The Continuing Demolition of the Scholars
Here's some stuff from Ginny Howard, apparently about to become a former member of "Scholars" for 9-11 Denial:
This is a letter Ginny (worked for Scholars) asked me to post on forums for her in relations to recent problems in ST911:
Below is the lengthy e-mail I wrote Jim on August 18th which lays out the serious problems I had identified in ST911 and explains the situation Jim refers to from my point of view (followed by his response). However, this was NOT the first time these issues were broached; there had been a full airing with Jim of some of the most striking ones in what could be called The 'Two Great Engineers' Saga, which occurred right at the first of August. During this event, which involved Steve trying to insert into Full Membership status (i.e., those with full academic credential)-- on the basis of claims that proved to be FALSE or UNVERIFIABLE and that he had to KNOW were so -- two people who had not even applied for membership! Jim wanted me to accede to Steve's demands on the issue; I refused.
What is MOST telling to me about this whole situation is that, with Judy Wood now removed as webmaster (on trumped-up charges), guess who are now listed as Full Members? That's right! Those 'two great engineers' (nothing intended against them personally), Srs. Winterton and Phelps -- one an elderly gentleman with a B.S. in civil engineering; the other of which we know nothing about. Check it out yourself. [In case these names are removed from the FM roster, the page as of today has been captured.]
And who has control of the webpage? Jim Fetzer.
SO: What this means is that Jones is perfectly willing to LIE about credentials to pad the roles of ST911, and Fetzer is perfectly willing to ACCOMMODATE those lies even after he has been informed in no uncertain terms that that is EXACTLY what they are.
This puts in stark relief the noteworthy lack of integrity that informs the work of ST911. That is, if there is not even an INTENTION to maintain integrity in the membership roles, how can anyone trust there is integrity anywhere else? As I have said more than once, Scholars for 9/11 TRUTH cannot succeed when founded on a pack of LIES.
Speaking of which -- with respect to Jim's claim of 'embracing' me because I was Judy's friend, IMV, I was recruited as membership secretary because I was perceived as a convenient and willing dupe (though no more). Also, as you will see, my actions were not based merely on my 'opinions' about Steve, but rather on a considerable amount of evidence of the general dysfunctionalilty of ST911, as well as the 'quality' of its leadership.
I do need to make one correction about the e-mail below. At the end of it, I said I would continue to work on the applications. In fact, conditions with Jim and ST911 rapidly deteriorated, such that I became even LESS sanguine about the quality of ST911 and about the advisability of continuing to support it. Thus, mostly what I did afterwards was to send out letters of receipt and enter names in the address book. (I, of course, also spent time gathering together materials to inform the new membership secretary, Dave Doering, of the situation and to provide the necessary files so that he could carry on -- if he chooses to do so.
THUS, sadly, ST911 appears to be an organization with a corrupted leadership. If I were a betting woman, I'd put my money on the proposition that it is in fact a creation of, by, and for the perps. Unfortunately, some good people have already been hurt and others will be because we allowed ourselves to be taken in by the attraction of 'credentials' -- without paying sufficient attention to verify the quality and integrity they should have stood for.
Under the circumstances, I believe the only way to limit the damage of this awful situation is for the 9/11 Truth Movement to distance itself as quickly as possible from such low-down chicanery.
My final observation is that the leadership (Jones and Fetzer) have abused the trust placed in them (too willingly) by the ST911 membership. It is therefore up to the MEMBERSHIP to re-establish it's commitment to high standards of integrity in thought and action, and to bring these men to account. I suggest members begin to organize themselves to figure out how this can be done in a way most supportive of the long-term health of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
And, undaunted, to move forward.
The August 18th assessment appears below.
August 18, 2006
This is a long e-mail; I hope you read it, thoughtfully, all the way through.
For my part, I have been thinking quite a bit about the current situation with ST911.
I do not accept your frame. For me this is not about who I’m more ‘committed’ to: ‘my friend’ or ‘the society’ (i.e., ‘Jim Fetzer’).
It’s not about loyalty in that sense.
Instead, I’m evaluating the situation according to a set of criteria which include the following:
(1) Does the organization have a structure that can accommodate a growing membership and provide reasonable avenues to make use of members’ gifts and talents? Is it able to adapt appropriately as it grows and meets new challenges?
(2) How savvy is the leadership in handling the trolls and operatives who inevitably infest the membership of any organization like ours and then try to take over and create an ineffective mess?
(3) How willing is the leadership to create a strong, clean advisory counsel so that problems, issues, and potential actions and directions can be viewed from a variety of perspectives and decisions arrived at by wise, informed consensus?
