Four years after the event, a Brigham Young University
physics professor, Steven E. Jones, suggested that the destruction of the World
Trade Center skyscrapers was not caused by impact damage and associated fires
but by pre-positioned explosives. Jones' paper caused a stir
because of his credentials and apparent expertise in physics, mechanics and
chemistry. Jones is the only full professor in physics at a major university who
has publicly expressed skepticism about the official 9/11 story. Jones'
background includes research in the controversial area of "cold fusion," perhaps
the biggest scientific scandal of the last half-century. Cold fusion violates
standard physics theory because there is no explanation of where the energy
might come from to merge nuclei at room temperature.
Figure 1: Professor Steven E. Jones in his office.
Within weeks of Jones' arrival on the 9/11 scene Dr. Jim
Fetzer, a philosophy professor at the University of Minnesota-Duluth, founded a
new organization-Scholars for 9/11 Truth-and invited Jones to become co-chair,
effectively second in "command." The society grew rapidly to 300 members and
Fetzer and Jones made notable strides in publicizing shortcomings in the
official 9/11 story. Steven Jones' star continues to rise: "Now he [Steven E.
Jones] is the best hope of a movement that seeks to convince the rest of America
that elements of the government are guilty of mass murder on their own soil,"
writes John Gravois in the Chronicle of Higher
Education, June 23, 2006. Canadian chemist Frank R. Greening
says members of the 9/11 conspiracy community "practically worship the ground
(Jones) walks on because he's seen as a scientist who is preaching to their
Among other activities, Jones initially was responsible
for the scholars' discussion forum and he and Judy Wood instituted a
"peer-reviewed" Journal of 9/11 Studies. Jones appointed the advisory
editorial board, later Kevin Ryan as co-editor and chose the "peers" to review
manuscripts. Peer-review normally boosts the prestige of academic articles
because professors within the same discipline review manuscripts but in this
case there is little or no such review, even when offered. That fact convinced
Wood to resign.
The steep ascendancy of one scientist puts many of the
9/11truth movement's eggs in one basket. The question is, are we being set up
for a fall? The time for applauding Jones' stepping forward has passed. Events
force us to take a hard look at Jones' growing influence on 9/11 research.
Collectively we are engaged in a struggle to expose the
government's lies about 9/11. The physical sciences and analysis are key to this
project. The only investigation worthy of the name has been conducted on the
internet by researchers like Thierry
King, Rosalee Grable, Kee Dewdney, Nico Haupt, Killtown, and "Spooked" who proved no Boeing
757 went into the Pentagon, flight 93 did not crash in the designated hole near
Shanksville, PA, and the WTC towers were demolished by explosives.
Unfortunately, Jones fails to credit this body of
research. More importantly,
• Jones' work is deficient as shown below
• Its overall thrust is to rehabilitate portions of the
Official Government Conspiracy Theory (OGCT).
More specifically, we assert:
• Demolition at the WTC was proven fact long before
Jones came along, but he initially said that it is "...a hypothesis to be tested. That's
a big difference from a conclusion..." His subsequent concentration on issues
like steel-cutting thermite and experiments with newly-discovered materials from
unofficial sources allegedly from the WTC site have undermined confidence in
• That no Boeing 757 went into the Pentagon was proven
years ago but Jones suggests it is unproven because the Scholars are split on
it, though truth is hardly a matter to be democratically decided.
• Jones ignores the enormous energy releases at the
twin towers apparently because his favorite theory, thermite and its variants,
cannot account for data like nearly complete transformation of concrete into
fine dust. Instead, in a blinkered fashion Jones narrows the issue to thermite
versus mini-nuke (fission bomb) and predictably finds no evidence for a
Figure 2: Mostly unburned paper mixes with the top half
of the Twin Towers. As seen a block away, a large portion of the towers remains
suspended in air.
• Jones neglects laws of physics and physical evidence
regarding impossible WTC big plane crashes in favor of curt dismissal of the
no-planes-theory (NPT). He relies on "soft" evidence like videos, eyewitnesses,
planted evidence and unverified black boxes. When others challenge how aluminum
wide-body Boeings can fly through steel-concrete walls, floors and core without
losing a part, Jones does not turn to physics for refutation but continues to
cite eyewitnesses and videos, thereby backing the OGCT.
Figure 3(a): Husky, beefy beams.
Figure 3(b): Loss of a chunk (sizable section) out of
this tower would be inconsequential.
Figure 3(c): If the tower is viewed as a "towering tree"
and the Keebler Elves carved out a residence, no measurable weakening would
occur. If their cookie oven set fire to the tree, it would be inconsequential.
On 9/11 issues where the case is proven and settled,
Jones confounds it. On controversies with arguments and evidence on both sides
like NPT, he conducts no physical analysis and sides with OGCT.1 The
world asks, what energy source could have transformed 200,000 tons of
steel-reinforced concrete into ultra-fine particles within seconds, suspended in
the upper atmosphere for days while leaving paper unharmed, hurling straight
sticks of steel hundreds of feet, incinerating cars and trucks for blocks, and
leaving nary a desk, computer, file cabinet,
bookcase or couch on the ground? Jones seems to reply, "Superthermite."
Figure 4a: Unexplained spontaneous combustion toasted
cars in a lot near the WTC.
Figure 4b: Peculiar wilting of car doors and deformed
window surrounds on FDR Drive.
Figure 4c: Blistered car with unburned upholstery and
unburned plastic window molding.
Figure 4d: Front half of a car burned with an unburned
Figure 4e: What burned and dragged these cars and mangled
the left rear wheel?
