Monday, January 30, 2006

Press Release: Scholars for 9/11 Truth question official 911 story

Scholars Repudiate Official Version of 9/11 in Press Release

The press release is contained below but isn't it amazing that this press release HAS NOT been reported in ANY major media venue. Of course, that leaves the reporting up to blogs and online news websites such as:

If you do a search on either of Google News or Yahoo News, the search results are pitifully small indicating the apparent paucity of reporting about a topic this important, if not controversial.

One of the group, Brigham Young University Professor Steven Jones, (Wikipedia entry) was interviewed by Tucker Carlson on 'Situation' on MSNBC Nov 15, 2005. This was covered on this blog previously. That interview with Professor Steven Jones seemed to be an unwisely undertaken effort by Tucker to perhaps undermine the hapless Professor Jones. However, while Jones would make a very poor talking head on MSNBC, he came across as a serious, if nerdish, professional who knew what he was talking about. To MSNBC's credit, they have not yet removed the transcript of the interview from their website. The pressure from the White House and Republican party must be intense.

MSNBC Professor Steven Jones Tucker Carlson Interview Transcript: Questioning what happened on 9/11: Professor believes planes didn't cause all the damage around the WTC.


Scholars claim government's account violates laws of physics and engineering.

PRWEB via PR Web Direct) January 27, 2006 -- An influential group of prominent experts and scholars have joined together alleging that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11. The members of this new non-partisan association, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), are convinced their research proves the current administration has been dishonest with the nation about events in New York and Washington, D.C.

These experts contend that books and articles by members and associates have established that the World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the official story about the attack on the Pentagon. They believe that the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda.

The society includes U.S. and international faculty and students of history, science, military affairs, psychology, and even philosophy. According to its spokesmen, S9/11T represents a concerted effort to uphold the standards of truth and justice and to strengthen democracy in this nation, which has taken a terrible hit in the aftermath of 9/11, when "everything changed." Its function is to bring scientific rigor to the study of 9/11 phenomena.

The members of this group are dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind 9/11, "letting the chips fall where they may." The evidence has become sufficiently strong that they are speaking out. They are actively devoting themselves to reporting the results of their research to the public by means of lectures, articles, and other venues.

The society includes numerous notable professors and scholars, including:

• Morgan Reynolds, Texas A & M Professor Emeritus of Economics, 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

• Steven E. Jones, Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, co-chair of S9/11T and the creator of its home page and its forum

• Robert M. Bowman, former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, a former senior Air Force Colonel with 101 combat missions, who is also a Catholic Archbishop

• Lloyd DeMause, Director of The Institute for Psychohistory, President of the International Psychohistorical Association and Editor of The Journal of Psychohistory

• James H. Fetzer, Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, author or editor of more than 20 books and co-chair of S9/11T

• 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

The society, founded by Professors Fetzer and Jones, who serve as its co-chairs, is approaching 50 members to date. Fetzer, a philosopher of science, observed that the government's "official account" is not even physically possible, because it violates laws of nature. "What we have been told is fine," he said, "if you are willing to believe impossible things. Serious scholars don't believe in tooth fairies."

Beyond encouraging its members to vigorously express their concerns on this score through lectures, conferences, symposia, articles, and books as well as other access routes that publicize their findings, the society's initial activities, which are expected to increase in frequency and intensity, include the following projects and endeavors:

• Professor Jones is refining his influential analysis of the physics of the collapse of buildings at the World Trade Center.

• Professor Fetzer is editing a collection of new studies about 9/11 that will include contributions from the members of S9/11T.

• A major conference is being planned for this fall to further inform the American public about the group's most recent findings

Studies by the society's founders and by prominent theologian David Ray Griffin, who has taken a leading role in exposing false claims about 9/11, are accessible from the association's home page, Information for those who may want to join S9/11T can also be found there.

Their website is


At 7:46 AM, Anonymous S. King said...

One should take these claims by so-called "scholars" with a healthy dose of skepticism and critical thinking.

