For Scottish discussion about British Newsletter/Bristol AGM

[Keith Mothersson]

Dear Friends in 911 Truth Scotland,

Here is the London-based British 911 truth Campaign newsletter, which should give you a reasonable idea of the sort of things which will be discussed (and not discussed) at the forthcoming weekend in Bristol.

I will add my comments in the next post on this thread, and please you do likewise IF living in Scotland or at least not policing from afar!

CONTENTS

A BRISTOL 9/11 WEEKEND
1 AGM WEEKEND IN BRISTOL
2 MOVIE DIRECTOR, DEAN PUCKETT WRITES


B THOUGHTS AND NEWS FROM ACTIVISTS
3 DECLAN IN MANCHESTER
4 IAN HENSHALL IN BRIGHTON
5 NOEL IN LONDON
6 FRAN IN LONDON
7 ANDREW JOHNSON IN DERBY
8 KEITH WITH NEWS FROM SCOTLAND

C LONGER ARTICLES
9 BUILDING A CREDIBLE CAMPAIGN - FROM NOEL
10 FURTHER THOUGHTS FROM ANDREW JOHNSON: 9/11 Truth Seekers and
Campaigners. "It's Your Lucky Day!"


INTRODUCTION
This edition of the newsletter consists firstly of information about the
activities in Bristol on the weekend of the British 9/11 Truth Campaign
AGM, secondly thoughts on the future of the campaign from various
campaigners, and thirdly two longer articles: the first by me about
building a credible campaign and the second by Andrew Johnson arguing
that the campaign worldwide is taking the same censorious and ridiculing
attitude towards his research as the mainstream media do towards the
9/11 truth movement as a whole.

Having personally been accused of being out of order and of "knocking
Stephen Jones" because I have tried to understand the controversy about
what brought the WTC down by asking questions of fellow campaigners (of
both of those who support the controlled demolition theory and those who
support the alternative theories advanced by Drs Judy Wood and Morgan
Reynolds) I have to admit that there is a tendency within the movement
to censor or ridicule theories which most campaigners consider
controversial. I am not willing to perpetuate that censorship in this
newsletter. However, I have not managed to reach a conclusion about
this controversy. I publish Andrew's article because he sent it to me.
Its publication here should not be taken as any kind of endorsement by
the British 9/11 Truth Campaign or by me as editor of this newsletter.
This newsletter is also open to publishing articles advancing the
controlled demolition theory.

So far as I am concerned, I see this campaign as a struggle to get an
independent inquiry into the 9/11 tragedy, not as an attempt to specify
what theories an inquiry should conclude are correct.

Noel Glynn



A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 AGM WEEKEND IN BRISTOL
From 3.30pm on the 5th and 6th July 2008 UK 911 Truth will be gathering
in sunny Bristol for discussion and decision making.

Visitors are encouraged to bring their own tents or rollmats/sleeping
bags and Martin (07730 679894) will endeavour to find you somewhere to
sleep overnight on Saturday.

Please make sure this info goes out on all mailing lists

"http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=14384"
"http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=14881""http://www.91 1truthbristol.com/eventz/jul/elephant.html"The
Elephant in the Room - Cube Cinema Saturday 5th July 911truthbristol
present the winner of Best UK documentary at the London Independent Film
Festival 2008, The Elephant in the Room.

"http://www.911truthbristol.com/eventz/jul/elephant_front.html"

The Elephant in the Room examines the impact of 911 on British and
American culture. From the 911 truth campaigns, through to the Muslim
psyche in Modern Britain. The film culminates in New York on the 6th
Anniversary, to see a nation torn apart over what exactly happened on
the day. Stunning revelations from 911 first responders make the film
both powerful and revealing. 'Best UK Documentary' at the London
Independent Film Festival 2008.

To set the film in context an ex MI5 Counter-Intelligence Officer, Annie
Machon, will provide a critical analysis of the 'war on terror'. The
presentation entitled, 'How They Spin The Truth', will challenge many of
the assumptions made in the mainstream media.

Former Royal Navy Officer Brian Gerrish will be speaking about
subversion in society and UK government corruption. There will be an
opportunity for questions.

Activists from West Yorkshire 9/11 Truth will share a Muslim perspective
on the 'war on terror'.

Award winning Director Dean Puckett will answer questions after the
films screening.

Official Elephant in the Room website:
"http://www.nosmokewithoutfire.co.uk/"

Tickets via Adrian - 07971 836689 / Scott 07909 912272
£7 or £5 concessionary rate.

"http://www.911truthbristol.com/eventz/jul/elephant_back.html"

Full Schedule 1530hrs - OPEN
1600hrs - Intro
1615hrs - SPEAKER - Muslim perspective
1645hrs - Break
1700hrs - SPEAKER - Annie Machon
1745hrs - Break
1800hrs - FILM - The Elephant In The Room
1945hrs - Director answers questions
2000hrs - Break
2030hrs - SPEAKER - Brian Gerrish
2115hrs - Music in the Cube bar
2330hrs - CLOSE

"http://microplex.cubecinema.com/cubewebsite/directions.html"



The AGM on Sunday 6th July takes place from 1-4pm at.....
Bristol Central Friends Meeting House, River Street, St Judes, Bristol,
BS2 9DG.
OS Grid Reference: ST 596 734
map "http://www.digitalbristol.org/members/quakers/Central.html"


2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 MOVIE DIRECTOR, DEAN PUCKETT WRITES:

Hello everyone

The Elephant In The Room [a movie about 9/11 which this year won the
best British documentary award at the National Film Theatre's
documentary festival] will have its European [continental] premiere next
Wednesday at The Libertas Film festival in Croatia alongside some pretty
high profile docs. you can see us in the festival program here:
"http://www.libertasfilmfestival.com/v2/en/program.php?kat=11"

Many more screenings are in the works and some interesting developments
happening at the mo. Myself and Jethro and the team are working
tirelessly striving to get this film out there ! It is a long process
trying to get a distributor on board but we are determined to exhaust
all mainstream distribution routes before we turn our attention to self
distribution or an internet release. It is quite frustrating due to the
immediacy of the subject matter especially to the First Responders.

Two more UK screenings happening One in Bristol on July 5th

details can be found here
http://www.911truthbristol.com/eventz/jul/elephant.html

and one in reading on July 20th .


Press TV have recorded a review show of the film which will be broadcast
on Cable TV soon http://www.presstv.ir/


Pleae invite your friends to join our facebook group
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=10962741034

Check out the trailer
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYLWFDS62jA"

http.www.nosmokewithoutfire.co.uk


B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B
B THOUGHTS AND NEWS FROM ACTIVISTS

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 DECLAN IN MANCHESTER

I am sorry to say that nobody from the Manchester group has so far
committed themselves to attend the coming AGM and I myself will not be
in the country that weekend. I am, however, willing to represent the
group and will make an effort to attend future meetings.




4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 IAN HENSHALL IN BRIGHTON

The National Committee to become more like a supervisory board with
an executive of maybe 3 or four people: an active working chair, a
spokesperson, a webmaster, and a campaign co-ordinator.

I would like to put my name forward for the National Committee.

I am willing to be drafted as Chair but do not expect that and would
not have enough time to do the job really well. I just mention it, in
case I am the least bad choice.

I think I could do the job of speaker (as the Greens call it), ie
spokesperson for the Campaign and would like to put myself up for
that. Here is my "manifesto".

1. Campaign website and principles to be maintained as they are and
as you describe them in your circular ie no promotion of theories
other than citing "possibilities" or "hypotheses" that "some people
believe". A total ban on anti-semitic and other irrelevant theories
on our site. However I do not see a problem with links to potentially
dodgy sites so long as we are not endorsing them (and in some cases
with a health warning)

The site should be made active and worth visiting through the following:

2. Personal blogs to go on the site from one or two carefully chosen
people eg Ian Neal.

3. Fast rebuttal press releases emailed to a press list and put on
the site to deal with the attacks on us.

4. An extensive series of FAQ's to address the arguments that are put
against us. Rebuttals of the established debunking sites/books eg
Popular Mechanics

5. A news section reporting mainly the debate but also clear evidence
that will be persuasive to mainstream critics as it comes up.


5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 NOEL IN LONDON

1 new national officers should be elected at the AGM

2 local groups should choose their own representatives on the national
committee as before

3 national committee meetings should be more frequent

4 the official campaign website http://www.911truthcampaign.net/ should
quickly be revamped, with its associated unused private discussion forum
for 9/11 activists http://911truthcampaign.net/forum/YaBB.pl. The site
should acquire a changing section for news and a place where the
campaign announces events

5 the campaign should continue to campaign on the minimal objective
which unites us all - a call for an independent investigation into what
happened on 9/11 and who instigated it

6 the campaign as a whole should avoid advancing any theories as to what
really happened, as they inevitably get us all involved in time-wasting,
energy-sapping squabbling with each other

7 Everyone is free to advance any theory they like about what happened,
but should not claim they are representing the campaign in so doing (we
can't stop them)

8 Anyone may support the campaign but the campaign does not endorse
their individual theories

9 No one should try to pressure the campaign as a whole to adopt a
policy about what we think really happened; to do so would pre-empt the
conclusions of the independent inquiry we are seeking

10 There needs to be a competent press office

11 Any group of campaigners is free to go and form their own
organisation, such as has been done by We Are Change and by All Faiths
for 9/11 Truth

12 A serious national effort to raise funds must be made, possibly as
part of the wider European 9/11 Truth Campaign.

13 Antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, sexism and all forms of
racism and other prejudices which discriminate against sections of the
human race must be conspicuously and repeatedly condemned by this
campaign and action taken by the campaign committee against those who
perpetuate such prejudices, particularly those who perpetuate them in
the media.

I personally am prepared to serve in some national role or other: either
as a co-chair or vice-chair or secretary, or representative of the
London group, and/or editor of the occasional e-newsletter, but not as
treasurer, nor as press officer nor as webmaster.


6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
6 FRAN IN LONDON

I'm currently helping to re-vamp the 911 site by preparing the info re
quotes on 911 by prominent and some not so, concentrating on UK and
Europe but also including more well known people.

Also doing a dvd review - very short - on all 911 dvds so far.

I am only too happy to be a representative for the London group
alongside whoever else wants to, as I think there should be at least two
of us.

I am in agreement with you, that we have certainly achieved a lot and
there's no need to throw in the towel. Let those who want to, do their
own things that they prefer to concentrate upon. We still need a
pro-active 911 campaign in the UK which of course, will be part of the
European 911 campaign with increased liasing with other European
companeros. We need to make sure that the 911 campaign is seen to be
separate from the forum. This can be helped in part, by the apparent
appearance fairly soon, of two or more different UK forums for 911
issues.

Also I think the 911 campaign website needs to have its own separate
calendar of events which are only events related to the 911 campaign and
the war on/of terror. Having no calendar of its own meant that people
could easily confuse the campaign with the forum.

The 911 campaign needs to be focussed on 911 and poss 7/7. using a
rational and coherent argument. We need to be pro-active in defeating
the image that the MSM want to give to us. A clear separation form the
forum/s and the campaign will help.
We need to make a strong statement to counteract the disinfo that we are
holocaust deniers, into ufo's etc. Whilst of course, individual members
have their own views on these and other topics, the 911 campaign does
not.

Also spokespeople for the 911 campaign need to be clear about its aims
and objectives and not get drawn in by the media when asked questions
designed to discredit us.

Maybe we need a sort of re-launch of the 911 UK campaign? ie a little
mini tour of say Daniele Ganser and or other European well respected
researchers/authors/scientists to come and speak.

It will help us too if we can link with other campaigns such as no to
i.d etc and try to encourage their members to come to our events by
having someone speak about matters related to that campaign that ties in
with 911.

We need to show people that 911 is still relevant to today, and that it
isn't a numbers game ie it's not the amount of people who were killed or
even how they were killed which is of course, bad enough. It's not that
American lives are seen as more important than the lives of others.
This is the sort of argument thrown at us.

I am not sure about anyone advancing any theory they like to the MSM
hitting the towers! Whether we like it or not, no matter how much
someone might say it's their personal opinion not the campaign's, it can
be used to discredit us.


7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
7 ANDREW JOHNSON IN DERBY
There are at least one or two people on your list not interested in the
truth of 9/11 - rather in promoting a new false story.

Establishing the truth comes from examining the evidence, not from
name-calling and using lots of capital letters, nor does truth come from
a majority vote (if that were correct, we should just go back to the
Hijacker story as most people still believe that).
If you want to see why much of the 9/11 Truth scene has become like the
mainstream media - in essence it ignores evidence and attacks those who
point out why the "standard" explanations are not sufficient, please
read my article below. [at thr end of this newsletter] We are now
entering the final stages of the conflict between those who wish to keep
things secret and those who wish them to be revealed - please don't
underestimate the tactics and resources of those who are for secrecy
(Jim Fetzer is a prime example).

Good luck - and in peace,
Andrew


8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
8 KEITH WITH NEWS FROM SCOTLAND
Our biggest news was the terrific success of a two-day stall we ran at
the Meadows Festival in Edinburgh on June 7/8th. Paul Carline had
prepared tables, lots of leaflets/booklets/dvds, and three boards with
great points, quotes and large colour photos of the WTC destruction.

We found a high level of interest, with often two or three knots of
fascinated visitors grouped around the boards, often engrossed in
lengthy discussions.
With the exception of Nafeez Ahmed's photocopied pamphlet Subverting
'Terrorism' (60p) , we relied entirely on donations and people responded
with generosity. We also met several 911-aware people we had not
encountered before, and our occasional newsletter e-mail list has
expanded.

Our general feeling is that lots of people are very anxious about the
future, feel uneasily that they are not getting the truth from the
official media, and are increasingly prepared to consider the
possibility of major media lying about 9/11 and many other subjects.
'The truth shall set you free - but first it will make you miserable' as
one of Paul's quotes put it.

On the strength of this experience Paul feels that we are now confident
enough and have the skills to mount an exhibition in Edinburgh in the
week before 9/11 - and/or can use laminated images in street work and
protests (possibly at the 7/7 play at the Traverse during the
Festival?). Some of us are considering doing a 'Blair Gadsby
hungry-for-truth' fast at this time.

A leaflet on the Physics of Falling Objects is being prepared for
outreach to physics pupils, students, teachers, debts in schools and
colleges. (Any physics teachers out there to work with this one?)

Another proposal is for UK-wide co-ordinated protests outside the BBC,
please contact Paul Carline if interested.

Full Report/Minutes of our 911 Truth Scotland get-together of May 10th
are at "http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=120649",
together with comments from non-Scots residents who feel humbly called
upon to let us know that we are going off the ideological rails, very
helpful.

All Faiths for 9/11 Truth continues to develop slowly, currently mostly
based in Glasgow. We have been discussing our Constitution at this stage
(in for the long haul) and how to make it flexible enough to facilitate
regional, faith-group and women's working-groups or sub-groups. The
leaflet we distributed at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland
had a good reception, including prominent billing on
"http://www.mujca.com/allfaiths2.htm" . It referred to some of the weird
stuff about 9/11 and was entitled To See or Not to See?, which is a
reference to the following paragraph:

*Experimenters have seated people in a small room with a table between
them and an open window. Under hypnosis the subjects can be told to not
see the table, and when they are brought round they don't mention it
when asked to list the furniture. However when asked to close the
window, they don't stumble into the table, they know to walk round that
which they (can and) 'can't see'!

*In a similar way many of us have been hijacked by unconsciously having
swallowed the weird official story of 9/11 which at some level we know
doesn't add up, and yet which we have also been given implicit but very
strict instructions around - not to see it, not to talk about it (like
dad's alcohol-fuelled abuse in dysfunctional families). *


C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
C LONGER ARTICLES


9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
9 FURTHER THOUGHTS FROM NOEL

BUILDING A CREDIBLE CAMPAIGN

This article argues that due to the diverse way in which British 9/11
truth campaigners wish to campaign and to the constant background
arguments, frequently public, about what really happened, the current
campaign constitution is not fit for purpose and needs revising. It
will not be possible to revise it at the forthcoming AGM in Bristol, but
the new campaign committee elected there should subsequently produce a
constitution for a new way forward. My own opinion is that various
groupings and networks of like-minded people should crystallise out of
the existing campaign.


LITTLE GREEN MEN
Have you ever been talking to someone about 9/11 when, though you have
been getting on OK with them, suddenly their attitude changes?
Something you have said has brought a shutter down over their face;
their voice changes tone and you get the feeling they are thinking: "You
must be one of those people who believe in little green men.". As we
are all learning, there is a psychological barrier to be overcome before
this campaign can be taken seriously. It is a struggle with the mighty
Goliath and we have not yet found the sling and pebble to slay him with,
nor even perhaps the David with the skill to do so.


CAMPAIGN POLICY
The policy of the British 9/11 Truth Campaign has from the start been
one of declaring that we do not know what happened on 11th September
2001 but there is a huge amount of evidence which disproves the US
government's account and leads to a strong suspicion that elements
within the US government were involved in the terrorist attacks. The
9/11 Truth Commission was fatally flawed and therefore a new and
completely independent investigation is required. The campaign welcomes
support from all those who believe a new inquiry is needed, but it does
not endorse individual theories advanced by its supporters. Furthermore
individual campaign supporters may advance any theory they wish, but the
campaign as a whole will not endorse those theories. THE CAMPAIGN AS A
WHOLE WILL AVOID ALL THEORIES AS TO WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.

I believe that the above approach forms a sound basis for uniting as
wide a coalition of people as possible around the call for an
independent inquiry.



MORE MEANS LESS
A certain principle is operating: that the more specific you are about
what you think really happened, the fewer people will support you.
Likewise the more other issues of suppression of truth and of violation
of liberty you try to link with 9/11, the fewer people you will appeal
to because most are usually more concerned to dissociate themselves from
opinions they disagree with, or are doubtful about, than to associate
with those they agree with.

Some supporters argue passionately that the campaign ought to endorse
their particular theory. This has led to various factions arising among
us, some of them mutually hostile. I believe we should all encourage
each other to be tolerant of each other's theories, though I am aware
that that can be difficult. Failure to tolerate diverse approaches to
this issue divides us, creates time-wasting quarrels and thereby plays
into the hands of those who seek to cover up their 9/11 crimes.


TIME FOR US TO DIVIDE
I have now come to the conclusion that the solution to these tensions in
the campaign is formally to divide into groups of people who wish to
campaign in similar ways. I want to campaign with people who do not
propound any one theory as to what happened on Sept 11th but who seek a
new independent inquiry. However, I do not have illusions about that
inquiry. It may well be unsatisfactory. Nevertheless it is a device
around which I believe the largest number of people could coalesce. I do
not expect everyone to agree with this approach.
It is time for those who want to campaign in other ways to go off and do
so without expecting everyone else within the movement to agree with
their theories or tactics. Let's all give each other space to campaign
in our own way. There is no need for us all to be cramped together in
one campaign. We need to stop stepping on each other's toes.


MANY THEORIES
Here are some of the theories around which certain campaigners tend to
coalesce. Some of them may wish to form their own associations. These
many theories as to what really happened unsurprisingly earn the
movement the reputation of Conspiracy Theorists.


1 No Planes
No planes were involved in the 9/11 attacks. The appearance of planes
was brought about by video-fakery and the planting of false witnesses.
Some add that holograms were used. Variations on this theory include No
Big Boeings but possibly smaller planes and/or missiles.

2 Controlled Demolition by High Explosives
This theory is advanced particularly by those who support the work of
physics professor Stephen Jones, erstwhile of Brigham Young University
in the state of Utah. He has advanced the theory, based on forensic
analysis that a high explosive, Thermate, frequently used in controlled
demolitions, was used to demolish the World Trade Center. Dr Jones'
paper on the subject has been peer reviewed and published. Some
supporters of this theory believe that the case is now closed and that
anyone who advances alternative theories should be relentlessly
criticised.

3 Directed Energy Weapons
This theory, advanced by Dr Judy Wood, maintains that secret new
technology was used to bring down the WTC. She has been bitterly
attacked as a probable government agent particularly by scientist
supporters of various disciplines, who maintain that she advances
pseudo-science and has failed to advance a provable case. Advocates of
this theory argue that the real thing the Powers That Be are trying to
cover up is this new technology which would give humanity the abundant
source of cheap energy it needs and therefore theories about explosives
in the towers are being advanced to put us off the scent.

4 A Big Boeing hit the Pentagon
This theory, though not widely shared by campaigners, is advanced
particularly by campaigners in Washington DC who maintain that to
advance the theory that no plane hit the Pentagon leads the campaign
into the realms of fantasy for which it justly becomes ridiculed.

5 Video Fakery
This theory often, but not necessarily, goes hand in hand with No Planes
theory. Some advance the theory that examination of videos of planes
hitting the WTC show obvious signs of having been faked and cite
particularly one video of a plane hitting the South Tower in which its
soft aluminium wings appear to cut through the protected steel lattice
of perimeter columns like a knife though butter.

6 Reptilian Bloodline Theory
This theory is advanced by those influenced by David Icke who was one of
the first people to publish a book arguing that 9/11 was an inside job.
Supporters of this approach argue that the world is controlled by a
class of people who are partly descended from an extraterrestrial race
of "reptilians". These "people" do not share with the human race,
normal human emotions of compassion and empathy. For this reason they
are genetically disposed to organise world-wide war, chaos and
atrocities in order to maintain and advance their control over humanity.
The 9/11 attacks were one such atrocity engineered by these reptilians.
They may be recognised by their ancestry which can be traced back to a
ruling class/race of ancient times which is now represented all over the
world and includes the Bush family, the Rothschilds the Rockerfellers
the Windsors and most descendants of European royalty and aristocracy.


7 Anti-Reptilian Bloodline Theory
The opponents of the reptilian bloodline theory argue that the theory
has not been proven in a scientific sense. It is not, for example,
based on analysis of genetic material showing that these "aristocrats"
have a different make up from most human beings. Accusing people of
being sub-human on the basis of their ancestry was what the Nazis did to
Jews, Romanies, Slavs and others. Accusing people of being guilty for
associating with such people is similar to the guilt by association of
the McCarthy era in the US. Reptilian Bloodline Theory contains the
seeds of possible future witch-hunts.


8 LIHOP
Let It Happen On Purpose.
The proponents of this theory maintain that the US government, or
elements within it got wind of a forthcoming Al Qaeda attack and decided
to co-operate with it for the purposes of achieving their agenda of
war, control of petroleum resources and abolition of civil liberties.


9 MIHOP
Made it Happen On Purpose
The proponents of this theory maintain that the US government, or a
criminal element within it, planned and organised the 9/11 attacks.
They argue that Islamic terrorists could be relied upon to carry out an
attack in the way the US wanted it done. They might c*** it up. They
might not keep their word. They might crash planes into nuclear power
plants with devastating results. Far better, therefore, for the Neocons
to control the operation themselves.


10 No Moslems
Since after nearly seven years the US government has come up with no
hard evidence that Muslims were on the planes, such as CCTV or passenger
manifests containing Muslim names, specifically the names of the alleged
hijackers, and since they would go far in shutting up those who doubt
their word if they did reveal this evidence, it is reasonable to
conclude that they have no evidence of Muslim involvement. Moreover, if
we believe in civil liberties we believe that no one should be held
guilty until proven so. Furthermore the allegation that Muslims were
behind the attacks is now being used to smear all Muslims and their
religion as inherently violent and malicious. If we are to avoid a
Muslim holocaust this smear must be refuted.


11 Moslems were or may have been involved
There is copious evidence of links between Western intelligence agencies
and fanatical Muslim groups and no clear evidence that Muslims were not
involved. Therefore it is a reasonable possibility that Muslims were
involved. Absence of proof of something is not proof of the absence of
something.


12 Global dictatorship
Most of us recognise there is a broader aspect to this issue - a general
global conspiracy to cover up the truth of many things. Those of us who
have looked into the matter most deeply have discovered that there is an
intention by dark unseen forces to dominate the world through warfare,
torture, abolition of liberties, micro-chipping of the people,
population reduction by any means etc. The most important thing is not
so much 9/11 in itself but 9/11 as one aspect of many other attacks on
human freedom to this end.


13 Self interest
Some argue that 9/11 and other erosions of liberties are explicable by
self-interest. The upper echelons of the capitalist class have an
interest in preserving their wealth and power. Therefore they will stop
at nothing to retain it.


14 Blowback theory
It is obvious that "9/11 truthers" are deluded individuals. The 9/11
attacks were carried out by angry Moslems who have every right to be
angry about Western policy in the Middle East: Western support for
dictators in the region and for a nuclear expansionist Israel.
Nevertheless, "Truthers" have raised so many questions and doubts that
the only way to resolve the issue is to have another inquiry to prove
them wrong.




10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
10 ANDREW JOHNSON ON CENSORSHIP AND RIDICULE

9/11 TRUTH SEEKERS AND CAMPAIGNERS. "IT'S YOUR LUCKY DAY!"
Andrew Johnson ("mailto:ad.johnson@ntlworld.com")
May 2008

You want a new investigation into the events of 9/11? Well, it's your
lucky day! There is one already in progress! However, it is ignored by
almost all 9/11 researchers and posters around the internet. The RFC's
and "http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.html" and
"http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=federal_case"
against NIST and its contractors are independent - and they are
investigations, but most 9/11 Truthers are not talking about them. In
this article, I will ask why this is the case.


A FOCUS ON THE TRUTH OF 9/11
I have been pondering on what seems to be happening to the effort,
across various groups, to reveal the truth of what happened on 9/11.
Some quite unusual things seem to have been transpiring over the last
two years, as I have tried to
"http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&ta sk=category&sectionid=1&id=1&Itemid=60".

Last month, in mid April 2008, "http://www.911truth.org/" sent out an
e-mail regarding a "Week of Truth" initiative, featuring fairly
well-designed graphics and a prominent posting of Steve Alten's new
novel The Shell Game. This work, seemingly written as a vehicle to
further the aims of 9/11 Truth Campaigners, additionally has the
laudable goal of raising money for the New York City First Responders
who suffered greatly for helping others on the day of this most terrible
tragedy. The accompanying message from 911truth.org suggested buying
copies of The Shell Game (directly through
"http://www.weekoftruth.org/") so that a portion of the purchase price
(it does not say how much) will go to the First Responders. Purchasing a
copy will also, it says, help the book to enter the New York Times Top
10 best-seller list. Additionally, it suggests "e-mailing everyone you
know who wants 9/11 truth to break through the corporate media blackout"
and that people should write op-eds, and call in to radio shows, and
otherwise tell people about the Week of Truth.

Who could argue with basic thrust of these suggestions? I certainly
couldn't! However, if I may adopt a more lyrical (but critical) tone for
a moment, I fear that this "Week of Truth" may have been "Weak of
Truth". Why am I being so harsh in describing the efforts of
kind-hearted people in selflessly promoting the knowledge that the
Official Story (OGCT) of 9/11 is false?

Firstly, I think it is important to consider what The Shell Game
actually says. For example, the plot of the story includes Iran's
supposed nuclear reactor development
("http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-14-iran-nukes_x.htm"  )
and also discusses the issue of "Peak Oil"
("http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47738", but
often cited by some 9/11 researchers as the main reason 9/11 was
perpetrated). So, even if The Shell Game helps more people become aware
of and think about 9/11 Truth issues (and I question whether it actually
will), I would contend it is falsely suggesting that "Peak Oil" and
"Iranian Nukes" are real issues of concern (in the same way that the
official story of 9/11 suggests that international terrorism is an issue
of real concern).

When, in the "Week of Truth" (or at any other time, for that matter),
people make phone calls or send e-mail to tell others about 9/11 Truth
and The Shell Game, what do they say? One of the easiest phrases to use
seems to be "9/11 was an Inside Job" - meaning that the Government and
probably other officials knew in advance that the event was going to
happen and that they, in some way, planned and/or assisted in the
execution of the operation. However, as shocking as this statement is to
some people, that statement in of itself, moves us little or no further
forward in finding or prosecuting the perpetrators. (Indeed, does
purchasing a copy of The Shell Game help towards this goal?)
Additionally, many people are already uncomfortable with the official
story of 9/11 - according to an August 2006 Scripps Howard/Ohio
University national survey, 36% of Americans believe 9/11 was an 'inside
job', with government agencies complicit in what occurred. A Zogby poll
in 2004 also produced similar results. With this in mind, and knowing
what I know now, I am much more concerned about the longer term effect
that The Shell Game may have - because it does not include important
evidence and information related to what the latest 9/11 research has
revealed.


9/11 - THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
One of the things that a study of 9/11 truth should teach us is to focus
on evidence. This study of evidence can be applied both directly to the
analysis of the events of 9/11 and it can also be applied to the study
of events since 9/11. An important question that might be asked is this
- what have the perpetrators of 9/11 been up to since that day? We know
for sure that the media have been manipulated - key evidence has not
been reported or discussed (for example, it is very rare to hear a
discussion that the towers - including most of the steel - largely
turned to dust). It is also almost unheard (anywhere) - in relation to
the supposed WTC plane crashes - that thin aluminium wing struts cannot
cut through steel girders (whatever speed they are travelling at). This
is because of Newton's third law, and the relative hardness of these 2
materials. (In a collision, the force on the aluminium is the same as
the force on the steel, but aluminium wing struts are much weaker than
steel, so they snap - and the steel does not!).

It often surprises me that only a small number of people appear willing
to focus on and discuss the physical evidence.

"http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/112603_kennedy.html". More
recently, within the 9/11 Truth Movement (which can perhaps be regarded
as "The 9/11 Official-Truth Movement") many people seem very reluctant
to discuss the current legal cases of Drs. Wood and Reynolds even though
information about their legally-based efforts has been in the public
domain for well over 1 year. I would contend that the reason for this
lack of discussion is that discussion and analysis of information within
the 9/11 Truth Movement is being subjected to the same type of bullying,
cajolery and name-calling that is present in the mainstream media
whenever this topic is discussed. When any people appear, to question
"the official story", they are attacked and ridiculed and discussion of
their research is subjected to pernicious debunking. To try and document
this activity,
"http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=content&task=vie w&id=28".
"http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task =view&id=161&Itemid=60".


VIDEO FAKERY ON 9/11 AND ONGOING PSY-OPS
Comprehensive studies of evidence pertaining to video fakery and
manipulation, such as those presented in
"http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice" illustrate, in a compelling
manner, the scale of the Psy-Op which was employed in cementing the
mythical hijackers tale into the psyche of the general population. Once
an understanding is gained of how the video fakery and associated media
spin and information manipulation has been working, it becomes much
clearer to see how the Psy-Op tactics have also been at work within the
9/11 Truth movement itself.

One such "success" story is that of molten metal - it is a story that
has been repeated many times, but seemingly with increasing frequency
since about late 2005 or early 2006 (in quite a similar fashion to the
official "hijacker" myth). The story was one of the main points of
Steven E Jones' February 2006 USVC Presentation, and his earlier paper
"Why indeed did the WTC Towers Completely Collapse". Like the hijacker
fable, the molten metal stories seem to make sense initially (and I was
taken in by them both), but when you have been presented with only a
subset of evidence,
"http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&ta sk=view&id=91&Itemid=60",
the fake story is exposed for what it is. When the evidence for thermite
- and especially molten metal - is studied in depth (thanks to the
evidence uncovered largely by Dr. Judy Wood),
"http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&ta sk=view&id=91&Itemid=60".

Despite this evidence, most people in the 9/11 Truth movement - even
some of those who might be called "figureheads," still discuss thermite
and molten metal as being the established "cause and effect" of the
destruction of the WTC complex.


CHALLENGING THE CD'ERS
Some regard the WTC destruction as being the result of carefully placed
and precisely detonated explosives (i.e. traditional controlled
demolition - TCD) - as well as there being various "flavours" of
thermite in use. When I first started to research into 9/11 issues, I
generally agreed that some type of explosive demolition was used,
although the top-down demolition of towers 1 and 2 was peculiar. Thanks
in large part to Dr. Wood's photo studies, I later became aware of new
evidence such as:
1) Toasted cars approximately 1 mile away from the WTC.
2) Upturned cars in several locations.
3) At least 1 witness diving under an ambulance during the destruction
of 1 of the towers then reporting the ambulance was "pushed off" during
the destruction of one of the towers (but he didn't report he felt why
it was "pushed off").
4) At least 1 spontaneous car fire at 9:46 (before the towers were
destroyed).
5) No bright flashes seen as the towers were destroyed.
6) Severe powderisation of the buildings, leaving a debris pile less
than 1 story high in many places.
7) A dust cloud which was not hot (no one got burned).

Now, as you'll appreciate, OGCT believers ignore a lot of evidence in
maintaining their belief that "hijackers and planes" caused the damage
on 9/11. TCD believers (I used to be one) ignore the evidence above -
and such things as the hosing down of the WTC site as late as Jan 2008
("http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edm9pcKGkgU") and
"http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/JJ3.html" \l "BT".

Of course, by ignoring any amount of evidence about anything (be it a
scientific or legal matter), it is possible to come to almost any
desired conclusion. However, the value of that conclusion is, of course,
likely to be inversely proportional to the amount of evidence ignored.


IGNORING THE EVIDENCE - AN "ACTIVE DENIAL SYSTEM"?
I am sure there are a few people in the world who believe the Earth is
flat - and they can continue to do this by ignoring the evidence that it
is a sphere - for example brushing off all satellite photos as "fakes".

People in the 9/11 Official-Truth movement are vociferously critical of
mainstream media figures, as well as other well-known figures, for not
talking about the evidence.
"http://atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/3858/81/". Yet, when it is
pointed out that people even within the 9/11 Official-Truth Movement
refuse to address evidence,
"http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=13721&highlight=inv estigation+wake".
In trying to draw attention to some of the evidence and general
conclusions that Dr. Wood and Dr. Reynolds have researched and posted
articles about, I often seem to have experienced animosity and
hostility. This mirrors the earlier experience of people like Rosalee
Grable (Webfairy), Nico Haupt, Gerard Holmgren and others. Those that
have been the most critical rarely focus on a considered analysis of
evidence in question. Typically, the conclusions drawn from what has
become known as "DEW" and "No Planes" research are often said to be
"impossible to believe" by those in the 9/11 Official-Truth movement.
(It can be observed that they frequently use disturbingly similar
language to that used by OGCT believers who cannot accept that a
conspiracy regarding 9/11 really does exist.)

Even when it is pointed out that the evidence for DEW and "No planes at
the WTC" is so strong that it has been used both as a basis for two
"Request for Corrections" and two related Qui Tam cases against NIST
contractors, it is often not regarded as significant. I can say this of
at least six "9/11 Truthers" that I have met and discussed these issues
with. Some of them use such phrases as "I have seen no evidence of DEW"
and "I looked at Dr. Wood's website and saw no evidence of
significance." I find this so bizarre that I really do wonder what is
going on. The following sample of correspondence I had with a European
scientist is typical of some of the extraordinary exchanges I have been
a party in:
1) Toasted cars 1 mile away from the WTC
The cars were toasted by falling thermate and moved subsequently, so the
rescue squads could get access to GZ.

There is no evidence that this is true: How did the "thermite" travel 1
mile and spread over 100's of cars? Where are the photos or witness
testimony that so many cars were moved? I would be happy to see it! How
did the thermite selectively react with only some parts of the cars?

3) At least 1 witness diving under an ambulance during the destruction
of 1 of the towers then reporting the ambulance was "pushed off" during
the collapse (but he didn't report he felt why it was "pushed off").
If you can repeat that experiment I would like to see it.

Even sending a volume of additional evidence to this person was not
enough to stimulate any further reasoned discussion. This person clearly
seems to support the conclusions made by Steven E Jones regarding
Thermate and Thermite. It cannot be noted often enough that Steven E
Jones represents one of the key connections between the 9/11 cover up
and the energy cover up ("outbind://166/" \l
"_Addendum:_Exchange_with").



TWISTING THE EVIDENCE
In one or two discussions I have had where I have attempted to discuss
the powderisation of steel, it has been declared "Impossible", because
the amount of energy required to melt and vaporise the steel would be so
high as to not be deliverable. In one case, the person went to the
trouble of calculating the required energy to do this (he came out with
a figure in Gigawatts). This sort of "stunt" can be observed repeatedly.
We discussed "dustification" or "powderisation", but this is twisted
into "melting" and "vaporisation" and the process is then declared
"impossible". If it was "impossible", then where are the steel girders?
And if there really was molten metal, then where did the energy come
from to melt the steel? The arguments presented in opposition to the
evidence that the steel turned to dust don't stand up to scrutiny.


EXPOSING THE EVIDENCE
Recently, I asked someone I know here in the UK, who has repeatedly
spoken out about a number of 9/11 truth related issues, for help in
publicising the Wood/Reynolds Qui Tam cases, following comments this
person made regarding
"http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&ta sk=view&id=168&Itemid=60"
("http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6160775.stm"
the key 9/11 evidence which contradicts the Official Story.)

I asked this person, who is quite well known in UK 9/11 Truth Circles,
How do we get coverage, at least of the existence of these two cases -
even if not the details - not even the names of the people involved, for
heaven's sake, into the Daily Mail? Can you advise me please? ... So,
can you help me publicise the Qui Tam cases somehow? That would be
great.

This person (who has spoken out publicly regarding 9/11) does have some
contacts in the UK media responded thus:
To do this, we need to be credible. To be credible, we need to avoid
speculation. For the above reasons, I shall respectfully have to decline
your request for help in publicising the work of Woods.

This response was interesting to me for 2 reasons. Firstly, it mentions
"speculation". Both Dr. Wood's and Dr. Reynolds' Qui Tam cases focus on
a range of physical evidence. They draw certain conclusions based on an
analysis of this evidence. This is really the opposite of speculation.
Indeed, who would initiate a Court Case based on speculation? (Who has
this kind of money to waste?)

The second point that was interesting was that this person said they
"would not help in promoting the work of Woods". This was not exactly
what I asked - there are 2 Qui Tam cases and I did not specify that the
names be mentioned (and, of course, it's "Dr. Wood" not "Dr. Woods").

Over the last 2-3 years, I have helped with the running of the UK 9/11
Truth forum. Previously, when I posted information or updates pertaining
to the RFC's of Dr. Wood and Dr. Reynolds on the UK forum, they were
moved out of the "News" Section and into a "Controversies" Section. So,
moderators there seemed to be indulging in a kind of "soft censorship" -
in a similar manner to how news editors move some stories to the "back
pages" or put them in smaller print.

THE CALL FOR AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION
I recently received a message from a friend who is now starting to
realise what seems to be going on. In presenting his view to other
people he wrote:
I [have] been pondering over a few things regarding what [we] are trying
to achieve. We are primarily demanding a reinvestigation of 911. But
what would we accept as a satisfactory investigation? What criteria
would we use to measure or qualify any investigation, whether it is just
a proposal or an actual investigation?
I didn't consider until recently that the Judy Wood Qui Tam cases are
technically investigations since the cases brought forward have been
accepted by the courts. Yet we have collectively chosen to ignore them
as they do not fit some criteria that we must collectively all share
(pls forgive the generalisation for a second). What are those criteria?

So this does lead on to a deeper question. What form would a truly
independent enquiry take? Who would pay for it, if government bodies
cannot be trusted (they cannot)? How about an organisation like Amnesty
International - wouldn't they be able to do something? Well, seeing as
AI have made no public comments about 9/11 truth issues in over 6 years,
"http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&ta sk=view&id=177&Itemid=60",
the prospects aren't looking too good. So perhaps we need individuals to
come forward, fund their own research, build their own legal cases and
submit them to the courts. At the moment, Drs. Wood and Reynolds, with
the help of Jerry Leaphart, are the only ones doing this - as all
previous 9/11 related cases have either folded or been withdrawn (so why
hasn't anyone else tried to re-invigorate them?)


9/11, THE HUTCHISON EFFECT AND THE ENERGY CONNECTION
It has been said that "the flak is strongest when you are over the
target" and I can't help thinking that this applies to our current
situation, where, along with Dr. Wood,
"http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&ta sk=view&id=157&Itemid=60".
Using a maximum of about 4kw of power, Hutchison has carried out
(admittedly, often in a haphazard fashion) experiments for the last 30
years and, in the process, generated about 500lbs of anomalous metal
samples. This has attracted interest from
"http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/Hutchison%20Effect%20FOIA%20from% 20Brian%20Allan.pdf".
It is therefore less surprising that he has submitted an affidavit for
"http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/JJ8.html". This of course means
that, if John Hutchison were to be called as a witness, if the case
proceeded, he could go to prison if he committed perjury.

We have mentioned the similarities of some of the characteristics of the
Hutchison Effect and what is referred to as Cold Fusion. In both cases,
attempts are made to "debunk" the phenomenon by denying the reproduction
of experiments. John Hutchison has replicated his experiments many
times, and "http://www.nucleonicenergy.com/". With Cold Fusion, there
have been hundreds of replications - many of which have showed anomalous
nuclear effects, excess heat - or both. Sometimes, the reaction appears
to be "self sustaining" - for an extended period after the current was
removed from the experiment. Further information is available at
"http://www.lenr-canr.org/" . And, of course, this is where Prof Steven
E Jones "enters the picture", as he was involved in matters which
triggered the somewhat impromptu or even premature press conference of
Pons and Fleischmann in 1989.

It should be pointed out that, in relation to 9/11
"http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/Aluminum_Glows.html".
"http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&ta sk=view&id=175&Itemid=60".
In the late 80's and early 90's Jones and others went on to completely
ignore or deny the reality of excess heat production in a number of
duplicate experiments. These matters are documented in Dr. Eugene
Mallove's excellent 1991 book "Fire From Ice". Mallove was murdered in
May 2004. Jones appeared on the 911 scene in about Sept 2005. Mallove
worked with William Zebuhr at the New Energy Foundation. William Zebuhr
was the Uncle of Michael Zebuhr, Dr. Wood's Student. Can it just have
been a coincidence that Michael Zebuhr was himself murdered in March
2006?


"THE NORMAL NO-PLANERS ARE JUST COMPLETELY NUTS."
Dr. Reynolds Qui Tam case focuses on the lack of evidence of plane
impacts at the WTC on 9/11. In April 2008, "no planers" were accused of
physically abusing one or more members of one of the New York "We Are
Change" group. These accusations were made in a
"http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2008/042208_assault_videos. htm",
with a summary of which is shown below (emphasis added).
We Are Change To Release Assault Videos
After months of tolerating verbal and physical abuse from a fringe group
of emotionally unstable "no-planers" at ground zero, Luke Rudkowski and
We Are Change have had enough, and are set to release video showing the
assaults and attempts to smear We Are Change as being complicit in the
Times Square recruitment center bombing.

The use of the phrase "emotionally unstable" is somewhat revealing. In
an earlier broadcast on Alex Jones' radio show (linked on the above page
in a YouTube video), we seem to have another example of debunking,
ridicule and desultory remarks where, instead, a sober analysis of the
evidence included in
"http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=federal_case"
case would have been more appropriate and useful.

In an earlier broadcast (around April 8th 2008), Alex Jones made his
position on this evidence abundantly clear, saying:
And then who comes out and says the[re are] no plane[s] - former Bush
administration officials - and Fox has 'em on over and over again and
Fox - whenever I am doing a debate they say 'no planes - ha ha ha'.

The normal no-planers are just completely nuts - I mean they are
completely out of their minds . and vicious and aggressive and lying and
slanderous and then they've always got former admitted spooks and former
admitted people from CIA universities, running around spewing.

Attorney Jerry Leaphart,
"http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&ta sk=view&id=176&Itemid=60"
and he included these words:
We hasten to acknowledge that we are not saying you accused Drs. Wood
and/or Reynolds of such behavior, however we do say that they are known
as "no planers" by some and we also know how guilt by association and
categorization works, and we know that you know that too.

I am here assuming that you do not want any of us to come under
surveillance by virtue of being thought to pose a threat of violence.
You might not share the same degree of wariness about surveillance as we
do, but we assume it takes very little in the way of publicly
disseminated information to give rise to justification for surveillance.
Posting videos proclaiming that "no planers" have instigated or
participated in fighting could be used as a justification for scrutiny,
in our view.

Alex Jones has been heard to say "Don't believe me - do your own
research" (or words to that effect - for example at about
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyzSSnNUWnE"). I hope that in this
particular case, people will do as he suggests.


THE COMMON THREAD
If one wants to find the truth of something which is not fully
understood, one can only do so by continuingly collecting evidence,
analysing it and drawing conclusions. Importantly, however, this is
never a completely static process. An unconditional willingness to
review new evidence is the only way to get the closest to the truth.
Evidence, analyses and conclusions must be continually reviewed and
refined - and this process is surely one of the fundamental pillars of
the Scientific Method (which I prefer to think of more as "analytical
thought").

In much of the activity documented above, there is a common thread: that
of ignoring evidence. A friend of mine has an expression that is also
appropriate here, he describes this mentality as "playing the man, not
the ball". Another version of this is "if you can't attack the data,
attack the messenger". There is of course a difference here between
attacking people and asking questions of them (as I tend to do). Asking
people questions is different to making rude or inflammatory remarks,
describing them or their evidence, analysis or conclusions as
"ridiculous" or "unbelievable". Perhaps it would be better if more
people spent time analysing the evidence for themselves, and if they
can't agree with the experts' conclusions perhaps they can simply say "I
disagree" - rather than being rude and disparaging or claim to have
"debunked" a reasoned analysis, as if it is something to be proud of.

If there is some honest criticism of the evidence, where it is felt that
it is not strong enough, or it is felt that clearer or more powerful
evidence has been found, then the sensible thing would surely be to
offer to contribute it to the studies which have been posted -
collectively, making the case stronger and more overwhelming.
Instead of this however, we have seen a pattern of:
1) Promoting studies which don't explain all the evidence.
2) Ridiculing studies which explain the most evidence.
3) Ignoring, censoring or soft-censoring a discussion of evidence when
those having the power of censorship (but a weak or non-existent science
or analytical background) become "uncomfortable" with this discussion.
4) Classifying a group of people who choose to discuss certain evidence
or conclusions as either being "emotionally unstable" or "completely
nuts".
5) Ignoring court cases, important to our future, which focus on a range
of evidence analysed by well-qualified people.

For myself, I now feel I have to strongly consider that the actions
which have woven this pattern of evidence-denial and ridicule are not
purely "ego-driven", or a simple result of people being "reluctant to
change their minds". I am coming to the view that there is an active
underlying "system" which is manipulating people into the behaviour that
has been observed and documented here, which is very much another "can
of worms" to open.

"SO WHAT IS THE GOAL HERE?"
Recently, when I was trying to discuss the evidence that
"http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/" I was asked "What is your goal
with this?" This, of course, is a very good question (which can also be
asked of those promoting the Thermite explanations and those who
continue to follow the pattern of making disparaging remarks).

My goal is to help pave the way for the Black Technologies, that have
been used to hold the rest of the world hostage for perhaps 60 years or
so, to be revealed. An additional goal is that those who are in control
of these technologies can be identified and questioned as to what their
goal is. My wish is that these revelations will transform our world into
one which has more equity, liberty and peace than it does now. In that
regard, attacking and ridiculing serious, reasoned and detailed analyses
has no place - especially when some of the people doing this work have
made (and continue to make) very significant personal sacrifices.




ADDENDUM: EXCHANGE WITH EUROPEAN SCIENTIST REGARDING WTC THERMITE.
Below, I have included more of the exchange I had in April 2008 with
another European Scientist who seems to insist that Thermite or thermate
was used to destroy the WTC complex. I listed some points of evidence
which cannot be explained by Thermite. This exchange illustrates well an
example of how key points of evidence are either ridiculed or completely
ignored. I have a number of other exchanges similar to this in my e-mail
archive.

1) Toasted cars 1 mile away from the WTC

The cars were toasted by falling thermate and moved subsequently, so the
rescue squads could get access to GZ.

There is no evidence that this is true:
How did the "thermite" travel 1 mile and spread over 100's of cars?
Where are the photos or witness testimony that so many cars were moved?
I would be happy to see it! How did the thermite selectively react with
only some parts of the cars?


2) Upturned cars in several locations
The car-movers didn't bother to dump the wrecks on the wheels

Sorry this does not make sense. Some cars are upside down next to ones
that are the correct way up. There is no reason for movers to turn them
upside down - it would actually be difficult to do this and what would
be the point? Any witness testimony or other evidence of what turned
them upside down?

3) At least 1 witness diving under an ambulance during the destruction
of 1 of the towers then reporting the ambulance was "pushed off" during
the collapse (but he didn't report he felt why it was "pushed off").

If you can repeat that experiment I would like to see it.

This wasn't an experiment - it was a 1st responder witness account. We
have, without looking too hard, found witness accounts mentioning
unusual forces. Here are 2
File no 9110506 - Michael Macko (P4 - P5) I realized I couldn't get out
from under the collapse. I dove under an ESU truck that was facing north
on the west side of West Street. I dove under that and waited for the
building to come down. When the building did come down, I actually
thought I was trapped, and the truck was blown off me, pushed off me, I
guess. It was not there. At that point I was just really shocked and
didn't know what was going on at that point. I didn't know -- I was
really, really shocked.)

File No. 9110075 - RENE DAVILA
While we're walking I realize that we only have two people. I see my
vehicle. The seats are covered. I've still got my bag. I hold it like a
trophy. Like people collect basketballs. I haven't touched -- whatever
the force was, it was so strong that it went inside of the bag.

I have some others if you want them
3) At least 1 spontaneous car fire at 9:46 (before the towers
collapsed/were destroyed).

I saw the same phenomenon in an English movie the other night.

OK - that's that covered then (I presume you have no answer for this
one).


4) No bright flashes seen as the towers collapsed.

Actually, there were, but not too many as the charges were located in
the core.

But thermite doesn't use explosive detonators - it's a "fused
incendiary", as far as I am aware. So, anyway how were the perimeter
(exterior) columns cut? What were the "other explosives" used?

6) Severe powderisation of the buildings, leaving a pile less than 1
story high.

Powderisation is what happens to concrete, when you blow up buildings.

Sure - concrete powderises - but I calculated the total length of steel
in the 2 towers was of the order (laid end-to-end) of 550 miles. What
explosives can powerdise steel this way?

7) Dust cloud which was not hot (no one got burned).

When a cloud expands, it cools.

OK - that's that covered then. We saw no flames as the towers turned to
dust - this is especially true of the "spire" structure which we see
turning to dust.

You: Of course, by ignoring any amount of evidence about anything (be it
a scientific or legal matter), it is possible to come to almost any
desired conclusion. However, the value of that conclusion is, of course,
likely to be inversely proportional to the amount of evidence ignored.

Me: I am not impressed by the amount of evidence above and the solid
evid

[Keith Mothersson]

Many thanks to the indefatigueable Noel Glynn for this compilation newsletter.

This compilation is remarkably short on group news - despite Noel's sending round twice asking for reports. And it is also remarkably short on discussion of the way forward, how to acheive an Independent Inquiry, what are our minimum conditions for such a thing (lest it merely surrender only one more layer of the onion).

There will be several reasons for this, but Andrew Johnson's contribution suggests one reason, which I would echo, and I think Paul would also:

[xmasdale]

[xmasdale]

This is the reply to the newsletter I received today from Gareth:

Noel

You have disgraced 9/11 activism by allowing Andrew Johnson such a platform in the recent 9/11 newsletter. 6000 words of demonstrable nonsense.

I see you decided to quote me (again) in the newsletter in reference to you "knocking Stephen Jones". I've already been clear with you on this matter but i will explain one final time... The Steven Jones/Judy Wood debate is not a level playing field issue. Almost all architectural, engineering and scientific opinion is united in its support of Steven Jones' findings. This same opinion is also united in its denouncement of the 'science' furthered by Judy Woods and Andrew Johnson. In suggesting otherwise you are knocking the work of Jones.

Your persistent allegiance to those who promote disinformation has been noted.

I do not support this campaign and therefore will not campaign on its behalf.

Please remove me from all future mailings.

Gareth

[xmasdale]

This is my reply to Gareth:

Dear Gareth

You raise an important point: the whole issue of censorship, and you also illustrate the problem we all face that there is tension in the campaign between on the one hand those who want to campaign for an independent inquiry and on the other hand those who want to conduct an inquiry themselves by public discussion about what they think really happened. There is possibly a third category of people, such as yourself, who want to campaign on the basis that certain issues, such as how the WTC was demolished, have now been settled and therefore no discussion of it should be allowed.

I am of the opinion that we need a tight campaign in which all are agreed that we campaign for an independent inquiry and nothing else. In such a campaign all supporters would be asked to agree that we engage in no public speculation. In that campaign censorship of public speculation would be appropriate.

But we have not set up such a campaign yet. We attempted to do so some two years ago but that attempt was a failure, because many of our supporters were already committed to public speculation. There was no way they could be stopped from doing that. You can't enrol people to a campaign on one basis and then later, without their consent, change the rules so that no public speculation is allowed and any attempt to do so will be censored. The only way to achieve that IMO is to make clear from the outset to those who subscribe to such a new campaign, that those are the rules and if they want to be part of the campaign they must agree to those rules. That I believe is the way forward. The existing campaign would then be free to continue its speculation without censorship.[/color]

[paul wright]

Phew! I'm glad I diverted my attention to the DI campaign rather than the Andrew Johnson v the rest
I wont be down in Bristol for this absurd debate.
For the record I consider AJ's arguments at least as valid as anyone elses
Personally I agree with them
But nevertheless, what a stupid subject to be splitting on
Pythonesque obviously

[xmasdale]

What's the DI campaign, Paul?

Noel

[Justin]

Noel, well done for trying to sort things out in a fair and impartial way. But it is in fact all very simple....you go where the physical evidence takes you, without fear and with an open mind. It really is as simple as that.

For the record, which most of you know already, I believe that Judy Wood is onto something....and if she is right, then the world will be transformed into a much better and safer place and poverty and war will be things of the past.

[paul wright]

[Keith Mothersson]

Hi Noel,
I see you have indeed taken some stick. How ominous to have your false 'allegiance' 'noted' by Gareth!

I do support your general stance about free speech and the logic of your saying that until such a disciplined Inquiry campaign has been inaugurated, then there is no basis for censoring anybody who is claiming to represent the 911 campaign and is putting forward controversial views of the truth of what happened that terrible day. (even the numbers of dead becomes tricky if you genuinely want to bracket neutrally the planes/no planes assessment - one could say between 2,600 and 3,000 died that day with xoo subseqeuntly dying from environmental effects.)

That said, I repeat my concerns
a) that not many will be attracted to work for such an Inquiry campaign,
b) that there is no guarantee that any resulting Inquiry digs up some real truth (you acknowledge that danger yourself, I notice), and
c) also that it will be almost impossible for you to pose the reasons why an inquiry is needed without getting trapped in the Internal Contradictions approach of DRG, with all the risks of effectively endorsing bits an pieces of the official story which are not in fact true, except that one then has to explain at great complex lenggth why this is only an internal critique and the actual truth about whether there was any air defense stand- down - or indeed any planes that day - remains to be determined.

I agree that at present the numbers lie with those who believe in Contolled demolition plus hijacked airplanes. However
a) there exists a fairly coherent account of why that might be the case IF DEW is the truth which must at all costs be shielded through the creation of limited hangout versions - remember ex-head of Star Wars Bob Bowman sides with Jones who has done work at Los Alamos on Energy and Future Combat systems, and immediagtely after 9/11 a member of the Directed Energy Professionals Society, Van Romero, came out with a Controlled Demolition statement, subsequently retracted;
b) if we had listened to the numbers we wouldn't have started down this fascinating road, driven on at every point hopefully not by any heady addiction to the transgressive, but by an unafraid commitment to sober truth attempting to discern reality as beckoned on by evidence and reason. THUS WE ALSO MODEL BEING UNAFRAID, which in these scary times is a powerful medium/message in its own right.

Truth has its own energy and it will be hard for you to harness the Power of Story with this Inquiry approach to breaking what is a sacred Myth/Taboo system not just a factual (counter-factual) account, a taboo system which inevitably leads people to get upset and project onto us with contempt and anger, which there is no way to escape but we should of course try to minimise. One implication is that we should try to get better at equanimnity and responding with skilful ju-jitsu when attacked, since we are all engaged in education in its widest sense, aiming to develop and share by contagion transferrable skills of social analysis (socio-analysis - looking at society without the Over-self identifacion with the Powerful, but rather with compassion and respect intact for for the underlying suffering of all involved) and necessitating as we go a kind of personal and collective and societal (self)therapy.

More so than mere information dissemination as usual about one particular event we are aiming to encourage an awakening process in which there are no/few experts and we ourselves are engaging with ever-renewed 'beginners mind', hopefully . . . .

However different strokes for different folks. As part of - or separate from - a wider truth communithy effort an Inquiry Campaign can hopefully play a valuable specialised role. But that is why it is so important that the website it runs is called 911 inquiry campaign and not 911 truth campaign, etc.

Then we can all stop treading on each others toes and you will be in a very strong position to tell the various awkward squads like myself to b* off if we do! (provided you haven't disseminated falsehood inadvertently in your own outreach).

Good luck and all the best, as ever,
keith

[xmasdale]

[Annie]

[Keith Mothersson]

This approach is the one DRG tries to persuade Congress to create another Inquiry. In the book of that name it lines up 25 contradictions to the official story. However the officials story has various layers, IMO, and was always designed with some fall-back positions and extra confusionisms, - or for example all the Raytheon work on creating drone Boeings could have been a Plan A at the time it was commissioned which then got dropped for a 'safer' No Planes option, but the earlier work then becomes really useful confusionism when it is exposed if it keeps the planes story in the air when the various hijacker stories run a bit ragged. Ditto the endless tales of Air defence Exercises on the day.

