Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice:
Frequently Asked Questions

1. "Has Prof. Jones withdrawn from the Scholars from 9/11 Truth group?"

Professor Jones has withdrawn from Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and explains why below in an email he sent on Dec 7th, 2006.

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

This is to inform you that I (along with chemist Kevin Ryan and many others) have withdrawn from association with Jim Fetzer (JF) and "his" version of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and to provide reasons for this action.

1. On the Scholars web site he manages ( www.st911.org), Jim Fetzer casts aspersions on my research regarding the use of thermates at the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 -- which is fine as long as he provides serious technical objections, which he has not done. At the same time, JF is promoting on the web site notions that energy-beams from WTC 7 or from space knocked the Towers down. I have invited Jim repeatedly to view the video of my talk given 11/11/06 at the University of California at Berkeley which provides the latest physical evidences for thermate use, reinforcing the data in my published paper. He admitted this week that he has not done so. My UC-Berkeley talk is here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/4622

In fairness, I list Jim's talk in Tucson (Nov. 13) also, which you may wish to compare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBcM_dKiLJU .

Here you will find Jim's assertion that energy beams directed from WTC 7, or from space, may be the "fascinating" explanation for what caused the Twin Towers to collapse. He also here discusses "falling grand pianos." My sincere efforts to correct his evident errors/misinformation have been twisted and distorted until I want no more to do with such "tar-baby" discussions.

2. I support this statement made recently by Dr. Frank Legge, Kevin Ryan, Victoria Ashley, and other (previous) members of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth:

"Further, on the Scholars' web site, positions are being promoted which are disputed by the scientists specializing in physical sciences from Scholars For 9/11 Truth. Attempts to correct this situation have failed. As of this date the web site continues to promote assertions which many unsupported by the evidence (ray-beams from space caused the demolitions, mini-nukes were used in the WTC towers, real commercial jets did not hit the WTC towers, etc.). We feel that the promotion of these ideas functions to distract from and discredit much of the other basic strong material challenging the official story of 9/11 which already exists - the stand down, the war games, the insider trading, the many strong points of evidence on the demolitions, etc."

(This 'ad hoc' committee has sent out a letter you may have received; I have chosen their "option 1.")

3. On the Scholars' web site, Jim has posted an "Open Letter About Steven Jones" which contains the following: "He is now planning to take control of the web site from me." "...his attempt to take over the site is morally, legally, and intellectually objectionable on many grounds, including that it qualifies as taking something that does not belong to him." http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/OpenLetterToJones.html

Jim's accusation against me is simply untrue and he provided no evidence for his assertion. I replied: "What nonsense. As I have written to you privately, Jim, I have no interest at all "to take over the site." My work is research. Your accusation that I attempt "to take over the site" is not only unfounded, it is bizarre."

The uncivil accusations and diatribes remain on the Scholars' web site (actually managed solely by Jim Fetzer) to this day, contrary to the strong objections of many members of the society. You may read my full reply and pleading with Jim to be reasonable, here: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/JonesResponse.html. I have asked Jim to promptly remove any papers which I authored from this web site, but he has not done so.

Jim Fetzer may keep his web site and whoever wishes to adhere to "his" version of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Many of us thought this was going to be a collective effort where members could have a voice, not Jim's "sole proprietorship."

It is most unfortunate that others have been dragged into this situation, and I write out of concern for you to explain what has been going on. Of late, Jim F. refers often to his association now with Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds. These two are noted for their no-planes-hit-the-Towers theories and for promoting the notion of ray-beams from space knocking down the Towers. (I and others have written evidence-based rebuttals to these notions.) These two have written caustic ad hominems about me in particular, and it possible that Jim's association with them explains some of his recent behavior.

I hope Jim will view the video of my lecture at UC-Berkeley and then re-evaluate his stance.

4. During Thanksgiving weekend, Jim F unilaterally dismissed me as co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. I felt that this action was improper and unfair. Later he hinted that unspecified legal action might be taken against me and/or Alex Floum, a fine researcher. To me, this was the last straw which led to my ending association with Jim F and "his" society.

