Make your own free website on Tripod.com
Bottom homepage disinfo vidoes
NCST
Thermite & Scientific Method
Why Indeed
Billiard Balls
Star Wars Beam Weapon


This page is currently UNDER CONSTRUCTION

(Not ready for sharing the link, yet.)


Open Letter about and to Steven Jones

by Judy Wood

24 January 2007

a) Steven Jones has not proven that his "unofficial" sample(s) even contained thermite.

Looking at the data, we see that the WTC towers were pulverized.

b) Steven Jones has not proven that thermite was used to pulverize the WTC Towers nor does Jones even maintain that he has proven thermite was used to pulverize the WTC Towers. He merely calls for a "serious investigation of the hypothesis," "The hypothesis ought to be explored further." We have explored it and found that thermite cannot account for all the WTC 9/11 facts.

c) Steven Jones has not proven that anything else was used to pulverize the WTC Towers nor does Jones seem interested in investigating whether anything other than thermite or its variants was used to pulverize the Towers.

Steven Jones has presented no evidence of what caused the massive pulverization of the WTC. To illustrate how bad it is, instead of thermite, thermate, or super-duper thermite, Steven Jones could just as easily have said "there's strong evidence showing bubble gum is looking like it could maybe perhaps be the possible culprit, but this is only preliminary."

Steven Jones has not met his burden of proof and has no verified evidence of anything. End of story.

[btw, where is the proof that "nanoaluminum in superthermite becomes explosive"? p. 38, "9/11 and the American Empire." If explosive, does it cease to be a steel-cutter then?].

Curiously, up until very recently, Steven Jones has been saying that the buildings were "pulverized" and "turned to dust." (see "9/11 and the American Empire" where his paper appears).

Jones describes the top 30 floors of the South Tower were pulverized to "flour-like powder, observed clearly in the collapses of the WTC towers..." (p. 46).

"The hypothesis that such explosives were used also readily accounts for the fact that the falling towers turned to fine dust as the collapse ensued...most of the material (concrete, carpet, computers, steel, and so on) was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling." (p. 47).

I note that Steven Jones also stated that he had "studied" the demolition of the Seattle Kingdome and confidently stated that it was completely pulverized, just like the WTC towers. The Kingdome was not completely pulverized. After having been told on numerous occasions that thermite does not explode or pulverize material, Jones has begun to say that the buildings were not pulverized. Listen here. For those interested in reviewing the data, please see these images. Changing the reported "data" to fit the speculated "theory" contradicts the "scientific method," does it not? I believe Jones has switched from the "scientific method" [if he ever used it] to the "political method."

Further note, Steven Jones has failed to respond to several careful peer reviews of his work. We first approached him in private, but after spending six months on that, we had no choice but to review his work in public. Yet still, to this day, he has yet to fully respond to ANY of these open letters to him. Why?


1 March 2006
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/Aluminum_Glows.html

23 August 2006
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/why_indeed.html

14 December 2006
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/JonesScientificMethod.html


In addition, Steven Jones has declined every invitation to appear with me and/or Morgan Reynolds where his thermite speculation might be subjected to scrutiny, including 6 Sept. National Press Club, the 10-11 Sept. 9/11 Fifth Anniversary events in NYC, numerous invitations to appear on Jim Fetzer's radio shows, 10 Jan. 2007 National Press Club, 10 March 2007 National Debate. See rule number t1.

If Steven Jones' "theory" cannot stand up to scrutiny in the truth community, there is no way it can stand up to any opposition in the legal arena. Perhaps that is his intention. See rule number 21, and rule number t1.

Propaganda is not science. Propaganda cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny. Perhaps this is why Steven Jones is making every attempt to marginalize my work and me. He can't win a debate based on the science. 

Someone brought it to my attention how ironic it is that Steven Jones calls for "unity" in the truth movement in the same breath in which he attacks another researcher by using slanderous and divisive ad hominems. (At the same time, Jones attempts to fool the audience by repeatedly drumming that he is the victim of ad hominem attacks.) The same person also noted that for Jones' next propaganda affair in Arizona, he is calling for "unity" but has only invited his cult-like followers, assuring him of not being challenged.  See rule number t1.

Someone else has brought it to my attention that several members of Project Censored have resigned because Steven Jones cannot stand up to scrutiny. Because of Steven Jones, they feel that Project Censored should NOT back the 9/11-truth movement. Steven Jones is bad news for the truth movement -- but a savior for the perpetrators. Has anyone heard of "double jeopardy"?


Dr. Judy Wood

Structural Engineering
Engineering Mechanics
Materials Engineering Science









Top homepage disinfo vidoes
NCST
Thermite & Scientific Method
Why Indeed
Billiard Balls
Star Wars Beam Weapon













 
The 9/11 Files Topsites