Dr. Cate Jenkins' New Article in the Journal of 9/11 Studies

Dr. Cate Jenkins holds a PhD in Chemistry and works for the Environmental Protection Agency. She has written an important article -- a Request for Senate Investigation regarding the WTC Dust, here:


In an addendum, she also requests an FBI investigation:

The reader will note that Dr. Jenkins is not reluctant to criticize EPA and other officials and politicians in her quest for correct science regarding the toxicity of the WTC dust -- and fairness for those people who were injured by that toxic dust. Hundreds even thousands were hurt by the stuff. In an email, Jenna Orkin writes:

"I've worked with and relied on Cate Jenkins for over five years. As far as I know, her science is sterling and she is among the handful of people who spoke up forcefully and truthfully in the beginning when it counted the most but few were able or willing to do so.

"Cate's expertise on contamination has been relied on by journalists, activists and politicians working on this and other issues for decades. I have never heard of anyone who could find fault with her science and believe me, some people wanted to."

It is time to consider such "requests for investigation" of 9/11 issues at the highest levels as Dr. Jenkins has done. If such an investigation is opened, we may join in with some startling facts of our own about the WTC dust...

Glad to join the 911bloggers...

I'd like to identify myself as Dr. Steven Jones. I'm glad to join the 911bloggers effort. Wish to thank DZ and all those who work to make this an active forum promoting 911 research.


Hi Steve and welcome to the blogger sphere here . . . glad to have one more reasonable person posting on here. Just don't get too distracted by the Hollywood factor! It can run high on here sometimes . . .

- Vic

It's an honor to have you working among and for us, Dr. Jones.

Welcome aboard.

thank you again for all of

thank you again for all of your work. keep it coming!

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

You are a giant amongst

You are a giant amongst men...

Keep up the outstanding work Prof. Jones.

Hello Dr. Jones

Thank you for all your work. After reading your work (and others) I feel as though I could challenge a second year physics course!

Regarding this lady's article, could she be asked to make this article a contribution to the 911 journal? That is, could she reframe it, maybe revise it a little and submit it as the latest contribution to the 911 Journal?

Dr. Jones, do you think...

...that some of the computer science oriented Scholars could develop a finite-element computer model of the Towers? I mean,detailed plans for one fo the twin towers are now in the public domain. And nothing illustrates The Law of Conservation of Momentum quite as well as a computer model. Perhaps the model could also include the effects on steel from heat?

I'm imagining a computer model in which all the data and parameters are made available (unlike the NIST models) so that people could play with various what-if scenarios. Something sophisticated that might perhaps even reside online.

Do you think this would be a useful tool or exercise? I tsure would be interesting. However, when I've mentioned it before, people have said that it is unnecessary. It seems like it would be an excellent tool to persuede, convince and get additional general public notice.

Also, I'm very happy to hear from you on 911blogger!

Thanks so very much for all your wonderful work and sacrifice. I'd felt quite sorry to have heard that you had left BYU and hoped that the strain of all this has not been too great to bear.


Online "playable" simulator... yes yes!! Very good idea, if practical to create.

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"


I worked on an animation for one of the towers' collapse for several weeks. I was using Blender, and quite honestly, learning as I went. This is hard stuff, that requires lots of time and also hardware resources to render the animation.
I gave up, unfortunately. I decided that, even if I could get something close to the actual action, it can easily be 'debunked'. After all, I manage the software to do whatever I tell it to do. In the end, the viewer would see my interpretation of the action, and take it as speculation. And it would make sense.

A 'real' computer model would take so much effort and could be discarded so easily, that imho would be a waste of time. Like Ruppert said, stick to means, motive and opportunity, because all else can (and is) being ridiculed and discarded without second thoughts. Look, even building a three story tall, real steel model of a tower and see if it would [not] collapse can be dismissed.

Still, the work of SJ and his peers are a huge step forward.

Professor Jones, my hat's off to you. Thank you.

Welcome and thanks

for all the work you do Prof. Jones.

News editor at The Watchman Report, www.watchmanreport.com, delivering 9/11 truth to the Christian community

Good to see you here Dr. Jones.

It is clear that most of the people on 911blogger support your research and will continue to do so.

Thank you Dr Jones, you're

Thank you Dr Jones, you're an inspiration!

Hey, you're the guy

whose paper turned my world upside down, after which I pummeled into a vast rabbit hole, wherein it took me weeks to roughly chart the unknown territory -- and the work's still unfinished. One might be upset by such an enduring disruption of everyday routine, but...thanks so much!

Once, Heisenberg was stopped by the police for speeding. The officer asked him if he knew how fast he was going, Heisenberg responded: "No, but I know where I am!"

interns < internets

Welcome and so many thanks to you Prof Jones !!!

