A Month of Film Screenings on:
9/11, Oil, War and Globalisation
Every Sunday in July at SIF (Sheffield Independent Film), films start at 6:30pm and 8pm
The attacks on New York and Washington on 11th September 2001 have been described as a "New Pearl Harbor" and they have been used to justify the war against Afghanistan and Iraq, the erosion of civil liberties in the US and the UK and the permanent "War on Terror".
Since 9/11 conspiracy theories have flourished, however one of the least credible conspiracy theory is the official narrative this selection of films explores some of the 9/11 smoking guns and the possible motivation of those responsible.
Read on for a complete listing of the films...
Sumnmer of Truth Flyer Front
- application/pdf 851K
Summer of Truth Flyer Back
- application/pdf 1.1M
The Summer of Truth
Film Listings
Films and dates
- Sunday 2nd July 2006
- 6:30pm 9-11 Open Your Eyes the War on Terror is a Lie (2004)
- 8:00pm Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime (2006)
- Sunday 9th July 2006
- 6:30pm Truth and Politics, Unanswered Questions About 9/11 (2004)
- 8pm The Oil Factor: Behind the War on Terror (2004)
- Sunday 16th July 2006
- 6:30pm Celsius 9/11 - World Takeover and the War of Terror part 1 (2004)
- 8:00pm 9/11 Breaking the Laws of Physics (2006)
- Sunday 23rd July 2006
- 6:30pm Celsius 9/11 - World Takeover and the War of Terror part 2 (2004)
- 8:00pm Improbable Collapse (2006)
- Sunday 30th July 2006
- 6:30pm 9/11 Revisited: Were explosives used? (2006)
- 8:00pm War and Globalization – The Truth Behind September 11 (2003)
9-11 Open Your Eyes the War on Terror is a Lie (2004)
Filmed at the 9-11 International Inquiry held in Toronto in May 2004 this is a powerfull and moving hour long edit compiled from the 45 hours of contributions from 50 writers and activists.
"Speaker after speaker, from the 9/11 widow Ellen Mariani, the heroine of the 9/11 truth movement, to poets, philosophers, scientists, fighter and commercial pilots, former FBI agents, musicians, analysts, activists, politicians and lawyers, journalists and filmmakers, they assembled, each bringing pieces of the puzzle, and questions about September 11, 2001 -- what happened, what didn't happen, other pretexts for US wars, the history of its false flag operations and cover-ups, lies and treason by the ruling kleptocracy." – Roy and Karen Harvey, co-producers of this documentary.
9-11 Open Your Eyes is available online from the Internet Archive it has been produced by Snowshoe Documentary Films.
Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime (2006)
Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime exposes the criminalisation of the US government and the links between the Republican party, drug running, the intelligence agencies and the 9/11 hijackers.
Largely ignored by the mainstream media, many of the disturbing facts surrounding the attacks of 9/11 raise deeply ethical questions associated with issues of accountability, justice and censorship in America.
"Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime" may very well be the most compelling film yet outlining the disturbing and heavily censored facts associated with the worst terrorist attacks in American history. And while a grassroots movement worldwide continues to grow, and demand answers to the many unanswered questions, the public outcry for accountability and transparency makes this film, perhaps, the most important film of 2006.
Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime is available on Google Video and there are higher quality versions on 911 blogger, for more information see Crisis in America.
Truth and Politics, Unanswered Questions About 9/11 (2004)
This is a lecture by David Ray Griffin, a professor emeritus of philosophy of religion and theology, at the Claremont School of Theology in Claremont, California and it was filmed on 3rd October 2004 in Santa Rosa, California.
David Griffin has written many books including two on 9/11, The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions – this lecture is essentially a summary of his second book and it was given before the book was published. This video supplements the speech with added images and video clips to illustrate Griffin's points.
David Griffin is a christian and a supporter of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth (MUJCA) who have a extensive list of his writings. He is also a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.
This video is available online from the Internet Archive.
The Oil Factor: Behind the War on Terror (2004)
After assessing today's dwindling oil reserves and skyrocketing use of oil for fuels, plastics and chemicals, "The Oil Factor" questions the motives for US wars in the Middle East and Central Asia where three-quartes of the world's oil and natural gas is located.
With exclusive footage shot on location in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, the film documents the spiraling violence now engulfing both Iraq and Afghanistan, a country conspicuously absent from the commercial media's news segments.
Interviews gathered throughout the Middle-East, Europe and the United States, including a Bechtel executive in Baghdad, also expose who is cashing in on the tens of billions of dollars requested from congress by the current administration of GW Bush.
With detailed maps and graphics, The Oil Factor features many experts and personalities such as former Defense Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, MIT professor Noam Chomsky, the Project for the New American Century Executive Director Gary Schmitt, Coalition Provisional Authority Chairman Paul Bremer, former Pentagon analyst Lt Col Karen Kwiatkowski, current Iraqi government official Abdel Aziz Al-Hakim and authors Ahmed Rashid and Michael C Ruppert.
Celsius 9/11 – World Takeover and the War of Terror
Celsius 9/11 was filmed at the 9-11 International Inquiry held in San Fransisco in March 2004 (Phase One) and Toronto in May 2004 (Phase Two). In addition to excerpts from presentations it contains intervews with participants and covers topics such as the militarisation of space.
An outstanding educational document With contributions by Carol Brouillet (communitycurrency.org), Michel Chossudovsky (globalresearch.ca), Bill Douglas (911visibility.org), Bruce Gagnon (space4peace.org), Jim Hoffman (911research.wtc7.net), Ellen Mariani, Jim Marrs, Michael Ruppert (fromthewilderness.com), Barry Zwicker.
Alarming facts are presented during the International Citizens' Inquiry into the events of 9/11. You will learn how the official 9/11 Commission report was little more than a whitewash!
Part One is The Official Story and it asks why were no fighter jets scrambled? and why did three towers collapse into their own footprints?
Part Two is The Big Lie and it asks how real are the terrorist threats? who is behind Al Qadia? and it looks at the US military strategy of Full Spectrum Dominance.
9/11 Breaking the Laws of Physics (2006)
This is a lecture from January 2006, by Physics Professor Steven E Jones of Brigham Young University, which addresses the collapse of the WTC buildings on 9/11, it covers:
9/11 and the physics of falling bodies and how it was physically impossible for these structures to have collapsed based on the conclusion that our government has given us. This video could possibly be the most conclusive work yet in disproving the 9/11 myth.
This presentation is available from the Internet Archive and it is based on his academic paper, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
Steven Jones is a Mormon and supporter of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth (MUJCA) and they have a page on their site dedicated to him. He is also a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.
Improbable Collapse (2006)
Improbable Collapse examines the increasingly widespread notion that the World Trade Center buildings were brought down using explosives. The film proceeds from an exclusive interview with Steven Jones, a professor of physics at Brigham Young University. Jones argues that the mechanism of the building collapses proposed by US government investigators is extremely unlikely, hence the title of the film. This is Jones's first film appearance concerning the issues raised in his influential research paper, "Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"
Jim Hoffman pioneered research in the hypothesis that the WTC buildings were demolished as the creator of three meticulous and sprawling sites, wtc7.net, 911review.com and 911research.wtc7.net.
With Don Paul, who also appears briefly in the film, Hoffman is the co-author of Waking Up from Our Nightmare: The 9/11/01 Crimes in New York City.
Professor David Ray Griffin is the author of The New Pearl Harbor and Omissions and Distortions: The 9/11 Commission. Griffin spoke to standing-room only crowds in New York last October on "The Destruction of the World Trade Center".
