Arabs and Osama
First Time in History
The Fires
The Twin Towers
World Trade Cener 7
The Free Fall Fallacy
Molten Steel Explained
Sounds of Explosions
The Firemans Quotes
Civil Engineers Quotes
Peer Reviewed Paper
Professor Steven E Jones
Massive Conspriracy
The Real Conspiracy
Government Planning
The 911 Zogby Poll
Debunking 911 Links

Professor Steven E. Jones  and the "Scholars For 911 Truth"


Much has been made of Jones' new paper. Some have suggested that I correct the statement that not one paper has been published by conspiracy theoriests to date proving the collapse was a controlled demolition. To be clear, let me restate the test which makes a real scientific paper. It has to be published in a respected scientific journal. As an example, The Journal of Engineering Mechanics is a well respected scientific journal. The peer review proccess is tough and precise. The reviewers are well respected in their fields of expertise. The Journal of the American Chemical Society is another which Jones can submit his papers. There are many well respected journals which have an impact in the scientific community. Bentham, where Jones has submited his latest paper, is the Wiki of Journals. They have been critizied in the past for passing "gibberish".


One editor resigned after learning Jones paper passed their review. It seems the reviewers are told of the paper AFTER they are passed! Amazing!

Though Jones may have found the perfect home for his latest attempt at peer-review, it is far from a respected scientific journal. Will Jones ever publish in a "respected scientific journal"? Do they want legitimacy or a talking points?

Update on "Iron Spheres" on the bottom of the page.

Steven E. Jones is a professor at Brigham Young University. He has created the paper which has created the ground swell around the 911 conspiracy theories. His paper was peer reviewed but not by a civil engineering journal. One would think a serious professor would get his paper peer reviewed by a scientific journal which specializes in the field they are writing the paper on.

But is Professor Jones qualified to create a paper which says the towers must have fallen due to explosives? He is a physics professor but what experience does Jones have in building collapse forensics? He has none. His other peer reviewed papers consist of cold fusion technology. He conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. Nothing in his background would suggest he is qualified to write a civil engineering paper on the infinitely complex building collapse of the towers.

Brigham Young University doesn't want anything to do with the paper.

A few department chairmen at Jones' university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".

The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."


Jones says his paper will pass peer review again. But will it pass peer review in a respected civil engineering journal? Nothing less would be taken seriously.

One of Jones BYU colleagues had this to say after reading his paper...

Letter to the Editor
Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

April 09, 2006

Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU


More critiques of his paper can be seen here.

His other paper is called "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America". In it he points to circles in what seems to be the palms of south American deities suggesting they are the hands of the crucified Jesus.. As with the WTC paper, he ignores evidence like the other circles all over the artwork to make his case.

In his paper, Professor Jones often uses Professor David Ray Griffin as an authority on certain subjects. The so called "Squibs", "Conservation of Momentum and energy" and the speed of the collapse. But what is he a professor of? He sounds like a professor of physics or civil engineering specializing in controlled demolition. But as our friends above note, the experts are not really experts on the subjects at hand. Dr Griffin is a professor emeritus of philosophy of religion and theology, at the Claremont School of Theology in Claremont, California.

That doesn't mean Dr Griffin's science is wrong. It does explain why he is misapplying it, though. It also explains why his book, "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11" is rife with logical fallacies.


Another "Scholar" I would like to address is one touched on by JamesB above. Judy Wood is a mechanical engineer. Yes, it's true she specializes in dentistry but that doesn't mean she's wrong about her Billiard Ball from the towers. She produced a graphic showing how long it would take a billiard ball to  fall from every ten floors of the towers. She starts from the 110th floor, drops a billiard ball, goes to the 100th floor, drops another billiard ball and so forth on down to the tenth floor. Apparently, her only experience with pool is hitting the cue ball off the table. She forgets a little ditty called "Transfer of Momentum."

As Greening points out in his paper, the speed of the collapse increased as the floors above collected the floors below. These are not impacts as you would find on a highway. These impacts are being sped up by gravity. Think of billiard balls in a vertical track.

Note: The animated gif does not take gravity into account. The weight of the cue ball does not combine with the weight of the 2 ball in this illustration. This is just to illustrate transfer of momentum in a vertical tube. (I have little doubt some of these dishonest conspiracy sites will take this out of context)



Conspiracy theorists mock the idea of my using billiard balls to explain the transfer of momentum. Ironically, it was a conspiracy theorist, Judy Woods, who was praised by conspiracy theorists for using the billiard ball analogy. Only she never took the transfer of momentum into account. I bet they were simply skimming the page, looking for something to attack.

I created a corrected representation of the collapse taking the transfer of momentum into account using Greening's paper. Click on the graphic to get a better view.

So what has Judy Wood taught us? Not to stand on the opposite side of the pool table when she breaks.

Here is another example of what Jones and the scholars pass for science. In one of their so called "Peer-reviewed" papers (Peer reviewed by the Jones and the other "Scholars") they show this photo...

Under this photo is the following statement.

Notice also that most of the steel flung out appears to be straight. If the building had been destroyed by gravity one would expect much of the steel to be buckled.

A real, unbiased peer review might have uncovered some facts. The first is the idea that steel would be more than slightly buckled or buckled at all in a gravity collapse is flawed. You would expect only the columns which initiated the collapse to be buckled. And there is evidence they were.

