Exchange between Fetzer and Floum of Scholars for 9/11 Truth

[Veronica]

Nice post Andrew.

(Especially leaving in the bit about Jones' finagling in the late 80s re: Cold Fusion/LENR).

Jones -almost- f*cked humanity once ... fortunately Pons & Fleischmann had enough friends to overcome that one (bless the late Dr. Eugene Mallove and Prof. John Bockris, et al!) ... now Prof. Baby Face Jones almost succeeded in f*cking the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Steven Earl Jones ... Alexander Floum ... Frederick Burks ... YOU ARE SUSSED!!!!

9/11 Truth ... thank your lucky stars that Jim Fetzer 'saw the light' at the very last minute.

[Snowygrouch]

Yawn....................zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Yes thank god we're all saved now that BEAM MAN has taken charge!

BEAM MAN, just when you thought there was a danger of logic occuring BEAM MAN arrives to save the day!

I certainly feel better knowing that some pillock who thinks that a jumped up magnifying glass destroyed the WTC has saved me from disinfo.

*groan*

[Andrew Johnson]

Calum,

I have to admit to being surprised at your post.

I meant I every word that I wrote to Floum.

Your post is not particularly helpful and is akin to one posted on 9/11 blogger, which I beleive was reposted here.

[Andrew Johnson]

Veronica,

The evidence you quote is extremely important, but can we avoid the expletives at all?

Deep down, some of us feel the same way, but expressing it in public forum is probably not helping us argue our case. Yes, it sure is difficult to keep these sort of feelings down. But at least we have a keyboard and a delete button between us and the outside world.

Sorry if this is condescending or whatever.

[Thermate]

Long live the Half Baked Bean Weapon Theory!!!!!1111!!!!!¬!!!!!¬!1 and all other disinfo attempts.

[Snowygrouch]

I was also very suprised Andrew that I was forced to make such a post!

I have no bloody idea whats really gone on with Scholars but I DO KNOW that I`m putting my chips down where sanity appears; currently you all know my view on whom that applies to.

I have neither heard nor seen anything that puts me off a solid conviction that conventional high explosives too out all three WTCs.

That is my position and until such SOLID evidence arrises to the contrary I`m sticking to it. I already posted here a series of email exchanges I had with Feltzer and the standard of his replies left me in no doubt as to who is thinking clearly on this issue (hint: it wasnt Jim).

I dont really know the ins-and-outs of the current Scholars debacle and as it seems to have reached the level of nothing more than "handbags at dawn" I`m really not very fussed about it until the whole lot of the (including Jones) stop buggering about and get on with something USEFUL.

C.

[Andrew Johnson]

[andyb]

They are acting like spoilt kids. We all know the are 'Black projects' this doesn't mean that a beam weapon(even if they exist) destroyed the towers. Why the hell don't these scholars work on campaigning more engineers and physicists to get on board rather by proving the absurdity of the NIST report? Bandying around unprovable theories is certainly not going to help them achieve this.

Also Andrew, it's a bit rich you accusing Snowy of lashing out when Veronica does it with more venom, not to mention Siegel and Fetzer!!

[brian]

Professor Jones comes along and gives the 9/11 truth movement scientific credibility.

He demonstrates to the world through the detailed application of science the lie of September 11. What more can be asked?

Reynolds Woods etc cannot fault his work.

They attack the man.

WHY?

Can it be simply because he does not think indulging in speculation about high tech weaponry would be helpful to the movements objectives?

Jones' position of sticking to falsifiable hypotheses is a foundation stone of the movement and why anyone would wish to undermine him is beyond me. Apart, that is, from the obvious, undermine Jones and the movements foundations are weakened.

Whatever the merits of the high tech weaponry scenario its promotion and elevation above the detailed work of Jones is an abomination.

[kc]

In my humble opinion, the fundemental undermining of the movement is now coming from the fact that critics no longer have to spend months researching explosives and CD to debunk the CD theory, as the beam people seem to be doing all the math for them!

[Stefan]

Andrew,
I am sorry to say that I have not only seen any conclusive evidence which points towards the death star, and much which points away from it.

If there IS a genuine argument here, no one had made it.

The main three points- as far as I can see, of this theory have simple answers:

1) Cars exploded far away from the building
Did they? This seems to be based on very little testimony, none of the TV cameras which were a lot closer exploded- none of the people, including Willie Rodriguez who was very near the building, were microwaved. This seems like a lot of credence to be placed on a phenomona one or two people who were busy running away from a burning hot dust cloud think they saw, and was never captured on film

2) The bath tub was not damaged.
Actually it was- just not critically. But contrary to Judy Woods haphazard paper on the issue- the CD theory does not state the weight of the whole building fell into the bath tub- the building was destroyed in waves of demolition three to five stories at a time- most of the concrete was pulverised by the excessive amount of explosives needed to acheive this effect, much of the steel was blown clear of the buildings. Most of the debris landed in the bath tub- and it was damaged, but since the building was not falling, but being destroyed section by section all the way down it was damaged but not destroyed

3) Pulverisation of concrete could not happen with explosives
And no one has really explained why? Would you care to?

In adition to this there are many things which support CD alone-

1) Why pre collapse explosions for a beam weapon?

2) Why squibs as part of the effects of this beam weapon?

3) The footage from the North Tower where a large part of the core remains- then slides the width of it's body and drops. The only explanation for this is that it was cut. This fits perfectly into controlled demonltion- and not at all into a death star theory.

4) There is no conceivable method of this beam doing it's work. It can't have come from below because the first point of destruction was the impact zone. Same reason for above. From the side- OK- at first- and then it has to continue to create horizontal, not angled damage. I have found no way of visualising this happening. If you have an answer- let me know.

The reasons Wood seems to have for believing this are flimsy, the groundswell of evidence against it is compelling.

I do not understand how anyone can believe this.

If Jones was dismissive of this, it was probably because like me and everyone else- he felt bringing such ideas into the movement discredit it at large and work much more in the favour of the OCT in discrediting us than in our favour.

NO ONE will be convinced into realising 9/11 was an inside job with material like this Andrew- can you tell me one person so far you have converted from believing the official story by talking about storm trooper theories? Besides if you actually look at Wood's paper there really is no argument there, just a lot of suggestive questions which even a layman like me can see easy answers to.

We need to focus on the actual task at hand here- debunking the lies- making sure as many people as possible have a question mark in their mind for the next FF operation rather than wildly handing even more freedoms and freedom to war to our "leaders".

I support Jones and Ryan- their journal is a website I am happy to link non-believers to, whereas the scholars sites is fast becoming a joke and a drain on us all.

[Andrew Johnson]

[blackcat]

[Andrew Johnson]

[Stefan]

[Andrew Johnson]

Hi,

My apologiies. I have posted some of the messages prematurely, as there were some revisions to be made to the original message.

I include Jim's and Alex's messages and my response the other responses posted on our forum here.

=================
From Jim Fetzer:

All,

The attempt to take over Scholars by a renegade group with no authority whose
members no longer even belong to the society continues unabated. Alex Floum,
who is an attorney and who obtained the domain names for the web site at my
direction on behalf of the society and the domain names for the journal at
Steve Jones' direction on behalf of the society has now passed them off to a
fellow named Fred Burks, who has had minimal contact with the society and is
utterly unfamiliar with its policies and history. He has taken it upon him-
self to be custodian of the domain names. Since Alex did not have the right
to keep them as his personal possessions in the first place, passing them to
Fred Burks is akin to trading in stolen property. These domain names belong
to the society of which I am the founder and whose claim to their possession
on behalf of Scholars is unmatched by those, including Steve Jones and Carl
Weis, who have resigned, and those, such as Alex Floum and Fred Burks, who
have been removed from membership for their efforts to undermine the goals
of the society. Please know, however, that they have demonstrated complete
lack of scruples in this matter and will, no doubt, attempt other offensive
acts to subvert our efforts to expose falsehoods and reveal the truth about
the events of 9/11. Ask youself why they would be acting this way if they
were dedicated to that same objective, which they are blatantly subverting.

This is completely outrageous, immoral and corrupt conduct on behalf of (what
can only be described as) a rogue clique intent upon stealing what does not
belong to them. They improperly abused the membership list, created a fake
"membership administrator" and phoney address, to disseminate an anonymous
proposal to support a non-existent society and wrest control of Scholars from
me. I have no doubt they are going to pull similiar stunts. As the founder
and remaining officer of Scholars, who has solely managed the web site from
its inception, I have moral, legal, and intellectual claims to those domain
names as a trustee acting on behalf of the society. Who else could possibly
assert a comparable claim? Surely, none of them. They have gone out of their
way to distort and misrepresent my views and conduct actions behind the names
of others, which reflects their shame at their own grevious misconduct. I am
not going to allow this travesty to stand. I made several offers to settle
these matters informally between us, in which I proposed giving the journal
and the fourm to Steve and his cronies in return for their giving me the web
site. Steve even stated in an earlier commentary that I was entitled to it,
on which he has now reneged. It included other conditions that should have
been enough to resolve these matters. My final offer expired at 5 PM/PT to-
day. I cannot allow them to loot Scholars for the sake of their own personal
agenda. They are trying to skirt morality and legality and take what is not
theirs. They do not fathom the degree of corruption to which they have sunk.

Scholars was created as a loose affiliation with minimal rules, which I have
run with the advice of a steering committee. While the society has members,
it is not run by its members. Alex, Carl, and Steve were all members of the
original steering committee. We have spawned a web site, which I manage, a
journal, which Steve now edits with Kevin Ryan, and a forum, which, since his
retirement from BYU, I had allowed Steve to moderate. It was his abuse of the
role of moderator that led me to remove him as co-chair, but resigning was his
idea. I even encouraged him to take an extra 48 hours to think it over. Now
that he and Carl have resigned and Alex and Fred are no longer members, it is
at least faintly absurd that they should try to take over the society. Their
pretenses at having votes when the society was not set up that way reflects a
desire to transform the society in order to facilitate their hostile take over.
I have reconstituted the steering committee with Kevin Barrett, Richard Curtis,
Rick Siegel, and Judy Wood as its new members. I have asked them to advise me
in transforming the society from an informal organization to a more formal one,
which will conduct the society's business in a more formal fashion, run not by
me but by a board of directors, who will determine who manages the web site,
who edites the journal, and who moderates the forum. We are putting all the
pieces together for a new and stronger society. Things are going to improve
as the legal issues settle down, but you are entitled to know what's going on.

Jim

James H. Fetzer
Founder
Scholars for 9/11 Truth

===============
From: Alex Floum [mailto:alexfloum@gmail.com]
Sent: 28 December 2006 19:33
To: AlexFloum@gmail.com
Subject: Who Owns Scholars for 9/11 Truth?


Dear Scholar:

Putting aside the personalities involved and Jim's untrue claims and statements about me (which I will disprove if Jim reports me to the State Bar or sues me, both of which he has threatened to do), the dispute really comes down to whether Jim is the sole owner of the Scholars' group or the members own it.

For example, who owns the domain names may depend on which of the following two forms the group is:

(1) Jim Fetzer, an individual, doing business as Scholars for 9/11 Truth (i.e. as a sole proprietorship)

or

(2) The members as participants in Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

In other words, because the group was never legally FORMED into a partnership, non-profit corporation, or other official entity originally, the above 2 choices are probably how a judge would look at it.

Jim claims the group is his, that is, that the group is really Jim Fetzer, an individual, doing business as Scholars for 9/11 Truth. True, Jim is talking about incorporating the group into a non-profit, but a non-profit is only as good as its president and board of directors, and Jim has not listened to the members' desires about forming a non-profit (most were apparently against it) or who is on the board or the steering committee. Jim has apparently appointed himself president and has appointed a new "steering committee" to run the group which includes Rick Siegel, who has defamed Steve Jones (and I) all over the internet – see, e.g., http://www.ricksiegel.com/images/wanted.jpg for an example of Rick's work.

Jim has tried to fire me, a "founding member" (according to a written statement from Jim) and a member of the steering committee for arguing that the group is a membership organization. Jim has also said that only he has the right to write to the members, even though, acting upon Jim's instructions, it was Jim's membership director who accidentally made those emails public in a prior communication. Jim has basically taken the position that, since he IS the group, only he can speak with the group.

Moreover, because Jim believes that he owns the group, he has insisted from me and more recently from Fred Burks that we cannot hold the domain names in trust for the members of the group but have to give them to him. (The domain names are now owned by Fred AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE GROUP; neither Fred or I ever wanted the domain names for ourselves; rather, because we believe it is a membership organization, we wanted to make sure that the members' rights and wishes are complied with). Jim continues to threaten to file a State Bar complaint and potentially litigation against me even though I no longer own the domain names. Jim says he's the only authorized person to hold the domain names but, beneath the surface words, Jim is really saying that he should hold the domain names because he is the sole owner of the group.

I have always sincerely believed from day one that the group was a member-owned group. I would never have invited Bob Bowman, Andreas Von Bulow, Dan Hamburg, Webster Tarpley, Peter Phillips and the other prominent members I brought into the group to join had I, or they, thought this was Jim's group. They are high-level people who were much better known then Jim in the 9/11 truth movement and who many people greatly respect.

Because Jim thinks that he is sole owner and "Decider" in Scholars for 9/11 Truth (he has previously rejected in writing both democratic and republican models of decision-making), Jim has claimed that any vote which he does not organize is unlawful. However, if you would like to tell me whether you think that the Scholars' group is "Jim Fetzer, an individual, doing business as Scholars for 9/11 Truth" or a group in which the members have the final say, you can reply to this email. If you think it is the former, you can type "Fetzer" in the subject line. If you think it is a member-owned group, you can type "Members" in the subject line.

I am a team player and I will, and have from day one been willing to, follow the wishes of the members. While I no longer own the domain names, I will do everything in my power to make sure that the group's wishes are respected. If the majority of members write and say they think that Jim owns the group, then I will respect that, even though it is contrary to what I believed and what I thought the evidence indicated from day one (and even though a representative of the ethics division of the California State Bar has told me that I have no duty to transfer the domain names to Jim).

Alex Floum.

P.S. I am not writing on behalf of anyone else, just myself.

P.P.S. Contrary to Jim's claims, I am not, and have never been, the group's lawyer or anyone's lawyer associated with Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Law is, indeed, my day job, but my activities on behalf of Scholars for 9/11 Truth have always been solely as an 9/11 activist. Everyone who has talked with me knows that.


=================
Alex,

Personal disputes aside, I would feel happier if Jim, Judy and Rick et al lead forward with ST911 while Steve et al maintain "Journal of 911 Studies".

From a science perspective, I can no longer accept Steve Jones' critique of Fetzer and Wood and his generally evasive attitude (whilst generally remaining civil and polite) and have been somewhat surprised by his apparent inability to answer basic questions and respond to certain basic points of evidence. There is also some apparent previous record of this type of activity from Prof Jones in relation to his research pertaining to the LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions).

Looking at this in context, it appears that someone somewhere is, with intent or through ignorance, adopting a "limited hangout" about certain aspects of what happened on 9/11. I feel this is either through a deliberate or unintentional failure to acknowledge the very real threat to humanity posed by out-of-control black-projects (sometimes called USAPs), which a number of highly credentialed whistle-blowers have already spoken out about. There is therefore a very strong incentive for the real power brokers in the game to limit the credibility or ability given to anyone to demonstrate links between 9/11 and Black Projects.

My view is that this is what is behind the split in the movement and those that have been closest to uncovering the evidence for the above are the ones that who have been treated with the least respect. Because I have no reputation or position to protect, I am free to speak in this manner, and also I now have what I think is a good collection of evidence to back up the essential arguments behind this analysis.

So this is the bottom line really - the future of humanity is at stake. I hope I have made the correct choice and I hope I live to find out if I have, for myself and my children.

With good wishes for the future of us all,
Andrew Johnson


_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!

[brian]

[Andrew Johnson]

[Stefan]

[Andrew Johnson]

[Andrew Johnson]

[quote="Stefan"]

[Andrew Johnson]

[Stefan]

[Andrew Johnson]

[Andrew Johnson]

This is the final of the draft I posted then deleted earlier:
================

All,

The situation with Scholars has taken an ominous turn, where we have been
frozen out of the Scholars web site and posting and updating has been made
impossible, which can only have been done by Fred Burks, who has possession
of the domain names, or Alex Floum, who may still control the password. It
looks like a nice example of the lack of scruples to which I drew attention
in my most recent message to the membership. I find this quite distressing.

Alex Floum continues to abuse his position as a former member of Scholars by
distributing contrived and misleading characterizations of the issues. To
hear him tell it, it is a conflict between the forces of democracy (led by
Alex Floum) and those of dictatorship (me). My frank assessment is that his
crass and underhanded tactics threaten the continuing existence of Scholars.
Here is a summary of the situation, followed by a list of forthcoming events.

1) As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth who has acted on behalf of the
society to expose falsehoods and reveal truths about 9/11, I alone remain
as a member of the society, which former members are attempting to control.

2) The extant Scholars for 9/11 Truth is the rightful owner of the web site,
the journal, and the forum as well as their contents, where, in some cases,
such as copyrighted articles, that ownership may be shared with the authors.

3) Alex Floum, who obtained the domain names for the web site and the journal
on behalf of the society, had no right to transfer what he never owned to Fred
Burks, a friend of some ten years who served as a translator for Presidents,
who has neither legal, moral, nor intellectual rights to any of these sites.

4) The anonymous email requesting a vote on the future of the society's sites
and membership was unauthorized, illegal, null, and void. The manner in which
it was conducted (by creating fake addresses and phony administrators) offers
clear evidence that this was an ignoble action taken under cover where those
effecting these misdeeds were not even willing to identify themselves by name.

5) Theft of property is not an appropriate remedy for internal disputes over
control and content of the society's website and other properties; and thieves
have no grounds to complain about my seeking appropriate legal remedies as the
founder of the society on behalf of the society as its sole remaining officer.

6) Former members of the society have no right to determine its future. It is
as if a gang of bank employees robbed a bank as they quit or were fired from
their jobs, then complained that that the bank manager was not playing fair,
because he called the police as they tried to make their escape out the door.

7) Steve Jones has objected to open discussion of possible explanations of the
destruction of the Twin Towers other than his preferred thermite/thermate idea,
yet the adequacy of his approch can only be assessed in comparison with the
explanatory power of the available alternatives, such as mini-nukes, directed
energy or HAARP weaonry, which is the only way in which science can progress.

Having now siezed control of our web site, they have made it impossible to
bring current information to the members of the society. This includes the
process of updating our membership, which has taken longer to complete than
normal in the wake of recent events. That process has now been frozen.

I am taking whatever steps I can to insure that control of the web site is
returned to the society and whatever other measures must be pursued in order
to deal with this rogue group. In the meanwhile, you are entitled to know
forthcoming events of interest as well as what's going on behind the scenes.

Since I cannot have them posted on the web site, which they control, I append
the list of forthcoming events. The most interesting for many members may
be that I have invited Steve Jones to appear on my program on 2 January 2007
to discuss and debate his thermite/thermate hypothesis with Judy and Morgan:

2 January 2007
Interview: Steve Jones, Judy Wood, and Morgan Reynolds have been
invited to discuss 9/11 with Jim Fetzer on "The Dynamic Duo"
3-5 PM/CT, Genesis Communications Network, gcnlive.com

This appears to be especially imporant insofar as Steve has admitted in
a recent email, "One cannot rule out the use of thermite or superthermite
cutters for the WTC just because it has not been used before for demolition"
and that a patent for this process requires placing devices "on either side
of the steel". I have included the original email, along with a few replies
to Alex Floum, below, preceding the announcement of our forthcoming events.

Please know that I made repeated past proposals to this rogue faction to
resolve these matters informally, including giving them the journal and
the forum, where they need only create their own web site to bring into
existence a society of their own. I offered them the opportunity to show
that posting by committee--one of their primary desiderata--works better
than having a single site manager. They never responded to my invitation.

Moreover, I have offered Steve Jones many platforms to present and defend
his research on thermite/thermate, including earlier appearances on radio
talk shows, encouraging him to speak at The National Press Club, inviting
him to chair a panel at the forthcoming Scholars' conference in Madison,
and appointing him a member of my team for The National 9/11 Debate. He
has now declined all of these invitations. The proper way to prevail in
scientific research with logic and evidence, not political power plays.

Everyone needs to appreciate that Scholars is a relatively young society
and that growing pains are normal and to be expected. That I have been
the manager of the web site should not be news to anyone, any more than
that Steve has managed the journal. With our new steering committee of
Kevin Barrett, Richard Curtis, Rick Siegel, and Judy Wood, I am in the
process of effecting a transition from an informal structure to a more
formal structure, where the society has by-laws and a board of directors.

I have created an entity, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Inc., as a framework
for formalizing this new society. But the by-laws, the board members,
and all the rest are the very issues we are attempting to work out, and
we intend to submit them to the members of Scholars for their comment and
review. The board of directors, for example, will supervise the editors
of our journal, the moderators of our forum, and the managers of our web
site. They can approve or remove any as they choose, including me, if I
were to be retained in the position of managing the society's web site.

I have no problem with the creation of another society. If you disagree
with the policies and practices of a society, the honorable thing to do
is to resign and, if you are so inclined, create a new one of your own.
What is going on here, however, is completely different and not at all
honorable. It is reminiscent of children playing football, where one of
them takes the football and claims it for his own, then passes it off to
another when players are closing in, where the new possessor sticks it
with a knife so the game becomes impossible. That's what is going on.

I would close by observing that, on 13 December 2006, the attorney for the
society I have retained, Jerry S. Leaphart, sent Alex Floum a proposal for
binding arbitration: "I am authorized to indicate that Dr. Fetzer would be
willing to enter into a mediation agreement concerning the domain names. I
suggest mediation under WIPO as per the rules set forth . . ." Alex Floum
did not respond to this proposal, but I reiterate it here. I am willing to
abide by the decision of binding arbitration through the professional WIPO
society to resolve the issues between us and let us get on with our work.

