Steven E Jones is a Fraud

I have not been here for a very long time but, what is everyone's thoughts about people who say Steven E Jones is someone who is just sabotaging the 9/11 truth. Really, anyone who gets close to the truth is murdered. Is that not very creepy? How can we know for sure, who is genuine or who is not? I just trust Alex Jones and, if Alex Jones trusts Steven E Jones then they must be genuine. Perhaps not. I dunno.

No Plane Theory

What are your thoughts on this? Agree, disagree? My mind is warped.

Uh, who exactly has been murdered because they got "too close to the truth"?

Steven Jones was one of my professors a decade ago. That doesn't prove he's not a fraud, but I have seen no evidence of that. I think his work is really good regarding 9/11. I think people just get nervous that he is doing a good job.

Wow, Is it so that some people are saying that Dylan Avery is not part of getting to the truth about 9/11 but a part of the scam of 9/11? They say that because he does not agree with the no plane theory.

What?

I am confused... So, is there some kind of in fighting with the 9/11 truthers or...????

Creepy....

As it has been said a million times. Research with reverence, But at the same time carrying your bullshit meter.

The greatest tool that is being used is obvious, Confusion. Divide and Conquer.

Hi Manji:

Before we can start passing judgment on Professor Jones and his great work ( http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar06.htm ), then you must show us evidence that he is some kind of 911Truth fraud. The man is one of my heroes and I would be happy to stand in his defense if anybody would like to begin hauling out that kind of damning evidence. When you say “No Plane Theory,” is that for the Flight 93, Flight 77 or the Twin Towers cases? There is no PLANE in either the Flight 93 ( http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=14794 ) or the Flight 77 cases ( http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=14796 ).

Please include a link to whatever information makes you believe Professor Jones is a fraud.

GL,

Terral

The following is from the Steven JonesWikipedia article. All of the sources are cited at the bottom of the link.

WTC collapse controversy
On September 22, 2005 Jones presented his views on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and World Trade Center 7 at a BYU seminar attended by about 60 people. Pointing to the speed and symmetry of the collapses, the characteristics of dust jets, and reports of molten metal in the debris, Jones suggested that the evidence defies the mainstream collapse theory and favors explosive demolition. He called for further scientific investigation to test the controlled demolition hypothesis and the release of all relevant data by the government.[11] Shortly after the seminar, Jones placed a paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" on the Physics department web site.

He subsequently defended the research twice more at BYU,[citation needed] also at Idaho State University, Utah Valley State College, University of Colorado at Boulder and University of Denver, the Utah Academy of Science, Sonoma State University, University of California at Berkeley, and the University of Texas at Austin. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

Jones' paper has been the center of controversy both for its content and its claims to scientific rigor.[19] Jones' early critics included members of BYU's engineering faculty;[20] shortly after he made his views public, the BYU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the faculty of structural engineering issued statements in which they distanced themselves from Jones' work. They noted that Jones' "hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners," and expressed doubts about whether they had been "submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."[21]

Some of Jones' colleagues have defended his work on 9/11 to varying degrees,[22] and Project Censored lists his 9/11 research among the top mainstream media censored stories of 2007.[23]

Jones maintains that the paper was peer-reviewed prior to publication, though it has never been published in an independent peer-reviewed journal. One journal that has published Jones' paper is the online "Journal of 9/11 Studies", which was co-founded by Jones for the purpose of "covering the whole of research related to 9/11/2001" and is co-edited by him.[24] The paper is also published in Global Outlook,[25] a magazine "seeking to reveal the truth About 9/11"[26] and in a volume of essays edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott.[27]

On September 7, 2006, Jones removed his paper from BYU's website at the request of administrators and was placed on paid leave.[28] The university cited its concern about the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature" of Jones' work and the concern that perhaps it had "not been published in appropriate scientific venues" as reasons for putting him under review. The review was to have been conducted at three levels: BYU administration, the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, and the Physics Department.[29]

Jones' placement on paid leave drew criticism from the American Association of University Professors and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Both organizations are long time critics of BYU's record on academic freedom.[30] Jones "welcomed the review" because he hoped it would "encourage people to read his paper for themselves," however the review was abandoned when Jones elected to retire, effective January 1, 2007.[31]

Jones has been interviewed by mainstream news sources and has made a number of public appearances. While Jones has urged caution in drawing conclusions,[32] his public comments have suggested a considerable degree of certainty about both the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center and the culpability of rogue agents working within the U.S. government.[33] In one interview, he asserted that the attacks were "an 'inside job', puppeteered by the neoconservatives in the White House to justify the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries, inflate military spending, and expand Israel."[34] His name is often mentioned in reporting about 9/11 conspiracy theories.[35



His own school turned against him, suspended him and was about to peer review him until he retired. Sounds like he is a fraud to me.

I have no doubt that Professor Jones knows about cold fusion and all the other stuff he specialized in. However he did not specialize in building construction, fire science, fire protection engineering, or architectural engineering.

Admin Edit

Hi LC. Thought maybe I'd drop in.

