Friday, January 30, 2009
Al Gore Ice Sculpture
It's been bitterly cold in Fairbanks, Alaska recently, so local businessman Craig Compeau created a five ton "shivering" ice sculpture of Al Gore, as an ironic tribute to the currently reigning Global Warming bogyman.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Arabs shocked by blanket of snow
Residents of parts of the United Arab Emirates, a balmy, oil-rich sheikdom located farther south than Florida, were shocked to discover their lands blanketed with several inches of snow. Only the second occurrence of snowfall in the recorded history of a rugged area once known as the Pirate Coast, the local tongue has no word for the fluffy, white, icy precipitation.
Snow covered the Jebel Jais area for only the second time in recorded history yesterday.
So rare was the event that one lifelong resident said the local dialect had no word for it.
According to the RAK Government, temperatures on Jebel Jais dropped to -3°C on Friday night. On Saturday, the area had reached 1°C.Major Saeed Rashid al Yamahi, a helicopter pilot and the manager of the Air Wing of RAK Police, said the snow covered an area of five kilometres and was 10cm deep.
“The sight up there this morning was totally unbelievable, with the snow-capped mountain and the entire area covered with fresh, dazzling white snow,” Major al Yamahi said.
“The snowfall started at 3pm Friday, and heavy snowing began at 8pm and continued till midnight, covering the entire area in a thick blanket of snow. Much of the snow was still there even when we flew back from the mountain this afternoon. It is still freezing cold up there and there are chances that it might snow again tonight.”Aisha al Hebsy, a woman in her 50s who has lived in the mountains near Jebel Jais all her life, said snowfall in the area was so unheard of the local dialect does not even have a word for it. Hail is known as bared, which literally translates as cold. “Twenty years ago we had lots of hail,” said Ms al Hebsy. “Last night was like this. At four in the morning we came out and the ground was white.”
“I had flown there in 2004 when it snowed, but this time it was much bigger and the snowing lasted longer as well,” said Major al Yamahi.
Jebel Jais was dusted in snow on Dec 28, 2004, the first snowfall in living memory for Ras al Khaimah residents.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Mexico police chief's head found in ice box
As if to underscore the recently released U.S. Joint Forces Command on Worldwide Security Threats report that warns Mexico is in peril of collapse, crime lords have slain yet another Mexican police chief.
The head of a Mexican police chief was delivered to his colleagues in an ice box in the country's latest drug-related violence.
Last Updated: 6:31PM GMT 20 Jan 2009
The incident came as 16 other people were also killed in Mexico's northern state of Chihuahua in attacks the authorities believe are linked to the country's drug wars.
"Hitmen cut off commander Martin Castro's head and left it in an ice cooler in front of the local police station," said a statement issued by the state justice authorities.
His head was left in the town Praxedis with a message from the powerful Sinaloa drug cartel.
The police commander was abducted on Saturday, along with five other police officers and a civilian, only five days after starting his job.
Six bodies in police uniforms bearing signs of torture and gunshot wounds were found on Monday in a street in the state capital, Chihuahua, officials said.
Hitmen killed four men in separate attacks in the violent border city of Ciudad Juarez, while six others, including a woman, were found dead in other towns across the state.
Mexican police and soldiers are battling a wave of drug-related violence across the country, particularly in northern areas bordering the US, with more than 5,300 people killed last year.
The federal government launched a campaign against drug-related violence more than two years ago involving the deployment of around 36,000 troops across the country.
Monday, January 19, 2009
In Defense of Dr. Steven Jones
Dr. Steven E. Jones is a world renowned physicist recognized for his research into muon-catalyzed cold fusion. In recent years, Dr. Jones has conducted metallurgic analyses of debris from the World Trade Center tragedy of September 11, 2001. His findings led Dr. Jones to posit that the Trade Center towers were brought down by controlled demolition. This highly controversial theory made Dr. Jones a target for much criticism.
Worse, a few vocal critics demanded that Brigham Young University fire Dr. Jones from his post as Physics Professor there. Perhaps the most odious attack of all came from author and lawyer Jonathan Moseley. Published in the popular conservative publication World Net Daily, Moseley's hit piece accussed Dr. Jones of calling for the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government, an accusation that WND would later retract.
Following is the email exhange I made at the time with Jonathan Moseley and Dr. Jones.
===================
To:steven_jones@byu.edu
Sent By "Van Smith" On: September 12, 2006 3:31 AM
God help us! I have apparently pushed Mosely into a psychotic fit. This man
is an insane maniac! How did he obtain the level of respectability necessary
to get his thoughts featured on WND? He wields his influence like a
genocidal Hutu handles a machete.
"Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!" I almost had to wipe his spit off my
monitor screen. Moseley is truly on a Jihad.
Moseley has connections with a number of different policy making councils, has
been quoted in mainstream media before, and has written a fear mongering
novel about the threat of Islam (either it reads like a nightmare, or it was
ghost written judging from my exchanges with him). He and another Moseley
(brother? father?) also have formed a strange company providing services to
the jewelry import industry helping businesses ensure conformity with the
Patriot Act.
I read somewhere (but have not verified) that he is also related to one of the
founders of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
The drive-by terrorist job that he did on you really smells of a gun-for-hire
piece. I cannot help but strongly suspect that this man is being used as an
attack dog by an intelligence operation. His mental discipline is so weak
that he is probably viewed as expendable, but his single-minded fanaticism
combined with his limited intellect mean that his puppetmasters risk little
exposure even if he is forced to go down in flames.
Good luck in your fight and trust Jesus,
Van
P.S. If you have mailing lists for news related to your 9/11 research and/or
your current status at BYU, please add me to them.
On Monday 11 September 2006 21:11, Jonathon Moseley wrote:
> Like all of the conspiracy theorists, you do violence to the truth by
> ignoring the parts of it that prove your arguments wrong. You call those
> tangential issues. Steven Jones has harmed himself.
> The local press reports that it was Steven Jones' own radio interview on
> Tuesday 9/6, that created a furor on campus, leading to his suspension. SEE
> -- [scroll 1/3rd down to see the latest controversy]
> http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645200098,00.html
> Jones had been relatively reticent to discuss the implications of his
> findings, but he created buzz on campus Tuesday with his appearance on
> KUER-FM 90.1. He expressed the opinion to talk-show host Doug Fabrizio that
> blame for the attacks rests with neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz, Richard
> Perle and others.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
> Even after all of the discussion, Steven Jones went on LOCAL radio and
> accused government officials and private political leaders of 3,000 counts
> of mass murder, on a radio show THAT COULD BE HEARD ALL ACROSS THE BYU
> CAMPUS. The person who has harmed Steven Jones is Steven Jones.
> BYU has announced that it is the "accusatory" nature of Steven Jones work
> about 9/11 -- that is accusing people of mass murder -- that they are
> investigating, along with breach of peer review rules, NOT what anyone else
> has said ABOUT him. It is the fact that Steven Jones is accusing people of
> mass murder that has Steven Jones in trouble.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Secondly, you falsely assume that I don' belive what I wrote about Steven
> Jones. Steven Jones is one of the founders of Scholars for Truth, the
> SPONSOR of the event. Steven Jones helped CHOOSE the panel.
> Steven Jones is responsible for ALL of the venomous, treasonous, outrageous
> statements that HIS group -- which he helps run -- spewed out across the
> nation. I previously explained this to you, but you are blind to the truth,
> as are all conspiracy nuts. Steven Jones' organization, even if not Jones
> himself, and indeed Steven Jones by extension is "in the CONTEXT of the
> question[and answer period]" is GUILTY of advocating for a coup that would
> depose America's political leaders from office and put them on trial at the
> international criminal court outside the United States, GUILTY of accusing
> George Bush of being a dictator, GUILTY of claiming that the U.S.
> government is no longer legitimate, GUILTY of urging the armed forces of
> the United States to refuse to obey the orders of the Commander in Chief,
> GUILTY of calling for the removal of the U.S. government. Frankly, I hope
> that Steven Jones burns in hell for endangering this country. It is the
> fact that I am a far superior patriot that I want even scum like Steven
> Jones to have the right to speak in America, even if they cause the DEATH
> of Americans by advocating for the terrorist's agenda to weaken the United
> States.
>
> Jon Moseley
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Van Smith [mailto:van@vanshardware.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 05:18 PM
> To: 'Jonathon Moseley'
> Cc: steven_jones@byu.edu
> Subject: Re: Support for Dr. Steven Jones
>
> Mr. Moseley,
>
> I have been consistently discussing two topics:
>
> 1. The harm that you have caused Professor Jones though an overt act of
> academic and intellectual terrorism.
> 2. The scholarly merits of Dr. Jones' research.
>
> You wish to focus on tangential, irrelevant issues.
>
> As I have stated several times already, I stand firmly behind the 1st
> Amendment to our Constitution, but nowhere does the 1st Amendment allow
> for Jon Moseley, according to your own /WND/ editors, to bear false
> witness against Dr. Jones, exposing him to potential imprisonment,
> public ridicule and irreparable damage to his livelihood.
>
> And one thing continues to bother me like a splinter beneath my right
> index fingernail. You are a lawyer. Arguably, Dr. Jones can be
> considered a public figure. As such, Dr. Jones is fair game for much
> broader written criticism than would normally be considered libel if the
> same words were directed at normal Americans. However, your /WND/ piece
> is far, far outside of this extended area of accepted criticism of
> public figures.
>
> What made you think you could get away with groundlessly accusing Dr.
> Jones -- in a major publication no less -- of committing a federal crime
> without your being sued penniless? Even if you thought you were right,
> you exercised very little effort to fact check, demonstrating a callous
> disregard for Dr. Jones' welfare.
>
> I have written many, many articles that have been read by millions of
> people. If I were to ever even consider making the extremely explosive
> and damaging charge against an individual that you used against Dr.
> Jones, I would only do so if I also substantiated my claim with
> carefully obtained and vetted quotes from that person.
>
> I'm still scratching my bald head trying to figure out just what you
> were thinking.
>
> And do you still believe that you can simply make up serious charges
> against anyone you disagree with and publish your terrorist vitriol in
> /WND/ or some other major publication?
>
> I also do not understand how /World Net Daily/ could have allowed your
> article to be published at all. One thing that typically gets an
> editor's attention in a hurry is when he sees an author making personal
> attacks against a victim that could immediately lead to the victim's
> imprisonment.
>
> I was a frequent visitor to the /WND/ Internet site, but after seeing
> your article published there, I vow to never return to /WND/ again
> except to obtain quotes from your hit piece.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Van Smith
>
> Jonathon Moseley wrote:
> > I strongly believe in Steven Jones' right to speak, and anything that
> > restrains or intimidates that is harmful to our country and to the
> > body politic and to the discussion itself.
> >
> > However, in the same way, I have an EQUAL right to speak and to say
> > that Steven Jones' efforts are likely to result in the death of more
> > Americans in the future, from the next terrorist attack, as it helps
> > whip up anti-American sentiments around the world, chills our allies,
> > and discourages Americans from taking measures to protect the country.
> >
> > If, God Forbid, a nuclear bomb or other terrorist attack on
> > Washington, D.C. kills my sister and her family, Steven Jones will
> > also be free to apologize over their dead bodies at the funeral.
> > However, it would make more sense to consider those consequences now,
> > rather than after the death of more Americans.
> >
> > Simply because Steven Jones has a RIGHT to accuse his country of
> > treasonous actions worse than anything since Pol Pot does not mean
> > that it is NOBLE that he does so.
> >
> > I believe that if Steven Jones is silenced "from behind" everyone will
> > assume that his accusations were true, and were too dangerous to
> > answer, and that he had to be silenced covertly and outside the field
> > of ideas.
> >
> > But that does not mean that there is anything laudable about -- in a
> > time of war -- accusing one's own goverment of mass murder,
> > particularly based only on supposition and speculation.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jon Moseley
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > *From:* Van Smith [mailto:van@vanshardware.com]
> > *Sent:* Sunday, September 10, 2006 08:57 PM
> > *To:* 'Jonathon Moseley'
> > *Cc:* steven_jones@byu.edu
> > *Subject:* Re: Support for Dr. Steven Jones
> >
> > Dear Mr. Moseley,
> >
> > I have combined your last two emails below.
> >
> > Your points are, as far as I can discern, irrelevant to my message to
> > you or to the plight of Dr. Jones and your involvement with it.
> > However, I will respond briefly to your remarks.
> >
> > As an American, I believe in free speech as guaranteed by the First
> > Amendment to our Constitution. I am not afraid of knowledge or
> > discussion. I also have faith that the American people can discern
> > the truth when they eventually encounter it. I do NOT believe that it
> > is necessary, desirable or constructive for any member of the media to
> > use sensational rhetoric to frighten the trusting citizens of the
> > United States into conforming with prescribed viewpoints.
> >
> > And as an American I am deeply disturbed by the distinctly
> > un-American, terrorizing tactics that you used to harm Dr. Jones in
> > your /WND/ article.
> >
> > Frankly, I am confused by your references to antisemitism, Hugo
> > Chavez, conspiracy theories, neocons, the Nuremberg Trials, Vietnam,
> > the Taliban, bin Laden and George Bush.
> >
> > Professor Jones has provided evidence that supports the theory that
> > the three World Trade Center towers were brought down by controlled
> > demolition. His evidence is compelling. His scientific methodology
> > appears to be sound and straightforward. His request for further
> > investigation is logical and reasonable.
> >
> > I applaud Dr. Jones for his courage to conduct objective, independent
> > research on the horrific WTC events. I hope his work will inspire
> > further independent investigation into whether or not controlled
> > demolitions were used to bring down the three towers that tragic
> > September morning.
> >
> > BTW, whether you realize it or not, you are lending credence to your
> > opposition when you use the term "conspiracy theory." By definition,
> > a theory is an explanation supported by several different facts and
> > all known facts support the explanation. Of course, a "conspiracy" is
> > an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime or other
> > misdeed. Properly -- and I mean no insult -- supporters of the U.S.
> > Government explanation for 9/11 should consider their explanation a
> > conspiracy theory.
> >
> > Van Smith
> > ========
> >
> > I think there are sinister motivations for the 9/11 conspiracy
> > theories. Someday when more Americans are murdered by foreign
> > terrorists, I hope the conspiracy theorists will realize what they
> > have done and shudder. However, that should be debated on the field
> > of ideas, not short-circuited through administrative means.
> >
> > A letter from Usama Bin Laden from 2001/early 2002 just released last
> > week called upon the Taliban and other sympathetic groups to CREATE A
> > WEDGE BETWEEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT.
> >
> > 5 years later 9/11 conspiracy theorists are DOING EXACTLY THAT.
> >
> > They are implementing Usama Bin Laden's strategy and desire for
> > defeating the West.
> >
> > They probably don't realize it... but they SHOULD by stopping to
> > think about it.
> >
> > But again this is a concern to be debated openly, not cut short in
> > silence.
> >
> > Jon Moseley
> >
> > Jonathon Moseley wrote:
> >> First, I believe that there are some in the 9/11 conspiracy movement
> >> (mostly overseas participants using the anonymity of the internet,
> >> but not necessarily all) who are intentionally implementing Usama Bin
> >> Laden's strategy for destroying the West, by repeating the entire
> >> Vietnam dynamic.
> >>
> >> Second, there are a far greater number who simply hate their country
> >> so much that they don't care that they are helping foreign terrorists
> >> to better and more successfully attack America the next time around.
> >> They don't care that our families and loved ones are in greater
> >> danger of a terrorist attack because of their efforts to persuade
> >> Americans to focus on the U.S. government instead of on foreign
> >> terrorists. They don't care that this kind of rhetoric whips up
> >> anti-American sentiments abroad and encourages our enemies, while
> >> peeling away our friends around the world.
> >>
> >> Third, there are many in the 9/11 movement who hate the Jews and
> >> Neocons and certain other groups that they are intentionally trying
> >> to destroy the government and the country to get at the people they
> >> hate, similar to burning down a house to kill the bugs inside.
> >>
> >> Fourth, you have to go back and listen to the videotape broadcast on
> >> C-Span. Among the points made in that virulently anti-American hate
> >> fest:
> >>
> >> o The movement should support and promote Venezuala President
> >> Hugu Chavez's attempt to put Bush Administration officials ON TRIAL
> >> at an international criminal tribunal. Presumably that would require
> >> DEPOSING THOSE OFFICIALS FROM OFFICE in order to take them to the
> >> international criminal court overseas. It would require a coup
> >> against the U.S. to take U.S. government leaders overseas to stand rial.
> >>
> >> o The U.S. government has already collapsed and a shadow
> >> government is now running the country.
> >>
> >> o U.S. troops should DISOBEY orders of the Commander in Chief in
> >> the war on terror.
> >>
> >> o George Bush is a dictator (odd how this group was broadcast 4
> >> times on C-Span if Bush is a dictator).
> >>
> >> And on and on.
> >>
> >> However, the answer to such hate speech by the 9/11 conspiracy
> >> movement is MORE speech in reply, not intimidation or efforts to
> >> muzzle any speaker.
> >>
> >> Jon Moseley
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> *From:* Van Smith [mailto:van@vanshardware.com]
> >> *Sent:* Sunday, September 10, 2006 06:03 PM
> >> *To:* 'TRANSGUARD (Jonathon Moseley)'
> >> *Cc:* steven_jones@byu.edu
> >> *Subject:* Re: Support for Dr. Steven Jones
> >>
> >> Dear Mr. Moseley,
> >>
> >> I am pleased to see your written support for academic freedom.
> >> However, your /World Net Daily/ article appears to expose sinister
> >> motivations that contradict the positions that you express in your
> >> correspondence.
> >>
> >> Please have another look at what you wrote about Dr. Jones:
> >>
> >> /Professor Steven Jones of Brigham-Young University accused George
> >> Bush of being a dictator, mimicking the preamble of the Declaration
> >> of Independence. When asked if violent revolution was necessary, this
> >> scientist declared ? in front of national TV cameras ? that there is
> >> no peaceful way to achieve the group's goals. In the context of the
> >> question, *professor Jones was calling for the violent overthrow of
> >> the government*.
> >> /
> >> Not only do you continue the /ad hominem/ tone that saturates the
> >> rest of your article, but you have, according to your own editors at
> >> /WND/, falsely accused Professor Jones of committing a federal
> >> crime. Your actions, according to news reports, had immediate,
> >> frightening ramifications for Dr. Jones.
> >>
> >> Your /WND/ article is akin to academic and intellectual terrorism.
