Make your own free website on
Reynolds & Wood Try to Help Steven E. Jones
Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood — August 27, 2006
Updated 12/21/06 [added cold fusion links, retarding 9/11 research?].
Printer friendly copy of this article available here.
Steven Jones’ response to our article about his 9/11 research evades our core arguments about the failings in his 9/11 research. We call into question more than ten (10) areas of Jones’ research (listed below). Jones partially responds to two (2) of our assertions about the unscientific nature of his 9/11 research, and he then goes back to doing whatever it is he does (because “there is much better use of my time”).
The major challenges were:
1. Demolition of WTC 7
2. Demolition of WTC 1 and 2
3. Glowing Liquid Aluminum
4. Thermite
5. High Energy Release
6. Pentagon
7. No Planes
8. Shanksville
9. Scientific Method
10. Jones’ Method
Jones touches on only two issues, namely, glowing liquid aluminum and “no planes.” Instead of dealing with the other eight, he distracts by going off into side issues like cold fusion, oscillation and plane parts, despite his tight time constraints. Instead of dealing with the issues he raised in his pdf, he goes off into other issues. We assume our critique was correct on demolition, thermite and high-energy releases at WTC. Otherwise, we puzzle over why this very busy man would ignore the central issues. At least since our paper appeared, people have approached us with new ideas and evidence.
In his response Jones says:
[Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood have posted the essay “The Trouble with Steven E. Jones' 9/11 Research.” Of course, I will reply and add to my reply as I have time. As we approach 9/11/2006 and the next election, there is much better use of my time.]
This is a familiar pattern—Jones is so busy, busy, busy. He was even too busy to let us know that he put out this interim response for some strange reason. And he has “much better use of my time,” yet he is too busy to come to big events in New York City and Washington, D.C. on the fifth anniversary of 9/11. We wonder what he is planning that is bigger and better! He has plenty of time to amend his story and it is constantly morphing. Even his cover page "cast of characters" keeps changing. It resembles 9/11 Commission creativity in inventing timelines for DoD responses on 9/11.
[1. Cold fusion
R&W write: “Cold fusion violates standard physics theory because there is no explanation of where the energy might come from to merge nuclei at room temperature.”
Their statement above is false.]
OK, show us.
[I led a team at Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility which experimentally studied the original cold fusion, called muon-catalyzed fusion, and demonstrated that fusion does indeed occur very rapidly at room temperature and below. (Other physicists had demonstrated the reality of the room-temperature fusion effect before us.) Indeed, we achieved our best results at liquid hydrogen temps, around 21 Kelvin. A little quantum mechanics explains how this works – the deuterons (or deuteron + triton for higher yields) TUNNEL THROUGH THE COULOMB BARRIER. High temperatures are NOT required for fusion. This is not controversial in the physics community, although some may forget about muon-catalyzed room-temperature fusion until your remind them.
The same quantum mechanical tunneling occurs for d-d fusion in our metal-catalyzed fusion experiments. Our hypothesis in the late 1980’s was: "Metals catalyze nuclear fusion, and some metals will enhance fusion more than others.” I agree that our results were controversial, as is common at the forefront of science. The unequivocal confirmation of this claim, with 100% reproducibility if you will actually read the papers, came in the late 1990’s and after. The papers are published in peer-reviewed Journals and are referenced in my recent paper and in the table below
R&W reference this paper in their essay, so clearly they are well aware of it.]
We did not reference Jones’ link above in our essay. We could not because it appeared on August 25 and our essay appeared August 23. Why Jones argues this way, we know not. It is outrageous behavior. He presumably is trying to cover his tracks. This is not honest science or research. When a scientist makes a change in a previous study, he or she explains the exact change and the reason. We wonder if his college and university approve of his behavior.
[There is a section on my cold fusion work which they may wish to review, in particular this part:
Above, I summarize the empirical results of five different experiments.]
As listed above? What does this show? Jones cannot explain cold fusion without listing stuff we are supposed to waste our time on. Jones is saying a big ZERO here.
[regarding metal-catalyzed fusion (to distinguish this from Pons & Fleischmann cold fusion, which is NOT to be confused with our work). I recommend all of the papers referenced above.]
