Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Prof. Steven Jones Vs Prof. Jim Fetzer
11-20-2006, 01:09 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-20-2006, 01:30 PM by Ognir.)
#1
Prof. Steven Jones Vs Prof. Jim Fetzer
An Open Letter about Steven Jones

by James H. Fetzer
19 November 2006

Friends and Colleagues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsAppe...l#Possibilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James H. Fetzer
Founder and Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
The InfoUnderground
TiU Radio
http://www.TheInfoUnderground.com
Reply
11-20-2006, 01:25 PM,
#2
Prof. Steven Jones Vs Prof. Jim Fetzer
Let Jones have more control, who else has done any legitemate scientific analysis on the collapse?

Fetzer is obviously taking heat over this. DL Abrahmson and Alex Jones were critical of Fetzer on False Flag News this past Friday because of his apparent acceptance/endorsement of Judy Wood's "theory".
&Having raised the earth's temperature 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last three decades, we're facing another increase of 4 degrees over the next century. That would imply changes that constitute practically a different planet. It's not something we can adapt to. We can't let it go on another 10 years like this.& - NASA's Goddard Space Institute Director James Hansen

ConspiracyCentral Tracker Style Mod
Reply
11-20-2006, 01:28 PM,
#3
Prof. Steven Jones Vs Prof. Jim Fetzer
Besides Fetzer also playing in to the Dems being better than the GOP

Questions to be answered. I'm going to upload a clip of Fetzer shortly
The InfoUnderground
TiU Radio
http://www.TheInfoUnderground.com
Reply
11-20-2006, 04:55 PM,
#4
Prof. Steven Jones Vs Prof. Jim Fetzer
very interesting read, thanks!
however I don't know what to think. I like both and seems to me this is a useless fight between them.
They can settle this simply by talking to each other.
Im sure s. jones won't appreciate this open letter and the fight will go on.
The truth movement doesn't need this kind of distraction. If the clues point towards a new theory, it has to be looked into, imho.
Reply
11-20-2006, 05:34 PM,
#5
Prof. Steven Jones Vs Prof. Jim Fetzer
Great!...It was space beams.

How long before Fetzer goes on Hannity and Colmes and says this shit? That will end us.
Reply
11-20-2006, 05:49 PM,
#6
Prof. Steven Jones Vs Prof. Jim Fetzer
In-fighting is bound to happen, but I think fetzer handled this the completely wrong way. The last thing we need is for fracturing, especially over stupid theories on how the tower came down. At this point, that discussion should be held to debate. No one is ever going to figure it out completely, but we know who did it, why the did it, and how they got rid of the evidence. That is enough for treason and obstruction of justice. And we need to be using our fighting energy to make people wake up to these facts and start fighting the NWO.

Jones is probably just getting flustered. He lost his job, and his respectable name which means basically everything in his line of work. Think of all the work he is missing out on now. I mean physics professors like him aren't just there to teach classes. They get to do experiments and research most the time and let some aide teach their classes. So now he will get no more research grants, has no teaching job, and probably no one he knew in his professional career will talk to him. I'm sure he is just upset that he lost all of that and now he has to deal with some fringe theories that hold no scientific water when he went through a lot to get out his highly plausible theory.

So in short, I'm sure Jones was trying to pressure Fetzer into changing his ways, but Fetzer should of just played it off and not made a big deal about it. If everyone just had empathy things would go a lot smoother.
The belief in 'coincidence' is the prevalent superstition of the Age of Science.

&I don't understand why you're taking such a belligerant tone when you're obviously the ignorant one here. &
-triplesix
Reply
11-20-2006, 05:50 PM,
#7
Prof. Steven Jones Vs Prof. Jim Fetzer
This "Star Wars Beam Weapon" theory seems to be a concerted campaign to get us all focused on how the WTC towers were felled, rather than who done it and why.

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsAppe...l#Possibilities

Showing the Google Results for search numbers seems extremely fishy to me. The funny thing is, the very first search result for "directed-energy weapons" and Controlled Demolition debunks the very idea of EM Weapons.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/t...energybeam.html

Quote: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 Prof. Fetzer is forgetting is that it is so easy for the opposition to set up straw-man arguments based on the theories that are legitimately wild conspiracy theories, as opposed to the real conspiracy theories such as NORAD standing down on 9/11, the use of thermate, etc.

Prof. Steven Jones seems much more careful and level-headed than Prof. Fetzer.
Reply
11-20-2006, 08:16 PM,
#8
Prof. Steven Jones Vs Prof. Jim Fetzer
Quote:This "Star Wars Beam Weapon" theory seems to be a concerted campaign to get us all focused on how the WTC towers were felled, rather than who done it and why.

I hear you, but don't you think knowing the "how" will expose the "who"?
OBL certainly didn't have access to space based energy weapons... so it would be safe to assume he didn't perpetrated the crime IF this kind of technology has been used.

In the images provided by Fetzer you can actually see some strange behaviour of the steel... in some istances it's like it evaporates for no apparent reason... look at this one http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/jan...ARG/Image42.jpg taken from here http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam3.html

I really would dig further, but on the other hand I'd be very cautious about telling it's the truth.
For instance I have more proof it was thermate in my mind.
Reply
11-20-2006, 08:48 PM,
#9
Prof. Steven Jones Vs Prof. Jim Fetzer
"In the images provided by Fetzer you can actually see some strange behaviour of the steel... in some istances it's like it evaporates for no apparent reason... look at this one http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/jan...age42.jpg"

That looks to me like the steel frame remenant of the core collapsed and the cloud of ultra fine concrete dust surrounding it stayed where it was. There's no evaporation. To evaporate steel would take frightening temperatures and would surely be glaringly visible (above white heat, not grey powder). The theory sounds like horseshit to me, based at best on a misreading of what is there.

