Alex Jones - COINTELPRO? Fascist Tool?

Alex Jones and 911 Scholars: The Parable of the Good Shepherd

Next email to the list kind of surprised me:

Date sent: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:05:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Treis
Subject: TRANCE-Formation of America
To: Michael, Gerard Holmgren,
SNIPPED LIST

TRANCE-Formation of America is the HOTTEST expose in the last 20 years. Pass it on before it's gone!!!!

I will tell you I found MK-ULTRA documents in the 1990's when I was researching my first book "The
Man Made Plagues." The mind control program had the prospect of real "Manchurian Candidates" as well
as other mind controlled slaves. There is a distinct possibility many of the "one-lone Nut"
assassins were just such mind controlled slaves. Such as Mark David Chapman (Killed John Lennon),
Lee Harvey Oswald, Timothy McVeigh and others. Pass this book on. If you want a better copy order
information is on the last page.

http://www.sbindymedia.org/newswire/display/3622/index.php

Michael Treis

"It is also in the interests of a tyrant to keep his people poor, so that they may not be able to
afford the cost of protecting themselves by arms and be so occupied with their daily tasks that they
have no time for rebellion." - Aristotle

www.destructionofamerica.4t.com

www.birrenbach.com/TREIS/
 
Alex Jones and 911 Scholars: The Parable of the Good Shepherd

This was forwarded to the entire list of 911 researchers by "Comnlawnet" and was, apparently, a post to the Roginsky e-group:

To: <AMOJ_MAIN@yahoogroups.com>
From: "Mark Ferran"
Date sent: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:45:12 -0400
Subject: [AMOJ_MAIN] Re: Foreigner Holmgren vs Rogisnsky, Debate
Send reply to: AMOJ_MAIN@yahoogroups.com


AMOJ_MAIN
Jacob, et als:

I would object on principle to the participation of FOREIGN provocateurs or FOREIGN mercenaries such
as M. Gerard Holmgren in any such debate. Holmgren is certainly foreign (residing in Australia),
and he is certainly a full-time provocateur in this issue, and he has no apparent scientific
background or analytical abilities. Foreigners have no sufficient "stake" in the outcome of a
debate that might affect or influence the course of American civilization enough to keep them
honest. If the so-called "9-11 truth" crowd must rely upon a foreign provocateur and mercenary like
Mr. Holmgren, to make their points, then they should be deemed in default at the outset. Find a
fellow American to debate with, or abort the project.

Additionally, Mr. Holmgren has such a history online as to create a serious doubt that he will
be capable of presenting any "logical" conclusions based upon credible evidence or upon actual
scientific principles. Even among the broader "9-11 Truth" crowd, he is viewed as having inferior
scientific and analytical ability:

"I have known for a while that Gerard Holmgren is quite deficient in his reasoning abilities. I
have nevertheless viewed this collection of articles as being an interesting resource useful for
research and analysis. Many of the links here no longer work as this compilation has gotten rather
old. I actually do not care to have any association whatsoever with Mr. Holmgren and his illogical
conclusions found on the Internet. Rather than pull this web page down, and as a counter to his
conclusions I will suggest people become familiar with"

http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/9-11list.html


Also, many of Holmgren's published main assertions about 9-11 are readily proved false. For
example, he asserted that World Trade Center 7 "was not hit by anything ".

This is false. It was hit and severely damaged by the falling debris from the highest pieces of the
WTC tower(s), and also was certainly impacted horizontally by high-speed debris ejected horizontally
from the collapsing tower(s) through the venturi-accelerator formed by the buildings (WTC5 & WTC6)
standing closer to the WTC towers. See generally http://www.911myths.com and
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

Solid debris was ejected horizontally away from of the collapsing WTC tower and flew horizontally
like bullets at hundreds of miles per hour under the pedestrian bridge over the West Side highway,
forming 2-inch wide yard-long horizontal grooves in the sheet metal (e.g., hoods, doors) of cars
parked two blocks away! Based upon Venturi principles, I would estimate that the matter ejected
horizontally between the buildings (WTC6 & WTC5) partially shielding WTC7 must have been accelerated
many times faster, then slamming into WTC 7 horizontally, which penetrated that building and started
numerous fires (e.g., evidently penetrating all the way through to the opposite side of WTC7
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html). So, WTC7 was definitely seriously damaged by
energetic debris from two directions, from the top, and from the side.

I saw for myself during the day a week afterwards how falling pieces of the WTC towers ripped huge
gaping holes into the sides of many buildings, around the towers. According to firemen's reports,
WTC 7 was hit and damaged especially hard. http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

As a matter of principle, it is inappropriate to debate with someone like Mr. Holmgren who feels it
necessary to manufacture false premises to support his various wrong conclusions.

Additionally, while Mr. Holmgren is beyond the jurisdiction of American Courts, he cannot be held
responsible for any slanderous or defamatory comments he may choose to make to distract from the
weaknesses of his positions. And, he has a long sad history of making "ad hominem" attacks when the
weaknesses of his arguments are exposed. See e.g., http://911research.wtc7.net/re911/adhominem.html
("Holmgren calls Hoffman an 'assehole' and accuses him of lying, plagiarism, ..., and insinuates
that he is a COINTELPRO agent,") Even if Holmgren's remarks are actionable slander or libel, the
victim will have no remedy in US Courts. Thus, Holmgren should be disqualified from having any
access to the AMOJ-sponsored forums. Holmgren's predictably slanderous comments in the forum might
even subject AMOJ to liability to the victim(s).

He should be disqualified from this debate.
Since, at this point, the only thing I knew about Holmgren was that he had written some very astute pieces and that Joe Quinn had quoted him in our own 911 book, I was offended on Holmgren's behalf by the above "ad hominem" attack on him.

Again, this made me think that some "help" in understanding what he was going to be dealing with might be in order.
 
Alex Jones and 911 Scholars: The Parable of the Good Shepherd

Date sent: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:38:35 -0500
From: Rosalee Grable <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>
To: Jacob Roginsky
Copies to: Gerard Holmgren
SNIPPED LIST
Subject: Re: Sept 11 debate. Holmgren vs Rogisnsky - organizing.

http://national911debate.blogspot.com/

The participants have been sent a password.

Let the debate begin.
Needless to say, I didn't have time to follow the debate since I really didn't even have the time to follow all of this discussion... however, I was glad to see that someone was getting it organized and I was keeping my fingers crossed for Holmgren to hold up well under what I could see coming: pathologically altered material.

I figured that later on, I would go and check it out...
 
Alex Jones and 911 Scholars: The Parable of the Good Shepherd

Apparently, debating the debate was still going on...

Date sent: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:03:46 -0700
From: <medfly1@***>
To: Gerard Holmgren
"'Jacob Roginsky'"
Subject: RE: Sept 11 debate. Holmgren vs Rogisnsky - organizing.
Copies to: SNIPPED an even MORE LENGTHY LIST OF RECIPIENTS

The debate over 9/11 is controversial because of the three groups that fuel the debate.

The first group are those who believe the government is behind 9/11, hence they refuse to accept
being fed just any simplistic explanation which doesn't hold water and defies all logic, the laws of
physics as we know them, let alone the standard operating procedures of NORAD for intercepting
hi-jacked airliners, making a mockery of their intelligence, the people, the law, our Constitution,
and above all, those poor 3,000 souls who were lost that day and in the following events which used
9/11 as a catalyst to launch the never ending so called war on terror. This group has a lot of good
reasons to believe that the government is behind 9/11 based on the information released from the
government and trying to make sense of it all, which at the end, it doesn't seem to add up. These
are the Holmgrens.

The second group who oppose the debate and accept 9/11 as it was offically explained to us, have a
problem accepting the possibility that elected high ranking officials, maybe the highest ranking of
them all, can be behind such a crime, which in this case they will be faced with the biggest
constitutional crisis in the history of this nation and the shock of their life, where we were
always taught and raised to believe in our government, looking up at the President as the father
figure of our nation, to find out that he and many of his close associates might be behind this
hainous crime. Something a lot of us dread even the thought of it, very much like someone
suspecting that his/her spouse is cheating and has hard time facing the issue and the consequences
of learning the truth, let alone the emotional trauma and fear that this might be the truth. This
group has really no interest in the outcome of the debate other than maintaining the status quo ,and
don't want anybody to rock the boat and want to conti [this break is in the original]

The third group, are the ones who have real vested interest in 9/11 and benefited from 9/11. Under
this group, one can find agents or proponents of some foreign countries that benefited from 9/11,
who are trying to deflect any accusation that those particular countries might have actively
participated in 9/11 to achieve political, strategic and/or economic gains or all of the above. One
can also find those whose job is to protect the government, regardless of what the facts are, and
will do whatever it takes to discredit and hush the opposition, as we saw with the JFK assassination
and the assassination of several high profile personalities during the 60's, and for this reason the
debate about those events is still raging. There are also those with prejudices against a
particular group or religion, namely the Arabs and Islam, and see 9/11 as an opportunity and the
means to stop the spread of that religion by slandering it, persecute the followers of this
particular religion, hoping to proselityze them, as [this break is in the original]

I think the debate will be an exercise of demagoguery. Nobody has any physical evidence, but the
facts are very difficult to explain relying on the government scenarios, or the 9/11 commission
report. A lot of evidence and testimonies were left out, and it seems that there are a lot of
people in the world that won't be go away and are obsessed with 9/11, which changed our world
forever. The controlled demolition of WTC 5 & 6, the reported explosions by the firemen, the
pictures showing puffs of smoke resulting from alleged explosives throughout WTC 5 & 6 to cause the
controlled demolition, the collapse of WTC 7 and the suspect fire at 5:00 PM that day with no
reports of this being as a result of any damage from the collapse of WTC 5 & 6 as someone claimed
some sort of unheard of venturi bogus phenomena, the fact that an aircraft with a 16 feet fuselage
diameter, 180 feet long, 120 feet wing span can squeeze into a 10 feet hole inside the Pentagon, the
reports of confiscated camera's and films from a nearb [this break is in the original]

Now the fact that Mr. Holmgren is an Aussie, this should not be a reason to discredit him. On 9/11
we, Americans, had the unconditional sympathy and support of the whole world and many in the world
would have done anything to help our country that day, because the crime was hainous and uncalled
for. But after the dust settled and people began to put the pieces to gether we found Thierry
Miesson, the Frenchman who wrote a very good book named L'Effroyable Imposture, which so far never
found its way to our shelves, and we have Reverend Charles Gray who wrote several books and gave
several speeches throughout the country about 9/11. While of that has ben going for the last five
years, our media and newspapers pretended to never heard about such a raging debate and kept the
whole issue out of the main stream, which made them look more like propaganda machines like BRAVDA
or something.

At the end, debates are healthy, we are all citizens of this world, and what happens in America
affects everybody everywhere, and we should keep an open mind and face the facts whatever they are.
Go at it Guys..

[Snipped repeats of numerous previous emails already posted here]
>
 
Alex Jones and 911 Scholars: The Parable of the Good Shepherd

Date sent: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mecklenburg Judy
Subject: Re: [apfn-1] 9/11 - "THE NATIONAL DEBATE IS ON"....LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!
To: Jacob Roginsky
Copies to: SNIPPED LIST

Not discussing the zionist involvement in 9-11 is tantamount to not discussing the "root" of the
problem. The US would not even be close to this phony war on terrorism if it were not for israel
and it's several lobby groups, not to mention the many zionists (a bunch are dual israeli/american
citizens) in top positions of power through out the US govt.
Apparently the above prompted the posting of the following:

From: "William Douglas" <findtruth40@hotmail.com>
To: findtruth40@hotmail.com
Subject: Exposing the 9/11 Conspiracy Wingnuts
Date sent: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:17:32 -0500

[Please share with media, and everyone else]



Exposing the 9/11 Conspiracy Wingnuts


I began researching the mainstream media coverage of the controversy
regarding the attacks of 9/11/2001, when reading an article in the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel Newspaper, dated June 29th, 2006. It was titled, "Sept. 11
claim stirs UW probe -- Instructor says U.S. planned the attacks to provoke
war." This led to my discovery of some wild conspiracy theorists that
endanger our government and media establishments, with quite frankly insane
assertions. I'll address this in full in the final paragraph.

Then by using a "google video 9/11" search, I recently viewed a FOX News
interview on Hannity and Colmes with an Arab Studies teacher from the
University of Wisconsin named Kevin Barrett. I had earlier seen an
interview with another, a professor named James Fetzer, University of
Minnesota Duluth. A few weeks earlier I had seen an interview on MSNBC
Scarborough country interviewing a Mike Berger representing 911Truth.org.

Some of these guests referred to an organization called "Scholars for 9/11
Truth" with a website www.st911.org, which offered a physics research paper
questioning the official explanation of the events of 9/11/2001. While
visiting this site, I read that they pointed to the temperatures of the
fires in the WTC buildings, and construction of the buildings, and the speed
they fell, as evidence they claimed proved that what we saw on 9/11/2001
when the towers fell had to have been the result of a controlled demolition.
Like the ones we've seen with Las Vegas hotels being brought down. Their
claim was that the WTC buildings could not have been caused solely by the
aircraft hitting the WTC buildings that day.

Then, I contacted the office of a Wisconsin State Legislator, Rep. Stephen
Nass (R-Whitewater), and asked to speak to someone in the office who could
speak on this issue. I asked if he was familiar with the Scholars for 9/11
Truth website, and he replied they had learned of it this week. I asked him
if he and the Representative could comment on the charge that the fires on
9/11/2001 in the WTC buildings did not burn hot enough to bring down the
buildings, and if he'd read the scholars organization's charge that thermate
traces had been found on debris from the fallen towers (thermate indicating
demolition type explosives were involved). The gentleman responded that no,
they had not looked at this information, and this would not be something
they would look at, further indicating that anyone who made such charges was
blinded by their hatred of President Bush.

Which leads back to the interviews of guests on the three television news
programs. The main theme of all three of the guests on these programs
appeared to be concern of the physical evidence of 9/11/2001, mentioned
above and particularly regarding the collapse of three of the World Trade
Center buildings on that day.

The main themes of the interviewers on these programs appeared to be
two-fold:
1) The guests were representing a fringe movement, and most Americans do not
dispute the official 9/11 explanation of the 19 hijackers defeating US
military and intelligence forces on 9/11/2001.
2) The guests and those they speak for, who question the official 9/11/2001
account, are of questionable sanity

This motivated me to do some research. First I looked at the fringe
movement issue that the majority of Americans disagreed with the programs
guests and accept the official explanation, and secondly, the sanity and
expertise of people like their guests who question the official story of
9/11/2001.