III. WTC Demolition
The demolitions of WTC 1, 2 and 7 were different yet
Jones treats them implicitly as if they are alike. The perpetrators essentially
destroyed WTC 7 from the bottom up in a gravity-assisted collapse, while WTC 1
and 2 were primarily top-down, virtually unassisted by gravity and destroyed by
a combination of conventional and unconventional devices. Jones points to
conventional demolitions which leave clean-up crews with only short piles of
rubble and remarks, "As observed for WTC 7, also WTC 1 and 2-the Twin Towers-on
9-11-01" (p. 16), as if all demolitions are alike and have short stacks. The
perpetrators could not order an off-the-rack demolition from aisle 7B to cleanly
take down one-quarter-mile tall towers each containing approximately 100 acres
of interior space.
The scrap guys could not believe the twin towers had so
little rubble. "It simply did not seem possible that two of the world's tallest
buildings had all but disappeared...In total, 2,700 vertical feet of building,
containing nearly 10 million square feet of floor space, were reduced to a
tangled, smoking, burning heap less than 200 feet thick."2
Figure 6(a): Ground zero rubble was surprisingly small.
Figure 6(b): The rubble was not deep enough to reach the
undercarriage of the black Cushman scooter in the foreground and the flag poles
in the background look full height.
Figure 6(c) Where did the quarter-mile-high buildings go?
Figure 6(e): Ground zero looks bombed out because it was.
Little of the buildings remain and many husky, beefy beams (Figure 3 above) are
gone. There was surprisingly little collateral damage to nearby buildings.
Figure 6(f): An earthquake-induced collapse in Pakistan
suggests how much rubble and how little dust should have been at Ground Zero if
the government's gravitational collapse story were true.
Figure 6(g): Another view of the same earthquake-induced
collapse in Pakistan
Figure 7(a): Nuclear blast in Nevada.
Figure 7(b): The cauliflower top looks familiar. Listen
Baker sing "Blown to Kingdom Come."
"[A good option] is to detonate the columns so that the
building's sides fall inward," Jones writes, "...all of the rubble collects at
the center of the building" (p. 19). Jones seems untroubled by the meager rubble
from the massive cores. If all the steel had fallen to ground zero, it would
have formed a steel block at each tower base approximately 200'x200'x10.2' high.
If all the concrete had fallen to ground zero, it would have formed a block at
each tower base 200'x200'x56.1' high. Together they would total 66.3 feet tall
of pure steel and concrete or over five stories with no air or other debris.
This calculation takes no account of over 1,000,000 square feet of aluminum
cladding, 600,000 square feet of thick window glass, machinery (including 200
elevators in each tower), wall board, ceiling material, water and water systems,
a few million miles of wiring, office equipment and furniture, etc.
Jones poses a revealing question-and-answer:
Q: "What data finally convinced you that 9/11 was not
just by 19 hijackers?
A: Molten metal, yellow-hot and in large quantities..."
(7/19/06) p. 45]
This statement raises two problems: first, Jones gives
credence to the loony OGCT that "19 young Arabs acting at the behest of Islamist
extremists headquartered in distant Afghanistan" were involved or caused 9/11.
It makes no sense to embrace parts of the government's unproven story without
independent proof. If a scientist falsifies his data, his career is over. Why
not the same standard for government liars? Second, with so many compelling
facts like near free-fall speed, symmetric disintegration in their own
footprints, almost no concrete left, and many others, it is
folly to rely on molten metal as the strongest evidence for demolition,
especially flowing from windows in manipulated videos. In downgrading the
importance of free-fall speed Jones wrote on July 2, 2006, "...there are
stronger arguments at this time than those which rely on the time-of-fall of the
Towers. We're still working on those calculations...stronger arguments are
growing, IMO." There is no stronger argument for demolition than near-free-fall
Figure 8: This figure forms part of the proof that 110
floors can only hit the ground within 10 seconds if lower floors fall before
upper floors reach them. For more, see the billiard ball example.
Figure 9: The tower is being pealed downward. Dark
explosions shoot up, while white ones explode outward. Above the white
explosions the building has vanished while the lower part awaits termination.
Jones states he was unconvinced about 9/11 demolitions
until he learned about yellow-hot molten metal Jones [pdf (7/19/06) p. 45] yet
speed, symmetry and sequence of puffs or squibs at WTC 7 as evidence for
demolition. It was not until mid-February 2006 that he discussed yellow-hot
metal pouring out of a WTC 2 window. Our fear is that concentration on molten
metal is a distraction and a path to a destination most people do not want to
go. There are many ways to cut steel and the exact method is not all that
important. Thermite cannot pulverize an entire building and make molten metal
burn for 100 days. Something far more powerful was used and Jones avoids the
IV. Thermite and Glowing Liquid
Over a year before Jones appeared, Derrick Grimmer, a
Ph.D. physicist from Washington University-St. Louis and member of the
Scientific Panel Investigating Nine Eleven (SPINE), posted a scientific article about possible use of
thermite to melt sections of the WTC core. Jones does not cite this work but
begins with the WTC study by the government's National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) and its videos and pictures of liquid metal pouring from a
window of the WTC 2. Jones does not challenge these data though they appear to
violate the laws of physics. Where would heat sufficient to melt "huge"
quantities of metal come from, allow it to collect in large reservoirs and pour
along unspecified (irrigation) channel(s)? And how could thermite, which is
little more than a cutting torch, melt mass quantities of metal [see Figure
10(b)]. After a confrontation, Jones admitted that Andrew Johnson spliced the videotape but they
fail to tell us what was spliced to what and why and what the effect is. NIST
claims the pictures and videos were from Reuters and WABC-TV but are they real?
They look fake. Who took the pictures? What was the chain of custody? Is there
evidence of photoshopping?
