Artists for 9/11 Truth

About halfway through I realized that John was probably going to say something negative about Craig Ranke’s work at Citizen Investigation Team near the end of the show. I hurriedly left a comment and informed readers that I was doing this at the 37:07 mark in the show so that I would in no way be connected with John’s action in anybody’s mind. I laughed so hard when John did indeed make that negative statement about Craig’s work during the last 10 minutes of the podcast.

I’ve spent the last couple weeks dealing with a group of prominent 9/11 Truth activists starting a new project with a title almost identical to one of my main efforts that I’ve been broadcasting with for over 2 years. I don’t think they want any more attention called to their work at this time, so I will not mention it specifically here right now. I’m asking them to change the title of their project. Many important and shocking events happened during the course of my recent communications including the leader of their team publishing some part of our private communications without my consent as part of his opening statement in our debate. I was so disappointed, injured, and disgusted by this action that I couldn’t open his email and many related emails. This whole thing has really taken it out of me. I was going to publish my public outgoing letters on this as a part of this journal entry to start broadcasting about these events, but I’m too exhausted to do that. Also, to me this situation is so profoundly important now that I want to get some perspective before I start taking any actions that will effect people. I’m going on vacation for something like 1 – 3 months to heal myself from these recent events.

Dr. Legge,

Thank you very much for your efforts in regards to the Truth Movement. I have a couple questions about your paper. I just spoke with John Bursill via email about this. He didn’t answer my questions, but he gave you his highest recommendation. I’m asking you this privately instead of on 911blogger.com because of my great respect, admiration, and affection for John.

“The paper has in fact a major and a minor hypothesis. The major hypothesis is that various groups within the 9/11 truth movement are strongly asserting contradictory views and thereby weakening the credibility of the movement as a whole.”

Where in your paper do your address your major hypothesis, sir?

Also, how can you present this:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=123859

as a proper reference supporting your work?

This is appears to me to be a link to an anonymous person’s work on an internet forum that has strenuously opposed the 9/11 Truth Movement and it’s supporters for years now.

In Gratitude and Respect,
Paul Tassopulos
911artists.org
911truther.org

p.s. I’m sending this to you only, but I hope that you’ll forward this email to John so that he can see how I approached this matter with you. Also, we can make this exchange public or private. It’s up to you.

———————

From: Frank Legge – flegge@iinet.net.au
Subject: Re: Dr. Legge, My name is Paul Tassopulos….
To: “Paul Tassopulos” – pau@tassopulosyoga.com
Cc: “John Bursill” – johnbursill@gmail.com
Date: Sunday, March 28, 2010, 1:50 AM

Hi Paul

Thanks for your thoughts. I will deal with your second question first as it illustrates my general position, which is to be strictly scientific. You want to know why I use references to the JREF forum. Note that I do not use these references to determine the correctness of my calculations. I use the references to point out that Pilots for 9/11 Truth had been negligent in not addressing the possibility that there were errors in their g-force calculations. They have clearly had ample opportunity to examine their calculations and would have found the errors if they had made an effort. I sent them emails to suggest that they should check their calculations. Also, if you had followed the several versions of the paper, you would have seen that I tried very hard to help Pilots for 9/11 Truth to correct their work so that they would not lose face. In early versions I hinted that paths might exist which would not over-stress the aircraft. When that failed to produce a response I showed that a straight line path, passing the antenna 30ft above the ground to the south of the antenna with a 2 degree slope, would hit the poles and the impact point at the Pentagon. This was a simple calculation, easy to check, and should have convinced Pilots that they should review their calculations, as a straight-line path adds no g-force whatsoever. All they did during this period was to abuse me and insist that their work was not faulty. I eventually had no option but to include correct calculations in a postscript to the paper. I think this was most regrettable – it would have been much better for the truth movement if Pilots had fixed their work but they stubbornly refused to do so. They say on their website that they are calling for a new independent investigation so they are trying to do the right thing but leaving errors in place does not help.

