Diary (Diaries are not moderated)

9/11 Truth Seekers and Campaigners... "It's Your Lucky Day!"

By (about the author)     Permalink
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group

View Ratings | Rate It


Why are posters and researchers around the Internet all but ignoring the only current 9/11 Legal Cases - ones based on an analysis of Physical Evidence?


- Advertisement -

You want a new investigation into the events of 9/11? Well, it's your lucky day! There is one already in progress! However, it is ignored by almost all 9/11 researchers and posters around the internet. The RFC's and Qui Tam's presented by Dr Judy Wood and Dr Morgan Reynolds against NIST and its contractors are independent -- and they are investigations, but most 9/11 Truthers are not talking about them. In this article, I will ask why this is the case.

A Focus on The Truth of 9/11

I have been pondering on what seems to be happening to the effort, across various groups, to reveal the truth of what happened on 9/11. Some quite unusual things seem to have been transpiring over the last two years, as I have tried to document in previous articles posted on my website.

Last month, in mid April 2008, www.911Truth.org sent out an e-mail regarding a "Week of Truth" initiative, featuring fairly well-designed graphics and a prominent posting of Steve Alten's new novel The Shell Game. This work, seemingly written as a vehicle to further the aims of 9/11 Truth Campaigners, additionally has the laudable goal of raising money for the New York City First Responders who suffered greatly for helping others on the day of this most terrible tragedy. The accompanying message from 911truth.org suggested buying copies of The Shell Game (directly through www.WeekofTruth.org) so that a portion of the purchase price (it does not say how much) will go to the First Responders. Purchasing a copy will also, it says, help the book to enter the New York Times Top 10 best-seller list. Additionally, it suggests "e-mailing everyone you know who wants 9/11 truth to break through the corporate media blackout" and that people should write op-eds, and call in to radio shows, and otherwise tell people about the Week of Truth.

- Advertisement -

Who could argue with basic thrust of these suggestions? I certainly couldn't! However, if I may adopt a more lyrical (but critical) tone for a moment, I fear that this "Week of Truth" may have been "Weak of Truth". Why am I being so harsh in describing the efforts of kind-hearted people in selflessly promoting the knowledge that the Official Story (OGCT) of 9/11 is false?

Firstly, I think it is important to consider what The Shell Game actually says. For example, the plot of the story includes Iran's supposed nuclear reactor development (which is disputed) and also discusses the issue of "Peak Oil" (also disputed, but often cited by some 9/11 researchers as the main reason 9/11 was perpetrated). So, even if The Shell Game helps more people become aware of and think about 9/11 Truth issues (and I question whether it actually will), I would contend it is falsely suggesting that "Peak Oil" and "Iranian Nukes" are real issues of concern (in the same way that the official story of 9/11 suggests that international terrorism is an issue of real concern).

- Advertisement -

When, in the "Week of Truth" (or at any other time, for that matter), people make phone calls or s end e-mail to tell others about 9/11 Truth and The Shell Game, what do they say? One of the easiest phrases to use seems to be "9/11 was an Inside Job" -- meaning that the Government and probably other officials knew in advance that the event was going to happen and that they, in some way, planned and/or assisted in the execution of the operation. However, as shocking as this statement is to some people, that statement in of itself, moves us little or no further forward in finding or prosecuting the perpetrators. (Indeed, does purchasing a copy of The Shell Game help towards this goal?) Additionally, many people are already uncomfortable with the official story of 9/11 - according to an August 2006 Scripps Howard/Ohio University national survey, 36% of Americans believe 9/11 was an 'inside job', with government agencies complicit in what occurred. A Zogby poll in 2004 also produced similar results. With this in mind, and knowing what I know now, I am much more concerned about the longer term effect that The Shell Game may have -- because it does not include important evidence and information related to what the latest 9/11 research has revealed.

9/11 -- The Physical Evidence

One of the things that a study of 9/11 truth should teach us is to focus on evidence. This study of evidence can be applied both directly to the analysis of the events of 9/11 and it can also be applied to the study of events since 9/11. An important question that might be asked is this -- what have the perpetrators of 9/11 been up to since that day? We know for sure that the media have been manipulated -- key evidence has not been reported or discussed (for example, it is very rare to hear a discussion that the towers -- including most of the steel - largely turned to dust). It is also almost unheard (anywhere) - in relation to the supposed WTC plane crashes - that thin aluminium wing struts cannot cut through steel girders (whatever speed they are travelling at). This is because of Newton's third law, and the relative hardness of these 2 materials. (In a collision, the force on the aluminium is the same as the force on the steel, but aluminium wing struts are much weaker than steel, so they snap - and the steel does not!).

It often surprises me that only a small number of people appear willing to focus on and discuss, the physical evidence. Mike Ruppert, it has been noted, was reluctant to discuss physical evidence when he started writing about 9/11. More recently, within the 9/11 Truth Movement (which can perhaps be regarded as "The 9/11 Official-Truth Movement") many people seem very reluctant to discuss the current legal cases of Drs. Wood and Reynolds even though information about their legally-based efforts has been in the public domain for well over 1 year. I would contend that the reason for this lack of discussion is that discussion and analysis of information within the 9/11 Truth Movement is being subjected to the same type of bullying, cajolery and name-calling that is present in the mainstream media whenever this topic is discussed. When any people appear, to question "the official story", they are attacked and ridiculed and discussion of their research is subjected to pernicious debunking. To try and document this activity, I posted an article which attempted to illustrate, using the evidence I had collected, how "factions" of the 9/11 truth movement were being manipulated and controlled. This behaviour continues today -- unabated.

Video Fakery on 9/11 and Ongoing Psy-Ops

Comprehensive studies of evidence pertaining to video fakery and manipulation, such as those presented in September Clues illustrate, in a compelling manner, the scale of the Psy-Op which was employed in cementing the mythical hijackers tale into the psyche of the general population. Once an understanding is gained of how the video fakery and associated media spin and information manipulation has been working, it becomes much clearer to see how the Psy-Op tactics have also been at work within the 9/11 Truth movement itself. One such "success" story is that of molten metal -- it is a story that has been repeated many times, but seemingly with increasing frequency since about late 2005 or early 2006 (in quite a similar fashion to the official "hijacker" myth). The story was one of the main points of Steven E Jones' February 2006 USVC Presentation, and his earlier paper "Why indeed did the WTC Towers Completely Collapse". Like the hijacker fable, the molten metal stories seem to make sense initially (and I was taken in by them both), but when you have been presented with only a subset of evidence, but once more evidence is analysed, the fake story is exposed for what it is. When the evidence for thermite - and especially molten metal - is studied in depth (thanks to the evidence uncovered largely by Dr. Judy Wood), I can only sensibly draw the conclusion that this particular story is as fake as the hijacker story. Despite this evidence, most people in the 9/11 Truth movement -- even some of those who might be called "figureheads," still discuss thermite and molten metal as being the established "cause and effect" of the destruction of the WTC complex.

Challenging the CD'ers

Some regard the WTC destruction as being the result of carefully placed and precisely detonated explosives (i.e. traditional controlled demolition - TCD) -- as well as there being various "flavours" of thermite in use. When I first started to research into 9/11 issues, I generally agreed that some type of explosive demolition was used, although the top-down demolition of towers 1 and 2 was peculiar. Thanks in large part to Dr. Wood's photo studies, I later became aware of new evidence such as:

1) Toasted cars approximately 1 mile away from the WTC.

2) Upturned cars in several locations.

3) At least 1 witness diving under an ambulance during the destruction of 1 of the towers then reporting the ambulance was "pushed off" during the destruction of one of the towers (but he didn't report he felt why it was "pushed off").

4) At least 1 spontaneous car fire at 9:46 (before the towers were destroyed).