NIST acknowledges it "adjusted" the intensity of the
photos somehow, so they were already doctored. Perhaps it was real phenomena but
we strongly doubt it because
• No heat source is specified
• The liquid inexplicably appears to flow from a window
rather than the floor and there is no explanation for what surface would support
• The flow changes windows
• The aluminum cladding on the exterior displays no
signs of heat or melting despite the fact that iron begins to melt at 1538° C
and aluminum alloys begin to melt at temperatures under 660° C
• The flow disappears prior to destruction of WTC 2 as
the video jumps.
Figure 11(a): NIST reports: "The intensity levels have
been adjusted..." NIST does not say if the adjustment was uniform, confined to a
particular window or what. The images have been tampered with and therefore are
useless as data to scientists.
Figure 11(b): Jones' edited version of the photo ignores
the NIST alert that "the intensity levels have been adjusted." He uses splicedvideotapes.
Figure 11(c): The alleged flow appears in a different
We cannot explain how molten metal would pour from a
window ledge and then move and pour from another window ledge, although NIST
claims the flow performed such a feat within seven minutes of collapse. We need
answers to these questions before we become convinced that the event was real
and therefore deserves analysis.
Jones claims that the pictured flow cannot be aluminum
because, "Molten aluminum in daylight conditions (like 9-11 WTC) is
silvery-straw-gray at all temperatures" [pdf
(7/19/06) p. 50]. Laboratory experiments
in late February 2006 by Wood and Zebuhr (1980-2006) cast serious doubt on
Jones' contention. Jones' table on p. 63 even documents the various colors of
aluminum as temperatures increase. All metals, including aluminum, glow as
temperatures rise. The exact appearance depends on the mix of impurities like
oil and oxidation in the metal yet Jones argues,
"...the approximate temperature of a hot metal is given
by its color, quite independent of the composition of the metal. (A notable
exception is falling liquid aluminum, which due to low emissivity and high
reflectivity appears silvery-gray in daylight conditions, after falling through
air one to two meters, regardless of the temperature at which the poured-out
aluminum left the vessel. Aluminum does incandesce like other metals, but
faintly so that the conditions in the previous sentence falling [sic] liquid
aluminum will appear silvery-gray according to experiments at BYU [Jones
We have no explanation for why Jones would insist,
contrary to evidence outside BYU, that flowing aluminum does not glow at high
temperatures in daylight conditions. This color chart
shows that all pure metals are the same color at each temperature.
At 600° C Al has a minimal glow as all metals do. An
electric stove burner, for example, barely glows at that temperature and you may
have to turn off the lights to see it.
Professor Jones uses the copyright photo below to
support his claim that Al has no glow under daylight conditions. Yet this
picture is not proof because there is no confirmation of what is being poured
and at what temperature. Aluminum begins to melt at 660° C and has low
emissivity, as iron does, and this picture just shows something being poured.
The bucket or mold may be iron or steel, but they not glowing. If they are cold,
the lack of visible reaction in the form of steam or sizzle must be explained.
Figure 13(a): Jones uses this picture. (b) Apples and
oranges compared, as text below explains. [pdf
(8/15/06) p. 69]
Figure 13(c): There is no good reason for this picture to
be out of focus in bright daylight conditions. Fast shutter speeds are used in
If the observed molten metal in the south tower pictures
is iron, Jones' favored interpretation, it must be above 1538° C. To rule out
molten Al in these south tower pictures, Al would have to be heated above 1538°
C for a valid comparison. Here is an analogy: who would conclude that a liquid
at 25° C (room temperature) cannot possibly be water because we all know H2O is
a solid at -10° C? No one. Compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges, one
metal to another under the same conditions. In the case of an aluminum alloy, it
only takes about 600° C to become liquid. We can see that the Al pictured at BYU
is nowhere near 1538° C because it is solid, it is not flowing, the container
and its handle do not glow and flimsy gloves offer plenty of protection. Notice
the steam coming off the pot that we do not see in Figure 13(a).
Figure 14(a): 99.7% pure aluminum at approximately 1,000°
Figure 14(b): Aluminum and its tungsten boat glow
approximately the same, illustrating that the two metals possess similar
emissivity (Wood/Zebuhr). Tungsten glows in daylight conditions (turn on your
porchlight at noon) and is used in light bulbs because of its high emissivity.
Al converges on tungsten's emissivity at high temperatures. There is no reason
to eliminate aluminum as the liquid flowing from the south tower based on
alleged differences in emissivity among Al, W, Fe at temperatures of 1500°C and
Thermite plays a major role in Jones' work on the
demolitions. He concludes that his thermite evidence points exclusively to its
use in WTC demolitions based on the testimony of lawyer Robert Moore and 9/11
activist Michael Berger plus his own reasoning that "thermite ejects globs of
molten white-hot iron" and is too dangerous to work with. Jones believes that
clean up crews at WTC did not use thermite. Yet these pictures from Ground Zero
suggest room for doubt. In the tangle of the WTC mess, thermite would be useful
to cut steel under conditions of poor accessibility. Nor is thermite as
dangerous as Jones suggests. Jones has even used a video of college kids playing
Figure 15(a), (b): Maybe thermite was used in the Ground
Zero clean up.
What about nanoaluminum for cutting steel? Jones calls
it "superthermite" and jumps to the conclusion that it caused the molten metal
pools burning 99 days without eliminating competing hypotheses. There is no
proof that thermite could cause such long-lived, intense fires. Jones and others
might conduct experiments to prove otherwise, but we doubt such a result can
happen. "Such molten-metal pools never before seen...with controlled demolitions
which did not use thermite, nor with building fires, nor with thermal lances,"
writes Jones, "Huge quantities of the stuff." Jones asserts "that much thermite
was used to bring the buildings down" (p. 62) but if proven wrong, there is
little or no fallback position. Placing all eggs in a thermite carton may lead
to slim breakfasts down the road.
