Steve Jones vs Jim Fetzer

I just read that Fetzer has kicked out Steven Jones for censoring Rick Siegel. What I thought was particularly interesting was that he described this move as "temporary" until a
more formal structure for the Scholars can be implemented.

The fact that I could do such a thing as founder of Scholars, however, no doubt qualifies as another reason for the need for the society to incorporate and attain more formal structure.

That's straight from the horse's mouth.

I would ask why Fetzer decided to excercise this authority when he himself admits that his authority is illegitimate, but it's really a moot point.

The Scholars Group has imploded. I think it's time to take a good hard look at what's been going on in the name of Truth, and to reappraise the situation. Do we want to create a mini-industry with a star system? What are our larger policitical goals? Wehere should we be focussing our energies? Frankly I think we ought to be pushing for impeachment and for a new investigation as part of those proceedings. I also think the evidence of foreknowlege, the war games, and NORAD's lying to the commission ought to be front and center.

Anyway we can say goodbye to the Scholars, or at least to the Scholars as the center piece for the "Truth Movement."


Who are you to try and create problems ?
You have only been registered here for a little over 7 weeks.
None of your blogs contained pertinent information. This is at least your third with disinfo cleverly hidden in and attempting to create chaos.
I don't think you should be agitating the situation.
it is not productive.
I think we should just let the scholars work it out without our interference. They should be smart enough on their own.

Angry because somebody

Angry because somebody doesn't like your space beams?

I'm sick and tired of this crap. I'm glad Fetzer kicked him out, because now we can separate the real intellectuals from the compromised nutjobs.

steven jones was kicked out,

steven jones was kicked out, perhaps you misread?

Who is spreading this disinformation?

Steven Jones was not kicked out. Who told you he was?

If this is a rumor Jones is spreading, it is yet another piece of data. Now, "let's use the scientific method." I'll let the few non-trolls left here to come to your own conclusion.

Me? Oh, I'm clearly a

Me? Oh, I'm clearly a limited hangout shill for the Easter Bunny Death Cult and their nefarious laser beams/mini-nukes. I'm actually in hiding in Europe with Barbara Olson and we're dying eggs right now.


"When Steve was nudged into

"When Steve was nudged into "early retirement", I invited him to supervise our members’ forum as well as continue to co-edit the society’s journal, which he co-founded with Judy Wood as co-editor. I had become aware of his strenuous objections to having "star wars beam weapons" hypotheses mentioned on our home page. (Judy’s use of "star wars" was a subtle intimation of its probable origins, but Steve has used "space beams" in order to denigrate it!) But I was acutely distressed when members of the forum were cut off from access to the forum abruptly and without notice.

It is the case that policies are in place for conduct on the forum, which members have been known to violate. In this case, however, the members who were banned–one of whom , Rick Siegel of "9/11 Eyewitness" and "9/11 Eyewitness — Hoboken", was in the middle of posting criticism of Steve when he was cut off in mid-post–appeared to me to have been denied access on political grounds, which is completely unacceptable.

For this reason and other actions and communications between us, I have temporarily removed Steve Jones as Co-Chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. I took this action because I had concluded that Steve’s conduct was undermining the objectives of the society, as the policies of the society state:

"Membership is a privilege, not a right. Should either of the chairs conclude that an individual's participation tends to undermine the objectives of the society, that person's membership may be suspended and she may no longer access the forum or be identified with Scholars of 9/11 Truth."

The fact that I could do such a thing as founder of Scholars, however, no doubt qualifies as another reason for the need for the society to incorporate and attain more formal structure. I took this step to correct what I perceived to be improper conduct in the management of the forum, but others may view what I have done as improper conduct in the management of the society! Having a board of directors to supervise both should resolve such conflicts."

Looks like The members of the forum were getting tired of the personal attacks of Rick Siegel against Prof. Jones (was going on for about 2 months now?) and finally disciplined him.  And now Fetzer retaliates by using the website to put forward HIS version of events.

steven jones was kicked out

steven jones was kicked out not siegel, perhaps you misread?

Perhaps YOU misread, because

Perhaps YOU misread, because you replied to the wrong post before.

Fetzer, you are an egotistical jerk off with ZERO common sense. You will be held accountable, scumbag.

I misread nothing, you are

I misread nothing, you are implying I interperted Rick Siegel having his forum access temporarily suspended as being kicked out.

Pathological liars the whole lot of you.

Jones was NOT kicked out. He resigned!

Yes, Steven Jones resigned from Scholars for 9/11 "truth"


"Membership is a privilege, not a right. Should either of the chairs conclude that an individual's participation tends to undermine the objectives of the society, that person's membership may be suspended and she may no longer access the forum or be identified with Scholars of 9/11 Truth."

Since Jones is one of the chairs, doesn't this mean that he could just kick out Fetzer on the same basis? It seems to me then that Fetzer is simply just counting on the fact that Jones is not as big of an power mad arrogant jerk as he is. Which is probably a correct assumption admittedly.

Seems I wont be refering

Seems I wont be refering ST911 to anyone anymore... is way more is way more organized...

Sounds to me like more

Sounds to me like more political bullshit.

Employee -> I quit
Employer -> No, you're fired

what is your point exactly

No doubt all kinds of new weapons are constantly being developed. The problem with you and people like you is that you inject that issue where it does not belong. It's the same as "mini-nukes". Of course they exist. But there is little if any reason to believe they were either needed or used in the demolition of the world trade center. Moreover your promoting the work of Judy Jetson shows what a low regard you have for the intelligence of the people you are trying to manipulate. Anyone who has waded through the broken links and pop-up ads on Judy Jetson's page can see that she uses the same tactics as noplaners--grainy lo-res video that she claims shows something it most certainly does not, as anyone with access to the available hi-res versions can attest to.

Here's a tip, shill--log in with yet another name (a "real" one of course, you people seem to think that makes you more credible) and try a different approach. We'll call you out on it but at least you can tell your employers that you're trying. They must be losing patience with all these inept hired and volunteer shills they have to work with.

The more you all try, the more obvious your tactics become. See, you all have gotten this far by lying to the ignorant and hiding facts from the less ignorant. As you lose the ability to do the latter, you rely more and more on the former. Do you see the problem here? It's plain to see that the average person when they get over the shock are able to begin thinking quite rationally about things, and there is no demographic that is not coming around.

Especially troublesome for you must be that firefighters and other first responders are beginning to learn the truth. It stands to reason that they would have taken the longest--we certainly don't hold it against them, since they were the most directly affected. What this means though is that once the buzz makes it around their circles it really will be over for the perps. Why? Because what are the media going to do about firefighters demanding the truth? Call them loonies? Yeah right.

Our goal as truthers has been to get the word out to as many people as possible, knowing that at some point (which we most likely passed a while back) awareness would reach a critical mass point from which there would be no turning back, because of how patently obvious the facts are once people are finally exposed to them and learn to separate BS from the truth. All your efforts now are doomed not just to fail in containing the groundswell of truth, but also to identify you as part of the conspiracy and coverup.

As your shill-associates recognize the danger of persisting in promoting lies, we will begin to outnumber you. I have already noticed the much lower number of confrontations I'm subjected to when truthing it up in public. For three hours (and 40 DVDs) yesterday, only one pair of young teens had anything negative to say, and their only act was to take a DVD, write "bullshit" on it and walk away. Whoa, look out Popular Mechanics, you've got some competition, and they at least are succinct!

One of the biggest problems that we have yet to tackle as truthers is the problem people have even imagining what will happen when these truths are known. That's a simple failure of imagination. What will happen is that many people will be quietly resigning their positions in a build up to a series of huge demonstrations demanding impeachment and criminal trials for a few people. There will be bullshit backtracking by many politicians as is to be expected, and Americans will likely forgive most of them as long as they vigorously pursue the very guilty.

In other words, our country will not implode like building 7. It will not be torn asunder like the twin towers. And unlike the Pentagon, our country WILL finally know what hit it. And it will hit back. Not with the irrational and wicked methods of the current regime, but with an astounding awakening of consciousness that will propel the American public back into the ranks respected world citizens.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


If I only had a plane...if only I had a plane...

Reality check for the tragically misinformed:

Flights 11 and 77 did not exist on 9/11:

Flights 93 and 175 did not crash on 9/11:


Who shills for the hoaxes of the mainstream media ?

"Anyone who has waded through the broken links and pop-up ads on Judy Jetson's page can see that she uses the same tactics as noplaners--grainy lo-res video that she claims shows something it most certainly does not, as anyone with access to the available hi-res versions can attest to."
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force
"noplaners-grainy lo-res video.."
---- Harvard Task Force

(would that be the "Task Force" on media video fakery ?)
(or the "Task Force" on conventional controlled demolitions ?

By "noplaners grainy lo-res" , you must mean THESE links here....

which show various different "plane"-like objects swallowed up by the Tower... with zero impact or falling debris.

You do know that these were broadcast by CNN don't you ?
It's an obvious cartoon "Harvard"
Have you even looked at this material "Harvard" ?

Or is ;your job here to protect the credibility of CNN ?
Or are you planning on a future there maybe ?

Sad but true

Good bye scholars.

Fetzer is a skunk.

Andrew Lowe Watson- Patsy or Plant?


I see one of two scenarios being true:

1) You are a poor sap too blind to see he is being led by police agents

2) You are part of the latter group.

Space Beams, No Planes, Micro Nukes, No Hijackers...

I can't wait to see what the FBI comes up with next. Somebody tell Fetzer his cover is blown.



Bye, Andrew Low Wattage!

Oh, and sorry to hear about your health. It seems that everyone who leaves this site in disgust after outing themselves as a shill has to bring up their poor health. A great tactic. What's next, an HIV positive noplaner? And yes, David Shayler is quite an obvious shill. What was it he was harping about with his girlfriend the other day--aliens? Good riddance to you all.

Now if you pull an [NAME CENSORED] and come back again and again after saying you're leaving you will be a very unoriginal shill. This goes for every other shill who leaves--when you return you MUST USE A DIFFERENT NAME. And it's not fair to lift it from a V1A6RA spam message--it has to be your own idea of a common but not too common, trustworthy sounding name.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Stop it with that. There is

Stop it with that. There is no comparison between these two and their position.

these two? which two?

I'm talking about Andrew Lloyd Weber and [NAME CENSORED] both being shills by pretending to be part of the movement and being dishonest. I'm not sure who you're sticking up for here. I'm talking about shills who have proven dishonest and I don't intend to go through all the reasons again. I have a lot more important truth work to do than to beat a dead horse.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


I have a lot more important

I have a lot more important truth work to do than to beat a dead horse.

Apparently not.

It appears

You are in the business of smearing people’s reputations actually. I wonder how many talented and dedicated members of this movement your adolescent antics have chased away?

the answer is none!

I only chase away shills who can't back up their BS and who behave in a dishonest way, for example by posting anonymously until their poor spelling gives them away at which point they make up some bull about testing people. And yes to the question below, it IS [NAME CENSORED] to whom I was referring. He has an amazing number of anonymous supporters--it's uncanny!

Here's a tip to readers--the more anonymous supporters someone has, the less you should be inclined to take them seriously!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


I'm not anonymous and I

I'm not anonymous and I followed your exchanges with Albanese and found you in the wrong.

and a quick review of your comments and his... all people need to do to see with whom they agree.

I wonder how hard it would be to add an "ignore this user" feature to the site. that way people will only be censored by the people who are tired of listening to their pointless commentary. I, for example, don't think I would be missing much if all of misterguy's comments were invisible to me. Anyone else could see them for all I care, but I personally think it would save me some time and aggravation if I didn't have to put up with his indefatigable defense of liars. I kind of get enough of that as a truther, frankly.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


You mean John Albanese?

The guy whose reputation you keep trashing?

You're such a troll.

Gosh, why would you think that?

That seems like a pretty random assertion.

Show "If that is Albanese..." by Jon Gold

i judge by the work, not the person

I don't owe loyalty to anyone, nor do I have to pretend to like something or think it is good because their feelings will be hurt. I simply call em like I see em and when Albanese went undercover here that was the last straw for me. I tried to leave his name out of my comments but here comes an anonymous shill to inject it right back in. People have every right to their opinions of anyone's work. I happen to think that Albanese's film is a limited hangout LIHOP film with very few redeeming qualities, and frankly after seeing his behavior on this site including his ALL CAPS rant in which he threatened to "take it to the next level" with me and called me no end of dirty word names, I think I can surmise the reason why his film doesn't touch on anything more incriminating than ignoring prior warnings of hijackings that never took place.

People also have a right to put anyone they want on a pedestal--just don't expect me or anyone else to bow down before it with you. By their DEEDS I shall judge them, not by their name or biography.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


First of all...

I was talking to casseia. Secondly, you love to use divisive words like "Limited Hangout LIHOP", etc...

You are entitled to your opinion of his movie. I think you're way off base, but what do I know about 9/11?

"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."

I'd just like to say...

That if John Albanese is posting anonymously, I wish he would stop. It's no different than the trolls that come here to play. As for everything else...


"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."

well Jon...

I sure wish you would chime in when people are busy bashing the poor no planers. I mean, shucks, they mean well and you don't say a word when they get insulted. and why do you get on Fetzer's case? He's only the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth--what does HE know about 9/11? Gosh, I guess that all of your noble sentiments apply only when it comes to defending specific people whose ideas seem to be similar to yours. That's fine, but to do so by appealing for an end to divisiveness when you are the first one to draw a line dividing yourself from people whose theories you think are whack, well, that's hypocrisy, and you know it.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Show "The majority of the evidence" by misterguy

OK, just for repetition's sake

The majority of the evidence presented in Everybody Has to Learn Sometime is solid, and easily verified.

Of course, except that none of it proves that any hijackings occured on 9/11, which it nonetheless accepts as a fact.  No need to prove the involvement of Islamofascists because it's just obvious, right?

Fetzer and the no-plane crowd present obvious craziness simply to muddy the water. You can't tell the difference?

I can tell the difference between obviously false and more subtly deceptive BS, yes.

Also, has it never occured to you that the hijackers might have been set-up and that the information in EHTLST is the first step toward uncovering that fact?

First you have to prove that the hijackers actually bought tickets, boarded the flights, hijacked them, and crashed them.  Then we can talk about their being set up.  Since none of this has been proven, I don't see your justification for that line of speculation.

You are so stuck in blaming Israel and pointing to CD that you have no interest in the information that is firmly established.

You are so stuck on preserving the racist Islamofascist myth of evil muslim terrists that you have no interest in the information that is firmly established, like the fact that the owner of the three demolished buildings was a hardcore Zionist and a personal friend of Israeli right winger Benjamin Netanyahu.  And the fact that 5 Mossad agents were arrested (in addition to about 200 other Israelis involved in spying on the American government before and up to 9/11) for celebrating and photographing the towers while they burned.  And the history of Israel staging attacks and blaming Muslims.

 It's almost as if you're a SHILL!

Sure, whatever you say.  What I see is that in the absence of much discussion either in the mainstream press OR in the mainstream 9/11 community of Israel's clear role in the attacks it is imperative to bring it up often.  With so many shills spouting so much nonsense this issue, though crucially important, gets totally lost between the equally deceptive LIHOP and SCI-FI disinfo contingents in the movement.  When people like me try to bring up the issue in a responsible (i.e. not needlessly inflammatory and in fact quite graciously conciliatory, IMHO) manner, shills like you pretend I'm only doing so because I'm an anti-semite.  That little game is by now so bereft of any credibility that I actually almost welcome it since it only serves to expose the methods that have been used not just in the truth movement but also in the mainstream discourse.

My only hope is that people reading the work on this site will pause to reflect on things and not allow themselves to be kicked by your types into a knee-jerk reaction with regard to ANY aspect of 9/11 truth, or any particular person or their viewpoint.  I have never laid claim to be a "uniter".  Anyone who does in my opinion should be distrusted, since blind faith in others is never warranted, ever.

When I draw a line with an individual it is because they have convinced me of their intentions enough for me to make a judgement call.  The record here is open for perusal by anyone who wants to evaluate my reasons, or anyone else's, for the approach they take with certain other users.

Methods such as those that you use, "misterguy" are effective when people are trained to consume information of the type spooned out by the mainstream press.  I take this, right or wrong, to be a forum for people who will think for themselves after evaluating all available facts, and who can separate rhetorical banter from the reality behind it.  The truth is simple, but the obfuscation isn't always.  Good truthers therefore are complex truthers who know how to cut through crap such as you spew and break it down to help others see where the truth may lie.  I know that my posts upset and frustrate you and some others.  Given your record that doesn't surprise me, nor does it discourage me.  Quite the opposite.

