Transcript: The Dynamic Duo with Jim Fetzer

2 January 2007, parts 1 - 6 (of 8).

Participants

JF = Prof. James Fetzer (Host)

JW = Prof. Judy Wood

MR = Prof. Morgan Reynolds

(Also mentioned KB = Prof. Kevin Barrett, alternate host, and affectionate nickname BW = the Boy Wonder)

(Intro over music) Today I’m going be discussing some of the most complex and important issues related to the science and politics of research on 9/11. As many of our listeners will know, when I founded the Scholars for 9/11 Truth on the 15^th December of 2005, I invited Steve Jones to join me as my Co-Chair. Steve was then a Physicist at Brigham Young University, and he was doing research on possible causal mechanisms to bring down the Twin Towers.

Steve and I over a long period of time, but especially relatively recently, have had a diversion in points of view about both the science and the politics of 9/11, and Steve resigned as a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth on the 5^th of December, and has become a part of a new group, called Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.

His WebSite is STJ911.org, so it’s like ST911.org, with the addition of the "J" after "T".

Now, I recently visited that site to see how they were coming along, and discovered that there are a number of claims made, related to what are supposed be to attacks on Steve Jones, that have to do with issues of science and non-science, or 'unscience'. There are several claims about the work of certain scholars being unscientific, and about Steve Jones’ work being scientific.

Well this is an extremely interesting issue to me, because my Ph.D is in the history & the philosophy of science. I’ve published many books, lots of articles, given plenty of talks, and in fact — you know — have focused on the nature of science in my professional work, for 35 years, teaching courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning. So it’s a great issue for discussion from my point as a philosopher of science. Bear in mind too, that I’ve spent an enormous amount of time defending Steve Jones especially, say, during the first half of our relationship — from attacks by others.

But now I have become sceptical, about the capacity for his approach — his preferred hypothesis, ‘thermite/thermate’ — to explain what happened at the Twin Towers. So what I want to do here today, really, is talk about the scientific status of Steve Jones’ work, which his followers take for granted.

And whether the work of some of his critics, such as Judy Wood, and Morgan Reynolds, is unscientific — as his followers allege.

Let me make it very clear I invited Steve Jones to appear on this program today, to discuss his work with him, and hoped to create an exchange, between Steve Jones and Judy Wood during the first hour, and between Steve Jones and Morgan Reynolds during the second hour.

Steve declined my invitation, as he has declined previous invitations to come on this program.

I’ve also encouraged him to join me speaking at the National Press Club, to the McLendon Group, on the 10^th January, just a week or so hence.

He has declined to do that.

I invited him to participate in the National 9/11 Debate Team which I organised for the National 9/11 Debate, which may take place in March.

He has withdrawn from that.

I encouraged him to put together a Panel to discuss 'Conventional modes of demolition of the World Trade Centre', for a conference I’m organising here in Madison.

He has also declined to do that.

So it’s, I think, very difficult to make the case that I have a bias against Steve Jones, insofar as I have made repeated invitations for him to present his point of view, in multiple contexts, and he has withdrawn, or declined them all.

To me that's acutely disappointing.

This is not quite a figure in the mode of Galileo, who would withstand the furious assaults of the Roman Catholic Church, in order to uphold his point of view about whether or not the Earth moves, or whether or not the Heavens are perfectly smooth and spherical, as Aristotle maintained.

And the like.

So I would have hoped Steve could be here with us but, to my regret, he is not.

Now, if anyone wanted to go for background about Steve Jones, they could visit Wikipedia, as I did today. And they might find the same fascinating observation that I had noticed before, but not thought much about.

It talks about how one of Steve’s areas is Archaeometry. Well Archaeometry turns out to be the interface between Archaeology and the Natural & Physical Sciences.

According to Wikipedia, Jones has (this is - I’m quoting now), Jones has written a paper entitled "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ’s Visit in Ancient America", in which he used Archaeological evidence to support the claims of Joseph Smith Jr., founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, that "Jesus had visited the Native Americans after his resurrection, an event chronicled in their Book of Mormon. The evidence pointed to his Mayan depictions of deities, which have stigmata-like markings on their hands". End quote.

Now stigmata are — you know — markings like those depicted of Jesus from the Crucifiction, the huge cut on his side, and of course wounds to his hands — often depicted in the palms, which I take it is physically impossible, because if you nail a person to a cross by their palms, the hands will tear away from the nails. So actually a crucifiction has to be done through the wrist bones, in order to maintain their presence there.

Now. Some would say, raising this issue is a form of ad hominem, because what I’m — you know — if it’s an ad hominem to point out that Jones has done this research — when it’s a FACT — it’s difficult to imagine that could be an ad hominem, all by itself.

Ad hominems tend to have the character of, say — you know — "You shouldn’t believe this man because his grandfather, say, supported the Nazis in World War II", or "You shouldn’t believe the woman because her mother is an alcoholic". Or "You shouldn't that witness because his brother has 75 Parking Tickets".

These are different ways attacking a person, rather than their point of view.

Normally a person’s religion would be irrelevant to their scientific research. There are hundreds of scientists, for example, who believe in God, many Protestant, many Roman Catholic, many of other denominations, where that is not even thought - you know — considered in any way, shape, or form to be inappropriate in relation to their research in a whole host of fields. And I have several books, of essays by scientists, who do this.

Now, what is interesting about the case of Steve Jones, is that he is doing research that purports be scientific, that happens to lend support to the views reported in the Book of Mormon. The evidence of these Mayan depictions of deities which have stigmata-like markings.

Now what I found fascinating about this is the course I’ve taught, in "Science and Pseudo Science" for the last — oh, five or six years at least - maybe it could have been as long as ten, of my 35-year teaching of logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, is that I wound up using a book that’s really wonderful, it’s entitled "Frauds, Myths & Mysteries: Science and Pseudo Science in Archaeology", by Kenneth L Feder.

And one of the interesting parts about Feder’s book, is where he talks about drawings, Mayan and other types of drawings, that are subject to subjective interpretations, one way or another.

If you go to the 4^th Edition, for example, of this book, "Frauds, Myths & Mysteries", by Feder, on page 207 he is discussing Erich von Daniken's conception, in "Chariots of the Gods", that Ancient Astronauts visit the Earth, so that the Earth is supposed to have been populated not by evolution, but by the visit of an ancient group of Astronauts, who populated the Earth from a distant civilisation.

Now that generates the problem of where that distant civilisation came from, which is a fascinating question.

But here, von Daniken is pointed toward things like an Antler Mask from the Mound Builder’s Site in Spiro, in Oklahoma, for example. Or Petroglyphs - rock carvings - in Oklahoma, which show - you know - kind of like a helmet, with antler-like configurations, which might be argued to be some kind of antennae, where  - that had to do with Ancient Astronaut visitations.

(Outro over music) We’ll pick it up when we continue with — this the Ink Blot Test, it’s known as — I’ll pick it up with the Ink Blot Test, when we return on the Dynamic Duo.

Participants

JF = Prof. James Fetzer (Host)

JW = Prof. Judy Wood

MR = Prof. Morgan Reynolds

(Also mentioned KB = Prof. Kevin Barrett, alternate host, and affectionate nickname BW = the Boy Wonder)

(Intro over music) This is JF, your host on the Dynamic Duo with KB, today I’m discussing issues about the nature of science, in relation to Scholars for 9/11 Truth and, in particular, certain claims that are made on the WebSite of a group that has broken away from Scholars, and created its own entity called Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, largely designing itself — or building itself — around the work of Steven Jones.

