Monday, November 20, 2006

"Scholar" Infighting Continues

We have been discussing all the infighting and schisms in the 9/11 denial movement, particularly among the group called the "Scholars" for 9/11 "Truth". Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds and others quit the group, accusing Steven Jones of fraudulent scholarship and violating academic standards. One member, David Hawkins even quit, accusing Jim Fetzer of being part of the plot, but apparently not even the conspiracy theorists care about him since I have heard nothing further.

Woods and Reynolds have now gone on to propose their elaborate Death Star theory, which has made things more interesting because Fetzer, who started the group with Steven Jones has gone on to endorse this theory, even calling Woods, "the single most qualified person to study what happened on 9/11" an apparent slap in the face to Jones. So as a result there has been some discussion here as to what will the fallout be between Fetzer and Jones in this little 9/11 denier soap opera love spat.

Well, the other shoe has fallen:

An Open Letter about Steven Jones
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:

Later on , Fetzer even attacks Jones' research. This I can actually agree with:

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.

He then finishes, with what is basically an invitation to resign:

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.

All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

43 Comments:

At 20 November, 2006 09:16, Blogger Lavoisier said...

Amazing how this group of scholars for "Truth" can't even get along.

Meanwhile, are we supposed to believe that the necon cabal and their co-conspirators, probably numbering in the thousands, were able to pull off the greatest inside job in history without any bickering, in-fighting, or whistle blowing? A bunch of ragtag academics can't even get their stories straight, but this group of nefarious, shadowy people are just so cooperative?

Who are these "scholars" kidding?

 
At 20 November, 2006 09:24, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SOEMEONE PUT A TENT ON THE "ST911" CIRCUS!!!!!

ITS ANARCHY I TELL YOU!!!

DOGS AND CATS WILL SOON BE SLEEPING WITH EACH OTHER!!!

Hmmmmmmm.....
I think maybe Fetzer needs to get his own Energy Beam!!

 
At 20 November, 2006 09:39, Blogger Manny said...

DOGS AND CATS WILL SOON BE SLEEPING WITH EACH OTHER!!!

Run for your lives!

 
At 20 November, 2006 09:42, Anonymous Anonymous said...

lav, lying, manny:

Fallacy: Ad Hominem

 
At 20 November, 2006 09:45, Blogger default.xbe said...

bg:

the fact that the scholars cant agree on the mechanism of destruction for the WTC should tell you something about the quality of their evidence

 
At 20 November, 2006 09:57, Blogger tym said...

Dismissing this as ad-hominem only? Puhh-leaze

This group made their credentials fair game when they chose to identify themselves as scholars, which implies they somehow speak with a voice of authority on this issue.

The petty nature and the ever-mutating theories that they can't seem to agree on shows two things quite clearly.

1) Their conclusions aren't holding up well to scientific scrutiny and review. Even the thermite theory basically came out because of the easy refutation about how come nobody heard the thousands of blasting caps it would've taken to bring down the tower in a true controlled demoliton. The facts don't hold up and now people like Fetzer are latching onto mythical technology that can't really be disproven fairly because there is no record of any such technology even existing and thus no way to take the empirical data and say "no, it would've been like this if a beam weapon were used"

2) The nature of the competing theories and the pettiness between supporters seems to demonstrate that priority #1 for these people is to get attention/credit for their work, not finding out the truth or any kind of a search for truth or justice.

 
At 20 November, 2006 10:09, Blogger Alex said...

Funny. A month ago it was all:

"THERMATE, THERMAT, THERMATE!"

When we tried to explain that thermate doesn't work that way, none of them would listen. Now, pracitcaly overnight, it's all turned around:

"Well, you know, the thermate work is preliminary so we don't know if it's true...but this Star Wars Death Beam thing...now THERE's a Scientific Theory!"

Funny stuff.

 
At 20 November, 2006 10:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 20 November, 2006 10:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

tym said...
Dismissing this as ad-hominem only? Puhh-leaze


Tym,

I don't think I've seen you here before. Perhaps my oversight.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt (that you want to engage in an intellectually honest discussion), I hasten to point out that my contention is: no, I'm not saying ad-hominem ONLY.

I raise the ad-hominem objection because it is the first line of defense to stop a often dishonest enslaught. Pointing to ad-hominem is the most effective argument that I can come up.

Although some will point out that the following anti-Screw Loose Change argument has ad-homienem components, it appears to me that since this blog owes it's purpose to debunking Loose Change and 9/11 questioning in general, it's not surprising that the approach of the authors and the cronies who comment offer an entirely skewed version of reality.

Due to this skewed nature, the arguments that I resort to a "first-things-first" simplistic discussion.

 
At 20 November, 2006 10:42, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

LOL!!!!
A GIANT BEAM OF ENERGY!!!
LMAO!!!!

"LUKE I AM YOUR FATHER!!"

HOLY SHIT MAYBE THERE IS SOME SORT OF INTERSTELLAR WAR GOING ON FOR CONTROL OF PLANET EARTH!!

 
At 20 November, 2006 10:44, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

......So maybe ST911 and BG were "planted" to place blame on the government when the truth of the matter is that the aliens are alligning their starships for a full assault on planet earth!!!

 
At 20 November, 2006 11:07, Blogger Lavoisier said...

Actually, my comment was not ad hominem. Perhaps you've mistaken my rhetoric for my argument.

My point was that in large group dynamics it is generally impossible to get complete agreement amongst all the members of a group, whether the group be scholars or conspiratorial figures.

Your whole conspiracy theory relies on an almost total cooperation between these various shadowy groups.

P.S. If this "Truth" movement has any merit whatsoever, why hasn't any media outlet taken up the case? No liberal newspaper wants to do it? How about a Canadian one? France? China? Anyone? Bueller?

 
At 20 November, 2006 11:25, Blogger Manny said...

Pointing to ad-hominem is the most effective argument that I can come up.

You can say that again.

It's not ad hom to make the factually correct observation that the Scholars for 9-11 Truth (itself an appeal to authority, if one wants to spend time playing 8th grade debate monitor)are neither scholars nor for 9-11 truth.

It is ad hom to call them, and you, retards. Not incorrect, mind you, but ad hom nonetheless.

 
At 20 November, 2006 11:49, Blogger Stevew said...

Perhaps it was the Death Ray from Mongo, shot at us by Emperor Ming?

 
At 20 November, 2006 11:52, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

What does this say about the scholars?

The vast, vast majority are NONSCIENTISTS/NONENGINEERS. Those they can attract are near insane in their outlandish theories (come on, Thermite and STAR WARS energy beams) and on top of that, they all seem more concerned about "who is king" than the topic they are actually suppose to be researching.

I personally love to watch it, as I know it will keep the assanine theories of the 9/11 CTers right where they should be....limbo/nowhere/fringe.

TAM

 
At 20 November, 2006 12:15, Blogger Lavoisier said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 20 November, 2006 12:42, Blogger James B. said...

Someone should buy up all the domains that splinter groups could use.

Coming soon:

"The Reformed Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (www.rs911t.org)

Now 99% more truthier!

 
At 20 November, 2006 13:17, Blogger Alex said...

Perhaps it was the Death Ray from Mongo, shot at us by Emperor Ming?

A Flash Gordon reference? How old are you again? :)

 
At 20 November, 2006 13:28, Blogger Triterope said...

How, exactly, can Steven Jones can just assume control of a website that belongs to Jim Fetzer?

The "hostile takeover" metaphor doesn't make any sense. You can take over a business without anyone's permission, by acquiring 51% of its shares. But there is no comparable mechanism for this to happen to a website.

This goes even beyond bickering. It speaks to Jim Fetzer's inability to manage something as simple as an Internet site. And this is the man who's going to expose the greatest crime in history?

 
At 20 November, 2006 14:24, Blogger Stevew said...

LOL I am 62 alex
But there was a Flashgordon remake in 1980
:)

 
At 20 November, 2006 14:49, Anonymous Anonymous said...

avoisier said...