First, regarding the fringe issue, asserting that the guests questioning the
events of 9/11 reflected a small minority of American opinion. I looked at
the only polls I could find on these questions, and the results were
surprising. A CNN viewers poll, which is not scientific, held Wednesday,
November 10th, 2005, asked, "Do you believe there is a U.S. government
cover-up surrounding 9/11?" 89% replied "Yes," they did believe there was a
cover-up by the U.S. Government (9,441 votes), while only 12% felt there was
no cover-up. In a national Zogby poll, of May 2006, found that 45%, of the
American public felt a new 9/11 investigation should be launched because "so
many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an
International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether
any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their
success." An earlier Zogby poll of New York City residents, from August of
2004, found that Half (49.3%) of New Yorkers felt that U.S. government
officials "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September
11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act." While 66% of New Yorkers
called for a new probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York's
Attorney General.

Now to the second issue the television media interviewers were most
concerned with, which was the expertise and sanity of the people demanding a
new 9/11 investigation, and some even suggesting possible U.S. government
complicity in the attacks of 9/11/2001. Again, a simple google "video 9/11"
search, provided a wealth of information. This too yielded some surprising
results.

One of the loudest advocates of the most damning charge that "members of the
U.S. government actually orchestrated the events of 9/11 to fool the nation
into unpopular wars", was not a tree-hugging Green Party activist, but
rather a prominent Republican, in fact a Former Chief Economist under George
Bush, and professor at Texas A&M, Morgan Reynolds.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

Google research of the growing list of other 9/11 skeptics of the official
story, some "convinced of U.S. government involvement," while others not
going that far, but pointing out that"the official story is highly
questionable and demands further investigation," yielded surprising results.
Including a host of high level Republican administration officials,
defense experts, intelligence experts, and respected scholars, as well as
well known celebrities who are now adding the spotlight of their names to
the issue of 9/11. Among them were:

Former Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the U.S.
Air Force, under President Reagan, and combat fighter pilot Col. Robert
Bowman (Caltech Phd in aeronautics and nuclear engineering).
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6900065571556128674

Former CIA Intelligence Advisor to Reagan and George HW Bush and
founder of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, Ray McGovern
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11

Kevin Ryan, former department head at UL (Underwriter Laboratories) the
company which certified the steel which went into the WTCs upon their
construction, and inspected it after the WTC collapses in 2001.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451

Former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury Senior Research
Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Research Fellow at Stanford's Independent
Institute,
and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.wanttoknow.info/050908insidejob911#roberts

Canadian National Defense Minister, the Honourable Paul Hellyer
http://www.septembereleventh.org/kc/multimedia/movies/Hellyer.mov

Minister for the Environment, and Member of Parliament (United Kingdom)
Michael Meacher
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8274552561914055825

National Minister of Defense (Germany). Also, served as Minister of
Technology Andreas Von Bulow
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8274552561914055825

Former Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces, and chief of the
department for General affairs in the Soviet Union 's ministry of Defense,
General
Leonid Ivashov
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NIM20060123&articleId=1788

Former MI6 British Counter Intelligence Officer, David Shayler
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5403286136814574974

Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University
of Minnesota, former Marine Corps officer, author or editor of more than 20
books, and co-chair of Scholars For 9/11 Truth, James Fetzer
http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=122

Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, and co-chair of
Scholars For 9/11 Truth, Steven Jones
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586

Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion & Theology, Claremont
Graduate University, and author or editor of some 30 books, including "The
New Pearl Harbor" and "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and
Distortions" David Ray Griffin
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6837001821567284154

Professor of mathematics, University of Western Ontario, and founder
of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven (SPINE), A.K Dewdney
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/operation_pearl.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._K._Dewdney

Aircraft crash investigation authority, USAF Col. (Ret) George Nelson
http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm

Former chief Pentagon arms negotiator for the Middle East, USAF Col.
(Ret) Don de Grand-Pre
http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html

Actor Charlie Sheen (Platoon, Wall Street, etc.)
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/280606juggernautoftruth.htm

Actor, Ed Asner
http://www.911blimp.net/videos/EdAsner-UnityIsTheKey.mov

Actor, Ed Begley, Jr
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7140359934129245752

So, now that we've examined the two main issues of concern for the
television news interviewers, which was the "fringe" aspect of the
questioners, and the "sanity/expertise" issue, it appears those arguments
are very weak arguments, really with no merit at all. Obviously tens of
millions of Americans, according to polls, want a new investigation into
9/11/2001 and have a strong suspicion of U.S. government involvement at some
level. Obviously not all of the national defense, intelligence,
aeronautics, physics and engineering experts questioning the official story
of 9/11 are insane or unqualified to comment.

This begs the question, in the face of such obvious facts, why do our media
personalities continue to attempt to throw out accusations that are patently
untrue regarding those who question the official story? When a television
news interviewer continues to ask questions and make assertions that he or
she knows to be untrue, this would challenge the expertise and sanity, not
of their guests, but of the television news interviewer.

The 9/11 truth movement appears to be growing rapidly, and involving people
of substantial credentials and expertise. As television and some radio
personalities continue to behave in what obviously is an insane behavior,
what do we do? Can we get our national media any psychological help? If
not, it would be wise to relieve them of their positions at least. I feel
increasingly uneasy about millions of young minds being exposed night after
night to comments and opinions by people who increasingly appear to be
insane, yet in positions of authority.

Of course the concern here is larger. If there is any possibility or doubt
about whether the events of 9/11/2001 were participated in by members of our
own government, then our entire democracy and world peace would be
strengthened by getting to the bottom of the true facts of this pinnacle
event of our time. It would be unhealthy to leave a cloud of doubt hanging
over such assertions. There should be a full fledged national debate,
experts from all sides should be interviewed on national media to get to the
bottom of this once and for all. Our Congress should launch investigations
into the physics questions that are causing so many to doubt the official
story. No matter where anyone stands on this issue, this is obviously the
only path to national healing and trust.

However, this debate on national media cannot occur if the interviewers
hired by national media continue to behave in an insane irrational behavior,
like "conspiracy theory wing-nuts." You see, too many of our media
spokespersons on television and radio adhere to a wild conspiracy theory.
Their theory is that anyone who looks into the facts of the events of one of
the most important issues in history is alone, and insane, but yet somehow
organized in some united conspiratorial effort. Of course, the facts fly in
the face of this conspiracy theory, but these media personalities appear
unable to grasp reality even when it is pointed out to them.

For media reading this article, time will tell whether you are an insane
conspiracy theorist or not. If you too, are among the insane in our media,
the public will likely eventually demand your resignation. As one who
writes sometimes on parental issues, I believe it is unhealthy to have
insane people in charge of the national information highways our children
are taught to watch. We need sane media people who look at facts regarding
issues, not ones who launch into insane screeds of paranoia to avoid
reality.

Also, you may recall that when I contacted State Representative, Stephen
Nass' office, his aid stated that they were aware of but not interested in
and would not look at the physics facts provided by the website Scholars for
9/11 Truth, www.st911.org. However, they did want to fire a university
teacher for presenting facts, many of which were available on that site. To
fire someone for presenting facts, facts that you dispute, yet have no idea
what those facts are, and are unwilling to look at them to find out what
they are . . . is also insane. Again, as someone who writes on parenting
issues, as a concerned parent as well, America should also consider retiring
our insane government officials who fire people for facts they aren't aware
of and are unwilling to look at. These politicians apparently assert some
wild conspiracy theory that millions of Americans are questioning the events
of 9/11 because they are "Bush haters" according to the aid at Nass' office.
This kind of delusional paranoia by our elected officials is of particular
concern. Such wild eyed conspiratorialists should not be allowed in
government.

Bill Douglas, author of "The Amateur Parent - A Book on Life, Death, War &
Peace, and Everything Else in the Universe"

findtruth40@hotmail.com
July, 11, 2006
It was clear that the lines were being drawn between those who saw Israeli involvment in 911 and those who did not, either because they were brainwashed, blind, or "on the job."

Anyway, the above Bill Douglas post prompted this response:

From: ranger116@webtv.net (T Lee Buyea Fla News Service)
Date sent: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:00:57 -0400
To: "Jacob Roginsky"
Cc: Snipped List
Subject: Fwd: Exposing the 9/11 Conspiracy Wingnuts

This is a Strange post ?

This man seems to start out knocking "Conspiracy Wingnuts"
And then after some research decide the Media and Elected officials are
insane about 9/11 ??
Yeah, kinda the same feeling I had. I was beginning to get a sinking feeling in my stomach about the state of 911 research and Truth...
 
Alex Jones and 911 Scholars: The Parable of the Good Shepherd

Next, Mark Ferran (Roginsky's pal) checked in with a post. It looks like it came to me exclusively, but it could have had a whole slew of BCCs. Anyway, it was a full-bore attack on Prof. Steven Jones. Woah!

Send reply to: "Mark Ferran" <mferran@nycap.rr.com>
From: "Mark Ferran" <mferran@nycap.rr.com>
To: Laura Knight-Jadczyk
Subject: Fw: WTC IRON BURNS!!! updated July, 2006
Date sent: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 01:35:21 -0400

From: Mark R. Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl www.billstclair.com/ferran

Professor Jones of BYU has since acknowledged the fact that "iron burns" but limits this to only
"under certain conditions" (he specifies pure oxygen as a requirement), but has failed to
acknowledge that hot Iron is combustible (it burns and generates heat) when combined with ordinary
air, and he has not fully responded to the following observations that iron is usually sulfidated
upon exposure to the fumes from ordinary fires.

----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Ferran
Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu ; steven_jones@byu.edu
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:18 PM
Subject: WTC IRON BURNS!!!


"ABC News reported that, "the temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees
Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get
to." http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406thermiteidentified.htm

The only likely source of the heat great enough to actually "melt" significant quantities of iron in
the piles (or even just raise so much of it to red-hot or to 2000F) would be chemical energy (i.e.,
"combustion" of some sort). Professor Jones assumes that all the carbonaceous "combustible" matter
in the "piles" would have burned away long before the time that the red-hot and molten iron was
discovered (weeks after the collapse of the WTC towers). Perhaps it did, by weeks after the
collapse. But Professor Jones obviously does not comprehend that the hot, red-hot and molten IRON
IS COMBUSTIBLE matter.

Here, Jones clearly missed it, when he wrote: "At these temperatures, steel will melt, and aluminum
materials from the buildings should continue to undergo exothermic oxidation reactions with
materials also entrained in the molten metal pools including metal oxides which will then keep the
pools molten and even growing for weeks despite radiative and conductive losses. ... The
government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams -- then where
did the molten metal pools come from?" http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Jones has no clue because he has conception of Steel Burning (iron oxidation).

The Truth is that: HOT STEEL WILL CONTINUE TO UNDERGO EXOTHERMIC OXIDATION REACTIONS WHILE EXPOSED TO AIR, CAUSING IRON TO INCREASE ITS TEMPERATURE UNTIL IT MELTS, FORMING POOLS OF MOLTEN IRON.

Professor Jones' comments and conjectures about the origin of the alleged molten iron found within
the three huge piles of combustible matter burning after the collapse of the WTC towers, distinctly
prove that Professor Jones is oblivious of the fact that Iron Burns.

For perspective, I found this children's educational webpage that further illustrates that
"Professor Jones" (among the "9-11 Scholars") is an incompetent ignoramus because he ignores the
scientifically provable (or disprovable) fact that Iron metal itself burns, and that when amassed in
large piles can ignite fires (and can even melt itself). The article discusses child-safe
experiments observing a very slow oxidation of iron (rusting at room temperature), but also
mentions:

"Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on
fire. That's because the iron is rusting, which means it is burning very, very slowly. Iron rusts
in a chemical reaction called oxidation. That means the iron reacts with oxygen gas from the air.
Oxidation is the chemical reaction that occurs when anything burns in air. Like most oxidations,
rusting gives off heat."

http://www.highlightskids.com/Science/TryThis/h3TT1004_ironBurns.asp?subTitleID=159

Beyond the scope of this child-oriented article, it is important to understand that general rule in
chemistry that most chemical reactions (e.g., oxidation of iron) are accelerated by higher
temperatures. This is especially true of iron oxidation. This means, that the hotter iron metal
in contact with oxygen is, the faster it will oxidize (burn). For example, it is a familiar sight
at iron foundries to see hot iron rust forming instantaneously on red-hot iron beams. This hot rust
usually falls off spontaneously (because of the difference in thermal expansion properties between
iron and rust). Meaning, a hot iron beam, if combined with a large enough number of other hot iron
beams in a confined or semi insulated pile (e.g., covered with cement dust), will burn CONTINUOUSLY
until it consumes itself, (and thus will appear to have been "vaporized" to those not looking for
the rust residue). It will just thin away (and turn into rust), as illustrated by this photo of
burned and thinned I-beam metal recovered from the rubble of the WTC towers:

fig1.gif


341368.gif


Ancient Wisdom about burning iron:

19th Century:

"Iron commences to 'burn' at 2500[F], while at the end of the operation in the Bessemer process,
when the temperature reaches some 3000[F], the iron burns violently, as demonstrated by examination
of the Bessemer flame with the spectro- scope. (See p. 46, Vol. II.)"

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/ncps:@field(DOCID+@lit(ABS1821-0003-230))::

Manufacturer and builder / Volume 3, Issue 6, June 1871

"At 1000C iron burns as easily as wood." http://www.learning-org.com/01.09/0073.html

Thomas Aquinas and other theologians remarked on this famous burning property of Iron:

Aquinas maintains that:

The head causes an influx of sensation and motion to all members of the body. ... omeone can
understand "to flow into" ("influere") in two ways according to the spiritual sense and mode. One
mode as principal agent: And thus it belongs to God alone to provide an influx of grace in the
members of the Church. In another mode instrumentally: And thus even the humanity of Christ is a
cause of the said influx; because as Damascene says ... as iron burns on account of the fire
conjoined to it, so were the actions of the humanity of Christ on account of the united divinity, of
which the humanity itself was an instrument. Christ, nevertheless, according to the two last
conditions of head [governance, influence] is able to be called head of the angels according to
human nature, and head of both according to divine nature; not, however, according to the first
condition [namely, sameness in nature], unless one takes what is common according to the nature of
the genus, according as man and angel agree in rational nature, and further what is common according
to analogy, according as it is common to the Son along with all creatures to receive from the
Father, as Basil says, by reason of which he is said to be the first-born of all creatures, Col.
1:15.16 http://www.unav.es/cryf/georgemaritain.html

DAMASCENUS, (lib. 3, cap. 17) wrote:

"For not according to its [the flesh's] own operation, but by the Word united to it, He
wrought divine things, the Word displaying through it His own operation. For glowing iron burns not
by possessing in a natural manner the power to burn, but by possessing this from its union with the
fire. Therefore in itself it was mortal, and on account of its personal union to the Word,
quickening." http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/concord/web/augsc-05.html
Iron smiths (Blacksmiths) modern and ancient are aware that glowing Iron Burns:

"With bellows blowing additional air through the fire, it can reach temperatures of about 3,000°
Fahrenheit. Iron burns at 2,800°, however, so the smith has to be careful to not ruin his work! .
The smith's fire contains too much oxygen to allow iron to melt; as it approaches its melting point
the iron burns instead."

http://www.osv.org/cgi-bin/CreatePDF.php?/tour/index.php?L=12&PDF=Y

Also of note: Faraday's lectures and a demonstration of iron powder burning:

http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/MOD/1859Faraday-forces.html ("Michael Faraday was the son of a
blacksmith, and was born at Newington Butts, near London, September 22, 1791.")