5) No bright flashes seen as the towers were destroyed.

6) Severe powderisation of the buildings, leaving a debris pile less than 1 story high in many places.

7) A dust cloud which was not hot (no one got burned).

Now, as you'll appreciate, OGCT believers ignore a lot of evidence in maintaining their belief that "hijackers and planes" caused the damage on 9/11. TCD believers (I used to be one) ignore the evidence above - and such things as the hosing down of the WTC site as late as Jan 2008 (I video'd it myself) and the ongoing "problems" with the Banker's trust building.

Of course, by ignoring any amount of evidence about anything (be it a scientific or legal matter), it is possible to come to almost any desired conclusion. However, the value of that conclusion is, of course, likely to be inversely proportional to the amount of evidence ignored.

Ignoring The Evidence -- An "Active Denial System"?

I am sure there are a few people in the world who believe the Earth is flat - and they can continue to do this by ignoring the evidence that it is a sphere - for example brushing off all satellite photos as "fakes".

People in the 9/11 Official-Truth movement are vociferously critical of mainstream media figures, as well as other well-known figures, for not talking about the evidence. This very situation has recently been the subject of an article by the author Eric Larsen. Yet, when it is pointed out that people even within the 9/11 Official-Truth Movement refuse to address evidence, a number of prolific internet/forum posters typically become very defensive -- or even rude and desultory. In trying to draw attention to some of the evidence and general conclusions that Dr. Wood and Dr. Reynolds have researched and posted articles about, I often seem to have experienced animosity and hostility. This mirrors the earlier experience of people like Rosalee Grable (Webfairy), Nico Haupt, Gerard Holmgren and others. Those that have been the most critical rarely focus on a considered analysis of evidence in question. Typically, the conclusions drawn from what has become known as "DEW" and "No Planes" research are often said to be "impossible to believe" by those in the 9/11 Official-Truth movement. (It can be observed that they frequently use disturbingly similar language to that used by OGCT believers who cannot accept that a conspiracy regarding 9/11 really does exist.)

Even when it is pointed out that the evidence for DEW and "No planes at the WTC" is so strong that it has been used both as a basis for two "Request for Corrections" and two related Qui Tam cases against NIST contractors, it is often not regarded as significant. I can say this of at least six "9/11 Truthers" that I have met and discussed these issues with. Some of them use such phrases as "I have seen no evidence of DEW" and "I looked at Dr. Wood's website and saw no evidence of significance." I find this so bizarre that I really do wonder what is going on. The following sample of correspondence I had with a European scientist is typical of some of the extraordinary exchanges I have been a party in:

1) Toasted cars 1 mile away from the WTC

The cars were toasted by falling thermate and moved subsequently, so the rescue squads could get access to GZ.

There is no evidence that this is true: How did the "thermite" travel 1 mile and spread over 100's of cars? Where are the photos or witness testimony that so many cars were moved? I would be happy to see it! How did the thermite selectively react with only some parts of the cars?

3) At least 1 witness diving under an ambulance during the destruction of 1 of the towers then reporting the ambulance was "pushed off" during the collapse (but he didn't report he felt why it was "pushed off").

If you can repeat that experiment I would like to see it.

Even sending a volume of additional evidence to this person was not enough to stimulate any further reasoned discussion. This person clearly seems to support the conclusions made by Steven E Jones regarding Thermate and Thermite. It cannot be noted often enough that Steven E Jones represents one of the key connections between the 9/11 cover up and the energy cover up (see below).

Twisting the Evidence

In one or two discussions I have had where I have attempted to discuss the powderisation of steel, it has been declared "Impossible", because the amount of energy required to melt and vaporise the steel would be so high as to not be deliverable. In one case, the person went to the trouble of calculating the required energy to do this (he came out with a figure in Gigawatts). This sort of "stunt" can be observed repeatedly. We discussed "dustification" or "powderisation", but this is twisted into "melting" and "vaporisation" and the process is then declared "impossible". If it was "impossible", then where are the steel girders? And if there really was molten metal, then where did the energy come from to melt the steel? The arguments presented in opposition to the evidence that the steel turned to dust don't stand up to scrutiny.

