9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

Wikipedia as a 9/11 Disinformation Op

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6078.shtml

Commentary
Wikipedia as a 9/11 disinformation op
By Jim Fetzer
Online Journal Contributing Writer

Jul 6, 2010, 00:22

MADISON, Wisconsin -- When I founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a loose
affiliation of experts and scholars with diverse backgrounds,
including faculty in the humanities, the natural sciences, the social
sciences, engineers, pilots, and citizens concerned to learn the truth
about 9/11 in December 2005, I invited Steve Jones, a professor of
physics at BYU, to be my co-chair. The society took off like a rocket
and soon had more than 300 members divided in four categories, full
members, associate members, student members, and society associates.

Some were rather prominent, including:

Morgan Reynolds, Texas A & M Professor Emeritus of Economics, the
former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor for President
George W. Bush, and former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at
the National Center for Policy Analysis;

Wayne Madsen, former officer in the US Navy, consultant to the
National Security Agency, senior fellow of the Electronic Privacy
Information Center, and today a noted investigative journalist and
editor of Wayne Madsen Reports;

Robert M. Bowman, former Director of the U.S. ?Star Wars? Space
Defense Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, a
former Air Force Lt. Colonel with 101 combat missions and former
Florida congressional candidate;

Lloyd DeMause, distinguished scholar and Director of The Institute for
Psychohistory, President of the International Psycho-historical
Association and Editor of The Journal of Psychohistory, who would soon
withdraw;

Andreas Von Buelow, former assistant German defense minister, director
of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology,
and member of Parliament for 25 years; and,

Webster Tarpley, a Princeton graduate and Fulbright Scholar, who is
the co-author (with Anton Chaltkin) of George Bush: The Unauthorized
Biography, and of 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in the USA.

It was a great success from the beginning, probably in part because
one co-chairman represented the natural sciences and the other the
humanities, in which I had already published 20 books in the
philosophy of science and on the foundations of computer science, AI
and cognitive science, as well as editing three books on the
assassination of JFK and co-authoring another on the plane crash that
killed Sen. Paul Wellstone. By the end of June 2006, articles about
9/11 had grown in number from a flat line to the point where
mainstream journalists were attempting to trivialize the movement.

Perhaps the highlight of that year for the Society was an event that
was sponsored by Alex Jones in Los Angeles, ?The American Scholars
Conference,? which took place from 24-25 June 2006 at the Sheraton
Downtown. On my way in to the hotel, I was called by a producer for
?Hannity & Colmes,? who told me they wanted to feature me as a guest
to learn what Scholars had discovered about 9/11. It would turn out
that that was not the case, where they really wanted to use me as a
prop for an attack on courses in colleges that dealt with 9/11. What
they didn?t understand was that, while I often talked about 9/11 in my
courses, I had no course on 9/11, which enabled me to take control of
the program, much to the dismay of Ollie North, sitting in for Sean.

The conference drew more than 1,200 from around the world and was
regarded as a great success. Perhaps the most important event that
occurred there -- from both the point of view of Scholars but also for
the public -- was a five-person panel discussion held on Sunday, where
4 members of Scholars -- Steve Jones, Bob Bowman, Webster Tarpley, and
I -- spoke while Alex Jones moderated. It was during this panel that I
presented my ?Top 10 Reasons the Hijackers are Fake.? But what made a
difference is that C-Span was there to record the panel discussion,
which it would broadcast at least seven times subsequently at decent
times, which appears to have broken the glass-ceiling -- an implicit
state of discourse -- that had previously inhibited the public from
discussion of 9/11. It was therefore, in my opinion, a significant
cultural event.

?Hannity & Colmes? would feature me again as well as Bill O?Reilly on
?The Factor,? while I was making many radio appearances, which are
archived under ?Past Events? on the Scholars web site. But my concerns
about Steve?s fixation on thermite as the key to understanding the
?collapse? of the Twin Towers was growing, especially as I became more
and more familiar with the work of Dr. Judy Wood, a former professor
of mechanical engineering at Clemson. Judy has a background in applied
physics, in structural engineering, and in materials engineering
science, which are precisely the academic disciplines that are most
relevant to understanding what happened to the World Trade Center on
9/11. When I interviewed her on my radio program during a visit to
Tucson on 11 November 2006 and expressed keen interest in her
approach, I experienced immediate feedback that was negative. No one
seemed happy about it.