A WWII witness in Germany recounts seeing the "iron" of three Russian tanks "burn" from March 9 1945
until November 3, 1945: http://members.tripod.com/~radde/RaddesFlight.html ("The three Russian
tanks before Bresin still burned as we passed by them on the morning of 11-3, and this taught me
something surprising: iron burns.") This account suggests that the "critical mass" of iron metal
that will sustain itself burning may be quite small compared to the huge amounts of iron debris the
WTC piles. This account of prolonged iron combustion also supports the conclusion that the main
source of high heat in the piles of the WTC 1, 2 and 7, weeks and months after their collapse, was
due to burning iron in these piles. This conclusion could be readily verified or disproved through
simulation or experimentation.

The other interesting thing about "iron fire" (fast oxidation of iron) is that it creates a
"vacuum" of sorts that "sucks" oxygen to itself. Ordinary carbonaceous "fire" creates carbon
monoxide (CO) or carbon dioxide (CO2), which are gases that can take the place of consumed oxygen
(02) gas. Carbon monoxide production releases two molecules of CO gas per one O2 molecule consumed.
Thus, such a carbon fire requires a "convection" current to remove the hot carbon mon/dioxide (out
the top) to make room for more cold oxygen to be brought in (at the bottom).

By contrast, an "iron fire" converts the oxygen gas (and possibly also nitrogen gas, but that is
tangent) into a solid (rust). Thus, the burning iron metal effectively sucks atmospheric oxygen
INTO the pile of burning metal, regardless of convection currents. Convection currents are a strong
mechanism for REMOVING heat from a fire. Of course convection currents will also be present even in
a huge iron pile furnace, but a result of direct conversion of oxygen gas into a solid (rust) is
that there are weaker convection currents and that means that the heat of combustion escapes more
slowly from the metal fire furnace than from a carbonaceous fire furnace. Thus, since the heat of
combustion does not leave with the combustion products, a metal-air furnace could become much
"hotter" faster than a carbon-air furnace of the same scale (e.g., at the same oxygen demand
level).

Theoretically, there is no limit upon the temperature that such a large metal-fire could attain.
It could, in theory, attain a temperature high enough to not only melt iron, but also to boil
(vaporize) iron, but not at the same location at the same time. (You cannot maintain solid, liquid,
and gaseous iron at the same location, because "melting" and "vaporization" occur at greatly
different temperatures). The difficulty with that however is that the molten (burning) iron would
tend to settle into a pool, having a smaller surface area (on its top surface only), thus reducing
its rate of oxidation.


It has also been suggested that Sulfur especially from tons of decomposing Gypsum (a Sulfur ore
used in sheetrock walls and partitions in offices and homes) in the piles accelerated the oxidation
or melting of the iron burning in the piles. "Sulfur is widely distributed in nature. It is found
in many minerals and ores, e.g., iron pyrites, galena, cinnabar, zinc blende, gypsum..."
http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Sulpher

"Dust and debris deposits associated with the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the
World Trade Center have left a distinct fingerprint on the sedimentary record in New York Harbor,
scientists have found. Their results appear in the January 21, 2003, issue of the journal EOS, a
publication of the American Geophysical Union. ... The high levels of calcium, strontium, and sulfur
concentrations found in the near-surface sediments ..., are consistent with presence of gypsum as a
parent material. Gypsum is extensively used as drywall in building construction."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-01/nsf-sfg011603.php

The "Sulfides" produced when sulfer dioxide (e.g., from decomposed Gypsum) contacts burning iron
have been identified as an agent that supposedly accellerated the "deterioration" of the steel in
the burning WTC piles, on a macromolecular level.

"A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7
was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure ... Rapid deterioration of the
steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the
presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the
temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in
this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000°C, forming the eutectic liquid ...."
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

"Gypsum does not have a true melting point, as it decomposes under heat before it can melt"
http://www.gp.com/build/PageViewer.aspx?repository=bp&elementid=3358 With high heat, Gyspum
decomposes and releases Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) gas, which is a weak oxidizer that can rapidly transfer
both its sulfur and oxygen to the exposed iron surfaces in the piles. "Many metals, including
zinc, aluminum, cesium, and iron, incandesce and/or ignite in unheated sulfur dioxide."
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mhmi/mmg116.html

"In some cases, SO2 behaves as both a reducing and oxidizing agent (metals such as tin, iron and
magnesium burn in SO2 to form mixed sulfides and oxides)."
http://www.intox.org/databank/documents/chemical/sulfdiox/cie714.htm
and http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/EHSRM/HAZCOM/MSDS/sulfurdioxide.pdf


In other words, Sulfur Dioxide gas (e.g., from decomposing Gypsum wallboard) spontaneously reacts
(combines) with iron metal (cold or hot), turning it into iron sulfides and iron oxides (i.e.
burning the iron). The sulfides introduced into iron (sulfidation) by exposure of iron to Sulfur
Dioxide gas have been used by humans (blacksmiths) for hundreds if not thousands of years, and have
been understood in chemical terms for centuries, but apparently, such chemistry is not understood by
BYU Professor Jones.

"The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at
which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of
the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a "blacksmith's weld" in a hand
forge. (Barnett, 2001)"

For hundreds of years, Blacksmiths took advantage of this well-known property of sulfur dioxide by
"welding" iron parts together over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of
iron at its surface.

Sulfur Dioxide gas can be released by the burning of ANY ORGANIC substance, including wood, paper,
flesh, fabrics, and especially plastics (carpets), and rubber (rubber is "vulcanized" by adding
sulfur to it). Sulfur Dioxide gas, has a distinct impact on the nose, and is a respiratory
irritant, because it forms sulfurous acid when it combines with water or moisture in the human body.
Sulfur Dioxide can be further oxidized to form sulfuric acid (when added to water). High
concentrations of Sulfurous fumes emanating from the piles at Ground Zero have been documented, and
have been identified as a probable cause of respiratory ailments suffered by many rescue workers and
cleanup crews. "One of the America's top air-quality scientists test the air around Ground Zero and
tells NBC's Lisa Myers and the NBC Investigative Team he was shocked to find alarming levels of
sulfuric acid and fine particles more than three weeks after the attack. (MSNBC, October 29, 2003)"
http://www.asthmamoms.com/worldtradecenterarticles2003.htm

Professor Jones demonstrates his ignorance of the basic "Blacksmith" chemistry of
sulfidation-by-S02-from-fire with his following oblivious or dishonest statements: "Then there is
the rather mysterious sulfidation of the steel reported in this paper -- What is the origin of this
sulfur? No solid answer is given in any of the official reports. ... While gypsum in the
buildings is a source of sulfur, it is highly unlikely that this sulfur could find its way into the
structural steel in such a way as to form a eutectic. ... Thus, we find substantial evidence
supporting the current conjecture that some variation of thermite (e.g., solid aluminum powder plus
Fe2O3, with possible addition of sulfur) was used on the steel columns of the WTC Tower to weaken
the huge steel supports, not long before explosives finished the demolition job."

In addition to sulfidation of cold iron by its exposure to sulfurous (e.g., SO2) fumes, sulfidation
by an even more direct transfer of the sulfur and oxygen from Gypsum to Iron might occur where
Gypsum (dust) is in direct contact with the burning (e.g., red hot) iron.

Another's lucid rebuttal of Professor Jones' conjectures about the sulfidated iron found in the
burning piles of WTC wreckage is self-published as follows:

"The "absolutely conclusive smoking-gun PROOF" amounts to this: Prof. Jones CLAIMS to have
obtained a sample of solidified spatter from post-collapse WTC structural steel. He takes the
sample-gatherer's word that this is where it came from. He claims to have determined the sample to
be sulfur-contaminated iron. Solely from this basis he leaps to the definite conclusion that it's a
residue of thermate (thermite with sulfur and potassium permanganate additives) used to cut the
tower's columns. This is quite the leap of inductive reasoning. As we all know, the debris field of
the WTC was an oven of steel-melting intensity. All of the WTC's debris was churned together
chaotically in this pile. Steel is basically highly refined iron. The element sulfur is present in
abundance in many building materials. Drywall, for example (also known as GYPSUM board) consists
primarily of plaster, i.e. gypsum, i.e. hydrated calcium SULFATE. Churn lots of steel and gypsum
together and cook them for three weeks at temperatures sufficient to melt both and I would not be
surprised to see "sulfur-contaminated iron" turning up in samples of same. This is not to say Jones
is definitely wrong as to what produced it, just that it's ridiculously dishonest and irresponsible
to hype this as "absolutely conclusive smoking-gun PROOF" of the use of thermate. There is at least
one other completely plausible completely mundane possibility. Prof. Jones focusses on the
iron/sulfur mix as a signature of thermate, but makes no mention of aluminum oxide, which would also
most definitely be present and which he'd certainly test for and mention if it were. This is a
strange omission. Prof. Jones knows better "
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/06/17/18281125.php

For practical purposes, all this means that a huge pile of iron beams (e.g., mixed in with tons
of other materials initially burning) can itself begin to burn like huge iron logs in a pile
furnace, and there is no reason not to expect this system to reach a temperature high enough to melt
iron. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) gas, released from burning organic materials, and/or from decomposing
Gypsum, in the burning piles will spontaneously combine (react) with cold or hot iron, adding more
heat to the iron, and adding "sulfides" to the steel and thus lowering its effective melting
temperature.

The first "molten" iron in the WTC piles was reportedly discovered WEEKS AFTER the collapse of the
WTC towers, and molten iron was reportedly found regularly during the following MONTHS during
excavations of the huge piles. The only rational explanation for this steady-state phenomenon is
IRON BURNING. "Professor Jones" is not a rational man, and thus he fails to consider the fact that
Iron Burns, and instead assumes that the reported "molten iron" was all created (by surreptitious
"Thermite") on September 11, 2001 and that all this red-hot liquid metal just stayed clumped
together on its chaotic descent down 70+ floors and then stayed in molten form until it was dug up
weeks and months later.

Further, as an aside, it is total idiocy for Jones and his associates to assume that someone intent
upon both bringing down the WTC towers and being undetected in doing so would go to the trouble of
actually "melting" some of the iron (let alone allot of it) within the iron support columns (steel
will not "melt" until reaching temperatures of nearly 3000F), rather than just heating some of them
to the much lesser temperature point at which the iron would EXPAND and DEFORM (see photos linked
below) and become worse than useless to support the enormous weight of the building. (That
temperature can be scientifically calculated given the load parameters, and was evidently equal to
or less than the core temperature of the carbonaceous office fires spanning an enormous area e.g.,
one square acre in size, on each of several floors of each WTC tower). Note: "A typical house fire
can reach 2000 degrees Fahrenheit after just five minutes of flame."
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/roundup/online/2004/1104_p4_7.pdf "THE TYPICAL HOUSE FIRE REACHES A
TEMPERATURE OF APPROXIMATELY ELEVEN HUNDRED DEGREES [Fahrenheit]"

http://www.gia.edu/newsroom/3685/broadcast_content.cfm Aluminum melts at about 1218 F. It is an
observable fact that virtually all carbonaceous-fires (e.g., bonfires, house fires, burning-paper
fires, airplane fires) are readily capable of melting aluminum. (Note: "Fire" is not synonymous
with "flame".)

When even smaller aluminum aircraft burn on the ground, the resulting fire usually "melts" their
aluminum portions, thus proving temperatures exceeding 1200 degrees Fahrenheit:

Aircraft Crash: Aluminum Fire

aerialview_big.jpg



"The forward portion of the fusilage [sic] containing the cockpit burned, the aluminum being almost
completely consumed by the heat of the fire which ranged from 1310 degrees to 2100 degrees (F)."
http://www.nps.gov/yuch/Expanded/b24/b24.htm

These temperature estimates exceed the melting point of aluminum. See also the burning-aircraft
photos in this thoughtful rebuttal of Professor Jones' lunatic "thermite" theory.

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm ("Air France flight 358 didn't hit a steel
building at 500 miles an hour. It didn't even burn the fuel in the wings yet it's aluminum skin
melted to the ground. It simply went off the runway and caught fire. What melted the airliner was
the contents like seats, clothing and other combustibles including chemical oxygen generators. It's
not unreasonable to conclude the airliner and contents didn't even need the contents of the building
to melt.") (unfortunately, the author of that article also mistakenly assumed that iron is
"non-combustible")

It should also be kept in mind that "aluminum ... ignites at relatively low temperature," Aluminum,
"melts at about 1,220[F] degrees. At about 1,400[F] degrees, it can automatically ignite and burst
into flames without any spark" "The formation of aluminum oxide is accompanied by the release of a
tremendous amount of heat ... temperatures can reach around 5,000 degrees."

http://www.dmanuta.com/dmm/aluminum.doc

More information about aluminum is provided here: http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf (although I
think he tends to oversell the role of melted aluminum in the collapse of the WTC)

In other words, why use readily DETECTIBLE "thermite" (or even "explosives") when just burning tons
of paper, plastic, rugs, aircraft-chairs, clothes, flesh, computers, (perhaps aluminum metal), and
some hydrocarbon (jet) fuel, would (and evidently did) accomplish the same result?

To bolster his nonsensical conclusions, Professor Jones says absurd and misleading things like:
"Brigham Young University physicist Professor Steven Jones told peers at a Utah meeting that, "while
almost no fire, even one ignited by jet fuel, can cause structural steel to fail."
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406thermiteidentified.htm

Professor Jones is an attention whore, who does not check his facts:

The essay at http://www.cagenweb.com/quarries/articles_and_books/stone_magazine/fire_trap.html by an
early American civil engineer of great repute (William Sooy Smith, 1830-1916) explains the known
weaknesses of Iron (steel) beams and columns exposed to fire. He notes that the primary mechanism
of structural failure in steel buildings is the DESTRUCTIVE FORCE generated in the steel itself when
it EXPANDS due to heating by FIRE. He describes the destruction of several steel frame buildings
due to the heat of fire, including one in New York city. In view of these examples, there is a
warning (or prophesy) by the Fire Chief of the City of New York of the eventual collapse of a very
tall steel frame building, (such as the World Trade Center buildings), due to exposure to the heat
of fire. His essay is essential reading for anyone who would express or consider an opinion about
the likelihood that a steel framed building exposed to fire would be brought down by the heat of
fire.

Excerpts:

1) "Witness the Manhattan Savings Bank building, Broadway and Bleeker street, New York, which was
destroyed a few weeks ago by the heat generated in the burning of the ... building next to it."

