Re: Jones & Reynolds on Pro-Planes vs. No-Planes Truth
Tue Aug 8, 2006 18:52

 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Jones & Reynolds on Pro-Planes vs. No-Planes Truth at National Press Club on September 6??? [RE: Jones' " truth"]
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 14:06:38 -0600
From: Steve Jones hardevidence@gmail.com
To: Gerard Holmgren holmgren@iinet.net.au
CC: Craig T. Furlong cfurlong1@socal.rr.com, Thomas J. Mattingly thomasjmattingly@msn.com, Nico Haupt nicohaupt2@yahoo.com, webfairy@thewebfairy.com, jwalter@reopen911.org, rick@ricksiegel.com, rick_14@mit.edu, nicohaupt@gmx.li, James Roger Brown , jfetzer@d.umn.edu, vyzygoth IV , Victor Thorn & Lisa Giuliani , Brett Furlong , dana@mail.house.gov, email@911proof.com, truthabout911@hotmail.com, janice@911truth.org, david@911truth.org, gabriel@911truth.org, michael@911truth.org, kevin@mujca.com, spam@wtc7.net, tips@infowars.com, info@septembereleventh.org, tom@informationclearinghouse.info, jim@jimmarrs.com, ksusiek@shentel.net, lewrockwell@mac.com, henry@savethemales.ca, kylehence@earthlink.net, gat_turner@hotmail.com, apfn@apfn.org, deanna@spingola.com, frostyw@juno.com, osanic@prouty.org, anita@mindgallery.com, Dahr Jamail , paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com, Webster Tarpley
References: <00b301c6b8bb$8470fbf0$54be1e18@VALUED7B9600FA> <57qjhe$h9mi4p@iinet-mail.icp-qv1-irony2.iinet.net.au>


Thomas,
You wrote: "Thank you, Steve, for your email indicating that you have signed the petition requesting a scholarly article scientifically examining the soft & hard evidence for the 9/11 pro-planes & no-planes hypotheses and the 9/11 TV & media integrity and the 9/11 TV & media fakery hypotheses (with your comments & suggestions for the article). A proper scientific examination of all these hypotheses will bolster our credibility and may deter those who are now taking positions on these hypotheses without having examined the best evidence. For those who have not seen or signed the petition, it is available at http://www.petitiononline.com/911tvfak/petition.html ."

Indeed, I have "signed the petition requesting a scholarly article scientifically examining the soft & hard evidence for the 9/11 pro-planes & no-planes hypotheses and the 9/11 TV & media integrity and the 9/11 TV & media fakery hypotheses (with your comments & suggestions for the article)" .

And clearly this is the best way to proceed -- with scholarly articles on the subject at hand, rather than by verbal debates. And so I invite your group -- whomever you choose among yourselves -- to write a scholarly paper scientifically examining the evidence for the "No-planes hypotheses" as you put it, for submission to the http://Journalof911Studies.com. I would welcome such a submission.

I have recently invited someone to write such a paper for the "pro-planes" hypothesis. If you submit your paper in a reasonable amount of time, say by August 21, I will have them BOTH peer-reviewed (like all papers in this journal), and on completion, published SIDE-BY-SIDE in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, for all to read the arguments.

Clearly, this is much better procedure than a debate, nor will I be available in the Sept 11 2006 time-frame to accept your invitation for a verbal debate, as I am already booked to be in New York City during that time.

I also invite Gerard Holmgren to write a scholarly paper demonstrating that Steven Jones NOW espouses a no-controlled-demolition-of-WTC position, and I (Steven Jones) will be happy to write a refutation paper -- both can be published side-by-side in the same Journal. My paper will probably be short, since I have already published extensively on the compelling evidence for controlled demolition by cutter charges, and so I can simply reference my earlier work.

Seriously, please accept this invitation to put together a paper explaining the evidences you find for the no-planes-hypothesis, minding the comments outlined for such a paper here: http://www.petitiononline.com/911tvfak/petition.html .

