
A Brilliant Response to "A Note From Professor Steven Jones"
Drs. Stephen Jones and Greg Ziegler
way, that there is a profound difference between power and force.
"The enemy" will learn that lesson sooner or later. Tom....
A brilliant response from a friend and colleague, Greg Ziegler
PhD, to my earlier post, “A Note from Prof. Steven Jones”
[Greg is a former US Military Intel officer and retired
professor]. I would urge you to pass this on... Of course
the guilty would love to say that we will never get to the bottom
of the issue. By now, the theoretical case has in effect
been settled. Silverstein admitted blowing up WTC7, no
evidence of a 757 at the Pentagon has been forthcoming, etc.
The real attitude of the perps could best be paraphrased as
follows:
"You have no power. As far as we are concerned, we can
keep debating for ever. We can even have annual conspiracy
conventions on 9/11, with a host of speakers. To use a Russian expression, the dogs may bark as the train roars along. You
are the dogs, and we are the train. Keep whining. We will
keep on declaring ourselves unconvinced. We still own the
TV, we still own the military, and you can chatter on the
internet all you want as you fade into ineffectual obscurity."
That is the essence of their real position.
My attitude [and our attitude, in my opinion] is this:
"You have wrecked the economy. Enron is merely a symptom
of a looted nation, including 2.6 trillion missing from the
Pentagon, an uncontrollable trade deficit, a crashing
domestic automotive industry, etc. You are facing military
exhaustion, as your megalomaniacal schemes for world
domination are collapsing because of overpriced weaponry
and a disappearing base of military manpower. We can
and will wait until economic collapse and military exhaustion
set in. At that time, you will have no power. The arrests,
interrogations, and trials will take place. There will be no
further debate. The issue will be settled by evidence in
criminal judicial proceedings, as they were when your
colleagues in Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan ran out of
power to bully dissent."
This is not a matter of truth, but power. As long as the perps
cling onto the power they value (TV and the military) they
feel they can safely pretend to be unconvinced by even the
most overwhelming arguments. Only when their
power collapses will the weight of the arguments be
acknowledged.
Remember, even Galileo was forced to recant his view that
the earth revolvesaround the Sun. Only when the Thirty Years
War was over, in 1648, could a sizeable portion of the population
of Europe defy the ecclesiastical powerstructure to recognize
the cogency of Galileo's truths. If Galileo himself had to undergo
the humiliation of an actual recantation, who are we to complain
that the perps, naturally enough, claim that we will never
resolve the issue?
Galileo won. So will we. But only when the power of the perps
is broken.
########################################
To be excluded from this group, please reply with “DELETE” typed
in the subject line.
__________________________________________________________
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 8:58 AM
Subject: A Note from Prof. Steven Jones
As most (if not all) of you already know, Prof. Steven Jones
is the BYU physicist who was the first academic to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the Twin Towers were
brought down with explosives. Prof. Jones, who’s co-chair
(along with Prof. James Fetzer) of Scholars For 9/11
Truth, copied me on the following recent email; it is self-
explanatory emphases mine)...
Though it's very late, I'd like to share a few thoughts before
I retire.
1. Evidently there are some who go to considerable lengths
to promote the notion that there can never be "proof" of an
inside job on 9/11 --whether that happened or not as an inside
job. So, we might as well abandon the effort, and let it go.
Others (I have read) have pointed out this argument was used
effectively to stymie further investigation of the JFK assassination.
I wonder how many "9/11 truthers" are buying into such a
discouraging philosophy?
2. Some OTOH raise the "preponderance of evidence" argument
-- that
will stand in a court of law or impeachment, if we can ever get to
such a trial. This approach may work, given enough time and the
opportunity for a trial in an objective court.
3. As a third alternative, I'm seeking solid evidences that approach
scientific proof. And I see three possible avenues here:
A. The use of thermite in arson has been proven beyond reasonable
doubt in many cases already: Fire investigators have developed
techniques to pin down the use of thermite, as I discussed in my LA
talk. The signature residues of thermite are so distinctive -- when
one uses EDS, XRF and other methods -- that it is indeed possible
to prove arson by thermite. This gives me hope that this approach
can be effectively used to prove thermite use on 9/11. (And I
deeply appreciate your help in this research effort!)
Note also that while I'm leaning now to the use of thermite-
containing sol-gels, it is possible that cylinders containing
thermite as you have found patents for could have [also]
been used. Finding such a
cylinder would indeed be a dramatic proof in itself, I believe.
B. Showing that the Towers and/or WTC 7 would not have
collapsed so rapidly or in the way they did, if fires alone had
initiated collapse.
Here the published works of Prof. Kuttler and Gordon Ross
(and others) are hopeful -- in that their line of reasoning
and calculations could very well lead to a conclusion that
deliberate actions would have been
required to bring the buildings down in the WAY THEY WERE
OBSERVED TO COLLAPSE.
C. Confession by an insider, particularly a high-up insider with
detailed insider information which could be checked, would end the
debate also.
D. Another 9/11-type "catalyzing event" may be staged by
perpetrators, and with the number of people aware of the
likelihood of such staged events and WATCHING, it is likely
that the data will be gathered quickly and not effectively
destroyed this next time. (I'mremembering here the way
the steel was shipped to Asia for recycling from the 9/11
events, for example) . In this way, the perps would be
stopped -- by observant citizens working together.
So no, I do not accept the defeatist arguments that the debate over
9/11 will never end. Indeed, I am inclined to believe, because of the
progress lately in the areas delineated above -- that the end of the
debate will come rather soon. I believe this will happen before the
2008 elections, if we keep pressing forward as we have in recent
months, in the "9/11 Truth Movement."
My desire here is to encourage you to keep up the investigative
andhighly supportive work that you have done, for which I offer
my deepest appreciation.
Best wishes and regards,
Steven E. Jones
6 July 2006