Did fallacious Fetzer fabricates a farce?

[Len Colby]

In June 2006 in its first edition the Journal of 9/11 Studies included a bizarre paper claiming that “a large, commercial-class aircraft” was seen flying close to the WTC sometime between the first and 2nd crash. The paper was quickly debunked by “debunkers”* and eventually even by “truthers” (see below). While the paper was being discredited, Jim Fetzer the head of “ST911” the journal’s parent organization claimed the author and his family had been threatened. His name was removed and the following footnote added:

“Scholars for 9/11 Truth has been appalled to learn that the author of this study has received threats against himself and his family for having written this article. The source of these threats has suggested that he drop out of our organization and that this study should “go away”. He has withdrawn from S9/11T, but this piece of research cannot “go away”. It has already been widely read and no doubt copied. Under the circumstances, it would be a huge mistake to allow this organization and its journal to be manipulated by external threats. Since the author has nothing to do with our decision to keep it in place, responsibility shifts to the organization. We hope others will pursue its leads.”

http://www.journalof911studies.com/article...urnal_4_Jet.pdf

Fetzer then issued a press release:

Scholars for 9/11 Truth Threatened

The author of an article about the attack on the World Trade Center has found himself under attack for having published it in a new on-line publication, Journal of 9/11 Studies.

Entitled "The Flying Elephant", the article discusses evidence that a third airplane was captured on video at the time of the WTC attack. He has now received a thinly-veiled threat against his children, who are cited by name, suggesting it would be a good idea if his article were to simply "go away".

Scholars for 9/11 Truth is a non-partisan society of experts and scholars committed to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about the events of 9/11. The journal, which is archived at journalof911studies.com, is its latest attempt to create forums for discussion and debate about these important issues beyond its web site, which is archived at st911.org.

The author, Reynolds Dixon, a writer and Professor of English, former lecturer and Fellow at Stanford University, has withdrawn from the society.

[…]

http://web.archive.org/web/20070223015618/...e_2Jul2006.html

One of the odd things was that although the author’s name was removed from the paper it was mentioned in the press release. The supposed threat(s) were mentioned on this forum but struck me as suspicious. In another thread I wrote:

The paper was such a POS the most likely explanations are, the threats were made: (in order of likelihood )

1) by a nut/prankster

2) up by Dixson either as a publicity stunt or as an excuse to distance himself from an embarrassingly bad paper

3) by a “truther” either as a publicity stunt or to get rid of an embarrassingly bad paper that they feared would help discredit “the movement”. Jim Hoffman a leading “inside job theorist said he has gotten far more harassment from fellow “truthers” than supporters of the official theory.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=7933&st=15

Now it seems clear that what I thought the least likely (of the likely) explanations was the case. I had no idea at the time who the hoaxer was. This is what Mr. Dixon (yes I misspelled his name above) had to say in a letter he sent to the journal April 9, 2007:

After the Circus

The “Flying Elephant” was not a creature of “malicious intent” but rather a product of discussion originating on a thread in the old st911 forum. Several member/researchers were at the time seeking visual evidence to support the supposition of remote guidance and/or aerial war games (assuming the hits on CD-prepped towers would not be left to chance). I found the CameraPlanet clip on terrorize.dk (a site now apparently defunct) and brought it to the forum for review. Knowing little of optical effects I was overly impressed by it and I was not alone. Considering other oddments that had been gathered to the thread, especially the Diane Sawyer audio, the Edward Cachia oral history** (pgs. 4-5) and the 9/11 Commission’s own enigmatic “Phantom 11”, there seemed to be “something there”. I offered to write it up. The paper was critiqued on the forum, then submitted to the Journal. In the rush to produce the first issue, the telescopic “vanishing act” in the primary clip and other errors were not called out and the “Elephant” became a low-flying target, as did I. In a defensive reflex I resigned from st911 and asked for the paper to be removed from the Journal. Judy Wood, then co-editor of the Journal, emailed me requesting to be allowed to keep it as “property of st911”, to which I naively agreed. Without consultation, in what I still regard as a well meaning protective gesture, Jim Fetzer quickly issued his “press release”, magnifying the error. After the fission of the original scholars group, the Journal retained the flawed paper, necessitating its present reexamination as public scrutiny increases. I am not aware of any significant findings since its publication that would support its premise.

Such “shotgun”-style research cannot serve the interest of justice and is unworthy of the Journal. As the author of this essay I respectfully request that it be retracted from Journal of 9/11 Studies.

