Steven Jones/William Deagle's Motive Revealed-9/11

CB_Brooklyn

Discussion took place at the Vancouver 9/11 Truth


With Prof Steve Jones and Dr William Deagle - 24th June 2007


Transcript by Andrew Johnson

Footnotes mainly by Andrew Johnson, with additional comments by Prof Judy Wood.


This is quite an extraordinary discussion in many ways - and in my view, clearly demonstrates that neither Jones or Deagle are being completely honest in their discussion.


You will hear them:


· Claiming to be discussing the evidence, but in reality they don’t discuss any evidence.
· Deagle claim Seattle has been pre-wired with mini-nukes.
· Jones suggesting that if there is a nuke-attack, 9-11 truthers should get dust samples and send them to Deagle or Jones.
· Deagle claiming he has evidence of mini-nukes from “contacts” but he hasn’t completed testing his samples - even though he is very concerned to find out what they will use for the next attack.
· Deagle claims he is 100% sure thermate or superthermate was used to destroy the towers
· Deagle describes the effects on toasted cars as being potentially from an EMP pulse, but he dismisses the evidence for DEW.
· Jones gets Deagle to agree that the evidence of no planes hitting the WTC towers is “ridiculous”
· Deagle claims micronukes were used in the Oaklahoma bombing
· Deagle doesn’t know whether they are fusion or fission nukes
· Jones mentions WTC Iron quite a few times.
· Both Jones and Deagle talk about an Isotope of Iodine 110 - but this is extremely obscure (the stable Isotope of Iodine is 127)


Even though Deagle suggests there is going to be a multiple nuke attack in the USA, Homeland Secuirty don’t seem to have expressed an interest in this.


Listen to the audio or read the transcript.


Transcript with footnotes, audio, and video links:

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Jones-Deagle-MiniNukesvsThermate-etc.htm


Backup link:
http://www.911researchers.com/node/641


==============================================

CB's opinion:

Steven Jones continues to out himself... first as a Cold Fusion fraud in 1989 who discredited free energy research to keep the world addicted to oil http://www.911researchers.com/node/125 , and now as a 9/11 fraud who distracts us from the real evidence of directed energy weapons at TV-Fakery at the World Trade Center. Is it coincidence that Jones worked at Los Alamos where directed energy weapon research is conducted?


Jones/Deagle agreed that the "discussion should be evidence-based". So why did Jones say, just a few seconds later, "I don't think this is the place to go through all the evidence"?

Why didn't they discuss the clean surgical cut on the north wing of WTC 4, in which all the building material on the other side of this cut is missing? Why didn't they discuss the fact that the cut was in the same path as the South Tower's north wall? The South Tower was pulverized, and so was all WTC 4 material on the other side of that cut. Sounds like evidence of a directed energy weapon to me!



Yellow/red box below locates north wing of WTC 4.
As can be seen, the wing was “cut” in the path of the north face of WTC 2:



Nor did they discuss the round cylindrical holes in WTC 5/6, further evidence of directed energy beams!




They conclude that no planes at the towers is "ridiculous". That's some scientific analysis, huh? One must wonder why they didn't discuss the actual evidence for no planes instead of jumping to conclusions.

For instance, they didn't discuss an aluminum airplane with a plastic nosecone being swallowed up by a steel/concrete building:












Notice how Deagle talks about nukes in Seattle. This is a scare tactic, directed toward the Truth movement. Does the movement really need to lean on his shoulder? Perhaps we should look at information for ourselves instead of trusting "mild mannered sounding" people.....

Nick_oliveri

Why not just post in the 9/11 thread. You know somebodys gonna move it eventually.

oscarBravo

Hi there.

Care to discuss my refutation of your "frozen fireball" hypothesis in the earlier thread?

Jocksereire

911 clearly a false flag operation by american government
No plane theories i just dont agree with. Just my opinion

oscarBravo

Jocksereire wrote:

911 clearly a false flag operation by american government

It's not "clearly" anything of the sort. Why do you say it is?

togster

Jocksereire wrote:

911 clearly a false flag operation by american government
No plane theories i just dont agree with. Just my opinion

So this was "clearly" a false flag operation.??? Then your opinion is flawed.;)

nacho libre

Jocksereire wrote:

911 clearly a false flag operation by american government
No plane theories i just dont agree with. Just my opinion

I don't believe so for the very same reason that they nixed Operation Northwood- which goes to show that they have in the past contemplated doing nefarious things against their own citizens.

Jocksereire

oscarBravo wrote:

It's not "clearly" anything of the sort. Why do you say it is?

It IS clearly another false flag operation. I say it because i have looked at the all the evidence unlike yourself.

What is YOUR opinion on what happened on sept 11 2001?

Jocksereire

nacho libre wrote:

I don't believe so for the very same reason that they nixed Operation Northwood- which goes to show that they have in the past contemplated doing nefarious things against their own citizens.

Yes this was agrred by every military leader and finally trashed by JFK. He didnt last very long after that did he?

Operation Gladio.....Clear example of false flag operations closer to home in europe.You can watch the BBC documentary on it in google video.

oscarBravo

Jocksereire wrote:

It IS clearly another false flag operation. I say it because i have looked at the all the evidence unlike yourself.

On the contrary, I've looked at more evidence than you have.¹

Jocksereire wrote:

What is YOUR opinion on what happened on sept 11 2001?

A group of terrorists hijacked several planes by demonstrating a willingness to kill hostages. Three of the planes were crashed into, respectively, the twin towers of the World Trade Centre, and the Pentagon. The impact damage and subsequent fires caused the collapse of the WTC towers and some nearby buildings. A fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania when the passengers got word of what had happened to the other three, and tried to wrest control back from the hijackers.

What's yours?



¹ Obviously I have no valid basis for stating this, but then neither does Jocksereire for the assertion I'm countering.

oscarBravo

Jocksereire wrote:

Yes this was agrred by every military leader and finally trashed by JFK. He didnt last very long after that did he?

Have you got evidence that it even got to JFK? That McNamara approved it?

As I understand it, it never got past the nutjobs in the military who came up with it.

Jocksereire

oscarBravo wrote:

On the contrary, I've looked at more evidence than you have.¹

Woo big words there young man.....let me reply with an equally mature....eh no you havent

[/QUOTE]
A group of terrorists hijacked several planes by demonstrating a willingness to kill hostages.[/QUOTE] Ok A group??? surely you can tell us how many, who they were and where they are from ? thanks. can you include your sources please.

Three of the planes were crashed into, respectively, the twin towers of the World Trade Centre, and the Pentagon.

Agreed

The impact damage and subsequent fires caused the collapse of the WTC towers and some nearby buildings.

Again can you provide a source quantifying the damage and fires. Do people who state explosions went off in the WTC basment before any planes hit not count as sources? Just wondering?

A fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania when the passengers got word of what had happened to the other three, and tried to wrest control back from the hijackers.

Again source please

What's yours?

911 was inside job. My sources are mostly based on the films posted here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=291444&page=2
if they are all wrong fair enough i am wrong too...... but until proven wrong ill stand by them.

Jocksereire

oscarBravo wrote:

As I understand it, it never got past the nutjobs in the military who came up with it.

Have you any evidence?

bonkey

Jocksereire wrote:

Have you any evidence?

The absence of evidence that it got any further would be evidence to support OBs comment.

Put differently, unless you can show it did go further(i.e. supply the evidence he requested), your own lack of evidence is evidence to support his claim.

bonkey

Jocksereire wrote:

Again can you provide a source quantifying the damage and fires.

For WTC 1 and 2, I believe the NIST report would be the definitive quantification.

For WTC 7, the NIST interim report would be the best currently-available evidence.

Do people who state explosions went off in the WTC basment before any planes hit not count as sources? Just wondering?

Sure "they" do. All one of them.

Their version of events also fails to withstand scrutiny, especially given that no-one can offer any explanation as to how explosions in the basement prior to impact had any bearing on the towers subsequently standing for an extended period of time, then collapsing with collapse-initiation matching the point of impact almost-perfectly.

but until proven wrong ill stand by them.

Can you identify what it would take to prove them wrong? If so, can you compare this level of "disproof" to the level of disproof you apply to the findings of the likes of NIST and conclude that you are treating the arguments objectively, rather than applying differing standards based on their conclusions?

Diogenes

Jocksereire wrote:

Have you any evidence?

There's no evidence that he did or didn't read and reject Northwoods.

However Jocksereire, you're proposing Kennedy was assassinated because he opposed Northwoods, however after his assassination did Northwoods, then take place? No.

Again can you provide a source quantifying the damage and fires. Do people who state explosions went off in the WTC basment before any planes hit not count as sources? Just wondering?

By people you mean Rodgrieuz, who has changed his story substantial over the years. It's also been pointed out that how could Rodgriuez know exactly when the planes hit the tower, when he was in the basement.

Finally the collapse of the twin towers started over the crash point, how would basement explosives trigger this?

As to United 93, what sort of source are you looking for. People were speaking to their loved ones on the plane moments before it crashed, eye witnesses saw the plane crash. Thousands of firemen, the red cross, FBI and FAA investigators combed the scene. If you don't think United 93 crashed into a field in Shanksville what do you think happened?

Jocksereire

bonkey wrote:

For WTC 1 and 2, I believe the NIST report would be the definitive quantification.

For WTC 7, the NIST interim report would be the best currently-available evidence.


Sure "they" do. All one of them.

Their version of events also fails to withstand scrutiny, especially given that no-one can offer any explanation as to how explosions in the basement prior to impact had any bearing on the towers subsequently standing for an extended period of time, then collapsing with collapse-initiation matching the point of impact almost-perfectly.


Can you identify what it would take to prove them wrong? If so, can you compare this level of "disproof" to the level of disproof you apply to the findings of the likes of NIST and conclude that you are treating the arguments objectively, rather than applying differing standards based on their conclusions?

There ya go NIST for all your answers people .
I treat the findings of NIST as objectively as you do any other voices and evidence such as people saying explosions went off in the basement.
So let me get this right. You dont believe people (and i say people or "they" as there are other witness in these films who support the statement of explosions in the basement. I know i dont have to point out the films since you have "looked at more evidence " than i have but i will if requested)like william rodriquez when he says there were explosions in the basement? a yes or no will do.

bonkey

Jocksereire wrote:

So let me get this right. You dont believe people (and i say people or "they" as there are other witness in these films who support the statement of explosions in the basement.

I said that the allegation fails to withstand scrutiny. Whether anyone making such allegations firmly believes it or not is not terribly relevant.

...since you have "looked at more evidence " than i have ...

I'd never make such baseless claims. That was OB, making a retort in response you to having made just such a baseless claim.

a yes or no will do.

Nuance and discussion are lost arts, then?

I stand by what I said - the accounts fail to withstand scrutiny.

Jocksereire

bonkey wrote:

I said that the allegation fails to withstand scrutiny. Whether anyone making such allegations firmly believes it or not is not terribly relevant.

It fails to withstand scrutiny? what are you talking about? what scrutiy? your scrutiny? my scruntiy? Thats your opinion to others its very relevent if someone says there were explosives in the basement. Do you believe him or not?

I'd never make such baseless claims. That was OB, making a retort in response you to having made just such a baseless claim.

Sorry about that, i do get mixed up between you two.

Nuance and discussion are lost arts, then?

no

I stand by what I said - the accounts fail to withstand scrutiny.

Sorry is that a yes or a no just to be sure i dont misunderstand you

bonkey

Jocksereire wrote:

There ya go NIST for all your answers people .
I treat the findings of NIST as objectively as you do any other voices and evidence such as people saying explosions went off in the basement.

I look at them both and see on one side a carefully-detailed explanation of what happened and how it led to the collapse.

On the other, I see no connection. Explosions in the basement, allegedly prior to impact, which did....what? Helped the two building collapse from the points of impact, some significant amount of time later?

Rodriguez claims to have experienced two seperate events some moments apart. How does he know which was the aircraft impact? He was in the basement and therfore couldn't see the plane hit. We know there were some additional dramatic events shortly after impact (such as the freight-lift-shaft fire and lift-collapse) which could explain the second event.

Sure, his stance today makes it clear that this couldn't have been what he experienced, but his statements for the first number of years all fit such an interpretation remarkably well. In 2004, for example, he was saying the following :

The fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that moment. A person comes running into the office saying explosion, explosion, explosion. When I look at this guy; has all his skin pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th – freight elevator, the biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower, it went out with such a force that it broke the cables. It went down, I think seven flights. The person survived because he was pulled from the B3 level. But this person, being in front of the doors waiting for the elevator, practically got his skin vaporized.

bonkey

Jocksereire wrote:

It fails to withstand scrutiny? what are you talking about? what scrutiy? your scrutiny? my scruntiy?

All logical scrutiny should be mutually compatible. It should withstand, therefore, any objective scrutiny from anyone.

Thats your opinion to others its very relevent if someone says there were explosives in the basement.

Do you rule out the possibility that he may be mistaken? If not, then why is it relevant just that he makes the claim? Why is the relevancy not whether or not the claim withstands scrutiny to see whether or not it appears to be true?

Do you believe him or not?

Do I believe there were explosives in the basement? No.

Do I believe explosions were heard and the effects of explosions were experienced in the basement? Yes.

Do I believe Rodriguez? Thats entirely dependent on which of his various versions of events you're asking me about.

Sorry is that a yes or a no just to be sure i dont misunderstand you

I don't particularly care what Rodriguez believes.

I'm not particularly interested if he's mistaken, confused, or lying and I'm not going to make an assumption as to which of those it is. As a result, I can't answer the question with a yes or no answer, because neither would be an accurate representation of my position.

If I asked you (and I'm not, because I'd never do such a thing) if you had stopped lying about 911, and asked for a yes or no answer, would you give me one? Or would you recognise that some questions cannot correctly be answered with either answer but instead require a more nuanced elaboration.

What I will say is that there is insufficient evidence to support his claims, and (as I've just outlined in my previous post) plenty of evidence to suggest that there is a reasonable explanation which reconciles his original claims with what we know happened.

If Rodriguez has changed his story over the years, then I'm also not particularly interested in his new version(s) of events.

What I am interested in is whether or not his account of events can be explained.

Lets say for a moment, though, that he's right. Lets say there were explosions in the basement, and lets assume that they were caused by explosives. Where does this get us? We need to explain why there was no seismic evidence of these explosives. We need to explain what the purpose of these explosions was. We need to explain, if they were part of the bringing down of the building, how they contributed to a collapse which initated where the plane impacted There's a whole heap of other things that we'd need to explain before it makes any sense, before it has any relevance.

Do we have those explanations? No - none that stand up to scrutiny.

Jocksereire

Ok so you DONT believe William Rodriquez and the others who say explosions went off it the basment correct?

bonkey

Jocksereire wrote:

Ok so you DONT believe William Rodriquez and the others who say explosions went off it the basment correct?

As I've just said: If I asked you (and I'm not, because I'd never do such a thing) if you had stopped lying about 911, and asked for a yes or no answer, would you give me one?

Or would you recognise that some questions cannot correctly be answered with neither a yes nor a no but instead require a more nuanced elaboration.

Rodriguez heard two major events - I don't doubt that.
Rodriguez heard a major event occurring in the basement levels. There were events which effected the basement levels.
Does he believe he heard explosions in the basement? I don't care what he believes.
Do I believe there were explosives in the basement, which went off prior to the plane impacting? No, I don't. I don't believe the evidence supporting such claims supports scrutiny.

Jocksereire

Ok so you dont believe there were explosions in the basement prior to a plane hitting the building. Rodriquez says there was. so you dont believe him. Finally an answer....
Another question
Do you believe al qaeda who, one of its leaders is Bin Laden, as stated by the US government and media were responsible for the attack?
This discussion should really be in the 911 consp thread if you want to reply there.

bonkey

Tell ya what...I've just gone to quite a bit of effort trying to answer one of your questions. Before I proceed to the next of what is potentially an endless list, why not reciprocate first.

Explain to me why you believe Rodriguez. What makes his testimony credible and if true how does it contribute to explaining anything about the collapse of the towers.

ETA: I'm off for the evening now, but I'll check in tomorrow, so there's no rush in answering.

Jocksereire

ill continue it in the 911 thread where this belongs........but yes the list of questions is endless