And what I’m discussing now is this very subtle, but fascinating, question of the relationship between science and religion, because Steven Jones — like everyone else — is entitled to believe as an article of faith anything they want about Gods, or Gods, any variety of religion they choose — he happens to be a Mormon — but that is as an 'article of faith', where you’re not claiming you have — you know — rational grounds, or reasons or evidence — particularly scientific evidence for your beliefs as articles of faith. In this case Steve Jones has developed a paper, called "Behold My hands: Evidence for Christ’s Visit in Ancient America", where he uses Archaeological evidence that he claims supports, the … the … Book of Mormon, according to which Jesus visited North America after his resurrection.

And the evidence is Mayan depictions of deities that have stigmata-like markings. Now these stigmata-like markings are wounds that were suffered by Christ when he was crucified and tortured and so forth, including of course an enormous cut … on his - on his abdomen, and the wounds from the crucifiction, and possibly also around the head, from the Crown of Thorns.

Now, what’s interesting about this, to me, is that — you know - I have spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning, and introduced a new course at the University of Minnesota, Duluth , on Science and Pseudo Science.

And for the last 5 years or so the principal text was a book in the area of Archaeology, "Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudo Science in Archaeology".

I’m looking at the 4^th Edition, authored by Kenneth L Feder, it’s a fascinating book a wonderful book, I heartily recommended it.

Now in Chapter 9 it talks the fantasy of Ancient Astronauts, where Erich von Daniken — very famous author — in his book "Chariots of the Gods" suggested, that the Earth was actually populated by the visitations by Ancient Astronauts, not through evolution.

And that they came, and there’s evidence for it in ancient drawings, and diagrams — very much like Steve Jones claims there is evidence in these ancient diagrams for the previous visitation of Jesus to the North America.

And some of it includes depictions of … of ceremonial masses of antler-like configurations, drawings of vast — some that you see from earth drawings — one depicting a monkey — I’m talking about page 207, 208, 209, 210 — here’s a really good one — an image from a deep wall in the Temple of Hathor in Dendera, Egypt.

Where you have objects that could well be interpreted as though they were sort of weird-shaped light bulbs, that have led to the claim that the Egyptians had electricity.

Or — you know — another on page 212, might be construed as — you know — an Ancient Astronaut appearing though — peering through some kind of telescopic-type device, or what have you. There might antennae and oxygen masks, and so forth.

This is fascinating stuff.

So I’ve dealt with issues like this in the past, and of course - the trouble of course with these is they’re so highly subjective in their interpretation. What you are really looking at are some images, and trying to figure out what they mean.

And, therefore, they tend to be characterised as — you know — Ink Blots. They’re like Ink Blots.

Ink Blots work very well in … in Psychoanalysis … or in — you know — Clinical Psychology, because what you interested in Psychoanalysis and Clinical Psychology, is deriving an individual’s subjective impressions — to get a better read of their subjective state of mind.

Now, here, what’s going on is that Steven Jones is making an argument that this provides objective scientific evidence for a visitation from — of … of Jesus to North America.

And, I’m sorry to say that it appears, to be highly unscientific — at least its scientific status appears to highly dubious.

Here’s one observation being made by Feder, about von Daniken’s approach — as being analogous to an Ink Blot Test, although he is describing actual images.

"These images belong to a different culture, without an understanding of the religious, artistic or historical context of the drawings or images, von Daniken’s description of the images tells more about what’s going on in his mind, than what was in the minds of the ancient artists".

And, while I’m perfectly willing to suggest that there is room for us to debate this, I would be very surprised if, in general, other theologians or students of the history of Jesus Christ — who are legion — would be inclined to endorse this hypothesis of Steven Jones ‘that Christ had visited North America after his resurrection'.

Which suggests to me, that Steven Jones may be deemed HIGHLY SELECTIVE in his use of evidence, and it appears to be clearly subjective in nature, and therefore in the area of what tends to be properly classified as Pseudo Science.

And I bring this up, because it’s a kind of a fascinating situation where you got a Physicist who is performing what he claims to be scientific research in support of his religious beliefs.

Normally that sort of claim isn’t made, although it does, occasionally, occur. And when it DOES occur, obviously there’s an obligation to appraise the evidence he claims supports his religious beliefs on the basis of appropriate scientific standards.

Here’s another example some of you may be familiar with — the claim that there’s a face on Mars — that there is an image of a human face on Mars. This is discussed by Feder on page 232 and 233 where you can see, from different perspectives, that — what appears to be a face — loses its face-like qualities from different points of view.

So, what I’m saying is, this is extremely interesting. I’m not criticising in any way, shape or form, Steven Jones’ right to his religious beliefs.

And I certainly recognise that there’s a large number of scientists who are able to keep their religious beliefs and their scientific research separate. Where their religious beliefs are held as 'articles of faith', and their scientific research of course is a matter of rational belief, based on appropriate observations, measurements, experiments, and theorising.

But in this case there appears an intersection that Steve Jones claims to have objective scientific evidence to support his religious beliefs. And I’m suggesting this appears to fall into the category of Pseudo Science — that an author whose book I have used for at least five years — named Kenneth Feder, "Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudo Science in Archeaology" appears to provide comparable examples which involve what is known as the Ink Blot Test, especially when he discusses Erich von Daniken’s claims of 'Ancient Astronauts having populated the Earth'.

So if it is just and example, and we can consider it to be preliminary to the most important issues we want to talk about, which have to with the scientific standing of his research on the hypotheses, or possible explanations about what brought down the Twin Towers, in relation to the totality of the evidence there.

(Outro over music) But I would just point out that here is case where it would appear that Steven Jones is — you know - subordinating his research — his scientific research - to a religious doctrine. And, therefore, we might want to consider whether there is a pattern in Steve Jones’ work that might tend to illustrate that in more cases than one.

We’re going to return here with my special guest Judy Wood, and we’re going to talk about the attacks on her, and Morgan Reynolds, which Steve Jones and his group claim … [becomes unintelligible]

Participants

JF = Prof. James Fetzer (Host)

JW = Prof. Judy Wood

MR = Prof. Morgan Reynolds

(Also mentioned KB = Prof. Kevin Barrett, alternate host, and affectionate nickname BW = the Boy Wonder)

JF: (Intro over music) This is JF, your host on the Dynamic Duo with KB, where you can catch the BW on Mondays/Fridays, and occasionally subbing for me. And today I’m talking about the scientific or unscientific status of different hypotheses about what happened at the World Trade Centre, including those of Steven Jones.

JF: And I’m very pleased to have on, as my special guest for the first hour, and I want keep her on for the first segment of our second hour, Judy Wood — whom I consider to be the most highly-qualified individual who belongs to Scholars for 9/11 Truth. She has degrees in Civil Engineering, Engineering Mechanics, Materials Engineering Science.

JF: I just want to emphasis — I mean — Steve Jones is - has a degree in Physics, and he’s done work on Cold Fusion, and Archaeometry — some of which I have been discussing. But Judy has far more specific background of appropriate relevance to the World Trade Centre, and its phenomena, in terms of her Civil Engineering, Engineering Mechanics and Materials Engineering Science background.

JF: So it is my judgment, of all those I have ever dealt with — and it’s been quite a large number now — you know — hundreds of members of Scholars, for example, and many others — she appears to me to be the single most qualified individual to ever study this case.

JF: Judy, welcome on to The Dynamic Duo.

JW: Thank you! Glad to be here!

JF: I wanted to read a paragraph that I discovered on this WebSite for Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, and ask for your reaction to it. And anyone who wants to go there — as I said, it’s like ST911.org but with a "J", so it’s STJ911.org. And you will not have trouble finding it, because this is a very - this WebSite’s in a very preliminary stage, there’s not a lot there.

