|
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
This is to inform you that I (along with chemist Kevin Ryan and many
others)
have withdrawn from association with Jim Fetzer (JF)
and "his" version of
Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and to provide reasons for
this action.
1. On the Scholars web site he manages ( www.st911.org ), Jim Fetzer
casts
aspersions on my research regarding the use of thermates
at the World Trade
Center on 9/11/2001 -- which is fine as long as he
provides serious technical
objections, which he has not done. At the same time,
JF is promoting on the web
site notions that energy-beams from WTC 7 or from space
knocked the Towers down.
I have invited Jim repeatedly to view the video of
my talk given 11/11/06 at the
University of California at Berkeley which provides
the latest physical
evidences for thermate use, reinforcing the data in
my published paper. He
admitted this week that he has not done so. My UC-Berkeley
talk is here:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/ 4622
In fairness, I list Jim's talk in Tucson (Nov. 13) also, which you
may wish to
compare:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBcM_dKiLJU
Here you will find Jim's assertion that energy beams directed from
WTC 7, or
from space, may be the "fascinating" explanation for what
caused the Twin Towers
to collapse. He also here discusses "falling grand pianos." My
sincere efforts
to correct his evident errors/misinformati on have
been twisted and distorted
until I want no more to do with such "tar-baby" discussions.
Fetzer's response: I have become convinced that the extent of the
destruction of
the World Trade Center, the fact that the bathtub survived
functionally intact,
and the existence of "toasted" vehicles as much as a half
mile to a mile-and-a-
half away is, in my opinion, very unlikely to be explainable
on the basis of
termite/thermate, even in combination with other explosives.
If we want to get
serious about what happened in New York, we have to
consider a broader range of
alternative explanations. That is not "casting aspersions";
on the contrary,
that is what science is all about. If we do not consider
all of the possible
alternatives, we may never discover what happened because
we omitted the true
hypothesis on a priori or political or psychological
grounds that were
independent of logic and evidence. Science can be messy,
complex, and
controversial. Welcome to the search for truth! If
thermate/thermate can provide
a more adequate explanation than the alternatives,
then he will have been proven
to have been right; but you can't do that without considering
the alternatives!
As for the grand piano illustration, getting these things right can
be tricky,
since they require taking all of the relevant variables
into account and
calculations can be complex. I usually use the figure
of 12-13 seconds for a
grand piano to reach the ground, which drives home
the point that, if we accept
the official account, according to which the South
Tower "collapsed" in ten
seconds (The 9/11 Commission Report) or 9 and 11 seconds,
respectively (NIST),
they were destroyed faster than free fall, which is
physically impossible under
the influence of gravity alone. Some have argued that
free fall in a vacuum from
110 floors could occur in about 9 seconds, which is
true; but the Towers were
not in a vacuum. Air resistance extends the time of
fall from about 12.5 second
up to as much as 30 seconds for a piano of a certain
weight with its lid open
functioning very much like a parachute. This is a special
case, however, like a
piano that has a parachute attached! I am now being
more qualified in discussing
it. But I find it odd that Steve should be making a
federal case out of this
when his own calculations turned out to be physically
impossible. Which is worse
I will leave for others to debate. A virtue of mathematics
is that precision
promotes testability. We all agree that Steve is more
likeable than I, but that
does not mean that he's always right. He's not.
2. I support this statement made recently by Dr. Frank Legge, Kevin
Ryan,
Victoria Ashley, and other (previous) members of the
Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
"Further, on the Scholars' web site, positions are being promoted
which are
disputed by the scientists specializing in physical
sciences from Scholars For
9/11 Truth. Attempts to correct this situation have
failed. As of this date the
web site continues to promote assertions which many
unsupported by the evidence
(ray-beams from space caused the demolitions, mini-nukes
were used in the WTC
towers, real commercial jets did not hit the WTC towers,
etc.). We feel that the
promotion of these ideas functions to distract from
and discredit much of the
other basic strong material challenging the official
story of 9/11 which already
exists - the stand down, the war games, the insider
trading, the many strong
points of evidence on the demolitions, etc." (This 'ad hoc' committee
has sent
out a letter you may have received; I have chosen their "option
1.")
Fetzer's response: Indeed, the exploration of alternatives involving
mini-nukes,
directed-energy weapons, or even HAARP is a subject
that should be very familiar
to a physicist who has conducted research on or at
facilities devoted to these
subjects. Judy Wood has speculated--and without speculation
as a source of
conjectures, hypotheses, and theories, science would
be impossible--that the
source of energy could even be the Sun. Interestingly,
that is one of Steve
Jones' areas of expertise. One of the oddest features
of this situation, in my
opinion, is that he should be ideally positioned to
know that these are not
science fantasies or science fiction but genuine possibilities.