Another issue is how the perpetrators could deploy and
control the necessary thermite. With 236 perimeter columns and 47 core columns
and 110 floors to cut loose in each tower, it might take 31,000 large thermite
deposits/canisters igniting in a computerized sequence to bring each tower down.
Even if thermite was placed on alternate floors, that would be 15,500 charges in
each tower. Then there is the problem of sufficient radio frequencies with 220
floors, each with its own set of frequencies. Professor Jones might give these
scenarios some thought.
Professor Jones reports that he has analyzed a piece of
solidified metal slag from WTC. He provides no documentation of the source or
evidence regarding the chain of custody. He concludes that the presence of
manganese, sulfur and fluorine suggest a "thermite fingerprint" (p. 77). Perhaps
he is right but there is no independent corroboration. Can outsiders test the
slag? Jones has proved nothing. Demolition is corroborated, proven and
undoubtedly involved steel cutters to insure swift collapse of the lower
structure, but the cutters were not necessarily thermite. Without proof,
thermite advocates put themselves out on a limb.
V. High Energy Devices
Thermite is a non-starter to account for phenomena (see
1. Disintegration of 99% of concrete into ultra-fine
dust (50% of particles under 100 microns in samples from three locations, Dr.
Thomas Cahill and his group measured concentrations of particles in ranges from
0.09 to 2.5 microns).
2. Superheated steels ablating-vaporizing continuously
as they fall-as seen in video clips of the towers collapsing. This requires
uniform temperatures roughly twice that of thermate (see Figure 17a below).
3. The North Tower spire stood for 20-30 seconds,
evaporated, went down, and turned to steel dust.
Figure 16: Steel beams turn to steel dust.
Figure 17: The same steel-dust phenomenon from another
Figure 18(a): A video clip of steel turning to steel
Figure 18(b): Another video of steel turning to steel
dust, although CNN's Aaron Brown calls it smoke.
4. 330-ton section of outer wall columns ripped off side
Figure 19: Large sections of outer wall to the left and
somewhat hidden to the right blow off the tower.
5. Sharp spikes of Richter 2.1 and 2.3 in seismograph
readings occurred at the start of both tower collapses. Short duration and high
power indicate explosive event, as illustrated by the audio track recorded in
Rick Seigel video, 911EYEWITNESS.
The abrupt cessation of movement implies no collapse but sudden termination of
shifting of debris.
Figure 20: Audio signal stops abruptly, indicating no
expected tapering off from a "settling process" in the debris pile. [911eyewitness]
6. Electrical outage over a wide area with repairs
taking over three months, suggesting EM pulses.
7. Fires took 100 days to extinguish despite continuous
spraying of water and huge rainstorms.
8. Brown shades of color in the air suggest sulfuric
acid. Air had pH levels of 12 of a maximum 14. TV and documentary footage
changed the color balance to blue to disguise this fact according to Rick
Siegel, indicating complicity in the cover-up.
9. Elevated tritium levels measured in the WTC area,
according to Siegel, but not elsewhere in New York.
10. Pyroclastic flow observed in concrete-based clouds
must have resulted from explosives, not thermite. Huge expanding dust clouds
multiples times the volume of the building, indicating extreme levels of heat in
excess of traditional demolition explosives.
11. Some rescue
workers and 14 rescue dogs died too soon afterward to be attributed to asbestos
or dust toxins.
12. Decontamination procedures used at Ground Zero
(hi-pressure water spraying) continuously for all steel removed from site.
Constant scrubbing of the site made it look like it was clean enough to eat off
of. Officials plainly did not want any outsider to find something.
Figure 21(a): Lower Manhattan was not the only recipient
of a hose job.
Figure 21(b): All new cranes quickly on site (ordered in
advance?) and lots of scrubbing.
Figure 21(c): New York City makes a clean sweep of it.
13. No bodies, furniture or computers found in the
rubble, but intact sheets of paper littered the dust-covered streets. Material
with significant mass may have absorbed energy and were vaporized while paper
14. 200,000 gallon sprinkler and water supply systems
were in WTC1 and WTC2, but there was no water in the ruins.
15. Many cars and trucks exploded around the WTC and
caused burned out wrecks that were not hit by debris. A group of police cars on
the FDR Drive had parts roasted. EM pulses may have caused electrical components
to explode and burn vehicles far from the WTC site (see Figure 4 above).
These data should excite scientific curiosity. Citing a
photo of a mushroom cloud atop a tower [pdf
(8/15/06) p. 18]. Jones calls it "evidence for use of explosives, like RDX, HMX,
or Superthermite (nanoaluminum powder)." Massive mushrooms tops do not erupt
from a building imploding from RDX. The towers were not imploded. They were
exploded. They were blown to kingdom come. Normally, people look at "what"
happened and then try to figure "why" or "how" it happened. There is no good
reason to stick to the familiar or conventional in the belief that the
perpetrators would not kill citizens with exotic devices. The stone-cold killers
would use whatever was in the arsenal and would do the job best, including
simplifying the cover story.
Jones asks a question related to high-energy-release
phenomena: "Could mini-nukes have been used on the Towers?" He explains,
"Hypothesis was raised by someone (not me) [so] we do experiments to find out!
(Scientific method)" [pdf
(8/15/06) p. 149]. We wonder what experiments Jones did with mini-nukes on the
BYU campus. Experimental method aside, it is not scientific to bypass data and
set off to disprove a circumscribed hypothesis proposed by somebody (a "bad"
person?). Jones claims he tested a metal slag (origin unknown) for radioactivity
(what kind? what instruments?) and found nothing above background levels.
Residents of New York City reportedly detected abnormal radiation on hand-held
Geiger counters at the WTC site, though we cannot vouch for the veracity of
these reports. While we too doubt a fission bomb was used, Jones' assertions
play no role in our assessment.
