The Recent History of Scholars for 9/11 Truth

[Veronica]

As you may or may not know, the Scholars for 9/11 Truth was founded by Prof. Jim Fetzer, as a means of collecting together scientists, physicists, engineers, writers and researchers (etc.) who did not believe the Official (Government) Conspiracy Theory of 9/11 (OGCT) (aka "the most outrageous Conspiracy Theory of all").

The idea was to use 'scientific methods' to pull apart the OGCT , "letting the chips fall where they may".

I doubt that anyone could refute these admirable intentions.

During the founding process, many OGCT 'disbelievers' joined the group - such people as Prof. Morgan Reynolds, Prof. Judy Wood, Col. George Nelson, Webster Tarpley, Prof. David Ray Griffin … to name but a few.

The group grew, to the point where it is now some 400 members strong.

One of the actions Prof. Fetzer took was to offer Prof. Steven Jones a position as Co-Chair.

In this format the ST911.org Website was created, and a 'members only' Forum was established.

The Website and Wikipedia entry were maintained by Jim Fetzer, and the Forum was run by Steven Jones. (Actually when I say Wikipedia was maintained by Jim, I would be more accurate in saying he TRIED to maintain it. Like countless other disallusioned people, he discovered that Wikipedia itself is not a level playing field, and that it thwarted every attempt at correcting erroneous statements about the Scholars. To this day his updates have not been successful)

Back in early 2006 the idea of running a Journal was established, where submissions (in the form of Scholarly Papers) were to be peer-reviewed, and included if they passed tests based on their use of 'scientific method' to establish conclusions. Steven Jones was responsible for managing this Journal of 9/11 Studies.

In mid 2006 things started to fall apart, insofar as Scholarly Papers such as Judy Wood's "Billiard Balls Example" were (apparently) rejected for inclusion in the Journal, even though anyone reading it would consider it to be up to normal scientific standards.

It seemed as though the problem was that, although Judy was relying on the solid physics & mathematics of people like Galileo and Sir Isaac Newton, this was insufficient for Steven Jones to accept. (I understand that Steven Jones referred to calculations based on the Law of Gravity as a "weak argument").

This was only one example of situations in which people like Judy and Morgan found themselves 'shelved indefinitely' - apparently on the basis that their work did not complement Steven Jones' research - and in some cases actually confronted it.

'Scientific method' does not depend of personalities, and the likes and dislikes of any particular scientist or physicist. I suggest that people such as that should remain open-minded until cast-iron proof has been obtained. In the interim, ALL hypotheses are equally valid, and should not be subjected to the whim of one or two people. Only in this way - where ALL hypotheses are valid, until one proves itself beyond reasonable doubt - is it possible to establish a level playing field, such that the "chips can fall where they may".

Requests on the basis of "You do your research, allow us to do ours" fell on deaf ears.

On the basis of this skewed playing field presented to them, Prof. Reynolds and Prof. Wood resigned. (Along with a couple of others, Ginny Howard the Membership Secretary, and myself).

In a situation such as this, it is not surprising that Jim Fetzer felt the need to support his Co-Chair, Steven Jones.

However things have since moved on. On the one hand a splinter group has, we feel, proved the No-planes position without any conceivable doubt, and on the other hand Morgan & Judy have launched their explanation of the use of 'unconventional devices' causing the destruction of the Twin Towers.

The latter (well, actually both) of these research thrusts more or less destroy Prof. Jones' position in terms of his research, perhaps the Reynolds/Wood research more than the former.

If Steven Jones would adhere to scientific principles, using 'best evidence' where no 'hard evidence' exists, then there would not be a problem. However, in recent times he has patently shown that he will hear of no alternatives to his own research, which could never explain the demise of those Towers in all respects.

Jim Fetzer has now, it seems, realised this. He has looked at the Reynolds/Wood Research and can see that (a) It applies scientific method, starting from available data, and working backward (even could be called 'Crime Scene' methodology), and (b) That it should therefore encouraged and - at the very least - taken to its furthest conclusion.

Prof. Fetzer is therefore adhering to the original Scholars Platform - the use of 'scientific method' and to 'letting the chips fall where they may'.

This has now brought him into conflict with his Co-Chair. Details here. As with every group, affiliations will form and, because Steven Jones' contacts have been more personal (via the Forum), he seems to be drumming up support for a 'take-over'.

This post is therefore to put you in the picture, as best I can explain it, and to point out to you that it is "make your mind up time", whether or not you are a member of ST911.

Do you support Prof. Jones' finagling, or do you support Prof. Fetzer retaining his group, and operating along impartial lines?

You can show you support by VERY CAREFULLY READING what I have said, and replying to this post.

As a rider I can only say that - at the time of our resignations - a lot of recriminations were flung about. But NONE of us have ever wanted to see the demise of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. All that was ever requested was the level playing field.

