|
REPLY TO THREAD
|
|
Subject
|
Civil war at Scholars for 9/11 Truth?
|
|
User Name
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Font color:
Font:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original Message
|
Retired Professor Jim Fetzer has publicly accused Professor Steven Jones, his supposed friend and co-founder of the organisation Scholars for 9/11 Truth, of wanting to take over its website, which Fetzer owns. Jones has publicly denied this but claims there is wide dissatifaction among members about its format and content. What Jones and his supporters do not like is Fetzer's recent espousal in a public lecture and internet radio interview of the 'energy beam hypothesis' to account for the vaporization of most of the material of WTC 1 and WTC 2 on 9/11. This proposes that a high-energy particle or laser beam, perhaps operated from WTC 7, pulverized the two skyscrapers, reducing 99% of them to dust. This idea pulls the carpet from under Jones' feet because he has been promoting his thermate theory as the source of the explosions. Fetzer now believes that this, alone, cannot account for the degree of destruction of the buildings and that it is only part of the truth, if it is at all. Fetzer thinks it possible that such a beam weapon, operating from this building and making use of the powerful, electrical generators stored in WTC 7, could also explain why WTC 7 HAD to be destroyed (there are, no doubt, other reasons, but he considers these secondary).
By proposing such an exotic means of demolition that few will find credible, Fetzer has obviously shocked and annoyed Jones, because he sees taking this suggestion seriously as damaging the 9/11 truth movement if what many will see as an unbelievable cause is given credence by the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. On the other hand, Fetzer sees his objection as completely unscientific and made out of professional jealousy, because it would, if true, give the credit for discovering the modus operandi not to Jones but to Prof. Judy Wood [link to nomoregames.net] and [link to janedoe0911.tripod.com]
Wood has, she believes (and I agree with her), completely discredited Jones' analysis, in particular, the evidence for thermate in the two towers, pointing towards two photos that certainly seem to indicate that workers at Ground Zero were using thermite (thermate without pyrotechnic additives) to cut up difficult-to-access girders that were still standing. (Figs 15(a) & (b) at [link to nomoregames.net]
There is such a wide disagreement between Woods and Jones (and now between Fetzer and Jones) that I cannot see the possibility of reconcilation between either pair. Jones is threatening to form his own website if Fetzer does not agree to abide by a vote by members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth for a change of policy and content of his website that pushes the high-energy beam theory into a dark corner instead of being advocated publicly by its founding member.
Read the sharp exchange of views between Fetzer and Jones at [link to www.scholarsfor911truth.org]
On one level, I think this amounts to a matter of defending academic pride and establishing priority: "I discovered the truth before you" sort of thing. But, on a more serious level, this argument is very divisive to the 9/11 truth movement, as a visit to any 9/11 forum debating high-energy weapons vs thermate will confirm. I cannot see Fetzer and Jones patching up their differences because they run deep. Jones does not believe that the former idea is even a scientific hypothesis; Fetzer (a professor of the history and philosophy of science) DOES. Each accuses the other of making scientific errors. Jones is obviously piqued that Fetzer should not only give publicity to Wood's competing theory (see his interview with her on November 11 at [link to mp3.rbnlive.com] but also clearly show in public that he agrees with HER analysis and theory (rather than with Jones!) before it has been peer-reviewed and published at Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Such partizanship is anathema to Jones because it reduces him to being only ONE of the scientists currently investigating the collapse of the three towers instead of its PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR. Perhaps he does not like the spotlight being switched elswhere to a rival. But he does have a point, scientifically speaking.
It is instructive to read the article "The trouble with Steven E. Jones' 9/11 research" by Morgan Reynolds and Prof. Wood at [link to nomoregames.net]
and their article " Reynolds & Wood try to help Steven E. Jones" at [link to nomoregames.net]
Obviously, they are unimpressed by Jones' scientific contribution to the analysis of the events on 9/11 and they tear it to shreds. The problem, however, with this is that Reynolds defends the "no planes" theory, which most people in the 9/11 truth movement believe is sheer nonsense! So HIS credibility and judgement can be (and has been) called into question. Siding with Reynolds does Wood no favors, either, as far as her own credibility is concerned, for she, too, has argued publicly that no planes hit the two towers! Even fewer will take her energy-beam theory seriously because of that. It is unfortunate that her theory will be tainted by association with another implausible theory, for it should be judged on its own merit. However, it could be CATASTROPHIC for Fetzer's organisation unless he distances himself from Wood and does not continue to display premature partizanship over competing theories when clearly there is not sufficient evidence available yet to justify such favoritism. If, as it seems, he favors Wood's theory, it would be more helpful to the 9/11 truth movement if he did not display his enthusiasm so publicly but displayed a tactful neutrality. After all, he is not its leader.
|
|
Pictures (click to insert)
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | | Next Page >> |
|
