Did Palestinians Celebrate 9/11? – Questions For Corbett #029

by | Apr 13, 2016 | Questions For Corbett | 29 comments

On this special edition of Questions For Corbett James is joined by Corbett Report video editor Broc West to answer your questions on the 28 pages, the Japanese economy, CS Lewis and Shakespeare and much more. Also, we tackle the question of whether the Palestinians were celebrating on 9/11. (Spoiler: they weren’t.)

For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.

For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).

Piatto Thomas DiLorenzo

Eyeopener: The CIA and the Art of the Hangout

The Ratings Game: Rating agencies as weapons of economic warfare

How To Hide Your Billions

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident, 40 Years Later

Tonkin Gulf Intelligence “Skewed” According to Official History and Intercepts

Donald Trump Campaign Offered Actors $50 to Cheer for Him at Presidential Announcement

Interview 973 – Lionel on Media Fakery and Historical Distortion

Faking It: How the Media Manipulates the World into War

“Reality” Edited in Real Time: New Tech Shows Why You Can’t Trust Anything You See on the News

Argument From Incredulity

Non Sequitur

Television News Footage of Gleeful Palestinians Shown out of Context

DISINFO: Palestinians Cheering the 9/11 Attacks

The Fraud of the Fraud on Palestinians “Celebrating” on 9/11

Die Macht der TV-Bilder: Was ist die Wahrheit?

The Well-Read Anarchist

Why the hell is Belgium buying so much US debt?

China Hides Treasury Buys in Belgium: Chart of the Day

China Dumps Record $143 Billion In US Treasurys In Three Months Via Belgium

Episode 303 – Solutions: The Peer-to-Peer Economy

P2P Solutions: An Open Source Investigation

Interview 1011 – Thomas Freedman on Creating a Community Organization

Interview 462 – Thorsten Pattberg on Language Imperialism

Japanese real wages down for 4th straight year

Japan Still Beating China on One Score: World’s Top Creditor

Subscriber video with Broc


  1. JFK’s murder will not be opened up. The people involved are dead but the forces they served are not. Saudi Arabia is a country sized Oswald patsy.

    • arnieus, Papa Bush is still alive.

  2. I recently read That Hideous Strength, by C.S. Lewis. I rather enjoyed it. Here is a bit of the description from cslewis.com:
    A sinister technocratic organization is gaining power throughout Europe with a plan to “recondition” society, and it is up to Ransom and his friends to squelch this threat by applying age-old wisdom to a new universe dominated by science. The two groups struggle to a climactic resolution that brings the Space Trilogy to a magnificent, crashing close.

  3. The stairs are a nice example. Do you live somewhere there is a road? That road is built privately and paid for by the homeowner or apartment builder. Usage is free based on your paying for the road. Also water, power, sewer, firefighting access are all built by private contractors and you paid for them. The exception is like rt 666 which is built by the government taxes. So we have millions of miles of roads, sewers, water and electric and cable systems all built privately and fully paid for by individuals. The government demands this as the cost of authorizing construction.

  4. James,

    Great QFC. Eagerly awaiting the Shakespeare authorship episode. For CR members that enjoy reading about literary intrigue, read “Shelley Unbound: Discovering Frankenstein’s True Creator”, by Scott D. de Hart. Listening to your brief thoughts reminded me of your comments regarding Thomas Paine being the true author of the Declaration of Independence. Please do an episode on that topic!

  5. Please please please do a podcast on the True Authorship of Shakespearian works.

    • the authorship question has been solved : Sir Henry Neville (1562-1615), also grandfather of the (homonymous) author of Plato Redivivus.

      A house with Plantagenet lineage (from John of Gaunt), intermarried with several key families in the later creation of Anglo-Venetia proper (the City of London), above all the Cecils, while the author himself was an investor in the establishment of the colony of Virginia, inter multa alia.

