911Research.com Summarizes Steven Jones Coverage

Steven E. Jones - A Physics Professor Speaks Out on 9-11: Reason, Publicity, and Reaction

This paper reviews and compares some of the initial media coverage and criticisms of BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones' research paper, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? In his paper, Jones calls for an investigation of the World Trade Center skyscrapers' collapses that seriously considers the hypothesis of controlled demolition. The decision of a professor of science to come forward with such a proposal is unprecedented, as is the story's coverage by a mainstream news program on cable TV: MSNBC's Situation with Tucker Carlson. The closest precedent in the history of the 9/11 Truth Movement was the CSPAN-2 coverage of theology professor David Ray Griffin's speech, 9/11 and the American Empire: How Should Religious People Respond?. Both Jones and Griffin have added considerable credibility to the independent investigation of 9/11 through their scholarly approaches. In particular, Steven Jones brings to bear his 20 years of experience and peer-reviewed research in the field of physics.

Interestingly, a number of well-funded and slick propaganda campaigns purporting to expose 9/11 truth have had little or no impact in mainstream venues (except to act as magnets for disparaging reviews). In contrast, Jones' simply crafted paper received a genuine and unbiased hearing from local media, and surprisingly respectful coverage on a mainstream cable program. Thus, Jones' efforts introduced credible challenges to the official story to large new audiences of critically thinking people.

Post your comments.

HA! I made the first

HA! I made the first comment :-)

http://washingtontimes.com/books/20050723-092118-7370r.htm How the Kennedys hoped to take down Castro ..

contains a great sentence:

"You are not going to find the 'smoking gun' piece of paper ...
put nothing on paper that could lead back to them, instead issuing cryptic orders through friends of demonstrated discretion.

Lets take this at face value.

To INCRIMINATE there are three avenues:


b) Testimony, what people say, red faces, public court

c) written evidence, computer-records


the Kennedy-quote deals with c) .. so c) is out.

Redarding a) ... Ruppert said: "I can get you an expert to support ANY view, construct ANY scenario.. to fit the phenomena.

so, logically, we are left with b) .. which is exactly what ruppert said.

So how a bit of torture, recording prank-calls, anything to get them TO SAY something incriminating. To me, thats the easiest way to blow the cover-story and get mainstream.

Logically, what follows is:

Study the Jerky-Boys, the YES-MEN and any other trickster-prankster. Try to use a trick and USE THE TELEPHONE!!!
record the conversation!!
Do fake-TV-news-crew interviews, pose a s STUDENT_reporters... make them drunk, and try to loosen their tongue.

THEY - being insiders. There are soooo many of them!! Many Many Many US-american "people of wealth" and "cogs" know something. ONCE THEY ARE RECORDED, the statements cannot be undone, and can be used to incriminate the next cog.



If it asks for a password hit cancel. You might need to have excel to view it.

assuming the building had no support collumns or perimiter collumns, and no bolts connecting the floors to the perimiter collumns, and occurred no air resistance on the way down and had no dust pulverization (all of which would slowed the collapse) the towers still should come down slower than actually occured on 9-11.

A physics professor helped me set up this experiment. maybe this has been done before.

assume that 110 concrety slabs are magically floating in air 12 feet apart with the top one over 1300 feet. they stay floating until the instant they are impacted from above. They collapse straight down and the only thing slowing the collapse is the inertia of the floor being impacted. I assume no air resistance. The laws of physics say they can't come down faster than 14.68 seconds.

a bit off topic, but here is

a bit off topic, but here is a famous recent cryptic statement from libby to miller regarding the plame case:

"Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them."

most read this to say that this conference of high-up republicans were turning against the administration:

discussion on the cryptic message:

dantastic, glad to see you


glad to see you getting a physics professor's input :) is he curious yet?

the physics analogy that gets me is this:

design a structure that is 20x taller than it is wide, can withstand a 500mph impact at its top, and can collapse vertically through itself in near freefall speeds from damage only inflicted at the top 1/5th of the structure.

"assume that 110 concrety

"assume that 110 concrety slabs are magically floating in air 12 feet apart with the top one over 1300 feet. they stay floating until the instant they are impacted from above. They collapse straight down and the only thing slowing the collapse is the inertia of the floor being impacted. I assume no air resistance. The laws of physics say they can't come down faster than 14.68 seconds."

I did this same calculation, and posted the Visual Basic source code at physorg.com. I got nowhere near the slowdown that you got, and concluded that my calculation proves nothing at all (except that this line of inquiry can't be correct)

If you feel that you have done your work correctly, please post your source code (hopefully after looking at mine). Maybe somebody will point out an error in yours or my calculation.

The thread I posted in is:


the whole point of issue i

the whole point of issue i thought was that the floors (not hovering in air) would provide massive resistance and prevent momentum from gaining.. if these things are hovering in these calculations then are they providing any resistance at all?

also, the other point is the force it takes to pulverise the concrete and then break the floor.. any momentum would be absorbed in the process to some degree..

feel free to post exactly what your calculating for these hovering floors in this calculation..

Jones' paper is now up to

Jones' paper is now up to version 4.5 (for those keeping track!!)


CB, thanks for the notice..


thanks for the notice.. interesting that he refers to the core as a sort of heat-sink which would dissipate heat quite well.. interesting point.

I introduced two friends of

I introduced two friends of mine to the 911-Truth movement last night by showing them "Loose Change, 2nd Edition". They weren't impressed. My one friend likened it to the X-Files and belief in aliens secretly enslaving the human race. I was debating first showing them instead David Ray Griffin's Univ. of WI talk, and now I wish I had. In my opinion, LC2E may have some value for introducing teenagers to the topic. But for anyone over the age of about 22, it's way too slick and unscholarly for such a heavy topic. It comes off as an MTV production. I'll give it a while, and maybe if they're willing, I'll show them the David Ray Griffin talk, which is the one that really captured my attention.