Tritium would be a telltale sign that an extraordinary
device was employed on the Twin Towers. Jones says he tested an air sample
(origin and preservation technique unknown) and found only traces of tritium.
Until independent researchers test verified samples, there is nothing here but
Jones' word and we leave it to you to decide its value. Jones takes a victory
lap ("Mission Accomplished") by saying, "So the evidence is strongly against the
'mini-nuke' idea, which no longer be promoted [sic] unless and until the above
compelling evidences [sic] can be successfully overturned" (p. 150).
A promising hypothesis derives from the super fine
particles found by Dr. Cahill, so small that they would normally occur only if
metals were heated to the boiling point, e.g., approximately 2,750° C for steel,
that is, steel vaporized and re-condensed as particles. Since such temperatures
were not reached, the process would be something that could extract or
neutralize the bond energy of metal atoms. Call it an "alien ray gun." It may be
a scalar interferometer: tune two electromagnetic scalar waves so their
interference zone extracts energy at a wavelength corresponding to the bonding
forces in the metal and it begins to fall apart. This hypothesis necessarily
involves secret technology, so it is not a proven but possible explanation for
the data. We encourage Professor Jones to investigate.
VI. The Pentagon
Jones did no research that we know of on the Pentagon
incident. Most 9/11 skeptics believe no Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon
because the gash was too small, no plane marks left on the building (airliner
silhouettes of passage at the Twin Towers, not at the Pentagon even though
concrete is brittle and more likely to shatter and show a plane's imprint), no
verified debris, no bodies, no blood, it is physically impossible to land a 757
at a speed of 500+ mph because of the downwash sheet, etc.
Figure 22(a): A small hole in the wall, no plane
silhouette and no wreckage. If the Boeing does not fit, you must quit (the plane
Figure 22(b): The putting green in front of the Pentagon.
Figure 22(c): An airliner would have to hop over the
unburned cable spools before hitting the ground floor.
Figure 22(d): Pieces around the car are not burning or
burned while the steel hood is burning and burned through and the right front
fender is noticeably distorted. Jet fuel does not burn through steel and
therefore cannot burn through steel hoods and engines.
"The question of what hit the Pentagon on 9/11 has NOT
reached a consensus among the Scholars group" (p. 157), says Jones. The word NOT
suggests that people should suspend judgment. Maybe a big Boeing magically
shrunk itself and disappeared inside the Pentagon. Voting machines, surveys and
Steven E. Jones' subjective guesses aside, facts are not determined by polls.
"Several of the Scholars group argue...perhaps a B737 rather than a B757 (AA
flight 77)" (p. 159) went into the Pentagon," Jones persists, offering zero
scientific evidence for this hunch. If the hoax of a Boeing at the Pentagon is
unproven, nothing about the 9/11 hoax has been proven. "We also seek answers as
to why there were no air defenses to stop the incoming jet!" (p. 160). With no
proof of an incoming jet, Jones assumes OGCT. Jones and the scholars should hunt the
VII. No Plane Theory
When it comes to the heart of the 9/11 fiction- Arabs
hijacked four airliners and crashed them in designated locations-Jones sees no
real problems with this story. He is hostile to the "no plane theory" (NPT), the
theory that no airliners went into either WTC tower, the Pentagon or the
Shanksville covered strip mine. Advocates usually allow for missiles or other
air vehicles flying about, including umanned (UAV's). Jones' motivation is
unclear but he applies no physics and fails to study the physical evidence
associated with the alleged crashes. An objective scientist, for example, would
review data like this silhouette of passage in WTC 1:
Figure 23(a): Silhouette of passage by invincible Boeing
Figure 23(b): Silhouette of passage by Invincible
Figure 23(c): Beep! Beep!
No airplane debris was visible in the gash and no
verified debris was knocked to the ground below the impact wall. Consider the
conspicuous right wing tip mark. If the Roadrunner can fly through an Acme steel
plate, a Boeing can too, right? The aluminum airliner nose crashed into the
steel wall and five steel/concrete floors, remaining intact. The fuselage
disappeared far inside the gash without deformation, no torsion (twisting) and
forward wing momentum no greater than the fuselage, despite stout resistance
from the tower. In truth, with no direct resistance from the building and
powered by full throttle engines, wing momentum would tear the wings from each
suddenly-decelerating fuselage. Wing spars are built of strong but brittle
forged aluminum and must break off. But back to the government-media fairy tale:
As each wing root and its jet fuel and heavy undercarriage crashed into walls
and floors, no fuel spilled out and nothing burned across the face of the
building, all fuel being carried inside. Since 767 wings are swept back about 35
degrees, each intact wing had to sever steel columns and spandrel belts
sequentially over milliseconds, each aluminum forward edge effectively "sawing"
through steel columns/belts and steel-reinforced concrete floors with nothing
breaking off. Amazing! Despite no structural connection to the main spar, the
right wing tip in question survived this assault and then tattooed the aluminum
facade, demurely slipping inside each building. Gullible Americans and most
American physicists, judging by their silence, join Steven E. Jones in embracing
the WTC airplane fiction.
Figure 24: A C-130, about
half the weight of a Boeing 767, hit this 10-story apartment building at
approximately the 8th floor in Tehran last December and crumpled outside,
throwing debris around and spilling burning jet fuel over the impact wall and
inside the building.
Figure 25: Three-pound bird goes mano a mano with
aluminum plane and does heavy damage.
The incurious Jones passes up a treasure trove of data
which defy logic and laws of physics:
1. Holes in the towers too small to swallow
2. No plane debris on the ground below the impact holes.
3. No fuel burned below gashes of either tower (Figure
4. No plane debris visible in the gashes, hanging out,
nor outside any exit side.
