Philosophy And Science are Like McCartney and Lennon

I wrote this, and sent it to Jim Fetzer and Steve Jones, yesterday.

Jim Fetzer and Steve Jones are co-chairs of the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Their personality styles are clearly opposite. Dr. Fetzer is fearless and outspoken, willing to go toe-to-toe and win against blowhards like Sean Hannity. Dr. Jones is humble, soft-spoken and thoughtful, thinking through the consequences of his every word, a team player, a person of faith who walks softly but carries a big stick (of rigorous science and analysis).

But let's put aside the personality differences. And let's put aside discussion about one or the other of them being a disinfo agent or egotistical or a glory-seeker or a control freak or a gatekeeper limiting the allowable topics or a bully or a quack (these topics may be worth discussing elsewhere. Indeed, if one of them is truly a disinfo operative, then all bets are off). Let's assume that both scholars have good intentions -- to uncover the truth of 9/11 and to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Let's just focus on the differences in their perspectives and philosophies.

Fetzer is an expert on the "philosophy of science", which means the field of learning how scientists make their discoveries and how scientific breakthroughs come about. As such, he has studied many cases of commonly-accepted "scientific knowledge" which have turned out to be false. I know a little about this field because my buddy Paul studied the philosophy of science when we were in college together. On train rides through Europe on our summer vacation, we would (when we were not flirting with young European ladies) read out loud from a quantum physics book we had found in a trash can, and discuss both science and the philosophy of science.

Jones, on the other hand, is a first-tier hard scientist ("hard" in the sense that physics is a "hard" science, and not a social science). And his internet alias, "Hard Evidence", reflects his discipline in sticking with the "hard facts" and not speculating too far ahead of where the facts lead.

In the recent dispute over Fetzer's enthusiasm about Judy Wood's statement that the Twin Towers fell faster than free-fall speed and that the Twin Towers were probably demolished by high-tech directed energy weapons, errors in Wood's calculations scared the heck out of Dr. Jones -- the founder and co-chair of the Scholars group is very publicly claiming something that is so obviously wrong according to a basic physics principal (terminal free fall velocity), that Dr. Fetzer's misstatment could discredit the whole organization and even the entire 9/11 movement! Can you see why Jones would be upset?! (virtually all of the scientists in the Scholars' group were equally upset). Fetzer made other claims (many originating with Wood) that are also easily disproven.

But Dr. Fetzer, in his "Modest Proposal", eloquently argues for the perspective of the Philosophy of Science:

"The journal [of 9/11 Studies] is for peer-reviewed studies. The [Scholars for 9/11 Truth] 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 stage, including mini-nukes and high-tech weapons, which may or may not "pan out" and reach the stage of development suitable for journal publication. If that were the right policy for the web site, I doubt we would even be able to include Steve's work, which he describes as "preliminary" and "incomplete" and which he is constantly revising. My view is that the public should be allowed to "peek inside" and see the nature of real, living science, where there are intense arguments and profound disagreements, even over points thought to be "settled".

My opinion is that it is possible to be "too conservative" about what we are doing in the research community. The truth does not leap out at us like Athena from the forehead of Zeus! We have to struggle to establish what is the case, piece by piece, little by little, and at certain junctures we may have to abandon what we previously thought was the case because of the advent of new evidence or new alternative hypotheses."

It is true that even the best-tested scientific theories, commonly accepted as "fact" (such as quantum mechanics) are never proven with 100% certainty. And Dr. Fetzer is correct that even leading theories are eventually replaced with better theories. It is also true that commonly accepted theories are eventually found to be a sub-set of bigger, more comprehensive theories. For example, classical mechanics or classical physics is true, but is a sub-set of a larger "modern" physics, and only holds true at the non-quantum level (that is, its true so long as things aren't really really small).

I, myself, have come up with many new theories about 9/11. I agree that creative brainstorming is a valuable part of the scientific method, and that the "right" theory may never be debated if people were too afraid to make a mistake.

However, I passionately disagree that all new theories should be aired publicly. Most of my theories have turned out to be wrong. That's why, when I have raised many of my knuckleheaded 9/11 theories, I have always used a disclaimer saying, in effect: "I don't know if this makes sense -- what do you think?" If people point out major flaws in my thinking, I drop the theory. And I have always been careful to raise new theories either in private settings, or in a way which makes it clear that I am not speaking for the group, but as an individual.

