SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 PLAGIARISM AND DISINFORMATION

SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 PLAGIARISM AND DISINFORMATION



Copyright. Gerard Holmgren Feb 6 2006. This material may be freely circulated on the following conditions. It is not for commercial use. The Authors name, date of publication and the web address where you found it are cited. Any editing is acknowledged as such. The copyright notice is included. Distribution without meeting these conditions is an infringement of copyright.



Recently, a group calling itself “Scholars for 9/11 truth” was formed around the publicity generated by newcomer to the Sept 11 skepticism scene, Professor Steven Jones.

This article exposes how truth is the last thing on the mind of Jones and his group.



On the surface, Jones appears to making a positive contribution, endorsing some of the Sept 11 evidence, in particular the demolition of the WTC, and getting some publicity in the mainstream media-something which has generally been elusive for Sept 11 skeptics.



If something appears too good to be true, then it often is.



The following article shows that Jones and his group are simply repackaging the disinformation and plagiarism campaign originated by the discredited Jim Hoffman. Hoffman’s reputation is now in tatters, so the same spin is simply having a fresh face and new names put to it.



An understanding of Hoffman’s record is important to the understanding the methods and motivation of the Scholars group.



The article about Hoffman linked below



Jim Hoffman Trashes the Sept 11 stand down evidence should be read first, because it just as effectively describes what the Scholars are up to in the article linked below.



The following excerpts and analysis will not make sense unless you have read the article about Hoffman.



Let us consider some claims from 9/11: Have we been lied to ? by the scholars. (Scroll to point 3 in the article).



[[We find that the procedure for scrambling military jets was significantly changed due to a military order issued June 1, 2001 – just three months and ten days before the hijackings on September 11, 2001. The order stated:



c. Military Escort Aircraft

(1) When notified that military escort aircraft are needed in

conjunction with an aircraft piracy (hijacking) emergency, the DDO,

NMCC, will notify the appropriate unified command or USELEMNORAD to

determine if suitable aircraft are available and forward the request to the

Secretary of Defense for approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15]]



Does this sound familiar ? If not then you haven’t read the article about Hoffman, linked above.. The scholars group repeats the same lie in a press statement.



[[The group's charges include:...The procedure for issuing orders for scrambling was changed in June 2001, requiring that approval could only come from the Secretary of Defense, but Donald Rumsfeld was not alerted soon enough on 9/11, according to Scholars group.]]



Just like Hoffman, the scholars group supports the official story of which planes crashed where, but at the same time, trashes the stand down evidence. The scholars also don’t mind resorting to disinformation in order to support the official story of the plane crashes. Consider this press statement. "Questions Remain from 9/11 Report, Professor says"



[[He [Jones] ...asked why the government had not acknowledged finding three of four black boxes from the hijacked airplanes.]]



The reason that Jones provides no documentation for this claim is because there isn’t any—unless internet rumour counts as documentation.



Returning to the issue of plagiarism. In my deconstruction of Hoffman’s campaign of disinformation against the stand down evidence which he pretended to support, we saw that wresting popularly perceived “ownership” of the research from the original authors was an indispensable precursor to the disinformation campaign. By comparing extracts from the Scholars article 9/11: Have we been lied to ? with excerpts from the original TENC article, we’ll see that the scholars have plagiarized even more aggressively than Hoffman.



Here is an extract of what TENC published on Nov 14 2001.



Guilty for 9/11. Bush, Rumseld, Myers Pt 1 by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel



[[On one day it [USA today] published two contradictory stories to explain the failure to scramble jets from Andrews prior to the Pentagon crash:



FIRST 'USA TODAY' STORY:



"Andrews Air Force Base, home to Air Force One, is only 15 miles [sic!] away from the Pentagon, but it had no fighters assigned to it. Defense officials won't say whether that has changed."

--'USA TODAY,' 17 September 2001 (4)



SECOND 'USA TODAY' STORY:



"The District of Columbia National Guard maintained fighter planes at Andrews Air Force Base, only about 15 miles [sic!] from the Pentagon, but those planes were not on alert and not deployed."

--'USA TODAY' September 17, 2001 (5)



Both stories are false.



Only one newspaper told the truth. That was the 'San Diego Union-Tribune':



"Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes, a National Guard spokesman said.



"But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon..."

--'San Diego Union-Tribune' 12 September 2001. (6)…



..."It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly cover, a--a protective cover over Washington, DC."

--NBC Nightly News, (6:30 PM ET) 11 September 11 2001 (10)



The media should have demanded to know the truth about why fighter jets assigned to protect Washington didn't scramble an hour BEFORE the Pentagon was hit. ]]


More than 4 years later, belatedly lamenting the lack of response from the air force ,the Scholars for 9/11 plagiarism wrote in Jan 2006



[[News reports dutifully described what did NOT happen:



The District of Columbia National Guard maintained fighter planes at Andrews Air Force Base, only about 15 miles from the Pentagon, but those planes were not on alert and not deployed.

-- 'USA TODAY,' September 17, 2001 Monday, FINAL EDITION, Pg. 5A, "Shoot-down order issued on morning of chaos," by Jonathan Weisman, Washington



How could a hijacked airliner fly through Washington airspace and crash into the Pentagon, the five-sided symbol of American military might? …

Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes, a National Guard spokesman said.But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon...

-- SECURITY CRACKS EXPOSED,” The San Diego Union - Tribune; San Diego, Calif.; Sep 12, 2001; Steve Goldstein ]



It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly cover, a protective cover over Washington, DC.

--NBC Nightly News, (6:30 PM ET) 11 September 11 2001, Jim Miklaszewski reporting.]]



The scholars make their presence in the media felt not through original research (they haven't done any), nor through quality of presentation (they make frequent factual errors—if indeed they are “errors”). They make their presence felt purely by swagger in parading that Jones and number of his associates are professors. Qualifications of this sort are supposed to indicate an exceptional ability for research and documentation. Jones and his group seem to be under the impression that the title actually confers an exemption from any acceptable standards of research or academic behaviour. “Scholars” they call themselves. Scholars are supposed to know what plagiarism is and to avoid it.



Not only do the scholars plagiarize their “research” articles, but their press statements are calculated to reinforce the false notion that their work is original, that the revelations are new, and also to play the hero card by claiming personal risk in unveiling these shocking new revelations.



Consider this press statement from another founding member, Professor Jim Fetzer. from "BYU professor accuses U.S. officials of lying about 9/11"



[[In his original message to potential members last month, Fetzer warned that joining the group might make them the subject of government surveillance and might get them on various lists of "potential terrorists."



The group's charges include:

• Members of the Bush administration knew in advance that the 9/11 attacks would happen but did nothing to stop them.]]



And "Questions remain from 9/11 report, professor says"



[[After a standing ovation, Jones took questions from the audience. Jerry Owens of Midway, who heads a group called 9/11 Truth Seekers, called Jones a true American hero.



"He's putting his life on the line," Owens said. "It's time for all of us to be patriots. We have to put our lives on the line, and now is the time." ]]



Direct cut and paste without attribution from the research of others who actually did put their lives on the line more than four years ago, but as it turns out, are still alive, is not the stuff of which heroes are made. The hero pose of the scholars depends entirely upon pretending that their work is original and new. Hero worship, even when deserved, is a dangerous distraction from focusing on facts , documentation and good analysis.



Nevertheless, if we are to enthuse over people putting their lives on their line, let’s look at some extracts of what TENC published just four days after the Sept 11 attacks, when dissenters had no way of knowing how the govt might react to anybody suggesting govt complicity.



Criminal negligence or Treason ? by Jared Israel Sept 15 2001.



Having already found at this early stage, a considerable amount of mainstream media documentation indicating huge holes in the official story, Israel commented.



[[We cannot say with certainty what happened September 11 - that is, what really happened, behind the scenes...we were puzzled by the official response to the so-called third plane. That is the one that left Dulles Airport, flew to Ohio, near the West Virginia and Kentucky borders, turned around, flew back to Washington and struck the Pentagon.



Concerning this plane, we asked: how could it stay in the air, hijacked, for almost an hour after two other hijacked planes had struck the WTC Towers, and not be seen by U.S. air defense forces? How could it fly to the Midwest, turn around and fly back to Washington and hit the Pentagon without being spotted and therefore intercepted?...



...And why, if they really were confused about what to do, why, after the Commander in Chief was informed about what was happening, didn't he immediately convene an emergency meeting to discuss the issue? Why did he keep reading to children and listening to stories about goats while the 3rd plane flew towards Washington?...



