|
HOME INDEX OF SEPT 11 ARTICLES DINSINFO INDEX PROFESSOR STEVEN JONES TRASHES THE DEMOLITION EVIDENCE. Page 2. Back to Page 1. Jones replies to email list. July 26. In brief, my paper provides numerous references to past work (building on past work as is common in science and engineering) -- and as regards original contributions, I would cite in particular: 1. First analysis of solidified slag recovered from WTC, using X-ray fluorescence, TEM and electron-microprobe methods. (I also worked to obtain the samples!) 2. Experiments at BYU with molten aluminum and with thermite and thermate, with results of those experiments as correlated to WTC observations delineated in two scholarly papers. 3. First peer-reviewed paper giving a detailed critique of the FEMA and NIST reports as regards the WTC collapses. 4. Initiation of the peer-reviewed Journal of 9/11 Studies (Journalof911Studies.com) , and co-editor of that Journal. Recruited the Editorial Board. Sincerely, Steven Jones So all of a sudden it seems that Jones wasn’t so keen to boast about those 6 points which he had previously been promoting as the case for demolition as being his “own physics research”. In fact , it seemed that he wasn’t too keen to refer to them at all, even though they were the specific subject of the question I had asked him. His vaguely implies that he credited the original researchers in his paper, an implication which simply isn’t true. So I wrote back to Jones and the list. July 26. Thank you Steven. We can take this as a "no" answer to all 9 questions, I believe. Correct me if I you wish to answer yes to any of them. I then wrote another email the same day. Steven. Let me repeat the points of demolition research/observation in you which played *no played role whatsoever* . Are you claiming that demolition is not a provable case through these points? You argue against them as proof of demolition ? I would be interested to hear such arguments. Fire away. Here again are the points which you apparently dispute as being proof of demolition. The free fall time issue. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. That asymmetrical damage cannot cause a symmetrical collapse over such a height. The complete pulverization of the concrete. That no steel framed skyscraper has ever before collapsed from fire The WTC 7 squib footage That there is no evidence of particularly hot fires in the WTC. The resistance paradox. That being that even if one were to try to explain away the free fall time as a miraculously unified failure of the entire structure, thus creating negligible resistance to the fall, then it leaves nothing to explain the huge clouds of fine dust being emitted as the building was still standing. Only a controlled demolition explains both. That the early story was that the steel in the buildings actually melted and that this story was changed only after publication of refutations relating to point 2. And another the same day. Jones' silence may be just because he's away from email now, or that he hasn’t yet had time to reply. Or it may be that we won't hear from him at all. Because he's got himself into an embarrassing spot of bother. The exchange which has just gone on leads to only two possible conclusions, and only a reply from Jones can tell us which he endorses. Conclusion 1. The demolition case was already proven as a scientific fact before anyone had heard of Jones, and his contribution is zero. He is only distracting from the core proof by fannying about with peripheral secondary activities, namely [[1. First analysis of solidified slag recovered from WTC, using X-ray fluorescence, TEM and electron-microprobe methods. (I also worked to obtain the samples!) 2. Experiments at BYU with molten aluminum and with thermite and thermate, with results of those experiments as correlated to WTC observations delineated in two scholarly papers. 3. First peer-reviewed paper giving a detailed critique of the FEMA and NIST reports as regards the WTC collapses. 4. Initiation of the peer-reviewed Journal of 9/11 Studies (Journalof911Studies.com) , and co-editor of that Journal. Recruited the Editorial Board. ]] Conclusion 2. Jones claims that the 9 points I raised (free fall time, concrete pulverization etc), which had been widely circulated in the public domain years before anyone had heard of Jones, do *not* prove the case, and that we are all dependent on the 4 points above. Which is it ? In other words, Jones' paper is either 1) useless - in that it's got nothing to do with the core proof, or it's 2)claiming that the case is *not* yet proved, and that Jones alone holds the key. If its conclusion 2, then I really am fascinated to hear Jones dispute the 9 points of proof which I raised. If it's conclusion 1, then why all the gush about Jones' paper when it's completely useless? And another the same day. We need to find out whether Jones even supports the proposition that demolition is a proven fact. Is he claiming that the 9 points I raised – those which were in the public domain for years before anyone had heard of him - did *not* prove the case ? If so, is he saying that he turned speculation into proof with his paper, and provided the proof ? Or is he merely exploring another angle which *might* prove it ? If Jones is the demolition hero of the movement, are we entitled to know what he’s actually telling us to cheer ? Or do we just cheer the name ? When by July 27, Jones had failed to clarify his position, despite writing emails on other subjects in the mean time , I wrote this on July 27. |