Keep writing!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force

Hey "Real Truther," the fact

Hey "Real Truther," the fact that the Atta and company were funded by the Pakistani wing of US intelligence, the fact that these terrorists were protected from the FBI, the fact that US intelligence is in deep with Radical Islamic groups, the fact that Atta was on Jack Ambramoff's floating casino, and many other facts in Albanese's film all cast doubt on the official story of the hijacking.

You say that "good truthers" learn to cut through the crap and think for themselves, but what you truly advocate is not thought but belief. You've got a version of the story and you're sticking by it regardless of the facts. I have a different idea of what thinking for myself means, and my version requires thinking rather than regurgitating a party line. I should really change from "misterguy" to "notatruther" because, unlike you, I don't claim to know exactly what happened on 9/11. The one truth I do hold is that the official story of a surprise attack that could not be stopped, the story of 19 lone nuts organized out of Afghanistan, and most especially the story of an innocent America and a government acting to protect its citizens, are all lies.

You state:

First you have to prove that the hijackers actually bought tickets, boarded the flights, hijacked them, and crashed them. Then we can talk about their being set up. Since none of this has been proven, I don't see your justification for that line of speculation.

Actually I don't have to prove hijackings didn't occur. The onus is on you to discredit the story that has been produced by the 9/11 commission, thousands of newspaper articles, audio testimony, and so on. It is quite possible to discredit what is taken as established fact, but in order to do so you have to have evidence and the evidence has to be relevant. For instance, even if CD is absolutely true that does not mean that no hijackings occured.

There is plenty of evidence of hijackings, whether the hijackers intended to use the planes as missles is a question I have to leave unanswered, but there is no reason to doubt that hijackings, real or manufactured, occured.

So, anyhow you asked for some evidence:

No doubt you'll claim these tapes are fake, but you don't have evidence that these are fake tapes just like Fetzer doesn't have evidence that space beams were used. To claim that these are fake without supporting evidence is simply to reject evidence because it doesn't fit with your preferred story.

Now let me ask you something directly, Mister Truther, do you hold that US intelligence played a role in 9/11? Who was more responsible, the US or Israel? Is Silverstein the mastermind?

You've claimed to know the Real Truth, so what is it?

PS You don't upset me in the slightest. Don't be so sensitive. In the end this isn't about you.
PPS I have no love for Israel and consider the occupation of Palestine to by a high crime. Israel is terribly brutal imperial power.

If you don't understand my problem with Jim Fetzer...

Then I can't help you. As for your accusation that my "noble sentiments apply only when it comes to defending specific people whose ideas seem to be similar" to my own, that's a bunch of bullshit. I defend Prof. Jones ENDLESSLY, and he promotes Controlled Demolition, something I'm not completely sold on. I defend ANYONE who deserves to be defended. Someone who makes an honest effort in this movement. The so called, "poor no planers" have NOT made an honest effort, and instead, have promoted information that makes us all look insane. Something that seems to be going around as of late.

"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."

on what basis are you not sold on controlled demolition?

Are you in fact saying that you think it's possible for the towers or building 7 to have collapsed as a result of anything except deliberate demolition with explosives?

If so, then what is your alternative hypothesis?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


could you guys please move

could you guys please move on? or at least take it to a discussion forum somewhere?

it would be much appreciated.


Why single out this exchange? An explanation would be appreciated. The fact that a site admin has to step in is pretty extraordinary given the fact that other much less substantive discussions go on and on and other than downrating and hiding posts no other action is taken. What is particularly troublesome about this exchange?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


well, i didn't 'have to'

well, i didn't 'have to' step in, i chose to post a comment and ask for a favor, that's all..

simply put there are more and more blog entries being flooded out lately with inner arguments and discussions totally unrelated to the topic of the blog entry. this site is NOT a discussion forum, it is not built like one. i know i haven't made this point recently, but i have numerous times in the past.. discussion forums and private messaging are much better suited for long discussions, and that is not the purpose of the commenting system here. that is just not how the architecture of the site is built, and it is not what it is suited for.

as for why i chose to respond to this post as apposed to the others, it is simply because this post seems to have one of the larger number of off topic comments. the number of comments on a given node exponentially increases the server load in the number of required sql queries. in other words, the more comments on a node, the more that node exponentially causes strain to our servers, and since this thread is growing increasingly larger and larger with totally off-topic discussions (and thereby putting the most load on the server), i chose to respond to this one.

i just asked for a favor, i'd appreciate it if you could oblige.. like you said, its not like i take any action on moderating personally, so its not like i ask for much ;)

thanks dz

for the explanation, which makes perfect sense.

I'll try to resist the bait that frequently chums the water around me.

I've been toying with the idea of making a blog available on my site for prolonged discussions on various topics, working with Drupal as well-should look very familiar.

Then, instead of clogging this site with some of the back and forth that ensues I will be able to just post a link to the relevant discussion thread on my blog and anyone who wants to can harass me all they want there instead of here, where I won't respond more than once to anything off topic that is aimed at me.

Also a bit off topic but on my mind-- would you be willing to add to the blog roll at left? I do of course link to this site there so it's only fair... :)


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


and here i go with another

and here i go with another response.. at least the site isn't lagging today (yet) ;)

send me an email with the site address, i will forget about it otherwise (i am on lunch right now)..

and just for a bit more info.. the reason the comments cause such an issue here is because there is no limit to the number of comments shown, as opposed to a forum format (which i would suggest you go for if you intend for large comment numbers)

say on a forum you show 20 comments a page, and each comment takes 3 queries.. well, every single page is 60 queries.. whereas here we are showing all comments, so a post with 20 comments would be 60 queries, but one with 100 comments would be 300 queries.. so you can see how facilitating large viewership, or continuing it indefinitely can cause an issue in this sort of format.. it turns out the brief outages we had last week were from a thread running ~800 queries just to load the page.. mostly because each of our comments actually requires 4 or 5 separate queries right now..

good luck on your forum!

Still attempting to assassinate Albanese's reputation i see

You have been smearing this guy for over a aeeek now and still claiming you are doing us all some sort of service.


seems to me that Mr. Albanese has been doing a fine job of discrediting himself without anyones help.

Why I dont know.

Your disdain for the most

Your disdain for the most solid evidence of US complicity does everyone a disservice.

Everyone anonymous is Albanese

I love this. First you act like a crybaby because Albanese debates you on controlled demolition, and everyone here sees you overreact and make accusations against him personally - and then you attack him for posting anonymously when it is clear you intend to smear his good name if he dares use it.

Now he’s a shill for posting anonymously?

You are dragging his name through the mud.

You are an aggitator of the worst kind. Do you know what an aggitator is?

i actually have no idea what an "aggitator" is

but by your lack of even rudimentary spelling skills I think I know what YOU are.

so to Albanese, misterguy, and Jon Gold--stop whining. If you can't handle criticism of yourselves or your friends, go back to the playground and try to work out your self-esteem issues.

I could care less who has a reputation for what. As I have said before, I deal in facts, not silly "truth politics". but whatever--keep backing each other up for no good reason and the whole little act you've worked so hard to perfect just becomes more obvious.

Persist in pestering me if you want. Persist in pushing the most pointless avenues of veiled support for claims of nonexistent hijackers. Continue to claim that you do so for noble reasons. Keep doing your thing, in other words, and I'll keep doing mine. I'm not the one trying to turn everything into a popularity contest, it's you. And I know how frustrating it is for you that it is a contest that you are losing anyway. Whatever jollies you get out of takling issue with everything I say no matter how correct it is, by all means continue.

But PLEASE stop with this victim complex. If ever there was a case of men acting like boys and dishing it out without being able to take it, you all are it.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


You don't deal in facts, but

You don't deal in facts, but instead dish out grandiose garbage and bullshit accusations.

PS I don't need your permission to persist in pestering you with reality, but thanks.


In my initial post I stated: Good bye scholars.

Fetzer is a skunk..

Is this really so hard to understand? Fetzer is not only a skunk.

He is THE SKUNK. From now on, only refered to as THE SKUNK, in the 911 truth movement

Fetzer? Who? The skunk. Aha, the SKUNK!

Has Fetzer Lost His Mind? Say it ain't so!