JF: But what is there includes this: "Various attacks on Steven Jones" (I’m quoting) "Steven E Jones, a 20-year professor of Physics brought unprecedented credibly to the challenges to the official explanation of the destruction of the World Trade Centre skyscrapers, when he published ‘Why, indeed, did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse ‘ in late 2004. Predictably, Jones was targeted with a campaign of attacks characterized by misrepresentations of his work and ad hominems. Primarily from individuals and persons embracing unscientific alternative theories of the attack. Shortly before the fifth anniversary of the attack, Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood teamed up to offer the first of several attack-pieces against Jones"

JF: And then there are two pieces cited, one is "Reply to Reynolds and Wood" by Steven E Jones, and another "Response to Reynolds and Wood" by Frank Legge.

JF: Now, Judy, I’m very interested in talking with you about this, because something that struck me immediately, is that THEY DON’T CITE your paper! I mean if they’re going to say that you DO all this, it seems to me that fair is fair, you ought to cite where people can go and read the original, and make their own judgments about what you and Morgan have, or have not, said.

JW: Right … it seems very clear to me that they don’t people to make their own judgment.

JF & JW overtalk: JF: Something that bothers me tremendously is this word "Predictably" JW: They’re trying(?) this whole thing.

JF: They say "Predictably he was targeted with a campaign of attacks, characterised by misrepresentations of his work and ad hominems". Now. You know this business about 'ad hominems' can be very subtle, which I was seeking to illustrate by this initial discussion about his work on claiming to have 'Archaeological evidence for the visitation of Christ after his resurrection, to North America'.

JF: Now this a very subtle business. Is there anything 'ad hominem' about it? I would argue NOT, because he’s claiming to have scientific evidence for this, and it appears that the kind of evidence he’s citing is a perfect example of the Ink Blot phenomena that occurred in the case of Erich von Daniken’s "Chariots of the God - Gods", that Kenneth Feder talks about in his book "Frauds, Myths and Mysteries".

JF: So I — you know — based upon all my research and past — I mean without having delved into detail into Steve Jones’ work, which I look forward to doing when I can track down a copy — it appears to me it'd be a pretty good case that falls into the category of this Ink Blot phenomena, and therefore to be highly subjective and not reliable … and in the category of Pseudo Science.

JF: Now, here when they say "Predictably" they’re IMPLYING that those who are criticising Jones don’t have any good reason for doing so, and that it’s political smear, and that it’s all ad hominem, that what they’re doing. They’re begging the question — in other words — by the use of that word "Predictably".

JF: And, of course, they’re saying is mischaracterises his work. How can we know whether you have, or have not, mischaracterised his work, if we don’t know what you have said about it? And in addition of course then, presumably, had access to HIS work — which is not hard to do, because I have all this up on Scholars for 9/11 Truth?

JW: And he does not want to come on your show today to defend his position, which I find interesting.

JF: Yea, it fascinates me, the many - the many opportunities I’ve given Steven Jones now, to come on — you know — in various fora, and present his views and defend them — that’s very troublesome. To me …

JW: What is most interesting is there’s nothing much of substance on that site, except for this page, labelled "Misinformation". And it’s little bit humorous that on this page, where he’s pointing out "Misinformation", he presents misinformation.

[Laughing]

JF: Well … that would be highly ironic indeed …

JW: He states that he wrote — you know — "Why Indeed did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse" in late 2004.

[Transcriber’s Note: Judy’s statement has been verified to be correct (at the time of transcribing). Jones’ paper appeared in late 2005. The joke is that the 2004 typo in the ‘disinfo’ WebPage to creates ‘it’s own disinfo by typo’]

JW: I don’t believe he even was questioning the events of 9/11 …

JF & JW (together): In 2004.

JW: Right.

JF & JW (overtalk): JW: This is misinformation JF: So, this is — maybe this is a [unintelligible] …

JF: Shouldn’t it - that be 2005? I know that by 2005 he was questioning it.

JW: Yea … in late 2005 he came out with his first paper, it wasn’t even entitled that, it was "Why Indeed did the World Trade Center Buildings Collapse". Now he’s add … he’s changed the title, it’s name, recently. But it was NOT in 2004 that his paper came out.

JF: You mean he’s added this word "Completely"?

JW: Yea ... that word "Completely" came about in the last few months.

JF: The thing that’s fascinated me, Judy, is that in an exchange with Jeff Stahl (sic.) …

JF & JW (together): Strahl?

[Transcriber’s Note: Jeff Strahl is the correct name]

JF: A recent exchange — I mean - so recent that, on the 27^th of December, Steve Jones was responding to Jeff, who was raising questions about ‘what evidence that Steve Jones had’ that ‘thermite/thermate’ could be used to bring down a building — and Steve cites a Patent for a device that can cut steel, but the Patent is for a device that can cut 2 inches of steel. And of course, as most students of the case know, the steel at the World Trade Centre began at the base, it was 400 millimetres, or 4 inches thick, and then it tapers off to the top, where it becomes as thin as 6 millimetres, or 1/4 inch thick.

JF: But you’d have to have — for the thermate to do it — presumably, you’d have to cut through a whole lot more than just 2 inches of steel.

JF: So here is the response — I’m quoting now an e-mail from Steve, responding to Jeff — he says: "Jeff, The Patent points out that devices can placed on either side of the steel, that’s cutting up to about 4 inches. This with thermite using copper oxide — per the Patent — but not sulphur — sulphur will enhance the cutting effect".

JF: And then he says: "One cannot rule out the use of thermite or super-thermite cutters for WTC, just because it has not been used before for demolition". Now, to me that fairly astonishing, Judy, because I would have presumed that Steve had a strong case for the past use of these types of causes — thermite/thermate — to perform demolition, and from what I infer here, he has no evidence that, in fact, it has ever been used for that purpose before.

JW: Correct. And Morgan Reynolds & I wrote a paper, posing these various issues to Steven Jones, which he has not responded to. What or was - you know — 'cite where in history ever has thermite or thermate ever been used to bring down a skyscraper, in a controlled demolition'.

(Outro over music) JF: My impression is this falls into the category of the area known as ‘Proof of Concept’, where you are offering a demonstration, that something like your claim is a real possibility. We’ll return to this issue of ‘Proof of Concept’ during my conversation with Judy Wood in just one moment. This is The Dynamic Duo with your host, JF. Stand by.

Participants

JF = Prof. James Fetzer (Host)

JW = Prof. Judy Wood

MR = Prof. Morgan Reynolds

(Also mentioned KB = Prof. Kevin Barrett, alternate host, and affectionate nickname BW = the Boy Wonder)

JF: (Intro over music) This is JF, your host on the Dynamic Duo, where you can catch KB on Mondays/Fridays, and occasionally subbing for me. Today I have my special guest the first hour, and into the second, Judy Wood, who - in my opinion — is the most highly-qualified individual that’s ever studied the events of 9/11.

JF: We’re talking about certain claims that are made on a new Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice WebSite, in defence of the ‘scientific character of Steve Jones’ research', and the ‘unscientific character' of the alternatives that have been proposed by, among others, Judy Wood & Morgan Reynolds.

JF: And, Judy, the paper you and Morgan wrote, as I understand it, is the one right here, found on ST911.org, if you go to 'Founder’s Corner', "The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis" (14^th December), is that right?

JW: Err no … it … err someone … err … seemed to have taken down site today. The site got hacked, or … something happened …

JF: Well, actually I’m on it right now, and it’s working right now, so …

JW: Oh! Did it come back up? Oh great!

JF: Yea … I’m happy to say, right, and your other articles were working too. I tried to call you to mention that … that they seemed to be back up.

JW: Ok.

JF: The point I’m making is — this is the right article is it not?

JW: It’s … err … "Thermite & the Scientific Method"?

