Bottom

homepage

Star Wars Beam Weapon

Billiard Balls

Press Release

DQA-NIST

Whistleblower Information

Scientific Method

Why Indeed

FAQ

Disinfo

CriticsCorner

source:

Thank you for agreeing to support the release of broadcast-quality news videos for 9/11 research.

Please follow this link and add your name to the signatures.

http://www.petitiononline.com/911Video/petition.html

Sincerely,

Alexander Collin "Ace" Baker

Ace,

I did not agree-- did I? -- to having my name attached to any document before having a chance to read it -- but this is what you have done.
This statement contains inaccuracy and I do not agree to it: Dr. Jones is a retired professor of physics at Brigham Young University, and a founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.

So I cannot sign. The rest I will look at. Until I finish and approve (or disapprove), I ask you to remove my name from the document. I will NOT sign something I have not read first. I thought I made that abundantly clear in previous email.

Steven

Ace,

Morgan Reynolds has referred to me as "retarded" and in another instance he called me an "incorrigible liar". I have demanded an apology -- or substantiation. He has provided neither. I will not co-sign a document with Morgan Reynolds until he either retracts or substantiates his false and demeaning remarks.

If you tell any one of my declining to co-sign your document, I ask that you tell them my reasons by providing this email in its entirety.

Sincerely,

Steven Jones

Steven,

I don't recall reading any of those particular characterizations of you in Morgan's work. I do recall you writing and also stating on camera that you would support a request for these broadcast-quality videos. Endorsement of the petition is quite independent from any personal quarrels you may have had with Morgan Reynolds, or Mete Sozen for that matter. The totality of your 9/11 work says, in effect, that NIST and the government engineers (which would include Mete Sozen) are incorrigible liars. You don't think they made errors, as I understand it, you think they are lying and covering up mass murder, OK?

I sought and obtained endorsement for my petition from three disparate 9/11 researchers. Of course you have disagreements with the other two. In fact, that is the whole point. These three 9/11 researchers, with heady disagreements between them, perhaps even some unfortunate insults behind-the-scenes, nevertheless can recognize an opportunity to advance scientific understanding, and will lend their respective names to the effort.

C'mon Steve, you don't want to be the one dragging your heels on this one. If you do, then no matter what I say, you'll come off as the one protecting the networks, and standing in the way of good science. I don't think you want that.

Sincerely,

Ace Baker

"I don't recall reading any of those particular characterizations of you in Morgan's work."

Then you haven't read the articles by Wood and Reynolds here: ("_Reynolds and Wood try to help Steven E. Jones_", and Reynolds and Wood, _Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate?_) under the joint authorship (and concomitant responsibility) of Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood nor my letter (I quote some of it for you below, for your convenience), here: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/JonesRepliesToFetzer.pdf

Published. Read these, and you will have the basis for my firm decision.

Regards,
Steven J

Quoting from http://journalof911studies.com/letters/JonesRepliesToFetzer.pdf

I have objected to the ad hominems (quoted below) in the non-peer-reviewed papers by Wood and Reynolds and have asked them for an explanation or apology, following which I will further respond to them. For example, in an email dated March 27, 2007, I wrote to Wood and Reynolds – copy to Jim Fetzer – the following:

Morgan…
I would never say of a colleague [as you did of me]
"Jones gives experimentalists a bad name."
"Can a Ph.D. physicist be this retarded?"
"We wonder if his college and university approve of his behavior."
"Given Jones's enormous popularity in the 9/11 arena, we must undertake the unpleasant task of social analysis."
"At the end of our paper, it is true that our section titled "Vote for Jones" addressed his campaign to be the only 9/11 scientist in town. [Which is total nonsense. I frequently refer to papers by David Griscom, Kevin Ryan, Frank Legge, Kenneth Kuttler and others -- SJ] We regret having to consider the politics of the Jones' phenomenon, but we in good conscience had to address it since his rise in the 9/11 movement rests largely on prestige and pandering, not on good science."

