An Open Challenge to Prof. Steven Jones

[Veronica]

I make this post, and issue this challenge, based on the fact that I - among others - do not accept Prof. Steven E Jones' thermite/thermate hypothesis (from hence referred to at his TTH) as the 'Preferred Hypothesis' to explain the demise of the Twin Towers on 9/11.

Please read this post very carefully, all the way through. If you do not, and you post a reply, it is likely to be deleted. This challenge is directed solely at Prof. Jones.

The challenge set out below will be e-mailed to Steven Jones and a number of his associates and allies, including Alex Floum, Fred Burks, Carl Weis, Nicholas Newton and Chris Poate.

As soon as this Topic is created, a link to it will be sent in that e-mail.

Steven Jones will not, therefore, have any excuse for not knowing of its existence.

I challenge Steven Jones to form a 'team' to create postings into this Topic, one at a time. For my part I will form a similar 'team' to create postings. The format will be one posting each, in turn. (In point of fact I would be perfectly happy to challenge Steven Jones individually, but there could be no guarantee of individuals, and therefore I suggest a team effort out the outset).

My 'team' will comprise myself, Profs. Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood and Jim Fetzer and (possibly) others such as Jeff Strahl and Rick Siegel. There will be no limit on the 'size' and construction of each team. Either side my choose as many, or as few, associates as they wish. However only one Team Member may post as that team's turn. Generally this would be the Nominated Posting Member, however it is acceptable that any Team Member can make the post.

Fundamentally we will ask questions, and expect answers. (Obviously there exists the possibility that Prof. Jones may create another Topic where, primarily, he asks the questions, and we provide the answers. I feel sure that the UK Forum would be happy to support that, in the interests of fair play).

This procedure will be strictly moderated, and all posts - apart from the teams - will be disallowed by the Forum Moderators. The Moderators will also accept objections from either team, where any flaming or ad hominems are pointed out. This 'moderation' will be strict. As far as possible to 'Scientific Standards'.

The Standard Forum Posting Rules must be obeyed at all times.

The attitude of the British 9/11 Truth Campaign must be respected at all times.

Prof. Jones, are you prepared to defend your hypothesis against me? I draw your attention to Galileo, who was prepared to defend his scientific position - even though the penalty, in his case, could well have been execution.

All you have to do is to form your 'team', and nominate a Posting Member. That person can reside anywhere in the world. Perhaps you, personally, would prefer to be the Posting Member yourself, so as to defend your research personally? I would have absolutely no problem at all with that, as I'm sure you are aware.

I will await your reply with interest. If you shy away from this golden opportunity to defend your work, within the UK Forum - as you have declined to defend it at the National Press Club, the National Debating Panel, and on The Dynamic Duo with Jim Fetzer - then I'm sure the UK 9/11 Truth Activists (who work so very hard on your behalf) are perfectly capable of drawing appropriate conclusions.

Steven, following your retirement from BYU, is it unreasonable to assume that you have sufficient time on your hands so as to be able to defend your hypothesis?

Rest assured I will probe your TTH to the limits of true science, for the very simple reason that it is necessary. It is necessary because NIST have already debunked it themselves, which means that the TTH could be a very large trap for 9/11 Truth, could it not?

The sort of questions I will be asking are, I think, perfectly reasonable. Here is a small sample:

1) How many hypotheses did you initially consider as possible explanations for the demise of the Twin Towers? What were they, and why did you reject them all in favour of the TTH? I think this is a fair question, based on the fact that it is the favoured hypothesis that unites the 9/11 Truth Movement, and yet it has already been considered, and rejected, by NIST.

2) What is your 'Proof of Concept' for the TTH?

3) How many times has the TTH been used to drop a building (of any size) prior to 9/11, and since?

4) How does the TTH explain the Seismics of 2.3 & 2.1?

5) How does the TTH explain the pulverisation of the concrete, steel, asbestos and all other materials, while leaving a large quantity of paper undamaged?

6) How does the TTH explain the 'toasted' cars, some up to a half a mile away?

7) Have you somewhere published 'the data', the Explanandum ('That which must be fully and explicitly explained by any hypothesis')? If so, where?