The problem with Internal Contradictions is that both parts of what we draw attention to could be false, - which is fine if that leads us further down the trail , but if sold to the public without lots of caveats then it makes people think that the real truth is B.

e.g. ex Vice-P of the biggest arms manufacturer in the world (by volume) is Norman Mineta, Bush govt Transportation Sec who played a role in grounding all planes for the period the buildings were DEW-HAARP-Erin zapped somehow (in my guess) - cos unsafe to fly, though of course there could have been innocent motives. Now everybody is so keen to discredit Cheney that they may have fallen for disinfo from Mineta when Mineta testified that he had been in the bunker under the White house and so had Cheney (half and hour earlier than Cheney had earlier stated) when 'the plane' was 'approaching' Washington.

Supposedly a young aide had kept coming into the roomwhen the plane was 50, 30, 10 miles out and asking Cheney if the orders still stand - which led Cheney finally to sanp: of course they do, have you heard to the contrary. I.e. possible evidence of a don't shoot that plane down order, as I, Cheney, am the only one with the authorisation to shoot a plane down since Bush had invested him with Security Supremo powers earlier that summer.

But given Mineta's also being a top member of the Military Industrial complex why should we believe one rogue against another? All he reports really is dots on a screen. Even if Cheney thought the dots were a real plane, he could have been set up for trouble by people even higher in the planning heirarchy who realised that the 'real planes' (is this real world or exercise?') were as much dots on screen as the 'exercise planes'.

And DRG doesn't then follow through to ferret out the truth because he omits to note that the times involved in Mineta's story are internally contradictory - i.e. a Boeing would not take long to travel 20 miles so the young man would have been in and out like a yo-yo, also then there is a 10 minute or so gap between the last ('10 miles out') snapping by Cheney and the actual hole appearing in the Pentagon. To his credit DRG does suggest (elsewhere i think) that it was probably made by a missile fired from sea, thus incurring him the mega-wrath of some 'truthers' for being a No-planer.

I am hoping his next book will be an examination of the New Horizons work of Wood/Reynolds/video-fakery hypothesists, some of whom IMO falsely accuse DRG of being some kind of agent of the NWO (cos he is a world federalist, and opposes world disorder, the current mess), and Nico Haupt calls him a 'cultist' cos of his philosophical links into Process thought, China, etc. Which is a typically wild judgment from Nico who often seems totally unstable and a manace - however the other half of the time he is digging really juicy information out from a wide range of economic and financial and other newspapers, sources, websites, etc.

As regards developing compassion as a way to see more accurately and avoid being blind-sided by our anger and hatred and led astray by those who want to manipulate us through our juicy hatreds - I recommend the Buddhist practice of metta or maitri - in which we first summon up as much compassion as we can for ourselves, imagine ourselves as wee babies going forth into life, oh the godwill we lavish on ourselves, how badly we want ourselves to grow, to be safe, to be happy, to find love, to release our creativity, etc, - do that for five minutes, then the same loving kindness lavished on some person we feel a lot of affection for, then the same for some person about whom we feel neutral (the person in our local corner shop, for example), then the fourth period is to lavish tender thoughts of loving kindness ('amour tendresse' in french) on 'someone with whom we have encountered difficulties' aka right b****** we feel furious with - except that a) we are encouraged NOT to indulge the old patterns of conflating descripotion and negative feeling, and b) we are also encouraged to begin doing this exercise with those with whom we have merely had a minor run-in or irritation, then later in the proccess - it requires regular practice - we can open out hearts to shills, trolls, disinformationists, closet agents, Stalinist thought police or whatever other children of the universe keep magnetising our own ego-building penchants for animosity, rancour, such a juicy business, and as for Bush, wowee ..... trouble is that if we indulge such hatreds, they back up and up until anyone who doesn't utterly split with and hate x for not utterly hating and splitting with Y for not (etc, etc) for not splitting with BUSH, should also get flamed. (Thus through use of the correct hate words - 'bourgeois, go get em boy!' the Kronstadt anarchists were manipulated by the Bolsheviks to hate and close down the Parliamentarians of the large freely elected Duma - with dire consequences when Trotsky sorted Kronstadt out in Feb 1921 - for being 'in league with the Whites' - go get em boy!)

[The fifth stage is to bring all thse other stages together into a bundle and try to feel loving kindness for all impartially , spreading out from our four people to our neighbourhood to our world in general ...goodwill to all]

Of course we often find ourselves lapsing back into juicy hatreds and feuding, but if we keep at it, something begins to soften, which helps us to become more effective change agents as well as analysts. It can protect us from our ego-driven propensity to make conclusive and global judgments, from failing to take into acount not just that they (e.g. Bush) had a really tough childhood from Pat and frat alike, we could have turned out like he did if born in his place, etc - but also it protects us from assuming that our opponents can never change, or at least move to a neutral position vis a vis our project, instead of confirming them as our most bitter opponents if we keep the hatred well fuelled up in our propaganda and outreach.

And a more compassionate perspective, - remember I am NOT thinking of naivety nor opportunism - should help us to spot potentials for alliances with X on such and such an issue, and Y on such and such another issue, albeit we may differe from them both on several other issues ... so better able to create coalitions, the essence of successful politics, so I am told, never seem to have gotten the hang of it myself .

Also doing less hatred and anger makes for more fun, the whole world beomes more workable from our side, even though some people will still want to lock us up, do horrible things to our bodies, etc - hopefully a diminshing number and with mnore folk ready to stick up for us, cos they have read us as coming morfe from compassion than from individual fears/anges/hatreds shaped and accentuated by traditional dualistic frat-dynamics.

Of course it is easy for us in the UK who mostly haven't really been through the fire yet to preach compassion to others, but it is worth recalling the story of one elderly monk the Dalai Lama (he of CIA connections, yes I know, folks) spoke to who was asked how he had mentally survived so many years of brutality and torture in Chinese-State jails, said how he would have experienced the pain much worse and shrunken into himself and been destroyable if he hadn't kept up the practice of Maitri towards his jailers thorugh all those years.

From the same tradition comes the thought that we should be so grateful for every bit of grist which comes to our mill, including the person who swears at us when we give them a leaflet, or who dominates our stall with loud hostile argumentativeness for half an hour (possible CIA?), or the truth forum poster we are having a tussle with at the moment ..... because they can help us grow and see more deeply and progressively give up our futile quarrel with how things really are in the vain name of how things SHOULD be or how we really really waaaaant them to be!

In my case I have found it particularly challenging to discover my own close relatives can't cope with what I have shared with them about 911 speed of building 'collapse', etc - which has taught me a lot about Denial and about gthe Cultural OverClass equations which say that it is the height of theoretical sophistication to sneer at Consoiracy theories, which are 'the poor man's cognitive coin'. But the lessons don't stop there, with help at times from a loving partner with long experience of being a counsellor, and from a Buddhist shrink I realize I also put them (others) off not so much my my own pressured need to share, but also by how i say it, my whole missionary zeal background and urge from childhood to pull together a coalition of my older sister and younger brother to confront our parents to stop yo-yoing us back and forwards and leaving us in cold institutional place. So that is a very deep panic place which when i communicate from that place easily sends out lots of nonverbal signals which swamps the official message and spreads panic not sober awareness and readiness to give up, mourn , that safe world where our Parents/the Govt are in charge and all is safe and well with the world.

Each of us has our own very personal relationship to 911 we need to explore and we can in a way thank 911 not just for pushing us to keep growing concerning creatively surmounting the frustrations of being called a 'conspiracy theorist' for the thousandth time ... and becoming familiar, owning, our own tendencies to take refuge in compensatory aggression or superiority or cult like conformity thinking , or individual pioneer hero self-image, etc,

but also I have found that I have encountered Sufi Islam in a way that I have found personally enriching, socially and spiritually, a real chance to try to de-Imperialise our normal Brit mental sets.

Anyway, my gardening clients are shouting for me, must go, love keith

[alwun]

hey there Gareth

better note me down in your little black book, or wherever. I am in full agreement with...wait for it...Andrew Johnson and Judy Wood...and I fully concur that there could not have been any planes present that day. No hi-jack = no defence scramble. Simple enough really. So I am double trouble. NPT and DEW, that's me.

cheers Al..

[Snowygrouch]

How on earth do we claim to know that 9/11 was an inside job at all?

Because someone clinically went over the EVIDENCE in a methodical and logical manner and saw where it lead....

The fact that many members of the campaign are now keen on abandoning clinical analysis in favour of emotion based descision making is very sad and will ultimately negate the possibility of conducting any sort of campaign.

Noel, you have been provided (by myself and others; Jasper to mention one name) with ample material that clearly shows that (unfortunatley and it brings me no joy at all to say it) DEW etc NPT are the most appaulingly awful rubbish and are in fact almost certainly (in origin at least) carefully crafted disinformation.

By taking this stance you are ensuiring that ALL qualified and experienced engineering and science members of the UK campaign will leave in disgust. Thats pretty interesting for a campaign strategy isn't it?

Don't start complaining when people like the IMECHE and Physics Institute don't return our letters.

You`ve made your bed, now sleep in it.

[Justin]

[kbo234]

[BBC5.tv]

I'm staying and asking hard questions, oh and I'm an aeronautical engineer. You see, it's those nagging questions where i think the real science lies. Not that in public will I discuss such controversial matters, but in a forum like this, hell * it, I don't give a damn. I know it's a public forum by the way people, but it's not like the whole nation reads it, yet.

But really, people need to stop micro-managing each other. Our strength lies in our own unique interpretations of the truth, as there are 6 billion of them, no one person can say theirs takes precendant over anyone elses, period. But at least we're asking questions, and if someone is doing it for the wrong reasons then so be it, it's part of the game.

