Proposal for Revitalization & Reconstruction of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Journal of 9/11 Studies

Following is a full, unedited copy of the “S911T & J911S Revitalization & Reconstruction Proposal” that Steve Jones, Jim Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds & Judy Wood asked me to prepare after Morgan & Judy’s resignations from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth.  (Editing Exception: Formatting & contact information has been edited.)

After this blog is posted, I will post Steve & Jim’s response to this proposal.  However, after some negotiation, the parties ultimately rejected the following Proposal, and none of the contained sub-proposals have been implemented (or at least, not fully).

Since Steve Jones had declined our invitations to speak before the National Press Club’s McClendon Group (of which I am a member), and since Morgan Reynolds & Judy Wood had accepted our invitations, I was then in closer contact with Morgan & Judy than I was with Steve & Jim, I prepared this as a Proposal from & on behalf of Judy & Morgan to Jim & Steve. 

ALL of us have continued to communicate by email, in person & by phone since that time.  I am now in the process of arranging another invitation -- for Steve Jones & Jim Fetzer -- to speak before the National Press Club’s McClendon Group

Without further ado, following is the “S911T & J911S Revitalization & Reconstruction Proposal” to which I referred in my coments at “FALSE FLAG NEWS' DL Abrahamson exposes 9/11 ‘SPACE BEAM’ disinformation being promoted at” and in “Dr. Jim Fetzer Interviews Dr. Judy Wood about "The 9/11 Star Wars Beam Weapon" on RBN Live.

We would ALL welcome your comments, requests, and suggestions on this Proposal -- and on how best to proceed in our scientific & scholarly 9/11 truth & justice seeking.

S911T & J911S Revitalization & Reconstruction Proposal

Thomas J Mattingly & Associates
Washington, DC
23 August 2006 

Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.Co-Chair,
Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and
    Editor, Journal of 9/11 Studies
Provo, Utah 

James H. Fetzer,Ph.D.Co-Chair,
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Madison, Wisconsin

Dear Steve & Jim:

Yes, Judy Wood & Morgan Reynolds are interested in reconciling with Scholars for 9/11 Truth (S911T), the Journal of 9/11 Studies (J911S), and with you, Jim & Steve.  However, Morgan’s & Judy’s primary interests and objectives are to continue their research, writing & speaking; to uncover the best evidence of the methods & motives of the 9/11 perpetrators; and to ensure that none of the 9/11 perps are able to perpetrate such events in the future.  Appropriate redress would also include stopping the 9/11 cover-up perps -- whoever & wherever they are.

The three (3) areas of concern that we will address are Scientific Integrity, Strategic Goals & Objectives, and Organizational Structure & Decision Making.  Judy & Morgan don’t have any desire for increased leadership roles in either S911T or J911S.  Of course, we need to build on the success of S911T and J911S -- while being mindful of their shortcomings.

On behalf of Morgan Reynolds & Judy Wood, we make this proposal for revitalization & reconstruction of & for Scholars for 9/11 Truth and the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

1)      Scientific Integrity: Remove all references at the J911S & S911T sites to 9/11 evidence that does not have a proven & disclosed chain of custody and which may be fake.  An alternative to removing such references would be to prominently & clearly describe the chain of custody and/or origins of this evidence.  Two (2) examples of such questionable evidence are Steve Jones’ iron samples (allegedly from WTC Ground Zero, the origin of which is unclear) and Steve’s video evidence of molten iron or aluminum pouring from a WTC window (the spliced videos for which may not have shown such molten metal in their original internet postings). 

2)     Scientific Integrity:  Retroactively and prospectively appropriately credit all original sources for assertions in articles and postings on the J911S and S911T sites.  Correct all past scientific mistakes contained in all J911S articles and S911T postings (with the nature & extent of the correction being made perfectly clear).

3)     Scientific Integrity:  Establish appropriate editorial review boards for both the S911T and J911S sites -- with minimalist but accountable structures & procedures.  This may ensure that the articles and postings that are published on the sites are not subject to the likes and dislikes of the leaders of S911T and J911S for either the messages or the messengers.  This may also entail revamping the peer review process to be more in line with an investigatory journal than with a scientific journal (possibly similar to Jim Fetzer’s  Postings at the S911T site may also need to include postings of a broad & unpopular nature -- even from messengers that some of the S911T scholars may not like.

