kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 4:44 am Post subject: The Attempted Scholars 'Cout d’Etat'. |
 |
|
Copying and pasting an email just received from Morgan Stack of Scholars for 9/11Truth (Ireland).
I have avoided even thinking about the issues of conflict discussed in this email (although there has been plenty about it on our own forum), being satisfied that it is enough to know that the WTC's were brought down by controlled demolitions.
However, maybe there is something going on here that it is important to understand. I'm not sure what that something is though.
On many occasions over the year and a half I have shaken my head with something akin to disbelief at the situations I have found myself in. Many times I have considered that life has come to resemble the most incredible science fiction movie. This occurred to me again as I prepared to write this email – an email which is about an attempted coup d’etat of an organization of 400 international academics formed to refute the creation of a global fictional enemy straight out of 1984. An organization which has such remarkable success in establishing the truth of 9/11 in particular that the establishment it seems has felt compelled to activate their sleepers in the organization and literally steal (and run away with) the domain names while attempting a cout d’etat where the goal (it seems clear now) is to marginalize those have been most successful in researching the terrible events and key evidential questions of that day.
It seems apparent to me now that the origins of this attempted coup are parallel to (and consequent on) the two most recent breakthroughs in 9/11 research: the evidence for the manipulation of plane footage at the WTC using computer generated images and now the evidence of alternative explanations for the collapse of the towers (and destruction of the WTC complex in general) to ‘thermate.’ We will return in detail to both questions in due course but suffice to say for now I am completely in agreement with Morgan Reynolds that video footage shown has been manipulated and with Judy Wood that under no circumstances can ‘thermate’ account for the range of destructive phenomena evident at Ground Zero on 9/11.
This does NOT mean that we are in a position yet to say exactly what caused the phenomena simply that we are in a position to say what did NOT cause the phenomena.
As a shorthand to explaining who is on what side of the present Scholars imbroglio let me put it this way. On one side you have those allied with Prof. Steven Jones who refuse to even address the evidence of video manipulation or a non-thermate hypothesis for the destruction of the towers using arguments like ‘that’s ridiculous’ despite the fact that their explanations cannot possibly be correct. On the other side you have those such as Jim Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood, Rick Siegal and Kevin Barrett who are prepared to go where the evidence suggests regardless of how ‘apolitically correct’ the possible explanatory phenomena sound.
The former, it seems clear now, are malevolently carrying the can for those whose objective, as Thomas Pynchon once said ‘was to get us asking the wrong questions, so they don't have to worry about the answers.’ The latter ascribe to the old dictum of Sherlock Holmes ‘when you eliminate the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth.’
I stand proudly with the latter.
The following is an attempt to briefly outline developments in the past year which inform how we have arrived at our present situation.
-----
Last March Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood began publishing their initial research into the use video manipulation and research critical of the ‘thermate’ hypothesis. They came under sustained attack from many for the ‘controversial’ nature of their research, such that Jim Fetzer actually removed two papers by them from the Scholars site in deference to Steve Jones.
-----
1) A collection of Prof. Morgan Reynolds papers on 9/11 are available here:
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911
Including:
We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories
By Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D. March 5, 2006
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes
2) A collection of Prof. Judy Woods papers on 9/11 are available here:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/
Including:
The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis
By Judy Wood Ph.D and Morgan Reynolds Ph.D. December 14, 2006
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/JonesScientificMethod.html
-----
In a recent email Jim Fetzer outlines why he has now changed his mind on removing these papers.
-----
Subject: Plus 26 Scholars: On its First Anniversary.
From: Scholars for 9/11 Truth Ireland
Date: Nov 27, 2006 2:09 AM
http://www.911truth.ie/plus-emails/plus26.html
“While I have been keenly interested in Steve’s research, I have become convinced that the complete and comprehensive devastation of the World Trade Center–including WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 as well as WTC-7–is very unlikely to be explainable on the basis of his hypothesis.
We need to remember that the 9/11 truth movement itself has had to cope with mountains of ridicule. We should not abandon our commitment to the principles of science and to the primacy of logic and evidence in the appraisal of possible explanations. I have therefore been dismayed at the dawning realization that even I may have been an accomplice to the constraint of research in several cases by removing at least two articles that were critical of Steve’s work, which I now believe deserve more objective scientific consideration.
Morgan and Judy, I am sure, believed that they were not free to pursue their research on 9/11 without having to compromise for political purposes. I am now convinced that they were right and that, as the manager of st911.org, I should have found a way to make their research available to the public.”
-----
Then, in the past couple of weeks it became apparent that something akin to a coup was being attempted with the theft of the domain names and anonymous emails urging the membership to vote in the creation of a new society.
