Debunking Steven Jones

Note: This is a repost as the original was lost during the recent technical problems.

  Debunking Steven Jones

     9-11 conspiracy theorist often cite a paper by professor Steven E. Jones to prove that the WTC collapse was a controlled demolition. However, they ignore several problems with said paper, found here http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm.

     First of all, Steven Jones may be a physicist- formerly at Brigham Young University (BYU)- but he has no experience in analyzing building collapses. Second, while his paper was indeed peer-reviewed, it was NOT peer-reviewed by a civil engineering journal (his other peer-reviewed papers were on the subject of cold fusion). As the previous link points out, a truly serious- and honest- professor would have the paper peer-reviewed by a scientific journal that actually specializes in the field they’re writing the paper on. And third, the ENTIRE BYU Physics and Civil and Environmental Departments disagree with him. It seems to me that if he’s got two entire departments disagreeing with him, Steven Jones’ credibility is somewhat lacking, to say nothing of the fact that he uses David Ray Griffin, a THEOLOGIAN as an “authority.”
     There’s plenty of other evidence that Steven Jones is guilty of lying- or at least very sloppy research. This source http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm has this to say about the debris in the “peer-reviewed” paper: “The towers had the largest aluminum cladding job in the world when it was constructed. It was made of a light weight aluminum made specifically for the towers…It’s not unreasonable to suspect the debris we see being pointed to in the ” Scholars” “Peer-reviewed paper” is NOT steel but light weight aluminum cladding. I suspect they weren’t fastened on to withstand a collapse. The violent way the collapse over pressure ejected debris from the window is enough to dislodge the light aluminum and send it blocks away, given the height of the towers. What the “scholars” show as evidence of explosives is actually evidence that light things can get pushed farther by the collapse over pressure than heavy things. ”

     There are other problems with Steven Jones’s claims as well, found here http://911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html . He states that a metal with low chromium with high levels of manganese indicate the steel was not structural steel. However, as seen at this source http://911myths.com/html/low_chromium__abundant_mangane.html, at the time the WTC was built, the structural steel would indeed contain far more manganese than chromium. Jones also assumes potassium proves thermite, but as we see from the following quote here http://911myths.com/html/potassium_at_the_wtc.html , ” The total element compositions of the dust samples reflect the chemical makeup of materials such as: … concrete and aggregate (containing calcium and aluminum hydroxides, and a variety of silicate minerals containing silicon, calcium, potassium, sodium, and magnesium)…”
     Here http://911myths.com/html/titanium_at_the_wtc.html, we see that Steven Jones assumes that titanium proves his thermite claim. However, the aforementioned site has this to say about that: “particles rich in iron, aluminum, titanium, and other metals that might be used in building construction…
Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron)…” Clearly, Steven Jones’s research is extremely sloppy.

Advertisements

Posted January 13, 2008 by Victor Chabala in Real 9/11 Facts

%d bloggers like this: