----- Forwarded message from jfetzer@d.umn.edu -----
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:58:18 -0600
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Reply-To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: An Open Letter to Steven Jones
To: Steve Jones <hardevidence@gmail.com, jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Steve,
I have been struck by a recent post on the forum with the subject line,
"
Re: Control of st911 website and st911.org", in which you attack Judy
Wood, Morgan Reynolds, and me for having ideas at variance with your
own regarding what may have been the cause of the destruction of the
Twin Towers, which I have included below. You notice "The weaknesses
of the hypothesis have been exposed as we considered the evidences --
including significant damage to the WTC 'bathtub' and the energy/power
needed for such a hypothetical beam, and where it would originate from,
etc.", without acknowledging that their research addresses these issues
and that I have offered an alternative related to WTC-7, which you know
because I spelled it out in email that I asked you to post on the forum!
You ignore my point about the ambiguity of the phrase, "damage to the
bathtub", which was not substantial because it did not leak! That is
the crucial consideration, where leakage would have led to flooding
the subways and PATH train tunnels and created multi-billion dollar
damage that would have taken years to clean up. This is not honest
science, Steve, even though you like to tout it. If they are making
mistakes, then surely you ought to want to participate in correcting
them. One nice opportunity would be to appear on my new radio show,
where I am having them as guests on consecutive days and have invited
you to participate as well, each of you on the program separate days.
Moreover, you act as though your views on this matter have to be taken
definitive. I, however, have challenged you to offer evidence that any
variation on the hypothesis you prefer has the capacity to produce the
gross effects of blowing beams outward and even upward, pulverizing the
buildings, and bringing them down in 10 and 9 seconds. A necessary
condition is that the destruction of these 500,000 ton buildings cannot
seriously damage the bathtub. Given the evidence that Judy and Morgan
have advanced, it is ridiculous to characterize their work as "wildly
speculative". They are proposing novel hypotheses, which is the most
difficult part of science. Perhaps you have not posted the emails that
I sent you because you don't want to disclose to the members of the forum
that you do not have a response to the challenge that I have posed. If
you do, then by all means come on my radio program and let us discuss it.
I now discover that you appear to be proceeding along a path that leads
to denying me control of the society that I founded. The conception of
an organization of this kind was mine. I invited you to serve as my
co-chair. I have supervised the site from its conception. I have been
devoting as much as eight to ten hours a day processing email related to
the society and locating posts appropriate for the web site. While Alex
has control of the location where it is stored, that is not the same as
its content or the society itself, which was my creation. I have been
the principal author of all of our press releases and all of our policy
statements, which may be found published across the top of our masthead.
In addition, to the best of my knowledge, I have paid for publication of
all but one of our press releases (at $120 apiece); I have the one and
only bank account in the name of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth"; and I
have
been the person who, initially, admitted every member to the society,
until it became practically impossible to continue. Alex, by the way,
receives the storage space for free as a bonus for having another site.
My contributions to creating and maintaining the society overwhelmingly
exceed yours. If you are no longer content to run the journal and to
supervise the forum but want to wrest control of the web site from me,
that appears to be a blatant power play, not based on science but upon
improper motives that appear to be highly personal and self-serving.
I offered five steps, the first of which, to the best of my knowledge,
has not been taken. Please correct me if I am wrong, because this has
created a situation in which you have been able to filter information
in a fashion highly prejudicial to me, which violates basic canons of
rational debate and moral conduct. My impression is that much of the
concerns that have bothered you have resulted from my willingness to
consider alternatives to thermate as possible causes of the destruction
of the Twin Towers. There are excellent reasons for questioning whether
thermate could possibly have been responsible for their devastation, a
matter that I discussed during two lectures in Tucson. Part of Monday's
in which I discussed alternatives may be found in this 16-minute clip:
Dr. James Fetzer: Did Classified Weaponry Destroy the Twin Towers?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=646337772656177512&q=Jim+Fetzer
If anyone thinks that discussions of this kind turn the society into
"
a laughing stock", then they need to have their heads examined. It
is offensive to me--as it should be to every member of this list--to
discover that you are plotting to take control of the web site from me.
