PRISON PLANET.com          Copyright 2002-2006 Alex Jones          All rights reserved.

 

Professor Steven Jones Urgently Asks For Help Regarding Personal Attacks
B.Y.U. Professor Steven Jones Says He Was Misquoted

Steven Jones | August 17th 2006

Quote from Moseley's "9/11 Bush Bashers":
At a national conference broadcast nationwide on C-SPAN, key conspiracy leader Alex Jones announced that the American government has already collapsed and a shadow government is now running our country. This radio talk-show host next announced – on tape – that Osama bin Laden is now a paid agent of the CIA.

Professor Steven Jones of Brigham-Young University accused George Bush of being a dictator, mimicking the preamble of the Declaration of Independence. When asked if violent revolution was necessary, this scientist declared – in front of national TV cameras – that there is no peaceful way to achieve the group's goals. In the context of the question, professor Jones was calling for the violent overthrow of the government.

Those publishing this essay should check my actual comments on the C-SPAN broadcast. I made no such statement that "there is no peaceful way to achieve the group's goals." This is FALSE, UNTRUE, AND TOTALLY NOT WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID, NOR DO I IN ANY WAY SUPPORT THIS STATEMENT AT ALL.

I need your help. I have a meeting here now ==very serious -- about my standing here -- in 1/2 hour. I must prepare.

Please find out who to write to, to protest these untrue statements, so that after my meeting I will be able to respond. If you would respond in my behalf, I would deeply appreciate that. These lies need to be challenged, for anyone can listen to CSPAN and determine that I did not make the alleged comments.

------------------------------------

Truth Seekers, not Bush Bashers
Why doubt 9/11?

Professor Jim Fetzer | August 17 2006

"9/11 Bush bashers" by Jon Moseley, worldnetdaily (16 August 2006), alas, is
reprehensible and irresponsible in almost every respect. He abuses language
and logic and attempts to smear me without justification in an apparent
effort to mislead the public from appreciating the objective and scientific
findings about the events of 9/11 that have been established by Scholars for 9/11.

Truth, an organization that I founded and co-chair with Steve Jones, a physicist
from BYU, who has done extensive studies of how the towers were in fact
destroyed.

Moseley has been fanatical, even obsessive, about posting attacks upon
members of Scholars. To verify my impression, I did a search on recent Moseley
posts. On 15 August 2006, for example, he posted 15 attacks. On 1 August 2006, 22.

23 July 2006, 19. He would post attacks and post again immediately after
any response in a style that was immature and juvenile. Had they advanced
serious arguments about our findings, they might have been justified in spite of
that, but they committed elementary fallacies that made them virtually worthless.

In one recent post, for example, he claimed that the Twin Towers cannot have
come down as the result of controlled demolitions, which, he said, "blow out
the first and second floors, so that he building falls down into its own
footprint".

This is known as trading upon an equivocation, because Moseley's definition
is applicable to standard controlled demolitions, while the towers appear to
have been subject to special kinds of controlled demolition in which they were
blown up from the top down. I explained that to him then, but it was to no avail.

That post revealed the abuse of language. In another, he committed a
logical blunder by maintaining that, because different "conspiracy theories" are not
consistent with one another, they must all be false! But the only inference
that follows is that they cannot all be true! You don't have to have taught
logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years to have
noticed this, but perhaps it helps. I also explained this mistake at the time, but
he still choose to repeat it in the article WND published on 16 August 2006.

His blizzard of posts of low intellectual quality led me to send an email
asking about his background and education. In the absence of a response, I offered
my own guess about the kind of person who would behave like this, speculating
that he was 15 years old, very bright, probably Jewish, possibly a resident of
Brooklyn, attending a scientific/technological high school, who believes
that he is superior to everyone else and has an obsession to try and prove it! I
was commenting on his behavior, not the subject of his posts--and it fits to a
tee.

In addition to his abuse of me and of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Moseley
claims that, during the LA American Scholars Symposium, Steve Jones asserted "there
is no peaceful way to achieve the groups goals". This is false and
misrepresents his position, which is that only Constitutionally prescribed remedies, such
as impeachment, are appropriate. I was there and verify the libelous character
of Moseley's gross distortion. C-SPAN was also there, and anyone can
confirm this point for themselves by viewing the panel discussion archived on
st911.org.

Although he would not identify himself to me, Moseley now tells us that he
is "executive director of the U.S. Seaports Commission". A friend of mine
who's active in Wisconsin politics has told me that this means he is a "political
hack". I don't know what to say about that, but it is apparent that his
posts in these exchanges and his article in WND are intended to mislead the unwary concerning the state of objective, scientific knowledge of the events of 9/11.

As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (st911.org), I would observe that
our members have established more than a dozen disproves of the official
government account, the truth of any one of which is enough to show that the
government's account--in one or another of its guises--cannot possibly be correct. Here
is an overview that offers a thumbnail sketch of 15 important points about
9/11:

(1) the impact of the planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the
buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as
Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes that hit were very
similar to those they were designed to withstand, and they continued to
stand after those impacts with negligible effects;

(2) the melting point of steel at 2,800*F is about 1,000*F higher than the
maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed
1,800*F under optimal conditions, so the fires cannot have caused the steel to melt,
which means that melting steel did not bring the buildings down;

(3) UL had certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000*F for at least
six hours before it would even significantly weaken, where these fires burned
too low and too briefly--about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in
the North--to have even caused the steel to weaken, much less melt;

(4) if the steel had melted or weakened, the affected floors would have
displayed completely different behavior, with some asymmetrical sagging and
tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt,
and total demolition that was observed;

(5) there was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to
bring about the collapse of the next lower floor, even if the impact of the planes
and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken, which means
that, even if one floor had collapsed due to the impacts and the fires, that
could not have caused lower floors to fall;

(6) there was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to
bring about the pulverization of the next floor, even if the impact of the planes
and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken and one floor
to collapse upon another, which required a massive source of energy beyond any
that the government has considered;

(7) heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with more
than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of "pancake collapse",
which can only occur with concrete structures of "lift slab" construction and
could not occur in "redundant" welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless
every supporting column were removed at the same time, as Charles Pagelow
has pointed out to me;

(8) the destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of the North in 11
is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have taken
at least 12 seconds, which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is an astounding
result that would have been impossible without extremely powerful explosives;

(9) the towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground,
where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to two
gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of
the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain;

(10) pools of molten metal were found at the subbasement levels three, four,
and five weeks later, an effect that could not have been produced by the
plane-impact/jet-fuel-fire/pancake collapse scenario, which, of course,
implies that it was not produced by such a cause;

(11) WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM/ET after
Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to "pull it",
displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions,
including a complete, abrupt, and total collapse into its own footprint, where the
floors are all falling at the same time, and so forth, an event so embarrassing to
the official account that it is not even mentioned in THE 9/11 COMMISSION
REPORT;

(12) the hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton
airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the
ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no
wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

(13) the Pentagon's own videotape does not show a Boeing 757 hitting the
building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when it was shown on "The Factor";
but at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 71-foot Pentagon
is high and should have been present and visible; it was not, which means that
the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

(14) the aerodynamics of flight would have made the official
trajectory--flying at high speed barely above ground level--physically impossible; and if it
had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but
there is no crater and the government has no way out, which means that the
building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

(15) if Flight 93 had come down as advertised, then there would have been a
debris field of about a city block in size, but in fact the debris is
distributed over an area of about eight square miles, which would be explainable if the plane had been shot down in the air but not if it had crashed as required by the government's official scenario.

There are more, especially about the alleged hijackers, including that they
were not competent to fly the planes; their names were not on any passenger
manifest; they were not subject to any autopsy; several have turned up alive and well;
the cell phone calls appear to have been impossible; on and on. The evidence is archived at st911.org. No matter what Moseley may write, our objective is seeking truth, not bashing Bush.

COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE

Prison Planet.tv: The Premier Multimedia Subscription Package: Download and Share the Truth!


 

E MAIL THIS PAGE

Google

Web PrisonPlanet