5. I join Kevin Ryan and many others in withdrawing from the group so that my name will not be attached to the personalized attacks and ray-beams-from-space stuff on www.st911.org. This I did by simply emailing to

joinst911@gmail.com and stating that "I am withdrawing from this society."

(This very email is set up such that if you simply hit "Reply to all" and state "I withdraw from this society", it will send the message to the membership administrator for the society run now by Jim Fetzer.)

6. Some months ago, I initiated and now co-edit with Kevin Ryan the Journal of 9/11 Studies which publishes peer-reviewed papers which adhere to the scientific method. I hope you will take a look at some of the fine papers therein: www.journalof911studies.com . I believe this is the proper way to proceed, with careful studies followed by peer-reviewed publication.

7. An ad hoc committee of scholars (from the old group) is forming a research society which will focus on use of the scientific method and peer-reviewed papers. Their website will be closely allied with the Journal of 9/11 Studies (which I co-edit) and will be managed by an elected committee, responsive to the group. Two sample websites are already available to give further information: http://schol.digitalstyledesigns.com/ and http://www.taulbee.us/stj911/ . This research group intends to keep in touch with its members and to use the scientific method along with civil and respectful discourse. (We won't spend much time on ray-beams from space knocking down the Towers!) If you wish to join this group, visit the Apply for Membership page.

2. "Some people are saying that the new group is deliberately sowing discord in the Scholars group -- is this true?"

No. As one of our committee members recently stated, "We're not a "cabal"; we represent the majority position!"

It is important to keep in mind that it was Jim Fetzer who PUBLICLY aired the group's dirty laundry worldwide on the homepage of the st911.org website, in radio interviews, etc. Our message was solely an INTERNAL communication to members of the group, in order to attempt to prevent further damage to the 9/11 movement from false PUBLIC statements.

3. "I got multiple emails about the situation which seemed to contradict each other. What's going on?"

When the public defamations on the existing scholars website began to spread to mainstream media, and when the threat of litigation appeared, the committee realized we needed to act quickly to get a vote started in order to make key decisions and know that the will of the membership was being honored. Consequently, some missteps were made in emails. Follow-up emails from key individuals were sent to correct misperceptions.

On Tues, Dec 5th, 2006, a first email was sent by the ad hoc committee to all Scholars members to call for a vote and very briefly explain the situation which had led to the decisions made. The email was not signed due to a secretarial error. However, a subsequent message confirmed the signatories to the original message. These are below.

Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 20:46:32 -0600
From: 911 Truth < scholars.911@gmail.com>
To: scholars.911@gmail.com
Subject: YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUESTED re SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH

Dear members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth:

Thank you for your commitment to the truth, and your willingness to participate in this journey for truth and justice relating to the events of 9/11.

A scholars group was founded on the initiative of Prof. Marcus Ford, who sent out a call via 911truth.org asking if there were other academics who questioned the official 911 story. About 30 responded and became the nucleus. In emails amongst the group, Prof. Jim Fetzer suggested a formal organization with himself and Prof. Steven Jones as co-chairs. The society was organized with two co-chairs, with no president or by-laws or treasury, and it was understood that the group would be a member-owned organization. Steven Jones, Alex Floum and Carl Weis formed a steering committee along with Jim Fetzer. Carl created the logos. Alex pushed the creation of a website, purchased the domain names for the website, and has at all times hosted the website. It was understood that this was done for the group, not for an individual. The original goals of the group were to use the scientific method to investigate the evidence and "let the chips fall where they may".

Since the group was formed, we have launched a website (ScholarsFor911Truth.org), created a peer-reviewed online journal (Journalof911Studies.com) and a private moderated discussion forum for the participation of all members. We have made inroads in the mainstream media and have helped to "move the ball down field" for 9/11 Truth.

