Friday, December 29, 2006

"Scholars" Infighting Continues

I got this via e-mail, and I haven't been able to confirm it elsewhere yet, but I have no reason to believe it is not valid. I apologize for the length, but it is hard to understand if you don't read the whole thing. There is actually more, as he adds a bunch of other e-mails to the bottom.

And they wonder why we think they are nuts...


All,

The situation with Scholars has taken an ominous turn, where we have been frozen out of the Scholars web site and posting and updating has been made impossible, which can only have been done by Fred Burks, who has possession of the domain names, or Alex Floum, who may still control the password. It looks like a nice example of the lack of scruples to which I drew attention in my most recent message to the membership. I find this quite distressing.

Alex Floum continues to abuse his position as a former member of Scholars by distributing contrived and misleading characterizations of the issues. To hear him tell it, it is a conflict between the forces of democracy (led by Alex Floum) and those of dictatorship (me). My frank assessment is that his crass and underhanded tactics threaten the continuing existence of Scholars. Here is a summary of the situation, followed by a list of forthcoming events.

1) As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth who has acted on behalf of thesociety to expose falsehoods and reveal truths about 9/11, I alone remainas a member of the society, which former members are attempting to control.

2) The extant Scholars for 9/11 Truth is the rightful owner of the web site,the journal, and the forum as well as their contents, where, in some cases, such as copyrighted articles, that ownership may be shared with the authors.

3) Alex Floum, who obtained the domain names for the web site and the journal on behalf of the society, had no right to transfer what he never owned to Fred Burks, a friend of some ten years who served as a translator for Presidents, who has neither legal, moral, nor intellectual rights to any of these sites.

4) The anonymous email requesting a vote on the future of the society's sites and membership was unauthorized, illegal, null, and void. The manner in which it was conducted (by creating fake addresses and phony administrators) offers clear evidence that this was an ignoble action taken under cover where those effecting these misdeeds were not even willing to identify themselves by name.

5) Theft of property is not an appropriate remedy for internal disputes overcontrol and content of the society's website and other properties; and thieveshave no grounds to complain about my seeking appropriate legal remedies as the founder of the society on behalf of the society as its sole remaining officer.

6) Former members of the society have no right to determine its future. It is as if a gang of bank employees robbed a bank as they quit or were fired from their jobs, then complained that that the bank manager was not playing fair,because he called the police as they tried to make their escape out the door.

7) Steve Jones has objected to open discussion of possible explanations of the destruction of the Twin Towers other than his preferred thermite/thermate idea,yet the adequacy of his approch can only be assessed in comparison with the explanatory power of the available alternatives, such as mini-nukes, directed energy or HAARP weaonry, which is the only way in which science can progress.

8) Having now siezed control of our web site, they have made it impossible tobring current information to the members of the society. This includes the process of updating our membership, which has taken longer to complete thannormal in the wake of recent events. That process has now been frozen.

I am taking whatever steps I can to insure that control of the web site is returned to the society and whatever other measures must be pursued in order to deal with this rogue group. In the meanwhile, you are entitled to know forthcoming events
of interest as well as what's going on behind the scenes. Since I cannot have them posted on the web site, which they control, I append the list of forthcoming events. The most interesting for many members maybe that I have invited Steve Jones to appear on my program on 2 January 2007 to discuss and debate his thermite/thermate hypothesis with Judy and Morgan:

2 January 2007Interview: Steve Jones, Judy Wood, and Morgan Reynolds have been invited to discuss 9/11 with Jim Fetzer on "The Dynamic Duo"3-5 PM/CT, Genesis Communications Network, gcnlive.com

This appears to be especially imporant insofar as Steve has admitted ina recent email, "One cannot rule out the use of thermite or superthermite cutters for the WTC just because it has not been used before for demolition" and that a patent for this process requires placing devices "on either side of the steel". I have included the original email, along with a few replies to Alex Floum, below, preceding the announcement of our forthcoming events.

Please know that I made repeated past proposals to this rogue faction toresolve these matters informally, including giving them the journal andthe forum, where they need only create their own web site to bring into existence a society of their own. I offered them the opportunity to show that posting by committee--one of their primary desiderata--works better than having a single site manager. They never responded to my invitation.

Moreover, I have offered Steve Jones many platforms to present and defend his research on thermite/thermate, including earlier appearances on radio talk shows, encouraging him to speak at The National Press Club, inviting him to chair a panel at the forthcoming Scholars' conference in Madison, and appointing him a member of my team for The National 9/11 Debate. He has now declined all of these invitations. The proper way to prevail in scientific research with logic and evidence, not political power plays.

Everyone needs to appreciate that Scholars is a relatively young society and that growing pains are normal and to be expected. That I have been the manager of the web site should not be news to anyone, any more than that Steve has managed the journal. With our new steering committee ofKevin Barrett, Richard Curtis, Rick Siegel, and Judy Wood, I am in the process of effecting a transition from an informal structure to a more formal structure, where the society has by-laws and a board
of directors.

I have created an entity, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Inc., as a framework for formalizing this new society. But the by-laws, the board members, and all the rest are the very issues we are attempting to work out, and we intend to submit them to the members of Scholars for their comment and review. The board of directors, for example, will supervise the editors of our journal, the moderators of our forum, and the managers of our website.

They can approve or remove any as they choose, including me, if I were to be retained in the position of managing the society's web site. I have no problem with the creation of another society. If you disagree with the policies and practices of a society, the honorable thing to do is to resign and, if you are so inclined, create a new one of your own. What is going on here, however, is completely different and not at all honorable. It is reminiscent of children playing football, where one of them takes the football and claims it for his own, then passes it off to another when players are closing in, where the new possessor sticks it with a knife so the game becomes impossible. That's what is going on.

I would close by observing that, on 13 December 2006, the attorney for the society I have retained, Jerry S. Leaphart, sent Alex Floum a proposal forbinding arbitration: "I am authorized to indicate that Dr. Fetzer would be willing to enter into a mediation agreement concerning the domain names. I suggest mediation under WIPO as per the rules set forth . . ." Alex Floum did not respond to this proposal, but I reiterate it here. I am willing to abide by the decision of binding arbitration through the professional WIPO society to resolve the issues between us and let us get on with our work.


If any of you would like to express your opinions about their conduct,the members of this rogue group include Alex Floum;Carl Weis, Steve Jones; and Fred Burks. These are the persons who are in in charge now because they control all access to the journal, the forum, and the web site. If you approve of what they are doing, tell them; if not, let them know. The fate of Scholars for 9/11 Truth is at stake.

James H. Fetzer

Founder

Scholars for 9/11 Truth

12 Comments:

At 30 December, 2006 06:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Somewhat off the topic of this post:

My question for David Ray Griffin

I saw that quite a few others (including N. Haupt) had posted theirs. This should be interesting.

 
At 30 December, 2006 06:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like the 9/11 Truth Movement is heading for civil war, just like the Black Panthers, Shiites-Sunnis, and Hamas-Fatah conflicts.

 
At 30 December, 2006 06:34, Anonymous Anonymous said...

They're heading downhill

 
At 30 December, 2006 06:47, Blogger Pat said...

This is a battle over market share. The growth in the movement has largely ended (indeed, it may be declining as we have seen with PDoherty), and the only way to increase sales (of books, DVDs and lectures) is to get additional market share.

 
At 30 December, 2006 07:35, Blogger CHF said...

The "Scholars" civil war continues....

Anyone know how we can send them weapons?

 
At 30 December, 2006 08:03, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Fetzer and BG really need to get together and compare the meds they are on.

I hope that my NWO brothers infest the truthers with the flesh eating bacteria.

 
At 30 December, 2006 08:41, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

What is so funny, is despite the length of time they have had, the number of so called experts, and obviously some political names, what have they done so far, besides infighting and wheel spinning....absolutely nothing. They are as obscure an entity today as they were when they started...EOS.

Makes for great popcorn fodder.

TAM

 
At 30 December, 2006 09:33, Blogger James B. said...

BG asking critical questions of one of the key members of the movement. I must say that I am impressed.

Are you aware of how potentially damaging your shoddy research may be on whether there were anti missile / anti aircraft installations at the Pentagon on 9/11? Didn't you make enough money on "New Pearl Harbor" to pay a larger research staff that you seem to have employed in your newer books?

 
At 30 December, 2006 15:08, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

And our resident Tin Foil Hatter douche also added this gem:

I think Christianity in general is bunk. I am suspicious of those who would organize their lives around it. How do you respond to someone who thinks your role as a Christian Theologian is discrediting?

Is there ANYONE that this schizophrenic douchebag DOES NOT find "suspicious"?

 
At 30 December, 2006 17:06, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

BG: DO you think that you are in on 9/11?

TAM

 
At 30 December, 2006 20:41, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

This is quite possible!

 
At 30 December, 2006 21:00, Blogger Triterope said...

Once again: how do unauthorized people keep getting editorial control of the Scholars website?

Has the great Jim Fetzer STILL not figured out that he needs to change the friggin' password, and stop giving it to everybody under the sun?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home