Jones clearly wants to distance himself from the work of Pons & Fleischmann, apparently to suggest that cold fusion fakery was theirs, not Jones’. No matter, Jones explains nothing about cold fusion here even though we hold Ph.Ds in economics and engineering and would seem to be good candidates to understand cold fusion. Jones sends us to find the answers in the library, in effect saying, “You figure it out.” If Jones would quote key passages for us, draw up some analogies, make an effort to explain it, we believe we could get on board. Everything is simple at its core. We understand scientific reasoning. It is not helpful in scientific debate to pull out a list and say, “It’s all here. Go to the library.” Every lie and mistake known to humankind is in the library and vastly outnumbers the truth.
[OTOH, if R&W insist that “there is no explanation of where the energy might come from to merge nuclei at room temperature,” the proper thing to do is to write up a scientific paper explaining why all of us are wrong about fusion at room temperature and submit it to Europhysics Letters or Z. Phys. or one of the other Journals listed above. (Good luck.)]
This is a cop-out. It is not a valid argument. It is called resort to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam), the fallacy of using testimonial evidence for a proposition when the conditions for credibility are not satisfied, or use of such evidence is inappropriate (David Kelley, The Art of Reasoning, 1988, p. 375).
People cannot understand cold fusion as not explained by SJ. If he wanted us to understand cold fusion, he would attempt to explain it to us and his many readers. But instead, Jones points to physics journals that are supposed to be prestigious (bottom-rung or top-rung?) and the more unintelligible, the better. If mathematical articles cannot be explained in simple English, they are hand-waving, mumbo jumbo. Jones attacks Dr. Wood’s Billiard Ball Example (BBE)—a clear explanation of why the government’s gravitational collapse WTC story is impossible—because people, even Jones, can understand it.
Wood is an experimentalist. Good experiments are controlled tests of theories—refute or confirm. It’s not blind trial-and-error. Jones gives experimentalists a bad name. Any surprising yet consistent experimental result must have a reasonable explanation to be taken seriously, and that means an explanation with two features at minimum: 1) the explanation is consistent with the phenomenon in question, and 2) it is not ad hoc [“to that”], that is, the theory is consistent with the larger body of accepted theory in the discipline rather than just made up for the issue at hand. Jones fails to explain in clear language what theory he tested or what new theory he created or what objection he had with the cold-fusion processes of others. Instead he spews gobbledygook.
If someone cannot explain a scientific theory to a lay person or student in intelligible terms, he is no teacher. And if a researcher cannot explain his theory to other Ph.D.s, then he is no researcher.
Our research focus is on 9/11, so why are we debating and trying to understand cold fusion? Because Jones put it in his slide show to parade his credentials and reassure people of his abilities despite the cold fusion scandal. He entered cf as evidence and the burden is on him to show he knows what he is talking about. He fails to impress these two Ph.D.s.
[2. “No-planes-hit-the-Towers theory”
[R&W come back repeatedly to this theme:
“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.”
It’s true:]
We’re happy to hear Steven agrees with us.
[I do not accept the no-planes-hit-the-Towers theory which is espoused by R&W and Gerard Holmgren, Rosalee Grable, Nico Haupt, and Killtown – who are listed by R&W as having performed “The only investigation worthy of the name,” according to them. (I disagree.)
But I DO turn to physics and to hard physical evidences for refutation of this no-planes notion, right in my paper they cite, starting on page 171 in the current version (there is an index at the front).]
Our paper appeared on August 23 and his new “morphed” pdf is dated August 25. There is no way we could have cited his future paper. Jones’ entire section on deceleration was not in evidence in July. If you change something you must note and explain it—SJ violates this standard.
[The reader will find there, on the first page of my discussion:
• As usual, we look for hard evidences to test or rule out the hypothesis, using the Scientific Method.
• Look at the data for yourself: mark the tail as it goes in (can you see the deceleration?):]
Jones says, “I DO turn to physics and to hard physical evidences.” Where??? All he provides is a link and effectively says, “Dear reader, go figure it out for yourself. See some deceleration, somehow, someway.” This is not doing physics! It is a combination of resort to authority, scavenger hunt and mind control.
[Now I have looked at these data myself, some time back. I focused on the motion of the tail section of the aircraft as it entered the Tower. And I found that the tail slowed down dramatically as the plane entered the building – there is REAL DECELERATION! Now I would ask the reader to check me on this – mark the position of the tail in each frame and notice that the marks get closer together as the plane enters the Tower. Now we have some data! And we can discuss these data like scientists, and determine the amount of deceleration, etc.]
So, professor Jones wants to talk deceleration. Where are his data from? A good experimentalist chooses the cleanest data to track deceleration and not the most ambiguous data. In this case, we want a video angle orthogonal to the motion observed, that is, a shot closest to a perpendicular profile, so that undistorted data are maximized, in effect, the signal to noise ratio is maximized. Jones chooses a distorted perspective and therefore his data are weak to resolve quarrels over deceleration. The sensitivity of his measurements is greatly compromised.
[But wait – Reynolds finds no deceleration of the plane! He writes:
“How could two large wide-bodied aluminum jetliners penetrate massive steel towers and disappear with no deceleration visible, no plane wreckage visible in gashes and none knocked to the ground below the impact zone?”
“Zero deceleration upon impact, although shown in south tower videos, is physically impossible.”
Over and over he refers to no deceleration in his essay here:
Now we have a clear discrepancy in interpreting the data – and that is where the polite discussion should focus, rather than on ad hominems.]
We agree. Let’s talk about content. Rick Rajter finds a maximum of four percent deceleration in his study of all the videos. He intends to submit his results to
[Reynolds also brings up: “no plane wreckage visible in gashes and none knocked to the ground below the impact zone.” But again, I disagree – for I have shown photos of wreckage found on the ground below the impact zone in my Answers paper, e.g.:
FEMA claims these large unburned piece were found on top of WTC 5, not below the impact wall, so Jones cannot claim this as evidence of debris below the impact wall. Further, the photo is suspect. Only one fuselage piece in the center of the photo looks like an airplane part. The other debris look like aluminum cladding and other building debris. Nobody saw this lightweight piece of aluminum fly all the way through WTC 2, unburned, and land on top of WTC 5. Where was this photo taken? The roof does not look like WTC 5 before or after the WTC demolitions. The two dark twin towers in the background do not resemble any buildings adjacent to the WTC. We ask that Professor Jones identify where these buildings are located.
Jones says,
[Again, I presented physical evidences for real debris from real planes hitting the Towers.]
But he shows nothing but a doctored photo of one piece of fuselage located somewhere other than the WTC. It is salted “evidence,” and therefore evidence of 9/11 fraud, nothing more. Why does Jones not check his evidence before using it? The burden of proof on anyone introducing evidence is for them to prove its validity. Instead, Jones throws stuff out there, untested to see if he get away with it, putting the burden on others to discover its validity. In the scientific world, this destroys the offender’s credibility.
[Now when a jet hits a building, the building is going to move – due to conservation of momentum (basic physics), and then the building will sway back and forth after the collision. But only if a REAL plane hit the Tower. And so we find data for this oscillation:
These are physical data, showing a characteristic nearly exponential decay (damping) of the oscillation. Observed oscillation of the WTC 2 Tower provides compelling empirical evidence that it was hit by a fast-moving jetliner. Any claim to the contrary must confront these published data or the analysis thereof. p. 26 It will not do in scientific inquiry to ignore data like this – even if one does not trust the source for some reason. In other words, the argument must be to the DATA, not to the source (ad hominem).] [a lot of energy, asymmetric, pushed against the core].
We gasp at Jones’ “analysis” of tower oscillation. Can a Ph.D. physicist be this retarded, or is he working to retard 9/11 research? We are happy to address oscillation but Jones did not discuss it in his July pdf, which was the source for our analysis. We never brought it up, so we puzzle over why he introduces it now instead of discussing demolition or thermite.
But let us go there. Each tower suddenly had a large hole in it, spread over five or more floors, at least 100 feet wide and some 15 feet tall or higher at its apex. No one disputes these holes, only the cause. Something caused the holes, Steven, one side asserting plane crashes, another internal explosives (let us put aside earthquakes and other possibilities for the sake of this present argument). No one we know challenges the measurements and the building quickly damped the oscillations. Most occupants of the towers seemed to think that the building oscillated because of a bomb or bombs, especially those who had experienced the FBI-led 1993 bombing. They had no better theory at the time. In an establishment book by two New York Times reporters (102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers, 2005) only one witness (highly suspect) claimed he saw an aircraft part inside a tower.
