Legal action by Judy Woods and Morgan Reynolds asserting that NIST et al covered up / failed to do their jobs / produced false evidence / whatever... DISMISSED.













http://reynoldslitigation.googlepages.com/...thprejudice.pdf

Of course, they'll claim the legal system was in on it or controlled by the NWO or (insert your conspiracy theory here).

The "Truth Movement" (AKA People Who Disagree With The Findings Of The 9/11 Commission And Believe Official Collusion) are not having a good run when it comes to actually producing evidence. There was William Rodriguez's failed lawsuit, Ellen Mariani's failed lawsuit, and Field McConnell's failed lawsuit, in addition to the failed lawsuits of Kevin Ryan, Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds and Edward Haas. There may be more, but that makes it at least seven failures so far.

I'm afraid, Evan, that you've lured me out of retirement yet again.

Your definition of "Truth Movement" is so flawed, so at variance with fact, and so cripplingly superficial as to provoke suspicions of disingenuousness.

I dare you even to define "official" in any reasonable way within this context. Do you mean "governmental?" If so, are you referencing elected and/or appointed uber-government personnel, or would you direct our attention to those who operate at what Peter Dale Scott would term the "deep political" levels?

By extension, would you describe those of us who recognize conspiracy in the death of JFK to be historical fact as "People Who Disagree with the Findings of the Warren Commission and Believe Official Collusion?"

Do you really want to do this, Evan?

"Truthers" -- the most condescending, manipulative, confrontational, designed-to-demean epithet to come down the pike since "conspiracy buff" -- are most accurately defined, in the context of 9/11, as "People Who, in Informed, Intelligent, Courageous Manners, Take Legitimate Issue with the Official Government Conspiracy Theory of the Attacks on 9/11/01."

Period.

Count me among their number.

Would some of my comrades indict "Bush" and "Cheney" as 9/11 perps? Certainly.

Do not count me among their number.

Am I any less a "Truther?"

One need not assign blame to recognize, analyze, and present proof of and detail criminal activity.

One need not name the gunmen in Dealey Plaza to prove that there were multiple gunmen in Dealey Plaza.

One need not name the 9/11 conspirators to prove that the acts were carried out in such manners as to demonstrate the non-viability of the official U.S. government conspiracy theory.

Your unreasonable and all-too-common definition of "Truthers" promotes confusion and derision. I suspect that, in doing so, it is living up to the expectations of its designers.

Bravo, Charles! You use words with great precision and truth, cutting to the heart of things.

Thanks.

Jack

The term, “Truthers”, seems to have originated as an abbreviation for those seeking (insert Wildcard) truth in relation to the events of 9/11/2001. That the term has not only stuck, but used prodigiously by critics of the “truth” movement, is testament to the needs of these self-same critics for; mythologizing, obfuscation, and application of irony, to define these movements and parcel them away.

Personally I am not a subscriber to any of the 9/11 “truth” movements. But the inertia these organizations have gained should signify, to even the most virulent critic, the deep seated unhappiness the citizenry has with the current establishment infrastructure and with their own government.

A contemporary social scientist and Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota, American Mark Fenster has written books on the role of conspiracy theory in today’s society. In “Conspiracy Theory –Secrecy and power in American Culture”, ‘Fenster shows that conspiracy theories play an important role in U.S. democracy. Examining how and why they circulate through mass culture, he contends, helps us better understand society as a whole. Ranging from The Da Vinci Code to the intellectual history of Richard Hofstadter, he argues that dismissing conspiracy theories as pathological or marginal flattens contemporary politics and culture because they are—contrary to popular portrayal—an intense articulation of populism and, at their essence, are strident calls for a better, more transparent government’ (University of Minnesota Press).

One review of sums it up: “Fenster makes a powerful argument for regarding conspiracism as an integral product of the political system, reflecting inadequacies the establishment itself is blind to and expressing strong desires for the realization of frustrated ideals. Conspiracy Theories is a fascinating look at an important, little-studied topic. Informative and thought-provoking.” —Philadelphia City Paper

Of all the critics of the establishment’s portrayal of the events of 9/11, I find Dr. Judy Wood’s position to be the most tenuous. I have read her lawsuit and find the merits of her case ridiculous in the extreme.