You are a great and caring man and have all my thoughts and support...

You're my scientific hero :-})

My very best wishes to you and your most excellent group.

Thank you Dr. Jones

for being a scientist and a thinker who had the courage and the insight to overcome his cognitive dissoance, and practice his profession as a patriot.

"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." (Goethe)

Show "I got a question for Dr. S. Jones' site" by Killtown

Some responses

".that some of the computer science oriented Scholars could develop a finite-element computer model of the Towers? "
This is under discussion by some I understand -- but now with the new Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth group, I think the work would go to them probably... R. Gage is doing great things -- someone might ask him this question.

Dr. Jenkins said we could publish her article, but as-is (for time being).

"At his site "Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice", he has these two pages under the "evidence" section:

Evidence: The Pentagon Attack
Evidence: The Crash of Flight 93"

"HIs site" meaning my site is not correct as I am not even on the steering committee of this group-- i belong to a few 9/11 groups, and I'm just a member of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. That's all.
I was unaware of these two "evidences" you mention and will have to look into it. Along with other members, I have input into what goes on the group's site. But no veto power (at all).

Further, the Journal of 9/11 Studies is independent of any group, although it is linked-to by a number of groups and we welcome that (the editors and Advisory Board).

Thanks for the warm welcome, all!

Professor, have you been

Professor, have you been contacted to do any mainstream media since the Tucker Carlson charade? i would completely understand your apprehension to wanting to go back and do another 3 minute shout fest on Fox or something, but would love to see you take at least one more crack at it. thanks again for your work, most of us here(you cant please everyone and in this line of activism its expected that people like you will be attacked) appreciate it.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Show "About truth and justice" by Jim Fetzer

Wow! your still at it? Your

Wow! your still at it? Your like a psycho-ex-girlfriend...

Show "Truth and justice don't matter here, do they?" by Jim Fetzer

Truth and Justice Certainly Don't Matter to You

That much is abundantly clear.

This is the police...

...we've traced Fetzer's email

...and it's coming from inside the house!

HA! seriously, who would

HA! seriously, who would have thought that Fetzer would show up on a Steven Jones blog? the guy is like a stalker or something, its friggin pathetic......

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

have a listen (53 seconds)



Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

Thanks, yes I used

that clip that you posted above (previously) and in Cakewalk Sonar Home Studio 4 XL, I spliced it into the first part of Ozzy Osbourne's Crazy Train. I think that song, and baseless notions of space based DEWs (unsupported by evidence), work well together. Glad you liked it. Feel free to spread the mp3 around if you like.

Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

Show "Apparently not!" by Killtown

yet you still frequent...

yet you still frequent...

Haters, yes...

of disinfo shills like you and fetzer, among others.

Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

Show ""disinfo shills like you"" by Killtown

Dang, Killtown . . .

Why're you so bent out of shape? Relax, man. We're all on the same side here.

I just feel like you're on the verge of hitting somebody or something. R-E-L-A-X.

Nice to see you're still around, BTW. :)

Once again, Jim, all of your

Once again, Jim, all of your criticisms of Steve are extremely hypocriticial. For example:

1. "Just for the record, why do you continue to make statements about the journal you co-edit that are inaccurate and miseading?"

This can be put right back on you regarding your continued promotion of space beams.

2. "You attack other scholars for not responding to pieces that appear in the letters section of the journal, but you have ignored far more serious publications raising questions about your research on thermite"

You constantly attack Steve for not responding to critcisms and then proceed to ignore all of the scientific critiques of the space beam hypothesis. So, I will ask yet again (although at this point it is clear you, Judy and Morgan have no response): When can we expect you to respond to the criticisms that have been levelled at the space beam hypothesis?

3. "If you are unable to respond, point by point, to a substantial set of questions about the research you claim to have done, why should anyone trust it?"

Please see my response to statement 2 above.

4. "Why are you perpetating a fraud here?"

Why do you continue to prepetrate the fraud of space beams?

5. "you ignore serious publications raising questions about your research"

Please see above.
The following isn't hypocritical, but can be explained:

"Having visited that site many times, I have been struck that the document you signed and Truth and Justice claims has been filed is not there. Can you explain this oddity?"

The answer is simple, they don't want to publish a biting criticism of the NIST Report on their website. They would much rather publish nonsense, such as, (1) space beams brought down the towers, (2) no planes hit the towers, and (3) they should stop their investigation of building 7 because someone filed a "Request for Correction". All three of these filings are completely absurd and make the entire 9/11 truth movement look like a bunch of crazies, idiots, etc. If they published the more reasoned criticism of the NIST Report, they might actually wake more people up to the truth, which they obviously don't want to do.

