HOME    INDEX OF SEPT 11 ARTICLES     EMAIL EXCHANGE JONES/HOLMGREN

 

EMAIL FROM GERARD HOLMGREN TO PROFESSOR STEVEN JONES

 

 

NOV 30 2005 1.34PM

 

Thanks for replying so promptly Steve. See my comments below in [[   ]]

 

Gerard –

 

My time is limited –

 

[[So is mine. I hope this was not meant to imply that your time is more important than mine. If you only have limited time to spend, that’s fine but I would advise in future making your comments proportional to that which you have had time to study properly and have the time to deal with the consequences of afterwards. Having initially found the time to serve it up to certain people and their work, without even contacting them for discussion first, you are now under an obligation to either retract or explain or defend those comments. I am sure that you don’t realistically expect to be able to start a fight in public and then demand to be excluded from the consequences because you are busy.]]

 

 but I will say that I am working on revisions to my paper based on various comments, and I’m currently planning to remove the “afterword” which contains material to which you particularly object. 

 

[[Good. I take it then that I can circulate to people that you have retracted the comments you made in relation to the no plane evidence? Please give me a yes or no on that, as I would like to make sure that I don’t misrepresent you. But if I don’t receive a reply, then I am left to interpret your remarks as best I can.]]

 

As far as novel material, I believe that my reading of the NIST final report through – twice really – and commenting on it critically and at length in my paper constitutes new material.  Ditto most of my comments on the Bazant and Zhou paper.  Ditto the discussion of the TIMING of the debris-jets going up the side of WTC 7. 

Quite possible you or someone has done similar research, but that doesn’t mean mine was ‘borrowed’ from someone else.  I like to work from original sources – prefer this approach. 

 

[[Really ? You mean you came up with this demolition theory all by yourself ? The debate has been raging for four years, but you were unaware of the groundbreaking work of J. McMichael, Jeff King, myself, Peter Meyer and Rosalee Grable  - to name just some of the more significant contributors to the demolition issue ?  This is indeed curious. You express concern at the state of “911 truth movement”, while somehow having been oblivious to one of its biggest debates over the last four years ? You have become aware of the more recent no plane debate and the more recent “pod” theory, you are familiar with Hoffman’s collection of plagiarisms, and his incessant attacks on others, which you so ably mimicked, the book he’s written with Don Paul, the Popular Mechanics attack, and replies to it from Hoffman and Baker .Baker’s reply is on the Serendipity site which has been pushing the demolition argument for years.

 

And yet – somehow in amongst all of this - you missed the fact that most of the substance in your theory has already been established by others, and so you had to think it all up by yourself ? ]]

 

 

Be fair about this, friend – as we have I think the same goals. 

We need unity in the 911 community –

 

[[How do you define unity ? Does it mean that everyone agrees on every issue ? If so, then who agrees with who ? Perhaps it means that everyone agrees with you ? Or can I get really petty and say that I was here first, so unity means that you agree with me? If unity is so important to you, then I would appreciate a definition of it. ]]

 

 much more important than internal squabbles that go nowhere.

 

[[Which of course is why your very first belated contribution to the “movement” was to start dishing out terms such as  “junk science” and “poisoning” in relation to issues where you hadn’t even done enough study to know what kind of plane was under discussion. Please do define unity for me, because I really would like to see what definition of unity allows this kind of behavior. Assuming that you consider your own behavior to be within the requirements demanded by unity, then perhaps you can then detail your presumed complaints about those who have made the unity call necessary. I am assuming of course, that you consider yourself subject to the same “unity” provisions on which you are calling  others to observe. So presumably ,you have no problem with ill informed attacks on others, without bothering to contact them first. Since this was your first contribution to the ‘community” then I assume that this behavior does not violate “unity” in your view.

 

So please tell me what objectionable behavior on the part of others –specifically - has prompted this call on your part.

 

This is why its important, that having made the call, you now define what you mean by it.]]

 

  I’m learning, changing my paper,

 

[[I am pleased. Since I’ve been in this “community” almost from the very beginning, and consider myself one of the most knowledgeable and experienced S11 campaigners on the planet, I am only too happy to offer the fruits of that experience and work to anybody who genuinely wishes to learn and do their best. There is a wealth of documentation on my site. You could also learn much from Rosalee’s site, from Seredipidty and from Jeff King’s site.

 

Excellent resources for beginners.

 

BTW. Do you know who it was who first realized that the towers fell at free fall speed, and first attempted a model for calculating the minimum possible time for a pancake collapse ?

 

It was me. About 3 ½ years ago.

 

Do you know who came up with the same observation independently, about the same time, minus the attempted model for the pancake time ?  Peter Meyer. Another no planer.

 

Do you know who it was who first noticed the WTC7 squibs and made the video enlargements so that the rest of the world could see them ?  Rosalee Grable aka The Webfairy – the originator of the WTC no plane evidence.

 

Do you know who was the first to put together a really comprehensive site dedicated totally to the demolition, and is arguably the most comprehensive original demolition researcher of all – on the case since early 2002 ?

 

Jeff King aka PlaguePuppy. Another no planer.

 

Do you know who wrote one of the earliest comprehensive summary articles of the WTC 7 issue ?

 

Scott Loughrey. Another no planer.

 

So lets not hear any more of this “distraction” nonsense, please.]]

 

doing my best here, and trying to hang on in my own university…

 

Steve

 

[[In summary, I welcome the conciliatory tone of your message, Steve, but unfortunately , your initial offering has created such a mess that your response has raised as many questions as it answers. Consequently, there are a number of matters raised by both your paper and your response which still require examination.

 

However, at this stage I wont submit my list of questions, because if I read your reply correctly, you are prepared to offer a full retraction and apology for the contents of your afterward. Is this correct ? If so, then we can put the whole thing down to a learning experience and move on. However, I would like to have a confirmation of that retraction and apology. If its not forthcoming, then I’ll have a list of very specific questions for you regarding some still outstanding concerns.

 

I am sorry if you feel that addressing such questions intrudes upon your time, but perhaps you should have thought of that before the publication of the paper, so you can put it down to the learning experience. Nevertheless, confirmation of a full retraction and apology for the shots you made at the no plane theories and the “junk science”  and “poisoning” jibes will settle the issue satisfactorily for me and expeditiously for you.

 

Regards, 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)