"Since he is no video expert, the clueless professor might ask himself if the Newtonian laws of motion still prevailed on 9/11."
"Jones has this 'baby face' that - and 'soft personality' - that seems to 'sell' his positions."
"Jones huffs and puffs, "The argument must be to the DATA, not to
the source (ad hominem)."

source:

The above statements are published ("_Reynolds and Wood try to help Steven E. Jones_", and Reynolds and Wood, _Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate?_ ) under the joint authorship (and concomitant responsibility) of Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood and I demand of you both an apology and retraction.

Thank you,
Steven Jones

Dear Dr. Jones,

I cannot accept your resignation. You've agreed to support a petition, and I say you should support it. I have no problem changing your affiliation with S911T&J from "founder" to "member". As I said, I feel your support is independent of disagreements you had with Morgan Reynolds on other subjects.

However, since you brought it up, I'll give you my take on the Reynolds/Wood "retarded" quote. Thanks for the links making it easy for me to review. Dr. Reynolds did not refer to you as "retarded", rather he expressed doubt that you (or any Ph.D. physicist) could be as retarded as you appear to be in the referenced passage. That's different, so my recollection was not incorrect.

In reference to a Moiré analysis showing a gradually dampening oscillation at the 70th floor window, Steven Jones said:

"These are physical data, showing a characteristic nearly exponential decay (damping) of the oscillation. Observed oscillation of the WTC 2 Tower provides compelling empirical evidence that it was hit by a fast-moving jetliner. Any claim to the contrary must confront these published data or the analysis thereof.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5.pdf p. 26.
It will not do in scientific inquiry to ignore data like this – even if one does not trust the source for some reason. In other words, the argument must be to the DATA, not to the source (ad hominem).]"

To which Reynolds and Wood reply:

"We gasp at Jones’ 'analysis' of tower oscillation. Can a Ph.D. physicist be this retarded? We are happy to address oscillation but Jones did not discuss it in his July pdf, which was the source for our analysis. We never brought it up, so we puzzle over why he introduces it now instead of discussing demolition or thermite.

But let us go there. Each tower suddenly had a large hole in it, spread over five or more floors, at least 100 feet wide and some 15 feet tall or higher at its apex. No one disputes these holes, only the cause. Something caused the holes, Steven, one side asserting plane crashes, another internal explosives (let us put aside earthquakes and other possibilities for the sake of this present argument). No one we know challenges the measurements and the building quickly damped the oscillations. Most occupants of the towers seemed to think that the building oscillated because of a bomb or bombs, especially those who had experienced the FBI-led 1993 bombing. They had no better theory at the time."

So the Reynolds wisecrack is a rhetorical construction which means he doesn't think you honestly believe what you're saying. In context, I interpret Reynolds' use of the word "retarded" here in it's most literal sense, as in "held back" or "not up to speed" on the particular issue of interpreting Moiré analysis. Reynolds is simply saying that a jetliner impact is but one possible cause of this oscillation, and that a large internal explosion of some sort would be another. Thus the Moiré plot is interesting, but doesn't shed light on the problem one way or the other, and that somebody more "up to speed" or less "retarded" would not have come to the erroneous conclusion that you did.

Having now delved into all that, let me say that, as usual, it is the scientific issues that I am interested in, and I really couldn't care less about the stylistic choices made by various researchers in their written arguments. Every long object, from guitar strings to trade towers, has a fundamental oscillation frequency, related to its length and tension. Any sufficient force is going to set the object oscillating, be it a jet impact, explosions, an earthquake, wind or whatever. On the scientific front, Dr. Jones, I don't think this is a winning issue for you at all.

source:

Nor do I think your backpedalling on support for my News Petition is a winning strategy for you either. You said you support it, right on tape. I'm going to put the petition out, with your name in there, right next to Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Sozen. I've addressed your complaint about "founder v member". So your beef is going to be you don't want sit next to the guy who said (in essence) that he didn't think you were retarded. Many people would just dismiss that as noise, but those who investigate will discover your respective interpretations of the Moiré, and as I said, that argument doesn't look good for you. And you would drag us into that argument, why? Just so that you could have a reason to NOT support the release of broadcast-quality tapes?