Most of Steve?s fans, alas, do not understand that the adequacy of any
theory about the destruction of the WTC can only demonstrate its
superiority in comparison with alternative theories. Steve himself has
fostered the impression that it is possible to evaluate a single
theory independent of its alternatives, which is not the method of
science. Science proceeds in four stages, from PUZZLEMENT to
SPECULATION on to ADAPTATION (of hypotheses to evidence) and then,
when the evidence has ?settled down? and points in the same direction,
to EXPLANATION. In order to insure that the true theory is not
excluded from scratch, it is indispensable to the success of science
that every alternative explanation be considered -- from thermite with
conventional explosives to mini-nukes to lasers, masers, and
plasmoids. As I have also explained, I am not committed to which is
the right explanation but to the need for their study.

December was a fateful month for Scholars. Most students of 9/11 are
unaware that a faction favoring Jones appropriated the membership list
and conduct a fake poll, which they insisted showed that most of the
members disapproved of the manner which I had been running the
society. I believe this was largely motivated by my removing Steve
from supervising the forum after an odd incident in which a post being
submitted by Rick Siegel was deleted, when Steve would not tell me who
had deleted it. They subsequently froze the web site and forced me to
create a new one at 911scholars.org, even though I had been the only
person to post any articles on st911.0rg from its conception. The
history of these events has been archived on the new site. At the same
time this faction was busy demonizing me, I flew to Athens to appear
on a 3 ½ hour television program about 9/11, which was being hosted by
the leading investigative journalist in Greece, and being broadcast
worldwide by satellite.

When I turned to the Wiki article on ?9/11 Truth Movement,? therefore,
I suppose I should not have been surprised that it read as though it
were frozen in time since late 2006/early 2007. It stated that I was
?advocating? theories about the use of directed energy weapons or
small nuclear devices ?that were insufficiently supported by evidence
and were exposing the group to ridicule.? Except, of course, I was not
?advocating? those theories, but only advocating their study! In fact,
insofar as they represent distinct explanations of how it might have
been done, it would have been inconsistent on its face for anyone to
have been advocating them both, much less a professional philosopher
who had spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and
scientific reasoning in college and university courses. I was also
astonished to learn that I had been banished from the 9/11 movement
for my alleged offenses, to wit:
________

Scholars for 9/11 Truth (CURRENT)

The original Scholars for 9/11 Truth, founded by James H. Fetzer and
Steven Jones on December 15, 2005, was a group of individuals of
varying backgrounds and expertise who rejected the mainstream media
and government account of the September 11 attacks.[3][94]

Initially the group invited many ideas and hypotheses to be
considered, however, leading members soon came to feel that the
inclusion of some theories advocated by Fetzer -- such as the use of
directed energy weapons or small nuclear bombs to destroy the Twin
Towers -- were insufficiently supported by evidence and were exposing
the group to ridicule. By December 2006, Jones and several others set
up a new scholars group titled Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice,
whose focus was in the use of the scientific method in analysis.[95]
The original members took a vote on which group to join and the
majority voted to move to the new group.[96] By 2007, James Fetzer had
been openly rejected by the 9/11 Truth Movement, banned from and
criticized on popular forums[97][98][99][100] and no longer invited to
public 9/11 events.
________

All in all, this was both historically inaccurate and seriously
misleading. I had not only been flown to Athens to appear on an
historic television broadcast in 2006 but I had organized the first
conference sponsored by Scholars in Madison in 2007, edited its first
book and produced its first DVD. In 2008, I would be flown to Buenos
Aires to present three lectures on 9/11 and one on JFK, which received
quite considerable coverage in the press, including two articles in
TELAM, the official press service of the Republic of Argentina. In
2009, I was flown back to Buenos Aires for a major event on 9/11 held
at The National Library, with more than 200 in attendance and six or
seven television cameras. And in 2010, I have organized a symposium
being held at Friends House in London with Kevin Barrett and Gilad
Atzmon, where Ken O?Keefe, hero of the Israeli assault on the Miva
Marmara, is Master of Ceremonies.