But as Marshall McCluhan said “The Medium is the Message”. The message is that we have a less than transparent government in (it’s bordering on the opaque) and we the US citizens have almost no idea what our government is doing anymore. From that point of view, IMO, the term “Truther” is as apt as any.

Charles,

While this is likely a description of the majority within this group, I have personally encountered some "truthers" whose tactics were not even good enough to be defined as 'Ill-mannered'. On one occasion, when I attempted to enter into a civil discussion with a few 'leaflet handlers' on a street corner, as soon as they determined that I was not going to fall into compliant agreement with their 'point of view', they immediately resorted to ad homs and one guy even threatened me physically.

Not all of these people are 'Courageously mannered'. When Bill Maher refused to enter into an impromptu discussion of '9/11 truth' on his cable show he was subjected to loud and threatening derision (heard on the show being screamed by some rowdy audience members).


Maybe the "truthers", like any group, has its share of the ill mannered. On the other side of the coin, I have also seen many "truthers" act with zen like restraint in the face of an assault of derision.

Peter,

I am in accord with your comments as offered above and in the previous post.

Charles

Jack, I thank you for a lifetime of bearing eloquent witness to the truth.

Charles

Evan,

Do you agree with the preposterous findings of the 9/11 Commission that the core of WTC1 and of WTC2 was a hollow shaft, and that the question of who financed the 9/11 hijackers is not significant? If not, does that make you a "half-truther"?

I agree that the term is rather over-arching, but we've had this discussion before. The fact remains that none of the major 9-11 claims have ever been supportable.

Ron,

I always have to look at various claims and try to categorise them. For my own use, I have claims that can be technically proven or disproven, claims where there can be scientific evidence. Then there are claims that probably cannot be proven or disproven with certainty, e.g. motivations, etc. Sometimes there are claims that are in a grey area between the two.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again now to help clarify my position: I believe that four airliners were hijacked, that three were flown into buildings, and one crashed in a field. I believe that the damage to, and if applicable collapse of those, buildings hit by aircraft occurred without any controlled demolition, laser beams, missiles, etc. I believe that various US government departments (DoD, FAA, etc) did not knowingly / actively facilitate any of the events on that day.

Although I have not seen any evidence of such, I am open to the suggestion that one of the hijacked aircraft was brought down by US military forces in order to stop it reaching an area where it could cause significant damage and that the US government now does not want such an understandable act to be made public.

I'm open to the suggestion that the hijackers who carried out the events of that day were financed & supported by an organisation or persons who, although purporting to represent some Islamic faction or extremist group, were in fact a "front organisation" representing other interests. These other interests may include rogue elements of the US government, US domestic but non-government groups, or foreign interests.

So I would support further enquiries into 9/11 - mainly because I don't believe all the people who were responsible for individual or systemic failures that day are being held accountable - but also, if warranted, detailed examination of the financial aspects of the hijackers.

I return to the fact, though, that none of the 'conspiracy' claims has yet been supported by facts or been able to withstand scientific examination / peer scrutiny. Wood, Jones, Gage, Griffin, Ross, Ryan, Rodriguez, Haas, Reynolds, etc, are wrong.