For me to make this announcement, and to suggest supporting Prof. Fetzer, WE ARE ALL OF US (who were involved) swallowing a lot of pride, on the basis of supporting the fundamentals of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

[John White]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Victoria is expressing herself with great Clarity - John as usual is waffle and bluster

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

I should say Veronica

[chek]

[flamesong]

[Rabbie McM]

I am watching events with interest Veronica regarding Fetzer's open letter.

I am reserving judgement at this time though as to just what exactly is going on with the scholars and the "movement."

Yes, call it sitting on the fence....

[Andrew Johnson]

Might I suggest these issues are best dealt with by pointing out factual errors and when possible references to correct them?

No one is obliged to answer anyones elses questions on this message board. It is entirely run and contributed to by volunteers.

Veronica and myself have been party to a considerable number of communications between a small group of 9/11 researchers and activists, including some of the people referenced above.

Maybe some day we will be at liberty to disclose these private communications.

Things seem to be developing rapidly and I therefore re-iterate my suggestion that we focus on evidence as much as possible (and yes, Scholars do make Ad Hominem attacks too - and these are easy to find). But as long as they don't ONLY do that and they debate evidence and analysis too, then at least we have the remains of some civil exchanges.

As we dealing with an issue which affects the future of humanity in so many ways, it is going to be increasingly more difficult to keep a "clear head".

As Jim Fetzer has said, if people don't like a certain group or forum, they can form their own such as "Academics for 9/11 Truth" for example. Like I said, decide (based on evidence) who are the good guys and who are the bad.

[physicist]

I think that personal disputes in academia are some of the most vitriolic that exist.

People get emotional when they are searching for the truth and it's all part of the process.

[brian]

Veronica writes -

"Do you support Prof. Jones' finagling, or do you support Prof. Fetzer retaining his group, and operating along impartial lines?"

How impartial of her eh.

My Response to"An Open Letter"
by Steven E. Jones

20 November 2006

Jim:

You wrote, "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." "...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."

What nonsense. As I have written to you privately (e.g., appendix below), Jim, I have no interest at all "to take over the site." My work is research, and I have no interest to "control the Scholars." (Would you explain what that means to you?). Even if we agree by vote of all the members to have an elected committee to provide direction or oversight to the website, as we have discussed privately and on our Forum, I have clearly stated that I would not be on that committee. Period. So your accusation that I attempt "to take over the site" is not only unfounded, it is bizarre.

Further, I stated that I do not intend to continue much longer to work with you as co-chair of this group, for obvious reasons, but I wish to see civility restored here so I will continue on a while longer. If there is a vote on the idea of having a committee to oversee the st911 website, the vote will go to ALL members, and the option of having you continue as the sole manager of the website will be included as an option of course. All this is being discussed on our Forum, and we urge you to participate directly in that discussion. I posted our initial email exchanges on this subject on our Forum per your request. I am confident that if you would PERSONALLY visit the st911 Forum, you would find your statements above untenable.

Your "Open Letter" was posted on the st911 website yesterday without giving me the courtesy of preparing a simultaneous post. This constitutes a prime example of why there needs to be an elected committee to oversee the website, IMO. If an elected committee had approved of your open letter (even without simultaneous post from me) there would have been no hard feelings. There are other examples of course, and I and Dr. Legge and others find that you have been unresponsive to our requests for changes on the very cluttered website. Hopefully you will see the value of an elected editorial board for the organization's web page, should the membership choose that route. I urge the members of this group to not "jump ship" (as some have told me they are going to do) until after we have a chance for a vote on this issue -- and any other issue the members wish to see resolved. The society belongs to all the Scholars. We do not belong to you, Jim.

I sent to you scientific arguments against the notion that you promoted in Tucson, that some kind of energy-beam was directed from WTC 7 to bring down the Towers. (Interested folks may wish to watch Jim Fetzer's presentation here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=646337772656177512&q=Jim+Fetze r ) I'm very disappointed that you did not respond to my scientific arguments, but instead launched into this public diatribe, the ad-hominem tone of which is reminiscent of Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds as many will recognize. Are you teamed up with them?

As I noted in my reply to the attack piece by Reynolds and Wood, "I would like to emphasize at the outset that Reynolds and Wood and I ...unitedly disagree with the official "conspiracy theory" that nineteen hijackers managed to get through the multi-trillion-dollar air defense system, and managed also to completely bring down these skyscrapers on 9/11. The details, HOW this was actually done, we disagree on.

"I will also observe that there is a group of 9/11 researchers, including Reynolds, Wood, Haupt and Holmgren, who take the approach of personalized attacks on any other researcher who dares to suggest that real planes hit the Towers. Really - they support the "no-planes-hit-Towers" notion so strongly that they resort to personal attacks on anyone who challenges their pet theory. As I have done."