> >>
> >> It is simply not possible to have either academic freedom or free
> >> speech when citizens of a country have to live in fear that their
> >> research or their words might lead to groundless attacks in the
> >> mainstream media that can threaten their careers or even lead to
> >> criminal charges against them.
> >>
> >> Your article placed Steven Jones' position at BYU in jeopardy,
> >> potentially exposed him to imprisonment and has soiled his reputation
> >> to a point that his career might very well be permanently damaged.
> >> Your article almost certainly also had an effect on BYU grant funding
> >> and has soured public perception of that fine institution of higher
> >> learning.
> >>
> >> And although BYU might not directly cite your article as the reason
> >> they have placed Dr. Jones on leave pending the results of their
> >> investigation into his behavior, your article caused intense scrutiny
> >> and criticism directed towards both Jones and BYU from both the
> >> public and media which has doubtlessly influenced BYU's decisions
> >> regarding Jones.
> >>
> >> I have many years of experience in the semiconductor industry and
> >> have crossed paths with a number of other analysts who will say or do
> >> anything to ensure their next paycheck. Forgive my cynicism, but
> >> your /WND/ article immediately brought to mind the "Gun-for-Hire"
> >> pieces so commonly seen in my line of work.
> >>
> >> Dr. Jones is a well respected, well known physicist. His early
> >> research into cold fusion was the only reason many physicists still
> >> took that field seriously after the Fleishmann and Pons media circus.
> >>
> >> You state that you find Professor Jones' positions "reprehensible and
> >> irresponsible." This emotive outburst demonstrates a lack of
> >> understanding of the scientific process.
> >>
> >> When searching for the truth behind any phenomena or event, a
> >> scientist must not rule out any possibility without supporting
> >> evidence. A scientist must especially be aware to not close his mind
> >> to any possible explanation due to emotional bias.
> >>
> >> Any so-call scientists who counter Dr. Jones by invoking words like
> >> "reprehensible" or "irresponsible" immediately discredit themselves
> >> as emotionally compromised regarding research on the topic at hand.
> >>
> >> In his paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?"
> >> and throughout his presentations to various groups, Dr. Jones
> >> intelligently and logically argues for a serious investigation into
> >> the possibility that the three World Trade Center towers were brought
> >> down by controlled demolition.
> >>
> >> In addition to the extremely peculiar *intergranular sulfidation*
> >> reported by FEMA that is impossible to explain as sourced from
> >> drywall, Dr. Jones' electron microprobe analysis revealed iron slag
> >> that, with little chromium, was clearly not structural steel. In
> >> that slag were abundant traces of manganese, potassium, aluminum and
> >> fluorine in addition to sulfur. Through wave-dispersive X-ray
> >> fluorescence, Dr. Jones has also found abundant zinc oxide, titanium
> >> and barium in WTC debris samples. In other words, the slag and
> >> sundry debris material look persuasively like Thermate residue; in
> >> fact, the evidence that Jones has uncovered looks like a Thermate
> >> fingerprint. Additionally, EPA's very peculiar discovery of
> >> 1,3-diphenylpropane in their WTC samples point to the possible use of
> >> a very specific form of thermate: sol-gel thermate.
> >>
> >> Dr. Jones has been primarily lobbying for more research into the
> >> hypothesis that the World Trade Center towers were brought down by
> >> controlled demolition. His evidence supports such a request.
> >>
> >> The truth is never endangered by additional, objective scientific
> >> inquiry. However, the truth can remain hidden for many years by a
> >> lack of scientific investigation and an absence of open-mined discourse.
> >>
> >> I am sure that Dr. Jones welcomes intelligent scientific discourse --
> >> in fact, his conclusions urge for it -- but no respectable scientist
> >> embraces the intellectual terrorist mentality that you bring to the
> >> table as evidenced by your World Net Daily piece.
> >>
> >> Dr. Jones is not responsible whatsoever regarding the statements of
> >> Dr. Fetzer or any other member of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth.
> >> Scientific and academic organizations loathe to control their
> >> members' opinions since discovery and genius often come from the
> >> person who thinks differently than the rest of the group. As United
> >> States citizens, we should instinctively feel similar towards free
> >> speech in general.
> >>
> >> As a Christian, one of my foundational beliefs is that people can
> >> change for the better. I pray that your support for academic freedom
> >> and free speech voiced in your letter truly signals a change of heart
> >> for you. However, I am afraid that irreparable damage has already
> >> been done to Dr. Jones and other innocent parties as a result of your
> >> World Net Daily article.
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >>
> >> Van Smith
> >>
> >> TRANSGUARD (Jonathon Moseley) wrote:
> >>> Dear Mr. Smith:
> >>> cc: Professor Jones
> >>>
> >>> I also sent a letter to BYU by email back in mid-August
> >>> urging them to ensure academic freedom and the freedom to debate
> >>> these issues publicly as American citizens. I sent a copy to
> >>> Professor Jones.
> >>>
> >>> From news reports this week, it appears that BYU is
> >>> concerned NOT about anything said through World Net Daily, but the
> >>> extreme statements made by Steven Jones himself and his organization
> >>> Scholars for Truth.
> >>>
> >>> BYU cites the "accusatory nature" of Jones' work in contrast
> >>> to a scientific inquiry as their concern.
> >>>
> >>> Neverthless, I have defended and do defend anyone's right to
> >>> debate these matters openly and to be able to engage in a public
> >>> discussion without fear or hesitation.
> >>>
> >>> I believe as a personal matter that Professor Jones'
> >>> positions are reprehensible and irresponsible, in that he has
> >>> accusing individuals in and out of government of 3,000 counts of
> >>> mass murder and treason with the slimmest of pretexts. The sulfur
> >>> from the gypsum drywall and from other sources is as likely to
> >>> account for sulfur traces as to indicate a criminal plot to commit
> >>> treasonous mass murder by public officials. The charges being made
> >>> against individuals who are unable to defend themselves (being
> >>> public figures subject to public discussion) are extraordinary and
> >>> extreme.
> >>>
> >>> It would be quite a different matter to analyze the steel
> >>> from the WTC -- as many have done -- from a scientific perspective.
> >>> But it is the conclusions of a criminal plot to murder 3,000 people
> >>> that is the point of departure.
> >>>
> >>> Furthermore, as a Board member of Scholars for Truth, I
> >>> believe that Steven Jones is responsible for everything that was
> >>> said at the Scholars for Truth event broadcast on C-Span hosted by
> >>> his organization.
> >>>
> >>> However, all of these matters should be openly discussed on
> >>> the field of ideas, not intimidated or restrained or muzzled in any
> >>> way.
> >>>
> >>> I believe that it would be infinitely worse to muzzle
> >>> discussion, or appear to be muzzling discussion, through any
> >>> administrative or employment action.
> >>>
> >>> Frankly, BYU would do more to reinforce and substantiate
> >>> Steven Jones' accusations by retaliating against him than anything
> >>> else could possibly do. Nothing could be worse in this or any
> >>> other debate than the appearance or reality of chilling speech about
> >>> possible government malfeasance.
> >>>
> >>> I strongly believe that the proper response to speech that I
> >>> or anyone disagree with is MORE speech, not less.
> >>>
> >>> Furthermore, no one can have a full and complete discussion
> >>> of anything important if no one is raising both sides of the
> >>> discussion. It would do a great dis-service if people cannot have a
> >>> frank and complete discussion. No one can have a debate if only
> >>> one side is debating. And therefore ideas can never be aired and
> >>> resolved.
> >>>
> >>> I wrote all of that previously to Jones' department at BYU in
> >>> mid-August, and I will again.
> >>>
> >>> Nevertheless, when someone accuses ofificials and individuals
> >>> of 3,000 counts of intentional mass murder, each of those counts
> >>> eligible for the death penalty, one must expect that such a public
> >>> position is going to be controversial. I think you overlook the
> >>> extent to which the issue is what Professor Jones and Professor
> >>> Fetzer are saying out of their own mouths rather than anything that
> >>> people are saying about them.
> >>>
> >>> Jon Moseley
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Jon Moseley
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> *From:* Van Smith [mailto:van@vanshardware.com]
> >>> *Sent:* Friday, September 8, 2006 05:17 PM
> >>> *To:* physics_office@byu.edu, scott_sommerfeldt@byu.edu,
> >>> stokesh@byu.edu *Cc:* steven_jones@byu.edu, Contact@JonMoseley.com
> >>> *Subject:* Support for Dr. Steven Jones
> >>>
> >>> To the Esteemed Drs. Sommerfeldt and Stokes,
> >>>
> >>> My name is Van Smith. I am head of benchmarking for a major
> >>> designer of x86 microprocessors. I am also an R&D engineer for the
> >>> company.
> >>>
> >>> I have an international reputation as a computer technology analyst
> >>> and have held high profile positions for Inquest, /Tom's Hardware
> >>> Guide/ and my own site, /Van's Hardware Journal/. My work has been
> >>> frequently cited by IT news organizations like /The Inquirer/ and
> >>> /The Register/. My work has also created headlines in Reuters, /The
> >>> New York Times/, /PC Magazine/ and other major news publications.
> >>>
> >>> At its introduction, I was the only analyst in the world who
> >>> enumerated the precise flaws in Intel's Netburst architecture that
> >>> eventually led to the demise of the Pentium 4. I have been given
> >>> credit for my "Pentium 4 death by thermal density prognostication"
> >>> by a recent article published in /The Inquirer/.
