ST911- Prof Jim Fetzer challenges Prof Steve Jones

[Andrew Johnson]

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/OpenLetterToJones.html

An Open Letter about Steven Jones
by James H. Fetzer
19 November 2006

Friends and Colleagues:

When I founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I invited Steve Jones to serve as co-chair. He has responsibility for co-editing our journal, which he originally founded with Judy Wood as co-editor and me as managing editor, and runs our members' forum, while I maintain our web site at st911.org. He is now planning to take control of the web site from me.

I have raised objections on moral, legal and intellectual grounds and I am categorically opposed to it. But he appears to be persisting in what might be described as a "hostile take over" to control Scholars. Because this is going on behind the scenes and you would otherwise be unaware of this scheme, I am publishing this open letter on st911.org.

The background to this move concerns new research about what happened at the World Trade Center involving hypotheses that differ from those Steve has been investigating and promoting for more than a year now. On 11 November 2006, Judy Wood was my guest on "Non-Random Thoughts" and we discussed new research she and Morgan Reynolds were doing on possible causes of the destruction of the World Trade Center, which involves the use of high-tech, directed energy-weaponry. I put up links to their research, which are available on our web site under "Events" for that date. Right or wrong, this is fascinating stuff, which I even discussed during lectures in Tucson the next two days:

Dr. James Fetzer: Did Classified Weaponry Destroy the Twin Towers?

On 15 November 2006, I invited Steve to come on a new program that I will be hosting on gcnlive.com with Kevin Barrett. "The Dynamic Duo" will be broadcast from 3-5 PM/CT. Kevin will host on M/F and I will host on T/W/Th. This new approach is so fascinating that I wanted Judy, Morgan and Steve to be my guests 28, 29, and 30 November 2006 with consecutive appearances on those days. Judy and Morgan agreed, but Steve has not, and, in a series of email exchanges, he began to raise questions about my management of the web site, where he seems to think any new idea that is controversial requires some kind of counterbalancing opinion. These are new views, of course, and the purpose of inviting him onto the program was for that very purpose!

Steve appears to be committing the blunder of supposing that the web site, like the journal, should include only finished research reports, which are fully referenced and formally presented. That is all wrong, because the web site and the journal have entirely different functions. The journal is for peer-reviewed studies. The web site is for current events and recent developments to keep the public informed about what is going on within the research community in its exploratory stages, including mini-nukes and high-tech weapons, which may or may not "pan out" and reach stages of development suitable for journal publication.

What is ironic about his attitude toward "unfinished research" is that he repeatedly characterizes his own studies of the use of thermite (in a sulfur-enhanced version known as "thermate") as both preliminary and incomplete. If that is the case, then by his own standard, there is a serious question whether his own research is ready for prime time! It is also worth mention that he has revised his basic paper on numerous occasions, which, to the best of my knowledge, have not been subject to additional peer review. If we only mention or discuss finished research on st911.org, there is a serious question whether Steve's work properly qualifies for inclusion in the journal he edits, much less the web site.

The hardest part of scientific inquiry is the stage of speculation in coming up with alternative hypotheses as possible explanations for the phenomena under consideration. Here we are talking about the complete destruction of two 500,000-ton buildings and five other structures the demolition of which is seldom mentioned in public discourse. Judy and Morgan have discovered the WTC was constructed in an enormous "bathtub" to create a barrier to protect the site from overflow of water from the Hudson River, which would have flooded PATH TRAIN tunnels and subways throughout Manhattan. To avoid this catastrophe, it appears to have been indispensable to turn 4/5 of the towers to dust and demolish just 1/5 by more conventional means, such as those Steve Jones has advanced.

Critics seem to be deriving a lot of mileage from my having described this new research as "Fascinating!" What I meant by that--as I think anyone who listens to the program can discern--is that the importance of the bathtub and the completeness of the destruction of the World Trade Center, where it looks as though every building with a "WTC" designation was targeted for devastation, greatly expands the scope of the evidence regarding what has to be explained (in philosophical language, it broadens and redefines the explanandum for any potential explanans, where the explanandum describes what is to be explained and the explanans offers the initial conditions and laws advanced to explain them). This is an enormous advance and is truly fascinating!

11 November 2006
Interview: Judy Wood will be the guest on "Non-Random Thoughts" with host Jim Fetzer
Related: The Star Wars Beam Weapon
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam2.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam3.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam4.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam5.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam6.html
http://rbnlive.com

You don't have to be a philosopher of science to understand that, in a scientific investigation of the events of 9/11, the range of alternative explanations that might possibly explain the explanandum must include not only (a) jet-plane-impacts/jet-fuel-fire/pancake collapse hypotheses and (b) classic controlled demolition from the bottom up hypotheses but (c) non-classic controlled demolition from the top-down hypotheses. It should be clear that these, in turn, can be refined in terms of (c-1) non-classic controlled demolition from the top-down using thermate and other conventional explosives, (c-2) non-classic controlled demolition from the top-down using mini-nukes, and (c-3) non-classic controlled demolition from the top-down using directed energy weapons. All of these deserve consideration and, to the the best of my knowledge, none of (c-1) to (c-3) has been refuted at this stage of scientific inquiry.

During the course of her interview with me, Judy suggested that the source of the energy required might possibly have been based in space. This is not as fanciful as it might sound, insofar as the US has been pursuing "full spectrum dominance" (of air, sea, land and space!) for some period of time. The very idea of space-based weapons strikes many people as a stretch, if not absurd. But they are trotting out a lot of the same kinds of ridicule and sarcasm as apologists for the official government's account have been advancing to attack those of use who are critics of what we have been told, which is supposed to be "completely ridiculous"! Just listen to O'Reilly or Hannity & Colmes! If we don't consider the full range of possible alternative explanans, we may arrive at false conclusions by eliminating the true hypothesis from serious consideration because it seems farfetched or even absurd.

Cutting-steel using thermate and disintegration-of-steel via directed energy weapons, of course, are different kinds of causal mechanisms, where we have visual evidence of disintegration at work, which may be found on Judy's site and is included in the 16-minute segment from my second lecture in Tucson, a link to which I have given above. Indeed, Judy appears to have done far more to develop her "proof of concept" than has Steve. Some of these research preliminaries are archived:

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsAppendix1.html#Possibilities

Indeed, prototypes have been built and tested, beginning as long ago as 1991! Videos and links to other videos demonstrating the use of Ground Based Lasers (GBLs) may also be found at several links here:

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam6.html#possible
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsAppendix2.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsAppendix3.html

Appendix2, for example, includes this about Space Based Lasers (SBLs):

"Talon Gold achieved performance levels equivalent to that needed for the SBL. In 1991, the space-borne Relay Mirror Experiment (RME), relayed a low-power laser beam from a ground site to low-earth orbit and back down to a scoring target board at another location with greater pointing accuracy and beam stability than needed by SBL."

The specific weapons used to destroy the WTC could have been ground based or space based. Judy tends to believe that, whether it was the use of a mirror to reflect an energy beam from Earth or a space-based energy source, it came from above. (My own opinion is that WTC-7 may have played a crucial role here.) If someone suggests that this sounds "loony" or "far out" to them, then I would ask, "How do you know that she's wrong?" It would be scientifically irresponsible not to consider an hypothesis that poses such an intriguing alternative to account for demolishing the WTC, especially given all the evidence she has adduced.

His desire to keep discussion of new, controversial approaches from the public appears to have motivated his attempt to take-over the web site. Personally, I find this rather odd, since all of our research on the events of 9/11 qualifies as "controversial" and the public is entitled to know about new research at the cutting edge. As I have explained in email exchanges, especially, "An Open Letter to Steve Jones", his attempt to take over the site is morally, legally, and intellectually objectionable on many grounds, including that it qualifies as taking something that does not belong to him. I created st911.org and have maintained it from scratch. Because this would affect everyone with a serious interest in Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I am exposing it here.

To the best of my knowledge, Steve has found support among perhaps ten or twelve members of Scholars who are active on the forum. Since our current membership approximates 400, this does not appear to be the majority view. Splinter groups often form when dealing with complex and controversial issues, especially when they have ramifications of a political kind. Everyone who has joined Scholars has joined with the current web site and management of st911.org. If he thinks that he can do better, then I encourage him to resign from Scholars and create his own site. But he should not attempt to take control of a site that I created and maintain, which would display the virtues of theft over honest toil. Those who have opinions they want to express about all this can email hardevidence@gmail.com or jfetzer@d.umn.edu.

James H. Fetzer
Founder and Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth

[chek]

Hmmm, so first we have the Rep-lite Dems 'winning' the election and acting as a lighning rod to ground a lot of the ambient 'Bush hatred' in the US.

Then secondly, within weeks, the 911 Truth movement splits itself over an invisible and unproven technolgy theory.

It would behove us as a movement to be careful about what mast we nail our colours to, and remember that apart from the theories of 'how', the sheer ineptitude of the OCT must remain the main focus.

You just know something's up when TTWSU3 becomes an 'authority'.

[Andrew Johnson]

It's always better to debate evidence than personalities - however "way out" the conclusion may seem.

To describe TSWU3 as "an authority" would mean that anyone who does the most ragging or makes the most noise is "an authority".

I don't think he claims to be an authority. He is trying, in his own way, to suggest people look at the evidence. Instead, his methods, like others, simply lead to a "slanging match", where points of evidence are rarely discussed.

I would suggest readers consider the situation carefully, now that Fetzer has laid his cards on the table. Check into both Fetzer's and jones' background. I have, in the past, communicated with Fetzer, Jones and others "in the pack" so I can tell you there is a lot of bad stuff flying around. Now is not the time for jumping to conclusions about people - but do look at the evidence.

[John White]

[John White]

[Andrew Johnson]

Jones and others try to point out that The Beam Weapon evidence hinges on the Bath tub evidence - it doesn't, even though we know Lower Manhattan didn't flood.

Cars don't naturally burn on one side only - etc etc. I've listed all this before anyway.

Check out the Iraq Weapons video as well as what was done in the SDI programme in the 80's (and what was disclosed)

Think of this as "cui bono" in reverse too (as well as the evidence, I mean).

The truth has always been in crisis - wherever there is "Rule by Secrecy" as have had for the last 100 years and more.

The "movement" - whatever that is - is only "damaged" when certain opinions - correct or incorrect - become unpopular. Politics is history with this issue, if you ask me. Who's damaging who? Who's the good guys and who's the bad? We each must make our own decisions.

[John White]

[utopiated]

Wow. More scholars wrangling, all fairly healthy though. Fetzer ex-marine talks of "hostile take-overs"

It's like Edison and Tesla and Einstein and the new heretical Quantum Theorists when they arrived.

We all like to hold on to belief systems... or we like to live in binary worlds of on/off - right/wrong explanations. Easier that way.

Good topic area covering some of this here...

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5484&postdays=0&post order=asc&start=0

This data is the most compelling I've seen and feel's intutively right.

[Andrew Johnson]

[Hazzard]

Jim Fetzer has proved to be either ignorant, or controlled opposition.

http://www.jackbloodforum.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=10707

This is the forum I belong to. We have already come to this conclusion. It seems Fetzer is being a strawman.

[utopiated]

[John White]

[utopiated]

[brian]

Woods and Reynolds are documented liars. The paper attacking Jones should have been enough for everyone to write them off.

Can anyone point out what harm if any Jones has done to the movement?

[John White]

[andrewwatson]

I too have corresponded with Judy Wood. I didn't get the impression she was exactly 'reluctant' to publish the Beam weapons paper. She seems genuinely enthused, but might be excused for being a little nervous.

If you mean she is reluctant to get drawn into a 'war' over Jones' work, then I would agree. The flak she has had for this work is out of all proportion. How can it be wrong to seek answers? Isn't that what Jones was doing with his thermate theory, but he wasn't called COINTELPRO?

[chek]

Having stepped back and looked at this situation a couple of hours, my opinion, for what its worth is that it's a mighty distraction.

It can be overcome, once the excitement (that Fetzer seems to be generating by his going public) dies down. The Scholars do need to have some heads banged together as the available evidence supporting any complete theory isn't strong enough to fall out over.

Of course the Twin Towers were demolished - but how remains an open question. Did they tamp the core columns at intervals with rockwool and fill them up with thermate?
Or was it some microwave or nanowave DEW we are completely unaware of? Or some combination? We don't know.

What we DO know however, is that even if Building 7 was raging like a roman candle (it wasn't) it could not fall the way it did except by design.

Building 7 is the Achilles heel that needs to be concentrated on and is the most suspicious event. The rest will follow from that.