The current "pet theory" that I have challenged is one now supported by you and (not surprisingly) Wood and Reynolds - the idea that "space beams" or "energy beams" were directed at the Towers to bring them down. But why must you take on the uncivil approach of ad hominem attacks rather than scientific discussion? I don't understand it, Jim. I thought the role of the Scholars group was to avoid the ad-hominem style and use the scientific method instead.

I will re-iterate below the scientific arguments I offered to you a few days ago. But first, let me state that I am willing to participate on your radio program, when the conditions I emailed to you five days ago are met:

November 15, 2006
Jim,
A few things need to be straightened out first.

1. Is the directed-beams hypothesis a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis?
Let the proponents delineate crucial experiments which will permit testing the hypothesis, and which have the potential of proving the hypothesis wrong. If an hypothesis is not falsifiable by experiments, it is not scientific.

2. Judy Wood and Morgan R have made unsubstantiated statements which need to be supported with facts or withdrawn before a civilized discourse could take place.

For example, Morgan Reynolds wrote on 8/24/06:

"The SJ-phenom kept building and building but it was headed for a big crash because of its obvious infirmities. Some argue that this behavior can be traced to the perps. Regardless, on hindsight it would have been better to have taken out this bilge months ago, Judy has been trying for six months in private. But SJ is incorrigible and a serial liar. We've got to clean up our own backyard mess before his implosion takes nearly all 9/11 skeptics down with him." (Morgan Reynolds)


Please then substantiate this claim that "SJ is incorrigible and a serial liar" with delineated facts (Morgan should do this). Also, explain how Morgan R. and Judy W. plan to take "out this bilge", so that we may be assured that no foul play is planned for the proposed debate.

Sincerely,

Steven Jones"

The email sent by Morgan R. (above) is quite revealing, isn't it? Have you bought into this program, Jim? But wait - if you and they will respond to my two conditions above, then yes, I will be happy to participate on your radio show once again. (You already invited Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood...)

And if you or Judy or Morgan have arguments against the thermate hypothesis, please be sure to explain the independent observations of high concentrations of finely powdered zinc, barium, manganese and sulfur in the WTC dust. I discussed these data and the chain of custody question thoroughly in my talks at UC-Berkeley, Univ. Denver, UC-Boulder and Sonoma State Univ. recently (videos are available). I find that rather than addressing my scientific arguments, you have attacked me personally. Further, recall that the beginnings of the Scholars group go back to Prof. Marcus Ford, who organized a nucleus of nearly 50 scholars during the spring/summer of 2005, long before you and I agreed to co-chair a more "formal" Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Finally, I find that your latest letter and the divisiveness it engenders detract from the mission of the Scholars society. This is most disheartening. There is plenty of evidence now to enable us to join with other groups, to unitedly call for an investigation of certain "rogue" officials regarding 9/11 anomalies and the 9/11 wars.
We need solid leadership, not attacks on those who share the same overall goals.

Sincerely,
Steven E. Jones


I append several scientific arguments against the directed-beam notion espoused and promoted by Wood and Fetzer and Reynolds, based on my email to Jim Fetzer a few days ago:

Nov. 18, 2006
Jim,

It's about 2 am, but I woke up and care about you sufficiently to endeavor to reason with you.

I believe you have accepted and are presented arguments which are not only ill-founded, they are embarassingly wrong. (Tucson lecture http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=646337772656177512&q=Jim+Fetze r)
And I'd like to reason with you, Jim. Let's reason between ourselves, shall we?

1. You start out with the grand piano falling in over 30 seconds, from the height of a Tower. This is wrong. I teach the physics of air drag forces and concomitant terminal velocity -- and the terminal velocity depends very much on the mass (or weight/g) of the object.

Ask Judy to provide her calculation in writing, showing the area she has assumed and the mass, the density of air and the terminal velocity she calculates. Then let me or an independent physicist if you wish check this for you.

Consider a small parachute the size/area of a grand piano, with a man on it. He would fall quite fast. Now replace his mass with that of a grand piano (but in a ball of say lead). Surely you have enough horse-sense to see that the latter case will fall MUCH faster. And that's what the equations say also. A parachute the size of a grand piano acting on a large mass just doesn't slow it much. But let her show her calculations!!
Added: As Alfons showed on the Forum, the terminal velocity can be calculated with the help of a NASA web-site:
http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/termvr.html . Alfons used a Yamaha grand piano,
o Length: 161cm (5'3")
o Width: 149cm -
o Height: 101cm
o Weight: 628 pounds (m = 285kg)
The drag coefficient depends on the attitude of the piano to the velocity vector as it falls; we take a maximum-drag orientation and therefore take a large drag coeff;

Mass = 285 kg
Cross Section = 2.3989 sq. meters
Drag Coefficient = 1.28 (Flat Object CD = 1.28
exploration.grc.nasa.gov/...aped.html)
Altitude = 417 meters = 1368 ft
Terminal Velocity = 40 m per second
Then the total fall time is 11 seconds (+or-). Which is just about the time the Towers took to collapse! Your example in your Tucson talk backfires on you... gives ammo to those who would debunk everything you say.

Jim, ask Judy to give you the equations, her calculations -- with numbers. And lets check her work.

2. You and Judy say that the bathtub was not damaged. Have you checked this out? I just wish you would read the research offered freely on our Forum. but let me quote from there, which in turn is quoting from an engineering journal:

"Half of WTC 'Bathtub' Basement Damaged By Twin Towers' Fall

(enr.com 10/8/01)

"Visual surveys indicate roughly 50% of the seven-level basement structure of the World Trade Center is now rubble as a result of the impact of the collapse of the twin 110-story towers. Outside the tower footprints, the section of greatest concern within the so-called 1,000 x 500-ft bathtub is along its south side. There, a 200 x 30-ft hole from 40 to 70 ft deep sits between the tub's perimeter slurry wall and the remains of Two WTC.

"A significant part of the south tower fell in and collapsed everything," says Joel L. Volterra, an engineer with Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers, the city's local engineer on the bathtub.

"Engineers are busy drawing up emergency tieback, bracing and shoring schemes so that contractors can start mobilizing tieback rigs this week or next to anchor the south perimeter of the 70-ft-deep slurry wall.

"Roughly 40% of the bathtub's reinforced concrete diaphragm slabs and steel columns are in "pretty good shape," says George J. Tamaro, the Mueser Rutledge engineer leading the foundation repair team."

SO -- the engineers say only about 40% of the bathtub was in pretty good shape, the rest being significantly damaged. Water was only about 1 foot below the damaged area, in another report -- and pumps were brought in. The report does not say whether the pumps were needed or not, but that doesn't matter does it? The damage to the bathtub in PUBLISHED engineering reports says the damage to the bathtub was extensive.

Jim, someone is giving you erroneous information -- and you're swallowing it. Read the engineering reports for yourself.


3. I'm NOT seeking to wrest control of st911 -- but I do hope that you will listen to the MEMBERS about how they want the web site handled. We're hoping for ideas on how to handle the website, as many of us are not satisfied. Will you listen to the voice of the members, or is such a vote -taking idea just futile? You should read the discussion on the forum to know where I and others stand -- not just a few extracted and out of context quotes of me or others. I DO NOT seek power here, but a better web-site. Indeed, I've said that I want to end my co-chair status after one year, after we decide what to do about the web site, which is losing visitors the data clearly show.
We need to do something...

4. The generators in WTC 7 -- how many gallons of diesel fuel do you suppose they might burn in 10 seconds (Tower fall time, approx)?
Perhaps 20-30 gallons in 10 seconds? That would be 120-180 gallons
per minute -- and that seems high to me. I'm here paraphrasing an
argument by a PhD chemist on the Forum -- the power which the WTC 7 generators can deliver in 10 seconds is NOWHERE NEAR enough to vaporize steel and pulverize concrete. We know that explosives (like superthermite and RDX explosives) can do the pulverizing, because they store energy in small packages. But diesel fuel running generators (which are not even 50 % efficient ) simply cannot deliver the necessary energy in 10 seconds time. Can you see this? It's a conservation of energy argument which is very strong and I hope easy
to grasp when it is laid out like this. And the steel was thrown out
of the footprint area, much of it -- but not vaporized.

5. An energy beam with enough energy to pulverize concrete and vaporize steel -- what would this do to human flesh, Jim? Wouldn't flesh be charred? If not, why not? Yet body pieces -- not charred - were found all over GZ.

Jim, you're being sold a bill of goods by these people and I beg of you to consider sound arguments instead. It's now nearly 3 am and I'm going back to bed, sleep I hope. It really concerns me that you are being so easily led by the nose my friend by these ideas of Judy's or whoever. Ask for numbers, calculations. Insist on these so you can do some checking before you go telling people that a grand piano takes 21 seconds over the time of the tower's fall. What a bunch of obvious garbage, Jim. You're going to be laughed at by anyone who knows how to calculate terminal velocity, which is mass-dependent!

Will you listen to reason?

Steve

[brian]

Andrew Johnson writes that no one is obliged to answer questions.

I disagree. When Veronica or anyone else calls other people liars, in Veonica's case Professor Jones, I believe they are obliged to answer on what basis they make such a claim. If not there is little point of having the board if every unsubstantiated statement can be posted and reposted with no recourse.

I find this whole beam/Jones episode unpleasant and damaging and the support for the liars Reynolds and Woods baffling.

My calling Reynolds and Woods liars has been substantiated. Not difficult when Reynolds attack on Jones, backed by Woods, is testament to this.