Professor Jones: No Nukes at the WTC

[brian]

Friday, July 21, 2006

Professor Jones: No Nukes at the WTC
I just want to pass on a couple findings from Professor Steve Jones, to clear up confusion.

Professor Jones has tentatively found that:


The levels of radiation measured at and near the World Trade Centers are far below those which would indicate the use of nuclear weapons or mini-nukes

The thermite/thermate used at the World Trade Centers likely included nanothermite or nanothermate, and not just conventional thermite/thermate. Dr. Jones tells me "Actually, the evidence suggests both forms were used! The molten metal seen flowing from WTC2 would be from the conventional form, for instance."

Real planes crashed into the Twin Towers. Specifically, Professor Jones stresses "This is not just my conclusion –– the Scholars for 9/11 Truth have examined the evidence and debated the issue, and the broad consensus of the Scholars from their internal debates is that real planes crashed into the Twin Towers."

The Scholars are split on what hit the Pentagon, and are demanding the release of all video tapes
You can read Dr. Jones' work-in-progress here: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/AnsQJones1.pdf

Note: Dr. Jones does not speak for every member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and these issues are still being researched. But he is co-chair, influential, and keeps an accurate count of the beliefs of the other members.

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/07/professor-jones-no-nukes-at-wtc.html

[Dog]

I cried this morning. Not a lot, you understand; I cut down trees for a living and blokes like me aren't supposed to cry. But I was watching the documentary "How Indeed Did The Twin Towers Collapse?"

http://www.911podcasts.com/view.php?cat=0&med=0&ord=Name&strt=0&vid=95 &epi=275&typ=0&form=1

...and watched the speech of Donna Marsh O'Connor whose daughter was killed in the South Tower.

It's utterly heartbreaking. If it doesn't currently exist as a short video, then perhaps someone more clever than me could cut it out and post it on YouTube or GV? The original documentary is an hour 26mins but this powerful section is about 4mins long and perhaps far more likely to draw attention from people who brandish the "conspiracy theorist.." label around just a little too casually.


(the section runs from 1hr.02mins.30secs - 1hr.06mins.40secs )

[Veronica]

[IronSnot]

[Veronica]

[IronSnot]

[scar]

[Veronica]

IronSnot,

Don't forget to tell Morgan he is a clown as well.

I presume you'll post the replies you get (unedited)?

After all, I post stuff mostly unedited (just white space removed or added for clarity)

Rosalee is the SOURCE of 'WTC7 Controlled Demolition' (which you would know if you read the material I posted). This being the case, I think it is a good idea to keep her in the loop, personally. I presume Morgan feels the same, although I haven't actually bothered to ask him specifically.

Could I be forgiven for thinking that you didn't bother to read what I posted - INCLUDING THE LINK - before responding the way you did?

The reason I ask this is because, if you really did read it ALL, then - when looking for clowns - you would be looking in the direction of Steven Jones, David Kubiak and Ken Jenkins, together with Eric (the fish) and Brian (the snail) Salter.

[scar]

http://relivethefuture.com/scar/Whats_The_Truth_08_Mothers_Speech.mp3

[Jane]

Diogenes of Sinope:

[scar]

well said Jane, saves me going into one.

[IronSnot]

[Veronica]

To all those above who consider me some form of disinfo agent (apparently), I say "Prove me wrong".

Professor "Genuine Face" Jones says, in his February 2006 filmed lecture: "I spoke to the Dean [of BYU] and we agreed that it was fine for me to place my ideas within an academic context and that, provided I did that, there was no problem".

Professor "Genuine face" Jones was offered an interview on Hannity & Colmes. He posted this into the Scholars Forum, and asked for comments. During the thread he announced that he had accepted H&C's invitation.

Hannity and Colmes, Fox News, is an 'academic forum'? Since when?

Steven E Jones interviewed by Alex Jones. Another 'academic forum' I presume?

Some "genuine face"!

(Yes … I know it is a matter for the Dean of BYU. It is also a matter of giving one's word … and making that word publicly known … and sticking to it).

