Steven E. Jones is 34th signatory to Petition to his S911T

[Veronica]

(Please note that all of the points he raises can be explained without involving any 7X7s)

http://www.petitiononline.com/911tvfak/petition.html

The 911 Blogger, "George Washington", interpreted the contents of Steven Jones' paper AnsQJones1.pdf (presumably Page 159), as

"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."

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

Prof. Jones has admitted, in an e-mail, that 'broad consensus' was a false claim (made by the Blogger), and yet has re-affirmed that he stands by the remainder of that Blogger's interpretation of his paper.

Whereas, in point of fact, the entire statement is a false claim. This would be demonstrated if the Topic threads were made publicly viewable.

On the other hand Prof. Jones is the 34th signatory on a petition to have the 'no-7X7s' hypothesis thoroughly examined in a scholarly paper - a paper that, as and when produced, will say precisely the opposite to the Blogger's interpretation, and to what Prof. Jones states in his own paper.

Production of that paper, to 'scholarly standards' is in progress. It would not be in progress if there were any question that it would not pass the peer review requested by Prof. Jones.

In an e-mail exchange I asked Steven if thermate could account for the pulverisation of 110 floors of CONCRETE to 50 micron fine dust. He replied that thermate is capable of pulverising ALUMINIUM to fine dust (a fact which I never disputed). I point this out as an indication as to how the subject of the CONCRETE gets avoided, every single time.

Feel entirely free to add your own signature. Show me no mercy. Grind me into dust. Show me up to be a wolf in sheep's clothing. Sign the petition yourself. There is nothing to stop you.

By the by, Morgan Reynolds has been invited to speak to the National Press Club on or around 11th September, and has accepted the invitation on the basis that (to quote him) he "is no longer a choir-boy singing from the unity hymn sheet". And that, since "unity" has not put a single 'perp' behind bars, nor has it brought the situation any closer - from now on, when he speaks, it will be Morgan Reynolds 'full frontal'. (He has already been quietly cut from one speaking engagement because of his refusal to play the 'unity' card).

For more information on Morgan's view, see his interview with recently-resigned S.P.I.N.E. member, Joseph Keith. At

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=no_planer_resigns

[Snowygrouch]

Hi Veronica could you please clarify precisely what the crux of this story is?

Are persons jumping up and down saying look a professor agrees with us and then badmouthing him when his theories on one point dont agree with our own?

I`m really at a loss to quite put a finger on what this is all about.

We all know that 99% of us disagree on various exact details of 9/11; be it the pentagon or WTC no planes.

I`m not terribly convinced this is a productive way to expend our very limited time and effort.

Perhaps I`ve misunderstood or jumped to the wrong conclusion. this is a topic I`ve not been following so I be confused jumping in mid-thread as it were.

This is NOT a flame I`m just slightly perplexed by this whole episode.

[kbo234]

[brian]

Veronica, Professor Jones states in his paper regards the pulverisation -

And these explosives also readily account for the turning of the falling Towers to fine dust as the collapse ensues. Rather than a piling up with shattering of concrete as we might expect from non-explosive-caused progressive collapse (“official theory”), we find that most of the Towers material (concrete, carpet, steel, etc.) is converted to flour-like powder WHILE the buildings are falling. The Towers’ collapses are not typical random collapses, but quite possibly a series of “shock-and-awe” explosions coupled with the use of thermate-incendiaries – at least the evidence points strongly in this direction. The hypothesis ought to be explored further.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Note - a series of “shock-and-awe” explosions COUPLED with the use of thermate-incendiaries.

Rather than avoiding the pulverisation Jones deals with it head on.

[Mark Gobell]

Veronica, I understand that you are a member of ST911, but I do not really understand what you are saying here.

Could you help me out please. Maybe I am just not properly informed about this and / or not understanding your post correctly.

[Andrew Johnson]

Hi,

I have been watching the e-mail exchanges between some of the people involved here (I am a member of the ST911 Association).

