hello;
I am an admirer & longtime reader of your work on various whistleblowing issues.
I am extremely alarmed and in shock about a new scientific paper published by an international team of PhD scientists, including americans. it proves that an exotic explosive called "nanothermite" has been conclusively, irrefutably identified in 9/11 WTC dust using extremely sophisticated scientific instruments.
I argue below the only conceivable possible source of this material is the US Military industrial complex.
I urge you to acquaint yourself with this issue and write about it & help publicize it.
there are more details in this paper by a former civil engineering safety manager involved with the NIST investigation:
top 10 connections between NIST and nanothermites
[@!#$%&& links killed by spam filter!!!]
I wrote: "until these grassroots local and state groups learn the tricks of online activism and marry it to powerful grassroots organizing campaigns, real change will be deferred." Obviously you didn't read it, or didn't understand it. Ho hum.
The New York Times added an editors' note to this story on May 2, which clarified that the Global Climate Coalition had put out a revised version of the public backgrounder that -- unlike the earlier memo cited in the Times story -- "acknowledged the consensus that greenhouse gases could contribute to warming. What scientists disagreed about, it said, was 'the rate and magnitude of the "enhanced greenhouse effect" (warming) that will result.' The coalition did, however, as the article reported, remove from an internal report by the scientific advisory committee a section that said that 'contrarian' theories of why global temperatures appeared to be rising 'do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change.' After the later, amended version of the backgrounder was published, the coalition continued to question the scientific evidence that greenhouse gas emissions could heat the planet enough to justify sharp cuts in emissions."
To the author of "South Bashing": This article is well-researched and eloquently written. It now clarifies Dr.Rice's tendency to "appear articulate" by generalizing or conceptualizing complex ideas. She spoke for the sake of using big words and sentences, without substance. The stuff she wrote definitely NOT the doctoral material, whether it's from a non-ivy league such as UofDenver. I had the same Pol Science degree, not from a US prestigious school, but from a world-renown European university, established in 1615, and my BA thesis was far more specific, rigorously argued and I only scored a "satisfactory" grade! Dr. Rice ascended to the power, because she's a (1) token of the racial inclusivity, which made Bush administration looks good on that front; (2) Bush's father needed her to loyally served his son and to tutored him (3) she's smart enough to get herself under the "mentorship' of the likes Scowcroft , hence J.Baker who are Bush father's close friends; (4) she's probably the best mind in an administration where intellectual matters so little while "serving" the country is a 'blood sport' with importance attributed to those tackling and blocking stuff . I can endlessly name more reasons to explain her ascendancy to power and its associated rewards, but enough of my time. So, keep bury your head in the sands, you'll find peace and blissfulness....
A few friends were offered to spy on various eco and anti-war groups they were part off in Canada.
11,000$ was what they were offering about 10 years ago.
The New York Times added an editors' note to this story on May 2, which clarified that the Global Climate Coalition had put out a revised version of the public backgrounder that -- unlike the earlier memo cited in the Times story -- "acknowledged the consensus that greenhouse gases could contribute to warming. What scientists disagreed about, it said, was 'the rate and magnitude of the "enhanced greenhouse effect" (warming) that will result.' The coalition did, however, as the article reported, remove from an internal report by the scientific advisory committee a section that said that 'contrarian' theories of why global temperatures appeared to be rising 'do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change.' After the later, amended version of the backgrounder was published, the coalition continued to question the scientific evidence that greenhouse gas emissions could heat the planet enough to justify sharp cuts in emissions."
Pages