The above perimeter columns are buckled. One column tree even looks like it was twisted in a U shape. It also happens to be where it shows signs of being in a fire. I don't know if this column tree was on one of the stories which saw fire but it looks like a good candidate. The plates holding the floors sheared off with such energy during the pancaking, most of the columns didn't buckle much at all. This was evidenced by the columns laid out in ground zero.

How do I know they are perimeter columns? (And this is important so pay attention...) Because they come in threes.. As in "Column trees". Now look at the previous photo again. How many of these objects the "scholars" call "STEEL" are in threes? Not one. There is a pack of perimeter columns leading the collapse but none on the periphery where the arrow is. As I mentioned in the Towers collapse page, there is evidence the columns leaned over because they were sitting on one another. This is what gave them the distance.

So what could it be?

The towers had the largest aluminum cladding job in the world when it was constructed. It was made of a light weight aluminum made specifically for the towers.

Alcoa and the World Trade Center
In the late 1960's, Alcoa was approached to help design a new alloy for the World Trade Center. Alcoa created a unique aluminum "skin" and novel cladding system for the architects. T, a signature lightweight alloy developed by Alcoa for the World Trade Center, is credited with giving many tall buildings around the world their shiny, graceful appearance. Aluminum was used extensively in the construction, including the covering of the trademark Gothic forks around the base of the buildings.


Here is a photo of the aluminum cladding being installed by hand using rope and two construction workers while two other construction workers guide it in place.

It's not unreasonable to suspect the debris we see being pointed to in the "Scholars" "Peer-reviewed paper" is NOT steel but light weight aluminum cladding. I suspect they weren't fastened on to withstand a collapse. The violent way the collapse over pressure ejected debris from the window is enough to dislodge the light aluminum and send it blocks away, given the height of the towers. What the "scholars" show as evidence of explosives is actually evidence that light things can get pushed farther by the collapse over pressure than heavy things.  Note how far paper travels.

This is the kind of thing the "scholars" are demanding millions of tax dollars to investigate.

The more I dig into this group the more I think of them as a "Swiftboat" group. "Swiftboat Scholars for Misrepresenting 911 Truth" seems a more descriptive label. Then again, with Rev Jones and his Kool-Aid drunk disciples, "The Paranoids Temple" also comes to mind. An event which also has its conspiracy theorists.

This smells like third party politics mixed with religious fanaticism. The first instance of 911 conspiracy theories I know of was from a militant libertarian in France. It's no surprise that Jones and others of the movement go on conservative talk shows. Already Hannity and Colmes, Tucker Carlson and other conservatives have given the movement air time. I don't think even the average conservative thinks Tucker Carlson is on a quest for truth. Why are they entertaining us with this? I would think if you want people to hate government, this is the perfect vehicle for you. The mixing of the Mormon religion in Jones’ lectures is equally troubling.  I've never heard a scientific lecture where people preach religion after an event. Some people have even entered Mormon prophecy as evidence of Controlled Demolition.


I have been accused of using the word "France" as a trigger word to trigger negative feelings toward the conspiracy story. I say this not to draw on some Americans hatred of the French. I want to make this perfectly clear. I think the French have been maligned in the media by the right. I think the French have done a lot of things right, like not joining the collation, providing universal healthcare to all and worker rights. But this person is a French writer and I'm not going to keep that out just because someone accuses me of using that fact as a trigger word.

For full disclosure, let me say this site also uses professors who are out of their field of expertise. Greening said who he was on another site. We at Debunking 911 do not use their profession to make any case or an appeal to authority. Nor does 911myths.com keep the fact that Greening is not a civil engineer from anyone. In fact, they put his expertise on their site. I don't use the word "Professor" when acknowledging our contributors. I feel their arguments should either stand on their own or not. That's why I not only point out that the "Scholars" are out of their fields of expertise but why they are wrong.

Below is a piece from James B. from the Screw Loose Change Blog.

Who Are the Scholars for 9/11 Truth?

As Pat and I get further into this subject, we will inevitably get into people not directly involved in the movie, but those that feed the frenzy of conspiratorial theory. One such organization is the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth", who pop up with increasing frequency as some type of "expert" authority for the 9/11 "truth" movement. Sort of a Jedi Council for conspiracy nutbars. So I decided to look into them further, and see just how authoritative they are.

A look at their website reveals they are certainly full of themselves. Boldfaced headlines scream out the word, "experts" at every turn:


Scholars for 9/11 Truth call for verification and publication by an international consortium.

Duluth, MN (PRWEB)
January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.

Their most famous member, and co-founder, is Steven Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University. He has become famous for publishing a paper on the WTC collapse. Thus far this paper though, has only been reviewed, not in a journal on physics, or structural engineering, but in a Marxist journal of political economy. BYU itself has rejected his work. Dr. Jones primary research has been, not in structural engineering or the reaction of metals to heat, but in cold fusion, which even in the physics community is regarded as bordering on alchemy. Even more bizarrely, his other famous published work was one right out of the World Weekly News, claiming that Jesus visited Central America based on ancient Indian artwork.

So maybe the "scholars" have other "experts" from whom Dr. Jones (Indiana?) is relying on, so I decided to look over their list of "full members" described here as:

Currently, S9/11T has four categories of members: full members (FM), who have or have had academic appointments or the equivalent;


I compiled the list of members and categorized them by specialty, position and institution, which actually was rather difficult. Oddly enough many of the members don't list their qualifications or university, which is quite strange, since every professor I have ever met is more than happy to go on for hours about their academic credentials.

