Nothing doth more hurt in a state than
That cunning men pass for wise. --Francis Bacon
Disturbed about the content and quality of physicist Steven E. Jones' 9/11
work, Drs. Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood present a critique.
It covers ten major issues which include demolition of WTC 7, demolitions of
WTC 1&2, evidence for high-energy explosives, thermite, glowing aluminum,
No Plane Crash Theory (NPCT instead of NPT) and other issues. Jones responded
on two issues and Reynolds/Wood found it so unsatisfactory that they replied
which incorporates Jones’ response.
[Side Note: This abstract was added on 8/30/06 to add context to the whole
TABLE OF CONTENTS
III. WTC Demolition
IV. Thermite and Glowing Liquid Aluminum
V. High Energy Devices
VI. The Pentagon
VII. No Plane Theory
VIII. Shanksville, Pennsylvania
IX. The Scientific Method and Verified Evidence
X. Vote for Jones
Four years after the event, a Brigham Young University physics professor,
Steven E. Jones, suggested that the destruction of the World Trade Center skyscrapers
was not caused by impact damage and associated fires but by pre-positioned explosives.
Jones' paper caused a stir because of his credentials and apparent expertise
in physics, mechanics and chemistry. Jones is the only full professor in physics
at a major university who has publicly expressed skepticism about the official
9/11 story. Jones' background includes research in the controversial area of
"cold fusion," perhaps the biggest scientific scandal of the last
half-century. Cold fusion violates standard physics theory because there is
no explanation of where the energy might come from to merge nuclei at room temperature.
Figure 1: Professor Steven E. Jones in his office.
Within weeks of Jones' arrival on the 9/11 scene Dr. Jim Fetzer, a philosophy
professor at the University of Minnesota-Duluth, founded a new organization-Scholars
for 9/11 Truth-and invited Jones to become co-chair, effectively second in "command."
The society grew rapidly to 300 members and Fetzer and Jones made notable strides
in publicizing shortcomings in the official 9/11 story. Steven Jones' star continues
to rise: "Now he [Steven E. Jones] is the best hope of a movement that
seeks to convince the rest of America that elements of the government are guilty
of mass murder on their own soil," writes John Gravois in the Chronicle
of Higher Education, June 23, 2006. Canadian chemist Frank R. Greening says
members of the 9/11 conspiracy community "practically worship the ground
(Jones) walks on because he's seen as a scientist who is preaching to their
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.
The steep ascendancy of one scientist puts many of the 9/11truth movement's
eggs in one basket. The question is, are we being set up for a fall? The time
for applauding Jones' stepping forward has passed. Events force us to take a
hard look at Jones' growing influence on 9/11 research.
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
King, Rosalee Grable, Kee
Dewdney, Nico Haupt, Killtown,
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
Unfortunately, Jones fails to credit this body of research. More importantly,
• Jones' work is deficient as shown below
• Its overall thrust is to rehabilitate portions of the Official Government
Conspiracy Theory (OGCT).
More specifically, we assert:
• Demolition at the WTC was proven fact long before Jones came along,
but he initially said that it is "...a hypothesis
to be tested. That's a big difference from a conclusion..." His subsequent
concentration on issues like steel-cutting thermite and experiments with newly-discovered
materials from unofficial sources allegedly from the WTC site have undermined
confidence in demolition.
• That no Boeing 757 went into the Pentagon was proven years ago but
Jones suggests it is unproven because the Scholars are split on it, though
truth is hardly a matter to be democratically decided.
• Jones ignores the enormous energy releases at the twin towers apparently
because his favorite theory, thermite and its variants, cannot account for
data like nearly complete transformation of concrete into fine dust. Instead,
in a blinkered fashion Jones narrows the issue to thermite versus mini-nuke
(fission bomb) and predictably finds no evidence for a mini-nuke.
Figure 2: Mostly unburned paper mixes with the top half of the Twin
Towers. As seen a block away, a large portion of the towers remains suspended
• Jones neglects laws of physics and physical evidence regarding impossible
WTC big plane crashes in favor of curt dismissal of the no-planes-theory (NPT).
He relies on "soft" evidence like videos, eyewitnesses, planted
evidence and unverified black boxes. When others challenge how aluminum wide-body
Boeings can fly through steel-concrete walls, floors and core without losing
a part, Jones does not turn to physics for refutation but continues to cite
eyewitnesses and videos, thereby backing the OGCT
Figure 3(a): Husky, beefy beams.
Figure 3(b): Loss of a chunk (sizable section) out of this tower would
be inconsequential. 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.
On 9/11 issues where the case is proven and settled, Jones confounds it. On
controversies with arguments and evidence on both sides like NPT, he conducts
no physical analysis and sides with OGCT.1 The world asks,
what energy source could have transformed 200,000 tons of steel-reinforced concrete
into ultra-fine particles within seconds, suspended in the upper atmosphere
for days while leaving paper unharmed, hurling straight sticks of steel hundreds
of feet, incinerating cars and trucks for blocks, and leaving nary a desk, computer,
bookcase or couch on the ground? Jones seems to reply, "Superthermite."
Figure 4a: Unexplained spontaneous combustion toasted cars in a lot
near the WTC. Figure 4b: Peculiar wilting of car doors and deformed window surrounds
on FDR Drive. Figure 4c: Blistered car with unburned upholstery and unburned
plastic window molding. Figure 4d: Front half of a car burned with an unburned
rear half. Figure 4e: What burned and dragged these cars and mangled the left
III. WTC Demolition
The demolitions of WTC 1, 2 and 7 were different yet Jones treats them implicitly
as if they are alike. The perpetrators essentially destroyed WTC 7 from the
bottom up in a gravity-assisted collapse, while WTC 1 and 2 were primarily top-down,
virtually unassisted by gravity and destroyed by a combination of conventional
and unconventional devices. Jones points to conventional demolitions which leave
clean-up crews with only short piles of rubble and remarks, "As observed
for WTC 7, also WTC 1 and 2-the Twin Towers-on 9-11-01" (p. 16), as if
all demolitions are alike and have short stacks. The perpetrators could not
order an off-the-rack demolition from aisle 7B to cleanly take down one-quarter-mile
tall towers each containing approximately 100 acres of interior space.