Improbable Collapse critically examines the demolitions hypothesis and carefully evaluating evidence. In a series of powerful episodes, the film's stunning first scenes depict the rise of a movement to demand the full truth about 9/11, and the increasingly public clash of paradigms: The received story of September 11th is confronted with the evidence marshalled by the 9/11 skeptics.
See the film trailer at www.improbablecollapse.com.
September 11th Revisited
9/11 Revisited concentrates on the collapse of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers and includes news reports from the day and interviews with experts including Steven E Jones, David Ray Griffin and Jeff King.
It has been over four years since the worst terrorist attack to ever hit America, but has the story really been told?
This movie features eyewitness accounts and news footage that was shot on 11th September 2001 and was never replayed again on television... until now.
9/11 Revisited is available to view online and via Google Video and the the Internet Archive.
War and Globalization - The Truth Behind September 11 (2003)
This is a lecture, from 2003 by Michel Chossudovsky, a professor of economics at the University of Ottawa. Michel Chossudovsky is the founder of the Centre for Research on Globalization, the organisation behind GlobalResearch.ca an extensive website dedicated to exposing the true nature of globalisation. This video is a covers 9/11, oil and war, it is based on his book, America's "War on Terrorism". Despite being almost three years old it is especially pertinent today with the looming threat of war with Iran. Links to other texts by Michel Chossudovsky can be found on the Peoples' Global Action web site.
This video is available on Google Video and it has been produced by Snowshoe Films,
More details
The films were due to be screened at Matilda, however due to the eviction the screenings have been moved around the corner to SIF:
Sheffield Independent Film,
5 Brown Steet,
Sheffield,
S1 2BS.
SIF is between The Showroom and Persistence Works, a five-minute walk from the bus and railway stations — GoogleMap | StreetMap | MultiMap.
There will be refreshments available and there will be time for discussion after each film. Entry is a suggested donation of £1 to cover costs.
The film listings are also available on the Matilda web site.
These screenings have been inspired by the summer of truth events in New York, the photo of the anti-war demonstration on the flyer took place in NYC 20th March 2004.
Links: GlobalResearch.ca | 911 Timeline | WTC7.net | 9-11 Research | 9-11 Review | 911Truth.org | 9/11 Blogger | Portland IMC 9.11 Investigation
e-mail:
Comments
Hide the following 21 comments
Black and white poster image
06.06.2006 22:01
summer of truth poster
bill posters
Approx. 82% Truth GUARANTEED!
13.06.2006 13:04
the other 2 elevenths
One more film that should be shown
13.06.2006 22:19
Did you also consider showing 9/11 Guilt?
It's here:
Researcher
9/11 Guilt
14.06.2006 00:42
London Indymedia are also doing some screenings in July, though no films specifically about 9/11 -- "While the 8 richest countries continue to promote nuclear and oil-dependent 'Energy Security' and increasingly repressive global governance, Indymedia presents a film festival to inspire resistance to the G8 agenda":
IMC'er
Message from "Everybodies Gotta Learn Sometime" Producer
17.06.2006 09:46
"I spent some time looking up flights to Sheffield - with the intention of making a surprise visit - but it appears that the plunging US dollar and oil industry has conspired to make air fairs impossible for me to afford."
In a second email he went on to say:
"There is word here that the Bush administration is conducting huge 'bunker drills' on June 19th, in which thousands of continuity government employees will be moved underground in anticipation of some catastrophic event.
many here feel that there appears to be another ramping up of alerts, false alarms, warnings, and precipitating factors (like the coming election) that makes a possible attack very possible. the plunging stock market these last few weeks is almost a mirror image of the market weeks before 9/11.
this may sound extremely corny - but it is important that people living OUTSIDE the USA become educated as quickly as possible on what the USA is doing. in many respects 9/11 Truth has a much better chance of being 'heard' in Europe than in the USA, because many Americans are still blinded by patriotism and denial.
There is a network of 9/11 activists in the USA who would be happy to send you whatever support you need -in the form of literature, leaflets, videos, etc etc to GET THE WORD OUT. The US government was COMPLICIT in the 9/11 attacks. And the ramifications of this affects the stability of the entire world.