> >>>
> >>> My investigation into computer memory intellectual property company
> >>> Rambus uncovered details that led to that company's recent FTC
> >>> conviction. One of my articles caused Rambus stock price to tumble
> >>> by over $150/share in one day according to a Reuters report.
> >>>
> >>> I also have a BS in Physics from Henderson State University.
> >>>
> >>> I have always had a great deal of respect for Brigham Young
> >>> University and this respect has been strengthened by the heroic work
> >>> of Dr. Stephen Jones who has conducted scientific investigations
> >>> into the tragic September 11th, 2001 collapses of the three World
> >>> Trade Center towers.
> >>>
> >>> In these politically charged times, it is keenly important for
> >>> academic leaders, like Dr. Jones, to independently confirm or
> >>> contradict official government explanations for such pivotal events
> >>> in our nation's history. The United States is a constitutional
> >>> democratic republic that inspired freedom throughout the world. In
> >>> our very special country, it is singularly important for our voters
> >>> to have information from many diverse sources at their disposal so
> >>> that voters can make wise, informed decisions at the polls.
> >>>
> >>> In America, knowledge and information is essential to freedom. Our
> >>> Founding Fathers codified that fact with the First Amendment to the
> >>> United States Constitution which guarantees the right to free, open,
> >>> public discourse on any topic.
> >>>
> >>> Our nation's President announced that September 11th launched the
> >>> onset of a 100 year War on Terror. Since then, in the name of
> >>> fighting terrorists, bipartisan U.S. Government actions have
> >>> severely eroded our freedoms originally secured by our nation's Bill
> >>> of Rights.
> >>>
> >>> With such radical Government actions, Americans must carefully
> >>> scrutinize whether or not the security measures our nation has
> >>> recently undertaken are worth the penalties that we are paying
> >>> through lost civil freedoms.
> >>>
> >>> And most importantly of all, we need to be absolutely certain that
> >>> the initial catalyzing events of September 11th are well understood,
> >>> investigated thoroughly and from many points of view.
> >>>
> >>> Dr. Stephen Jones has bravely taken a leadership role in the
> >>> academic and patriotic pursuit of providing independent scientific
> >>> investigations into exactly what happened on that horrible September
> >>> morning.
> >>>
> >>> Sadly, Dr. Jones has already paid a great price for conscientiously
> >>> carrying out his civic duty through his research. Shockingly, Dr.
> >>> Jones was the recent victim of scurrilous attack on the popular
> >>> conservative news site, /World Net Daily/. This reckless, vicious
> >>> hit piece not only jeopardized Professor Jones?s livelihood, but
> >>> also exposed Dr. Jones to the very real danger of imprisonment.
> >>>
> >>> Author and lawyer Jonathan Moseley accused Professor Stephen Jones
> >>> of committing the serious federal crime of calling for the violent
> >>> overthrow of the U.S. Government. Under pressure from its readers
> >>> and BYU itself, /World Net Daily/ reviewed the video cited by
> >>> Moseley and found no evidence to support Moseley?s damaging accusation.
> >>>
> >>> /World Net Daily/ has since published the following retraction:
> >>>
> >>> /Editor's note, Aug. 17, 2006: In paragraph four of this column, the
> >>> author makes an assertion about professor Steven Jones' remarks at a
> >>> 9/11 symposium broadcast by C-SPAN. A review of the program online
> >>> evidenced no such comments by Jones.
> >>> /
> >>> Moseley's article, along with the WND retraction, can still be found
> >>> here:
> >>> http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51540
> >>>
> >>> I am cc'ing Mosley and Professor Jones on this correspondence.
> >>>
> >>> The pursuit of the truth is the goal of all scientists and, having
> >>> to withstand the harsh scrutiny of mathematics, physics is possibly
> >>> the purest of all sciences. Physicist Dr. Jones has selflessly and
> >>> doggedly pursued the truth regarding perhaps the most important
> >>> topic in our lives. For his noble deeds, Professor Jones is being
> >>> viciously attacked for politically motivated reasons by parties like
> >>> Mr. Mosley who, themselves, have demonstrated that they have little
> >>> regard for truth.
> >>>
> >>> Any punitive action BYU takes against Professor Jones for his
> >>> metallurgic study of the WTC debris sets dire precedents inside of
> >>> academia. Scientific persecution during the European Dark Ages is
> >>> now recognized as institutional efforts to silence reasoning that
> >>> might have weakened the control of ruling organizations. Many of
> >>> Professor Jones detractors would like a return to those dark,
> >>> frightening, hateful, tyrannical conditions.
> >>>
> >>> As a university with an outstanding record in academic research and
> >>> higher education, it would be sadly ignoble if BYU signaled the
> >>> demise of modern academia by punishing Professor Jones, a modern
> >>> Galileo, for his scholarly quest for truth under fire.
> >>>
> >>> Agree or disagree with Professor Jones' conclusions, BYU must follow
> >>> his bold, patriotic, Godly lead in his pursuit of truth despite
> >>> living in a dangerously charged political climate.
> >>>
> >>> The Truth can withstand scrutiny; indeed truth must be subjected to
> >>> scrutiny lest it devolve into dogma.
> >>>
> >>> I have confidence that the great leaders of Brigham Young University
> >>> like yourselves, who are, no doubt, currently under pressure from
> >>> New Inquisition-style detractors, will make the right choices
> >>> regarding Professor Jones' heroic research. By supporting academic
> >>> freedom exemplified by Professor Jones' 9/11 work, BYU and its
> >>> leaders will go down in history for preserving the basic foundations
> >>> of scientific investigation.
> >>>
> >>> Sincerely,
> >>>
> >>> Van Smith
Worse, a few vocal critics demanded that Brigham Young University fire Dr. Jones from his post as Physics Professor there. Perhaps the most odious attack of all came from author and lawyer Jonathan Moseley. Published in the popular conservative publication World Net Daily, Moseley's hit piece accussed Dr. Jones of calling for the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government, an accusation that WND would later retract.
Following is the email exhange I made at the time with Jonathan Moseley and Dr. Jones.
===================
To:steven_jones@byu.edu
Sent By "Van Smith"
God help us! I have apparently pushed Mosely into a psychotic fit. This man
is an insane maniac! How did he obtain the level of respectability necessary
to get his thoughts featured on WND? He wields his influence like a
genocidal Hutu handles a machete.
"Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!" I almost had to wipe his spit off my
monitor screen. Moseley is truly on a Jihad.
Moseley has connections with a number of different policy making councils, has
been quoted in mainstream media before, and has written a fear mongering
novel about the threat of Islam (either it reads like a nightmare, or it was
ghost written judging from my exchanges with him). He and another Moseley
(brother? father?) also have formed a strange company providing services to
the jewelry import industry helping businesses ensure conformity with the
Patriot Act.
I read somewhere (but have not verified) that he is also related to one of the
founders of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
The drive-by terrorist job that he did on you really smells of a gun-for-hire
piece. I cannot help but strongly suspect that this man is being used as an
attack dog by an intelligence operation. His mental discipline is so weak
that he is probably viewed as expendable, but his single-minded fanaticism
combined with his limited intellect mean that his puppetmasters risk little
exposure even if he is forced to go down in flames.
Good luck in your fight and trust Jesus,
Van
P.S. If you have mailing lists for news related to your 9/11 research and/or
your current status at BYU, please add me to them.
On Monday 11 September 2006 21:11, Jonathon Moseley wrote:
> Like all of the conspiracy theorists, you do violence to the truth by
> ignoring the parts of it that prove your arguments wrong. You call those
> tangential issues. Steven Jones has harmed himself.
> The local press reports that it was Steven Jones' own radio interview on
> Tuesday 9/6, that created a furor on campus, leading to his suspension. SEE
> -- [scroll 1/3rd down to see the latest controversy]
> http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645200098,00.html
> Jones had been relatively reticent to discuss the implications of his
> findings, but he created buzz on campus Tuesday with his appearance on
> KUER-FM 90.1. He expressed the opinion to talk-show host Doug Fabrizio that
> blame for the attacks rests with neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz, Richard
> Perle and others.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
> Even after all of the discussion, Steven Jones went on LOCAL radio and
> accused government officials and private political leaders of 3,000 counts
> of mass murder, on a radio show THAT COULD BE HEARD ALL ACROSS THE BYU
> CAMPUS. The person who has harmed Steven Jones is Steven Jones.
> BYU has announced that it is the "accusatory" nature of Steven Jones work
> about 9/11 -- that is accusing people of mass murder -- that they are
> investigating, along with breach of peer review rules, NOT what anyone else
> has said ABOUT him. It is the fact that Steven Jones is accusing people of
> mass murder that has Steven Jones in trouble.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Secondly, you falsely assume that I don' belive what I wrote about Steven
> Jones. Steven Jones is one of the founders of Scholars for Truth, the
> SPONSOR of the event. Steven Jones helped CHOOSE the panel.
> Steven Jones is responsible for ALL of the venomous, treasonous, outrageous
> statements that HIS group -- which he helps run -- spewed out across the
> nation. I previously explained this to you, but you are blind to the truth,
> as are all conspiracy nuts. Steven Jones' organization, even if not Jones
> himself, and indeed Steven Jones by extension is "in the CONTEXT of the
> question[and answer period]" is GUILTY of advocating for a coup that would
> depose America's political leaders from office and put them on trial at the
> international criminal court outside the United States, GUILTY of accusing
> George Bush of being a dictator, GUILTY of claiming that the U.S.