Figure 5(a): Failed demolition in South Dakota.
Figure 5(b): Demolition gone bad: the leaning tower of South Dakota
fails to collapse any further.
Figure 5(c): Demolition starts bad: the top 300 feet of WTC 2 tilted
as much as 23° before being blown to kingdom come.
Figure 5(d): No one had ever attempted to demolish a building nearly
the size of a twin tower, and smoke from WTC 1 helped to distract and cover
up problems in destroying WTC 2.
Figure 5(e): WTC 1 smoke obscures WTC 2 demolition.
The scrap guys could not believe the twin towers had so little rubble. "It
simply did not seem possible that two of the world's tallest buildings had all
but disappeared...In total, 2,700 vertical feet of building, containing nearly
10 million square feet of floor space, were reduced to a tangled, smoking, burning
heap less than 200 feet thick."2
Figure 6(a): Ground zero rubble was surprisingly small.
Figure 6(b): The rubble was not deep enough to reach the undercarriage
of the black Cushman scooter in the foreground and the flag poles in the background
look full height.
Figure 6(c) Where did the quarter-mile-high buildings go?
Figure 6(d) Video of WTC2's demise
Figure 6(e): Ground zero looks bombed out because it was. Little of
the buildings remain and many husky, beefy beams (Figure 3 above) are gone.
There was surprisingly little collateral damage to nearby buildings.
Figure 6(f): An earthquake-induced collapse in Pakistan suggests how
much rubble and how little dust should have been at Ground Zero if the government's
gravitational collapse story were true.
Figure 6(g): Another view of the same earthquake-induced collapse in
Figure 7(a): Nuclear blast in Nevada
Figure 7(b): The cauliflower top looks familiar. Listen to Ace Baker
sing "Blown to Kingdom Come."
"[A good option] is to detonate the columns so that the building's sides
fall inward," Jones writes, "...all of the rubble collects at the
center of the building" (p. 19). Jones seems untroubled by the meager rubble
from the massive cores. If all the steel had fallen to ground zero, it would
have formed a steel block at each tower base approximately 200'x200'x10.2' high.
If all the concrete had fallen to ground zero, it would have formed a block
at each tower base 200'x200'x56.1' high. Together they would total 66.3 feet
tall of pure steel and concrete or over five stories with no air or other debris.
This calculation takes no account of over 1,000,000 square feet of aluminum
cladding, 600,000 square feet of thick window glass, machinery (including 200
elevators in each tower), wall board, ceiling material, water and water systems,
a few million miles of wiring, office equipment and furniture, etc.
Jones poses a revealing question-and-answer:
Q: "What data finally convinced you that 9/11 was not just by 19 hijackers?
A: Molten metal, yellow-hot and in large quantities..." [pdf
(7/19/06) p. 45]
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.
If a scientist falsifies his data, his career is over. Why not the same standard
for government liars? Second, with so many compelling facts like near free-fall
speed, symmetric disintegration in their own footprints, almost no concrete
left, and many others, it is folly to rely on molten metal as the strongest
evidence for demolition, especially flowing from windows in manipulated videos.
In downgrading the importance of free-fall speed Jones wrote on July 2, 2006,
"...there are stronger arguments at this time than those which rely on
the time-of-fall of the Towers. We're still working on those calculations...stronger
arguments are growing, IMO." There is no stronger argument for demolition
than near-free-fall speed.
Figure 8: This figure forms part of the proof that 110 floors can only
hit the ground within 10 seconds if lower floors fall before upper floors reach
them. For more, see the billiard ball example.
Figure 9: The tower is being pealed downward. Dark explosions shoot
up, while white ones explode outward. Above the white explosions the building
has vanished while the lower part awaits termination
Jones states he was unconvinced about 9/11 demolitions until he learned about
yellow-hot molten metal Jones [pdf
(7/19/06) p. 45] yet last fall emphasized speed, symmetry and sequence of puffs
or squibs at WTC 7 as evidence for demolition. It was not until mid-February
2006 that he discussed yellow-hot metal pouring out of a WTC 2 window. Our fear
is that concentration on molten metal is a distraction and a path to a destination
most people do not want to go. There are many ways to cut steel and the exact
method is not all that important. Thermite cannot pulverize an entire building
and make molten metal burn for 100 days. Something far more powerful was used
and Jones avoids the question.
IV. Thermite and Glowing Liquid Aluminum
Over a year before Jones appeared, Derrick Grimmer, a Ph.D. physicist from
Washington University-St. Louis and member of the Scientific Panel Investigating
Nine Eleven (SPINE), posted a scientific article about possible use of thermite
to melt sections of the WTC core. Jones does not cite this work but begins with
the WTC study by the government's National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) and its videos and pictures of liquid metal pouring from a window of
the WTC 2. Jones does not challenge these data though they appear to violate
the laws of physics. Where would heat sufficient to melt "huge" quantities
of metal come from, allow it to collect in large reservoirs and pour along unspecified
(irrigation) channel(s)? And how could thermite, which is little more than a
cutting torch, melt mass quantities of metal [see Figure 10(b)]. After a confrontation,
Jones admitted that Andrew Johnson spliced the videotape but they fail to tell
us what was spliced to what and why and what the effect is. NIST claims the
pictures and videos were from Reuters and WABC-TV but are they real? They look
fake. Who took the pictures? What was the chain of custody? Is there evidence
NIST acknowledges it "adjusted" the intensity of the photos somehow,
so they were already doctored. Perhaps it was real phenomena but we strongly
doubt it because
• No heat source is specified
• The liquid inexplicably appears to flow from a window rather than
the floor and there is no explanation for what surface would support the flow
• The flow changes windows
• The aluminum cladding on the exterior displays no signs of heat
or melting despite the fact that iron begins to melt at 1538° C and aluminum
alloys begin to melt at temperatures under 660° C
• The flow disappears prior to destruction of WTC 2 as the video jumps.