I don't see any way your strategy works for you. Please just support the action. Everybody knows you disagree with Morgan on planes, as is made perfectly clear in the petition. Broadcast-quality tapes should go a long way toward settling that very disagreement.

Sincerely,

Ace Baker

Group,

I made a small clerical error in the first draft of the petition, in that I indicated Dr. Jones to be a "founder" of Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice, when his correct title is "member". At his request, I made the correction and some additions to his bio. Also, I put the actual names of the companies we're addressing into the title. Please visit the link below and be among the first to sign, one more time.

Thank you all again for seeing past our differences, and agreeing to come together in the interest of good scientific research.

http://www.petitiononline.com/911Video/petition.html
[link corrected]

Sincerely,

Alexander Collin "Ace" Baker

I salute your efforts, Ace. I notice that thus far in the revised petition there are only yours and my signature. I sincerely hope that Professors Jones and Sozen will sign also. Do they have a problem signing the petition? I hope not. It would be an incredible addition to our evidence if we could obtain all the data the networks have archived. Researchers of all persuasions should favor acquisition of new network data.

Ace,

I did not say I would sign a blank check, only that I would sign AFTER I saw the petition in full form and IF I agreed with the content.  You have Morgan Reynolds as a signer, which was rather a shock to me.

Morgan Reynolds has called me an "incorrigible liar."  I have demanded of Morgan an apology -- or substantiation.  He did not deny his authorship of the offending email, but he has provided neither substantiation nor apology.  Until he does, I decline to add my name next to his as a co-signer on ANY document.

source:

I hope this is clear.  I rather like the rest of the petition, so this element is just too bad.

Morgan can remedy the matter by issuing an apology -- or, if he can, substantiation that I am an "incorrigible liar" - which I am not!   Why will he not substantiate his charge, or withdraw it? 

Steven Jones

Dear Dr. Jones, 

I'm not asking you to sign a "blank check". I realize you are speaking metaphorically here, but there is nothing blank or unknown about the petition. The metaphor does not apply.  The petition requests release of broadcast-quality videos, nothing more, nothing less. That's what you agreed to, and that's what it says. It offers examples of how these would be helpful scientifically. And, it lists the three founding supporters. 

I could not find any published reference to Morgan Reynolds having called you an "incorrigible liar". If you would like, I will review that matter as I did the other Reynolds quotation. I have not forwarded my previous quotation review to Dr. Sozen, but at your request, I will, as he may be interested in the scientific disagreement which spawned some of Reynolds' wisecracking. Dr. Sozen has a large experience analyzing shaking structures, and was performing a shaking test the day I met with him. 

Dr. Sozen, is an oscillating tower proof that a jet airliner hit it (as Dr. Jones claims), or in theory could another force, such as an explosion or earthquake, provide an alternative explanation?

To repeat, Dr. Jones, everyone knows you disagree with Morgan Reynolds, and that neither one of you agrees with Dr. Sozen on various issues. That's the whole point. People who disagree scientifically can and should agree on a desire to see the highest possible data quality. 

The petition is published, I'm happy with the wording, I corrected the typo. I'm proud of it. You agreed to support it, in both emails and on video tape. Your name is on it. I can't force you to sign it, but it will look strange if you don't. Whether you sign it or not, I intend to send emails to groups, indicating your support for the petition, and asking them to sign. I sincerely hope you don't give me any grief, but if you do, it is a public argument I'm willing to have. As I explained in my previous email, neither your backpedalling nor your Moiré analysis are winning issues for you, in my humble opinion. 

Please just support the action.

