|
THE DARK SIDE OF PROFESSOR STEVEN E. JONES An examination of his ill considered attack on the evidence that the illusion of planes hitting buildings on Sept 11 was a media hoax. 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. Updated Dec 22 2005. Introduction Part 1 of an 8 part series of articles exposing Professor Steven E. Jones as a junk scientist, plagiarist and fake Sept 11 truth hero. The actions of the mainstream media in covering up the truth about how the US Govt planned and carried out the Sept 11 attacks itself has led many honest and dedicated researchers to seek the truth as best they can and publish it with whatever resources are available to them. Much of that research is compiled here. However, as impressive as this volume of information is, it is significantly outweighed, one might even say smothered, by the volume of low quality material and dishonest spin, exploiting the situation to masquerade as research into the subject. The various reasons for this and its implications will be discussed later in this series of articles. This is a case study. In Oct 2005, Professor Steven E. Jones from Bingham Young University published on the internet, a draft of a paper suggesting that WTC collapsed as a result of a planned demolition. Such a suggestion was nothing new. But Jones, perhaps because of his formal qualifications, received a considerable amount of attention in the academic community, the alternative media and even a little in the mainstream media. On the surface, this seems like a positive development, considering the history of lies told by the mainstream media in attempt to cover up the demolition. Unfortunately, as is so often the case when a new “hero” bursts on to the scene, a closer inspection of Jones’ work reveals that he is merely replacing one set of lies with another. In this series of articles I will demonstrate the following in relation to Jones: · The extremely poor quality of his work. · Evidence of dishonesty and academic fraud . · Muddled thought processes which can only indicate either extreme stupidity or a program of deliberate deception—possibly both. · Plagiarism · His role in a continuing orchestrated campaign to disguise cover up as truth. · His low standards of academic and journalistic ethics. The series will conclude with an examination of the wider phenomenon of junk research, how it smothers good research, and why the junk research usually gets the greater publicity. As background information, an exchange of emails between Jones and I from Nov 29 to Dec 5 2005 is linked here. Excerpts from these will be used throughout the series of articles. (Update Dec 22 2005) More emails have been exchanged since then and these will be added as time permits ) For some serious work in relation to the demolition of the WTC see 1 2 3 This work was done years before Jones commented on the issue. Part 2 Summarized critique of Jones paper Dec 17 2005 Part 3 What kind of plane is it, Professor Jones ? Dec 17 2005 Part 4 The muddled thinking of Professor Jones Section A Science V politics August 6 2006 Section B Bad Science (in preparation ) Section C The illogical politics of professor Jones (in preparation ) 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) |