::::::::
Headline updated; original headline "Com 8- 14 Points- 25 People- 5 Minutes"- new one's better, imho; also may improve Search and Alert results.
In one of my Communications classes (about 25 people), today we gave 5 minute speeches on a “memorable experience”. I used the occasion to talk about last Friday, April 18, 2008 when the paper Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction was published by the The Open Civil Engineering Journal- OCIEJ published by Bentham.org and cross posted on 911Blogger.com with Dr. Steven Jones commentary, Publication in a Peer-reviewed Civil Engineering Journal!
My speech went something like this:
“Do you still think that jet fuel brought down the World Trade Center?”
Last Friday, I was thinking that today I would be talking to ya’ll about the first time I saw LooseChange911.com, the online film & DVD that quote is from, which a lot of you have probably heard of or seen. However, last Friday night something happened, that, imho, is just as memorable and is more immediately significant.
This event was the publication of a letter titled “Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction”, in The Open Civil Engineering Journal- OCIEJ- an Open Access, mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific journal published by Bentham.org. This event is significant because the 5 authors are known for hypothesizing that on 9/11 World Trade Center towers 1, 2….& 7, we’re destroyed by controlled demolition. This letter, however, does not focus on controlled demolition, instead the authors are seeking to reach grounds for “productive discussion” of the 14 points outlined in the letter, which in turn are based on, and quote from, assertions of fact already made by NIST and FEMA in their reports and public statements. The big issue here is that the NIST and FEMA reports appear to be grossly inadequate, contradicting both their own conclusions and established facts.
Coinciding with the publication in Bentham.org, one of the lead authors, Dr. Steven Jones published the "Fourteen Points" open letter in full at 911Blogger.com, with commentary. Dr. Jones noted, “With publication in an established civil engineering journal, the discussion has reached a new level – JREF’ers and others may attack, but unless they can also get published in a peer-reviewed journal, those attacks do not carry nearly the weight of a peer-reviewed paper.”
At 911Blogger.com, Dr. Jones also quoted Noam Chomsky advising those who suspect explosives brought down the World Trade Center to get the attention of the scientific community by getting a paper published in a scientific journal. Chomsky, in response to an email; “You, or anyone who agrees with you, has a very simple task. Since the evidence is so obvious and compelling, submit an article about it to Science, or Nature, or even Scientific American, or more technical journals, say those in civil engineering, where your article can refute the conclusions of the professional society of civil engineers…”
This event of publication is a historic, one-time event; there will likely be other published peer-reviewed papers to follow that disprove the NIST and FEMA reports (and there will likely be rebuttals), however, as Dr. Jones noted, things are now on a new level. This discussion about why the Twin Towers and WTC 7 collapsed has now moved into the mainstream scientific community.
Since I saw LooseChange911.com and investigated it, I have not believed the official 9/11 story, although I accepted it almost without question until I saw LooseChange911.com summer 2005. After studying videos of the “collapses”, it was no longer possible to believe that plane damage, jet fuel, weakened steel giving way underneath the mass on top it could’ve turned several hundred thousand tons each of steel framing and concrete into rapidly inflating dust clouds and ten story piles of rubble. To me, it seemed obvious that explosives could’ve caused the observed effects.
So, while I noticed that showing videos of 9/11 World Trade Center towers 1, 2 & 7 to people was usually enough to get them to question what we’ve been told about 9/11, I wasn’t sure how useful this would in finding or prosecuting the culprits. Plus, in my search for answers I was discovering that the number of “holes” in the “official” 9/11 story was enormous The Complete 9/11 Timeline - CooperativeResearch.org - not just what we were told about 9/11 World Trade Center towers 1, 2 & 7.
As 9/11 researcher Michael Ruppert of FromTheWilderness.com observed, once the physical evidence is destroyed or missing, then in court it comes down to one expert's opinion vs. another's, in front of a jury who may or may not be fully qualified to understand what they’re talking about. Ruppert recommended that 9/11 Truth Movement researchers and activists focus on gathering evidence by studying official reports, documents and statements and mainstream media reporting for lies, contradictions and inconsistencies.