5. Videos showing the same impossible physics, gliding
smoothly at 500+ mph through the steel exterior and steel/concrete floors and
stopping within a tenth of a second inside, suddenly destroying itself and
vanishing with virtually all 3.1 million parts inside.
6. Virtually no airplane debris at any of the four
alleged crash sites ("the cleanest crash sites in aviation history" except for
evidence planted by government agents) and no time-change parts with serial
numbers unique for each aircraft ever identified or proven.
7. As retired software engineer in the aerospace
industry Joseph Keith
says, "Every video that shows impact shows a plane flying through the tower wall
the same way it flies through thin air: no cratering effect, no pushing parts of
the building in, no crunching of the airframe as it hits resistance, no reaction
from the heavy engines and hidden landing gear, no parts breaking off, no outer
30 feet of the wing breaking off, no bursting, shredding or bending of the
wing," "No nothing." The videos
It is a foregone conclusion for Jones (apparently) that
airliners went into the Twin Towers, no questions asked. Even when he discusses
demolition, Jones reinforces the plane fiction: "Think of it-just put explosives
for (sic) a few upper floors (like where the planes went in)" (p. 22). Or, Jones
cites Fire Engineering magazine without criticizing its assertion of
"structural damage from the planes and explosive ignition of jet fuel" (p. 40).
Or, "The data as a whole are sufficiently compelling NOW to motivate an
immediate investigation of parties, besides the 19 hijackers/Al Qaeda, who might
have had a role in 9/11 arson and murders" (p. 95).
"Can anyone prove that al Qaeda acted ALONE?" writes
Jones, "I have not seen any such proof" (p. 124). The Government never attempted
to prove its OBL fiction because it could not. OGCT is the most audacious fraud
of all in a history littered with frauds like Operation Northwoods, Gulf of
Tonkin incident, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Kuwait baby incubator hoax, Niger
yellow cake and Saddam Hussein's WMD. Rather than research, Jones assumes
premises not in evidence. He has the same amount of proof that al Qaeda
conducted 9/11 as he has that Saddam Hussein did.
No one can prove a lie, not even Steven Jones, hence
government cannot prove OGCT.
• 9/11 was solved on TV within 60 seconds of the second
tower event by a Fox News
anchor: an instant conspiracy theory
• There is no proof of Arab hijackers, for example, no
Arab names on passenger manifests
• No verified security video tapes (fake of Dulles boarding nearly three
• AA airliner tail numbers N334AA and N644AA not
FAA-deregistered until January 14, 2002
• United airliner tail numbers N612UA and N591UA not
deregistered until September 28, 2005
• "In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single
piece of paper either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of
information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere that mentioned any
aspect of the September 11 plot," stated FBI Director Mueller. He claimed that
the attackers used "extraordinary secrecy" and "investigators have found no
computers, laptops, hard drives or other storage media that may have been used
by the hijackers, who hid their communications by using hundreds of pay phones
and cell phones, coupled with hard-to-trace prepaid calling cards." [Federal
Bureau of Investigation, 4/19/2002; Los Angeles Times, 4/22/2002]
• On June 6, 2006 the FBI stated that OBL is not wanted
for 9/11 because the FBI has "no hard evidence" that he was involved
• The U.S. government refuses to authenticate the December 13,
2001, bin Laden "confession video."
• Mainstream media reported as many as ten of the
accused hijackers alive after 9/11 (Hamza Alghamdi, Saeed Alghamdi, Salem
Alhazmi, Ahmed Alnami, Abdulaziz Alomari, Mohand Alshehri, brothers Waleed M.
Alshehri and Wail Alshehri, Mohammed Atta, Khalid Almidhdhar) and Majed Moqed
was last reported seen in 2000.
• Expressing uncertainty over the identity of the
accused hijackers on September 20, 2001 FBI Director Mueller said, "We have
several others that are still in question. The investigation is ongoing, and I
am not certain as to several of the others" [Newsday, 9/21/2001]. On September
27, after revelations in the media about live hijackers, FBI Director Mueller
responded, "We are fairly certain of a number of them." [South Florida
Sun-Sentinel, 9/28/2001]. On November 2, 2001 Mueller stated, "We at this point
definitely know the 19 hijackers who were responsible," and said that the FBI
would stick with the names and photos released in late September [Associated
"Did a faction in the government know about the
hijackers' pending attacks beforehand?" (p. 124) Jones asks. The professor is
clueless or a disinformation agent. He refers to pre-9/11 intelligence warnings
that are disinformation, thereby echoing the blood libel that 9/11 was done by
Arab hijackers. Jones defends the 9/11 Commission's conventional air defense
"breakdown" story. It is nonsense to make such statements backing the OGCT
without looking at or conducting scientific research on these issues.
When Jones defends the WTC airliner story, he cites soft
evidence like videos, "many, many eyewitnesses," unverified flight data
recorders, an alleged consensus of Scholars' (capital "S") in favor of airliners
and calls for release of evidence (who but the government could object?). Jones
says videos "clearly show the commercial jet liner." Doh! You mean the perps
would fake a video and NOT show a jet liner? The question is, do the pixels
reflect reality or is the jet liner image inserted? In NFL broadcasts, the
first-and-ten line is inserted in real time, as are billboards at NBA and MLB
games, even customized by region. At the Winter Olympics, TV trickery inserted
the flag of each speed skater's nation under the ice and then switched it in
real time as the skaters switched lanes. Truly remarkable.
Since he is no video expert, the clueless professor
might ask himself if the Newtonian laws of motion
still prevailed on 9/11. If so, then the videos are fake. But he answers, "many,
many witnesses." Even if we granted many, many for the sake of argument, so
what? One day in the past, many, many witnesses saw the earth was flat and five
years ago many, many saw the psy-op on TV, including those who allegedly saw an
airliner hit a tower from the street below or a skyscraper. Jones lays it on
extra thick about eyewitnesses because once the videos are exposed for the
fakery they are, that is what he and the government have left as proof.
To sketch in a refutation of eyewitness accounts, first,
most people in the "canyons" of lower Manhattan could not see a plane if it
smacked into a tower at 500+ mph, and many said so. A plane at 500 mph would
cover a 60'-wide street and its sidewalks within a tenth of second. Second, many
witnesses heard no jet and most of the video sound tracks record no jet liner
booming at incredibly high speed and low altitude. South tower penetration is
silent in videos. Third, witness testimony is notoriously unreliable and fungible.
Fourth, people lie (the perps hired actors, along with a script for complicit
media). Fifth, physical evidence ranks number one with prosecutors and
scientists while eyewitness testimony ranks lower, certainly no higher than
second. A physics professor should exhibit more interest in physical evidence
than hearsay inadmissible in court.
Figure 26(a): Landing gear amid dust, adjacent to old
scaffolding, not on a street corner, close to curb, just left of the mid-point
of a dusty Greco-Roman pillar lying in the gutter.
Figure 26(b): Landing gear on a dust-free street corner
near shiny new scaffolding, set back from the curb and no Greco-Roman pillar
visible. The tire and brakes look different too.
Figure 26(c): Landing gear in new photo op: tire looks in
better health, no extensive dust, new scaffolding, further from the corner,
further forward toward the top of a dust-free Greco-Roman pillar. We suspect
tampering with evidence :). Actors gape (no one walking on their way, a suitcase
on the morning of 9/11?) at nice tire and shiny shaft, wondering why the tire,
brake housing and shaft would be unburned despite ejection through a "jet fuel
conflagration" high atop a tower.
Scrutiny of alleged eyewitness testimony, however, may
not be entirely worthless. As far as we can tell, there is a dearth of testimony
from disinterested witnesses affirming airliner flights into the WTC towers.
Consider the first plane that allegedly flew into the North Tower: many
thousands of people in Central Park plus northbound drivers, passengers and
pedestrians along First, Second and Third Avenues, Lexington Avenue, Park
Avenue, Madison Avenue, Fifth Avenue, Avenue of the Americas, Broadway, etc.,
would have seen a low-flying AA Boeing 767 thundering south/southwest down the
island of Manhattan. At high speed it would have been incredibly noisy,
extraordinary and scary. It would have echoed down the canyons. The direction or
source may not have been obvious at first. At 400+ mph the jetliner would have
taken approximately one minute to fly less than seven miles from just north of
Central Park into the North Tower, plenty of time for witnesses to see and track
a plane go by but not hit the tower. Thousands of disinterested eyewitnesses
could have confirmed a Boeing 767 flying overhead if the official story were
true but I've not seen such interviews. The internet lacks credible "street
interviews" and the controlled media did not go there. That is a telling fact.
The witnesses offered are usually media people,
"anonymous" or those who do not confirm a jetliner flying into a tower at all.
From a legal, adversarial point of view, most WTC "eyewitness" testimony in
favor of large airliners is highly vulnerable. Get them in court and
cross-examine them under oath. That's a whole new ball game and I strongly
suspect that an attorney of the "Gerard Holmgren"
variety would crush them. In a traumatic event, people switch into survival mode
and their powers of observation become impaired, highly selective, and they are
much more susceptible to media manipulation. One telephone caller to Bryant
Gumbel of CBS said he just saw beams shoot out from the WTC building followed by
"Wait a minute, the radio just reported it was plane parts that flew out of the
building, so, I just saw plane parts fly out of the building." Radio is powerful
enough but people are most susceptible to visual [pdf]
CNN, otherwise known as the Complicit News Network, was
the lead sled dog that day, quickly set up the party line within minutes. Here
is the key to CNN
coverage that day: at 8:54 a.m. Sean Murtagh, CNN's
vice president of finance and administration, "witnessed the crash from his
nearby office" and tells [CNN Anchor Carol ]"Lin via an on-air phone call that
the plane that hit the north tower was a 'large commercial passenger jet.'" Uh
huh. "My office faces south toward...the...what,...where the trade center used
to be and... probably caught the last 5-6 seconds of flight of the first plane
flying straight into the north tower. Impact, fireball and when it hit, it was
like, you got like a thud in your stomach, like did I just see what I just saw?"
There is a credible eyewitness statement, right? Wrong.
Here's what is wrong: first, CNN offices then were at 5 Penn Plaza on W. 33d
street, almost three miles north of WTC, a 10-minute ride, not a walk. That's
not "nearby" by our lights. Second, facing south from an office on the 21st
floor sounds good but it's not a good vantage point because the plane would fly
by in a flash, too fast to get a real fix on what it was. Third, the plane would
take over 20 seconds to arrive at the north tower, not "the last 5-6 seconds of
flight" claimed. Murtagh's timing is off by an order of magnitude. While hugely
effective, Murtagh is not credible. Fourth, CNN led its coverage with a report
from one of its own executives about a large airliner flying into the North
Tower. They did not even have enough respect for the audience to interview a
hired actor on the street, instead putting the lie "in plain view" by
broadcasting it from a CNN employee. Fifth, Murtagh is a lousy actor, with a
flat, disinterested delivery that no appalled American watching an airliner fly
into the North Tower could possibly muster.
Ok, let's continue for a bit. Some truth leaks out in
early media coverage of a disaster because the controlled media is not entirely
controlled down to the reporter level. It's almost amusing how Murtagh's lie is
immediately overturned by the first unidentified female witness who
insisted the North Tower hit came from inside, and then the second, Jeanne
Yurman, who reported a sonic boom. Neither witness confirms Murtagh's report of
a large airliner.