I just can't believe what I'm reading here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like Fetzer has suffered some kind of egomaniacal paranoid freak-out, kicked out and attempted to smear possibly the most popular and important Scholar in on the team, and sided with the disinfo agents pushing the ridiculous no-planes/mini-nukes/space-beam bullcrap. Can it be?

On top of all that, the comments have been invaded by a small group of people who seem to have unlimited time to respond to every post promoting this space-beam garbage. I know that these agents (or whatever they are) will eventually stop posting when they (or the people they work for) realize that Truthers have seen through these transparent attempts to divide us, but it is really getting under my skin (I guess that’s the whole point).

AGAIN, for any newbies who might be reading this - THE SPACE-BEAM THEORY IS JUST LIKE THE NO-PLANES THEORY - TOTAL CRAP! Now, I'm not saying that these types of weapons don't exist; there is plenty of evidence that shows they do, but nothing more than flimsy claims from questionable sources that they were used at the World Trade Center. We already have a solid case with Steven Jones' and all the other research - why introduce more of these outlandish claims that aren't backed up by any real evidence and just make us sound stupid? And all of these attacks on Steven Jones from Fetzer and his new best friends are just the icing on the cake.

I'm almost glad that these snakes have finally revealed themselves, but it is just so hard to believe that Fetzer could be one of them. I'm hoping he has just lost his mind, and maybe the other Scholars can knock some sense back into him. But even if they do, I don't think I will ever trust the man again. Thank Christ that he is giving up control of the website. I just hope it isn't too late to salvage the name Scholars For 9/11 Truth and erase some of the damage Fetzer has done.

I just reread Fetzer's

I just reread Fetzer's latest scribblings, and noticed the domain holder is Alex Florum(SP?). Well I hope Alex (if he isn't compromised, puts a plan in place to redirect the DNS to point to a different server, one where sP4c3 |3e4Mz don't flourish.

Civility goes hand in hand with scholarship, but enough is enough.  How many more times is Fetzer going to stab Prof. Jones in the back?

Alex is apparently George Washington

You know, the moderator here? The one who is likely Jones' private lawyer. (Can't be sure, since he won't answer that yes or no).

And he's just locked Fetzer out of the domain.

Luckily Fetzer secured "" a few days ago, no doubt anticipating this move on the part of Mr. Floum. I think it's a better name anyway.

I'd love to hear the story of how George Washington got to control the domain. Same as how Kubiak got his? Maybe Fetzer didn't have the 10 bucks to register it?

Anyway, cool. Like I said, is a better name. Maybe it will harbor even more numerous real scholars.

Who could ever remember when having to give it out anyway? What is "st" ? Made no sense.

Most of you here are brainwashed. There's no prettier way to put it. That's why you can't see where the obvious infiltration comes from.

To give a hint: .....Those who have no answer than to try to shut down discussion with their open excuse, i.e. We need to supress discussion in order to cater to the brainwashed public, and placate the Media, (who, by the way, have been doing the brainwashing) against our own fellow 9/11 reality seers.

Such was the meaning of G.E. Floum's excuse for locking Fetzer out. Though how he put it: "Such airling of dirty laundry is harmful to the truth" makes no sense.

How could airing grievances or "dirty laundry" hurt the truth? (Unless you're using "the truth" as a euphemism for something else) And therefore, his statement has to be a kind of non sequiteur. (I always thought airing had a sanitizing effect?) Maybe Floum should therefore put the word "truth" in quotation marks? Since his use of it is so non-standard? Or maybe, since Floum's an intellectual property lawyer, he should trademark it ....."truth"®. I have dibs on truth® :)

It should have read something like, "Such airing of dirty laundry .......

1. the children shouldn't see
2. is bad for Prof. Jones' reputation
3. makes us look foolish to the public
4 - n [make up your own]

..but don't drag truth into it.

What is true has nothing to do with it. Unless you're claiming what is written is false. And in that case, you should show your work, as my math teacher used to say when suspecting someone (me) of cheating. If you show the answer pre-made, like a magician, (as did the perps on 9/11), it is always suspect.

Because logically "airing of dirty laundry" (i.e. politics) has nothing to do with the truth. In fact, the truth would perhaps be better served by an airing of points of view from all sides, with a request for input from the public.

The whole strategy of the "truth" movement, the one as represented on this forum anyway, is to pander to the Media. This strategy mimics the perps' faux-paternal attitude, "Let's protect the public's mind from what's really going on. They can't handle it."

It's ironic that the people who try to supress evidence through intimidation and name calling (and theft? Hells, I've got to ask my own intellectual property rights lawyer to clarify that one!) ;) are the ones who sincerely believe so fanatically that the other side is nefarious and not in good faith.

That's why, I submit , the antipathy of the "truth" proponants toward Fetzer and others such as myself, must be a product of some kind of mental conditioning rather than an actual allegience to what is true.

There is so much power for whoever controls the "truth." That's why the real perps have to make sure it's supressed, obscured, and fought over. And most of all they want control of it.

Great news...

And he's just locked Fetzer out of the domain.

Am I allowed to laugh and cheer ? Top job whoever sorted this.... Could be the saving move :)

Luckily Fetzer secured "" a few days ago, no doubt anticipating this move on the part of Mr. Floum. I think it's a better name anyway. agreed great name... also very telling that there is no mention of "TRUTH" anywhere

I'm sure it'll be a great success....... NOT

mental conditioning

the antipathy of the "truth" proponants toward Fetzer and others such as myself, must be a product of some kind of mental conditioning

 Yes, it's called basic education.  Anyway "Peggy", when we give out the Best Shill in A Supporting Role oscar, you will certainly be nominated.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force

Everone's a shill who doesn't agree with you

Very scientific of you.

Pope Floum Blesses the Heretics

We must Exorcise them from our midst, yet never forget they should be Blessed.

And God Bless Them. And God Bless Nico. (He once Did Good and was Best for All!)

Serve the "Truth"®.
(or Let me drop you like a Hot Potato.)
Hoping Well For You.

In the Service of "Truth"®

GeorgeWashington "Floum", changes password for st911

I am removing the "open letters" and related material from the website. Without pointing any fingers, such airing of dirty laundry is harmful to the truth. My allegiance is not to any one person, but to doing what is best for all. And I respect and acknowledge the incredible energy and time you have put into the society, as well as your excellent performances on Hannity & Colmes and other media. Removing the letters and related material is best for all.

...Please note that ALL of the people you arelistening to -- Morgan, Rick Siegel, perhaps Nico -- are no-planers, and these people started smearing Steve has soon as he came out against the no-planers. I don't know where Judy is coming from, as I previously had hoped well from her. God bless Nico, he did good when he and Plague Puppy first formed the 9/11 Science and Justice Alliance. But whetherthrough ego (being out of the limelight and envious that Steve was gettingmedia attention) or a disinfo agent, Nico has been solely a destructive force in recent years, along with Holmgren, Webfairy, etc. They attack everyone who pushes the 9/11 truth ball forward, and disrupt again and again with arguments which are soon EASILY disproven. If I believed that Steve was disinfo, or a gatekeeper of 9/11 truths, or a bad person, or a sloppy researcher, I would drop him like a hot potato. However,Steve has proven himself to be very trustworthy, in my opinion. Moreover, I am not acting for the benefit of Steve as much as what I believe to be in the best interest of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and -- even more importantly -- truth in general.....

Peggy hits the bullseye, again

   "The whole strategy of the "truth" movement, the one as represented on this forum anyway, is to pander to the Media."

 In an earlier time, they would have cheered the burning books.

As Fetzer says, they are "not constrained by concern for logic, evidence, or truth."

Sad, but true.

If GW does have the domain

If GW does have the domain then I feel a bit better. has mindshare, just as

I would assume journalof911studies is also under his control as well...

I don't give my trust to many in the truth movement, GW has earned mine. 

Thank you Canadian Truther!

You are right on. Just like they gave up on noplanes nonsense, they will soon give up on space beam bullshit. Then they will come back with some other ploy. What we're seeing I think is the effect of their having realized a tad too late that the truth movement was a real threat. These attempts to derail it are so convoluted and obviously scripted that they reveal a lot about the perps' desperation now that they realize how badly they miscalculated. Every shill that reveals themself to be in on the plot is one less shill they have on the "inside". As we continue to wake people up we have to make sure that every new person understands what the game has been like until now. We must redouble our efforts to promote solid research into the main issues just as we've been doing. They can't stop us now. It's the fourth quarter and they're way behind. As long as we keep our focus, we can't lose. Great change is at hand!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force



It's better for the Scholars to split. It's just a shame Jones wasted his time by going with Fetzer in the first place. Jones may or may not be right about thermite, but him seems to have his head screwed on the right way.