The claim I was no longer being invited to domestic 9/11 events was
equally false. I had not only presented a lecture on the moral,
religious, and political dimensions of 9/11 in Chicago in 2006, but
debated Mark Roberts on ?Hardfire,? a cable television program, in
April 2007, a program that has often been rebroadcast; presented a
lecture on how the media manipulates 9/11 at Cooper Union in New York
in 2007 and another on 9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda during a Ron Paul
?Freedom Rally? before the Capitol in Washington, D.C. on 15 April
2008. In 2009, I was invited to Portland by the 9/11 group there (to
present talks on 9/11 and JFK) -- and to Seattle by the 9/11 group
there, where they are archived on my blog. This is not to mention
talks at the University of Wisconsin Madison and UW Milwaukee and a
host of other presentation -- TV, radio, lectures -- which are listed
under ?Past Events? on Scholars.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice has many accomplishments, but why
should I be the whipping boy? So I tried to make the section on
Scholars for 9/11 Truth truthful:
________

Scholars for 9/11 Truth (PROPOSED)

The original Scholars for 9/11 Truth, founded by James H. Fetzer and
Steven Jones on December 15, 2005, was a group of individuals of
varying backgrounds and expertise who rejected the mainstream media
and government account of the September 11 attacks.[3][94] Fetzer, a
philosopher of science of considerable academic distinction,[95]
encouraged the study of a broad range of alternative theories, which
eventually led to conflicts with Jones, who was propunding the use of
an incendiary called ?thermite? as holding the key to understanding
the ?collapse? of the Twin Towers, which Fetzer found unconvincing as
a complete explanation of the towers conversion into millions of cubic
yards of very fine dust.[96]

As a philosopher, Fetzer took a ?big tent? approach and encouraged the
study of alternative explanations, such as mini-nukes, lasers, masers,
and plasmoids. Those close to Jones regarded some of the theories
whose study was advocated by Fetzer -- such as the use of directed
energy weapons or small nuclear bombs to destroy the Twin Towers -- as
insufficiently supported by evidence and exposing the group to
ridicule. In December 2006, Jones and Fetzer separated in the midst of
considerable tension.[97] The new (Jones) group calls itself Scholars
for 9/11 Truth and Justice. Both groups focus on the use of the
scientific method, but there are differences in emphasis.[98][99]
Fetzer has continued to advocate the study of a broad range of
alternative theories, especially in the new Scholars forum.[100]

In spite of the controversy, Fetzer has continued his efforts[101] and
organized the first Scholars conference, ?The Science and Politics of
9/11,? in Madison in 2007 and published the first book from Scholars
and its first DVD. [102] [103] He was invited to Buenos Aires for
lectures on 9/11 and JFK in 2008.[104][105] In 2009, he was flown back
to Buenos Aires and presented the principal lecture during ?The
International Conference for 9/11 Truth and Justice? held at The
National Library on September 11th.[106] While Fetzer remains
controversial for his willingness to consider hypotheses and theories
about the destruction of the World Trade Center and the possibility of
video fakery on 9/11,[107][108][109][110][111] he has replied to his
critics on various occasions[112][113] and continues to make
presentations, including a symposium in London on the ?war on terror,?
where he will be addressing whether wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are
justified by 9/11.[114]
________

My revision was deleted within minutes, which telegraphed that Wiki
was not going to allow me to fix the record. I waited a day and tried
again, where my attempts to correct factual inaccuracies and
historical blunders were rejected again and thereby confirmed it.
Because the editors have my revisions, moreover, which are thoroughly
supported, they know that what they have about Scholars on this page
is inaccurate and misleading. No doubt, many members of the 9/11 Truth
Movement regard me as controversial, but most of them do not know my
views. Some of the attacks on me have been reprehensible and I have
publicly responded to them more than once.

But my complaint is not with those in the movement who are trying to
subvert the search for truth but the role of Wiki in these activities.
No one who has read what I have explained here or has checked the
citations I have provided can seriously doubt that the Wiki discussion
about Scholars for 9/11 Truth is historically inaccurate and seriously
misleading. The only reason for keeping such rubbish on its pages
would appear to be to trash one of the few in the movement who
understands the nature of scientific inquiry and why it is essential
to finding the truth about the events of 9/11.

Reading further through the Wiki entry, I discovered another
caricature of my views:
________

Internal critique (CURRENT)

While there is general agreement within the movement that individuals
within the United States government (but not necessarily the
government as a whole) are responsible for the attacks, alternative
theories differ about what may have happened.[3] There have been a
number of articles and responses written by members critiquing the
methods and theories of other members, often in a scholarly format, as
in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.[119][citation needed]

While Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice states that they advocate
the use of the scientific method and civil research activities over
public debate,[120] Jim Fetzer?s group, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, has
said that the scientific method is unnecessary and that any imaginable
theory is worthy of advocating to the public. For example, reporting
on a conference involving Fetzer?s group, a Madison Times article
stated: ?By Sunday the conference had covered weather control, weapons
from space, and the idea that the planes that struck the towers never
existed at all.?[121]
________