Regarding the calculations themselves, I had independently found the correct values and was surprised to find that others had done so when I tried a Google search. It is common courtesy to acknowledge prior work and in scientific circles it is essential. If one does not do so one can be accused of plagiarism and also of attempting to big-note oneself. I was not able to find any other reference with correct values. If you know of one I will be happy to include it if a new version of the paper becomes necessary for any reason. It is a simple scientific fact that paths exist which would enable the plane to hit the poles and the Pentagon and do the observed damage without excessive g-force, as the two people I referred to point out in 2008. The references re the calculations are to R Mackey and Myriad. The fact that one of these people chooses to remain anonymous is obviously not scientific proof that what he says is incorrect. Truth of a statement is found by studying it, which I did.

Regarding the hypotheses of the paper, initially there was no preface. I had thought that the hypotheses were self-evident and did not state them. I was attacked by people who called the paper an opinion piece so decided it would be a good idea to spell the purpose of the paper out in such detail that no-one could use this attack, so I added the preface. I am not altogether happy with the terms major and minor hypotheses. I thought later that it would have been better to call them a social hypothesis and a physical or scientific hypothesis, as which one is more important depends on the position of the reader.

The major or social hypothesis is stated and dealt with in the preface. The flurry of attacks I have received from those who are sure, or pretend to be sure, that no 757 hit the Pentagon is ample evidence that contradictory views and hostility exist. The idea that no 757 hit the Pentagon is being publicized ever more widely with two web sites now using the controversy to expand their influence. I claimed in the preface that the hypothesis stands, and I still believe it does.

Regards
Frank
http://www.scienceof911.com.au/

———————

Thanks, Frank. I really appreciate your effort on this. I’m happy just to leave it at that and tell you that I’m very glad to have met you. However, my original concept for the 9/11 Truther Cyberzine project was short text interviews very similar to what we have done here so far. Everybody wanted to do audio though, so I’ve made that my current emphasis.

http://www.911truther.com/dillan1.html (text interview done 06/19/08)
http://www.911truther.org/ (current effort)

I think we have a beautiful, interesting, and important presentation here. If you’d like, I want to publish this conversation with 2 more questions included. First, do you have anything to add to your statement now that we’ve decided to show this on the e-zine? And second, what can anyone reading this do to support your efforts in regards to 9/11 Truth, sir?

———————

Paul,

All I will say in addition is that I recommend to anyone who is of the opinion that there is proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon that they carefully examine the case made in my paper:
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug.pdf

I show that there is doubt and that it would therefore be wise to follow the precautionary principle, especially as it appears that the confusion arises because we have been deliberately given contradictory evidence. We should suspect that there is a sinister reason for this. Re the Pentagon, we should just talk about Norman Mineta and Dick Cheney, as described in my Introduction.

There is so much good material we can use to prove that 9/11 was an inside job that it is a great pity to muddy the waters by publicly raising arguments about what hit the Pentagon. When we look at the success that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is having by focusing on the destruction of all three towers we see what works and what should be done:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Also we can see the success that David Chandler is having with his very simple but strictly scientific videos that the towers and building 7 all came down too fast:
http://www.youtube.com/user/DavidChandler911#p/u/19/ZjSd9wB55zk

David has recently published a paper which explains in more detail what his videos show of the collapse of WTC 1.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf

Lest anyone feel that it is reasonable to trust the NIST report, there is a new paper out which shows that it is shot full of holes:
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Falsifiability.pdf

In short my advice is to stick with what we know for sure, and get it out to the public.

Regards
Frank Legge
31 Mar, 2010

Douglas Interview 17 min. at 9.8 MB – Get .mp3

Dr. David Ray Griffin Speaks on Hard Evidence,
Unnecessary Anonymity, and Coming Together
Message to the Choir series #6

Roberts/Griffin Conference Call 50 min. at 20.5 MB – Get .mp3

It’s not often I do a segment of The Roberts Report in the evening, especially when it’s in my own time zone however, we made an exception to accommodate Dr. Griffin’s busy schedule and I was happy to do so.

Dr. David Ray Griffin is a retired Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology, Emeritus, Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, California. He continues to be co-director of the Center for Process Studies.

I addressed statements that Dr. Griffin had made in the past where out of context it had appeared to many that he supported the New World Order. In the clarification he provides for The Roberts Report, you will get a better understanding behind his support of what he deems Global Democracy and how it can be better for the planet as a whole. You may also see references in a chapter of his book American Empire and the Common Wealth of God.