That is what we as a movement need to cry havoc about, imho, the Towers can come later once more evidence is gathered (i.e. perps start talking under oath).

It's certainly not worth splitting the 911 movement over competing and unproved theories regarding the Towers.

[Banish]

Mightn't be as crazy as it seems. Google Raytheon Heat Beam Weapon.

http://boston.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2004/11/29/daily30.html



http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=0&p=28237&s2=14

[utopiated]

Mmmmm... tasty. Good old Raytheon.

For a few dollars more... always ready to design something more lethal.

[andrewwatson]

[spiv]

I think it is such a pity that the worldwide 9/11 Truth Movement always seems to try to tear itself apart. Of course, this is exactly what the establishment wants, and no doubt laughs every time a fracture occurs.

However, all of us, as one, must not lose sight of one simple straightforward irrefutable fact. None of us know the full facts behind that dark day of 9/11. We all know, however, that 9/11 could not have occurred in the way it has been reported by the 9/11 commission.

We should stick with that, and press all our politicians, but in particular the American ones, to call for a thorough, complete and independent inquiry into the evidence and testimony available, and report on the truth. OK, if the truth is that 19 Arabs conspired with a 'man in a cave', then so be it. On the other hand, if the real perpetrators are still at large, then they need to be apprehended and tried accordingly.

So whatever the 'beliefs' we individually hold as to what happened that day, whether we be 'no-planers', 'particle beamers', 'controlled demolishers', 'LIHOPs', 'MIHOPS' or any category of just 'conspiracy theorists', we must realise and understand that none of us know the truth, and we should not deter this from our one simple single-minded demand, that a full and proper inquiry be set up and held, which does not shirk from turning over any stone in its quest for the answers.

Neither Professor Jones, Jim Fetzer, Judy Wood, Ray Griffin, Alex Jones, you nor I can establish the facts, and I just don’t know why we all seem intent on trying to. However, what we have established is that the 9/11 official explanation is not correct - physics itself (in my opinion) reveals it a lie!!

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[Rabbie McM]

[outsider]

My mole, Dan 'Scoop' Dare, Intergalactic Weapons Correspondent on the Beano, has assured me (in strictest confidence, but I know you can be trusted) that Beam technology has progressed leaps and bounds. The protons, photons and megatrons have now been trained to perfectly mimick controlled demolition, thermite and thermate effects (to assuage my incredulity, he ran me through '911 Eyewitness Hoboken' and 'Confronting the Evidence' - sure enough, I would have been fooled, just as the surviving firemen from the Twin Towers were fooled about explosives blowing them down stairs, or earthquake-like earth tremors, 'squibs' and light flashes). Dan also told me that his contact in Washington, 'Lon' Cheney swears his Neo-Con mates are not splitting their sides as we destroy what credibility we have. Straight up!

[Andrew Johnson]

[John White]

[Patrick Brown]

Divide and conquer is the technique being utillised here and has always been used by those that abuse positions of power. Jones theory is very good and for many truthers may well be their foundation for joining the campaign. It's wise to be cautious though as all we can say at this time is that Jones ideas are the most plausibly and we should remain open minded.

Other peoples comments on this thread refer to the general obsurdity of the events of 911 and this is what will get most people questioning the OCT. Building 7 is certainly compelling evidence for the CD theory and there are many reports of, seemingly timed, repetitious bangs / booms / explosions from many witnesses. Random explosion are one thing but bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang points to CD.

I think above and beyond all this one needs to remember to keep working on getting the message out. That message being the events of 911 stink and if nothing else should be seen as a warning.

The beast that is buSINess, greed and power is out of control and the political game of democracy has been hijacked by these people. The western world is now living in a DEMONocracy and if we wish to survive we need to put the beast back in his box and demand that governments function independently of business.

Correctly the the 911 movement is a revolution rather than a campaign? Time to evolve? Perhaps? Revolve, reinstate, flow, move and turn are better words to define the work ahead. Just remember without movement and flow what we have (society) will stagnate and turn to poison.

[ian neal]

[Thermate]

I think its a distraction to get into the precise method of demolition, focus instead on the fact that it WAS demolished, the official conspiracy theory is a lie, and we want a new unbiased and full investigation.

Any of the 80 countries who lost citizens in 911 have a right to conduct an investigation, but who among them will stand against the US?