9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

The Judy Wood/John Hutchison Cult, Part II

FEBRUARY 1, 2010 10:32 AM
Jim Fetzer said...
Part II: Conrado Salas Cano

Conrado Salas Cano begins his post by acknowledging that he has not read the blog! How
irrational is that? Not only would it have taken less than 15 minutes to have read it
through, but his hasty and ill-considered comments obfuscate rather than clarify the key
issues that have been raised in the previous exchange. He goes so far as to assert that
"The burden of proof is not on the claimant, sorry", which he describes as a
"misconception floated as a discrediting, intimidating tactic". What could be less
scientific and objective than to simply take someone's word for it when it comes to
extraordinary claims about physics?

If Hutchison has made discoveries, then he should be able to explain their principles.
Conrado earned a degree in physics from CalTech. He has to know better. This is a
stunning example of placing loyalty before logic. Would he say the same thing about
someone who claimed to have invented a perpetual motion machine? And the situation with
Hutchison is even more disturbing, since he actually offered a video presentation to
support his claims that appears to have been faked. No scientist worthy of the name would
do something like that, thereby raising questions about his integrity as well as his
science.

In defense of the group, Conrado even suggests that I am "an agent paid to silence the
free energy implications of 9/11", which is rather stunning. I am no expert on free
energy or cold fusion, but I have been doing what I can to insure the integrity of
"scientific research" on 9/11. I would bet that no one has been a more persistent and
thoroughgoing critic of the work of Steven Jones in the history of the 9/11 movement.
Just visit 911scholars.org and scroll down to "The Science of 9/11" for some of my
critiques of Jones.

Moreover, I have also been among the most active in the 9/11 movement at promoting the
work of Judy Wood. She became a frequent guest on my various radio programs and, of
course, I featured her during the Madison conference. At a time when no one was taking
her seriously, I did everything I could to make her name a household word. Our
relationship was very strong up to the point where she and Hutchison began to
collaborate, when she took exception to questions like those I have raised about his
research and training. Since then, in spite of several invitations to return to the show,
she has shut me out for raising questions she does not like. To her, I appear to be a
heretic!

Everyone who has followed the movement knows this. Ask Morgan Reynolds or Jerry Leaphart,
who are among her closest associates. It was an important factor in my split with Steven
Jones and his allies, who, in my opinion, also exhibit many cult-like characteristics.
Their belief in the existence of vast pools of molten metal at Ground Zero, for example,
has all the characteristics of a dogma. In common with Judy Wood, I have offered many
critiques of Steve's work on this ground, most recently in Portland on 11 December 2009,
which was recorded and can be found under the title, "Thinking Critically about
Conspiracy Theories", at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/12/httpdotsub.html under
the title, "Thinking Critically about Conspiracy Theories". And this is far from the only
time I have carried the heavy water against Steven Jones.

It is certainly true, on the other hand, that I have not attacked Steve Jones for his
alleged efforts to derail cold fusion research, even if I have mentioned it
intermittently as an issue worthy of exploration. What I find rather stunning about
Conrado attacking me on this score is that he has a M.S. from Portland State that he
earned with a thesis on cold fusion! If one of us should be pursuing this issue, surely
it is he, not me. Yet I see no indications of that in his sparse record of publications
and other presentations. So why is he attacking me for something he is better positioned
to pursue but has not done?

FEBRUARY 1, 2010 11:21 AM
Jim Fetzer said...
Part III: Cultish Incoherence

This kind of inconsistency in attacking a perceived critic for an alleged failure of
which you yourself are to a higher degree guilty is another manifestation of cultish
conduct. He and Andrew and others insinuate that I am out to damage the 9/11 movement.
But consider some of Conrado's associations and self-identifications. On his web site,
http://conrado.50gigs.net, for example, he lays out his "favorite links" as a "tribute to
people [he] really likes": "David Icke, of course," he tells us, "must be first and
foremost. Let's cut the bullshit and go to the bottom of what's really going on in this
parcel of reality."

For those who may not know, among David Icke's claims to fame is his book, THE REPTILIAN
AGENDA (2003), which contends that there are lizard people living among us. Just to make
sure I understood Icke's position accurately, I have visited the web site,
http://www.stargods.org/ReptilianAgenda.htm, where his work is discussed in considerable
detail. Here is an important paragraph:

"Reptilians according to Icke are creatures that look like humanoid lizards that can take
human form and rule over us through political leadership. Also under the Reptilians we
have the alien grays that take orders from the Reptilians. What is happening is that the
governments of the world have been infiltrated by, and our working with the aliens. The
major lie is that they are from outer space, but in fact they are from interdimensional
areas on earth known as the spirit world. They control us from the forth dimension and
NOT outer space. This outer space lie is pounded into our brains over and over again
through movies and TV."

Now I am not making this up and I am sure that Conrado would not deny that these are
among his beliefs. Indeed, as if to accent the point, at the bottom of his web page is a
photograph of Queen Elizabeth labeled as "El-lizard-birth". Even then, it might not be
worth mentioning were it not the case that other members of the Wood/Hutchison group
appear to share those beliefs, including Andrew Johnson and even Belinda McKenzie, who
has been extremely generous in her support for 9/11 and other activists by sheltering
them in London. If Conrado, Andrew, and Belinda, all of whom are fervent supporters of
Wood and Hutchison, are followers of David Icke, that rasises the prospect that perhaps
Judy and John believe in lizard people, too. It may be a good idea, if it's true, for
them to tell us.

As though to demonstrate the complete incoherence of Conrado's position, he supports
Michael Shermer as the same time he attacks me, describing Shermer as "the Ironman of
renegade Skepticism". Well, perhaps he knows no more about Shermer than he does about me,
but "the Ironman of renegade skepticism" is a dedicated defender of the official account
of the assassination of JFK and of the theory that 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked
four commercial carriers on 9/11, outfoxed the most sophisticated air-defense system in
the world, and committed those atrocities. To learn more about his idol, Conrado might
like to listen to a debate between us on the "Free Beer and Hot Wings Show" (11 September
2007), which is archived on the home page of Scholars for 9/11 Truth at
http://911scholars.org [Round 1 (mp3), Round 2 (mp3)].

FEBRUARY 1, 2010 11:29 AM
Jim Fetzer said...
Part IV: Concluding Reflections

Andrew Johnson has now posted a link to a book that he has authored, 9/11: FINDING THE
TRUTH (2009), according to the blurb for which, “Dr. Judy Wood has pieced together the
physical evidence and Andrew Johnson has highlighted who is working to silence or smear
whom, as the powers that be rush to impede or at least contain the dissemination of these
startling findings”. And those "powers", of course, would be Steven Jones and me! I read
this work--which might well be filed under “fiction” for its fantastic depictions of my
relationship to Judy--around a year ago and characterized it as drivel at the time. But
that is precisely what righteous defenders of the faith will do: crucify the opposition,
regardless of the facts! If anyone wants more proof of the cultish aspects of the Judy
Wood group, then they can find it here—in spades!

