Letter to Noam Chomsky
Steven Jones seminal paper on the destruction of WTC towers
April 21, 2008.
[Any response by Prof. Chomsky, or a clearer understanding of why he still continues to attribute 911 to the lowly turbenless 'pirates' from across the seven seas as opposed to the 'emperor' or his covert-underlings or overlings right here on the native shores, will only be published with his kind permission.]
© Project HumanbeingsfirstTM. Permission granted to use freely as per copyright notice.
Letter to Noam Chomsky
Subject: Steven Jones seminal paper on the destruction of WTC towers
Date April 21, 2008.
I chanced upon the following today: (http://www.911blogger.com/node/15081)
Professor Chomsky wrote to several, who passed it on to me:
“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… To date, no one has been willing to submit an article -- at least, after probably hundreds of inquiries to Truth Movement advocates, no one has been able to mention one...”
And I thought I should forward you that paper by physicist Prof. Steven Jones et. al. They finally got it published - about how the towers were not felled by 'Ali baba' and his 19 consorts on their flying carpet! The PDF is attached with this email.
I hope you can find some time to review its findings. However the paper that I have personally found the most interesting, is also cited in it - item . It's the very first one Prof. Jones wrote a couple of years ago - Here is the URL for it: http://tinyurl.com/2rx97n
The latter one is my favorite paper, after Webster Tarpley's book 'Synthetic Terror 9/11', for the photographs assembled in it by Prof. Jones of molten 'lava flow' defies Pentagon's facile explanations for any rational un-indoctrinated physical scientist (as you might put it too)!
I am cc'ing three of the five authors of the published paper whose emails I have, just so that a direct communication can be established, if you so wish. I would also like to thank them for their persistence - the genuine gadflies - won't you agree?
However, this is no time for basking in the glory of getting a research paper published in a scientific journal on a taboo topic - the war on Iran and Pakistan appear very imminent, and with the crossing of the Nuclear Rubicon, this country itself will likely end up in Martial Law. Never mind what will happen to the “Global Zone of Percolating Violence” in the map that Messrs. Bernard Lewis has constructed for the New Middle East that re-partitions my country in the name of “Clash of Civilizations”. We are all really on the same page there - I surely think!
The only point of contention, as I perceive it, has been the actual event of 911. You have insisted on accepting the Pentagon's version of it from day one. I have, from day one, been skeptical of an 'Ali Baba' having had the resources to carry it off - especially starting around 10 am (or thereabout) on the very day, 9/11/2001, when Dan Rather on CBS Channel 5 commenting extempore on the horrible spectacle unfolding before him, remarked: that looks awfully like controlled demolition. (approx. quote from memory).
In fact, my memory recalls the following full approx. quote: for the second time today, we see something that looks awfully like controlled demolition.
Later on, WTC-7 was actually controlled demolition entirely (and I myself heard Larry Silverstein say “pull it” on video interview of him that I found on youtube). There just wasn't time between 10:00 am and 5 pm when WTC-7 was “pulled” to plant the cutter-charges to bring it down so expertly into its own foot-print (for the third time that day that 3 tall buildings had collapsed [in] that way), especially for an already burning building and the ensuing chaos, poor visibility, etc. Thus - demolition charges must have been planted earlier - much earlier! Isn't that logic? And that indicates a covert-ops to any un-indoctrinated fair-minded forensic detective!
But irrespective of that, you and I, along with millions of other dissenters world-wide have entirely agreed that it was indeed “imperial mobilization” which followed, commencing with the 'algebra of infinite justice' to 'operation iraqi freedom' to whatever abomination that await us today - continually synthesizing “revolutionary times” to make what is “inconceivable in normal times” finally “possible”!
You have however, all along maintained the 'blowback' version for the events of 911 itself, for the 'empire's former crimes. With this hard evidence which is finally published in a scientific journal, as you wanted, and based on how science itself is done, as I learnt at MIT, Dan Rather's words of seven years ago have finally seen some scientific validation. That in itself, of course, does not mean that their research is wholly correct. It only means, to my rather humble mind, that the blatantly obvious evidence of the eye, has found some scientific substantiators as they researched the topic doing 'science'. It isn't entirely conjectures and hearsay anymore.
That is the difference between covert-ops and conspiracy theory - obviously! It is 'conspiracy theory' until after it's a fait accompli, and the famed declassification process and FOIA has made it a field day for historians, at which point, it magically transforms into 'covert-ops' of that abominable “outlaw” empire. Well this one just transformed a bit sooner [but not soon enough]! This is the history of 'empire' as I have studied it, as introduced to me by you, starting if I remember correctly, with Nicaragua. But it's one long chain from the 'USS Maine' to '911', each one leading to some “imperial mobilization” in the name of fighting “pirates”.
I am hoping, Prof. Chomsky, that everything you have taught me - including, of observing as a Martian when one is emotionally too close to any situation - you will apply yourself on this very emotional issue, of your own government (or some covert group within that possessed the phenomenal expertise and logistics capability) having possibly done an 'operation canned goods' for pre-meditated “imperial mobilization”. One possible model of how it could have been done is in Webster Tarpley's book. Again, doesn't mean that's how it was done, only that rationalism and science must continually prevail over 'beliefs'. Model-building to explain complex phenomenon is the scientific-method that I learnt at MIT. That is only what is going on here. I hope you will analyze it accordingly. This work may indeed be flawed, in which case, please do point them [flaws] out constructively so it can be improved.
Please also see my latest oped submission, yes once again, to NYT and LAT - and we both know what their response will be - if you are interested:
“'Bin Laden': Key enabler of nuclear attack on Iran–Pakistan” http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/04/binladen-keyenabler-nuclearattack.html
The author, an ordinary researcher and writer on contemporary geopolitics, a minor justice activist, grew up in Pakistan, studied EECS at MIT, engineered for a while in high-tech Silicon Valley (patents here), and retired early to pursue other responsible interests. His maiden 2003 book was rejected by six publishers and can be read on the web at http://PrisonersoftheCave.org. He may be reached at http://Humanbeingsfirst.org.
All material copyright (c) Project HumanbeingsfirstTM, with full permission to copy, repost, and reprint, in its entirety, unmodified and unedited, for any purpose, granted, provided the URL sentence and this copyright notice are also reproduced verbatim as part of this license, and not doing so may be subject to copyright license violation infringement claims pursuant to remedies noted at http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html. The rights of the author to express these views are based on inalienable rights noted at http://www.hrweb.org/legal/undocs.html, and to do so freely without suffering intimidation and duress. All quotations and excerpts are based on non-profit "fair use" in the greater public interest consistent with the understanding of laws noted at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. Full copyright notice and Exclusions at http://www.humanbeingsfirst.org.
Letter to Noam Chomsky on