Figure 11(a): NIST reports: "The intensity levels have been adjusted..."
NIST does not say if the adjustment was uniform, confined to a particular window
or what. The images have been tampered with and therefore are useless as data
Figure 11(b): Jones' edited version of the photo ignores the NIST alert
that "the intensity levels have been adjusted." He uses spliced videotapes.
Figure 11(c): The alleged flow appears in a different window. http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
We cannot explain how molten metal would pour from a window ledge and then
move and pour from another window ledge, although NIST claims the flow performed
such a feat within seven minutes of collapse. We need answers to these questions
before we become convinced that the event was real and therefore deserves analysis.
Jones claims that the pictured flow cannot be aluminum because, "Molten
aluminum in daylight conditions (like 9-11 WTC) is silvery-straw-gray at all
temperatures" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 50]. Laboratory experiments in late February
2006 by Wood and Zebuhr (1980-2006) cast serious doubt on Jones' contention.
Jones' table on p. 63 even documents the various colors of aluminum as temperatures
increase. All metals, including aluminum, glow as temperatures rise. The exact
appearance depends on the mix of impurities like oil and oxidation in the metal
yet Jones argues,
"...the approximate temperature of a hot metal is given by its color,
quite independent of the composition of the metal. (A notable exception is
falling liquid aluminum, which due to low emissivity and high reflectivity
appears silvery-gray in daylight conditions, after falling through air one
to two meters, regardless of the temperature at which the poured-out aluminum
left the vessel. Aluminum does incandesce like other metals, but faintly so
that the conditions in the previous sentence falling [sic] liquid aluminum
will appear silvery-gray according to experiments at BYU [Jones references
We have no explanation for why Jones would insist, contrary to evidence outside
BYU, that flowing aluminum does not glow at high temperatures in daylight conditions.
This color chart shows that all pure metals are the same color at each temperature.
Figure 12: JonesChart.jpg TemperatureChart.jpg [Source: www.processassociates.com/process/heat/metcolor.htm]
At 600° C Al has a minimal glow as all metals do. An electric stove burner,
for example, barely glows at that temperature and you may have to turn off the
lights to see it.
Professor Jones uses the copyright photo below to support his claim that Al
has no glow under daylight conditions. Yet this picture is not proof because
there is no confirmation of what is being poured and at what temperature. Aluminum
begins to melt at 660° C and has low emissivity, as iron does, and this
picture just shows something being poured. The bucket or mold may be iron or
steel, but they not glowing. If they are cold, the lack of visible reaction
in the form of steam or sizzle must be explained.
Figure 13(a): Jones uses this picture. (b) Apples and oranges compared,
as text below explains. [pdf (8/15/06) p. 69]
Figure 13(c): There is no good reason for this picture to be out of
focus in bright daylight conditions. Fast shutter speeds are used in bright
If the observed molten metal in the south tower pictures is iron, Jones' favored
interpretation, it must be above 1538° C. To rule out molten Al in these
south tower pictures, Al would have to be heated above 1538° C for a valid
comparison. Here is an analogy: who would conclude that a liquid at 25°
C (room temperature) cannot possibly be water because we all know H2O is a solid
at -10° C? No one. Compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges, one metal
to another under the same conditions. In the case of an aluminum alloy, it only
takes about 600° C to become liquid. We can see that the Al pictured at
BYU is nowhere near 1538° C because it is solid, it is not flowing, the
container and its handle do not glow and flimsy gloves offer plenty of protection.
Notice the steam coming off the pot that we do not see in Figure 13(a).
Figure 14(a): 99.7% pure aluminum at approximately 1,000° C (Wood/Zebuhr).
Figure 14(b): Aluminum and its tungsten boat glow approximately the
same, illustrating that the two metals possess similar emissivity (Wood/Zebuhr).
Tungsten glows in daylight conditions (turn on your porchlight at noon) and
is used in light bulbs because of its high emissivity. Al converges on tungsten's
emissivity at high temperatures. There is no reason to eliminate aluminum as
the liquid flowing from the south tower based on alleged differences in emissivity
among Al, W, Fe at temperatures of 1500°C and higher.
Thermite plays a major role in Jones' work on the demolitions. He concludes
that his thermite evidence points exclusively to its use in WTC demolitions
based on the testimony of lawyer Robert Moore and 9/11 activist Michael Berger
plus his own reasoning that "thermite ejects globs of molten white-hot
iron" and is too dangerous to work with. Jones believes that clean up crews
at WTC did not use thermite. Yet these pictures from Ground Zero suggest room
for doubt. In the tangle of the WTC mess, thermite would be useful to cut steel
under conditions of poor accessibility. Nor is thermite as dangerous as Jones
suggests. Jones has even used a video of college kids playing with thermite.
Figure 15(a), (b): Maybe thermite was used in the Ground Zero clean
What about nanoaluminum for cutting steel? Jones calls it "superthermite"
and jumps to the conclusion that it caused the molten metal pools burning 99
days without eliminating competing hypotheses. There is no proof that thermite
could cause such long-lived, intense fires. Jones and others might conduct experiments
to prove otherwise, but we doubt such a result can happen. "Such molten-metal
pools never before seen...with controlled demolitions which did not use thermite,
nor with building fires, nor with thermal lances," writes Jones, "Huge
quantities of the stuff." Jones asserts "that much thermite was used
to bring the buildings down" (p. 62) but if proven wrong, there is little
or no fallback position. Placing all eggs in a thermite carton may lead to slim
breakfasts down the road.
Another issue is how the perpetrators could deploy and control the necessary
thermite. With 236 perimeter columns and 47 core columns and 110 floors to cut
loose in each tower, it might take 31,000 large thermite deposits/canisters
igniting in a computerized sequence to bring each tower down. Even if thermite
was placed on alternate floors, that would be 15,500 charges in each tower.