No one with any understanding of the nature of science, much less a
professional philosopher of science whose 29th book, The Place of
Probability in Science (2010), has just appeared, would adopt such a
stance. There seems to be confusion in the minds of some of my critics
between the stages of Speculation and of Explanation in the evaluation
of alternative theories. It is indispensable that, when confronted
with a puzzling phenomenon that does not fit within our background
assumptions, all of the alternative possibilities be elaborated for
consideration and evaluation. Taken as stated here, the position
attributed to me is simply absurd, since it would commit me to every
available explanation -- thermite & conventional explosives and
mini-nukes and lasers and masers and plasmoids! The disinfo agents
thus appear to have gone a bridge too far in their efforts to
discredit me. So I have also proposed this revision:
________

Internal critique (PROPOSED)

While there is general agreement within the movement that individuals
within the United States government (but not necessarily the
government as a whole) are responsible for the attacks, alternative
theories differ about what may have happened.[3] There have been a
number of articles and responses written by members critiquing the
methods and theories of other members, often in a scholarly format, as
in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.[124][citation needed]

Scholars for 9/11 Truth no less than Scholars for 9/11 Truth and
Justice advocates the use scientific method as fundamental to research
on 9/11.[125] As a profession philosopher of science with substantial
publications,[126] Fetzer has emphasized that science can only proceed
by considering a full range of alternative hypotheses.[127] No theory
can be established without demonstrating that its explanatory power is
greater than that of its alternatives.[128]

During the first Scholars conference, ?The Science and Politics of
9/11,? held in Madison in 2007, a wide range of alternative hypotheses
were discussed. [129] A Madison Times article, whose author did not
appear to have a scientific background, caught something of the flavor
of the debate when it reported, ?By Sunday the conference had covered
weather control, weapons from space, and the idea that the planes that
struck the towers never existed at all.?[130]
________

Now I freely admit that the only advantages of my revisions of the
Wiki article on ?9/11 Truth Movement? is that they are true and more
accurate and complete than those they would replace, if they had been
allowed to stand. That, of course, was in doubt, since I have
experienced many difficulties in the past simply in maintaining my own
entry in Wiki, where, because I have introduced corrections to
mistakes in earlier versions of my own entry, it has been cited for a
?lack of objectivity? and a possible violation of Wiki?s standards of
neutrality in spite of copious documentation. Indeed, within two hours
of posting these revisions, the page was reverted to the earlier
version. Since Wiki?s editors have my revisions and the documentation
that supports them, they know the information about Scholars and me is
seriously and irredeemably flawed. I naively thought misleading the
public was not Wiki?s goal.

Perhaps some may suppose that, even though I have many accomplishments
to my name as my vita displays, perhaps I am not very good at dealing
with conspiracies. I would recommend testing that opinion by reviewing
my work (with Jim Marrs) on the photo fakery used to frame Oswald, the
assassinations of JFK and RFK, and the distinction between
conspiracies and conspiracism. Or go to OpEdNews and enter my name.
Pick a subject you know well and compare what I have had to say about
it. The Wiki strategy is simple. By smearing some of the best
qualified analytic minds in the movement, 9/11 Truth will become
befuddled and factionalized. After all, the only way to resolve
complex controversies is to confront them and sort them out. But if
you can marginalize those who have the background and ability to carry
out that challenging task, the vast majority of ?truthers? will never
know the difference. Indeed, attacking me because I am dealing with
controversial aspects of 9/11 is a bit unreal. Most Americans already
think challenging the official account is controversial!

So where do we stand? Wiki pretends to objectivity that it does not
respect. Even by its own standard of verifiability, my revisions
satisfy that criterion, while what it publishes does not. It has no
citation for its fantastic allegation, ?Jim Fetzer?s group, Scholars
for 9/11 Truth, has said that the scientific method is unnecessary and
that any imaginable theory is worthy of advocating to the public,? for
the simple reason that it is not true. The very idea that a
professional philosopher of science would take such a stand is absurd.
So Wiki must be aware that it is making assertions that it knows to be
false with the intention of misleading its readers. And since that is
the case, as has been demonstrated here, Wiki is functioning as a
disinfo op in relation to 9/11. Surely a publication that bills itself
as ?an encyclopedia? should do its best to insure the accuracy and
completeness of its entries. Based upon my experience, there appears
to be a political agenda that overrides those concerns.

James H. Fetzer is also the editor of assassinationscience.com and the
co-editor of assassinationresearch.com. He has a blog at
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com.

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor

Views: 35

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 July 6, 2010 at 5:17pm
Here's the deluxe version with assorted lecture and interview videos:
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/07/wikipedia-as-911-disinforma...

© 2018   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service