Another comment has come from someone who identifies herself as “Mrs. Oz”, whom I infer
is also closely related to Judy. She apparently agrees with Conrado—she writes, “I do not
agree that something that exists needs to ‘prove’ its existence”—ignoring thereby that
scientific claims are not articles of faith but empirically testable hypotheses, which
their advocate, John Hutchison, does not even deign to publish. Since I cannot permit
this blog to turn into a falme war by zealots in defense of a cult, this will be the last
post in this exchange, where I would like to believe that Judy Wood will eventually come
to her senses. From all appearances, however, I infer that her messianic complex will not
allow that to happen and her group, alas, will probably endure as a cult whose scientific
standing will remain open to doubt.

Taken collectively, these comments from Andrew Johnson, John Hutchison, and Conrado Salas
Cano exemplify, in relation to the Wood/Hutchison group, their members' excessively
zealous, unquestioning commitment to the identity and leadership of the group, and even
the exploitative manipulation of members of the group by its leaders. What could possibly
have brought Andrew Johnson and Conrado Salas Cano to post comment on a blog they had
either not read or not understood than directives from Judy Wood or John Hutchison
themselves? They are attacking me as a perceived threat to the group, even though--apart
from raising obvious questions about the scientific standing of Hutchison's alleged
"discoveries"--I have in fact been doing more to advance the cause of 9/11 truth than
have these critics. So when I suggest that this group is a cult, it is because it has the
characteristics of a cult where its members act as though they are one. Q.E.D.

Views: 298

Comment

You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by James H. Fetzer on February 3, 2010 at 9:35pm
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:48:50 -0600 [07:48:50 PM CST]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: "Tracy Postert, Ph.D." , jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Cc: [Show addresses - 31 recipients]
Subject: Re: The Stunning Stupidity of the Irrational Defense of a Pseudo-scientific Cult, Part III

All,

To my astonishment, in rereading this latest post from Tracy
Postert, who is a teacher in a public school of the New York
Department of Education, I discovered a paragraph that I had
overlooked in drafting my reply. Here this utterly despicable
person reiterates false, baseless, and disgusting allegations
that I am an alcoholic and that I have abused my daughter:

Savage? Get real. I haven't savaged anyone. I made fun of you.
I danced when I got proved 100%+ correct by your admissions.
That doesn't qualify as "savage". Spreading rumors about your
alcoholism and past as a child molester were a bit stronger,
but AT LEAST I GOT THE RIGHT PERSON! You accused
me of faking my identity, etc. Besides, if you abuse alcohol,
you should expect to have that follow you around forever,
because it does speak to your mentality and self control.
Molesting your daughter, if true, was unforgiveable
.

I am a former Marine Corps officer who is both a moderate drinker
and would never molest anyone. My daughter--who is married and
pregnant with her second child--is the joy of my life. Someone
who would spread such malicious and unfounded claims is despicable
and has no place in the public school systems of this country. I
have reported her to the Department of Education of the City of New
York--and not for the first time! I hope it will result in action.

This grotesque behavior by a close associate of Judy Wood and John
Hutchison raises the most serious questions of moral responsibility.
Judy Wood has met my daughter. My wife has looked after her cats.
I have never made any argument about her that could be compared to
the exhibition of moral decadence displayed here by Tracy Postert.
If Judy Wood has a fiber of moral decency in her body, then she can
demonstrate it by denouncing this extreme and despicable conduct by
Tracy Postert. Otherwise, Judy will impugn herself by her silence.

Are there no bounds to the corruption of the members of this cult?

Jim
Comment by James H. Fetzer on February 3, 2010 at 8:16pm
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:34:38 -0600 [04:34:38 PM CST]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: "Tracy Postert, Ph.D." , jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Cc: [Show addresses - 31 recipients]

Subject: Re: The Stunning Stupidity of the Irrational Defense of a Pseudo-scientific Cult, Part II

That repetitive, baseless, and hysterical attacks on someone who has
by and large been supportive of your idol is not only pointless but
actually self-defeating does not appear to have crossed the minds of
the Judy Wood/John Hutchison brain-trust! The behavior we have seen
in this thread and on my blog has been a text-book example of how a
thoughtless attack that had no foundation can get out of control and
do vastly more damage to your interests than it does harm to others.
That appears to be exactly what has been taking place in this thread.

Tracy was not the first to launch an irrational attack upon me, who
has, in the past, been among Judy's strongest supporters. Not even
Tracy can reasonably deny that I did more to make her name a house-
hold word by repeatedly featuring her on my radio program and offer-
ing my support for her work, which extended over more than at least
a year and a half when few knew about her. Indeed, I featured her
in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007) and made her the feature attraction at
the Madison Conference, which was held 3-5 August 2007, which Tracy
herself attended. She knows I was supporting and promoting Judy.

So what happens when I innocuously post the color-photo section by
Jack White from THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY because my webmaster liked it
and thought it deserved wider dissemination? Out of the blue, one
Andrew Johnson--a close friend of Judy--launches a baseless attack
suggesting this was co-opting photos from Judy and other nonsense.
He did not even seem to know that this was the republication of a
chapter from a book published in 2007! Which meant he had not even
read the first sentence of the blog, which says, "Below is Chapter 3
of The 9/11 Conspiracy: The Scamming of America (2007)! Stunning.

He made himself look like a dope and, if you thought about it, also
tarnished Judy, because it make it look as though Andrew and Judy
believed that she controlled every photo she had ever posted! So I
pointed that out and, because he claimed they displayed "Hutchison
Effects", I observed that the very existence of those effects had
yet to be established. Then Hutchison dropped in with the claim
that they were "well known and accepted sciences" in the military
and suggested that I should "see papers on it". So I asked where
those "papers" might be found and whether he could define the very
principles that define his "effects" that they be tested, etcetera.

Then I received a curious comment from one Conrado Salas Cano, who
also had not read the blog on which he was remarking. He took me to
task for not attacking Steven Jones in relation to his work on cold
fusion, which I have not done because I am no expert in that field.
Then when I checked him out, Conrado not only has a physics degree
from CalTech but an MS from Portland State with a thesis in--guess
what?--cold fusion. Plus, while I am supposed to be tarnishing the
reputation of the 9/11 movement, his web site extols the virtues of
David Icke, who believes the world is being run by reptilians with
the ability to assume human forms, which he accents by featuring a
photograph of the Queen on his site, calling her "E-lizard-birth"!

