[Vision2020] Journal of 9/11 Studies: Peer Reviewed Work RaisingQuestions

[lfalen]

Ted these are still just wild theories. There have been many alternative reports on the assassination of JFK, some that seem will documented. Jim Garrison brought a lawsuit to try to prove it. he lost. Where are the lawsuits on 9/11?
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: Ted Moffett starbliss at gmail.com
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 01:52:31 -0700
To: Garrett Clevenger garrettmc at verizon.net
Subject: [Vision2020] Journal of 9/11 Studies: Peer Reviewed Work RaisingQuestions

> Keely wrote:
> 
> "So I understand the "they shoulda known" element of the "conspiracy," I
> suppose, but can someone explain what it is that makes some believe there
> were specific acts committed in service of deliberate scenarios that left
> more than 3,000 people dead in PA, NYC, and DC -- and that these acts were
> committed by our government against its own people?"
> -----------------
> Some people believe alternative theories about the World Trade Center
> collapse, and the other 9/11 attacks, because, amazingly, there are
> seemingly credible sources of evidence and analysis to support
> these theories, as you can read at the papers referenced here, which are
> sourced from what appear to be peer reviewed professional journals.
> 
> I directly reference papers suggesting thermite involved in the WTC
> collapse, and that question the claim that the total collapse could happen
> solely from the aircraft strike and fire on the upper floors *(I am not
> endorsing these alternative theories).*  But others believe in seemingly
> incredible theories about 9/11 because they have an emotional bias, for
> whatever reason(s), to accept these theories; so any evidence, however
> questionable, that suggests the official explanation for the 9/11 attacks is
> doubtful, is seized as proof of a conspiracy.
> 
> I think a comparison can be made between some of those who believe that the
> scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate warming (Examining the
> Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Journal "EOS"
> http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf ) is a deliberate hoax
> or conspiracy among climate scientists, and those who accept incredible
> conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks.  All that some people who claim
> global warming is a hoax need to justify their belief is a list of "experts"
> (MIT's Richard Lindzen, for example) who raise questions about the science
> involved, to prove that the thousands of scientists around the planet, who
> after exhaustive peer review argue that human activity is profoundly
> altering climate, are engaged in a conspiracy to deceive the world.
> Similarly, all that some who think the 9/11 attacks involved more than the
> actions of the 9/11 terrorists require, to justify their belief, is a few
> "experts" who raise questions, regardless if it can be shown via peer review
> that these questions have plausible explanations that do not involve an
> alternative conspiracy interpretation.
> 
> One of the main alternative theories is that thermite was planted in the
> World Trade Center towers to ensure a more total collapse, that would not
> have happened from the aircraft strike alone.  I have read here (Journal
> of Engineering Mechanics: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgb.pdf ) that evidence
> for thermite in the WTC debris is due to chemical reactions in material
> contained in the building, not because thermite was deliberately planted in
> the building by conspirators; and that the total collapse can be explained
> by the aircraft strike alone and resulting fire.  However, this source
> raises serious questions that the total collapse can be explained only by
> the aircraft strike and fire:
> 
> http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM
> 
> The Open Civil Engineering Journal
> 
> Volume 2
> ISSN: 1874-1495
> 
> Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World
> Trade Center Destruction
> -----------
> 
> And this paper might be sourced by those who think thermite was planted in
> the WTC:
> 
> http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
> 
> The Open Chemical Physics Journal
> 
> Volume 2
> ISSN: 1874-4125
> Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
> Center Catastrophe
> -------------------------
> 
> Of course the thermite conspiracy theory implies some rather connected and
> powerful people had inside knowledge that aircraft would be hijacked to
> strike the towers, who had access to the WTC, and wanted to exploit maximum
> damage for whatever agenda they were pursuing (perhaps the "new Pearl
> Harbor" from page 51 of the "Project for the New American Century" document
> "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New
> Century" September 2000:
> http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
> 
> David Ray Griffin, a process theologian from the Claremont School of
> Theology, presents evidence that 9/11 was anticipated.  A review of his
> book, "*The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush
> Administration and 9/11"*, by Dr. Rosemary Radford Ruether, a pioneer
> Christian feminist theologian, is at this website:
> 
> http://www.ratical.com/ratville/CAH/nPearlHarbor.html
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> The "thermite" claim is a rather incredible conspiracy theory.  The
> conspiracy theory that those in the intelligence business who were "in the
> know" about the 9/11 plot simply took no action to stop it, to exploit the
> attacks for a certain agenda, is much more believable.  Think of Oliver
> North and his illegal actions regarding Iran-Contra.
> But if any of the 9/11 conspiracy plots were true, to say those involved
> represented "our government," requires qualification.   There are "black-op"
> activities that our kept "off the books": members of the US Congress, even
> the president and his cabinet, may not be aware of these activities, by
> design.  Was it "our government" who engaged in the "Iran-Contra" affair?
> 
> --------------
> The following website lists numerous sources suggesting "alternative"
> theories regarding  9/11, some, not all, from professional science
> journals.  It appears the claim that some of these papers are "peer
> reviewed" means those who sponsor the website are the "peers" who review,
> which is not how the peer review process works in professional science
