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
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:
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:
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 email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org.
James H. Fetzer