EMAIL FROM GERARD HOLMGREN TO PROFESSOR STEVEN JONES Dec 5 2005

Email from Gerard holmgren to Professor Steven Jones Dec 5 ,2005

Dec 5 2005 5.14 A.M.

Steve,

the comments below are attributed to you in a Rense article. Since Rense is often a less than reliable source, I am doing you the courtesy of asking to you confirm (or deny) that you have been quoted correctly below.

http://www.rense.com/general69/discred.htm

“I wanted to limit my discussion to my expertise and that is why I talked mainly about the physics of the freefall of the towers and Building 7,” said Jones, adding he did criticize the so-called “pod theory” or the theory that a “drone plane” was used to crash into the towers.

In his paper, Jones stayed away from commenting on most other aspects of 9/11 except for the freefall of the towers and the limited criticism of the “pod theory.”

“I did receive emails about why I did that (criticized the pod theory) and even told Morgan Reynolds, I really felt it was important to stick with the issues of 9/11 that are the most obvious and the easiest to prove. That is why I wanted to limit my discussion, but in further papers I plan to address other 9/11 issues. Also, I feel the 9/11 community needs to work together and not be splintered by constantly arguing among ourselves over conflicting theories that may take away from the ones we can conclusively prove.”

To return to the series of Jones articles

Part 1 The dark side of Professor Steven Jones

Part 2 Summarized critique of Jones paper

Part 3 What kind of plane is it, Professor Jones ?

Part 4 The muddled thinking of Professor Jones (in preparation )

Section A Science V politics

Section B Bad Science

Section C The illogical politics of professor Jones

Part 5 Jones the plagiarist (in preparation)

Part 6 Jones and the “only controlled demolition “ chant (in preparation)

Part 7 The low ethical standards of Professor Jones (in preparation)

Part 8 Jones as a case study of why the 911 “truth” movement is nothing to do with truth (in preparation)