Setting the record straight

While blogger is great for rumor and speculation, in some cases it might be worth while before setting off a fire storm based upon information easily verified as false. Steve Jones was NOT "kicked out of Scholars". I removed him as co-chair over management disputes that run rather deep, including what I have taken to be his efforts to take over the web site. My suspcions may have been well-founded, since that is what Alex Floum has done. Steve discovered that a minor error had been made and his name had been taken off the members' list, but it was a slip in processing what I was doing in removing him as co-chair. He wrote back demanding that his name be removed, which was an action by him equivalent to RESIGNATION. I wrote back and explained that that had been an accident, the absence of his name was corrected after twenty minutes, and I had not even known about it at the time. Far from trying to remove him from the Society, I told him that he should take 48 hours and think things through, because I wanted him in Scholars and I did not want him to act precipitously. I would expect to hear a formal response from him tomorrow. Or possibly not! I have been fairly astonished and acutely disappointed that several proposals for resolution of these matters, which I have advaned, have gone unheeded. Of the members of this list, for example, to whom I sent the set of five proposals for resolution of our disputes LAST TUESDAY and then reaffirmed LAST THURSDAY, only David Ray Griffin was so kind as to respond, offering his enthusaistic endorsement of these proposals as a basis for resolution. I have no idea why I have not heard from the others. With all the machinations going on behind the scene, there came a point when I felt I had no choice but to make these matters public. My belief is that anyone who takes an objective look at what has been going on, including my multiple efforts to resolve these matters, will draw inferences different than most of those being advanced on blogger. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly members of this forum "leap to conclusions" on the basis of the flimsiest of evidence or the most sketchy report without bothering to seek substantiation. I can only tell you that, leaving Kevin and Kee to one side as non-principals (where the latest email from Kee implied his support) , neither Steve nor Alex nor Carl has been responsive. I was even in the middle of having the "Open Letters" moved inside the "Anniversary" report to take them out of the public eye when Alex took control of the site, the very action that had most concerned me. I would like to believe that these proposals offer a basis for resolution of our differences. If I had received an affirmative response when I sent them to Steve, Alex, and Carl, perhaps all of this could have been avoided. Instead, control of the site has been taken from me and responsibility for all of this has been placed upon my shoulders. No matter how unsuccessful I may have been, my intention has been to maintain the integrity of Scholars.

Subject: Re: Proposal for Resolution of Disputes over ScholarsKEVIN RYAN ,,,, Kee Dewdney

On 23-Nov-06, at 4:08 PM, wrote:

> Gentlemen,
> Notwithstanding my ongoing fascination with grand pianos and
> terminal velocities, I have been just the least bit troubled
> that I have had no response to my five proposals, apart from
> a strong endorsement from one of you, whom I shall not name.
> Would it not be more constructive to deliberate over what I
> have advanced here than to compare the respective merits of
> Steve Jones and Jim Fetzer with respect to calculations in
> physics? Please do me the kindness of a response (RSVP)!
> Let me know, for example, whether these proposals are going
> to be submitted to the membership along with others, where
> I was not consulted on the options or offered the chance to
> explain their pros and cons. I need to know how thing stand.
> Jim
> ----- Forwarded message from -----
> Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 17:51:36 -0600
> From:
> Reply-To:
> Subject: Proposal for Resolution of Disputes over Scholars
> To: Steve Jones ,
> All,
> 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 professionas 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.
> Jim
> 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.
> ----- End forwarded message -----

Hello Pot...

This is kettle...

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly members of this forum "leap to conclusions" on the basis of the flimsiest of evidence or the most sketchy report without bothering to seek substantiation.

"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."

Do us all a favor Jim...

And go start enjoying your retirement.

"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."


yes, this sentence jumped on me too. Amazing, to hear this from Jim Fetzer. Disgusting.
Jim, you behave neither like a leader or a scholar. Its time to step down.

Show "Man, this post is the" by Visitor

I hope you will check out

I hope you will check out the space beam disinformation debunking available here ->

Aligning yourself with Reynolds and his intentionally deceptive and suggestive arguments of no-plane theories and now star wars beam weapons is quite sad, but then again what do we know, none of us are on your scientific level right?

Go read that debunking, and ask Judy and Reynolds to fix their deceptive image and video usage.

Jim, I don't understand why


I don't understand why you think it is a good idea to "do our thing" in a public forum with press in attendance. If you can't work it out in private within the confines of the Scholars, why air a distracting and divisive issue before an audience who could otherwise be persuaded to the need for a reinvestigation? Perhaps even become important new voices? Isn't that the standard by which all precious "airtime" should be be measured? Have you thought about how this will come off to a virgin truther? Have you considered how much fun the debunkers will have with such a display?

Advocating for the Press Club event belies your stated desire to make nice. And whatever your motives may be (and I'm stretching to believe they're solid), this looks from the outside, at best, like a misplaced and unhelpful ego problem. Are you really so blind to the importance of image and framing?

Sorry Jim...

But you've shot your bolt now...

I hate to say, but I was one sucker who was silly enough to believe in you.... Shame on you

The cabal of simulated nutters and what they are all about is SO TRANSPARENT it makes me want to puke...

Their purpose is no more than to make all us genuine 9/11 truthers be considered by default as KOOKS with zero credibility.

They have their regular mail shots out to the mainstream media to reinforce our "kookiness" and "plane hugginess".

Maybe you should just forward to and save yourself the hassle (they have proof you know, it's on the front page - disgusting).

If you had any real decency you would relinquish ALL influence over and stepdown.

Long live science and truth.

PS. If you have been "got at" I am truly sorry for getting at you and good luck.

A few further reflections

What has fascinated me about Judy's work is the attention she has paid to the devastation of the World Trade Center as a whole, which was massive, complete, and thorough. Perhaps others have appreciated this aspect of the problem to a greater extent than had I, but its full dimensions only became apparent to me from studying her work. Moreover, the very existence and role of the "bathtub" came as news to me! I cannot imagine any variation according to which thermite/thermate, even in combination with other conventional explosives, could possible account for these effects. I was therefore stunned to realize that the approach in which the community has invested most of its confidence was, in my view, essentially hopeless as a potential explanation for the phenomena. Judy's additional discussion of the possible use of high-tech, directed energy weapons also captivated my attention, because their existence tends to be unknown to the general public and therefore their use could go largely undetected or even entirely unsuspected. Because the hardest part of scientific inquiry is making the full range of alternative possible explanations explicit, I consider this to have been an important development in 9/11 research. I stand by that assessment and cannot understand why so many appear to be so troubled by even considering such hypotheses as alternatives to thermite/thermate, which, in my view, has pretty much run out of steam as a research program. It does not appear to me to have the ghost of a chance of being able to explain what happened to the World Trade Center. I am suggesting that we consider some alternatives, even if they challenge our preferences and preconceptions. MENTIONING some of these alternative is not the same as ENDORSING THEM. Anyone who watches the 16-minute segment, "Were Classified Weapons used at the WTC?" (which may be available under several titles) knows that I am discussing it as an alternative that needs to be explored. If it is wrong, we will be able to show it. But dismissing alternatives out of hand because we don't like them or think the public will reject them is not only anti-rational but very unscientific.

I have received a chart of public interest in 9/11 isses. I don't want to make too much of this, but it may be worth considering that Scholars was founded in mid-December 2005. While I know that many of the contributors to this site have made valuable contributions to 9/11 research that even exceed their tart remarks on blogger, it may be worth considering whether Schoals has made a contribution here. And, if that is the case, then why would I as founder of Scholars have any interest in its abuse or demise? The answer is that I am doing my best to RESIST what I take to be efforts to abuse the society, especially by opposing novel ideas or suppressing new research. That is what all this is about. Those who still believe that thermite/thermate can explain the devastation of the World Trade Center and who have visited Judy's site and actually studied her reserach are entitled to their preference. But I have done that and I am convinced that the whole problem of explaining what happened to the World Trade Center has to be completely rethought. Those who are most strongly opposed may have conflicts between defending their preferred hypothesis and acknowledging the existence of massive evidence and alternative hypothesis that undermine it. You be the judge.

