Conversation with Professor Steven E. Jones

1) Original e-mail:

Dear Professor Jones,

I have seen the seminar you gave in February of this year, and I have read your paper on the Ground Zero demolitions.

I'm a Society Associate of S911T.

Can you please confirm that you have tested the samples from GZ, and have not observed any abnormal levels of radio-activity? To the best of my knowledge this aspect has not been covered in anything I have read (anywhere).

Thank you in advance.

Best,

Veronica Chapman

--- This e-mail did not receive any reply, however the document AnsQJones1.pdf, claiming ‘no nukes at WTC’ surfaced a few weeks later---

2) Subsequent to the release of AnsQJones1.pdf and the 911Blogger piece, I 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

3) Under pressure from Gerard Holmgren, eventually Prof. Jones wrote:

Jones, Steven wrote:

Veronica,

I have had further discussions with my Chair and Dean and the situation has changed somewhat -- I will be giving interviews, particularly live interviews – but the decision is still mine to make.

The discussion on the planes vs no planes topic is on-going, I can assure you, vigorously. New rules on the forum attempt to re-encourage civility.

You should read my latest comments on this topic, there on the Forum.

Rick – my on-line paper, even draft 1.0, had numerous references and credits – much more than just to Jim Hoffman!

And I totally support the scientific method whereby hypotheses are tested using experiments and empirical data (not by appeal to authority). But you know that from our Forum discussions, which is where you’ll all find my latest comments.

Best wishes,

Steven Jones

4) To which I replied

Steven,

Thank you for your reply.

As I said, the matter of 'going public' is none of my, personal, business ... but it did seem a little odd. I'm grateful that you have cleared that one up. IMHO although you are an academic, you have a 1st Amendment right as much as anyone else, and the Bill of Rights does not exclude academics, to the best of my knowledge.

However, with respect, your statement that a 'civilised debate' took place, and that the result was the 'no-planes' issue had no merit was (at the very least) stretching things, also IMHO. And I may say that I am not the only one who thinks so. In fact one of the Forum's Moderators was one of the worst offenders (again in my opinion).

Of course it may be that you were misquoted. I tried to download your pdf version, but (for some reason) my Adobe fails to open it and 'hangs' each time I try (Adobe works on other files ... perhaps I need an updated version), so I confess to be going by 'public pronouncements', as it were.

Based on what you say below, that the no-planes issue is still under discussion, can I take it that you will make that crystal clear to anyone who may have got the wrong impression, as I did?

I may say, sir, that no-one (or very few) who have looked favourably at the no-planes issue (actually 'no-7X7s' is the real title) has suggested that - if true - should be definite lead. We wonder if this aspect (leading with it) is what puts most people off the subject.

Although you did not reply to my specific enquiry in relation to any abnormal levels of radiation in your samples, you have now gone public that there was no evidence of any 'nuclear activity' at GZ.

If the samples came from WTC7, then the issue of WTC1 & WTC2 still remains open. I do not think that anyone, watching the collapse of WTC7 would see anything approaching a 'mushroom cloud', it being a perfectly-controlled, off-the-peg, demolition.

However the same cannot be said for the other two. I realise the collapses started at the top, because of where the 'activity' (can we say) occurred, but the differences in dust formations are significant between, on the one hand 7, and on the other hand 1 & 2.

And, finally, the pulverised concrete, into fine (toxic) dust. 50 microns in size I have seen quoted. Are you working, or considering working, on an explanation for this? It would seem that this essential point needs explanation because - correct me if I am wrong - but while thermate is fine for cutting steel, it seems that every square yard, of most of the concrete pans, of 110 floors, needed to be wired with 'concrete pulverising explosives' ... and set off in conjunction with the cutting charges.

I look forward to a response on the matters I raise in this e-mail.

Regards,

Veronica

5) To which Prof. Jones replied:

I’ll respond in a different font.

-----Original Message-----
From: Veronica Chapman [mailto:me@VeronicaChapman.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 1:19 PM
To: Jones, Steven
Cc: Gerard Holmgren; Rosalee Grable; Nico Haupt; Rick Rajter; econrn@cox-internet.com
Subject: Re: And by the way...