Best wishes,
Steven Jones


On 8/5/06, Gerard Holmgren < holmgren@iinet.net.au> wrote:

It is not name calling to describe someone who lies as a liar.

Steven Jones is a liar.

It is not name calling to describe someone who commits plagiarism as a plagiarist.

Steven Jones is a plagiarist.

If it is name calling to use the term "junk science", then I simply can't imagine where I picked up this dreadful phrase.

The Dar side of Professor Jones
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/darkside.html

Scholars for 911 plagiarism and disinformation.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/scholars.html

And since Jones is now denying demolition evidence, why is he is he still being touted as a supporter of that evidence?

From: Craig T. Furlong [mailto:cfurlong1@socal.rr.com]
Sent: Sunday, 6 August 2006 4:18 AM
To: 'Thomas J. Mattingly'; holmgren@iinet.net.au

Cc: 'Nico Haupt'; webfairy@thewebfairy.com; jwalter@reopen911.org; rick@ricksiegel.com; rick_14@mit.edu; nicohaupt@gmx.li; 'Steve Jones'; 'James Roger Brown'; jfetzer@d.umn.edu; 'vyzygoth IV'; 'Victor Thorn & Lisa Giuliani'; 'Brett Furlong'; dana@mail.house.gov; email@911proof.com; truthabout911@hotmail.com; janice@911truth.org; david@911truth.org; gabriel@911truth.org; michael@911truth.org; kevin@mujca.com; spam@wtc7.net; tips@infowars.com; info@septembereleventh.org; tom@informationclearinghouse.info; jim@jimmarrs.com; ksusiek@shentel.net; lewrockwell@mac.com; henry@savethemales.ca; kylehence@earthlink.net; gat_turner@hotmail.com; apfn@apfn.org; deanna@spingola.com; frostyw@juno.com; osanic@prouty.org; anita@mindgallery.com; 'Dahr Jamail'; paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com; 'Webster Tarpley'
Subject: RE: Jones & Reynolds on Pro-Planes vs. No-Planes Truth at National Press Club on September 6??? [RE: Jones' " truth"]

QUOTE:

Some name-calling and acrimony may be good amongst the 9/11 truth troopers. It may help to keep us focused & interested (except when it does not). Let's strike a balance. When the mainstream & alternative media focus on us within the next few weeks, what will the world see? Will they see the best evidence for the methods, motives & perpetrators of 911? Or will they see the '9/11 Best Evidence Movement ' in the midst of self-controlled demolition?


I (Tom) agree 100%. This last line you wrote is the best focus of all.

Craig T. Furlong
Huntington Beach, California... Surf City USA !

This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

1 John 4:10

From: Thomas J. Mattingly [mailto:thomasjmattingly@msn.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 12:58 AM
To: holmgren@iinet.net.au
Cc: 'Nico Haupt'; webfairy@thewebfairy.com; jwalter@reopen911.org; rick@ricksiegel.com; rick_14@mit.edu; nicohaupt@gmx.li; 'Steve Jones'; 'James Roger Brown'; jfetzer@d.umn.edu; 'vyzygoth IV'; 'Victor Thorn & Lisa Giuliani'; 'Brett Furlong'; dana@mail.house.gov; email@911proof.com; truthabout911@hotmail.com; janice@911truth.org; david@911truth.org; gabriel@911truth.org; michael@911truth.org; kevin@mujca.com; spam@wtc7.net; tips@infowars.com; info@septembereleventh.org; tom@informationclearinghouse.info; jim@jimmarrs.com; ksusiek@shentel.net; lewrockwell@mac.com; henry@savethemales.ca; kylehence@earthlink.net; gat_turner@hotmail.com; apfn@apfn.org; deanna@spingola.com; frostyw@juno.com; osanic@prouty.org; anita@mindgallery.com; 'Dahr Jamail'; paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com; Webster Tarpley
Subject: Jones & Reynolds on Pro-Planes vs. No-Planes Truth at National Press Club on September 6??? [RE: Jones' " truth"]


Hi, Craig & Gerard (Tom & Jerry?):

You may want to surf to the National Press Club in Washington, DC on September 6, when Professor Steven E. Jones and Professor Morgan Reynolds may discuss the best evidence for their "Pro-Planes" and "No-Planes" hypotheses (respectively, but not necessarily respectfully) . Of course, they may also discuss the best evidence on other 9/11 issues. Please see my invitations to them below. Morgan has confirmed. Steve may confirm in the near future.