Show "Typical blogger response . . ." by Jim Fetzer

First, there are no eggs

First, there are no eggs going into any basket. Second, if I was forced to put my eggs in either the thermite basket or the space beam basket, I would choose the thermite basket hands down. I wouldn't make this choice because I think thermite can explain everything, but because space beams can explain nothing. And, you're right, "space beams" exceeds the boundaries of my imagination, but so do magical flying dragons. We're not concerned with what possible causes people can "imagine" happened. You actually have to provide support in the real world for your ideas, and your support must be able to stand up to scrutiny. Neither you, Judy, Morgan, nor anyone else that supports your space beam hypothesis have responded to the points raised in the papers at the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and your silence in the face of such legitimate criticism is telling. Implicit in your silence is the fact that you cannot respond to the points raised, many of which completely destroy the entire hypothesis.

You ask what do we do once we figure out that rejecting space beams as a plausible hypothesis is the proper course of action, and the answer is quite simple: IMMEDIATELY STOP PROMOTING IT. The incorrect answer is to not only keep promoting it, but file public documents, such as NIST Requests for Correction and lawsuits that continue to perpetuate the clearly rejected hypothesis. Is that clear enough?

By the way, if you continue to talk about toasted cars without responding fully to the following paragraphs, you continue to erode what's left of your credibility (which isn't much):

The Wood/Reynolds space beam paper (the "WR paper") also finds the presence of toasted cars near FDR Drive indicative of space beam usage. Judy Wood has stated on Jim Fetzer’s radio show “Non-Random Thoughts” that she believes the closely spaced buildings around the WTC formed a kind of canyon which allowed the space beams to reflect off the buildings and somehow end up burning the cars on a bridge seven blocks away from the WTC complex. The problems with this idea are quite obvious. If these space beams were powerful enough and carefully designed to vaporize steel and concrete, how is it possible for these beams to destroy the Twin Towers and then reflect off of neighboring buildings also made of steel and concrete? Indeed, if surrounding buildings were able to reflect these energy beams, why then did the Twin Towers not reflect these same beams? Furthermore, if these space beams did somehow reflect off of the neighboring buildings and reach the cars on the bridge, why was the bridge, which also contained steel and concrete, not damaged? These are very important questions that must be answered before the WR thesis is given any scientific credence.

Of course, there is a perfectly reasonable alternative hypothesis that explains the toasted cars present on FDR Drive: they were towed away from Ground Zero and deposited there as a part of the clean-up and rescue effort. News reports confirm that tow trucks were operating in the days after 9/11 to haul damaged vehicles away from the disaster area. For example, one article from The Philadelphia Inquirer dated September 13, 2001 entitled “Workers removing debris - and bodies” states, “Mangled or burned vehicles littered the disaster scene. … Cars mangled by the explosion were towed away to make room for recovery efforts. At the corner of Duane Street and Broadway, about eight blocks from the World Trade Center, a car burned beyond recognition was stacked on top of a flattened Cadillac Seville. Next to that steel sandwich were a bent Port Authority Police van and charred police, fire and emergency vehicles.” Also, Governor Pataki was quoted on Larry King Live on September 11, 2001 (transcript available here) as saying “We have national guard heavy equipment, wreckers and tow trucks and others trying to help out with police and fire who are going through the rubble and trying to just find as many people that we can save and rescue and help those who need our help as possible.” Firehouse.com quoted Tom McDonald, Assistant Commissioner of Fleet and Technical Services for the FDNY regarding Ground Zero on 9/11: “It was not until late in the evening of September 11 that McDonald was able to get eight to 10 tow trucks and drivers into the area to start moving equipment out.” On September 12, 2001, CourtTV News reported here that “Abandoned and damaged cars were being towed away. Cars parked closest to the trade center were crushed.” The Hampton Union, in a news article covering a local Towing Association trade show in May, 2002, lamented that the Staten Island Garage, which won Best of Show at the previous year’s show, was unable to attend this year because, “They've been at ground zero since last September.” A reporter for the Chicago Sun Times stated that on September 20, 2006, “Tow truck drivers zip down quiet streets in the dead of night, carting ash- covered, badly crumpled patrol cars.”

An American Public Works Association article, available here and cited in the WR paper, proclaims that approximately “1,400 vehicles were recovered” from the disaster area and “carefully stockpiled in a separate area near the edge of the” Fresh Kills Landfill, which is located in Staten Island. The APWA article also states that all of the materials that were transferred to Fresh Kills (which presumably includes the vehicles) went through temporary transport stations located at Pier 25 and Pier 6. FDR Drive, coincidentally, runs right past Pier 6. It is logical to assume, therefore, that the cars depicted near FDR Drive in Wood’s pictures were towed there to the temporary transport station at Pier 6 before being taken to Fresh Kills.

The WR paper dismisses the towing hypothesis out of hand by simply stating “there is no evidence that this was done.” The plethora of news articles cited above clearly contradicts this bald assertion. The WR paper goes on to state that “it makes no sense to load up wrecks, transport them, only to dump them in a busy thoroughfare for storage.” On the contrary, it makes perfect sense to clear the streets of damaged cars quickly so rescue and transport vehicles are able to access Ground Zero. Also, the cars were not dumped “in a busy thoroughfare”; they were placed on the side of the roadway, out of the way of traffic. Still more hollow argument is offered by the WR paper: “If vehicles were truly moved from the WTC to FDR Drive, we wonder why WTC steel beams were not stacked up on FDR drive, as well, if it was such a good storage area.” First, we don’t know for sure that the steel beams were not stacked up somewhere near the temporary transport stations located at Pier 6 or Pier 25; we just do not have any pictures of them. Second, once the streets were clear of the toasted cars and the large transport trucks had access to Ground Zero, the first order of business was to remove the debris from the crime scene. It is reasonable to believe that the steel beams were given a higher priority than the toasted cars for being transferred to Fresh Kills. Third, it appears that FDR Drive was already filled up with toasted cars (which logically would have been the first pieces of wreckage removed from Ground Zero in order to clear the streets), so the steel beams were probably stacked elsewhere. Stacking the steel beams next to the toasted cars on FDR Drive would have impeded the flow of traffic, thus it would make more sense to stack them elsewhere if the clean up crew was not able to transfer them directly onto the transport vessels at Pier 6 and Pier 25. The WR paper’s short dismissal of the towing hypothesis is hopelessly inadequate and fails to explain away the volume of supporting data referenced above.

Please see the original paper posted in the letters section of the Journal for links to the sources cited and quoted.

I don't know enough about the citizens grand jury or the national 9/11 debate to comment on it. But I can assure you that the Truth and Justice press release does not distort the content of the Haas/Reynolds/Wood Requests for Correction. Said requests are full of complete B.S. and I'm glad they were called out on it. You say this movement must be based on sound research, and I couldn't agree more. However, the space beamers (including you) have absolutely zero sound research backing them up.



Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB


As an intelligent non-scientist peon out here in Somewhereville USA, I find it curious to observe the contrast between (a) how formally logical your arguments tend to be and (b) how unpersuasive they tend to be upon almost everyone here.

I have taken in a good smattering of both your and Dr. Jones' presentations via the web, and have read a little of both of your work (as well as some criticisms of each of you), and listened to you on many episodes of Black Op Radio and elsewhere, so I have some basis for an impression of each of you personally even though I don't know (much of) the science or details and haven't met either of you. I thus can't authoritatively personally address the critical subject matter of the controversies, but I wanted to publicly observe what I can. My assessment is that you must either be very right, or very wrong; I don't see any middle ground.

Logic has been called "the art of going wrong with confidence". Of course that is really a description of bad logic, but there is wisdom in the saying. "GIGO" is another take on the same idea. I'm struck in this case by the vigor and tenacity of your attacks on Jones et al for both their persistence in pursuing thermite evidence and their disinterest in your alternative ideas. I'm also struck by the lack of traction your arguments have; barely anyone here seems to find them the least bit credible or persuasive. (I find them, again, logical at least in form, but remain uncertain about the factual merits.) I don't absolutely know about anyone else here, but I know I'm not a shill for any particular interest; I'm a totally independent human being offering my personal views. One of the indicators (not the only one) to which I look for guidance on what is worth my time to research and what isn't is the general direction of the opinions of others in the movement. I look to this site for some indication of that direction, as well as some direct and fairly candid thinking from at least a few of those with strong opinions. That thinking helps me understand why they hold the opinions they do.

In your case, I can see the reasons you present for why you object to Jones, et al, but I don't see others corroborating your take on these matters. Can you offer a plausible explanation for that? If your assessments are accurate, why are the people here not responding to them? Surely I can't be the only one maintaining a (reasonably) open mind. While I admit the danger of groupthink, there are many arguments among the folks here. Your (lack of) credibility seems to be one of the least controversial items. I hope my stating that matter-of-factly will be taken in the spirit of candor; I don't mean any offense by it.

Thanks for at least a good many of your many efforts in this movement; I'm still not sure what to think lately, but I'm watching.