JF: Right "The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis", Judy Wood & Morgan Reynolds, December 14^th 2006 [Judy agrees speaking over]

JW: And if someone wants to access this, if you go to 911Scholars.org. In the upper left-hand corner you’ll see a link to click on, and you’ll see the list of the files we temporarily put there.

JF: Judy, Judy, it already here! It’s already on ST911.org.

JW: OK! Great!

JF: Now let me just mention, for anyone out there, that by special arrangement with Ted Anderson, if you’d like to have a copy of this article, you can call 1-800-360-8695 [repeated], tell him you’d like the article "The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis" by Judy Wood & Morgan Reynolds, which is found in the Founder’s Corner box, on ST911.org, and Genesis Communications Network will send it to you, with their compliments.

JF: So I want to say this a wonderful thing that Ted Anderson is doing, articles of mine that appear on my public issues WebSite, AssassinationScience.com, my JFK Research WebSite AssassinationResearch.com were on ST911.org, can be yours by special request, special arrangement, just call 1-800-360-8695, and Genesis will be glad to send them to you.

JF; Now, Judy, when I look at your "Scientific Method" paper, "Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis", the first thing that struck me, is Steve Jones’ own conception of scientific method. Which - you have a slide from his talks — and I’ve seen it many times — and it talks about "What is the Scientific Method?". And it gi - lists certain steps or stages, "Gather observations, evidence", that’s the first. "Make hypothesis to explain", that’s the second. Third "Experiments to test hypothesis" to acquire more data. "Refine of reject hypothesis, more experiments" …

JW: Never goes back to too see if it matches the observations!

JF: Well, hang on! "Publish in peer-review venues, repeat above cycle, generate ‘theory model’ of reality". Now, my field, as the - as a philosopher of science — includes dealing with different models of Scientific Method, and I’ve been troubled by this, because it’s — it’s not a defensible conception of the nature of science.

JF: Now, this is an observation I’m making, Judy, based upon my own professional background and expertise. You can’t begin with observations, because you don’t know what observations to make. I’m reminded of the case of the eccentric millionaire who’d spent his whole life writing down every sound, every observation he’d make — if a butterfly flew by window, he’d jot it down — if he heard a siren in the background, he’d jot it down. And when his attorney sought to bestow this precious legacy on the Smithsonian Institute, they turned it down.

JF: And of course the reason is that observations, willy-nilly, unguided by an hypothesis, may have no scientific significance whatsoever — which means that the hypothesis has to come before the observation. And when he says "Make hypothesis to explain …", and this is what troubles me the most - he’s talking about a SINGLE hypothesis!

JF: A correct characterisation of Scientific Method, and — you know — I can’t begin to explain how much time I have put into demonstrating — PROVING — that this is the most adequate conception — would begin with 'PUZZLEMENT' ... Yea … it sound like 'observation', except that observation can be willy-nilly. 'Puzzlement' means you encounter some phenomenon — you don’t know how to explain it — it doesn’t fit into background knowledge, so it sets up a ‘PROBLEM to be SOLVED’.

JF: This is the case with the World Trade Centre, you got the two buildings coming down, the rapidity with which they disappear — according to the 9/11 Commission Report, 10 seconds for the South Tower, the NIST uses the figures 9 and 11 seconds — we can talk about that, because you’ve done this beautiful study that demonstrates conclusively that if these buildings are coming down under — solely under the influence of gravity, they can’t POSSIBLY have come down that fast. Which I consider to be one of the most elegant proofs that 'the Government account can’t possibly be correct' — that anyone has ever produced. But you have 'Puzzlement'!

JF: Then 'Speculation'. 'Speculation' is a crucial stage, it involves considering all the possible alternative possible explanations. And the reason why you have to consider the FULL RANGE, is that so much of science by the method of ELIMINATING alternative possibilities, until you’re left the one that appears to be the most defensible It’s that Sh — that Sherlock Holmesian notion, 'that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains — however improbable — must be the truth'. But if you begin if you don’t begin with a full range of alternative possible explanations, which — in this case — might include thermite, thermate, other modes of conventional destruction, Mini-nukes, Directed-energy weapons, HAARP weapons, whatever — you need the full range in order for scientific enquiry to get off the ground!

JF: And then of course, you proceed by adapting the hypothesis to the evidence — roughly it’s a matter of calculating the likelihood of each different hypothesis in relation to the totality of the evidence, which in this case includes the massive devastation to the World Trade Centre, includes the non-functional disruption of the Bathtub, includes the ‘toasted cars’, and all this other fascinating evidence to which you and Morgan have drawn such striking attention.

JF: We ask if this hypothesis were true — if thermite/thermate were the true hypothesis — or if mini-nukes were the true hypothesis — or if Directed-energy were the true hypothesis — or if HAARP were the true hypothesis — what’s the probability, if those hypotheses were true, of getting this evidence?

JF: And that determines the likelihood, or the degree of evidential support, that evidence provides the hypothesis. I have reached the point, Judy, of being convinced, that when you look at the totality of the evidence, the thermite/thermate hypothesis confers a probability on that ‘totality evidence’ that approximates ZERO!

JF: That, at best, it can provide a PARTIAL explanation for collapse of some floors, but that - this is a much too complex phenomenon, and that thermite/thermate just can’t ‘cut it’. Now, when you compare you likelihoods of all alternate hypotheses, then the hypothesis with highest likelihood is the ‘Preferable hypothesis’. And when there is sufficient evidence available — when the evidence has settled down, in other words, and all more or less points in the same direction — then you are entitled to accept the ‘Preferable hypothesis’.

JF: Now, I just wonder, Judy, whether you would be inclined to agree that — from your point of view as expert in Material Structure Science, for example — that the ‘thermite/thermate’ hypothesis has approximately a zero probability of explaining the available evidence?

JW: Correct because it’s — it’s sort of mutually exclusive with the observed data. But in terms of the Scientific Method, my interpretation of that — in simple terms — is first establishing ‘What happened’. Before you think of ‘How it happened’. Just look at ‘What happened’, and see if you can determine that … and ‘model’ it - or … err … put it in some sort of an outline form: ‘What happened’. Then, once you’ve done that, look at ‘How it happened’, then ‘Why it happened’. But if you start with ‘Why’, and then go backwards, you’re not going to get to the right answer. You start out with the Political Method, as Steven Jones often refers to, you end up with getting the description that you’ve dialled in, and ‘want’. But if we look at ‘What happened’ … thermate, or thermite, or what not, cannot explain the pulverisation that we saw.

JF: This is a very important point, and I want to elaborate on it. My understanding is that Jones’ hypothesis, that his thermite/thermate in combination, that not only cut the steel, but pulverised the concrete flooring material, the office furniture, the desks, the computers, living things including human beings, into very fine particles, that those are virtually mutually-exclusive causal mechanisms, so that — because thermite requires — because cutting requires a focused energy, and pulverisation requires a diversified energy.

JW: Correct!

(Outro over music) JF: We’ll be right back with my special guest, Judy Wood, I’m going to invite her to discuss what she sees as the principal problems with the thermite/thermate hypothesis, right after this break. Stand by.

Participants

JF = Prof. James Fetzer (Host)

JW = Prof. Judy Wood

MR = Prof. Morgan Reynolds

(Also mentioned KB = Prof. Kevin Barrett, alternate host, and affectionate nickname BW = the Boy Wonder)

JF: (Intro over music) This is JF, your host on the Dynamic Duo with KB, where you can catch the BW on Mondays/Fridays, and occasionally subbing for me. With my special guest for the first hour, I'm carrying her over into the second hour, Judy Wood, who has a background in Mechanical - Civil Engineering, Engineering Mechanics, and Materials Structure Science, and is the single best-qualified person in the Research Community studying the events of 9/11, in my judgment.

