Critique of Professor Steven Jones

THE DARK SIDE OF PROFESSOR JONES CHAPTER LIST

Copyright Gerard Holmgren Dec 17 2005. This work may be freely copied provided that it is not for commercial use. Please cite the author’s name, the date of publication, the web address where you found it and the copyright notice.

PART 2

OVERVIEW CRITIQUE OF JONES PAPER

This is a summarized critique of the Jones paper. Each of the basic points will be examined in more detail in subsequent articles of this series. Links to these later articles will not work until they are also posted. Check the chapter list for the status of subsequent articles.

This critique is adapted from an email I wrote to Jones on Nov 29 2005.

As far as I am concerned, the demolition of WTC 1,2 and 7 is not theory , but proven scientific fact, and has been proven as such for several years. Jones’ paper takes a far more cautious line, describing it only as a plausible hypothesis, deserving of further testing, and one which has not been given the scrutiny it deserves.

Although I take issue with this, it is not the subject of my complaint about Jones, because there is a caveat on my use of the phrase “proven scientific fact.”

In academia, the standards required to use the word “proof” are often much higher than in the common sense real world. The slightest element of doubt, no matter how unreasonable from a common sense perspective, may sometimes be enough to induce caution on the use of the word “proof”. If Jones has used these strict standards in relation to the demolition, then I don’t have a problem with that—providing that the same standards are used consistently throughout the paper.

It is the question of consistency which raises the problem. Having taken such a cautious tone in relation to the demolition, Jones then—for no apparent reason— briefly introduces a completely unrelated matter and launches into what can only be described as

a bellicose, unscientific rant with wild leaps of logic and sweeping conclusions based to a large degree upon an embarrassing factual error.

Why such a cautious academic tone should suddenly morph into a ham fisted, foot in mouth tirade raises significant questions which will be dealt with in logical sequence throughout this series of articles.

Let’s examine the text in question.

[[“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).” ]]

Before we continue, a technical footnote. If you go to Jones’s paper as it now appears on the web , you’ll see that the text is different from what is quoted above. However, what I have quoted is from the version which was current when I first wrote to Jones , to express my concern on Nov 29 2005. The circumstances under which Jones changed the version which I have quoted ( and which has been backed up here ) will be an important point of Part 3 of this series.

There are so many problems with the statement above that its quite a job to untangle the many interweaving strands of incompetence and dishonesty into discreet complaints.

LET’S BE CONSISTENT

But let’s start with the question of consistent standards in relation to proof, doubt , evidence and fair reference to the work which is the subject of dispute.

In relation to the WTC demolition, Jones displays excruciating caution , refusing to go beyond “plausible” in spite of the large volume of what could be called, at the very least, “overwhelming” evidence establishing the demolition beyond reasonable doubt. By contrast, his dismissal of the planes issue can only be described as cavalier. Two separate and quite different theories (a plane with a pod for the Sth tower V an animated plane for the Sth tower and a non plane object for the Nth tower) are lumped together almost as one idea and dismissed with a flick of the wrist, without any semblance of examination of evidence or argument, merely bold conclusions with an air of finality.

Concerning fair reference to what is being disputed:

In relation to the collapse issue, Jones gives detailed critiques of specific studies with which he takes issue, giving fair reference to original work which he criticizes. In relation to the no planes issue, Jones describes it only as a “notion” , failing to specify any of the original work under discussion, giving reference only to similar critiques which also fail to give fair reference. So vague is his reference that he fails to even fully describe the “notion” under attack, referring only to it as being that “something other than Boeing jetliners “ hit the buildings. Someone not familiar with the dispute could be forgiven for thinking that the “notion” so casually dismissed by Jones was that Boeing prop planes or maybe Airbus or McDonnell -Douglas passenger jets were involved. To make matters worse, after initially defending the conclusion of “Boeing jetliners”, he then— within the same sentence— claims compelling evidence simply for the more generic claim of “jets”.