Disclaimer: Ultimately, it's my responsibility to do my own homework and dig in depth into the underlying research. I admit I haven't yet done that, much, on these points; I'm also rather behind on the latest in some of these things, with more familiarity with older info from a few months ago. Perhaps I should refrain from joining this fracas until I'm more caught up, but... I couldn't resist. :-) Hopefully my ignorant ponderings will serve some purpose in provoking intelligent thought, for a few anyway. My aim is simply to aid in bringing clarity to this controversy, for myself and others.

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

Show "Good cømmentary! Here's a suggestion . . ." by Jim Fetzer

Let me see if I get this

Let me see if I get this straight. You get one point for reading a website and correctly noting that something is not listed there? I could get thousands of points if that's all it takes to get one.

You continually refuse to respond to my points. Again, your silence is telling. Clearly the Department of Commerce would not want to publish a biting criticism of the official myth. By contrast, publishing documents that paint the 9/11 Truth Movement as a bunch of crazies that think space beams brought down the towers after they weren't ever hit by airplanes is far more in line with their interests.

Exactly! Fetzer lost all

Exactly! Fetzer lost all credibility a long long time ago, in a space beam galaxy far far away.

More than Fetzer just "Losing it"

I think it is something more than just Jim Fetzer "losing it." I think he gained "something" to lose "it." It is no error that his attitude altered so suddenly after that last FOX interview. In fact, I don't believe he's been back on Fox since that last O'Reilly interview, has he?. Let's say that hypothetically (of course) he was offered something in return for a full bore attack on the more credible aspects of the 911 arson investigation. He certainly did not directly deny such controversial affiliations (coitellpro) when asserted by Mark Dice f/k/a John Connor in the interview with Fetzer. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9047096214841453537

Mark Dice Disappointmented

As a truther, Mark Dice did not speak for me. He embarrassed me. That wasn't an interview. That was a browbeating. Dice represented, to me at least, everything I and we 9/11 truthers despise about the Official/Bush fairy tale apologists. I thought we were supposed to be better than O'Reilly.

Dice was bombastic and loud and unable, or unwilling, to present anything of substance to rebut Fetzer. He made no attempt to argue intelligently against Fetzer's position. He just kept yelling and repeating his pointed questions.
Dice would have been much better served to meet Fetzer on the field of ideas and broken Fetzer's arguments down with facts and evidence. Dice should have made reference to Legge's article
for example.
Anything would have been better than a half hour of Fox News style abuse and ignorance.

Fetzer's biggest weakness is his argument. You don't need to belittle yourself and him with anger and rudeness. Just keep mentioning the facts. That's the strong suit of the truth movement. That's what makes us better than the mainstream media and the rest of the Bush/Official story apologists. They are the ones whose position is so weak they must resort to incivility. Not us.

Jim's attitude changed

Jim, your attitude seemed to drastically change after that last O'Reilly interview. Before that ,you presented your arguments in a succinct and orderly fashion, and kept to the strongest arguments. I do not delve into unsubstantiated conspiracies, but your sudden change in approach raises many questions as to your veracity and sincerity regarding 911 truth.


Despite the whiplash your presence creates around here, in terms of good intentions, I do respect the work you are doing for 9/11 truth (apart from the few troubles Scholars has suffered over some of your unsubstantiated speculation and debate).

But one thing that you keep repeating irks me greatly.

Where do you get this idea that the thermite/thermate reaction can not account for the observed destruction of the World Trade Center? Clearly, if enough explosive material had been used, from, say, even just one analogue of the superthermite/superthermate class, all of the points you make could easily be refuted.

Just tell me one thing: How has the DEW explanation for the destruction of the WTC accounted for the sulfidation of the steel found within the wreckage of WTC7? I have yet to hear any public statements from your colleagues on this matter. And as I understand it, they have been apprised of the issue.

Instead of worrying so much about everyone else's credibility

You really should be more concerned with your own.

This constant attack on numerous members of the 9/11 Movement is a major waste of time and energy. While at the same time you spread around the most extreme theories and expect everyone to believe your NIST based science.

Based on the responses you usually get around here, it appears there are very few people, who are hitching their ride to your cart.

Some advice

Jim. take a look at blogger public opinion. Right now Prof. Jones is +27 and you are -15. These numbers don't even begin to reflect the intensity of many people's feelings. To put it bluntly, continuing to bait legitimate truthers could be hazardous to your health. It would be best for all if you would just go away and stay away.

No need to resort to

No need to resort to threats. That is disappointing. The +8 rating is even moreso...