Let's use an analogy. If Paul McCartney and John Lennon of the Beatles -- brilliant and opposite-personalitied musicians -- had played half-finished songs with great potential in public, would people have thought much of the Beatles? No. On the other hand, if they hadn't tried many many potential riffs, ideas, and theories for songs in private, many of which never went anywhere, would they have written so many hits? No again.

The most powerful strategy concerning 9/11 truth is to allow abundant opportunity for scientific brainstormimg about what happened on 9/11. And to keep such brainstorming private until a theory reaches a critical threshhold of trustworthiness where multiple lines of evidence support it, with reproducible results, and there are many more pieces of evidence pointing towards it then away from it.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Personally, I believe that Dr. Jones' work is way beyond "preliminary", and that the multiple lines of evidence which he has used to bolster his "thermite" hypothesis are very persuasive. But it should stand up to questioning and scrutiny just like any other theory about 9/11. If someone points out a glaring flaw in his theory that renders it highly improbable, then the whole thing may need to be re-thought. But I have not seen such flaw to date.

More importantly, I strongly believe that the Scholars' website should NOT post every new hair-brained theory that one of the scholars comes up with. Again, I know from my own experience that a theory that at first glance seems very attractive as a "smoking gun" can turn out to have fatal flaws. If a theory has not been bounced off of at least a handful of scientists (if it has to do with physical evidence) or military or intelligence experts (if it has to do with stand downs, war games, foreknowledge, patsies, terrorist funding, etc.), then it is not ready for prime time.

As such, the Scholars' home page should not reference ANY theory that is not commonly accepted among the scholars group. Any new or unaccepted theory should be largely discussed internally, or clear disclaimers should be used when discussing it, such as: "NOTE: This is my personal theory, and I don't speak for the Scholars group. I'm not yet sure if this theory is even true, but I am raising it because brainstorming is a vital part of science, and so that we can subject it to analysis and debate and find out if its true or not."

If the Scholars group does that, it will benefit from Fetzer's keen understanding of the value of brainstorming and debate from the Philosophy of Science, and Jones' rigorous intellect and discipline in sticking to the "hard facts" which he has honed from years of rigorous physics work. If they respect each others' strengths, and keep the brainstorming plus ready-for-prime-time ideas in mind, then maybe -- like McCartney and Lennon -- they might be able to do some great work together.

Barrett on Anderson Cooper just now

Sorry to post an unrelated comment but: Did anyone record the segment on Kevin Barrett that was just aired a few minutes ago on Anderson Cooper? CNN interviewed some of Barrett's students, showed him teaching in class, and then called the idea that the CIA funded al Qaeda "speculation" that the CIA denies.

GW, just for the record...

1) Are you an attorney and if so, are you an attorney for Dr. Steven Jones?

2) Are you any other kind of professional associate to Dr. Jones?

I'm just trying to clear these speculations up.

Why do you care? His

Why do you care? His writings should stand or fall on their own merits, just like Jones's, Wood's or anyone else's writings should.


Kind of thinking would destroy the divisiveness these individuals are trying to cause.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Steven Jones' Attorney Defends (who else?) Steven Jones!

Apparently acting as Steven Jones' attorney (formally or informally), as a moderator at 911 Blogger, as a member of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and as the opinionated author and editor at, you have provided a spirited defence of Steven Jones' side of his disagreements with Jim Fetzer. Bravo, bravo, bravo, George Washington!!!

Or should we call you Attorney Alex Floum -- in addition to "George Washington"? Do you have any other names? Come on now, George Washington, since you cannot tell us a lie, are you really Steven Jones attorney, either formally or informally? See "George Washington, Since You Cannot Tell a Lie" at and the large article about George Washington (a/k/a Attorney Alex Floum).

If you are acting as Steven Jones' Attorney, this is quite okay with me and with most 911 Blogger readers who have read your blog above and are now reading this comment. However, if you are Steven Jones' attorney, then don't you think that it might only be cricket for you to have disclosed such a thing to us, your loyal 911 Blogger subjects? Thank you, King Alex!

You go on at length about the mistakes that Dr. James Fetzer and Dr. Judy Wood allegedly made in their Falling Piano statements. You indicated that their statements about the Falling Piano could damage and set back the entire 9/11 Truth Movement. Okay, maybe; but probably not.

