---

Here is the initial posting to st911.org by Jim Fetzer (response from Dr. Jones is below)...

---

An Open Letter about Steven Jones
Source: scholarsfor911truth.org

by James H. Fetzer
19 November 2006

Friends and Colleagues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 November 2006

Interview: Judy Wood will be the guest on "Non-Random Thoughts" with host Jim Fetzer

Related: The Star Wars Beam Weapon
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam2.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam3.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam4.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam5.html
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam6.html
http://rbnlive.com

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

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

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

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsAppendix1.html#Possibilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James H. Fetzer
Founder and Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth

---

Here is Steven Jones' response...

---

Jim:

You wrote, "He is now planning to take control of the web site from me. I have raised objections on moral, legal and intellectual grounds and I am categorically opposed to it. But he appears to be persisting in what might be described as a "hostile take over" to control Scholars." "…his attempt to take over the site is morally, legally, and intellectually objectionable on many grounds, including that it qualifies as taking something that does not belong to him."

What nonsense. As I have written to you privately (e.g., appendix below), Jim, I have no interest at all "to take over the site." My work is research, and I have no interest to "control the Scholars." (Would you explain what that means to you?). Even if we agree by vote of all the members to have an elected committee to provide direction or oversight to the website, as we have discussed privately and on our Forum, I have clearly stated that I would not be on that committee. Period. So your accusation that I attempt "to take over the site" is not only unfounded, it is bizarre.

Further, I stated that I do not intend to continue much longer to work with you as co-chair of this group, for obvious reasons, but I wish to see civility restored here so I will continue on a little longer. If there is a vote on the idea of having a committee to oversee the st911 website, the vote will go to ALL members, and the option of having you continue as the sole manager of the website will be included as an option of course. All this is being discussed on our Forum, and we urge you to participate directly in that discussion. I posted our initial email exchanges on this subject on our Forum per your request. I am confident that if you would PERSONALLY visit the st911 Forum, you would find your statements above untenable.

Your "Open Letter" was posted on the st911 website yesterday without giving me the courtesy of preparing a simultaneous post. This constitutes a prime example of why there needs to be an elected committee to oversee the website, IMO. If an elected committee had approved of your open letter (even without simultaneous post from me) there would have been no hard feelings. There are other examples of course, and I and Dr. Legge and others find that you have been unresponsive to our requests for changes on the very cluttered website. Hopefully you will see the value of an elected editorial board for the organization's web page, should the membership choose that route. I urge the members of this group to not "jump ship" (as some have told me they are going to do) until after we have a chance for a vote on this issue -- and any other issue the members wish to see resolved. The society belongs to all the Scholars. We do not belong to you, Jim.

I sent to you scientific arguments against the notion that you promoted in Tucson, that some kind of energy-beam was directed from WTC 7 to bring down the Towers. (Interested folks may wish to watch Jim Fetzer's presentation here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=646337772656177512&q=Jim+Fetzer ) I'm very disappointed that you did not respond to my scientific arguments, but instead launched into this public diatribe, the ad-hominem tone of which is reminiscent of Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds as many will recognize. Are you teamed up with them?

As I noted in my reply to the attack piece by Reynolds and Wood,

"I would like to emphasize at the outset that Reynolds and Wood and I …unitedly disagree with the official "conspiracy theory" that nineteen hijackers managed to get through the multi-trillion-dollar air defense system, and managed also to completely bring down these skyscrapers on 9/11. The details, HOW this was actually done, we disagree on.

"I will also observe that there is a group of 9/11 researchers, including Reynolds, Wood, Haupt and Holmgren, who take the approach of personalized attacks on any other researcher who dares to suggest that real planes hit the Towers. Really – they support the "no-planes-hit-Towers" notion so strongly that they resort to personal attacks on anyone who challenges their pet theory. As I have done."

The current "pet theory" that I have challenged is one now supported by you and (not surprisingly) Wood and Reynolds – the idea that "space beams" or "energy beams" were directed at the Towers to bring them down. But why must you take on the uncivil approach of ad hominem attacks rather than scientific discussion? I don't understand it, Jim.

I thought the role of the Scholars group was to avoid the ad-hominem style and use the scientific method instead.