2) "fire ... partly destroyed the Athletic Association building in this city. ... and it is
evident that if this heat had continued but a little longer the whole structure would have
fallen."

3) "And notably at the burning of the Tribune building in Minneapolis, about three years ago,
which resulted in its entire destruction."

"There may be steel buildings in which the fireproofing has been so well done that they will pass
through an ordinary fire without such failure. But if the steel becomes even moderately heated its
stiffness will be measurably diminished, and the strength of the upright members so reduced as to
cause them to bend and yield. This is more likely to occur, as the horizontal beams and girders will
at the same time expand (unequally from the different degrees of temperature) and throw the posts
out of vertical and into buckling positions. This is the third difficulty. ... The third
difficulty, resulting from the expansion and contraction of the metals employed in the construction
of tall buildings, may be obviated by protecting these metals absolutely from any considerable
change in temperature..."

Chief Bonner, of the fire department of New York, says in reference to the destruction of the
Manhattan Bank building:

....We shall have in this city, unless the citizens of New York are warned in time, a calamity by
fire which will rend their hearts. ... The heat thrown from a large burning building of any height
is immense. ... I am prepared to declare, from my experience, that a building of brick and yellow
pine in case of fire is easier to manage, and the contents have more chance of being saved than the
modern fire-proof building. In the former structure the fire burns more slowly and has no chance to
concentrate its heat as in the iron and steel structure.

Chief Swenie, of the Chicago fire department, is quoted in the essay as follows:

"I think very much as Bonner does," said Fire Marshal Swenie to-day, when his attention was directed
to a statement of the chief of the New York fire department to the effect that the modern skyscraper
is a veritable firetrap. .... Fire in a room so filled with goods might in very short time gain
such headway as to imperil seriously the entire structure by the expansion, warping or twisting of
the iron or steel framework.

No ... building of any kind in which inflammable goods are stored should ever exceed 125 feet in
height, and might with advantage be much less. This is not because we cannot throw water high
enough. But suppose such goods are stored in a twelve-story building; a fire breaks out, say on the
sixth floor, and gets to burning furiously. The heat ascends and causes the pillars and beams to
expand. The expansion first raises all that part of the building above where it takes place. At
the same time the whole weight above continues on the expanded metal. before you know where you are
something is going to give, and what will be the results? They will be too fearful to contemplate.

... It does not take a great amount of heat to cause steel and iron to expand, and when beams and
columns begin moving something has got to break. Suppose a fire breaks out in one of these
buildings. We work at it from below, and the steel beams expand, the ceiling breaks and the floor
above comes down. ...

The statements of Professor Jones and others that "almost no fire, even one ignited by jet fuel, can
cause structural steel to fail" are insane distortions of reality and misrepresentations of
practical experience of fire-fighters and engineers (See
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html A fire in a Madrid steel-frame building
collapsed 10-story sections of the building -even without a plane crash weakening those sections-,
and almost brought down the rest of it, which had to be torn down. "At its peak, temperatures
reached 800 degrees Celsius (1,472 F)" )

See also:
http://enr.construction.com/images2/2006/02/060206-30A.jpg

Professor Jones' irresponsible claims disparaging the capacity of fire to damage and collapse
iron/steel structures are readily proved false by photographs of iron beams distorted and large
sections of buildings collapsed by fire, including those photos of the distorted iron beams in the
highway bridge that I include (below).

As for Jones' claims that a molten metal pooled and pouring out of the floors near where the planes
impacted was necessarily iron, not aluminum: How does Jones "get rid of" the Molten Aluminum that
would result from contact of the airplane parts with the alleged molten iron? Molten iron in
contact with solid aluminum will produce molten aluminum and solid iron, or motel aluminum and
molten iron (i.e., always molten aluminum). The molten metal emerges (only) at the same corner and
at the same floors of the WTC where the aluminum body of the aircraft "gently landed." What a
coincidence. Also, it almost certain that much of the aluminum of the aircraft had melted in the
heat of the fire(s), so if "iron" can "pool" there and pour out as Jones claims, why wouldn't some
of the tons of molten aluminum (which just happened to land there) also pour out? What happened to
the molten aluminum according to Jones? Jones only asserts that melted aircraft aluminum "would flow
away from the heat source ... Thus, the observed molten metal flowing from WTC 2 on 9/11 cannot be
aluminum."

Why would melted aluminum "flow away from the heat source" if not by action of gravity and the shape
of the surface (floors) it was pooled on? Molten Iron would follow the same path as molten
aluminum. And, why does Jones suppose that "out a window" is not "away from the heat source"? Why
would (pooled?) molten iron have a preference over pooled molten aluminum to flow "away" out of a
window from the same location?

More fundamentally, what good is molten iron falling out of a window to someone who wants to use it
to HEAT a VERTICAL IRON BEAM to the point of failure???? In order to USE thermite to heat
something, you have to let the molten iron transfer its heat to that thing, which means that the
molten iron would cool and solidify if were actually USED to heat something. And, since Jones
claims that the thermite was placed on the internal columns of the building (since they failed
first), how and why would molten iron show up at the outside perimeter (near a corner) to fall out
of a window? Thermite charges are always used ABOVE (or inside) the subject to be heated, because
any other position would result in the hot molten iron formed by thermite flowing down away from the
subject to be heated and being useless waste. Jones offers no explanation for why anyone would go
to the trouble of using "thermite" to produce many gallons of WASTE molten iron that was not kept in
intimate contact with vertical Beams and therefore served no purpose other than to fall out of a
window and attract attention to itself. So, shall we call Jones' Theory: The Theory of the
Incompetent Thermite Bombers Who Just Needed to Call Attention to their Handiwork by Pouring Molten
Iron out of a Window. Or, maybe the Airplanes were really Hijacked by well-intentioned American
Patriots who knew that the only way to expose the secret plot to destroy the WTC with Thermite was
to fly a plane into the buildings at exactly where the Thermite was installed to hopefully cause
some of its residue to fall out a window where the World could see it and certainly know that it was
"molten iron" produced by thermite. Bless their souls.

Jones writes:

"Dramatic footage reveals yellow-to-white hot molten metal dripping from the South WTC Tower just
minutes before its collapse:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11.

Photographs
capture the same significant event, clearly showing liquid metal dropping from the South Tower,
still hot as it nears the ground below:"

MoltenCloseup1.JPG


Molten2Low.JPG



"Who can deny that liquid, molten metal existed at the WTC disaster? The yellow color implies a
molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 oC."

Jones admits that: "We note that aluminum has many free electrons, so it reflects ambient light very
well -- and it appears 'silvery'. Aluminum ... aluminum would appear silvery due to high
reflectivity combined with low emissivity..."

Look at the shiny blocky highly reflective (silvery) solid masses that were produced from the
falling (cooling) molten metal, seen in the bottom of the photo above right. Is it solid Iron, or
solid Aluminum?

I believe that it may be possible to "prove" that the molten metal falling out of the WTC was
aluminum based on its behavior (e.g., breaking up in the air, failure to "spark" white all around,
and turning into a blocky silvery solid while falling). Aluminum is much less massive (dense) than
iron, so molten aluminum will be more affected by air resistance than molten iron would be. See the
horizontal shift of the falling molten metal in both of the photos above. (E.g., Aluminum would be
broken up out of a poured stream (or blown to one side) sooner than heavier molten iron) Also, at
any given temperature, molten iron would probably be differently viscuous or would have different
surface tension than molten aluminum. Thus, it would visibly behave differently upon being poured
of a window. The photos show molten metal pouring out of the WTC that appears to be somewhat
widely dispersed (and shifted horizontally) by wind and air resistance, suggesting that it is
lighter than iron. [It just does not quite "look" like a stream of heavy liquid iron.]

Experimentation or simulation could prove or disprove this hypothesis.

Keep in mind also that Jones is oblivious that hot (molten) Iron Burns spontaneously in air.

Another problem with Jones' theory that this falling molten metal is "iron" (and not aluminum) is
that IF it were IRON, at the temperature of melted iron, some of it would probably have constantly
been seen exploding/flashing/burning into bright white Light upon being released as small particles
in the air. "The smith's fire contains too much oxygen to allow iron to melt; as it approaches its
melting point the iron burns instead."
http://www.osv.org/cgi-bin/CreatePDF.php?/tour/index.php?L=12&PDF=Y

Read Faraday's demonstration of moderately heated iron particles burning in air, producing
"scintillations".

"I have here a circular flame of spirit of wine, and with it I am about to show you the way in
which iron burns, because it will serve very well as a comparison between the effect produced by air
and oxygen. If I take this ring flame, I can shake, by means of a sieve, the fine particles of iron
filings through it, and you will see the way in which they burn. [The lecturer here shook through
the flame some iron filings, which took fire and fell through with beautiful scintillations.]"
http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/MOD/1859Faraday-forces.html

Absent constant bright White "flashes" of burning iron droplets/particles, it more probably was
aluminum at or near its melting temperature. I have "poured" molten aluminum that I got by melting
scrap in a wood-fire, short distances, and that did not readily produce flashes of light (maybe
because it cools down faster in cold air than it can oxidize), although it theoretically can.
(molten aluminum is fairly tame) I have not "poured" molten iron, but see this photo showing the
smaller iron droplets burning bright WHITE in air during even a very short pouring operation at a
foundry:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cumbria/features/askaway/industrial/images/iron270.jpg

And see here, the veritable fireworks of hot iron particles diverging and exploding into white
light/flashes during a pour:

Castingclose-2.jpg


"In the foundry. The cast iron is being poured into the sand mould."

http://www.ship-technology.com/contractors/propulsion/daros/daros4.html

And, see all the bright white sparks flying in this series of photographs of an iron pour:
http://www.taylor.org/~argus/all/burn/00/second_roll/iron_pour/

Dante observed and wrote about this commonplace property of poured molten Iron, in his The Divine
Comedy:

"I could not endure it long, but enough to see him sparkle all round, like iron poured, molten,
from the furnace. And suddenly, it seemed that day was added to day, as though He who has the
power, had equipped Heaven with a second sun."

http://www.tonykline.co.uk/PITBR/Italian/DantPar1to7.htm

This video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11.
noted by Jones does show a few reluctant "sparkles", (which of course could also be consistent with
aluminum particle flashes), but does not quite show the constant "sparkle all around" that would be
expected (by Dante) from poured molten iron at the temperature of 1000C claimed by Jones.

Also, more definitely, the falling molten material clearly turns into a silver colored (highly
reflective) (flat, blocky) solid material after it cools (as soon as it stops glowing) after falling
down a number of stories (strongly suggesting aluminum metal, not iron). Solid iron is generally
not that highly reflective without polishing, but aluminum is. [Molten iron would probably not
loose its glow and convert into a solid so quickly, since it does not conduct heat as well as
aluminum and because it would be formed much hotter than molten aluminum.

Also, iron would be expected to coalesce into a rounder clump while falling before solidifying.
[Shot towers are used to form iron ball-bearings, and lead musket balls, out of poured molten metal.
But, there is no indication that aluminum can be formed into round balls by this method, perhaps
because it cools down to quickly] If the "shot tower" behavior of iron (forming sperical balls of
molten iron before solidifying) holds with larger amounts of poured iron, then the molten metal
pouring out of the WTC, IF IT WERE IRON WOULD HAVE FORMED CANON-BALL SHAPED gobs of molten metal
before it cooled down and solidified.

The falling metal pieces formed by that pour out the window of the WTC tower are clearly NOT
ROUND and are very elongated, or flat, indicating a very rapid cooling of the falling poured
(aluminum) metal. [These distinctions can be readily proved or disproved by experimentation or
calculation]. Jones does not comment upon the silvery flat, blocky, (not round) metal pieces
visible falling in the photo frames in his own thesis.

The NISC report seems to agree:

"The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior
suggests it could have been molten aluminum." (p. 375)

There is of course the possiblity that the falling molten metal was some other material from the
airplane or offices other than aluminium or iron. But, I believe that there is enough information
from the video to scientifically determine its approximate denisty and also its Specific Heat, its
melting/solidifying temperature, and its thermal conductivity. The latter determinations could be
based on standard formulas used to determine cooling rates due to "forced convection."
"Bah. This guy has been debunked all over the web. Professor Stephen Jones is wrong."

http://www.answers.com/topic/steven-e-jones linked from http://reddit.com/info/48t1/comments

"A few department chairmen at Jones' university have issued critical statements, though none of
these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at
BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record
stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our
department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think
there is accuracy and validity to these claims."

About Professor Jones, assocated with the so-called "9-11 Scholars" website, I previously wrote (to
him) substantially the following assessment of his wacky half-baked theories about thermite and
molten iron:

Speaking as an engineer of high academic achievment, I am shocked that Brigham Young University has
employed an ignorant moron of such epic and treasonous proportions. I will be further shocked if he
is not removed promptly from his position of trust and confidence. It has been my understanding
that the Latter Day folks are a close knit group who watch out that their members far and wide do
not embarrass the community. In other words, it is my hope that the Latter Days will take the
initiative to contact the leadership at BYU so that justice to the truth may be served.

Excerpt of published assertions by BYU professor Jones:

"Jones argues that the WTC buildings did not collapse due to impact or fires caused by the
jets hitting the towers but collapsed as a result of pre-positioned "cutter charges." Proof, he
says, includes:

. Molten metal was found in the subbasements of WTC sites weeks after 9/11; the melting
point of structural steel is 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit and the temperature of jet fuel does not
exceed 1,800 degrees. Molten metal was also found in the building known as WTC7, although no plane
had struck it. Jones's paper also includes a photo of a slag of the metal being extracted from
ground zero. The slag, Jones argues, could not be aluminum from the planes because in photographs
the metal was salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approximately 1,550 to 1,900 degrees F) "well above
the melting temperatures of lead and aluminum," which would be a liquid at that temperature.

.... No steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to
fires. Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse, he says."
Having seen first hand the rubble of the WTC on the night of September 11, 2001, I can tell you
there was fire and fires everywhere around the scene, and fumes rose steadily from the "piles" after
the collapse, and fumes continued to rise from the piles when I went back to Ground Zero over a week
later. As I described it " I saw a hellish vapor slowly rising everywhere from the rubble like
something out of Dante [Inferno]."

See: While Leaving Ground Zero - September 11, 2002
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=4108 (Note, I am not the same "Mark Ferran" as the
NYC fireman by that name, and we have never met)

When I first heard about the fires in the WTC
buildings that morning, I said to myself, in my office, that the metal must be getting very hot.
When I later saw the images of smoke and fire billowing out of those buildings, I knew they would
not stand. After they fell, the huge piles of iron beams and combustible materials formed two
enormous furnaces, comprising burning office materials, burning metal, and burning human flesh (not
to mention many tons of combustible aircraft aluminum and iron, i.e., thermite) which over the
course of several weeks and months. It was widely reported that the temperature (e.g., measured by
infra red imaging from above) in the interior of the piles INCREASED in the weeks after the collapse
of the towers, due quite obviously to the combustion of combustible matter in these large furnaces.
The moron employed at BYU seems to have no conception of the nature of a furnace, no concept of the
fact that metals burn, and seems to be unable to comprehend that there were much combustible
materials in the piles from the collapsed buildings OTHER THAN what the airplanes brought in.