Then there is the problem of sufficient radio frequencies with 220 floors, each
with its own set of frequencies. Professor Jones might give these scenarios
Professor Jones reports that he has analyzed a piece of solidified metal slag
from WTC. He provides no documentation of the source or evidence regarding the
chain of custody. He concludes that the presence of manganese, sulfur and fluorine
suggest a "thermite fingerprint" (p. 77). Perhaps he is right but
there is no independent corroboration. Can outsiders test the slag? Jones has
proved nothing. Demolition is corroborated, proven and undoubtedly involved
steel cutters to insure swift collapse of the lower structure, but the cutters
were not necessarily thermite. Without proof, thermite advocates put themselves
out on a limb.
V. High Energy Devices
Thermite is a non-starter to account for phenomena (see 911eyewitness) like
1. Disintegration of 99% of concrete into ultra-fine dust
(50% of particles under 100 microns in samples from three locations, Dr. Thomas
Cahill and his group measured concentrations of particles in ranges from 0.09
to 2.5 microns).
2. Superheated steels ablating-vaporizing continuously as
they fall-as seen in video clips of the towers collapsing. This requires uniform
temperatures roughly twice that of thermate (see Figure 17a below).
3. The North Tower spire stood for 20-30 seconds, evaporated,
went down, and turned to steel dust.
Figure 16: Steel beams turn to steel dust.
Figure 17: The same steel-dust phenomenon from another source.
Figure 18(a): A video clip of steel turning to steel dust. Figure 18(b):
Another video of steel turning to steel dust, although CNN's Aaron Brown calls
4. 330-ton section of outer wall columns ripped off side
Figure 19(a): Large sections of outer wall to the left and somewhat
hidden to the right blow off the tower.
Figure 19(b): Large sections of the WTC walls were thrown into other
buildings with considerable force
5. Sharp spikes of Richter 2.1 and 2.3 in seismograph readings
occurred at the start of both tower collapses. Short duration and high power
indicate explosive event, as illustrated by the audio track recorded in Rick
Seigel video, 911EYEWITNESS. The abrupt cessation of movement implies no collapse
but sudden termination of shifting of debris.
Figure 20: Audio signal stops abruptly, indicating no expected tapering
off from a "settling process" in the debris pile. [911eyewitness]
6. Electrical outage over a wide area with repairs taking
over three months, suggesting EM pulses.
7. Fires took 100 days to extinguish despite continuous spraying
of water and huge rainstorms.
8. Brown shades of color in the air suggest it was caustic.
Air had alkaline pH levels of 12 of a maximum 14 (Jones pdf p. 111, citing Gregg
Swayze, USGS). TV and documentary footage changed the color balance to blue
to disguise this fact according to Rick Siegel, indicating complicity in the
9. Elevated tritium levels measured in the WTC area, according
to Siegel, but not elsewhere in New York.
10. Pyroclastic flow observed in concrete-based clouds must
have resulted from explosives, not thermite. Huge expanding dust clouds multiples
times the volume of the building, indicating extreme levels of heat in excess
of traditional demolition explosives.
11. Some rescue
workers and 14 rescue dogs died too soon afterward to be attributed to asbestos
or dust toxins.
12. Decontamination procedures used at Ground Zero (hi-pressure
water spraying) continuously for all steel removed from site. Constant scrubbing
of the site made it look like it was clean enough to eat off of. Officials plainly
did not want any outsider to find something.
Figure 21(a): Lower Manhattan was not the only recipient of a hose job.
Figure 21(b): All new cranes quickly on site (ordered in advance?) and
lots of scrubbing.
Figure 21(c): New York City makes a clean sweep of it.
13. No bodies, furniture or computers found in the rubble,
but intact sheets of paper littered the dust-covered streets. Material with
significant mass may have absorbed energy and were vaporized while paper did
14. 200,000 gallon sprinkler and water supply systems were
in WTC1 and WTC2, but there was no water in the ruins.
15. Many cars and trucks exploded around the WTC and caused
burned out wrecks that were not hit by debris. A group of police cars on the
FDR Drive had parts roasted. EM pulses may have caused electrical components
to explode and burn vehicles far from the WTC site (see Figure 4 above).
These data should excite scientific curiosity. Citing a photo of a mushroom
cloud atop a tower [pdf
(8/15/06) p. 18]. Jones calls it "evidence for use of explosives, like
RDX, HMX, or Superthermite (nanoaluminum powder)." Massive mushrooms tops
do not erupt from a building imploding from RDX. The towers were not imploded.
They were exploded. They were blown to kingdom come. Normally, people look at
"what" happened and then try to figure "why" or "how"
it happened. There is no good reason to stick to the familiar or conventional
in the belief that the perpetrators would not kill citizens with exotic devices.
The stone-cold killers would use whatever was in the arsenal and would do the
job best, including simplifying the cover story.
Jones asks a question related to high-energy-release phenomena: "Could
mini-nukes have been used on the Towers?" He explains, "Hypothesis
was raised by someone (not me) [so] we do experiments to find out! (Scientific
method)" [pdf (8/15/06) p. 149]. We wonder what experiments Jones did with
mini-nukes on the BYU campus. Experimental method aside, it is not scientific
to bypass data and set off to disprove a circumscribed hypothesis proposed by
somebody (a "bad" person?). Jones claims he tested a metal slag (origin
unknown) for radioactivity (what kind? what instruments?) and found nothing
above background levels. Residents of New York City reportedly detected abnormal
radiation on hand-held Geiger counters at the WTC site, though we cannot vouch
for the veracity of these reports. While we too doubt a fission bomb was used,
Jones' assertions play no role in our assessment.
Tritium would be a telltale sign that an extraordinary device was employed
on the Twin Towers. Jones says he tested an air sample (origin and preservation
technique unknown) and found only traces of tritium. Until independent researchers
test verified samples, there is nothing here but Jones' word and we leave it
to you to decide its value. Jones takes a victory lap ("Mission Accomplished")
by saying, "So the evidence is strongly against the 'mini-nuke' idea, which
no longer be promoted [sic] unless and until the above compelling evidences
[sic] can be successfully overturned" (p. 150).
A promising hypothesis derives from the super fine particles found by Dr.
Cahill, so small that they would normally occur only if metals were heated to
the boiling point, e.g., approximately 2,750° C for steel, that is, steel
vaporized and re-condensed as particles. Since such temperatures were not reached,
the process would be something that could extract or neutralize the bond energy
of metal atoms. Call it an "alien ray gun." It may be a scalar interferometer:
tune two electromagnetic scalar waves so their interference zone extracts energy
at a wavelength corresponding to the bonding forces in the metal and it begins
to fall apart. This hypothesis necessarily involves secret technology, so it
is not a proven but possible explanation for the data. We encourage Professor
Jones to investigate.
VI. The Pentagon
Jones did no research that we know of on the Pentagon incident. Most 9/11
skeptics believe no Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon because the gash was
too small, no plane marks left on the building (airliner silhouettes of passage
at the Twin Towers, not at the Pentagon even though concrete is brittle and
more likely to shatter and show a plane's imprint), no verified debris, no bodies,
no blood, it is physically impossible to land a 757 at a speed of 500+ mph because
of the downwash sheet, etc.
Figure 22(a): A small hole in the wall, no plane silhouette and no wreckage.
If the Boeing does not fit, you must quit (the plane story). Figure 22(b): The
putting green in front of the Pentagon. Figure 22(c): An airliner would have
to hop over the unburned cable spools before hitting the ground floor. Figure
22(d): Pieces around the car are not burning or burned while the steel hood
is burning and burned through and the right front fender is noticeably distorted.
Jet fuel does not burn through steel and therefore cannot burn through steel
hoods and engines.
"The question of what hit the Pentagon on 9/11 has NOT reached a consensus
among the Scholars group" (p. 157), says Jones. The word NOT suggests that
people should suspend judgment. Maybe a big Boeing magically shrunk itself and
disappeared inside the Pentagon. Voting machines, surveys and Steven E. Jones'
subjective guesses aside, facts are not determined by polls. "Several of
the Scholars group argue...perhaps a B737 rather than a B757 (AA flight 77)"
(p. 159) went into the Pentagon," Jones persists, offering zero scientific
evidence for this hunch. If the hoax of a Boeing at the Pentagon is unproven,
nothing about the 9/11 hoax has been proven. "We also seek answers as to
why there were no air defenses to stop the incoming jet!" (p. 160). With
no proof of an incoming jet, Jones assumes OGCT. Jones and the scholars should
VII. No Plane Theory
When it comes to the heart of the 9/11 fiction- Arabs hijacked four airliners
and crashed them in designated locations-Jones sees no real problems with this
story. He is hostile to the "no plane theory" (NPT), the theory that
no airliners went into either WTC tower, the Pentagon or the Shanksville covered
strip mine. Advocates usually allow for missiles or other air vehicles flying
about, including umanned (UAV's). Jones' motivation is unclear but he applies
no physics and fails to study the physical evidence associated with the alleged
crashes. An objective scientist, for example, would review data like this silhouette
of passage in WTC 1:
Figure 23(a): Silhouette of passage by invincible Boeing 767?
Figure 23(b): Silhouette of passage by Invincible RoadRunner. Hmmmmmm!?
Figure 23(c): Beep! Beep!
No airplane debris was visible in the gash and no verified debris was knocked
to the ground below the impact wall. Consider the conspicuous right wing tip
mark. If the Roadrunner can fly through an Acme steel plate, a Boeing can too,
right? The aluminum airliner nose crashed into the steel wall and five steel/concrete
floors, remaining intact. The fuselage disappeared far inside the gash without
deformation, no torsion (twisting) and forward wing momentum no greater than
the fuselage, despite stout resistance from the tower. In truth, with no direct
resistance from the building and powered by full throttle engines, wing momentum
would tear the wings from each suddenly-decelerating fuselage. Wing spars are
built of strong but brittle forged aluminum and must break off. But back to
the government-media fairy tale: As each wing root and its jet fuel and heavy
undercarriage crashed into walls and floors, no fuel spilled out and nothing
burned across the face of the building, all fuel being carried inside. Since
767 wings are swept back about 35 degrees, each intact wing had to sever steel
columns and spandrel belts sequentially over milliseconds, each aluminum forward
edge effectively "sawing" through steel columns/belts and steel-reinforced
concrete floors with nothing breaking off. Amazing! Despite no structural connection
to the main spar, the right wing tip in question survived this assault and then
tattooed the aluminum facade, demurely slipping inside each building. Gullible
Americans and most American physicists, judging by their silence, join Steven
E. Jones in embracing the WTC airplane fiction.
Figure 24: A C-130, about half the weight of a Boeing 767, hit this
10-story apartment building at approximately the 8th floor in Tehran last December
and crumpled outside, throwing debris around and spilling burning jet fuel over
the impact wall and inside the building.
Figure 25: Three-pound bird goes mano a mano with aluminum plane and
does heavy damage
The incurious Jones passes up a treasure trove of data which defy logic and
laws of physics:
1. Holes in the towers too small to swallow wide-body 767s.
2. No plane debris on the ground below the impact holes.
3. No fuel burned below gashes of either tower (Figure 23?).
4. No plane debris visible in the gashes, hanging out, nor
outside any exit side.
5. Videos showing the same impossible physics, gliding smoothly
at 500+ mph through the steel exterior and steel/concrete floors and stopping
within a tenth of a second inside, suddenly destroying itself and vanishing
with virtually all 3.1 million parts inside.
6. Virtually no airplane debris at any of the four alleged
crash sites ("the cleanest crash sites in aviation history" except
for evidence planted by government agents) and no time-change parts with serial
numbers unique for each aircraft ever identified or proven.