I did not make that statement.

and that the result was the 'no-planes' issue had no merit was (at the very least) stretching things, also IMHO. And I may say that I am not the only one who thinks so. In fact one of the Forum's Moderators was one of the worst offenders (again in my opinion).

And I did not say the “the 'no-planes' issue had no merit”. Where are you getting your (mis)information?

Of course it may be that you were misquoted.

Yes. By whom?

I tried to download your pdf version, but (for some reason) my Adobe fails to open it and 'hangs' each time I try (Adobe works on other files ... perhaps I need an updated version), so I confess to be going by 'public pronouncements', as it were.

Based on what you say below, that the no-planes issue is still under discussion, can I take it that you will make that crystal clear to anyone who may have got the wrong impression, as I did?

If the discussion on the forum brings in new empirical evidence in favor of the ‘no planes’ concept, and changes the consensus view, I will certainly make that clear! So far, IMO, the discussion has not done this, on the Forum. Why don’t you join us? (I’m HardEvidence on the forum.)

I may say, sir, that no-one (or very few) who have looked favourably at the no-planes issue (actually 'no-7X7s' is the real title) has suggested that - if true - should be definite lead. We wonder if this aspect (leading with it) is what puts most people off the subject.

Not for me – I quickly asked “what experiments could be done to test this hypothesis?”

Although you did not reply to my specific enquiry in relation to any abnormal levels of radiation in your samples, you have now gone public that there was no evidence of any 'nuclear activity' at GZ.

If the samples came from WTC7, then the issue of WTC1 & WTC2 still remains open. I do not think that anyone, watching the collapse of WTC7 would see anything approaching a 'mushroom cloud', it being a perfectly-controlled, off-the-peg, demolition.

The metal samples came from the Towers, and no radioactivity was detected. A mini-nuke would have activated the samples. I also comment on the trace amounts of tritiated water (also evidence against mini-nuke use).

The dust comes from all the buildings – again, no radioactivity was seen when I tested it with a Geiger counter.

However the same cannot be said for the other two. I realise the collapses started at the top, because of where the 'activity' (can we say) occurred, but the differences in dust formations are significant between, on the one hand 7, and on the other hand 1 & 2.

And, finally, the pulverised concrete, into fine (toxic) dust. 50 microns in size I have seen quoted. Are you working, or considering working, on an explanation for this? It would seem that this essential point needs explanation because - correct me if I am wrong - but while thermate is fine for cutting steel, it seems that every square yard, of most of the concrete pans, of 110 floors, needed to be wired with 'concrete pulverising explosives' ... and set off in conjunction with the cutting charges.

Interesting that thermite/mate produces a very fine aluminum oxide powder – consistent with the fine dust. We are doing further analytic studies on this. Takes time and sophisticated equipment which must be scheduled.

6) To which I replied:

The link you requested is
http://www.911blogger.com/2006/07/professor-jones-no-nukes-at-wtc.html

I have now managed to cajole my Adobe into opening AnsQJones1.pdf and, on Page 159, read

"The “no planes theory” has been debated at length at the Scholarsfor911Truth Forum, yielding empirical data shown here."

With respect, sir, this in not the case. It is the statement "debated at length" that I query. The matter has certainly been "discussed at length" (note my choice of words) but "debated" is not a term I would use. In the "Civilised Invitation Debate" Forum, Gerard set some rules for +structured and serious+ debate. With few couple of notable exceptions, these rules were then immediately ignored - as if they were an alien concept.

In short, yes it has been discussed, but no - it has never been seriously debated in a structured way (to the best of my knowledge). Consequently, as far as I can see, the hypothesis has never been tested.

It is certainly true that the Blogger did not specifically use the word "civilised" in relation to the Scholar's discussions. However that was most certainly the impression that would be gained from the Blogger's statements. I, myself, introduced the adjective 'civilised' on the basis of the name of the Forum, quoted above In the circumstances I think my usage of the adjective were entirely reasonable.

As a matter of fact I understand that the 'no-7X7s' hypothesis is undergoing a serious double-checking phase at this time, looking at all aspects. I understand that, for example, the picture of the Pentagon, with 'Flight 77' superimposed, has been double-checked for accuracy in the matter of parallel-line convergence (parallax) - and has been found to be 3D accurate.