I'll be proved wrong when Prof. "Genuine Face" Jones explains how thermate can pulverise almost every ounce of concrete to fine dust. Go back to basics here. That is the implication in the initial post of this thread. And to deflect from that point is disingenuous. And that is what he is trying to do (in his own words).

To believe that 'thermate dunnit ALL (including the nano versions)' is to believe that every single square yard of concrete flooring, on 110 floors, was 'thermate- charged' (and set off accordingly).

As scar pointed out in his ubiquitous way: I'm not prone to posting stuff I can't back up.

By the way the Salter Brothers (if there are two of them) ran away and hid when Gerard Holmgren engaged them directly. However we are eternally grateful to them. They had a video of the 'South Tower impact' that - until they posted their stuff - we did not know about. Their video was taken from a different perspective than the one on CNN. But showed exactly the same flight path across the screen. If the plane had been real, then the flight path would have changed its perspective to correlate with the different perspective of the camera, would it not? The 'runaway' Salters therefore managed to disprove themselves, and support the 'clowns' at the same time. (Yup … I can back that one up as well).

However, Prof. “Genuine Face” Jones’ biggest lie of all is embodied in the original statement I highlighted. There was no debate that any civilised person could recognise, and to assert that there was, and to assert the result, (as he does) is a barefaced lie (made on the assumption, no doubt, that he could get away with it, because the Scholars Forum is a ‘closed’ Forum).

And I would be (more than) happy to debate MY assertion, above, with Prof. Jones any place, any time, anywhere.

[Dog]

Perhaps, as a fellow ST911..er , Andrew Johnson (one of this site's moderators) could step in at this juncture with his particular assesment of the supposed debate; and perhaps while he's at it, a short appraisal of our blustery new friend, Veronica?

and Scar...thanks in anticipation for your work on the Donna Marsh O'Connor section of the video.

I was just about to write "I look forward to it"..until I checked myself: I just wish that none of this was the reality. But it is, so within the context of the gravity it deeply deserves, I look forward to the opportunity of being able to distribute Donna's concise and impassioned testimony to a) everyone who has an open ear to 9/11, and, more importantly, b) those that currently don't.

[scar]

Well, I dont think hes around for a while so i guess i'll say summin:

Veronica:
The onus is on you to provide evidence that Jones is cointelpro
Not on others or him to prove he isnt. So far you have nothing.
S.Jones hasnt said 'thermate dunnit ALL (including the nano versions)' if he has please link me to that quote. He has always said some other explosives were used as well as thermate afaik.

In one thread you say Hufschmid and d-BS are divisive then you post this divisive link about Jones:
http://www.veronicachapman.com/nyc911/Jones-Kubiak.htm
Thats no evidence at all, just opinion.

In another thread http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=2709&highlight=
you quote an e-mail exchange slagging the truth movement off for being too cultish/not thinking for themselves:

"This hero worship cult is just as toxic whether you chant Bush’s name or Ellsberg’s." (or nicos)
"No wonder the flag wavers think that the movement is bunch of fanatical ideologues. Because it is."

Can you not see the irony in quoting all that then, right at the end:
5) Veronica replies:
I fully endorse everything said above.
everything!?!

You claim to have been unfairly treated but appear to be trying to cause arguments in every thread, that will only lead to more 'unfair treatment' surely?

You have a tendency to talk as if you are on the cutting edge with the no-plane theories when you have already admitted you are new to it and havent even confronted a stranger with it yet. Surely thats an important part of all this? If you cant do that with it and be successful then it is destined to disappear or remain hidden. Perhaps therein lies the reason Jones said what he did about 'real planes' ???

I said before why not make a video, perhaps comparing that video tech you posted to the footage from the day, flight lists etc etc. This might convince people, perhaps not. Worth a try surely?

In these 2 threads:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=2684&highlight=
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=2655&highlight=

People have responded to you to say yes, fine, investigate, you arent mad (as you claimed others had called you) but that this stuff is to be avoided with noobs etc but you persist in trying to drive a wedge between people over all this and you sound like a "fanatical ideologue" something you supposedly dislike in the truth movement (see above).
I can see how you "inadvertantly" stirred up trouble on the st911 forum if this is how you carry on all the time. The proof of no planes at the wtc imo isnt conclusive if it was there would be no need for all this negativity and attacks. Get all the best evidence out in that thread recently posted by scubadiver and convince people:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=2789
I look forward to seeing all the latest information as i havent checked it for a while.
IF you can convince a majority of people with it all then im sure the scholars will have to change their position.
I certainly wouldnt use it atm on noobs nor would i use it to represent the 'broad consensus' of the truth movement or the scholars (if i were a member)

Cant we all judge for ourselves as individuals or do we have to pick a camp and a guru and agree with everything they say?

[Dog]

[quote="Veronica"]
Professor "Genuine Face" Jones says, in his February 2006 filmed lecture: "I spoke to the Dean [of BYU] and we agreed that it was fine for me to place my ideas within an academic context and that, provided I did that, there was no problem".

.
Hannity and Colmes, Fox News, is an 'academic forum'? Since when?

./quote]


By the words of your own submission, Veronica, never was it suggested that Jones (nor his Boss) considered Hannity and Colmes to be " an academic forum", simply a forum within which to express "ideas within an academic context..."

There's a world of difference here.

And furthermore, you either:

a) Know it, or

b) Are too impassioned to see it.


If it's the former, I don't need to employ expletives for you to imagine what my advice to you would be.

If it's the latter, my friendly advice (which I'm sure you'd reject)..... cool off a couple of degrees....your arguments are showing holes that need sureing up if you're gonna take people with you. And I'm in no way being patronising.

[Veronica]

Scar,

A lot to reply to, and this post will have to be a fairly short one, largely because my broadband went down this morning (thanks to my ISP for that one), and I have to go out. I hope to reply in more detail later today or tomorrow.

Briefly to pick up on a couple of points. Richard Grove - Yes I listened to the whole broadcast before posting the link. Richard's 'no-planes' comments were made on the basis of (a) He was there in NYC at the time, and (b) He was on the e-mail thread where Ken Jenkins slagged us all off. I got into this whole thing by reading Gerard's research and e-mailing Richard to ask him if he saw any planes. Richard initially so 'no'. I passed this on to Gerard, who was not, particularly impressed. Richard then followed up - of his own accord - to the effect that 'the planes business had always puzzled him', on the basis that the media told him 'planes', but he never saw any. I passed this on to Gerard, and his reply was "That's typical of all the eye-witnesses". That's how Richard got into the e-mail loop … and why he is 'cautious' on the podcast.

I can back up everything I say.

Steven Jones has been challenged to an open debate by Gerard "clown" Holmgren. So far the kindly-faced professor has declined to respond.

Andrew Johnson will, I'm sure, back me up on the assertion that the debate was a farce - and proved nothing - however he is 'away until the 29th'. Jones has also been challenged to make the 'debate' threads publicly viewable. He may do so, but I doubt it. To 'clean it up', and make it look 'civilised', and to prove his assertion would be a positively mammoth task.

I intend to add my own challenge, to Holmgren's challenge, on the matter of the 'academic context'. (Another reason why I'm actually doing my best to be brief here).

I would just like to remind everybody.

It is Steven Jones who is not mentioning the pulverisation of the concrete into fine dust. It is Veronica who IS attempting to ensure that you are NOT DEFLECTED AWAY from this aspect.

[scar]

Ok i'll stay out of it then. Theres obviously a load of internal nonsense going on that im not privy to. Time is short and im not into soap operas.
"I can back up everything I say." with regards to Jones being Cointelpro???
If you can then do so, otherwise your post is no different that Hufschmids attacks on Avery.
Does Jones talk about every aspect of 9/11? Nope. does that mean hes cointelpro? Nope. Hes focusing in on one aspect, he hasnt told people to stay away from pulverisation has he? Therefore noone is being "DEFLECTED AWAY from this aspect." Not unless people follow Jones like a guru...which is their own fault if they do.

Peace.

[Veronica]

E-mail exchange this morning. I have permission to post it. No reponse from Prof. "Kindly Face" Jones at the time of posting, however I will post any reply.

This is unedited, except for 'white space' clean-up. Also I've reversed the order of the e-mails so that they read top to bottom.

(Perhaps 'pure hearts' are more important than 'kindly faces'? Oh, sorry, I forgot, Jane isn't listening any more. Of course, since she and I have never met - to the best of my knowledge - she doesn't know what my face looks like, anyway. What is it they say? "Don't judge a book by its cover"?)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gerard Holmgren wrote:

To: Steven Jones

Cc: 'Rosalee Grable' ; 'Veronica Chapman' ; 'Nico Haupt' ; 'Rick Rajter' ; 'Morgan Reynolds' ; 'Michael Morrissey'

Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 1:27 AM

Subject: You are skating on very thin ice

Steven.

I refer to a recent comment of yours in which you appeared to claim victory of sorts in a "scholarly debate" on the planes issue.

This is to warn you that you are skating on very thin ice if you persist with such cowardly distortions.

Let us review what really happened. Because Fetzer and the other plane theorists were being so soundly defeated in email debates on this issue, you suggested that it be conducted in a more scholarly fashion, and thus in a seeming gesture of reconciliation, invited us to put our views on the ST forum, where the methods were "scholarly" and "civilized".

We were warned in no uncertain terms that the forum did not tolerate any breach of the "scholarly" and "civilized" debating conditions.

Only one side adhered to those conditions, and it wasn't the plane theorists. We were subjected to endless stream of screaming lowbrow abuse from trolls who violated every semblance of "scholarly" or civilized" debate.

You did *nothing* to reign in the pack.

In the mean time, you also hid cowering from the debate, as did Fetzer.

In other words, you deliberately deceived us and wasted our time, by pretending to offer an olive branch, when in fact you just led into an ambush of shouting trolls, while you hid in the back room.

In spite of the stacked deck of cards, we easily won the debate. Veronica Chapman and Michael Morrissey for example came over to a no planes view.

Now you have the nerve to come out in public and declare victory in this debate ?

Well then, how about you post the entire debate for public consumption so that people can see the results for themselves ?

How about you add the disclaimer that at least two members did endorse no planes as a result of the debate? And that one of them was subsequently hounded off the forum by your army of "civilized" and "scholarly" shouting trolls.

[I wasn't hounded off I left of my own accord, but Gerard does not know that detail]

Not so keen on that, hey ?

You are not only a coward , but also a liar.

I issue you an ongoing challenge to face me one on one in a public debate about the planes.

Are you going to run away again like you've been running from me ever since you made your belated appearance as a self styled truth hero ? Still licking your wounds from your first go ? Would you like to try again ? Or are you just going to whisper lies from the shadows now and get your trolls to shout them for you ? If so then we will ignore the trolls and come after you - the source of the lies.

You ran from me in the email debates. You ran from me in the scholars forum.

And I have repeatedly warned you about plagiarism. Warnings which you have ignored. You are a disgrace to academia. If this subject wasn't so politically loaded, you would have been run out of academia for plagiarism by now.

You are skating on very thin ice. I advise you to consider your behavior more carefully

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Michael Morrissey wrote:

To: Gerard Holmgren; Steven Jones

Cc: 'Rosalee Grable'; 'Veronica Chapman'; 'Nico Haupt'; 'Rick Rajter'; 'Morgan Reynolds'

Subject: Re: You are skating on very thin ice

I would like to speak for myself, please.

I do not endorse any of this name-calling. Name-calling is not "debate."

I do not endorse the no-plane theories. I have come to believe they are much more plausible than I first thought. At least one of the videos (the "butter plane") does seem implausible to me, and thus fake. I am still undecided about what, if anything, actually hit the towers, though. From what I have read, I think I am in about the same place as Morgan Reynolds ("Some holes...").