Despite his apparent "Pro-Planes" position, Steve Jones has signed the petition requesting an article in the Journal of 9/11 Studies requesting a best-evidence examination of "The 9/11 Pro-Planes Hypothesis," " The 9/11 No-Planes Hypothesis," "The 9/11 TV & Media Integrity Hypothesis," and the "The 9/11 TV & Media Fakery Hypothesis" (my characterizations of the relevant hypotheses). If y'all are interested in these questions, then you too may want to follow Steve's lead & sign the petition (with your comments & suggestions, if you would).

The 9/11 perps are tacitly and not-so-tacitly encouraging a "Divide-and-Conquer" strategy. Tom & Jerry (and others) may be playing right into their hands. Maybe we should follow Steve's & Morgan's lead: Let's examine all of the best evidence on 9/11 -- without unnecessary name-calling & acrimony.

Some name-calling and acrimony may be good amongst the 9/11 truth troopers. It may help to keep us focused & interested (except when it does not). Let's strike a balance. When the mainstream & alternative media focus on us within the next few weeks, what will the world see? Will they see the best evidence for the methods, motives & perpetrators of 911? Or will they see the '9/11 Best Evidence Movement' in the midst of self-controlled demolition?

Let me know. Thank you. Best regards,

Thomas J Mattingly

From: thomasjmattingly@msn.com
To: hardevidence@gmail.com; steven_jones@byu.edu
CC: econrn@cox-internet.com; jwalter@reopen911.org; webfairy@thewebfairy.com; richard@8thestate.com; bshonegg@nps.edu; anniemachon@yahoo.co.uk; klkuttle@byu.edu; me@veronicachapman.com; jfetzer@d.umn.edu; dmshayler@yahoo.co.uk; rick_14@mit.edu; lytetrip@yahoo.com; pvsheridan@comcast.net; lynnertell@comcast.net; jmarrs@ntws.net; nk@astro3.demon.co.uk; burns@talk21.com; loneagle@knology.net; lisa@renaissance-advising.com; dylan@loosechange911.com; mrplutocrat@aol.com; nicohaupt@gmx.li; tarpley@radix.net; holmgren@iinet.net.au; stu8340@comcast.net; ad.johnson@ntlworld.com; lee@plf.net; tblock@screaming.net; cotingas@hotmail.com; hera@nemesisawake.com; mdmorrissey@t-online.de; graham@grahamrichardson.com
Subject: Steven Jones - You are invited to speak at the National Press Club... [RE: Morgan - National Press Club: Confirmed... ]
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 17:24:27 -0400

Hi, Steve:

On behalf of McClendon Group Chairman John Edward Hurley of the National Press Club, I hereby invite you to speak at the National Press Club in Washington, DC with Morgan Reynolds on September 6, 2006.

* * * * * * * * *

On behalf of all Americans and others who sincerely seek the whole truth about the methods, motives & perpetrators of the events of September 11, 2001, I strongly urge you to accept this invitation. Yes, there has been some controversy concerning Morgan and you. This will add to media appeal for this event. The areas of agreement and disagreement between Morgan & you will also help us to set the tone for the 9/11 investigatory work yet to come.

Please contact me for more details at your earliest convenience.

Let me know. More soon. Thank you. Best regards,

Thomas J Mattingly

P.S. A Semi-Relevant Aside: Thank you, Steve, for your email indicating that you have signed the petition requesting a scholarly article scientifically examining the soft & hard evidence for the 9/11 pro-planes & no-planes hypotheses and the 9/11 TV & media integrity and the 9/11 TV & media fakery hypotheses (with your comments & suggestions for the article). A proper scientific examination of all these hypotheses will bolster our credibility and may deter those who are now taking positions on these hypotheses without having examined the best evidence. For those who have not seen or signed the petition, it is available at www.petitiononline.com/911tvfak/petition.html .


From: "Thomas J Mattingly" thomasjmattingly@msn.com

To: "Morgan Reynolds" econrn@cox-internet.com

Subject: Morgan - National Press Club: Confirmed... [RE: Steve Jones-- Morgan Reynolds: The 9/11 Pro-Planes 'Consensus View' Is Dead... [RE: Steve & Jim - Moving BACK to the Future Forefront on 9/11...]]

Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 12:35:22 -0400

Morgan:

You say: "> Of course I would be happy to speak at a NPC event. The major
> condition is that I speak as Morgan Reynolds, not a choir boy with
> credentials singing psalms from a hymnal written by 9/11 unity central.
> As the JAWS skipper would say, "Ya catch my drift?""

If I thought you were a choir boy, then I wouldn't have suggested it. We're looking for the cutting edge of the horse -- not the trailing edge (if ya catch my riff).

National Press Club McClendon Group Chairman John Edward Hurley has tentatively confirmed your NPC presentation for sometime on or before September 11, 2006. We'll also check the possibility of a larger NPC venue. I will get back to you with more details, including available dates and times.

Thank you. Best regards,

Thomas J Mattingly



> From: econrn@cox-internet.com

> Subject: Re: Steve Jones-- Morgan Reynolds: The 9/11 Pro-Planes 'Consensus View' Is Dead... [RE: Steve & Jim - Moving BACK to the Future Forefront on 9/11...]

> Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 09:52:12 -0500

> To: thomasjmattingly@msn.com
>
> Of course I would be happy to speak at a NPC event. The major
> condition is that I speak as Morgan Reynolds, not a choir boy with
> credentials singing psalms from a hymnal written by 9/11 unity central.
> As the JAWS skipper would say, "Ya catch my drift?"
>
> Major rationale: we are not close to arresting a single perp after five
> years. Relevant definition of insanity: keep doing the same thing
> expecting a different outcome.
>
>





From: holmgren@iinet.net.au
To: cfurlong1@socal.rr.com
CC: nicohaupt2@yahoo.com; webfairy@thewebfairy.com; jwalter@reopen911.org; rick@ricksiegel.com; rick_14@MIT.EDU; thomasjmattingly@msn.com; nicohaupt@gmx.li; hardevidence@gmail.com; thesociologist@adelphia.net; jfetzer@d.umn.edu; vyzygoth@hotmail.com; sisyphus1285@cs.com; brett.furlong@verizon.net; Dana@mail.house.gov; email@911Proof.com; truthabout911@hotmail.com; janice@911truth.org; david@911truth.org; gabriel@911truth.org; michael@911truth.org; kevin@mujca.com; spam@wtc7.net; tips@infowars.com; info@septembereleventh.org; tom@informationclearinghouse.info; jim@jimmarrs.com; ksusiek@shentel.net; lewrockwell@mac.com; henry@savethemales.ca; kylehence@earthlink.net; gat_turner@hotmail.com; apfn@apfn.org; deanna@spingola.com; frostyw@juno.com; osanic@prouty.org; anita@mindgallery.com; mail@dahrjamailiraq.com; paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com
Subject: Jones' " truth"
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 15:20:18 +1000

Notice how gutless Jones still hides behind his troll.



Hey Jonesy. Apparently on CSPAN, you did not*once* mention that burning jet fuel cannot melt steel. And did not even commit yourself to WTC1 and 2 being demolished, but obsessed with building 7.



Jones is claiming that the free fall argument and the resistance paradox do *not* prove demolition.



This is of course why he is able to get onto mainstream media. Because he is spinning the govt line. He also never answered Nico's questions in relation his association with high tech weaponry of the sort that may have been used in the demolition.



Jones the liar, the plagiarist, and the idiot.



The Dark Side of Professor Jones.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/darkside.html
 

Main Page - Thursday, 08/10/06

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]

APFN MESSAGEBOARD ARCHIVES

messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)