...What we have here is either criminal negligence beyond belief, and that includes the Commander in Chief, who hearing that planes are destroying the country focuses on goats, or b) the 'N.Y. Times' piece is repeating a cover story whose purpose is to explain away the obvious flaw in the original story: namely, that a plan could be hijacked in Ohio, and fly all the way back to Washington without being spotted.



And if the 'N.Y. Times' story is a lie, then those who fed the 'Times' this lie are guilty of conspiracy. They are people in high places and they are directly involved in the murder of God knows how many people in N.Y. as well as the 800 casualties the media speaks of in Washington either because they planned these attacks, perhaps working through Islamist groups secretly controlled by the CIA or they knew the attacks were going to happen and wanted to let them happen. The obvious motive: to create a seeming justification for extreme military action. And that is why they did not allow the Air Force to stop possibly the second and certainly the third planes.



So there you have it - either criminal negligence, including Mr. Bush who reads about goats while his countrymen are slaughtered, or treason.



Given these amazing facts, available in the mainstream media, why is there no call for an investigation?



Mr. Bush has called for bringing those responsible to justice. Let us begin at home. ]]



Having waited more than four years to make sure that no one got locked up or killed for this kind of research, Jones finally decides that it’s safe to rip off the original research and declare himself a hero for it.



Gaining mainstream publicity for such evidence is commendable - providing that one does not actively try to wash away the fact that all of this has already been in the public domain for more than four years and that the *entire* political system, the scientific community, and the *entire* mainstream media has serious questions to answer about why they’ve been covering it up.



In attempting to create the impression that these revelations are new, the scholars are creating an escape tunnel for nearly everyone involved in the planning and subsequent cover up. A few of the more visible and now expendable perpetrators could be hung out in a show trial, but it wouldn’t change anything if the vast bulk of the criminal apparatus which has covered this up for the last four years is allowed to claim that they never knew about it until now.



The lock step complicity of the media, the scientific community and the so called political opposition for the last four years is now as significant an issue as the attacks themselves. By attempting to create the false impression that nobody knew the real facts until recently, the scholars are protecting most of the guilty.



TENC is not the only target of the scholars plagiarism and false revisionism of the research timeline.



Returning to their article 9/11: Have we been lied to ? Scroll down to the analysis of the fake Bin laden confession tape. You’ll find it easily by the photos.



It bears a remarkable similarity to this research, published on Dec 13 2001.



The top half is in German, but if you scroll down , there’s an English section.



And once again we see the scholars go out of their way to convey the impression in the media that this is new and original research on their part.



[[The Scholars for 9/11 Truth compared the video with a photo of the "real" bin Laden and argue that there are discrepancies in the ratio of nose-length to nose-width, as well as distance from tip-of-nose to ear lobe.]]



Here they also directly mimic Hoffman who plagiarized the Dec 2001 research here.



It’s becoming difficult for Hoffman to continue rewriting the research timeline in his name, because of the belting he’s been receiving over his plagiarism. Search “Hoffman the plagiarist” and you’ll see what I mean. Hoffman even whines about being caught out, in an article called Personal attacks on Jim Hoffman. So we now see Hoffman’s plagiarism campaign being transferred to fresh faces who are not yet covered in mud.



Also taking after Hoffman, Jones tries to present the impression that he has conducted significant original research into the demolition of WTC 1, 2 and 7. Like Hoffman, Jones has done nothing but belatedly regurgitate research done years before by others and then try to pass it off as his own.



The scholars are unequivocal about their claim to originality on this evidence.



[[Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints. ]]



Using research documented as having been in the public domain for years before anyone had heard of the professors, I will show this claim of “their own physics research” to be a lie.



Lets look at how the Jones presents a bullet point of “their own physics research” to the media.



[[ • Molten metal was found in the subbasements of WTC sites weeks after 9/11; the melting point of structural steel is 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit and the temperature of jet fuel does not exceed 1,800 degrees. Molten metal was also found in the building known as WTC7, although no plane had struck it. Jones's paper also includes a photo of a slag of the metal being extracted from ground zero. The slag, Jones argues, could not be aluminum from the planes because in photographs the metal was salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approximately 1,550 to 1,900 degrees F) "well above the melting temperatures of lead and aluminum," which would be a liquid at that temperature.



• Building WTC7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds, which means, Jones says, that the steel and concrete support had to be simply knocked out of the way. "Explosive demolitions are like that," he said. "It doesn't fit the model of the fire-induced pancake collapse."



• No steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires. Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse, he says.]]



It’s remarkable enough in itself that it should take a physics professor four years to work these things out. It’s even more remarkable, considering that other people had already worked them out and blasted them all over the web four years ago.



The first point was originally published in eloquent fashion by J. McMichael in Oct 2001 in a article called Muslims suspend laws of physics.



An extract.



[[Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work, and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people. Ironworkers fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel, costing maybe 80 cents a gallon on the open market.]]



This was further expanded by a person writing under the name of “Mad Max” in July 2003. The Jet fuel. How hot did it heat the World the trade Center ? The original publication may have been earlier than this.



Jones second point about the speed of the collapse of WTC 7, indicating a free fall meeting no resistance.:



Even after all this time, Jones still hasn’t figured out that this also applies to WTC 1 and 2. This awareness has been all over the net since 2002. The reason I know this, is that I was the person who started it. I didn’t write an article on it, but I have email documentation to prove that by early March 2002, I had already done extensive calculations on this aspect of the evidence and was already promoting it around the web, seeking feedback and refinement of the methodology. As far as I know I was the first to explore this aspect.



Because it’s a fairly obvious observation, it’s entirely possible that other people of whom I am not aware, also thought of it independently about the same time or even earlier, and were independently promoting it, and that the general awareness of the free fall issue did not start from my efforts alone. But the main point is that If you search with keywords such as “free fall” or “time of collapse”, you’ll see that this has been all over the web for years before anyone had heard of Jones.



Again, the similarities to Hoffman are remarkable. Hoffman also tries to take the credit for the time of collapse issue. Not only did Hoffman not even appear on the scene until 2003, when all of this was well established, I have email correspondence to prove that Hoffman , suggested that I might have been the first to think of it, and admits to not thinking of it until early 2003—by which time it was already well established in Sept 11 research circles.



To Jones’ next point. That no steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire. I don’t know who was the first to point this out, but it also became common knowledge very quickly. I certainly wasn’t the first to make this point, but just as an example of how long its been around, here is how I used it in an Indymedia debate on Aug 1 2003 and a follow up post the same day.



The fact that no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed from fire was already old news by the time of that debate, which was more than 2 years before anyone had heard of Jones.


Returning to the first media summary of “their own physics research”.



[[While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints. ]]



The dust issue was dealt with in detail by Jeff King in 2002. You’ll also find a reference to the free fall issue in this article.



In his paper, Jones regurgitates these points of evidence which have been well established in the public domain for years, without crediting any of the original researchers, or where no particular original researcher is apparent—such as the observation that no steel skyscraper had ever collapsed from fire—acknowledging that he is merely belatedly publicizing and commenting on what has already been well known in research and activism circles for years, material which any interested person could find just by surfing the web.



The only “researcher” he credits is Hoffman—who didn’t do any of it.



To point out the difference between legitimate promotion of pre-existing research and plagiarism of it, go to my evidence kit compilation , where I simply collate and link , with brief introductory comments, vast amounts of original high quality research. I began circulating early versions of this compilation in early 2002.



The hand of Hoffman behind the scholars is also evident in Jones’ enthusiasm to attack certain aspects of Sept 11 evidence which they find inconvenient for whatever game they are playing.



Hoffman’s main mission appears to be to attack the no plane evidence both for the WTC and the pentagon. 1 2 3 4 5 If one ignores the plagiarism, Hoffman’s presentation of demolition evidence is quite good, and this is the cover he uses from which to launch his incessant attacks. 1 2 3 4 5 6



It therefore comes as little surprise that Jones has attempted the very same tactic. His very first “contribution” to “911truth” was a paper plagiarizing demolition research, which although far too cautious, was quite a good description of the issue, in so far as it went. On to the end of this, he tacked a dishonest and factually incorrect attack on the no WTC plane evidence, accusing its proponents of distracting from and discrediting his research. Considering that a number of the people who were by implication, the targets of this attack, were also the same people from whom Jones had plagiarized his demolition “research”, this is scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of academic ethics. Not surprisingly, its exactly the same as what Hoffman has done.