Here are some
links that some may find informative about his history
in these areas of
research and development, which leads me to wonder
why he belittles serious
conjectures as "space beams" and non-sense:
Look Ma, No Smoke: Solar Cooker to Relieve Suffering (Fall 1997)
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/atomic/physics1/atomic/solar.htm
LAMPF = Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility.
http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/newsbulletin/2002/06/24/text01.shtml
TRIUMF = Canada's National Laboratory for Particle and Nuclear Physics
http://www.triumf.info/public/
Professor Steven Earl Jones
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/atomic/physics1/atomic/jones_cv.htm
3. On the Scholars' web site, Jim has posted an "Open Letter
About Steven Jones"
which contains the following: "He is now planning to take control
of the web
site from me." "... 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."
http://www.scholars for911truth.org/OpenLetterToJones.html
Jim's accusation against me is simply untrue and he provided no evidence
for his
assertion. I replied: "What nonsense. As I have written to you
privately . Jim,
I have no interest at all "to take over the site." My work
is research .. Your
accusation that I attempt "to take over the site" is not
only unfounded, it is
bizarre."The uncivil accusations and diatribes remain on the
Scholars' web site
(actually managed solely by Jim Fetzer) to this day,
contrary to the strong
objections of many members of the society. You may
read my full reply and
pleading with Jim to be reasonable, here:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/JonesResponse.html.
I have asked Jim to promptly remove any papers which I authored from
this web
site, but he has not done so.
Jim Fetzer may keep his web site and whoever wishes to adhere to "his" version
of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Many of us thought this
was going to be a collective
effort where members could have a voice, not Jim's "sole proprietorship. "
It is most unfortunate that others have been dragged into this situation,
and I
write out of concern for you to explain what has been
going on. Of late, Jim F.
refers often to his association now with Judy Wood
and Morgan Reynolds. These
two are noted for their no-planes-hit- the-Towers theories
and for promoting the
notion of ray-beams from space knocking down the Towers.
(I and others have
written evidence-based rebuttals to these notions.)
These two have written
caustic ad hominems about me in particular, and it
possible that Jim's
association with them explains some of his recent behavior.I
hope Jim will view
the video of my lecture at UC-Berkeley and then re-evaluate
his stance.
Fetzer's response: A classic example of the fallacy of accent occurs
when the
accused claims, "I didn't kill him. I paid someone else to do
the shooting!" I
have reams of evidence from the forum that Steve was
patiently explaining to
others how they could proceed to take control of the
web site and even the
society from me. He wants you to ignore his actual
conduct, which was offensive,
on the ground that he was merely offering advice about
how it could be done and
not pursuing power for himself. But those whose loyal
followers acquire that
power following their leader’s instructions are going to be
beholden to them, as
we all know. Steve could have said, "There has been discussion
about taking Jim
out of the society he created on the forum, but I do
not support it." Instead of
disavowing what had been taking place, where he was
a principal in the
discussion, he instead described my belief as "bizarre"!
Well, there is nothing
bizarre about drawing obvious conclusions from ample
evidence. He has to know
better. As for our exchange, I have had it shifted
to another web site, it
remains accessible from my "Scholars: On its First Anniversary" statement,
in
which I announced that I am transforming the society
into a non-profit
corporation managed by a board of directors, who will
supervise the editors of
the journal, moderators of the forum, and manager(s)
of the web site at their
discretion. I have advanced several slates of possible
directors for
consideration, but I have never had a formal response
from Steve, Alex, or
others who are involved in these things. (I acknowledge
Carl as an exception,
who proposed a method of selection whereby some of
the directors would be
decided by a vote of the members. It was not clear
anyone else supported it.) If
they really wanted a solution to our problems, I have
proposed one that should
resolve most of them.
4. During Thanksgiving weekend, Jim F unilaterally dismissed me as
co-chair of
Scholars for 9/11 Truth. I felt that this action was
improper and unfair. Later
he hinted that unspecified legal action might be taken
against me and/or Alex
Floum, a fine researcher. To me, this was the last
straw which led to my ending
association with Jim F and "his" society.
Fetzer's response: I removed Steve as co-chair after I discovered
that he had
cut Rick Siegle from the forum even as he was composing
a post that was critical
of Steve. I told him that, if he could justify this
action, I would be glad to
reconsider, but I thought it was very inappropriate
for him to exclude a member
on what appeared to be political grounds, especially
since it involved criticism
of Steve, reflecting an obvious conflict of interest.
Steve wrote me to say that
he supported the moderator who had done this. Because
Steve and Carl were the
only persons authorized to serve in that capacity--and
Carl had been on line in
the forum when it occurred, as he subsequently explained,
and could not have cut
him off at that time--I asked Steve to tell me who
it was who had done it. He
refused to identify that person. This has reinforced
my belief that it was Steve
himself who did this, but I could be wrong. If someone
else was authorized by
Steve, I supposed he would explain that and allow me
to evaluate the situation
again, which might have led to his reinstatement as
co-chair. But he has been
unwilling to comply. Carl has described this person
as a "mystery moderator"
because even he, who has long served in that role,
admits that he has no idea
who Steve could be talking about.
5. I join Kevin Ryan and many others in withdrawing from the group
so that my
name will not be attached to the personalized attacks
and ray-beams-from- space
stuff on www.st911.org.
This I did by simply emailing to joinst911@gmail.com and stating
that "I am
withdrawing from this society."
(This very email is set up such that if you simply hit "Reply
to all" and state
"
I withdraw from this society", it will send the message to the
membership
administrator for the society run now by Jim Fetzer.)
Fetzer's response: There is no evidence of "personalized attacks".
That I no
longer believe that Steve's theory of thermite/thermate
can provide a complete
explanation of the demolition of the WTC does not mean
that it cannot provide a
partial explanation of the demolition of the WTC. I
find it extremely difficult
to imagine how anyone who has actually gone to Judy
and Morgan's web site and
reviewed the photos and diagrams there--even without
consulting the text!--could
not appreciate the magnitude of the problem we confront.
The damage is massive
and extends far beyond WTC-1 and WCT-2 to WTC-3, WTC-4,
WTC-5, and WTC-6,
leaving WTC-7 to one side. The lack of more serious
damage to the bathtub is
stunning, considering these were 500,000 ton buildings.
The seismic evidence and
the toasted cars provide additional reasons for believing
that, whatever caused
this massive devastation, it cannot have merely been
conventional explosives
with thermite/thermate mixed in. I could be wrong,
once again, but that is my
considered opinion, which could be affected by new
evidence and new hypotheses.
We will never know if we don't compare the relative
strengths of the
alternatives by applying the principles of inference
to the best explanation
that define science.
6. Some months ago, I initiated and now co-edit with Kevin Ryan the
Journal of
9/11 Studies which publishes peer-reviewed papers which
adhere to the scientific
method. I hope you will take a look at some of the
fine papers therein:
www.journalof911studies.com
I believe this is the proper way to proceed, with careful studies
followed by
peer-reviewed publication.
Fetzer's response: As for the journal, it was originally founded
with Judy Wood
as co-editor and me as managing editor. I probably
have more editing experience
than anyone else involved in 9/11 research, but I stepped
aside when I realized
that this was something that Steve wanted to do without
me. I was preoccupied
with the web site, which, including sorting through
emails and locating
appropriate news items to post, has consumed as much
as 8-10 hours a day of
effort. One of my reasons for retiring after 35 years
of teaching logic,
critical thinking, and scientific reasoning was because
I place greater
importance upon dealing with these complex issues that
make such a difference to
the future of our country than whether I offer another
college course. But I was
glad to not have to carry that burden, too. It was
with considerable distress,
therefore, that I discovered the editorial board he
appointed was not chock-full
of first rate, "hard science" types. Its lack of appropriate
balance has led to
criticism on various 9/11-related sites, criticism
that I acknowledge to have
been well-founded. Several times I suggested to Steve
that he ought to add as
many as a dozen of the members of SPINE, for example,
to strengthen the board,
but until this controversy broke, he had done nothing
about it. I would also
point out that, even though the journal was created
as a part of Scholars, he
and Kevin, who have both resigned, are trying to conceal
that fact by declaring
it to be some kind of private preserve that is not
a part of Scholars. Those of
you who think that I am the bad guy and the Steve is
not operating to benefit
himself should consider this point carefully. In the
course of our negotiations,
which were ongoing and out of the public eye at the
time, I offered him the
journal and the forum as part of a settlement that
would leave me with the web
site. Now he appears to be trying to bypass the stage
of negotiation and simply
take part of Scholars for himself.
7. An ad hoc committee of scholars (from the old group) is forming
a research
society which will focus on use of the scientific method
and peer-reviewed
papers. Their website will be closely allied with the
Journal of 9/11 Studies
(which I co-edit) and will be managed by an elected
committee, responsive to the
group. Two sample websites are already available to
give further information:
http://schol.digitalstyledesigns.com/
and
http://www.taulbee.us/stj911/
This research group intends to keep in touch with its members and
to use the
scientific method along with civil and respectful discourse.
(We won't spend
much time on ray-beams from space knocking down the
Towers!) If you wish to join
this group, you may write to: stj911.info@yahoo.com.
Fetzer's response: This "ad hoc" committee has improperly
commandeered the
society's membership list without consulting me and
has used it to distribute an
anonymous invitation to join a non-existent new society.
If they had approached
me about it, I would have had no choice but to consider
it. The irony here is
that one of Steve's major complaints about my "Open Letter about
Steve Jones" is
that I had not consulted him in advance. Well, the
fact is that I had previously
sent him and his group an "Open Letter to Steve Jones" discussing
these things
and offering various proposals for settling our differences
in private and out
of the public eye. These have included several slates
of possible members of the
board of directors, as I mentioned above. I only took
these matters public AFTER
I had discovered that they were plotting a hostile
take over of the web site and
the society. If anyone has any doubts that I was right
about that, the
subsequent course of events, which includes making
up a fake "membership
administrator" and using a fake email address to deceive members
into the false
belief that this was taken as an action by the society,
should put the lie to
that. Surely, if all of their intentions were noble
and their actions were just,
this could have been done in an open and public fashion
without deception and
subterfuge rather than sneaking around to try to bring
down the entity that has
attained so much success. I respect the right of this
group to form a new
society of their own with their own web site, forum,
and journal. But they are
not entitled to take this one. |