In my view these - and many other - questions need to be fully discussed before anyone should be prepared to accept your TTH as the 'Preferred Hypothesis'. I absolutely guarantee that all questions discussed will be solely related to scientific matters (as above). I will refrain from asking any questions of - shall we say - 'a political nature'. I trust that you will do the same.

Accusations of 'dividing the Truth Movement' will doubtless be laid against me. However

(a) To find the truth, all avenues of evidential analysis should be undertaken openly and honestly, otherwise the real truth may never be discovered (in other words it is essential to proceed as per 'good Scientific Method'),

(b) These issues will not 'just go away', for the simple reason that they are far too important for that. For every person who throws that accusation, another looks at the data and starts to understand. (I repeat: 'Looks at the data', for that is the key). Just because it's dark does not mean that the light is switched off. It may simply be that your eyes are closed.

The primary objective of this challenge will be to ascertain the validity of Prof. Jones' TTH. However there is a secondary objective, which is to inform any Readers of it, by bringing to light a number of facts surrounding the 9/11 events, that may very well have been missed by some. It is hoped that the language used will be - on the one hand to scientific standards - and on the other hand to be comprehensible to everyone. For my part I will seek to achieve all of these objectives.

(There are no ad hominems in this post. There is no flaming. There are statements of my position, facts, questions, and a challenge to debate).

(Please refrain from replying to this post unless you have been nominated as the Posting Member of Prof. Jones' Team. This Topic will be operated on a 'you can look but please don't touch' basis. The Moderators will simply delete any post that does not originate from either myself or from Steven Jones' Team, as soon as they are able to pick them up. Posting will suspend until this action occurs).

[Veronica]

THE FOLLOWING E-MAIL HAS BEEN SENT. THIS POST WILL BE DELETED IF (AND ONLY IF) ACCEPTANCE TO THE CHALLENGE IS RECEIVED.

To: Professor Steven E Jones and associates.

Steven,

You have been publicly challenged to openly defend your thermite/thermate hypothesis to the 9/11 UK Truth Movement.

Here is a link to the challenge itself: http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=6304

It is duplicated on the website 911Researchers.com here: http://911researchers.com/node/62

You will find the details on either link, however the challenge itself is in the UK Forum.

We trust that you, or your nominee, will reply in an appropriate manner. Perhaps I can take this opportunity to draw your attention to the fact that you have the ability to challenge my team in a similar manner, in the same Forum. There is nothing to prevent you, or a nominee, challenging any theory that we may have brought forward with regard to the 9/11 events.

A couple of final points. Firstly, we have not the slightest intention of creating any form of 'final vote'. I know your associates favour these things, but science does not, as you know, operate on democratic lines. Facts are facts and are objective. They are not subjective (to the whims of voters). Readers of the thread will be fully entitled to read the questions, read the answers, and make up their own minds in respect of the validity (or otherwise) of each, on an individual basis.

Secondly, you may, or may not, be aware that both Rick & Nico utilise Web Tools that create almost immediate prominence in the Search Engines. Consequently the duplicate posting in 911Researchers.com is likely to spread worldwide in a very short space of time, and then be picked up at Nico's Bloglines/Truthling Watch. 911Researchers.com achieved 70,000 hits on its first day of operation. (Are we talking 'power' and 'reach'?)

These are serious matters, and we look forward to your response,

Veronica

Status Update: A reply has been recieved from Nicholas Newton, as follows

"Have you ever considered that Steven might feel that devoting time to his research and writing papers is more important than spending hours debating ad-hom spewing no-planers who will never back down?"

Response e-mailed back (to the list, including Moderators) was:

"Thanks for your reply. I'm glad that it went to all of those on this list, rather than just to me personally. It saves me the need to forward it.

Can I ask you to confirm that it is to be taken as 'the Jones' team' response?"

(Moderators can confirm this e-mail exchange)

Status Update: Moderators Tony Gosling & Andrew Johnson unhappy with 'language'. Moderators have been requested to provide alternative language to replace the original language.

Status Update: Moderator Tony Gosling requires citations. See here: http://www.911scholars.org/070102_transcript.html
"As he has declined previous invitations" refers to about 6 such invitations in total (to the best of my recollection). BTW, I understand that Jim Fetzer is arranging to re-run the interview, of which the above is an accurate transcript, on Wednesday 10th January, while he is in Washington DC. Link: http://www.gcnlive.com/listenlive.htm ... broadcast between 9pm & 11pm UK time.

[Andrew Johnson]

I confirm the e-mail above as received from Nicholas Newton, one of Steve Jones' associates.


THIS THREAD IS ONLY FOR POSTING BY STEVEN JONES OR MEMBERS OF
HIS NOMINATED PARTY/TEAM AND

VERONICA CHAPMAN
PROF MORGAN REYNOLDS
PROF JUDY WOOD
PROF JIM FETZER
JEFF STRAHL
CB BROOKLYN

OR SITE MODERATORS.

OTHER POSTERS POSTS WILL BE DELETED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE

THIS HAS BEEN AGREED WITH SITE MODERATORS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS DEBATE. THANK YOU.

Other members can start a parallel thread and copy/duplicate posts from this thread if they wish and post their own comments there.

(See here: http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=6310)

If Steve Jones' Team take up the challenge, the thread will be placed in a special group where only the nominated posters can post.

[TonyGosling]

The tone of language used here.
As a moderator I think this is a great idea in principle but have problems with the tone of language used. For example...

[Andrew Johnson]

Tony,

I agree with you - and would just mention I didn't word the text of the original challenge myself, or the e-mail to present it.

However, I fully support the "challenge" and this will now be the 3rd time Prof Jones has been asked to discuss the important scientific questions in public.

I do not feel comfortable doing this, but it is a necessary a "check and balance" in the evolving 9/11 Truth revelation process.

[TonyGosling]

Subject: Re: Open Debating Challenge
From: "Steve Jones"
Date: Wed, January 10, 2007 6:54 am
To: "Veronica Chapman"
Cc: "Alex Floum"
Priority: Normal


Dear Veronica,

Earlier today, you sent the "challenge" below, to defend my
thermite/thermate hypothesis.
On Jan. 5, 2007, four days ago, I sent out an email describing the new
Letters section of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, which was set up quite
specifically for just such a discussion -- in a scientific venue.
Here is that letter, sent to Jeff Kellogg, Morgan Reynolds, Rick
Rajter and others (with an invitation to submit Letters and to spread
the word about this scientific venue for discussing important
matters).

" -------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steve Jones
Date: Jan 5, 2007 7:21 AM
Subject: Re: new website


Jeff,

[snip]
I received your paper (draft) just a few days ago, but apologize for
not responding sooner. It is fine for a Letter to the Journal of 9/11
Studies, which is independent of both "groups." It fits very well, of
course you may want to have more in it -- I assume this draft you sent
was just a beginning. The new Letters section (OK, there aren't any
letters in it yet, but the co-editors are in agreement for the need)
is to encourage Letters just like yours, to encourage discussion, to
give people a voice -- like you.

How else can we get the various groups discussing things civilly?
This is why I like your letter -- it represents another point of view
and gets the discussion out there. The requirement for Letters will
be relevance and civility -- they will not be subjected to the
rigorous peer-review regarding content if they are responding to an
existing paper or letter (as yours is responding to Salter's paper in
the Journal of 9/11 Studies). We're going to try this -- opening up
the Letters section -- and see how it works.

In 1989, when a paper appeared in Nature with me as first author in
April, someone wrote a letter to Nature asking about its scientific
content. That is fair -- the means was by a Letter to Nature, the
same venue where our paper on fusion was published. So I and Dr.
Tolley responded with a response Letter to Nature which was subjected
to minimal peer review. It was simply our response. We're trying to
achieve this with the Letters section in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
One should indicate whether his/her submission is to the Letters
section.

You are invited to participate in this new Letters section, and to
spread the word about it. Morgan Reynolds and Rick Rajter in
particular are invited to submit a response-Letter to it, also, to
remedy the situation vis-a-vis their earlier submission and to allow
them a voice. Theirs may be on the same topic as yours, that's OK,
too. And Eric Salter will be invited to respond, to get the
discussion going -- let the Letters begin.