Plane and no-plane crash theories predict oscillations upon application of a sudden force, be its source asymmetric gas expansion or a plane crash followed by jet fuel fires. There is no reason to favor one theory or the other based on oscillations since they are a common implication of both theories.
Jones huffs and puffs, “The argument must be to the DATA, not to the source (ad hominem).” Jones’ discussion of oscillation demonstrates he does not know how to analyze data. He is lost in applying data to discriminate between two hypotheses. Oscillation can be caused by a plane crash or explosives, but he cannot reason well enough to see this. He does not know how to use the scientific method to answer questions.
[I could go on, but the fact is that as editor of the, I have invited Morgan Reynolds and whoever he wishes to join him, and another author to write papers on BOTH sides of this issue – did REAL planes hit the Twin WTC Towers, or not? Both sides agreed. In this way, readers will have two peer-reviewed scholarly papers side by side, both confronting the evidences presented above and whatever other evidences they wish to bring in – and then the reader can judge for himself or herself. And that is MUCH better than ad hominem arguments – it is the way of modern science.]
This is more distraction. Let us discuss the issues. We are not impressed by Professor Jones editorship of nor his labeling his webpage a journal. We do not agree that our paper was ad hominem. It is rich in content. Our paper addresses the methods and conclusions of Professor Jones. At the end of our paper, it is true that our section titled “Vote for Jones” addressed his campaign to be the only 9/11 scientist in town. We regret having to consider the politics of the Jones’ phenomenon, but we in good conscience had to address it since his rise in the 9/11 movement rests largely on prestige and pandering, not on good science.
And regarding NPT, Reynolds-and-Rajter have a paper nearly ready to submit to
[3. Glowing aluminum
R&W write: “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.”
Now read what I wrote in my paper, and which R&W quote actually, see if you find what I am really saying:
Jones paper: “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 [glow] like other metals, but faintly so that the conditions in the previous sentence, falling liquid aluminum will appear silvery-gray according to experiments at BYU [Jones references himself {as is standard in science, to reference a separate paper written with others, to give the reader much more detail.])."
Can you see it there? Look again – that’s what I said. Aluminum DOES GLOW, faintly. And I provide photos and experiments we did ourselves, showing that falling, poured-out aluminum appears silvery in daylight conditions, even though it is indeed glowing faintly. That is because its reflectivity far exceeds its emissivity. Inside a shadowed environment, with molten aluminum stationary, I – we – saw a beautiful pinkish glow from the aluminum. Then we poured it out – and the stream was silvery!]
Where was the aluminum glow shown in your work, Professor Jones? None of your photos show any glow. And that was what you were trying to show, no glow. If you now agree that aluminum glows yellow and even white at high temperatures, we have no quarrel. Are you arguing in circles?
[Look, I’m not tricking anyone – please, Judy, pour out the liquid aluminum in the air in daylight, and THEN tell me what it looks like! (Not sitting next to tungsten which also has low emissivity, as in your previous experiments.) The difference lies in matching the WTC conditions – POURED OUT, flowing, falling aluminum far from the container will indeed appear silvery, every time. Try it. You’ll see.]
It is frustrating talking to a non-scientific person like Steven Jones. Tungsten has about the same emissivity at high temperatures as all metals. Flowing vs. pooled and daylight vs. night are small factors in assessing glow compared to the temperature of the metals. For example, iron melts at 1538° C and aluminum would have to be heated to that temperature for a valid molten comparison. If it is, then both metals would have similar glow. Jones’ comparison of molten iron with solid or nearly solid (cake mix) aluminum in terms of their glow proves he does not know how to do a controlled experiment.
[This from a fellow who emailed me – and I forwarded the email to R&W so they would have a ‘second witness’ regarding the behavior of falling liquid aluminum, but they did not reply.]
Just as Jones did not send this response to our paper, he never sent this email to us either.
On 8/17/06,
Since my email to you regarding the question of glowing Aluminum, I have received some better information from a source none other than my own Father!
My father, who is 69 years old now and in poor health, told me today, that HE WORKED for a company called British Aluminium starting in 1973 up until he was made redundant in 1983!
Being a kid at the time, i was aware that he worked in a factory of some sort but wasn't aware of exactly what he did there and,over time, i had never asked! Until today that is.