I came up with a list of 76 members, expecting it to be full of Ivy League engineers and distinguished Middle Eastern scholars, experts bent on proving that the US government, and not Osama bin Laden attacked the World Trade Centers. I was wrong.

Out of the 76 "experts" the most common academic discipline was philosophy, with 9 members, including a co-founder. Since 7 members did not even list an academic discipline, this was 1/7 of their credentialed membership. English/literature and psychology came in next with 5 members each. Even theology and "humanities" came in with 4 and 3 members respectively. Among actual scientific fields, physics was way in front, with 5 members, including the aforementioned Dr. Jones. I am not sure as to their academic credentials though, at least one of the "physicists", Jeffrey Farrer, isn't even a professor, he is a lab manager at BYU. One has to wonder whether Steven Jones' janitor is also listed as an associate member?

So how many engineers do they have? Out of the 76, a grand total of 2. Jean-Pierre Petit, a French aeronautical engineer, who despite the obvious handicap of being French actually seems to have a relevant qualification. Curiously enough though, he doesn't seem to have written a single word on 9/11. He has written though, on a mysterious plot by the US military to bomb Jupiter with anti-matter weapons!

The second engineer is Judy Wood, who has been mentioned in the comments here for her bizarre billiard ball from the top of the World Trade Center theory. OK, Ms. Wood is an actual Mechanical Engineer at Clemson, but thus far her work has been primarily focused on the stresses of dentistry. A fascinating field no doubt, but hardly relevant to planes crashing into buildings.

So how many structural engineers are listed? Absolutely zero. How many experts in Middle Eastern studies, or the Arabic language? Also zero. But they do have a professor of social work!

So I thought, maybe I am being too narrow minded? Maybe these are just America's best and brightest minds, even if they are working out of their fields of specialty. Noam Chomsky at least, regardless of what you think of his kooky politics, is a respected professor of linguistics at MIT. So I looked up this list of the top 20 universities in the world (17 located in the US) from the Economist, expecting to find the schools of our distinguished scholars to be well represented on it.

Wrong. A total of one professor, Kevin Barrett, a Professor of Folk Lore at the University of Wisconsin-Madison was represented.

Total number of "scholars" from the Ivy League, zero. Total number of "scholars" from Tunxcis Community College, one.

James B. - Screw Loose Change Blog


The Schisms Continue

Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood Take On Professor Jones

The 9-11 Denial Movement continues to fragment into factions. Reynolds and Jones have had some skirmishes before over the "no-planers" (Reynolds is one, Jones is not), but it's broken out into full scale war now. Reynolds and Wood go after Jones with both barrels. We learn a little more about the "peer review process" at the Journal of 9-11 Studies:

Among other activities, Jones initially was responsible for the scholars' discussion forum and he and Judy Wood instituted a "peer-reviewed" Journal of 9/11 Studies. Jones appointed the advisory editorial board, later Kevin Ryan as co-editor and chose the "peers" to review manuscripts. Peer-review normally boosts the prestige of academic articles because professors within the same discipline review manuscripts but in this case there is little or no such review, even when offered. That fact convinced Wood to resign.

Say it ain't so, Judy!

James will be pleased to hear that the Keebler Elves return:

Figure 3(c): If the tower is viewed as a "towering tree" and the Keebler Elves carved out a residence, no measurable weakening would occur. If their cookie oven set fire to the tree, it would be inconsequential.

Brilliant! They proceed on with a debunking of the Thermite/Thermate claims (which I'm not as confident will be substantive), and accuse Jones of propping up the Official Government Conspiracy Theory:

This statement raises two problems: first, Jones gives credence to the loony OGCT that "19 young Arabs acting at the behest of Islamist extremists headquartered in distant Afghanistan" were involved or caused 9/11. It makes no sense to embrace parts of the government's unproven story without independent proof.

I also love this part of Reynold's paper:

Collectively we are engaged in a struggle to expose the government's lies about 9/11. The physical sciences and analysis are key to this project. The only investigation worthy of the name has been conducted on the internet by researchers like Thierry Meyssan, Gerard Holmgren, Jeff King, Rosalee Grable, Kee Dewdney, Nico Haupt, Killtown, and "Spooked" who proved no Boeing 757 went into the Pentagon, flight 93 did not crash in the designated hole near Shanksville, PA, and the WTC towers were demolished by explosives.

Oh, yeah, that Spooked has done some terrific research!


 - Screw Loose Change Blog

Scholar Scorecard

Well the "Scholars" for 9/11 "Truth" seem to be the big story of the day. Exactly 3 months ago today I did my first major post on the "Scholars", where I counted and categorized the 76 Full Members of the organization. They have been receiving a lot of press lately, CSPAN, the AP, the NY Times, FoxNews etc., and they have been bragging about their growing momentum, since according to them, 70 million Americans support them.

So I decided to do another count of their Full Members, and found out that after 3 months of unprecedented growth and momentum their ranks had swelled from the previously mentioned 76 to.... 77.

Wow, if they keep this up, at this rate they will be in triple digits by 2012.

They have actually picked up 7 new members.

Anicha Bay - Visiting Professor of English, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, South Korea
Don Bustion - Attorney, Adjunct Professor, Southern Arkansas University
Joseph Diaferia - Political Science and History, State University and City University, New York
Kenneth Kuttler - Mathematics, Brigham Young University
Joseph M. Phelps - Structural Dynamicist Charter Member, Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers
Karen Sugrue - Sociology, Limerick Institute of Technology, Ireland
Doyle Winterton - Civil Engineering Structural Engineering

Most notable in this are the two "civil engineers". I cannot find any reference whatsoever for Doyle Winterton, despite the unusual name. I did find Joseph M. Phelps, and he does appear to be who they claim. They are leaving out the fact that he is also 82 years old, and running a 9 hole golf course in Florida. Probably a nice enough guy, but he might be a little past his prime.

To offset that they lost 6 members. Reynolds and Wood of course everyone knows. The only other notable loss was Jeffrey Farrer, who actually didn't leave the organization, but got demoted all the way from a Full Member to a Student Member. Could this have anything to do with me pointing out previously that he was not a professor, but a lab manager for the physics department at BYU?

Update: This is not verifiable proof, but Pat and others have found a Doyle Winterton in Provo, Utah. It looks like he might have sold a stereo to Steven Jones or something. As for why his entry just says "Civil Engineering Structural Engineering " instead of an actual title or position, well according to the Utah Department of Licensing he had a license as an "engineer in training" but it expired in 1999. Who is next, Steven Jones' pool boy?

James B. - Screw Loose Change Blog

Now it seems the "scholars" have uncovered the obvious...

The Continuing Demolition of the Scholars

Here's some stuff from Ginny Howard, apparently about to become a former member of "Scholars" for 9-11 Denial:
This is a letter Ginny (worked for Scholars) asked me to post on forums for her in relations to recent problems in ST911:

Below is the lengthy e-mail I wrote Jim on August 18th which lays out the serious problems I had identified in ST911 and explains the situation Jim refers to from my point of view (followed by his response). However, this was NOT the first time these issues were broached; there had been a full airing with Jim of some of the most striking ones in what could be called The 'Two Great Engineers' Saga, which occurred right at the first of August. During this event, which involved Steve trying to insert into Full Membership status (i.e., those with full academic credential)-- on the basis of claims that proved to be FALSE or UNVERIFIABLE and that he had to KNOW were so -- two people who had not even applied for membership! Jim wanted me to accede to Steve's demands on the issue; I refused.

What is MOST telling to me about this whole situation is that, with Judy Wood now removed as webmaster (on trumped-up charges), guess who are now listed as Full Members? That's right! Those 'two great engineers' (nothing intended against them personally), Srs. Winterton and Phelps -- one an elderly gentleman with a B.S. in civil engineering; the other of which we know nothing about. Check it out yourself. [In case these names are removed from the FM roster, the page as of today has been captured.]

And who has control of the webpage? Jim Fetzer.

SO: What this means is that Jones is perfectly willing to LIE about credentials to pad the roles of ST911, and Fetzer is perfectly willing to ACCOMMODATE those lies even after he has been informed in no uncertain terms that that is EXACTLY what they are.

This puts in stark relief the noteworthy lack of integrity that informs the work of ST911. That is, if there is not even an INTENTION to maintain integrity in the membership roles, how can anyone trust there is integrity anywhere else? As I have said more than once, Scholars for 9/11 TRUTH cannot succeed when founded on a pack of LIES.

Speaking of which -- with respect to Jim's claim of 'embracing' me because I was Judy's friend, IMV, I was recruited as membership secretary because I was perceived as a convenient and willing dupe (though no more). Also, as you will see, my actions were not based merely on my 'opinions' about Steve, but rather on a considerable amount of evidence of the general dysfunctionalilty of ST911, as well as the 'quality' of its leadership.

I do need to make one correction about the e-mail below. At the end of it, I said I would continue to work on the applications. In fact, conditions with Jim and ST911 rapidly deteriorated, such that I became even LESS sanguine about the quality of ST911 and about the advisability of continuing to support it. Thus, mostly what I did afterwards was to send out letters of receipt and enter names in the address book. (I, of course, also spent time gathering together materials to inform the new membership secretary, Dave Doering, of the situation and to provide the necessary files so that he could carry on -- if he chooses to do so.

THUS, sadly, ST911 appears to be an organization with a corrupted leadership. If I were a betting woman, I'd put my money on the proposition that it is in fact a creation of, by, and for the perps. Unfortunately, some good people have already been hurt and others will be because we allowed ourselves to be taken in by the attraction of 'credentials' -- without paying sufficient attention to verify the quality and integrity they should have stood for.

Under the circumstances, I believe the only way to limit the damage of this awful situation is for the 9/11 Truth Movement to distance itself as quickly as possible from such low-down chicanery.

My final observation is that the leadership (Jones and Fetzer) have abused the trust placed in them (too willingly) by the ST911 membership. It is therefore up to the MEMBERSHIP to re-establish it's commitment to high standards of integrity in thought and action, and to bring these men to account. I suggest members begin to organize themselves to figure out how this can be done in a way most supportive of the long-term health of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

And, undaunted, to move forward.

The August 18th assessment appears below.


August 18, 2006
Jim --

This is a long e-mail; I hope you read it, thoughtfully, all the way through.

For my part, I have been thinking quite a bit about the current situation with ST911.