Alexander Coliin "Ace" Baker

Ace writes:
"You agreed to support it, in both emails and on video tape. Your name is on it. I can't force you to sign it, but it will look strange if you don't. Whether you sign it or not, I intend to send emails to groups, indicating your support for the petition, and asking them to sign."

I did not agree to sign it without FIRST reading and approving it. And having read it, I will not have my name attached to it for the reasons I have given. Repeatedly. Stop your little games, Ace -- I do NOT approve of having my name on this document, and I ask you (and I believe I already asked you) in any transmittals about this that mention me - that you include my emails explaining why I do not approve of it.

Steven J

It's not a game, Dr. Jones. It's real life. Obtaining broadcast-quality 9/11 videos could blow the 9/11 case wide open, and you know it. The fact that resistance to the idea now comes from one supposedly at the forefront of the truth movement, is, shall we say, interesting.

I believe I've accomplished something quite extraordinary with this petition. I'm in no mood to allow my accomplishment to be thrown away, simply because you and Morgan Reynolds have disagreements on unrelated issues. We'll see how this plays out.

-a

". Obtaining broadcast-quality 9/11 videos could blow the 9/11 case wide open, and you know it. The fact that resistance to the idea now comes from one supposedly at the forefront of the truth movement, is, shall we say, interesting. "

This misrepresents my views and you know it. I in no way resist obtaining of these videos.

Steven Jones said:

"I in no way resist obtaining of these videos."


You resist obtaining these videos in precisely the following way:

There exists a petition requesting the videos from the networks. You agreed to support exactly such an action, in writing, and on tape. Fully supported, the petition represents mankind's best hope for obtaining the data we all agree is vital. Any thing less than full support will lessen the chances of success. For what appear to be strictly personal reasons, you have established a dichotomy - either Reynolds goes, or Jones goes. Under this construction, full support is ruled out, that is, resisted.  

How can we have a serious action for these videos, and then leave out the the no-planers? I chose you, Dr. Sozen and Dr. Reynolds because you are representatives of the three distinct factions of the 9/11 research community. Ph.Ds one and all. Arbitrarily fabricating a dichotomy which, by its very construction, rules out full support, must be considered resistance, if not out-and-out sabotage.

Sincerely,

Alexander Collin "Ace" Baker

most

Ace: " For what appear to be strictly personal reasons, you have established a dichotomy - either Reynolds goes, or Jones goes. Under this construction, full support is ruled out, that is, resisted. "

NO. I never said "either Reynolds goes, or Jones goes. You misrepresent me again and again! Rather, I said that unless Morgan issues an apology (public, of course) for his demeaning and unsubstantiated charge, I would not co-sign with him. 

OTOH, if he does issue an apology -- or substantiation -- I will co-sign ! (after I see the final statement and agree, of course). Why should not Morgan issue either substantiation of his charge or an apology? He called me an "incorrigible liar" and that I clearly cannot support -- such a false and demeaning charge! No way. The burden is on Morgan to correct his accusation which is false, or substantiation, and then the signing can proceed as stated repeatedly.
Steven Jones

Jones: Why should not Morgan issue either substantiation of his charge or an apology? 

Because it is completely and utterly unrelated to the matter at hand. If you want me to review Morgan's "incorrigible liar" comment, please link it. I've not seen it. That still will not relate it to this action in any way, but I'll review it.

Jones: He called me an "incorrigible liar" and that I clearly cannot support

No one is asking you to support that.

Jones: -- such a false and demeaning charge! No way. The burden is on Morgan to correct his accusation which is false, or substantiation, and then the signing can proceed as stated repeatedly.

We know you support the action, because we all saw it on YouTube (or we will shortly).

-Ace Baker

Ace,

While not concurring to your statements above, I have come up with a solution -- I will sign with a disclaimer that I write.
Note that my internet connection has been down, just came back up...
As I have family visiting, I will need until tomorrow around 10:30 am MT to write my disclaimer so I can sign in good conscience, and I ask for that.
With that, yes, I can sign -- please send though your FINAL document so I can see exactly what I am signing, by 9:30 am MT tomorrow. Then, I can sign with a disclaimer I will write to accompany my signature.