If you are dissatisfied with my leadership, you are entitled to create
a society of your own. You are not entitled to mine. If Alex wants
to use his storage space for a new society, that is fine. I can find
other storage space for this one. On moral, legal, and intellectual
grounds, the name, the content, and the policies of Scholars for 9/11
Truth are not yours to take. If you wants a new society, then work to
create one, just as I have worked to create this one. Is that clear?
I am especially offended that you would make this power play after my
sustained efforts to defend you from the start. I spent hours upon
hours composing memoranda to fend off vicious attacks upon you and I
have continued to do that to this day. That I find your research on
thermate inadequate to explain the phenomena has nothing to do with
the high regard in which I have held you in the past. That includes
defending you in multiple fora and writing a letter to the President
of BYU in your defense on behalf of the society. If you have lifted
your least digit in my defense, I am grateful for that, but I am not
aware of that ever having happened. In a situation like this one in
which rationality demands considering the evidence concerning what I
have said on the possibility that directed-energy weapons could have
been used to take out the towers, you have only joined in the fray!
An honorable resolution of this situation, as I see it, would be for
you to resign and undertake the creation of a society of your own. I
will be glad to find new storage space for Scholars for 9/11 Truth if
Alex would prefer to donate his to a new venture of that kind. What
I cannot abide is the very idea that you would attempt to steal what
is not yours. This is a form of plagiarism that every member of the
society has to understand. Of course, every author of articles and
studies archived on st911.org retains the right to their contents as
their creations. But the same obtains for the web site and Scholars
for 9/11 Truth, which I created and which you can take from me only
by committing a gross act of intellectual theft and moral cowardice.
You are not entitled to something you have not earned: st911.org.
James H. Fetzer
Founder and Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
http://p073.ezboard.com/fancientlosttreasuresfrm157.showMessageRange?
topicID=165.topic&start=41&stop=55
_______________________________________________________
sovereign soul
Registered User
Posts: 110
(11/17/06 10:36 am)
Reply Re: Control of st911 website and st911.org
____________________________________
It also bears mentioning that Jim Fetzer is in a difficult position.
We all rely on our own opinions until convinced otherwise, and
assuredly all of us have mistakenly relied on "facts" concerning
911
that weren't true or otherwise jumped to conclusions about 911 at one
time or another.
Our blunders occur in a relatively private setting, whereas his
blunders are public and effect his credibility and that of 911 Truth.
It is not an altogether enviable position.
Hopefully Mr. Fetzer will continue to be encouraged to participate in
forums, where exposure to contrary ideas can only serve to help
clarify his thinking and work out errors in private.
HardEvidence
Registered User
Posts: 1874
(11/17/06 10:50 am)
Reply Re: Control of st911 website and st911.org
____________________________________
I am in agreement with the well-thought-out comments of Chris above,
and all these recent comments. Personally I lean towards a
"
democracy" -- this will allow the web site to belong to the members
(I hope!) and this will encourage participation in the Forum as a
place for proposing what should be on the web site, and how
categorized. Or perhaps members could add to the site directly in a
"
wiki" mode, as Vic suggested... I don't know how that works, but
something to consider.
OTOH, a 5-member panel seems a good idea too... But with
one-member-one-vote. And I will not continue in any case to be a
co-chair (after we re-organize st911) which tends to great
inequality-- I'd personally like to see the co-chair system abolished
for st911.
In response to a query, Jim does not have the power to shut down this
Forum -- and the web site does not "belong" to him either. It is
Lori
Price who is currently making changes to the web site, at Jim's
direction, I understand. But the site itself can be "reclaimed" by
its owner (not me, but a solid long-time member of Scholars 911 T,
who set it up and paid for it long ago).
There is a means to do polling/voting here on ezboard. So with Whyte
Eagle's help, there is now a "911Poll" on the issue at hand, for
a
straw poll (not binding). The wording is not perfect and I invite
both:
1. Your vote (you only get one vote)
2. Comments on this thread about the wording, as this poll will
likely go out to all members via email.
I've asked WE to make this 911Poll "visible" to all of you ASAP --
so
watch for it, and vote!
Note that if a republic is chosen, I personally decline to be on the
committee for the first year. I think the current leadership has had
its "one-year stint" and we need to have others now step forward
--
in such a 5-man committee, or in the proposed democracy. However, Jim
F may well wish to be a member of such a committee, and that's fine
if a majority agree in the voting. He is certainly well known. I
suppose we could incorporate the "one-year stint" notion right away,
as part of the vote.
