Humint Events Online: See Steven Jones Prevaricate About His "Peer-Reviewed" Paper

Thursday, November 30, 2006

See Steven Jones Prevaricate About His "Peer-Reviewed" Paper

22 Comments:

Blogger Ningen said...

Have you seen this?

http://www.counterpunch.org/thermo11282006.html

It contains an attempt to explain that thermite formed from reactions in the fires -- is this a refutation of Jones' thesis?

The author is a designer of weapons of mass destruction.

He also wrote these:

http://www.counterpunch.org/physic11282006.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html

Complete BS, as far as I can see.

Are we witnessing Kabuki here, staged by government scientists? It's a fair question, I think.

10:25 PM  
Blogger Ningen said...

Garcia also tries to explain the hot spots and molten metal in the rubble.

Were any of these arguments by Jones necessary to show that gravity-driven collapses were impossible? Did Jones set up straw men?

I hate to add to all the accusations flying around, and much prefer to take arguments on their merits, but when two government scientists are point- counterpointing, I cannot help but be suspicious.

10:36 PM  
Blogger Ningen said...

Garcia has written an interesting article from the belly of the beast, saying that the nuclear weapons industry serves a dual role of military power and subsidy to a few.

http://www.swans.com/library/art9/mgarci01.html

Ironically, Garcia explains why I think people in government might do terrible things to keep the money flowing. Garcia himself is a real lefty, at least looking at his other articles at Swans. He's wrong on 9/11, and I would like to know why he ignores obvious questions and attacks people who asks them.

11:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I personally think Counterpunch is pretty much worthless. But then again I'm a right-winger and actually pro-Israel (I think Israel needs to just finish trading populations with the Arabs and expel the Arabs in from the occupied territories rather than this current business of having the army shoot 15 people at a time to cow them into submission. The Arabs have already kicked all the Jews out of the Arab countries, the Jews unfortunately should do the same thing. They're not able to get along with each other anymore.)

I don't see Steven Jones as some kind of evil goverment agent. I think his wholesome image has been good for getting the word out on 9/11. On the other hand, I really don't understand why so many people seem hostile to the actual analysis of what happened. Once you know that the official story is a lie, there's no reason (at all!) to think they didn't use the full bag of tricks on that day. In fact, the whole point of covert operations and black technology is that you can have a few guys do something that would normally take hundreds of people, and you have plausible deniability.

I guess the perpetrators of 9/11, whether rogue (which I doubt) or authorized by a presidential finding (which I suspect) are counting on the public to be so stupid and so brainwashed by the mass media that they'll believe anything. I think the Democrats don't want to investigate 9/11 properly because they went along with the program (or at least the senior democrats with some insight into Special Access "Black" Programs.) In the broader political context, the Democrats want support of the Israel and American Jewish lobby, and so they're happy to hush up any evidence that the Israelis helped out in any way with the Cheney plan.

The military denies ground soldiers in Iraq proper protection while they spend billions of dollars on space based weapons, and then when they use them, no one believes they exist. I guess I can see how the Cheney cabal would get the idea that the American people are stupid sheep who need to be led. They have a foreign policy based on global domination and a "New American Century" so they used the resources of the military-industrial complex to goad the public into supporting a war that benefits only that same Military Industrial Complex and the Cheney Cabal.

I think Israel is just along for the ride on this one. They have real concerns about being surrounded by Arabs, and having Iraq and Iran and Syria all fighting against each other is seen as much better than having all the Arabs united against Israel. Israel also has a big military industrial complex. So, I can understand why the Israeli goverment (Sharon) would go along with an operation like 9/11 and the subsequent US invasion of the Muslim world. Israel in real danger (and has a healthy case of paranoia), and without the support of the USA they'd be in big big trouble. So, I think they felt they have to go along with Cheney's crazy global domination plan. I'm sure Chertoff and the rest of the Neo-cons really believe that they're doing America and Israel a huge favor. Hitler thought he was doing the world a favor too.

Anyway, as far as Steven Jones goes, I wouldn't be even a little bit surprised if thermite cutting charges were actually used on 9/11. But it certainly wasn't the only thing that was used. I'm not sure Jones has ever claimed that "thermite" is the only answer. He wasn't a big fan of the mini-nuke idea, but it's looking more and more like they may have used directed energy weapons instead of a mini-nuke, but they certainly could have used both. And to me, at least it's 100% clear that there was a HUGE media hoax that made 9/11 possible. You probably have a few key plants in the major media companies who are fully "in-the-know" and the rest of the media were so shocked by 9/11 that they felt it was their patriotic duty to supress any suggestions that the attack was anything but external. Then, after months of lying to the public, they're manipulated and don't want to admit that they failed the public miserably. Or, worse, I suppose it's entirely possible that the media side with the Cheney Cabal and believe the American People are stupid sheep who need to be led. It's clear the media are useless these days to serve as a check on government tyrrany and despotism.