JF: Judy, you and I and Morgan have been the subjects of a - an enormous volume of attack, based upon mere speculation, rumour and false impression. Most importantly because the claim is made that you, and I, and Morgan are specifically endorsing one or another hypothesis about how all of this massive destruction was brought about when, in fact, that's completely untrue! I have gone through your WebSite repeatedly - looked the photographs, studied the evidence you've presented, I've been overwhelmingly impressed with the - the - the EXTENSIVENESS of the destruction.

JF: With the fact that you have two 500,000 ton buildings that are coming down, and yet the Bathtub remains un - undamaged to the extent that it's not [sic.] functional, but if it had been damaged to cease being functional, that water from the Hudson River would have flooded the PATH Train tunnels under the Hudson, they would have flooded the subways, caused massive destruction, undermined the foundations of enormous buildings, would have run to 100s of billions of dollars, and probably taken a decade to clean the mess up. And then all 'toasted' cars.

JF: And yet you only talked about possibilities! All you and Morgan have ever addressed are possibilities!

JW: Right! First of all I'd like to note that our paper is not finished yet, as we explained, it's under construction, we felt that - the need to work on this in full public view, for safety purposes. But the first 5 pages of - of our paper, are only data - we're presenting data - we're presenting the evidence that must be explained.

JF: Right! What's 'unscientific' about that! In fact it seems to me to be simply absurd for you to be criticised for being 'unscientific', when you're giving a more full and adequate DEFINITION, or elaboration of what's technically known as the 'Explanandum', 'What it is that has been explained', than anyone has ever done before. Certainly it's not the sort thing that I have seen Steve Jones, or his supporters, ever do.

JF: So for them to fault you for merely elaborating on the 'Explanandum', 'What it is we have to explain', seems to me to be completely unjust, and then to hold you accountable for one specific causal mechanism - when all you've done is to suggest there are a multiplicity of possibilities - and I have heard you repeatedly NOT commit yourself to one or another, when I have interviewed about these subjects before.

JF: Correct! There is a lot of possibilities out there. What we've done is eliminate various things. Like 'Gravity collapse', for example …

JF: Yes!

JW: … it contradicts a whole lot of the data. We're not hinting everything at one particular data point. It's a - a - cumulative evidence, it's a cumulative case.

JF: Yea … what I find so bizarre about the other side's criticism insofar as I can tell, actually the thermite/thermate hypothesis when it's used for both the effect of cutting steel AND pulverisation, is actually an INCOHERENT THEORY - meaning it contradicts itself, because we're talking about two incompatible types of causal mechanism [Judy agrees over].

JW: Right! They're mutually exclusive. It you are going drop a building with a 'Gravity collapse' … yea … you might have angle-cut columns, but that doesn't - how do you get pulverised buildings that DID NOT hit the ground? It ... ahh … yes … it doesn't add up. But wh - another technique that I've seen used, is they do not want folks to look at the data.

JF: Well let me just emphasise - dwell on this one point, Judy - for any scientific theory or hypothesis to be true, it has to - at the very least - be CONSISTENT. It must be POSSIBLE for it to be true. If you're positing a causal mechanism that is in fact 'incoherent', because it requires 'inconsistent properties', 'incompatible properties', then you don't even have that minimal condition satisfied of having a consistent theory. And that is the MINIMAL condition on a scientific hypothesis!

JW: It's like saying that 'this car accident happened by this car moving forward too fast', and then the next sentence saying it was because it was moving backwards, and backing up. It's like you got to pick one or the other!

JF: So I really wonder - you know - the extent to which those who are criticising you for be - and Morgan - for being 'unscientific', and defending Steve for being 'scientific', have actually thought this through. If he has an incoherent hypothesis, how can they possibly defend it. It can't possibly be true FROM SCRATCH!

JW: I think it's the - there's nothing that anyone can understand about it. And no-one can question it.

JF: Something I like about your study is you begin with 'Proof of Concept', which is a - some kind of demonstration, illustration, or exhibit that - the kind of causal mechanism - in this case you have in mind thermite/thermate - can DO what, say, Steve would have it DO, at the World Trade Centre, in particular in 1 & 2 [WTC1 & WTC2].

JF: Now I think, Judy, that the response of his supporters would be that he has demonstrated his 'Proof of Concept' by putting a thermite bomb, or canister, on top of an Engine Block, and watching it burn all the way through …

JW: But that's not a building …

JF: Would that be correct?

JW: Correct - but that's not a building getting pulverised. 

JF: That not only 'not a building getting pulverised', but as I thought back over and over and over - you know - the amount of time it takes to DO that - has to be AT LEAST TEN OR MORE SECONDS! I mean more time is required is required for it to perform this particular specific task, than was involved in the complete demolition of two 110-storey buildings!

JW: Correct!

JF (laughing): So who's being 'unscientific'? I - it's very strange to me, that persons who present themselves as being serious, or present themselves as being scientists would present - you know - a theory that it isn't even logically consistent, because it involves incompatible causal mechanisms, and with also a 'Proof of Concept' that actually tends to demonstrate that it can't possibly have been the cause - because it required as much time just to illustrate that 'Proof of Concept' as the entire destruction of 110-storey buildings!

JW: I also have concerns about if you are going to have a specifically-timed sequence of cutting of - with thermite, how do you control that timing? Because it's kind of random as - it appears - as to how that 'Proof of Concept' was demonstrated with the Engine Block.

JF: Did you find that a - did you find that a curious demonstration at the time? Or did you find it fairly reasonable?

JW: I didn't the relationship. Between the Engine Block demonstration, and what that has to do bringing down a skyscraper.

JF: Now, the Engine Block, see this is [unintelligible]. Was it some kind of thermate grenade he was using, because - you know - the Engine Block is more massive than 4 inches thick of steel. So it must be something different than the - than the thermite or thermate device that has been patented for the destruction of buildings, or you'd have to put two of them on either side if you wanted to destroy a 4-inch column. 

JW: I myself, not being in the Controlled Demolition business, consulted an expert that I know who is - works Controlled Demolition - and when I brought up the word thermate to them, the said "What? Thermate?" He didn't even know if that word existed. He'd heard of thermite, and some grenades that get used in military, to destroy your opponent's artillery ..

JF: Right!

JW: … but they didn't know of anything like that to use for controlled demolition.

JF: Right. If you go onto Wikipedia, for example, and look at thermite/thermate, you find that it's a very convenient device for destroying artillery weapons, you drop it down the barrel, and it's so hot that it melts the - the mechanism, the firing mechanism and loading mechanisms in an artillery piece, and renders it completely useless.

JW: Or the joints of a cannon, so it fuses it at the joints.

JF: Or the joints of a cannon, which can be fused … so. It seems to me that there's something very peculiar about this research program, because it doesn't seem to me that it was based upon a sufficient search of the literature, to determine whether or not it was even a remotely-plausible mechanism. I think so many members of the Research Community wanted to have some 'hard science' proof - and this a man who even calls himself 'HardEvidence' as his e-mail handle. So many wanted some 'hard science' evidence, that they were willing to grasp at straws, and take whatever came along, and here came Steven Jones with his offer of thermite/thermate?

JW: If you go to bottom of our Appendix I page, there are several - well it's also on this "Scientific Method" paper, there are some Google searches, to search for "Controlled Demolition and Thermite", and you only come up stuff related to Steven Jones.

(Outro over music) JF: Judy, why don't you stand by, and - for the next segment, we'll see if Morgan's available, and I'll keep you on for a while, then bring Morgan in. This is JF, your host on The Dynamic Duo.