Exposing the Evidence

Recently, I asked someone I know here in the UK, who has repeatedly spoken out about a number of 9/11 truth related issues, for help in publicising the Wood/Reynolds Qui Tam cases, following comments this person made regarding an e-mail exchange I had with a BBC Producer called Mike Rudin (Mike Rudin was the series producer of The Conspiracy Files, which included a program which did not properly address the key 9/11 evidence which contradicts the Official Story.)

I asked this person, who is quite well known in UK 9/11 Truth Circles,

How do we get coverage, at least of the existence of these two cases - even if not the details - not even the names of the people involved, for heaven's sake, into the Daily Mail? Can you advise me please? ... So, can you help me publicise the Qui Tam cases somehow? That would be great.

This person (who has spoken out publicly regarding 9/11) does have some contacts in the UK media responded thus:

To do this, we need to be credible. To be credible, we need to avoid speculation. For the above reasons, I shall respectfully have to decline your request for help in publicising the work of Woods.

This response was interesting to me for 2 reasons. Firstly, it mentions "speculation". Both Dr. Wood's and Dr. Reynolds' Qui Tam cases focus on a range of physical evidence. They draw certain conclusions based on an analysis of this evidence. This is really the opposite of speculation. Indeed, who would initiate a Court Case based on speculation? (Who has this kind of money to waste?)

The second point that was interesting was that this person said they "would not help in promoting the work of Woods". This was not exactly what I asked - there are 2 Qui Tam cases and I did not specify that the names be mentioned (and, of course, it's "Dr. Wood" not "Dr. Woods").

Over the last 2-3 years, I have helped with the running of the UK 9/11 Truth forum. Previously, when I posted information or updates pertaining to the RFC's of Dr. Wood and Dr. Reynolds on the UK forum, they were moved out of the "News" Section and into a "Controversies" Section. So, moderators there seemed to be indulging in a kind of "soft censorship" -- in a similar manner to how news editors move some stories to the "back pages" or put them in smaller print.

The Call for an Independent Investigation

I recently received a message from a friend who is now starting to realise what seems to be going on. In presenting his view to other people he wrote:

I [have] been pondering over a few things regarding what [we] are trying to achieve. We are primarily demanding a reinvestigation of 911. But what would we accept as a satisfactory investigation? What criteria would we use to measure or qualify any investigation, whether it is just a proposal or an actual investigation?

I didn't consider until recently that the Judy Wood Qui Tam cases are technically investigations since the cases brought forward have been accepted by the courts. Yet we have collectively chosen to ignore them as they do not fit some criteria that we must collectively all share (pls forgive the generalisation for a second). What are those criteria?

So this does lead on to a deeper question. What form would a truly independent enquiry take? Who would pay for it, if government bodies cannot be trusted (they cannot)? How about an organisation like Amnesty International -- wouldn't they be able to do something? Well, seeing as AI have made no public comments about 9/11 truth issues in over 6 years, despite being asked, the prospects aren't looking too good. So perhaps we need individuals to come forward, fund their own research, build their own legal cases and submit them to the courts. At the moment, Drs. Wood and Reynolds, with the help of Jerry Leaphart, are the only ones doing this -- as all previous 9/11 related cases have either folded or been withdrawn (so why hasn't anyone else tried to re-invigorate them?)