Thank you for all the work you are doing."
relay
Films
22.06.2006 22:40
As a struggling activist from West Yorkshire I can only salute your full-on programme and will try to get there at least once or twice
Full solidarity with this effort and the struggles of Matilda that I half-caught on the news tonight
Paul
dh
e-mail:
dwightheet@yahoo.com
TERRORSTORM
25.06.2006 23:01
It's relentless, day after day, we hear theses fake constructed stories, this beheading the Canadian Prime Minister with Bradford and Dewsbury connections, this Sears Towers nonsense, this unidentifiable mooching around a bag of supposed ammonium nitrate, this dumb 77 video producer crawled out of the woodwork in Beeston
It's building towards something
Another good device despite the ego
dh
The problem with Alex Jones...
26.06.2006 15:18
Take for example his attacks on lefty protestors in his Martial Law: 9/11 Rise of the Police State video or his complaints about Bush not properly policing the US border with Mexico... Not good...
transender
Kind of agree
27.06.2006 21:32
But you have to look at the back of what might seem a 'right wing' perspective
Look at border controls. Alex's point may be that letting in and then giving amnesty to a lot of Mexicans for example, is a way of forcing down wages amongst the indigenous white population
However much we may detest the apparent racism in this summation, we know it's true
This is the way globalist capitalism works
We're all target in the end, just bloody cattle to be tended, controlled and culled as necessary
This is the basis of the end of Jones's and his like left/right paradigm
The end of the line results bring his evident rightism and libertarianism and our liberalism and left libertatianism together on the big issues
Both sides have similar interpretations of the central secret government control methods
I come from the anarchist left but have strong sympathies for the militias and constitutional patriots
As one of the latter said with the two wings together we can fly
dh
A4 PDF Poster
27.06.2006 22:35
bill posters
Poster for Matilda
29.06.2006 15:36
Scribus
Report from the first night
03.07.2006 17:17
A visitor from Blackpool, a supporter of the British 9/11 Truth Campaign,
The Matilda cafe collective provided chocolate cake and tea and coffee and there was quite a lot of informal discussion after the films.
Next weekend there is the Sharrow (Saturday) and Burngreave (Sunday) festivals and there are still 2,000 flyers to give out so hopefully the numbers attending will grow as the festival progresses.
IMC'er
For Balance
08.07.2006 10:27
"... If we’ve an overall message here, it’s check things for yourself. Don’t trust a site just because it’s telling you what you want to believe. Don’t believe us without evaluating our arguments and checking the references we provide, either (we’re as likely to make mistakes as anyone else). Look into the claims yourself, discover both sides of the argument, and make your own mind up. The truth deserves nothing less."
dmatr
Judgement based on best Science. We have weighed the hypotheses
09.07.2006 00:36
I notice that you mention 911myths well we have studied these sites and find a lot of the work flawed compared with the work of Prof Steven Jones.
Steven Jones challenges people to refute the 13 points, that support the controlled demolition hypothesis, no one has yet done this. Prof Jones' science is better because he uses a genuinely scientific method in his analysis. unlike the work on 911myths, which can only be described as pathological science, in that it tries to fit selective evidence into to a preconceived explanation of observed data. Whereas Jones looks at the data then tests his hypothesis against ALL the available data.
911myths presents the process of the selection of hypothesis like some kind of lifestyle choice like choosing a pair of shoes or betting on a horse.
Jones' method tests hypotheses against observed data.
The work of Dr Greening in particular is misleading, especially in terms of the collapse mechanism,in that it only relates to the floors of the buildings. i.e. the so called pancake theory larry Silverstein's report that won him his $4.4 Billion insurance claim, goes for core column collapse.
Greenings work on the energy question is also flawed in that he doesn't see the energy in the system holistically. i.e. he doesn't analyse the problem from the stand point of the Law of the Conservation of Energy for the whole system. He just adds seemingly random energies and says its bigger than Hiroshima.
The work on sources of sulphur from SO2 (a gas) in no way explains how this sulphur got into the inter-granular spaces in the steel and caused the evidence of Eutectic processes.
And finally his description of the possible explanation of exothermic reactions involving aluminium, steel and iron oxide are highly improbable owing to the very particular forms of the materials that are required and the extreme difficulty in starting an exothermic reaction of the kind he describes.
All he does is state that these materials are present , he does not explain how these materials found themselves mixed in the right proportions and in the form of a fine powder in order to start, and then continue an exothermic reaction.
So we have an extremely low probability that any of what Greening states could have happened by the random collision of a plane into the building,(a building that was designed to take such an impact) and then we have to divide this low probability by three, the number of buildings that were destroyed on this one day in this way, when such collapses had never been observed before or since.
He also admits that the collapse of WTC7 is highly problematic.
Anyway as I said above we are showing these films in the interest of balance, to show that there are serious questions pertaining to the official story.
The Official Story that has been well covered in the mainstream media.
While scepticism about the official story has been suppressed and mocked by the mainstream Corporate media.
We in our small way want to let people know that in the USA today millions of people think that there was a cover-up in the report on the events of September 11th 2001 and that a proper independent investigation needs to be carried out.
That scientists all over the planet think there are serious flaws with the official story.
Some scientists have had their careers threatened and one has had his children threatened for writing an article.
The real myth involved with Sept 11 is the one described by the authors of the official story.
We just want to know what really happened. We in no way are trying to or are capable of stopping the spread of the official story. People, I hope will make their own minds up. Only I hope that people don't treat this as some sort of lifestyle choice. I think the work of Steven Jones is just better science and explains what I see with my own eyes looking at the collapses on video, especially bearing in mind the Law of The Conservation of Energy.
Anyone can type "911" into a search engine and get all kinds of weird stuff, We're basing our judgement on the best science available.
twopercenthuman
Selecting only the science that fits your "judgement" is not science
10.07.2006 15:25
Perhaps, in the interest of balance, we do need to present a highly-contested, one-sided analysis by people who have no particular expertise in the subject at hand, whilst ignoring any counter-arguments, conflicting analysis and expert opinion. Or perhaps not.
>We're basing our judgement on the best science available.
Further examples of the "best science available" are listed on this page:
dmatr
Balance?!
10.07.2006 17:29
On the one hand we have the global media corporations, newspapers, state funded media and Hollywood and on the other hand we have some home made movies that get no mainstream coverage at all. And you say that Indymedia is not balanced!?
Perhaps you think that after a film questioning the official story we should show one of the mainstream ones, perhaps United 93,
As you probably know there are 4 multiplexes in Sheffield that have already screened United 93 multiple times (and it was even on at the Showroom for at least a week). World Trade Center will no doubt also open at all 4 cinemas -- in the interest of balance don't you think that the multiplexes should show some of the films questioning the official story? Are you going to contact them to complain about their clear lack of balance?
There are still 3 screenings to go -- are you going to come along and watch any of the films and then join in the discussion afterwards? Or are you an anonomous supporter of the official story posting from somwehere many miles from Sheffield?
LOL
Default setting: scepticism
11.07.2006 17:14
I take your point about the MSM. However, I see the more "controversial" alternative theories put forward by Griffin et al as part of that same MSM. IMHO Griffin's aim is to sell books (cf Thierry Meyssan's worldwide bestseller "The Big Lie").
There are holes in the official explanation. My problem is the views put forward by Griffin and Meyssan, represented here, have bigger holes.
These bigger holes result mainly from controversial suppositions, such as that so called "suspicious" evidence - colours of smoke, molten metal, strange puffs of dust, Bush's movements on the day, etc - points to US state involvement. From my POV, that's a big leap, though not necessarily an entirely unjustified one.