So this first "poll" is mainly a straw poll, to see how we on this
Forum feel about things -- a "real" vote will have to go out via
email to ALL members.
Victronix
Registered User
Posts: 373
(11/17/06 12:20 pm)
Reply Re: Control of st911 website and st911.org
____________________________________
Very clear. We do what we say we'd like. We do a mock website board
along the lines we'd like to see. This means five volunteers (+ or
-) who are dead serious. Create a streamlined website model, new
categories that make clear these are speculative items, these
others have consensus. Etc. Take up Jim's challege to do it better
than he does.
I agree with this and will be glad to participate.
Unfortunately I will be travelling for all of next week for
Thanksgiving and will also be away for a week over Christmas Probably
the fact that people have the holidays / exams coming up should be
considered in the voting process anyway.
HardEvidence
Registered User
Posts: 1879
(11/17/06 1:16 pm)
Reply Re: Control of st911 website and st911.org
_______________________________
Well said, Vic. Here we discuss "wildly speculative" ideas rather
freely. Recently, we have considered the
"
energy-beams-brought-down-Towers" notion of Morgan Reynolds, Judy
Wood and Jim Fetzer. The weaknesses of the hypothesis have been
exposed as we considered the evidences -- including significant
damage to the WTC "bathtub" and the energy/power needed for such
a
hypothetical beam, and where it would originate from, etc.
This is a good place to discuss such things. But to highlight such
ideas on the st911.org website WITHOUT consulting the members and
without a balancing statement or paper is to me unacceptable.
Quoting jfetzer@d.umn.edu:
This just showed up in my email. It looks relevant, so I send it along:
The Global Network's "War from Space?" video produced by Eric Herter
is now
available on-line. Click on link below:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6515526620862018423
Quoting jfetzer@d.umn.edu:
I included Judy and Morgan on this list because our discussion originated
over an invitation to appear on "The Dynamic Duo" with them
on consecutive
days. I also included them because we are discussing their research. I
want to explore the kinds of issues and objections you raise on the air.
I included them because they have been members of the debate team for
The
National 9/11 Debate and deserve to know what's going on. If you have
a
set of great arguments to present that defeats their proposal, then why
are
you so reluctant to come onto the program and explain them? You were coy
and then sent this onslaught about the web site. I don't see any way that
it can be current and relevant when managed by a committee! You and others
have always had the opportunity to send me suggestions and criticism about
the site, which consumes a huge amount of my time. Do you even acknowledge
that we have been ranked #1 much of the year and that we only complete
with
911blogger.com? How can we be succeeding with the public if the site is
a
disaster? I sense petty rivalries and jealousies are affecting all this,
including you. If you want to do this by committee, then show me how it
can be done! I have given you a blueprint (a) through (e), starting with
posting my emails on the forum. Have you done that? No? Why not? And
loneagle is George Nelson, Colonel (USAF, retired), a member of Scholars
and an expert on air crash investigations and a member of the debate panel.
Did you even bother to read my responses at the bottom of my last email?
Your rebuttal about damage to the bathtub is juvenile: it didn't leak!
And forum members are not necessarily representative of the members of
the society for a host of reasons. I have not rejected the idea that we
might manage the web site differently. I have asked how it would be done.
Why does it have to be purged of ideas that you, Steve Jones, don't like?
Your understanding of the nature of science is not superior to mine. So
far I have had no response at all from you. Simply because some members
think they could do better does not mean that they could. And I just may
know more about doing this insofar as I have been doing it from scratch.
Why don't you work on improving the journal and running the forum and
let
me maintain the web site? You have yet to give me a good reason for not
leaving things alone--except that some members want to intervene. What
makes you think they could do a better job? You don't have to take over
the whole society! Try to do your part better, I'll do the same for mine.