"[W]hile the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by
the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper [and
humans, and aluminum of the planes]. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F [even before the
buildings collapsed]." The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for
maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff
burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y
Even ordinary dry WOOD (charcoal) in a large enough furnace, is capable of melting iron:
www.uky.edu/.../BigSinking/ Furnace/furnace.htm

While a mixture of aluminum and (oxygen and iron) (e.g., rust) called "Thermite" is capable of
producing molten iron, evidently, a combination of metalic Iron and Oxygen (or Carbon Monoxide) is
itself capable of melting iron in a large pile furnace. Large piles of pure iron dust are capable
of "burning" themselves into a molten mass solely due to the heat of combustion of the iron itself.
Iron itself is a combustible material (and is commonly used in powder form to warm hands and feet in
little packs sold at Wal-Mart etc., and in MREs).

It is certainly known to be possible for ordinary hydrocarbon fuels (like oil, gasoline or jetfuel)
alone to destroy heavy iron and iron-concrete structures, as in the case of the Bridgeport gas
tanker fire which destroyed a highway overpass formed of large iron I-beams and concrete.
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t3161.html ("a fiery tanker truck [carrying
12,000 gallons of fuel oil ] melted a bridge on Interstate 95" in Massachusetts) See also
http://www.oe.netl.doe.gov/docs/eads/ead032604.doc

I believe that these photos (below, and seven images at EHOWA) fairly illustrate the type of
expansion, distortion and yielding that most likely happened to destroy some of the iron columns
supporting the enormous weight of the World Trade Centers' top 30+/- floors.

alabamatruck1.jpg


The iron columns of the WTC towers did not "melt" in the scientific sense of the word, but they
certainly EXPANDED (due to heat), and yielded (due to the enormous pressure caused by their own
thermal expansion). Just turn these above pictures from horizontal to vertical, and think what
would happen if that beam were instead a column holding up a heavy building. (Look at the distorted
iron, heated by ordinary hydrocarbon fuel burning, and keep in mind what Professor Jones said:
"almost no fire, even one ignited by jet fuel, can cause structural steel to fail." ) Also note how
the metal of the fuel tank itself so completely disintegrated. (see the other photos at at EHOWA ).
It's tank may have been made of flammable aluminum metal, like the skin and structure of a jetliner,
or of stainless steel. I believe that the fires confined inside the world trade center towers
could have been much hotter than this fairly "open air" (unconfined) gasoline fire, due to the
greater containment of the heat-of-combustion by the ceilings, floors and debris in the burning WTC
towers. See http://www.zmag.org/interactive/content/display_item.cfm?itemID=3944

The False Leaders of the so-called "9-11 Truth" movement typically do not understand or don't
acknowledge the power of ordinary FIRE nor the known weaknesses and behaviors of iron exposed to
fire, and they peddle their false explanations of occurrences to people even more ignorant than
them. They are the blind leading the blind. Most of the uneducated people (e.g., WebFairy, Lisa
Guliani, Victor Thorne etc.) selling videos books, etc., claiming that "fire could not have
destroyed the WTC towers" are just pathological liars who will tell any lie to take a buck from the
gullible.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as a "maximum temperature" for the combustion of any dry fuel.
If you raise the temperature of a dry fuel, like paper, or wood paneling, or charred flesh, and then
expose it to oxygen, its temperature will INCREASE, not remain the same. Duh!!! The bigger the
furnace, the higher the temperature of the unburned fuel gets before it combines with oxygen, and
thus still higher will its temperature be when it finally combusts. "Temperature" inside of a
furnace system is solely a function of how much heat enters the system versus how much leaves the
system, over time, and not a function of the type of fuel. Insulation, or a large enough mass,
slows the exit of heat from the system. (Note: melting things removes energy from a system) A large
pile of debris forms an insulating furnace retaining much of the heat of combustion, raising the
internal temperature, evidently high enough to melt iron. That is how the ancients used piles to
make and refine and melt iron from ore.

It is shocking that a "professor" would assume that molten iron found weeks or months later in the
bowels of a huge pile of continuously burning debris (containing tons of combustible iron and other
materials) would have to have been generated at the very begining of the fire, or even before the
pile was formed. It is even more nonsensical for him to presume that a molten metal supposedly
formed before the buildings collapsed would remain molten for months without some subsequent source
of heat being applied to it. And, it is totally absurd for him to presume that a molten (liquid)
metal supposedly formed in the top floors before the buildings collapsed (his "thermite" theory)
would remain both molten and intact after it fell 70+ stories in a chaotic collapse while even more
solid objects (bones, concrete, flesh) were obliterated on the way down. The "professor" also
seems to be oblivious that (aircraft) aluminum is itself a high-energy fuel, that would not be found
in bright molten form weeks later (because it burns continuously when molten and exposed to air).
(They use Aluminum metal as fuel to propel the Space Shuttle into Orbit around the Earth).

Also apparent, is that the so-called "professor" is incompetent or lazy in the use of search
engines, such as Google. On this very subject, I wrote this back in 2001:

"Furthermore, if it is true that "pools of molten steel" were found in the (basement of) remains
of the WTC twin towers, this molten material probably began to form and accumulate days AFTER THE
COLLAPSE of the tower, when the huge mass of material trapped the heat of slowed combustion that
continued within the pile. I saw the fumes of combustion folks, the piles were slowly burning after
the buildings collapsed. Everyone with the slightest recollection of the events knows this. Even a
huge pile of iron filings will form a red-hot fused mass of metal because the heat produced
internally by rusting will build up in the pile. Any combustible material in the "piles" of the WTC
that was exposed to heat and to any amount of infiltrating air (oxygen) would contribute to
hot-spots. All of the conjectures that say the steel formed before the buildings collapsed are
ignorant and preposterous. The Steel in the rubble of the WTC melted, if at all, because of the
enormous size of the piles and presence of much combustible materials in them, not merely because of
the burning of jet fuel. Those who say otherwise are either lying, or are overlooking something
fundamental. While jet fuel flame burning in OPEN AIR will may not maintain the temperature you need
to melt steel, if you inject any fuel mixed with air into a huge porous mass that cannot rapidly
release the built-up heat of combustion, you will produce a furnace capable of melting steel or
practically any other metal. An open flame rapidly dissipates the heat of combustion, but a furnace
conserves and accumulates the heat of combustion. Any fuel will produce this effect in the
appropriate furnace. Its like the difference between the heat of an open wood-flame of a single
stick burning in open air, compared to the (steel-melting) white-hot heat produced in the bottom of
a large pile of wood and burning wood-coals. This is also the principle by which large piles of
organic materials (e.g., saw-dust, leaves, hay) will spontaneously begin to burn- the heat of decay
builds up inside them. "No matter which mechanism is involved, the oxidation reaction will generate
heat. If there is some form of insulation, which is usually provided by the mass of the material
itself, the heat cannot be dissipated. Because the heat is not dissipated, the temperature of the
material increases. The increase in temperature will in turn increase the rate at which the
oxidation reaction occurs, which in turn will increase the amount of heat generated, and so on. This
increase after increase continues until either the heat is dissipated some way [e.g. by melting
steel], or the material reaches its ignition temperature and starts to burn. (the same basic process
occurs in stored green bio-mass materials such as hay, saw dust, corn cobs, etc. but the heat is
generated by the life process of micro-organisms)."
http://bifrost.unl.edu/ehs/ChemicalInfo/flamsol.html "

"This scientific principle of a furnace, understood by primitive humans since the bronze age,
could potentially destroy the credibility of anyone who forwards and endorses the erroneous theories
(e.g., "nuclear" bombs). You are literally playing with fire by promoting such bogus theories.
People, for the sake of our country, and out of respect for those who died at the WTC, please do not
promote or forward those Urban Legends.

"I am sorry if my words are harsh, but I do not have much patience for people who are either
irresponsible for forgetting what they themselves saw, who pretend to understand physical principles
that they have not studied or otherwise have no competence in, or who are simply liars who are out
to make a reputation by misrepresenting to others what happened on September 11, 2001. Everyone with
common sense knows that two commercial air planes hit and burned inside the towers and caused the
towers to break and to fall. Mark R. Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl http://billstclair.com/ferran/index.html

http://www.zmag.org/interactive/content/display_item.cfm?itemID=3944

I am aware that there are millions of science-ignorant people and some total morons walking around
America babbling about the World Trade Center (and I have tried in vein to address this
http://www.zmag.org/interactive/content/display_item.cfm?itemID=3944 ) , but when a "professor" who
knows that he has no formal education nor any practical education in the science of chemistry,
combustion, nor of metallurgy, nor of the Strength of materials decides to spew his ignorant
reckless notions as scientific "FACTS" to the gullible volatile public at a time of crisis, I feel
that his reckless conduct warrants extreme and swift punishment. Professor Jones has also
misrepresented the significance of the "Law of Entropy" to bolster his false claims. Given the
tendancy of this professor's misrepresentations to give aide, comfort, and encouragement to those
who have overtly declared Jihad against our pathetic country, (and who must be able to recruit more
jihadists just by laughing at our domestic morons) I would be satisfied to see this "professor"
tried, convicted, and executed for Treason. He breached a Trust in time of WAR. Jones' reckless
remarks will probably kill as many Americans as President Bush's misuse of the word "Crusade" has
and will.

I have never heard of a single NYC fireman doubting that a fire of the proportion of those in the
towers could destroy such a building that was not designed to withstand such an enormous fire. See,
e.g., http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/vallebunoa.html ("We thought 7 World
Trade Center was going to fall").

I think it is preposterous for anyone to assume that a tall building or any conventional material or
mode of construction can not fall down if you fly a large fuel-laden airplane into it at more than
500 miles per hour.

In summary, we have a moron posing as President, and now we have morons posing as "Professors" too.
No wonder that the people of the world increasingly find it necessary to destroy US for their own
preservation.

Mark Fe
 
Alex Jones and 911 Scholars: The Parable of the Good Shepherd

Then came another post from Ferran; again, I am uncertain if it went to the entire list.

Send reply to: "Mark Ferran" <mferran@nycap.rr.com>
From: "Mark Ferran" <mferran@nycap.rr.com>
To: Laura Knight-Jadczyk
Subject: WTC Aluminum Impact Flashes
Date sent: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 01:35:30 -0400

AMOJ_MAINA French "author" and various uneducated American-born misfits (e.g., the authors of "in
plane site") have asserted that flashes of white light visible at the point(s) of impact of the
aircraft that slammed into the World Trade Center towers constitutes "incontrovertible evidence"
that something other or in addition to the ordinary passenger aircraft struck the towers. [For a
digest of these claims, see generally, http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/review.html ]

When Aluminum (or other) metal is intensely smashed and shattered or it otherwise burns in air, it
emits Bright White LIGHT.

Aluminum bullets travelling at very high fps (mph) shatter/splatter completely, and almost the
entire mass bursts into burning particles, and are thus such are called "pyrophoric". Depleted
Uranium "Kenetic Energy" projectiles are also notoriously pyrophoric upon their
impact-disintegration. The key to producing the flash is the generation of the tiny particles of
(heated) metal in air. In the case of bullets, the small projectile must itself contain all the
(kenetic) energy needed to shatter/splatter itself, thus speeds of about 3,000 fps are required to
impart the necessary energy to a small mass such as an aluminum bullet.

1fps. = .681mph.

1mph. = 1.46fps.
"The 'vaporific effect' refers to the flash fire observed with the impact of high velocity
projectiles against metallic targets. The impact produces small, finely divided particles
originating from either the projectile, the target, or both. These particles are heated by the
impact forces and can burn in the presence of air (oxidizer). The result is a metal-dust-type
explosion....
http://www.blazetech.com/Products___Services/Aircraft/Vaporific_Effects/vaporific_effects.html
It requires only a very small amount of burning Aluminum metal to emit a white light momentarily
brighter than the Sun: "Flash powder. Aluminum or magnesium powder mixed with an oxidizer results
in a 'flash powder' that can be used to generate a bright flash of light and a loud bang. Flash
powder can be used as a light source for night photography." http://www.vectorsite.net/ttpyro_2.html
Similarly, an aluminum "cotton" fiber or thread was used in older "flash cubes" to simulate sunlight
for cameras.

A large piece of aluminum moving at a lesser speed than that speed which completely and entirely
shatters/splatters the whole mass of the aluminum metal, is also likely to emit some aluminum
particles and hence a flash of light, at the leading point of impact, because the whole mass of the
rigid metal object contributes energy to shatter/splatter the smaller mass of aluminum at the
leading point of impact.
General Partin says vonKleist omits the most obvious explanation. "It's very simple," he told The
New American, "When the noses of the aircraft hit the buildings, you have a bright aluminum flash,
the same as we saw at the Pentagon. That's obvious to anyone familiar with physics, chemistry, and
what happens when aluminum hits a structure at a high rate of speed." And the proof of that
analysis, the general points out, is in vonKleist's own video. "If you watch just a few frames after
the nose flash, you'll see two smaller aluminum flashes as each engine strikes the building. That's
all it is."
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/printer_1253.shtml

At this link is a video of a small "F4" aircraft on a track crashing in a test to assess the safety
of a nulcear reactor. http://www.jokaroo.com/extremevideos/plane_vs_wall.html

The F4 plane apparently has a non-aluminum nose-cone, however when the first metal (aluminum?) part
of the nose strikes the concrete wall, a small White Flash of light is distinctly visible in the
video (see the especially the second view with the aircraft approaching from the right).

Although "aluminum flash" is easily and typically observed with small projectiles (bullets) at
self-shattering/splattering speeds (e.g., above 3000 fps), if you strike a small piece of aluminum
metal between two very heavy masses, (for example between an iron building and an aircraft traveling
500mph), some of the aluminum metal squashed between these rigid masses will be intensely heated and
ejected as small hot particles which will ignite in the air, producing a bright flash of Light.
The large masses (moving relatively towards each other) provide the additional energy necessary to
shatter/splatter the smaller amount of aluminum and to produce the ejected particles that burn in
air and emit white light.

Impact-flashes of aluminum aircraft are considered to be commonplace by experts like "General
Partin", and given the obvious ignorance and bias of most of the writers and "scholars" among the
9-11 Historical Revisionists (such as "Professor Jones" who claims that "molten iron" found flowing
in the burning piles of debris in the WTC towers must have been formed in the buildings before they
collapsed and somehow remained INTACT after falling 70+ stories while even solid materials did not),
I have no reason to believe that such impact flashes are not commonplace. Here are images capturing
impact-flash of the second aluminum airplane that hit the iron WTC towers. Also note that the face
of the WTC towers where clad with sheets of aluminum, which would also be a source of aluminum for
impact-flashes.