It is my view that these controversial suppositions are highly marketable but succeed mainly as a distraction, diverting attention away from the holes in the official narrative.
The MSM presents a single, contested worldview without analysis of alternatives. For indymedia to do the same - present a single, contested worldview without analysis of alternatives - seems to me less than ideal.
I hoped indymedia would take a different route to the MSM, objectively analysing and presenting all the information, rather than just the evidence that supports a particular worldview. If worldviews can be thought of as channels, indymedia should be multi-channel in contrast to the MSM's single-channel.
I do live in Sheffield. Your post has made me think about attending some of the remaining screenings, but I fear my presence may not be conducive to the prevailing ethos.
dmatr
Prof Steven E Jones is a sceptic
14.07.2006 17:06
I'm not familiar with Meyssans' political work. And his work, as far as I know is not represented in any of the films here.
Dr Ray Griffin is a professor of theology and is, in my view, 'a seeker for truth'.
His work debunking the Keane report is in the interests of truth and nothing more. He points the finger at the PNAC neocons because their philosophy and agenda is clearly laid out in their own publications.
He is quite open about selling books. I havn't bought any. That's a political choice you're still free to make.
Its clear, to me at least, that these oil wealthy individuals would indeed find great advantage in controlling energy supplies with the use of military force in pre-emptive wars against first Afghanistan (to access Caspian reserves) and Iraq. And to further erode civil liberties at home by spying on the population. We are now all terrorist suspects and can be detained without charge for 28 days and we can be spied on by our Government without accountability.
It's obvious that once you realise that the three buildings were demolished using explosives then all kinds of political pundits and opportunists are likely to speculate and apportion guilt to whomsoever they perceive as the conspirators in this event. And sell books, DVDs and whatever else. That's not the point.
/www.geocities.com/debunking911/paper.htm
again you present "pathological" science.
Clearly you have no understanding of the Scientific Method. you cite the page above because it looks scientific i.e. it has equations and stuff so it must be science.
They make one massive assumption and that is it is impossible for a bunch of criminals to take control of the most powerful nation on Earth.
i.e. they don't entertain any other hypothesis other than the official one.
The paper by Bazant in-particular stretches the evidence, speculates, and makes massive assumptions in order to fit evidence into the one and only one hypothesis considered. We then have to stretch, even further, this highly speculative and improbable sequence of events to three buildings collapsing all on the same day.
The US Government report says this and this So we'll show how this collapse mechanism might be plausible. Bazant at no time wonders how the tops of the towers fell and continued to fall with an acceleration close (very close) to that of gravity, because if he did he'd run slap into the Law of Conservation of Energy.
And again Bazant goes nowhere near WTC7.
As I've tried to point out above and in other postings,
there must be a scientific reason for the complete collapse of three steel framed buildings on one day in Sept 2001 and the best work i.e. using the Scientific Method, is that presented by Professor Steven E Jones and he, though a genuine sceptic, states that the collapses could only have occurred with the ADDITION of energy. And he then hypothesises that that additional energy came from explosives.
He uses the video evidence to show that (especially with WTC7) the collapses look most like controlled demolition and not some mechanism (times 3) like pancakes.
or in this case- the buildings collapsed so the cores must have failed and this is how cores fail so that's what must have happened. That isn't scientific !
Personally I'm 95% certain that those buildings where brought down by controlled demolition as a false flag operation in order to continue human's history as it's been played out in the past - wars and conflict to secure resources, instigated by the powerful and fought by the rest of us.
Remember the "Peace Dividend"?.
The vacuum left by the collapse of the Soviet Union threatened the existence of the industrial-military complex.The war on terror, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq justify its continuing existence.
I would welcome scepticism in the discussions following the showings. And would urge you to come down to the screenings, and make your contribution (just a pound ! [voluntary]).
This is an opportunity for discussion, for scepticism.
