Professor Steven E. Jones
and the "Scholars For 911 Truth"
Update:
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?
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.
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)
Update:
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.
Update:
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.
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:
EXPERTS CLAIM OFFICIAL
9/11 STORY IS A HOAX
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.
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.
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.
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?
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:
QUOTE:
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.
Ginny
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.
MY BOTTOM LINE:
‘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.
Sincerely,
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
Ginny,
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:
Ginny,
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.
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...
Update:
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.
update:
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."
OK...
The levels of many of the elements are
consistent with their presence in building materials, including chromium,
magnesium, manganese, aluminum, and BARIUM.
"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.
Update:
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...
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.