4)     Strategic Goals & Objectives:  Change the focus of S911T and J911S to be more in keeping with the “best evidence” to prove the methods & motives of the 9/11 perpetrators.  A concentration on “hard evidence” may be appropriate for scientific endeavors; however, it may not be appropriate for continuing 9/11 investigations. A preference for “hard evidence” is still appropriate, of course.

5)      Strategic Goals & Objectives:  Establish two (2) categories of issues for S911T: 

a.       Settled 9/11 Issues (where there is an appropriately-defined “broad consensus” of the 9/11 Scholars -- after appropriate research, testing, peer review, publication, comment & decision making);

b.       Open 9/11 Hypotheses (where there is no "broad consensus" of the 9/11 Scholars and where journal articles have been invited but not published -- and before appropriate research, testing, peer review, comment & decision making);

c.       9/11 Scholars should, of course, be free to disagree with the S911T “party line” in public presentations; however, if they are identified with S911T, then they would need to make it clear that the S911T position is different from theirs.  9/11 Scholars should, of course, be free to state their opinion on “Open 9/11 Hypotheses” (with and only with some evidence for their assertions); however, they would also need to simultaneously make it clear that the hypothesis is still open within S911T and subject to research, testing, peer review, publication, comment & decision making.  Of course, such “Open 9/11 Hypotheses” include the “Glowing Iron Hypothesis” versus the “Glowing Aluminum Hypothesis,” the “Pro-Planes/Media Integrity Hypotheses” versus the “No-Planes/TV-Fakery Hypotheses,” amongst others.  There may be unity in unity; however, there is also unity in diversity.

6)     Strategic Goals & Objectives:  Broaden outreach to attract additional individual scientists, academic scientists, corporate scientists, and government scientists (and scholars) so that S911T is not dependent on the scientific credibility of one or two scientists.  Help to establish university, high school, and community S911T chapters.

7)     Organizational Structure & Decision Making: Establish Scholars for 9/11 Truth as a IRC 501(c)(3) organization with a “lean, mean” minimalist structure.  “Lean” may not necessarily mean impecunious.  And “mean” should be directed at the 9/11 perpetrators and cover-up perps (not at those who are working for S911T goals).

8)     Organizational Structure & Decision Making:  Establish clear membership criteria & standards with appropriate checking of the criteria & standards before membership admission to the different classes of membership (e.g., so that a farmer can’t pass himself off as a scientist and so that a student can’t suddenly become an academic).  Members who request anonymity for their research (e.g., Judy) should not have their identities disclosed without the explicit, written consent of the member.

9)     Organizational Structure & Decision Making:  Establish a separate “Full Member” forum where other members can observe but not post in real time – except with the intervention of a moderator and according to guidelines (which shall be strictly enforced by the forum moderator).  Even postings by Full Members shall be subject to strict guidelines (the violation of which should be subject to suspension or revocation of posting rights).  Such guidelines shall even apply to S911T leaders, such as Steve Jones, who may have been an egregious offender of even the current, loosely-enforced forum guidelines.

10) Organizational Structure & Decision Making:  Raise money!  Organizational poverty is sometimes a strategic control tool, used by leaders of some organizations to accomplish certain objectives and to preclude accomplishment of others.  Charge membership dues.  Solicit tax deductible donations.  Apply for foundation grants.  Put a Pay Pal “Donate Here” button on the top of the front page of both the S911T & J911S sites.  Sell books, publications, audios, and videos.  “Hard Evidence” takes money.  The 9/11 perps and cover-up perps have got it.  We don’t.  After fund raising, S911T & J911S may want to consider a paid staff (especially since some members have devoted virtually full time to these endeavors, while losing other money making opportunities -- arguably university tenure, in the case of Judy Wood).

Judy and Morgan have made other requests for changes in S911T and J911S.  Some of those requests are in their emails (below).  These and other requests for changes can easily be implemented after an appropriately minimalist organizational structure is in place -- with a “lean and mean” decision making process.

Now for your requests, Jim & Steve: 

(1) Steve has invited the submission of papers on planes/no planes
> controversy and has specified a deadline for the next issue of the
> journal, emphasizing aspects of the case that should be addressed.
> (2) Morgan has expressed interest in doing this, noting that this
> would therefore be a different paper than the one he has given me
> as a chapter for my new book, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY.  That is good.
Morgan & Judy’s Response to (1) & (2)(above): S911T Member Rick Rajter is principal author of these J911S articles.  Rick is coordinating details for submission and peer review with J911S Editor Steve Jones.  Morgan & others are working with Rick on these articles.  Other than your public & private, virtually-incessant, unscientific prejudgment of the results of research, writing, and peer review on the Pro-Planes/TV-Integrity & No-Planes/TV-Fakery hypotheses and articles (and preclusion of postings at the S911T site that did not fit with your pre-ordained conclusions), these issues played no part in Morgan’s & Judy’s resignations.  Just as long as the S911T site grants equal space for views opposing your own and just as long as J911S editors do not play games with submission, peer review, and publication details for the articles, this issue is moot.

> (3) Judy has never sent me a revised version of her study in a form
> suitable for publication as a chapter in this book, which I need if
> it is to be included.  I have always wanted to use it, so I need it.

Judy’s Response:  On or before 31 August 2006, Judy will submit a revised version of her BBE study in a form suitable for publication in your book.

> (4) I have concerns that they are going to make public attacks upon
> me, Steve, or Scholars that are political rather than scientific in
> their motivation and their effects.  That would be a very bad thing.

> (5) If they can restrict public criticisms to scientific questions
> and keep internal criticism of me, Steve, and Scholars within the
> society, then I would readmit them as members, if they were to ask.

Judy & Morgan Response to (4) & (5) (above):  Morgan & Judy have assured others & me that they plan to make no public attacks on Scholars for 9/11 Truth, the Journal of 9/11 Studies, Steve Jones or Jim Fetzer that are political rather than scientific.  As you know, they do plan to publish one or more articles on Morgan’s site, www.NoMoreGames.Net (and elsewhere) that question S911T, J911S, and you on a scientific basis. 

Morgan may or may not publish an article on his site before you respond.  (Despite my requests and cajoling, they would not send the article to me before this proposal is submitted to you.)  Judy & Morgan will continue to question the science and scientific methods of your research, writing, interviews and speeches – as I know you feel free to do with them.  This is the scholarly way!  I would advise all four (4) of you to refrain from snide remarks and dripping sarcasm. (That’s my job J.)

> (6) Frankly, I have cited them in my public presenations more often
> than anyone else with the possible exception of David Ray Griffin
> and Steve Jones.  I would like them to continue as society members.

Morgan & Judy’s Response:  Both Judy & Morgan appreciate the credit that you have given them in your public presentations (especially Steve’s use in L.A. of a graphic from Judy’s BBE article that she submitted to Steve & J911S).  After they are assured that the revitalization and reconstruction process for S911T and J911S (as outlined above) is inexorable, they would like to continue as members of S911T.  Anticipating your positive response to their above requests, they hereby request to do so.  As you say, however, that “[is] as far as either [Morgan] or [Judy] are prepared to go.”

> (7) I consider their past conduct to have been a power play to take
> control of the society out of my and Steve's hands.  That is not an
> acceptable goal and, if that is their aim, they should not come back.
My Response:  If resigning from an organization such as S911T was a power play, then please remind me not recommend them for any “insurrection” (what others or you called what they did after they resigned).  The emails below (in the MS Word file) semi-adequately detail the chain of events leading to their resignations.  Unless significant communications are missing, this does not look like a power play to me.  (If you have communications indicating otherwise, then please show me.)  As indicated above, “Judy & Morgan don’t have any desire for increased leadership roles in either S911T or J911S.” 