      The case is set forth in a single tome published in 2005, complex but still quite readable :

      Brenda James & William Rubinstein, The Truth Will Out : Unmasking the Real Shakespeare (Pearson Longman)
      ISBN-13 : 978-1-4058-2437-8
      ISBN-10 : 1-4058-2437-9

      The completeness of the identification extends to many small but highly significant details ; that despite his very modest means and even more dubious character, William Shakespeare was a relative of the Nevilles (through his mother) and the two families owned adjacent properties in Berkshire (albeit the Shakespeare holding a tiny plot compared to the Neville latifundium)

      • This http://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/wp-content/uploads/Oxfordian2012_Rubenstein_Neville.pdf doesnt begin to compare with the case for de Vere. Goodness. He ‘toured Italy’ and that’s how learned so many intimate details about the aristocracy, geography, the layout of streets? Read Hamlet and then compare to de Vere’s life and then see what you think. And that’s just the start of the parallels.

        Here’s a copy of the comment I just left on yt: I’ve read up on this.. The best reads (for me) so far have been “Shakespeare Identified” by Looney -online in pdf. Ogburn’s “The Mysterious William Shakespeare” is excellent. Diana Price’s “Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography’, “Shakespeare’s Lost Kingdom” by Beauclerk. “Shakespeare Suppressed” by Chiljan, “Shakespeare by Another Name” by Anderson (is on p2p). And the one Im reading atm “The Shakespeare Guide To Italy: Retracing The Bard’s Unknown Travels” by Roe, the conclusions of which show that whomever wrote the works spent a lot of time there. As many of the plays (10)are set in Italy as In England.

        No other person put forth as a possible candidate is nearly as compelling as the case for Edward de Vere, so far (the books mentioned above deal with him) because of the number of striking parallels between the works and the events of his life. I think after anyone reads up and compares they will find Oxford is far and away the most likely candidate.

        • Thanks Alucientes, I’ve not read anything about the de Vere case and will look into it.

          However your comment on the Italian tour does a disservice to the James & Rubinstein case for Neville. Most of their book is focused on a detailed chronological and content comparison between Neville’s life and the original performances of each of the plays, with some amazing correspondences — perhaps most of all the convergence of the France / French court plays (which include passages in French) with Neville’s stint as Eliz. I ambassador to France.
          But for all that in its superb attention to detail, the most meaty pieces of evidence are documentary, analysis of the Sonnets dedicated to Lord Southampton, and prosopographic studies — by which I mean everyone connected with the eventual publication of the plays being relatives or friends of Neville.
          After the failure of the Essex plot everyone involved was quickly executed or pardoned, excepting only Southampton and Neville, who were confined to the Tower for several years pending execution, but eventually pardoned. The authors make an excellent case for the author of the Sonnets having formed a particularly close friendship with Southampton under such perilous circumstances, as well as pointing out that the chronology of the “entowerment” coincides with the great division in the character of the plays between buffoonery + nationalistic historical, to authentic and profound tragedy, beginning of course with Hamlet.

          But still, the documents they present are compelling and read in conjunction with the rest the overall case is overwhelming. I’d advise you to read the book and see these documents.

          To each his own in judging the compelling (and non), and again thanks for pointing out alternatives I haven’t investigated.
          But its so wrong to be so trivializing and dismissive of such a great case, unless you’ve read it, understood it and can dismantle it in detail, or with decisive facts that the authors may have overlooked or (God forbid!) suppressed.

        • I see that in focusing on a summary of the James/Rubinstein case I forgot to address the main point you raised and why I regard it as insignificant to the point of trivial.

          It fallaciously assumes that the minute localized details of the Italian plays must be due to the author’s personal observation alone.

          The author should evidently have been familiar with some Italian towns from personal experience, and acquired a fairly deep or abiding interest in north Italian culture. To this extent the biography of a “contender” must match. But no more than that. A writer with such interests could, and should, have fleshed out his personal knowledge in conversation with other well traveled Englishmen ; but above all with northern Italians resident in England.
          In fact the Tudor 16th century is the era of the beginnings of Anglo-Venetia under the impulse of the War of the League of Cambrai, so disastrous to Venetian power and prosperity. We can ignore for present purposes whether they brought that down on their own heads. Nevertheless in subsequent decades several of the wealthiest Venetian oligarchic houses transferred themselves and their retinues and their all-important fondi to London, where they wasted little time inter-marrying with locals who mattered, in Anglicizing themselves and in Venetianizing the English upper classes.

  6. James, I also highly recommend That Hideous Strength. It’s the third book of Lewis’s Space Trilogy (Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra are the other two) and though it might be better to read them in order, you can still read the third book on its own as it is loosely independent of the other two.

    Surprised by Joy is by far the least engaging book by C.S. Lewis I have ever read and is definitely the worst one to judge his writings by. If I recall correctly, he did not want to write about himself because he didn’t believe it would result in a good book and he was probably right. If you want to gain some insight into his conversion to theism or arguments against atheism, you’ll find he does this much better in his other writings. That Hideous Strength indirectly touches on this theme as well, but more directly it is about the controlling and shaping of society.

    Keep up the good work!

    • Upon further thought, I would say Till We Have Faces might be the best introduction into Lewis’s writing. If you don’t already appreciate his theology and philosophy, then many of his books will be difficult to grasp – even confusing. Till We Have Faces is a Greek story which Lewis retells and may be his most beautifully written books in terms of pure literature.

  7. James, If you’re allusions to people who look at one video and commit a logical fallacy, concluding that since that video is a fraud, a certain event didn’t happen–ridiculously vague–refer to Sandy Hoax/Boston Non-Bombing, you are still missing the mark.

    If you have not looked into those two faux events, you should do so. We are NOT talking about analyzing one snippet of a video.

  8. In further reference to C.S. Lewis, there is a podcast on The Mind Renewed website that is related to C.S.Lewis. I believe it is pocast number 100. I too have read Lewis’ Space Trilogy, and would heartily concur with the above sentiments regarding the trilogy. I have found it worthwhile enough to have read it more than once. I believe that it was Lewis who is believed to have said that any good book is worth reading more than once.

    Again, thanks for all your tremendous work, James (and Broc!), and good to see a fellow Aussie with you!!
    Trust the new abode is working well, and that the settling in process is going well.

  9. RE: C.S. Lewis
    Dear James,
    As learned as you are, I was surprised that you have not read C.S. Lewis’ “The Screwtape Letters.” When you have some time this summer (as if that it possible with your schedule), I highly recommend it.
    I, too, was not thrilled by “Surprised by Joy,” but “The Screwtape Letters” is an essential in any library of English literature.
    Thank you for all you do.

  10. Yes, Steebs (and James), I agree. I don’t care what Molyneux thinks either, but his audience is huge and the way he just dismissed the topic as unimportant will have an influence on his listeners.

    I also thought it was interesting that he holds that viewpoint, considering the fact that he is a frequent guest and guest host on many other alt-media shows. He even had G. Edward Griffin on his show recently, who definitely seems to be on the side of 911 truth. If Griffin knew Stefan’s stance on 911, vaccines, GMOs, etc., I can’t imagine he would have still done the interview.

  11. James,
    Please do not attempt to discuss the authorship of the works attributed to Shakespeare until you read:
    Shakespeare’s Secret Messiah by Joseph Atwill
    https://www.createspace.com/4750898, also available as a Kindle book
    Shakespeare’s Dark Lady: Amelia Bassano Lanier: The Woman Behind Shakespeare’s Plays?
    by John Hudson, also available in Kindle format.

    This article is actually a good introduction:

    Neither author cited above claims that Emilia Bassano Lanier was the sole author of Shakespeare’s works, but they cite evidence that she at least participated in the authorship of some of the works, including the Sonnets.

    Joe Atwill, author of “Caesar’s Messiah”, and Jerry Russell collaborate on an excellent website and host weekly podcasts.

    I also suggest that you don’t do an episode on “The Catcher in the Rye” on FLNWO without reading Atwill’s two “Catcher” articles on postflaviana.org. If you ever do discuss “Catcher” or “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, I suggest Joe Atwill as a guest commentator.

    Joe also collaborates with Jan Irvin on podcasts that can be found on gnosticmedia.com.

    • I have watched “Caesar’s Messiah” video many times, because being raised as a Catholic, it was work to overcome the indoctrination, even though I had no involvement with it since childhood. Like Atwill, I was a student of Latin and computer science, so I have a strong sense for how he uses logic to piece together the picture. I still reread portions of the book routinely. The historicity and actuality of Jesus Christ has been the object of perhaps the greatest psyops of all time. Apparently, Christianity has been well understood in a small portion of the population to be based on sheer myth, as an open secret.