If any of you would like to express your opinions about their conduct,
the members of this rogue group include Alex Floum <attorney@email.com>;
Carl Weis <CMXarts@aol.com>, Steve Jones <hardevidence@gmail.com>; and
Fred Burks <fredburks@earthlink.net>. These are the persons who are in
in charge now because they control all access to the journal, the forum,
and the web site. If you approve of what they are doing, tell them; if
not, let them know. The fate of Scholars for 9/11 Truth is at stake.

James H. Fetzer
Founder
Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Some emails of possible interest:
___________________________________

Sent 12/28/06

Kevin,

If you don't realize directed energy weapons exist, have been tested,
and are in use and you don't want to read our paper (which shows
examples of them in use), perhaps you'd like to visit the US
military's web site on Directed Energy Weapons:

<http://www.de.afrl.af.mil/>http://www.de.afrl.af.mil/
<http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat11.pdf>http://www.au.af.m il/au/awc/
awcgate/cst/csat11.pdf directed
energy quotes (dated February 2000)

The above information is all in the public domain. So, perhaps you
can imagine what is not in the public domain.

Don't you find it a bit concerning that Steven Jones, whose area of
expertise this is in, claims to know nothing about the development of
directed energy weapons over the past 30 years? Even if he were that
ignorant about his field of expertise, isn't it a bit concerning that
he uses divisive and derogatory statements to describe our research,
such as "space beams knocking down the towers"? It's very difficult
not to conclude that his motive for taking over the ST911 website is
to keep the truth about 9/11 hidden. After all, he has admitted that
he knows of no way thermite could have brought the towers down.

I thought you might be interested in the response to Alex Floum's
email given by Andrew Johnson, a physicist and full member (FM) of
Scholars. What does it mean when yet another physicist objects to
Steven Jones' actions?

Judy
___________________________________

Sent 12/28/06 to Alex Floum

Alex,

Personal disputes aside, I would feel happier if Jim, Judy and Rick
et al lead forward with ST911 while Steve et al maintain "Journal of
911 Studies".

From a science perspective, I can no longer accept Steve Jones'
critique of Fetzer and Wood and his generally evasive attitude
(whilst generally remaining civil and polite) and have been somewhat
surprised by his apparent inability to answer basic questions and
respond to certain basic points of evidence. There is also some
apparent previous record of this type of activity from Prof Jones in
relation to his research pertaining to the LENR (Low Energy Nuclear
Reactions).

Looking at this in context, it appears that someone somewhere is,
with intent or through ignorance, adopting a "limited hangout" about
certain aspects of what happened on 9/11. I feel this is either
through a deliberate or unintentional failure to acknowledge the very
real threat to humanity posed by out-of-control black-projects
(sometimes called USAPs), which a number of highly credentialed
whistle-blowers have already spoken out about. There is therefore a
very strong incentive for the real power brokers in the game to limit
the credibility or ability given to anyone to demonstrate links
between 9/11 and Black Projects.

My view is that this is what is behind the split in the movement and
those that have been closest to uncovering the evidence for the above
are the ones that who have been treated with the least respect.
Because I have no reputation or position to protect, I am free to
speak in this manner, and also I now have what I think is a good
collection of evidence to back up the essential arguments behind this
analysis.

So this is the bottom line really - the future of humanity is at
stake. I hope I have made the correct choice and I hope I live to
find out if I have, for myself and my children.

With good wishes for the future of us all,

Andrew Johnson
Andrew
_________________________

Sent 12/28/06 to Alex Floum

Interesting perspective Alex. Why is it that those who Jim is
associating himself are those who are providing the most new ideas on
9/11 based on observable data? It is my observation that those who
receive the most resistance to their findings are most likely on the
right track. Further, I keep waiting for new answers from Professor
Jones and have found very little. I went to Chicago in June to see
what was new in his research and I got one slide (out of more than
100) hinting that he was close to having signature evidence that
there was thermite residues in the WTC debris. This after six or
seven months of intense research? We spent a half an hour (or more?)
talking about solar cookers and icebergs. What I expected were
results that asked more questions than it answered. What I got was a
very narrowing of the focus, like baiting a rabbit with a carrot.

Now I learn that Steven Jones was involved in burying the cold fusion
research of Pons and Fleishmann in the interests of Big Oil and Ivy
League hot fusion interests (which have spent billions of dollars and
gotten zero benefit). Would you care to explain to me how Steve
could be involved in an oil war cover-up on one hand and "come to
Jesus" on this issue (another oil war)? It would appear to me that
he has some ethical issues to answer to and if he is as innocent as
he says, would debate these issues publicly with Fetzer, Wood,
Reynolds, and Seigel. It is my understanding that this forum has
been made available to Dr. Jones via Fetzer's show. I would welcome
the debate to "let the chips fall where they may."

Last, I have included a member of the media on the carbon list just
to insure that if I, my family, friends, or respected associates
noted above become targets of harassment, someone will know where to
look. Might as well be on the record about such things.

Russ Gerst
______________________________________________________________________ _________

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 16:20:59 -0800
Subject: Re: The "Bathtub" and Space Beams
From: jeff strahl
To: Steve Jones
CC: hummux hummux, Ken Jenkins, Alex Floum, Robert Moore,
Fred Burks, Kevin Ryan

Cut through steel "armaments", or "armour"? If you meant the first, which is
the word you used, that's pretty insignificant. Show us the REPORT. And how
many of these devices would you need, esp if operating in pairs? And how
would the thermite work in seconds, when it usually takes so long to get
going, and how would all these be coordinated?
How much sulfur does it take to enable molten iron to steel be liquid at 600
deg C almost 900 deg C below iron's melting point? And why didn't the
mixture melt the aluminum cladding it was flowing over?
Search the web under "thermite demolition", the debunking site comes up
within the first page (of Google search), click and go to almost the end.

Can't rule it out just because it hasn't been used before? Isn't that
exactly what you're doing with other technologies?

I know you're just trying to keep me busy jumping through hoops, but two can
play this game.

on 12/27/06 2:59 PM, Steve Jones at hardevidence@gmail.com wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> The patent points out that the devices can be placed on either side of
> the steel, thus cutting up to about 4 inches. This with thermite
> using copper oxide (per the patent), but not sulfur -- sulfur will
> enhance the cutting effect.
>
> One cannot rule out the use of thermite or superthermite cutters for
> the WTC just because it has not been used before for demolition.
>
> I went to the debunking 911 site and found it interesting, but did not
> find any mention of this "miracle device." Since you cited this site,
> would you then provide the URL for the PAGE on which this "miracle
> device" is discussed? Then I can take a look at it.
>
> I have also found photos and a report of a thermite-cutter device used
> to cut through steel armaments. Yes, actually used. The device looks
> quite like the prototype I built and sent you photos of -- it is
> larger, however. If you're interested, I'll send these photos also.
>
> Steve
>
> On 12/26/06, jeff strahl wrote:
>> And what happens when beams are thicker than 2 inches? Any PROOF
>>this device
>> has ever been ACTUALLY USED? Why is it that when one does a web search for
>> thermite and demolition together, the only things that come up are your
>> articles and references to them? These latter include (on the first page of
>> returns) a debunking of your thesis at debunking911 (including
>>this "miracle
>> device"), which shows what a great job you're doing setting up the 9/11
>> Truth Movement for a fall.
>>
>> on 12/26/06 10:46 AM, Steve Jones at hardevidence@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you for the URL pointing to the patent, Hummux. Yes, the
>>> fluorine action with thermite-cutting is specifically mentioned in
>>> this patent. I also had trouble downloading the figures (today) but
>>> give one figure from the patent (extracted earlier) in the attached
>>> document.
>>>
>>> I'm enclosing replies I put together today, specifically for Jeff Strahl.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> On 12/26/06, hummux hummux wrote:
>>>> searchers--i've attached excerpts and a figure from patent #6,183,569,
>>>> Called "Cutting torch and associated methods", 2/6/2001 which
>>>>steve puts in
>>>> his powerpoint slides. this device is designed to produce
>>>>horizontal cuts
>>>> using thermite. i've been unable to download the figures on my computer
>>>> and
>>>> would appreciate having them if any of you can download them. go to
>>>> http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm and put in
>>>> 6183569.
>>>>
______________________________________________________________________ _____

A new list of "Events" for Scholars for 9/11 Truth (st911.org):

29 December 2006
Interview: Eric D. Williams, author of six books and webmaster
for whatreallyisthematrix.com will be the guest of Kevin Barrett
on "The Dynamic Duo"
3-5 PM/CT, Genesis Communciations Network, gcnlive.com