I personally think Morgan Reynolds is right on the money. But I'm not at all sure Steven Jones is working for the other side as a mole. He seems sincere to me, for whatever that's worth. I'm more upset by supposed truth sites that suppress the media hoax, or ridicule "no-planers" etc. Tarpley is right when he says it's a "who-done-it" not a "how-done-it" as far as politics are concerned. The controlled demolition and WTC7 are compelling enough when talking to people who aren't awake. The beam weapon or cloaking ideas are better debated by people who already have a clue IMHO.

I'll be very interested to hear what you guys think about these ideas.

Fred

7:22 AM  
Blogger Spooked said...

Are we witnessing Kabuki here, staged by government scientists?

Quite likely, on some level.

I don't really know why Garcia is putting out this analysis otherwise-- and what the heck is this concluding sentence all about:
"It is even possible that in some little puddle buried deep in the rubble, warmed for months in an oven-like enclosure of concrete rocks, bathed in an atmosphere of methane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and perhaps a touch of oxygen, that DNA was formed."?

The article is basically bullshit, and any official analysis of the WTC destructions are bullshit since they all ignore the incredibly rapid fall of the buildings along with completely pulverized concrete, and they all ignore the strange lack of debris at ground zero. But to top it off, no official scientist ever even dares to question the planes themselves, which in fact are the linchpin of the official WTC collapse story. But the planes are HIGHLY suspect.

8:10 AM  
Blogger Spooked said...

Fred--

there's a lot of stuff in your comment to try to tackle, and I don't have any huge problems with what you say except as far as Steven Jones. Basically Jones is a limited hangout agent, and really shouldn't be trusted. His nice-guy nature is all part of the plan to appeal to people. He is by all appearances part of the psy-ops cover-up of 9/11. Jones raises suspicions by not questioning many different aspects of 9/11 and the WTC collapses.

You're absolutely right about the media hoax and that far too many "truth" sites suppress the extent of the media hoax and the ideas that the planes were part of the hoax. Some people think these sites, such as 911blogger, even ST911.org, are part of the psy-ops 9/11 cover-up.

8:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Spooked, maybe I haven't seen enough of what Jones has done to understand that he's an agent. For me, getting on TV and suggesting that people look at WTC 7 is not what the Bush Administration wants. Jones's thermite paper was what actually got me looking harder at the "controlled demolition" hypothesis.

I might be missing the point, but I think politically, you want your limited hangouts to get you off the hook. Abu Ghraib ("a few bad apples on the night shift") would be a limited hangout. Encouraging people to question the truth of the official story and to suggest government complicity in 9/11 doesn't seem like the right way to do things. I mean, maybe Jones was meant to become some kind of hero that could then be discredited, but I don't think it's going to work out that way for them. Of course, the 911 Blogger crowd seems genuinely hostile to any sort of thoughtful analysis, so maybe he really is trying to infiltrate and keep us off the right trail. When I've seen Jones interviewed, he seems very reasonable. Maybe Fetzer is a better guy, but I don't think he plays as well on TV as Jones does. I think Morgan Reynolds is great, but I agree with Tarpley that you can't throw too much at Fox News viewers the first time you get on TV.

In my view, the likely agents of disinformation, are Noam Chomsky, and Amy Goodman and the rist of the vile "Left Gatekeepers". Then you have Fox News, which might as well be called the Government Propaganda Channel.

I guess I'm not sure why the criminal Bush/Cheney regime would rather be known to have murdered Americans with thermite instead of with microwave weapons... so it's not clear to me who Jones would be protecting if he is an agent.

Maybe he'd be protecting the rest of the Covert Action community at the expense of the President and Vice President? That seems kind of weird to me. When you look back at past presidencies (let's exclude Kennedy), the CIA has done what it was told to do. Just philosophically, if the intent of 9/11 was to scare China and Russia by showing off our star wars weapons.... why would you want Jones out there talking about thermite? I guess I just don't understand what agenda it serves.