Reynolds Dixon

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters...ertheCircus.pdf

The paper was also disowned by Robert Moore, Esq another ex-member of Scholars for Truth who along with Brian P. Duncan was given “grateful acknowledgment ... for their research in support of this study.” He wrote

…my first surprise regarding then publication of the article was that the author was allegedly threatened. Shortly after the supposed threat was issued to the author, Dr. Fetzer responded by publishing a fiery rebuke to the alleged perpetrators of the threat on the st911 website:

( http://www.911scholars.org/PressRelease_2Jul2006.html.)

In part, Dr. Fetzer stated that:

“These are the tactics of brown-shirts and totalitarians who fear the discussion of controversial questions that threaten the government’s control over the governed. This is a despicable act and we are not going to back down!”

[...]

Needless to say, I was quite shocked at Dr. Fetzer’s response to the unsubstantiated claim, especially since my answering machine and email “inbox” remained silent. There were no threats. The whole matter sounded ridiculous.

Before the matter went too far out of hand, I sent off a letter to the founders of st911, which stated that, although I was listed by name at the bottom of the article, I had not received any threats. Moreover, the origin of the threats seemed questionable at best.

[...]

So the evidence regarding the “Flying Elephant” article clearly shows that the aircraft shown above appears to be close due to a common optical effect.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters...AndaPilot-2.pdf

Jim Hoffman (no fan of Fetzer) it seems was the first “truther” to publicly question the paper. In a paper of his own submitted to the journal and published as a letter he stated the paper reached its conclusions “without any analysis” and “examination of the visual evidence cited by the article shows that its premise is wrong”. He also expressed his doubts about what he called the “Alleged Threats”:

"Appeals to pity in the form of unsubstantiated claims of threats and censorship are frequently used to bolster nonsensical theories about the 9/11 attack. Is this article another example? Perhaps the allegation of threats is merely a ploy to compromise the objectivity of the Journal's reviewers."

He also stated that:

“The Journal of 9/11 Studies amended the "Flying Elephant" article critiqued by Version 1.0 of this review to indicate that James Fetzer was the author of the footnote describing the alleged threats.”

http://911review.com/reviews/journal/elephant.html [Version 1.1 released March 22, 2007 also appeared in the journal’s letters section the earliest version was released Feb 25, 2007]

That is “sorta” true. The journal now has two versions of the paper online the only difference is that the one linked from the homepage (see above) doesn’t contain the disclaimer. The one that does*** is linked form the bottom of the very long letters page.

So unless Dixon was lying and the others mistaken:

1) Rather than do the responsible thing and withdraw a discredited paper that even its author no longer believed in the paper’s editors (Drs. Woods and Jones) maintained it and simply removed his name.

2) As an excuse for the removal of the author’s name, which would have the added benefit of creating a martyr and cause célèbre, it was falsely claimed that he and his family had been threatened.

It also seems that the much vaunted “peer review” of the journal’s articles consisted merely of submitting them to the group’s member’s only forum where only “truthers” AFAIK were allowed to join.

It’s also interesting that standards don’t seem to have improved at the publication after the fissure of parent organization. Despite being explicitly asked by the author almost a year ago to “retract” the paper and it being debunked even by truthers including one accredited as helping write it the paper its still there. Despite the threat being called into doubt Fetzer’s footnote remains. No where is any of this mentioned on the journal’s home page or in the version of the paper linked to it. One would have to scroll to the bottom of the letters page to learn about this. Even if the version linked to the letters page it’s not made clear that:

• Dixon acknowledges that the paper was erroneous and asked twice for it to be retracted.

• Moore and Hoffman among others debunked it.

• It seems that no threats were made.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters.html

Len

PS - Edited to add: I tried contacting Mr. Dixon but the e-mail address from his original paper is out of service.

* It was initially debunked by several skeptics including me on the forum set up to discuss articles from an ST911 website. That forum unfortunate was closed by the administrator probably because the articles kept on getting torn apart and perhaps do to pressure from Fetzer who suspended his membership in ST911.

Closed down forum http://www.atfreeforum.com/911studies/inde...orum=911studies

It was later debunked in a counter paper published Aug 2006 - http://www.jod911.com/thirdjet.pdf

** Cachia’s statement cited by Dixson - http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110251.PDF

*** http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/ThirdJet.pdf

Edited February 14, 2008 by Len Colby

[Charles Drago]

WARNING: In my personal opinion: "Len Colby" is an agent provocateur, a breeder of disinformation. It is likely that "he" is in fact a composite character, a fiction created to attack the truth and those who speak it. But even if "Colby" exists as advertised, "he" yet serves the agendas of the assassins of John F. Kennedy. Informed, cynical readings of "his" posts will lead to deeper understandings of our enemies, their methods, and their goals.

[Len Colby]

Drago,

When I saw that you were reading my post I knew you were going to post that, my you are definately the most predictable member of this fórum and are capable of little else than insulting those you disagree with.

You think I’m "a breeder of disinformation"? Show the errors in what I wrote above. Shall I bring up again the time you tried to decieve the forum?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

You think I’m "a breeder of disinformation"? Show the errors in what I wrote above.

Thats a fair call, how about it Charles?

[Guest David Guyatt]

Forum thread caption renamed:

Clueless Colby Connects Cretinous Cods-wallop to Callous Conspiracy.

Strapline:

Lo, Ludicrous Len Learns Loadsa 'Literation.

[Charles Drago]

You think I’m "a breeder of disinformation"? Show the errors in what I wrote above.

Thats a fair call, how about it Charles?

Stephen,

I respect your request.

But to respond to "Colby" is to do "his" masters' bidding.

I won't play. And neither should you.

Respectfully,

Charles

[Len Colby]

You think I’m "a breeder of disinformation"? Show the errors in what I wrote above.

Thats a fair call, how about it Charles?

Stephen,

I respect your request.

But to respond to "Colby" is to do "his" masters' bidding.

I won't play. And neither should you.

Respectfully,

Charles

Translation from Dragobabble:

"Not being able to substantiate my claim, I’ll make lame excuses instead."

[Len Colby]

Forum thread caption renamed:

Clueless Colby Connects Cretinous Cods-wallop to Callous Conspiracy.

Strapline:

Lo, Ludicrous Len Learns Loadsa 'Literation.

I prefer my aliteration David, yours is a little too strained

[Charles Drago]

You think I’m "a breeder of disinformation"? Show the errors in what I wrote above.

Thats a fair call, how about it Charles?

Stephen,

I respect your request.

But to respond to "Colby" is to do "his" masters' bidding.

I won't play. And neither should you.

Respectfully,

Charles

Translation from Dragobabble:

"Not being able to substantiate my claim, I’ll make lame excuses instead."

WARNING: In my personal opinion: "Len Colby" is an agent provocateur, a breeder of disinformation. It is likely that "he" is in fact a composite character, a fiction created to attack the truth and those who speak it. But even if "Colby" exists as advertised, "he" yet serves the agendas of the assassins of John F. Kennedy. Informed, cynical readings of "his" posts will lead to deeper understandings of our enemies, their methods, and their goals.

[Evan Burton]

If what you say is true, Charles, they why won't (or is it can't?) you provide evidence of where Len is wrong? Surely that is the best way to counter an argument - prove it wrong.

[Ron Ecker]

Len,

I remember the article in question. I haven't kept up much with the 9/11 truth movement lately (there doesn't appear to be much left to research until such time as the American people are entitled to see all the interviews, reports etc. by the 9/11 Whitewash Commission which are locked up in the National Archives, immune to even FOIA requests) (and to think that the WC, by way of contrast, swamped us with 26 volumes of info!).

Rather than having to search through links or Google the subject, can you simply state how the article was debunked, with even the author disowning it? Was there a plane or not? What was it doing? Thanks,

Ron

[Evan Burton]

Is Len being inflammatory? Maybe yes, maybe no. It is kinda moot when you have to ask:

Is what he says correct or not?

So - is what Len says correct or not? If not, where is it wrong?

[Guest David Guyatt]

The problem Evan, is that a number of us here have given up bothering with Len.

I, for one, have certainly decided to avoid him and I no longer read what he posts and consider it an exercise in futility to even attempt to debate with him anymore. I consider him to be a throughly dishonest, and a morally and ethically abject person. The Mengele thread Peter mentioned above is a classic example of Len's "spinning" ability - and his well honed black arts of avoiding responsibility, ducking, twisting people's words and generally engaging in deceits and deceptions.

He no longer has the benefit of the doubt as far as I am concerned. And I assure you I did try, as I never could accept he was a disinformation artist. I'm still unsure he is. But it matters not as he might as well be -- seeing the range of tricks he employs.

Why bother to give him another shot now with such a long history of deviousness behind him...

Edited February 15, 2008 by David Guyatt

[Len Colby]

If what you say is true, Charles, they why won't (or is it can't?)

you provide evidence of where Len is wrong? Surely that is the best way to counter an argument - prove it wrong.

Best not to feed a xxxxx. Several have decided that Mr. Colby is not here to provide arguement, but to create anger, dissent, character assassinate those he doesn't like and xxxxx.

Funny this from the guy who calls people who dare disagree with him “clown”, “borg”, “brown shirt” etc. Funny Lemkin, Guyatt and Drago keep insisting I’m a xxxxx etc due to my ‘atrocious’ behavior. When asked for examples/evidence they normally make up excuses often in circular fashion saying they won’t because I’m a xxxxx. When they offer examples, they don’t stand up to scrutiny. Guyatt said for example said I was being ‘deceptive’ because I used a passage from “Double Standards” to discredit a claim made in “The Death of Rudolph Hess” because both book reached essentially the same conclusion. However I pointed out that over all both agreed. The problem was rather his inability to understand what he was reading.

I'll site as just one example, my thread on Mengele which he [after it was inactive for some many weeks] trounced on it to announce I must be fraud as I'd promised to post something when I'd heard from someone. Well, I'd not yet heard from that person, so I'd not posted. He is only here to annoy and xxxxx. I suggest he be ignored an applaud anyone who would not stoop to his baiting.

Yes Peter unlike your buddy Guyatt who asked we the same question IIRC in 16 hours (less than 24 in any case) I gave you time hear back from Ms. Kor we were waiting on two things, for her to

1) find a copy of the van R. report and

2) give you permission to quote her.

Can you show exactly where I “announce[d you] must be fraud”? I said:

"My best guess is that she only agrees with part of Peter’s theory and sent him a non-committal e-mail which he interpreted as confirming "everything [he] said, with one minor correction""

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=135083

Like I said the few times you guys offer examples they don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Oh and yes I did contact Ms. Kor to confirm your story. But no I didn't provide any"derrogatory info" the only thing I said remotely along those lines was this:

"On the forum Mr. Lemkin alleged that I was insulting (i.e. "directed ad homs against) you, I do not know if he told you this. That is completely untrue as you can verify for your self if you read the thread in question"

You made such an accusation in post # 19 of that thread and it was false. There was nothing inproper in my contacting the archive, Ms. Kor or my comments to either.

Guyatt said:

I consider him to be a throughly dishonest, and a morally and ethically abject person. The Mengele thread Peter mentioned above is a classic example of Len's "spinning" ability - and his well honed black arts of avoiding responsibility, ducking, twisting people's words and generally engaging in deceits and deceptions.

Concrete examples of course are not provided just as they rarely if ever are. I guess my linking numerous reports by various forensic experts and articles about their conclusions is part of my spinning, 2nd and 3rd hand reports of him being IDed in Portugal presumably based on 40 + year old photos is so much more conclusive.

“his well honed black arts of avoiding responsibility”

Utterly hypocritical coming from someone who levels such accusations but shirks form offering any evidence.

[Len Colby]

Len,

I remember the article in question. I haven't kept up much with the 9/11 truth movement lately (there doesn't appear to be much left to research until such time as the American people are entitled to see all the interviews, reports etc. by the 9/11 Whitewash Commission which are locked up in the National Archives, immune to even FOIA requests) (and to think that the WC, by way of contrast, swamped us with 26 volumes of info!).

Rather than having to search through links or Google the subject, can you simply state how the article was debunked, with even the author disowning it? Was there a plane or not? What was it doing? Thanks,

Ron

To make a long story short it was taking off from Newark. Based on its size compared to that of the towers it was several miles to west*. As has been discussed elsewhere objects photographed with telephoto lenses appear to be closer together then they really are, that’s the optical effect Moore and Dixon referred to. Take offs weren’t halted in the NYC area till 9:05, the video was taken before the 2nd crash at 9:03, presumably at around 8:58 since the time stamp said 7:58

This article proves that the Journal’s claim that the articles were peer reviewed is fraudulent. No one with a modicum of photographic knowledge would have approved it. The author himself indicated the only review it underwent was on the forum. The editors posted his letter and didn’t dispute that. In any case a ‘ “peer reviewed” photo-analysis paper written by a poet / literature expert with an admitted ignorance of photography’ is an oxymoron. The fact that the reader who only looked at the home page and read the version linked to it or perhaps even looked at the letters page but didn’t make it to the bottom would be totally unaware that the paper had proven false to the point where even the author renounced it shows they are not a serious publication.

See this still from the paper for example: http://911review.com/reviews/journal/video1.jpg

EDITED to add, if clicking on the link doesn't work, cut and paste into your browser's address box

Len

* 757’s are 155 feet long 767’s are 159 – 201 feet long depending on model. The plane also could have been an Airbus with similar lengths. The image is too blurry to say what exact type of plane it is. The towers were 208 feet wide thus if the plane was the same distance from the camera it would have appeared to be 75 -97 % as long (wide) but it’s a little bit less than ¼.

Edited February 15, 2008 by Len Colby