Steven Jones is protecting the 9/11 perps

[cb_brooklyn]

Steven Jones is protecting the 9/11 perps. It’s been almost two years since Jones went on C-SPAN with his “hard evidence” of thermite. The only reason he wouldn't present this "hard evidence" to a Court of Law is to protect the perps. He has betrayed us all. Why?

If Jones isn't going to present this evidence to the court system, where the perps can be held accountable, he should give this "hard evidence" to someone who will. Short of that, Jones is betraying us. Jones is betraying our country!

[masonfree party]

wouldn't surprise me if he's a top degree freemason...obviously been told to divert the 911 truth movement away from directed energy weapon theory ..the man is not to be trusted

eh CB,what do you make of nico Haupt's site http://www.youtube.com/911uncensored where he plasters pictures of Manny Badillo supports laser beam lady judy wood...can't make that guy out

[christophera]

wouldn't surprise me if he's a top degree freemason...obviously been told to divert the 911 truth movement away from directed energy weapon theory ..the man is not to be trusted

How well can we apply that more widely in explanation of the movement going nowhere. Here's some history on stj9-11, jones etc.


From: missginny @ charter.net
Subject: THE TELLING LACK OF INTEGRITY IN ST911
Date: August 26, 2006 11:29:54 AM PDT
To: lynnertell @ comcast.net, info @ septembereleventh.org, me @ VeronicaChapman.com, rick @ ricksiegel.com, editor @ americanfreepress.net, olfriend @ nwinfo.net, nila @ truepennymedia.com, and 56 more…


On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 21:48:23 -0500, Jim posted to this group the following statement:

"I placed tremendous trust in Judy and in Morgan, going to far as to embrace a close friend of Judy, Ginny Howard, as our membership secretary. Ginny has or is in the process of withdrawing from the society and has been replaced as our membership secretary, but she told me during our last conversation that she had been deliberately slowing the processing of new members because of her opinions about Steve. That is truly disgusting. She had role responsibilities that she was obligated to fulfill or notify me that she was unable to fulfill them! I am appalled at the lack of ethics displayed in these cases by three persons whom I had trusted and respected."

Below is the lengthy e-mail I wrote Jim on August 18th which lays out the serious problems I had identified in ST911 and explains the situation Jim refers to from my point of view (followed by his response). However, this was NOT the first time these issues were broached; there had been a full airing with Jim of some of the most striking ones in what could be called The 'Two Great Engineers' Saga, which occurred right at the first of August. During this event, which involved Steve trying to insert into Full Membership status (i.e., those with full academic credential)-- on the basis of claims that proved to be FALSE or UNVERIFIABLE and that he had to KNOW were so -- two people who had not even applied for membership! Jim wanted me to accede to Steve's demands on the issue; I refused.

What is MOST telling to me about this whole situation is that, with Judy Wood now removed as webmaster (on trumped-up charges), guess who are now listed as Full Members? That's right! Those 'two great engineers' (nothing intended against them personally), Srs. Winterton and Phelps -- one an elderly gentleman with a B.S. in civil engineering; the other of which we know nothing about. Check it out yourself. [In case these names are removed from the FM roster, the page as of today has been captured.]

And who has control of the webpage? Jim Fetzer.

SO: What this means is that Jones is perfectly willing to LIE about credentials to pad the roles of ST911, and Fetzer is perfectly willing to ACCOMMODATE those lies even after he has been informed in no uncertain terms that that is EXACTLY what they are.

This puts in stark relief the noteworthy lack of integrity that informs the work of ST911. That is, if there is not even an INTENTION to maintain integrity in the membership roles, how can anyone trust there is integrity anywhere else? As I have said more than once, Scholars for 9/11 TRUTH cannot succeed when founded on a pack of LIES.

Speaking of which -- with respect to Jim's claim of 'embracing' me because I was Judy's friend, IMV, I was recruited as membership secretary because I was perceived as a convenient and willing dupe (though no more). Also, as you will see, my actions were not based merely on my 'opinions' about Steve, but rather on a considerable amount of evidence of the general dysfunctionalilty of ST911, as well as the 'quality' of its leadership.