As I see things there are 2 issues amongst the jumble of ideas and statements and counter statements:

1) An important principle being at stake
2) Some "internal politics" and maybe "growing pains".

ST911 members have been, as many people have (myself included) very focused on the Controlled Demolition evidence - which most people seem to agree on, though the type of explosives used is being debated (I favour the "whole cocktail" idea - thermite, thermate and possibly some type of higher yield explosive - because of the unparalleled destruction of almost everything to other than the steel girder sections). So, when people come along saying "hang on - CD isn't the only important issue, ye know", those who think it is the only important issue argue their case (and rightly so).

It is initially harder to believe that there may have been "plane fakery" involved in 1 or both WTC crashes (it is less hard to believe at the pentagon, because of the lack of film).

Nevertheless, there is evidence that plane fakery was apparent and this is now what is being debated. Some people in ST911 didn't seem to think the evidence was good enough to write an academic paper about it and so tried to, well, ridicule the idea in one way or another. The language used used (by some) was similar in some instances to the language by those who used to laugh at the idea of CD ("Don't be ridiculous! How could they POSSIBLY have planted all those explosives?" becomes "Don't be ridiculous! How could they have faked all those plane videos and film?")

I personally need to study the evidence more closely. At stake seemed to be the question of whether the ST911 association was going to be associated with people who wanted to study this evidence. Some of this study is at quite an advanced stage.

To try and make a point, various errors omissions and contradictory statements have been seized upon by some people in the group and so the arguments have raged. We can all examine these forever and try to decide who's the real McCoy and who isn't. I generally just keep looking at the 9/11 evidence myself and try validate it by my own standards to a point where I can discuss it with others and understand it. If I don't have time to get to such a point I say "DOn't know about this. Here are the links to the information - you check it out and I will help if I can."

Veronica and I have exchanged a few e-mails and I think she has done a good job in pointing the importance of the "let's study ALL the evidence" principle. As a group of people who are often the target of debunkers and character assassinators, who are we to try to do this to anyone else, without investing the time in studying the evidence they present? That's basically it as I see it.

[Mark Gobell]

Thanks for that Andrew.

I would add that there is a great deal resting on the reputation of ST911 and Steven Jones in particular.

The work of ST911 to date, and in a relatively short period has become pivotal to untangling this mess.

We are seeing signs of discord within ST911 which is extremely worrying given that it's principle contribution so far has been the scientific proof of controlled demolition and Thermite.

These growing pains IMO should be resolved internally and not in the glare of a public forum.

There are enough external influences at work on all of these issues and on the various 911 groups without the foremost witnesses for the prosecution airing their laundry in public.

[Andrew Johnson]

Mark,

I appreciate your comments and I think your concerns are shared by many. My own view is that the idea of "authority" as a whole will probably "fall away" as 9/11 truth becomes more well known.

ST911 is inevitably being viewed as "an authority" - perhaps by definition and yet:

1) It is not funded
2) It is made up of volunteers
3) Its findings essentially expose faults and frauds in all other major insitutions - academic ones included (because all of them have ignored and continue to ignore evidence). I tried to express my view on this about 1 year ago, before the formation of ST911:


http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=79

This is part and parcel of "the new Paradigm" as I see it.

For myself, I don't claim any authority, only a "shared goal" and "many shared views" with many fellow members of ST911 and other 9/11 Truthers. I do state that I have studied a proportion of 9/11 evidence and and assessed it using my knowledge of Physics, Chemistry and Maths etc

[ian neal]

[Mark Gobell]

Hi Ian / Andrew

Good point. Thanks.

I'm still in the existing paradigm I guess where I am convinced that the work of ST911 stands alone as the single most important scientific based research and evidence that we have.

I have oscillated between incredulity and a growing understanding of the fake planes theories so true to type I worry about the CD evidence being dismissed by association, should that transpire.

Ultimately, the CD evidence itself should withstand any future scrutiny.

Ideally though, wouldn't it be better for that evidence to become mainstream before the world rolls it's eyes at something else associated with it.

[IronSnot]

[jake]