HOME    INDEX OF SEPT 11 ARTICLES     EMAIL EXCHANGE JONES/HOLMGREN

Nov 29 2005  10.52 a.m.

EMAIL FROM GERARD HOLMGREN TO PROFESSOR STEVEN JONES

Dear Professor Jones,

 

I’m pleased to see the recent publicity you’ve been getting in relation to the World Trade Centre demolition.

I have been well aware for more than 3 years that it was a demolition, and ever since I became aware of it, have been vigorously distributing this information and further developing the proofs, so we don’t need to argue that basic point. Some people who should know better seem to be having enormous trouble with the concept – presumably due to political preconceptions. But we can move on to a more sophisticated level of the debate.

Notwithstanding my gratitude for any new voice which adds itself to the chorus promoting the awareness of any of the numerous pieces of evidence that Sept 11 was an inside job (the demolition is only one of these), I have concerns with some shortcomings in your paper.

My concern begins with the definition of “proof”. As far as I am concerned, the case that the WTC was demolished is proven beyond sensible argument, and was established as such several years before you published, but I noticed that your paper stopped short of this conclusion. You merely concluded ( correct me if you believe that I have paraphrased you incorrectly) that a hypothesis of controlled demolition fits the facts better than a hypothesis of unavoidable collapse due to fire and/or impact damage, and that further tests are needed to see if the former hypothesis can be proven.

Although I take issue with such a cautious conclusion, I concede that sometimes, when employed in a pure scientific sense, the use of the word “proof” can demand much higher standards than in the real, common sense world. In addition, its correct use will always depend upon an agreed set of underlying fundamental assumptions as the starting point for the experiment or argument. Thus, what can be construed as “proof” in one experiment or argument may not be considered so in another which begins from a point which challenges some of the underlying assumptions behind the first experiment/argument.

This basic principle applies to most matters of argument, not just scientific. At the deepest level of such principles, we could probably argue with some validity about whether one can prove that 2+2 = 4.

Any idea that the WTC was not demolished is just plain silly from a point of view based on the underlying acceptance of basic scientific principles which the average student learns by their mid teens. Therefore, we can see from your paper that in refusing to conclude “proof” you have set the standard of proof very high indeed, beyond the level which most people not blighted by political preconceptions would regard as common sense.

I don’t have a problem with this per se. To employ extraordinarily high standards in relation to the concept of “proof” is quite common in papers of a purely scientific nature. Although others may choose to set a different standard, there is no cause for complaint about a paper which applies such a standard consistently to all sides of the argument and to all related matters.

However, in your paper, the questions of “consistency” and “purely scientific nature” are where the problems are. I think you’ll agree that reckless, ill-informed, ill defined, factually incorrect and unsupported statements on matters which are not even related to the question of pure science which is purportedly the reason for the paper undermine any claim that the author may have to be restricting himself to the most exacting and cautious standards of pure science on a specific question.

And I think you’ll agree that your paper’s refusal to admit the long established proof of the demolition could only make any sense in the context of a claim to be restricting oneself to the most cautious and exacting standards of pure science.

I draw your attention to this statement which undermines the meticulously cautious tone taken throughout the part of the paper dealing with the demolition.

“I acknowledge that other notions have sprung up in the near vacuum of official consideration of this very plausible hypothesis.  These notions must be subjected to careful scrutiny. I by no means endorse all such ideas.  For example, the video “In Plane Site” promotes the theory that a “pod” holds a missile under the wing of the 757 which hit WTC 2 (see Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005).  Careful inspection of the undercarriage of a standard 757 leads to the explanation that the so-called “pod” was merely a reflection from the bulged undercarriage (Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005).  I find that the “pod theory” is very weak and distracts from central issues.

Again, there is a notion that something other than Boeing jetliners hit the WTC Towers (see Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005).  Scrutiny of photographs and videos provides compelling evidence that jets did in fact hit these buildings (Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005).  A March 2005 article in Popular Mechanics focuses on poorly-supported claims and proceeds to ridicule the whole “9-11 truth movement” (Chertoff, 2005).  Serious replies to this article have already been written (Hoffman, 2005; Baker, 2005; serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm).

Those espousing weak or untestable claims should realize that they may be damaging the effort to achieve a rational debate of important issues by poisoning the process with “junk science”.  Likewise, the notion that the “explosive demolition” hypothesis should not be debated since it would imply a “conspiracy theory” departs from good science as well as from numerous historical precedents of empirical conspiracies (Jones, 2005).  Scientific inquiry is not or should not be dictated by politics (Mooney, 2005).”

These claims on your part are totally unrelated to the science of the paper, and introduce a completely new subject for no apparent reason, making bold, sweeping statements, lacking in any supporting argument, apart from a reference to Hoffman and Chertoff, while failing to even acknowledge the existence of the original work which is being attacked or the numerous subsequent counter arguments to Hoffman and Chertoff..

