Friday, August 18, 2006
9/11 Neo-Con Hit Piece Explodes Into Controversy
9/11 Neo-Con Hit Piece Explodes Into Controversy
Moseley World Net Daily article spews salacious attacks against Professor Steven Jones as distortions and fallacies are exposed on Alex Jones Show
Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com August 18 2006
Jonathon Moseley's World Net Daily hit piece on the 9/11 truth movement, which contained salacious personal attacks along with erroneous and distorted claims, has been thoroughly debunked after Moseley appeared on a nationally broadcast radio show to debate his article with host Alex Jones and Professor Jim Fetzer of the 9/11 Scholars.
Throughout this article we cite Moseley's original article as well as his appearance on The Alex Jones Show, which can be heard here.
As the interview commenced, Moseley immediately set about trying to personalize the debate by injecting an emotionally loaded context in saying he had connections with one of the victims, Barbara Olsen.
This crass tactic is also evident in his article in which he states that the 9/11 truth movement, "profane(s) the memory of the 3,000 victims."
If this is the case then why is it that, according to Bill Doyle, representative of the largest coalition of 9/11 families, around half of the family members of the victims themselves also share grave doubts about the official story of 9/11?
Moseley then betrayed his appallingly inept level of research into the claims of 9/11 skeptics when host Alex Jones raised the issue of Operation Northwoods.
JONES: "I asked you yesterday if you had heard of Operation Northwoods and you said you had heard me talk about it but that you didn't know about it - I mean shouldn't you go find out if my claim about an official US government document to carry out 9/11 style attacks - shouldn't you go find out if that exists or do you just decide that doesn't exist?"
MOSELEY: "Well I don't believe it exists."
Moseley clearly states that he doesn't believe Northwoods exists.
Here's a link to the Operation Northwoods documents from the National Security Archive. Here's a link to a report on the Operation Northwoods documents from ABC News. Here's a link to a report on the Operation Northwoods documents from the Baltimore Sun.
The fact that Moseley goes to the delusional lengths of denying the very existence of a plan that was publicly declassified and has been reported on by numerous mainstream media outlets torpedoes his credibility from the very start.
Without a doubt the most distasteful element of Moseley's attack is his claim that Professor Steven Jones, in responding to a question at the American Scholars Symposium conference, "was calling for the violent overthrow of the government."
After carefully analyzing video archives of every one of Steven Jones' appearances at the conference, including round table panel discussions and Jones' own speech, we can find no evidence that Jones made statements even anywhere near approaching this context. At no point does Jones advocate violence of any kind - this is a completely false and potentially damaging allegation. Every video which features Steven Jones can be downloaded at Prison Planet.tv for any readers who seek verification.
The likely explanation for Moseley's statement is that he has attributed statements which are already bloated and distorted - to the wrong person - again underscoring the slapdash ineptitude of his research. In a clip taken from the American Scholars Symposium (watch below) Jim Fetzer, not Steven Jones, responds to a question by opining that there is no gentlemanly solution, which is qualified by Fetzer as meaning a solution within the means of the Constitution, to counter a President who by the very nature of his actions, has erected a dictatorial system and abolished the Constitution. This is a bold stance but it does by no means advocate a violent armed overthrow of the government. And to emphasize, Moseley's study of his subject matter before the publication of his hit piece was so vague that he could not even distinguish between the different people he attacked.
Professor Jones has already indicated via e mail that the allegation has provoked meetings with his colleagues at BYU who were concerned about the comments made in the World Net Daily article. Until Mr. Moseley can provide video evidence of his claim, which from our studious analysis does not exist, this smear attempt stands alone as the most odious and insipid facet of Moseley's article.
Throughout the discussion, one of Moseley's foremost contentions with the arguments of Professor Jim Fetzer is that Fetzer has a tendency to jump around on issues and does not stay on topic.
Numerous examples betray the fact that it is actually Moseley who has trouble staying on topic, shifting topics at will on several occasions.
For example, when Fetzer is discussing the allegation that Professor Steven Jones advocated violence, Moseley abruptly switches subjects by stating, "just like the no planes hit, we didn't see what we saw, it was on national television - we didn't see it because there was some kind of mind control."
Moseley introduces a new and manifestly bizarre topic out of the blue that is completely unrelated to the subject matter and a supposition about the 9/11 attacks that is not even supported by Fetzer, Professor Steven Jones or Alex Jones.
In addition, at the end of the debate the alleged libel of Steven Jones is again raised as Moseley is asked to respond to the allegation forwarded in his article. Instead of indicating precisely where the supposed quote from Jones came from, Moseley launches into a diatribe about the collapse of floors in the World Trade Center, at which point Fetzer accuses him of jumping around and not staying on topic.
Moseley's counter to claims that the twin towers and Building 7 collapsed as a result of controlled implosions also falls flat on its face after even a cursory glance at the evidence. Moseley's refusal to acknowledge that Building 7 collapsed from the bottom, with central columns being blown and then the top of the building displaying the classic crimp and folding in on itself is wholly inconsistent with video footage as can be viewed below.
In addition, Moseley cites the 1967 collapse of the McCormick Place building in Chicago as proof that steel buildings similar in structure to the twin towers have collapsed from fire damage. The twin towers were intense grid-like structures with 47 vast steel-reinforced pillars. They were over-engineered and designed to take "multiple impacts of jetliners," according to WTC construction manager Frank DeMartini (see below).
Compare this to McCormick Place which collapsed, according to the Chicago Public Library, under severe conditions, including a failure of water supply to attendant firefighters, non-existent sprinkler systems, the entire building catching fire, 1,250 art exhibits within the building which were constructed of highly flammable wood, paper and plastic, and faulty wiring not up to building code.
Compare this to the WTC fires, which were almost extinguished according to the firefighters tapes, sprinkler systems that activated as soon as the planes hit, and reinforced fire-proofing which was installed after an intense fire in the WTC north tower (from which the building obviously did not collapse) in 1975.
Also compare this photo of the McCormick building to the trade towers. It's a four-story warehouse with a cheap tar roof - and the building has not even collapsed in its entirety! Comparisons to the structural makeup of the twin towers are absurd.
Moseley also claimed that the jet fuel fires exploded into the center of the buildings when video footage clearly shows that the fireball from Flight 175 which hit the south tower, the tower that collapsed first, expended itself mostly on the outside of the building.
Another ludicrous assertion made by Moseley was that squibs seen shooting out of the towers as they collapsed did not occur significantly below floors of the collapse point. This claim is wholly debunked by the following video footage.
Towards the end of the discussion, Moseley echoed the statement made in his article that he had, "debate(ed) these characters extensively," before publication. Moseley's qualification for his claim that he had debated Alex Jones was that Alex Jones' e mail address was tagged on to one of his e mail exchanges. Those of us familiar with spam can assure Mr. Moseley that this doesn't equate to the fact that Alex Jones was ever part of the debate.
We encourage our readers to both listen to the MP3 audio of the debate and also read Moseley's original article and come to their own conclusions on whether Moseley is accurate or whether, as we contend, that his argument is a sloppily researched hit piece that contains shoddy claims and potentially damaging personal attacks that are completely untrue.
As the editorial boards of government apologist newspapers nationwide continue to spew forth savage and unfounded hit pieces targeting the 9/11 truth movement we will continue to act as watchdog and defend the truth in anticipation of a truly independent re-investigation of the September 11 attacks as the events approaches its fifth anniversary.
COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE