Tuesday, January 16, 2007

"Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice" on "misinformation"

Steven Jones apparently thinks that he can pronounce what theories are and are not backed by science and physical evidence, then accuse those who question his pronouncements of hindering justice:


I submit that this is exactly what he is doing, and I strenuously object.

The new website of the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice" has a page entitled "Perception and Propaganda: Misinformation."


The page begins with this definition of "misinformation":
Misinformation is information that is incorrect but not necessarily an attempt to mislead. Misinformation often arises from poor research, biases, and misinterpretations.

I have pointed to these very problems in Steven Jones' conclusions about the "no planes" theory: his research is poor, he exhibits biases, and he misinterprets physical evidence:


The Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice misinformation page linked above states:
Predictably, Jones was targeted with a campaign of attacks characterized by misrepresentations of his work and ad hominems, primarily from individuals and personas embracing unscientific alternative theories of the attack.

I made no ad-hominen attacks in my article above.

I pointed to clear and serious violation of academic and/or forensic standards, as follows:

(1) not disclosing and addressing research that contradicts his conclusion;

(2) assuming the authenticity of airplane debris where there are serious and obvious questions as to whether those various pieces of debris would survive the crash, exit the towers, and be propelled to the locations where found.

The "no planes" theory has not been shown to be unscientific. Common sense shows that the videos of "Flight 175" melting into the South Tower are faked, but my position is that I have used the conclusions of peer-reviewed engineering articles to prove that they are faked.

Using the same reasoning of Jones and Salter, but with more accurate data, I showed that the video of "Flight 175" does not exhibit the deceleration that it should, given the amount of initial kinetic energy that would be lost in the collision.

At the very least, the more recent research needs to be addressed before Jones can pronounce the "no planes" theory to be unscientific and accuse those who question his pronouncement to be engaged in misinformation and ad hominem attacks.

Jones should also show how each piece of airplane debris that he uses as evidence of planes got to where it was found. I have shown at this blog that the wheels from "Flight 11" must have been planted south of the North Tower, and plan to continue questioning the authenticity of each piece of airplane debris from "Flight 175." My research so far has not proved the "Flight 175" debris to be fake, but it is already obvious to me that these pieces cannot be assumed to be authentic.

Jones should have questioned this debris before citing it as evidence of planes.

I am not taking a position on the debates between Jones/Legge and Reynolds/Wood, except as they relate to "no planes" theory, as I do not fully understand the other scientific issues raised there.

In his reply to Reynolds/Wood, Jones makes the following characterization of criticism of his actions in relation to "no planes" theory:


I will also observe that there is a group of 9/11 researchers, including Reynolds, Wood, Haupt and Holmgren, who take the approach of personalized attacks on any other researcher who dares to suggest that real planes hit the Towers. Really – they support the “no-planes-hit-Towers” notion so strongly that they resort to personal attacks on anyone who challenges their pet theory. As I have done. I have been the subject of such attacks for some time now.

Soon after entering the field of 9/11 research, Steven Jones proclaimed the "no planes" theory to be "junk science." Gerard Holmgren rightly criticized this behavior, and was excoriated for it.


If anything, Holmgren appears to have been too easy on Jones, because his baseless attack on the "no planes" theory has continued, albeit in a more subtle and pseudo-scientific manner.

This and other "attacks" on Jones, like mine here, are not personal attacks in defense of a "pet theory"; rather, they are justified criticisms of Jones' actions in proclaiming a theory to be "junk science" or "chaff" to his wheat, where he has no basis for these pronouncements.

If Jones had merely said he does not believe the "no planes" theory, while acknowledging that he has not considered all of this evidence, he would not have been subject to these criticisms.

Instead, he has chosen to use his authority as a professor of physics to proclaim this theory to be unsupported. This is an abuse of his credentials, and at least with this author, has undermined his authority. It will be difficult for me to consider his other arguments objectively, but I will try.

This is not an attack on Jones' person, but on his actions in 9/11 research.



In the "Focus on Goals" article linked above, Jones states that the following "four areas of 9/11 research that are so compelling that they may quickly lead to the goal of a solid investigation of 9/11 as an un-solved crime scene."
  1. Fall time for WTC 7.
  2. Fall times for the Towers.
  3. Challenging the NIST report and Fact Sheet.
  4. Evidence for use of Thermate reactions: What the WTC dust and solidified metal reveal.
I agree with 3, and do not know enough to fairly question 4.

I am troubled by 1 and 2. WTC 7 is similar to a standard controlled demolition, which utilizes gravity by removing support at the base of the building. For WTC 7, "fall time" is an accurate word.

WTC 1 and 2 are completely different, as they were exploded from the top down with no use of gravity. Thus, using the term "fall time" for WTC 1 and 2, as well as using the same term for WTC 7 and for WTC 1 and 2, is inaccurate and reinforces the official theory of a "gravity-driven collapse."

At the same time, conflating WTC 7 with the Twin Towers leaves one open to the argument that "controlled demolitions" do not go from top to bottom.

I would even suggest a term other than "controlled demolition" for the Twin Towers, to preclude the counterarguments that controlled demolitions are not done this way and the buildings did not fall into their footprints but spread massive debris over a wide area.

This semantic problems is addressed well in this article linked from the website of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice:


I'm not sure how to rephrase "fall" and "collapse." It is important to emphasize that the Towers were destroyed to the ground in a time comparable to free-fall, but even that subtly suggests a collapse.

"The massive towers were destroyed (explode, peeled) down to the ground in about the same time (less?) time as it would take for a billiard ball to fall through air from the top of the building to the bottom." Something like that?

No comments: