What are the Goals in the 9/11 Truth Community?

What are the Goals in the 9/11 Truth Community?


Steven E. Jones
December 22, 2006, revised January 9, 2007

Consider this statement made a few weeks ago by Dr. Frank Legge, Kevin Ryan, Victoria Ashley and other (previous) members of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth:

"Further, on the Scholars' web site, positions are being promoted which are disputed by the scientists specializing in physical sciences from Scholars For 9/11 Truth. Attempts to correct this situation have failed. As of this date the web site continues to promote assertions which are unsupported by the evidence (ray-beams from space caused the demolitions, mini-nukes were used in the WTC towers, real commercial jets did not hit the WTC towers, etc.). We feel that the promotion of these ideas functions to distract from and discredit much of the other basic strong material challenging the official story of 9/11 which already exists - the stand down, the war games, the insider trading, the many strong points of evidence on the demolitions, etc.”

How do we determine if ray-beams from space or mini-nuclear bombs were responsible for bringing down the WTC Towers? How do we know whether jets actually hit the Towers?

While it is admittedly exciting to come up with fascinating new theories about 9/11, if we wish to bring the perpetrators of the horrific 9/11 crimes to justice, we have to exert discretion and discipline by ferreting out those ideas repudiated by the physical evidence. We should consider these ideas, yes, but we do not need to endlessly debate all such issues. We can move on and focus on the solid forensic evidence which lends a hope of attracting the involvement of a criminal prosecutor and of holding up in court or before Congress.

As scientists, we look at the evidence, perform experiments, and apply the Scientific Method. The Greek method was to look at the evidence (superficially) and then try to explain things through logic and debate. The Greeks came up with various ideas in this way – such as the geocentric theory in which the Earth was at the center of the universe, and all the stars and planets revolved around the earth. There were problems with this geocentric explanation, but Plato insisted that they must “save the hypothesis,” and plausible explanations were found to account for anomalies – such as the retrograde motion of Mars. The philosophical debates and discussions were seemingly endless; the Dark Ages ensued.

Along came Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and others with their experiments and observations, and the centuries-old Greek philosophy-based notions began to crumble. Galileo observed through a telescope that Jupiter had moons – which revolved around Jupiter (not the Earth). He was threatened with torture if he did not recant his explanation (that the Earth was not at the center). He suffered house arrest but not torture as he quietly continued his experiments. In the lifetime of Newton, another experimenter who challenged the Greek approach, the scientific community worked out a system whereby scientific studies would be published after review by peers – qualified experts who could judge the quality of the research. Peer-reviewed technical journals arose and the peer-review process brought order to the relative chaos of work up to that time. Now experiments could be done and written up, then peer-reviewed and published. Peer-reviewed papers would draw the attention of others.

To give an example of using the modern scientific method, a few colleagues and I are doing experiments and making observations in a scientific approach to what really happened at the World Trade Center. It is NOT merely a plausible explanation or debates about “possibilities” that we seek. Rather, having seen strong indications of foul play (see http://journalof911studies.com/Intersecting_Facts_and_Theories_on_911.pdf) we are looking for hard evidence that would clearly verify an intentional crime beyond that of 19 hijackers. Ours is a forensic investigation, looking for a “smoking gun,” which would then lead to a serious criminal investigation.

I do not plan to make a career out of 9/11 research, and I am not making money from my investigations anyway. We need a formal, solid investigation of the 9/11 crimes committed, not a long-term study which endlessly debates all alternatives. I seek such solid evidence of an insider crime (beyond a reasonable doubt) that some of us will successfully demand a criminal investigation to confront key individuals who may have insider information – within one year, if possible-- not many.

So what evidence is likely to lead to such a criminal investigation?

As identified in my talk at the University of California at Berkeley, there are four areas of 9/11 research that are so compelling that they may quickly lead to the goal of a solid investigation of 9/11 as an un-solved crime scene. These four areas are:

1. Fall time for WTC 7.
2. Fall times for the Towers.
3. Challenging the NIST report and Fact Sheet.
4. Evidence for use of Thermate reactions: What the WTC dust and solidified metal reveal.

Please note that I do not focus only on the thermate-hypothesis, and I do research in all four areas above. Details are given in my talk, available here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/4622 (Also: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9210704017463126290 )

There are other lines that may compel a criminal investigation even before one of the above “hard science” research lines bears fruit:

5. Whistleblower statements – including some individuals yet to emerge.
6. Who made the stock-market “put-option” trades on American and United Air Lines in the week before 9/11, indicating clear foreknowledge of the attacks coupled with greed?
7. The fact that the WTC dust was declared quite safe by the EPA/National Security Council when it fact scientists had proven it to be toxic, and the many people now clamoring for justice after being hurt and misled.
8. Calls for impeachment for war issues, e.g., from a state legislature or Congress, which scrutinizes the “Bush Doctrine,” then opens the 9/11 question.
9. Pressure from 9/11 Family members, firemen and others for answers.
10. Direct appeals to Senators and Congresspersons – who are charged with an oversight role. I initiated a Petition to this effect, demanding release of government-held information related to 9/11, which has since been signed by over 10,000 people. And I am in contact now with the Congressman from my state, seeking information and remedy.

We have found evidence for thermates in the molten metal seen pouring from the South Tower minutes before its collapse, in the sulfidation and high-temperature corrosion of WTC steel, and in the residues found in the WTC dust. (Our sample originated from an apartment at 113 Cedar Street across from the WTC; chain of custody direct from the collector J. MacKinlay to Dr. Steven Jones). Many other details are given in the peer-reviewed paper here.

Other cutter-charges such as HMX and RDX may have also been used; but again, solid evidence for just one type of incendiary or explosive would be sufficient to compel a criminal investigation.

Experiments continue, as shown in the photos below, and the results are consistent with thermate having been used in on 9/11/2001. We have a series of experiments planned, along with analyses. This research takes time.

In a fraction of a second, thermate cuts horizontally through a steel cup. Notice the high-temperature corrosion which occurred.
1999: “Invention offers a thermite based apparatus and method for cutting target material [eg, steel] of a substantial thickness... linear.. cutting action...” A prototype has been used to cut through a steel I-beam.
Proof of Concept. The photograph at left shows the one-hole proto-type device I built to produce a thermate-jet. Thermate is the red powder in the steel base. The prototype worked well, and the thermate-jet cut through a piece of structural steel in a fraction of a second.

My colleagues and I are pursuing thermate data as strong evidence for foul-play, and I encourage researchers to pursue all worthwhile areas of inquiry. One person can hardly pursue every line of inquiry, but I’m confident that one of these lines (above) will bear fruit in getting us to a serious, evidence-based investigation that leaves no stone unturned.

In contrast the theory that no planes hit the towers does no stand up to scrutiny, as published in a peer-reviewed paper by Eric Salter, here. Salter shows that evidence for real planes hitting the Towers is compelling

Papers regarding the following notions have been or are being prepared for the new Letters section of the Journal of 9/11 Studies: Mini-nukes exploding in the Towers on 9/11; Ray-beams used to bring the Towers down; comments/questions regarding papers by Reynolds and Wood. I anticipate and welcome questions regarding my published papers also. The editors of the Journal of 9/11 Studies invite questions and answers in the Letters section, as a means to bring the debate to a civilized, scientific forum. In Newton’s day, there were various verbal attacks and debates among scientists, including attacks against Newton by Gottfried Leibniz and Robert Hooke. Considerable order was brought to the scientific community by requiring that articles and letters be published in peer-reviewed journals, so that the world would have a public record of the debates. This procedure also encouraged careful thought and respectful questioning and responding, and the use of scientific venues continues today. If questions are brought to me in this spirit of collegiality in this publication or another peer-reviewed Journal, I will be most happy to respond. Again, endless debates of a verbal or on-line-equivalent nature are not appropriate scientific venues and I do not intend to participate in those.

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 publication of various views. The requirements for publication will be: relevance, respectful civility, posing specific questions, answering all questions existing in the relevant Letter before posing new ones, and avoiding “straw-man” and ad hominem arguments. The scientific method (including publishing in Journals) includes evidence- based challenges to hypotheses, and rejection of hypotheses which fail to conform to the empirical data. Without this, we might still be debating whether the earth was flat, or at the center of the universe!

I have been asked, regarding the thermite-in-WTC hypothesis in my paper, “Exactly where did it need to be placed? ...How thick would it have to be against various steel columns, beams, concrete, etc.? How many hours of labor would it take to cover every surface of the building, carefully avoiding detection by WTC office workers? Exactly who placed all the alleged thermite there? Please give us their names, ages, and social security numbers for validation.” (M. Reynolds and J. Wood, “The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis,” Dec. 2006)

Clearly, the answers to most of these questions will require a criminal investigation and cannot be determined from scientific analysis of the physical evidence. We cannot realistically be expected to answer all the “whodunit” and “exactly where” questions before a criminal investigation and trial begin! But that does not mean that scientific analysis is unimportant. For example, although various cutter-charges could have been used, if we can once establish that thermate-class residues are found in the WTC rubble and dust, then a criminal investigation will indeed be necessitated -- to determine who was responsible. Do you see the difference in focus, from unrealistically requiring all the answers up front, to seeking sufficient evidence to motivate a criminal investigation and trial to get at more answers?

The NFPA 921Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations states:

“Unusual residues might remain from the initial fuel. Those residues could arise from thermite, magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials.”

This is standard for fire and explosion investigations – Why was the standard not applied to the WTC “crime scene”? I’m saying it should be. And as with other crime-scene investigations, once a pyrotechnic material’s presence has been established, then the next step is a criminal investigation to determine who planted the pyrotechnic (such as thermate). It is not correct that I as a scientist in the laboratory have to answer the questions of names, ages, social security numbers, etc. anymore than an arson investigator, once he has demonstrated that accelerant residues were present so that a crime has been established, must himself provide the names and addresses of the arsonists who committed the crime. The identities will emerge from the criminal investigation that follows.

I encourage all serious researchers to join now the research effort to pin down hard evidences and work towards a criminal investigation – perhaps by a Congressional committee, perhaps by a special prosecutor. Whatever body conducts the investigation, they will need hard evidences AND public support.

In conclusion, it is proposed that we:

1. Get very solid evidence that a crime was committed – focusing on the best evidence, enough to "prove" the case.
2. Then, use that evidence to demand and support an investigation;
3. Get as much public support as possible to help encourage the investigation;
4. Have a goal of organizing such an investigation in 2007.

Anything that takes resources or distracts from these goals should be ignored.

So, we have some action items:

1. Continue good scientific research;
2. Work on getting the right contacts for starting an investigation;
3. Continue to inform the public. Keep that information campaign to the most convincing ideas and NOT muddy the waters with exotic theories. These can, however, be discussed via published Letters as explained above, so that we can sort out the wheat from the chaff scientifically.

Let’s roll up our sleeves and focus, all of us who agree that a major goal is to GET A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION (and trial) rather than engaging in endless debates.

It is time to unite and seek an end to the 9/11 wars by bringing out the truth of what happened on 9/11. We seek truth, justice – and peace.

Acknowledgments: Thanks for valuable input from Frank Legge, Shaun Taulbee, Victoria Ashley, Carl Weis, and Lon Waters.

Be sure to visit the new Letters section at The Journal of 9/11 Studies website.


We need not speculate.We have more than enough to warrent a full independant investigation.


Just want to know how long it would take to cut through the core coulmns using this type of thermite jet aparatus.... guessing less than one minute..... espeically with advanced thermite/ thrmate with ionized components.

i love steven jones, at

i love steven jones, at least he has the deceny to not name names and talk shit about the likes of space beam Fetzer and cartoon roadrunner imprint Reynolds (although i cant help but name names)


This is the way to go - thank you very much Steven Jones!

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

I've just had a rather interesting exchange with Columbus Ohio

regarding their choice of presenting Dr. Fezter at a "World Can't Wait" - Columbus 911 Truth event.

I contacted them under the assumption that they were unaware of some of Dr. Fetzer's "work" with Grand Pianos, Space Beams, etc etc.

As you would expect, my one email to ONE person in Columbus was forwarded to an email list of countless others. So, of course now I am being bombarded with insults from complete strangers. I have been equated with FoxNews as attempting to "smear the movement."

You see, as balanced as Dr. Jones is in his approach to this topic, it is undoubtably a very serious problem in that 90% of non-blogger people out there just do NOT know the history associated with this particular group of researchers. So, I believe ignoring the problem is not working.

I would encourage all of you to feel free to voice your opinions - in a mature and REASONABLE WAY - to the COlumbus Ohio 911 Truth group - carefully outline why you may or may not support their decision to present Dr. Fetzer.

The problem won't be ignored

I know of several people who are planning on attending the event for the purpose of directly questioning Fetzer.

Hopefully this will be captured on video.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

would you like

the email addresses of the Columbus group? I am encouraging people to email them to voice their concerns.


My understanding is that Columbus Truth has basically inserted themselves into the situation in order to minimize the potential damage that could be caused by a WCW-hosted Fetzer event. The people I have spoken to from the area seem pretty hip to what's going on. If anyone has specific questions they would like to see asked of Fetzer, please email them to me.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Show "The goal: Criminal investigation of Los Alamos" by Anonymous (not verified)

Did you know?