-----
Jim Fetzer and the Scholars: An Update Dec 27th 2006.
http://www.morganstack.info/blog/2006/12/27/jim-fetzer-the-scholars-an -update/
“The attempt to take over Scholars by a renegade group with no authority whose members no longer even belong to the society continues unabated. Alex Floum, who is an attorney and who obtained the domain names for the web site at my direction on behalf of the society and the domain names for the journal at Steve Jones’ direction on behalf of the society has now passed them off to a fellow named Fred Burks, who has had minimal contact with the society and is utterly unfamiliar with its policies and history. He has taken it upon him- self to be custodian of the domain names. Since Alex did not have the right to keep them as his personal possessions in the first place, passing them to Fred Burks is akin to trading in stolen property. These domain names belong to the society of which I am the founder and whose claim to their possession on behalf of Scholars is unmatched by those, including Steve Jones and Carl Weis, who have resigned, and those, such as Alex Floum and Fred Burks, who have been removed from membership for their efforts to undermine the goals of the society.”
-----
Alex ‘No ones ever heard of you’ Floum. Dec 28th 2006.
http://www.morganstack.info/blog/2006/12/28/my-email-to-alex-no-ones-e ver-heard-of-you-floum/
Dear Scholar:
Putting aside the personalities involved and Jim’s untrue claims and statements about me (which I will disprove if Jim reports me to the State Bar or sues me, both of which he has threatened to do), the dispute really comes down to whether Jim is the sole owner of the Scholars’ group or the members own it.
Moreover, because Jim believes that he owns the group, he has insisted from me and more recently from Fred Burks that we cannot hold the domain names in trust for the members of the group but have to give them to him. (The domain names are now owned by Fred AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE GROUP; neither Fred nor I ever wanted the domain names for ourselves; rather, because we believe it is a membership organization, we wanted to make sure that the members’ rights and wishes are complied with). Jim continues to threaten to file a State Bar complaint and potentially litigation against me even though I no longer own the domain names. Jim says he’s the only authorized person to hold the domain names but, beneath the surface words, Jim is really saying that he should hold the domain names because he is the sole owner of the group.
-----
Meanwhile Jim Fetzer has announced a conference for next summer to address what exactly is ‘controversial’ in terms of 9/11 research and importantly (perhaps even more so) what is NOT ‘controversial.’
-----
The Science of 9/11: What’s Controversial, What’s Not. (Fri Dec 29th, 2006)
http://www.morganstack.info/blog/2006/12/29/the-science-of-911-whats-c ontroversial-whats-not/
“Even though the broad outlines of what happened are no longer controversial–for example, we know that The World Trade Center was intentionally demolished by a high-energy causal process physically unrelated to plane crashes and resulting fires–the precise details of how the perpetrators carried out the attack remains the subject of intense controversy. From a political point of view, this controversy may be insignificant.
What we know with relative certainty about 9/11 is already the story of the century: it demands re-thinking our history, our politics, perhaps even our way of life. But from a scientific rather than political standpoint, controversial questions about what may have happened on 9/11 are fascinating and challenging–not least of all because they could lead to a better understanding of 9/11 with respect to its social and political significance.
In an attempt to clarify these matters, Scholars for 9/11 Truth will be hosting a conference entitled “The Science of 9/11: What’s Controversial, What’s Not”, to be held in mid- to late-July in Madison, WI. Following the opening session, there will be a keynote speaker and five major sessions devoted to the issues that have tended to divide us. As the program chair, I am inviting Steve Jones to organize a panel discussion of the use of conventional means for destroying the Twin Towers. [Editor’s note: I regret to report that Steve Jones has declined.] I am inviting Judy Wood to organize a panel discussion on non-conventional means, including high-tech directed energy weaponry that might have been used to destroy the World Trade Center. I am inviting Morgan Reynolds to organize a panel on planes/no planes at the WTC and George Nelson on the Pentagon and Shanksville. Each of these sessions would be of 2 1/2 to 3 hours duration.”
-----
Scholars Update ‘It’s my ball, and I’m going home.’ (Fri Dec 29th, 2006)
http://www.morganstack.info/blog/2006/12/29/scholars-update-its-my-bal l-and-im-going-home/
“It is reminiscent of children playing football, where one of them takes the football and claims it for his own, then passes it off to another when players are closing in, where the new possessor sticks it with a knife so the game becomes impossible. That’s what is going on.”
“The situation with Scholars has taken an ominous turn, where we have been frozen out of the Scholars web site and posting and updating has been made impossible, which can only have been done by Fred Burks, who has possession of the domain names, or Alex Floum, who may still control the password. To hear him tell it, it is a conflict between the forces of democracy (led by Alex Floum) and those of dictatorship (me). My frank assessment is that his crass and underhanded tactics threaten the continuing existence of Scholars. Here is a summary of the situation, followed by a list of forthcoming events.
3) Alex Floum, who obtained the domain names for the web site and the journal on behalf of the society, had no right to transfer what he never owned to Fred Burks, a friend of some ten years who served as a translator for Presidents, who has neither legal, moral, nor intellectual rights to any of these sites.