I will re-iterate below the scientific arguments I offered to you a few days ago. But first, let me state that I am willing to participate on your radio program, when the conditions I emailed to you five days ago are met:

November 15, 2006

Jim,
A few things need to be straightened out first.

1. Is the directed-beams hypothesis a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis? Let the proponents delineate crucial experiments which will permit testing the hypothesis, and which have the potential of proving the hypothesis wrong. If an hypothesis is not falsifiable by experiments,
it is not scientific.

2. Judy Wood and Morgan R have made unsubstantiated statements which need to be supported with facts or withdrawn before a civilized discourse could take place.

For example, Morgan Reynolds wrote on 8/24/06:

"The SJ-phenom kept building and building but it was headed for a big crash because of its obvious infirmities. Some argue that this behavior can be traced to the perps. Regardless, on hindsight it would have been better to have taken out this bilge months ago, Judy has been trying for six months in private. But SJ is incorrigible and a serial liar. We've got to clean up our own backyard mess before his implosion takes nearly all 9/11 skeptics down with him." (Morgan Reynolds)

Please then substantiate this claim that "SJ is incorrigible and a serial liar" with delineated facts. Also, explain how Morgan R. and Judy W. plan to take "out this bilge", so that we may be assured that no foul play is planned for the proposed debate.

Sincerely,

Steven Jones

The email sent by Morgan R. (above) is quite revealing, isn't it? Have you bought into this program, Jim? But wait – if you and they will respond to my two conditions above, then yes, I will be happy to participate on your radio show once again. (You already invited Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood…)

And if you or Judy or Morgan have arguments against the thermate hypothesis, please be sure to explain the independent observations of high concentrations of finely powdered zinc, barium, manganese and sulfur in the WTC dust. I discussed these data and the chain of custody question thoroughly in my talks at UC-Berkeley, Univ. Denver, UC-Boulder and Sonoma State Univ. recently (videos are available). I find that rather than addressing my scientific arguments, you have attacked me personally. Further, recall that the beginnings of the Scholars group go back to Prof. Marcus Ford, who organized a nucleus of nearly 50 scholars during the spring/summer of 2005, long before you and I agreed to co-chair a more "formal" Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Finally, I find that your latest letter and the divisiveness it engenders detract from the mission of the Scholars society. This is most disheartening. There is plenty of evidence now to enable us to join with other groups, to unitedly call for an investigation of certain "rogue" officials regarding 9/11 anomalies and the 9/11 wars. We need solid leadership, not attacks on those who share the same overall goals.

Sincerely,

Steven E. Jones

I append several scientific arguments against the directed-beam notion espoused and promoted by Wood and Fetzer and Reynolds, based on my email to Jim Fetzer a few days ago:

Nov. 18, 2006

Jim,

It's about 2 am, but I woke up and care about you sufficiently to
endeavor to reason with you.

I believe you have accepted and are presented arguments which are not only ill-founded, they are embarassingly wrong. (Tucson lecture http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=646337772656177512&q=Jim+Fetzer) And I'd like to reason with you, Jim. Let's reason between ourselves, shall we?

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

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

Consider a small parachute the size/area of a grand piano, with a man on it. He would fall quite fast. Now replace his mass with that of a grand piano (but in a ball of say lead). Surely you have enough horse-sense to see that the latter case will fall MUCH faster. And that's what the equations say also. A parachute the size of a grand piano acting on a large mass just doesn't slow it much. But let her show her calculations!!

Added: As Alfons showed on the Forum, the terminal velocity can be calculated with the help of a NASA web-site: http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/termvr.html . Alfons used a Yamaha grand piano,

• Length: 161cm (5'3")
• Width: 149cm –
• Height: 101cm
• Weight: 628 pounds (m = 285kg)

The drag coefficient depends on the attitude of the piano to the velocity vector as it falls; we take a maximum-drag orientation and therefore take a large drag coeff;

Mass = 285 kg
Cross Section = 2.3989 sq. meters
Drag Coefficient = 1.28 (Flat Object CD = 1.28 exploration.grc.nasa.gov/...aped.html)
Altitude = 417 meters = 1368 ft
Terminal Velocity = 39.346 m per second

Then the total fall time is 10.5 seconds (+or-). Which is just about the time the Towers took to collapse! Your example in your Tucson talk backfires on you… gives ammo to those who would debunk everything you say.

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

2. You and Judy say that the bathtub was not damaged. Have you checked this out? I just wish you would read the research offered freely on our Forum. but let me quote from there, which in turn is quoting from an engineering journal:

"Half of WTC 'Bathtub' Basement Damaged By Twin Towers' Fall

(enr.com 10/8/01)

"Visual surveys indicate roughly 50% of the seven-level basement structure of the World Trade Center is now rubble as a result of the impact of the collapse of the twin 110-story towers. Outside the tower footprints, the section of greatest concern within the so-called 1,000x 500-ft bathtub is along its south side. There, a 200 x 30-ft hole from 40 to 70 ft deep sits between the tub's perimeter slurry wall and the remains of Two WTC.

"A significant part of the south tower fell in and collapsed everything," says Joel L. Volterra, an engineer with Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers, the city's local engineer on the bathtub.

"Engineers are busy drawing up emergency tieback, bracing and shoring schemes so that contractors can start mobilizing tieback rigs this week or next to anchor the south perimeter of the 70-ft-deep slurry wall.

"Roughly 40% of the bathtub's reinforced concrete diaphragm slabs and steel columns are in "pretty good shape," says George J. Tamaro, the Mueser Rutledge engineer leading the foundation repair team."

SO -- the engineers say only about 40% of the bathtub was in pretty good shape, the rest being significantly damaged. Water was only about 1 foot below the damaged area, in another report -- and pumps were brought in. The report does not say whether the pumps were needed or not, but that doesn't matter does it? The damage to the bathtub in PUBLISHED engineering reports says the damage to the bathtub was extensive.

Jim, someone is giving you erroneous information -- and you're swallowing it. Read the engineering reports for yourself.

3. I'm NOT seeking to wrest control of st911 -- but I do hope that you will listen to the MEMBERS about how they want the web site handled. We're hoping for ideas on how to handle the website, as many of us are not satisfied. Will you listen to the voice of the members, or is such a vote -taking idea just futile? You should read the discussion on the forum to know where I and others stand -- not just a few extracted and out of context quotes of me or others. I DO NOT seek power here, but a better web-site. Indeed, I've said that I want
to end my co-chair status after one year, after we decide what to do about the web site, which is losing visitors the data clearly show. We need to do something…

4. The generators in WTC 7 -- how many gallons of diesel fuel do you suppose they might burn in 10 seconds (Tower fall time, approx)? Perhaps 20-30 gallons in 10 seconds? That would be 120-180 gallons per minute -- and that seems high to me. I'm here paraphrasing an argument by a PhD chemist on the Forum -- the power which the WTC 7 generators can deliver in 10 seconds is NOWHERE NEAR enough to vaporize steel and pulverize concrete. We know that explosives (like superthermite and RDX explosives) can do the pulverizing, because they store energy in small packages. But diesel fuel running generators (which are not even 50 % efficient ) simply cannot deliver the necessary energy in 10 seconds time. Can you see this? It's a conservation of energy argument which is very strong and I hope easy to grasp when it is laid out like this. And the steel was thrown out of the footprint area, much of it -- but not vaporized.

5. An energy beam with enough energy to pulverize concrete and vaporize steel -- what would this do to human flesh, Jim? Wouldn't flesh be charred? If not, why not? Yet body pieces -- not charred - were found all over GZ.

Jim, you're being sold a bill of goods by these people and I beg of you to consider sound arguments instead.\ It's now nearly 3 am and I'm going back to bed, sleep I hope. It really concerns me that you are being so easily led by the nose my friend by these ideas of Judy's or whoever. Ask for numbers, calculations. Insist on these so you can do some checking before you go telling people that a grand piano takes 21 seconds over the time of the tower's fall. What a bunch of obvious garbage, Jim. You're going to be laughed at by anyone who knows how to calculate terminal velocity, which is mass-dependent!

Will you listen to reason?

Steve

What we have been doing on the Forum and in private emails is providing constructive criticism of the website and also pointing out the errors made by Judy and Jim. Surely those are acceptable, sound things to do.