Quoting Steve Jones <hardevidence@gmail.com:
No, Jim, what you wrote is incorrect: "Now Steve, of all people,
wants
to completely change our modus operandi because some members, including
him, do not want to acknowledge alternative possible explanations of 9/11. "
Of course I acknowledge the POSSIBILITY of alternative explanations,
including yours that high-energy beams from WTC 7 brought down the
Towers. However, in the context of the scientific method, you will
need to accomodate/explain ALL the data, including the observation
of
high concentrations of zinc, manganese, barium and sulfur in the
WTC-collapse residues -- in the molten-metal slag and in the DUST
--
and you will need to propose EXPERIMENTS that can be done to TEST
your
hypothesis. I'm doing all this with the thermate/aluminothermics
hypothesis.
Can you say the same for your 'star-wars beam' hypothesis? Have you
thought of an experiment in which you will direct a high-energy beam
at concrete and steel to see what happens? (At what frequency? what
are the basics of this beam?) How much energy is required to
'disintegrate' the steel in large quantities as you say? How much
energy, at what frequency, is needed to bring down a Tower, top-down?
Have you checked the references discussed at length in our Forum
that
show that the WTC bathtub was in fact highly damaged -- contrary
to
your statements ?
There is a strong sense from the Forum that members want to see more
democratic control of the web page, rather than having it under one
person. I agree with that sentiment. And yes, each member of the
society is important and deserves to be a part of the direction of
the
group and the web site.
I am surprised that you have included Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds
in
this email list of yours, since they are not even members of st911
--
why did you do this? And who is loneagle, in your list?
Steve
On 11/16/06, jfetzer@d.umn.edu <jfetzer@d.umn.edu wrote:
I had thought we were doing pretty well, having often attained
#1
ranking among all 9/11 sites. The lastest New York Times/CBS poll has
53% of
the public skeptical of government's account of 9/11 and another
28%
rejecting it outright, with only 16% accepting it. Now Steve, of all people,
wants to completely change our modus operandi because some members,
including
him, do not want to acknowledge alternative possible explanations
of 9/11.
This in my opinion is to impose a kind of ideological litmus test
on
st911.org, which I regard as inappropriate, but perhaps I am wrong. I invite
you
to give me your best advice about how to proceed. I find this very troubling.
----- Forwarded message from jfetzer@d.umn.edu -----
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 08:43:29 -0600
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Reply-To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: Discontent
To: Steve Jones <hardevidence@gmail.com
Steve,
First, science requires consideration of every possible alternative
explanation, where their appraisal is conducted on the basis
of logic
and evidence. The best supported hypothesis is the one that
confers
the highest likelihood on that alternative, given the evidence.
Second, likelihoods are measured by the probability of the evidence
if the alternative were true, which entails treating each alternative
as though it were a cause in relation to the evidence as an
effect.
Third, the discussion of mini-nukes is present not because I
think
it is true but because there is a lot of interest in the possibility
that it might be true, which deserves public discussion, lest
we be
viewed as suppressing possible alternatives.
Fourth, an objective appraisal, I submit, would demonstrate
that some
source of massive energy was required to bring about the complete
and
total demolition of the WTC, as I explained in my Tucson lectures.
Fifth, you do not acknowledge, even remotely, the potential
power of
the WTC-7 (not "space") based alternative I sketch
there, which most
members of Scholars have never even heard articulated, an attitude
that is, in my opinion, highly unscientific and extremely biased.
Sixth, this means that you are promoting a political decision
being
made in the context you described in which some, possibly many,
members
think I have made a serious blunder without even knowing my
position,
which, even if you can't see it, would be grossly unfair.
Seventh, the function of the web site differs from the journal,
where
its purpose is exposing something like the full range of issues
that
are at stake here, including political ramifications via "Headlines"
and "Foreign Perspectives", without trying to present
some kind of a
popular version of the journal, which you seem to favor.
Eighth, have you actually thought through the consequences of
having
a committee (how many members? how chosen?) decide what to post
or not
post, when the issues that are involved here are complex, convoluted
and politically charged? Have you already forgotten how committees
work?
Ninth, as an exercise, why don't you form a committee to review
the
contents of our web site and tell me what it would change, one
that
has several members (how will you choose them?) and renders
decisions
(how will they be made?) and offers samples of its procedings
for a
day or two (presuming that "Headlines", for example,
is kept current)?
Tenth, I created Scholars and invited you to join me. I have
stood by
you through thick and thin. I cannot believe that you are seriously
suggesting what amounts to the deconstruction of the society
and this
causes me serious concern.