Participants

JF = Prof. James Fetzer (Host)

JW = Prof. Judy Wood

MR = Prof. Morgan Reynolds

(Also mentioned KB = Prof. Kevin Barrett, alternate host, and affectionate nickname BW = the Boy Wonder)

JF: (Intro over music) This is JF, your host on the Dynamic Duo with KB, where you can catch the BW on Mondays/Fridays, and occasionally subbing for me. With my special Judy Wood, maybe the most-qualified individual to ever study the events of 9/11. And I'm going to be bringing in Morgan Reynolds too, if we have him on the line here, momentarily.

JF: Judy, I'd like to say, as a philosopher of science, it'd seem to me that Steven Jones' research satisfies the conception of what's known as a 'Degenerating research program', defined by Imray Lakatos, in a brilliant essay he wrote in a - in a collection he co-edited, entitled "Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge". Well Lakatos talks about a Research Program that simply isn't panning out, it's not spawning new research, it's not producing new papers, it's not inspiring new experiments. And it seems to me that that's pretty much where Steven Jones has gone - I mean - that his Research program is more or less petering out. I mean I ….

JW: Well …

JF: … mid-year here, about in June, about the time of the American Scholar's Conference, that I just sensed that the potential for his approach, to pan out, was not very great. And I thought it became increasingly important to separate our refutations of the Government's account - where we have massive evidence that the Government's account is false - which you can find, for example, summarised in "Why doubt 9/11?" on ST911.org - just go up to the top of the Menu Bar, go down the 'Beginner's side', and you'll se - you'll find it right away. Where I've enumerated 15 - more than 15 - MAJOR reasons why the Government's account is indefensible, how we know it's false, how we can prove it's false, and not even physically possible …

JW: Actually, Jim, I beg to differ with you slightly. This is a little bit tongue-in-cheek, but there's some seriousness here. That just by watching what Steven Jones focuses on, or focuses away from, is a very big clue as to what to look at, or what not to look at. 

JF & JW (together): The opposite!

JW: I - if he - he definitely does not want you to look at the - at the article that Morgan & I are working on. Ahh! Perhaps because we are correct! Perhaps it's validation! Why - why are we always accused of being these 'rabid No-Planers'? First of all, I've never stated one way or the other where I stand on 'if planes did, or didn't, hit the Towers'. So why is that statement being made over and over again? It's to keep you from THINKING about whether or not planes hit! Keep you from EVALUATING it, and just keep on - you know - drinking the Kool Aid, and going with … keep believing the planes, because the Government 'says so' - don't question the Government, don't question the Government's story, just keep believing it.

JF: Well, Judy, I think you're making excellent points. Now the - the - what I was driving at is this. Refuting the Government's account is one thing, and we have done that overwhelmingly! Explaining what actually happened is another far more difficult task, and I'm afraid that many of those out there who - you know - aren't doing research themselves, may have a rather feeble grasp of science - that sort of latched on, to Steven Jones' attempt to explain 'What actually happened', because in their minds, if Jones' thermite/thermate is true - then it must be case that Government's account is false - and they don't have to worry about things like 'melting points', and 'temperatures' and 'speeds of - of disintegration', and all that.

JF: And yet these are completely separate matters from a logical point of view. Refuting the Government's position has been done in spades. Explaining exactly what happened, that's far more challenging, far more difficult, that's where Steve Jones comes in, and it's almost irresistible. I think those who are relatively unsophisticated intellectually about the nature of science, they want to cling on to it, they want to hang on to it. That thermite/thermate is something they feel they can hold in their hands, as though it's REAL, and they don't seem to appreciate at all the context within which this whole approach has emerged. With what appears to be a lack of a 'literature research', no 'Proof of Concept', and in the context of what - appears to me - to be a 'Degenerating research program'.

JW: And I wonder if folks realise that - while we're busy look - do you know what a 'Straw Man' is?

JF: Of course! An exaggerated version of a position, which can more readily attack, and then claim to have despatched the readily-available, more defensible version.

JW: I wonder if the Listeners realise thermate and thermite have already attacked, and DISPROVEN, and that was the ONLY CASE for Controlled Demolition that was considered.

JF: By NIST?

JW: Yes.

JF: I think that's very important, Judy, that you have discovered that NIST has already considered the hypothesis that Steve Jones continues to defend, that thermite/thermate may have been the responsible agent here …

JW: And has already debunked it.

JF: This is very troubling. Because to the best of my knowledge Steve Jones has never acknowledged that, and yet it's a part of all of the available evidence. Remember, a basic principle of Scientific Research, is called the 'Requirement of Total Evidence', which dictates that you must base your reasoning on 'All of the available, relevant, evidence'. Which why it's so terribly terribly important to consider the TOTALITY of the devastation of the World Trade Centre.

JF: I have sometimes put it this way, Judy, even if Steve Jones' explanation were 'good as gold' regarding World Trade Centre 1 & 2, the North and South Tower, that would NOT explain what happened to WTC3, WTC4, WTC5 or WTC6 - even if we set 7 aside, as a special case, involving 'Classic Controlled Demolition'.

JW: Correct.

JF: And a point you so beautifully …

JW: And the cars! The 'toasted' cars!

JF: … made - the - the destruction is almost 'surgical', it's as though ALL, and ONLY, the buildings with a WTC prefix were destined to be demolished!

JW: Not even the buildings across the street! 

JF: Not even the buildings across the street!

JW: How do you take down two buildings that are over ¼ mile tall, with very little spilling over across the street? It was an amazing job, that was done!

JF: I think that anyone who is serious about this has got to go to your WebSite, can you give us - Judy, I'll just tell everyone - if they go on to ST911.org, and scroll down into 'Articles', they'll find a whole section of Judy Wood's & Morgan Reynold's Website - where you can find it, and it's identified with the heading - I'm looking for it right here …

JW: "Star Wars Beam Weapon".

JF: "Hypothesis". "Star Wars Beam Weapon Hypothesis". What you want to do is go there, the "Star Wars Beam Weapon Hypothesis" - go there - JaneDoe0911.Tripod.com, and you'll see all these studies, which are absolutely fascinating. 

JF: When I first went 'on the air', talking with Judy about this on a like - let's see - was it th - the 11th November ...

JW: Yea!

JF: … I was so excited and so enthusiastic, that a lot of people misunderstood and misconstrued, as though I were immediately endorsing the idea that some Star Wars weaponry had been employed here, when what I was endorsing BROADENING the range of alternative hypotheses for consideration. And especially emphasising the TOTALITY of the devastation to the World Trade Centre - as an 'entity'- the NON-DEMOLITION of the Bathtub, and the destruction of the 'toasted cars'.

JF: Judy, do you see any possible way that a thermite/thermate hypothesis could BEGIN to explain these phenomena?

JW: Those 'toasted cars' are like ½ mile to a mile away. How can - how can you get cars with their tyres melting into the pavement - do that - ½ mile to a mile away - 'instantly'?

JF: So it's pretty stunning stuff and I think that - you know - if we can't get 'grip' on the 'Explanandum' in it's whole dimensions, the TOTALITY of the devastation, how thorough it was …

JW: No, we are not CONCLUDING as to exactly what did it!

JF: Right! This is just getting clear on what it is we have to explain! We are not making any presumption!

JW: A BB Gun couldn't do it! A slingshot couldn't do it!

JF: You have to have something that has the potential to bring about that degree of devastation!

(Outro over music) JF: Now after this break we will either be back with Judy Wood, or if Morgan Reynolds is available I'll bring him in. And Judy, if I don't have the chance to thank you then, I want to thank you now for being my special guest. Stand by, this is JF, on The Dynamic Duo.

