9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom

Steve Jones was invited to discuss the physics and evidence of the Thermite Hypothesis (and in relation to Judy Wood's work) with Jim Fetzer on Jim's radio show ("the Dynamic Duo") but Steve Jones declined the invitation (at least the 2nd time Steve Jones has declined a recorded debate with Morgan and/or Judy). Hear Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood discuss this (broadcast on Tuesday 2nd Jan):

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/9 ... 202007.mp3

Or access on this page:

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/

Wood: Do you know what a straw man is?

Fetzer: Of course!



The role of thermate would be to cut the columns *silently* setting up the building for high explosive assisted noisy *Hollywood Shock and Awe* freefall collapse.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=6193

A positive as far as I can see.

Why give credence to those who would tarnish his reputation with ill informed criticism and lies? It would make NO sense.

brian wrote:A positive as far as I can see.

Why give credence to those who would tarnish his reputation with ill informed criticism and lies? It would make NO sense.

Plus he has already stated thermate and other explosives were probably used,which kinda rules out the criticisms of thermate alone hypothisis
droned on by the exotic weaponry enthusiats.

Fetzer and Woods are really a strange double act.

Interesting who was 1st to post after mine.

To others I will say this. The broadcast (I know not whether you listened to it) only covered part of the story. If you want the full picture, you have to look at all the evidence.

Watch this space.

If I were Jones I would have seen to it that my reputation was 'whiter than 'white' . Instead we have questions over his work at Los Alamos still left unanswered, and now damaging rumours that he was part of a Department of Energy plot to discredit Cold Fusion.

I have asked Alex Floum , aka 'George Washington', Jones associate who is trying to wrest control of Scholars For Truth from Fetzer, to get clarification on these points. None is forthcoming. They are hardly idle taunts.

You can't have this unquestioning acceptance of Jones as the kind of god-ordained leader of the 9/11 Truth movement. It has a bad smell about it.

For a transcript of the above broadcast, click here:

http://www.911scholars.org/070102_transcript.html

I agree with Andrew Watson and also have sent e-mails and asked questions and none have been answered. I actually received an e-mail from Steve Jones following the posting of my e-mail to Alex Floum regarding "out of control black projects".

PM or e-mail me for details.

Thermate (& all the other Jones Jabbers),

At the time of writing I don't know if the appropriate part of the transcript is posted yet (all 8 segments are now completed, but Jones & Co. have currently locked the WebSite. How? When it's Jim Fetzer's site? Aaah ... that's a GOOD question! It's commonly called 'stealing'), however when they are all posted you will read that NIST have already debunked thermate as a possibility.

Did Jones forget to tell you that?

Did he forget to tell you that no building has ever been brought down using Thermite or Thermate?

Did he forget to tell you that the Controlled Demolition Industry have never heard of Thermate? That they only know Thermite from the fact that it is sometimes used by the Military?

It must have all slipped his mind.

Still, you know now.

Carry on 'jabbering'

You state that

"the Controlled Demolition Industry have never heard of Thermate"

Somebody must have forgotten to explain that to these people who for SOME reason seem to use it to take Oil rigs apart....you know those HUGE STEEL STRUCTURES you get.......

Go and do a google search to CHECK things......it helps avoid looking misinformed in public.

http://orsted.nap.edu/openbook.php?reco ... 72&page=16

"AN ASSESSMENT OF TECHNIQUES FOR REMOVING OFFSHORE STRUCTURES FIGURE 2-7 Sketches showing internal diver cut. Source: Courtesy of Association of Diving Contractors. melting the target material, which produces a crater or hole. The charge is placed and detonated in the same way as an explosive charge and is self-sustaining once it is initiated (figure 2-10). This technique requires highly efficient thermite mixtures"

C.

NIST have already debunked thermate as a possibility

where was this? Are you party to secret NIST reports we don't know about. They didn't even consider Thermate!! More Beam-NPT misinformation and you wonder why people don't believe this.

Did he forget to tell you that the Controlled Demolition Industry have never heard of Thermate? That they only know Thermite from the fact that it is sometimes used by the Military?

Last time I checked it seemed that elements within the military where some of the main suspects. If we use your reasoning then there is absolutely no way they used Space Beams as the Controlled Demolition Industry have never heard of it. This theory can't seem to get past the first hurdle.

Watch this space

We have been, most of us have bothered to read Wood's and Reynold's stuff and think it is rubbish. If you believe these theories to be true then why not do some proper research and present these as opposed to linking the same paper and dubious yoututbe clips as evidence?

andyb wrote: We have been, most of us have bothered to read Wood's and Reynold's stuff and think it is rubbish. If you believe these theories to be true then why not do some proper research and present these as opposed to linking the same paper and dubious yoututbe clips as evidence?

Andy, I generally value Morgan and Judy's (both Professors) analysis and evidence presentation over your commentary and criticism (and other posters here who are not professors of mechanical engineering themselves, or have some equivalent background). You are also confusing "theories" and "evidence" again - as many posters do.

And posting "the same youtube clips" has only been done by me to answer the same question on different threads.

I am glad you have "bothered to read" the paper. Perhaps you can suggest answers for the questions Judy has raised with Steve Jones, in a separate posting here?

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/JonesScie ... ethod.html

He hasn't responded to them and went very quiet when I asked him to do so - not even giving a reason for not answering them. He isn't obliged to, of course, but he contacted me asking why I had pointed this out in a previous message.

I have debated some aspects of the evidence at some length in previous posts -

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewt ... ght=#45716

I haven't dismissed the debater's points as "rubbish", as you will see.

Sorry, but I now get very suspicious of those who simply say "rubbish" and don't debate specific errors or points of evidence etc. Especially when they don't have equivalent qualifications or background to those who have collected evidence and performed a lengthy analysis.

Andy, I generally value Morgan and Judy's (both Professors) analysis and evidence presentation over your commentary and criticism (and other posters here who are not professors of mechanical engineering themselves, or have some equivalent background). You are also confusing "theories" and "evidence" again - as many posters do.

The beam weapon is a THEORY as there is no evidence of beam weapons being used to demolish anything. Simple!

With regards to NPT/NBB, what qualifications in video compression do you have? I have spoken with friends who do and they have adequately dismissed these theories for me. Your (so-called) evidence is not really evidence at all. Your other evidence is the delayed fireball which I believe Snowy debunked.

If I was Jones I would not waste my time going on a radio show of someone who has been so vitriolic in attacking me. i would also not bother wasting time answering supporters of those who attacked me.

As for you being suspicious of those who rubbish these theories,l I would say that more people would be suspicious of someone who is friends with TTWSU3. You have stated before that you don't start a lot of these threads but speak to TTWSU3 about them. He then comes on and creates divisive posts based on what you've told him. As a moderator one would have thought a bit more of a moderate approach was required.

Veronica wrote:Thermate (& all the other Jones Jabbers),

Is this a meme linking Jones's name with anal intercourse?

At the time of writing I don't know if the appropriate part of the transcript is posted yet (all 8 segments are now completed, but Jones & Co. have currently locked the WebSite. How? When it's Jim Fetzer's site? Aaah ... that's a GOOD question! It's commonly called 'stealing'), however when they are all posted you will read that NIST have already debunked thermate as a possibility.

Did Jones forget to tell you that?

Did he forget to tell you that no building has ever been brought down using Thermite or Thermate?

Did he forget to tell you that the Controlled Demolition Industry have never heard of Thermate? That they only know Thermite from the fact that it is sometimes used by the Military?

It must have all slipped his mind.

Still, you know now.

Carry on 'jabbering'

Nicely divisive.

And were using NIST to de-bunk thermate? only down in critics corner, usually

Hmm I wonder why I don't post here much anymore? I must be honest I've become rather jaded although I may get my second wind over at my own little forum. Whatever the outcome I'm sure I'm not the only person that has become rather bored with this site/forum.

^ you aren't the only one. Who needs critics hey? It's a pity that one of the more active moderators seems to be one of the biggest pushers.

Yeah its a shame the site doesn't enforce a stronger anti-shill policy and appears to have been infiltrated very successfully at the highest levels. Regulars know this of course, and who to ignore/avoid/laugh at, but it can be quite off putting for new members I'm sure.

I wouldn't say there are any shills on here without proof, one may have their suspicions but without evidence it is pure speculation that damages the campaign. Pretty much like the Beam-NPT stuff.

andrewwatson wrote:If I were Jones I would have seen to it that my reputation was 'whiter than 'white' . Instead we have questions over his work at Los Alamos still left unanswered, and now damaging rumours that he was part of a Department of Energy plot to discredit Cold Fusion.