9/11, The Hutchison Effect and the Energy Connection

It has been said that "the flak is strongest when you are over the target" and I can't help thinking that this applies to our current situation, where, along with Dr. Wood, I have been involved with pointing out the similarities between some of the less well-known effects at the WTC and some of the effects seen in John Hutchison's experiments. Using a maximum of about 4kw of power, Hutchison has carried out (admittedly, often in a haphazard fashion) experiments for the last 30 years and, in the process, generated about 500lbs of anomalous metal samples. This has attracted interest from US military industrial complex organisations such as Los Alamos National Laboratories. It is therefore less surprising that he has submitted an affidavit for Dr. Judy Wood's Qui Tam case, now filed with the court of the Southern District of New York. This of course means that, if John Hutchison were to be called as a witness, if the case proceeded, he could go to prison if he committed perjury.

We have mentioned the similarities of some of the characteristics of the Hutchison Effect and what is referred to as Cold Fusion. In both cases, attempts are made to "debunk" the phenomenon by denying the reproduction of experiments. John Hutchison has replicated his experiments many times, and Mel Winfield has reproduced some similar effects. With Cold Fusion, there have been hundreds of replications -- many of which have showed anomalous nuclear effects, excess heat -- or both. Sometimes, the reaction appears to be "self sustaining" - for an extended period after the current was removed from the experiment. Further information is available at www.lenr-canr.org . And, of course, this is where Prof Steven E Jones "enters the picture", as he was involved in matters which triggered the somewhat impromptu or even premature press conference of Pons and Fleischmann in 1989. It should be pointed out that, in relation to 9/11 not only is Prof Jones' evidence unverifiable, some of his statements are false or unsubstantiated. His behaviour can, on scrutiny, also be justifiably questioned. In the late 80's and early 90's Jones and others went on to completely ignore or deny the reality of excess heat production in a number of duplicate experiments. These matters are documented in Dr. Eugene Mallove's excellent 1991 book "Fire From Ice". Mallove was murdered in May 2004. Jones appeared on the 911 scene in about Sept 2005. Mallove worked with William Zebuhr at the New Energy Foundation. William Zebuhr was the Uncle of Michael Zebuhr, Dr. Wood's Student. Can it just have been a coincidence that Michael Zebuhr was himself murdered in March 2006?

"The normal no-planers are just completely nuts""

Dr. Reynolds Qui Tam case focuses on the lack of evidence of plane impacts at the WTC on 9/11. In April 2008, "no planers" were accused of physically abusing one or more members of one of the New York "We Are Change" group. These accusations were made in a Prison Planet article, with a summary of which is shown below (emphasis added).

We Are Change To Release Assault Videos

After months of tolerating verbal and physical abuse from a fringe group of emotionally unstable "no-planers" at ground zero, Luke Rudkowski and We Are Change have had enough, and are set to release video showing the assaults and attempts to smear We Are Change as being complicit in the Times Square recruitment center bombing.

The use of the phrase "emotionally unstable" is somewhat revealing. In an earlier broadcast on Alex Jones' radio show (linked on the above page in a YouTube video), we seem to have another example of debunking, ridicule and desultory remarks where, instead, a sober analysis of the evidence included in Dr. Reynold's case would have been more appropriate and useful. In an earlier broadcast (around April 8th 2008), Alex Jones made his position on this evidence abundantly clear, saying:

And then who comes out and says the[re are] no plane[s] -- former Bush administration officials -- and Fox has 'em on over and over again and Fox - whenever I am doing a debate they say 'no planes -- ha ha ha'.

The normal no-planers are just completely nuts -- I mean they are completely out of their minds " and vicious and aggressive and lying and slanderous and then they've always got former admitted spooks and former admitted people from CIA universities, running around spewing"

Attorney Jerry Leaphart, in a letter to Alex Jones, responded to this general accusation and he included these words:

We hasten to acknowledge that we are not saying you accused Drs. Wood and/or Reynolds of such behavior, however we do say that they are known as "no planers" by some and we also know how guilt by association and categorization works, and we know that you know that too.