Sincerely,
Steven Jones

Final version is here

http://www.petitiononline.com/Video911/petition.html

Note that Brigham Young U has firmly told me that they do NOT want to be listed at all in conjunction with anything associated with 9/11 research, and I ask that you honor that request by simply eliminating the phrase "at Brigham Young University."

My disclaimer will be to you by 10:30 am MT tomorrow.

Steven

Steven:

Steven Jones demands a public apology for something I never said in public. I find his demand for such an apology to be unethical, absurd, even dishonest. It is well known that Professor Jones and I do not see eye-to-eye on 9/11 and that I find his scientific research to be of poor quality and designed to distract rather than get to the bottom of 9/11. Jones reciprocates in his opinion of my work, I gather. Fair enough but he has never produced the evidence that I called him an incorrigible liar in public yet he keeps demanding a public apology. It is a distraction. I suggest he produce evidence to back up his charges or drop them.

To repeat, cough it up and prove Reynolds called Steven E. Jones an incorrigible liar in public or stop. That's OK, Steven, I do not need an apology.

The worst part of Jones' behavior is that his grievances with Reynolds are petty. He is a mature scientist with many differences with other scientists throughout his career. He has differences with Reynolds. Big deal. This is the norm in research. These personal frictions are immaterial in the big picture. What is his objective? Pursuing justice or obstructing justice? Why attack other researchers just to undermine a petition seeking new evidence? Jones' "victim act" plays to the 9/11 gallery and pleads, "See, I'm a victim of ad hominem attacks." Really? Poor baby. Can't we all get on dealing with the real world? (My apologies to Rodney King.). If we only had one week left to expose 9/11 truth, how should we spend our time? In the sandbox with Dr. Jones? Or headlong pursuit of the truth and its propagation?

Humanity prays that scientists and researchers break the 9/11 case wide open and justice is served with perpetrators convicted for their abominable crimes yet Jones refuses to participate in a petition designed to elicit powerful evidence bearing on the 9/11 plane show. His grudges, baseless or otherwise, mean more to him than new evidence and truth. He does not object to signing the petition in question with an apologist for the Official Conspiracy Theory like Sozen but objects to Reynolds who represents the United States of America in a southern district of New York "qui tam" case holding NIST contractors accountable for defrauding the American people. Isn't this what truth seekers seek, accountability in a court of law?

source:

What, pray tell, has Professor Jones accomplished in his 2+ years of talk about thermite? Why didn't Jones develop thermite theory in his group Request For Correction (RFC) filed with NIST? Instead, his RFC praises the NIST report and only complains about a shortage of data and analysis. His RFC proposes no alternative theory to account for the real WTC data, backed up by his years of "proof," to challenge NIST's findings. I wonder why? Does he know better?

source:

What is with this guy? Do Jones' egocentric concerns outweigh the welfare of the planet? Is he afraid of what the 9/11 network tapes and videos on planes might reveal? We can only wonder because the good professor once again distracts (railroad track repair welding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite anyone?, to account for the incredible effects involved in the destruction of the WTC? Did thermite welding material destroy all the toilets? Where the hell are they? Where were the thermite sparklers on WTC destruction videos?) rather than pursue 9/11 evidence and truth, wherever it may lead.

Despite all these problems, I wish Steven Jones would step up to the plate and sign the petition.

Sincerely,
Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D.

Morgan Reynolds joins in totally misrepresenting my position (below).
 
Nevertheless, my proposal earlier this evening with a firm disclaimer still stands, with some reconsideration still possible given Morgan's latest diatribe ("dishonest", etc.)
It is clear, however, that my disclaimer will now have to mention Reynolds by name, and that is the only way I will sign.  Further, I want to see the COMPLETE AND FULL  petition as signed with disclaimer(s) before I agree to letting it go to the public.

The statement by Morgan that Jones is an "incorrigible liar" was behind my back but in writing (email) -- which was sent to me, and I sent it to Morgan some time ago with the date he emailed it, and he has never substantiated it.  The charge has been circulated, from what I can tell.  Morgan did not deny that he wrote it when I challenged him about a year ago and produced the evidence.  My file is not at home, but in my office.

source:

Morgan "What, pray tell, has Professor Jones accomplished in his 2+ years of talk about thermite?"

Hundreds of electron microscope images and X-EDS analyses of multiple WTC dust samples demonstrating...  Oh, nevermind -- I don't think Morgan is interested in facts and indeed I ask him if he has even read my paper in the May issue of the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

Steven J

I rest my case.

"I rest my case" -- Please do.  The most recent misrepresentation by Morgan is totally without merit: 
"Poor baby... Jones refuses to participate in a petition designed to elicit powerful evidence bearing on the 9/11 plane show."

Not true.

Steven

source:

"I'm going to take my toys and go home!"

Here is my statement, to go in the text of the petition:

Steven E. Jones, Ph.D. Dr. Jones is a retired Professor of Physics and co-editor (with Kevin Ryan) of the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Dr. Jones supports a controlled demolition hypothesis of the World Trade Center involving aluminothermics ("thermite"), challenging the "official story" of 9/11/2001. He is active in exposing and denouncing misrepresentation/straw-man and ad hominem arguments. His signing here represents an effort to bring unity in seeking further evidence. He promotes reasoned, evidence-based discourse and peer-reviewed publication of research findings.



Then, upon viewing and agreeing with the final petition, I will sign my name. Pls let me know when it is finalized so I can sign.

Steven Jones

I look forward to reading your desired disclaimer.

Ace Baker

I sent it some time ago, before your email came... resending just to be sure you got it.


Here is my statement, to go in the text of the petition:

Steven E. Jones, Ph.D. Dr. Jones is a retired Professor of Physics and co-editor (with Kevin Ryan) of the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Dr. Jones supports a controlled demolition hypothesis of the World Trade Center involving aluminothermics ("thermite"), challenging the "official story" of 9/11/2001. He is active in exposing and denouncing misrepresentation/straw-man and ad hominem arguments. His signing here represents an effort to bring unity in seeking further evidence. He promotes reasoned, evidence-based discourse and peer-reviewed publication of research findings.



Then, upon viewing and agreeing with the final petition, I will sign my name. Pls let me know when it is finalized so I can sign.

Steven Jones

I find that the statement is still NOT corrected as I requested, so that I may sign the petitition, instead it reads:

Steven E. Jones, Ph.D. ? Dr. Jones is a retired Professor of Physics at Brigham Young University, and a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Dr. Jones supports a controlled demolition hypothesis of the World Trade Center involving thermate and conventional explosives, and firmly believes that the towers were impacted by real passenger jets.

When I requested that it read:
Steven E. Jones, Ph.D. Dr. Jones is a retired Professor of Physics and co-editor (with Kevin Ryan) of the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Dr. Jones supports a controlled demolition hypothesis of the World Trade Center involving aluminothermics ("thermite"), challenging the "official story" of 9/11/2001. He is active in exposing and denouncing misrepresentation/straw-man and ad hominem arguments. His signing here represents an effort to bring unity in seeking further evidence. He promotes reasoned, evidence-based discourse and peer-reviewed publication of research findings.


As soon as the correction is made, and I am able to read and approve the FINAL petition, I will sign the petition. (OF course, I will also need to have email access, and I will be away most of the evening now.) 

Why the delay?