You have said nothing at all as to my hypothesis, which ties
WTC-1,
WTC-2, and WTC-7 into an inter-related causal scheme of destruction
taking advantage of the massive source of energy available at
WTC-7.
That you should not even acknowledge this as a novel and potentially
powerful alternative explanation deserving exploration speaks
volumes.
Frankly, I do not see how thermite, thermate, or super-thermate
could
possibly bring about the massive destruction that occurred on
9/11 at
the WTC, especially in the brief time-spans we are confronting
here.
Your demonstrations that it has the capacity to cut through
an engine
block most assuredly does not accomplish that task. I challenge
you
to offer evidence that any variation on the hypothesis you prefer
has
the capacity to produce the gross effects of blowing beams outward
and
even upward, pulverizing the buildings, and bringing them down
in 10
and 9 seconds. A necessary condition is that the destruction
of these
500,000 ton buildings cannot seriously damage the bathtub. That
would
impress me. Otherwise, it appears to me you are adopting a political
posture to protect your hypothesis when an alternative that
deserves
thorough consideration has emerged, which is completely unscientific.
If you are going to discuss this on the forum, then I request
you post
the three emails I have sent to you, which is indispensable
if others
are to have even the faintest inkling of my position. Tell me
how you
propose to proceed with this business related to the web site.
I long
ago observed that you had not put together a suitable editorial
board
and had squeezed me out from involvement with the journal. I
think it
was a mistake, considering that I have vastly more experience
than any
member of the board, including you, as my history of editing
reflects.
You have good members, but the balance is not right for a scientific
journal, which could be improved by adding a dozen hard-science
types.
You know this is how I see it because I have shared it with
you before.
To the best of my knowledge, you have done little or nothing
to correct
it. In my opinion, your management in creating a board that
lacked as
much expertise as could easily have been recruited, especially
from the
members of SPINE, has left the society in a position vulnerable
to the
kinds of criticism that other sites have from time to time advanced.
I
am not interested in condoning a similar diminution of the quality
of
our web site and, until I am convinced that some kind of committee
is a
viable option for making decisions here, I am not going to relinquish
control of the web site, which would be a highly irresponsible
action.
So (a) post the three emails I have sent on the forum, (b) discuss
how
your proposal would be implemented, (c) create a mock committee
and set
it to work reviewing what is posted on st911.org, (d) send me
a list of
how it would be changed by this modus operandi with a mock alternative,
and (e) explain to me exactly how decisions would be made from
day to
day about the items that would appear in its different categories,
including "Headlines". I will be fascinated to learn just how
this should be
done. In the meanwhile, your handling of the journal with regard to
composing
its editorial board does not inspire me with confidence. Having created
Scholars, I am not about to allow it to be deconstructed by dissembling.
Finally, if I had not been confident that I could create and
manage the
society, I would not have founded it. I hold a Ph.D. in the
history
and philosophy of science, have published around 150 articles and
reviews
as well as 27 books, created an international journal, an international
book series, and an international society, have extensive experience
dealing
with conspiracy theories based upon past (published) research
on JFK
and Wellstone, have 35 years of experience teaching logic, critical
thinking and scientific reasoning, and have dealt with disinformation
efforts
for more than a decade. I agree that my decisions may not always
be
perfect, but why would a committee be expected to do any better? Indeed,
in my
experience, there is every reason to expect that it would do
much worse.
Let me say that one area where I have felt handicapped is the "Events"
category, where I would like to have more presentations by more
members
be listed in a timely fashion. I would like to encourage members
who
are planning to give lectures, participate in workshops, and
the like,
to send relevant information to me. 911blogger.com, of course,
does a
great job of this, where I have viewed our sites as complementary,
ours
providing an introduction to the issues, theirs to current events.
The
search for truth is not a popularity contest and we are not
always
going to agree. The question is whether the web site, by and large,
succeeds
in introducing visitors to the full range of issues involved
here in a
comprehensive and accessible manner. I welcome suggestions for
making
improvements, but I have some doubts about the proposal you
are
floating.
So do (a) through (e) and get back to me. I appreciate hearing
from you.
Jim
P.S. I have added my comments to the issues you previously raised
below.