However, what if the esteemed Dr. Steven E. Jones were MISTAKEN or DECEPTIVE in his calculations and example in his refutation of Dr. Fetzer's and Dr. Wood's Falling Piano example? If lesser mortal beings such as Dr. Fetzer and Dr. Wood could damage the whole 9/11 Truth Movement by making a mistake, then just how much could the now-deified Dr. Steven E. Jones damage the whole 9/11 Truth Movement by making EVEN A SINGLE MISTAKE? After all, Professor Steven E. Jones is infallible -- just like the Pope (or a god), right?

Well, guess what George (or should I call you Attorney Floum or King Alex)? The e-steamed Professor Steven E. Jones appears to have made a MISTAKE in his Falling Piano calculations. In addition, the e-steamed Professor Jones uses a DECEPTIVE example of a very heavy piano with a very SMALL surface area for air drag to artificially bolster his argument. But Professor Steven E. Jones is a masterdebator (be sure to spell this correctly), and he has an excellent attorney! Who knew?

Dr. Fetzer's and Dr. Wood's PROOF that Dr. Jones' calculations about HIS Falling Piano are MISTAKEN are at "On Grand :Pianos and Terminal Velocities" at

Since we all know how willing that Professor Jones is to admit his very, very, very few mistakes, and since we can count on your close, personal relationship with Uncle Stevie to make sure that he gets this message, then please ask Dr. Jones and his team of Falling Piano experts to review Dr. Fetzer's and Dr. Wood's calculations. Then please post Dr. Jones' response as a reply to this comment. After all, it's the scholarly way!

The "Just Curious" commentator at asked a few other interesting questions of you, George Washington, or Attorney Alex Floum, or... You should check out the questions and answer them all, if you have not already done so.

In addition to the very interesting question about your being Steven Jones attorney (formally or informally), Just Curious also asked the following set of questions:

"The above comment says that you "registered on behalf of Schlund + Partners [A.G.], which is a registrant company associated with [mega-defense contractor] SAIC's VeriSign." Is this true?"

"What or who is "Schlund + Partners A.G.? Where are they primarily registered to do business? Isn't "A.G." one designation for a corporation registered in Germany?"

"If you own or control the and Journal of 9/11 Studies websites, then don't you control a large amount of Scholars for 9/11 Truth? These websites are ST911's primary information portals to the world, and 9/11 truth and information are ST911's most important products. Are you the power behind the thrown at ST911? WHEN will you assign all of your rights in these websites to Scholars for 9/11 Truth?"

Hey, George, what are the answers??? Since you cannot tell a lie, we KNOW that you will tell us the truth.

P.S. Since 911 Blogger uses NSA-type technology to identify the IP Addresses and other identifying information of its bloggers and commentators, I know that you know who I am. What is more interesting is to watch to whom you give this information, i.e., to others outside of 911 Blogger and to one or more others who may figuratively or literally sleep with an important part of 911 Blogger, who show up knowing such information.

King George, is that really cricket of you? Or do we need another American Revolution?

Dr Jones - Dr Fetzer - Dr Woods

Theories, Theories, Theories
Personally I don't think the movement would be this far without theories. Granted I started late due to being sidelined until the litigation that I was working on was settled but that's another story. Whether George is the attorney for Dr Jones or not is not important. I have said many times that at this stage, disinfo or not, research is research just as an investigation is an investigation. In this case they should all be allowed to disagree but keep doing research in their own fields. There is no need for name calling or insults. What we are looking for is truth and results.

What the hell could have created the massive amounts of molten metal under each building the burnt for weeks if not months?

Go for it. Who knows may it will end up like a fruit cake. A little bit of Dr Jones, Dr Fetxer and Dr. Wood in addition to some GeorgeWashigton and lots of Nobodys.

By the way, I received a request from the American College of Forensic Examiners to submit a proposal for their International Show in October 2007. The written proposal has to be submitted by December 31, 2006. I replied to their email if they would entertain a 911 exhibit they responded that the proposal has to be submitted by the end of the year.
I don't feel that I am up to speed sufficiently yet. Especially with all this in house squabbling that is going on. I haven't been able to sink my teeth into the insurance claims yet.
However, December 31, 2006 is next month. I will help raise whatever fees are necessary for the October 2007 show and I have the in. Oh didn't I mention that I am a CPA who also happens to be a Diplomate of the American Board of Forensic Accountants.
If anybody thinks it will help to put someone's theory in the public where it can be scrutinized the International Show in October 2007 is it.