None of the preposterous claims of the government, govenment-grovelling-media, 911-government-controlled-commission, NIST-governmental-arm-investigation or anything other of the official conspiracy version have held up to any logical or rational examination. (despite the some, as in the story of the Emperor's New Clothes, who claimed to see some 'logic'/clothes there). Read Debunking 911 Debunking to see the entire official story demolished with controlled logic. That a court in the US threw-out a lawsuit of this type is hardly surprising and hardly a condemnation of its merits. Many actual perpetrators/conspirators of politically 'sensitive' civil rights or political figures; scandals or black operations were at first [some to this day] not prosecuted, cases thrown out of court and other misprisons of Justice. I'd glady name several that went on to success later. Some demanding success have not yet.  Political forces can and do influence the Courts - more so the now packed Courts of the U.S. Justice is hard one, if at all in them - often by multiple attempts. There has been a constant pattern on the part of apologists for the official version to take as holy grail the statements and pronouncements of those that support the official version and to attempt to denegrate those witnesses who saw, heard, experienced something at odds with it - or that make a logical person question it. The same was/is true of Dallas and so many other charged events. One must entertain and vet the information and motive of all witnesses and investigators fairly and as impartially as is humanly possible. Most who you see as the luney opposition only want to know the true events. The government and their lackies, it seems, would like the matter to be felt to be 'settled'. It is not. The official version has more holes and illogic [even impossible physically and 'facts' [sic] in direct opposition with other 'facts'] than one can count. Character assassination of those who question (or saw/heard/experienced something other than the official version) will get those who do it nowhere and no 'points'. The truth will out, as they say despite the pigheadedness of the official sychophants. Your gloating will be short-lived IMO and eventually egg on your and the 'official's' faces. I hope to see Bush/Chaney and many others eventually tried by International Tribunal (if we can't in the US) for their crimes in 911 and related sequellae.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer

and what appears?



Inaccurate, as well as predicable!

Peter,

Have you read the case submtted by Judy Wood et al?

It was an appeal. The case really had no merit. Reading it, it seems to me that the plaintiffs did not even try to create a logical argument.

I could reiterate the appeal and its claims and argue the court's decision point by point, but anyone should be able to read it and reach a smimilar conclusion.

I am not sure of the reasoning behind the submission of the appeal. Possibly just to go on record as having appealed, but the arguments do not reiterate the sweeping claims of the 9/11 anti-official theory as you have summarized above. The appeal is almost mocking in its language.

As to your claims that none of the official story can stand up to any sort of scrutiny doesn't really apply. The appeal doesn't really attempt to counter anything (not n substance anyway, also your indictment, anove, only really stands as a claim in diametric opposition to the official story). In other words, this appeal just seems to square off, saying we're right and you're wrong.

Reading the appeal, IMO, there was no merit, no sustance, and the argument was frivolous.

I don't know why the appeal was written in this way.

Ron,

I'm not sure where your quote is located. The only matching section is on page 541, note 1 to the Notes to Chapter 9. It says:



This is not an unfair comment, especially when the context in which it is used has nothing to do with strength, building performance, etc. So no, I do not find it preposterous at all.

See here for building plans.

This is one of the sillier complaints of the "truth movement" and it is hard to understand why someone who actually read the report would make it. Yes the quote was burried in a footnote. The 9/11 Commission was not tasked with discovering the reasons the Twin Towers collapsed that was left to the ASCE, FEMA and NIST among others

As for them saying "the question of who financed the 9/11 hijackers is not significant?" can Ron or anyone else provide a citation? (perhaps on another thread since it is OT here)

I can't give you the exact quote, which I have accurately paraphrased, for two reasons. My copy of the 9/11 Whitewash Commission report is in storage, and one of the links that I lost in a recent computer crash was a link to a report index or search engine in which any word in the report could be looked up. It was a valuable tool and I can't now find it with Google, so apparently it's pretty well hidden or remarkably so little used that it doesn't turn up on the first few Google pages. If anyone knows where it is, all you have to do is look up "significant" or "significance" and you will find the lying statement.

Ron is correct. They said, in effect, [can't find the quote either and not going to spend the time] that [following the trail of] who funded it wasn't significant....[amazingly]....but nothing should surprise anyone about what this current Administration will do or say. It was apparently in reply to specific questions posed by the Jersey Girls and their friends about the $100,000+ sent to Atta just before the attacks by the head of ISI [who was in Washington the week before the attacks]. Rather than track it down or even rebut it...they just said it was of no real consequence [words to that effect]. I just came accross it again verbatim a few days ago, but can't put my finger on it. If I do, I'll post it. If anyone can, please do.