Show "Thanks for your response" by Killtown

Pr, Jones I'm very honored to even be able to ask you a question

Welcome and thank you for your courage and your work.
So, I read yesterday the paper you wrote (Why indeed...), in wich you're talking about which company would have had the necessary knowledge to achieve the kind of demolition we saw on 911. My question is: Is there any development regarding hwo could have place those charges and how they did it? I don't know but Controled Demolition inc. would be a good suspect...

You can't hide a lie for long. Truth shall come out.

Show "'just a member' lie - Jones' close associate set up stj911.org" by Constitutionalist

Thanks for bringing her work to our attention

I hope you don't mind if I cross post it over at my 9/11 forum at the link below?

Welcome to 911blogger and I look very forward to asking you lot's of questions.



Reply to J. Fetzer

On June 2, 2007, James Fetzer wrote to me as posted publicly at 911 blogger, and I respond (but not in ITALICS as I hoped I could do for clarity).

Just for the record, why do you continue to make statements about the journal you co-edit that are inaccurate and miseading? It was created as a part of Scholars, not as an independent entity, where Judy Wood was your original co-editor and I managinag [sic]editor. Please cease making these historically false and legally disputable claims.

Jones: It is a fact that the idea for the Journal of 9/11 Studies was independently mine and I never intended the Journal to be part of “Jim Fetzer’s Scholars” group. I personally belong to a number of organizations and I have always maintained that the Journal I created is independent of any group or society.
It is true that J. Fetzer asked to be “managing editor” of the Journal during spring 2006 and I accepted – but he himself withdrew from this position before the Los Angeles 9/11 meeting (organized by Alex Jones) and likewise Judy Wood withdrew on her own initiative before that meeting. I emphasized that I would talk about the new Journal at that conference – which I did – over the objections of Fetzer and Wood. The Journal has been going strong – independently – for just over a year now and contains over sixty peer-reviewed papers.

Fetzer: You attack other scholars for not responding to pieces that appear in the letters section of the journal,
Jones: J. Fetzer is invited to provide quotes and references to support this accusation. Incidentally, Judy Wood has submitted two letters for the Journal at my invitation and they were published (without peer review per her request), so Fetzer’s charge appears unfounded.

Fetzer: but you have ignored far more serious publications raising questions about your research on thermite. "The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis", for example, was published by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds on 14 December 2006: http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/JonesScientificMethod.html
Jones: I have objected to the ad hominems (quoted below) in the non-peer-reviewed papers by Wood and Reynolds and have asked them for an explanation or apology, following which I will further respond to them.
For example, in an email dated March 27, 2007, I wrote to Wood and Reynolds – copy to Jim Fetzer – the following:

I would never say of a colleague

"Jones gives experimentalists a bad name."
"Can a Ph.D. physicist be this retarded?"
"We wonder if his college and university approve of his behavior."

"Given Jones's enormous popularity in the 9/11 arena, we must
undertake the unpleasant task of social analysis."

"At the end of our paper, it is true that our section titled "Vote
for Jones" addressed his campaign to be the only 9/11 scientist in
town. [Which is total nonsense. I frequently refer to papers by David
Griscom, Kevin Ryan, Frank Legge, Kenneth Kuttler and others -- SJ]
We regret having to consider the politics of the Jones' phenomenon,
but we in good conscience had to address it since his rise in the 9/11
movement rests largely on prestige and pandering, not on good

"Since he is no video expert, the clueless professor might ask
himself if the Newtonian laws of motion still prevailed on 9/11."

"Jones has this 'baby face' that - and 'soft personality' - that
seems to 'sell' his positions."
"Jones huffs and puffs, "The argument must be to the DATA, not to the
source (ad hominem)."

The above statements are published ("_Reynolds and Wood try to help
Steven E. Jones_", and Reynolds and Wood, _Why Indeed Did the WTC
Buildings Disintegrate?_ ) under the joint authorship (and
concomitant responsibility) of Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood and I
demand of you both an apology and retraction.

Thank you,

Steven Jones (end of March 27, 2007email)

There has been no response to my email challenging the Wood/Reynolds ad hominems.

Fetzer: You have many loyal fans who have no idea at all when research is "scientific".
Jones: What an insult to so many – and such nonsense! In my discussions with members of the 9/11 community (I do not call them “fans”), I find that they understand when research is fact-based and empirical -- when the research is scientific. But, let Fetzer support this broad and categorical derogation if he can.

Fetzer: Given your qualifications about your own research in your latest paper--where you claim only that your iron-in-dust samples are "consistent with" but not therefore caused by and might have had other sources than thermite--isn't it time for you to respond to these questions?
Jones: In fact, the term “consistent with” nowhere appears in my paper! I have responded and continue to respond to questions. Anyone reading the Journal of 9/11 Studies will see these responses.