I do need to make one correction about the e-mail below. At the end of it, I said I would continue to work on the applications. In fact, conditions with Jim and ST911 rapidly deteriorated, such that I became even LESS sanguine about the quality of ST911 and about the advisability of continuing to support it. Thus, mostly what I did afterwards was to send out letters of receipt and enter names in the address book. (I, of course, also spent time gathering together materials to inform the new membership secretary, Dave Doering, of the situation and to provide the necessary files so that he could carry on -- if he chooses to do so.

THUS, sadly, ST911 appears to be an organization with a corrupted leadership. If I were a betting woman, I'd put my money on the proposition that it is in fact a creation of, by, and for the perps. Unfortunately, some good people have already been hurt and others will be because we allowed ourselves to be taken in by the attraction of 'credentials' -- without paying sufficient attention to verify the quality and integrity they should have stood for.

Under the circumstances, I believe the only way to limit the damage of this awful situation is for the 9/11 Truth Movement to distance itself as quickly as possible from such low-down chicanery.

My final observation is that the leadership (Jones and Fetzer) have abused the trust placed in them (too willingly) by the ST911 membership. It is therefore up to the MEMBERSHIP to re-establish it's commitment to high standards of integrity in thought and action, and to bring these men to account. I suggest members begin to organize themselves to figure out how this can be done in a way most supportive of the long-term health of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

And, undaunted, to move forward.

The August 18th assessment appears below.

Ginny


August 18, 2006
Jim --

This is a long e-mail; I hope you read it, thoughtfully, all the way through.

For my part, I have been thinking quite a bit about the current situation with ST911.

I do not accept your frame. For me this is not about who I’m more ‘committed’ to: ‘my friend’ or ‘the society’ (i.e., ‘Jim Fetzer’).

It’s not about loyalty in that sense.

Instead, I’m evaluating the situation according to a set of criteria which include the following:

(1) Does the organization have a structure that can accommodate a growing membership and provide reasonable avenues to make use of members’ gifts and talents? Is it able to adapt appropriately as it grows and meets new challenges?

(2) How savvy is the leadership in handling the trolls and operatives who inevitably infest the membership of any organization like ours and then try to take over and create an ineffective mess?

(3) How willing is the leadership to create a strong, clean advisory counsel so that problems, issues, and potential actions and directions can be viewed from a variety of perspectives and decisions arrived at by wise, informed consensus?

(4) When indications of serious problems arise, can the leadership objectively evaluative the data and handle the situation in a timely, effective manner, or will problems be allowed to fester until they blow up?

I believe that, however ST911 was originally conceived, its rapid growth and public image, not to mention the fulfillment of its purpose, require the attention, organizational structure, and leadership I am suggesting. Ad hoc is no longer 'good enough'. However, what I believe I am currently seeing with ST911 is an organization without effectiveness in any of these areas.

I know, for example, that I have more than once expressed my strong dismay at the quality of the forum and at the idea that decent new members are to be turned loose there, where discussions ? best I can tell ? are dominated by trolls with the primary purpose of wasting people’s time and confusing them about the issues.

I have not gotten one response from you about that.

As a consequence, one thing I’ve done is try to drag my feet as much as possible, without looking totally incompetent, on admitting new members. Why? Because I can’t stand the thought of sending decent, caring people, many of whom write quite compelling personal statements, into the forum snake pit, which is the only thing ST911 offers them by way of contact with the organization. I’ve been hoping (now, I fear, against hope) that ‘something’ would soon change for the better so that I could admit them in good conscience.

I also notice that the entire ‘leadership’ of ST911 seems to consist of you ? with Judy and me in the only subsidiary roles ? covering membership, website, and forum moderating ? i.e., virtually the entire ‘substance’ of the organization per se. (In my case, I know there’s WAY too much membership work for me to do alone.) This ‘structure’ ? if one can call it that ? is completely inadequate for meaningfully supporting a membership in the hundreds ? unless those numbers are intended only to serve as window dressing for a few public personalities.

And this gets at another key issue for me: RESPECT.

If we are set upon ‘saving democracy’, I am very, very clear about one thing: You can’t do that without a competent citizenry. And the first step in having a competent citizenry is treating people with respect.

It isn’t RESPECTFUL to invite people to join you to save their country ? and then provide them no structure in which to even begin to serve a useful purpose.

In my role as membership secretary, this has been tearing me up.

And yet as I watch in the background, I don’t see any indication that if I approached you on these issues I would get a thoughtful, helpful response. What I see, especially lately, is very erratic, dictatorial behavior.

It’s very disturbing to me.

And now we come to the issue of Steve Jones.

I have in a number of e-mails to you expressly named what this man is: A LIAR!!

This FACT is provable beyond a shadow of a doubt on a number of fronts.

Because he is the co-chair of ST911, this is a very, very serious issue.

The matter of ‘non-glowing, silvery-gray-at-all-temperatures’ aluminum is so obvious and egregious a fabrication as to be laugh-out-loud laughable if the matter were not so deadly serious. You doubt me? Go to his PDF (you’ll need to do this fairly quickly because he keeps changing it) and visit page 69 (of 189):
http://www.journalof911studies.com/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCenter.pdf (In case it’s changed, I can send you saved screen shots of the page.)

What you’re going to see are four pictures:

(1) ‘Molten metal’ (allegedly) pouring out of a South Tower window -? though NIST states the picture is ‘color enhanced’ (or something like that), not to mention there’s a serious question about whether the whole thing isn’t a total fake.

(2) A picture presumably of thermite burning.

(3&4) Two pictures of aluminum being poured.

These four pictures are supposed to offer conclusive ‘proof’ that what is pouring out of the window in the (probably faked) picture is 'thermite' -- and most certainly 'cannot' be aluminum.

Now, what is the problem with this picture? The problem is that the color of molten metals is determined by temperature ? not the material itself ? as any high school physics student would know. Whatever is shown as pouring out the window (if indeed something did pour out) is of a MUCH higher temperature than the aluminum (which melts at approx. 660 degrees centigrade) shown in pictures 3 & 4. Why is the molasses-like aluminum silvery-gray and NOT the color of the stuff in the ‘window’? BECAUSE IT ISN’T ANYWHERE NEAR HOT ENOUGH!!!!

This is the 'detail' Jones fails to mention.

No way is Jones this stupid. Nope. He’s lying straight to our faces. Indeed, he lied about it to Judy back in February; he lied about it to Bonnie Faulkner and her listeners on Guns and Butter; he lied about it on your program, he lies about it on the ST911 forum (with his lies being affirmed there by his chorus of groupies); and on C-SPAN, he lied about it to the whole nation.

Why is he doing this?

More to the point, why are you not treating this behavior as the unconscionable breach of scientific integrity it is, but are acting as if Jones is being defamed when somebody calls him on it? Why instead are you not dismissing Jones from ST911 for conduct unbecoming a ‘scholar’, and thus protecting the long-term good name of the organization??

(BTW ? as I’m writing this, I just received a copy of an e-mail from Alex Floum in which he makes the definitive assertion that Jones is an ‘impeccable’ scientist. Again, what I want to know is, why is an ‘impeccable’ scientist LYING about an item of high school physics that anybody can recognize as false? IMV -- ‘Impeccable’ is as impeccable does. What I’ve just named ? the evidence of which is available for the whole world to see in Jones' PDF -- is the opposite of ‘impeccable’.)

But let’s say you don’t want to deal with the ‘non-glowing, silvery-gray-at-all-temperatures’ aluminum issue?

How about this one:

Jones LIES about the people he recruits as members of ST911.

How do I know this?

In THREE CASES ? count them ? 1, 2, 3 ? that we know about ? Jones has corrupted or attempted to corrupt the membership roster by getting people listed as Full Members when they did not have the necessary credentials ? AND HE KNEW IT! Who are they:

Jeffrey Farrer:
a BYU Dept. of Physics lab manager; apparently a graduate student
Doyle Winterton:
a man in his 70s who worked as a civil engineer but has no advanced
degrees and never held an academic appointment
Joseph Phillips
we don’t really know, but he might be a vineyard owner who once
got a degree in construction engineering.

In the first case, Jeffrey Farrer was listed as a Full Member until Judy Wood saw that he was ‘thanked’ as one of the students who helped in preparing Jones’ PDF. (This statement, which appeared on the cover page and which I saw myself, has since been removed.) In the latter two cases Judy and I wasted an absurd amount of time preventing those individuals from being listed as Full Members -- which you were insisting that I do on Jones’ recognizance alone -? BEFORE we even had their permission to be listed in the first place, which is a legal issue!

Now ?

I have a GIGANTIC problem with the fact that the co-chair of ST911 is a PROVEN LIAR!!

He lies in his science, and he lies in his personal communications.

I don’t have to know WHY he’s lying; I just know that ST911’s INTEGRITY is being compromised egregiously and at the highest levels -- and that this CANNOT be good!!

I also know, for example, that there’s NO fixing the forum as long as Jones is a part of it and ST911, and is accepted as THE unquestioned scientific authority figure there.

The corruption of this man is so glaring (the aluminum issue being the tip of the iceberg) that I’ve believed up until today you would surely see it and take appropriate action.

MY BOTTOM LINE:

‘Scholars for 9/11 TRUTH’ will ultimately fail if it has LIARS at the helm -- and protects them to keep them there. Trying to cover up for Jones ? or whatever it is you’re doing ? can, at best, have a temporary effect. In the end, it will be a disaster.

This is not rocket science. It’s about basic, common decency. If we don’t have that in our organization ? or at least are making an honest attempt to strive for it -- we don’t have anything.

My opinion: Either Jones is a paid covert operative, which is surely what he looks like ? OR he’s doing a damned good imitation of one, such that the BushCo criminal regime is getting excellent service -- for free!!

I don’t know which is worse.

There’s much more that could be said, but I’ll leave my description of the problem at this.

Now, you probably are interested in what I plan to do:

I will reiterate: I am HORRIFIED at admitting to a dysfunctional, deceitful organization decent Americans who feel honored to be a part of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (as they imagine it to be) and who want to help save their country by joining.

Still, I have taken on the duties of membership secretary, and I likewise feel a certain responsibility in that role.

Although I am no longer sanguine that, under present leadership, the concerns I have enumerated can be addressed, yet I do not wish to leave the society’s membership applications in disarray.

Therefore, I am willing to spend a few more days trying to catch up as best I can so that whoever takes over from me will at least have some sense of what has transpired in the three weeks or so I have been at this. Although I remain very concerned about what unsuspecting new members are getting into, I do not wish to inflict harm on ST911.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,
Ginny Howard



Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:02:44 -0500
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: Ginny Howard <missginny @ charter.net>
Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: ST911 and Membership

Ginny,

Thank you for this extremely interesting post. I had thought it was odd that new members were not showing up, but now I understand. I will see what I can do in arranging a replacement. I appreciate your assistance and am considering everything you have told me. Thanks very much.

Jim


NOTE: Jim knows my e-mail address and phone number; he could have inquired at any time what was going on, rather than waiting until August 17th to do so. Instead, after I refused to bend on the Winterton/Phelps issue, he left me strictly alone; apparently, what was going on was not of great interest to him -- and he CERTAINLY wasn't concerned about my complaints over the lack of safety and integrity in our organization.

So far as 'considering everything you have told me', he was obviously lying on that. Otherwise, ST911 would not have Phelps and Winterton as FULL MEMBERS today! (And he also would not be openly embracing Jones and his tall tales about the nonphysical 'realities' of aluminum.)

If there is a serious mistake in what I said on August 18th, it is that I was still giving Jim Fetzer far too much benefit of the doubt. It is worthy of note that the place perps 'get' you is in your blind spot. Jones may be in the blind spot of some of you; Fetzer was in mine.

In these dark times, as each of you considers how to move forward toward the light, may you find the wisdom to distinguish between truth and illusion in foresight as well as hindsight -- and the COURAGE to stand tall for the Truth whenever you see it!

Good luck to you all. --gh

[madthumbs]

Sulfur is in dry wall. Shhh, don't tell Jones that. :rolleyes:

Why was this crackpot from a Mormon college chosen above all the 10's of thousands to get such publicity? The claim to fame? - An unprovable theory.

[weston white]

Of all the people that has in the past filed a court, what has been accomplished? Do these cases not get thrown out or the filer utterly ruled against and ridiculed? The courts need public pressure before judges will take them seriously... Jones only has one piece of the puzzle he can't make a court case on his own.

[cb_brooklyn]

Of all the people that has in the past filed a court, what has been accomplished? Do these cases not get thrown out or the filer utterly ruled against and ridiculed? The courts need public pressure before judges will take them seriously... Jones only has one piece of the puzzle he can't make a court case on his own.


http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html
None of the defendants have denied that DEW was used to destroy the WTC. NONE of them have said Dr Wood is wrong about DEW.

Why does Jones spend so much time attacking Dr Wood, when she and Dr Reynolds the only ones DOING something?

Review:
RFC: What Planes? (80 kb)
8 March 2007, Morgan Reynolds
RFC: What Happened was Not Inevitable (6.5 Mb)
16 March 2007, Judy Wood

RFC: Supplement#1 to RFC submitted earlier (28 kb)
Supplement#1 to PROD01_002667
29 March 2007, Judy Wood
RFC: The Jones crew
12 April 2007, Jones, McIlvaine, Doyle, Ryan, Gage, Legge

RFC: Supplement#2 to RFC submitted earlier (320 kb)
Supplement#2 to PROD01_00
20 April 2007, Judy Wood
Qui Tam case filed
25 April 2007, Judy Wood, represented by Jerry Leaphart

RFC: Supplement#1 to RFC submitted earlier (32 kb pdf)
Supplement#1 to RFC
1 May 2007, Morgan Reynolds
Qui Tam case filed
31 May 2007, Morgan Reynolds, represented by Jerry Leaphart

Qui Tam Law Suit Unsealed
11 July 2007, (?)
filed 31 May 2007, by Morgan Reynolds, represented by Jerry Leaphart

Response to Request for Correction from Dr. Judy Wood,
27 July 2007, by NIST, Catherine S. Fletcher
[NIST admits they did not study the "collapse." NIST claims Wood has not proved that ARA is a manufacturer of DEW, so without that proof, therefore there is not a conflict of interest.]

APPEAL of NIST initial denial dated July 27, 2007 (7.9 MB pdf)
22 August 2007, by Dr. Judy Wood
Qui Tam Law Suit Unsealed
12 September 2007,
filed 25 April 2007, by Judy Wood, represented by Jerry Leaphart

Response to Request for Correction from the Jones "Crew"
27 September 2007, by NIST, Catherine S. Fletcher
[.]

Response to Request for Correction from Morgan Reynolds
28 September 2007, by NIST, Catherine S. Fletcher
[.]

APPEAL of NIST initial denial dated September 27, 2007
25 October 2007, by Jones, McIlvaine, Doyle, Ryan, Gage, Legge

APPEAL of NIST initial denial dated September 28, 2007
26 October 2007, by Morgan Reynolds

Final Response to Request for Correction from Dr. Judy Wood,
10 January 2008, by NIST, Richard F. Kayser,
[Wood proved that ARA is a manufacturer of DEW, thus there is a conflict of interest in contracting ARA to investigate itself. In response to this proof, NIST admits they specifically told ARA NOT TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE of the WTC destruction, and put that in their contract. That is, NIST admitted they committed fraud.]

Qui Tam, Response to motion to dismiss, ARA, et. al
28 January 2008, by Morgan Reynolds, represented by Jerry Leaphart

Qui Tam, Response to motion to dismiss, ARA, et. al
29 February 2008, by Judy Wood, represented by Jerry Leaphart

Qui Tam, Response to motion to dismiss, SAIC,
21 March 2008, by Judy Wood, represented by Jerry Leaphart



Or, arranged by filer...


RFC: What Happened was Not Inevitable (6.5 Mb)
16 March 2007, Judy Wood

RFC: Supplement#1 to RFC submitted earlier (28 kb)
Supplement#1 to PROD01_002667
29 March 2007, Judy Wood
RFC: Supplement#2 to RFC submitted earlier (320 kb)
Supplement#2 to PROD01_00
20 April 2007, Judy Wood
Qui Tam case filed
25 April 2007, Judy Wood, represented by Jerry Leaphart

Response to Request for Correction from Dr. Judy Wood,
27 July 2007, by NIST, Catherine S. Fletcher
[NIST admits they did not study the "collapse." NIST claims Wood has not proved that ARA is a manufacturer of DEW, so without that proof, therefore there is not a conflict of interest.]

APPEAL of NIST initial denial dated July 27, 2007 (7.9 MB pdf)
22 August 2007, by Dr. Judy Wood
Qui Tam Law Suit Unsealed
12 September 2007,
filed 25 April 2007, by Judy Wood, represented by Jerry Leaphart

Final Response to Request for Correction from Dr. Judy Wood,
10 January 2008, by NIST, Richard F. Kayser,
[Wood proved that ARA is a manufacturer of DEW, thus there is a conflict of interest in contracting ARA to investigate itself. In response to this proof, NIST admits they specifically told ARA NOT TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE of the WTC destruction, and put that in their contract. That is, NIST admitted they committed fraud.]

Qui Tam, Response to motion to dismiss, ARA, et. al
29 February 2008, by Judy Wood, represented by Jerry Leaphart

Qui Tam, Response to motion to dismiss, SAIC,
21 March 2008, by Judy Wood, represented by Jerry Leaphart




RFC: What Planes? (80 kb)
8 March 2007, Morgan Reynolds

RFC: Supplement#1 to RFC submitted earlier (32 kb pdf)
Supplement#1 to RFC
1 May 2007, Morgan Reynolds
Qui Tam case filed
31 May 2007, Morgan Reynolds, represented by Jerry Leaphart

Qui Tam Law Suit Unsealed
11 July 2007, (?)
filed 31 May 2007, by Morgan Reynolds, represented by Jerry Leaphart

Response to Request for Correction from Morgan Reynolds
28 September 2007, by NIST, Catherine S. Fletcher
[.]

APPEAL of NIST initial denial dated September 28, 2007
26 October 2007, by Morgan Reynolds

Qui Tam, Response to motion to dismiss, ARA, et. al
28 January 2008, by Morgan Reynolds, represented by Jerry Leaphart




RFC: The Jones crew
12 April 2007, Jones, McIlvaine, Doyle, Ryan, Gage, Legge

Response to Request for Correction from the Jones "Crew"
27 September 2007, by NIST, Catherine S. Fletcher
[.]

APPEAL of NIST initial denial dated September 27, 2007
25 October 2007, by Jones, McIlvaine, Doyle, Ryan, Gage, Legge

[weston white]

You make it seem like that is all he does, going around bad mouthing her, I have barely heard him mention her, only in response to questions related to her and others alternative theories... he finds them more humorous then anything else, and I can't say that I blame him... meep, meep.

[madthumbs]

When I saw a video that wasn't put out by her, and noticed the antennae of the tower disintegrating, I was convinced it was no "controlled demolitions". I think the "controlled demolitions" crowd would be laughed out of court considering what kind of manpower, and secrecy it would require. I'm not ready to jump on the DEW bandwagon, but I'll take a crap on the "Controlled Demolitions" crowd as well as the "Bush Engineered it" aka Alex Jones cult.

[weston white]

No the antennas began falling down prior to the impact zone, because the top structure above the impact was detonated first, I could see how it might give an appearance that the antennas were disintegrating.

[cb_brooklyn]

You make it seem like that is all he does, going around bad mouthing her, I have barely heard him mention her, only in response to questions related to her and others alternative theories... he finds them more humorous then anything else, and I can't say that I blame him... meep, meep.


Who has promoted "space beams" and "ray beams from space"? Nope, it's not Dr Wood.

Is laughing off serious questions honest science? Sounds like the work of a politician to me.

[sunyatta60]

When I saw a video that wasn't put out by her, and noticed the antennae of the tower disintegrating, I was convinced it was no "controlled demolitions". I think the "controlled demolitions" crowd would be laughed out of court considering what kind of manpower, and secrecy it would require. I'm not ready to jump on the DEW bandwagon, but I'll take a crap on the "Controlled Demolitions" crowd as well as the "Bush Engineered it" aka Alex Jones cult.

If people are in places and positions of authority it would not require much manpower just very careful planning and great secrecy. If the story is true and Marvin Bush was in control of the security of the towers then they could easily have wired the towers up with explosives from the inside and that is how they did it. I know one thing I am certain of NO MUSLIMS were involved that was just the rue for attacking Iraq.

