Steven Jones Removed from Position at Scholars for Truth over Opposition to Star Wars Beam Weapon

[KJF]

Jim Fetzer has turfed Jones out and he is no longer the co-chair. It's not clear to me whether his membership has been suspended as well. It has to do with his opposition to the star wars beam weapon and the promotion of it at the Scholars' website.

You can read Fetzer's explanation here:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ScholarsAnniversary.html

I am glad, Jones is better off without Fetzer, Wood, Reynolds, etc. Hopefully, Jones can sort something out and carry on. I don't know about the thermite, but it seems much more reasonable than a mini-nuke/star wars beam weapon combination.

[spillthebeans]

1. Or he can go and sell Solar cooking devices

http://solarcooking.org/research/Dormio-report.htm


I don't understand why people are always fascinated with persons, it's like Hollywood

Steve and I may or may not reconcile our differences. If we do not, then Steve may want to form his own organization. If Steve were to pursue that option, then it could be a good thing in fostering competition in the search for truth. But there really is--or can be--unity in our diversity. A good, healthy, scholarly competition for 9/11 truth MIGHT serve us better than for us to try to manage our differences within one organization. Competition for the truth is the American way! I think we are stronger working together, but that is an option.

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. Jones is a very conservative researcher

and he's focused on a very specific aspect of the collapses.

Scientists are very competitive and disagreements, especially on such a controversial subject are to be expected.

However, I am surprised that the Scholars for 9-11 Truth are even giving the space weapon idea much consideration. That's getting pretty out there even for me.

I believe that the mechanical and fuel systems already in place in the buildings, were used to bring the buildings down. This wasn't 'rocket' science (pun intended). Whoever did the planning to bring the buildings down knew the buildings well. They knew the places in the buildings that had to be taken out first in order for the rest of the buildings to collapse the way they wanted them to. A space weapon that's never been tested in the real world, would be way to risky.

[John Q. Citizen]

3. I am agnostic as to how the buildings were done, for a few reasons.

The main one is a lack of access to physical evidence.

The second one is a lack of working knowledge about the various proposed possibilities. We have no way of knowing how far research and development has gone on the more exotic proposals, such as 4th generation nukes, or concentrated beam weapons. So it's impossible to say how far out they may or may not be.

And the third reason is that how the buildings were done isn't as important as the realization that they were done. Anyone who looks into it even a little bit soon realizes that beyond the highly improbable odds of 3 rapid sequential collapses is the observable evidence of incredibly persistent hot spots in the rubble, the pyroclastic clouds, the audio, visual, and eyewitness evidence of secondary explosions, the almost complete pulverization of the buildings and their contents, and the rush to dispose of almost all the evidence.

So I try to keep an open mind because I'm not in a position to rule in or out many of the proposed mechanisms with the exception of the so far officially proposed explanations. None of the two offered so far even come close to dealing with the highly improbable odds, let alone the observable evidence.

[mhatrw]

7. MIHOP Version 7.51 vs. MIHOP version 7.76

Who really gives a damn?

[graphixtech]

4. curious timing

The timing of the latest nonsensical theory is especially fascinating given that Steven Jones recently made a powerful presentation at Lifting the Fog (the third 9-11 science focused event in three months).

Presenter is Steven Jones, Ph.D.
"What can be learned from analysis of the physical features of the total destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7? Are there natural processes that could explain these features?"
http://www.archive.org/details/liftingthefog_2006_11_11_session2


November 11th Lifting the Fog
http://liftingthefog.org/index.html
UC Berkeley Campus
"Lifting the Fog: The Scientific Method Applied to the World Trade Center Disaster"
a one day conference held on November 11, 2006
at the University of California Berkeley Campus.

[spillthebeans]

5. Interesting info at 39:00 mins

Apparently the Loose Change guys were able to track down a guy who was in Building 7 and he is talking about an explosion below floor 8.

[mirandapriestly]

18. Barry Jennings?

Did he say the WTC7 lobby was "gone" by the time he had got down there? (I started the video but something happened to the sound)

[spillthebeans]

20. I don't know his name, I downloaded the mp4 200 mb version

It broke down after one hour something

[mhatrw]

6. It's a ridiculous dispute.

I'm so sick of this kind of nonsense. Fetzer's description of this "dispute" reads like a bad soap opera.

