Steven Jones trashes the demolition evidence

HOME INDEX OF SEPT 11 ARTICLES DINSINFO INDEX

PROFESSOR STEVEN JONES TRASHES THE DEMOLITION EVIDENCE. Page 1.

Copyright:Gerard Holmgren. Aug 26 2006. This material may be freely reproduced as long as it is not for commercial purposes. Please cite the authors name, the date, the web address where you found it, and the copyright notice.

In two previous articles, I’ve already exposed Professor Steven Jones as a plagiarist, liar, junk scientist and fake Sept 11 truth hero. 1 2

As expected, Jones after initially gaining the trust of the so called “truth movement” is now beginning to make his move to directly undermine that part of the Sept 11 evidence which he initially appeared to support—the demolition of the WTC buildings.

Quick summary.

When Jones first appeared on the scene in August 2005, regurgitating demolition evidence which had already been in the public domain for years, he quickly set about attempting to present all of that work as his own. Recently, on an email list I confronted Jones over this, and embarrassed him to the point where he was forced to recant his claims to ownership to this work.

Having been forced to admit that he made no contribution to any of it, Jones then immediately did a stunning back flip from his previous endorsement of this evidence and claimed that none of it proved demolition anyway—a marked contrast to his attitude when he had been boasting about it as his own work.

In order to maintain his cover, Jones still claims that the WTC was demolished, but now claims that he and he alone has provided the proof through new experiments which he claims to have done.

His claims in relation these experiments are nothing more than empty bluster and appeal to personal authority. They will be—quite rightly—laughed out of town by the scientific community. Jones is setting up the demolition evidence for a fall, by encouraging the gullible and mindless “911 truth movement” to abandon the existing proofs and make themselves reliant on the garbage which he is now presenting as proof.

THE PREPARATORY PLAGIARISM.

In the article Jim Hoffman trashes the stand down evidence I demonstrated how plagiarism is an essential ingredient of a good disinformation campaign. There is a section in the article entitled “Plagiarism as a disinformation weapon “ and anybody who thinks that this is merely about personal credit for research should read this article to understand how much is at stake in protecting the record of true credit for original research.

So the alarm bells began ringing as soon as I saw Jones—who made no contribution whatsoever to demolition research, fraudulently claiming ownership of it.

Let’s examine that stage of developments.

First let’s look at what Jones was presenting as the demolition case, back when he was attempting to claim it as his own work. This is documented in more detail in Scholars for 9/11 plagiarism and disinformation which should be read for a fuller background to this, but here it is more briefly.

Steven Jones and Jim Fetzer control the group calling itself Scholars for 911 truth.

In a release dated Jan 31, 2006, they claimed

[[Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints. ]]

As I wrote in Scholars for 9/11 plagiarism and disinformation

[[Using research documented as having been in the public domain for years before anyone had heard of the professors, I will show this claim of “their own physics research” to be a lie. ]]

One should see the above linked article for the documentation to support this charge.

Before presenting the documentation, I first summarized more points of plagiarism by Jones.

[[Lets look at how the Jones presents a bullet point of “their own physics research” to the media.

[[ • Molten metal was found in the subbasements of WTC sites weeks after 9/11; the melting point of structural steel is 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit and the temperature of jet fuel does not exceed 1,800 degrees. Molten metal was also found in the building known as WTC7, although no plane had struck it. Jones's paper also includes a photo of a slag of the metal being extracted from ground zero. The slag, Jones argues, could not be aluminum from the planes because in photographs the metal was salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approximately 1,550 to 1,900 degrees F) "well above the melting temperatures of lead and aluminum," which would be a liquid at that temperature.

• Building WTC7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds, which means, Jones says, that the steel and concrete support had to be simply knocked out of the way. "Explosive demolitions are like that," he said. "It doesn't fit the model of the fire-induced pancake collapse."

• No steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires. Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse, he says.]]

So to summarize the points of demolition at this time being presented by Jones and fraudulently claimed as his own work.

1. The near free fall speed, or expressed another way—resistance free speed of the building collapses.

2. That asymmetrical damage cannot cause a symmetrical collapse.

3. The complete pulverization of all the concrete into dust.

4. The double impossibility of factors 1 and 3 being combined in the same incident. (Sometimes referred to as “the resistance paradox”)

5. That burning Jet fuel cannot melt steel.

6. That no steel framed skyscraper had ever before totally collapsed from fire.

Point 4 by itself is irrefutable proof of demolition, and all of the other points, while perhaps deserving of slightly softer language provide an overwhelming case for demolition and help to hammer home the proof in point 4.

So at the time of making these claims, Jones although guilty of plagiarism seemed to be at least providing some publicity for these important proofs. As pointed out before, I knew that anyone indulging in such outrageous plagiarism was ultimately up to no good. So on July 26 2006 ,I confronted Jones in an email list with a challenge to stand by his claim that this was his “own physics research”.

JONES MAKES THE SWITCH

Here is the exchange which took place on that list. Not a word has been changed.

Holmgren to Jones. July 26.

Steve,

These questions relate to your demolition research credentials. They are presented in a simple yes /no format. Each question is prefaced by one point of a summary of what I think we all agree upon as the strongest points for demolition.

1. The free fall time issue.