Dr. Jones.........carries a

Dr. Jones.........carries a big stick (of rigorous science and analysis).

why doesn't jones with his big stick of science address the issue of the strangely unexplained spontaneously combusted automobiles, some of which were several blocks distant from the equally strangely unexplained completely disintegrated concrete of the wtc1&2?

big stick of science? as if.

the original george washington must be rolling over in his grave at the thought of your george washington's connections with the defense industry.

"Spontaneous combustion"

How do you know they spontaneously combusted?

How do you know they

How do you know they spontaneously combusted?

because i simply looked at the photos of them.
do you suggest an alternative?
perhaps these many automobiles (some many blocks away) burned and toasted due to the incredible force of gravity that caused wtc2 to completely disintegrate at the astounding rate of 11 floors per second.

what is your opinion of prof jones' and by extension g. washington's ties to the defense industry?

"I have simply looked at

"I have simply looked at photos of them."

Sorry, that's just really lame. Do you know if they were photographed in their original positions? Were attempts made to extinguish fires? And who is saying the Towers were destroyed by gravity? C'mon, not even NIST is saying that anymore (maybe they're implying it by default, since they've discredited the previous "collapse" theories without even trying to offer a substitute.)

As far as your question about Prof. Jones' and GeorgeWashington's connections: the defense industry has its financial tentacles all through the world of science in this country. At a certain point, you have to set identities aside and look at actions only. On that level, the question of whose actions are in the PTB's interests at this time is a no-brainer.

Sorry, that's just really

Sorry, that's just really lame. Do you know if they were photographed in their original positions? Were attempts made to extinguish fires?

lame? sorry my dear but your attempt at deflection is the lame. do you suggest that the many dozens of burned and toasted autos were moved around before being photographed? does it matter if attempts were made to extinguish? the fact is that many dozens of autos, some being several blocks away were unexplainably and oddly combusted. the key words here being unexplainably and oddly. prof wood addresses this phenomena and points to likely defense industry malfeasance. prof jones seemingly ignores this same phenomena (and other phenom incl. complete disintegration and the astounding rate of such), while sporting ties to the very same defense industry.

nice try cass.

There's a video on Google

There's a video on Google Video showing thermite completely burning through a car.

First it burned a hole completely through the engine block. Then, they burned a hole in the back of the car, to the gas tank, when the entire car subsequently caught on fire and burned severely.

Here's an alternative hypothesis to the space beams: thermite in the building that had not yet fully reacted and burned was blown away from the building, fell on some of these cars, and burned them severely, exactly like is seen in the video I referenced. Can I prove this is exactly what happened? No, but Judy can't prove space beams did it either.

The point is, we can come up with alternative hypotheses all day long. We should focus our efforts on disproving the government's theory and not on trying to prove our own theories. If enough people come to understand that the government's account is false, the political will for a new investigation will take shape and we can get access to the evidence (witnesses, documents) that can prove or disprove anyone's pet theory, or a completely different theory altogether.

an alternative hypothesis

an alternative hypothesis to the space beams:: thermite in the building that had not yet fully reacted and burned was blown away from the building, fell on some of these cars, and burned them severely,

oh awesome hypothesis - maybe you can convince prof jones to include that with his big stick of science!
and dem bruce lee should be well along with his new and improved version of the truth movement's manifesto by now as well - wow i can smell the new truth from here!

On grand pianos and terminal velocities

On grand pianos and terminal velocities
by James H. Fetzer with Judy Wood and Anonymous Scholar
22 November 2006

Steve reports here that a "poll" taken on the Scholar's forum showed 60% favored a web site run by a 5-person committee, 32% favored voting on what appears by all members, and 8% favored the current arrangement, where I manage the site with advice from the steering committee. This result might be a bit more impressive if he had observed that only 25 out of some 400 members of the society cast votes, each weighing in at 4%.

Posting by a committee is guaranteed to produce mediocre and uninteresting posts. Only the most widely accepted views are going to be represented. Votes by the whole society would be absurd. It would take forever to secure a quorum, for example, and most of those that eventually appear would be out of date by the time they were put up on the web site. Based upon my experience, the ideas under consideration have little merit.