7. As retired software engineer in the aerospace industry
Joseph Keith says, "Every video that shows impact shows a plane flying
through the tower wall the same way it flies through thin air: no cratering
effect, no pushing parts of the building in, no crunching of the airframe as
it hits resistance, no reaction from the heavy engines and hidden landing gear,
no parts breaking off, no outer 30 feet of the wing breaking off, no bursting,
shredding or bending of the wing," "No nothing." The videos are
It is a foregone conclusion for Jones (apparently) that airliners went into
the Twin Towers, no questions asked. Even when he discusses demolition, Jones
reinforces the plane fiction: "Think of it-just put explosives for (sic)
a few upper floors (like where the planes went in)" (p. 22). Or, Jones
cites Fire Engineering magazine without criticizing its assertion of "structural
damage from the planes and explosive ignition of jet fuel" (p. 40). Or,
"The data as a whole are sufficiently compelling NOW to motivate an immediate
investigation of parties, besides the 19 hijackers/Al Qaeda, who might have
had a role in 9/11 arson and murders" (p. 95).
"Can anyone prove that al Qaeda acted ALONE?" writes Jones, "I
have not seen any such proof" (p. 124). The Government never attempted
to prove its OBL fiction because it could not. OGCT is the most audacious fraud
of all in a history littered with frauds like Operation Northwoods, Gulf of
Tonkin incident, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Kuwait baby incubator hoax, Niger yellow
cake and Saddam Hussein's WMD. Rather than research, Jones assumes premises
not in evidence. He has the same amount of proof that al Qaeda conducted 9/11
as he has that Saddam Hussein did.
No one can prove a lie, not even Steven Jones, hence government cannot prove
• 9/11 was solved on TV within 60 seconds of the second tower event
by a Fox News anchor: an instant conspiracy theory
• There is no proof of Arab hijackers, for example, no Arab names
on passenger manifests
• No verified security video tapes (fake of Dulles boarding nearly
three years later)
• AA flights 11 and 77 were not in BTS data base
• AA airliner tail numbers N334AA and N644AA not FAA-deregistered
until January 14, 2002
• United airliner tail numbers N612UA and N591UA not deregistered
until September 28, 2005
• "In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece
of paper either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information
that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere that mentioned any aspect
of the September 11 plot," stated FBI Director Mueller. He claimed that
the attackers used "extraordinary secrecy" and "investigators
have found no computers, laptops, hard drives or other storage media that
may have been used by the hijackers, who hid their communications by using
hundreds of pay phones and cell phones, coupled with hard-to-trace prepaid
calling cards." [Federal Bureau of Investigation, 4/19/2002; Los Angeles
• On June 6, 2006 the FBI stated that OBL is not wanted for 9/11 because
the FBI has "no hard evidence" that he was involved
• The U.S. government refuses to authenticate the December 13, 2001,
bin Laden "confession video."
• Mainstream media reported as many as ten of the accused hijackers
alive after 9/11 (Hamza Alghamdi, Saeed Alghamdi, Salem Alhazmi, Ahmed Alnami,
Abdulaziz Alomari, Mohand Alshehri, brothers Waleed M. Alshehri and Wail Alshehri,
Mohammed Atta, Khalid Almidhdhar) and Majed Moqed was last reported seen in
• Expressing uncertainty over the identity of the accused hijackers
on September 20, 2001 FBI Director Mueller said, "We have several others
that are still in question. The investigation is ongoing, and I am not certain
as to several of the others" [Newsday, 9/21/2001]. On September 27, after
revelations in the media about live hijackers, FBI Director Mueller responded,
"We are fairly certain of a number of them." [South Florida Sun-Sentinel,
9/28/2001]. On November 2, 2001 Mueller stated, "We at this point definitely
know the 19 hijackers who were responsible," and said that the FBI would
stick with the names and photos released in late September [Associated Press,
"Did a faction in the government know about the hijackers' pending attacks
beforehand?" (p. 124) Jones asks. The professor is clueless or a disinformation
agent. He refers to pre-9/11 intelligence warnings that are disinformation,
thereby echoing the blood libel that 9/11 was done by Arab hijackers. Jones
defends the 9/11 Commission's conventional air defense "breakdown"
story. It is nonsense to make such statements backing the OGCT without looking
at or conducting scientific research on these issues.
When Jones defends the WTC airliner story, he cites soft evidence like videos,
"many, many eyewitnesses," unverified flight data recorders, an alleged
consensus of Scholars' (capital "S") in favor of airliners and calls
for release of evidence (who but the government could object?). Jones says videos
"clearly show the commercial jet liner." Doh! You mean the perps would
fake a video and NOT show a jet liner? The question is, do the pixels reflect
reality or is the jet liner image inserted? In NFL broadcasts, the first-and-ten
line is inserted in real time, as are billboards at NBA and MLB games, even
customized by region. At the Winter Olympics, TV trickery inserted the flag
of each speed skater's nation under the ice and then switched it in real time
as the skaters switched lanes. Truly remarkable.
Since he is no video expert, the clueless professor might ask himself if the
Newtonian laws of motion still prevailed on 9/11. If so, then the videos are
fake. But he answers, "many, many witnesses." Even if we granted many,
many for the sake of argument, so what? One day in the past, many, many witnesses
saw the earth was flat and five years ago many, many saw the psy-op on TV, including
those who allegedly saw an airliner hit a tower from the street below or a skyscraper.
Jones lays it on extra thick about eyewitnesses because once the videos are
exposed for the fakery they are, that is what he and the government have left
To sketch in a refutation of eyewitness accounts, first, most people in the
"canyons" of lower Manhattan could not see a plane if it smacked into
a tower at 500+ mph, and many said so. A plane at 500 mph would cover a 60'-wide
street and its sidewalks within a tenth of second. Second, many witnesses heard
no jet and most of the video sound tracks record no jet liner booming at incredibly
high speed and low altitude. South tower penetration is silent in videos. Third,
witness testimony is notoriously unreliable and fungible. Fourth, people lie
(the perps hired actors, along with a script for complicit media). Fifth, physical
evidence ranks number one with prosecutors and scientists while eyewitness testimony
ranks lower, certainly no higher than second. A physics professor should exhibit
more interest in physical evidence than hearsay inadmissible in court.