Steven Jones' thesis is founded upon molten metal "flowing and in pools". However, the evidence for molten metal is basically non-existent.

Please see this very nice article by CB_Brooklyn.

Admin Edit

What took place at the World Trade Center was far more powerful than thermite (ate) and conventional explosives can possibly explain.

"Molten Metal" turns out to be a disinfo cover story to try and explain the fumes and dust that rose up out of the rubble for 100 days. As ridiculous as the "underground fire" story is, so is thermite. Thermite cannot possibly react for a fraction of that time.

LOL @ link

Which part of the argument do you disagree with, and why?

The evidence for molten iron is basically non-existent.

You have one photo of an excavator with orange yellow stuff in it. Jones has already pulled two different photos out of his paper, with no explanation about why he ever included them. One turned out to be a picture of workers with a searchlight, and had had the colors shifted.

All the reports of molten metal, molten steel dripping, etc, are from the very official sources that brought you the official story. Why would you believe them?

Jones has his beloved "iron spherules", but there are many possible explanations for them besides thermite.

You have workers spraying water on the supposed fires for months. Do you know what happens when you spray water on molten metal? You get a steam explosion. Firefighters would never spray water on molten metal. They would let it cool down, which would not take very long.

Thermite reaction is a quick one. There is no explanation for thermite reacting for 100 days, nothing close to that.


Have you seen the so-called "meteorite"? There is un-burned paper. If this object was molten iron, can you offer a reason why the paper would remain unburned? Me neither.

I can tell you that I interviewed Dr. Jones personally on Sept. 10, 2007. I can tell you he had no answers for some pretty straightforward questions.

For example, I asked him why he didn't include molten metal in his RFC. Can anyone on this thread offer an explanation as to why Dr. Jones did not include molten metal in his RFC?

Yes there are.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/attack/flight93.html

Jim Hoffman's 911research.wtc7.net is no reliable source. This man is clearly biased and attacks everything that points to a plane swap maneuver a la Operation Northwoods. He has attacked Loose Change from the beginning, too.

Except nobody was supposed to die in Operation Northwoods, and that was rejected offhand before it even was planned by the Kennedy Administration, and that was in a time that called for oh so desperate measures. No such measures were necessary in 2001 so any connection between Operation Northwoods and 9/11 is sheer hyperbole. Also, if this was a false flag attack why would the government declassify the very plan the 9/11 conspiracy would be based on?

What do you propose took out WTC?

Space based laser weapons?

Mini nukes?

Reindeer?

The space shuttle?

Godzilla?

The biggest problem in the 9/11 truth movement are the true believers who work for BushCO, ie disinfo operatives, who are going around trying to spread confusion and to divide the movement.

PBWY
DYEW

There is evidence that proves some metal went from a solid to liquid state.

So far Wood has not presented one single test that will prove that metal went from a solid to a vapor during the collapse.

If this is indeed what happened that evidence would be in everything.

Do the DEW! No one ever dusted the core so it was real dusty.

A lot of the steel coming down how dust blowing off it. Most of the dust was insulation, wall board and concrete. It was not the metal turning to dust. If it was the 'dust' would be full of metal particles of a specific composition. Please go get a bag of dust and prove or disprove your theory.

That is a metal column and if there is concrete there then you need to explain that to the architects how their lightweight design was not followed and how concrete was now used in the core. The dust comes off the metal and all other debris had been stripped by the building falling around it. So you think the wind just kicks up enough amounts of dust to make it visible while falling so then why is there no dust coming off before it falls? No Wind? Oh and it is not my theory I just like to do the DEW. My theory about the controlled demolition is that Termites were used, not Thermite, that would be too obvious and leave Microspheres that are not credible because someone put them into a bag and gave them to a scientist to be refuted by contamination through a 2x3 foot window. So ask me to bag some evidence again and I will tell you to bag it...

You do know that the floor slabs were made out of concrete poured into steel pans? And that the floor slabs were attached to the perimeter walls and core columns?

One small fact you left out. Jones didn't just up and retire. BYU forced him to retire.

Please read the Rules.

For some reason you get mudered for mentioning no plane theory here so I hear? I can't imagine that as the loose change guys were always for the truth and would discuss any proof of other involvement that day. and tv fakery has actually been conclusivly prooved now. I dont get all this TV fakery to dis inform or dis credit the truthmovement. I know 6 tv fakery movie makers and they are all brilliant people who are looking for truth not to disinform people at all. and I know one in person and he is certainly not a agent lol

Perform an outdoors, successful, provable and convincing public demonstration of an optical illusion non-real large aircraft impacting a building and then maybe the topic might be worthy of discussion here.

MM

Possible explanations like what?

There's a big difference between what people on the ground saw and what we saw on TV that day.

Please present a credible eyewitness that is not a fundie, spook or member of the M$M or DOD who saw either Flight 11, 175, 93 or 77 and can make a positive ID?

'I saw something that looked like a missile', does not equal a specific flight.

I have a problem with the NPT at the WTC part. You know the rules Ace. Bye.