Steve does not mention that I advanced a proposal to resolve tensions within the society just yesterday, which, I suggest, are more deserving of being taken seriously. They are these:

. . . . . . .


Here are my proposals, which I invite all of you to consider:

(1) Steve and Kevin will strengthen the editorial board of the society's journal by adding up to a dozen highly-qualified hard science types, possibly drawn from the membership of SPINE;

(2) The editors will be more even-handed in processing papers that represent non-standard points of view, where there is some evidence of partiality to positions preferred by the editors;

(3) The web site will be overhauled to clearly demarcated be- tween proof that the official account is wrong and attempts to explain how it was done, which is overwhelmingly more difficult;

(4) The founder will make an effort to emphasize problems with the official account and be very careful in his discussions of the state of research to not create false impressions thereof.

(5) All parties will cease and desist from attacks upon each other, where objective discussion of the merits of different theories about the case should be done in a respectful manner.

We need resources to overhaul the web site, which may require some time and effort. Suggestions are welcome. Perhaps we can recruit professionals who will assist us in doing this. I will be glad to undertake the supervision of the project with advice from a new set of co-chairs or the steering committee. Perhaps this list would be willing to serve as that committee.


P.S. Steve and I have been invited to appear together at The
National Press Club on Wednesday, 10 January 2007. I
suggest we both accept the invitation and do our thing.

. . . . . . .

I have accepted the invitation to speak at The National Press Club, and I hope that Steve will as well. We could focus on what happened to the World Trade Center and discuss some of our differences in point of view. For example, after studying Judy's work, I am convinced that the problem we confront in explaining what happened is vastly greater than just what happened to WTC-1 and WCT-2, even if we toss in WTC-7! That still leaves out WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6! Take a look at Judy's photographs and diagrams. It will blow you away!

Moreover, thermate increasingly appears to be an inadequate cause of the devastation of the complete World Trade Center. EVEN IF IT WERE GOOD AS GOLD REGARDING WTC-1 AND WTC-2, we would still be left with a monumental task in explaining the devastation to WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6, which, to the best of my knowledge, Steven Jones has never addressed. His evidence of the use of thermate also seems to be undermined by the discovery that thermate appears to have been used to bring down what little remained after the towers went "poof"! But if that is the case, then its presence is explainable on grounds other than its use to destroy the Twin Towers and it too, as a framework for explaining the evidence, goes "poof"!

Now it is certainly true that I used the figure of 30 seconds to characterize the time of free fall for a piano from atop a 110 story building. Steve has made a great to-do over this, posting his own calculations that the correct time for such an event should have been 11 seconds! (I was actually citing HIS OWN NUMBER in this response!) Judy Wood, however, has discovered that Steve made a mistake in his calculations and the correct time, given his assumptions, should have been 12.54 seconds. That is fascinating, because Judy had told me a long time ago that her best guess ABSENT CALCULATIONS would be between 12 and 13 seconds, which is exactly right on the basis of Steve's assumptions!

Moreover, Steve biased his argument by using a "baby grand" of abnormal weight rather than a Steinway. This is rather troubling. We usually argue on the basis of premises that are fair to both sides. Even when he "loaded the piano", however, HE STILL GOT IT WRONG! Indeed, given the variables that are involved, if we consider a 500 pound piano with its lid flapping open, it could have taken as long as 30 seconds! So even though I used a figure a friend of Judy had offered, as she had told me at the time, it is correct to say that a piano in free fall could take as long as 30 seconds to make the fall from the top of a 110 story building to the ground!

The benefits of mathematics in argument are thereby again displayed. This demonstrates that even experts in a field such as physics can get things wrong. Steve has put a lot of eggs in this basket, which turns out to have been built on a blunder. (I offer Judy Wood's calculations below and Anonymous Scholar's display of the argument. They do good work.) Why Steve should be persisting in all of this after I have offered a proposal for resolution is a question that ought to be directed to him at I understand that a new web page design is being proposed by an expert in that field, which I look forward to reviewing. Perhaps all of this will have a happy ending, after all!





I went through the piano calculations, inside and out. I think I figured out how that bogus number was calculated, but it's easier to show that his values are physically impossible.

Steven Jones has committed a blunder, "big time"!

