Major Ructions at Scholars over Beam Weapon

[KJF]

It seems Steve Jones is somewhat upset about the Star Wars Beam Weapon that is being promoted by Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Perhaps he thinks it might discredit more reasonable theories and is making a play to force his opponents out of the organisation. Fetzer has an open letter about this, which you can find here:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/OpenLetterToJones.html

My opinion is that it was Fetzer's baby, so it is a bit rough of Jones to try and take the website and organisation away from him, although I would obviously prefer it if Jones won (being a bit undecided about Jones, but very definitely decided about Fetzer). Primarily, I am surprised Jones is fighting, I rather expected him to take all the crap they threw at him like a wimp - it just shows how wrong you can be. I hope for a split at the very least.

Here is the text of a comment on blogger about the collapse of the WTC posted by someone claiming to be Jim Fetzer (presumably he is, but I'm not sure):

Jim Fetzer on what may have destroyed the World Trade Center
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=646337772656177512&q=Arizona%2B%...
Obviously unfamiliar with my lectures in Tucson, this is more moronic drivel. I tend toward a mixed causation theory of the destruction of the WTC, where some massive explosives (possibly mini-nukes?) were used in the subbasements about the time the planes hit the buildings, that high-tech weapons (directed energy, possibly from WTC-7, possibly from space?) were used to deconstruct most of the towers and then more conventional explosives (possibly thermite or thermate?) were used to bring down the last 20 floors or so. Given the available evidence, this is my best guess, but obviously all of this has to be confirmed. What is beyond question, in my view, is that even super-thermate in the towers cannot possibly account for the enormous and total devastation of the complete WTC! I suggest reviewing Judy's studies and my lectures before drawing conclusions, if you have any respect for logic and evidence, which may be too much to ask.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/4578#comment-90653

Very telling.

[Ezlivin]

1. Ructions

I've never seen that word before. Congratulations on the forced expansion of my vocabulary.

:)

Both Jones and Fetzer are working in the dark. Neither of them have enough good evidence to really cement their respective cases. Fetzer could be right, but it's a hard sell to convince people of a super-secret and super-lethal weapon. If we had access to the total pile of rubble I think the solution would quickly present itself. Since we're doing a forensic engineering investigation with scant evidence there's a lot of room for differing opinions or theories.

[mirandapriestly]

3. Yeah, I don't understand where they are going with this

For one thing, it sounds "kooky" which gives opponents fuel, but for another, I've looked for a description of exactly what these weapons are and I can't find a description of what they do . Also demolition companies are capable of demolishing buildings without using "star beam weapons" and have done so many times , so I don't know why they would need to use these. Personally, I think some of the pyrotechnic effects could be just that: effects, or enhanced photos. Building 7 looked like a pretty straightforward demolition to me.

[Ezlivin]

7. I believe we have the technology to do a lot of unknown stuff, but

unless there's bullet-proof evidence of the existence of a "star beam weapon" or its analog I can't see this line of investigation going anywhere.

That's the problem with all the anomalies: They are in essence a blank canvas upon which each person can project his theory.

It's too bad we have so damned many anomalies with the incidents on 9/11. Too many "coincidences", luck, "unique-once-in-a-lifetime occurrences" and "mysteries" happened on that day.

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. Fetzer has a case

of an overactive imagination.

There are much more conventional ways and weapons to take down the WTC.

Personally I think they created some kind of fuel/air reaction using the systems and fuels that were already in the buildings.

There was no need to wire the buildings or to do a lot of work to rig the building for CD. I think they used existing systems to turn the buildings into bombs. Plus some thermite or some chemical in a few key spots to knock out the main columns, or in the case of WTC 7 the trusses that were between the 5th and 7th floor.

[eomer]

4. Mini-nukes?

How is a nuclear explosion of any size even a remote possibility? Wouldn't the radiation be detected?

I'm sincerely asking (not sure if that is allowed in this forum but maybe you can make an exception) because I'm not knowledgeable about nukes in general, much less whatever the latest super-secret weapon programs might be.

[spillthebeans]

8. Mini Nukes means under 5000t yield

Yes you would measure radiation, but I suspect half Manhattan would be missing, too

Mini-nukes: "Safe for Civilians"

The press reports, while revealing certain features of the military agenda, largely serve to distort the broader nature of the military operation, which contemplates the preemptive use of tactical nuclear weapons.

The war agenda is based on the Bush administration's doctrine of "preemptive" nuclear war under the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review.

Media disinformation has been used extensively to conceal the devastating consequences of military action involving nuclear warheads against Iran. The fact that these surgical strikes would be carried out using both conventional and nuclear weapons is not an object of debate.

According to a 2003 Senate decision, the new generation of tactical nuclear weapons or "low yield" "mini-nukes", with an explosive capacity of up to 6 times a Hiroshima bomb, are now considered "safe for civilians" because the explosion is underground.

Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of "authoritative" nuclear scientists, the mini-nukes are being presented as an instrument of peace rather than war. The low-yield nukes have now been cleared for "battlefield use", they are slated to be used in the next stage of America's "war on Terrorism" alongside conventional weapons:

Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as a credible deterrent against rogue states. Their logic is that existing nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used except in a full-scale nuclear war. Potential enemies realize this, thus they do not consider the threat of nuclear retaliation to be credible. However, low-yield nuclear weapons are less destructive, thus might conceivably be used. That would make them more effective as a deterrent. ( Opponents Surprised By Elimination of Nuke Research Funds Defense News November 29, 2004)

In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peace and preventing "collateral damage". The Pentagon has intimated, in this regard, that the ‘mini-nukes’ (with a yield of less than 5000 tons) are harmless to civilians because the explosions ‘take place under ground’. Each of these ‘mini-nukes’, nonetheless, constitutes – in terms of explosion and potential radioactive fallout – a significant fraction of the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. Estimates of yield for Nagasaki and Hiroshima indicate that they were respectively of 21000 and 15000 tons

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20060103&articleId=1714


The military is working on Antimatter bombs, well it's not a secret anymore

Air Force pursuing antimatter weapons
Program was touted publicly, then came official gag order

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/10/04/MNGM393GPK1.DTL


Let's hope that they don't succeed, but who knows....

[spillthebeans]

5. I think the comment is misleading.

In the movie he is just speculating, because Judy Wood is looking at this possibility for some weeks.


I believe it has something to do with Fetzer's other works, especially into the death of Senator Wellstone,
where he has some interesting things to say about Microwave Weapons.
(1 photo/witness for good weather, witness for strange cell phone sounds, witness for radar anomalies, type of fire...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vbf49kzWFw

But I personally don't think Energy Weapons from Space were used, but it's interesting that there are over 140 classified satellites
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.02/spy.html

[graphixtech]

6. Hoffman's earlier analysis

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/st911/

ScholarsFor911Truth.org:
Muddling the Evidence

by Jim Hoffman
Feb. 19, 2006

Introduction:
Scholars For 9/11 Truth was formed by James Fetzer and Steven Jones in the wake of a huge wave of interest in his paper Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? The concept of such a group is a noble one. Bringing together a group of scholarly researchers to examine the unanswered questions surrounding the 9/11/01 attack is an excellent way to garner credibility for the 9/11 Truth Movement. As of this writing, the group includes several individuals notable for their expertise in fields relevant to analyzing the attack.

The website ScholarsFor911Truth.org serves as the public face of the Scholars For 9/11 Truth group, but the website's content is not necessarily representative of the views of the group's members. Unfortunately, even a cursory examination of the website suggests that, instead of amplifying the excellent work of Steven Jones and some of the group's other researchers, it promises to undermine that work, and possibly the work of all scholars raising questions about the official story.

Since the tragedy itself, the 9/11 Truth Movement has been plagued by both misinformation, and by deliberate disinformation that has been injected into the debate in order to discredit challenges to the official account. Documenting these poison pills has not redeemed the 9/11 Truth Movement in public opinion because few in the Movement have taken a stand, fearing that to do so would be "divisive." One need look no further than the attack pieces by Popular Mechanics and Scientific American to understand how flimsy, easily debunked claims are highlighted by defenders of the official account to tar the entire community of skeptics as loony conspiracy theorists whose conclusions are not supported by the facts.

Despite the evidence, ScholarsFor911Truth.org has thus far failed to acknowledge that the promotion of nonsensical claims is part of a deliberate strategy to undermine the Truth Movement. Even worse, the website uncritically links to many websites featuring work that is, at best, thoroughly unscientific.

(more)

Conclusion:
The idea of Scholars For 9/11 Truth is a very powerful one, given the respect people give to credentialed individuals. Since November of 2005, Steven Jones has made tremendous progress in getting people to seriously consider the possibility that the World Trade Center skyscrapers were destroyed by controlled demolition, largely because of his qualifications as a professor of physics. Sadly, Scholars For 9/11 Truth might not have its intended effect of building on Jones' work. Instead it is likely to have the effect of discrediting it by associating it with junk science, such as that used to promote the no-planes theories. Because of the visibility of the flawed ScholarsFor911Truth.org website, this seems probable despite the good intentions and excellent credentials of many of the group's members.


http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/st911/

[mhatrw]

9. KISOLLK.

Keep It Simple Or Look Like Kooks.

[matta]

10. star wars laser

dudes, if you don't think the star wars laser theory is real, you're like totally living in last year. everyone now is into the star wars laser theory. i'm making a website to show how the star wars laser thearoriy is what it's all about now. the pentagon missile thearoyry is so passe now. we need new and exciting theroraies to engergize the movement in new directions. i think we should all get behind the new star wars thing, because there are a lot of kids out there who will think it's cool and who will start to think about 9/11 in a new way because of the whole chewbacca angle.

this is life or death folks. don't let reason distract you from our cause!!

long live E!
matt