The Andrew Johnson reappeared to recommend his book, 9/11: FINDING
THE TRUTH (2009), which is drenched with breathless attacks on me
and Steve Jones that are about as accurate and reliable as may be
found in WORLD NEWS daily. All of this caused me to think about
what was going on here and realize that I was dealing with (what
could only be described as) the members of a cult. Among their
characteristics are their members' excessively zealous unquestion-
ing commitment to the identity and leadership of the group; the
exploitative manipulation of group members; and harm or the threat
of harm to those who are perceived to threaten the group, which can
be directed inward or outward depending on the source of the threat.

I know Judy fairly well after having been a close associate for at
least a year and a half. And I know she has a paranoid streak that
is only an inch wide but a mile deep. These parties--Andrew, John,
and Conrado--did not trip over my blog about Jack White by chance.
Judy is a lurker. I knew from past experience that she was aware
of virtually every post on any blog that mentioned her. So it was
not a difficult inference to understand why these devotees of Judy
would be making posts on blogs that they had never even read! And
the repetitive, irrational, foundationless assaults from Tracy are
simply one more installment in an on-going series of vicious attacks
on anyone who challenges the faith, where I committed (in her eyes)
the unforgivable offense of raising doubts about Hutchison's science.

I couldn't make this stuff up, and you can verify it for yourselves
by visiting the blog in which I featured Jack's color photo section,
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/911-photographic-portfolio-...
and, of course, reviewing the evolution of this thread. The more
that Tracy rants and raves with no substance to it--other than that
I have offended her by not being a subservient "true believer" and
by raising very obvious questions about the scientific standing of
"Hutchison Effects"--and now there is a whole additional thread on
"Searching for Fake Videos Produced by John Hutchison", which would
never have arisen but for Tracy's zealous defense of the hallowed
leaders of this pseudo-scientific cult. If that's good for her or
for Judy or for John, then Tracy Poster has been a terrific success!
Otherwise, they might want to adopt a less self-defeating game plan.

Quoting jfetzer@d.umn.edu:

[Hide Quoted Text]
Tracy still can't get her facts straight. There had been nothing
between us for several months (since last September) until I spoke
in agreement with Rosalee. She asked, "Fetzer, what's your slam
on Jones?", to which I politely replied by suggesting she take a
look at a recent presentation I gave. After that, she went bananas
with her typical half-truths and outright distortions and insanity!

Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:08:25 -0600 [01/30/2010 12:08:25 AM CST]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: "Tracy Postert, Ph.D." , jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Cc: [Show addresses - 31 recipients]
Subject: Re: nano-thermite

Check it out, Tracy. The reports about molten metal from Steve et al.
appear to have been grossly exaggerated and supported by photographs
that are fake. Please view my "Thinking Critically about Conspiracy
Theories", http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/12/httpdotsub.html ,
and get back, because most of my discussion was about the molten metal
issue. It is far from cut-and-dry. This was presented in Portland on
11 December 2009, so it represents my latest findings on this subject.

Quoting "Tracy Postert, Ph.D." :

Nice to see that Rosalee is using words I invented,
like "nosewitness", and focusing on the fumes.

Fetzer, where's your slam on Jones?
________________________________
From: "jfetzer@d.umn.edu"
To: The Webfairy ; jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Sent: Fri, January 29, 2010 8:15:52 PM
Subject: Re: nano-thermite

I am on Rosalee's side on this one. The reports about molten metal
appear to have been grossly exaggerated and supported by photographs
that are fake. Please view my "Thinking Critically about Conspiracy
Theories", http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/12/httpdotsub.html ,
and get back, because most of my discussion was about the molten metal
issue. It is far from cut-and-dry. This was presented in Portland on
11 December 2009, so it represents my latest findings on this subject.

Quoting "Tracy Postert, Ph.D." :

This began when you bitched out Dr. Wood
for posting a no plane article. Get it right.
That was the first mistake you made that you
need to apologize for.

This all began when Andrew Johnson posted a bizarre attack
on me for blogging Jack White's color-photo chapter from
THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY.

And speaking of those color photographs, aren't those the
ones Dr. Wood sent you with comments?

Did Jack White have anything at all to do with the analysis
of these images? And, since we know that you took those
images from Dr. Wood and have yet to credit her, how you
treat supposed Jack White image analyses. Maybe that
reflects on his analysis of the JFK photos, hmmm?

You have displayed the kind of zealous devotion to Judy and
John Hutchison that one would expect of the member of a cult.

I'm not devoted to John Hutchison. I don't revile him, and many
people who have my email address voice false opinions about
his work. Judy? I like her. I respect her.

You disregard every criticism that has been raised, including
multiple proofs that Hutchison has been floating fake videos.

For a supposed iron clad proof of fakery, I haven't seen it.
Please offer it to me or shut up about it. At least Ace made
some vague references to qualities in the videos that he
thought were fake, but he didn't actually point out any
specific parts of videos that were fake. Edited isn't fake.
Slowed down isn't fake. And he doesn't say what his
proof is that the videos were filmed upside down.

Savage? Get real. I haven't savaged anyone. I made fun of you.
I danced when I got proved 100%+ correct by your admissions.
That doesn't qualify as "savage". Spreading rumors about your
alcoholism and past as a child molester were a bit stronger,
but AT LEAST I GOT THE RIGHT PERSON! You accused
me of faking my identity, etc. Besides, if you abuse alcohol,
you should expect to have that follow you around forever,
because it does speak to your mentality and self control.
Molesting your daughter, if true, was unforgiveable.

You savagely attack those who are not "true believers" with
vicious ad hominems having no foundation in fact. You offer
irrelevant replies to the arguments I present. And you have
become the postert-child for a weird, pseudo-scientific cult!

Really? I get to be the poster(t) child? Yay!
Get me doing the 100%+ correct dance.


Quoting "Tracy Postert, Ph.D." :
Tracy:
Did I hear a "Thank you, Tracy. You were right all
along?" In your last message? Yes, I think I did.

Jim: Like everyone else on this list (with the possible
exception of Judy Wood), I am sick and tired of having
anything to do with you.

Tracy: Weak men do not like to be around people who
challenge and correct them. I'm demanding that you make
a round of apologies and change your behavior? Weak men
don't like to hear that.

Jim:
You are so self-centered and obsessed with Judy
that you are unable to make reasoned and objective
evaluations about any issue we discuss.

Tracy: For not being a psychologist you love to make
pronouncements about other people's mental health.
I don't like you for clear, logical reasons, and not because
of a mental deficit.

And for you to say I'm self-centered and Judy-obsessed is
a contradiction you know.