However, with the publication of this Fourteen Points letter, the 9/11 Truth Movement now has both; a paper that essentially proves the NIST and FEMA reports are frauds, and that controlled demolition was the likely cause of destruction of 9/11 World Trade Center towers 1, 2 & 7. Whether it really does that remains to be seen; I’m not a scientist or even an expert- I just like to read, and I support free speech and public debate of important issues. It’s possible that the paper will not stand up to rebuttals that are published and Bentham.org will go down a laughing stock. It’s also possible the NIST & FEMA reports will go down as laughingstocks- and prompt criminal, Congressional and International investigations.
Another thing I learned from this is how to Blog. As soon as the paper was published, I and the rest of the 9/11 Truth Movement realized the paper’s significance and began reposting it and links to it all over the web. Many 9/11 Truth Movement activists already have blogs and websites that they posted it on, and I also began to blog daily about the paper and the online coverage of it, as Better World Order at OpEdNews.com & Loose Nuke at 911Blogger.com. I had not really blogged before, but I wanted to make sure this event got maximum visibility.
I've been following the news coverage of the publication of this "letter". There has been none on TV or in the print media yet, and none from the mainstream web media, but it is getting good exposure from blogs, forums and email listserves.
One interesting thing I discovered is that I haven't received from Google (the search engine most people online are using to search for news and receive "news alerts" by email) news alerts about the Fourteen Points paper- or any of the many reposts and articles referencing it, other than these 3 instances:
Apr 21 - Announcing 9/11Truth: "14 Points of WTC Destruction" Media Visibility Week
April 22 - Fourteen Points:World Trade Center Destruction Media Visibility Week
April 22 - "Fourteen Points" Media Visibility Update 4/21/08 (this one had been marked as spam)
April 26 - this article under the original headline "Com 8- 14 Points- 25 People- 5 Minutes"
Some of these and other articles ARE caught by Google WEBor BLOG alerts, but the fact that they’re not in the NEWS alerts means A LOT of People haven't been and are not going to receive an alert about the letter, the many reposts (indymedia, blogs, forums, websites) or related articles, even if they have the right keywords. I’m not sure what’s up with Google’s shoddy service- it could be a “glitch” or an “editorial decision”.
If you want to find the article though, it is indexed in Google and you should be able to find it by typing “Bentham” “Fourteen Points “ and “World Trade Center”.
In closing, I’ll quote from LooseChange911.com once more; “Do you still think that jet fuel brought down the World Trade Center”?
I don’t.
Thank you.
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
According to an August 1, 2006 Scripps News Poll: "16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."
A September 6, 2007 Zogby Poll found 67% fault the 9/11 Commission for not investigating the anomalous collapse of World Trade Center 7
Other useful websites for examining the 9/11 events, and the effects on public and private policy:
911Research.WTC7.net and 911Review.com
The Complete 9/11 Timeline - CooperativeResearch.org
These are SOME of my Google Alerts- I have otherswith keywords combinations that probably would’ve/should’ve caught “FourteenPoints” related articles.
"Fourteen Points of Agreement with OfficialGovernment Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction" Comprehensive oncea day
"Fourteen Points: World Trade CenterDestruction Media Visibility Week" Comprehensive once a day
"Godgle: Info Provider + Filter = PerceptionManager" Comprehensive once a day
"Open Letter to the People &Google" Comprehensive once a day
9/11 Comprehensive once a day
9/11 poll Comprehensive once a day
bentham fourteen points Comprehensive once a day
Godgle: Info Provider + Filter = PerceptionManager Comprehensive once a day
google censorship Comprehensive once a day
open letter people google Comprehensive once a day
world trade center Comprehensive once a day
These are some of my Yahoo Alerts; I haven’t received ANY alerts about “Fourteen Points” relatedarticles from Yahoo. Yahoo’s alert service is still in beta, and I untilchanged it just now, alerts wereset to go to my Gmail address.
News Keyword News (Zogby Poll 9/11 Investigation)
News Keyword News (9/11 conference)
News Keyword News ("world trade center")
News Keyword News (""Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction")
News Keyword News ("Fourteen Points: World Trade Center Destruction Media Visibility Week”)