Jones should conduct a thorough analysis of the witness
testimony before pushing this tower of babel to prove a large airliner crashed
into a tower. In any event, witness testimony contrary to the laws of physics is
worse than useless. Perhaps our critique will lead him to conduct psychological
experiments at BYU.
VIII. Shanksville, Pennsylvania
To our knowledge, Jones passes over the Pennsylvania
hoax, the Todd Beamer "Let's Roll" fraud, the absurd "crash site" in
Shanksville, PA. We wonder why. Perhaps we should applaud professor Jones for
his silence on this issue because he has conducted no scientific investigation.
Perhaps the perpetrators did such an embarrassing job and the story is so weak
that he found no way to defend it. Yet Jones' silence speaks loudly to us
because it is so easy to prove OGCT a lie in Pennsylvania. The professor might
want to start his search with Hunt the Boeing II.
Figure 27(a): Smoking hole near Shanksville, PA free of
plane debris, bodies, luggage, etc. A local resident observed, "It's the only
place it could have gone down and be sure no one would be hurt." Translation: it
was the only place where there could be no witnesses. According to media
reports, no local resident claimed to see a plane crash.
Figure 27(b): For national security and privacy reasons,
the government has not yet shown this evidence of the Shanksville plane crash
IX. The Scientific Method
and Verified Evidence
Jones goes to great pains to praise the scientific
method. We could be unkind and term this refrain sanctimonious but it serves the
useful purpose of hoisting Jones on his own petard. We need only cite data for
high-energy releases at WTC and no evidence for Boeing crashes to see that Jones
fails by his own standard. Jones fails to look carefully at the "what," that is,
the data and then apply physical principles to analyze "how." Instead, he
dismisses serious hypotheses with prima facie evidence on their behalf.
Perhaps Professor Jones' most disturbing offense is
failure to verify his data and show reproducibility in his experiments. The
origin of his evidence is shadowy, chain of custody unknown, and materials and
proof for the testing processes undocumented. Just like the 9/11 Commission's
methods, much of Jones' so-called evidence is "self referential," that is, it is
a closed loop of alleged results inaccessible and therefore unverifiable by
outsiders. It is the "trust me" approach. Jones champions peer review yet he has
never presented his 9/11 paper at a scientific conference despite at least one
invitation, and his journal is not peer reviewed by scholars in the same
X. Vote for Jones
Given Professor Jones' enormous popularity in the 9/11
arena, we must undertake the unpleasant task of social analysis. Jones "evokes"
the persona of a choirboy and he plays to the gallery. Here is evidence: over
half of his slides have no connection with physical science, and instead are
political. In effect, they proclaim, "Elect Steve, I wanna be your physicist,
I'm a NICE guy." The clutter in Jones' presentation ranges all over the map:
Jones proudly points to "growing investigative support at BYU" [pdf
(7/19/06) p. 44], a sympathy-soliciting but phony-sounding email threatening
negative consequences and promising bribes (I'm a victim, I'm courageous),
crowd-pleasing calls for investigation/impeachment, paeans to phony peak oil
crises and fragile infrastructure, denunciation of corporate profits (he is a
(7/19/06)] and corporate profits are bad? Corporate losses are good?), solar
cookers, shared values, the Prophet Nephi and other irrelevancies.
Does anyone really care what a physicist says about
Nephi, the U.S. Constitution, pre-9/11 intelligence warnings, Able Danger, or an
alleged insider sell-off of Raytheon pre-9/11? He even gets his economics wrong
here because a pre-9/11 "buy-off" of Raytheon would profit insiders as defense
contractors' share prices would soar with the forthcoming "war on terror."
Excusable error for a physicist perhaps but bad physics and use of his authority
to pronounce in fields where he has no expertise are not excusable. All would be
forgiven if he offered insights or revealed hidden truths, but he does not. As
911eyewitness creator Rick Siegel
said in mocking Jones and his thermite diversion to explain missing towers, "Of
course it was WMD, why else [call in] an educated nuclear physicist promoting
Steven E. Jones, BYU physicist, rocketed to the top of
the 9/11 research ladder based on position and credentials. But nearly a year
later, his contributions range from irrelevant to redundant to misleading to
wrong. He has not turned up a single item of value. The majority of what Jones
says is political and his physics is egregiously wrong (SJ: aluminum "cannot"
glow yellow in daylight), deceptive (SJ: WTC demolitions can be treated alike),
nonexistent (SJ: jet liners crashed into WTC, a jet liner might have crashed
into the Pentagon) and shallow (SJ: thermite is key to WTC demolitions).
The proof that 9/11 was an inside job was well developed
by internet researchers, not academics. The question now is whether
participation by academic researchers will hamper or help in expanding our
understanding of 9/11 and bringing the perpetrators to justice. Early returns
from the most highly sought-after research on 9/11-that of physicist Steven E.
Jones-predict little or no good will come from the academic establishment on
either 9/11 truth or justice. Proof that government/media lied and 9/11 was an
inside job is being confounded and rolled back.
*Ph.D. in economics, University of Wisconsin, 1971, and
Ph.D. from the department of engineering science and mechanics, Virginia Tech,
1992, respectively. Critics may claim that we damage Scholars for 9/11 Truth by
exposing failings in the work of Steven Jones, its leading physical scientist.
Yet the Scholars are "dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths."
S9/11T is devoted to applying the principles of scientific reasoning to the
available evidence, "letting the chips fall where they may."
1 For Gerard Holmgren's critique of Jones, see
2 Glenn Stout, Charles Vitchers and Robert Gray, Nine
Months at Ground Zero, New York, NY: Scribner, 2006, p. 21.
Visits to my site!
Reynolds 2006+ unless otherwise specified. Distribution of and linking to
the articles on this website is strongly encouraged, as long as the content is
not manipulated or distorted in anyway.