The 'empirical data shown above' (P 159) has been reviewed, and other reasonable arguments for its existence have been postulated.

The 'no-7X7s' theory is, of course, always at the losing end of any demand for experimentation. For the simple reason that it depends solely on video and audio recordings, photographs, and LACK of existing data. For the obvious reason that any supporting data was immediately destroyed. We cannot re-construct the impacted Towers and physically measure the impacts, and look for internal plane debris, etc. We cannot examine the damage to the Central Columns. That is why we are forced to accept the term 'theory'. But a theory is not invalidated simply because of destroyed physical evidence, while there remains other supportive evidence, I submit.

Not for me – I quickly asked “what experiments could be done to test this hypothesis?”

I think that many experiments have been done by others, though none by myself personally, of course. I have simply looked at their research, and cannot see and serious reason to rule it out, particularly in view of the ongoing double-checking process.

This is understood. However I hope that +all+ hypothesis are being reviewed, and none rejected unless proven impossible, particularly in relation to the concrete (as well as the aluminium).

Regards,

Veronica

7) Which I followed up with:

Steven,

I appreciate that you are busy, and apologise for bothering you.

Nevertheless I have not received any response to my previous e-mail, in which (at your request) I quoted the link to the 911 Blogger article (http://www.911blogger.com/2006/07/professor-jones-no-nukes-at-wtc.html). This blog still stands at the time of writing.

In your previous e-mail you intimated that this was a misquotation in respect of the no-planes theory, however I have not seen any large-scale condemnation of this misquotation. Or – at the very least – no such refutation or clarification has surfaced in my direction.

If you have distanced yourself from the blogger “George Washington” interpretation of your paper AnsQJones1.pdf, I would be grateful if you would forward a link to me.

Until this happens we seem to have an open wound which may fester and turn septic.

I'm am sure you will agree that no-one wishes this to happen, and look forward to hearing from you at your earliest opportunity.

Regards,

Veronica

8) To which Prof. Jones replied:

Veronica –

Wait – I have to spot, track down and find the email addresses, and directly confront and refute every one who makes false claims about what I’m saying? Is that what you’re saying?

I’d spend all my time doing that – if so. But no thanks.

If you wish to see what I REALLY think and the evidence trail I’m really pursuing, you can look at my papers on-line, at my research site. Or visit the Scholars’ Forum.

Steven

9) To which I replied:

Steven,

Wait – I have to spot, track down and find the email addresses, and directly confront and refute every one who makes false claims about what I’m saying? Is that what you’re saying?

Put like that, no of course not.

However you own paper AnsQJones1.pdf does imply something along the lines that has been described. At least it does so in my humble opinion, and that of a number of others.

However, if you are saying that ...

"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."

... is a false claim, then are you prepared to assert that you still consider the 'no-7X7s' hypothesis to be no part of your own line of research, that it does not, in point of fact, detract, undermine, or in any other way influence your own research, and should therefore be considered to be completely independent, standing or falling based entirely its own merit?

If that is the case, then I could post a clarification to that effect within the UK Forum, at least.

Regards,

Veronica

10) To which Prof. Jones replied:

Jones, Steven wrote:

Ooops – in this case, I do recall that I posted a rejoinder to the Blog in question.

And I recall stating that based on our scholars’ Forum discussion in the past (around feb-mar-april), there was a broad consensus that real planes hit the Towers. I stand by that comment – even though I removed the “consensus” comment from my on-line slides, replacing it with hard physical evidence (a much better argument!).

Look, I’m going back to research!

11) To which I replied:

Steven,

With all due respect, there was no broad consensus.

I have read those threads. Only Gerard, Rosalee, Michael Morrissey and Rick Ratjer stood by the guidelines for SERIOUS DEBATE.

With everyone else concerned it amounted to the usual free-for-all-cattle-market DISCUSSION, FROM WHICH NO BROAD CONSENSUS COULD POSSIBLY BE DERIVED.

This is the point.

In point of fact it managed to convince me that NO PLANES HIT THE TOWERS (if you want an UNBIASED ... at the time ... opinion). Only someone (I would say TOTALLY) committed to a 'pro-planes' outcome could euphemistically declare it as a consensus FOR (broad or narrow, whichever you choose).