Hey Gix, interesting, I've

Hey Gix, interesting, I've only heard positive responses from people seeing LC2, this is the first time I've heard otherwise.

I've been debating between 911 EyeWitness and LC2 as being the best method of exposing this. Maybe for the older crowd, 911 Eyewitness is the way to go.

Opinions anyone?

the problem with Loose

the problem with Loose Change it that it is bits and pieces of non-corrobative data with just speculation.

Griffin provides an educated essay regarding the history and future of american imperialism.

LC2e is more like "what about this" and "isn't this weird", but it doesn't offer any real in-depth analysis.

It is entertaining and it is true that the young generation may like it, but as far as being intellectual, it fails.

Now if we can take David Ray Griffin and give him more energy and excitement in his speech, instead of putting people to sleep, we'd have something.

hey sl, I did three

hey sl,

I did three different sets of calculations. One for a collapse starting at the top floor, one starting at the 93rd floor and one starting at the 75th floor. for the 93rd and the 75th i assumed that all the above floors stayed intact (most unlikely) and all their masses acted in unison the entire way down, once that piledriver hit the bottom it magically loses unity and all slabs fall at the speed of gravity. I did it this way to put the bias on lower time.

i used an excel spread sheet. please examine the calculations i used.

for the top down i started and found the speed after 12 feet. i used the formula:

post velocity squared = initial velocity squared plus distance*64

for the first floor it is going 27.7 feet per second the instant before it hits the second. since they have the same mass, the speed is cut in half. then the 2 floors fall in unison starting at 13.856 and reach 30.984 before hitting the third floor, then the speed becomes 2/3'ds of what it was and so on all the way down.

to find the time on each floor i used took the final speed for each floor, for the first floor it was 27.7, and subtracted the initial speed, zero for the first floor, and divided that by 32.1

for the collapses starting lower in the building I did it the same but adjusted for the number of floors in piledriver section. once the piledriving section reached the bottom i simply let the whole thing fall un-impeded to put the bias for less time.

I was wondering how to model the collapse of the buildings starting at the 93rd and 75th floors, then i decided that it would come down the fastest if the whole top section stayed intact because all the mass of the top section would be bearing down on each floor, so thats how i did it.

I looked for your post but i didn't know which one was yours.



maybe this will work. is this proof that the pancake theory is impossible? Proof that the floors were only making contact with each other moments after they had been blown up and free from the bolts that held them in place?

Gix and DHS, Thanks for your

Gix and DHS,

Thanks for your comments because I think they are extremely important. Young people are not stupid, they just have shorter attention spans. If you try to 'turn on' young people with hip sound tracks but then include content that adds up to aliens enslaving the human race, you actually turn them OFF instead -- you saw this when you yourself realized that what came FIRST made the permanent impression, and now the SECOND event would have a much harder job.

Some people think that there could actually be a purpose behind the promotion of crappy material without evidence over the stronger and more well thought out stuff. If you want to destroy a movement, make it seem loony and nutty and everyone will leave to maintain their own dignity.

This is why only the strongest arguments made with the strongest evidence should be promoted in public. To me, people should consider a dividing line between what gets promoted publicly - mass selling DVDs, news interviews, speaking events - verses what 9/11 activists discuss on forums like this. Because when the questionable stuff that has no strong evidence (i.e, no concrete support outside of long distance blurry single frames from a camcorder) goes out to the public, not only is it used to trash researchers by the mainstream press, but it turns off a lot of regular people simply because it doesn't have strong evidence (ala x-files). And on top of that, only the people who think that aliens do exist, then flock to the 9/11 movement . . . and we're stuck with them.

Many people in the 9/11 movement don't like the idea of not promoting 'everything,' for many different reasons.

That's what the 'Big Tent' reference is in the paper . . .

I agree, Bov. Keep the tent

I agree, Bov. Keep the tent small. No X-Files, please.

From the

From the article:

"Ultimately, the Big Tent approach can be expected to limit the 9/11 Truth Movement to those willing to digest hoaxes along with the real information. Inevitably, this will keep credible media and researchers away from the movement in order to distance themselves from what they might describe as laughable, or ideas which would negatively impact their careers if they were associated with them."

Very sad, but the very realistic outcome...

I think Jones is wasting

I think Jones is wasting everybody's time trying to show that conventional explosives and thermite can explain what became of the twin towers.

"conventional explosives" and "controlled demolition" comprise a limited hangout -- such things can probably account for what caused the collapse of the towers, but not what happened immediately afterward: unnaturally nano-fine dust particles (my testable hypothesis, which better fits the evidence, and which Jones has thus far mysteriously/steadfastly resisted considering/testing), humongous pyroclastic dust/debris cloud, molten metal found weeks afterward, and fires which burned for 99 days despite constant dousing with water. (Jones himself refers to metal glowing red-yellow hot 8 weeks after the event. If any of that sounds remotely "conventional" to you, like the results of a thermite chemical reaction, please explain it to me. Perhaps Professor Jones is now hard at work on some kind of "insulation theory" to account for it?)

That just happens to be the signature of what happens when a plasma is used to dispose of waste materials. (And surely if industry can harness such destructive energy in a reusable appliance, the U.S. military weaponized it long ago...) The highly unnatural, hugely exothermic, separate, destructive event occurred suddenly, just as the collapse reached the ground, as evidenced by the timing and placement of the formation of that pyroclastic cloud.