Dunno what Fetzer is doing. The thermite/mate evidence we have is very real and convincing. Crazy theories just fuck up any credibility of real evidence. Fox news and their ilk will go wild with talk of Space beams.
Dr Jones doesn't seem like the sort to go on a power trip unnecessarily.
Reply
11-20-2006, 09:30 PM,
#10
Prof. Steven Jones Vs Prof. Jim Fetzer
Yet another HOW it was done... imo right or wrong can only hurt.. in fact there's already been too many and no two theories I've seen on HOW can exist simultaneously. They all contradict eachother. I wish the WHO was what had been concentrated on in the first place... but that is a bell which can't be unrung. Oh well.
Reply
11-20-2006, 10:33 PM,
#11
Prof. Steven Jones Vs Prof. Jim Fetzer
Morgan Renolds also believes that holograms hit the towers... he said "CARTOONS" did it on Fox News.

Later-days... former Bushite... appriciate all your help thus far, but keep cashing those checks from the Bushes and directing us from the guilty...

I think Tom and Jerry took the towers down... with a huge eraser from the sky on the back of a number 2 pencil.

And I also think Fetzer needs to wash his dirty laundry at home and not on the net.
Restore the Republic purchase
America: Freedom to Fascism at:
http://www.buyfreedomtofascism.com
Start home screenings, rent a hall, library or coffee shop... get off your ass and into the streets.
[Image: banner_liberty_468x60.jpg]
A percentage of each purchase made at http://www.buyfreedomtofascism.com and http://www.buyAFTF.com goes to support the Lone Lantern Society of America
[Image: LLS_long_Banner-visit.jpg]
http://www.lonelantern.org
Reply
11-20-2006, 11:05 PM,
#12
Prof. Steven Jones Vs Prof. Jim Fetzer
Anyway you cut it, this is not good. I was just saying Scholars for 911 Truth is respectable and credible in my other post. :pfft:
&its just like.. doood ya get the best barrels ever dood..
its just like.. ya pull in and ya just get spit right out of em...
ya just drop in n just smack the lip.. whabap.. drop down..
zibbaaaahhhahahah..
n then after that.. ya drop in.. ride the barrel..
and get pitted.. sooo pitted like that&
- surfer dood

Northern Alberta Surface Water Study
check it out: www.nasws.ca
Reply
11-21-2006, 01:01 AM,
#13
Prof. Steven Jones Vs Prof. Jim Fetzer
I think harf hit it on the head, this is a concerted effort to distract everyone with how they fell, when we have more than enough evidence to convict them without proving CD beyond a reasonable doubt, but I'm sure the CD details would eventually come out in the trial. The crux of judy and morgans work which relies on the "disintegrating" beams and some stills of half burnt cop cars, is a hardly as thorough as jones' work, this smells like a COINTELPRO op to me.
[Image: O-t-Nlink.png]
O-t-N Disclaimer: WARNING ignorant statements or arguments typed in public, or semi-public arenas; can and will be used for public scrutiny of your idiocy. O-t-N is not responsible for ego damage or embarassment as a result of what you write.
Reply
11-21-2006, 05:17 AM, (This post was last modified: 11-21-2006, 05:21 AM by Freaky.)
#14
Prof. Steven Jones Vs Prof. Jim Fetzer
I think knowing how it was done will point the finger at who did it. Lets face it if was beams from space there can only be one culprit. Same goes with the thermate and the mini nuke theorys they could pretty much only come from one source and thats from your government. How else can you prove who did if you dont know how it was done? How can you expect to bring these people to justice if you cant prove how they did it?

My 2c
Reply
11-21-2006, 05:47 AM,
#15
Prof. Steven Jones Vs Prof. Jim Fetzer
this shit is burnt. so am i. like ognir's avatar says: feck!
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  WANTED! The Complete Alex Jones Y2K broadcast shortwave 1 1,101 02-20-2013, 09:21 PM
Last Post: shortwave
Information Alex Jones, Disinformationist joeblow 12 1,993 12-25-2012, 06:42 PM
Last Post: NoUser78
  Alex Jones is doing commercials now? capnchronic 4 1,313 04-04-2012, 07:42 AM
Last Post: Sovereignman
  Videos of the new Alex Jones TV show BDuncan 8 2,031 09-08-2011, 08:39 AM
Last Post: FRD50
  Is Alex Jones making documentaries anymore? capnchronic 0 661 04-12-2011, 12:59 PM
Last Post: capnchronic
  Alex jones show stuckmojo 1 574 01-16-2011, 09:14 AM
Last Post: Infinite
  My Call To Alex Jones. fred15 0 514 12-31-2010, 09:58 PM
Last Post: fred15
Exclamation Shabbos Jones, Wikileaks, and the firing of Mike Rivero joeblow 34 8,121 12-04-2010, 01:14 PM
Last Post: Riley Martin
  Alex Jones Owl Bank wiki link Weyland 12 2,193 10-20-2010, 05:32 PM
Last Post: TeslaandLyne
Information sebaygo1: Anti-Incumbency Fever and Alex Jones Math joeblow 0 486 08-14-2010, 10:03 AM
Last Post: joeblow

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)