4) The anonymous email requesting a vote on the future of the society’s sites and membership was unauthorized, illegal, null, and void. The manner in which it was conducted (by creating fake addresses and phony administrators) offers clear evidence that this was an ignoble action taken under cover where those effecting these misdeeds were not even willing to identify themselves by name.
-----
A Message From the ‘Coup’ Faction. i.e. Fred Burks (Thurs Jan 4th, 2007)
http://www.morganstack.info/blog/2007/01/04/a-message-from-the-coup-fa ction/
Dear valued member or former member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth,
As I know most of you have limited time, the most important points of this email are in the first few paragraphs. In an email sent to you several days ago, Jim Fetzer mentioned that I, Fred Burks, am the current owner/trustee of the website domain names for S9/11T, www.st911.org and www.scholarsfor911truth.org. You might appreciate knowing that as a former language interpreter for Presidents Clinton and Bush and a whistleblower, I am deeply committed to exposing all that is going on behind the scenes on 9/11 and more.
As trustee of the above domain names on behalf of all members of the S9/11T group, I can see no easy way to resolve which of the two 9/11 scholars groups should be given rights to these domain names other than taking a vote of the full membership as of the time of the split. I am writing to advise you that unless a resolution by the two parties is reached very soon, we will be asking for your vote on proposals crafted by both parties to this conflict.
-----
Response from Jim Fetzer & the Real Scholars. (Thurs Jan 4th, 2007)
http://www.morganstack.info/blog/2007/01/04/response-from-jim-fetzer-t he-real-scholars/
“Free fall speed through air for a grand piano would have taken longer than the time in which the towers were demolished. Do we agree on that? A piano would take from 12.5 seconds (Steve’s example of a very heavy “baby” grand) to as much as 30 seconds (Judy’s friend’s examples). These times are faster than the times of the destruction of the towers at 10 seconds (The 9/11 Commission Report) and 9 and 11 seconds (NIST). Unless 9, 10 and 11 seconds are equal or greater time than 12.5 seconds, the towers were destroyed at a rate faster than free fall in air! What about this is unscientific?”
“More interesting than this latest attempt to take what does not belong to them by fabricating a pretext cloaked in a fake commitment to democracy–which bears comparison to actions by Burk’s mentor (George Bush) in advancing a fake commitment to democracy in order to take control of Iraqi oil.”
“Creating a new society and joining a new society should not be confused with attempting to damage, destroy, or steal an old one. And that’s what this “voting” is all about. I find it insulting that these people would attempt to play you for suckers.”
-----
THE DYNAMIC DUO RADIO SHOW.
Jim Fetzer & Kevin Barrett’s OUTSTANDING radio show ‘The Dynamic Duo’ is available for $8 a month here: (i.e. five broadcasts a week.)
http://www.gcnlive.com/pgmsDyduo.htm
A couple of days ago Jim Fetzer had Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds on the show to discus these issues. The entire transcript is available here:
http://www.911scholars.org/070102_transcript.html
A brief excerpt is available here:
JF: Now, I just wonder, Judy, whether you would be inclined to agree that — from your point of view as expert in Material Structure Science, for example — that the ‘thermite/thermate’ hypothesis has approximately a zero probability of explaining the available evidence.
JW: Correct because it’s — it’s sort of mutually exclusive with the observed data. But in terms of the Scientific Method, my interpretation of that — in simple terms — is first establishing ‘What happened’. Before you think of ‘How it happened’. Just look at ‘What happened’, and see if you can determine that … and ‘model’ it - or … err … put it in some sort of an outline form: ‘What happened’. Then, once you’ve done that, look at ‘How it happened’, then ‘Why it happened’. But if you start with ‘Why’, and then go backwards, you’re not going to get to the right answer. You start out with the Political Method, as Steven Jones often refers to, you end up with getting the description that you’ve dialed in, and ‘want’. But if we look at ‘What happened’ … thermate, or thermite, or what not, cannot explain the pulverisation that we saw.
JF: This is very troubling. Remember, a basic principle of Scientific Research, is called the 'Requirement of Total Evidence', which dictates that you must base your reasoning on 'All of the available, relevant, evidence'. Which why it's so terribly terribly important to consider the TOTALITY of the devastation of the World Trade Centre.
JF: I have sometimes put it this way, Judy, even if Steve Jones' explanation were 'good as gold' regarding World Trade Centre 1 & 2, the North and South Tower, that would NOT explain what happened to WTC3, WTC4, WTC5 or WTC6 - even if we set 7 aside, as a special case, involving 'Classic Controlled Demolition'.
JW: Correct.
JF: And a point you so beautifully …
JW: And the cars! The 'toasted' cars!
JF: … made - the - the destruction is almost 'surgical', it's as though ALL, and ONLY, the buildings with a WTC prefix were destined to be demolished!
JW: Not even the buildings across the street!
JF: Not even the buildings across the street!
JW: How do you take down two buildings that are over ¼ mile tall, with very little spilling over across the street? It was an amazing job, that was done! |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