I do not accept your frame. For me this is not about who I’m more ‘committed’ to: ‘my friend’ or ‘the society’ (i.e., ‘Jim Fetzer’).

It’s not about loyalty in that sense.

Instead, I’m evaluating the situation according to a set of criteria which include the following:

(1) Does the organization have a structure that can accommodate a growing membership and provide reasonable avenues to make use of members’ gifts and talents? Is it able to adapt appropriately as it grows and meets new challenges?

(2) How savvy is the leadership in handling the trolls and operatives who inevitably infest the membership of any organization like ours and then try to take over and create an ineffective mess?

(3) How willing is the leadership to create a strong, clean advisory counsel so that problems, issues, and potential actions and directions can be viewed from a variety of perspectives and decisions arrived at by wise, informed consensus?

(4) When indications of serious problems arise, can the leadership objectively evaluative the data and handle the situation in a timely, effective manner, or will problems be allowed to fester until they blow up?

I believe that, however ST911 was originally conceived, its rapid growth and public image, not to mention the fulfillment of its purpose, require the attention, organizational structure, and leadership I am suggesting. Ad hoc is no longer 'good enough'. However, what I believe I am currently seeing with ST911 is an organization without effectiveness in any of these areas.

I know, for example, that I have more than once expressed my strong dismay at the quality of the forum and at the idea that decent new members are to be turned loose there, where discussions * best I can tell * are dominated by trolls with the primary purpose of wasting people’s time and confusing them about the issues.

I have not gotten one response from you about that.

As a consequence, one thing I’ve done is try to drag my feet as much as possible, without looking totally incompetent, on admitting new members. Why? Because I can’t stand the thought of sending decent, caring people, many of whom write quite compelling personal statements, into the forum snake pit, which is the only thing ST911 offers them by way of contact with the organization. I’ve been hoping (now, I fear, against hope) that ‘something’ would soon change for the better so that I could admit them in good conscience.

I also notice that the entire ‘leadership’ of ST911 seems to consist of you * with Judy and me in the only subsidiary roles * covering membership, website, and forum moderating * i.e., virtually the entire ‘substance’ of the organization per se. (In my case, I know there’s WAY too much membership work for me to do alone.) This ‘structure’ * if one can call it that * is completely inadequate for meaningfully supporting a membership in the hundreds * unless those numbers are intended only to serve as window dressing for a few public personalities.

And this gets at another key issue for me: RESPECT.

If we are set upon ‘saving democracy’, I am very, very clear about one thing: You can’t do that without a competent citizenry. And the first step in having a competent citizenry is treating people with respect.

It isn’t RESPECTFUL to invite people to join you to save their country * and then provide them no structure in which to even begin to serve a useful purpose.

In my role as membership secretary, this has been tearing me up.

And yet as I watch in the background, I don’t see any indication that if I approached you on these issues I would get a thoughtful, helpful response. What I see, especially lately, is very erratic, dictatorial behavior.

It’s very disturbing to me.

And now we come to the issue of Steve Jones.

I have in a number of e-mails to you expressly named what this man is: A LIAR!!

This FACT is provable beyond a shadow of a doubt on a number of fronts.

Because he is the co-chair of ST911, this is a very, very serious issue.

The matter of ‘non-glowing, silvery-gray-at-all-temperatures’ aluminum is so obvious and egregious a fabrication as to be laugh-out-loud laughable if the matter were not so deadly serious. You doubt me? Go to his PDF (you’ll need to do this fairly quickly because he keeps changing it) and visit page 69 (of 189):
http://www.journalof911studies.com/J...radeCenter.pdf (In case it’s changed, I can send you saved screen shots of the page.)

What you’re going to see are four pictures:

(1) ‘Molten metal’ (allegedly) pouring out of a South Tower window -* though NIST states the picture is ‘color enhanced’ (or something like that), not to mention there’s a serious question about whether the whole thing isn’t a total fake.

(2) A picture presumably of thermite burning.

(3&4) Two pictures of aluminum being poured.

These four pictures are supposed to offer conclusive ‘proof’ that what is pouring out of the window in the (probably faked) picture is 'thermite' -- and most certainly 'cannot' be aluminum.

Now, what is the problem with this picture? The problem is that the color of molten metals is determined by temperature * not the material itself * as any high school physics student would know. Whatever is shown as pouring out the window (if indeed something did pour out) is of a MUCH higher temperature than the aluminum (which melts at approx. 660 degrees centigrade) shown in pictures 3 & 4. Why is the molasses-like aluminum silvery-gray and NOT the color of the stuff in the ‘window’? BECAUSE IT ISN’T ANYWHERE NEAR HOT ENOUGH!!!!

This is the 'detail' Jones fails to mention.

No way is Jones this stupid. Nope. He’s lying straight to our faces. Indeed, he lied about it to Judy back in February; he lied about it to Bonnie Faulkner and her listeners on Guns and Butter; he lied about it on your program, he lies about it on the ST911 forum (with his lies being affirmed there by his chorus of groupies); and on C-SPAN, he lied about it to the whole nation.

Why is he doing this?

More to the point, why are you not treating this behavior as the unconscionable breach of scientific integrity it is, but are acting as if Jones is being defamed when somebody calls him on it? Why instead are you not dismissing Jones from ST911 for conduct unbecoming a ‘scholar’, and thus protecting the long-term good name of the organization??