To what exactly does this confused ramble refer ? Is Jones claiming compelling evidence for ‘’jets” only , and then lazily assuming them to be Boeing, because that’s what the govt tells us ? Or is he claiming compelling evidence for “Boeing jets “ and then guilty of lazy writing in accidentally expanding this to the more generic term “jets” ? Failing to accurately describe the “notion” under attack, let alone give fair reference to the specific original work in dispute, or the exact nature of his own conclusions is inconsistent with the cautious and precise academic rigour displayed on the demolition issue.

If Jones can’t or wont accurately describe what he is attacking and what he is defending, then it’s no surprise that he also fails to provide any evidence or argument for his bold conclusions. Consider this amazing statement.

[[Scrutiny of photographs and videos provides compelling evidence that jets did in fact hit these buildings (Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005).]]

The problem is that the no plane argument is itself based upon scrutiny of the very photographs and videos in question, leading to the conclusion that they do not show jets. From reading Jones’ claim, one could be forgiven for thinking that the no planers were ignorant of the videos under consideration—the very videos which are the basis of their claims. Thus Jones’ idea of “argument” is to simply pretend that the opposing case doesn't even exist.

This is the level to which he has reduced the argument. The no planers, having examined the Sth tower videos, say they are fakes, and that the Nth tower video does not show a passenger jet. In response, Jones claims “compelling evidence “ that they do show jets, while making no attempt whatsoever to explain why the no planers interpretation of the photos and videos is wrong.

To put it in simpler terms...

“Is not “ “Is so” “Is not” “Is so”...

Is Jones aware of the difference between presenting an argument and simply stating a contradictory conclusion ?

His only potential rebuttal to this might be a claim that he suggests one read “Hoffman 2005, Chertoff 2005” as referenced, for an actual argument, and that he is merely alerting the reader to where the evidence is detailed.

However an examination of the articles referenced does not support this hypothetical defence. By “Chertoff 2005”, Jones appears to be referencing this article which contains only one photo and none of the videos which are the subject of the argument. By “Hoffman 2005”, Jones is clearly referring to printed material as he references it thus at the end of his article

[[Hoffman, James (2005). “Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth,” Global Outlook, Issue 10, p. 21 (Spring-Summer 2005). ]]

which means by definition that it also can’t contain any videos . So Jones provided no analysis on the videos himself, and referenced two articles, neither of which contained any of the videos which are the subject of the argument. By contrast, one of the original works which is, by implication, included in the “junk science” jibe, the Webfairy site contains more than 4 gigabytes of the actual video under consideration—enlarged, slowed down, broken into frames, in varying formats, etc. And there are other sites with similar material and similar arguments which also contain large volumes of the actual videos and photos under dispute. While it is still possible for people to make intelligent commentary on this issue without the actual videos at hand, at some point we need access to the videos in a form which enables careful scrutiny. The works under attack by Jones provide this. The works he endorses do not.

This alone does not prove one case against the other, but the point is that Jones has clearly failed in his obligation to give fair reference to the work which he is attacking, and also failed to distinguish argument from conclusion—a stunning contrast to the section of his paper which deals with the demolition.

The brief critique above will be presented in more detail in part 4 of this series.

GETTING THE FACTS RIGHT

Now to a blatant factual error in the Jones paper.

[[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). ]]

There’s a big problem with this statement. The official story claims that the alleged plane in question is a 767, not a 757. Jones boasts “careful scrutiny” in relation to a claim to have carried out a “careful inspection” of the wrong kind of plane ! Jones removed this appalling clanger from his text only after I wrote to him privately and advised him of it. Not only does this constitute unacceptably poor standards of work—it also provides evidence of academic fraud through the manner in which he tried to hide the evidence of his error after I pointed it out to him, at the same time as continuing his accusation of “junk science” which by implication, includes the very person who advised him of his error.

This will be examined in more depth in part 3 of this series.

CONTINUE