Steven J

Dr. Jones,


I've had a few days to think about your disclaimer. I've decided the petition will stay as it is. Here are the reasons:

1.Excluding "Brigham Young University" is a loss. Mention of a university adds academic credibility for any who aren't yet familiar with you and your work. I believe you were formerly a professor at BYU, and there is considerable evidence to support my belief. I'd go so far as to say it's a fact. I'm not privy to any deal you may have made with the BYU administration as part of your "early retirement" package. But as far as I can tell, they got rid of you simply because you are seeking the scientific truth about 9/11. This is reprehensible conduct on their part, and I say to hell with them.

2. Excluding "conventional explosives" is a loss. You made a special point of adding that phrase when I was mentioning your thermite theory in our conversation. Your disclaimer would thus seem to misrepresent your own views. You indicate that there is evidence to support thermite. Am I to infer that there is no evidence to support conventional explosives? Or what?

3. Including "exposing and denouncing misrepresentation/straw-man and ad hominem arguments" etc. is a loss. While logical fallacy is an important subject in the large scheme of things, it's simply outside the scope of this petition. It's a distraction. It's clearly a hot-button issue for you, especially with regard to Morgan Reynolds. Perhaps you should consider your own petition denouncing ad hominems, or denouncing Dr. Reynolds. I would support the former, and not the latter, as I have reviewed Dr. Reynolds' published comments about you, and do not consider them to be ad hominem arguments. Dr. Reynolds (and Dr. Wood) employed colorful language, to be sure, but it was in the context of evidence-based scientific disagreement on possible sources of building oscillations.

4. Including "Kevin Ryan" might be a gain, but I choose to exclude him simply on the issue of balance. My goal was to have a representative from each of the three 9/11 research "camps", and I've achieved that goal. Dr. Wood offered to be a founding supporter as well, and I have excluded her on the same basis.

5. Including "effort to bring unity" is a loss, because it is redundant and potentially confusing. The entire petition is an effort to bring unity. Including this in your paragraph implies that the others do not support an effort to bring unity, when actually they do.

Please support the action.

http://www.petitiononline.com/Video911/petition.html

Thank You.

Ace Baker

NO, Ace -- this is my BIO you're talking about now, and I have a right to have it as I want it.
If you won't even let me have my OWN BIO as I want it, then remove my name altogether -- with my protest! There are no ad hominems in my bio, and I explained why I put the emphasis where I did -- in my own BIO.

I never said I would agree to being part of this petition or signing it without seeing it first and AGREEING to it -- and I most certainly do NOT agree to having you DICTATE what will be in my own BIO!!

Steven J

source:

"I'm going to take my toys and go home!"

To be continued...

"I'm rubber and you're glue. What bounces off me sticks to you." ;-)

"Na....na..na....na..na..."

source:

OK. Now, back to the world of grown-ups... exposing falsehoods and revealing truths.

jump to On 9/17/07 from Ace Baker
jump to On 9/17/07 from Steven Jones
jump to On Sep 18, 2007, 12:37 PM, from Steven Jones
jump to On 9/18/07 from Ace Baker
jump to On Sep 19, 2007, 3:31 PM, from Steven Jones

jump to September 20, 2007, 9:20:15 AM CDT, from Ace Baker
jump to On Sep 21, 2007, 6:14 PM, from Ace Baker
jump to On 9/21/07, from Morgan O. Reynolds
jump to September 21, 2007, 11:05:30 PM CDT, from Steven Jones
jump to September 22, 2007, 9:32:07 AM CDT, from Ace Baker
jump to September 22, 2007, 11:32:20 AM CDT, from Steven Jones

jump to September 22, 2007, 11:52:15 PM CDT, from Morgan O. Reynolds
jump to On Sep 23, 2007, at 12:48 AM, from Steven Jones
jump to At 08:46 AM -0500 9/23/07, from Morgan O. Reynolds
jump to September 23, 2007, 9:31:22 AM CDT, from Steven Jones

Top

homepage

Star Wars Beam Weapon

Press Release

Whistleblower Information

Scientific Method

Why Indeed

FAQ

Disinfo

CriticsCorner

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.