Lee Hamilton when asked "What did the Commission make of the payment from the ISI to Mahamed Atta of $100,000?", answered: "I don't know anything about it." We may have [investigated it] but I don't recall." [As any rooky detective knows following the money is unimportant....]

It certainly wasn't publicly presented as important but it is known the Commission discussed it* - despite Hamilton's lie or dodge - but chose to only say that they found no evidence of any country or entity funding the 'hijackers'. *See LAT June 20, 2004 article by Josh Meyer. [I believe on the internet, but the link I have is now defunct]

The head of ISI was in Washington not only during the week before the attacks but on the day of the attacks. On the morning of 9/11 he was meeting with Bob Graham and Porter Goss on Capitol Hill (the same place where the Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was hiding during the attacks in Senator Max Cleland's office). The ISI head met with other important officials during those days, but Bush's national security adviser apparently wasn't important enough. When some reporter after 9/11 asked Condoleezza Rice about the ISI head meeting with Graham and Goss, she acted like she had never heard of him, saying that she didn't know about such a meeting but "he wasn't meeting with me." She went quickly to the next question, lest she be asked if she had met with him on some other day. (Rice is the same person, you may recall, who said that no one thought that terrorists would fly airplanes into buildings. And there are actually people in the U.S. who want to see this lying disgrace run for Vice President.)

Here’s the quote in context:

General Funding

As we explained in chapter 2, Bin Ladin did not fund al Qaeda through a personal fortune and a network of businesses in Sudan. Instead, al Qaeda relied primarily on a fund-raising network developed over time. The CIA now estimates that it cost al Qaeda about $30 million per year to sustain its activities before 9/11 and that this money was raised almost entirely through donations.

[…]

Al Qaeda appears to have relied on a core group of financial facilitators who raised money from a variety of donors and other fund-raisers, primarily in the Gulf countries and particularly in Saudi Arabia.115 Some individual donors surely knew, and others did not, the ultimate destination of their donations.

[…]

To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance. Al Qaeda had many avenues of funding. If a particular funding source had dried up, al Qaeda could have easily tapped a different source or diverted funds from another project to fund an operation that cost $400,000–$500,000 over nearly two years.

[…]

Our investigation has uncovered no credible evidence that any person in the United States gave the hijackers substantial financial assistance. Similarly, we have seen no evidence that any foreign government—or foreign government official—supplied any funding.131

9/11 Commission Report [Pgs 171 - 2] http://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/US/9-11/911Report.htm#n752r

What they said was actually quite reasonable, the amount spent on the 9/11 operation was relatively small, AQ had many sources of funds some witting some not. Where they got the money specifically for 9/11 was not important. They could have added that money is fungible all money ultimately went into the same pot.

I believe Peter was referring to an incident where years afterwards a truther asked Hamilton about the allegation and he gave non answer like “I think we covered that”

As for the claim that the head of ISI sent Atta money all such claims ultimately trace back to anonymous sources in Indian intelligence (quoted in the Indian press) given the animosity between the two groups. How seriously would anyone take claims during the Cold War by anonymous sources in the KGB or CIA that members of the other agency had been involved in some nefarious act?

Read here for more:
http://911myths.com/html/pakistan_s_isi_link_to_9_11_fu.html

The ISI is one of those intelligence agencies of other countries nearly under the complete control of our intelligence agencies [doing our bidding and not doing things we would not appreciate or be angered about]. They often serve as a conduit or cut-out for funds or activities the CIA or other US intelligence agencies would not want to be found doing themselves. By 'the week before the attack' I meant to include the day of. I think he left two days after. Just coincidence, I'm sure. There is evidence the ISI may have given Atta and he merry men up to 4x the amount cited. It is all steeped in darkness - thanks to the cover-up of the real events. Most of the 'hijackers' seem to have been in some way connected to US intelligence or their surrogates and many never were on the flights - if any were. They are the Lee Harvey Oswalds of 911. The ISI the Paines.

I don't suppose evidence in support of these claims will be forthcoming?