Figure 26(a): Landing gear amid dust, adjacent to old scaffolding, not
on a street corner, close to curb, just left of the mid-point of a dusty Greco-Roman
pillar lying in the gutter. Figure 26(b): Landing gear on a dust-free street
corner near shiny new scaffolding, set back from the curb and no Greco-Roman
pillar visible. The tire and brakes look different too.
Figure 26(c): Landing gear in new photo op: tire looks in better health,
no extensive dust, new scaffolding, further from the corner, further forward
toward the top of a dust-free Greco-Roman pillar. We suspect tampering with
evidence :). Actors gape (no one walking on their way, a suitcase on the morning
of 9/11?) at nice tire and shiny shaft, wondering why the tire, brake housing
and shaft would be unburned despite ejection through a "jet fuel conflagration"
high atop a tower.
Scrutiny of alleged eyewitness testimony, however, may not be entirely worthless.
As far as we can tell, there is a dearth of testimony from disinterested witnesses
affirming airliner flights into the WTC towers. Consider the first plane that
allegedly flew into the North Tower: many thousands of people in Central Park
plus northbound drivers, passengers and pedestrians along First, Second and
Third Avenues, Lexington Avenue, Park Avenue, Madison Avenue, Fifth Avenue,
Avenue of the Americas, Broadway, etc., would have seen a low-flying AA Boeing
767 thundering south/southwest down the island of Manhattan. At high speed it
would have been incredibly noisy, extraordinary and scary. It would have echoed
down the canyons. The direction or source may not have been obvious at first.
At 400+ mph the jetliner would have taken approximately one minute to fly less
than seven miles from just north of Central Park into the North Tower, plenty
of time for witnesses to see and track a plane go by but not hit the tower.
Thousands of disinterested eyewitnesses could have confirmed a Boeing 767 flying
overhead if the official story were true but I've not seen such interviews.
The internet lacks credible "street interviews" and the controlled
media did not go there. That is a telling fact.
The witnesses offered are usually media people, "anonymous" or those
who do not confirm a jetliner flying into a tower at all. From a legal, adversarial
point of view, most WTC "eyewitness" testimony in favor of large airliners
is highly vulnerable. Get them in court and cross-examine them under oath. That's
a whole new ball game and I strongly suspect that an attorney of the "Gerard
Holmgren" variety would crush them. In a traumatic event, people switch
into survival mode and their powers of observation become impaired, highly selective,
and they are much more susceptible to media manipulation. One telephone caller
to Bryant Gumbel of CBS said he just saw beams shoot out from the WTC building
followed by "Wait a minute, the radio just reported it was plane parts
that flew out of the building, so, I just saw plane parts fly out of the building."
Radio is powerful enough but people are most susceptible to visual [pdf] manipulation.
CNN, otherwise known as the Complicit News Network, was the lead sled dog
that day, quickly set up the party line within minutes. Here is the key to CNN
coverage that day: at 8:54 a.m. Sean Murtagh, CNN's vice president of finance
and administration, "witnessed the crash from his nearby office" and
tells [CNN Anchor Carol ]"Lin via an on-air phone call that the plane that
hit the north tower was a 'large commercial passenger jet.'" Uh huh. "My
office faces south toward...the...what,...where the trade center used to be
and... probably caught the last 5-6 seconds of flight of the first plane flying
straight into the north tower. Impact, fireball and when it hit, it was like,
you got like a thud in your stomach, like did I just see what I just saw?"
There is a credible eyewitness statement, right? Wrong. Here's what is wrong:
first, CNN offices then were at 5 Penn Plaza on W. 33d street, almost three
miles north of WTC, a 10-minute ride, not a walk. That's not "nearby"
by our lights. Second, facing south from an office on the 21st floor sounds
good but it's not a good vantage point because the plane would fly by in a flash,
too fast to get a real fix on what it was. Third, the plane would take over
20 seconds to arrive at the north tower, not "the last 5-6 seconds of flight"
claimed. Murtagh's timing is off by an order of magnitude. While hugely effective,
Murtagh is not credible. Fourth, CNN led its coverage with a report from one
of its own executives about a large airliner flying into the North Tower. They
did not even have enough respect for the audience to interview a hired actor
on the street, instead putting the lie "in plain view" by broadcasting
it from a CNN employee. Fifth, Murtagh is a lousy actor, with a flat, disinterested
delivery that no appalled American watching an airliner fly into the North Tower
could possibly muster.
Ok, let's continue for a bit. Some truth leaks out in early media coverage
of a disaster because the controlled media is not entirely controlled down to
the reporter level. It's almost amusing how Murtagh's lie is immediately overturned
by the first unidentified female witness who insisted the North Tower hit came
from inside, and then the second, Jeanne Yurman, who reported a sonic boom.
Neither witness confirms Murtagh's report of a large airliner.
Jones should conduct a thorough analysis of the witness testimony before pushing
this tower of babel to prove a large airliner crashed into a tower. In any event,
witness testimony contrary to the laws of physics is worse than useless. Perhaps
our critique will lead him to conduct psychological experiments at BYU.
VIII. Shanksville, Pennsylvania
To our knowledge, Jones passes over the Pennsylvania hoax, the Todd Beamer
"Let's Roll" fraud, the absurd "crash site" in Shanksville,
PA. We wonder why. Perhaps we should applaud professor Jones for his silence
on this issue because he has conducted no scientific investigation. Perhaps
the perpetrators did such an embarrassing job and the story is so weak that
he found no way to defend it. Yet Jones' silence speaks loudly to us because
it is so easy to prove OGCT a lie in Pennsylvania. The professor might want
to start his search with Hunt
the Boeing II.
Figure 27(a): Smoking hole near Shanksville, PA free of plane debris,
bodies, luggage, etc. A local resident observed, "It's the only place it could
have gone down and be sure no one would be hurt." Translation: it was the only
place where there could be no witnesses. According to media reports, no local
resident claimed to see a plane crash.
Figure 27(b): For national security and privacy reasons, the government
has not yet shown this evidence of the Shanksville plane crash :).
IX. The Scientific Method and Verified Evidence
Jones goes to great pains to praise the scientific method. We could be unkind
and term this refrain sanctimonious but it serves the useful purpose of hoisting
Jones on his own petard. We need only cite data for high-energy releases at
WTC and no evidence for Boeing crashes to see that Jones fails by his own standard.
Jones fails to look carefully at the "what," that is, the data and
then apply physical principles to analyze "how." Instead, he dismisses
serious hypotheses with prima facie evidence on their behalf.
Perhaps Professor Jones' most disturbing offense is failure to verify his
data and show reproducibility in his experiments. The origin of his evidence
is shadowy, chain of custody unknown, and materials and proof for the testing
processes undocumented. Just like the 9/11 Commission's methods, much of Jones'
so-called evidence is "self referential," that is, it is a closed
loop of alleged results inaccessible and therefore unverifiable by outsiders.
It is the "trust me" approach. Jones champions peer review yet he
has never presented his 9/11 paper at a scientific conference despite at least
one invitation, and his journal is not peer reviewed by scholars in the same
X. Vote for Jones
Given Professor Jones' enormous popularity in the 9/11 arena, we must undertake
the unpleasant task of social analysis. Jones "evokes" the persona
of a choirboy and he plays to the gallery. Here is evidence: over half of his
slides have no connection with physical science, and instead are political.
In effect, they proclaim, "Elect Steve, I wanna be your physicist, I'm
a NICE guy." The clutter in Jones' presentation ranges all over the map:
Jones proudly points to "growing investigative support at BYU" [pdf
(7/19/06) p. 44], a sympathy-soliciting but phony-sounding email threatening
negative consequences and promising bribes (I'm a victim, I'm courageous), crowd-pleasing
calls for investigation/impeachment, paeans to phony peak oil crises and fragile
infrastructure, denunciation of corporate profits (he is a conservative [pdf
(7/19/06)] and corporate profits are bad? Corporate losses are good?), solar
cookers, shared values, the Prophet Nephi and other irrelevancies.
Does anyone really care what a physicist says about Nephi, the U.S. Constitution,
pre-9/11 intelligence warnings, Able Danger, or an alleged insider sell-off
of Raytheon pre-9/11? He even gets his economics wrong here because a pre-9/11
"buy-off" of Raytheon would profit insiders as defense contractors'
share prices would soar with the forthcoming "war on terror." Excusable
error for a physicist perhaps but bad physics and use of his authority to pronounce
in fields where he has no expertise are not excusable. All would be forgiven
if he offered insights or revealed hidden truths, but he does not. As 911eyewitness
creator Rick Siegel said in mocking Jones and his thermite diversion to explain
missing towers, "Of course it was WMD, why else [call in] an educated nuclear
physicist promoting solar cookers?"
Steven E. Jones, BYU physicist, rocketed to the top of the 9/11 research ladder
based on position and credentials. But nearly a year later, his contributions
range from irrelevant to redundant to misleading to wrong. He has not turned
up a single item of value. The majority of what Jones says is political and
his physics is egregiously wrong (SJ: aluminum "cannot" glow yellow
in daylight), deceptive (SJ: WTC demolitions can be treated alike), nonexistent
(SJ: jet liners crashed into WTC, a jet liner might have crashed into the Pentagon)
and shallow (SJ: thermite is key to WTC demolitions).
The proof that 9/11 was an inside job was well developed by internet researchers,
not academics. The question now is whether participation by academic researchers
will hamper or help in expanding our understanding of 9/11 and bringing the
perpetrators to justice. Early returns from the most highly sought-after research
on 9/11-that of physicist Steven E. Jones-predict little or no good will come
from the academic establishment on either 9/11 truth or justice. Proof that
government/media lied and 9/11 was an inside job is being confounded and rolled
*Ph.D. in economics, University of Wisconsin, 1971, and Ph.D. from the department
of engineering science and mechanics, Virginia Tech, 1992, respectively. Critics
may claim that we damage Scholars for 9/11 Truth by exposing failings in the
work of Steven Jones, its leading physical scientist. Yet the Scholars are "dedicated
to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths." S9/11T is devoted to applying
the principles of scientific reasoning to the available evidence, "letting
the chips fall where they may."
1 For Gerard Holmgren's critique of Jones, see http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/darkside.html.
2 Glenn Stout, Charles Vitchers and Robert Gray, Nine Months
at Ground Zero, New York, NY: Scribner, 2006, p. 21.
Read from Looking Glass News
9/11 Five Years On
places "9/11 truth" professor on paid leave
Mystery Flight 93 - Shanksville - Donetsk - what's the difference ?
Nuts And 9/11
Conspiracy Theorists: Paranoid Fantasies About 9-11 Detract From Real Issues
Positive - Neocons & 911
a 7-Man Job
Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories
Nut Jobs and a Boeing 747
Pentagon Exit Hole
9/11 Chronicles: Destroying a Crime Scene
Nest at Ground Zero
Towers wreckage turning up all over the place
Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
Destruction of the World Trade Center
WTC Complex Photos Highlight Bizarre Building 7 Collapse
Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies
reasons to question the official story of 9/11
: ON THE EVE OF DESTRUCTION
Half-Dozen Questions About 9/11 They Don't Want You to Ask
- Look Inside The 911 Smoke Plume
The Myth and the Reality
Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
a Plane Into the World Trade Center?
Evidence that Official 9/11 Story is a Lie
1975 World Trade Center Fire
Implosion Looks Like WTC Collapse
gas tanks' demolition foreshadows Twin Towers' demolition
Animation showing military precision of flight paths
of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits
"911" News Articles
Go to Original Article >>>
The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of Looking Glass News. Click the disclaimer link below for more information.