Of course you have every right to undertake your research unhindered(*) but, with the greatest respect, it is entirely unfair to undermine the research of others - particularly in view of the fact that they took no action to undermine yours. Unless, of course, there was a broad consensus ... which there patently was not.

Regards,

Veronica
(* And please let me assure you that I do not wish to take up one more second of your time than absolutely necessary. I do not want this exchange/issue to drag on, any more than do you)

12) To which Prof. Jones replied:

“in view of the fact that they took no action to undermine yours”. [QUOTING ME]

I disagree! [PROF. JONES’ FINAL RESPONSE]

Summary

Let’s get few historical fact straight, shall we? Prof. Jones wrote a paper in which he claimed to have checked the underbelly of a 757 (yes … that is SEVEN-FIVE-SEVEN), looking for a ‘pod’. He found no pod to match the possible ‘pod’ under the 757 (he claimed) to hit the South Tower. Gerard Holmgren pointed out that UA175 was stated to be a 7-SIX-7, and Prof. Jones immediately issued a revised version of his paper removing any reference to his claim of checking for the ‘pod’.

Subsequently Prof. Jones wrote a paper regarding WTC7, including 13 points which embraced the subject of the residual pools of molten metals. In this paper he made no mention of the pulverised concrete. Towards the end of this paper he wandered ‘off-topic’ into the area of the ‘no-planes’ theory, and called it ‘junk science’. When this was pointed out to him as being ‘irrelevant to his paper, and not necessarily correct’, the offending sentences were removed from later versions of the paper.

Apparently Prof. Jones considers this to be ‘undermining his research’, I presume (since he does not specify what he means in (12), above)

In (3) above, you will read Prof. Jones asserting “The discussion on the planes vs no planes topic is on-going, I can assure you, vigorously. New rules on the forum attempt to re-encourage civility.”

In (9) above you will read that I ask him to clearly (therefore) assert "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." was a major misquotation, since these two positions are what is known as ‘Orwellian Doublethink”.

You will see that, having offered Prof. Jones the ability to claim misquotation, he does not do so, but instead prevaricates with some comments he made to the blogger’s piece. Apparently he was unable to type “I was completely misquoted” during this e-mail exchange.

And, furthermore ‘civility’ is an obfuscation. I did not claim that the rules of CIVILITY were violated. I claimed that the strict rules of DEBATE – point by point, careful analysis – were violated by the S911T-side of the Forum (with a couple of exceptions). I said that it amounted to a ‘discussion’, no more than that. Not DEBATE … DISCUSSION. The S911T planehuggers constantly re-acted in knee-jerk fashion, with little or no reference to the points that were being made. And, consequently, there was no end result – contrary to the claims made by Prof. Jones.

You may also note that, when asked directly if thermate could pulverise 110 Floors of CONCRETE to fine dust, his reply is that thermate can reduce ALUMINIUM to fine dust. And not mention of CONCRETE

I leave it up to the reader to make what they will of all this.

The facts are that Controlled Demolitions of the Towers is defined by:

1) The free fall time issue;

2) Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel;

3) That asymmetrical damage cannot cause a symmetrical collapse over such a height;

4) The complete pulverization of the concrete;

5) That no steel framed skyscraper has ever before collapsed from fire;

6) The WTC 7 squib footage;

7) That there is no evidence of particularly hot fires in the WTC (Edna Cintron … the waving woman);

8) The resistance paradox. That being that even if one were to try to explain away the free fall time as a miraculously unified failure of the entire structure, thus creating negligible resistance to the fall, then it leaves nothing to explain the huge clouds of fine dust being emitted as the building was still standing. Only a controlled demolition explains both;

9) That the early story was that the steel in the buildings actually melted, and that this story was changed only after publication of refutations relating to point 1.

Prof. Jones does not use these arguments, which constitute the PROOF, and were available in 2002 … long before he appeared on the 9/11 scene. Prof. Jones’ research concentrates on the METHOD & MATERIALS used, which clouds the issue, by wrapping it up into the’ science of explosives’.

Veronica,

August, 2006