We'll see how this works out. A few more rules may need to be
written as we go along, to maintain order, but I think if we all
maintain the decorum shown in Letters to Nature, the procedure should
work out and encourage open scientific discussions. Writing a
scientific letter (ala Letters to Nature) brings a rigor which verbal
jousts and emails lack. As we maintain civility, I am hopeful the
process will serve to bring enlightenment and finally a degree of
unity to the 9/11 research community.

I agree with you: "Let's hope 9/11 research ultimately has an effect
on our country and government policies. In the end, we're all in it
together."
So let's get talking with well-written Letters!

Best wishes,

Steven J"


And so, I invite you to submit your questions to the Letters section
of the Journalof911Studies.com and I will be glad to answer them in
this scientific venue, assuming they satisfy the few rules described
here: http://journalof911studies.com/letters.html . Specifically,
"The requirements for publication of letters will be: relevance,
respectful civility, posing specific questions, answering
previously-published questions before posing more queries, and
avoiding "straw-man" and ad hominem arguments. The editors of the
Journal of 9/11 Studies will allow response-letters to be published in
the Journal without formal peer-review, on a trial basis, to encourage
public presentation of various views."

You may send your letter to Kevin Ryan if you wish (kncryan@msn.com)
or to me, and we will even waive the peer-review requirement if you
request it. However, minimal requirements need to be met as
specified, in particular: "The requirements for publication of
letters will be: relevance, respectful civility, posing specific
questions, answering previously-published questions before posing more
queries, and avoiding "straw-man" and ad hominem arguments."

For example, in your questions you state regarding TTH: "it has
already been considered, and rejected, by NIST. " Here you will need
to quote NIST and provide references as is standard for scientific
discourse, so that straw-man arguments are avoided and "specific
questions" are given.

Then, you may also post your questions at the UK site if you wish,
along with my answers which will be first published in the same
Letters section. I will answer your questions as well as I can, and
I welcome the opportunity as long as we use a scientific venue which
the Letters are set up to provide. See Letters in
http://journalof911studies.com/letters.html for further reasons for
choosing a published-journal venue, and for examples. You will also
see why I decline to participate in endless email and verbal debates,
choosing to use published material such as scientific Letters instead.

Sincerely,
Dr. Steven Jones

PS -- would someone pls post this at the UK site? And please spread
the word about the Letters section of the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
Thanks.



On 1/9/07, Veronica Chapman <tabkrat@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> To: Professor Steven E Jones and associates.
>
> Steven,
>
> You have been publicly challenged to openly defend your thermite/thermate
> hypothesis to the 9/11 UK Truth Movement.
>
> Here is a link to the challenge itself:
> http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=6304
>
>
> It is duplicated on the website 911Researchers.com here:
> http://911researchers.com/node/62
>
> You will find the details on either link, however the challenge itself is in
> the UK Forum.
>
> We trust that you, or your nominee, will reply in an appropriate manner.
> Perhaps I can take this opportunity to draw your attention to the fact that
> you have the ability to challenge my team in a similar manner, in the same
> Forum. There is nothing to prevent you, or a nominee, challenging any theory
> that we may have brought forward with regard to the 9/11 events.
>
>
> A couple of final points. Firstly, we have not the slightest intention of
> creating any form of 'final vote'. I know your associates favour these
> things, but science does not, as you know, operate on democratic lines.
> Facts are facts and are objective. They are not subjective (to the whims of
> voters). Readers of the thread will be fully entitled to read the questions,
> read the answers, and make up their own minds in respect of the validity (or
> otherwise) of each, on an individual basis.
>
>
> Secondly, you may, or may not, be aware that both Rick & Nico utilise Web
> Tools that create almost immediate prominence in the Search Engines.
> Consequently the duplicate posting in 911Researchers.com is likely to spread
> worldwide in a very short space of time, and then be picked up at Nico's
> Bloglines/Truthling Watch.. 911Researchers.com achieved 70,000 hits on its
> first day of operation. (Are we talking 'power' and 'reach'?)
>
>
> These are serious matters, and we look forward to your response,
>
> Veronica

[TonyGosling]

Veronica, next time you can post your reply up yourself - okay?
Tony

Veronica's reply

Dear Steven,

Nice try, but a Letters Section controlled by you and your associates,
is not acceptable.