I personally don't think this was a "Star Wars Demonstration". I think this was about kicking off a big plan for domination of the Middle East and Central Asia. To the extent they used this high-tech stuff, it was more about showing off to other people within the Defense establishment. See, you morons, I told you these Directed Energy weapons were the real deal. Now give us another $20 billion so we can deploy them!

Fred

9:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One other thought. Whether Jones is an agent or not, they're not going to be able to stop us. As long as we can debate the various theories in a free forum somewhere, the truth is going to win out. There are too many smart people who aren't asleep looking at this stuff now. I'd caution anyone from getting too wed to any particular theory or researcher. As new evidence comes to light, we tweak the theories to fit the evidence until we get the best picture. There's no way they're going to be able to stop that, no matter how hard they try.

Thanks for giving us a place where we can talk about these things, Spooked.

Fred

9:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with "In fact, the whole point of covert operations and black technology is that you can have a few guys do something that would normally take hundreds of people, and you have plausible deniability." they may have used mini-nukes AND beam weapons, there's definitely an odd GLOW/Radiance when the towers collapse, it was captured in all the videos...i don't know what to think of Jones, but this movement is larger than his writings/lectures/opinions, we certainly don't need him...

11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i don't think Chomsky's a "left gatekeeper"--his work and interviews are too extensive, i think he's legit...not sure about Goodman, but Fox News is an abomination and DEFINITELY part of the Pentagon/DOD/GOP/PNAC media brainwashing....

11:07 AM  
Blogger Ningen said...

Thank you Fred and everyone for the insightful comments, and yes, thank you Spooked for a great place for discussion.

Fred, about Israel. That's a fair position, though I disagree I guess on idealistic grounds. You are right that their back is against the wall. I think the left is too quick to criticize Israel, and I don't read Counterpunch on that issue. You might be interested in the writings of Jared Israel and Francisco Gil-White at Emperor's Clothes.com (or www.tenc.net).

I'm a libertarian leftie according to that test on the web, but I respect Russell Kirk's ideas, and like Ron Paul of Texas. I don't consider BushCo to be conservatives.

About a presidential finding, I guess I could see that, perhaps justified on sick utilitarian grounds. Maybe they thought the "collateral damage" would be a lot lower and could justify it to themselves in that way.

About Steven Jones, my concern is that he wants to either discredit 9/11 inquirers, or divert attention from some exotic weapon. But you make a good argument -- he's getting this issue out there. I try not to accuse people of hidden agendas, but broke that rule here. I wonder if Jones is not covering for the Air Force Space Command and the weapons labs, rather than for Bush/Cheney. The Air Force scares me -- I have nothing against Christians but there seems to be a hard core Christianist ideology in Colorado Springs, and the mix of dominionist ideas about establishing the Kingdom of God on Earth, combined with access to the most powerful weapons on Earth, scares the hell out of me. Mix that in with the financial benefits to the Military Industrial Complex, and I put nothing past these people.

Regardless, I think Jones has used poor judgment in talking about "peer review," because that standard is not met. I don't think it has to be, and that it is worse to make a claim you can't back. This adds to my suspicion because he should know better. He also seems to be suppressing no-plane arguments at Journal for 9/11 Truth, while publishing a weak rebuttal.
This could be his sincere belief or due to pressure from people that think it will discredit the "9/11 truth movement."

I think you have a great idea about choosing arguments according to a person's degree of knowledge. What I hate is the people that are worried about writing about and discussing this on the Internet, out of fear Bill O'Reilly might read it and make fun of us.

You make lots of sense about how media might be involved. Garcia even talks about "the accelerating disregard of subtlety by the elite in its management of public perceptions about government policies [that] has eroded the myths --or illusions --of many Americans." If he thinks like this, why does he make fun of people that question 9/11? Does he also view us as sheeple that need to be led? He acts like that when he suggests we know nothing about "the sciences, economics, history and other relevant fields of specialized knowledge." Yet his article is a sophmoric mishmash of psychobabble and pop history, followed by fraudulent physics arguments. I guess I should just ignore it but he galls me.

Yeah, Spooked, that last statement about life forming in the rubble was bizarre. I can't figure Garcia out -- is he trying to have it both ways? Maybe he got some benefits for his weapons lab labor union, but also makes such crappy arguments that they ultimately help us. Who knows what goes on in the mind of a left-wing nuclear weapons designer - if his writings at Swans are for real, his whole life seems to be a compromise between his ideals and making a living. He says he does it for his family, but it seems he could get work in commercial aerospace, so I don't buy that.

12:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe Chomsky doesn't know any better. I've always found him to be sort of interesting but it seems like none of his various theories actually work.

http://www.oilempire.us/chomsky.html

For me, Chomsky's a gatekeeper in that there are lots of otherwise intelligent people who listen to what he has to say, and he's supposed to be a dissident, and he supports Bush's lies. To me that makes him a gatekeeper.

On the other hand, I sort of thought Chomsky was a jerk anyway long before 9/11, so I probably shouldn't have said anything about him since I'm biased. It will be interesting if he changes his tune about 9/11. The evidence for the towers having been blown up as opposed to falling down in a pancake collapse is so strong I just don't understand how any person can support the official version. The most an honest person could cling to would be to say that the terrorists somehow must have gotten bombs in the building. But even that doesn't fit all the evidence.

Fred

12:27 PM  
Blogger Ningen said...

"The most an honest person could cling to would be to say that the terrorists somehow must have gotten bombs in the building."

I agree, and wonder if that is why Bush said KSM was talking about how the put bombs in a building.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-2.html

"For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."

He says they were "planned" attacks, so not 9/11, but Bush seems to be suggesting foreign terrorists planted bombs in the WTC that went off 9/11.

How are people that say it is ridiculous to think bombs could have been planted by Americans going to be able to say that Arab terrorists could do it?

1:39 PM  
Blogger Spooked said...

Fred--
I understand what you're saying about Jones, and I used to think the way you do: that anyone who gets these ideas out there in the public domain is good for the "movement". But I think the game is to have a "controlled opposition". And the elites knew that people would see what happen to the towers and suspect demolition, and they couldn't control THAT. That's why they don't mind someone like Jones going in TV and talking about this stuff. But what the elites could do is control exactly WHO gets the information out there, and make sure someone does it who pushes the movement into a false hope or dead-end such as thermite. I think the last thing the elites would want is someone like Judy Wood out there controlling where the 9/11 skeptic crowd goes.

2:39 PM  
Blogger Spooked said...

Further, the current situation is very favorable to the elites. They have Jones and Wood out there, fighting each other, creating upheaval in the "movement", which turns off newcomers. But who is the one who is really trying to control what research comes out of 9/11 investigations? Clearly Jones. My general feeling is not to trust anyone too much in the "9/11 truth movement" and that each person needs to figure out for themselves what makes the most sense to them. But Jones in particular is suspect in terms of: his energy/Los Alamos connections, his role in the debunking of cold fusion, his strong opposition to questions about the planes used on 9/11 and the idea of video fakery, his Mormon background, the way he has developed some sort of cult-like following in the 9/11 movement, the general weaseliness he has displayed at various times to Judy Wood and the type of slimy behaviour displayed in the video linked in the post. Finally, there is the very creepy possibility that Jones has something to do with the suspicious murder of Wood's student Michael Zebuhr. All in all, Jones looks like a very clever operative and he needs to be held at arms length if not openly shunned by 9/11 skeptics.

3:23 PM  
Blogger Spooked said...

Lastly, I have never read much Chomsky, though I've never been impressed by anything I've seen by him or about him. The fact that he is so clueless about 9/11 (and JFK) only makes him more useless than he already was. I don't know if he is a witting gate-keeper, or simply has been blinded by prejudices. I never understood at all people who completely and blithely rule out governemnt black ops. I think there is a lazy tendency by many to just make jokes about govt covert operations without really coming to grips with the whole idea. Then if pressed, these people will say there is no proof, and use the most rigorous standard of proof imaginable.

That Bush statment on KSM is simply bizarre. It makes no logical sense, and one can't even imagine what Bush was trying to say. Sometimes I wonder if most of what Bush says is simply to confuse people-- he almost like a giant personified psy-op. Just start with Bush's behvaiour on 9/11. It makes no sense! Then his statements later about seeing the first hit on TV before he went in the classroom are totally bizarre-- almost as if they were intended to be confusing. It doesn't help that Bush has surrounded himself with the sneakiest, most Orwellian group possible and that Bush Sr was in deep with the CIA.

3:45 PM  
Blogger Ningen said...

"Then his statements later about seeing the first hit on TV before he went in the classroom are totally bizarre-- almost as if they were intended to be confusing."

Fintan Dunne's theory is that part of the PsyOp is to be in the face of people who don't accept the official story -- by telling such transparent lies -- to say "yeah, we did it, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it."