Such selective referencing , cavalier tone and unscientific approach certainly does not match the cautious and strictly scientific tone of  your paper when you were discussing the WTC collapse. What happened to the idea of testing competing theories to the most exacting standards, with appropriately cautious language and conclusions? Had you wished to restrict yourself to the realm of pure science in relation to the demolition, then simply not commenting on such issues would have been clearly the correct manner in which to proceed. To include such cavalier sniping at issues which are not even related to the science of your paper undermines your apparent claim to be following cautious and exacting scientific principles in a consistent fashion.

Let us examine the logic more thoroughly. You argue that the buildings were (probably) brought down by controlled demolition, not by the objects which hit them. In this case, of what relevance to your argument is the identification of the objects which hit them?

Unless of course, you are deviating from pure science, and wandering into the realm of larger political questions, in which case, your paper doesn’t qualify as a scientific paper in the true sense and your extreme caution on the question of the demolition then needs to come under scrutiny along with your motives as to why you tried to disguise a statement of political strategy as a science paper.

Suspicion that this is your real motivation is supported by these remarks, completely out of place in a truly scientific paper.

” A March 2005 article in Popular Mechanics focuses on poorly-supported claims and proceeds to ridicule the whole “9-11 truth movement…”

Furthermore, you appear to have not even read the article to which you refer. Otherwise you would know that it attacks the demolition argument just as much as anything else. You open up a can of worms with your expression “the whole 911truth movement”. This implies that you believe that there are, in your view, issues apart from the demolition indicating an inside job, but you fail to state what these are, indicating only that you believe that a number of good theories have been mixed with a number of bad theories and since Popular Mechanics attacks all of them , then somehow the bad theories are to blame for giving them a lever. From this you somehow extrapolate that whichever theories you choose to label as “junk” are indeed so. This can only be described as a rant, rather then a scientific analysis or even a coherently logical idea in relation to political strategy.

Is this muddled thinking truly meant to represent science ? Is it meant to represent “careful scrutiny” of those issues which you have chosen to attack?

What happened to the idea of not determining science on the basis of politics ? Is this a scientific paper or isn’t it ?

If it does purport to be a scientific paper, then having established that the demolition and the alleged planes are two separate issues within the one paper, your cavalier attack on the planes issue shows that you apply different standards of caution to different issues within the one paper.

To analogize, if one were to write a cautious and conservative critique of Darwinian evolution theory, restricting oneself to the most exacting standards of pure science, would one then finish the paper with a casual, bellicose swipe, for no apparent reason, at various theories about the early Earth atmosphere, and then go into a rant about how promoting the allegedly “junk” theory might damage the credibility of the good one?

You directly contradict yourself within this quote, and also violate basic principles of logic

 

Consider these three excerpts.

 

” I find that the “pod theory” is very weak and distracts from central issues.”

 

“ A March 2005 article in Popular Mechanics focuses on poorly-supported claims and proceeds to ridicule the whole “9-11 truth movement…”

and

 

“Scientific inquiry is not or should not be dictated by politics (Mooney, 2005).”

 

Let’s begin with the first. You “find” the pod theory very weak?  You consider yourself qualified to simply announce what you “find” as if this were an argument? Are you aware of the difference between stating a conclusion and constructing an argument for it?

For the record, I do not subscribe to the pod theory, but coming to the right conclusion by accident through flawed and arrogant processes is just as bad as believing in it. The proof that the pod theory is wrong lies within the very same evidence which proves that the object is in fact an animation, not a real plane. Animated planes with pods are no more real than animated planes without pods. The fact that the alleged plane is an animation is, of course is a matter for separate debate – which is exactly my point. If you wish to debate this question, then debate it properly – using consistent standards.

Don’t just take cheap shots, using a more detailed and careful argument on an unrelated matter as a cover from which to set up a sniping platform at an issue which you have clearly not studied in any depth.

Your lack of basic knowledge on this subject is exemplified by the fact that you don’t even know what kind of plane is under discussion. You twice referred to the Sth tower object as a 757, when anybody who knows anything about the issue knows that the official story claims a 767. You claim to have conducted a  “Careful inspection of the undercarriage of a standard 757”  in relation to a debate over an alleged 767 in order to “find” the theory weak. ?

“Careful scrutiny” is not the phrase I would use to describe such sloppiness. Did somebody say “junk science” ?

There is an old saying, “those in glass houses should not throw stones “, which I think you would do well to remember.

I would advise first learning something about the issue before taking such a bellicose tone in relation to it.

What is also interesting is the phrase “distracts from central issues”.

The problem is that you failed to define the “central issues” as you see them. In the absence of such a definition, I believe that I can narrow down the possibilities of what your meaning might have been, although you are welcome to correct me with a clarification of your own – one which should have been included in the original paper.

In the absence of such a clarification , it appears that there are only two possible meanings applicable to your use of the term “central issues”.

1)                          The pure science of the WTC collapse – free of any consideration of political implications. If this was your meaning, then as previously established, discussion of the ID of the striking objects is a completely different subject. In which case, how can it “distract “? One might as well complain, in the course of a debate over evolution that a discussion of the skeletal structure of amphibians “distracts” from the issue of the origin of the first flowering plants – or the reverse. Did somebody say “junk science” ?

2)                          Perhaps by “central issues “, you are now talking political strategy, despite purporting to have written a science paper. If so, then how can doubts over the IDs of the allegedly hijacked planes be a “distraction”? Isn’t the claim that certain specific flights were hijacked and crashed into certain specific locations somewhat “central” to the issue?

 

Furthermore, you can’t use a belief that something is unimportant (a “distraction”) as an argument that it’s wrong. Your paper obviously confuses the two concepts.

A question may be perceived as either important or unimportant, and any theory in relation to the question may be perceived as strong or weak, but the verdict on perceived importance is irrelevant is to the verdict on perceived correctness.

Not only do you appear to be confused over whether the ID of the striking objects is a closed case or whether it simply isn’t important enough to worry about, but you also appear to be seriously confused about whether you are publishing a scientific paper, or an argument for a political strategy for the “911truth movement”. And whichever it is, it fails to meet basic standards of logic.

Having so seriously confused political strategy and science, you then embarrass yourself by stating

“Scientific inquiry is not or should not be dictated by politics”

when you are clearly unable to practice such discipline yourself .

If you had been submitting a paper which was genuinely restricted to purely scientific principles, then in order to follow the correct methodology, only two options were open to you.

1)      Ignore all issues other than the pure science of the collapse.

2)      Treat the object ID issue as integral to the collapse, clearly identify it as such, and apply to it the same principles and standards of pure scientific inquiry to which you subjected the WTC collapse.

 

The other serious issue raised in relation to your paper is that of plagiarism. The poor standard of your work in relation to the matters described above might be more acceptable if you had at least produced some valuable scientific work in relation to the demolition. Unfortunately, you produced only belated, watered down plagiarism of well established analyses which others worked out years before you. The paper appears to imply it to be your own work.

You are of course entitled to add your new voice to a subject which has been under vigorous discussion in the public domain for four years, and to recycle the pre-existing arguments in your own style, but in such cases it is not acceptable practice to try to present such contributions as your own original work and original concepts.

 Your only hint of acknowledgement of previous work is to Hoffman, who himself plagiarized nearly all of his work – much of it from the very same people whom he now accuses of trying to “distract” from it.

See “Hoffman the plagiarist.”( Holmgren 2005)

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/320469.shtml?discuss#186867

You may have been unaware of this situation, but if so then you need to become aware of it very quickly, because the current situation is that you are– whether deliberately or by accident – in the embarrassing situation of plagiarizing  much of your purported work from the very same people whom you accuse of distracting from it with “junk science”.

I have written to you in good faith, on the assumption that you were unaware of the seriousness of what you have done, and that we may be able to resolve the situation amicably in private.

However, failure to respond or a bellicose and dismissive response may require similar action to that which has left Hoffman’s reputation in tatters.

In closing, let me offer you some advice. You are a newcomer to this issue or to put it in less polite terms a “Johnny- come- lately”. Four years late to the issue, with no significant new work to offer, only publicity for already well established arguments. I have no complaints about that. All new voices are welcome, providing that they meet certain basic standards.

Some of those standards include

1)      Do not plagiarize

2)      If you can’t follow this ethical principle, then at least do not be so brazen as to direct ridicule at the same people from whom you are plagiarizing.

3)      If you are going to publicly ridicule the work of others, then first ensure that you have

a)      fully studied the issue and are prepared to continue the debate when challenged

b)      made all reasonable efforts to first contact those people and read their work in order to make sure that you fully understand what they are putting forward. In other words, extend to them the same courtesy which I am now extending to you, in spite of the fact that you failed this principle in the publication of your paper.

c)      avail yourself of basic facts  – eg the difference between a 757 and 767- before embarrassing yourself with strong phrases such as “junk science” in relation to issues about which you clearly know almost nothing.

4)      Show some humility and some respect to those who – years before you - blazed the trail down which you have now – belatedly - begun to cautiously tip-toe.

 

There is another old saying which you would do well to remember. “Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.”

 

Your considered response would be appreciated.

 

Gerard Holmgren.

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)