I make that statement based on the way you 'managed' (aka CONTROLLED) the Journal and the Forum, and also by the way you have created the Scholars for 9/11 Truth &amp; Justice Website, which contains a number of fundamental unscientific errors.

The facts are this.

The United Kingdom has a Forum which is not controlled by you (it isn't
controlled by me, either). It is a large Forum, covering the large
majority of the 9/11 Truth Activist in the United Kingdom.

There is a feeling that your research is going nowhere fast, and that
it fails to explain what needs to be explained, in relation to 9/11.

These people go out day after day and try to get the 'unconverted' to
understand what happened on 9/11, and have done so based upon your
thermite/thermate hypothesis.

They are making a simple request that this hypothesis be questioned in
depth, on a PURE SCIENTIFIC BASIS, so as to assure them that they are
on the right track when they answer questions.

The first question they would like to ask is this:

Where have you published the Explanandum of 9/11? Please provide a link.

Surely that is a simple question, is it not?

Of course, Steven, if you really don't have time to answer a
purely scientific question such as that, we can - I'm sure - draw our
own conclusions.

Veronica

Best,

Veronica

[ian neal]

As discussed in the emails to establish this particular thread, the moderators are merely providing a space to allow for a respectful exchange of views between Veronica (who I understand speaks with Jim Fetzer's blessing on this forum) and Steven Jones (or any representative he may choose to nominate) should both parties wish to participate.

As such the only people to post this thread should be Veronica and Steven Jones or their nominated representatives. The moderators and all other posters should not post on this thread. Please respect this.

Thanks

[TonyGosling]

Steve Jones' final replies



Of course, the research is ongoing, and I am currently working on two
scientific papers on the subject as well as a number of experiments.
You will find latest published material in Letter C in the Journal,
which includes a photo of the "Proof of Concept" device I tested
successfully several weeks ago. Earlier work is published here:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldT radeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf


Steven J




On 1/10/07, Veronica Chapman wrote:
>
> Submission to the Letters Section of your Journal:
>
> Dear Prof. Jones,
>
> Where have you published the full explanandum for your preferred
> hypothesis?
>
> Regards,
>
> Veronica Chapman
>




From: "Steve Jones"
Date: Wed, January 10, 2007 6:49 pm
To: "jeff strahl"
Cc: "Veronica Chapman"


You can pick another established scientific journal with a Letters
section if you wish. That would be fine.

Again, you may publish a Letter in the Journal of 9/11 Studies that
meets the minimal requrements, and ask for NO PEER-REVIEW -- so that
it will sail right through and be published quickly. What difference
does it make who is on the staff if there is no peer review
requirement?

Again, I challenge Veronica to submit her questions to the Letters
section of this or any other established scientific journal.

Farewell,

Steven J

On 1/10/07, jeff strahl <jstrahl@well.com> wrote:
> This is your notion of a "PUBLIC" debate? A letter in your in-house journal,
> staffed entirely by people you've picked? The word "PATHETIC" couldn't do
> this justice.
>
> on 1/9/07 10:54 PM, Steve Jones at hardevidence@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Dear Veronica,
> >
> > Earlier today, you sent the "challenge" below, to defend my
> > thermite/thermate hypothesis.
> > On Jan. 5, 2007, four days ago, I sent out an email describing the new
> > Letters section of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, which was set up quite
> > specifically for just such a discussion -- in a scientific venue.
> > Here is that letter, sent to Jeff Kellogg, Morgan Reynolds, Rick
> > Rajter and others (with an invitation to submit Letters and to spread
> > the word about this scientific venue for discussing important
> > matters).



"Steve Jones"
Date: Wed, January 10, 2007
To: "Veronica Chapman" <tabkrat@gotadsl.co.uk>
Cc: "Andrew Johnson"


Veronica: "I believe you call it a "Letter to the Professor" (your phrase). "

Sorry, that is not my phrase. Again, I do not intend to carry out a
debate or discussion via email (see my Letter C in the Journal for my
detail.)

If you wish to submit a Letter to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and it
meets the minimal requirements previously outlined, it will be
published -- or if you publish in some other established scientific
Journal -- then yes I will answer, also in a published scientific
venue.

Best wishes,
Steven Jones