My Dad told me that British Alcan, which he said the company changed its name to, made everything from drink cans,alluminium foil and yes, aircraft body panels. When i asked him (at last)what his job entailed, he told me he worked in the foundry, where the alluminium was melted prior to being poured into moulds to form the ingots.
What is interesting is this.
When i asked my dad what colour the liquid alluminium was in the furnace (which was oil fired he said),he said that the top of the liquid was silver,which he called the slag, but underneath when the slag was scraped off, the aluminium had a pinkish appearance, a pinkish glow. Not red or orange or yellow but pink.
He also said that the colour of the liquid alluminium remained that way ONLY UNDER the SLAG within the vessel because,when the liquid was exposed to air, it turned the colour you would expect immediately, Silvery, hence the colour of the slag which is of course exposed to the air.
It also goes without saying really, but he said that when poured from the vessel,the liquid aluminium's in-vessel colour of pinkish, does not make it very far,if at all, from the vessel before it turns, you guessed it, to the silvery natural colour of aluminium.
From someone who has had firsthand experience of working with liquid aluminum in furnace conditions,i hope that the information my Father has been able to supply may be of some use.
Mike Ferguson. UK
Whoa! Evidence outside BYU!]
This is not admissible in a court of law because it is hearsay. This is evidence, however, of Jones’ scientific skills. His lack of familiarity with physical science and its techniques is appalling. To validly assess glow differences in materials, the metals must be heated to similar temperatures. For more insight, please review our paper, professor.
[My reply: “Yes, this is what we observe also, Mike. Poured out aluminum [in air] appears silvery, every time!
It's beautiful also, in the darker environment of the vessel to see the pinkish glow. I've seen it. Then POUR the liquid aluminum out in a stream and VOILA, it looks silvery!
Thank you for following up on this.
Steven Jones]
Jones’ correspondent did no scientific work on the “glow” issue, but simply asked an old man what he remembered a quarter-century ago. That is science according to S. Jones, and the way to conduct research. He asked somebody to ask somebody else about the appearance of molten aluminum, temperatures unknown, for the answer to the “glow” question. He accepted the hearsay answer without question because it was the desired answer. Are we in some kind of twilight zone? Is that Rod Serling around the corner?
Dr. Jones apparently has not read our original paper on liquid aluminum glow and his reply here is simply unresponsive. In Figure 1(a) speedskaters stand and/or walk on solid water (ice slightly colder than its melt temperature) and in Figure 1(b) we have a glass of a clear liquid at 25°C (room temperature), which by Steven Jones’ reasoning cannot be H2O because water is a solid at lower temperatures, as proven in Figure 1(a). This is an exact parallel to Jones’ reasoning on aluminum at different temperatures. How dumb is that?
In Figure 2(a) liquid aluminum alloy at 580-650° C is poured into an iron mold, but it is far short of the temperature of molten iron. The author says the mold is iron and he likes it rusty because of its non-stick surface. In Figure 2(b) by contrast, the bright yellow-orange of molten aluminum implies a temperature of around 1000° C, the photo courtesy of the International Aluminium Institute. Dr. Jones might well visit some aluminum foundries around the world on his next vacation to widen his exposure to liquid at various temperatures.
Figure 1 (a) speedskaters stand and/or walk on solid water and (b) a glass of a clear liquid at 25°C (room temperature)
Figure 2 (a) liquid aluminum alloy at 580-650° C and (b) the bright yellow-orange of molten aluminum implies a temperature of around 1000° C
Figure 3 (a) and (b)
Does the poured-out, falling liquid metal from the WTC Tower (above) look like poured-out liquid aluminum (below) to you? The above photos are now used in my online paper.
(I have discussed three of R&W’s main points. As I have opportunity, I will add more. Please, read my papers looking for I actually said: and]
Jones barely mentioned two of our challenges to his work, namely, glowing aluminum and “no planes.” Our paper challenges Jones on ten scientific issues. In our August 23 paper, we dealt with what Jones actually wrote in July [pdf (7/19/06] and early August [pdf (8/15/06)], so his new references above are not what he had written then and what we criticized earlier. What he is doing by evading and “morphing” his work daily is unethical.
Site Meter

Visits to my site!

The 9/11 Files Topsites