There is so much acrimony on both sides that riding the fence will probably draw fire from both sides, but I refuse to be pushed into one "camp" or the other, and I will continue to have the greatest respect for Steven Jones, Jim Fetzer, Rosalee Grable, Nico Haupt (with whom I had an initial scuffle but we managed to patch it up), and for Gerard Holmgren.

Gerard, Rick Raijter has offered to do a summary of the "no-planes" theories, and I have suggested he have this vetted by you (this just means checking for accuracy, not "consent" or "approval"). I have also referred to your home page on the forum, for those who are not familiar with it. Perhaps this could be the start of a new dialogue, which can be direct and honest, even brutal when necessary, without being insulting. It is not too late, and I think we all realize the importance of overcoming as much of this internecine battling as we can.

I am leaving today for the US but will try to keep in touch as often as possible via email and Internet thanks to a wonderful American (not to seem chauvinistic; I don't know if it was a US invention) institution called the public library.

Peacefully and hopefully,

Michael

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gerard Holmgren wrote:

Thanks for this Michael. I apologize if I misrepresented your position. I will leave you out of this discussion, because it is beyond the scope of calm examination of the evidence, which - to your credit - seems to be what you are interested in.

(Michael removed)

Now Steven. I repeat. Retract your outrageous lie about what took place on the Scholars forum.
Cease the plagiarism.

Have the courage to debate us directly in public or else shut up. If you continue to snipe from under a rock, we will come and dig you out. Consider your behavior very carefully.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gerard Holmgren wrote:

It is not name calling to call a plagiarist a plagiarist.

Who found the WTC 7 squibs, Steven ? Can you bear to utter her name ?

Who was the first to put forward the free fall argument, Steven ? Can you manage to whisper his name ?

Who was the first to raise the pulverization issue Steven ?

Who was the first to observe that no steel framed skyscraper had ever before collapsed from fire ? You ?

How many years between these discoveries and you declaring them to be your own work ?

It's not name calling to call a liar a liar.

Why don't put what really happened on the scholar's forum out there, so that the public can see it, Steven ?

*All* of it. Every embarrassing word of it. So that people can see what *you endorse* as "scholarly" and "civilized" debate. So that people can see how *you hid* in the back room on your own forum.

Most of all, stop your sniping from under your rock.

You swagger around like some kind of King in front of your army of shouting trolls. Well come and debate us directly - in public - and then see how much you are swaggering after that.

Steven - this is the last time that I will do you the courtesy that you have repeatedly denied us.

Each time you have launched one of your cowardly, dishonest attacks, you have done it in public, with no warning and no attempt to discuss or negotiate anything.

Each time I have responded, I have first contacted you privately to give you the opportunity for a face saving exist. The first time I did that you spat in my face - and lived to regret it.

Once again, I have given you the chance to sort things out in private.

This will be the *last* time I do that.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Veronica Chapman wrote:

Dear Professor Jones,

In your February lecture you stated that you had discussed your position with the Dean of BYU, and had agreed that you could continue to publicise your work within 'academic contexts', for example the context of that lecture itself.

And yet, in the Scholars Forum, you informed everyone that you had been offered a spot on Hannity & Colmes. At one point you posted to the effect that you had accepted their invitation. Is Hannity & Colmes an 'academic context', sir? I believe I'm right in saying that you appeared on (was it) Tucker Carlsson? Sir, is the Alex Jones Show an 'academic forum'?

Of course, I entirely realise that this a matter between yourself and the Dean, however (with respect) there seems to be a number of conflicts going on here.

Another conflict seems to be one that enables you to claim a fair no-planes debate occurred, and that the result was not endorsement of the no-planes theory. How any rational person could view that so-called debate as fair and civilised is totally beyond me (possibly I'm not rational?). My personal - and detached view at the time - was that it was a rabble.

I left your Forum in disgust, and if you wish to cancel my Society Associate Membership, then please feel entirely free to do that - on the basis that any one, or any group, that cannot tolerate people speaking their mind in a civilised fashion is not a group worth belonging to.

Please note, sir. I have not engaged in any name-calling.

Sincerely,

Veronica Chapman

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Veronica]

Dog,

Perhaps my paraphrasing was misleading.

Jones and his Dean meant 'lectures within academic surroundings'. Presentations within BYU and other Universities, seminars, etc. That meaning is obvious from viewing the lecture in which Jones explained the situation.

Heavens to Betsy! Look before you leap.

[IronSnot]

How interesting Veronica from Hanworth. How interesting.

You wouldn't be able to list all the no-planers for me would you?

Ta.

[Veronica]

IronSnot from Australia, the 'leaders' are listed above.

Scroll in the UPWARD direction is my suggestion.

I have no idea how many more there are ... any more than you could tell me how many 9/11 Truth Sceptics there are worldwide.

Or maybe you can?

[IronSnot]

Millions of skeptics, Veronica from Hanworth, millions. Soon, it's hoped there will be about 6.4 billion.

Although of course they might not be skeptics by that stage.

No Planers? I reckon I can count them on two hands, but I was hoping you would be able to name them all for me. You see I hadn't heard of that Rick whatshisname guy before. Who's he?

[TimmyG]

i don't see why the theory that actual real planes is the building is so unbelievable!

they still could have been remote controlled.

i think morgan reynolds discredits the scholars by suggesting he believes in the no-planes theory

[Veronica]

[IronSnot]

[Veronica]

[ian neal]

[brian]

What a pitiful carry on.

Holmgrens attack on Jones is beyond comprehension, he does his own reputation no good but much more importantly damages the truth movement in general. His motives must be questioned.

Whatever took place in the debate there cannot be any place for the sort of juvenile name calling Holmgren and Veronica resorted to if they wish to convince anyone of their objectively reached conclusions.

The notion that Jones and Griffin may be shills is preposterous and anyone thinking rationally should see how preposterous. How can they be leading the truth movement up some cul de sac when the stated position is this from Griffin -

"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."

Veronica says the above statement has been obvious for quite some time yet rather than welcome someone with the stature of Jones whos paper helped enormously in given scientific credibility to this she questions what took him so long. The same question can be asked of the academic world at large - where are they and what is keeping them?

Can Jones and Griffin suddenly turn all their hard work into negating the truth movement? How? It is a ridiculous assertion.

Veronica, is perhaps that your believing the no planes is proven you feel that this is THE smoking gun and anyone who disagrees is not genuinely interested in the truth?

I think there is a sound argument for the idea that even if you are convinced there were no planes it is counterproductive to the movement as a whole and its objectives by making a major issue of it right now.

If we manage to achieve an independent inquiry then ALL issues can be brought to the table but I sincerely believe acheiving that will not be helped by the infighting and abuse the no planes issue has raised.

[Veronica]

Ian,

A couple of points.

1) We did not pick this fight, as you can see from the history (large chunks of it above).

2) We see no reason why 'unity' should replace TRUTH, in TRUTH Movement and - in consequence - we fight for the truth.

If you read all of the history, Ian, you will see that (for example) 911Truth.org has an Executive Director (David Kubiak) who has gone on record (in the NYT) as saying that "19 Saudi Hijackers did 9/11".

We do not feel that this could be construed as unity. We have also posted a link which quite clearly associates Professor Jones with David Kubiak.

We have also caught Professor Jones out in a big, fat, lie (or a Data Falsification ... as he would put it). We don't consider that lying on such a grand scale is any more acceptable than the 'perps' lying on the grand scale of 9/11 itself. And, furthermore (again if you read the history) you will see that it is not for the first he has been found 'falisifying data'.

Personally speaking, I feel you - and everyone else here - has the right to know about this. I know that you, and I, have invested an enormous amount of our time and energy into 9/11 Truth. And that goes for many others who post in this Forum (some I know personally).

So ... my question for you, Ian, is this:

1) Would you rather be, quite possibly, sold down the river in secret, without your knowledge

-OR-

2) Would you rather have the opportunity to have the situation presented to you, so that you can assess what is happening for yourselves (even if it brings a certain amount of temporary disunity, while the situation is 'fluid' ... as it INEVITABLY WOULD)?

If the answer is (1), above, I will shut up and stop posting.