Which includes scepticism about the official story and scepticism with the idea that, it is impossible for something like the events of Sept 11th 2001 to have been an inside job. It's not unprecedented in History.
The reason for calling the series of films 911,Oil,War and Globalisation is precisely to provoke discussion as to whether it is possible for a powerful elite to control the destiny of so many human lives with events such as 911 . How it's done. etc. etc.. How the events of 911 could be used as a way to continue the spread of corporate globalism through the control of vital energy supplies.
twopercenthuman
Hoffman the spook Plagiarist
30.07.2006 01:27
This simply isn't true.
Hoffman is a disinformation spook with connections to the NSA.
He has not done a scrap of meaningful research into Sept 11. He is a plagiarist and a two faced liar.
HOFFMAN THE PLAGIARIST
HOFFMAN THE SPOOK
HOFFMAN AND THE PENTAGON
HOW HOFFMAN DISTORTS EVIDENCE
HOW MARK RABINOWITZ AND JIM HOFFMAN LIED ABOUT THE BTS DATA
JIM HOFFMAN TRASHES THE SEPT 11 STAND DOWN EVIDENCE
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Just like Hoffman, Steven Jones is a two faced cointelrpo plagiarist and liar
30.07.2006 02:09
In fact, Jones has recently been arguing against the demolition evidence.
More on that below.
But first some background on this Johnny- come -lately- Plagiarist and Liar.
SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 PLAGIARISM AND DISINFORMATION
THE DARK SIDE OF PROFESSOR STEVEN E. JONES
In the first article linked above , you'll find Jones fraudulently claiming credit for some of the major points of evidence for demolition. His claims are a flat out lie, as exposed in that article.
Recently in an email exchange, I challenged Jones over these claims and specifically whether he claimed credit for the following 9 points of evidence in realtion to demolition.
This was the exact question I put to him.
[[Steve,
These questions relate to your demolition research credentials. They are presented in a simple yes /no format.
Each question is prefaced by one point of a summary of what I think we all agree upon as the strongest points for demolition.
The free fall time issue.
Steven, do you claim to be the first person or amongst the first to have made or published this observation ? Yes/no.
Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel.
Steven, do you claim to be the first person or amongst the first to have made or published this observation ? Yes/no.
That asymmetrical damage cannot cause a symmetrical collapse over such a height.
Steven, do you claim to be the first person or amongst the first to have made or published this observation ? Yes/no.
4. The complete pulverization of the concrete
Steven, do you claim to be the first person or amongst the first to have made or published this observation ? Yes/no.
That no steel framed skyscraper has ever before collapsed from fire
Steven, do you claim to be the first person or amongst the first to have made or published this observation ? Yes/no.
The WTC 7 squib footage
Steven, do you claim to have discovered or been amongst the first to have made available this footage ? Yes/no.
That there is no evidence of particularly hot fires in the WTC.
Steven, do you claim to be the first person or amongst the first to have made or published this observation ? Yes/no.
The resistance paradox.
That being that even if one were to try to explain away the free fall time as a miraculously unified failure of the entire structure, thus creating negligible resistance to the fall, then it leaves nothing to explain the huge clouds of fine dust being emitted as the building was still standing. Only a controlled demolition explains both.
Steven, do you claim to be the first person or amongst the first to have made or published this observation ? Yes/no.
9. That the early story was that the steel in the buildings actually melted and that this story was changed only after publication of refutations relating to point 1.
Steven, do you claim to be the first person or amongst the first to have made or published this observation ? Yes/no.]]
In repsonse, Jones admitted that he had no role in any of these discoveries. And yet in the first article linked above we see him speficially, unequivocally and fraudulently taking credit for some of them.
Why the change ? Because in this case Jones knew that two of the researchers who were actually responsible for some of this research were on the list. In fact one of them was the guy who was asking him the question.
And that there were others who had been around long enough to know that he hadn't contributed a damn thing to any of this research and that it had all been well established in the public domain for years before anyone had heard of Jones.