* If he checked these calculations, he's responsible for them!
(I never said I checked the ones my friend gave me.)

I will use these numbers instead of the ones posted on 911blogger.

These values are less embarrassing to Jones.



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

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

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

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

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


1. Jones said the values were for a Yamaha grand piano. This is dishonest. They are not. The values he presented are for a heavy baby grand piano, not a grand piano (see listing of Yamaha baby grand, item #6 on list:

2. I entered the measurements and data he gave -- using the internet gizmo to calculate it. The time it gave was 12.54 seconds, not 11 seconds. (His version on 911blogger shows 10.5 seconds.)

3. Here is a simple proof to clearly illustrate he is wrong.


Jones gives Terminal Velocity = 40 m per second

Lets say you drop a billiard ball in a vacuum, no air resistance, so that it can rush up to speed as fast as possible. Then, when it reaches the speed of terminal velocity, it remains that speed from thereafter.

The time it takes to get up to terminal speed:
v = g*t, solving for t, t = 4.0775 sec.

In that time, how much distance was covered, getting up to speed?
Use x = (g/2)*t*t, solving for x, x = 81.549 m

What distance remains of the entire building height, which will be at constant speed of terminal velocity?
Building height - distance getting up to speed = 417 - 81.549 = 335.45 m.

How long does it take to cover that distance at a constant speed?

Use x = vt, solving for t, t = 8.3862

What is the total time?

4.0775 + 8.3862 = 12.46374 seconds.

12.46374 seconds > 11 seconds (+or-)

Or, is Jones going to play games, saying the (+or-) covers any error he has?

Note: The time I calculated is conservative, in that I assumed a fall through vacuum for the first part. In reality it would take the object longer to get to terminal velocity due to air resistance. But hey, even then he's real wrong! It's impossible for an object dropped from the height of WTC1 to reach the ground in 11 seconds if it has a terminal velocity of 40 m/s.



SJ: "I teach the physics of air drag forces and concomitant terminal velocity..."

JW: One might remark, It's no wonder they took him out of the classroom!

SJ: "It really concerns me that you are being so easily led by the nose my friend by these ideas of Judy's or whoever. Ask for numbers, calculations. Insist on these so you can do some checking before you go telling people that a grand piano takes 21 seconds over the time of the tower's fall. What a bunch of obvious garbage, Jim. You're going to be laughed at by anyone who knows how to calculate terminal velocity, which is mass-dependent!"

JW: I believe Jones said he checked these numbers and he had two of his forum friends (Frank Legge and Alfohs) check them, too.

This makes them all look silly. I never said I had checked those numbers. I was only relaying what someone else said. By the way, it is possible to have a grand piano take 30 seconds to drop. You may need to lower the weight to 500 pounds and flop the lid open to increase drag. So it's physically possible!




I wonder...

I wonder why Jones was so quick to attack his co-chair, yet never offered to make the calculation for Fetzer over the many months Fetzer loved talking about his "grand piano." Why was Jones holding out on him?

As it turned out, it's a good thing that Jones didn't give Fetzer any values to present. They'd likely be wrong and discredit Fetzer.

Global warming already killing species, analysis says

But you need not fear. Those two pieces of stool, Bush & Cheney, don't believe in global warming, so we have nothing to worry about.

Where were you...

On the night of April 14th, 1983?

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

GW, it's not about Lennon

GW, it's not about Lennon or McCartney man, it's about one person trying to remain credible and the other person being a complete fool. And you've got to factor in Wood and Reynolds, and the fact that they are obvious ill intentioned potential saboteurs of the movement. That or they're doing a damn good job of acting like it. I liked Fetzer a lot, now I'm still a bit confused, but regardless recognise that he has zero understanding or concern for this Movements credibility. Zero. All these "no planes" "space beam" "everything’s fake" jokers need to be COMPLETELY distanced from the Truth Movement. The single positive that I can see coming out of this new bullshit with Fetzer is that now we might be able to push the disinfo advocates off the truth train for good, and regroup stronger still. The only thing I want to see is a fair, thought out and agreed upon (by everyone in the movement if possible via poll) declaration of what the Truth Movement stands for. Primarily what needs to be on that declaration is that we are a movement in pursuit of a real investigation into the attacks, period. We are not “theorists”, enough theory has been done already and the word “theory” doesn’t even come into most of it, these are valid, rational fact based concerns we all have. And that any wild "theories" about "space beams" etc ARE NOT ASSOCIATED with what THE VAST MAJORITY OF US stand for. Until that time such bullshit like the utter crap Fetzer parroted is not to be tolerated, and I don’t mean fascism, I mean if someone like Fetzer starts doing something that most of us think is highly detrimental to everyone else’s image he gets to know about it. Let people go off and muse and theorise as much as they want, that is not the issue here. But when that "theorizing" is being pushed, is unsubstantiated, unnecessary and highly unproductive, and is in fact counter productive on many levels including for the Movement’s image and credibility, it's unity and it's focus, then it simply can not be tolerated if we actually want to win this thing. It's time to stick a flag in the ground, call it the 9/11 Truth Movement and attach those principles for successes and focus that we stand for, and let that be our public face. Not some confused mess of credible voices mixed with the occasional minority of a few random, absurd and uncredible voices that we end up unfairly getting tainted as by the media etc. It hurts to reject Fetzer because I did appreciate what he was doing, but the guy has by his own will sided with the two biggest idiots previously rejected for their ridiculousness, by my opinion at least. This is about success or failure, do we dilute are potency with the acceptance of wild “theories”, or do we use the tools we already have and are all that we need and work on shattering the negative perceptions and stereotypes of “conspiracy theorists” by reinforcing out credibility? That is the choice.

I do think...

Comparing John Lennon and Paul McCartney to Steven Jones and Jim Fetzer is a bad analogy.

What might be more appropriate is Gary Sherone's relationship to the band Van Halen.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."


You're referring to the serious side of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Crap, I meant to spell "our"

Crap, I meant to spell "our" not "out", but regardless I hope you get the picture people, this is enough now.

Who else thinks this movement needs a declaration of what we stand for? Because I sure do.

Show "Who else thinks this" by anonymous ha (not verified)

Yes, let's have him lead the New World order of Truth!

Wait, isn't that what he's doing already? He's out to destroy honesty and dictate acceptable public "opinion."

Show "9/11 Scholars Double-crossed by Fetzer?" by Know your O'Brien (not verified)

As for you 'George'...

As for you 'George'...

Is it worth the 30 pieces of silver?

Directed Energy Program

The Directed Energy Program is a verifiable fact just like Sadam's Weapons of Mass Destruction Program was a verifiable fact. Unfortunately, weapons programs don't always produce working weapons.

Where has it been demonstrated that the thermite/thermate explosive hypothesis is "demonstrably inadequate to explane the scale of explosive power witnessed"? If you cite to Judy Wood's paper I will laugh in your face.

You can say those things as calmly and politely as you like, but you'll still sound like a raving lunatic to the majority of the population.

People can brainstorm all they want to. They just have to be able to take criticism of their ideas, and recognize it when people make legitimate points about their research.

Steven Jones can't take criticism of his "research"

Steven Jones can't take criticism of his own "research."
Anyone criticizing Jones' work is being thrown out of the Scholars group by Jones.

Talk about a dictatorship!

You are so right!

Jones can't take criticism, nor can his "work" stand up to any criticism.

That's why he has folks like George Washington trying his best to attack anyone questioning Jones. Jones' "work" can't withstand scrutiny. They're just hoping with enough of their attacks on others, you may not recognize that it's those who question Jones' work that are attacked the most.

Gee... I wonder why that is. Jones wasn't hired to divert people from the real issues, was he?

Let's use "The Scientfic Method"

I think Seve B hasn't figured out how to use "The Scientfic Method."

Seve B states, "Where has it been demonstrated that the thermite/thermate explosive hypothesis is "demonstrably inadequate to explane the scale of explosive power witnessed"?" If you want to play that game, you'll need to first prove that a directed energy weapon was not used. But that is not "The Scientfic Method."

"The Scientfic Method" requires Jones to demonstrate that his super-duper "new and improved" magical thermite could have pulverized two110-story buildings in 9 seconds and 10 seconds.

Jones' thermite speculation is just speculation with a wild imagination. "The Scientfic Method" requires him to demonstrate a "proof of concept."

Steve "Los Alamos" Jones knows about the beam weapon. He helped develop it! Now his job is to help in the coverup. One "proof of concept" that Jones has demonstrated: most Americans are quite gullible. Don't fall for this thermite story, hook, line, and sinker.