Problems have now arisen with the management of the website, currently in the hands of Prof. Jim Fetzer. Many members have pointed out that some of the material displayed there is no longer in accord with our original aims, and personal attacks on members have appeared. Positions are being promoted which are disputed by the scientists specializing in physical sciences from Scholars For 9/11 Truth.

Attempts to correct this situation have failed. As of this date the web site continues to promote assertions which many of us consider to be both discrediting and unsupported by the evidence (ray-beams from space caused the demolitions, mini-nukes were used in the WTC towers, real commercial jets did not hit the WTC towers, etc.). We feel that the promotion of these ideas functions to distract from and discredit much of the other basic strong material challenging the official story of 9/11 which already exists - the stand down, the war games, the insider trading, the many strong points of evidence on the demolitions, etc.

While we would rather focus on 9/11 research and activism, and do not lightly bother the members with this matter, the "dirty laundry" and non-scientific theories raised by Jim Fetzer are now very public. For example, one of the largest papers in the Twin Cities has covered this -- blogs.citypages.com/blott...of_c_1.asp -- and a well-read blog says "scholars for 9/11 Truth [are] tearing one another new impact holes over speculation on space-based beam weaponry", see rigint.blogspot.com/. In addition, the website now prominently displays a letter titled "Scholars: On Its First Anniversary" which contains inaccurate statements and ad hominem attacks. All of the momentum and progress made by the Scholars is rapidly being destroyed by the current situation. Many of the members strenuously dispute the accuracy of Jim's statements as quoted in these articles, and can provide detailed refutations. These statements are damaging the credibility of the group and, we are concerned, the entire 9/11 truth movement.

Moreover, Jim is using the website as his personal blog, posting non-9/11 related political commentary from a liberal perspective. While there is nothing wrong with a liberal or conservative perspective, we believe the site should be non-partisan.

The current scholars website & group will shortly become two websites & groups. The hope is that both efforts will contribute to the goals of achieving an end to 9/11 cover-ups and wars, that members of both groups will conduct themselves with civility and common sense and have fidelity to the scientific method and its results.

Group Structure 1: This group is proposed to have an elected steering committee in charge of the website and its contents. Administrative positions will be limited to one year. Important decisions affecting the whole group will be submitted via email to the membership.

This proposal emerged from discussions on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth Forum as a means to return the web site to the guiding principles of applying the scientific method, performing experiments and analyses, and publishing results and findings with civility. While novel theories would be welcome, and openly discussed, only theories well supported by evidence would be promoted.

A new website is being created which will be attached to the peer-reviewed Journal of 9/11 Studies. (Click www.taulbee.us/stj911/ to see the beginnings of this new site, and www.journalof911studies.com/
to see the Journal contents, and its advisory board.)

This proposal is backed by all of the members of the ad hoc committee as well as an overwhelming majority of members participating in a straw poll on the group's forum.

Group Structure 2: Jim Fetzer has proposed an alternative structure for the existing website ( scholarsfor911truth.org). In this proposal he would appoint a board which would have control of the website and could appoint members and webmaster by 2/3rds majority. The board would not be bound by the guiding principles set out above but would be free to establish its own. (Members Kevin Ryan, Steven Jones and others have declined to be part of Jim Fetzer?s proposed re-organization.)

We ask you to select which group structure you would prefer to be registered with. You may also opt for both group structures, or neither.

Whichever group structure receives the majority of member votes [by Dec 6 at 5 pm eastern] may become entitled, but will not be required, to use the name, domain, logo, and all the links which have been attached. Negotiation on this area is proceeding (and Jim Fetzer may be accorded use of the " st911.org" site address as a matter of courtesy even if the majority chooses Group 1.)

Membership is closed during the voting period.

sum up, the two choices before you are:

Group Structure 1, with a new website associated with the Journal of 9/11 Studies, run by an elected committee, and stressing theories for which there is strong empirical evidence, OR

Group Structure 2, with the website run by Jim Fetzer, and a board that he appoints. vote simply "reply" to this email

( scholars.911@gmail.com )

You may elect to register with "1" or "2" by simply typing the number in the subject line of your reply.