Jones ill fated attack on the no plane evidence was so poorly researched, written and reasoned that he was severely embarrassed by the hammering I gave it in response., to the point where he finally agreed to remove his attack from later versions of his paper.



Having been somewhat neutralized by the self inflicted egg on his face from his first attack, Jones is now taking a more subtle approach, building the plagiarism and hero worship platform more carefully and patiently, and indirectly attacking the no plane evidence with the unsubstantiated claim that 3 of the 4 black boxes from the mythical WTC planes have been found.



If Jones had done useful original research, and was not on a disgraceful plagiarism rampage, I would be more tolerant of his plane hugging. But this kind of behaviour isn’t acceptable from a Johnny-come-lately plagiarist/attack dog.



Doubtless his plan is to resume a full attack once he’s finished licking his self inflicted wounds from his first Keystone Cops effort.



The official story of Sept 11 contains so many different lies, that it creates endless potential for unscrupulous disinformationists like Jones and Hoffman to make up new lies which are sold with the attractive veneer of admitting carefully selected parts of the truth. The original story as told by the Bush regime and the media was never going to stand up for very long. It has too many holes. But it doesn't need to. As the original story crumbles, it is creating intense competition amongst the different varieties of spin off lies for the title of “truth”. One which is gaining increasing popularity amongst the “truthlings” - the self styled “truth movement” - is to admit the demolition of WTC 1,2 and 7 while keeping most of the rest of the story intact.



The most crucial elements of the rest of the story are that



· Four commercial flights were supposedly hijacked.



· Three planes hit buildings and one crashed in PA.



Both claims are false. Within these false claims, we have every conceivable possible spin off being put forward.



· Hijackings by Arab terrorists as claimed by the Bush regime or electronic hijacking by the regime itself.



· The actual flights claimed by the Bush regime hitting the various targets or substitute planes of some kind.



Any of these lies can be successfully worked into a limited hangout which still protects most of the main architects of the original event and cover up.



What all of these scenarios avoid is the full involvement of the media in showing a cartoon of a fake plane hitting the WTC and passing it off as a real event. Because this cannot be incorporated into any replacement lie which protects the essential infrastructure of the criminal elite which planned and carried out and covered up the attacks, then it is the main target for attack by those are attempting to use partial Sept 11 truth as the platform from which to spin new lies. Limited hangouts are analogous to cheering a revolution because a new bloodthirsty dictator has overthrown the old one.



Any new lie which maintains that the plane we saw on TV was real will be cheered because the exposing of such a monstrous crime as the demolition and deliberately allowing the attacks to happen, or even facilitating them with substitute flights and remote control technology, will understandably seem to many like a breath of fresh air after years of stupid stories about mythical Arab hijackers and intelligence “failures”.



But the apparent breath of fresh air is an illusion. Maintain the central illusion—that a real plane flew into the Sth tower and we know it’s a real plane because we saw it on TV - and nothing really changes. The same media which showed us the cartoon plane to begin with, and then lied and covered up for the original official story for years will then suddenly assume an heroic role of exposing the “truth” of Sept 11, joining forces with scientists who looked the other way for years—like Jones— who will suddenly emerge as fearless heroes to give us a new set of lies to cheer. These lies will be disguised as truth because they will bust carefully selected aspects of the old lie. Politicians who looked the other way for years will suddenly make heroes of themselves, thundering imperiously about impeachment and “investigations” to find out the “truth”.



Expose that it was a “war of the worlds” con job—a movie, passed off as news, - and people will never again believe anything on their TV sets. Thus you destroy not only the lie, but the main infrastructure for selling whatever replacement lie becomes convenient in the wake of the limited hangout. Expose how long this information has been available in the public domain, and the would-be new dictators will have no tools with which to spin their new lies and nowhere to hide from their involvement in the original lie.



The truthlings want to keep the infrastructure of the lie machine intact. They want to remove the more obvious perpetrators of the original lie, such as Bush, who have now outlived their usefulness. The “truth movement” is analogous to the revolution which seeks not to end the injustices of the old regime but merely take possession of the power and its benefits and give them a different appearance.



If this is not what the scholars are up to, then why are they on such an aggressive campaign of plagiarism, disinformation and hero cult construction ?



Why not just promote the original research as it was published back in 2001/2? Or if they want to build on it in some way with genuinely new insights, acknowledge what they are building from ?