(BTW * as I’m writing this, I just received a copy of an e-mail from Alex Floum in which he makes the definitive assertion that Jones is an ‘impeccable’ scientist. Again, what I want to know is, why is an ‘impeccable’ scientist LYING about an item of high school physics that anybody can recognize as false? IMV -- ‘Impeccable’ is as impeccable does. What I’ve just named * the evidence of which is available for the whole world to see in Jones' PDF -- is the opposite of ‘impeccable’.)

But let’s say you don’t want to deal with the ‘non-glowing, silvery-gray-at-all-temperatures’ aluminum issue?

How about this one:

Jones LIES about the people he recruits as members of ST911.

How do I know this?

In THREE CASES * count them * 1, 2, 3 * that we know about * Jones has corrupted or attempted to corrupt the membership roster by getting people listed as Full Members when they did not have the necessary credentials * AND HE KNEW IT! Who are they:

Jeffrey Farrer:
a BYU Dept. of Physics lab manager; apparently a graduate student
Doyle Winterton:
a man in his 70s who worked as a civil engineer but has no advanced
degrees and never held an academic appointment
Joseph Phillips
we don’t really know, but he might be a vineyard owner who once
got a degree in construction engineering.

In the first case, Jeffrey Farrer was listed as a Full Member until Judy Wood saw that he was ‘thanked’ as one of the students who helped in preparing Jones’ PDF. (This statement, which appeared on the cover page and which I saw myself, has since been removed.) In the latter two cases Judy and I wasted an absurd amount of time preventing those individuals from being listed as Full Members -- which you were insisting that I do on Jones’ recognizance alone -* BEFORE we even had their permission to be listed in the first place, which is a legal issue!

Now *

I have a GIGANTIC problem with the fact that the co-chair of ST911 is a PROVEN LIAR!!

He lies in his science, and he lies in his personal communications.

I don’t have to know WHY he’s lying; I just know that ST911’s INTEGRITY is being compromised egregiously and at the highest levels -- and that this CANNOT be good!!

I also know, for example, that there’s NO fixing the forum as long as Jones is a part of it and ST911, and is accepted as THE unquestioned scientific authority figure there.

The corruption of this man is so glaring (the aluminum issue being the tip of the iceberg) that I’ve believed up until today you would surely see it and take appropriate action.


‘Scholars for 9/11 TRUTH’ will ultimately fail if it has LIARS at the helm -- and protects them to keep them there. Trying to cover up for Jones * or whatever it is you’re doing * can, at best, have a temporary effect. In the end, it will be a disaster.

This is not rocket science. It’s about basic, common decency. If we don’t have that in our organization * or at least are making an honest attempt to strive for it -- we don’t have anything.

My opinion: Either Jones is a paid covert operative, which is surely what he looks like * OR he’s doing a damned good imitation of one, such that the BushCo criminal regime is getting excellent service -- for free!!

I don’t know which is worse.

There’s much more that could be said, but I’ll leave my description of the problem at this.

Now, you probably are interested in what I plan to do:

I will reiterate: I am HORRIFIED at admitting to a dysfunctional, deceitful organization decent Americans who feel honored to be a part of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (as they imagine it to be) and who want to help save their country by joining.

Still, I have taken on the duties of membership secretary, and I likewise feel a certain responsibility in that role.

Although I am no longer sanguine that, under present leadership, the concerns I have enumerated can be addressed, yet I do not wish to leave the society’s membership applications in disarray.

Therefore, I am willing to spend a few more days trying to catch up as best I can so that whoever takes over from me will at least have some sense of what has transpired in the three weeks or so I have been at this. Although I remain very concerned about what unsuspecting new members are getting into, I do not wish to inflict harm on ST911.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Ginny Howard

Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:02:44 -0500
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: Ginny Howard
Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: ST911 and Membership


Thank you for this extremely interesting post. I had thought it was odd that new members were not showing up, but now I understand. I will see what I can do in arranging a replacement. I appreciate your assistance and am considering everything you have told me. Thanks very much.

So there we have it. On the one hand we have folks who are at least interested in making a plausible case that the "Scholars" are really scholarly, and we have Fetzer and Jones, the heads of the organization.

Of course, if Fetzer wanted to be honest, he would have replied something like this:


Thank you for this extremely interesting post. What you have to understand is that we really have no case against the Bush Administration. Almost everything we claim is a lie, so it's a little late in the game to start pointing fingers at Professor Jones, who at least is providing us with interesting lies that deceive the simpletons of the movement. Have you seen my "Top Ten Reasons the Hijackers Were Fake?" Virtually every word in there is a lie, with the arguable exception of the first reason which even I can't figure out what I was getting at.


 - Screw Loose Change Blog

Since I wrote this more evidence has come out that this helps the neo-cons more than anyone else. Fox's Hannity and Colmes has had the most "Scholars" of any talk show. Listen to what Hannity says at the end of this interview...


He says hes "agnostic about these conspiracy theories". Really?...


Still preaching to the choir...


As many of you may already know, Jones has since been removed from his teaching position with pay. I have been asked how I feel about this, am I "happy"? While I have written on Jones' deceptive suggestions, I have never once called for his removal. "Happy" isn't the right word. "Relieved" more accurately describes my emotions. I'm relieved he is no longer exposing his students to his kind of sloppy research and/or purposeful deception. No, he doesn't teach this in class but I would bet every student knows about his claims.

