A Vain Attempt to Find Common Ground Between Corporate News and Public News Broadcasts
Name: Joel Walker
Husband, Father, and future Air Force officer. With a moderately liberal outlook on the world.
visited *loading* times
I grabbed this off of the website http://911scholars.org/. I would love to hear comments from my peers on this one as I had only heard of it recently.
The Science of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not
Propaganda by the government and the corporate media would have us believe that the 9/11 "inside job" hypothesis is not merely controversial but unsupported by proof. That is wrong. Academics, experts, and scholars who have examined the physical evidence and considered this event within its historical context tend to converge in agreement that the inside-job hypothesis is, in fact, strongly supported by the available evidence, while the version advanced in The 9/11 Commission Report is not only false but provably false and in crucial respects physically impossible. That the official account of 9/11 is a lie and that 9/11 appears to have been an inside job is no longer a matter of serious scientific debate.
Even though the broad outlines of what happened are no longer controversial--for example, we know that The World Trade Center was intentionally demolished by a high-energy causal process physically unrelated to plane crashes and resulting fires--the precise details of how the perpetrators carried out the attack remains the subject of intense controversy. From a political point of view, this controversy may be insignificant. What we know with relative certainty about 9/11 is already the story of the century: it demands re-thinking our history, our politics, perhaps even our way of life. But from a scientific rather than political standpoint, controversial questions about what may have happened on 9/11 are fascinating and challenging--not least of all because they could lead to a better understanding of 9/11 with respect to its social and political significance.
In an attempt to clarify these matters, Scholars for 9/11 Truth will be hosting a conference entitled "The Science of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not", to be held in mid- to late-July in Madison, WI. I think we can all agree that the most important dimension of our efforts is explaining why the "official account" that the government has advanced cannot be sustained. Since there can be disagreements even here about what we should or should not emphasize and what has or has not been proven to an extent that is sufficient to emphasize them as "refutations" of the government's account, I am inviting Barrie Zwicker to organize the opening session, a panel discussion on "disproofs" of the government's account.
Following the opening session, there will be a keynote speaker and five major sessions devoted to the issues that have tended to divide us. As the program chair, I am inviting Steve Jones to organize a panel discussion of the use of conventional means for destroying the Twin Towers. [Editor's note: I regret to report that Steve Jones has declined.] I am inviting Judy Wood to organize a panel discussion on non-conventional means, including high-tech directed energy weaponry, that might have been used to destroy the World Trade Center. I am inviting Morgan Reynolds to organize a panel on planes/no planes at the WTC and George Nelson on the Pentagon and Shanksville. Each of these sessions would be of 2 1/2 to 3 hours duration. I anticipate there will be a registration fee of $100 for the week-end long conference, which will include a keynote address on Saturday evening.
While the program is at its tentative and preliminary stage, I am open to suggestions for possible participants and additional topics. There may be changes in the individuals responsible for some of these panels, but my expectation would be that their focus will remain the same. Anyone who has ideas they would like to share with me is welcome to forward them to me at jfetzer@d.umn.edu at their earliest convenience. This conference should provide an opportunity for experts on complex and technical scientific questions to explain their research and its significance. My hope is that by "agreeing to disagree," and by subjecting each others' research to rigorous but collegial criticism, the attention-getting controversial aspects of 9/11 research may be turned into a benefit, rather than a distraction, in the larger process of seeking and exposing the truth about 9/11.
James H. Fetzer
Founder
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Here's an excerpt from an email that a local lobbying group sent to its members. I see a couple of media values being refered to...do you?
Writing a letter to the editor of your local newspaper is a quick and easy way
to effectively bring important issues to light. The keys to writing an
effective letter are as follows:
Make one clear point and stick to it!
Most papers require it to be 250 words or less
Don't exaggerate - it's great to express feelings, but avoid hyperbole
If you can, tie your letter to a recent article
Explain how this issue affects you personally
nathanwebster on Any thoughts?
iconoclast on An update on Health ...
iconoclast on Any thoughts?
jcwalker on An update on Health ...
Zeto520 on An update on Health ...
Mo'nonymous on Looks like someone h...
jcwalker on Looks like someone h...
AnnaLouise on Looks like someone h...
iconoclast on The Rape Article
iconoclast on An update on Health ...
Template by motime.com