> publishing.  This approach is sometimes how junk science on anthropogenic
> climate warming is presented as "peer reviewed," when the process is not
> independent of bias, nor open to random selection of professional
> reviewers.  A couple of scientists start a journal and accept papers that
> fit their bias, to create the impression they are publishing credible
> independently peer reviewed science:
> 
> http://www.journalof911studies.com/
> ------------------------------------------
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net>wrote:
> 
> >   Keely asks:
> >
> >
> > "can someone explain what it is that makes some believe there were specific
> > acts committed in service of deliberate scenarios that left more than 3,000
> > people dead in PA, NYC, and DC -- and that these acts were committed by our
> > government against its own people?"
> >
> >
> >
> > Governments have done way worse.
> >
> >
> > History shows there are despicable people who use their power in such a
> > way.
> >
> >
> > Whether it was this government or a Saudi fanatic, some person chose to do
> > such a thing, which shows that people can be very, very bad.
> >
> >
> > Also, people are gullible and will believe anything.  I'm sure some think
> > it was aliens who controlled the minds of some poor earthling who was the
> > real terrorist.
> >
> >
> > There's probably even someone out there who thinks it was me!
> >
> >
> >
> > Garrett Clevenger
> >
> > --- On *Wed, 3/24/10, keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com>* wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com>
> > Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Former US Senator & 9/11 Commissoner Max Cleland
> > To: moscowrecycling at turbonet.com, lfalen at turbonet.com,
> > garrettmc at verizon.net
> > Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
> > Date: Wednesday, March 24, 2010, 12:41 PM
> >
> >
> > Excellent point, but I think it's also important to realize that it was the
> > Bush administration, pre-9/11, which was laying the groundwork for war in
> > Iraq -- facts be damned -- and led a devil's rush in precisely, exactly, the
> > direction from which the attacks didn't come.  The Clinton presidency was
> > highly imperfect, but it wasn't his administration that desperately sought
> > reason to invade Iraq under the flimsiest of pretenses.
> >
> > I've looked over some 9/11 conspiracy sites and find them interesting but
> > not terribly convincing.  I'm wondering how those who believe there was a
> > conspiracy -- not of individual acts of omission, but of specific acts of
> > comission -- explain jetliners full of victims vaporized on contact.  If I
> > read correctly, some even think the planes were empty, or largely so, and
> > the examination of passenger manifests surely would rule that out.
> > (Manifests, and common sense).
> >
> > So I understand the "they shoulda known" element of the "conspiracy," I
> > suppose, but can someone explain what it is that makes some believe there
> > were specific acts committed in service of deliberate scenarios that left
> > more than 3,000 people dead in PA, NYC, and DC -- and that these acts were
> > committed by our government against its own people?
> >
> > Keely
> > www.keely-prevailingwinds.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > From: moscowrecycling at turbonet.com
> > > To: lfalen at turbonet.com; garrettmc at verizon.net
> > > Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:24:11 -0700
> > > CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Former US Senator & 9/11 Commissoner Max
> > Cleland
> > >
> > > I'll put blame on the economy as far back as Reagan for deregulating wall
> >
> > > street.
> > > Andy Boyd
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "lfalen" <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> > > To: "Garrett Clevenger" <garrettmc at verizon.net>
> > > Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 10:59 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Former US Senator & 9/11 Commissoner Max
> > Cleland
> > >
> > >
> > > >I do not wish to exonerate Bush in this. I think that his people should
> > > >have been more on top of it. It does seem funny to me though that Obama
> > > >still blaming every thing wrong with the economy on Bush. You should
> > > >remember that 9/11 occurred shortly after Bush took office. Why not put
> > > >some of the blame on Clinton?
> > > > Roger
> > > > -----Original message-----
> > > > From: Garrett Clevenger garrettmc at verizon.net
> > > > Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:42:23 -0700
> > > > To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> > > > Subject: Re: Former US Senator & 9/11 Commissoner Max Cleland
> > > >
> > > >> Roger writes:
> > > >> "There has many books written,lawsuits and movies about the Warren
> > > >> Commission also. Anybody can write a book speculating on conspiracies.
> >
> > > >> This is not proof of anything."
> > > >>
> > > >> True, anybody could write a book about anything, including a
> > particular
> > > >> religion, but that is not proof of anything.
> > > >> The ironic thing is that 911 was supposedly islamic terrorist based
> > which
> > > >> was leapt upon by christians, including WBush, both with religions
> > based
> > > >> upon mostly the same book speculating what God wants. But it doesn't
> > make
> > > >> it true.
> > > >> A lot of damage is caused by people who believe what a certain book
> > says,
> > > >> so believe me, I'm skeptical about pretty much everything.
> > > >> But, common sense dictates that if powerful people espoused a certain
> > > >> belief as pointed out by Ted
> > > >> (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)
> > and
> > > >> then that unfolds while they are in power, then I have to question
> > that
> > > >> coincidence.
> > > >> I have no idea what the truth is around 911, but I do see that the
> > > >> consequences were way worse than they needed to be, and I blame that
> > on
> > > >> those who were in power at the time.
> > > >> Since there is a lot of evidence to suggest either incompetence or
> > > >> purposeful malfeasance, as a conscious human I can't help but be
> > > >> irritated by that, and at least have an open mind about possible
> > > >> scenarios.
> > > >> After all, truth is often more unbelievable than fiction...
> > > >>
> > > >> Garrett Clevenger
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > =======================================================
> >
> >
> 
>