Quoting Steve Jones <hardevidence@gmail.com>:
Jim --
First, I do appreciate and acknowledge your efforts through
the past
months. And I see no reason why we should not be able to
remain
friends while we pursue our divergent hypotheses.
Second, it is clear to me that our scientific hypotheses
are so
divergent that it may very well result in some sort of
schism, or at
least a change in the control of the web site to insure
that fair
scientific balance and reason is achieved.
Our divergent hypotheses should both be pursued, and I
hope we can do
this in a gentemanly and scientific way, without ad hominems.
It
could be a bit of a horse race, and that's welcome as long
as we stay
in the scientific realm and avoid personalized attacks.
That is my
resolve, for my part, particularly as you maintain civility
also.
Let the race to 9/11 truth commence in earnest then. I
welcome a
scientific challenge.
As for how the web site will be run, I suggest a vote among
members
--
e.g.,
1. Status quo
2. Election of a web-site board who will decide on the
contents of
the web site.
Also, I suggest that we yield our co-chair status as part
of option
2. 'I welcome your suggestions, and i expect this will be
discussed on
the Forum.
Best wishes, my friend, as we pursue finally a common goal
of truth
and justice (which will ultimately prevail).
Steve
Steve
On 11/15/06, jfetzer@d.umn.edu <jfetzer@d.umn.edu> wrote:
Well, Steve, managing the web site has proven so time-consuming--on
the order of 8 to 10 hours a day, when you include sorting
through
email-- that I would welcome assistance. My experience with
committees
tells me that it is not unlikely that very little will be
agreed upon in
a timely fashion, but I am willing to consider proposals.
As I
explained in Tucson, the weapon did not have to be in space
and there just
happens to have been a convenient source of massive quantities
of electical
power in the immediate vicinity, namely, it WTC-7, which
was constructed
over an enormous electical generator (actually, a power
transformer with
a huge back-up generator) that could have been the source
of power
right at the scene. I conjecture that the weapons could
have been situated
in WTC-7 itself. I appreciate all of my critics who don't
know my
thoughts about all of this, which I laid out in two lectures
in Tucson that
will become available soon. So if an hypothesis that actually
ties
together what we know about the destruction of WTC-1 and WTC=2
with the
classic demolition of WTC-7 makes us "a laughing stock",
then that's
remarkable, because I have seen nothing from you that would come
close to
providing a unified explanation that ties the demolition of
these three
buildings together. So, since we are speaking frankly, I think
you and yours
are far off-base and don't know what they are talking
about,
principally because I only figured it out on Sunday after reading
a post from
Ralph Omholt that pointed out the immense quantity of electricity
necessary to produce the effects--which caused a light bulb to
go off in my
head. I explained it in Tucson but haven't had the chance
to share it with
you. For someone who has spent enormous quantities of time
and effort in
the effort to defend you from unwarranted attacks, I am
very disappointed.
And that will be compounded, if you are unwilling
to discuss all this.
Jim
Quoting Steve Jones <hardevidence@gmail.com>:
Jim --
There is considerable discontent among many of
those Scholars
who write me and those on the Forum.
1. There is a sense that the web page reflects
the views of Jim
Fetzer but not a majority view. We have seen
email along these
lines. It has been strongly suggested that there be
an editorial board
to review the web-page content, and I think this
suggestion has
merit.
Well, let's get specific. Pursue (a) through (e). There
are
scientists who find some kind of mini-nuke possibility plausible,
even if you do not. And I know some members still worry that
the
Pentagon is going to produce a new video of a Boeing 757 coming
toward the building, when they have already provided one showing
that, whatever hit the Pentagon, it was not a 757. I hope that
the concerns behind this exchange are more substantial than
that
2. In particular, there is discontent over the
prominent
displaying of mini-nukes and star-wars-beams notions on
the st911 web page.
The former has been falsified with several direct
evidences; the
latter has been discussed on the Forum at some length
and it has been
asked:
There is a section on mini-nukes that is "prominent" because
lots
of people are curious about it. I thought that you had presented
your views well. Do you think that, by being exposed to other ideas,
the force of your rebuttals will be compromised? Should this issue
be hidden from public view, which would invite the criticism that
we
are not even discussing it? And as for "star wars" notions,
I
have Judy's web pages related to her recent interview, something
I
would do for other interviews if it were appropriate. Is that giving
them too much "promience"? Do I sense censorship raising
its ugly
head? Are we afraid of discussing alternative possible explanations?