I am here assuming that you do not want any of us to come under surveillance by virtue of being thought to pose a threat of violence. You might not share the same degree of wariness about surveillance as we do, but we assume it takes very little in the way of publicly disseminated information to give rise to justification for surveillance. Posting videos proclaiming that "no planers" have instigated or participated in fighting could be used as a justification for scrutiny, in our view.

Alex Jones has been heard to say "Don't believe me -- do your own research" (or words to that effect -- for example at about 7:30 into this YouTube clip). I hope that in this particular case, people will do as he suggests.

The Common Thread

If one wants to find the truth of something which is not fully understood, one can only do so by continuingly collecting evidence, analysing it and drawing conclusions. Importantly, however, this is never a completely static process. An unconditional willingness to review new evidence is the only way to get the closest to the truth. Evidence, analyses and conclusions must be continually reviewed and refined -- and this process is surely one of the fundamental pillars of the Scientific Method (which I prefer to think of more as "analytical thought").

In much of the activity documented above, there is a common thread: that of ignoring evidence. A friend of mine has an expression that is also appropriate here, he describes this mentality as "playing the man, not the ball". Another version of this is "if you can't attack the data, attack the messenger". There is of course a difference here between attacking people and asking questions of them (as I tend to do). Asking people questions is different to making rude or inflammatory remarks, describing them or their evidence, analysis or conclusions as "ridiculous" or "unbelievable". Perhaps it would be better if more people spent time analysing the evidence for themselves, and if they can't agree with the experts' conclusions perhaps they can simply say "I disagree" - rather than being rude and disparaging or claim to have "debunked" a reasoned analysis, as if it is something to be proud of.

If there is some honest criticism of the evidence, where it is felt that it is not strong enough, or it is felt that clearer or more powerful evidence has been found, then the sensible thing would surely be to offer to contribute it to the studies which have been posted -- collectively, making the case stronger and more overwhelming.

Instead of this however, we have seen a pattern of:

1) Promoting studies which don't explain all the evidence.

2) Ridiculing studies which explain the most evidence.

3) Ignoring, censoring or soft-censoring a discussion of evidence when those having the power of censorship (but a weak or non-existent science or analytical background) become "uncomfortable" with this discussion.

4) Classifying a group of people who choose to discuss certain evidence or conclusions as either being "emotionally unstable" or "completely nuts".

5) Ignoring court cases, important to our future, which focus on a range of evidence analysed by well-qualified people.

For myself, I now feel I have to strongly consider that the actions which have woven this pattern of evidence-denial and ridicule are not purely "ego-driven", or a simple result of people being "reluctant to change their minds". I am coming to the view that there is an active underlying "system" which is manipulating people into the behaviour that has been observed and documented here, which is very much another "can of worms" to open.

"So What is The Goal Here?"

Recently, when I was trying to discuss the evidence that some type of technology related to the Hutchison Effect was used to destroy the WTC, I was asked "What is your goal with this?" This, of course, is a very good question (which can also be asked of those promoting the Thermite explanations and those who continue to follow the pattern of making disparaging remarks).

My goal is to help pave the way for the Black Technologies, that have been used to hold the rest of the world hostage for perhaps 60 years or so, to be revealed. An additional goal is that those who are in control of these technologies can be identified and questioned as to what their goal is. My wish is that these revelations will transform our world into one which has more equity, liberty and peace than it does now. In that regard, attacking and ridiculing serious, reasoned and detailed analyses has no place -- especially when some of the people doing this work have made (and continue to make) very significant personal sacrifices.