I have asked Alex Floum , aka 'George Washington', Jones associate who is trying to wrest control of Scholars For Truth from Fetzer, to get clarification on these points. None is forthcoming. They are hardly idle taunts.

You can't have this unquestioning acceptance of Jones as the kind of god-ordained leader of the 9/11 Truth movement. It has a bad smell about it.

How can Jones keep his reputation "whiter than white" when "damaging rumours" are given credence by many? As far as I am aware Jones has answered his critics, there is nothing he can do about rumours or those that spread them.

As for cold fusion - the Seigel linked video barely mentions Jones and it is a melodramatic excercise rather than science. Pons and Fleischman have been given all sorts of backing to further research their work including 10 years funding by the Japanese govt. It came to nothing. Those such as Veronica - is she a woman scorned - who rant on about Jones f...ing humanity are either totally ignorant or conspiracy theory nutters.

All the funding and years of research have lead where with cold fusion? To have Jones as part of some grand plot to undermine cold fusion does not stand up to any scrutiny, he may have been dismissive of the little understood reaction but he is far from alone in that.

What I truly do not understand is the support for Reynolds Woods etc when their criticism of Jones, who has done nothing other than clearly demonstrate through a scientific approach the lie of the official story, was at best based on almost inconceivable ignorance of his position but which to my mind seemed plain and simple lies.

Jones' work helps us getting to a position where the questions may be asked and possibly answered, Reynolds etc should be aiding him not hindering.

andyb wrote:^ you aren't the only one. Who needs critics hey? It's a pity that one of the more active moderators seems to be one of the biggest pushers.

Perhaps this thread should be moved to the Critics Corner and the OP warned that if he continues this line of questioning of Jones's research he will also be permanently relegated to the CC, moderator or not? Seems fair according to the standards set by, strangely, the OP.

Also, given the recent banishment of Telecastration over inordinate sarcasm, isn't it fair that more divisive posters are now also taken to task? People like TTWS32XS, Ally, Prole, Veronica, etc. can get quite abusive at times. If it's only sarcasm we are worried about then I suppose I am next (and about 90% of the regular posters including our humble moderators).

andyb wrote: The beam weapon is a THEORY as there is no evidence of beam weapons being used to demolish anything. Simple!

Andy, as I have stated on several posts, we have no publicly available evidence that such powerful beam weaponds exist. We do have evidence publicly available evidence that beam weapon research has been successfully undertaken.

It is worth studying how black projects are funded (and to what level) before ruling out what seems impossible. I have post links to give people an opportunity to do this (i.e. study the evidence) rather than making statements, but it doesn't seem to be understood. It is NOT a "simple" process.

What Judy has done is looked at the physical evidence. She has compared this evidence to what can have been produced by conventional methods of destruction. She has, with her knowledge of physics and other sciences, come to conclusion that no known, publicly available "explosive technology" could have caused the damage at the WTC.

People seem to confuse "most likely conclusion" with "proof".

DO people want to go round the "damaging the truth movement"/"you're concentrating on less important things" loop again? Or have I explained the situation clearly enough now?

Andy, as I have stated on several posts, we have no publicly available evidence that such powerful beam weaponds exist. We do have evidence publicly available evidence that beam weapon research has been successfully undertaken.

Therefore we won't find any evidence and anything based upon this is speculation. Basing a theory on speculation is as unscietific as you can get, surely you can see that??

thermate and explosives aren't conventional demolition anyway, nor is top down so that line does not add any weight or credence to your theory.

FFS, this is wearing me down and is a great way of turning people off 9/11 and I won't be around much longer if things stay like this

Andrew Johnson wrote:beam weapon research has been successfully undertaken.

What like nano-thermite research? No because nano-thermite is a fact and beam weapons are not. Reasearch may well have been successfully undertaken and what did it yield? Err we do need evidence and as it happens we do have evidence for thermite.

Andy come over to the 911 Evidence base. I'm going to still post here a bit but I'm pretty sick of all this gas from the baked beans.

This is not to be taken as proof or my view in any way, but it does not surprise me that the best place for Weapons testing is in the field!!

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... rs+weapons

WHO GIVES A *!?

Patrick Brown wrote:

Andrew Johnson wrote:beam weapon research has been successfully undertaken.

:

Sorry - I am quite tired and used a bad choice of word. I meant "successfully completed". I refer you again to the information I posted about Douglas Beason:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewt ... ason#44589