How about this Jim...

Instead of promoting theories and ideas that the media will use against us in a second, why don't you focus your efforts on promoting the easily verifiable inconsistencies of the report, and the fact that the family members are calling for a new investigation?

It's time for the movement to stop trying to answer the unanswered questions, and instead, ask them. As a unified, LOUD voice.

Unless of course you want to continue spending your time trying to put a puzzle together that doesn't have all of the pieces.

"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 have a point Jon Gold

Let's all support a quest for the truth! After all, we wouldn't want to be caught exchanging one lie for another, would we?

Many folks here have begged for real scientists to join in the scientific search for truth. So let's welcome new researchers. They can attack the official story from all directions!

While the bathtub may have

While the bathtub may have been new to you, it was not in fact new.

I would URGE you to watch the 9/11 Mysteries DVD on controlled demolitions. It has an entire chapter devoted to the bathtub. Furthermore I would argue that since you turned around and started espousing her theories in under 48 hours it shows how easily you are willing to believe in a theory, obviously you didn't take any time yourself to research the validity of her claims first.

News to you?

"Moreover, the very existence and role of the "bathtub" came as news to me! "

The construction of the bathtub and the slurry wall was extensively discussed in one of the NOVA or History Channel specials on the construction of the WTC (and rather tedious it seemed to me at that time, too.) How is it possible that I know about it and Jim Fetzer does not? I find that surprising.

"Moreover, the very

"Moreover, the very existence and role of the "bathtub" came as news to me! "

This should be added to the "random quotes" section of 911blogger.

yeah really... Feigned

yeah really...

Feigned ignorance and bad acting/writing...

Fetzer is a bad liar... 

Ladies and gentlemen

I have a grave announcement to make: mankind never really set foot on the moon. I know because there is no moon in the first place.


Jim Beam or Uncle Fetzer?

I kind of like Jim Beam with its alcoholic connotations, but Uncle Fetzer captures Jim's avuncular qualities. I'm TORN!

Is Uncle "Jim Beam" Fetzer too much of a mouthful? Maybe we should ask Judy Jetson. Or (GASP) Captain Morgan Reynolds Wrap--you know those labor economists!


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Jim Fetzer, we applaud your quest for the truth!

And Jim Fetzer is not alone in his reflections. Today, I saw a very educational discussion and exchange on another forum.

Here are a few comments from An excellent forum
[i]The evidence is comprised of a great deal more than the fire truck. Eyewitness accounts of vehicles unaccountably exploding, cars melted and wrinkled like beer cans in a barbecue, holes in the adjacent buildings. And there is the anomaly of the disintegrating spire which seems inexplicable by any conventional means of demolition, military or civilian:[/i]

First, let me take this opportunity to acknowledge that I consider this thread that you initiated to be one of the best the rrmb has ever had. thanks.
Here's a very graphic photographic sequence confirming pulverization before our very eyes. The effect of this information makes it impossible to dismiss DEW as a probable causal factor. These four pictures also simultaneously refute the standard myth explanation of plane damage, jet grade kerosene and gravity as all three of those factors are absent from what is seen.


And in the event that you haven't taken the time to read the Woods/Reynolds paper, I think you would find this page, which relates to the pulverization of the towers, highly informative: Pulverization page

If you have time to read it, I would be greatly interested to know what you think of it with specific references to the information contained therein.


The Judy Wood thesis is the best documented causal theory on the destruction of WTC1,2 out there. As such, it represents the state of the art of 911 truth. It is high time this information reach a wider, mainstream audience.
The fact of being well documented gives it a chance to reach a wider audience. However, the fact that it is so damning of the official 911 story and also so revealing about still secret weapons, the task of getting this information out into the mainstream will be daunting.
If you have any thoughts on this, please revert. Feel free to send a 'personal' message if you'd like to do so.

I found the last comment particularly enlightening. So, now I have a better understanding about the motives behind those who are spending so much of their energy attacking the very people who are trying to expose the truth.

What the media is going to use against us . . .

Let me think abou this. I can see the headline now: "Scholars consider new hypotheses", "Scientists explore novel explanations", "New theory of WTC advanced"! It might read something like this: "The founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth has broadened discussion by endorsing consideration of the possibility that high-tech, directed-energy weapons may have been used to destroy the Wortd Trade Center on 9/11. While the prevalent view among students of 9/11 including the members of Scholars has been the use of thermite/thermate, an hypothesis advocated by Steven Jones, a physicist, formerly of BYU, a review of the massive, complete, and total devastation of the WTC has led other scholars to suggest that it may be essential to consider a wider range of alternative possible explanations. Judy Wood, a mechanical and civil engineer, formerly of Clemson University, has produced evidence and arguments in support of the possibiity that far more energy was required to bring about the observed degree of devastation than thermite/thermate could supply, even in combination with conventional explosives. By his endorsement of broading the range of discussion, James Fetzer, a philosopher of science recently retired from the University of Minnesota, has generated a fire storm of dissention from members and non-members alike who believe that even the mention of alternatives that the public may regard as "far out" or difficult to understand should not be done. Fetzer insists the more theories that receive consideration, the better, especially since even scientific inquiries can yield incorrect conclusions when consideration is given to only some of the possible explanations. "As Conan Doyle observed, when you have elminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth", Fetzer mused, adding that 9/11 is a domani in which truth appears to be stranger than fiction. "I only wish that those who support finding the truth and exposing falsehoods would appreciate that it can be a messy, dirty business. Unconventional alternatives have to be explored, because otherwise we may miss opportunties to discover the truth." The last contretemps of this kind arose when other scholars raised the possibility that mini-nukes, perhaps produced through new technology, might have been involved. Some are now inclined toward a mixed account, where something like mini-nukes may have been used in the subbasements, directed energy weapons may have been used to deconstruct the higher levels of the Twin Towers, and the last twenty floors or so may have been brought down using thermite/thermate as the principal means. It may be some time before the scientific issues involved here are sorted out and internal debate over the future of the scholars' group continues unabated."

Or how about this...

Tonight on Hannity & Colmes, Scholars For 9/11 Truth spokesman, Jim Fetzer, tells us how energy beams mounted within World Trade Center 7, or possibly from Satellites in space, brought down the towers on 9/11... (Hannity snickers... "nut.")

Alan Colmes: "Hi Professor Fetzer. What new and exciting information do you have today from the world of 9/11 Conspiracy?"

Jim Fetzer: "Well, I'd like to say that Judy Wood has an amazing hypothesis about how Energy Beams possibly brought down the towers..."

Sean Hannity: "Energy Beams, huh Professor? You know you're a nut right? You and everyone else within the 9/11 Truth Movement is a nut."

Jim Fetzer: "Well Sean, it appears you have your facts Foxxed again... " (cuts mike)

Sean Hannity: "No Professor. You're pretty much a nut, and anyone that listens to you and your organization really need to have their heads examined... Next on Hannity & Colmes, President Bush and Dick Cheney are the greatest leaders this country has ever seen..."

"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."

It's clear that Fetzer is

It's clear that Fetzer is not going to listen to reason. Luckily for us we don't actually need to care about what he does or what the scholars do generally. The only thing that matters is the degree to which we can ferret out the discrepancies that exist in the official account and use those discrepancies to push for more information so we can expose this criminal system for what it is.

You know the problem isn't

You know the problem isn't that the space beam theory is outlandish and that pushing it isn't saavy, the problem is that the theory is bullshit and by pushing it you are (perhaps intentionally) imploding what might have been an organization that proved to be effective in exposing US complicity in 9/11.

Jim, Since you failed to


Since you failed to respond to my legitimate criticisms of Judy's Space Beam research, I will re-post them here in the hopes you can adequately explain this funadmental flaw in Judy's research:

One of the key points made by Wood in her Space Beam Paper is that the collapse of the Twin Towers should have produced ground shaking sufficient to cause a Richter scale spike larger than the spike generated by the demolition of the Kingdome in Seattle. Even assuming the paper is valid in all other respects, Wood has completely ignored a very simple, yet very basic tenet of scientific reasoning: NO VALID SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT CAN BE BASED ON FAULTY DATA. We don't know how large the actual seismic spike was, as will be demonstrated below.

In her paper, Wood relies exclusively on seismic data readings obtained from the Lamont-Dougherty station at Columbia University taken during the collapses. However, Wood readily admits several times that this seismic data has been corrupted in some way. To quote from Wood's paper, page 1: " It is almost as if the data from 9/11 have attenuated, that peak movements have been reduced by some kind of filtering process. Does this difference reflect real data, that is, differences in real phenomena accurately recorded? Or have the data been filtered asymmetrically or differently? Or have the data been completely manufactured? We do not know, but for the sake of the analysis we use the Richter values reported. Could they have been lower than reported? Yes. " Wood also goes on later in the paper to state "Although these data seem to be corrupted by unknown filters…" and continue her analysis based on admittedly corrupted data.

Ignoring basic, fundamental tenets of scientific reasoning and analysis, she forges ahead with a "scientific" analysis that is based on admittedly corrupted and untrustworthy seismic data. Wood admits she is using faulty (EVEN POSSIBLY MANUFACTURED!) data, yet she presses ahead with her comparison to the Kingdome and her assertion that space beams caused the destruction despite this fundamental flaw. All sections of this paper that rely in any way whatsoever on this corrupted data should be removed unless and until reliable data can be obtained.

Perhaps uncorrupted data would show that the collapses actually caused more ground shaking than a 2.3 Richter scale reading. If that were the case, her entire argument that the bathtub was not able to withstand such a shaking would fail because the bathtub did, in fact, survive such a shaking. Furthermore, Wood's statement that "The apparent fact that the Richter reading peaked at 2.3 and the disturbance lasted only 8 seconds indicates an extraordinary high-energy weapon was used top-down to preserve the bathtub and surrounding structures " is nonsense from a scientific standpoint because it is based on corrupted data. Has Wood established as fact that the Richter reading peaked at 2.3? NO. Has Wood established as fact that the disturbance only lasted 8 seconds? NO. Why? Because the data are corrupt by her own admissions. We will never know how much ground shaking the bathtub actually withstood until reliable data are produced, and Wood's analysis is pure conjecture until then.

Wood ostensibly published this paper in haste because "due to the seriousness of this issue, we felt it was important to present the analysis and data as soon as possible ". However, any credible scientist would not publish a scientific paper based on corrupt data, because any analysis based on such corrupt data is utterly useless. All of Wood's discussions that involve the ground shaking caused by the collapse of the Twin Towers have little or no scientific value because she has not presented any reliable data supporting her contentions and she should not present this paper as a "scientific paper" until this fundamental flaw is corrected.

Can you imagine a pharmaceutical company going to the FDA with a study espousing the efficacy of one of their new drugs, but within the report there is a statement that their data is corrupt? Do you think the FDA would approve such a drug based on a scientific study that relies on corrupted data?

interesting post, but there

interesting post, but there isn't much need to get into the minutia.

The apparent fact that the Richter reading peaked at 2.3 and the disturbance lasted only 8 seconds indicates an extraordinary high-energy weapon was used top-down to preserve the bathtub and surrounding structures

This statement alone is a major logical fallacy. Assuming that because of A then B must be true is not only non-scientific, it is a major no-no.

Because Bob didn't kill Frank it must mean that Frank was killed by a space alien using beam weapons.

There is nothing to support her conclusion, and her use of deceptive animated GIFs claiming that the steel turned into dust is a tale-tale sign of misinformation. I don't think it is intentional, I just think she has lost her ability to rationally examine the data. Given the fact that every review of her as a teacher online talks about how she is a horrible teacher the hypothesis that she is just off her rocker seems more plausible than any argument for a government op.

You're right. I should have

You're right. I should have put a parenthetical in there that said (notwithstanding the logical fallacy). However, these people don't seem to respond well to logic, so I thought I would break down the scientific part of the analysis instead. To be honest, the first few times I read that first sentence you referenced in Wood's paper, I lauged out loud.

I laughed out loud at the nonsense Seve-B wrote!

That's proof, right there, that it's wrong! What more do you need?

Hey, these people can't handle logic, so don't confuse them...


Logical arguments typically work with people that are open minded. However, closed minded people, or shills that have no intention of being persuaded, can too easily turn logical arguments into circular arguments by confusing the issue. Substantive arguments, like the argument I raised in my post above, are much harder to obfuscate (as evidenced by the absolute and total lack of substantive rebuttal by anyone).

Reynolds, on the other hand?

Reynolds, on the other hand?

Are there no defenders of

Are there no defenders of the space beam theory out there that are willing to even attempt to refute what I have written above?

Seve, you might be taken more seriously if

Seve, you might be taken more seriously if you avoid the ad hominem attacks.

You might be taken more

You might be taken more seriously if you respond to the substance of my post instead of accusing me of ad hominems. The more posts like this that show up (ie. posts that don't address the extremely important issues I raised), the more confident I am that I have slayed this dragon. The only thing the shills can do is hit the "vote down" button! Farewell space beam people. Come back someday when you get some reliable data.

Wow! I wasn't aware that Wood had already published this!

Wow! I wasn't aware that Wood had already published this! Where did she publish it? Was it published in the same "peer reviewed" journal that Jones said his paper was accepted in, and was awaiting publication, February 1, 2006?

When you find which journal Wood's paper was published in, please let us know!

Show "Formerly..." by James (not verified)

No, because people like you

No, because people like you keep firing them for not being nice little slaves.

Show "OK" by James (not verified)

Since WHEN, in print or on

Since WHEN, in print or on the airwaves, has that much verbiage EVER been allowed by a truther? Can you name a single instance? Your argument has no intellectual forebear.

And again, you're missing the point -- Scholars' shop talk has no place in the media. We should all be concerned about the meta message, the sound bites, how one can present the best evidence in the shortest order which will convince newbies of the need for a new investigation. Do you think the 9/11 familes want you to waste potential press time with this, as fascinating as you may find it? Why don't you run it by one of them...


Press time...


"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."

Scholars Wiki page updated...

"...Fetzer has recently spoken and written positively about Judy Wood's views. Fetzer talks about the theory that a "satellite-mounted military weapon" may have been used to bring down the World Trade Center, and writes that "the range of alternative explanations that might possibly explain the explanandum must include non-classic controlled demolition from the top-down using mini-nukes, and...non-classic controlled demolition from the top-down using directed energy weapons...The specific weapons used to destroy the WTC could have been ground based or space based." [8] [9] For Fetzer, "Judy [Wood] appears to have done far more to develop her "proof of concept" than has Steve [Jones]".

From the wiki link "[8]":

Fetzer SPACE BEAM speech @ 2 minutes in...

Judy Wood

"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."

-Judy Wood-

Terminal velocity in a vacuum.


great catch James

This is the kind of stuff they're hoping will be exposed later on by some geek at MIT at which point they'll say "SEE, these people are PSEUDO scholars! Har har har! Is there anyone who now still doubts that the unexplained collapse of building 7 has a perfectly benign cause, whatever it might be?"

Problem is, the more convoluted their scheme gets, the less people will actually believe that anyone would have the gall to have tried it in the first place. So we will have to say "You see, that's the FAKE scholars site run by Uncle Fetzer. The real one was the one he started and got kicked out of by Steve Jones." I mean, who wouldn't be turned off by someone having to go through that rigamarole?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


out of context

Wood goes on to say:

"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."

So she is aware that air resistance is required for there to be a terminal velocity -- she was referring to the terminal velocity the billard ball would have in air.

She also said above your quote that she was not modeling it this way, but was only proving Jones' calculation wrong.

Intellectual dishonesty..

How slimy and intellectually dishonest to quote Prof. Wood completely out of context, so as to completely misrepresent her argument.

Is that what they're teaching as "science" at Harvard these days ?
I wouldn't be surprised.
There are plenty of credentialed prostitutes teaching and writing at universities these days.
Just look at Thomas Eager or Chomsky at MIT.

Of course, not all of them can boast, like Steve Jones, of having worked as a weapons developer for Los Alamos.
That would be violating the secrecy contracts they've signed.

How reassuring to know that we have a credentialed weapons scientist giving our movement guidance, so we can stay on the straight and narrow path ...
and not deviate into realms that are classified ..
hence beyond our understanding.

Especially when that weapons developer (Jones) has a high-powered law firm behind him ...

Perhaps that's what they're teaching at BYU.