So he knew he couldn;t get away with the same claim that he had so boldly made in other places, as referenced in the first article linked above. So he compltely changed the story
So he's a two faced cowardly liar to start with. But it gets worse.
In the writings where Jones was claiming credit for this research he also claimed then as the major points of demolition.
But now that Jones was admitting to have contrinbuted nothing to any of it, he now claimed that none of it was proof of demolition.
That's right ! Look through the 9 points above. Jones is nowe saying that this is crap and didn't prove anything.
Jones then went on to make the astonishing claim that he and he alone had provided proof of demolition.
And this is what he claimed as the "proof". It makes a good laugh.
[[It was the work I did on thermite/thermate, including experiments done here at BYU, that convinced me -- and I explained this in my talk in Los Angeles recently.]]
His *bullshit* on thermite ? That's proof ? But the the free fall time and the resistance paradox and the WTC 7 squib footage are not ?
I then challenged Jones to debate me in realtion to that assertion. That I would argue the demolition case on the basis of those 9 points and would argue against it.
He then ran off, pompously asserting that he had "important work" to do.
This is typical of the double think aspect of the untruth movement.
Here we have people chanting the name of Jones as a demolition hero , when he is actually disputing the prood of demolition and trying to replace it witrh his meaningless junk about thermite.
On the question of why accredfitation to the original research is important, make sure you read the first article linked above, and also the article I written about Hoffman, called
JIM HOFFMAN TRASHES THE SEPT 11 STAND DOWN EVIDENCE.
It explains why plagiarism is an essentail weapon of any disinformation campaign.
People need to wake up to the fact that the entire 911 untruth movement is one big cointelpro movement. It is not a campaign to expose the truth. It is a campaign to spin new lies to replace the old lies as they become unsustainable.
Not *one* piece of significant Sept 11 research has been contrinuted by anyone who is considered a big shot in the 911untruth movement. Not one.
Griffin is another two faced double think plagiarist Johnny -come lately.
I'll deal with him another time.
But *every* single piece of significant sept 11 research was done by people who are in one way or the other, alientated from the movement. Either forgotten - plagiarized beyond memory, like Jim McMichael who did the first great demolition article in Oct 2001, and Gary North who discovered the lack of arab names on the passenger lists back in Oct 2001. Or else marginalized and hated for unfashionable political views , like Jared Israel who did the great Nov 2001 - Jan 2002 -work on the alck of air force response. Because he's strong supporter of Israel and because he speaks his own mind instead of chanting along with crowd, he has also been erased and plagiarized.
Or else Jeff King - great 2002 demolition researcher, Rosalee Grable , who discovered the WTC 7 squib footage, and myself, who first put forward the free fall observation , back in March 2002. All of us marginalized because other things we've discovered since, like the no plane work
And the non existent flights
And the faked passenger lists
happen to be inconveneint facts for the 911untruth movement.
There are other singificant researchers who have also been marginalized, cherry picked and then plagiarized, and given pariah status.
Of the "heroes" parading around claiming "911truth leader" status - not one of them has done a damned thing. Nothing. And they all arrived late after the hard work was done.
Why ?
Because the real research has been done by isolated individuals, and the "movement" is actually the main propaganda arm of the cover uop artists.
Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:
holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren
Got an ego problem?
31.07.2006 14:26
The Law of the Conservation of Energy shows this along with the video evidence. (as Hoffman + Jones point out)
The first film I watched was by anti-semite white race revenger Huffschmidt.
It's the information that's important and what you do with that information. The source of the information is unimportant if you can by your own research and reasoning confirm the information.
Now if you choose to waste you're time slaging people off for their world views and odd connections then you're missing the point. Why not put you're energies into opposing the power loons that perpertrated these outrageous crimes?
I have been employed by the "Government" so now everything I say is obvious dissinformation?
It was ME that proved it ME I tell you.
I think you should give up "me-ism" and do something useful.
twopercenthuman