> government is no longer legitimate, GUILTY of urging the armed forces of
> the United States to refuse to obey the orders of the Commander in Chief,
> GUILTY of calling for the removal of the U.S. government. Frankly, I hope
> that Steven Jones burns in hell for endangering this country. It is the
> fact that I am a far superior patriot that I want even scum like Steven
> Jones to have the right to speak in America, even if they cause the DEATH
> of Americans by advocating for the terrorist's agenda to weaken the United
> States.
>
> Jon Moseley
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Van Smith [mailto:van@vanshardware.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 05:18 PM
> To: 'Jonathon Moseley'
> Cc: steven_jones@byu.edu
> Subject: Re: Support for Dr. Steven Jones
>
> Mr. Moseley,
>
> I have been consistently discussing two topics:
>
> 1. The harm that you have caused Professor Jones though an overt act of
> academic and intellectual terrorism.
> 2. The scholarly merits of Dr. Jones' research.
>
> You wish to focus on tangential, irrelevant issues.
>
> As I have stated several times already, I stand firmly behind the 1st
> Amendment to our Constitution, but nowhere does the 1st Amendment allow
> for Jon Moseley, according to your own /WND/ editors, to bear false
> witness against Dr. Jones, exposing him to potential imprisonment,
> public ridicule and irreparable damage to his livelihood.
>
> And one thing continues to bother me like a splinter beneath my right
> index fingernail. You are a lawyer. Arguably, Dr. Jones can be
> considered a public figure. As such, Dr. Jones is fair game for much
> broader written criticism than would normally be considered libel if the
> same words were directed at normal Americans. However, your /WND/ piece
> is far, far outside of this extended area of accepted criticism of
> public figures.
>
> What made you think you could get away with groundlessly accusing Dr.
> Jones -- in a major publication no less -- of committing a federal crime
> without your being sued penniless? Even if you thought you were right,
> you exercised very little effort to fact check, demonstrating a callous
> disregard for Dr. Jones' welfare.
>
> I have written many, many articles that have been read by millions of
> people. If I were to ever even consider making the extremely explosive
> and damaging charge against an individual that you used against Dr.
> Jones, I would only do so if I also substantiated my claim with
> carefully obtained and vetted quotes from that person.
>
> I'm still scratching my bald head trying to figure out just what you
> were thinking.
>
> And do you still believe that you can simply make up serious charges
> against anyone you disagree with and publish your terrorist vitriol in
> /WND/ or some other major publication?
>
> I also do not understand how /World Net Daily/ could have allowed your
> article to be published at all. One thing that typically gets an
> editor's attention in a hurry is when he sees an author making personal
> attacks against a victim that could immediately lead to the victim's
> imprisonment.
>
> I was a frequent visitor to the /WND/ Internet site, but after seeing
> your article published there, I vow to never return to /WND/ again
> except to obtain quotes from your hit piece.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Van Smith
>
> Jonathon Moseley wrote:
> > I strongly believe in Steven Jones' right to speak, and anything that
> > restrains or intimidates that is harmful to our country and to the
> > body politic and to the discussion itself.
> >
> > However, in the same way, I have an EQUAL right to speak and to say
> > that Steven Jones' efforts are likely to result in the death of more
> > Americans in the future, from the next terrorist attack, as it helps
> > whip up anti-American sentiments around the world, chills our allies,
> > and discourages Americans from taking measures to protect the country.
> >
> > If, God Forbid, a nuclear bomb or other terrorist attack on
> > Washington, D.C. kills my sister and her family, Steven Jones will
> > also be free to apologize over their dead bodies at the funeral.
> > However, it would make more sense to consider those consequences now,
> > rather than after the death of more Americans.
> >
> > Simply because Steven Jones has a RIGHT to accuse his country of
> > treasonous actions worse than anything since Pol Pot does not mean
> > that it is NOBLE that he does so.
> >
> > I believe that if Steven Jones is silenced "from behind" everyone will
> > assume that his accusations were true, and were too dangerous to
> > answer, and that he had to be silenced covertly and outside the field
> > of ideas.
> >
> > But that does not mean that there is anything laudable about -- in a
> > time of war -- accusing one's own goverment of mass murder,
> > particularly based only on supposition and speculation.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jon Moseley
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > *From:* Van Smith [mailto:van@vanshardware.com]
> > *Sent:* Sunday, September 10, 2006 08:57 PM
> > *To:* 'Jonathon Moseley'
> > *Cc:* steven_jones@byu.edu
> > *Subject:* Re: Support for Dr. Steven Jones
> >
> > Dear Mr. Moseley,
> >
> > I have combined your last two emails below.
> >
> > Your points are, as far as I can discern, irrelevant to my message to
> > you or to the plight of Dr. Jones and your involvement with it.
> > However, I will respond briefly to your remarks.
> >
> > As an American, I believe in free speech as guaranteed by the First
> > Amendment to our Constitution. I am not afraid of knowledge or
> > discussion. I also have faith that the American people can discern
> > the truth when they eventually encounter it. I do NOT believe that it
> > is necessary, desirable or constructive for any member of the media to
> > use sensational rhetoric to frighten the trusting citizens of the
> > United States into conforming with prescribed viewpoints.
> >
> > And as an American I am deeply disturbed by the distinctly
> > un-American, terrorizing tactics that you used to harm Dr. Jones in
> > your /WND/ article.
> >
> > Frankly, I am confused by your references to antisemitism, Hugo
> > Chavez, conspiracy theories, neocons, the Nuremberg Trials, Vietnam,
> > the Taliban, bin Laden and George Bush.
> >
> > Professor Jones has provided evidence that supports the theory that
> > the three World Trade Center towers were brought down by controlled
> > demolition. His evidence is compelling. His scientific methodology
> > appears to be sound and straightforward. His request for further
> > investigation is logical and reasonable.
> >
> > I applaud Dr. Jones for his courage to conduct objective, independent
> > research on the horrific WTC events. I hope his work will inspire
> > further independent investigation into whether or not controlled
> > demolitions were used to bring down the three towers that tragic
> > September morning.
> >
> > BTW, whether you realize it or not, you are lending credence to your
> > opposition when you use the term "conspiracy theory." By definition,
> > a theory is an explanation supported by several different facts and
> > all known facts support the explanation. Of course, a "conspiracy" is
> > an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime or other
> > misdeed. Properly -- and I mean no insult -- supporters of the U.S.
> > Government explanation for 9/11 should consider their explanation a
> > conspiracy theory.
> >
> > Van Smith
> > ========
> >
> > I think there are sinister motivations for the 9/11 conspiracy
> > theories. Someday when more Americans are murdered by foreign
> > terrorists, I hope the conspiracy theorists will realize what they
> > have done and shudder. However, that should be debated on the field
> > of ideas, not short-circuited through administrative means.
> >
> > A letter from Usama Bin Laden from 2001/early 2002 just released last
> > week called upon the Taliban and other sympathetic groups to CREATE A
> > WEDGE BETWEEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT.
> >
> > 5 years later 9/11 conspiracy theorists are DOING EXACTLY THAT.
> >
> > They are implementing Usama Bin Laden's strategy and desire for
> > defeating the West.
> >
> > They probably don't realize it... but they SHOULD by stopping to
> > think about it.
> >
> > But again this is a concern to be debated openly, not cut short in
> > silence.
> >
> > Jon Moseley
> >
> > Jonathon Moseley wrote:
> >> First, I believe that there are some in the 9/11 conspiracy movement
> >> (mostly overseas participants using the anonymity of the internet,
> >> but not necessarily all) who are intentionally implementing Usama Bin
> >> Laden's strategy for destroying the West, by repeating the entire
> >> Vietnam dynamic.
> >>
> >> Second, there are a far greater number who simply hate their country
> >> so much that they don't care that they are helping foreign terrorists
> >> to better and more successfully attack America the next time around.
> >> They don't care that our families and loved ones are in greater
> >> danger of a terrorist attack because of their efforts to persuade
> >> Americans to focus on the U.S. government instead of on foreign
> >> terrorists. They don't care that this kind of rhetoric whips up
> >> anti-American sentiments abroad and encourages our enemies, while
> >> peeling away our friends around the world.
> >>
> >> Third, there are many in the 9/11 movement who hate the Jews and
> >> Neocons and certain other groups that they are intentionally trying
> >> to destroy the government and the country to get at the people they
> >> hate, similar to burning down a house to kill the bugs inside.
> >>
> >> Fourth, you have to go back and listen to the videotape broadcast on
> >> C-Span. Among the points made in that virulently anti-American hate
> >> fest:
> >>
> >> o The movement should support and promote Venezuala President
> >> Hugu Chavez's attempt to put Bush Administration officials ON TRIAL
> >> at an international criminal tribunal. Presumably that would require
> >> DEPOSING THOSE OFFICIALS FROM OFFICE in order to take them to the
> >> international criminal court overseas. It would require a coup
> >> against the U.S. to take U.S. government leaders overseas to stand rial.
> >>
> >> o The U.S. government has already collapsed and a shadow
> >> government is now running the country.
> >>
> >> o U.S. troops should DISOBEY orders of the Commander in Chief in
> >> the war on terror.
> >>
> >> o George Bush is a dictator (odd how this group was broadcast 4
> >> times on C-Span if Bush is a dictator).
> >>
> >> And on and on.
> >>
> >> However, the answer to such hate speech by the 9/11 conspiracy
> >> movement is MORE speech in reply, not intimidation or efforts to
> >> muzzle any speaker.
> >>
> >> Jon Moseley
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> *From:* Van Smith [mailto:van@vanshardware.com]
> >> *Sent:* Sunday, September 10, 2006 06:03 PM
> >> *To:* 'TRANSGUARD (Jonathon Moseley)'
> >> *Cc:* steven_jones@byu.edu
> >> *Subject:* Re: Support for Dr. Steven Jones
> >>
> >> Dear Mr. Moseley,
> >>
> >> I am pleased to see your written support for academic freedom.
> >> However, your /World Net Daily/ article appears to expose sinister
> >> motivations that contradict the positions that you express in your
> >> correspondence.
> >>
> >> Please have another look at what you wrote about Dr. Jones:
> >>
> >> /Professor Steven Jones of Brigham-Young University accused George
> >> Bush of being a dictator, mimicking the preamble of the Declaration
> >> of Independence. When asked if violent revolution was necessary, this
> >> scientist declared ? in front of national TV cameras ? that there is
> >> no peaceful way to achieve the group's goals. In the context of the
> >> question, *professor Jones was calling for the violent overthrow of
> >> the government*.
> >> /
> >> Not only do you continue the /ad hominem/ tone that saturates the
> >> rest of your article, but you have, according to your own editors at
> >> /WND/, falsely accused Professor Jones of committing a federal
> >> crime. Your actions, according to news reports, had immediate,
> >> frightening ramifications for Dr. Jones.
> >>
> >> Your /WND/ article is akin to academic and intellectual terrorism.
> >>
> >> It is simply not possible to have either academic freedom or free
> >> speech when citizens of a country have to live in fear that their
> >> research or their words might lead to groundless attacks in the
> >> mainstream media that can threaten their careers or even lead to
> >> criminal charges against them.
> >>
> >> Your article placed Steven Jones' position at BYU in jeopardy,
> >> potentially exposed him to imprisonment and has soiled his reputation
> >> to a point that his career might very well be permanently damaged.
> >> Your article almost certainly also had an effect on BYU grant funding
> >> and has soured public perception of that fine institution of higher
> >> learning.
> >>
> >> And although BYU might not directly cite your article as the reason
> >> they have placed Dr. Jones on leave pending the results of their
> >> investigation into his behavior, your article caused intense scrutiny
> >> and criticism directed towards both Jones and BYU from both the
> >> public and media which has doubtlessly influenced BYU's decisions
> >> regarding Jones.
> >>
> >> I have many years of experience in the semiconductor industry and
> >> have crossed paths with a number of other analysts who will say or do
> >> anything to ensure their next paycheck. Forgive my cynicism, but
> >> your /WND/ article immediately brought to mind the "Gun-for-Hire"
> >> pieces so commonly seen in my line of work.
> >>
> >> Dr. Jones is a well respected, well known physicist. His early
> >> research into cold fusion was the only reason many physicists still
> >> took that field seriously after the Fleishmann and Pons media circus.
> >>
> >> You state that you find Professor Jones' positions "reprehensible and
> >> irresponsible." This emotive outburst demonstrates a lack of
> >> understanding of the scientific process.
> >>
> >> When searching for the truth behind any phenomena or event, a
> >> scientist must not rule out any possibility without supporting
> >> evidence. A scientist must especially be aware to not close his mind
> >> to any possible explanation due to emotional bias.
> >>
> >> Any so-call scientists who counter Dr. Jones by invoking words like
> >> "reprehensible" or "irresponsible" immediately discredit themselves
> >> as emotionally compromised regarding research on the topic at hand.
> >>
> >> In his paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?"
> >> and throughout his presentations to various groups, Dr. Jones
> >> intelligently and logically argues for a serious investigation into
> >> the possibility that the three World Trade Center towers were brought
> >> down by controlled demolition.
> >>
> >> In addition to the extremely peculiar *intergranular sulfidation*
> >> reported by FEMA that is impossible to explain as sourced from
> >> drywall, Dr. Jones' electron microprobe analysis revealed iron slag
> >> that, with little chromium, was clearly not structural steel. In
> >> that slag were abundant traces of manganese, potassium, aluminum and
> >> fluorine in addition to sulfur. Through wave-dispersive X-ray
> >> fluorescence, Dr. Jones has also found abundant zinc oxide, titanium
> >> and barium in WTC debris samples. In other words, the slag and
> >> sundry debris material look persuasively like Thermate residue; in
> >> fact, the evidence that Jones has uncovered looks like a Thermate
> >> fingerprint. Additionally, EPA's very peculiar discovery of
> >> 1,3-diphenylpropane in their WTC samples point to the possible use of
> >> a very specific form of thermate: sol-gel thermate.
> >>
> >> Dr. Jones has been primarily lobbying for more research into the
> >> hypothesis that the World Trade Center towers were brought down by
> >> controlled demolition. His evidence supports such a request.
> >>
> >> The truth is never endangered by additional, objective scientific
> >> inquiry. However, the truth can remain hidden for many years by a
> >> lack of scientific investigation and an absence of open-mined discourse.
> >>
> >> I am sure that Dr. Jones welcomes intelligent scientific discourse --
> >> in fact, his conclusions urge for it -- but no respectable scientist
> >> embraces the intellectual terrorist mentality that you bring to the
> >> table as evidenced by your World Net Daily piece.
> >>
> >> Dr. Jones is not responsible whatsoever regarding the statements of
> >> Dr. Fetzer or any other member of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth.
> >> Scientific and academic organizations loathe to control their
> >> members' opinions since discovery and genius often come from the
> >> person who thinks differently than the rest of the group. As United
> >> States citizens, we should instinctively feel similar towards free
> >> speech in general.
> >>
> >> As a Christian, one of my foundational beliefs is that people can
> >> change for the better. I pray that your support for academic freedom
> >> and free speech voiced in your letter truly signals a change of heart
> >> for you. However, I am afraid that irreparable damage has already
> >> been done to Dr. Jones and other innocent parties as a result of your
> >> World Net Daily article.
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >>
> >> Van Smith
> >>
> >> TRANSGUARD (Jonathon Moseley) wrote:
> >>> Dear Mr. Smith:
> >>> cc: Professor Jones
> >>>
> >>> I also sent a letter to BYU by email back in mid-August
> >>> urging them to ensure academic freedom and the freedom to debate
> >>> these issues publicly as American citizens. I sent a copy to
> >>> Professor Jones.
> >>>
> >>> From news reports this week, it appears that BYU is
> >>> concerned NOT about anything said through World Net Daily, but the
> >>> extreme statements made by Steven Jones himself and his organization
> >>> Scholars for Truth.
> >>>
> >>> BYU cites the "accusatory nature" of Jones' work in contrast
> >>> to a scientific inquiry as their concern.
> >>>
> >>> Neverthless, I have defended and do defend anyone's right to
> >>> debate these matters openly and to be able to engage in a public
> >>> discussion without fear or hesitation.
> >>>
> >>> I believe as a personal matter that Professor Jones'
> >>> positions are reprehensible and irresponsible, in that he has
> >>> accusing individuals in and out of government of 3,000 counts of
> >>> mass murder and treason with the slimmest of pretexts. The sulfur
> >>> from the gypsum drywall and from other sources is as likely to
> >>> account for sulfur traces as to indicate a criminal plot to commit
> >>> treasonous mass murder by public officials. The charges being made
> >>> against individuals who are unable to defend themselves (being
> >>> public figures subject to public discussion) are extraordinary and
> >>> extreme.
> >>>
> >>> It would be quite a different matter to analyze the steel
> >>> from the WTC -- as many have done -- from a scientific perspective.
> >>> But it is the conclusions of a criminal plot to murder 3,000 people
> >>> that is the point of departure.
> >>>
> >>> Furthermore, as a Board member of Scholars for Truth, I
> >>> believe that Steven Jones is responsible for everything that was
> >>> said at the Scholars for Truth event broadcast on C-Span hosted by
> >>> his organization.
> >>>
> >>> However, all of these matters should be openly discussed on
> >>> the field of ideas, not intimidated or restrained or muzzled in any
> >>> way.
> >>>
> >>> I believe that it would be infinitely worse to muzzle
> >>> discussion, or appear to be muzzling discussion, through any
> >>> administrative or employment action.
> >>>
> >>> Frankly, BYU would do more to reinforce and substantiate
> >>> Steven Jones' accusations by retaliating against him than anything
> >>> else could possibly do. Nothing could be worse in this or any
> >>> other debate than the appearance or reality of chilling speech about
> >>> possible government malfeasance.
> >>>
> >>> I strongly believe that the proper response to speech that I
> >>> or anyone disagree with is MORE speech, not less.
> >>>
> >>> Furthermore, no one can have a full and complete discussion
> >>> of anything important if no one is raising both sides of the
> >>> discussion. It would do a great dis-service if people cannot have a
> >>> frank and complete discussion. No one can have a debate if only
> >>> one side is debating. And therefore ideas can never be aired and
> >>> resolved.