(4) When indications of serious problems arise, can the leadership objectively evaluative the data and handle the situation in a timely, effective manner, or will problems be allowed to fester until they blow up?
I believe that, however ST911 was originally conceived, its rapid growth and public image, not to mention the fulfillment of its purpose, require the attention, organizational structure, and leadership I am suggesting. Ad hoc is no longer 'good enough'. However, what I believe I am currently seeing with ST911 is an organization without effectiveness in any of these areas.
I know, for example, that I have more than once expressed my strong dismay at the quality of the forum and at the idea that decent new members are to be turned loose there, where discussions * best I can tell * are dominated by trolls with the primary purpose of wasting people’s time and confusing them about the issues.
I have not gotten one response from you about that.
As a consequence, one thing I’ve done is try to drag my feet as much as possible, without looking totally incompetent, on admitting new members. Why? Because I can’t stand the thought of sending decent, caring people, many of whom write quite compelling personal statements, into the forum snake pit, which is the only thing ST911 offers them by way of contact with the organization. I’ve been hoping (now, I fear, against hope) that ‘something’ would soon change for the better so that I could admit them in good conscience.
I also notice that the entire ‘leadership’ of ST911 seems to consist of you * with Judy and me in the only subsidiary roles * covering membership, website, and forum moderating * i.e., virtually the entire ‘substance’ of the organization per se. (In my case, I know there’s WAY too much membership work for me to do alone.) This ‘structure’ * if one can call it that * is completely inadequate for meaningfully supporting a membership in the hundreds * unless those numbers are intended only to serve as window dressing for a few public personalities.
And this gets at another key issue for me: RESPECT.
If we are set upon ‘saving democracy’, I am very, very clear about one thing: You can’t do that without a competent citizenry. And the first step in having a competent citizenry is treating people with respect.
It isn’t RESPECTFUL to invite people to join you to save their country * and then provide them no structure in which to even begin to serve a useful purpose.
In my role as membership secretary, this has been tearing me up.
And yet as I watch in the background, I don’t see any indication that if I approached you on these issues I would get a thoughtful, helpful response. What I see, especially lately, is very erratic, dictatorial behavior.
It’s very disturbing to me.
And now we come to the issue of Steve Jones.
I have in a number of e-mails to you expressly named what this man is: A LIAR!!
This FACT is provable beyond a shadow of a doubt on a number of fronts.
Because he is the co-chair of ST911, this is a very, very serious issue.
The matter of ‘non-glowing, silvery-gray-at-all-temperatures’ aluminum is so obvious and egregious a fabrication as to be laugh-out-loud laughable if the matter were not so deadly serious. You doubt me? Go to his PDF (you’ll need to do this fairly quickly because he keeps changing it) and visit page 69 (of 189):
http://www.journalof911studies.com/J...radeCenter.pdf (In case it’s changed, I can send you saved screen shots of the page.)
What you’re going to see are four pictures:
(1) ‘Molten metal’ (allegedly) pouring out of a South Tower window -* though NIST states the picture is ‘color enhanced’ (or something like that), not to mention there’s a serious question about whether the whole thing isn’t a total fake.
(2) A picture presumably of thermite burning.
(3&4) Two pictures of aluminum being poured.
These four pictures are supposed to offer conclusive ‘proof’ that what is pouring out of the window in the (probably faked) picture is 'thermite' -- and most certainly 'cannot' be aluminum.
Now, what is the problem with this picture? The problem is that the color of molten metals is determined by temperature * not the material itself * as any high school physics student would know. Whatever is shown as pouring out the window (if indeed something did pour out) is of a MUCH higher temperature than the aluminum (which melts at approx. 660 degrees centigrade) shown in pictures 3 & 4. Why is the molasses-like aluminum silvery-gray and NOT the color of the stuff in the ‘window’? BECAUSE IT ISN’T ANYWHERE NEAR HOT ENOUGH!!!!
This is the 'detail' Jones fails to mention.
No way is Jones this stupid. Nope. He’s lying straight to our faces. Indeed, he lied about it to Judy back in February; he lied about it to Bonnie Faulkner and her listeners on Guns and Butter; he lied about it on your program, he lies about it on the ST911 forum (with his lies being affirmed there by his chorus of groupies); and on C-SPAN, he lied about it to the whole nation.
Why is he doing this?
More to the point, why are you not treating this behavior as the unconscionable breach of scientific integrity it is, but are acting as if Jones is being defamed when somebody calls him on it? Why instead are you not dismissing Jones from ST911 for conduct unbecoming a ‘scholar’, and thus protecting the long-term good name of the organization??