If you wish, you may elect to remove your name from the membership listing entirely at this time by typing "Remove" in the subject line. You may also elect to remain on both websites by typing "Both" in the subject line. Any vote in which the meaning is clear will be accepted no matter how expressed.

Members who do not reply by 5:00 p.m. U.S. Eastern Standard Time on December 7, 2006 will be placed in a pending category on both sites for further consultation.

If there are queries regarding this proposal contact the membership administrator at st911@gmail.org .

Please expect to see an email from Prof. Fetzer shortly outlining the advantages of remaining with his website.

Then, on Wed. Dec 6th, at the urging of Jim Fetzer, Membership Administrator David Doering sent an email with the subject line, "Response to 'Your Immediate Attention' E-mail," asking members to ignore the previous email. An unfortunate and unintentional mistake caused some members' emails to be displayed.
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 00:15:06 -0700
From: Membership Administrator < joinst911@gmail.com>
To: (withheld)
Subject: Response to "Your Immediate Attention" E-mail

Members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth":

You may have recently received an e-mail with the subject line that reads:

*"YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUESTED re SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH"*

This is *not* an official communication from the society nor are the e-mail addresses within it those used by the society. We apologize if this e-mail generates confusion.

We do welcome new groups to help in the work of uncovering the truth about the tragedy of September 11th. We also welcome member input and discussion of ways to improve the Scholars' organization.

However, we believe that such efforts should be clear and open. Specifically, the anonymity of the authors does not allow us to determine what persons or group it represents or whose interests it may serve.

Again, please know that this e-mail does not reflect positions or opinions held by the society.

Yours truly,

Dave Doering
Membership Administrator
Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Finally, on Thursday Dec. 7th, a clarifying email with signatures was sent to the membership listed on Dave Doering's list -

Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 14:50:41 +0800
From: Frank Legge
To: Undisclosed Recipients
Subject: Clarification of voting email

Members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth,

You recently received an email informing you of the reasons why a change in the mode of operation had become necessary and that a new group in addition to the existing group was planned. You were also invited to state which of the two groups you would prefer to be registered with. Alternatively you could be registered with both or neither.

This proposal was generated by an ad hoc committee attempting to advance the goals of the society and minimize friction between members with differing views.

It now appears that someone has directed Dave Doering to send an email stating that the above proposal was not authorized. The fact is that there is no officer in the society authorized to give such a direction. The authority of the society temporarily rests with the ad hoc committee which drew up the proposal and sent out the first email. The signatures of some of them are appended below.

It is the intention of this ad hoc committee to await the results of the ballot and, if it turns out that there is substantial support for the new group and website, to carry out an election to formally establish a management committee as set out in the original email. This group would develop a new web site, and the original web site would continue to be managed by Jim Fetzer. He has indicated an intention to appoint a board for its management but that is no concern of the ad hoc committee nor of any subsequent elected committee.

Note that the closing time for the ballot has been extended to 5:00 pm US Eastern Standard Time, Dec 9.

signed: Frank Legge, Nicholas Newton, Shaun Taulbee, Victoria Ashley

4. "What is the name of the new group? Where is the website?"

The current name of the new group is the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice," and its website is currently here:

http://stj911.org

5. "Who is in charge now, and how does the group operate?"

An elected steering committee will be in charge of the website and its contents. Currently an ad hoc committee is in place. Administrative positions will be limited to one year. Important decisions affecting the whole group will be submitted via email to the membership

6. "How do I join? How can I best contribute to this group's efforts?"

We will soon be creating a special page on our website for ideas about best ways for members to contribute.

If you are a researcher you can submit a professional research paper to the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Additionally, the private group forum is an excellent place to discuss research and other topics. If you wish to join the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice group, please write to stj911.info@yahoo.com.

7. "What were the final results of the Scholars Group Election?"