> >>>
> >>> I wrote all of that previously to Jones' department at BYU in
> >>> mid-August, and I will again.
> >>>
> >>> Nevertheless, when someone accuses ofificials and individuals
> >>> of 3,000 counts of intentional mass murder, each of those counts
> >>> eligible for the death penalty, one must expect that such a public
> >>> position is going to be controversial. I think you overlook the
> >>> extent to which the issue is what Professor Jones and Professor
> >>> Fetzer are saying out of their own mouths rather than anything that
> >>> people are saying about them.
> >>>
> >>> Jon Moseley
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Jon Moseley
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> *From:* Van Smith [mailto:van@vanshardware.com]
> >>> *Sent:* Friday, September 8, 2006 05:17 PM
> >>> *To:* physics_office@byu.edu, scott_sommerfeldt@byu.edu,
> >>> stokesh@byu.edu *Cc:* steven_jones@byu.edu, Contact@JonMoseley.com
> >>> *Subject:* Support for Dr. Steven Jones
> >>>
> >>> To the Esteemed Drs. Sommerfeldt and Stokes,
> >>>
> >>> My name is Van Smith. I am head of benchmarking for a major
> >>> designer of x86 microprocessors. I am also an R&D engineer for the
> >>> company.
> >>>
> >>> I have an international reputation as a computer technology analyst
> >>> and have held high profile positions for Inquest, /Tom's Hardware
> >>> Guide/ and my own site, /Van's Hardware Journal/. My work has been
> >>> frequently cited by IT news organizations like /The Inquirer/ and
> >>> /The Register/. My work has also created headlines in Reuters, /The
> >>> New York Times/, /PC Magazine/ and other major news publications.
> >>>
> >>> At its introduction, I was the only analyst in the world who
> >>> enumerated the precise flaws in Intel's Netburst architecture that
> >>> eventually led to the demise of the Pentium 4. I have been given
> >>> credit for my "Pentium 4 death by thermal density prognostication"
> >>> by a recent article published in /The Inquirer/.
> >>>
> >>> My investigation into computer memory intellectual property company
> >>> Rambus uncovered details that led to that company's recent FTC
> >>> conviction. One of my articles caused Rambus stock price to tumble
> >>> by over $150/share in one day according to a Reuters report.
> >>>
> >>> I also have a BS in Physics from Henderson State University.
> >>>
> >>> I have always had a great deal of respect for Brigham Young
> >>> University and this respect has been strengthened by the heroic work
> >>> of Dr. Stephen Jones who has conducted scientific investigations
> >>> into the tragic September 11th, 2001 collapses of the three World
> >>> Trade Center towers.
> >>>
> >>> In these politically charged times, it is keenly important for
> >>> academic leaders, like Dr. Jones, to independently confirm or
> >>> contradict official government explanations for such pivotal events
> >>> in our nation's history. The United States is a constitutional
> >>> democratic republic that inspired freedom throughout the world. In
> >>> our very special country, it is singularly important for our voters
> >>> to have information from many diverse sources at their disposal so
> >>> that voters can make wise, informed decisions at the polls.
> >>>
> >>> In America, knowledge and information is essential to freedom. Our
> >>> Founding Fathers codified that fact with the First Amendment to the
> >>> United States Constitution which guarantees the right to free, open,
> >>> public discourse on any topic.
> >>>
> >>> Our nation's President announced that September 11th launched the
> >>> onset of a 100 year War on Terror. Since then, in the name of
> >>> fighting terrorists, bipartisan U.S. Government actions have
> >>> severely eroded our freedoms originally secured by our nation's Bill
> >>> of Rights.
> >>>
> >>> With such radical Government actions, Americans must carefully
> >>> scrutinize whether or not the security measures our nation has
> >>> recently undertaken are worth the penalties that we are paying
> >>> through lost civil freedoms.
> >>>
> >>> And most importantly of all, we need to be absolutely certain that
> >>> the initial catalyzing events of September 11th are well understood,
> >>> investigated thoroughly and from many points of view.
> >>>
> >>> Dr. Stephen Jones has bravely taken a leadership role in the
> >>> academic and patriotic pursuit of providing independent scientific
> >>> investigations into exactly what happened on that horrible September
> >>> morning.
> >>>
> >>> Sadly, Dr. Jones has already paid a great price for conscientiously
> >>> carrying out his civic duty through his research. Shockingly, Dr.
> >>> Jones was the recent victim of scurrilous attack on the popular
> >>> conservative news site, /World Net Daily/. This reckless, vicious
> >>> hit piece not only jeopardized Professor Jones?s livelihood, but
> >>> also exposed Dr. Jones to the very real danger of imprisonment.
> >>>
> >>> Author and lawyer Jonathan Moseley accused Professor Stephen Jones
> >>> of committing the serious federal crime of calling for the violent
> >>> overthrow of the U.S. Government. Under pressure from its readers
> >>> and BYU itself, /World Net Daily/ reviewed the video cited by
> >>> Moseley and found no evidence to support Moseley?s damaging accusation.
> >>>
> >>> /World Net Daily/ has since published the following retraction:
> >>>
> >>> /Editor's note, Aug. 17, 2006: In paragraph four of this column, the
> >>> author makes an assertion about professor Steven Jones' remarks at a
> >>> 9/11 symposium broadcast by C-SPAN. A review of the program online
> >>> evidenced no such comments by Jones.
> >>> /
> >>> Moseley's article, along with the WND retraction, can still be found
> >>> here:
> >>> http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51540
> >>>
> >>> I am cc'ing Mosley and Professor Jones on this correspondence.
> >>>
> >>> The pursuit of the truth is the goal of all scientists and, having
> >>> to withstand the harsh scrutiny of mathematics, physics is possibly
> >>> the purest of all sciences. Physicist Dr. Jones has selflessly and
> >>> doggedly pursued the truth regarding perhaps the most important
> >>> topic in our lives. For his noble deeds, Professor Jones is being
> >>> viciously attacked for politically motivated reasons by parties like
> >>> Mr. Mosley who, themselves, have demonstrated that they have little
> >>> regard for truth.
> >>>
> >>> Any punitive action BYU takes against Professor Jones for his
> >>> metallurgic study of the WTC debris sets dire precedents inside of
> >>> academia. Scientific persecution during the European Dark Ages is
> >>> now recognized as institutional efforts to silence reasoning that
> >>> might have weakened the control of ruling organizations. Many of
> >>> Professor Jones detractors would like a return to those dark,
> >>> frightening, hateful, tyrannical conditions.
> >>>
> >>> As a university with an outstanding record in academic research and
> >>> higher education, it would be sadly ignoble if BYU signaled the
> >>> demise of modern academia by punishing Professor Jones, a modern
> >>> Galileo, for his scholarly quest for truth under fire.
> >>>
> >>> Agree or disagree with Professor Jones' conclusions, BYU must follow
> >>> his bold, patriotic, Godly lead in his pursuit of truth despite
> >>> living in a dangerously charged political climate.
> >>>
> >>> The Truth can withstand scrutiny; indeed truth must be subjected to
> >>> scrutiny lest it devolve into dogma.
> >>>
> >>> I have confidence that the great leaders of Brigham Young University
> >>> like yourselves, who are, no doubt, currently under pressure from
> >>> New Inquisition-style detractors, will make the right choices
> >>> regarding Professor Jones' heroic research. By supporting academic
> >>> freedom exemplified by Professor Jones' 9/11 work, BYU and its
> >>> leaders will go down in history for preserving the basic foundations
> >>> of scientific investigation.
> >>>
> >>> Sincerely,
> >>>
> >>> Van Smith
Labels: 9/11, controlled demolition, Dr. Steven E. Jones, Jonathan Moseley, World Trade Center
Friday, January 16, 2009
Chip Giants Hammered By Economic Storm
The worldwide economic storm continues to hammer the computing industry. Chip maker AMD confirmed additional layoffs and pay cuts today:
AS WE REPORTED this morning, AMD has announced to employees they will be undergoing imminent layoffs and pay cuts.At the same time, archival CPU vendor Intel announced that its Q4 profits crashed by 90%. According to The Register, worsening market conditions have forced Intel to postpone Lynnfield's launch yet again.
A memo, reportedly sent out by CEO Dirk Meyer himself, detailed the extent of the chip firm's damage control, and AMD confirmed the numbers to the INQ moments ago.
AMD noted, "As a result of the continuing global economic downturn, we have determined that we need to take difficult, but prudent, actions designed to reduce our costs."
The statement continued "Beginning in February, we are undertaking several steps to lower costs, including temporarily reducing employee base pay and suspending some benefits programs."
Asian motherboard makers say Intel will postpone the launch of its next mainstream quad-core processor line, code-named Lynnfield, according to DigiTimes.
In addition, the usually reliable Taipei news service reports that Chipzila will also postpone Lynnfield's companion chipset, the P55.
According to DigiTimes' sources, the chips - up until today set to launch in July - won't appear until August or September or until "an even later time depending on the market situation."
Circuit City to Close Its Doors
American electronics retailer Circuit City will be closing its doors as another victim crumbles beneath the weight of the ongoing global economic collapse.
The bankrupt US retail giant Circuit City will be fully liquidated after the company failed to find a buyer in time.
The company will be presenting the results of an auction for its assets at a hearing in US Bankruptcy Court in Richmond, Virginia later today.
Circuit City said in a statement that it will seek approval to begin the process to liquidate its assets.
"We are extremely disappointed by this outcome," said Circuit City vice chairman and acting president and chief executive officer James A Marcum. "The company had been in continuous negotiations regarding a going concern transaction.
"Regrettably for the more than 30,000 employees of Circuit City and our loyal customers, we were unable to reach an agreement with our creditors and lenders to structure a going-concern transaction in the limited timeframe available, and so this is the only possible path for our company."
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Cold Extends Icy Grip on U.S.
Brutally cold temperatures continued to maintain an icy grip on much of the U.S. today.
MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) - Bone-chilling cold settled in Thursday from the Midwest to the Northeast Thursday, bringing teeth-chattering misery with temperatures that sank as low as 47 below zero.
Israeli forces shell UN office
Israel bombarded the U.N. headquarters in Gaza today. The compound reportedly was struck about six times with either tank fire or artillery rounds, earning the outrage of the visiting U.N. chief.
After nightfall, shells landed near Gaza City's Quds Hospital, where many families had sought refuge, and the building caught fire, forcing staff to evacuate hundreds of people. According to a hospital medic, some patients were pushed down the street on gurneys; a few held white flags.
The destruction added to what aid groups say is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza and ratcheted up tensions between Israel and the international community even as diplomats indicated progress in cease-fire talks.
Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni was departing Thursday night for Washington to discuss a Gaza cease-fire with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The United States and Egypt have been working to forge an agreement to end 20 days of bitter fighting.
The U.N. compound, made up of workshops and warehouses as well as offices, was struck about a half-dozen times over a roughly two-hour period while more than 700 civilians were sheltering there, said John Ging, head of Gaza operations for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency.
The civilians were huddling in the compound's vocational training center when it was struck by a tank round or an artillery shell, causing the three injuries, Ging said. Throughout this time, he said, U.N. officials were frantically contacting Israeli officials to urge an end to the firing on the U.N. compound.
Oil Tumbles Below $34 per Barrel
The price for a barrel of light, sweet crude fell to $33.41 today, approaching a five year low.
NEW YORK (AP) - Oil prices tumbled below $34 Thursday, closing in on five-year lows as employment claims rose and OPEC cut demand expectations for 2009."The bull oil era is officially over," said Phil Flynn, an analyst at Alaron Trading Corp.
Light, sweet crude for February delivery fell more than 10 percent, or $3.87, to $33.41 a barrel Thursday on the New York Mercantile Exchange. At one point prices fell as low as $33.20.
Crude prices have fallen so fast, the cost for retail gasoline has yet to catch up. Pump prices nudged up again overnight, but is likely to fall.
An oil industry report Thursday showed just how much energy use eroded over the past year.
For all of 2008, U.S. petroleum deliveries—a measure of demand—fell 6 percent to 19.4 million barrels a day, with declines for all major products made from crude, according to the American Petroleum Institute.
That trend appears to be ongoing this year, with millions now out of work and bad jobs data continuing to roll in.
The Labor Department reported first-time requests for unemployment insurance jumped to a seasonally adjusted 524,000 in the week ending Jan. 10. Analysts had expected 500,000 new claims.
An analyst with the Labor Department said the increase is partly due to a flood of requests from newly laid off people who delayed filing claims over the holidays.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Collapse of Mexico Imminent?
The El Paso Times cites a report by the U.S. Joint Forces Command on worldwide security threats that claims Mexico might collapse at any moment. Under almost constant siege from organized crime fueled by the drug trade, human smuggling and kidnapping, many Mexican government employees have been viciously slain in recent years.
It is probably more than mere coincidence that Mexico is suffering turmoil at a time convenient to the CFR's schedule. Recently, a jet plane used by the CIA for torture rendition crashed inside of Mexico overloaded with cocaine. Langley spooks have a long history in the drug trade, false flag operations and in subverting governments. Mexico is ideal territory for their favored activities.
The command's "Joint Operating Environment (JOE 2008)" report, which contains projections of global threats and potential next wars, puts Pakistan on the same level as Mexico. "In terms of worse-case scenarios for the Joint Force and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico.The powerful and shadowy Council on Foreign Relations has expressed a desire to take the first steps toward creating a North American superstate consisting of the United States, Canada and Mexico by the year 2010. If its southern neighbor were to melt into chaos, the U.S. would almost certainly respond with security forces to protect itself from encroaching criminal activity. Combined with a collapsing economy, Americans might feel predisposed to absorb Mexico into a burgeoning superstate.
"The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and press by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state. Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone."
It is probably more than mere coincidence that Mexico is suffering turmoil at a time convenient to the CFR's schedule. Recently, a jet plane used by the CIA for torture rendition crashed inside of Mexico overloaded with cocaine. Langley spooks have a long history in the drug trade, false flag operations and in subverting governments. Mexico is ideal territory for their favored activities.
Labels: Canada, CIA, Council on Foreign Relations, drugs, Mexico, North American Union, United States
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Record Cold Hits North Dakota
The AP reports today that portions of the Great Plains has been hit by record setting cold:
BISMARCK, N.D. – Residents of the upper Midwest bundled up or just stayed inside Tuesday as a wave of bitterly cold air barreled south out of the Arctic, following on the heels of a fast-moving blizzard.
Some schools closed because of the cold and temperatures hit the single digits as far south as Kansas and Missouri.
The coldest air spilled across the Canadian prairie into the Dakotas and Minnesota. Grand Forks, N.D., dropped to a record low of 37 degrees below zero Tuesday morning, lopping six degrees off the old record set in 1979, the National Weather Service said.
In northern Minnesota, it was 35 below zero in Roseau and 36 below in Hallock, with wind chills down to 45 below in Hibbing. Just to the north, Winnipeg, Manitoba, also hit minus 36, according to Environment Canada.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Predictions for 2009
- The economy will continue to worsen throughout 2009. The U.S. will officially be in a depression by years end.
- After a few more months of deflation, the value of the dollar will become unstable and retract.
- Talk of dumping the dollar as the global reserve currency will accelerate while a North American currency dubbed the "Amero" will be proposed.
- A "major event" will occur soon after Obama is inaugurated.
- The Dow Jones Industrial Average will slide below 7,000.
- Housing prices will continue their decline.
- An event will occur in America that will be used to place a great deal of pressure on the Second Amendment.
- A false flag event officially and falsely attributed to foreign terrorists will be carried out inside the United States.
- A false flag event will be exposed, but mainstream media will try to ignore it.
- There will be major riots in the United States.
- Iran will be attacked.
- India and Pakistan will be provoked to the brink of war by various intelligence operations.
- A major war will begin that may eventually lead to a much broader conflict.
- The price of gasoline will remain low until the value of the U.S. dollar begins to slide.
- Federal troops will be deployed within the U.S. for the purpose of law enforcement, violating the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.
- Talk of censoring the Internet inside the United States against broadly defined hate speech will erupt and build throughout the remainder of 2009.
- A major political activist will be jailed inside the United States.
- A major political activist will be slain inside the United States.
- A major U.S. politician will be assassinated.
- A well known entertainer will be jailed for political reasons provoking outrage.
- A major disease outbreak will occur.
- Globalist bankers and industrialists will be attacked in the U.S. as their role in the collapse of the the economy will become more widely recognized.
- The National ID Card will move to the forefront of discussion within the United States.
- As earth's climate continues to cool as predictied by heliocentric climate models and with more and more experts publicly expressing skepticism over manmade, CO2 driven Global Warming, popular support for carbon reduction initiatives wanes dramatically, particularly in the U.S.. Despite flagging support, the Obama Administration, with the support of a friendly Congress, successfully rushes through legislation to heavily tax the carbon emissions of coal fired power plants, resulting in higher electricity costs for most Americans.
- The college football BCS system will be abandoned in favor of a playoff system due to antitrust court case developments.
- All major CPU and/or GPU vendors will survive 2009, but layoffs will continue. At least one vendor will be in imminent danger of failure by the start of 2010.
- Linux will gain market share away from Microsoft despite the critical success of Windows 7.
- So-called "touch" interfaces will become popular in desktop and mobile applications.
- The line between "Netbooks" and lowcost thin-and-light notebooks will be blurred. This combined segment will experience explosive growth.
- ARM vendors' attempts to capture a slice of the netbook market will fail due to performance shortcomings and the depressed economy.
- Digg and reddit, two sites that once held great promise for furthering the cause of freedom and serving as springboards for revolution, decline into banal outposts of kitten photos, porn, pop culture and lunatic rants on wedge issues.
Labels: 2009, ARM, cpu, economy, false flag, gpu, Linux, Microsoft, netbooks, predictions, war
Thursday, January 1, 2009
The First Day of a New Year
Kathy's grandmother died today in her sleep.
Soon afterward, Kathy and I saw two mature bald eagles perched on a tree at our large pond. Bald eagles are relatively rare around here and today is the first time we have ever spotted one on our property. It was a beautiful sight.
We will miss you, Grandma.
Test: First post
This is a test. The old website can be found here:
http://www.vanshardware.com/indexOld.html
and if you prefer the really old and flaky frame-based layout:
http://www.vanshardware.com/index_frames.htm
http://www.vanshardware.com/indexOld.html
and if you prefer the really old and flaky frame-based layout:
http://www.vanshardware.com/index_frames.htm
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]