It's that "new math" Jones has been teaching in his classes.

re: Floum directing Jones on the official limited hangout

Together with Floum's buddy Fred Burks and a host of other shysters.

Seems apparent that no one wants to confront the obvious "conflict of interest" driving Jones' suppressive agenda.

Trying to misrepresent satellite-guided directed energy weapons as "space beams" is clever enough disinfo to appeal to a mob of ignoramuses and semi-literates.

But denying, obscuring and r;unning away from the mainstream media's responsibility for broadcasting fake video material on 9/11 (and afterwards) reveals a pretty clear COINTELPRO agenda...
"Protect the street cred of the Mainstream Media"...
"Protect our right to suckup to FOX and Mancow..."

This is really about a direct COINTELPRO effort to subvert the discussion into a mainstream media cage where it can be controlled, regulated and defused.

Jones (and his puppeteer shyster Alexander Floum) are responsible for staging the pretext...

Suppressing any reasonable research, discussion or publlicity of ongoing use of nightmarish unconventional weapons ....
principally in Iraq, Afghanistan (possibly in Lebanon and Gaza as well).

And of course, suppressing any discussion of their development and use right here at home....
That's the assignment of Jones and Floum: to cover ass for the use of hi-tech weaponry by the bloody murderers of the military-industrial complex.....

By gatekeeping the message into a more easily controllable "conventional explosives" paradigm....

And by covering for the media's manipulative role in the 9/11 psy-op.... and the false-flag psy-ops to come...

Right on, man! Touchdown!


You hit the nail on the head!

Even in context her

Even in context her statement is still wrong. An object will not take longer to reach terminal velocity due to air resistance, it WILL reach terminal velocity due to air resistance. In a vacuum, it WILL NOT ever reach a terminal velocity.

It also doesn't matter whether she was modeling it that way or not. For whatever purpose it is used, it is simply WRONG.

Now Seve

that nice lady, Judy Wood, was showing everyone what a lying piece of dirt that Jones fellow is. Instead of listening, you and your silly little friend went and exposed yourselves for being closed-minded and easily swayed by the crowd. Quit your crying. That ain't how we taught you.

Jones' calculations are blatently wrong.

Do you deny that? If so, you're probably using the "new math" that Jones taught you in class.


I thought we were talking about Judy Wood and her calculations here. I guess you had to change the subject when you realized the substance of my comment was unassailable.

Jones is the one with the wrong answers

How can he represent "the truth movement" when he can't even make such a simple calculation? Imagine what Fox will do with this!

Yes. I checked them too. Jones' calculations are really wrong.

So, why did he say he had checked them? Is he trying to discredit the Scholars group?

Another huge hole in the

Another huge hole in the Space Beam idea, what satellite has a period of roughly 30 minutes???

Calculation Complete

The orbital velocity at 185.00 kilometers is 7.79 km/sec! The period of the orbit is 88.19 minutes.

source: Orbital Velocity and Period Calculator

Any orbit less than 185km is in an unstable orbit (i.e. burn up in the atmosphere)

" The Shuttle's (or any satellite's) speed is dependent on how far it is above the earth. To illustrate this, tie a small object to the end of a string and swing it about your head (do this OUTSIDE) fast enough to make the string stand straight out. As it is swinging around, try to keep the hand holding the string as still as possible (don't swing it about in a circle, too). Then, after you have it swinging at a constant speed, pull the loose end of the string to shorten the string. Using the same amount of force to swing the object, you'll see that the object speeds up as the string gets shorter. This is a demonstration of the Law of Conservation of Momentum."

 Check out the actual altitudes of satellites (including periods) at NASA's site - J-Track-3D (java applet)


For the sole purpose of

For the sole purpose of playing devil's advocate, more than one satelite could have been used.

Yes, I realize this...  So

Yes, I realize this...  So a minimum of two Death Ray secret satellites... 

I feel dirty just for giving this more than 3 minutes of my life... 

You are correct :) Minimum

You are correct :) Minimum of 2 Death Ray satellites. Sometimes you just have to laugh at the whole idea to stay sane.

Don't feel too dirty. I think this space beam fiasco has presented an opportunity to completely discredit Judy Wood and forever remove her and Morgan Reynolds from ever being taken seriously by anyone in the 9/11 Truth Movement. I actually have a few more critiques of Judy Wood's paper that I'm in the process of tightening up. They are as solid, if not more solid, than my post above about the corrupted data, and should be available for everyone's viewing pleasure soon.

I still think Fetzer is genuine, but my being convinced of that wanes each day. He just sounds sincere when I hear him talk, anyways.

Sincere? Maybe. But also

Sincere? Maybe. But also totally fucked.

"He just sounds sincere"

Sincerely fucked in the head.

The only thing i'm sure about is

that he's not the right man for the position he's in.
He comes across like a "hobby conspiracy theoriest".

You're right!

Well... with your "logic" then certainly one grain of thermite couldn't have done it either.


DirectTV's satellite is *always* above Texas.

There's no reason a military satellite couldn't have maintained position over Manhattan for a couple of hours.

a response to duh

hi duh,
i am an anonymous 911blogger troll who marked you down because you are accurately stating the facts.

while i realize that to point out facts might be welcome on other blog/forums, it is most unwelcome here because we try to maintain a hostile and factfree environment.

we are 'real truthers' and we aren't interested space beams, paradigm shifts in our outward thinking, or improving and utilizing alternative media to expose our message. we are just interested in thermite, impeachment, and a real independent investigation by the democrats!

so, while i realize you might be pointing out the ridiculous claim above by imgstacke in relation to orbitial mechanics, please stop because on 911blogger, its a crime (punishable by a vote down!) to replace to the frauds with the facts.

Geosynchronous orbits are

Geosynchronous orbits are 27,000 miles out...  let me repeat, 27 THOUSAND MILES.

Even a simple laser would spread over that distance before being further diffused by the atmosphere...

It blew me away that so

It blew me away that so called intelligent people can allow their own viability to be undermined by this kind of infighting, it can only do harm an Fetzer MUST know that. I cannot see a single angle in which an action like this can help, especially when paraded in public!!


It helps the truth movement to expose a government operative.

It helps the real truth movement to expose a government operative.

Professor Steven Jones' paper is NOT PEER-REVIEWED!

Is there more of this

Is there more of this exchange?

Wasn't that...

From early this year?

"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."

I believe this clip is taken

I believe this clip is taken from a presentation on February 1st at UVSC, we have a copy here:

Tune-in to GCN...

Fetzer's show is about to start, I think Judy Wood is his guest today:

Click on "Network 2"

The Dynamic Duo with James Fetzer and Kevin Barrett
Monday thru Friday 3pm to 5pm Central Time

GCN Live call-in number: 1 800 259 9231

Yeah Wood is on the show today...


Now it was "HAARP" that brought down the towers. *sigh*

I don't think that call in

I don't think that call in number gets you to Fetzer's show. Is there another number that may get to Network 2?

Fetzer told me he would confront her about my criticisms, and thus far it doesn't look like he is planning on putting any tough questions to her. All I want to know is how she can call her paper scientifically sound when she uses admittedly corrupt data.

Here it is...


He doesn't seem to be taking

He doesn't seem to be taking callers. What a shame. Fetzer is either disinfo or a complete idiot, buying this whole thing hook, line and sinker. Didn't he teach classes in scientific reasoning? That is really unbelievable.

According to GCN that's the

According to GCN that's the right numbe, but you won't hear Network 2 over the phone.

I don't think that number

I don't think that number gets to Fetzer's show either. He's clearly not taking callers.

Wood sounds completely insane

Is anyone else listening to this??

Now Fetzer is spewing more about HAARP

Next he'll be talking about how a Philadelphia experiment style weapon made the towers disappear.

Now he's back onto the SPACE BEAMS!!!

It's over and they didn't take any calls

BIG SURPRISE!! Freaking pathetic.

Totally ridiculous.

Totally ridiculous. Horrible.

archive is up

It's already proven that Steven Jones is a fraud.

See the links here (starting on the 7th line of text) for proof of Jones deceitful work.

Luckily for the "truth" Jim Fetzer is promoting Judy Wood's theories.

Steven Jones was used to discredit Cold Fusion.

Jones can't be trusted.


Cold Fusion is real. Watch this 46 minute video 



You guys are stacking up here at the bottom.

Thanks for the laughs.