Steven Jones trashes the demolition evidence

HOME INDEX OF SEPT 11 ARTICLES DINSINFO INDEX

PROFESSOR STEVEN JONES TRASHES THE DEMOLITION EVIDENCE. Page 3. Back to Page 1. 2

Since I asked Jones to clarify his opinion on demolition to this list, he has written to a smaller list on a different subject, so he hasn't been away from his mail.

So it's time for an answer.

Since Jones is supposedly our hero, might we be permitted to know what our hero is instructing us to chant in his name?

This is the situation.

He has not clarified his choice between the following options as discovered during this discussion.

1) Demolition was already a proven fact before Jones made any public appearance or publication. His original work is irrelevant to such proof

2)Demolition was not a proven fact before Jones' public appearance and his new work turned speculation or hypothesizing into proof.

3) Demolition still isn’t proven. It's only a hypothesis.

Steven - oh your truthliness - might we be permitted to know which of these views we are instructed to chant? (Unless of course it's triplethink time and it's all three of them)

Jones replied. July 27.

You know, I don't usually respond to this type of taunting and disrespectful language:

"Steven - oh your truthliness - might we be permitted to know which of these views we are instructed to chant?"

I object to it.

But, because I like Rick and Veronica and others on the list, who are reasonable, I will say that no, I was not convinced of demolition as a "proven fact" before I made "any public appearance or publication."

Nor were the faculty assembled at my Sept 2005 seminar at BYU (my "debut" seminar on the subject).

It was the work I did on thermite/thermate, including experiments done here at BYU, that convinced me -- and I explained this in my talk in Los Angeles recently.

Now, farewell list, I really have some serious research and writing to do. Good bye.

Steven Jones

So there we have it.

Our demolition hero, Steven Jones denies that any single one or any combination of the following points proves demolition.

1. The free fall speed

2. That burning jet fuel cannot melt steel

3. That the original claim was that the steel melted, and after this was ridiculed, the official story was changed and they now deny that they ever claimed it.

4. The pulverization of the concrete.

5. That asymmetrical damage cannot cause a symmetrical collapse over that distance.

6. That no steel framed skyscraper has ever before collapsed in such a manner.

7.That there is no evidence of a hot fire

8. The resistance paradox - an even stronger proof than free fall by itself.

9. The WTC squib footage.

So now it is on the record. Steven Jones allies himself with Eagar et al in denying that these points prove a demolition. That for four years we have all been claiming proof where none existed and making exaggerated and unsustainable claims.

It's rather curious then that Jones himself chose to emphasize 6 of these very points when trying to make a media star of himself. It seems that Jones’ condition for endorsing these 6 points of evidence was that he be allowed to fraudulently claim them as his own work.

Once that avenue was closed off , then he threw a fit of pique and started supporting the official line on these 6 points—plus the other three to which he made no contribution whatsoever.

In true double think style, Jones is still mouthing lip service to support a conclusion of demolition. But on what basis ? He’s just denied every piece of significant evidence that’s ever been raised.

Let’s look at what he attempts to supplant it with.

[[It was the work I did on thermite/thermate, including experiments done here at BYU ]]

For a criticism of the work referred to in the above quote, see this article by Professors Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood. The trouble with Steven E. Jones 9/11 research. It also raises other issues about Jones, but shows the “work” referred to above to be junk science, with which the demolition debunkers will have a field day.

It’s hard to think of anything lower than promoting evidence on the condition that one is allowed to plagiarize credit for unearthing it, and then once the plagiarism is unmasked, suddenly claiming that the evidence is worthless.

But Jones has certainly given us some other behavior which ranks equally in the slime stakes.

As exposed in “The dark side of professor Jones “ ,

· Plagiarizing research, cherry picking it and then using it to attack the same people from whom it was plagiarized.

· Fraudulently claiming to have conducted study on an issue about which he actually knew nothing at all.

· When this lie was exposed, fraudulently attempting to erase the record that he had ever made any such claim.

Steven Jones is a fraud. A liar. A glory seeker without scruples. Whether or not he is capable of good science, I don’t know. Either he is a complete idiot who knows nothing about science or if he is a competent scientist, then he is knowingly lying and publishing junk science in order to advance the duplicitous cause of the so called “911 truth movement” an organization which is no more interested in truth than CNN or the Republicrats.