The solution lies in the fact that we can agree on most points, it just seems that we disagree on the finer points. So lets just not worry about them when we take a public platform. But then again, who am I to infringe upon anyones elses truth.

No more negative remarks please though people, otherwise you're going down in my little black book, and this one actually counts.

scott.

[Keith Mothersson]

I am not sure I want the 'support' of the Physics Institute and IMeche etc IF they want to normalise the un-normalisable - a 'trahison des clercs' process I liken to creeping Lysenkoism. Will they or will they not admit that both the official account and the Steven Jones version require us to believe that the laws of physics governing 'falling objects' can be suspended and no one bats an eyelid.

The 9/11 Commission report (p 305) says the South Tower 'collapsed' in ten seconds. The Columbia University Seismology study says the main spike lasted eight seconds. And a NIST Fact Sheet (August, FAQ6) gives a roundabout definiton of collapse time as 'approximately 11 secs for WTC1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC2'.

All fine and dandy. We are all agreed that Speed of fall ignoring air resistance = the square root of [twice the height travelled over g (which is 32 ft)]. Nor is there any argument concerning the actual height of these buildings (1368 and 1362 feet for WTC1 and 2).

Question: If a gigantic crane held the steel and concrete top floor (floor 110) of the South Tower at an equivalent height, what speed would it fall at if it were to fall

a) through a vacuum? (no air resistance)
Wood says 9.22 secs applying 32.2 ft per sec per sec acceleration;
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html

[for my Question above some small adjustments to cover the height of top floor = 12.2 ft? should be deducted from the distance the top floor as a whole has to fall, theerfore marginally faster answer]

Even Jim Hoffman (who opposes DEW and broadly favours Thermite) concurs that the South Tower demolition wave in fact travelled down 384 feet to floor 78 in five seconds, = same speed Judy Wood calculates as the theoretical speed a billiard ball would fall from the South Tower roof assuming no air resistance. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html

Hoffman had already discounted the first 2.5 seconds where the South Tower tipped before starting to fall, something which Steven Jones has admitted he can't explain - but subsequently won't wrestle with.

b) through air at sea level? - Hoffman suggests 14/15 secs but provides no workings for size of air resistance (of course powder has a huge surface area to volume ratio, compared with big blocks falling down - so rubble would fall faster and theoretically be able to break stays and trusses and bolts etc all the way down evenly !!! - but if all the energy of the purported fire or purported controlled demolition has gone into creating a powdery gas then this gas has very little downwards breakiing power: you can't spend the input energy twice! - in fact observably the gaseous powder cloud went upwards and only came down much later over Manhattan and the sea ...) ;

c) through 109 other steel and concrete floors? - Judy Wood gives 96.7 seconds as the fastest answer that is theoretically conceivable because aqt least it wouldn't breach the laws of physics governing the speed of falling objects - assuming very improbably that every floor breaks evenly all around and the building doesn't topple over half of Manhattan.

As for WTC7 it also collapsed at a speed faster than air resistance, though in this case there was at least a respectable pile of rubble at the bottom. From http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/WTC7_collapse_examination.pdf
we find:

Height of WTC7 : 174 mtr

Observed collapse time: 6.5 secs

Fall of an apple from the top of the tower: 7.0 secs

dittto in a vaccum: 6.0 secs

So we have a kind of Koan (Zen puzzle to be wrestled with existentially) for society as a whole, but one which school pupils, school teachers and physics students and lecturers and Professionals have a special interest in resolving - and professional bodies/universities should take special responsibility for insisting that Chomsky style Academic Lysenkoism (wierd stuff happens in the best labs all the time) doesn't take hold, else when we lose our Enlightenment bearings in evidence and reason then can medieval style paranoia be far behind ? - Muslims so wicked they can suspend the laws of physics.

Here is the Koan:

The Laws of the Physics of Falling Objects are not in dispute, nor the Height of the Towers nor the speed of their destruction [sic - not fall please]:

How then is it possible for the South Tower to have been destroyed at the same speed at which - the 110th floor would have 'come down' if it had been falling with virtually no air resistance (and not through 109 other steel and concrete floors) ?!?

Now that is the core of the riddle. How can we engage school students to press to do school projects with their physics teachers to try to solve it?

Ditto physics students at universities and colleges.

And how can we remind Professional Physicists of their responsibility as a Guild (as it were) of those who are guardians of the Knowledge in this area of Life, not to allow lies and spin to flourish, whomever they come from - 'west' or 'East', the Powerful or dissidents, etc, but impartially to speak out to reaffirm the known truths of Physics and to counterpose them to our known/observed evdience of speed of destruction, though the Heavens fall in!

Else the entire Physics Profession and the Academy become complict accessories after the fact, whose expertise can be switched on and switched off in the public gaze as suits the demands of Power?

[Hint to SnowyGrouch: try relaxing the 'falling objects' assumption, otherwise it will do your head in]

[Snowygrouch]

[alwun]

that's more like it.

cheers Al..

[ian neal]

[xmasdale]

[xmasdale]

Friends

I had hoped that this newsletter would stimulate discussion about the way forward and make clear that we cannot go on as we are. For that reason I tried to make clear in my article, "Building a Credible Campaign", that there are at least fourteen different factions or tendencies among us all and that unless we recognise that and make structural changes to the movement which recognise that, we shall continue to waste time arguing with each other rather than persuading the public of the one thing we are all agreed on: WE HAVE BEEN LIED TO ABOUT 9/11.

Ian Neal, I have much respect for all you have done in this movement, as I think you know, but I don’t agree with what you say here:

"The campaign has always been a campaign for a new investigation and has always made this abundantly clear in its communications."

The trouble is that though there have been attempts to make that clear to the supporters of the campaign, not all of these so-called "supporters" have been in support of that objective. Many have taken the line that no new investigation has a cat’s chance in hell of being truly independent and therefore we should be conducting the needed investigation ourselves through our own researches and discussion with each other. I have heard that line from: Keith Mothersson, Tony Gosling, Andrew Johnson, Justin and others. These people were essentially part of the Campaign in its early informal days, before we formally set it up and declared that its strategy was to campaign for an independent inquiry.

Also, before that campaign was formally established, all sorts of people had essentially joined the local groups around the country without signing up to the policy of campaigning for an independent inquiry. It was not abundantly clear to many that they were supposed to support that policy or not be a part of the Campaign.

We then established a constitution which gave these various groups representation on the national committee, regardless of whether they all accepted the independent inquiry goal.

This has been like a bus going to an unspecified destination and picking up passengers en route who hope it is taking them where they want to go, then later the bus crew deciding where it is going and admittedly announcing that, but not many passengers were actually listening at the time. Then the passengers all started quarrelling with each other both about what the final destination of the bus should be and about which route the driver should take to get them there.

We can’t be effective if we go on like this.

That is why I believe we should establish a new Independent Inquiry Campaign in which all supporters from the outset understand what they are subscribing to: a campaign for an independent 9/11 inquiry which does not speculate about what really happened but points out the anomalies, omissions and distortions in the official conspiracy theory and asks potentially revealing questions. That is how I personally want to campaign.

Others have already decided they want to campaign in other ways:

- some want to campaign as a broad alliance on all kinds of truth and liberty issues
- some want to campaign within the religious communities
- some want to advance particular theories such as: controlled demolition, no planes, directed energy weapons, no Muslims, no hijackers, the reptilian bloodline, the Jews did it, the Jews didn’t do it, the Muslims did it etc etc.

Some want to force the whole of the existing campaign to fall in line with their own particular ideas through censorship. In my opinion such an attempt would be vigorously resisted by many supporters and would lead to an intensification of the current quarrels and possibly to a terminal decline.

So lets cool it guys, recognise we all believe we have been lied to but have different opinions about where to go. Therefore we should set up different groups or networks or organisations so that those who want to campaign in a similar manner can do so without treading on the toes of those who want to campaign in a different manner.

I hope we can make some progress to that end in Bristol next weekend.

Comradely good wishes to all

Noel

[Keith Mothersson]

That is why the new organisation should be that, a new organisation with a new name/website - 911 Inquiry Campaign (or 911 Investigation Campaign) , not 911 Truth Campaign, which will just get us all arguing with each other as soon as almost anything concrete is said about Sept 11!

Theoretically the old national organisation could usefully continue as a broad umbrella org for mutual assistance, experience sharing in truth campaigning, and should also have a new name 911 Truth Umbrella? - that is if people are prepared to come forward and take on the specific duties involved.

For want of the latter an informal 911 truth movement will continue as a loose ensemble, which gathers and regathers at various times and places, but is mostly convened by local initiatives announced through 911 truth forum, the West Yorkshire one and other regional and local websites.

love you all, keith

[Snowygrouch]

All,
I think that Ian`s point about the formation of a "political lobby group" and a "larger campaign" operating as separate entities is the most sensible way forward in all respects.

Since those at the top of the "larger campaign" are insistent on a "total coverage" methodology in terms of points of view its the only real option.

C.

[AntonH]

Since there isn't any open discussion about this in London, I take the opportunity to make myself heard here instead.

I'm leaving, since I no longer want to promote a website (911truthcampaign.net) that doesn't contain any real contact information, hasn't been updated for a year and promotes a holocaust revisionist.

Also, when I call for street campaigning, I get "passed on" to the We Are Change group, which I never had any intention of joining since
they seem to be more busy working as a general peace movement rather than campaigning for the 911 truth cause, which they don't even mention in their agenda.

There is more issues that makes me quit - I don't understand what
the secrecy is about (there is no open London discussions here on this forum or elsewhere), and why the campaign (in London, I should add!) is so very efficiently hindering itself from becoming a broad, visible organization.

Anton,
London

[ian neal]

[ian neal]

[gareth]