That at the end of WW2 war crime trials were held. Among those arrested and tried were not just the nazi party elite - not just the death camp guards - but, the propaganda ministers as well. Disinformation to coverup murder is a crime.

keep that in mind when you lie awake at night and consider what you are doing with your life. you are attempting to hold back the ocean with the broom.


"Disinformation to coverup murder is a crime."

good point, stop with the fing space beams already. Alex jones already called out Fetzer and Reynolds on yesterday's show -



Show "poor alex" by Anonymous (not verified)


Thanks for those clips!

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Show "shills for Los Alamos to be hanged?" by Michael Zebuhr's ghost (not verified)

the good news is

....if this is the best you can do, spreading weak disinformation like space beams, it appears (like your policy in Iraq) that you have NO strategy for dealing with the changing tides.

I will admit that there was a period when the "pods" and "holograms" were a very effective weapon in discrediting the movement. but - at this point the 911 Truth movement is powerful and moving FULL SPEED AHEAD.

so - keep up the good work proving what total asses your Karl Rovian strategist bosses are.

You see - the difference between you and us is that WE are fighting for our lives - and America.

YOU are just some pathetic beaurocratic lacky "staying the course" for a semi-retarded commander-in-chief who is taking you down with him - shamed before your fellow citizens.

Show "Albanese to be hanged for war crimes?" by Michael Zebuhr's ghost (not verified)

Go get bent

Addressing someone by name AND mentioning killing them is over the top and unacceptable here. The question mark does not negate the threatening quality of your post.

You guys are so freakin' lame these days. And less and less and less effective.

You must first...

Be effective before you can be less effective.

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

I hate to rain on your lynch

I hate to rain on your lynch parade--


That said, to be responsible for "war crimes" you have to be in a possition of power and authority where those war crimes were commited. In other words, you had to have the means to stop them directly or indirectly(reporting to a higher authority with the means).

So, for instance, news anchor Joan or John Smith would not he tried for propaganda that helped the war criminals scarper. Joan or John don't have any power, see. They aren't in a position to stop the jugernaut or even confirm the crap they have to say. But the owner of the media corportation--Ruppert Murdoch, for instance, could be tried as an assecory, because he had the power to inform people and expose the perpetrators. Presuming he knew of the crimes in question.

So put the rope away and stop running around with yer head up yer arse.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

No planes is a separate issue

Please read the comments I have posted below and here:


If you still say that it is "disinfo" to question the aircraft debris and the video of "Flight 175, then there is no reasoning with you and I will not try any longer.

The planes

I am inclined to agree that SOME of the airplane materials may have been planted for a photo op. Not all of it. I am also open to the possibility that "live-fly" aircraft were used in a war game scenario.

However, this is not a primary issue would you agree?

We know that planes hit the towers because of massive eye-witness testimony and recordings. This is not easy to fake. I would argue that is basically impossible to fake. It's certainly not practical. There is no evidence that this was faked--only speculation from the no-planers. I have shown that Reynolds has used deliberately false arguments in the past. What credibility does he have?

It doesn't matter if this no plane stuff was true. We know that a controlled demolition killed most of the people on 9/11. The planes are therefore not a central issue issue.

The planes were meant to distract us from the real crime. Fake or not fake.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

It's not a matter of credibility with me

I take each argument on its merits and did my own investigation of the crash physics problem. The video of the plane flying into the South Tower is fake, and Jones and Salter should agree on their own reasoning.
There also should have been much more debris on the sides of alleged impact.

I keep hearing about massive eyewitness testimony but have not seen it. What I've seen is contradictory. In his "Critical Review of WTC "No-Plane" Theories," Eric Salter should have collected that evidence and linked to it from his article so that it could be judged.

Instead he went on for pages
But physics trumps eyewitnesses. It also trumps physicists.

Which parts do you think were planted for a photo op? None of them could make it through.

What is the purpose of planting plane parts? If the plane story is true, why the need to reinforce it?

Is this another one of Jim Hoffman's "honey pots." I don't think so.

It most certainly matters if the plane stuff is false, which it is. Disprove that, and the entire story falls apart. The plane is essential to the story of how the towers "collapsed." Plus it is the truth, which is what I thought

It also makes the stand down and war games arguments secondary. There were no planes to stand down.

And two men are in prison on the assumption there were planes---one for the rest of his life.

I appreciate your response, and will take another look at your article.