Griffin is known widely in the 9/11 Truth movement for his 8 + books dedicated specifically to numerous questions, inaccuracies, omissions, and distortions surrounding the September 11th, 2001 attacks as they have been wrongly preserved in history by the 9/11 Commission Report and the following N.I.S.T. Reports. David has been able to dissect and logically lay out these blatant flaws in easy to understand books and lectures.

His most recent and potentially most damning book The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report About 9/11 Is Unscientific and False (Olive Branch Press, 2009), is an eye opener for many people who are still unaware (like my own father) that at 5:20 PM on September 11th, a third building in the WTC complex suddenly and inexplicably collapsed at free-fall speed into its own footprint without having been hit by an airplane or subjected to jet fuel fires – a phenomenon that even N.I.S.T cannot explain. In Griffins own words, “I would say that if people just want to read one book”…”it is easily the most convincing” of his own books.

We discussed unity in the Truth movement and the upcoming global 9/11 Truth visibility event Circle of Truth 2010, to which David candidly said,

“We need to remember that overwhelmingly, everybody in the movement has so much in common of all the aspects of the official story that we reject.” And to not forget,

“The foundation of what we are doing is that we all reject the official story of 9/11 and we reject it for many, many reasons.”

In an interactive effort, I opened the discussion to those on FaceBook who have been following the Message to the Choir series on the Roberts Report. Comic & Writer John Neubert posted the following question on my FB wall,

“Please ask Mr. Griffin if there is any real physical evidence that proves government involvement in 911 and if so why this can’t be used to invoke congress to re-open investigations?”

Daniel Bland, retired from the US Armed Services, a man who just three months after 9/11 enlisted. He says he “didn’t wake up” to the questions surrounding 9/11 until the fall of 2008. When given an opportunity to ask Dr. Griffin a question he asked,

“Can we use science to determine how long it will take this brainwashed country to wake up to the obvious?”

Both questions were answered by David and can be listened to or downloaded and shared on the 9/11 Truther Cyberzine.

Griffin discussed the solid peer reviewed evidence discovered by Physics Prof., Dr. Stephen Jones, his own research and the collaborative work being done with architect Richard Gage, A.I.A., founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Noting a powerful YouTube video about an orange, he encourages the simplicity of this brief presentation to everybody. An orange you ask? Just watch it; it’s worth the 2 mins., I even gave you the link. It’s worth it and in my humble opinion will make many uninformed feel downright silly for having not seen the Truth sooner.
This is an orange

In this 50 minute interview David was also able to address fear, paranoia and the use of anonymity explaining how some due to their profession may not be able to use their real names without repercussion however, he relays that it is “hard to not suspect” those who use a pseudonym and that “if they really are legitimate people…maybe they should use their real names”. With honesty and humor he also explains unfounded accusation of disinfo towards genuine Truthers who are simply wrong or misled.

Again many thanks to Dr. Griffin for his time.

Cheri Roberts

A message to the Choir from Jon Gold
about Disinfo and Coming Together

Roberts/Gold Conference Call 25 min. at 14.9 MB – Get .mp3

Celebrating the 5 year anniversary of his Blog YBBS activist writer Jon Gold joined me today on the Roberts Report. After years of diligent effort Mr. Gold reaches out to the 9/11 Truth movement as a whole and calls for fellow activists to step up to the plate. The Truth is we want a new investigation, other than that, we don’t know the Truth and Jon Gold would like us to remember that.

We discussed debunker sites, dis-info participants, and their followers- who may genuinely be misinformed or fooled while agreeing it is important to know what your adversaries have to say in order to overcome their damage. Listing ways we can approach them, Jon believes we could gradually bring them into the fold without allowing a platform for disinformation.

Best known for his article The Facts Speak for Themselves, Gold details 50 irrefutable facts for Truthers to utilize in their everyday arsenal. These facts such, no theory needs to be endorsed nor discussed when talking to people about the unTruths of what happened that day and what to do about it.

Mr. Gold is a huge supporter of the Jersey Girls and the Kyle Hence documentary 911 Press for Truth. Additionally he is a strong voice in support of all the Responders of September 11th at the FealGood Foundation who have been left behind in their struggle with life and death.

Cheri Roberts