Fetzer: I do not mean by your usual technique of citing other papers and presentations. You have encouraged the 9/11 truth movement to place faith in your findings. But this is science, not religion. If you are unable to respond, point by point, to a substantial set of questions about the research you claim to have done, why should anyone trust it?
Jones: There is nothing wrong with citing other papers – indeed, this is common practice in the scientific community and shows courtesy and respect for others’ work. I ask that people look at the scientific evidence, critically – not on “faith.” And I am endeavoring to respond point by point here.

Fetzer: In your latest paper, you imply that Truth and Justice came up with the idea of The National 9/11 Debate, when it was the inspiration of Ed Haas of THE MUCKRAKER REPORT, who advanced it before that society even existed! You know better. I was the captain and had invited you to join the team. Why are you perpetating a fraud here? That is neither truthful nor just.
Jones: Unfair – since this was immediately corrected in the paper with an erratum noted – and notice of this correction was sent to J. Fetzer long ago. The original read: “We extended an invitation to NIST to sit down with them and debate, we had a certain time and place. They declined. And we said…”
I agree that the “we” in the transcript (before the break-up of the scholars into two groups) was not clear. So I noted an erratum in the paper the next day (errata appear on the last page of the paper), and the paper now reads: “A group (including me) extended an invitation to NIST to sit down with them and debate, we had a certain time and place. They declined. And we said…”
Furthermore, the following day, I notified Jim Fetzer by direct email to him personally -- here is what I wrote directly to J. Fetzer about this:
An errata has been added to my paper, on the last page, as follows:
This paper was based in the first instance on a transcript of a talk given by Dr. Jones at the University of California at Berkeley, and some errors as well as typos occurred and of course will be corrected as they are found. [clip two other errata]
p. 65 "A group (including me)" was inserted to avoid apparent confusion; the point seemed clear in the original talk. (S. Jones email to J. Fetzer, May 16, 2007)
Yet Fetzer still points to a claim that “Truth and Justice” is given credit for the challenge to NIST -- as if this was never clarified and he was not notified! Why is this? Does he agree that a correction has been made and an erratum noted?
BTW, having a set of errata for a paper is common practice in the technical peer-reviewed literature.

Fetzer: A recent press release from Truth and Justice announcing the filing of a Request for Correction with NIST, distorts the content of the prior filings by Ed Haas, Morgan Reynolds, and Judy Wood and falsely asserts that I have filed, which is neither true nor just. They and Jerry Leaphart deserve the credit, not I. You have to know better. It comes from your own site: http://www.stj911.com/press_releases/NIST.html
Jones: Earlier on the same day as this post by J. Fetzer (he even refers to my earlier post), I had already explained to “Killtown” that the stj911 (“Truth and Justice”) site is NOT my site, as follows:
"His site" meaning my site is not correct as I am not even on the steering committee of this group-- i belong to a few 9/11 groups, and I'm just a member of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. That's all.
I was unaware of these two "evidences" you mention and will have to look into it. Along with other members, I have input into what goes on the group's site. But no veto power (at all).
Further, the Journal of 9/11 Studies is independent of any group, although it is linked-to by a number of groups and we welcome that (the editors and Advisory Board).”
So why does Fetzer call this “your own site” when it is not my site and I had just explained this two posts before his? Bizarre.

Fetzer: Moreover, such filings are archived at an official government site, where the public can find them. Having visited that site many times, I have been struck that the document you signed and Truth and Justice claims has been filed is not there. Can you explain this oddity? Here is the official site, where you can verify for yourself that your petition is not on pubic [sic] record: www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/PROD01_00261...
JOnes: We received from NIST an acknowledgment of our Request for Correction as follows:
This is to acknowledge receipt of your information request dated April 12, 2007. Pursuant to our guidelines we usually respond with a decision or a status of the request within 60 days of receiving the request. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me via e-mail at [contact information redacted].

Fetzer: I might not be so concerned but for the discovery that an announcement concerning the San Diego People's Grand Jury's verdict from Ron Paul pubished [sic] by Truth and Justice has been contradicted by members of the Grand Jury, who assert they were never even given the opportunity to DELIBERATE! You testified and must know what's going on. Tell us the truth!
Jones: Truth is, I did not testify personally at this Grand Jury and only heard about it peripherally – I have heard they showed a video of one of my talks. I do not know what opportunities were given to the “Grand Jury” and since I am not involved in this I have no comment on this matter except to respond that Fetzer’s attempt to smear me on this issue is unfounded and unfair.