Participants

JF = Prof. James Fetzer (Host)

JW = Prof. Judy Wood

MR = Prof. Morgan Reynolds

(Also mentioned KB = Prof. Kevin Barrett, alternate host, and affectionate nickname BW = the Boy Wonder)

JF: (Intro over music) This is JF, your host on the Dynamic Duo, where you can hear KB on Mondays/Fridays, and occasionally subbing for me. It's a great pleasure to welcome, now, my second guest during this program, Morgan Reynolds. He was the Chief Economist in the Department of Labor, under the - George W Bush, from 2001 to 2002. Former Director of the Criminal Justice Centre at the National Centre for Policy Analysis. Professor Emeritus, Texas A&M University. And, in my opinion, one of the most brilliant men I've ever dealt with.

JF: Morgan, it's a great pleasure to have you the air.

MR: Happy New Year, Jim!

JF: Happy New Year to you, my friend! Listen, I've gone to the new WebSite created by this - this group - this faction that has broken away from Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and I find there's very little there, but what there is merits consideration. Because they've got a paragraph, for example - a couple, that would be of interest to you, but let me read this one: "Various attacks on Steven Jones. Steven E Jones, a 20-year professor of Physics brought unprecedented credibly to the challenges to the official explanation of the destruction of the World Trade Centre skyscrapers, when he published 'Why, indeed, did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse ' in late 2004."

JF: We've already determined, incidentally, Morgan, that has to be a year off. It had to be 2005.

JF: "PREDICTABLY, Jones was targeted with a campaign of attacks characterised by misrepresentations of his work and ad hominems. Primarily from individuals and persons embracing unscientific alternative theories of the attack. Shortly before the fifth anniversary of the attack, Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood teamed up to offer the first of several attack-pieces against Jones". How would you respond to that, Morgan?

MR: Three parts. First of all yes, I would claim his brag about 'credibility' was true, initially. Even Judy was enthusiastic about the - Steve's appearance in the 9/11 investigation. Secondly, when he talks about 'Predictably' of becoming a victim, I call that 'Victimology', so ahh - that's pretty much 'political fol-de-role', that doesn't impress me much. Steven has this 'baby face' that - and 'soft personality' - that seems to 'sell' his positions, but the real meat of it is in Proposition 3. "Attacking Steven Jones"? No, I'm not attacking Steven Jones, but I am attacking his work, because I find it so faulty and defective …

JF: I think that's exactly right, it can be very subtle sorting out - you know - ad hominem attacks against a person, from serious criticism of the person's IDEAS. And I began this programme with a case where he has claimed to have provide - provided Archaeological evidence in support of a proposition that 'Jesus Christ after his resurrection visited North America'. Which just happens to be a position that is defended by the Book of Mormon, and I explained how the kind of evidence he cites - which is some diagrams attributed to the Mayans - involves a kind of Ink Blot phenomenon where practically - you know - it's highly subjective, as a matter of interpretation. 

JF: And I explained how, ordinarily, a person's religion wouldn't enter into questions about their Scientific Research but, in this case, he's claimed to have scientific evidence in support his religious beliefs, which means it IS a subject worthy of consideration.

JF: And that in courses I have taught in the past, on 'Science and Pseudo Science', using a book about myths and frauds in Archaeology, co-incidentally, "Frauds, Myths & Mysteries: Science & Pseudo Science in Archaeology", 4th edition, by Kenneth L Feder, we find exactly this kind of Ink Blot phenomenon going on in relation the work Erich von Daniken - who claimed, of course, 'Ancient Astronauts had visited Earth, and that the Earth was actually a colony, populated by them'. Von Daniken, of course, can't explain where those Ancient Astronauts came from, presumably visitations by even earlier Ancient Astronauts, and then earlier Ancient Astronauts, on and on, unless some - somebody evolved somewhere, we can't have these Ancient Astronauts just popping up! Which means he's got in - in effect a regressive explanation, that defeats itself.

JF: But what I worry about here, Morgan, is as Judy and I have been discussing it, it looks as though Steve Jones whole approach was 'conceived in sin'. That he didn't do a suitable 'literature search', that he's now admitted that he knows of no case in which thermite/thermate has actually been used to bring down a building, and he's never actually established his 'Proof of Concept'.

MR: Well I think that's where competition, and cross-criticism - done in a relatively civilised manner, of course there's going to be a few excesses on occasion but that's - it's cross-checking each other's work. It's 'Peer Review'. And here's the way I would characterise it, if you look at this piece you've referenced earlier "The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis" … 

JF: Yup.

MR: … what a - to put it crudely, I'd say we've 'smoked out' this admission, by turning Steven's 'preaching on the Scientific Method' against his own 'Preferred hypothesis'. In my opinion, a lot of what is going here, for example, Steven messes around with these Dust Samples that he claims came from this woman's apartment, or a piece of metal slag that came from alleged - allegedly came from the WTC site. Well, what about that? If you look at our article - let me quote, before I go there, William Haslett - you may - you may have encountered William Haslett in your studies, Jim - but he says in part, "The origin of all science is in the desire to know causes". And that's where we raise this point about: 'What are these samples - even if they were valid - have to do with - what would a Chemical Analysis of a Dust Sample, supposedly from the neighbourhood of the WTC, tell us? What's the logic?' Where is the causation, in terms of sorting out important hypotheses, discriminating amongst them? Just to have Steven show us that he has a - pictures of a Lab - you know - people in white smocks, doesn't impress me much. The question is: 'What are you looking at, in terms of data - evidence?'. And 'What do you infer? What seems to have happened here?' I, for example, I just object to the whole word 'collapse' - even though I used to use it - because the Twin Towers were EXPLODED in to ultra - for the most part ultra-fine dust …

JF: In your memorable phrase "Blown to Kingdom Come"!

MR: Right! Yea, I didn't know how much I was saying at the time but, that's what you - when you look the video, the films, the DVD of the Twin Towers, THAT IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT THING than what happened in Building 7, which was a classic IMplosion.

JF: That's absolutely right. Here you had the buildings blowing up from the top down, with the North and South Tower - as Judy has compared it to 'two gigantic trees turning to sawdust, from the top down'.

MR: Right! From the top!

JF: Even Steve admitted to me, that when you see that 30-floor section of the South Tower start to collapse, all of a sudden - he admitted me - it just turns to dust - it's just PULVERISED!

MR: Right!

JF: He even admitted it to me [talking over] one of our - an interview - a previous interview I had with him on an earlier Talk Show I had, where he came around, and I pressed him when he used the word 'collapse', and I said "Steve? Really?", it's - it's 'demolition', or it's 'pulverisation', or a 'destruction' - you don't want to use the word 'collapse'!

JF: And, of course, we have none of the phenomena, that would be appropriate if it were a 'collapse', including a pile of pancakes - you know - floors that would be of sufficient mass to represent what would be the residue, if the buildings had 'collapsed'. It can't have taken place in the amount of time. There was no energy - there was no causation to initiate a 'collapse' - no matter what NIST wants to palm off on the public.

MR: Yes. And, of course, NIST never did 'model' this 'Pancake collapse', they - they ...

JF: No. They claimed to take it right up to 'The point of initiation', Morgan.

MR (laughing): Yes. Right. And they couldn't! And they cannot. Of course, Steven hasn't done that either.

JF: Of course it would so embarrassing to NIST, because their 'model' wouldn't at all correspond to the observable phenomenon, and would thereby be falsified.

MR: Right. The Wood/Reynolds article puts that all in the shade.

(Outro over music) JF: Stand by. We're talking with my special guest Morgan Reynolds. This is JF on The Dynamic Duo.