[rman]

8. fact is,

a beam weapon does not explain the data the indicates use of thermite/thermate: corrosion of steel and the presence of sulfur.

[LARED]

9. Please share

Did someone find data that indicates the use of thermite? Important news like that should be shared.

[MervinFerd]

12. Romulan Disruptors.

Causes matter to dissociate into constituent elements. Just what is needed to produce these effects.

The Klingon Empire also has such weapons. But it's hard to imagine the Klingons stopping at 3 buildings. The Klingons would have taken down most of NYC.

Best guess is a cloaked Klingon Bird-of-Prey hijacked by Romulans and in geo-synchronous orbit above NYC. A second ship above DC could have blown the hole in the Pentagon.

God! Conspiracies are fun!

[Anarcho-Socialist]

13. A Klingon Bird of Prey

piloted by Romulans would explain it. The vessel can fly in the atmosphere. Getting close to ground zero whilst cloak is engaged is no problem. There needs to be extra power however to extend the cloak so that disruptor cannon fire is also masked. However some planned tinkering with the Klingon warpcore could achieve this end.

Only Romulans could pull this off. The Klingons would have fired photons and levelled the city.

[spillthebeans]

14. They can't fire while cloaked eom

[Anarcho-Socialist]

16. The issue is complicated

In 2293 there was a Klingon Bird of Prey operational which would fire whilst cloaked, but that cloaking mode was made useless by the Federation's discovery that the prototype emitted large amounts of proton radiation which meant the prototype cloak was meaningless. The Klingon Empire were never able to develop a cloaked ship with operational weapons without giving off this radiation which would be detected by enemy sensors. However there is no reason why a late-24th Century Bird of Prey couldn't fire under cloak, because the proton radiation issue is irrelevant for early 21st century Earth technology. The hypothesised Romulan-controlled Klingon ship could fire under cloak but emitting large amounts of radiation, but the light is still deflected masking the ship and disruptor fire. Any appearance of aeroplanes/airplanes could be simulated by simple 24th Century holographic technology.

[MervinFerd]

22. Not so much.

If the radar tracking of the planes could be faked, it wouldn't be hard to also fake the space tracking system data.

Besides a ship in geosynchronous orbit at 24000 miles up, uncloaked for a few seconds--would it even be seen by the space radar? It would probably be dismissed as a bit of noise.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

23. But then that causes a problem

How do you mask the disruptor beam? Generating a cloak effect would need tremendous amounts of power from 24,000 miles up to mask the disruptor beam all the way down. I doubt the Klingon warp core is up to the task.

A Klingon Bird of Prey using a low-powered visual cloak, but not masking its radiation signature would be able to fire whilst cloaked. I suggest that it was at relatively close range, so that the disruptor beam is kept within the cloak field and not identifiable by people on the ground.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spillthebeans]

11. trust the president, he knows best

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5M0xtxQVQ

[FourScore]

15. This is great for Jones.

Fetzer seems like a whack to me. Jones really is such a credible and conscientious person. I never could understand what he was doing with Fetzer and Reynolds in the first place.

[bushatbooker]

17. I heard Jones was threatening to take over Scholars.

Fetzer started the website, it's his, and he asked Jones to be co-chair. If Jones does want to be affiliated with Fetzer anymore, he should gracefully leave instead of trying to take over Fetzer's site.

[mirandapriestly]

19. What's with this Star Beam Weapons stuff?

I mean , have they shown any evidence? It doesn't even sound like anyone even knows exactly what this technology is. I'm suspicious of Reynolds, et al. I hate to say, it sounds like they are trying to set up a "kooky" scenario for everyone to ridicule and dismiss. OTOH, Jones said there was a lot of evidence for planes, other than "we saw it on teevee", and the RoadRunner cartoon airplane cutout shape what exactly is this evidence?

[TheWraith]

26. Evidence? You're in the wrong forum.

Since when was evidence a prerequisite for a theory around here?