They don’t even have any desire to assume the positions that they formerly had in S911T or J911S (unless there is a “broad consensus” clamoring for their assistance – and even then, they would probably decline).  As indicated above, “Morgan’s & Judy’s primary interests and objectives are to continue their research, writing & speaking; to uncover the best evidence of the methods & motives of the 9/11 perpetrators; and to ensure that none of the 9/11 perps are able to perpetrate such horrors in the future.”

My snide remarks & dripping sarcasm aside, there it is.  We can either achieve an appropriate reconciliation and the long-due revitalization & controlled reconstruction of S911T & J9111S before the Fifth Anniversary of 9/11… or we can continue to watch what some have called “the self-controlled demolition of Steve Jones and Scholars for 9/11 Truth.” 

Despite and because of the diversity of good opinions & best evidence, Morgan’s, Judy’s, and my preference is to play the unity card…

Please respond on Thursday.  (However, no undue dire consequences will follow if you do not do so.) 

Let us know.  More soon.  Thank you.  Best regards,

Thomas J Mattingly


The Divisive Politics of the Scholars for Truth

The divisive politics of the Scholars for Truth has the potential to hinder, if not completely derail, the 911 Truth Movement. The S911T along with the J911S are sources that are frequently cited for 911 arguments with much emphasis on the work of Steven Jones.

I have not seen proof that there is any intentional or malicious plan to discredit the organization, but I do believe that it is jeopardy of loosing its hard earned credibility. It is understandable that Truthers want to be as fair and accepting as possible, after all, our goal is to seek out open-minded citizens to present 911 facts. The idea that we perhaps must be closed minded and exclusive is distasteful.

That being said, I feel that if this movement is going to make any headway and ever be accepted, we have to seriously take into consideration WHO we are trying to reach.

Theories that are far reaching from the mainstream realm of possibility will only hurt the movement, even if the research behind it is iron-clad! The leaders of this movement must be hand-picked and groomed almost as carefully as (dare I say it) political candidates. After all, most people will not listen to someone who they instantly don't like and feel uncomfortable with watching speak. Just as online video has propelled truth forward, it can just as easily squash it if the wrong type of message is being put forward by the wrong type of speaker.

I am firmly against being exclusive and I think every theory that has been strenuously researched has a degree of merit, BUT if this movement is going forward the message must be palatable to mainstream common sense.

I find this report highly

I find this report highly questionable... there is definitely something going on here in this movement that I must say is very disturbing. It seems to me that we have been infiltraited and these infiltraitors are making their move to derail our momentum.

DO we need to reform our approach.... Yes.

Do we need to remove the work of Steven E. Jones based on his "suspect" samples? Get real!

If you want to keep on with this "Space Beam" theory..... then perhaps you should start your own group.

We know enough to get this done.... we simply have to get that together..... we will know the details after this gets to court.

We have the power... we simply need the people.


there is definitely something going on here in this movement that I must say is very disturbing. It seems to me that we have been infiltraited and these infiltraitors are making their move to derail our momentum.

Hmm, which is more likely, the 9/11 "truth" movement has been infiltrated by a group of secret covert operatives, or.... you people just have a large number of paranoid idiots among your ranks?

Apply Occam's Razor here....

Tell Reynolds & Wood to get lost & to take their cartoon planes

and space beams with them. They are promoting disinformation to discredit the truth movement.

Start a new organization.

Fetz, Reynolds, and Wood can go start Star Wars Freaks for 9/11 Truth. Fetzer is a piece of garbage for jocking them and is clearly disinfo at this point.

Not credible.

I would be very surprised to receive a formal piece of writing that included the use of terms like "perp" and "cover-up perp" and the ampersand.

My personal opinion:

Morgan and Wood are disinfo, the No Planes/ TV Fakery/ Space Beams people are disinfo, and the above piece of writing is disinfo.

These Woods and Reynolds

These Woods and Reynolds knuckledheads need to be shown the door. They're either disinfo or completely out to lunch. On the one hand they baselessly request more scientific rigor by Jones, on the other they push outlandish, wholly unverifiable theories about no planes and space beams??? I hate to say it but these two positively wreak of disinfo.


It would appear that "scientific integrity", "best evidence" and "correcting mistakes" are not the most popular ideas on this site. They are, however, essential to a scientific approach.
Thank you for your efforts.