Eyewitness Evidence

I share your views on credibility. Ideas should be examined on their own merit and evidence without reference to the individual(s) supporting the given ideas. Credibility should be useful for knowing when we can trust an opinion. With 9/11, we can't afford to trust anyone. We have to think for ourselves.

However, there are certain individuals who have engaged in very dubious behavior in the past. I recently became aware of this when I studied and researched certain essays carefully.

I don't know what happens when a plane flies into a building. How can we truly know unless we do another experiment? Same speed, type of plane, etc. I don't pretend to know the answer to this question. But I don't doubt that the planes were real based on the evidence.

Eyewitnesses: As recorded in multiple videos--people watch in horror. When people argue that eye-witness testimony doesn't count they can't just offer their opinion that everyone is lying—as some have done. That is called speculation. They should prove with evidence that the eye-witness testimony is wrong. It’s one thing to say that one person is making something up. It’s another to say that 200 are. Prove with evidence that the testimony is fabricated and then I will admit some credibility to the no-plane argument—only, when I see this proof.

I consider multiple and corroborating eye-witness statements very strong evidence that something happened. See for example WTC and pentagon testimony.

Also, multiple camera shots of the same plane strike were made. NIST confiscated many videos. In Downtown NY. Every photo, eye-witness, recording etc, would have to be fabricated. I don't have a reference to the testimony at hand, but I'm sure it's available.

Why go through all of this deception? Why risk the danger of being exposed? The technology exists to fly a plane into a building. The sheer impracticality of the no-plane thesis makes it untenable.

I think we can tell with great certainty when we are watching a movie and when we are watching real life captured on film. Especially in 2001. Even today, can you honestly say that you can't tell when you are watching a 'simulation'? I know I can tell.

What was the purpose of planting parts? I'm not saying 100% that they have done this. I'm referring specifically to the plane part referenced in the infamous Pop. Mech. article. Some have speculated that it could have been moved there. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it was planted. It could have just have been moved there.

Don't forget that a passport was likely planted. It is entirely reasonable that other things could have been planted as well.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

A reply to the "thermite hypothesis" essay

A study of some issues raised in a paper by Wood and Reynolds

Frank Legge, Jan 11, 2007 (Peer-reviewed Letter)



"This study shows that the paper by Wood and Reynolds is largely a collection of untrue, illogical, absurd and vexatious assertions and questions. While it contains some truths it appears to have been contrived to confuse rather than to illuminate. This suggests that its purpose is not to raise serious questions for debate but simply to destroy the credibility of Prof. Steven Jones. It has of course failed in this attempt."

See also my review here:

In Defense of Steven Jones: the Deliberate Effort to Discredit him and his Research


“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Show "Steve Jones caught lying again" by Anonymous (not verified)


I think I have detailed extensively who the real liars are in my essay quoted above. Now Frank Legge has published an essay reaching conclusions very similar to my own.

You aren't fooling anyone anymore. It's game over.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Show "think harder... break your mind control" by Anonymous (not verified)
Show "Professor Jones not the person to decide" by Ningen (not verified)

Aircraft debris was planted. Why is this bad to say?

I am astounded by the willingness of people to hide their heads in the sand.

NIST could not explain how the debris landed where it did. I am not saying their explanation is wrong----in all of their models, even when the speed of "Flight 175" was increased to 570 mph, the aircraft debris did not exit either building. There is no way it flew blocks to where it was planted, and anyone who looks at the facts and still says it did is either deluded or is lying.


Why would plane parts be planted other than to cover the fact that there was no plane? Planes collide with steel and concrete buildings---they do not pierce such buildings with no deceleration.

This is obvious, and it is easy to prove. What is wrong with those of you that not only can't see this, but attack those who argue this?

If Professor Jones cannot see this, he is not fit to decide on what is or is not reasonable. This is particularly true for the aircraft debris, which anyone with a lick of sense can see has been planted. The videos are also fake according to his own reasoning, once the correct data is input.

"To the casual observer, it would appear that the facade of the Twin Towers did not offer any resistance at all, and that the plane's wings and fuselage slice through the exterior columns as if they were made of cardboard. . . How was it possible that the relatively weak, light, and airy airframe damaged the apparently heavy lattice of high strength steel columns? The devastating result of this encounter came as a surprise to the engineering and scientific community or at least to the present authors."

Wierzbicki and Teng, How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center, Int'l J. of Impact Engineering 28 (2003) 601-625.

If Professor Jones is ignoring this evidence for political reasons, then he needs to be honest about it, because he is using his scientific credentials for authority, and ignoring evidence for political reasons is not scientific.