[mirandapriestly]

28. Kind of like how there's been no trial/investigation of

the alleged "hijackers", or follow up on why those identified as hijackers came forward and said they were alive and well? you mean that kind of evidence?

[TheWraith]

29. You're reiterating statements that have been debunked.

For starters, you can't hold a trial of someone who is dead. As for investigations, there's been reams of investigation by practically every western government and every major media bureau.

As for the hijackers, they certainly aren't alive. There are, however, different people with the same names. If there's two Joseph Michael Finnigans in the country, and one dies, does the existence of the other somehow make the first one less dead? The idea that any of the hijackers is still alive has been debunked over and over again.

[graphixtech]

21. from early 2006

http://911research.wtc7.net/letters/st911/website.html

Scholars For 9/11 Truth
This letter responds to comments on Michael Green's
paper The Company We Keep.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/company.html

STATUS: posted on 911Blogger.com

"As to the article that we are supposedly commenting on,
by Michael Green... thank you for publishing it here.

It may be merciless, but in a sheerly logical way. The
analysis is very incisive. Green applies high standards
precisely and fairly.

In a nutshell, Dr. Jones's argument is first summarized
in a few salient points. His logic and science are self-
evident. But he's made a big mistake in the company he's
accepted at Scholars for Truth, Green argues.

The man apparently in charge of that site, Jim Fetzer,
is dismantled for a seemingly endless string of junk
statements, but Green is hardly unfair or vindictive.

Hufschmid gets a long overdue comeuppance. That the
latter is still taken seriously after all his downright
Nazi statements is surprising and depressing. (How many
times does he have to write that the Mexicans are taking
jobs away from degenerate white folk while the Zionists
sell porn to their children - oh and by the way everyone
in the 9/11 movement except Hufschmid is a Zionist plant -
before people wake up to what this guy is?)

Sadly, Green's analysis is not irrelevant and it is not
"unnecessary infighting." Dr. Jones has created a
breakthrough and brought new energy to this movement.
He has no need of alliances with purveyors of junk science
(and junk photo analysis of moon shot pictures, like this
Jack White character who is on the front page of
scholarsfor911truth). They are irrelevant and unnecessary
to what Jones does. Why should Jones weigh himself down
with them, given the already substantial task of getting
past Americans' denial?"

NL | 02.08.06 - 9:09 pm |

--------------------------------

Steven E. Jones
A Physics Professor Speaks Out on 9-11:
Reason, Publicity, and Reaction
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/jones/StevenJones.html

"One technique which has recently been promoted in the
9/11 Truth Movement is the "Big Tent" idea -- that all
theories must be embraced in order to grow the movement.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to quickly realize that
this technique benefits the disinformation promoters, not
those promoting competent scientific analyses, like Steven Jones.
Rational analyses of what happened on 9/11 will ultimately
expose the truth, while nonscientific analyses can only be
counterproductive to that end. Indeed, the association of
ideas like pods, no planes, and missiles with Jones' analyses
will tend to drain credibility from Jones' paper, while
benefiting nonscientific or disinformation promoters.
Interestingly, many of those promoting the most extreme
ideas appear to have unlimited cash, unlimited free time,
and unlimited bandwidth to promote their efforts -- resources
that individuals like Jones cannot match."

-----------------------------------------------

http://911review.com/errors/index.html
" These dead-end theories would serve to discredit skeptics,
soak up large amounts of their time, and divert attention from
the core fraud of the attack -- the Big Lie that the Twin Towers
collapsed due to impacts and fires."

9-11 Review
A Resource for Understanding the 9/11/01 Attack


http://911review.com/index.html

[Katzenjammer]

24. Beam weapon from space? Is it even physically possible to collimate a beam

so tightly from such a distance?

[TheWraith]

25. Theoretically, yes. Practically, no. NT

[SidDithers]

27. Wow, Good for Jones...

Though I don't believe anything he's written wrt controlled demolition or thermite, he at least deserves credit for disputing one of the sillier 9/11 CT's.

Sid

[Katzenjammer]

30. And he has now resigned from the organization completely (see the site) (nt)