"Nearly all metals will burn in air under certain conditions."
http://www.eh.doe.gov/techstds/standard/hdbk1081/hbk1081c.html

Iron Burns, especially when it is red-hot, and evidently it can melt itself when it burns in a large
enough pile furnace. Aluminum Burns with a Flash, especially when it is spattered/shattered at
high speed, and thus finely divided and hot.

Mark Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl
www.billstclair.com/ferran
 
Alex Jones and 911 Scholars: The Parable of the Good Shepherd

Next, Roginsky's other pal checked in with a post to a short list which included egroup list servers so it was a certainty that he was "selecting" his audience:

Date sent: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:02:40 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
From: Jon Moseley
To: apfn@apfn.org, *9/11 David Swanson ,
*9/11 Gerard Holmgren
*9/11 Jacob Roginsky
*9/11 Laura Knight-Jadczyk
9/11 Total Information
9/11 Truth Action Group
9/11 truthabout911
Subject: RE: 9/11 DEBATE: Roginsky's cardboard pedestal
Copies to: APFN Yahoogroups <apfn-1@yahoogroups.com>


The writer's comments here are as sloppy and disconnected as the conspiracy theories he peddles.

Where an anti-American provocateur sitting in Paris writes that there was a 16 foot hole in the Pentagon, but the engineers who were actually on site in Virginia measuring the hole say it was a 75 to 90 foot hole, then clearly the book author is an anti-American French lunatic for thinking he can tell us what happened on the other side of teh planet but the experts on site, inclding local firefighters and police beholden to no one in the federal government, are wrong.

You take tehse commnets out of context in the same way that you create a hodge-podge mess of unrelated and disconnected tidbits to try to invent a false and scurrious slander against the United States.

-----Original Message-----

Subject: RE: 9/11 DEBATE: Roginsky's cardboard pedestal


Doraemi
Roginsky's cardboard pedestal
Mon Jul 10, 2006 18:31
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=102831;title=APFN
 
Alex Jones and 911 Scholars: The Parable of the Good Shepherd

With his Greek Chorus in place, Roginsky posted to the list himself and again the list was HIS selected audience.

Date sent: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 11:26:14 -0400
From: Jacob Roginsky
To: Jon Moseley
Copies to: apfn@apfn.org, *9/11 David Swanson ,
*9/11 Gerard Holmgren ,
*9/11 Laura Knight-Jadczyk ,
9/11 Total Information ,
9/11 Truth Action Group ,
9/11 truthabout911 ,
APFN Yahoogroups ,
9/11 John Doraemi , AMOJ_MAIN@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: 9/11 DEBATE: Roginsky's cardboard pedestal

APFN posted Doraemi's below comments, but apparently did not post my
response. I initially decided not to get AMOJ involved in reading the
two, but am now adding copying it because some might have read Doraemi's misleading and
silly message on APFN, but not my response. I will say, however, that
I will respond to nothing from Doraemi any further because have no time
to deal with his nonsense. A Kaukasian (not caucasian) poet said, "All
the mountains will fall before one wins an argument with a fool."

Here is a copy of my response to Doraemi:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Doraemi -- Isn't His BS Cute?
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:11:08 -0400
From: Jacob Roginsky
To: apfn@apfn.org
CC: SNIPPED LIST OF RECIPIENTS

It does not surprise me that Doraemi so lacks in common sense as to
believe that a million people could have a meaningful simultaneous
debate; lack of common sense is all too common. It does not surprise me
that Doraemi lacks logic and fairness, charging me with some perceived
transgressions of another, i.e. Jon Moseley; fairness and logic are
scarce commodities. It does surprise me that Doraemi thinks his
emotional drivel is an appropriate invitation to a debate; folks do it
all the time. Neither does it surprise me that a person like Doraemi
strains himself to sound cute. This reached a high point on Sunday,
when he called my rejection of his vulgarities a ""virgin ears" gambit."
Meaningless BS -- Doraemi probably had no idea what the word "gambit"
means -- but it sure sounded cute. (Will he now look up the word and
provide us with a "cute" justification of why he used it? Stay tuned.)

Jacob Roginsky
FYI. Professors Jones and Fetzer of the "Scholars for 911 Truth" are
aware of at least some of my specific criticisms of their positions. In
response to my challenge to a debate of their theories, Fetzer agreed
on a condition that I defend the government theories of the 911 events,
which had little to do with my challenge.


Jon Moseley wrote:

>
> The writer's comments here are as sloppy and disconnected as the
> conspiracy theories he peddles.
>
> Where an anti-American provocateur sitting in Paris writes that there
> was a 16 foot hole in the Pentagon, but the engineers who were
> actually on site in Virginia measuring the hole say it was a 75 to 90
> foot hole, then clearly the book author is an anti-American French
> lunatic for thinking he can tell us what happened on the other side of
> teh planet but the experts on site, inclding local firefighters and
> police beholden to no one in the federal government, are wrong.
>
> You take tehse commnets out of context in the same way that you create
> a hodge-podge mess of unrelated and disconnected tidbits to try to
> invent a false and scurrious slander against the United States.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: APFN
> Sent: Jul 10, 2006 8:35 PM
> To: *9/11 David Swanson , *9/11 Gerard Holmgren , *9/11 Jacob
> Roginsky , *9/11 Laura Knight-Jadczyk , 9/11 Total Information ,
> 9/11 Truth Action Group <911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com>, 9/11
> truthabout911
> Cc: APFN Yahoogroups
> Subject: RE: 9/11 DEBATE: Roginsky's cardboard pedestal
>
> Doraemi
> Roginsky's cardboard pedestal
> Mon Jul 10, 2006 18:31
> http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=102831;title=APFN
>
> Well, you've got to admire Roginsky for walking in and
> causing a 'look at me' ruckus.
>
> I don't see why limiting the "debate" about September 11th
> should be limited to two people, however. The world was
> affectd, and numerous people (who have never heard of
> apfn) have done incredbile works in this ongoing debate
> which is far outside the control of Mr. Roginsky.
>
> Further, it seems a little obvious, but every thread on
> every message board is a potential "debate" which has been
> ongoing.
>
> Roginsky says:
> "All of us must commit to establishing and maintaining an
> atmosphere of civility and good will"
>
> His compatriot Jonathan Moseley (listed on the AMOJ
> website) started this ruckus with the absurd claim: "Re:
> 9/11 - Everything discredited by our discussion on AMOJ".
> In addition to being a meaningless headline, it falls far
> short of the "atmosphere of civility and good will."
>
> Looking further into this first "AMOJ" provocation, we see
> Moseley beginning with the phrase: "Anti-American French
> lunatic..." This sort of dialogue, unproven and irrelvant
> as it is, also falls far short of the "atmosphere of
> civility and good will."
>
> See, I can write like a pretentious twit too, Rog.
>
> I'm not at all against discrediting untenable theories, so
> that people will stop spreading them. I do it all the
> time. A website called oilempire.us does a pretty good job
> of this. However, some of their criticism overreaches and
> is not supportable given the known evidence.
>
> Roginsky says:
> "Based on my exposure to many of such theories, including
> those of the "Scholars for 911 Truth," I developed rather
> negative views of the theories and their authors."
>
> so, the debate has already begun! With an ad hominem
> attack on Scholars for 9-11 Truth, although the members of
> that group are certainly not here to defend themselves.
> Seems a bit dishonest and vapid, since you don't cite a
> single point of fact you find problematic.
>
> So, the shot across the bow is that SF911truth aren't up
> to scrutiny. Well, Rog, why don't you write an academic
> paper which calls into question what you say does not pass
> muster? That would be a far more honest debate on the
> issue than what you are currently proposing.
>
> Or aren't you capable of such work?
>
> You can debate me right here, right now. I'll mop the
> floor with you.
>
> -JD
>
> John Doraemi Publishes Crimes of the State at:
> http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
 
Alex Jones and 911 Scholars: The Parable of the Good Shepherd

From: "Alex James"
To: SNIPPED LIST OF RECIPIENTS
Subject: Evidence shows that it was a missing US Air Force Global Hawk which hit the Pentagon
Date sent: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:29:34 +0300

http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495;article=102799;show_parent=1

In previous research and video documentaries by many people including Eric Hufschmid,
evidence was presented that a missing Global Hawk aircraft is what hit the Pentagon:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1336167662031629480
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1336167662031629480&q=painful+deception>
&q=painful+deception

Here's more.

TOTAL 911 INFO

9/11 - FLIGHT 77: Pentagon eyewitness IDs Global Hawk

Sun Jul 9, 2006 01:32

72.201.70.108

* Pentagon eyewitness IDs Global Hawk
http://www.total911.info/2006/07/pentagon-eyewitness-ids-global-hawk.html

Audio report from Republic Broadcasting Network.
Summaries via LibertyForum July 7, 2006:
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Piper/0607/20060707_Fri_Piper.mp3

"Christopher Bollyn, American Free Press, reports:

Samuel Danner (electrical engineer for AmTrak), was involved in the clean-up at the
Pentagon crash site and inspected the debris at the site. He said, "It was not a Boeing
757 that hit the Pentagon. The plane looked like a hump-back whale." He thinks a Global
Hawk hit the Pentagon. (There were only seven made as of 9/11/01 and two were missing at
the time.)

Danner is a former pilot. He said the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was very quiet with
one engine near the back. He also saw a second plane overhead and wonders if it was
controlling the plane that hit the Pentagon. He walked the lawn and picked up small
pieces of debris with others. He did not see any bodies from the aircraft.

Danner is very ill now with lymphoma, which may be the result of DU exposure at the
Pentagon on 9/11. He wants to talk now (after seeing "Loose Change") because "it's been
bugging me."

The Global Hawk fired a DU missile that penetrated the thick concrete wall of the
Pentagon. DU was detected at the time and workers on the scene later in the day wore
protective equipment.

-----------------------

Yep, this 53-yr old Sam Danner, a pilot since the age of 16, was a first-hand observer
of the crash. He pulled his car over to the south of the pentagon on the right side of
395 when he saw the approach of the plane that hit the pentagon.

He also observed a bunch of guys outside the pentagon standing there looking through
binoculars.

He got a good view of the plane's approach, for a duration of at least three seconds. He
says that the plane was not a 757, no way. "It was like a humpback whale" he says. Size
of a gulfstream 300, about 100 ft wingspan, one engine on the backside with a "V" tail
and no windows he could see. And it was very quiet. Going about 400mph. Overhead, at an
estimated 15,000 feet he saw another plane.

As an EMT, he ran over to help at the pentagon, but found no bodies, no wreckage from a
boeing aircraft on the scene. He smelled cordite and he saw a 3-foot single engine on
the ground there. He picked up graphite pieces similar to the composite wings on a
global hawk.

This engine matches the description of the single engine of a globalhawk. The globalhawk
is a UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) but could not have caused the damage if it wasn't
containing a bunker-busting missle deployed on impact. The plane observed overhead might
have been the plane controlling the remotely-controlled mission.

If a 757 had crashed into the pentagon, then there would have been aluminum all over the
grass and two 9-foot diameter engines.

.....| Posted by Total at 7:12 PM | PERMA-LINK |
http://www.total911.info/2006/07/pentagon-eyewitness-ids-global-hawk.html

[Snipped bunch of previous emails]
Of course, as we now know, this "eyewitness" was lying - having been apparently pressured to do so by so-called 911 researcher Eric Hufschmid. See: http://wingtv.net/thorn2006/danner.html

Nevertheless, another post on the subject soon came in:

From: Comnlawnet@
Date sent: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:29:48 EDT
Subject: Fwd: .911 Debate..US Global Hawk hit Pentagon - eye witness account
To: SNIPPED LIST OF RECIPIENTS

In a message dated 7/12/2006 2:17:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,
PainfulQuestions writes:

In case you don't know, here is the first interview that started this:

_http://www.erichufschmid.net/EyewitnessToFlight77.html_
(http://www.erichufschmid.net/EyewitnessToFlight77.html)


Here's the page:

_Hufschmid's site_ (http://www.erichufschmid.net/index.html)
_The French Connection_
(http://www.iamthewitness.com/)
Sam Danner; An Eyewitness to the Crash at the Pentagon!
Recorded 29 June 2006 Sam Danner, one of the people who
helped pick up scraps, talks about what he saw.

Here is Sam Danner's story, along with discussions of related subjects (If
you don't have the time to listen to the entire interview, listen to the brief
excerpts below this box. Also, check out the points at the bottom of this
article.)
_Sam_EyewitnessToFlight77_hour1.mp3_
(http://www.erichufschmid.net/Sam_EyewitnessToFlight77_hour1.mp3) 6.3 mb
(the phone cut out, and then we continued)

_Sam_EyewitnessToFlight77_hour2.mp3_
(http://www.erichufschmid.net/Sam_EyewitnessToFlight77_hour2.mp3) 9.7 mb
Note: he had a chemotherapy treatment a few hours earlier, so he was a bit
tired.

A Few Important Excerpts

Sam Danner, who had been an emergency medical technican, was driving near
the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

When he was in front of the Pentagon, traffic began to slow down. Danner
noticed an airplane in the distance. He knew about the attack on the WTC, and he
pulled over and got out of his car. He noticed a small aircraft in the
distance coming towards him.

However, he also noticed some people on the Pentagon property watching the
traffic and the aircraft:

_WhiteCollarPeopleLooking.mp3_
(http://www.erichufschmid.net/Sam/WhiteCollarPeopleLooking.mp3)

He saw a second airplane with 4 engines high up in the air above the
Pentagon:
_JetHighAbove4Engines.mp3_
(http://www.erichufschmid.net/Sam/JetHighAbove4Engines.mp3)

A couple seconds later the first aircraft passes in front of him. He
describes it as a white aircraft about the size of Gulfstream 300. The front was
like a humpback whale. It was flying very low to the ground:
_HumpbackWhaleOneEngine.mp3_
(http://www.erichufschmid.net/Sam/HumpbackWhaleOneEngine.mp3)

There was only one engine, and it was in the tail:
_TailConfigurationOf727.mp3_
(http://www.erichufschmid.net/Sam/TailConfigurationOf727.mp3)

As other witnesses have said, the airplane seemed to be under perfect
control. He did not notice any windows on the plane:
_LookedLikeUnderPerfectControlNoWindows.mp3_
(http://www.erichufschmid.net/Sam/LookedLikeUnderPerfectControlNoWindows.mp3)

He felt the air move as the aircraft flew by, but the aircraft was amazingly
quiet:
_FeltAirVeryQuiet.mp3_
(http://www.erichufschmid.net/Sam/FeltAirVeryQuiet.mp3)

He saw some of the light poles that had been hit by the aircraft, but they
seem to have fallen in the wrong direction, as if explosives knocked them
down:
_LightPolesBlownBackwards.mp3_
(http://www.erichufschmid.net/Sam/LightPolesBlownBackwards.mp3)

Danner walked onto the Pentagon property to help the survivors, but he
didn't find any bodies or luggage:
_WhereAreTheDeadPeopleAndSuitcases.mp3_
(http://www.erichufschmid.net/Sam/WhereAreTheDeadPeopleAndSuitcases.mp3)

He joined the people who picked up scraps (see the photo at the top of this
page):
_AskedToHelpPickUpScraps.mp3_
(http://www.erichufschmid.net/Sam/AskedToHelpPickUpScraps.mp3)

One of the other people assumed they were picking up scraps only to make it
appear as if they were doing something useful; ie, in order to impress
somebody important:
_HorseAndPonyShowNothingToPickUp.mp3_
(http://www.erichufschmid.net/Sam/HorseAndPonyShowNothingToPickUp.mp3)

All they found were bits of shredded aluminum and some type of polymer
material with fibers:
_RoughOnOneSideWithFibers.mp3_
(http://www.erichufschmid.net/Sam/RoughOnOneSideWithFibers.mp3)

He saw tiny bits of aluminum, a few large pieces, and only one engine:
_BitsOfAluminumAndOneEngine.mp3_
(http://www.erichufschmid.net/Sam/BitsOfAluminumAndOneEngine.mp3)

Danner's description of the airplane and the scraps supports the theory that
a Global Hawk crashed into the Pentagon.