Tutor, Assessor, Software Developer

UK 9/11 Campaigner

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -
Google Content Matches:


The time limit for entering new comments on this diary has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
9 people are discussing this page, with 35 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)
People really do need to start checking the eviden... by CB Brooklyn on Friday, May 16, 2008 at 4:59:35 PM
OK, you're starting to convince me about DEW, ... by Robert Hoogenboom on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 at 6:19:50 AM
Wow!  You're even more truthier than the ... by Alan Williams on Friday, May 16, 2008 at 9:55:13 PM
Andrew, you are obviously intelligent, why did you... by Better World Order on Saturday, May 17, 2008 at 11:10:54 AM
You must be confused. Dr Judy Wood is the first sc... by CB Brooklyn on Saturday, May 17, 2008 at 4:13:38 PM
I stand by my other statements... by Better World Order on Saturday, May 17, 2008 at 8:42:54 PM
Calling an RFC a "joke" means nothing. T... by CB Brooklyn on Saturday, May 17, 2008 at 9:16:15 PM
Thanks for replying CB.Thanks to "Better Worl... by Andrew Johnson on Saturday, May 17, 2008 at 4:30:50 PM
I do. That's why I support those who file cour... by CB Brooklyn on Saturday, May 17, 2008 at 7:35:45 PM
...you're not a PhD, you're not published ... by Richard Volaar on Friday, May 16, 2008 at 11:10:53 PM
Kindly cite the scientific journal that explains..... by CB Brooklyn on Saturday, May 17, 2008 at 1:36:28 AM
Perhaps you need to kindly explain what makes you ... by Alan Williams on Saturday, May 17, 2008 at 2:03:20 AM
AlanYou include links to no evidence in your comme... by Andrew Johnson on Saturday, May 17, 2008 at 3:25:35 AM
Richard,I am ever so sorry that I don't have a... by Andrew Johnson on Saturday, May 17, 2008 at 3:17:42 AM
The first evidence any serious researcher has to c... by Richard Volaar on Saturday, May 17, 2008 at 1:21:04 PM
Wow Richard! No references in that! No specific po... by Andrew Johnson on Saturday, May 17, 2008 at 4:16:14 PM
Here it is... by Andrew Johnson on Saturday, May 17, 2008 at 4:18:08 PM
"Why are posters and researchers around the I... by Jeannon Kralj on Saturday, May 17, 2008 at 8:51:29 AM
Thanks Jeannon for that marvellous missive!Yes, th... by Andrew Johnson on Saturday, May 17, 2008 at 9:22:30 AM
"Alan, You include links to no evidence in your co... by Alan Williams on Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 1:22:43 PM
It would be easy for someone to simply assert that... by Andrew Johnson on Monday, May 19, 2008 at 9:48:19 AM
It's only a good day when the Truthers implode... by Tom Murphy on Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 11:35:14 PM
"The Parade of Silliness" - well Tom - a... by Andrew Johnson on Monday, May 19, 2008 at 10:42:59 AM
I'll offer a critque of your points in a pendi... by Tom Murphy on Monday, May 19, 2008 at 3:20:38 PM
"Yes, it would which is why evidence has been... by Alan Williams on Monday, May 19, 2008 at 4:13:51 PM
I did a search in that paper you linked for "... by Andrew Johnson on Tuesday, May 20, 2008 at 2:55:12 PM
first looked at Dr. Wood's material, I have fe... by JimZ on Monday, May 19, 2008 at 4:52:47 PM
Those who also want a real investigation need to t... by Andrew Johnson on Tuesday, May 20, 2008 at 2:56:33 PM
The energy source you're searching for is good... by Alan Williams on Monday, May 19, 2008 at 9:40:20 PM
Alan Williams:   “Wow!  You're... by Andrew Johnson on Tuesday, May 20, 2008 at 4:38:11 PM
" I wish I had more time to go through it. It was ... by Alan Williams on Tuesday, May 20, 2008 at 11:45:14 PM
This is obvious, with your Star Trek reference. Yo... by CB Brooklyn on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 at 4:19:17 AM
Judy Wood's New Discovery - She Found The Power So... by Alan Williams on Thursday, May 22, 2008 at 1:18:14 AM
typically use childish ad hominems instead of scie... by CB Brooklyn on Friday, May 23, 2008 at 4:31:17 AM
They actually often use quite a bit of scientific ... by Alan Williams on Saturday, May 24, 2008 at 2:09:21 AM