|
 |
|
|
|
|
| A new article is making the rounds at the 9/11 sector of the Internet, titled Discrediting by Association: Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11, by Victoria Ashley. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/patriots_question/index.html It is ostensibly about the bad judgement of the website Patriots Question 9/11, and the possible effects this bad judgement could have on the 9/11 Truth Movement. Victoria Ashley starts this piece by stating her concern that people like Norm Mineta, Curt Weldon, Daniel Ellsberg and Richard Heinberg are being placed on the same lists at this site with Morgan Reynolds, David Shayler, Judy Wood and James Fetzer, a move which she asserts undermines the premise of the site. So i look at the two lists. The first list consists of people who at best have supported the questioning of 9/11 and the re-opening of the investigation, in fact the first two support the official story. None of them can be remotely considered a 9/11 researcher, a person whose main subject of inquiry for writing and otherwise disseminating information is 9/11. The second list consists of people who are known as 9/11 researchers. So i'd assume she contends the first list is out of place. No, the opposite! It's the last four that have supposedly besmirched 9/11 truth by advocating nonsense, even to the point of demanding information from NIST. So why are those people to be condemned? Ashley's basic charge is that PatriotsQuestion present Wood, Reynolds and Fetzer, as well as Shayler, as "serious professionals" and "serious individuals". The implication is that they're all actually frivolous, or not professionals. The site itself presents enough information to make it apparent they are all highly accomplished in their fields, so such an implication is false on its face. Yet for example she contests the site's focus on Reynolds' professional accomplishments, asserting this focus makes it seem as if these accomplishments excuse his *views*. Her problem is not with the seriousness of the individuals named, but with their analyses. The article is thus 100% dishonest in its stated intent, and cannot be taken seriously. As for her specifics, they're the same old charges. For example, she supports claims by Greg Jenkins that Judy Wood's analysis in her request from NIST flagrantly violates the consevation of energy and momentum. These are charges that have been flung at Judy Wood since the day her material appeared on the Internet, and refuted since then, a point never acknowledged by "debunkers" whose MO is strikingly similar to that of trolls. See http://drjudywood.com/BilliardBalls.html And on a related note, one wonders about Ashley's statements regarding the energy requirements to enable the phenomena observed during the destruction of the WTC. One needs to be referred to her close friend Jim Hoffman's essay on the energy requirements of the WTC dust cloud, to see that these requirements, calculated under conservative assumptions, preclude the exclusive use of conventional explosives and thermite/thermate. http://911research.wtc7.net (Once there, look under "essays.") This article and another one from this section were in fact used as references in this Judy Wood article. One wonders what discussion Ashley is trying to prevent from happening. I couldn't help noticing how over and over again, she slams the notion of anything, including "nuclear weapons", being used to destroy the WTC, and charges anyone who advances such notions is essentially disseminationg disinformation. One has to wonder, then, what she thinks of her close friend Dr. Steven Jones's recent statements in a discussion with Dr. William Deagle at the Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference in June, Transcript of "Micronukes vs Thermite/Thermate at WTC" http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Jones-Deagle-MiniNukesvsThermate-etc.htm Either Jones's flirtation with the subject via Deagle was a put-on, or else she's totally unaware he's moving in that direction. Or, she is laying down the line for him, or is setting up an appearance of a split with him. This needs to be noted and recorded, in case Jones does an Orwellian turn and suddenly comes out favoring "nukes", and she tries to pretend he always has held that point of view, and she always has as well. Her rejection of the use of any exotic weaponry interestingly excludes MASER, a possibility brought up in the past by.....Jim Hoffman. Maybe this article is intended as a coded statement to certain people in the movement to stay in line, for it sure makes no sense in terms of its ostensible subject. Jeff Strahl |
|
|
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the articles posted on this webpage are distributed for their included information without profit for research and/or educational purposes only. This webpage has no affiliation whatsoever with the original sources of the articles nor are we sponsored or endorsed by any of the original sources.
© 2006-2007 Judy Wood and the author above. All rights reserved. |
|
|