Many people started to wonder what was going on:
_PeopleUpsetConfused.mp3_
(http://www.erichufschmid.net/Sam/PeopleUpsetConfused.mp3)

The people who appeared to be official government agents did not seem
interested in rescuing victims:
_AgentsDidntSeemToCare.mp3_
(http://www.erichufschmid.net/Sam/AgentsDidntSeemToCare.mp3)

Are you aware that prior to the collapse of Building 7 at the World Trade
Center, the people in the area were told to move away because the building
might collapse? Well, Danner said that after a while they were told to move away
from the Pentagon. Some of the people in the area obviously knew that a
portion of the building was about to collapse:
_AgentsToldPeopleToBackAway.mp3_
(http://www.erichufschmid.net/Sam/AgentsToldPeopleToBackAway.mp3)

Most of the Pentagon employees were as confused about what was happening as
Danner, which implies that only a small number of the Pentagon employees were
part of this scam. This implies that a lot of Pentagon employees must have
figured out that they were lied to:
_LotOfPeopleSuspicious.mp3_
(http://www.erichufschmid.net/Sam/LotOfPeopleSuspicious.mp3)

Danner's testimony shows that there must be thousands of people who know
that the official story is a lie, but they don't realize that their information
is important, or they are too frightened to talk.

The suspicious government agents intimidated the innocent people who wanted
to help:
_WeWereIntimidated.mp3_
(http://www.erichufschmid.net/Sam/WeWereIntimidated.mp3)

He made a sarcastic remark to a government agent about how there was a
tremendous loss of life from the airplane crash but he couldn't see any of it:
_AgentsDidntSeemConcerned.mp3_
(http://www.erichufschmid.net/Sam/AgentsDidntSeemConcerned.mp3)

Danner's final conclusion was that there was no 757; the official story is a
lie:
_No757ItIsBigLie.mp3_ (http://www.erichufschmid.net/Sam/No757ItIsBigLie.mp3)

As I mentioned to Sam Danner:

Alex Jones, Dylan Avery, and most other "truth seekers" and the media are
part of the criminal network! They are deceiving us by covering up the role of
Zionists:
_www.iamthewitness.com/Alex-Jones-summary.html_
(http://www.iamthewitness.com/Alex-Jones-summary.html)

Stop giving blind obendience to people. We have a responsibility to make sure
that the people who influence our world are honest:
_InvestigateTheTruthSeekers.htm_
(http://www.erichufschmid.net/InvestigateTheTruthSeekers.htm)

If you still don't get it, what if 90% of the "Truth Movement" and US
Government were South Korean and 9/11 was blamed on North Korea?
Would that make it obvious enough? Please look at this:
_www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Koreans.html_
(http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Koreans.html)

Mike Rivero of whatreallyhappened writes that "_government shills are
working hard to trick web sites into running the claim that a passenger jet did not
really hit the Pentagon_ (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html) . "

Do you trust Rivero? Have you noticed that Rivero promotes Alex Jones and
other liars? More here:
_ApolloLiars.html_ (http://www.erichufschmid.net/ApolloLiars.html)

If people would stop trembling in fear and come forward, we could do
something about this criminal network:
_www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Prepare.htm_
(http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Prepare.htm)

Kay Griggs explains how the Zionists get control of our military (please
watch the "Desperate Wives" videos):
_www.HugeQuestions.com_ (http://www.hugequestions.com/)

Take a look at the possibility that uranium was used at the Pentagon, and
even at the World Trade Center. Watch the video at _HugeQuestions.com_
(http://www.hugequestions.com/) about Flight 77.

Have you watched the press conference that the Apollo 11 astronauts gave
after they returned from the moon? If not, don't make any more excuses for
avoiding it:
_www.EricHufschmid.net/MoreInfoForScienceChallenge.html_
(http://www.erichufschmid.net/MoreInfoForScienceChallenge.html)

It is in the #2 point of that page
Check out the possibility that Eisenhower was a mass murdering Zionist:
_www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Eisenhower.html_ (http://www.ia
mthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Eisenhower.html)
Now here's the problem: indeed, we think that there is something "strange" about Michael Rivero, Jeff Rense, Alex Jones, etc... that is one point we agree with Daryl Bradford Smith and Eric Hufschmid on.

However, it really looks like Smith and Hufschmid are set up to be SO Whacko that Rense, Jones, and Rivero will look like the good guys in the end.

This little bit of weirdness with Sam Danner, now discredited eye-witness is a case in point. It's standard operating procedure to set up Straw Man attackers against COINTELPRO agents in order to take them down and have the REAL agents thereby confirmed in the public's mind as "good guys." Any sincere 911 people who aren't fully educated on the ways and means of COINTELPRO and pathological psychic driving are vulnerable to being used in this way even if their intentions are good.

Again, the whole 911 Truth/Research movement/gang is looking more and more like the most elaborate COINTELPRO nonsense ever conceived.
 
Alex Jones and 911 Scholars: The Parable of the Good Shepherd

Next, a member of the list forwarded an old email about Israeli's being warned of the 911 attack. I assume that this was meant to contribute evidence of the Israeli involvement in 911.

From: "Jason Collett"
To: SNIPPED LIST OF RECIPIENTS
Subject: Fw: Haaretz: workers warned of 9-11 attack
Date sent: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:47:50 +0200


Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 7:53 PM
Subject: Haaretz: workers warned of 9-11 attack


http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=77744&contrassID=/has%5C
Haaretz
Tuesday, September 23, 2003 Elul 26, 5763
Odigo says workers were warned of attack

By Yuval Dror

Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two
hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the
company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying
to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.

Micha Macover, CEO of the company, said the two workers received the messages and
immediately after the terror attack informed the company's management, which immediately contacted
the Israeli security services, which brought in the FBI.

"I have no idea why the message was sent to these two workers, who don't know the
sender. It may just have been someone who was joking and turned out they accidentally got it right.
And I don't know if our information was useful in any of the arrests the FBI has made," said
Macover. Odigo is a U.S.-based company whose headquarters are in New York, with offices in Herzliya.

As an instant messaging service, Odigo users are not limited to sending messages only to
people on their "buddy" list, as is the case with ICQ, the other well-known Israeli instant
messaging application.

Odigo usually zealously protects the privacy of its registered users, said Macover, but
in this case the company took the initiative to provide the law enforcement services with the
originating Internet Presence address of the message, so the FBI could track down the Internet
Service Provider, and the actual sender of the original message.
 
Alex Jones and 911 Scholars: The Parable of the Good Shepherd

I'm skipping a few posts that came from people who just sent a bunch of links to current news articles.

So far, the line being drawn between those who saw an Israeli roll in 911 and those who did not was shaping up. I didn't realize that it was going to get even more bizarre.

Date sent: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:51:23 -0500
From: Rosalee Grable <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>
To: apfn@apfn.org
Copies to: SNIPPED LIST OF RECIPIENTS
Subject: The Ultimate Planehugger


http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=102805;title=APFN

> Readers should be aware that "The Truth" about anything complicated is
> an absolutist statement that can't really apply to anything much more
> complicated than simple statements, such as the statement that it is
> true that I typed these words on a computer key board. Obviously,
> there can be no "truth" about something as complicated as the 9-11
> attacks.

http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=102805;title=APFN

The poor sucker quoted does not believe that existance exists.
I think he thinks he creates the world in his wake, and it crumples back
into nonexistance.

A Dali painting on acid.

We may or may not be able to get down to fine grained detail, but the
socratic practice of noncontradiction can find truth, cos it exists
independently of any particular schnookie , beyond will and imagination.

The "thinking" evidenced in the above post doesn't even admit to the
existance of truth, not suprising because it denies the existance of
existance.

How do we know he really typed those words? Maybe it was electrical
impulses from a brain in a jar on a shelf in some underground lab with
only dreams and flitterings of transient imagination.
 
Alex Jones and 911 Scholars: The Parable of the Good Shepherd

Date sent: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:44:53 +0200
To: "Gerard Holmgren"
"'Jon Moseley'"
"'Jacob Roginsky'"
From: Roy McCoy
Subject: RE: Sept 11 debate. Holmgren vs Rogisnsky - organizing.
Copies to: SNIPPED LIST OF RECIPIENTS

Gerard wrote:

> I didn't ask Jacob to debate 10 different theories. I asked him
> to debate specific pieces of evidence which I've put forward.

Precisely, and this is a large part of what I find so nauseating in the
comments of those defending the official story, here and elsewhere: that is,
the repeated assertion that 9/11 truth advocates are talking about theories
when they are actually talking about facts. Also nauseating is the evident
dependence of the official side on the ignorance of the average person -
this is also, of course, insulting.

What are these ten different "theories" that Gerard has been proposing,
Jacob? Put up or shut up.

I can understand, now that I think of it, why Jacob wouldn't accept
the condition that the term "conspiracy theory" not be used during a
debate on this subject. Without this linguistic trick, defenders of
the official story really have very little left at their disposal.


Roy McCoy <roy@luna.nl>
Rotterdam, NL
With this next post, I'm going to include all the exchange because it seems that there were exchanges going on that I wasn't getting all copies of. It may even have been the actual "debate discussion".

To: Gerard Holmgren <holmgren@iinet.net.au>
Copies to: 'Rosalee Grable' <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>, AMOJ_MAIN@Yahoogroups.com,
APFN <apfn@apfn.org>
From: Jacob Roginsky <jrogins@va.metrocast.net>
Date sent: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 05:30:00 -0400
Subject: [AMOJ_MAIN] Re: The debate with you is imposible
Send reply to: AMOJ_MAIN@yahoogroups.com

[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ]

The joke's on you, Gerard. It is quite appropriate that your mocking of
my use of the word "professional" only exposes your ignorance of its
meaning that vindicates me and has no relevance to your life:

Professional: (adj.) engaged in one of the learned
professions (see p. 1148, Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the
English Language, 1989 edition.)

Juxtopose this meaning with the meaning "unskilled" (as in cultured
debating) of the word "amaterurish," and the "tautology" is gone.

Did I speak too fast for you?

Jacob Roginsky

Gerard Holmgren wrote:

> [[I will conclude by saying that your debating tactics are
> unprofessional, amateurish ]]
>
>
>
> Now, I'm not sure what gave you the idea that I was getting paid for
> this, but I sure am interested in the implication that you are getting
> paid. Who is paying you ?
>
>
> Or do just genuinely not understand what the word "professional" means ?

>
> That aside
>
>
> Jacob, this a tautology. Professional means that you get paid.
> Amateur means that you do not.
>
>
> Therefore Unprofessional *and* amateurish is a tautology.

>
> If you don't understand these big words, then look them up in your
> dictionary (That's a book with lots of words in it that tells you what
> other words mean ).
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: Jacob Roginsky
> Sent: Thursday, 13 July 2006 12:59 PM
> To: Gerard Holmgren
> Cc: AMOJ_MAIN@Yahoogroups.com; APFN
> Subject: The debate with you is imposible
>
>
>
> Gerard:
>
> I have not posted any opening statements at all, and find it
> impossible to move forward with you as a debating partner. I am
> astonished at your continued one-sided, self-serving, and
> ungentlemanly approaches to this debate.
>
> As seen from the below posts, I repeatedly complained of your
> disregard for the minimal norms of setting up and conducting a debate,
> and I have repeated that our agreeing on the focus and rules of the
> debate must come before we begin to debate. Now you ignored my
> sentiment once more by proceeding to post your "opening statement" to
> the web site, without checking with me first as to my readiness to
> begin, willingness to allow you to go first, and my willingness to
> forgo the aforementioned preliminaries. In addition, your "opening
> statement" contains the totality of your theories and arguments. Even
> if the theories and arguments were meaningful and correct -- I will
> not concede that -- such an opening statement belies the essence of
> the opening statements. Moreover, it is in the nature of the
> statement dumped by peddlers of conspiracy theories, who swamp the
> reader with tons of "information" so that no intelligent,
> sophisticated people -- almost always a busy person -- could afford
> to put in the time to understand and debunk the nonsense. You should
> remember that I repeatedly stressed that I would only debate my
> opponent one issue at a time.
>
> I will conclude by saying that your debating tactics are
> unprofessional, amateurish, and underhanded, and that I have neither
> time nor reputation to waste on the ridiculous pursuit you have in
> mind as our "debate." My challenge to APFN was to let me debate the
> best debater the 911 conspiracy movement has. If you are it, my
> already dim view of the movement has been overrated.
>
> Jacob Roginsky
>
> Gerard Holmgren wrote:
>
> Jacob - your opening comment went into the comments column. To put it
> into the main blog, you have to log in with the user name and password
> which Rosalee gave you, and that will allow you to post in the main
> part of the blog.
>
>
>
> I think that anyone can post comments, but that doesn't matter,
> because they are shown on a completely separate page.
>
>
>
> I have posted my opening statement, and awaiting your reply.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: Jacob Roginsky [mailto:jrogins@va.metrocast.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 July 2006 1:10 PM
> To: Gerard Holmgren
> Cc: 'Ken Wiggins'
> Subject: Re: Blog is up
>
>
>
> I am puzzled as to why you did not find my previous explanations both
> clear and meaningful. It appears, however, that we have a new blog,
> so some of the problems go away.
>
> We still need to agree on the preliminaries, such as debate focus,
> debate rules, etc. before we debate the 911 issues. If we use the
> blog space for that, I would insist that we create a delineation of
> where the preliminaries begin and end.
>
> Your word?
>
> Jacob
>
> Gerard Holmgren wrote:
>
>
> As I said , you are welcome to dispute and correct that opening
> statement, once you start posting. There is no attempt to manipulate.
>
>
>
> For my part it is obvious that you are defending the official story.
> But if you don't belive that's so , then you can point out how my
> statement is misleading.
>
>
>
> That's what debate is all about.
>
>
>
> So what if the greeting is from me ? Once you are on the blog, we can
> make you a joint owner and administrator. Then we are equal.
>
>
>
> It just took some decisive action to get it statrted.
>
>
>
> So you don't think the govt story is truthful ?
>
>
>
> Or you do, but you're not prepared to defend the position ?
>
>
>
> They are the only two possibilities.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: Jacob Roginsky
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 July 2006 12:45 AM
> To: Gerard Holmgren
> Cc: Ken Wiggins
> Subject: Re: Blog is up
>
>
>
> Gerard, the web site continues to bear the statement, "Jacob Roginsky
> will be arguing that the Story told by the US Govt is truthful," in
> spite of my repeated protestations. This misrepresents my position
> and intent. It also smacks of manipulation that you, apparently
> sarcastically, capitalize the word "Story," as that which you claim I
> would defend. Also, you are saying that the site would be joint, but
> the greeting is from you. In the preparation for this supposedly
> equal debate you are already attempting to dictate where it takes
> place, what initial message about it we are sending to the world, and
> are ignoring the points I make and objections I raise. Is this a
> taste of your debating methods? Do you really wish to have an honest
> debate?
>
> I will proceed no further with the debate until you move to fix the
> problems I identified above.
>
> Jacob Roginsky
>
> Gerard Holmgren wrote:
>
>
>
> If its worked how I think it has, you should shortly receive and
> invitation email, from the blog and once you follow the prompts you'll
> be registered. From there, we'll see what happens and how to upgrade
> to co admin status.
>
>
>
> Let me know how it goes.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: Jacob Roginsky [mailto:jrogins@va.metrocast.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 July 2006 3:16 PM
> To: Gerard Holmgren
> Subject: Re: Blog is up
>
>
>
> Gerard, whether I support the official story is not relevant to the
> debate as it was initially proposed to APFN. If you wish, we can
> debate on the blog whether it is reasonable of me to insist on such a
> focus. However, it is unacceptable that in the interim the web site
> announces that I am arguing the government 911 positions.
>
> What do I do about the password? Do I pick one and give it to you?
>
> Jacob
>
> Gerard Holmgren wrote:
>
> If you believe that I have misrepresented you, then you are welcome to
> sort that it on the blog. It seems that whether you support the
> official story has become something of a point of contention in
> itself, so that's part of the debate.
>
>
>
> I tried to start a yahoo group, I couldn't get it to work.
>
>
>
> I want this to be *our* blog. Co -owners.
>
>
>
> I just had to get something started.
>
>
>
> Lets get you a password and get started.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: Jacob Roginsky [mailto:jrogins@va.metrocast.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 July 2006 2:02 PM
> To: Gerard Holmgren
> Subject: Re: Blog is up
>
>
>
> Gerard,
>
> It seems you did not pay attention to- or are ignoring my position on
> the focus of the debate. I have no interest in arguing anything for
> the government any more than you do. Please address my preceding post
> regarding my position on the focus of the debate before we proceed any
> further. It is a logical necessity that we first agree on the focus
> of the debate. We also ought to agree on the rules before we proceed
> with arguments in support of our positions.
>
> Another matter is I prefer not to debate you on your blog, especially
> where you are advertising yourself and your theories before we get to
> debate them. Yahoogroups would have been a more neutral, therefore
> appropriate forum.
>
> Jacob
>
> Gerard Holmgren wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Jacob, I have started a blog at
>
>
>
> http://911debate.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> Now we just need to get you a password, so you can post too.
>
>
>
> What's the best way to do that ?
>
>
>
> I see disagreement in the making here over the focus, goals, rules and
> format of the debate. I hope to address Mr. Holmgren's position with
> regard to the first of the above four items late tonight (USA Eastern
> Standard Time).
>
> It seems to me we should resolve to dealing expeditiously with those
> outstanding issues that may be quickly resolved and gotten out of the
> way. Accordingly, I propose we settle the question of the debate
> forum. The proposal I made earlier for the creation of a special
> Yahoo group seems to fit each debater's bill. If this solution is
> acceptable to Mr. Holmgren, I ask him to acknowledge so..
>
> I liked Jon Roland's suggestion on the classification of issues and
> questions before us as "resolved," "unresolved," etc. If such is
> acceptable to Mr. Holmgren, I ask him to acknowledge so.
>
> I also propose that Mr. Holmgren and I address each other as "Gerald"
> and "Jacob", except where a name confusion might arise, in order to a)
> establish a friendlier atmosphere, b) make addressing the debaters
> simpler, and c) eliminate potential problems with misspelling of such
> difficult names as "Roginsky." If this is acceptable to Mr. Holmgren,
> I ask him to acknowledge so.
>
> Jacob Roginsky
>
I was fast losing confidence that Gerard Holmgren was the man for the job...
 
Alex Jones and 911 Scholars: The Parable of the Good Shepherd

Date sent: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:23:16 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
From: Jon Moseley
Send reply to: Jon Moseley
To: "brad.team8"
Subject: Re: Sept 11 debate. Holmgren vs Rogisnsky - organizing.
Copies to: Snipped List


I don't disagree with most of your points or your logic. Thankfully, you at least try to be
organized an disciplined in your thinking and try to make actual sense in analyzing these issues.

but I do think that placing this in context, the context is not as you suggest.

The entire world watched two airplanes hit the WTC or at least teh second airplane hit with the
first tower still burning.

The conspircy peddlers are suggesting that beneath the surface of the obvious events wtnesses by
everyone there lurks a hidden and mysterious alternate explanation.

Therefore, I don't think that it is anyone's burden to prove that the official government story is
correct. To start with I think it is false to call it the government's story. It is the open and
obvious story that everyone with a television witnessed for themselves.

I think that for someone to suggest that we did not see what we thought we saw and there was a
hidden reality benath the surface, the burden is on the person who wants to say that we did not see
what we thought we saw and there is something hidden beneath the open and obvious explanation.

I don't think that what we all witnessed requirs 'proving.'

Jon Moseley

-----Original Message-----
>From: "brad.team8"
>Sent: Jul 12, 2006 9:10 PM
>To: Jon Moseley
>Cc: Gerard Holmgren [snipped list]
>Subject: Re: Sept 11 debate. Holmgren vs Rogisnsky - organizing.
>
>Actually, the way I see it, you guys have it easy.
>All you have to do is prove what the government says DID happen,
>if it DID happen the way they say it did,
>then you shouldn't have a problem ...
>
>As far as MIHOP and LIHOP go,
>its not that easy the way i see it.
>there may have been a few people that knew something was going to
>happen, and turned the other way,
>there also may have been a few people that "helped it along"
>there also may have been a few people that even helped orchestrate it.
>
>All 3 are possible at the same time.
>
>Thats why I have always had a problem with the question...
>Did the government DO 9/11 ?
>
>Lets say someone who worked for a company had a contact in , say, the FAA...
>( this is JUST HYPOTHETICAL PLEASE)
>and told a Air Traffic Controller to "destroy some tapes"
>for fear that what was in them may be taken the "wrong way"
>
>OR
>
>Someone high in the DOD told the Air Traffic Controllers to not talk
>about anything
>because it was restricted information, and could jeopardize National
>Security !
>
>i can think of 1000 scenarios like this, that may well have happened.
>
>Jon said:
>"Arguing two inconsistent theories is an admission that neither theory
>is supported by any persuasive evidence."
>
>not necessarily,
>lets take another HYPOTHETICAL situation.
>lets say , for the _sake of argumen_t, that....
>the towers could not have fallen due to fire and a plane hitting them.
>there COULD be several different reasons WHY they DID fall!
>with, some evidence of 2 different reasons for the collapse.
>
>Lets say
>1) thermite at the site,
> AND
>2) remnants of a UFO found at the site.
>
>(I use the UFO scenario BECAUSE it is absurd.)
>
>A NOBLE 911 researcher would see several possibilities here.
>1) the UFO did it.
>2) someone used thermite, and the UFO was a coincidence
>3) the UFO used thermite.
>4) the UFO contacted someone with the DOD and told them to use thermite
>(etc... etc...)
>
>The 2 scenarios both have evidence (at least somewhat persuasive)
>2 scenarios, but several "sub-scenarios" , or possibilities.
>
>and WHO determines what is persuasive, is another problem here.
>
>anyway, 2 different theories, in which either may be true.
>both have persuasive evidence.
>
>This just shows that its not black and white like you would make it out
>to be.
>To me, this is certainly not a dirty trick, it is responsible
>investigative procedure.
>
>(which would not be needed if our own government really did any
>responsible investigation )
>
>Remember , we are not saying we know exactly who did what ,
>only that the purported story does not hold water.
>
>I am not speaking at all for Gerard,
>and so far i have been only 1/2 following this debate,
>just my 2 cents.
>
>Brad
>http://911review.org
>
>
>
>
>Jon Moseley wrote:
>>
>> One of the key problems here is that there are so many inconsistent
>> and mutually-exclusive anti-American smear theories about 9/11.
>>
>> This makes the debate fundamentally unfair. The conspiracy mongers
>> want Jacob Roginsky to debate and disprove about 10 different
>> theories. They are asking Jacob to tackle 10 different inconsistent
>> and mutually-exclusive theories, and not one at a time either. Like
>> most Leftists (I have lots of experience debating Leftists) the debate
>> will keep shifting and tap-dancing around from one inconsistent
>> scenario to another, at all times avoiding the truth. If there is
>> anything that these conspiracy peddlers do not want is the truth. So
>> when confronted with a strong argument, they simply bounce around
>> among inconsistent theories to AVOID the truth, continually shifting
>> the ground from which they are arguing.
>>
>> In fact, Holmgren has already divided up his argument into two parts,
>> again two completely inconsistent and mutually exclusive scenarios,
>> that the government let it happen and alternately made it happen.
>> There cannot be strong evidence of both, given that the two scenarios
>> are mutually exclusive and inconsistent with each other. Thus the
>> attempt to argue both at the same time is both an unfair, dirty trick
>> as part of a debate, and an admission that NEITHER scenario can be
>> proven with any degree of certainty. (Holmgreen would be arguing that
>> XYZ *is* what happened if there were any actual evidence for it.
>> Arguing two inconsistent theories is an admission that neither theory
>> is supported by any persuasive evidence.)
>>
>> Thus, the attempt to shfit the terms of debate to attempt to put the
>> burden of proof on Jacob Roginsky. Admitting that the conspiracy
>> peddlers cannot prove any of their (mutually exclusive) theories, they
>> want to dodge the poverty of their position by placing the burden of
>> proof on Jacob to prove the government's position.
>>
>> So I don't know how Jacob can be expected to tackle, in effect, around
>> 10 different opponents, making it 1 to 10.
>>
>> The fact that the conspiracy peddlers assert "evidence" of numerous
>> inconsistent and mutually-exclusive theories is itself evidence that
>> NONE of them can possibly be true. The "evidence" that purports to
>> show mutually-exclusive scenarios is evidence that none of the
>> anti-American scenarios are supported by any meaningful evidence.
>>
>> Jon Moseley
 
Alex Jones and 911 Scholars: The Parable of the Good Shepherd

It was with this post below that I finally realized that there was something really strange about what Holmgren was thinking, promoting, and proposing to debate in defense of the entire 911 Truth community.

From: "Gerard Holmgren"
To: "'Jon Moseley'"
Copies to: [Snipped List]
Subject: RE: No more organizing - Jacob has already conceded defeat.
Date sent: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:43:09 +1000

[[Tens of thousands of people watched LIVE, in person, as both airplanes hit
each of the two towers. The lengths to which you are willing to go to
distort the truth says everything about your case.

You ignore and overlook the LIVE EYEWITNESSES who watched two airplanes fly
in and hit each of the twin twoers, adn the hundreds if not thousands of
eyewitnesses in Arlington, Virginia, who watched a passenger airplane fly
into the Pentagon. ]]

You have documentation for this wild, reckless unsubstantiated claim Jon ?

If so, please present it. Links to original documentation, please.

Heh, Jon thinks that because he saw a cartoon on TV, then millions of other
people saw the same thing in reality.

Apart from the fact that he cannot and will niot provide any documentation
to back up the reckless claim above, perhaps he can explain why the Nth
tower video shows a Blob which is clearly *not* a plane.

And how the Sth tower plane melts into the building cartoon like, without
making a hole and without slowing down, and without breaking off any parts,
and then disappears into nothing, and how it manages to approach from 16
different angles in 16 different videos ?

Jon, after you've had your holiday at Jurrasic Park, you better hurry back
to help Coyote catch road runner. That's real too. We saw it on TV, and
there are thousands of witnesses to Coyote's chasing roadrunners.



-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Moseley
Sent: Friday, 14 July 2006 11:33 AM
To: Snipped List
Subject: Re: No more organizing - Jacob has already conceded defeat.


Tens of thousands of people watched LIVE, in person, as both airplanes hit
each of the two towers. The lengths to which you are willing to go to
distort the truth says everything about your case.

You ignore and overlook the LIVE EYEWITNESSES who watched two airplanes fly
in and hit each of the twin twoers, adn the hundreds if not thousands of
eyewitnesses in Arlington, Virginia, who watched a passenger airplane fly
into the Pentagon.

This is not a search for truth when you ignore the obvious reality of live
eyewitnesses in order to concoct absurd stories based on nothing but
fantasy.

Jon Moseley


>Subject: No more organizing - Jacob has already conceded defeat.
>
>[[The entire world watched two airplanes hit the WTC or at least teh second
>airplane hit with the first tower still burning. ]]
>
>And the entire world watched the dinosaurs at Jurassic Park breaking out.
>
>And the dinosaurs looked whole lot more real than Cartoon 175.
>
>As for the Nth tower video, the object is quite clearly not a plane. It
just
>isn't.
>
>http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/noplanework.html
>
>For winning "gullible of the week award in suggesting that because we saw a
>cartoon on TV, then it's real, Jon wins two tickets to Jurassic Park, with
>airfares and accommodation.
>
>BTW, Jacob Roginsky has already conceded defeat in the debate.
>
>http://national911debate.blogspot.com/
>
>His condition for debating the evidence I wanted to present was that I not
>be allowed to post it, and that all my posts had to be approved by him.
>
>Hee hee ! I've met some losers in my time, but JR takes the cake.
>
>Nevertheless, even losers are winners. JR can spend his sulking time
>recovering amongst the excitement and wonder of Jurassic Park, because I've
>got tickets for him too.
>
>It's real you know. We saw it on TV.
This was when I realized that Holmgren's argument (whether true or not) was so out there that it would do nothing but turn every normal person off to any ideas of the rest of the 911 Truth seeking community.
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom