm just giving you my goofball opinion, I'm not an engineer, I'm not a physicist, I had an office in the World Trade Center, but that's all I can tell ya. I can tell you what I've found, which is they couldn't... look... you know, to me it looks like planes hit the building, and my information doesn't comport with the idea that like, a controlled demolition.
We have looked at that, and I'm sorry if people are upset about this, but we spent a long time, very, very seriously looking at that, and... that just didn't happen...
...No sentient human is gonna believe the Bush Administration's stories about the attack on America. Uhm, the question is, alternative theories are very difficult to prove because... you can posit other theories, but that we can't prove either. The problem is the administration... my concern is the administration's lying is such baloney that it allows, it's like a Petrie Dish for all kinds of other stuff to grow up which may or may not hold water, I can't look at all these, but controlled demolition I can rule out.
(more after the jump)
I'm sorry, we just, it just... rules out. But on the other hand-- it also doesn't comport with the information we have about bin Laden attacking, because, you know, they said, "Don't look at bin Laden", well if they're gonna have a controlled demolition, I mean, you... the information we had that was put out by people like "the towers didn't lean over and stuff" is just false, the towers did lean... uh, and it's that simple.
And the... so the information that was given out... I haven't seen any engineer... it takes two years to wire a building for controlled demolition, and that's an awful lot of people. You'd have to snuff a lot of people... it's Occam's Razor, if you're gonna take out a building, and you could do it by... look, let's remember something, the US government hired bin Laden... to kill people in Afghanistan. Why can't they hire bin Laden for something else? I mean, that's another theory, if you're gonna take out the buildings, you're not gonna do it with dynamite. It's just not gonna happen.
And there's zero evidence, I mean there's absolutely stone cold nothing-nothing there. I'm sorry, Lenny, but that's what I gotta tell ya...
...There's no engineer! You can have ballroom dancers, you can have great actors, you can have poets, you can have physicists, there's a guy, Dr. Jones, his last big theory was that Jesus met with the Mayans after the resurrection. He's a complete fruitcake, and a complete, utter fraud. Mr. Jones, come at me.
Uh now, here's where I wanted to-- at a certain point we have to-- what we're doing is we're legitimizing-- we have to be very careful when we talk about 9/11 truth. That what we don't let happen, while their story isn't believable, that we don't come up with such goofball theories that are so easily disprovable, that they discredit questions raised about this administration."
- Greg Palast, INN interview, May, 2007.
OPEN LETTER #1
Ever since I stumbled across your investigative reporting shortly after 9/11, I have been a fan. My paperback copy of "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" has been a constant companion on my desk since the coup of 2001.
I was doing independent research on the alleged hijackers. As you (should) know, the physical evidence tying the alleged hijackers to the events of 9/11 isn't exactly open source material, unless of course you are Terry McDermott, and then the FBI sends you copies of faxes of re-faxes of manifests that you can stick into the picture section of your establishment-friendly book to add an air of authenticity to the story.
It was your reporting (1) that alerted myself and many others to the fact that the Bush Administration blocked investigations by the FBI into certain Saudi Arabian individuals that had a money trail linking them to funding terrorism. Of course, the fact that Saudi intelligence is many times a middleman for Western intelligence operations is kind of an open secret in the intelligence community. After all, the concept of founding and facilitating the "Arab Foreign Legion" that ultimately became "al Qaeda" didn't exactly spring whole like Athene from the head of Zeus.
Fortunately, we don't have to worry about "investigative reporters" digging this stuff up anymore, in fact, plain-old mainstream papers like The Telegraph in the UK are reporting that "the CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan." (2) Jundullah, it should be noted, has been linked to "al Qaeda". (3)
Kind of duplicitous, don't you think? Supporting the "War on Terror" also apparently means, to the American taxpayer, that you must also FUND the "War on Terror"... both sides.
It was your reporting that alerted me to the existence of one Michael Springman... you remember Springman, don't you?
"In Saudi Arabia I was repeatedly ordered by high level State Dept officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants. These were, essentially, people who had no ties either to Saudi Arabia or to their own country. I complained bitterly at the time there. I returned to the US, I complained to the State Dept here, to the General Accounting Office, to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and to the Inspector General's office. I was met with silence...
What I was protesting was, in reality, an effort to bring recruits, rounded up by Osama Bin Laden, to the US for terrorist training by the CIA. They would then be returned to Afghanistan to fight against the then-Soviets." - Michael Springman, "Has Someone Been Sitting on the FBI?" BBC Newsnight, 2001. (YOU reporting, Greg!)
You do know of course, that 14 alleged hijacker visas were approved in Saudi Arabia, at the US Consulate in Jeddah, right? (4)
Where did Springman work again... oh yeah! Jeddah! (5)
It's almost like, well, like elements within the US government have been helping these guys along the whole time. That certainly is the conclusion of authors like Webster Griffin Tarpley, Michel Chossudovsky, Barrie Zwicker, David Ray Griffin, Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed, and a host of others who haven't haven't been published in book form, but have most of their work posted online.
So, we know that you, Greg Palast, are an investigative reporter with the cojones and keen eye necessary to go deep into the hinterlands of Deep Politics and the Red Herring-laced trails of covert operators around the globe, and bring back the goods!
We know, that Greg Palast knows, that the official story of 9/11 is a crock. The attacks weren't a "Cinderella Story" that "came outta nowhere", and the fingerprints of US intelligence are all over the 9/11 patsies, notably with the ABLE DANGER project, which according to Capt. Tony Shaffer, identified some of the alleged hijackers before 9/11, and which according to the US Senate, did not.
9/11 has been used as a pretext for geopolitical aggression on several fronts, some of the fronts long in the planning, some not so long, but as you know, where there's terrists (sic), there's oil! Just the way it is. Always been that way.
And we know, that you have put your finger on the pulse of the problem, and acknowledged the symptom, but unlike your diagnosis of Election Fraud in this country, Greg, your views on 9/11 are a complete mis-diagnosis.
You have not "spent a long time, very, very seriously looking at" the theories that try to explain the "collapses" of the WTC buildings, because otherwise you would know about the mounting body of information that calls the Bush Administration's version into question, and that there are several engineers that do indeed question the "official story".
In your words, "I'm not an engineer, I'm not a physicist", yet, you "can rule out" controlled demolition, because, "it just... rules out".
You have the nerve to call a Doctor of Physics a fraud, who makes freely available his information and research regarding the "collapse" of the WTC buildings to the public. That's right, he's not out there hawking books that tackle every aspect of this administration of lies except that taboo concept, that says virtually every aspect of the 9/11 myth is pure, unadulterated, BS. (His examination includes physical evidence that supports the notion that something caused metal to become "molten" during the collapse, by the way.) How can you rule out anything? Or was that just your "goofball opinion"?
Anyhow, Jones is willing to "come at you", so are you willing to deal with some information or what? You can't claim that alternative information is not being offered to you. If you refuse to acknowledge the information, you might as well switch off your fabled fax machine, too, because one of these days, something might get faxed to you that doesn't "comport" with your worldview, and then what are you going to do? Cover your ears, close your eyes and yell, "Nah, nah, nah, nah! I can't hear you!" ?
What's it going to be Greg?
"Nah, nah, nah, nah!" or "Gee, I didn't know that."
( A Team Member of www911blogger.com )
P.s. You should watch these online presentations:
"All the World's a Stage" (Zeitgeist Pt. 2)
"9/11 the Explosive Reality"
"The 9/11 Solution"
OPEN LETTER #2
Dear Mr. Palast,
On May 10, 2007, in an INN TV interview, you made statements which were blatantly defamatory when you called me, by name, a "complete and utter fraud" and a "fruitcake." I demand either a retraction or substantiation of your accusations -- publicly.
A lawyer friend affirms that your statements, available here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=r2oFTiEpIBQ , constitute "malicious defamation."
You taunted: "Mr. Jones, come at me!"
Here I am.
I am ready to respond to your specific objections to my papers, or issues you wish to raise which support the "official story" of the Bush/Cheney administration, after you have first verified that you have actually read what I have written on the subject of controlled demolition at the World Trade Center:
I will respond then to your statements which support the Bush/Cheney or "official story" for 9/11 events, and I will assure that the exchange will be made public. I propose publication of our exchange in the letters section of the Journalof911Studies.com, but you may choose another venue which is open to the public. Be sure to include your explanation of the iron-aluminum-rich microspheres which I discovered in the WTC dust if your explanation differs from mine, as well as the rapid straight-down collapse of WTC 7.
Again, my lawyer friend describes your public remarks on INN on May 10, 2007, as "malicious defamation" and I think he is correct. Do you? You called me a "complete and utter fraud" and a "fruitcake." I maintain that I am of sound mind and not a fraud. However, I invite you to present your substantiation of these claims -- or retract your egregious defamations.
Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.
PS -- If you do not respond by July 25, 2007, I will consider other options. Thank you.
Note that there are over one hundred engineers and architects listed in the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth web site, www.ae911truth.org , along with many at the www.stj911.org site, so you may wish to correct your mis-statement of last month that there are "no engineers" who challenge the official story.