      What Atwill did, that makes this so powerful, was the discovery that a pattern of literary clues is laid out in the dominant written works of circa 1st century Roman. Publishing a book was like building a building. The typical person lived in a very small world, informed and terrified (no exaggeration) by the Church. What little there was to read for the rare individual who could read, belonged to the Church, and most of them did not read it much. For the Roman government to take control of publishing was quite feasible. This is why the only existent records of the rebels, the Jews, were not found until recently (Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.). This was a world where people were to believe based on a very centralized authority on pain of death, but the power was limited and brutal until the discovery that the art form of religion, of myth making, could be so much more powerful and efficient than mere terror and intimidation.

      The most valuable door he opens is on the history of the practice of farming people.

      Yes, please James, invite Atwill for an interview.

  12. I would like to say something about Steven’s response to private streets. In previous QFC I had a question , which was not exactly about the roads but was more about how to control powerful companies, entities in stateless society.

    “Stairs problem” is in fact already solved with the right of Easement. I think it’s a good solution and public ownership of stairs would just make another problems like who is in charge of maintenance… Private street you are mentioning is in fact dead end street with almost no usefulness for public. If you are showing this as a case for private roads then it is not overstretched for me to say that this is not a street or a road but just paved backyard of owners involved.
    Regarding “evil capitalist overcharging” we can just look at medical industry. Of course it is highly regulated industry and some part can be attributed to this, but not everything. People want to be healthy, to stay alive and medical industry is abusing this. There are more cases: market manipulation in California electricity crisis , or recent oil prices manipulation and many more known and unknown. Do you really think all of these would be impossible in genuine free market? I’m not proponent of planned economy but on the other hand I’m not praising free markets.

    In previous QFC James gave a link to very interesting article The Myth of Natural Monopoly . I found some flaws in it.
    Article is building its case on positive free market examples from 19th and beginning of 20th century and showing how regulation distorted free markets later. What is not mentioned is substantial change of basic circumstances. In the first period there were expanding markets, expansion to the West, growing cities, big immigration, new not established industries, unsaturated markets, lots of opportunities…Situation now is almost the opposite. Arguing that something that worked then will certainly work now or in the future in different circumstances is unsubstantiated. The only thing that is certain in economy: you cannot be sure until you try.
    Next problematic claim in the article is in section “The problem of excessive duplication”. There is a claim that government can’t determine correct price for using public land for infrastructure because of “impossibility of rational economic calculation within socialistic institutions”. Only with privately owned land such a calculation is possible they claim. The truth is that no one has all the information needed to make Calculation. Problem is usually solved with auction and this can be done with publicly or privately owned land. Otherwise, in case of one infrastructure investor, government or private owner arbitrarily decide how much they are demanding from investor or, maybe, are they accepting investors offer. Also, in case of absolute land property right there wouldn’t be many oil pipelines I believe. There are not many owners who would risk an oil leak on their land.
    Praising of completion in the article (more then 100 instances) bothers me most, especially when thinking about usefulness of solutions proposed in stateless society.
    Competition is double-edged sword. It can provide best products and services for best price. But companies to get competitive advantage can resort to strategies, which are bad for society. For example lowering wages, exporting jobs, destruction of environment,….
    Competition also leads to bankruptcies that are not just private problem. With every bankruptcy at least some wealth is lost and that is bad for society.
    And finally, I’m quite sure stateless society will be much more about cooperation – not one instance present in the article. Cooperation, the opposite of competition.
    There is an interesting article The case against the competition . But I believe the path of wisdom lays somewhere in between.

  13. #QFC:

    Hi James,

    When are you going to finish the book you are writing on the New World Order?

    I am really looking forward to reading it! I am also really looking forward to passing along copies of it to friends. I think giving them a book on this topic instead of just sending them a link would bring more gravitas to it.

    Thanks for all you do!

    • Just to elaborate a little:
      The reason I visited your site for the first time was because I already knew about the NWO via Edward Griffin and some time later I heard an interview with you on the alt media and I thought: “This guy knows his stuff”. More specifically, I visited your site for the first time because you said in that interview you were writing a book on the NWO and I KNEW I had to read that book. Later I found out you had already said a number of years prior that the book was forthcoming. Therefore I am wondering if you have some kind of concrete plan or concrete steps to finish it, or if I have to keep waiting in limbo, or if I just have to give up on the idea altogether and have peace with that it’s not going to happen? I really really hope the latter is not the case. If you were to ask me, my suggestion would be that the number of videos, articles and podcasts you produce now is enormous so it would be perfectly fine if you would produce a little less on that front so you can make some time free to get the job done. Please just write/finish the book!

  14. As an engineer who has spent a great deal of time investigating the available data in an effort to understand the cause of the total collapse of the 3 buildings, I contacted Dr. Wood. At first, she was friendly and helpful. That lasted until I expressed some questions about her thinking, when she became very defensive and un-helpful. I wrote that off to a misperception on her part, not unusual among well intentioned people. What I know of her ideas is that they are founded in the strangeness of the photo evidence, and I agree there are strange things. She stated to me that the photo evidence of steel melting was all faked, which is nonsense. The physical evidence for melted steel is simply undeniable, but she likes to say it was “dustified”. I suspect that Dr. Wood read the writing on the wall and concluded that supporting the powers that (shouldn’t) be would be wise, likewise Stefan Molyneaux. Obviously, the powers did not wish to be credited for controlled demolition, so she invoked the Hutchison Effect (with which I was already familiar), and “directed energy”, a term with almost no particular meaning, to explain the destruction and muddy the waters. I cannot rule out the possibility that Hutchison has discovered something important, but because he was not operating as a scientist (publication, much independent replication, conferences, etc.), I have to reserve a lot of doubt there. For Wood to reach a CONCLUSION that this and other mysterious effects can be the only possible explanations for building collapse is clearly dishonest. She is not stupid, which is the only other explanation I can imagine for her statements.

    While the usual thought-stopper of invoking the dreaded term “cold fusion” is an effective (and unfair) way to discredit Steven Jones, former BYU physicist, he was working on muon catalyzed fusion, which was known as “cold fusion” (a well accepted concept and label) long before that moniker was “wished upon” Fleischmann and Pons by the media and a confused bunch of academics who believed that Jones was doing the same thing as P&F. Mocking and “decredentialising” Jones (as you did), who has gone to great lengths to avoid insulting the ridiculously sensitive Wood, does you no credit.

    To maintain that Wood’s book of mostly photos is “the only forensic investigation” of the WTC destruction in the public domain is beyond ludicrous. Nanothermite is a real weapon, developed by US military contractors: http://911speakout.org/7TOCPJ.pdf
    This peer-reviewed published article is all forensic analysis, of many appropriate kinds. We see hard evidence, replication of the investigation, many scientist authors of the article, publication in many venues and much discussion by qualified individuals. I conclude that the active thermetic material found in the dust must have been produced in a very well equipped lab. It certainly did not spontaneously form from a destructive event. Chemical reactions are not spontaneously driven in the direction of creating more complex and unstable energetic compounds, like thermite, quite the opposite. Explosions do not decrease entropy.

    • Yes, my apologies to the moderator also.

      The context of this discussion is one that recognizes the reality of false flag, psyop, etc. history. If WTC demo was part of a psyop, then people posting here are reasonably expected to be agents of agendas which would seem ridiculous in a less bizarre world. That being the case, this cannot be treated as a mere academic discussion. We are the objects of intense and merciless disinformation, because it is expedient.

      People really do make decisions from Realpolitik perspective, and that is the kind of justification used for distorting valid scientific data. In this case, I cannot claim expertise. I took in enough of Dr. Wood, with at least an hour on her website over a few visits and a few emails exchanged, to consider it highly unlikely that fruitful discussion would ensue.

      To explain a physical event in terms of physics that the government must have available (Hutchison) and is unspecified, is to brainstorm, not theorize. It is like saying that the buildings were destroyed by decades accumulation of chewing gum that suddenly, due to a not yet understood phenomenon, became nitroglycerine. Now, disprove that!

      The premises cannot be assumed to be valid, and assumptions must be enumerated and explored. I saw nothing like that, from what I recall. My memory is not perfect, and I do not wish to demean the character of an academic whom I failed to understand, but that seems unlikely.

      Why would you say the nanothermite paper is well-hyped? If you simply look at the photos and spectrometry, this is hard and very significant data. Now, perhaps the dust was really something that was created by Mossad agents, trying to get even with Putin, to provide support to the argument that the towers were not destroyed by death rays from space (a reasonable description of the term Wood used, ‘directed energy’). Is it not more likely that the dust was collected and provided as stated in the forensic research, repeated by several investigators, and published?

      It is plausible that psyoperators would use the vast scientific ignorance of US culture (or simply hi-jacked minds) to shut down 911 truth efforts. It is plausible that Dr. Wood realized that such psyoperators exist and if they wind up on the side that wins, then they were right, as the much praised Machiavelli might say it. There has to be a reason that she cannot see melted (and vaporized) steel. Oh, yeah, that must be in her book.

      When a defender of a thesis resorts to saying over and over, ‘you just need to read our book’ (this is typical of Wood supporters), of the glorious revelations that await your eyes, if you JUST LOOK, I then turn on the disposal because the drain is getting clogged.

      I’ve seen ads for electric thermite matches in professional trade journals, for igniting thermite charges, found in ads in other journals. Ryan and others have assembled such references. It is only a very likely avenue for technology to take. It would be unthinkable that nanothermite would not exist, to be able to tailor make the explosive/incendiary properties of a warhead, would make Pentagon planners salivate. Nanothermite can obviously be done, it obviously was created.

      What do you call a forensic investigation? The investigation done by David Chandler, which led to NIST admitting free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds of WTC7 collapse proved that the building was destroyed by controlled demolition. To cling to Woods’ apron strings and insist that she is the only one who has investigated forensically is sheer disinformation on your part.

      It is possible to just keep repeating the same stuff, like there is not enough gold available to have a gold backed currency, and if it gets the nod from the powers that shouldn’t be, it takes on the appearance of validity. Yep, people disregard Dr. Wood because (whatever), and that’s why they ignore her. Oh, yeah, and read her book, and then you’ll know why. This tactic would maintain a certain noise level and uncertainty in the discussion and in the minds of the curious. We have limited attention spans.

      The notion that Jones scuttled F&P is absurd. F&P were forced under vicious scrutiny caused by not having a published paper at the time of their 3/23/89 press conference. They were wrong about neutrons. Validations were not very forthcoming. A vendetta was launched and succeeded, very well documented by my boss, but it was not Jones doing. I was working for Dr. Eugene Mallove, owner of Cold Fusion Technology after the scuttling of F&P. That claim about Jones only became supposedly credible a few years ago, conceivably as a way to undermine his 911 work. The politics of the firestorm were much more complex than can be appreciated quickly.

      • Apparently, Corbett is not gatekeeping, because you are still posting.

        I am merely pointing out the fallacy of the idea that Jones was some nefarious agent “scuttling” cold fusion. If you will accept that so uncritically, what are we to believe of your wholesale acceptance of Dr. Wood’s claims? My contention is not so much to attack Dr. Wood, but to point out that there are quite possible dire political motivations indicated.

        Where did you get the notion that I worked for Steven Jones? I have had no direct communication with Steven Jones. I recognize Jones as a credible physicist who put his career on the line to bring much needed attention to the WTC anomalies and who previously worked on muon-catalyzed fusion. I worked for Dr. Eugene Mallove, editor of ‘Infinite Energy’ magazine, and owner of Cold Fusion Technology, Inc. I also worked with Steve Krivit, editor of New Energy Times.

        This page documents how Jones and others voted to discredit Fleischmann and Pons. This may support your contention of Jones’ scuttling of F&P, but the gist of the matter is that there was panic to grab as much intellectual property as possible. The administrations of BYU and U of Utah were the ones doing the competing. The faculty members were pawns.

        As was obvious, and became more obvious, F&P were not at all prepared for that fateful press conference (3/23/89). Shooting them down was easy, and the scientists who did so were doing what academics must do: recognize shoddy work and denounce it. How can I label the work of F&P shoddy? They had no paper published or even ready for publication. To do this when making such extraordinary claims was very dangerous. Other scientists were trying to replicate their work using copied VHS of MacNeil-Lehrer News reports of F&P snippets. Even when they were ready to publish, the administration did not encourage revealing too much, out of fear they would lose the head-start they had in some imaginary race they were running.

        So, why would unprepared F&P call a press conference? Because the U. of Utah administration believed that Jones might scoop them, so they forced F&P to do the press conference as an attempt to claim priority over BYU and Jones. Fleischmann was quite outspoken concerning this, and he did everything he could to stop the press conference. He believed that the work should have been classified. The criticisms that were leveled against F&P for doing “science by press conference” were perfectly appropriate and the rage against them in the scientific establishment grew solid roots. The broadside from MIT after their researchers published falsified data from the MIT fusion lab’s replication of the F&P experiment, falsified to make the anomaly disappear, destroyed F&P in the US, so they physically moved to a much more receptive Japan, and eventually France, to continue their work. Eugene Mallove resigned in protest because as Chief Science Writer for MIT at that time, he did not wish to be part of such dirty politics.

        This is the story of MIT’s politicized cold fusion science:
        Jones had nothing to do with this subversion.

        Jones’ research was based on accepted theory that was being explored. It was good science, shared with colleagues, trying to push the envelope. Muon catalyzed fusion was not at all what F&P were thinking. They were working, without revealing their work to anyone else, in their homes, with their own money, because they knew what they were doing was more like a hunch than a well understood approach, an academically acceptable hypothesis. They simply used electrolysis to load as much deuterium nuclei into the lattice of a metal that would accept it (palladium). That loading process was very well established by much empirical evidence. The idea that proximity of the deuterium nuclei in the metal lattice might lead to hydrogen fusion was a notion that developed into a belief when excess heat began to happen in their simple apparatus. It was a wrong belief, most likely, but the anomalous heat, the tritium (especially), and various elemental transmutations, etc. added up to evidence that indicates likely significant gaps in current accepted physical understanding.

        By the time of the press conference, F&P had moved their experiments into U of Utah facilities, and informed the administration (obviously), and were producing remarkable results, including one quite energetic explosion (inadvertently), and a number of runs where the excess heat was so high that it would boil off the electrolyte after power was disconnected. Such experiments, performed by a great many other researchers (www.lenr.org) have a record of difficulty and inconsistency. To me, this indicates that, although there has been something of a recipe developed (like from Dr. Dennis Cravens and Dr. Dennis Letts) to give somewhat reliable outcomes, there is no real clear understanding of theory to explain what is observed (some, like Widom and Larsen, would disagree).

        Also, see the documentary, ‘Fire From Water’, produced by Mallove, for some valuable interview material. It’s on Netflix.

  15. Hello James !

    As a huge fan of your work, and especially the FLNWO-series, I have a question. Where can I find the early episodes, I understand that you have done episodes about “The Insider” and “Blade runner” But they are no where to be found. Could you please direct me on the right path, or if unavailable, PLEASE re-upload them(!)

    Best regards from Stockholm Sweden

  16. #QFC Do you have any episodes of CorbettReport you have had a major change of opinion on? Also, have you had any guests on that you regret because you no longer trust them, don’t believe they were accurate, etc?

  17. #QFC – IIRC, “regular office fires” were blamed for building 7 falling on 9/11. If the official story were true (and I’m not naive enough to think it is) do we know if either building codes or firefighting procedures have changed in the 15 years since?

    Additionally, how could it possibly be justified to build the Freedom Tower (the tallest skyscraper in the Western Hemisphere) when it was just “proven” that regular office fires can bring down steel framed buildings? (and fwiw, Wikipedia does say that Freedom Tower is steel-framed)

    Any idea if these types of questions have been asked of any high level officials and, if so, what the response was?

  18. #QFC – Question regarding the automation of labor. I’ve heard economists talk about how people have worried about this for many years but that their fears are overblown. They argue that automation is always a good thing because it increases productivity, thus lowering the cost to consumers. These same economists, however, also argue that minimum wage laws prevent people from getting on the first rung of the job ladder.

    With robots poised to take over a surprising number of industries (even performing surgery), wouldn’t that problem become more widespread? I think economists would counter-argue the “goods will be so much cheaper that you won’t need to earn a lot of money”. However, the cynical side of me wonders if it’s possible that the rich and powerful will try to use that power to dominate society. Even if not, will they even have the incentive to offer these goods for sale (as why bother wasting your precious time selling stuff if you already have a bunch of robots taking care of your needs – including robots that fix other robots).

    While I like the idea of that robots can free humans from boring jobs, allowing our species to work on more creative things, it seems like all too often things that have great potential end up getting used for destructive purposes.

    Your take on this?

Submit a Comment


Become a Corbett Report member