Jim: This latest gambit is a nice case in point. You have
switched from whether or not I am Judy's fan to whether
or not I like her research.

Tracy: You are a liar. I keep telling you to focus on the
work and not on the person. To stop putting this woman
down. You can't find it in you to be nice to people who are
mad at you. You think they must be wrong instead of yourself.
Man up, dude. You've been a jerk.

Jim:
She has used some of those who are
devoted to her--Andrew Johnson and you are prime cases--
to attack me as one who is not enough of a true-believer.

Tracy: I'm not sure about Andrew, but Judy never told
me to say anything. Even her direct report, I asked if
I could tell her side of the Scholars Fiasco. She didn't
tell me to report it. Get it in your head, small man, that
there exist people in the world who have come to the
independent realization that you are a jerk.

Nico thinks so. Judy thinks so. Morgan thinks so.
Jerry thinks so. Tracy thinks so. Andrew thinks so.

Lotsa different people think you're a jerk, Jim. It ain't
just me. Judy's supporters tend to think you are a
jerk because you've been the worst jerk to her.

Jim Fetzer said...
As a student of the history and philosophy of science, you must forgive me if I am not
entirely persuaded of your claims. Let me enumerate a few of the reasons why.

You shouldn't use your scientific credentials as a reason to doubt
a scientist, because you clearly are very slow when it comes to
actual science, although you snap right on it when it comes to
conspiracy.

(1) Scientific claims are typically advanced in the form of studies authored by those
who propose them. Since you mention published "papers", do they explain what you have
discovered and, if so, where can they be accessed by the public?

Scientists don't always report their findings. Tesla died and a lot of his work
went with him. You're mean.

(2) What are the principles that define them? Galileo, for example, formulated a law
for falling bodies, d = 1/2 Gt2, Newton his inverse square law of universal
gravitational attraction and so forth. What are the laws for Hutchison Effects?

Again, you're just mean here, saying the same thing as #1.

(3) While you appear to lack a scientific background, that does not rule out the
possibility that you may have made remarkable, if unlikely, discoveries. Such claims
as you advance require support in the form of empirical experiments:

(a) Early on, you offered a video as documentation of your discoveries, but Ace Baker
was able to reproduce what was seen in your video, which appeared to be a form of
fakery. What are the conditions required to test "Hutchison Effects"?

You should know these already. Why make Hutchison spell it out for you?

(b) Ace Baker offered a substantial sum of money, $50,000, as I recall, if you would
invite him and me to visit your lab to observe the replication of your "effects", but
you declined to accept the offer. Could you please explain why?

This is an absolute lie. Hutchison agreed to the challenge within minutes of
it being made. I know because I emailed him immediately, he responded to
me, and I posted his acceptance within minutes to Ace Baker's website.
This was the first email I ever sent to John Hutchison, so I remember it
well.

John accepted, they made an appointment to meet and ACE CANCELED.
You didn't mention this part. ACE CANCELED THE MEETING!!
Fucking liar Jim.

(c) Since the military shows interest even in the work of crackpots that it not
overlook some development of potential military significance, why should we take your
assertions that the military has shown interest in yours to be significant?

Fucking rude!

In the final analysis, I owe you a debt of gratitude for forcing
me to confront that I no longer believe in Judy. I continue to
admire her work up to the point of her entanglements with John
Hutchison. Since then, someone I took to be a serious scientist
has devolved into the revered center of a pseudo-scientific cult.

But for your constant badgering, I wouldn't have sorted it out!

Hey, mother fucker! I never sent you an email that wasn't
a response to an email you sent me. You're such a creep.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on February 3, 2010 at 11:20am
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:57:37 -0600
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Dr. Wood's explanation of the demise of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (corrected)
To: "Tracy Postert, Ph.D." , jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Like everyone else on this list (with the possible
exception of Judy Wood), I am sick and tired of having
anything to do with you. You are so self-centered and
obsessed with Judy that you are unable to make reasoned
and objective evaluations about any issue we discuss.

This latest gambit is a nice case in point. You have
switched from whether or not I am Judy's fan to whether
or not I like her research. They are not the same. In
the past, I both admired her research and liked the person.
I still admire her research but I no longer like the person.

Let me explain. In the past--before John Hutchison--Judy
was very open and accessible, coming on the show over and
over again. I am confident that in the history of all the
radio programs I have hosted, she is the one person that I
have featured more than any other. That was BEFORE John!

Since the interview of them together--where I asked him
some rather obvious questions about his background and
training (which, it turns out, are virtually non-existent),
Judy has scorned me. She has used some of those who are
devoted to her--Andrew Johnson and you are prime cases--
to attack me as one who is not enough of a true-believer.

She and her group have coalesced around core dogmas, the
most central of which is belief in directed energy weaponry,
but closely related is belief in (what are called) "Hutchison
Effects". Hutchison, so far as I can discern, has offered
no actual proof of the existence of these "effects", as I
have observed in my responses to the attacks on my blog:
______________________

John Hutchison said...
SORRY THE HUTCHISON EFFECT IS WELL KNOWN AND ACCEPTED SCIENCES
IN THE MILLITARY BLCK WORL SEE PAPERS ON IT CHEERS JOHN

JANUARY 30, 2010 5:56 PM
Jim Fetzer said...
As a student of the history and philosophy of science, you must forgive me if I am not entirely persuaded of your claims. Let me enumerate a few of the reasons why.

(1) Scientific claims are typically advanced in the form of studies authored by those who propose them. Since you mention published "papers", do they explain what you have discovered and, if so, where can they be accessed by the public?

(2) What are the principles that define them? Galileo, for example, formulated a law for falling bodies, d = 1/2 Gt2, Newton his inverse square law of universal gravitational attraction and so forth. What are the laws for Hutchison Effects?

(3) While you appear to lack a scientific background, that does not rule out the possibility that you may have made remarkable, if unlikely, discoveries. Such claims as you advance require support in the form of empirical experiments:

(a) Early on, you offered a video as documentation of your discoveries, but Ace Baker was able to reproduce what was seen in your video, which appeared to be a form of fakery. What are the conditions required to test "Hutchison Effects"?

(b) Ace Baker offered a substantial sum of money, $50,000, as I recall, if you would invite him and me to visit your lab to observe the replication of your "effects", but you declined to accept the offer. Could you please explain why?

(c) Since the military shows interest even in the work of crackpots that it not overlook some development of potential military significance, why should we take your assertions that the military has shown interest in yours to be significant?

If you are able to offer appropriate replies to these questions, it would no doubt reduce skepticism about your claims, which, of course, require proof.
______________________

Now perhaps you haven't noticed, but nothing posted since has
altered the points I was making here. Roselee, a fan of John
and Judy, has acknowledged that John has made fake videos. Ace
Baker has provided a list of them. You, as a true believer, are
dedicated to defending Judy and John--regardless of the evidence.