Is our web site supposed to be pure and ignore the excitement of
real, ongoing scientific inquiry, which involves conflict between ideas?
A. Why does Judy (and Morgan) say that the bath-tub
was hardly
damaged when it was significantly damaged? (Photos
and newspaper
articles.)
This is childish word-play. The bathtub was not damaged to such
an extent that it ceased to serve its function. If it had been
cracked, water would have flooded the PATH trains and the subways beneath
the city of lower Manhattan and who knows how much more. When I
said
it would have "flooded lower Manhattan", I should have
said "flooded
under Manhattan" to make it clear that I did not mean to
imply
you would have been able to kayak down Wall Street. So if the misuse
of a phrase on Sunday makes a different, then you've got me! If
we
care about the real threat cracking the bathtub posed, then you haven't.
B. The energy source for such a building demolishing
beam would
be truly enormous -- that's the problem with space-beam-weapons
in
fact. A platform moving in space is not a likely source
of a
building-destroying beam which goes through miles
of atmosphere
to hit a skyscraper on earth.
Many of these satellites are geo-stationary, as I supposed you
knew. The source of energy is a real issue, although a mirror for
directing energy would be an unexplored alternative. My conjecture, which
you have yet to acknowledge, is not space-basd but that the energy
source may have been the massive generators beneath WTC-7 and that
the
weapons may have been situated there, which offers a potential
explanation of why WTC-7 had to be destroyed. The loss of cell phone usage,
moreover, appears to be related to the presence of a massive
electromagnetic field, which could result from a mini-nuke but might also
be explained
by means of this hypothesis. When we first encounter a new alternative, it
can take a while to sort out all of its ramifications, but the suggestion
that it be dismissed without a hearing is not an option in science.
I am concerned that you are reluctant to consider alternatives
to thermate.
C. Much of the steel was thrown outside the footprint,
yes --
but it was NOT disintegrated as Judy alleges. (Indeed,
where are her
supporting data?).
You had better take another look. Some of the footage on her
site shows steel being disintegrated. And you had told me during
one
of our previous discussions that the destruction of the 30 floors
of
WTC-2 had stunned you insofar as it simply "disappeared" on
its way down.
I hope you haven't forgotten that discussion, but the phenomena
related to disintegration is powerful. Take another look at her site,
which you may have viewed at an earlier stage of construction. I even
took the most striking clip (video) about disintegration at WTC-1
and
used it in my Tucson lectures. Just watch either of them and you'll
see it.
D. The damage to cars' steel with less damage
to plastic is
consistent with the effects of thermate dropping
from above.
Maybe it is, but maybe it is also consistent with other
hypotheses. Moreover, the use of a directed energy weapon to destroy 805
of
the buildings is consistent with the use of thermate (or super-thermate)
to bring down the other 20%, in case you have not thought about this.
E. Is the hypothesis falsifiable? If so, what
crucial experiments
can be done? The proponents should explain.
If there are no effects from the use of a directed energy weapon
as opposed to other possible causes, such as mini-nukes and thermate,
then that would undermine the hypothesis. I don't quite understand
why you are rushing the cadence when a novel hypothesis has
just
been placed before us? Are we guilty of some kind of political
offense if we simply consider non-thermate or thermate-plus alternatives?
Too much of your attitude appears to be rooted in supreme confidence
that you have uncovered the key to the destruction of the towers
by
means of thermate. Well, I challenge you to offer proof that any
variation on the hypothesis you prefer has the capacity to produce the
gross effects of blowing beams outward and even upward, pulverizing
the
buildings, and bringing them down in 10 and 9 seconds. A necessary
condition is that the destruction of these 500,000 ton buildings
cannot seriously damage the bathtub. If you are right, it will all
come
out in the wash. In the meanwhile, let's not throw out the baby
with
the bathwater, which, fortunately, did not flood beneath lower
Manhattan!
One posted that you said on the radio last week: "Judy,
This is
the most fascinating development in the history of
the study of 911!"
Many disagree with your assessment.
So what? How many disagreed with Galileo or with Kepler or Newton
or Einstein? Are you measuring truth on the basis of popularity?