[weston white]

Who has promoted "space beams" and "ray beams from space"? Nope, it's not Dr Wood.

Is laughing off serious questions honest science? Sounds like the work of a politician to me.

Oh, really now, that is not what I understand, Dr. Wood and her co hards, are pushing that theory for everything that it is worth... (perhaps not literally from "space" though from the air) or not worth for that matter. If not that then what else? That means according to her and her "crew" those towers are still standing tall and the rest of us or on some type of never ending narcotics.

[john white]

Why does Jones spend so much time attacking Dr Wood, when she and Dr Reynolds the only ones DOING something?

You are a FILTHY Liar!


I can say that, quite factually, since you are a doublethinking peice of trash when the truth is very simple:

Wood is an oportunistic character assasain who attacks Jones constitently by LYING about his theory

Jones does NOT attack Wood!

CB Brooklyn is a well known filthy Liar!

[caleb]

You are a FILTHY Liar!


I can say that, quite factually, since you are a doublethinking peice of trash when the truth is very simple:

Wood is an oportunistic character assasain who attacks Jones constitently by LYING about his theory

Jones does NOT attack Wood!

CB Brooklyn is a well known filthy Liar!

I founded "Illusions".:o

[dave52]

You are a FILTHY Liar!


I can say that, quite factually

How do you know he didn't have a shower this morning...?

[weston white]

lol, so that is what we have come to... dirty jokes.

[dave52]

So it seems... :rolleyes:

[john white]

I founded "Illusions".:o

Co-founded

Yes I did mate

[cb_brooklyn]

John White was moderator at the British 9/11 forum. A site that censors.

[john white]

John White IS admin at nineeleven.co.uk, a site that does NOT censor :)

Thats why you'll still find every bit of drivel CB Brooklyn ever posted still there

But of course, CB Brooklyn HAD to lie about that

[stinker]

John White IS admin at nineeleven.co.uk, a site that does NOT censor :)

Thats why you'll still find every bit of drivel CB Brooklyn ever posted still there

But of course, CB Brooklyn HAD to lie about that


Blimey John, I didn't know you were THE admin of nineeleven.co.uk, it just says "editorial" under your name. Do you post under your own name and then do the webmaster thing under the "superadmin" name?

[christophera]

Why does Jones spend so much time attacking Dr Wood, when she and Dr Reynolds the only ones DOING something?


I think it is a matter of getting those who can be easily derailed taking action. Then, they cannot get anywhere, and the truth movement thinks that powerful people are working to do good things and get a warm fuzzy feeling rather than unifying and figuring out what happened and doing something on their own.

[john white]

Blimey John, I didn't know you were THE admin of nineeleven.co.uk, it just says "editorial" under your name. Do you post under your own name and then do the webmaster thing under the "superadmin" name?

Admin=editorial editorial=admin and I didnt say THE admin

Now stop being an assanine troll

[stinker]

Admin=editorial editorial=admin and I didnt say THE admin

Now stop being an assanine troll

Sorry, I thought that was the reason for the capital letters "IS admin."

I didn't realise that you were admin there because I didn't realise editorial meant admin, I though it was someone with editing rights etc. I browse the place from time to time and never knew that.

I don't think there's any need to call me a troll for that - given that I was not being in any way vicious, and yet I get viciousness in return.

[john white]

Your wasting my time (trying to). Your post was clearly a dig. And we both know your only surfing here for you amusement. You may not like being called a troll, but trolling you are, so you've really not a lot to complain about being called on it

[stinker]

Your wasting my time (trying to). Your post was clearly a dig. And we both know your only surfing here for you amusement. You may not like being called a troll, but trolling you are, so you've really not a lot to complain about being called on it

If you say so. You're wrong, but you won't have it any other way but your own, so, so be it.

Have a nice day, John.

[dave52]

Jees John, you're such a bully...

[john white]

Jees John, you're such a bully...

Hardly

Is it bullying someone to not take bullshit from them?

Besides which Bullies commonly work in packs: not something that can be applied to me

[cb_brooklyn]

John White: you will let us know when Jones takes the plunge into court case filings, won't you? But I won't hold my breath.