It stands to reason that amongst their group would be structural engineers and forensic scientists, those with qualifications to comment on this unique event, yet none are to be found. Would none join this group?

References to 9/11 conspiracy websites and a lot of debunked "theories" doesn't enhance this group's credibility. Neither do the inclusion of fringe 9/11 conspiracists, some of whom are barely coherent and who have been repeatedly unable to defend their "theories" for years. Muhammad Columbo and Peter Meyer are prime examples.

Many believe these "scholars" are experts and have unquestioned credibility. A careful reading of their intent reveals a pre-determined political conclusion: that the governement was responsible and the "offical story" violates the laws of physics.

To follow the scientific method, these "scholars" have the obligation to demonstrate that what happened on 9/11 could not happen in any other way than they claim. Without refererence to structural engineering, physics, or forensic science, one has to question this group's intent and sincerity - particularly from Prof. Jones whose discipline of Physics requires that he demonstrate conclusively that the WTC towers could ONLY have come down by controlled demonstrations.

Let's not forget that Prof. Jones also received one of the severest forms of criticism a professor can receive: the distancing from his unscientific procedures and paper by his own university, BYU, and his own department.

Should we pay attention to a group that has so far shown no interest in introducing counter-arguemnts to their conclusions?

Jones et al will have to deal with others who demonstrate that the towers certainly could have fallen without the need to introduce pre-planted explosives, for instance, here:

Through an e-mail exchange with the group's partner and contact, Prof. James Fetzer, I have asked Prof. Jones to address that paper?

Will he or can he? Time will tell. In the meantime, I remain highly skeptical of this group's real motives and ability to be objective.

S. King

At 4:46 PM, Blogger blogbart said...

A careful reading of their intent reveals a pre-determined political conclusion: that the governement was responsible and the "offical story" violates the laws of physics.

People refuting the "official story" have limited resources and capabilities; they are not NIST nor are they judicial or legislative bodies with powers of subpoena. Also, as you correctly point out, these people do not have the complete suite of skills and experiences to undertake a full examination.

However, it must be acknowledged that at a minimum, Prof. Jones and co. have not insignificant applicable competence; they are not groceries clerks talking about nuclear physics. One must also acknowledge that essentially, they are asking for judicial or legislative bodies, and government agencies to apply the proper level of competence to address the questions they raise.

Finally, I believe their "pre-determined political conclusion" is an artifact that arises from the nature of their act. Namely, these people have found that, in their judgement, the "official story" is not satisfactory, and another overlooked albeit unusual but plausible explanation exists. Upon making this realization, the presumption of official complicity naturally follows, because it is clear that this unusual yet plausible explanation was purposefully avoided by offial investigation.

Don't forget, that however unlikely, explosives could have been planted in WTC by terrorists, or by non-official yet influential persons for unknown benefit. What if, for example, the CIA or FBI offices in the WTC had explosives to destroy safes and documentation existed in case of emergency? What if, for another example, a tenant of WTC saw benefit arising from blowing up their offices? That avenue should have been investigated given the evidence.

Let's not forget that Prof. Jones also received one of the severest forms of criticism a professor can receive: the distancing from his unscientific procedures and paper by his own university, BYU, and his own department.

That is not very surprising at all. This is not your standard peer review type of issue, it is politics and accusations of crimes most heinous. Frankly, though, and we shall see if this comes to pass, if BYU finds zero merit in Prof. Jones claims, I imagine that they would terminate their relationship with him.

Should we pay attention to a group that has so far shown no interest in introducing counter-arguemnts to their conclusions?

I think the answer to this is clearly Yes 1st because I believe they make a plausible case for further investigation. 2nd, you and I have the critical faculties to weigh the claims made by this group, and those made by others who make countervailing arguments. Also, again, this group has limited resources and capabilities. To expect them to argue two sides seems unreasonable, though if they are overwhelmingly wrong, then they should be expected to capitulate.

As for their motive and objective, I for one, would welcome information that they are being supported by some entity with deep pockets and contrarian motives.


Post a Comment

<< Home