It doesn't matter one bit that Jones doesn't say this in front of his students. Of COURSE his students know about this part of his personal life. And of COURSE he is teaching them how to turn science on its head. I don't think he has to utter a single word on the subject. Just picture yourself a student in his class and the other children told you about this. You investigate the subject and find one or more of these things:  that 1) he does incredibly sloppy research; 2) he is lying; or 3) he uncovered a plot by the government to blow up the buildings.

1) Your child now has no confidence in their teacher

2) Your child learns how to lie using science

3) Your child has not learned to do proper research and is fooled by Jones' brand of science

All this without saying a word in the classroom. While he can try to keep his class and his conspiracy theories separate, I think the reality is it will never stay separate. He is also using his tenure as evidence. We all know this.

Everyone, not just professors, should have freedom of speech in the work place until it affects the work. In this case "the work" is teaching our children science and the scientific method. It wouldn't bother me if Jones did quality research and held the views he holds. That's obviously not the case here.

Here is yet another example of just how poor and/or deceptive his research is...

Click to enlarge

Let's forget Blanchard's paper which says there is no evidence of Controlled Demolition. It's obvious he never bothered to contact Blanchard and was quote mining. The real deceptive part is the characterization of this debris.

Next to this photo is this:

Large pieces of debris, likened to meteorites by preservationists, are actually several floors of the towers compressed together as the buildings collapsed. Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and even papers with legible type are visible. The pieces are kept in a humidity-controlled tent in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport.
(Photo by Lane Johnson)

Either Jones is wrong or the offices were filled with what looks like asbestos carpeting and paper. Turns out, Jones is in possession of evidence of pancaking which he says never happened. What scientist draws conclusions from evidence without knowing what the evidence is?





This is not just some professor of political science arguing for or against some government program. This is a professor who is supposed to be teaching the proper use of the scientific method. The unbiased and honest research of facts. What his students see Jones practicing is far from any honest research.

This is also an indictment against the other 77 scholars who continue to follow a leader who has shown such a lack of respect for truth. They also seem to have little use for proper research. They should have uncovered Jones' blatant errors in his work. I can excuse the average internet blogger but not people who make it a point to parade the word "scholar" around as if they know more than the rest. That's just shameful in my view.


Jones says:

"I can be proven wrong," Jones said. "I accept that. But whoever does it will have to explain this molten metal to me, and especially all the barium found. That's nasty stuff that's not going to be used in a building."


The levels of many of the elements are consistent with their presence in building materials, including chromium, magnesium, manganese, aluminum, and BARIUM.


Or see Wikipedia


"I can be proven wrong," - Yes, but how many times before he realizes it?

Jones would have us spend tens of millions of dollars on a new investigation into something which amounts to his scientific snake oil. Save your money and send me a thank you. debunk911@hotmail.com


I would like to thank a person I consider a real truth seeker. ScottS, whose research and contribution can be a model for any truth movement.


In keeping with Steven's pattern of applied-misapplied science, Jones has latched onto iron spheres found in a dust sample after the collapse. Once again he points to an anomaly and suggests it cannot be produced normally and are evidence of controlled demolition. And once again he's wrong...

NASA scientist Ryan Mackey addresses Steven Jones "Iron Spheres"

"Iron Spherules: Another curious phenomenon thought to be linked to the structural steel is creation of tiny spheres of steel or iron, found in the dust after collapse. Several researchers report this, including Lowers and Meeker who documented a few examples of particles found to be nearly pure iron and quite spherical, approximately 7 microns in diameter; and the RJ Lee Group, who identified small, round iron particles as evidence of high temperatures. The significance of these spheres is still debated, along the following lines:

 As discussed previously, there is no evidence at all for large amounts of melted steel. If the spheres are formed by melting steel, it must be surface melting or some other highly localized process.

 It is also not known when the iron spheres were produced. The RJ Lee Group report considers samples taken several months after the collapses, and it is certain that torch-cutting of steel beams as part of the cleanup process contributed some, if not all, of the spherules seen in these samples.

 There appear to be several plausible candidate sources of the iron spherules in office materials or other building contents. Perhaps the most obvious is the flyash itself used in structural concrete, a residue of combusted coal, which contains iron spheres in a variety of sizes that would have been liberated as the concrete was destroyed. Another example is magnetic printer toner, used to print financial instruments, that could have been present in printer cartridges or found in a large volume of paper documents. This candidate has the advantage of matching the size, shape, uniformity, and elemental composition of the observed spherules from one report. We also cannot discount their origin in building contents, rather than building structure, without much more careful study.

 The quantity of these spherules is unknown, but thought to be very small – the iron-rich content of all dust samples was between 0.1 and 1.3%, most of which was not in the form of spherules. A large quantity would suggest melting of steel on large scales, but a small quantity suggests otherwise.

 Small quantities of structural steel or other iron-rich objects could be partially melted through sheer friction, originating in the aircraft impact or the collapses.

 Much like the sulfidized samples, it is impossible to tell whether these spherules were created prior to collapse, after collapse, or both. After collapse, it is plausible for the debris to have reached much higher temperatures.

 As mentioned above, there is potential site contamination from salvage operations, in which numerous steel pieces were cut, involving nontrivial amounts of melted steel. It is also possible for the spherules to have been left over from the buildings’ original construction.