30 December 2006
Interview: Theologian John Cobb will be the guest of Kevin
Barrett on "Truth Jihad Radio"
6-8 PM/CT, Republic Broadcasting Network, rbnlive.com

2 January 2007
Interview: Steve Jones, Judy Wood, and Morgan Reynolds have been
invited to discuss 9/11 with Jim Fetzer on "The Dynamic Duo"
3-5 PM/CT, Genesis Communications Network, gcnlive.com

3 January 2007
Interview: William Law will be the guest of Jim Fetzer discussing his
research on the death of JFK on "The Dynamic Duo"
3-5 PM/CT, Genesis Communications Network, gcnlive.com

4 January 2007
Interview: Jeff Strahl will be the guest of Jim Fetzer discussing
recent developments within Scholars on "The Dynamic Duo"
3-5 PM/CT, Genesis Communications Network, gcnlive.com

5 January 2007
Interview: To be announced will be the guest of Kevin Barrett on
"The Dynamic Duo"
3-5 PM/CT, Genesis Communications Network, gcnlive.com

6 January 2007
Interview: Michael Andregg, author, On the Causes of War, will be
the guest of Kevin Barrett on "Truth Jihad Radio"
6-8 PM/CT, Republic Broadcasting Network, rbnlive.com

8 January 2007
Interview: Dave Slesinger, Civil Disobedience activist, will be
the guest of Kevin Barrett on "The Dynamic Duo"
3-5 PM/CT, Genesis Communications Network, gcnlive.com

9 January 2007
Interview: Bob Bowman will be the guest of Jim Fetzer discussing
recent developments within Scholars on "The Dynamic Duo"
3-5 PM/CT, Genesis Communications Network, gcnlive.com

10 January 2007
Interview: Richard Freeman will be the guest of Jim Fetzer
discussing current economic issues on "The Dynamic Duo"
3-5 PM/CT, Genesis Communications Network, gcnlive.com

10 January 2007
Lecture: Jim Fetzer present a lecture on "9/11: What We Know Now",
as the guest of the McClendon Group at The National Press Club, where
his presentation will follow dinner and begin around 7 PM/ET

11 January 2007
Interview: Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds will be the guest of Jim
Fetzer discussing recent 9/11 research on "The Dynamic Duo"
3-5 PM/CT, Genesis Communications Network, gcnlive.com

12 January 2007
Interview: Mike Berger, 911truth.org, will be the guest of
Kevin Barrett discussing on "The Dynamic Duo"
3-5 PM/CT, Genesis Communications Network, gcnlive.com

13 January 2007
Interview: To be announced will be the guest of Kevin Barrett
on "Truth Jihad Radio"
6-8 PM/CT, Republic Broadcasting Network, rbnlive.com

15 January 2007
Interview: David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor
and much, much more, will be the guest of Kevin Barrett on
"The Dynamic Duo"
3-5 PM/CT, Genesis Communications Network, gcnlive.com

16 February 2007
Event: "Truth Days of Action" to be held in Washington, D.C.
For further information, http://www.911truth.org/calendar.php

19 February 2007
Event: "Truth Days of Action" to be held in Washington, D.C.
For further information, http://www.911truth.org/calendar.php

23-25 February 2007
Conference: "9/11 Accountability" to be held at the San
Marcos Resort, Chandler, AZ. For further information,
visit http://www.911accountability.org

----- End forwarded message -----

Quoting Rick Siegel <rick@ricksiegel.com>:

> I missed this too! And one more!
> >>From: "Attorney@email.com" <attorney@email.com>
> >>To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu, "Fred Burks" <fredburks@earthlink.net>,
> >>group I helped founded,
>
> FLOUM CLAIMS TO BE A FOUNDER! The ground has been laid in lawyer language -
> place take note.
>
> Damn Jim, you mean that as an advisor, which is what the guys on a steering
> committee are, I can take it all if you do not listen to me? WOW! That is
> hairy!
>
> Rick
>




--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.29/607 - Release Date: 28/12/2006 12:31

[Bowery Boy]

[quote="Snowygrouch"]Yawn....................zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzz

Yes thank god we're all saved now that [i]BEAM MAN [/i]has taken charge!

BEAM MAN, just when you thought there was a danger of logic occuring BEAM MAN arrives to save the day!

I certainly feel better knowing that some pillock who thinks that a jumped up magnifying glass destroyed the WTC has saved me from disinfo.

*groan*[/quote

Serious researchers who are tired of havng to scroll through this level of
comment should try www.911researchers.com