Participants

JF = Prof. James Fetzer (Host)

JW = Prof. Judy Wood

MR = Prof. Morgan Reynolds

(Also mentioned KB = Prof. Kevin Barrett, alternate host, and affectionate nickname BW = the Boy Wonder)

Segment 8 (Conversation between JF & MR)

(Intro over music)JF: This is JF, your host on the Dynamic Duo, with KB, where you catch the BW on Mondays/Fridays, and occasionally subbing with - for me. Before I return to my special guest, Morgan Reynolds, I just want to make a couple of rather key points for the audience.

JF: Number 1, this is NOT ganging up on Steve Jones, this is examining ideas and hypotheses he has advanced – that is the nature of science. And you don't want to confuse it with ad hominem attacks. Too many of his supporters have developed a cult-like attitude, where any criticism of Steven Jones' ideas, is interpreted as criticism of HIM, and unfair. Nothing could be more detrimental to the progress of science.

JF: Number 2, I invited Steven Jones to come on to this programme to defend his ideas – he declined. This is one of MANY opportunities – at least a half a dozen I have given him, to make public appearances to present and elaborate, and defend his ideas, that he has turned down.

JF: Number 3, during the course of this programme today we have demonstrated that – Steven Jones' work is based upon an INADEQUATE model of science, number 2 [Transcription Note: Jim has lost count. That should Point 3a] that it has no 'Proof of Concept', and number 3 [Transcription Note: that should be Point 3b] that it provides a hopelessly inadequate explanation of the phenomena that needs to be explained, when you begin to appreciate their full dimensions. That is been the area in which Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood have made – in my opinion – a monumental contribution, by laying out for us in un- in unmistakable detail and completeness, the amount of destruction that took place at the World Trade Centre.

JF: So I just want everyone to know that Steven Jones has a standing invitation to come on this programme, at any time in the future, he would like to do so, to defend himself, and I – if he chooses to do that I would particularly like him to address those 3 key points: The adequacy of his model of science, the absence of 'Proof of Concept', and why it appears, to ME, that his explanation is hopelessly inadequate to account for the phenomena.

JF: Morgan, I'd like to invite you to comment on the situation as we find it, because it seems to me completely absurd that this WebSite now – that his 'followers' have established, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, should include attacks that imply that you and Judy are 'unscientific', and that Steve is 'scientific', when the situation – when you analyse it adequately – appears to be a whole lot closer to the opposite.

MR: Well, if we're so 'unscientific', they should be willing to have the Hyperlinks that they do to their own pieces, so I find that disturbing, that they won't give us 'equal time'. And they're going to be 'scholarly', you got to have the best advocates, the articles at hand, or accessible, and let the sides try to compete. And even in the Courts, of course, we profit by having an adversarial method, where the – the attorneys on both sides go 'at it', before a Jury or a Judge, so – and some rules of fair play includes for scholars to be allow the right references to be there. I find it interesting that, on the page that you are citing, Jim Hoffman attacked me a year ago June, and he even, at the time, offered me 'reply-space' on his WebSite. I haven't looked lately, but I would assume it's still there. Why didn't they have that?

JF: That's an interesting case, Morgan, because Jim Hoffman also attacked me and Scholars early on, and I published two replies, which I sent to him, and asked him to put up on his WebSite, but which he refused to do. Anyone who wants to see those, just scroll down into the "Articles" section on the left-hand side of ST911.org, go all the way to the bottom, and you'll find a little box, with two articles replying to Jim Hoffman, which he refused to put up on his WebSite.

JF: This one-sided approach, Morgan, is completely unacceptable. The fact they should have articles attacking you and Judy, but not the links to your original paper, is outrageous. And for them to – you know - claim that they have the moral or the scientific high ground is, in my opinion, frankly, indefensible and absurd.

MR: I do not believe that Steven Jones, or any of his allies, could confront Judy Wood & I in a debate, and win. That's why they won't even come on your show. Steven won't go an appearance at the National Press Club. He refused your invitation to have a Panel on 'Conventional means of destroying the Twin Towers', or maybe even Tower 7. So why the 'no show'? Is it because we're so 'uncivilised', and 'unscientific' - we're not worthy?

JF: It's completely embarrassing, Morgan, I mean in the history of science, the great scientists have STOOD UP for their work, they have taken risks, they have taken chances. Galileo will be the perfect example. Here's a man who ran the risk of execution to defend his ideas! And he had far more formidable forces opposed to him, than Steven Jones has ever confronted.

MR: The one grounds I would point out, Jim, just to distinguish your position from mine slightly here is that – as Balfour said – "Science preceded the theory of science, and is independent of it". So what Steven Jones knows about the theory of science, to me, isn't very important. The important question is: 'What is his scientific work on 9/11?'. And, kind of a third-order question is: 'What was - what was his PRECEDING scientific record?' I'm more concerned about his pro-establishment work to squash Pons & Fleischmann on Cold Fusion. The idea of cheaper, or virtually Free Energy. I'm suspicious about that, because the M.O. has a certain superficial similarity to what's going on with 9/11. More so than what he says about finding evidence that 'Christ appeared in North America, post crucifiction'.

JF: Well, you're absolutely right, Morgan. I think as far as the science goes, but when all these claims are being made about Jones being 'scientific', and you and Judy being 'unscientific', that raises issues that are philosophical: 'What is the nature of science?'. And it's very clear to me having – you know – spent my professional career, dealing with these issues, that his conception of the Scientific Method is indefensible. It focuses on 'single hypothesis', when you have to look at 'families of hypotheses', you have to be considering the full range.

JF: And it's part and parcel of why I think that – you know – he is creating a 'Primrose path' for those who are naïve about the nature of science, to follow him. But it's a path that, in my judgment, is leading nowhere. It seems to exemplify what Lakatos calls a 'Degenerating research program'. It's not spawning new hypotheses, it's not spawning new articles and publications, new research, new experiments. And I'm troubled by the whole charade that what he is doing the real science, and what the rest of us doing is - is 'non-science'.

MR: Right. And as you said, Judy said, after more than year, where's the fruit? Where's it going? It seems to leading us into a cul-de-sac, a dead end. And what really concerned me, this past summer, when I and Judy started to evaluate Steven's work in print is, if the movement was – the 9/11 movement - was putting all of its eggs in the Steven Jones basket, we were headed for a fall!

JF: I think that's absolutely right, Morgan, and that's part and parcel of why, when I became convinced, especially after reviewing the data that you & Judy has amassed about extent of the devastation, it became obvious to me that thermite/thermate couldn't possibly explain it all, that I felt it was indispensable to broaden the full range of alternative hypotheses under consideration. And that if we remained exclusively fixated on thermite/thermate, we were leading ourselves into a kind an intellectual disaster.

JF: So I agree completely! And of course it's at exactly this point in time when all of these unrelenting assaults began to emerge from the other side, those who are the friends and allies and supporters of Steven Jones, most of which were based upon alleged claims that his work was 'scientific', and ours, or yours, or Judy's was 'unscientific'. And I'm here to say categorically that 'that's false'. That's propaganda, that is misleading information, and it appears to be advanced for the sake of a political agenda.

MR: Well, to take a specific example, I believe – and correct me if I'm wrong – but Steven was the one who coined the term 'Space Beam' when we speculated about the – high likelihood I think - that the Towers were brought down by a Directed-energy Weapon of some kind or other. It could have been from a Satellite, but we don't contend that – we don't know. But the point is to just scoff and dismiss a new scientific hypothesis does not speak well of that scientist.

(Outro over music) JF: That's right. That's a perfect example of a 'Straw Man', in a single phrase. Morgan Reynolds, I want to thank you for coming on my show. I have a standing invitation to Steven Jones to appear on The Dynamic Duo, with JF. Thank you all for listening.