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