Important Information on Steven Jones' Research

As a former major supporter of Steven Jones I must convey the following


Steven Jones spends much of his time on molten metal, in particular the molten metal dripping from the South Tower. Using a picture from the NIST report, he determines the color of the molten metal in order to gauge the temperature. However, the NIST report states that the “intensity levels” of the picture were adjusted. This information was placed at the bottom of the picture, but for some reason Jones removed it.


Why did Jones use a picture that had its intensity level adjusted to determine the color or something?

Why did he hide the fact that the levels were adjusted?

Was the dripping molten metal really there? Notice that the windows switch.



Update on our Debate with Steven E. Jones (Reynolds / Wood)

Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood — August 29, 2006
Printer friendly copy of this article available here.

Update on our Debate with Steven E. Jones

To our fans and opponents: Our critical review of the 9/11 work of Steven E. Jones appeared the evening of August 23. We understand that he responded on August 25, but we were not notified. We discovered it on the PhysOrg forum on August 27 and we replied to it on August 27. We posted our response and sent Jones the link. After posting our response, we learned that Jones had changed the file he had posted. So, it appears that to respond to whatever he posts is like aiming at a moving target.
Jones’ response has appeared at but not our original article nor ourreply. Only one side of the debate is represented at the Scholars’ site. Can there be better evidence of what Scholars’ "Truth" is really about?
It looks like Jones intends to issue a string of rebuttals over the next XX weeks. Once we judge that he has dribbled the bulk of his replies out, we will scoop them up and put them under the microscope and refute them.
In the meantime, we urge interested parties to consult our original critique since it contains a great deal of 9/11 analysis, including some original findings, in the context of knocking down Jones’ errors. Our original article and our reply to Jones’ August 27 response are key to uncovering the bogus nature of Jones’ work.