 Iron that appears to have melted may have merely oxidized, and surface chemistry effects of merely heated iron may give rise to tiny amounts of melting even at moderate temperatures.

 Chemical factors, combined with heat, could lead to eutectic mixtures of iron with other elements (such as sulfur) melting and dissociating at relatively low temperatures, potentially creating the iron spherules.

For purposes of this discussion, we will focus on the latter two inferences, and speculate that the spherules may be a result of a chemical process, catalyzed by moderate heat but below the actual melting temperature of steel. It is, therefore, possible (but unproven) that the spherules and the sulfidized steel are related.To further understand sulfidization, we should begin by attempting to understand the source of the sulfur. Sulfur is an abundant element, with numerous possible sources. The following is a brief list of some possible origins of sulfur:

 Diesel fuel, found in emergency generators and in vehicles in the WTC parking garages, contained a fairly high concentration of organosulfuric compounds, providing a possible source of sulfur in an energetically favorable form. WTC 7, where all but one of the sulfidized samples came from, had exceptionally large stores of diesel fuel to power emergency command and control equipment.

 Large banks of batteries existed in a few locations, as backup for computers involved in the financial services, and could plausibly have provided a significant quantity of sulfuric acid.

 Acid rain could have potentially exposed some surfaces to low concentrations of sulfuric acid over many years.

 Ocean water, bearing sulfate salts, was pumped onto the burning debris piles as part of the firefighting effort.

 Gypsum wallboard, omnipresent in large buildings, is almost entirely composed of sulfur-bearing minerals. However, this sulfur is not in an energetically favorable form, and some other chemical process would be required to react with steel structural members.

The Worcester Polytechnic Institute is continuing to experiment with sulfur compounds in an effort to recreate the reactions seen in the recovered steel. Given the complexity of the debris fires and the many chemicals present, it appears plausible that sulfidization could have occurred after collapse. Whether or not this could occur prior to collapse remains an open question, and if true, could be a factor in future building fires.

A related possibility, voiced by Dr. Greening, is that of burning plastics or other chemicals giving rise to other caustic compounds, such as creation of hydrogen chloride (which in contact with water forms hydrochloric acid) from burning PVC (polyvinyl chloride). This is relevant because large quantities of PVC, along with other plastics, are found in modern offices. Chemicals such as this could potentially catalyze sulfur reactions, and also lead to a chemical weakening of steel structural elements, an additional hazard. A historical example of this is the Plastimet Fire in Hamilton, Ontario, in July of 1997. In this fire, roughly 200 tons of PVC and other plastics burned over a period of a few days. Among the fire’s effects were reports of localized metal corrosion, linked to the creation of HCl gas which was measured at 53 to 930 micrograms per cubic meter.

The volume of PVC burned in this fire was comparable to the amount of plastics in the WTC fire floors, and it is also conceivable that caustic chemicals would be trapped within the structure, raising their concentrations to this level or possibly much higher.

However, the use of PVC in construction is not new, and there have been numerous studies on its effects in fires. Industry sources question its ability to weaken a structure through chemical means:

Burning PVC has resulted in corrosion damage to electrical equipment in the vicinity. This has led to suggestions that PVC should not be used in construction applications. Against this should be set other factors. PVC components can be formulated to combine a good technical performance and high resistance to ignition and flame-spread. Formulations can also be designed to reduce the quantity of hydrogen chloride emitted. There have been suggestions that hydrogen chloride from burning PVC may damage steel reinforcement in concrete, or significantly weaken unprotected steel structures. The UK Fire Research Station has shown that reinforcement is not normally affected. It has also been confirmed that unprotected steel structures are distorted and weakened by heat rather than by hydrogen chloride.

For applications with very high fire risks, for example oil rigs and nuclear installations, more expensive, high performance insulating materials are preferred to PVC. The cost of post-fire clean-up operations must be included in assessing the total cost of fire damage. Just as soot can be removed from affected equipment, so chloride corroded parts can be reconditioned. This is well recognized by fire salvage consultants and by insurance companies.

The author is of the opinion that chemical processes had a negligible effect on the WTC collapses. However, this too is an open question and deserves further attention. The ongoing work of Dr. Biederman et al. may provide further insight into the sulfidized steel and other unusual phenomena seen in the WTC fires. The upcoming NIST report on WTC 7 may also address this problem directly. While the NIST Report does not require any chemical weakening mechanism to explain the collapses, a more thorough understanding of the chemical processes in a modern office fire will lead to better recommendations on future construction."

I have little doubt that Jones and his "scholars" will find more scientists quote to misuse as evidence of controlled demolition. The pattern has been set.


Home | Osama Bin Laden | First time in history | Free Fall | The Fire | The Twin Towers | Impacts | Fires and Fire Proofing | Columns and Trusses Towers Collapse | WTC 7 | WTC 7 South Side | WTC 7 Photos | Squelching "Squibs" | Rethinking Thermite | Explosions | Firemen Quotes
Civil Engineers Quotes | Prof. Steven Jones | Massive Conspiracy | Zogby | Real Conspiracy | Government Planning | Molten Steel
Peer-reviewed Papers | Iron Burns!!! | Madrid/Windsor Tower |
Conspiracy Theorist Hall of Fame | Fire Gallery 1 | Fire Gallery 2 | Fire Gallery 3
General Fires Gallery