(BTW * as I’m writing this, I just received a copy of an e-mail from Alex Floum in which he makes the definitive assertion that Jones is an ‘impeccable’ scientist. Again, what I want to know is, why is an ‘impeccable’ scientist LYING about an item of high school physics that anybody can recognize as false? IMV -- ‘Impeccable’ is as impeccable does. What I’ve just named * the evidence of which is available for the whole world to see in Jones' PDF -- is the opposite of ‘impeccable’.)
But let’s say you don’t want to deal with the ‘non-glowing, silvery-gray-at-all-temperatures’ aluminum issue?
How about this one:
Jones LIES about the people he recruits as members of ST911.
How do I know this?
In THREE CASES * count them * 1, 2, 3 * that we know about * Jones has corrupted or attempted to corrupt the membership roster by getting people listed as Full Members when they did not have the necessary credentials * AND HE KNEW IT! Who are they:
a BYU Dept. of Physics lab manager; apparently a graduate student
a man in his 70s who worked as a civil engineer but has no advanced
degrees and never held an academic appointment
we don’t really know, but he might be a vineyard owner who once
got a degree in construction engineering.
In the first case, Jeffrey Farrer was listed as a Full Member until Judy Wood saw that he was ‘thanked’ as one of the students who helped in preparing Jones’ PDF. (This statement, which appeared on the cover page and which I saw myself, has since been removed.) In the latter two cases Judy and I wasted an absurd amount of time preventing those individuals from being listed as Full Members -- which you were insisting that I do on Jones’ recognizance alone -* BEFORE we even had their permission to be listed in the first place, which is a legal issue!
I have a GIGANTIC problem with the fact that the co-chair of ST911 is a PROVEN LIAR!!
He lies in his science, and he lies in his personal communications.
I don’t have to know WHY he’s lying; I just know that ST911’s INTEGRITY is being compromised egregiously and at the highest levels -- and that this CANNOT be good!!
I also know, for example, that there’s NO fixing the forum as long as Jones is a part of it and ST911, and is accepted as THE unquestioned scientific authority figure there.
The corruption of this man is so glaring (the aluminum issue being the tip of the iceberg) that I’ve believed up until today you would surely see it and take appropriate action.
MY BOTTOM LINE:
‘Scholars for 9/11 TRUTH’ will ultimately fail if it has LIARS at the helm -- and protects them to keep them there. Trying to cover up for Jones * or whatever it is you’re doing * can, at best, have a temporary effect. In the end, it will be a disaster.
This is not rocket science. It’s about basic, common decency. If we don’t have that in our organization * or at least are making an honest attempt to strive for it -- we don’t have anything.
My opinion: Either Jones is a paid covert operative, which is surely what he looks like * OR he’s doing a damned good imitation of one, such that the BushCo criminal regime is getting excellent service -- for free!!
I don’t know which is worse.
There’s much more that could be said, but I’ll leave my description of the problem at this.
Now, you probably are interested in what I plan to do:
I will reiterate: I am HORRIFIED at admitting to a dysfunctional, deceitful organization decent Americans who feel honored to be a part of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (as they imagine it to be) and who want to help save their country by joining.
Still, I have taken on the duties of membership secretary, and I likewise feel a certain responsibility in that role.
Although I am no longer sanguine that, under present leadership, the concerns I have enumerated can be addressed, yet I do not wish to leave the society’s membership applications in disarray.
Therefore, I am willing to spend a few more days trying to catch up as best I can so that whoever takes over from me will at least have some sense of what has transpired in the three weeks or so I have been at this. Although I remain very concerned about what unsuspecting new members are getting into, I do not wish to inflict harm on ST911.
I hope this information is helpful to you.
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:02:44 -0500
To: Ginny Howard
Subject: Re: ST911 and Membership
Thank you for this extremely interesting post. I had thought it was odd that new members were not showing up, but now I understand. I will see what I can do in arranging a replacement. I appreciate your assistance and am considering everything you have told me. Thanks very much.
So there we have it. On the one hand we have folks who are at least interested in making a plausible case that the "Scholars" are really scholarly, and we have Fetzer and Jones, the heads of the organization.
Of course, if Fetzer wanted to be honest, he would have replied something like this:
Thank you for this extremely interesting post. What you have to understand is that we really have no case against the Bush Administration. Almost everything we claim is a lie, so it's a little late in the game to start pointing fingers at Professor Jones, who at least is providing us with interesting lies that deceive the simpletons of the movement. Have you seen my "Top Ten Reasons the Hijackers Were Fake?" Virtually every word in there is a lie, with the arguable exception of the first reason which even I can't figure out what I was getting at.