Because a lot of persons find causal indeterminism a difficult
idea to accept, should we abandon quantum mechanics? It is
embarrassing that you are endorsing such an attitude. I was learning about
the bathtub and viewing some of the evidence for the disintegration
of steel--which you appear to have missed completely!--for the
first
time. I stand by my statement and especially appreciate that
it
has brought me to a new level of understanding of the evidence that
has to be explained an to a new hypothesis involving the role of
WTC-7. I could care less that "many disagree with my assessment".
So
what?
One member (not me) wrote: "Jim Fetzer,
has successfully turned
ST9-11 into both a laughing stock - and a totally
discredited
organization - by his inexplicable public 'cozying
up' to Judy
Wood and the scientifically unproven theories that
she co-endorses
with Morgan Reynolds."
As I have observed above, if an hypothesis that actually ties
together what we know about the destruction of WTC-1 and WTC=2 with the
classic demolition of WTC-7 makes us "a laughing stock", then
that's
remarkable, because I have seen nothing from you that would come close to
providing a unified explanation that ties the demolition of these three
buildings together. They could not use the same method of demolition,
if
what I am proposing is right, because they were destroying the very
means by which the destruction of the other buildings had been affected.
Just because the preliminary discussion of new alternatives has a
potential for ridicule and sarcasm does not make them false! I offer
Galileo as an illustration once again. I cannot be responsible for the
learning curves of some of our members. And are we to compound the
fallacy of special pleading (based upon partial understanding of my
position) and straw-man (characterizing it as a "star wars" beam
weapon) with
attacks on sources (it must be false because Morgan and Judy proposed
it)? Am I dealing with children here? It doesn't matter where an hypothesis
originates; what matters is its capacity to cope with the evidence.
And every new hypothesis is originally scientifically unproven, which
is the point and purpose of undertaking its systematic evalution. (I
would be interested in Bob Bowman's assessment of this approach.
My impression is you may have forgotten about the "Star Wars"
research program for destroying ICBMs and such, which might easily have
spawned offspring such as directed energy weapons of the kind I am
considering.
3. There is a growing sentiment that the st911
web site no
longer represents the widely shared reliance on sound
investigation
using the scientific method, but instead favors wild ideas.
Many have
expressed that they no longer point people to the st911
web site.
The use of the phrase, "wild ideas", sounds like what
we as critics
of the government's official account have been accused of. What
is wrong with exploring alternative hypotheses? Are we supposed
to
be afraid of ideas? This complaint appears to be one that would
purify the site of discussion of any idea on which there is complete
or
at least general agreement AS CONCLUSIONS when this site is intended
to stimulate interest and reflect the current state of controversy
about a whole host of issues. Personally, I don't have any doubt about
the issues that are more or less settled and those that are not
when
I review our web site. It not only displays what we have found
but
invites consideration of issues that remain unsettled and, in
some cases, are controversial and complex. But that is the nature
of
the beast. It is far easier to demonstrate that the official account
is false than it is to figure out what actually brought the towers
down. It would be a blunder to cut off promising lines of inquiry
because some members may have a feeble grasp of science and the stages
of
inquiry. Coming up with new ideas is the most difficult part.
If these hypotheses are wrong, that will become clear with more
inquiry.
I hope you will consider these serious concerns,
Jim. It's time
to make a few changes, I believe we can do these
in a way that will
be both amicable and best for the pursuit of 9/11
truth.
I have already responded to the proposals you have advanced
above. Please post the three emails I have sent on the forum. Were
I to
visit, I would inevitably be drawn into extended discussions
and
debate, which would probably adversely affect my attitude toward
some members--one, in particular--I would rather hold in esteem.
So if you could kindly post them for me, I would be in your
debt.
Steve
PS -- you wrote that you invited Judy Wood to
be on the "debate"
panel -- but on which side?
This is an embarrassing and offensive ad hominem. In my opinion,
her contributions to the study of 9/11, including her time studies
and her "trees turning to sawdust" metaphor, have been as
important as
your own and, if I may say so, might even prove to be of more enduring
value by focusing on the totality of the destruction and massive energy
deficit. I have experienced others stabbing me in the back before and
I do
not buy all her criticism of you, but this is unacceptable coming from you. |