Fetzer: You make historically inaccurate and legally disputable claims about the journal; you ignore serious publications raising questions about your research; you claim credit for ideas that did not originate with you; your society makes false and misleading claims about fiings [sic]; a filing you signed is AWOL; and now this Grand Jury verdict appears to be a hoax and a fraud! Is this your idea of truth and justice?
James H. Fetzer
Scholars for 9/11 Truth Submitted by Jim Fetzer on Sat, 06/02/2007 - 11:54am
Jones: I have responded to your fallacious/misleading charges and smears and now invite you (James Fetzer) to respond, in writing, for publication of our exchange in the Journal of 9/11 Studies – Letters section. This same courtesy I have extended on more than one occasion to Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds and others, even those who seem to delight in attacks on other 9/1-truth researchers, rather than focusing on those who perpetrated or profited from the 9/11 attacks. I do NOT seek to stifle research on various hypotheses, but I do object strongly to unsubstantiated/false charges and to ad hominem attacks on co-researchers.
– Steven Jones, June 4, 2007.

The patience you have with Jim Fetzer et al

is a credit to you. However, how much doubt is there in your mind that he is not sincere? In mine, none.

You can italicize with < i> and < /i> tags (remove the spaces inside) -- HTML, it's less complicated than muon catalyzed fusion ;-)

interns < internets

I see...

Thanks, Bruce1337 -- I've done enough HTML to see how to do italicizing now... You're right, much easier than muon catalyzed fusion! And metal-cat. fusion...

Reply to Drummerboy

Drummerboy asked: "My question is: Is there any development regarding hwo could have place those charges and how they did it? I don't know but Controled Demolition inc. would be a good suspect..."

Yes, a formal investigation would certainly involve questions of CDI, under oath. A discussion on the STJ911 forum which I frequent lately suggests that the explosives/incendiaries would need to be placed principally on the CORE columns and the CORNER perimeter columns of each Tower. Gordon Ross is pursuing this study...

Explosives (such as RDX, HMX, super-thermite [discussed as an explosive in the literature long before 9/11/2001])
would probably be triggered via radio signals and computer controlled. The sophistication and computer pre-analysis required for such an operation implies an experienced group or company, yes.

For comments on HOW we find out just WHODUNNIT and how, please see: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/c/what-are-the-goals-of-the-911-c...

Glad to have you on board!

I've been searching the chemical abstracts database for any information I can find about corrosion effects of iron and steel and to see whether or not the mp of these metals can be greatly reduced using substances other than sulfur!

I'll report to you as soon as I know more!

Also, what I was trying to tell you at the PNACitizen event in Austin (unfortunately over the din of the audience) is that, as you know, superthermites have their aluminum and iron oxide atoms intimately arranged in order to get the intended energetic effect from their reaction. That being said, I was thinking that you should apply your analysis techniques to the spherules that would be produced from a superthermate reaction and compare and contrast their properties to the spherules you discovered in your samples of WTC dust. In this way, if the unique intimate configuration -- namely, the spacial arrangement of the atoms (which, at least to me, would amount to a "superthermite" signature) -- were to carry over into the final superthermate end-product spherules, you might have another strong series of evidence pointing to the use of superthermites/superthermates having been used in the destruction of the World Trade Center. I make this suggestion because I can't reasonably see how the atoms of WTC spherules, if they were to indeed be found spatially close and intimate on the nanometer scale, could have been formed that way without the application of some aluminothermics process enhanced perhaps by sol gel technology.

I recently received information pointing to a location where more samples of relatively undisturbed WTC dust can be found. Is your email address still current? Please let me know soon.

Hello, Mekt,

It is true that the speed of thermite/aluminothermic reactions can be tailored by carefully selecting the SIZES of the particles in the aluminum and metal-oxide powders (reactants). It seems to me that the RESIDUES should show the constituents of the reactant mixture pretty much independent of the particle sizes... but I may be wrong on that point and would like to do an experiment using the ultra-fine powders needed for the explosive form called super-thermite.

Have your read my paper in the May 2007 issue of the Journal of 9/11 Studies? It may answer some of your questions.

I'm very interested in WTC dust samples -- we have now two independent samples, and a third would be most welcome. email me at hardevidence@gmail.com. Thanks!

Question for ProfJones

Have you collected any more samples of WTC dust that contain iron/thermite microspheres? If all the microspheres that you have collected have come from only a couple sources, independent or no, then have you considered the possibility that it may be some kind of hoax? I am having great difficulty believing that samples of this dust are hard to find! It seems like there should be literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people who saved some of that dust. I know I would have.

Several dust sources now

We have three dust samples from different locations in hand now and a fourth is anticipated.
The lab work takes time, of course. Already have new results for the Vancouver BC meeting.


Prof. Jones. Thank you for this extremely informative post.

Donate To 9/11 First Responders