My point was that in large group dynamics it is generally impossible to get complete agreement amongst all the members of a group


My point wasn't that your entire argument was ad-hominem. Whether it was 10% or 90% doesn't undo the accuracy of my label.

Let me take up the part of your argument that I agress is not ad-hominem.

Your comparing the conspirators behind 9/11 to "any large group", or the the organzation "formerly calling itself" the 9/11 Scholars for Truth is nonsense.

 
At 20 November, 2006 14:50, Blogger Alex said...

Ah, ok. I got you confused with Shawn, who's a very young guy. And yes, I remember the '80 remake of Flash Gordon, I was a big fan when I was a kid :) Ofcourse, then they came up with "Flesh Gordon" and I was a big fan of that one when I was a teen... :p

 
At 20 November, 2006 14:52, Blogger Alex said...

Your comparing the conspirators behind 9/11 to "any large group", or the the organzation "formerly calling itself" the 9/11 Scholars for Truth is nonsense.

Yes, because those wily NWO Jews are always in agreement on everything. Everyone knows that. They're really alien machines sent to earth to subjugate us.

 
At 20 November, 2006 15:26, Blogger Stevew said...

Flesh Gordon LOL it was pretty funny as I remember

 
At 20 November, 2006 15:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alex,

It's fine for you to be abusive and distort the whole discussion.

However, I'd like to ask you at least to make points that apply to the debate that you are joining.

 
At 20 November, 2006 16:51, Blogger Lavoisier said...

Not really a nonsense comparison. They are both large groups working together, are they not?

Well, actually, by the looks of it, the Scholars are now a large group cannibilizing itself.

 
At 20 November, 2006 17:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lavoisier said...

The conspirators behind 9/11, whether you believe in "Inside Job" or you believe in OBL and Al - Qaida, were entirely different than groups like
ST911.

Think about it. Admit it.

 
At 20 November, 2006 17:15, Blogger Lavoisier said...

Oh, they definitely have their differences. Never said they didn't.

My main point was this: the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory requires LARGE numbers of people working together to pull off a scheme of huge magnitude. Apparently this would be a group made up of huge egos and powerful personas. And underlings as well. Are we supposed to believe that they could pull this off without a hitch?

Look at the Federal Government. The U.N. ANY government or large organization, for that matter. No one can do anything right. There are always mess ups and errors and infighting and ego wars. But apparently the 9/11 cabal has gotten things worked out to the point where they can cooperate and hide the 'truth' from billions of people? Riiiiiight.

Of course, my point isn't "proof" either way. It's just another point against the plausibility of a massive 9/11 conspiracy. Add it to the government reports. NIST papers. Independent investigations of well-regarded engineers and scientists (hundreds). Popular Mechanics study. Massive eyewitness testimony. Video and pictorial evidence. DNA evidence. Chemical, metallurgical, and physical evidence based off of hundreds of years of scientific development. Corroboration from terror groups overseas. CONSILIENCE from multiple lines of inquiry.

9/11 CTs? "We think we found Thermite." Star Wars Beam Cannons. English and philosophy professors waxing scientific. 20-somethings armed with Google and a video camera. Alex Jones. Lots of teens over the internet on a quest to "find the truth," hanging out on bulletin boards. A few scientists, here or there, but no recognition from mainstream science whatsoever.

Winner: Official Story, by a micro-mininuke.

 
At 20 November, 2006 17:43, Blogger Alex said...

However, I'd like to ask you at least to make points that apply to the debate that you are joining.

Buddy, it's not my fault that you're too stupid to understand how my statements fit into the discussion. If you can't keep up with the discourse, go away. Expecting me to dumb-down my speech for you is like asking a nuclear physicist in the middle of a lecture to tone it down a bit so that your 5 year old niece can understand what he's going on about.

Fortunately Lavoisier seems to have a bit more patience than me. You can look to him if you need a detailed explanation of something. He might even draw it out for you in red crayon. Me, I'll just make fun of you.

 
At 20 November, 2006 18:06, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alex,

About Israel,

Check out the latest two episode of This Podcast

 
At 20 November, 2006 18:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fix: This Podcast

 
At 20 November, 2006 18:10, Blogger Alex said...

How exactly do you go from talking about "scholar" infighting to blaming Israel again? What, did the big bad Jews brainwash Jones into fighting with everyone else?

 
At 20 November, 2006 18:26, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Looks like the twoofers are involved in a circular firing squad. Maybe they will pull a Jonestown.

 
At 20 November, 2006 18:35, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Anderson Cooper did piece on dirtbag Kevin Barrett today. I love these people who bring up the "free speech" argument, as if there is "free speech" on college campuses. Larry Summers has more integrity in his big toe than scumbag Barrett ever will but he was canned for "wondering" if discrimination doesn't explain all the difference in income between the sexes. Yet Barrett's crackpot America hating theories are some how deserving of protection?


http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2006/11/wisconsin-academic-911-report-fraud.html

 
At 21 November, 2006 08:19, Blogger Lavoisier said...

What the deuce? I spent a lot of time (well, like 3 mins) typing up my essay and I get no response? What gives? Did I crush some fantasies?

 
At 21 November, 2006 08:46, Blogger Jujigatami said...

Look at the Federal Government. The U.N. ANY government or large organization, for that matter. No one can do anything right. There are always mess ups and errors and infighting and ego wars.

I've said it before. Its blatantly obvious that no truther has ever held a management position, ever.

If they had, they would understand how incredibly difficult it is to get a team of people to pull off ANY project correctly and on time, no matter how simple.

What AQ did on 9/11 is actually amazing enough. I can't believe they pulled it off. With the flight training, the navigation, the scoping out targets, the hijacking planning and training, and everything else like just creating the team and getting them in to the US. And thatt was just 19 or 20 people!

But no, a conspiracy of thousands would be easier and work better, and would never have a leak, or even one guilty person committ suicide and leave a note. Nope, not a one.

Like I said, no truther has ever managed anyone. Most of them hate their managers when they make them clean up the toilet in their McDonalds.

 
At 21 November, 2006 08:52, Blogger Lavoisier said...

Thanks for the response, Jujigatami.

Just so everyone knows, I wasn't whining about not getting a response from you fine individuals on blogger. I'm looking for a "rebuttal" from bg or whoever.

 
At 21 November, 2006 12:41, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lavoisier said...

Of course, my point isn't "proof" either way


I strongly support you here.

 
At 21 November, 2006 19:41, Blogger Lavoisier said...

Wow bg. You quote mine me and thus dismiss my entire post.

Now where have I seen that strategy before? Hm...

 
At 21 November, 2006 20:54, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lavoisier,

Tell me specifically the part of what you said that should shake my believe system. What is it you said that my "quote mine" did such injustice to?

 
At 22 November, 2006 13:04, Blogger Lavoisier said...

Quote mine = you pick one quote out of a bunch to fit your own agenda.

As for which specific part should undermine your belief system...um, the whole thing? If you don't understand what I wrote then forget it, there's no helping you. You are just spinning your wheels.

 
At 23 November, 2006 21:23, Blogger R.Lange said...

But no, a conspiracy of thousands would be easier and work better, and would never have a leak, or even one guilty person committ suicide and leave a note. Nope, not a one.

It's some sort of strange "social mathematics" in conspiracy world. The secrecy and effectiveness of a conspiracy is inversely proportional to the number of people involved.

This allows conspiracies involving hundreds or thousands of people to be very effective and extremely difficult to expose, while your local high school principal spending school money on fancy, personal dinners is exposed very quickly.

 
At 25 November, 2006 10:03, Blogger Alex said...

The secrecy and effectiveness of a conspiracy is inversely proportional to the number of people involved.

If A is inversely proportional to B, then A gets bigger as B gets smaller. So while what you stated is the literal truth (a conspiracy is MORE effective if there's LESS people involved), I'm pretty sure you meant to state the exact opposite :) The proper way to phrase it would be:

"The chance of discovery is inversely proportional to the number of people involved"

or

"The secrecy and effectiveness of a conspiracy is directly proportional to the number of people involved."

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home