Demand proof that it's even possible!

you'll need to first prove

you'll need to first prove that a directed energy weapon was not used.

this doesn't really prove anything either way but check out the circular holes seemingly burned into wtc5 from above:

I'm not playing any game.

I'm not playing any game. The poster stated that the thermite/thermate hypothesis is "demonstrably inadequate to explain the scale of explosive power witnessed." It's a really simple question: Where has this been demonstrated? If you can't answer it, you have no support for that statement (and you are, thus, a liar).

Ad hominems are not evidence.

Please refrain from ad hominem attacks and stick to the science, please.

Thank you.

Please refrain from accusing

Please refrain from accusing people of ad hominems when they clearly were not engaging in ad hominems.

You are admitting you are too "demonstrably inadequate"

You are admitting you are too "demonstrably inadequate to explain the scale of explosive power witnessed."

So, what is your point?

Who are the '9/11 deniers'?

What is a denier? Is it the person who strives to humbly illuminate
the facts; who helps pave a pathway to understanding the truth?
Certainly the current prevailing systems of finance, justice and
governance are abundantly failing in this regard given the evidence of
which 9/11 is just the tip of the ice berg. In this we are just
glimpsing the horns of that gluttonous beast that has been enslaving
humanity with impunity for almost a century: systematically decimating
the capacity of the third world to feed itself and shackling it with
unsupportable debt. We could mark the establishment of the Federal
Reserve as its birth in the United States, but actually this was just
it's claws finally getting a firm grip on the throat of this great

The constitution, forged from the fervent desire to create a land of
freedom, emancipating people from centuries of servitude in feudal
systems, is what makes this nation great. The civil war was fought in
its name and it was thereby upheld, but bloody was the cost and long
have lingered the scars. Now a greater evil has taken grip like a
cancer and threatens to break it once and for all. Is it worth

It is ironic that those who have acted to preserve it by challenging
the crimes carried out 5 years ago have been labelled '9/11 deniers'. The
real 9/11 deniers are those who, though aware of the facts, deny that
such a horrible crime should be taken seriously. This is ill afforded
given how important it is to eradicate the force behind that crime.

Welcome to the New World Order

Welcome to the New World Order. It seems you are punished if you think.

It's rare for me to actually laugh out loud

while reading posts, but "Andy Jackie Chan Watson" would have had me doubled over if I wasn't afraid I'd drop my laptop. I don't mean to diminish the fact that you're really angry about the point system, Andrew, but that was freakin' hysterical.

Demonstrably is not

Demonstrably is not rhetorical. Its root word is "demonstrate". I thought you meant that it has been demonstrated that explosives can't acount for the building explosions.

Regardless, it is not "evident" or "obvious" to me that explosives can't account for these things. I heard an interview with Jones where he said he made some thermite using very fine particles (although not nano-sized), and it did explode when ignited.

RE: Big Brother - Actually, what happens here with the voting system is the exact opposite of Big Brother. The people decide which posts are good and which are bad; the decisions are made by not one person or an oligarchical ruling elite. The points system here is a prime example of democracy at work.

What is the truth? Can the

What is the truth?

Can the Truth be owned?

The Truth shall prevail, and the rest will fall away.

We have all made mistakes, and been in error.

Let's sharpen our own minds, and cut as deep as we may.

prime example of ignorance at work

democracy = three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

basic rights, such as freedom of expression, are not subject to the will of the masses.

we have democratic institutions in our constitutional republic.

do some reading.

Nobody is limiting freedom

Nobody is limiting freedom of expression. People here are, however, making their opinion about such expressions known, which is, in itself, an exercise of their freedom of expression. That is the point of the points system. Nothing is erased, it is just hidden and only takes one more click to view. Personally, I frequently click to show hidden posts that have been voted down. How else would some posts get down to -9?

I know it must be disheartening to have people constantly expressing their disapproval of your posts. But you should recognize the point system for what it is. It is not censorship. It is just an exercise in freedom of expression.

Alex Floum (GeorgeWashington) is posting disinformation here

Alex Floum knows the information he has posted here is false. He's been informed of it in writing, but he refuses to correct his errors.

Plain and simple, pushing information you KNOW to be false is disinformation. So Alex Floum, how do they pay you to shill for Jones?