Rosalee, interestingly, offers more in defense of John Hutchison
than John Hutchison offers in explanation of himself. There are
no articles or publications that advance his theory, so far as I
am aware, and he cannot specify the principles that define it in
support of the impression that it might be empirically testable.

Instead, we have found that Judy's group is typified by (a) core
dogmas, (b) mystic leaders, (c) intolerance of criticism, (d) a
disposition to attack those who question the faith (core dogmas),
and (e) loyalty to the group in the face of well-founded criticism.
These characteristics distinguish what properly qualify as "cults".

In your attacks upon me, of course, you have exemplified each of
these characteristics. You extoll directed energy and Hutchison
effects even--in the case of the latter--without proof of their
existence. You venerate Judy and John as though they were Mary
and Joseph. You won't even read the criticisms in my responses!

What more do we need to certify your membership in a cult? Well,
how about your demonstrated disposition to attack those--me, in
particular--who question the faith. And you are loyal to Judy
and John INDEPENDENTLY of whether or not he produced fake videos
to convey false impressions about his alleged "Hutchison effects".

Now either you understand what you are doing but do it anyway--
in which case you are a fake--or you are a bona fide true believer--
in which case you are a flake. There appear to be no alternatives
but those. In either case, your pretensions to being "a scientist"
are no longer credible. You are, alas!, either a fake or a flake.

In the final analysis, I owe you a debt of gratitude for forcing
me to confront that I no longer believe in Judy. I continue to
admire her work up to the point of her entanglements with John
Hutchison. Since then, someone I took to be a serious scientist
has devolved into the revered center of a pseudo-scientific cult.

But for your constant badgering, I wouldn't have sorted it out!

Quoting "Tracy Postert, Ph.D." :

>You see, I don't much care about the personality of
>Judy Wood. Why do you?
>
>You can't seem to focus on her work.
>Or can you?
>
>Can you name the most influential discoveries
>of Judy Wood, describing the scientific details
>underlying them?
>
>Can you talk about anything that Dr. Wood has
>discovered? Or is it nothing but "she's a horrible
>person" and "she likes space beams" because, come
>on. Philosopher of science you may be, you certainly
>haven't shown yourself to be an adept student of
>science.
>
>You act like you don't understand stuff for years on
>end. You act like there's still a controversy among
>serious researchers as to whether thermite was used
>or whether TV Video fakery was used.
>
>It's not a small thing. You've had some successes, and
>brought people around you. You've lost the best
>(Judy and Morgan) but you still have your attack dogs
>and fans.
>
>
>Can you possibly man up for the movement and do what
>is required to patch things up with Dr. Wood so we
>can get to discovering things?
>
>Or are you going to continue to play the wronged
>and innocent man who did nothing wrong and stepped
>on nobody's toes? Because that's a recipe for more
>of this crap.
>
>Your choice, Jim. Suck it up or keep on sucking.
>
>________________________________
>From: "jfetzer@d.umn.edu"
>To: "Tracy Postert, Ph.D." ; jfetzer@d.umn.edu
>Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 4:30:05 PM
>Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Dr. Wood's explanation of the demise of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (corrected)
>
>The abuse of language to suit her cause is yet another sign of
>the cultish behavior of Tracy Postert, the poster-child for the
>Judy Wood cult. WHEN I WROTE, "I remained a steadfast supporter
>of Judy and Morgan", I MEANT AT THAT TIME--AND, OBVIOUSLY, EVEN
>PAST THE TIME OF THE MADISON CONFERENCE! GET A GRIP ON YOURSELF,
>WOMAN. YOU WERE EVEN THERE. AND IT WAS HELD IN AUGUST 2007!
>
>As I previously observed, among the characteristics of cults are
>their members' excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment to
>the identity and leadership of the group; the manipulation of
>group members; and harm or the threat of harm to those who are
>perceived to threaten the group, which can be directed inward
>or directed outward, depending on the source of the threat.
>
>Thinking back upon it, during my many conversations with Judy--
>and we probably had hundreds!--she often used the metaphor of
>"drinking the coolaid"! Until now, I had not realized that, in
>retrospect, it was not only an explicit reference to Jonestown
>(Jim Jones) but also an awareness on her part that various 9/11
>groups were cult-like in their behavior. She was thinking of
>Steve Jones but, ironically, it applies to her group as well.
>
>Just for the record, while I am still impressed by Judy Wood's
>research, especially in compiling the stupendous photographic
>record of the aftermath of the events of 9/11, I am no longer
>a fan of Judy Wood. She has become a caricature of the woman
>I used to admire and respect. The cult that has arisen around
>her would be an embarrassment to serious research in any domain.
>That it occurs in the context of 9/11 research is catastrophic.
>
>Quoting "Tracy Postert, Ph.D." :
>>
>>But I remained a steadfast supporter of Judy and Morgan,
>>
>>LIES! Saying you support Dr. Wood's space beams isn't
>>supporting Dr. Wood, because she doesn't talk about space
>>beams.
>>
>>Saying Dr. Wood is infatuated with herself isn't supporting
>>Dr. Wood. It's bringing her down.
>>
>>Insulting and berating Dr. Wood's supporters is not supporting
>>Dr. Wood.
>>
>>Don't be surprised when I don't read your canned lies.
>>You can't even admit you've been a jerk when it's plain
>>to see.
>>
>>I haven't done very much for anyone to quote.
>>The one good thing I've done is expose you as
>>a liar. That's pretty much all they could quote, and
>>they'd be good to do so.
>>
>>both of whom I continued to feature on my radio programs,
>>long after you claim that Scholars had ceased to function.
>>
>>Your reasoning is so confused and your speech so garbled
>>I cannot imagine why anyone would take you seriously about
>>anything. I proposed them both for the board of directors:
>>
>>After considerable reflection, I believe that turning Scholars into a non-profit corporation and relinquishing control of the society to a board of directors who would determine the management of the web site, the moderation of our forum, and the editing of our journal, provides the best solution and greatest promise for our future. The board of directors, in my view, should include a wide range of perspectives about possible causes of destruction at the WTC, encompassing perspectives as diverse as those of David Ray Griffin, Morgan Reynolds, Rick Siegel, and Judy Wood.
>>
>>So when you come to the bottom line, there is no basis
>>for your malicious assertions that I abandoned Judy or
>>Morgan. That is false. I continued to support them.
>>
>>Indeed, your drivel about me attacking Judy is grossly
>>misleading. I simply responded to unfounded attacks by
>>Andrew Johnson and others which were utterly unwarranted.
>>
>>What justifiable cause did Judy or Hutchison or anyone
>>else, for that matter, have to complain about my posting
>>a blog of Jack White's contribution to THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY?
>>
>>The book was published in 2007! It included a chapter by
>>Judy. Even when I held the Madison conference--which you
>>attended!--I CONTINUED TO FEATURE THE WORK OF JUDY WOOD!
>>
>>So where to you come off with this ridiculous tripe about
>>my having abandoned her a year before? I would still be
>>featuring her on my shows if she accepted my invitations.
>>
>>But she refuses to do that, which, in my opinion, is not
>>only intellectually dishonest and irresponsible with regard
>>to questions about her science but morally corrupt as well.
>>
>>Your ongoing attempted to defend the indefensible continue
>>to corrode your already tarnished reputation. Those who
>>want to discredit 9/11 could do no better than to cite you!
>>
>>Quoting "Tracy Postert, Ph.D." :
>>
>>>Dr. Wood has informed me that she wasn't speaking
>>>of the "demise" of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.
>>>
>>>I was.
>>>
>>>Because when Judy left, the thing was over
>>>in my opinion. It doesn't matter if people still posted
>>>things or whatever after Judy Wood left, Scholars
>>>for 9/11 Truth was done when Fetzer chased out
>>>the world's best 9/11 researcher.
>>>
>>>He's a jerk. He's still trashing Dr. Wood and anyone
>>>who supports her against him.
>>>

>>>________________________________
>>>From: "jfetzer@d.umn.edu"
>>>To: "Tracy Postert, Ph.D." ; jfetzer@d.umn.edu
>>>Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 11:10:57 AM
>>>Subject: Re: Dr. Wood's explanation of the demise of Scholars for 9/11 Truth
>>>
>>>When Tracy Poster is parroting half-truths from Judy Wood, you know we've sunk to a new low. Here is an article that has been posted under "Founder's Corner" for four years now, which offers a more complete analysis of what was going on.
>>>Scholars has not become the non-profit I envisioned for multiple reasons, none of which have to do with the issues that are being raised here. Judy, among other matters, also ignores that, when Steve and I split, he and his cronies conducted a phony "poll" of the members by abusing the membership list and pretending it came from the society's administrator, then froze the site and forced me to create a new one at 911scholars.org. I have reported these events as well at the same place for those who want a closer approximation to truth.
>>>
>>>Scholars for 9/11 Truth
>>>
>>>SCHOLARS: ON ITS FIRST ANNIVERSARY
>>>
>>>Incorporating the Society as a Non-Profit Corporation
>>>by James H. Fetzer
>>>
>>>25 November 2006
>>>
>>>Friends and Colleagues:
>>>
>>>As we approach the first anniversary of the founding of Scholars for 9/11 Truth on 15 December 2005, it may be appropriate to share some reflections on what we have accomplished and where we go from here. Scholars was conceived as a non-partisan society representing a loose affiliation between students, experts, and scholars dedicated to exposing falsehoods and revealing the truth about the events of 9/11, while "letting the chips fall where they may". Let?s start at the beginning.
>>>
>>>According to The 9/11 Commission Report, 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked four commercial airliners, outfoxed the most sophisticated air defense systems in the world, and perpetrated these dastardly acts under the control of a man in a cave in Afghanistan. There is an abundance of evidence, however, archived on our web site at st911.org, that calls into question every major aspect of the government?s official account.
>>>
>>>We have established beyond reasonable doubt that the Twin Towers were destroyed by a novel form of controlled demolition from the top down, that WTC-7 was brought down by a classic form of controlled demolition from the bottom up, and that, whatever may have hit the Pentagon, multiple lines of argument support the conclusion that it was not a Boeing 757. What happened in Shanksville remains a mystery shrouded in mist.
>>>
>>>We have also had considerable success in communicating our discoveries to the American public. The most recent New York Times/CBS poll, for example, shows that 53% of the public is skeptical about and 28% strongly rejects the "official account" of 9/11. Only 16% accept what we have been told by our own government about those events. That this is the case even though the government refuses to discuss the case and much of the media follows its lead is all the more significant and striking.
>>>
>>>Many of the findings that we have publicized were originally established by independent researchers who were troubled by the events of 9/11. Building upon the work of those who have gone before, we have benefited from the very idea of a SOCIETY OF SCHOLARS who share the belief that the government has been deceiving us. We have created an influential web site, an active discussion forum, and a Journal for 9/11 Studies! These are contributions that have accelerated access to information about these historic events.
>>>
>>>Attacks on Scholars
>>>
>>>Indeed, Scholars has fared better than some scholars in academic settings. From William Woodward in New Hampshire to Judy Wood in South Carolina, Kevin Barrett in Wisconsin and even Steve Jones in Utah, politicians have been unable to resist scoring cheap points by attacking "loony" intellectuals who hold views at variance with those of the government. Their attacks, however, are not merely misguided but based upon massive ignorance.
>>>
>>>Even according to President George W. Bush, 9/11 was "the pivotal event" of this century. Colleges and universities are the institutions that study significant historical events. It is therefore entirely appropriate that faculty and students should study the events of 9/11. Moreover, since it only takes collaboration between two or more persons to commit an illegal act to qualify as a "conspiracy", the official account is itself a conspiracy theory! You cannot study "the pivotal event" of the 21st Century without studying conspiracies.
>>>
>>>When we who are critics of the government?s version of those events are assailed as "conspiracy theorists", we know that something is wrong. Since the government itself has advanced a conspiracy theory that is not only false but provably false and, in some of its most important aspects, not even physically possible, it is not difficult to identify the most "outrageous" of conspiracy theories: it is the account endorsed by this administration! But its apologists are not constrained by concern for logic, evidence, or truth.
>>>
>>>Moreover, their rhetorical advantages are strengthened by widespread misunderstanding of the principles of scientific reasoning. "Occam?s Razor" is often invoked in support of the simplest theory, which, in this case, is alleged to be the official government account. But the simplest theory is preferable only when it can account for all the available relevant evidence. Picking and choosing--selecting evidence that supports your theory and eliminating the rest?violates basic requirements of scientific reasoning.
>>>
>>>Properly defining the problem to be explained?the puzzling phenomenon that triggers off scientific inquiry?can pose a non-trivial task. During a recent interview with Judy Wood, who has degrees in civil engineering, engineering mechanics and materials engineering science?I was fascinated to confront the full dimensions of the problem we have to explain, which goes far beyond the Twin Towers and WTC-7 but also includes WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6, not to mention the lack of serious damage to the "bathtub".
>>>
>>>Science and Politics
>>>
>>>Because Judy?s credentials are among the most imposing of any student of 9/11. I was also fascinated by her suggestion that some sort of high-tech weapons of the directed energy kind may have been involved in bringing about the massive, complete, and total devastation of the World Trade Center. Although she did not commit herself to that specific hypothesis, she also suggested that directed energy could have come from above, such as from a space-based satellite using a mirror to direct energy. That has led to a veritable propaganda blitz attacking us both for considering "space beam" weaponry!
>>>
>>>The hardest part of scientific research?which includes stages of puzzlement, speculation, adaptation, and explanation?is coming up with the full range of possible explanations for the phenomena you want to explain. Otherwise, the process of adaptation?calculating the probabilities of the effects given different conjectures about their possible causes and comparing them?can afford misleading comparisons and yield a false outcome precisely because the true hypothesis was not given appropriate consideration.
>>>
>>>Even though space-based weapons have a history of actual experimental success dating at least from 1991?as Judy Wood, who specializes in optics in relation to mechanics, has observed--several kinds of fallacies can be combined to create enormous confusion in the mind of the public. Selective use of evidence ("special pleading") and personal attacks ("ad hominem") are especially effective against a background of widely held beliefs that may in fact be false ("popular sentiments"). The US has long been pursuing "full spectrum dominance" of air, land, sea, and space and aggressively developing high-tech weapons.
>>>
>>>Of course, it doesn?t help if I commit a mistake by using the wrong number for the time of free fall in an example intended to demonstrate that the towers cannot possibly have come down in free fall! Although I have often made this point by observing that a grand piano would take at least 12-13 seconds to reach the ground, a time of 30 seconds turns out to be a special case. (In fact, Steve has made a big deal out of this and then defended his criticism with a mistaken calculation!) My recent use of that figure has left me vulnerable to attacks over a minor point, while the major point?that the towers could not possibly have COLLAPSED in the official times of 10 and 9 seconds, respectively?was simply overwhelmed!
>>>
>>>The potential to shift focus from devastating criticisms to comparative trivialities places apologists at a considerable rhetorical advantage. It is easy to lie and it can be difficult?even very difficult!?to explain why a deliberate falsehood is untrue. That is why our all too infrequent appearances on "Hannity & Colmes", "Scarborough Country", and even "The Factor" with Bill O?Reilly have become occasions for rejoicing or cringing. We run risks by appearing on some of these programs, but those risks are unavoidable if we are to reach out to their audience, which is an important segment of the American community.
>>>
>>>The Future of the Society
>>>
>>>The mix of science and politics is fraught with hazards. Those of us who are strongest in scientific research may not be adept at handling the media. Those who are best able to present our case in clear and convincing language may sometimes commit mistakes. My opinion is that we are succeeding in spite of difficulties like these, but it has led some of the society?s supporters to question whether new hypotheses, which many consider to be "far out", should receive acknowledgement on the home page of st911.org and whether a more formal arrangement of the society might function better.
>>>
>>>Scholars is an unusual society in that, while it has members?currently, some 400 who fall into four different categories?it is not a "membership society" in the sense of being a society that is run by its members. Indeed, that would be completely inappropriate, not least because science is not a matter of popularity. The society must be controlled by those who are best positioned to assess the state of current research and present it to the public. But a dictatorship may be no less undesirable than a democracy!
>>>
>>>After considerable reflection, I believe that turning Scholars into a non-profit corporation and relinquishing control of the society to a board of directors who would determine the management of the web site, the moderation of our forum, and the editing of our journal, provides the best solution and greatest promise for our future. The board of directors, in my view, should include a wide range of perspectives about possible causes of destruction at the WTC, encompassing perspectives as diverse as those of David Ray Griffin, Morgan Reynolds, Rick Siegel, and Judy Wood.
>>>
>>>I believe that the board of directors should have from nine to eleven members and that their decisions should require 2/3 majority votes. They should have the responsibility to appoint a manger for the web site, moderators for our member?s forum, and editors for The Journal of 9/11 Studies. They should also have the ability to add or remove members from the board itself. The initial appointments to the board are therefore extremely important, and I welcome suggestions and recommendations about its composition via email, the society?s forum, and 911blogger.com, where discussion of these issues will take place.
>>>
>>>When I founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I asked Dr. Steven E. Jones to join me as Co-Chair. Steve has recently expressed disenchantment with the co-chair arrangement and, in the new non-profit corporation, the positions of co-chairs will no longer exist. Steve and I will both belong to the initial Board of Directors, however, and continue to influence the future course of the society. If the directors should decide that I should continue to manage the web site or Steve co-edit the journal, I am sure we would both comply.
>>>
>>>Co-Chair Conflicts
>>>
>>>As many of you are aware, Steve Jones and I have recently had some minor and not-so-minor disputes and disagreements. Disagreements occur in any high-profile organization, and Scholars is no different from others in this respect. However, the stakes are much higher in this case. Our research, our science, and our publications have the potential to expose the truth about 9/11 events, to bring the prime 9/11 perpetrators to justice, and to help to remedy the wrong turns that our country and the world have taken since 9/11.
>>>
>>>Petty disputes and disagreements have no place in Scholars. A more formal -- but still minimalist ? set of procedures for a governing structure, membership criteria, scholarly publication, and public website is indispensable to accomplish our shared goals and objectives. Among the tensions between us have been differences over the use of the forum and the web site and the range of perspectives to be represented there.
>>>
>>>When Steve was nudged into "early retirement", I invited him to supervise our members? forum as well as continue to co-edit the society?s journal, which he co-founded with Judy Wood as co-editor. I had become aware of his strenuous objections to having "star wars beam weapons" hypotheses mentioned on our home page. (Judy?s use of "star wars" was a subtle intimation of its probable origins, but Steve has used "space beams" in order to denigrate it!) But I was acutely distressed when members of the forum were cut off from access to the forum abruptly and without notice.
>>>
>>>It is the case that policies are in place for conduct on the forum, which members have been known to violate. In this case, however, the members who were banned?one of whom , Rick Siegel of "9/11 Eyewitness" and "9/11 Eyewitness ? Hoboken", was in the middle of posting criticism of Steve when he was cut off in mid-post?appeared to me to have been denied access on political grounds, which is completely unacceptable.
>>>
>>>For this reason and other actions and communications between us, I have temporarily removed Steve Jones as Co-Chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. I took this action because I had concluded that Steve?s conduct was undermining the objectives of the society, as the policies of the society state:
>>>"Membership is a privilege, not a right. Should either of the chairs conclude that an individual's participation tends to undermine the objectives of the society, that person's membership may be suspended and she may no longer access the forum or be identified with Scholars of 9/11 Truth."
>>>
>>>The fact that I could do such a thing as founder of Scholars, however, no doubt qualifies as another reason for the need for the society to incorporate and attain more formal structure. I took this step to correct what I perceived to be improper conduct in the management of the forum, but others may view what I have done as improper conduct in the management of the society! Having a board of directors to supervise both should resolve such conflicts.
>>>
>>>Suppression of Research
>>>
>>>The "other actions and communications" may be even more important but also more subtle than terminating access to the forum in these cases. As anyone who has read the "Open Letters" exchange posted on st911.org will be aware, it is my position that a wide range of alternative approaches toward understanding what happened on 9/11 deserve serious consideration. But I have not always implemented that policy consistently. Steve has attained enormous popularity among students of 9/11 for his studies of the destruction of the Twin Towers and how they may have been taken out. Somewhat surprisingly, his research was accepted almost immediately, without question or searching evaluation.
>>>
>>>While I have been keenly interested in Steve?s research, I have become convinced that the complete and comprehensive devastation of the World Trade Center?including WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 as well as WTC-7?is very unlikely to be explainable on the basis of his hypothesis. It may well be that thermate was used to destroy some of these buildings. In fact, Judy Wood has suggested that the last 20 floors of the towers may have been demolished using thermate and other explosives. Alternative hypotheses deserve to be explored, not condemned. Many advances in science first encountered ridicule!
>>>
>>>We need to remember that the 9/11 truth movement itself has had to cope with mountains of ridicule. We should not abandon our commitment to the principles of science and to the primacy of logic and evidence in the appraisal of possible explanations. I have therefore been dismayed at the dawning realization that even I may have been an accomplice to the constraint of research in several cases by removing at least two articles that were critical of Steve?s work, which I now believe deserve more objective scientific consideration, namely:
>>>
>>>Aluminum Glows
>>>1 Mar 2006, janedoe0911, Judy Wood and Michael Zebuhr
>>>http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/Aluminum_Glows.html
>>>
>>>Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate?
>>>18 Sep 2006, janedoe0911, Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood, v. 1.02
>>>http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/why_indeed.html
>>>
>>>Because these studies are critical of his research and because I have sought to keep the level of tension within the society relatively minimal, I am quite certain that I allowed myself to be influenced by pressure from supporters and friends of Steve?and they are legion?to have them taken down. Even if a desire to reduce tensions over differences has led me to constrain debate in the past, in the case of Judy?s directed-energy hypothesis, I do not want this to deteriorate into the suppression of evidence and the obstruction of research. I am therefore drawing a line where I believe it has to be drawn. I am only disappointed that the importance of unfettered discussion has not always been foremost in my mind.
>>>
>>>Morgan and Judy, I am sure, believed that they were not free to pursue their research on 9/11 without having to compromise for political purposes. I am now convinced that they were right and that, as the manager of st911.org, I should have found a way to make their research available to the public, perhaps by creating a new section of the site devoted to theories and to criticism of theories about how the towers were destroyed. I even believe that Steve would agree with that; indeed, it seems to me that he may even have suggested as much. Sometimes even the best advice falls on deaf ears. I would like to think that the proposals I have offered for reorganizing and revitalizing Scholars will matter here, too!
>>>
>>>The Future of Scholars
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>In the interim, I would ask that Alex Floum, a founding member, assign and transfer all rights in st911.org and our journal?s website as intellectual properties to Scholars for 9/11 Truth, with the understanding that Scholars for 9/11 Truth is going to incorporate as a non-profit organization. Alex has been exceedingly generous in securing domain names for Scholars at my and Steve?s direction and hosting our web sites. I am overwhelmingly in his debt for doing so. At this juncture, a more formal structure suggests that different arrangements would be more appropriate.
>>>
>>>My intention is that, once Scholars has been established as a non-profit organization, I will take steps to secure it 501(c)(3) status, which will enable supporters to have tax-exempt status for contributions in support of the society. We have been doing what we have been doing with no budget, no funding, and no source of income. In the past, I considered that a strength of Scholars, but I readily concede that we need to be able to finance research, sponsor lectures, arrange conferences, and publicize our discoveries.
>>>
>>>Like many of you, I have suggestions for strengthening the society, including having more "hard-science" types added to the journal?s editorial board, publishing articles on a wider-range of possible explanations for the phenomena we are trying to explain, shifting the discussion of theories about how it was actually done?including thermite/thermate, the use of mini-nukes, and high-tech, directed energy weapons?from the home page to a new section of the web site devoted to "theories", and having the home page emphasize proofs that the official account cannot possibly be true. Others, no doubt, will have more.
>>>
>>>Regardless of what Steve Jones and I choose to do regarding Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I would hope and expect that Steve will join me in Washington, D.C., on 10 January 2007 to speak at The National Press Club. The controversy surrounding our recent disputes will almost certainly increase media attention for this event. Although there may be some negative fall out from these differences, Steve and I agree on overwhelmingly more about 9/11 than we disagree. Please join us in reorganizing and revitalizing Scholars.
>>>
>>>James H. Fetzer
>>>Founder
>>>Scholars for 9/11 Truth
>>>
>>>Quoting "Tracy Postert, Ph.D." :
>>>
>>>>I wanted to know the precise details of the demise
>>>>of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, so I asked Dr. Judy Wood
>>>>about it this morning.
>>>>
>>>>She said she was the webmaster for the website and,
>>>>among her many responsibilities, one of her privileges
>>>>was posting articles. When she posted an article about
>>>>no planes, Fetzer blew up at her.
>>>>
>>>>He told Dr. Morgan Reynolds that Morgan was being
>>>>insubordinate to him by not controlling Dr. Wood.
>>>>Morgan replied that he couldn't be acting insubordinate
>>>>because he wasn't a subordinate of Jim's. That's when
>>>>Morgan quit.
>>>>
>>>>Fetzer additionally demanded that Judy apologize to
>>>>Stephen Jones for "lying" when she said that aluminum
>>>>could glow. When she refused to apologize, Fetzer
>>>>threw her out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>All of this is straight from Dr. Wood. The weird thing
>>>>is that Fetzer went around calling himself "Judy's Biggest
>>>>Fan" for years after this, even though he put down her work.
>>>>Judy has not corresponded with Jim Fetzer since the evening
>>>>he had Judy and John Hutchison on his radio show.
>>>>
>>>>Jim would not ask the insightful questions that other
>>>>curious interviewers were asking John. Jim could only focus
>>>>on John's lack of a traditional education and career.
>>>>Uh, that's a put down. If you invite someone on your show
>>>>and barely ask any questions about their work, that's a put down.
>>>>
>>>>Now he's asking questions about the molten metal?
>>>>How about cleaning up some of the mess you've created,
>>>>you buffoon! Damn, you've wrecked a lot. You mucker upper!
>>>>

© 2019   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service