Vote totals as of December 2006 were:

Total polled: 386
Total votes: 226 / 59%
No response: 160 / 41%

Group 1: 168 / 74%
Group 2: 10 / 4%
Both: 33 / 15%
Remove: 15 / 7%

Group 1 membership: 201 / 89%
Group 2 membership: 43 / 19%

8. "How do other members feel about all this?"

An example is provided by the following open letter from Scholars Member John C. Ekonomou:

December 15, 2006

Dr. Jones,

I am currently an attorney at law practicing in the Chicago, Illinois area and an Associate Member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. I believe that I am fairly representative of the membership of the group: I don't believe the government story, and I want answers.

I just want to tell you that I applaud your decision to resign from Scholars. I say this with the utmost respect for Dr. Fetzer, with whom I have communicated from time to time by e-mail, and all of the other members and researchers who have devoted many more hours and much more effort than I have to uncovering the truth in this tragedy.

I am really disappointed by all the bickering that has dominated my e-mail box in the past weeks. I do support your hypotheses, and the controlled demolition theories, but I am always open to any fresh approach. This being said, as a member (so far), I have long been troubled by the inclusion in the Scholars website of matters which have nothing to do with 9/11; not because I am not eagerly interested in such matters, because I am, but because matters which have nothing to do directly with 9/11 should not, in my opinion, be on the website. I complained to Dr. Fetzer early on about this, but never received a response, which told me that he completely discarded my view.

I believe that the "no planes" theories and the laser beam theories of Dr. Wood and Mr. Reynolds, after review, and with all due respect to many of their 9/11 views, which I agree with, are just plain hogwash. But more importantly, notwithstanding any possible validity to some of the fact-finding aspects of their joint paper (see "The Star Wars Beams Weapons by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds), it doesn't take a genius to realize that these theories, both the no-planes theory and the Star Wars hypothesis, without actual, hard evidence to prove them, will NEVER take hold with the public, who heard and witnessed explosions, and who saw planes hit the towers. These views will eventually ruin the movement, and will solidify the views of the public that 9/11 truth activists are crazy.

The success of the 9/11 Truth Movement has been its simplicity; it has allowed persons who did not previously want to cross the threshold of a possibility of government complicity to do so, through effective COMMUNICATION of plausible theories in a manner which people could understand. The promotion of these way-out theories front and center in the 9/11 truth movement will destroy the acceptance of 9/11 truth with this generation, the most important generation which witnessed the events.

I do not want to make accusations without proof, but since those persons who promote these means should be able to see their ends, and the harm that their efforts will cause, it is not an irrational conclusion that somehow they are being used by, or have gone to, the other side. It is very important for the powers that committed these crimes to derail the 9/11 Truth movement. The Wood/Reynolds theories will do just that. It just boggles my mind that accomplished persons such as the supporters of these theories cannot see what will happen.

Communication to the public is the key to success, and this approach cannot be polluted with ideas which will cause the public to reject the main focus that the U.S. government had a hand in the murders of 9/11. And this disunity in the Scholars for 9/11 Truth is having the effect, unfortunately, of causing schism in the group, again furthering the murderer's goal of discrediting 9/11 truth.

I am all for freedom of expression, and seeking the truth through research. But the approach of Woods/Reynolds will discredit the 9/11 truth movement to the public, now that some momentum has been achieved, by promoting theories which can be easily twisted by our opponents, the murderers, into a derailment and ridicule of the movement's successful presentation to date of all of the other facts and events surrounding 9/11; in effect, the public will throw out the baby with the bathwater. It is argued that these theories represent seeking the truth through research. But they will have the same effect with the general public as claiming that Superman melted the beams in the Twin Towers with his X-ray vision.

I have, because of the crossfire between members of this group, been frozen into inaction until the smoke clears. Please keep me informed as to future developments. I will keep my membership in the group for now, but I will be making a decision about it in the near future, with the hope that I can get more involved with a vehicle that accomplishes the goals of the 9/11 truth movement.

You may send this letter out to the general membership.



Very truly yours,

John C. Ekonomou, Attorney at Law

Associate Member - Scholars for 9/11 Truth