It's an interesting theory, and makes some sense to me. But Dunne seems to say that just about everyone is a CIA Fake accept him. His website BreakForNews is worth a read though.

Question -- do you think "9/11 Inquiry Movement" is better than the "9/11 Truth Movement"? I've started using that, because the word "truth" has become a marketing slogan like Holmgren says.

4:26 PM  
Blogger Ningen said...

Dunne also says Abu Ghraib is a PsyOp to scare us. It does look kind of staged.

4:28 PM  
Blogger Ningen said...

There's an article on 9/11 by Chomsky in this magazine -- scroll down to his paper. The magazine has some good articles.

http://www.hopedance.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=13&Itemid=32

This one explains why peace activists don't like to question 9/11:

http://www.hopedance.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=32

4:41 PM  
Blogger Spooked said...

Thanks Ningen, there are some good pieces there.

Chomsky seemed to be saying that even if 9/11 wasn't an inside job, it really wasn't a big deal in context. Then at the end he said they'd be insane to try to rig up 9/11-- apparently ignoring evidence of Bush administration insanity.

As far as Break for News, I used to like that site, until Fintan Dunne becamse overly weird about the CIA thing and then it was just too hard to separate out the bullshit from whatever he wrote.

8:19 PM  
Blogger Ningen said...

Oh, Noam:

"Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that’s been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn’t a single submission."

You're a linguist, but if I see a fish talk, I don't need you to tell me that it talked.

Did you write "Manufactured Consent" or was it all Ed Herman?

I just wish you were clearer about which crimes of state are more serious than a 9/11 inside job would be.

12:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are some really interesting postings on here, and I'll have to read those Chomsky articles.

With Fintan Dunne, the few times I've tried listening to him it seems like he accuses everyone of being an agent (to the point where I think he's just become kind of a nut).

I think Fintan's right about Abu Ghraib, but I think the intended audience is really not the Americans, but the Muslims. The Bushies want to provoke the rest of the Muslim world into attacking America so that they can expand the war to Iran, the Philippines, Somalia, parts of Thailand, ad nauseum. I think they really like the whole "Clash of Civilizations" idea. In fact, one could argue that anything they put into OBL's mouth is probably their true position.

I'm reasonably suspicious the Michael Berg beheading (in fact, all the beheadings) were a psyop to show us that the enemy deserves no mercy whatsoever.

I think Spooked is right about the "Controlled Opposition" idea. I was reading 911 Review the other day, and it seemed like they were arguing that just about every 9/11 "conspiracy theory" had been discredited. I tend to take almost the opposite approach. There's a lot of weird stuff that needs to be explained (like the "flash" before impact, the discrepancies in the videos, the lack of a plane at the various crash sites...). With the "flash", for example, I don't know what it is, but it clearly is inconsistent with the official version. I think the hope is that the casual surfer who stumbles across "Lets Roll 911" will then also run into another "Truth" site and get duped into thinking that what he read about has been discredited and debunked.

Jones may in fact be a bad guy, but I bet they did use thermite on the towers. In fact, I would argue that they probably had a lot of redundancy in case anything failed the first time around. (Conventional explosives, beam weapons, maybe a mini-nuke, Thermite.) I really doubt they put all their eggs in one basket. They probably even had other cover stories lined up in case the plane thing didn't go over so well (truck bombs, missiles from the Woolworth building, stolen helicopters, who knows what else...)

Bush's role is very interesting. Bush as front man for the Military Industrial Complex gives it a sort of "Aw gee shucks" image. I hear a lot of lefties argue that Bush is too stupid to plan 9/11. I'm not sure if he's stupid at all or it's just an act, but in any case, I think the folks behind the scenes telling Bush what to say are using this folksy image to their advantage. Bush may even be kept in the dark by the rest of his team. He probably did see the first plane hit, and he may have no clue that the rest of us didn't. I'd guess Bush's world is even more carefully filtered than the average Fox News watcher's. He's probably just a proxy for his dad's friends, at some basic level.

One final thought--I hang out with some of the members of the "elite" and I'm certain most of them have no clue at all about 9/11. The actual insiders are a lot fewer in numbers than the CFR members or guys at the Bohemian Club. I talk with a lot of these guys, and they really think the Muslims attacked us. A few are open to the 9/11 conspiracy ideas. The "perps" are a tiny faction or clique within the "elite" for whatever that's worth.

Fred

2:47 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger