Talk:Steven E. Jones/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Who coined the term 'cold fusion'?

An editor deleted the mention of Jones coining the term cold fusion. A serch turned up several sources that make the assertion.[1] However, another site indicates Dr. Paul Palmer used the term "cold fusion" beginning in early 1986.[2] Evidently, this matter needs to be sorted out. Ombudsman 00:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am confused about it. I put in an email to Jones and alerted him to this page.Bov 20:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Critics

The section on "Critics" states: "While Jones points out reported claims of molten metal, he makes no mention of reports about possible answers such as aluminum."

There is no source supplied as to who the critic is, and I disagree with the implied insinuation that Jones should be speculating that aluminum can explain away the reports of molten metal.

What Jones was refering to were the puzzling reports of molten metal in the basements of buildings 1, 2 and 7 weeks after the buildings had collapsed.

Jones actually said this in his report ...

"However, scientific analysis, using for example X-ray fluorescence, would be needed to ascertain the actual composition of the molten metal."

and this

"None of the official reports tackles this mystery. Yet this is evidently a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse. So I would very much like to see an analysis of the elemental composition of the metal, and could do this myself if a small sample were made available according to scientific courtesy."

None of the above is unreasonable, he's simply asking for samples and photographs so that the claims of molten metal can be studied. At no point is Jones trying to claim that the molten metal cannot be explained without the use of explosives. Unlike his critics, Jones does not speculate that the metal was aluminum, instead he wants to find out for certain through a real scientific study.

Jones goes on to say this at the end of his paper ...

"In particular, photos and analyses of the molten metal (probably not molten steel) observed in the basements of both Towers and WTC7 need to be brought forth to the international community of scientists and engineers immediately. Therefore, along with others, I call for the release of these and all relevant data for scrutiny by a cross-disciplinary, international team of researchers. The explosive-demolition hypothesis will be considered: all options will be on the table."

All that Jones really is asking for, is for independant investigators to be given access to samples of the available evidence so that it can be studied by the scientific community in however way is seen fit.

The "Critic" section in my view is out of place with what Jones has actually said and should be revised. At the very least, sources of critics outside of wikipedia should be provided if there are any.

Here's the link to Jones's paper for verification [3]

I understand your concerns prehaps I've gone over the line and I should reword it. The topic regarding motlen metal is a common one among the 9/11 chat groups. Many on google groups, top secret, conspiracy chat groups etc have stated that the metal could be explained by aluminum. There are also photos that seem to support the claim of melted aluminum. Certanlly this is a contraversal topic. I would like this to be correct and more objective, yet I do feel that Jones clearly suggests in his article that thermite explains some of this metal and I feel this is an important article. I am open for suggestions on rewording that would better make all parties happy.

current version: "While Jones points out reported claims of molten metal, he makes no mention of reports about possible answers such as aluminum."

Jones has no reponsibility to try to make a claim about what type of metal it is - he is being responsible by NOT making any particular claim when he literally does not have enough evidence and WANTS the evidence in order to MAKE a claim that's based on science. His response has been to call for a release of the current information. Why is that deleted every time I try to post it? Whether or not chat groups think its aluminum is not a reason to say that Jones hasn't responded to that claim. Chat groups also say that holograms hit the towers.

I'm concerned that this section is becoming simply an effort to discredit Jones by rewording the facts or excluding some aspects to confuse a reader. When someone says he 'coined the phrase cold fusion' without including the fact that he doesn't DO cold fusion as science, we are creating the impression that he does do cold fusion. This is subtle but inappropriate and typical of the stuff I'm seeing on here. For example, including only people who don't agree with Jones but none who DO is also not realistic. It makes it seem like he is out there alone making these calls, when he is not.Bov 18:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Jones states" Thermite (whose end product is molten iron) used on some of the steel beams readily accounts for the molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles. I believe this is a straightforward hypothesis, much more probable than the official hypothesis. It deserves scientific scrutiny, beyond what I have been able to outline in this treatise. " Are you saying its OK to speculate about iron but not aluminum? Anyway... I will continue pondering how to reword the paragraph. Scotts...

---

I think the Critics section has improved, however I have a new comment to make.

The email from Dr. Miller reads:

"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims"

It should be noted that at no point does Dr. Miller specify why he and the structural engineering professors in his department do not think that there is accuracy and validity to Jones' scientific study.

The statement issued by the BYU physics department reads in part:

"The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members."

It appears to me that the statement is cleverly worded to appear as if there is something wrong with Jones' work because it is being questioned, however this is normal practice for any scientific paper. This portion of the statement is not actually a citique of Jones' work since any scientific study is always questioned for validity.

The last part of the statement reads:

"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

As with Dr. Miller's email, the same note should be made that at no point is there a specifc criticism for Jones to defend against.

In conclusion, both statements are baseless attacks on Jones' credibility because there are no rational arguments put forth for Jones to defend against. Effectively these two criticism boil down to "We don't agree with Jones' work because we say so."

I think the Miller's email and BYU's statement should both be noted, however the reader should be made aware that both critiques are ad hominem in nature.

I think it would be appropriate for the article to point out that neither statement addressed or responded to any of the specific points that Jones made. But the inference that you draw from that, though I largely agree with it, is original resarch unless you can cite someone who has made such an analysis. Also, the two comments you refer to do not strike me as "ad hominem" attacks per se - more just a priori rejections. As Jones's paper makes its way through the peer review and official publication proccesses, those sort of arbitary dismissals will likely be harder to pull off. Blackcats 06:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

PS - If you haven't done so already, I would reccomend setting up a Wikipedia user name (link in the upper right corner of every wikipedia page) if you want your views to carry more weight in votes and discussions here. Blackcats 07:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: I've made slight edits to correct minor errors in the grammar. Yes, I think I'll register.

Deleted a paragraph saying, in essence, that nobody in the scientific community nor at BYU cares about his research. The link used to source this was just an opinion piece.

Links

I think as a bare minimum criteria, for any links to "critics" of Jones, the page needs to at the very least mention Jones's name. Of all the links in the first paragraph of the "Critics" section though, only one does this. And a majority of them link to one site - 911myths.com. WP:NOT specifically says that Wikipedia should not be a "link farm." The readers are perfectly capable of navigating around that site for themselves, so we don't need to link to every single page on their site. We should only link more than one specific page there if each one offers a unique commentary on Jones and his work. Also, it's important to keep in mind that this article is about Jones and his work, not about "9/11 conspiracy theories" in general. And it's original research if an editor here points people to a certain article which doesn't even mention Jones and basically says "I think this Rebuts Jones's arguments." Unless the source specifically discusses Jones and his work then it's not appropriate for this page. That said, I'm gonna remove all external links that don't mention Jones. Blackcats 03:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Original Research

As I recently stated in my edit summaries, I have removed content that was based on sources which did not specifically address Jones. That's original research in this context. The article already links to "9/11 Conspiracy Theories," and if someone feels the need, an additional link can be posted to refer users there for a more general discussion of the overall issues which doesn't neccesarilly address Jones and his work. Blackcats 03:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like some changes have been made since I've been gone. I think I agree with many of the past edits. I'll have to look it over again when I have more time. I'm always learning here at Wikipedia. ThanksScottS 03:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism in context

Jgm removed the following qualifier from the passage addressing criticism from faculty at BYU: "though none of these has addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU." But it's neccesary for the reader's understanding to put criticism in context and to differentate between specific scientific critiques that would attempt to refute his work and those dismissals that did not cite evidence or were merely rhetorical. Like I said above, adding an inference about what that lack of a scientific response might mean would be original research, unless a notable interpretation to that effect could be cited. But it's perfectly apporpriate to state the facts and allow the readers to come to their own conclusions. Blackcats 08:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Passage from paper

Jgm also removed a passage from Jones's paper. Since so much of his notability is due to that paper, and it is the focus of so much of the article, I think including a short passage from it is perfectly appropriate in order to give the readers some of the flavor of his work. I agree that reposting large sections of it would not be appropriate, but this very short and relevant passage greatly aids the reader's understanding of his work. Blackcats 08:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This article fails NPOV dramatically. There is no mention that Prof. Jones is percived as a total crank by the scientific community regarding his 9-11 theories. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific? H0riz0n

> The above statement makes no sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.85.107.40 (talk • contribs) .

I moved this from the article page:

Note: The above two paragraphs and links are becoming aged. There are no direct links to official statements. Consider re-structuring or re-wording.

Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason why both Prof Jones' theories and the criticisms against him have dispute tag except Hipocrite thinks that 'Prof. Jones is percived as a total crank' without sources? I'd like to remove them. With that as a criteria, we'd have to add that tag to every page that questions the official story. Bov 03:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do. H0riz0n

He Also Believes That Jesus Visited America

I believe this is an extremely important piece of information about him. I'm not going to say anything negative about his religious beliefs. However, I feel that this doesn't constitute very effective scientific research. http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm --151.213.158.156 21:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess he's religious. I haven't looked at this paper, and I don't know a lot about the history of Jesus either, so I don't know anything about it other than that the claim sounds bizarre. Unless the material in his WTC article is shown to be dysfunctional, I don't know how relevant it is either. Art Bell supports the official story of 9/11. Is that relevant? I doubt it. SkeenaR 04:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Subject to my limited knowledge, "Jones believes Jesus visited America" just means "Jones is a Mormon." I don't think that should be presented as somehow discrediting him. I agree that it isn't relevant. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

He's writing a report about something religious in nature and using questionable methods and leaps in logic to justify it. Yep, it's relevant since the creationists who claim they're scientists don't even use the scientific method and are put in their place by real scientists. This is probably one of the biggest things that can be used against him within the scientific community.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.141.136.27 (talk • contribs) .

Thank you, 67.141.136.27, for demonstrating the ad hominem nature of this attack. — goethean ॐ 16:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I skimmed the paper Jones wrote about Jesus visiting America. What Jones did is pick and choose evidence to support his beliefs. The editor is not making an ad hominem argument; he is suggesting that Jones can be expected to have done the same thing with his work on 9/11. (And I think, by the way, that he and the other "9/11 researchers" have done just that). I understand the anonymous editor's point. If the paper were about something other than Jones' religion, I'd say it was appropriate to cite it as evidence of his unreliablity. As it is, I don't think it's appropriate to use the guy's religion to discredit him. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the statement about him being a Mormon and a former supporter of President Bush belongs in the lead. To me it seems to be a supporting statement for a viewpoint that is not described until later in the article, and even then not adequately contextualized. The lead section should be able to stand alone, and I don't know if anyone else notices it, but that sentence just hangs there. Perhaps it made sense in a previous revision, but whatever the reason, it doesn't make much sense now. Dancter 07:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I cannot believe how people can get out of their minds. It is crucial information that Steve Jones gives credit to other theories that hold strictly no scientific water! I think the Mormon and "Jesus left an 'I was here' sign in Peru" pieces of info are, well, part of the big Steve Jones picture. It does not need to be phrased as "Jones is a profoundly stupid zealot" (my own POV), but it should be indicated somewhere in NPOV Wikipedia terms. Concealing info it by judging it 'irrelevant' is a typical revisionist technique. Simply drop the Aztec Jesus link in his bio and let people think, if that's what you want. But I am not sure that the people who built the bio wanted that: insisting on 'cold fusion' and not developing the controversial aspects tells a lot to me. Would I be religious and/or convinced by 9/11 Theory, the Wikipedia obligation to be exhaustive and not simply discard important biographic information by 'irrelevating' it would drive me towards the same opinion.

I know you have an engineering background. Do you personally have any kind of opinion on the veracity of his 9/11 paper? I'm pretty sure you have an opinion on the whole controlled demolition theory, but I would still be interested to hear what you have to say from a technical standpoint if you care to share your thoughts on it. SkeenaR 23:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a degree in mechanical engineering, and I have worked with structural steel, but in bridges rather than buildings. I am in no sense qualified to hold an opinion on the structural engineering aspects of the collapse. I have significantly more experience with explosives and demolitions, and I have used linear shaped charges and thermite. I have not done any work in controlled demolition of buildings, and I'm not qualified to evaluate Jones' work, except as a layman.

His work does not have the ring of truth. Jones writes like someone who has read about, but never used, explosives. "I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HDX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel." This is technobabble. In what sense is RDX a high-temperature cutter-charge? What does that even mean? Is he suggesting that linear shaped charges of RDX melted the steel? From what I've seen the results of shaped charges on steel are more like tearing. Later he refers to pools of molten metal weeks after the event. Certainly thermite will melt steel, but how much thermite are we talking about? Truckloads? (By the way, I think some back-of-the-envelope heat-transfer calculations are in order there.)

Rigging a skyscraper for controlled demolition is a massive undertaking, and a disruptive one. You would need open access to the structural members for weeks, there would be detonating cord everywhere, other members would probably need to be protected from damage so they didn't fail at the wrong time, and the workers would probably tear up the drywall and trash the carpets. And then what about priming the whole thing? Is it going to be left for weeks or months with blasting caps installed in the high explosives? I don't think so. And where is all this thermite going to be? I don't see how it would be possible to do this secretly.

I don't see any basis for concluding that these puffs of smoke are from 'squibs.' He seems to just say they must be, because squibs can make puffs of smoke. "See the puffs of smoke? Those are squibs. How do I know they're squibs? Because of the puffs of smoke."

I read through his paper, and read through (parts of) the NIST and FEMA reports, and the Popular Mechanics article. Jones' work sounds like junk science; The NIST and FEMA reports are less exciting, but seem solid and workman-like. Sorry I can't be more helpful, but I'm not qualified to do a point-by-point debunking of Jones' work. It doesn't really matter what I think anyway. All we can do here is write, "This is what Jones says" and "This is what others say." Everyone with an interest has to read and make up his mind. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that. There are a couple places I remember where some demolition experts were supposed to follow up on his work. I'm going to try and get around to finding the links and post them here for the sake of interest(if there is anything there yet). SkeenaR 06:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Info on Jones' WTC Collapse Hypothesis Being Published

Jones' paper is not (or no longer) scheduled for release in THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001 [4]

His paper now states: "The paper (below) has undergone modifications and a second set of peer reviews and has been accepted for publication in a volume edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott." [5]

Regarding THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001, Jones' paper now states "Prof. Griffin's paper is scheduled for publication in The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Research in Political Economy, Volume 23, P. Zarembka, editor, Amsterdam: Elsevier, forthcoming in Spring 2006."

CB Brooklyn 01:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Using the current info from Jones' paper:[6] " has been accepted for publication in a volume edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott."

and the info at the top of this page:[7] "This paper will appear in 9/11 AND THE AMERICAN EMPIRE: INTELLECTUALS SPEAK OUT, David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, eds. (Northampton: Interlink Books, 2006)"

can we assume that Jones' paper will also appear in the 9/11 AND THE AMERICAN EMPIRE: INTELLECTUALS SPEAK OUT?

CB Brooklyn 11:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Affiliations

I have viewed a taped lecture in which Jones states he is a "life long Republican" but the text seems to indicate has no affiliation at all. I can make a link to the video but I am unsure of WP's policy on this. Do I need to add a time index (the video is 2:13:00 long. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586 )

Bpd1069 13:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Jones is is Co-Chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, not just a member. Info updated accordingly. http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/AboutUs.html

CB Brooklyn 05:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

News

prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/110406Physicist.htm --Striver 22:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

what is the purpose of this link? --mtz206 22:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review Status of WTC CD Hypothesis

See here (scroll down about half way) for letter written to BYU concerning their statement: "Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

BYU removed the above statement from their website after threat of an ethics complaint. The letter explains that Jones' paper was peer reviewed.

Is there still debate on whether Jones' paper was peer reviewed?

CB Brooklyn 17:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wood

I removed

More recently, the conservation of momentum and fall times were [link removed] by Dr. Judy Wood, a Mechanical Engineering professor at Clemson University. Jones references and refers to her paper as "instructive although preliminary".

Neither of the references provided support this statement, unless I overlooked it. Also, and more importantly, [link removed] is not a reliable source for information about a living person, unless it's Wood's own site. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[link removed] is Dr Judy Wood's site. It is referenced as such in Jones' paper, st911.org homepage, and http://www.911blogger.com/2006/03/mechanical-engineering-professor-from.html

What statement is not supported?

CB Brooklyn 01:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I see where the confusion is. Jones' statement "instructive although preliminary" is in his own paper, on BYUs website - CB Brooklyn 02:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I had the impression it was her site, but I didn't see her name anywhere. Does she reference it somewhere? Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't found a site where she, herself, references that particular site. But she has communicated with Jones via email (see http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Comments_Jones_05May2006.html )

also she'll be giving a lecture about 9/11. (link from st911.org's site:

http://www.sem.org/app-conf-AC-list1.asp )

there's this info from http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html

Judy Wood (FM)

Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University

She mentioned here too, as the instructor of a grad student who was murdered "execution style".

but no where (afaik) does she herself confirm that the janedoe site is hers.

CB Brooklyn 02:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we need something from her, or from a reliable source, before she's included. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

A reliable source, other than Jones and 911Blogger. It makes sense I guess.. CB Brooklyn 02:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I expect there will be confirmation pretty soon. I'd actually be interested to see the paper she's to present at the SEM conference. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the conference is only a few weeks away. Hopefully that paper will be put up on the internet. In the meantime, I'm going to add some info about Kevin Ryan to Jones' paper. (His paper has his name on it.)

rhetorical off topic question: I wonder why no government scientists (or any scientists for that matter) have come forward to explain how impact damage and fire created multiple anomalies that could all be explained by controlled demolitions??

CB Brooklyn 03:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Rigging the place for demolition would have taken hundreds of man-hours and caused massive disruption. Doing it in secret would have been impossible. I don't think anyone who knows anything about demolition takes those speculations very seriously. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, there was a demolitions expert who, just hours after the attacks, said he could tell it was a controlled demolition just by watching the video footage. But 10 days later he recants without explaining why, and then gets promotions. Hmm..

I agree it would have been a difficult job to rig the towers. But there were two strange events:

1. a powerdown in the South Tower the weekend before 9/11 (for the first time in its history). mp3 interview here

2. many unusual evacuations in the weeks before 9/11.

CB Brooklyn 03:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to mention... GWB's brother Marvin, and a cousin, were both principals in the WTC's security company. -CB Brooklyn 04:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

>>Rigging the place for demolition would have taken hundreds of man-hours and caused massive disruption.

Tom, that's not very creative of you. Are you saying you couldn't do it, on weekends and evenings, with months and months of time, and access to the entire buildings? There are almost an infinite number of scenarios for discretely placing demolition charges or thermite inside the buildings over time. We could start with the elevator shafts. I don't personally support the "power-down" hypothesis because there is only a single source who has ever come out on that and no published corroboration at all (CB B - I also don't cite 'killtown' or '9/11review.org' for anything because there is cherry-picked and erronenous information on those sites, not to mention links to the webfairy and associated hoax efforts). But to flat out state "it's impossible" is not based in fact, only conjecture. We don't actually know if it's possible or not. bov 01:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you could, but how would you keep people from noticing the tons of explosives planted in their workplace. And how come you wouldn't have any of the many explosives experts necescary to do this come forward with this after realizing they had participated in the most fucked up event in history?--DCAnderson 01:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Bov: Killtown is one of the most reputable 9/11 Truth sources out there. Besides, there's an mp3 interview link from a non-killtown site. Also there's a link to People magazine. Take a look at Killtown's 200+ 9/11 Smoking Guns found in the MSM

DCAnderson: they're afraid of getting fired, or worse

CB Brooklyn 02:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how many people work in office towers in Manhattan but just to state, it would not be hard to plant explosives in a building considering people are not allowed in the stair wells. Do I believe this happened? Well I did find it odd buildings fell so orderly, makes you wonder if you ever really need a demo team. But depending on where they say they would have needed to place them, its more then easy. You also have to consider that most floors in high rise buildings arent the actual floor, you are walking on floor boards, its how they run the cat5 and power cables to each cubicle. But still not something you can probably ever prove. --Zer0faults 16:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the floors in the majority of office buildings bring cabling down from the ceilings where along conducts and behind the drywall in offices. Even large cubical dominated areas usually have coduct coming down from the ceilings. The only place they tend to have drop flooring is in server rooms in most cases. It would takes months to plant charges in any buildings and none of the buildings that collapsed were ever unoccupied...there was always someone in them, especially since we are tlaking about the WTC...many asian markets are open when the U.S. ones aren't. It would have been impossible to plant explosives undetected.--MONGO 18:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, not something you could ever disprove. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, the "stairwells" is a strawman. You'd need access to the structural members, not the stairwells. The buildings were occupied 24-7 (as evening shots of the building will show, due to the global nature of the financial sector. Many of the tenants were in fact Asian and european banks [8]. --Mmx1 18:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What's all this talk about how explosives got in the buildings? It's really a red herring. What's important is that the government never explained how fire and impact damage created numerous anomalies previously only seen in controlled demolitions. On 9/11, it happened three times? Come on :-) Besides, we already know that there was a powerdown in the South Tower, there were many unusual evacuations weeks before 9/11, and W's brother and cousin were principals in the WTC security company. CB Brooklyn 02:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussing "how" the demolitions got into the building is the first step in supporting the theory that the WTC was destroyed by demolitions. If there was no physically possible method for setting up the two largest demolitions in history without the occupants noticing, then it wasn't possible. Not even in theory.--71.255.24.115 04:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

How many un-controlled 100 story building collapses are we using for reference here? — ceejayoz ^talk 06:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

WTC 7 was not 100 stories. CB Brooklyn 06:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

How many WTC7-sized collapses are you using, then? Dodging questions just makes your points seem far less valid. — ceejayoz ^talk 06:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

And what questions am I dodging? You don't know what the facts are. You should research first. CB Brooklyn 06:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I found the connection linking Dr. Wood to [link removed]: At the upper right of the page you'll see "The first draft of this work can be found here and here." Click on the links and you will see her picture! Compare to picture here. CB Brooklyn 05:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, so someone used her pic as an avatar on DU. I use Peter Gibbons as my avatar....does that mean I'm Ron Livingston?

Judy Wood has taken reponsibility for theese posted under the pseudonym jane doe. Now... you Ron is implying that Judy Wood is lying. Ron (whoever you are)... will you please provide a source that states that Judy Wood is lying about this? Or are you promoting your own unofficial original research? :) EyesAllMine 19:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

ASCE protection

The deleted quote from the ASCE:

"CANON 5.

- - ::g. Engineers shall not maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, injure the professional reputation, prospects, practice or employment of another engineer or indiscriminately criticize another's work."

Anybody remember where Jones got his education in Engineering....oh, wait, he didn't. So the threat doesn't apply and your leading implication that the University would have caved to such an empty threat is false. If you want to include the letter, the disclaimer correcting it stays.

--Mmx1 02:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no evidence showing BYU removed those statememnts for any other reason. And it has nothing to do with Jones. It's Parkinson who vioated the ACSE rules. His letter clearly says that. CB Brooklyn 02:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Do I need to put it in all caps?

Engineers shall not maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, injure the professional reputation, prospects, practice or employment of another engineer(emphasis added) or indiscriminately criticize another's work.".

Parkinson can say whatever the hell he wants about any non-engineer. --Mmx1 02:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The guidelines say "another engineer or indiscriminately criticize another's work".

Obviously the one being criticized does not need to be an engineer.

CB Brooklyn 02:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A weakness of english. The implication is that "another" is a pronoun for "another engineer". Would it make sense the way you're implying? Thta engineers are not to indiscriminately criticize ANYONE's work? They are not allowed to critique books, movies, write amazon reviews, blog that Mission Impossible 3 sucked, or that Britney Spears is a no-talent hack? It's an engineering society, the context is that it relates to professional relationships between engineers....which Jones is not. --Mmx1 02:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a grey area. Certainly the standard rules would also apply (in a moral sense) to physics professors. But the idea that Parkinson removed the insulting statements from BYUs website for any other reason is laughable in itself. I agree the disclaimer about Jones not being an engineer should be included.

CB Brooklyn 02:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Moral sense? Why? The ASCE is a professional organization, like a union or a guild. It's not a church. It makes rules directing professional conduct between its members. Moreover, a physics professor is not "like" an engineer, much as the implication is repeatedly made with respect to Jones. Hell, the engineers and the physicists don't generally get along at my Univerisity.--Mmx1 03:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for being open to discussion and compromise. --Mmx1 03:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

People should understand that this country is on the verge of a (possibly violent) constitutional crisis, and need to get their priorities straight. CB Brooklyn 03:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

?? How is that relevant, and is that a threat? --Mmx1 03:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed blogs

What relevance do general 9/11 blogs have to Steven Jones? It's an article about the man, not his beliefs or for linkfarming to websites in line with his beliefs. --Mmx1 02:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a biography, not Dr. Jones' home page. Pick and choose what you consider the most important links or interviews, but this is not a directory of his media appearances. --Mmx1 02:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

They are NOT "general 9/11 blogs". They are specific to Jones' work. And Jones' specifically mentioned 911Research.WTC7.net as an excellent site that helped HIM, because of all its references. Still, I deleted it as a courteous to you.

CB Brooklyn 03:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, he is free to link all the sites he likes on his web page; but Wiki is not free webspace. If it's not explicitly about him, it doesn't belong here --Mmx1 03:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, most of the sites deleted were not blog articles.

Second, as the work Jones is doing is extremely important to the future of the USA, not to mention humanity itself, those links are very important.

Any wiki editor using the term "conspiracy theory" with regard to 9/11 instead of looking at the obvious simple evidence is in obvious denial and should NOT be editing these articles.

And I resent your assertion that only people who subscribe to his theories should edit this page. Neither you nor your fellow conspiracy theorists (oh, I used the word again!) WP:OWN this page.--Mmx1 02:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I resent to your childish namecalling. You want me to call you a sheep? That's what you are

CB Brooklyn 02:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The people who should not edit the articles are those who do not look at all the evidence and instead resort to childish namecalling.

CB Brooklyn 02:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

So what are you? An alternative theorist? A "Truthseeker"? How about addressing the proper encyclopedic content of such an article?--Mmx1 02:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

you obviously think Jones is a conspriracy theorist. When the fact is, he's a physics professor who has performed controlled scientific experiments on WTC steel samples. You should not be editing these articles. Get another hobby. Leave these articles to those who can see what's going on. CB Brooklyn 02:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The only people against those links being in the article are those who use terms like "conspiracy theorist" and the such. Such people do not know how to look at all the evidence rationally and therefore should NOT be editing these articles. You wanna edit something? Go here CB Brooklyn 03:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA....watch it. I'm trying to put this article to encyclopedic standards....and so far you've been conceding most of my edits.--Mmx1 03:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No.. you watch it. You wanna put an article in encyclopedic standards? Start with a topic that you take seriously. Here's one! [9]

Stop "cleaning up" articles that you obviously are biased against.

CB Brooklyn 03:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You 9/11 Truth deniars have full reign over the "official story" sites AND the "9/11 conspriracy theory" sites. You, Morton, and the others should leave these other sites alone. CB Brooklyn 03:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me refer you back to WP:OWN or the disclaimer at the bottom: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." This is an encyclopedia, not your blog. If you want to blog, there's blogspot, Google pages, Myspace, and a whole host of other places. --Mmx1 03:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. and that applies to everyone, including YOU. CB Brooklyn 03:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edits tonight have nothing to do with "encyclopedic standards". The only reason is because of the scientific evidence on thermite Jones will be revealing soon. How convenient that you and Morton decided to remove those sites today and not last week? CB Brooklyn 03:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Jones will be known mostly for his work in 9/11, not cold fusion or LDS. Therefore the vast majority of his article should be about his 9/11 research. CB Brooklyn 15:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Jones will be known mostly for his 9/11 research because that work gets more attention from the public and the media, not because of the scientific validity behnind it.--71.255.24.115 04:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, what Jones will be known for shouldn't even be considered, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dancter 04:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact remains that Jones is well known today due to his research/controversial views re: 911. The above comment is therefore irrevelant. No crystal ball is needed.

WTC Collapse Hypothesis

I just noticed this--

"How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports where conservation of momentum and the fall times were not analyzed. The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-speed collapses."

The citation on that quote is "Harris, 2000"--the date seems unlikely, especially since the attacks weren't until a year later and it cites the 9-11 Commission--anyone have a real date? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.92.58.154 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Some notes

1. I don't revert war.
2. I really feel that this article makes him look more like a crackpot than even mmx would want him to. The links to 911truth and what not detract from everything - they fail WP:RS and all kinds of other things.
3. Unlike P&F, Jones' cold fusion was theoretically predicted. It is imperitive we note this, otherwise it seems like the man is a HABITUAL crank.
4. It is not appropriate to call a paper that MAY be published in the future peer reviewed. We have details on the review - 4 people two physicists. I apologize for my scare quotes and unnamed in my first edit - they were not NPOV.

I look forward to discussing substantive changes to this article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Think, and I mean really think, about if the article as it standing in my current, cut-down version relays all of the info we REALLY need to get across to the reader, and if the rest of it should go in the article about the alternative collapse theories. Think really hard on it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate that this individual is a famous and notable experimental physicist who has also fallen for a couple of conspiracy theories and flies off the handle. Please review the CUT DOWN VERSION, and put the 9/11 conspiracy nonsence in an article about 9/11 conspiracy nonsence. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

reverting to last known edit by me.

The article was vandalized a few days ago and is now being returned to its original state. Any users wishing to dispute the information should do so here. If sysops examine the network log files, they will discover that the vast majority of referers come from 9/11 Truth sites, and the vast majority of exit links go to 9/11 Truth sites. Therefore, removing that information was damaging wikipedia's reputation. Visitors are depending on wikipedia to cover the work that Jones is currently involved in, which of course includes everything relating to 9/11 that was on that page.

Using the CT term to describe 9/11 theories is ad hominem and also not NPOV, and therefore not civil. Anyone endorsing that type of thinking is not NPOV and ask them to not edit the 9/11 pages.

As the Zogby poll shows, 42% of America believes the government is covering up 9/11 and 45% want a new investigation including government officials possibly being involved.

For now on, any vandalism or ad hominem remarks will be dealt with via official complaints using Wikipedia protocol.

Also, even though my ad hominem remarks were direct retaliation, I do apologize for them. Anyone using these types of remarks should not be editing these pages. I expect anyone and everyone to be civil.

CB Brooklyn 17:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

ATTN Tom Harrison: I am now going to make an official complaint. CB Brooklyn 17:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Noted. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed some of the soap-boxing. Jones can present his theory in detail on his own site. We give a summary, and a summary of the criticism. I've left the links for now, but it looks like an excessive number. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom, explain your reasoning. Why should the information not be in the article. What harm does it do having it there? CB Brooklyn 18:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soap box. We should take care not to promote or advertise Jones' theories. We should, and do, summarize his position and that of his critics. I'm on my way out and may not reply promptly. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

How is the article "promoting or advertising" Jones' theories? Is it not merely stating his own observations, and also information known to be factual? CB Brooklyn 18:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Stating an abstract of his findings is encyclopedic. Providing a recreation of his arguments, including evidence he cites, is soapboxing. E.g. Philosophiae_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica presents an abstract and highlights the main points, but does not recreate the arguments of the book. In fact, most of the article is talking "about" the book, not summarizing it. --Mmx1 18:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's encyclopedic to give a short summary of the material he covers. The main points in his paper are WTC 7 and the molten metal. Also, a description of his newest, updated findings is relevant and important in any online encyclopedia.

I've put back a few paragraphs to reflect this. Those paragraphs may be further refined.

CB Brooklyn 19:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm editing it further. A better example: The_Origin_of_Species. A lot of banter about the book and his theories, but it does not reproduce the evidence presented in the book. No drawings or mention of finch beaks or lizard tails. The article does not try to convince me that evolution is true. An even better analogy, the article about Charles Darwin says very little of the theory and doesn't explain it at all; but rather explains the historical details surrounding his theory. --Mmx1 19:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Critics II

"Some critics have claimed that Jones' analysis, which he presents as a hypothesis supported by the available evidence, is similar to that of other researchers which they have disputed in the past, including claims regarding photographic evidence of demolition charges, the claim that no major persistent fires were visible at WTC7, and what they contend are quotes selectively edited from Bill Manning [1]and Stephen Gregory."

This paragraph is sloppy written, and contains very little information. If we are not able to name the critics why even mention it? I am sure we are able to find lots of loose ended critique, but this is an encyclopedia, not a soap box, right?? EyesAllMine 18:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The webpage that are refered states itself: "NOTE: a previous version of this page addressed specific Manning quotes used by Professor Jones in his paper, “Why indeed did the WTC buildings collapse?”. Subsequently the paper was edited, addressing our comments, therefore we’ve now removed them. As there are links pointing to this page then the relevant parts will be archived here, for the moment at least, but are no longer valid for the current paper.".

I will remove the above paragraph, and reinsert the part that tells the story about the BYU's responce and aftermatch, as it is much more relevant, unless there are any objections? EyesAllMine 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

All quoted remarks in the article text have to be referenced, otherwise it is plagerism...see Wikipedia:Verifiability in regards to sections on biographies, where we must take extra care to ensure anything, especially derogatory information is well referenced--MONGO 07:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

WTC Collapse Hypothesis

The following section has a problem I believe:

Jones has written a paper regarding the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, entitled Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse. It has been peer reviewed by two physicists

I assume the part that states "peer reviewed by two physicists" is from the link provided in the article:

Soon after Mr. Jones posted his paper online, the physics department at Brigham Young moved to distance itself from his work. The department released a statement saying that it was "not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." (Mr. Jones's paper has been peer-reviewed by two physicists and two other scholars for publication in a book called 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, from Olive Branch Press.)

It seems to almostba a cautionary tale, and the "fact" about the peer review is merely a mention that is has been done, but doesn't list a source, or who did the peer review. Can this be better fact checked? Who, reviewed his work and "approved" it? Some web-based newspaper should have cited their information, by stating something to the effoect of "according to (name), (name)...Jones's work has been peer reviewed by (name), (name)". I'd really like to know who peer reviewed this work and what their credentials are.--MONGO 15:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You guys have one more day to come up with proof that his work has been peer reviewed and it would be nice to know who did the peer review. We needn't have to listen to Alex Jones for an hour to find this supposed fact out...surely it is written in a reliable source.--MONGO 04:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, an audio link from the Alex Jones radio hour does not suffice, even if Steven Jones says on that talk show that ,yes, his work has been peer reviewed. Lest we not foget that Steven Jones's book is going to be published by a collegue of his, namely David Ray Griffin, and together, they are Scholars for 9/11 Truth members, a group that refutes the official findings on the events of 9/11. Is there not a single other relaiable third party source that can substantiate that indeed, the work Jones has done on this matter as been properly peer reviewed, and have someone name those that did such a peer review?--MONGO 15:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, this is what Wikipedias own article has to say about Peer-reviewing:

"Traditionally reviewers would remain anonymous to the authors, but this is slowly changing. In some academic fields most journals now offer the reviewer the option of remaining anonymous or not; published papers sometimes contain, in the acknowledgments section, thanks to (anonymous or named) referees who helped improve the paper."

Normally it isnt possible to name the Peer-Reviewers is it? So normally one doesn't prove that a paper has been peer-reviewed. So you are asking for the impossible here. There has been a lot of ferences from second and third part sources (letters, articles etc.) to quote from. If you suggest that all theese sources are lying, the burden of proof is yours alone. We're not here to judge the sources, just here to refer from them. Otherwise anybody (eg. you) can claim that both prof. Jones, a number of medias and another professor are lying. EyesAllMine 15:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's find a standard source then that doesn't require people to have to listen to this audio tape to gleem the info from...I don't accuse Steven Jones as being a liar, but as a scientist he is well aware of what the peer review process is, and naming who did such a review should be standard operating procedure. My guess is that if his work was properly peer reviewed, traditional trade journals and or a completely neutral third party source could have been found that would publish his findings.--MONGO 15:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

While I'm all for using a more concise source no one has actually supplied one of those... so why would we remove any valid source in the interim? Surely a source, even if a long audio file, is better than a 'fact' tag? --CBD 18:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much standard, and I see fact tags all the time...it is an invitation to find a source which will properly satisfy WP:RS and WP:EL with section of specifics at linking to rich media--MONGO 18:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I wasn't disputing the use of fact tags when a source is needed. I was disputing the use of fact tags when a source exists. The 'rich media' issue you reference has to do with linking from Wikipedia directly to a large media file... it specifically encourages instead linking to an HTML page which then in turn has a link to the media, exactly as per this case. Ergo, neither of these seem to address the issue of why we wouldn't use a media file source if no other is available. --CBD 19:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. EyesAllMine found a simple text source. Better all around. --CBD 19:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hokey.--MONGO 19:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

MONGO why do you keep removing the source? And what does hokey means?EyesAllMine 19:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

A horse throat "okay"...based on dealing with pedantic arguments that are derived from some strange wordings in a few people heads...it's an audio link...put it at the end of the article under external links and label it as an audio link.--MONGO 20:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Why dont you do it? Be bold. Dont remove the source. Actually it was the third time you removed it today ... wasn't it? And by the way .. is there a rule against audio links in articles?EyesAllMine 20:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And by the way .. I looked Hokey up in my dictionary: It means fake, artificial, contrived, excessively sentimental. Well ... are you implying that I am all that? And why dont you tell me the real meaning? You know I am not native in english. I stated perfectly clear that i restored the link. I restored in on the basis of this talk above.EyesAllMine 20:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to use it as a term like that...I wrote Hokey...as I said, it is just a manner of slang for me. It means okay...in a kind of tired manner. Otherwise, yes I find your edits to articles regarding the events of 9/11 to be generally attempts to promote alternative considerations and opinions on the events than that which have been embraced by the scientific community in general. I don't know if there is a "rule" against audio links within the article text, just that generally long videos such as the one you added "look" better if they are accessed from the external links section, that way you can detail what the link is about without doing so in the article, disrupting the flow of the prose.--MONGO 22:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the standard (though a 'guideline' rather than a "rule") is to not put links used as references for the article into the 'External links'... rather they generally go in the references section. As this was. --CBD 00:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It was an embedded link, only...as this was. I say it's just a link, you call it a reference...I guess you can flip a coin.--MONGO 04:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[10] --CBD 12:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

what does this mean?

A New York Times article entitled Physicists Debunk Claim Of a New Kind of Fusion notes that while peer-reviewers were quite critical of Pons and Fleishchmann's research, they did not apply such criticism to Jones' much more modest findings. The reviewing physicists stated that "Dr. Jones is a careful scientist."

This sentence in the article is confusing. Is this implying that the peer reviewers should have been more critical of Jones work, or that the peer reviewers were correct to be less critical? I think it could be taken either way. The last sentence is a disconnect. Careful at what, performing experiments, interpreting results or both? I don't understand the point that is trying to be made here. I think it means that the reviewers were less critical of the papers from Jones, as he was known to be a careful scientist, but his work was flawed and the reviewers were caught off guard. David D. (Talk) 19:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Jones' work was right, while P&F either were either clumsy or liars. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In that case it probably needs to be more specific. It really does read like a cloaked criticism. David D. (Talk) 20:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

People keep removing my added words - "theoretically supported" Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed you added that. Your wording seems a lot more coherent. David D. (Talk) 20:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Who is Chris Newman?

The whole quote is,

Chris Newman, a sophomore multimedia communications major at UVSC who signed the petition, is making a documentary about a possible 9/11 conspiracy.

"I used to be a hard-core Republican, pro-Bush and everything," he said. "I'm independent now. I have some major doubts about the Bush administration. Hopefully the truth will come out."

Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

My mistake... I have removed it EyesAllMine 19:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theorist

Mmx1 - please explain what defines a conspiracy theorist. I removed the category "conspiracy theorist" as Jones does not once in his paper, talks about who is behind this. He relates to the evidence, the physics, the reports from NIST and FEMA, which he questions. How does this make him a conpiracy theorist? EyesAllMine 19:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review

Who was Jones 9/11 article peer-reviewed by? The referenced articles contains no names, only that it was peer-reviewed by a few unnamed persons in a 9/11 conspiracy book.

"Traditionally reviewers would remain anonymous to the authors, but this is slowly changing. In some academic fields most journals now offer the reviewer the option of remaining anonymous or not; published papers sometimes contain, in the acknowledgments section, thanks to (anonymous or named) referees who helped improve the paper." It seems to be the norm that peer reviewers are anonymous EyesAllMine 21:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Calling Prof. Jones' article "peer reviewed" is highly misleading. As far as I can tell (following the links), his paper has in no way been subject to the type of review which "peer review" entails. That term denotes that an independent, reputable scientific journal has subjected his paper to rigorous review prior to publishing it. This is not the case. His paper has not been published in a reputable journal. The fact that, according to a publishing house, "two physicists" have reviewed it, is, frankly, risible. That in no way rises to the level of peer review. Publishing houses publish books. They do so to make money. They are not in the business (nor should they be) of fact checking highly specialized scientific hypotheses. There are, however, plenty of outlets where this "peer review" is done. Jones has not been able to make use of these outlets, and this article should not read as if he has.70.191.50.181 08:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Levi P.

I just read the other posts re: peer review, which were under a different heading, and wanted to make my point clear. It is quite true that most "peer reviews" are anonymous. But the term denotes that a disinterested, credible third party ( usually a journal) oversaw the process. So when one asks, "Who did the peer review", one doesn't answer, "Drs. Jim, Bob, Jen", but with the journal that initiated and oversaw the process. This is the ONLY way it is done in academia. If this is not the way Prof. Jones' paper was reviewed, then it is not "peer reviewed" as the term is usually understood. This needs to be made clear in the article; as it stands now, people would either be mislead, or, if they knew all the facts of the matter, would be aware that we are bestowing a credibility onto Jones' paper which it has not earned.70.191.50.181 08:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Levi P.

Jones claims his work has been peer reviewed and we are not able to determine more than that without knowing more than that. While I agree that the peer review performed may not have been done in a standard methodology as one would expect from a scientific paper, unless we have something we can cite, we can't add our own opinions on the matter.--MONGO 09:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Mongo. I confess that I am still confused. I understand that we can not add our opinion on the matter, but then why is Prof. Jones' opinion being cited as if it were fact. As the article currently reads it says that his paper was peer reviewed. The citation backing this up merely leads to articles about him where he says his article was peer reviewed. The citation should go to the journal that peer reviewed his work. If that link can not be produced, then the article should just say that he says his article is PR, and keep the citation it currently has. It is confusing enough for the reader that we are talking about a theoretical physicist publishing about structural engineering in a political economy journal. We need real citations that back up what we are citing as fact, do we not?Levi P. 05:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem and I concur with you...just be bold and edit it to comply with the reference.--MONGO 08:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have done so. I kept the same citations but changed the article to more properly reflect what is said in those citations. I also streamlined it by removing the part about the economic journal ( since it had no citation) and merely stated that it was not published in a scientific journal. I'll keep an eye on the talk page so as to address any concerns about the changes.Levi P. 01:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. We have to remember that this is a biography, so anything negative or complex such as this type of work is properly sourced and it appears you have done that.--MONGO 02:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The peer review information of the current revision is misleading. The "two physicists and two scholars" refer only to the book that it is scheduled for publication in. The other peer reviews mentioned were done by Elsevier press for publication in the "Hidden History of 9/11". In effect, his paper was peer reviewed twice by two different publishers. [11] CB Brooklyn 06:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Jones Hopes To Prove "Arson By Thermite"

excerpt from email Jones sent to 911Blogger:

"The use of thermite in arson has been proven beyond reasonable doubt in many cases already: Fire investigators have developed techniques to pin down the use of thermite, as I discussed in my LA talk. The signature residues of thermite are so distinctive -- when one uses EDS, XRF and other methods -- that it is indeed possible to prove arson by thermite. This gives me hope that this approach can be effectively used to prove thermite use on 9/11."

CB Brooklyn 00:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

A Challenge

Okay, go for it Jones. Get a hold of this non-existent evidence and blow the lid off this thing! I dare ya! (But what relevance is this to this article, because it hasn't happened -- Wikipedia is not a place for original research). Morton devonshire 00:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Cold fusion

In the cited article, Physicists Debunk Claim Of a New Kind of Fusion, I see two references to Jones that bear on his credibility:

• "Physicists who have investigated Dr. Jones's report have been fairly restrained in their criticism, acknowledging that Dr. Jones is a careful scientist."

• "Some critics, however, continued to insist that Dr. Jones's results also stem from experimental error rather than fusion."

I have restored the version of Lenbrazil, which is an accurate summary, and included these quotes in the footnote. Are there other quotes from the article that anyone thinks address Jones' credibility? Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review Part II

I noticed that someone edited the line about "two scholars" peer reviewing Jones' paper back into the article. I have removed it for two reasons :

• 1) We begin the paragraph by saying that Jones claims his paper is PR, then we say others disagree that it is PR, then we say the paper is PR. That doesn't even make any sense. If we need to keep the "two scholars" line (I don't see why we should), it needs to be seamlessly incorporated into the article; not tacked on to the end of the previous thought.

• 2) I think we should be careful how we handle this PR issue. I think we should make it clear that Jones says his paper is PR ( which the article currently does), and that many other academics disagree (which the article also currently does). This way we do not lend undue credence to either position.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Levi P. 01:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Further, that paragraph should contain the fact that the paper has not been published in a scientific journal- since we are discussing a paper on a scientific subject it is very pertinent where it was published(or where it wasn't published). I would appreciate if whoever edited it out would explain why they did so ( that is, if they are planning on editing it again). Levi P. 01:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont know if you are aware of it - but the paper has been peer reviewed twice. First for the Elsevier publication - which its not being published in - and Lately it has been peer reviewed "by two physicists and two other scholars. [12]" for "9/11 And The American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out " publication. The link that reference this is not Steven Jones himself but The Chronicle of Higher Education which "is the No. 1 source of news, information, and jobs for college and university faculty members and administrators." [13], an academic news source, who hardly would say that a peer-review process had taken place if it hasn't. So please put the information back in, its both relevant and verifiable.

I agree that it is badly written, but thats mainly due to many rewrites in an attempt to hide the peer review fact and history. If we are going to mention that some first meant that it hadn't been peer reviewed properly, then we need to tell the whole story (that it was indeed peer reviewed prperly and that the people had to retract there statement), not just some of it.

And last: Which scientific journal should this be published in? It's physics/metallurgi but its not NEW SCIENCE. Many claim that it should have been published in a science or engineering journal - but its chemistry mainly - and politics. Not new inventions, new developments. EyesAllMine 02:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding EyesAllMine. Let me begin by saying that I am not interested in "an attempt to hide the peer review fact and history". While it seems to be an ungainly thing to address within the article, if consensus can not be reached between the editors then I would be in favor of including a new section that fully spells out all the intricacies of the "PR question". With that said, let me address some of the issues you raised and lets see if we can agree on a couple of things. I'll take your points raised in reverse order:

• Which...journal should this be published in-- I'm honestly not sure how to respond to this question/statement. Surely it should be published in a journal that specializes in the subject of the paper. That is, a scientific journal. You seem to be confusing the fact that the paper could have political implications with the notion that the paper is about politics. Just so there is no confusion, papers are published in journals that specialize in that specific subject. It doesn't matter what the author studies. If a theoretical physicist writes a paper on the German novelist Kafka, the paper is published in a journal specializing in German literature. The paper would then be peer reviewed by other scholars who specialize in 20th century German literature. Since Jones' paper is about structural engineering one would normally publish in a journal dedicated to that (or closely related) discipline.
• I don't know if you are aware of it-but the paper has been peer reviewed twice. Herein lies the rub. First of all, a paper is not called PR until after it is published (and has thus "passed" PR). The entire point of PR, again, is that a disinterested, reputable journal picks experts in that field to rigorously investigate the claims being made. When this process has been completed, everyone who picks up that journal can do so with the confidence ( if it is a reputable journal) that a disinterested inquiry has been made, by experts, into the methodology used. I don't know what the "Elsevier publication" is ( it doesn't sound like a journal), but if they did not even publish the paper then I don't see how they could possibly be germaine to this discussion.

This brings us to our main disagreement: I think the article should remain neutral on whether a "peer review", as it is usaully understood, ever took place. You think the article should say the paper was peer reviewed. I'll be honest and tell you that I am very against the article saying any such thing. The reason I feel that way is because it is patently false. I know this has become a heated issue for some, but it is really not complicated. If his article had been PR you would be able to link to the journal and this whole conversation would be moot. The main problem that we have here is that PR is a process that isn't easily defined in a few words. Publishing houses edit books, they (sometimes) fact check books, but academic journals peer review. This is really quite clear. I see no problem, however, writing that Jones says his article is PR and others disagree. This way we are not making a judgement on the assertion, pro or con. As an addendum, I don't even know what is meant by "the paper has been peer reviewed by two physicists and two other scholars". Why would physicists be reviewing this paper? It's not on physics. What discipline do these "other scholars" study? And what the hell are they doing refeering a paper on structural engineering? The fact that the publishing house would put out this kind of drivel is more amusing than anything else. Alright, what do you think?Levi P. 04:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"Since Jones' paper is about structural engineering" - I am sorry but his paper isn't about structural engineering at all :) . I urge you to read it. EyesAllMine 16:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Um...okay. Anyway, since you haven't engaged the content of my comments I'll take it that we are on the same page. Levi P. 17:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to this paper? If it's not about structural engineering, what is it about, pray tell? --Mmx1 03:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The abstract of the paper says: "In this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government."

This paper asks questions - lots of them - and backs it up with eg. chemical experiments. It concludes that a call for another serious investigation is urgently needed. Which Scientific Magasine would this go under? Certainly not structural engineering. Now the critics claiming that it wont be published in a proper venue need to be sure which venue they are talking about. Look up what the different scietific maggazines requires. And no I dont agree, that the fact that the paper has been peer reviewed by two physicists and two other sccholars, should be deleted from the article! I think its cherrypicking EyesAllMine 10:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Eyes, please read about structural engineering and reevaluate your previous position. Levi P. 18:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Scientific Journal

Regarding the scientific journal statement: The statement cites the Chronicle of Higher Education as the source, but the CHE article says nothing about a scientific journal. Also for a paper to be peer reviewed, it does not necessarily need to be published in a scientific journal. His paper was peer reviewed by two physicists, as the CHE article says. Scientific journals are only for new discoveries in the scientific field. Jones' paper does not fit in that category. CB Brooklyn 22:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi CB. I am going to add the statement back in, unless you have a cogent reason why I should not. Our article is about a scientist. That section is about his most notable (in pop culture) scientific paper. It is certainly relevant where the paper was (or, was not) published. It is my understanding that I do not need a citation that says, "His paper was not published in a journal" ( how would I cite a negative?). I'm fine with you deleting the statement, but only if you can prove that it was published in a scientific journal. Since we both know, for a fact, that his paper has not been published in a scientific journal, I am concerned with your seeming intention to keep this relevant fact out of the article. And, as for your assertion that "journals are only for new discoveries", I can only say that you are laboring under an acute misapprehension. I don't know exactly what you mean by that statement (i.e., what constitutes new) but I can assure you, you are misinformed. Levi P. 00:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Levi - you are setting up a strawman argument. As CB pointed out his paper is not about new discoveries in the scientific field. If im wrong please show me: where in the paper does he come up with breaking new scietific dicoveries in the engineering field? EyesAllMine 12:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Eyes- Please go to Google Scholar, look up any subject and peruse the different articles which have been published. You will find that scholarly articles are not limited to "new scientific discoveries". If this were the case, I suppose there would only be articles on newly discovered comets, stars, animals, etc. Journals are replete with new interpretations of old data. I have not set up a "strawman argument" before, and I have no intention of doing so now. Any fuzziness in my argumentation is a result of truly having no idea what you and CB are talking about with regards to "new scientific discoveries". Levi P. 17:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the statement "However, since the paper has not been published in a scientific journal there are some academicians, including some from Jones' own university, who question whether the article has been properly vetted by other experts in the field" is misleading. It makes the reader assume that the reason academicians question is because it wasn't published in a scientific journal. But your source (CHE) says nothing about a scientific journal.

It could be reworded.. that would be okay with me. However, it is still uncited. Therefore I will reinsert the fact about D. Allan Firmage not performing analysis, back into the article. That is just as important, since the reader will assume that Firmage, as a scientist, analysed the data. But since there's no evidence of him doing so, whether it's cited or not, the passage will be returned. CB Brooklyn 17:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense...the cited link clearly states that Firmage read the information that Jones had written, and since Firmage is not only a former educator from the same univiersity that Jones but also has many decades of background in the field, his witness is reliable.--MONGO 17:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason the academics question the paper is because it wasn't published in a reputable journal. The citation includes this quote; "...are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues". Do not remove verifiable facts. If you disagree cite the reputable scientific journal he was published in. Levi P. 17:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right. It can be put back in in that case. I will also add the fact that's it's been peer reviewed by two physicists. CB Brooklyn 17:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do. Just be sure to link to the journal that oversaw the PR. Levi P. 17:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop using embedded linhks

The article is using two differnt styles of linking...stop using embedded links while I convert them to the proper format.--MONGO 18:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Be respectful

MONGO just happened to start adjusting the links right in the middle of a content dispute. Then he (and tom harrison) threatened me. MONGO removed a lot of information I just put into the article. If I add it back in again, he'll accuse me of disruption. The article is a biography of a living person and MONGO (and tom harrison as well) are not being respectful. They should keep clear of these pages. CB Brooklyn 18:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm watching this and you do have a point. Why not show them an example and remain civil yourself? Also, there's no reason to assume bad faith on MONGO's part; give him a reasonable time to finish the maintenance he is doing and then come back to the content dispute. Just a thought. --Guinnog 18:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is this page is not really being written about the man, but about his theory. His biography is being used as a vehicle to promote conspiracy theories about 9/11. Then to keep it balanced, the opposing view has to be presented, and we have yet another 9/11 page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The real problem is that the theory contents are only allowed to be seen on one page of the entire wikipedia project, so if people don't get to that one page, they don't even know what the man is talking about! Whereas if they are looking at Newton's bio they already have a good idea of what his theory of gravity is about. At the very least the man's ideas should be allowed to be on his own page, which didn't exist until he was working on 9/11. 198.207.168.65 21:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Peer review III

The issue of peer review should not be debated and mixed in with a description of the contents of the paper. The debate should be separate and located under critics and the content of the paper should have one line referencing the debate. This page is all about criticism and credibility and virtually nothing about the content of his theories. bov 00:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Notice that the critics section is longer than the section on Jone's paper itself. THis is par for the course on here. bov 00:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Even the Mayan description from the religious section has more on it than the content of Jones' paper.

"Professor Jones has written a paper regarding the September 11, 2001 attacks, entitled "Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse",[3] which he describes as having been peer reviewed.[4][5] However, there are some academicians, including some from Jones' own university, who question whether the article has been properly vetted by other experts in the field.[6]"

This is simply misleading. First the paper has been peer-revieved twice. The first time the colleges questioned it - but they have since retracted the statement from BYU. The second time it has been peer reviewed by two physisists and two other scholars. This time nobody has said that it wasnt properly vetted. And I agree with Bov. This Biography is higly misleading and lack information. EyesAllMine 12:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break, Eyes. There is nothing misleading about those sentences, the paper has not been peer-reviewed (or published!), and no one from BYU has "retracted" anything. Levi P. 03:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well they did remove the critical statement from BYUs website. That info is not clear - not even metioned. Neither is it mentioned that they later found it to be properly peer-reviewed. It is not mentioned that the paper has been peer-reviewed again, this time by two physiscist and two other scholars and is being published in two other publications. As it stands now it reads as if it simply has not been peer-reviewed properly. That is misleading according to several sources which I and other have given before. EyesAllMine 10:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read the previous discussions about peer review. Normally scientific papers are peer reviewed and published by scientific journals, this has not happened with Jones's paper thus it has not been peer reviewed properly. --Sloane 14:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Eyes, you need to stop intentionally introducing misinformation into this discussion ( ...they later found it to be properly peer-reviewed ;...but they have since retracted the statement from BYU ), and begin engaging the content of these discussions. Read the talk page, your points have been addressed, repeatedly and exhaustively. Levi P. 19:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Critics section growing and growing....

"Critics" section is growing but not much more information is getting there. There are long unneeded citations (just few most relevant words would be enough), which do not give any explanation on what basis the critique is made.

This section limits itself to point out the person critisizing, write out his words - however, it does not bring any other information. Imagine the same would be done for "support" section!?! (Actually whole article has been made to deal with that: Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11)

So I say the Critics section should be shrinked (in the terms of words used, not information in it) as now it's just "an empty baloon" and as for me it's sort of POV-pushing.

Or maybe someone can find real, "reasoning based" critique of his papers so we can put some facts or "reasoning" there? Please comment. --83.6.252.99

Reverts

Would B3X11 please explain why they keep adding unsourced material to the article, reverting corrections by other editors, and censoring comments on their talk page? Levi P. 23:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

B3X11 was blocked for 24 hours beginning 10:20, 3 August 2006 UTC for violating 3RR --teb728 19:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Protection please

I ask for a protection of this page. There is not reached consensus about the critique section. And there are revert wars going on from both sides here. I object to the wording of the critiques, and the whole article - as stated earlier - is painting a false picture of Steven E. Jones standing in the world of academics. A link from BYUs own website with a presentation from proff. Jones himself is of cause appropriate here - but is being removed by Sloane without discussion, with a fancy wording in hthe edit summary as only explanation. I object to this (again). Remember this is a Biography! EyesAllMine 14:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A request can be put in at WP:RFPP and that will get a neutral party to protect the page if they feel it warrants protection.--MONGO 14:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't remove his BYU bio! I only removed some of the 9/11 conspiracy links as covered under WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links). The important stuff (his paper about 9/11) is still there in the links. --Sloane 18:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The pdf file is a new link and - as far I can tell - is not already on the page, so please do not remove it unless it is already posted elsewhere. It contains different info from his paper. 198.207.168.65 22:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Collapse hypotheses

Could someone please clarify this sentence-He also suggests that non-symmetrical damage and random fires would not have led to the near-symmetrical collapse of WTC 7, cites published accounts of molten metal found at Ground Zero long after the collapses, and his own analyses on WTC Steel samples. [3]- It is a bit clumsy. I am unsure whether it is just listing 3 disparate ideas ( collapse of WTC 7, molten metal, own analysis), or if it is "citing" the latter two to support his theory re WTC 7's collapse. In any case, I was hoping one of the editors more familiar with the intricacies of his argument could clarify it. Also, I intend to delete the paragraph that deals with Mayan myths unless someone has a good argument for why we should keep it. Levi P. 02:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• I deleted the mayan myths, pretty useless I agree. Oh and I'm going to delete that sentence about his paper as well since it doesn't make sense and part of it isn't correct. If anyone wants to provide a better explanation of his paper, feel free to do so.--Sloane 12:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful, again, if someone would add more about his WTC hypotheses. Levi P. 21:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thermite?

Why would anyone use thermite for the hypothetical "cutter charges"? As the name implies, thermite's primary effect is heat, not an "explosion", so I'm not sure why one would consider it for use in "cutting". Welding, sure...

Maury 12:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• It's a conspiracy theory. Not conspiracy logic. ;)--Sloane 12:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thermate is explosive - please read the apropiate sources. EyesAllMine 14:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't know about thermAte, but thermite is generally not considered an explosive. It is an incendiary device. Although the reaction energy is high, in general the reaction rate is quite slow. It has no effective explosive velocity. In fact, let me quote one such conspiracy page, "Because thermite melting is a slower reaction than explosives...."Maury 12:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thermite / thermate - can be explosive and is incendiary. 198.207.168.65 23:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Citing Radio Interviews

I would be glad to source the radio interview at KIRO -- what is the correct Wikipedia citation format? Can you provide me a Wikipedia link? Thanks. Morton devonshire 19:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure which one to use...maybe the cite video if it was a video link...look here for a possible citation template.--MONGO 19:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to go into detail about a single radio interview in a long paragraph when Jones has had probably a dozen or more such interviews! What should be there is a comprehensive list of his appearances, not attacks on him in areas that are not under the criticism area. 198.207.168.65 23:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I didn't hear those interviews, so I can't say. This one's important, because it's by a mainstream, and very well regarded host. Ross is a moderate, non-political host, with no axe to grind, with lots of credibility. Based upon that, one could conclude that these kinds of theories are now getting a fair hearing in the mainstream press -- no longer confined to the realm of Coast-to-Coast AM/Art Bell. That's why it's notable. Morton devonshire 00:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think the mention is POV, hear this: Jones does not present well for your cause, at least not in this Ross interview. The guy sounds like a bumbling idiot on the radio, and in less-professional hands than Ross the host would have been inclined to mock Jones, and rightfully so. Jones was completely unable to present a coherent case for the controlled-demolition-theory -- not even having facts at his disposal that you would expect him to be able to explain, or to piece together the argument in a logical fashion, given that he's THE EXPERT for this theory. That, of course, is not going into this article. If this is the face of your cause, you've lost already. Just thought you should know. Morton devonshire 00:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree the broadcast itself is worthy to include, but the subject line is fairly POV in it's sound and tone... for what its worth, I googled his group just now, Google News, and there are apparently scores of new articles on it in the past 48-72 hours. Might be a lot of info to parse through for this article. rootology (T) 01:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I edited it down. If you want to try to take one point out of the interview to attack Jones with, you should just take that point out and put it in the critics section -- the description is a full-on attack of Jones on a single point, as though he said nothing else in the interview, which is ridulous. 198.207.168.65 21:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

See also - Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Why does this keep getting removed? He's clearly one of the 'main' members of this group, so I put forward this this belongs as a clear link under the "see also" section. Unless the reason it's excluded is because he's listed further up in the paragraph as chair of the group with a direct link, but it was my impression that See also sections generally are of articles that are significant relation to the article they're placed on. Please let me know... rootology (T) 01:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, nevermind. --Sloane 01:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"See also" sections shouldn't repeat links already included in the article text. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also, regarding see also sections. --Aude (talk contribs) 01:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

OK... thanks for clearing that up, I wasn't sure. rootology (T) 01:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Religious papers

So apparently Jones has written a bunch of religious papers. Maybe something to include in the article? --Sloane 07:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/

Some of them are interesting enough, but it looks like they aren't all written by him--maybe part of a syllabus he's teaching? Dunno... I'd guess leave it out unless one or more of them strikes you are particularly important. rootology (T) 07:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Disruption of article

Would anyone be willing to pitch in? Morton Devonshire appears to be causing vandalism/disruption of this article. rootology (T) 01:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sloane, this was the version from before the WP:DIS wave. rootology (T) 02:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"conspiracy theorist"

Going forward, we cannot label them in the lead with pejorative labels. You can after call them a conspiracy theorist, if such a statement/observation is sourced, but not in the lead at all. Also, you need to say "Is considered a conspiracy theorist by xyz", not doing that is a violation of original research policies as well, by playing a "Connect the dots" game to try to bypass the no original research rules, as some might say. See also WP:LIVING. rootology (T) 15:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The term conspiracy theorist is not necessarily pejorative...it's just a term and your opinion is noted.--MONGO 15:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. However, it's still negative in tone and shouldn't be in the lead (plus someone calling the subject that needs to be sourced). It can remain, if sourced, but not in the lead. rootology (T) 16:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted.--MONGO 16:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not my opinion. The issue is being discussed on the policy page. rootology (T) 16:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not my opinion either. "Conspiracy theorist" is appropriate when accurate and supported. That said, your edit is still in place. If you want to discuss it in general, it looks like you've chosen the correct venue at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

researchers

I argue that removal of this inappropriate--he is clearly a researcher by trade, and he is looking into these issues. He's also listed ON that page. What basis is this being removed on? rootology (T) 16:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

His position as co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth is more verifiable, and more central to his biography, than his 'membership' in a category we made up here at Wikipedia. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. rootology (T) 16:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we have another POV pushing 9/11 conspiracy theorist--MONGO 16:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to government POV pushers? I'm pushing for people to follow NPOV/policy, that's all. Your opinion is noted. rootology (T) 16:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you just insinuate that I am a a paid government worker webspamming this article?--MONGO 16:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about here and here. You accused me of pushing a POV from one side and being a conspiracy theorist, and I said "As opposed to government POV pushers," in regard to your pushing the opposite POV which just happens to be the public government stance. How does that become me accusing you of being a "paid government worker webspamming this article"? That's an amazing leap of the English language. rootology (T) 17:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You said "government POV pushers"...where would you get the idea that I am a government POV pusher?--MONGO 17:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

...your edits fall in line with the official government versions more often than not on this article? Why are you accusing me of being a conspiracy theory pushing POV person when all I've done essentially is clean up and addition of sources on these articles?? rootology (T) 17:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You stated "government POV pushers", so I guess you also include Tom Harrison on this issue? My edits are not goernment supported...they are supported by the mainstream media, and every peer reviewed analysis of the events surrounding 9/11. The fact the the feds also have the same findings does not make me a goverment POV pusher.--MONGO 17:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, MONGO. It was a GENERAL statement with clear and almost ludicrously obvious hyperbole based on your equally general statement full of hyperbole that I'm some POV pushing conspiracy theorist, when the vast bulk of my contribs to this and related articles have been attempts at clean up, addition of sources, and trying to NPOV them. rootology (T) 17:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't tell me to calm down. The information is referenced, so you have and wikipedia has nothing to worry about.--MONGO 17:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this some kind of personal thing you have going with Mongo? If so, mediation or an RfC might be the place to persue it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with anyone; the minute I close the browser I stop thinking about anyone on here. This individual however has accused me of a variety of things without merit (or proof) and does not ever provide such proof when asked. I've asked him to leave me alone, and his injection of personal issues here is inappropriate. I'm on this article to discuss this article, and I ask him now to stick to the issues. rootology (T) 16:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Clearly Jones is looking for evidence to support his theory, not for a theory to fit the evidence. Like the man said, "It's science, but it's politically motivated. It's science with an ax to grind, and therefore it's not really science." Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that quotation is an opinion. Anyway, what it comes down to is questions of what fits under our policies, and where it fits in the article under the same. rootology (T) 16:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It's sourced, so if you don't like it too bad.--MONGO 16:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I never said I didn't like it, I said it's an opinion, and it is. I don't know what you want from me on this reply. rootology (T) 16:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"It's science, but it's politically motivated." Just like the NIST report, funded by the empire that endlessly wages war on the world, to explain how the 'terrorists' were able to achieve what no one in all of history has or ever will achieve again - the complete collapses of steel framed buildings, plane or no plane - while at the same time, in the fine print, explaining how these are essentially only guesses.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.71.26.72 (talk • contribs) .

Uhu....... CUCKOO

Anyways, Rootology isn't the bad guy here, his edits have been pretty much constructive all the time. --Sloane 21:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

reference 3 is doubtful

having reviewed http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i42/42a01001.htm I have noticed that the source does not contain any quotes from Stephen Jones referring to himself as either a Mormon or a former bush supporter. This is also an unofficial source which does not possess raw material for us to review and thus defies wikipedias policy. In future I suggest you find something like a quote from the man himselfor or some sort of recorded evidence. However since this does not exist I have removed reference 3 and the corresponding information under this subheading "affiliations"—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.163.31.11 (talk • contribs) .

It looks to me like a reliable secondary source per WP:RS. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

citation removal at top of page

Why is there a question whether Jones is currently studying the demolition hypothesis? Clearly it's what his paper is about, clearly his efforts are ongoing. I guess I'll insert more links to his work, since apparently it's needed to show evidence for his ongoing efforts. Everyone goes around saying they don't want a 'link farm' but then they are asking for links over and over. Fine. bov 15:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh... for any kind of controversial or contested article more rather than less citations is a good thing, as it keeps all aspects of the article that are live and "in play" crystal clear for all involved, and all readers. It's better to use referenced citations rather that plain inline links as well, so people can review them more easily too. rootology (T) 15:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see you added more content/citations, just not referenced. Got it, I'll ref them for you. rootology (T) 15:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Currently investigating"?

The lead says "Jones is currently investigating[4] the hypothesis..." Is there a reliable source for this? Someone added this link which does not list WTC collapse as current investigation. It mentions fusion and archaeometry as current work, and has a link to an old 9/11 conspiracy theory page. According to the Wikipedia article he has also occasionally talked about 9/11 conspiracy theories on the radio etc. Talking is not investigation. Where does the "currently investigating" claim come from? Weregerbil 16:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a link to his current research page, the first section of which links to this, which has an August 15, 2006, updated date. Want it to link there instead? Either way is good. rootology (T) 16:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

So the jump of logic is based on a PDF file being updated, therefore the person updating it is investigating something? Weregerbil 16:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like Weregerbil is another person who is going around inserting meaningless citation requests to try to muck up the pages they don't like. What is the relevance of whether the PDF was updated or created from scratch on August 15th? Either way it means Jones has been working on the issue within just days. If it was July 15th would that not qualify as 'currently'? How do you determine if updating included 'investigation' or not? What qualifies as 'investigation' or 'not investigation?' Does a lab experiment qualify, but a paper does not? You'll need to spend a lot more time looking into the work if you want to nail down this level of specificity, although for what purpose, I can only imagine. bov 00:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You ask the right questions! If the article claims "currently investigating" then the person has to be verifiably currently investigating. Otherwise such claims are not allowed on Wikipedia. Why make a claim that apparently has been pulled out of thin air? Weregerbil 09:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I may be asking the questions but if you're the one who is going to insert citation requests than you're the one who should look at the basic sources already on the page. It would appear you didn't even click on his paper because it gives all the update and changes dates right on it. Some of those changes include lab experiments to determine the statements. How much more current does it need to get! bov 14:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I find pages 5-7 of the PDF (assuming this is the one?) that refer to August 2006. Those contain quotes from TV and three newspaper articles. Is that the investigation? Are the lab experiments to which you refer when he melted aluminum? Weregerbil 16:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry - what's your point? If you're interested in this case why don't you read the whole pdf? It's sure worth it. The investigation IS taking place. PDF has been updated yesterday. On pages 2,3 you can find the INDEX, where you can find that "the latest results" are on the page 81, where results are dated June,2006. I suggest you read this paper, other papers on [14]. Do research about 9/11, 7/7 London bombings, CIA - ISI connection cause these things are really getting nasty. I assure you - Every sceptic has a limit of CONFIRMED (by mainstream media, interviews) coincidences "to swallow" - then comes the time to raise suspicion. --SalvNaut 04:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Point being: "currently investigating" is an unfortunate choice of words if no current investigation cannot be reliably sourced. Something that happened months ago is not "currently investigating". He did appear to collect a few newspaper clippings recently. How long will that qualify as "currently investigating"? If I come back to this article six months from now will it still read "currently investigating" because the guy collected some newspaper clippings in August 2006? Once again I find myself surprised by what Truth Movers choose to consider "research" and "investigation". Weregerbil 09:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

How much stubborn a person (Weregerbil) can be?!?! Phew... On Jones's page you can read:

"Physics Department Colloquium at Idaho State University, Sept. 1, 2006, 4:00 pm, Physical Science Building, room 140: What Caused Not Two but Three WTC Skyscrapers to COMPLETELY Collapse on 9/11/2001? More: http://www.physics.isu.edu/colloquium/jones06.html"

Does organizing and holding a colloquium fits in Weregerbil's sophisticated definition of "currently investigating"? (i've got something for you: make a wiki entry named "currently investigating"! :)) Do you really like to make such an a** of yourself? Hint: If you want to be helpful do the research by yourself, don't just come and ask "show me this! show me that!" Oh, and why post that if you could've restrained yourself and post it when you come back 6 months from now. ;) --83.6.215.171 23:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I've got irritated to much. I'll try to obey WP:FAITH. Just note the citiation I gave. --83.6.215.171 23:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, please. As to "stubborn": yes, I stubbornly suggest that Wikipedia policies such as WP:RS and WP:NOR should be observed. As to does holding a colloquium constitute investigation: no, I don't think it does. Holding a meeting constitutes holding a meeting and should not be misstated as investigating. Please note that in the link you provide Dr. Jones says he calls for an investigation, not "I am investigating". No, I do not really expect this article to be corrected, conspiracy theory articles tend to twist verifiable truth in every way possible and attempts to fix result in hostility and name calling. Weregerbil 09:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Point taken as for WP:CIVIL. So it's all about the definition of "investigation". Jones's call for an investigation is a call for another independent comitee that will look into the case. Nevertheless, he made some experiments with previously molten steel from WTC in July, he frequently updates his findings and answers some critics. This is definately "a research" (and if you look in to the history of this leading paragraph, you will find that it used to be formulated so). I am willing to call it "private investigation". We must also note that he is cooperating with many people, like those listed on www.journalof911studies.com . Would you prefer a phrase "conducting a research into"? (I see no doubt in that because such statement is made on his university page). Is there a big difference, really? --SalvNaut 19:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you even aware of what a colloquium is? It is a talk given to a general, not specialist, audience; it is usually intended as a general introduction to a subject, and is far from "investigating" something. --Mmx1 21:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I know what it is as I attended some. (and there is Colloquium). You pointed out "not specialist audience" and "general" - well it has a form of introduction but from my experince it tends to go into details usually. Surely Jones had to prepare for it. I suppose you weren't there, me neither, yet all depends on what new data is introduced by Jones. Maybe some material will appear on the net and we will be able to reference it. If he introduces nothing new - then you have a point. I still argue that his research from June into previously molten metal, responding to Q&A, being an editor of Journal of 9/11 Studies qualifies as an investigation (that's what this journal is for - to investigate). For how long it qualifies? I'll say: for half a month starting from ... now! :-)

From what I have seen some pppl here would like to call it neither "investigation", nor "research". What do you propose? "he is killing some free time looking at.." ? :-> --SalvNaut 01:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

<- shift left

I started looking into that in order to find a way not to say "currently" because that has the problem that it gets out of date. So I looked for a source for the investigation claim, and it now appears there is none. I'd change that into something that can be reliably sourced and doesn't get more unreliable and incorrect day by day. If there is a reliable source that says "investigation" use that, if "research" use that, if there is no reliable source for what he is doing then don't make something up. If he collects news articles and gives speeches about them then say that, preferably with a time resistant wording ("in 2006 he collected newspaper clippings that support his 9/11 conspiracy theory"). Though Wikipedia is not his diary so consider excluding trivial information and including only reliably sourced encyclopedically important information. Weregerbil 09:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

From 2006/09/02 NYTimes article:

"He said his investigation was finding fluorine and zinc in metal debris and dust gathered from near the trade center site, and argued that those elements should not have been found in the building compounds. “We are investigating the possibility of thermite-based arson and demolition,” he wrote, referring to compounds that, under controlled circumstances, can cut through steel. "

You see, first of all the problem is that mainstream media don't like to write about him, and even if they do they present his findings by writing "he said", "he wrote". In the same article they wrote about NIST this way: "About a dozen researchers produced the new study over the last two months". Well that IS biased! because if you look into this "study", those answers to question, you will find that this no study. Why? Because there is no new DATA. It's just a repetition of previous statements by NIST put together 2 pages long. Everyone could have done it, you or me, after reading NIST report. And you will find NOT a single name of any from those "dozen researchers". How can we know if it wasn't their accountant who wrote it? I propose you to look at this, I wonder if you will find any "jumps of logic" (question 13 is my favourite).

On the other hand Jones DOES present data, which he researched by himself. (It's not just "collecting news articles" - you like to discredit him, don't you?). Take a look at his pdf. Page 61 - you will find pictures of experiments with molten alluminium conducted by him; Page 81 - images, data form electron microprobe experiments conducted by him, and many more.

To summarize: We can argue about what is an investigation, and what is not but I will always stand for that what he did/does is a research. If writing an academic paper, conducting experiments using electron microprobe, searching for information about possible explosives used (superthermite on page 91), answering objection and questions (and many more, all made by academic with Dr.) is not, then... what is? (you don't have to WP:OR to find this out - I just skimmed through his paper)

Please clarify me on that: he is an academic, with praiseworthy past (paper published in Nature). Doesn't his statement on his university page as well as data from his research qualify as reliable source? Maybe you will point me to WP:RS but I would like to notice that this is not about his claims but about wheather he researches or not. C'mon, how distrustful can you be? You will find many reliable media reports about his findings [15]. --SalvNaut 13:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC) (phew... long speeches make me sooo tired sometimes[16])

Wow, that's a lot... I fear you have misunderstood. Dr. Jones did indeed melt aluminum some time in 2006, I don't see anyone disputing that. Is he doing it currently? The source (the PDF file) that has been quoted above has been recently updated with newspaper clippings; according to earlier comments that updating is where the "currently investigating" claim comes from. Why is there such a great resistance to word the article in a manner that is supported by the quoted sources? Why not simply say what has happened instead of trying to guess what is happening or will happen? Weregerbil 17:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"currently" - electron microprobe in June, colloquium yesterday, editor of Journal of 911 Studies - last 2 months. I see we are agreed that he researched into collapse hypothesis. Do you agree there is still activity - his and other's - around this topic? Then I propose let's wait for 15-20 days and see what future brings. You don't expect from any scientist to "pop" with ideas every week, do you? :-) --SalvNaut 23:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether we "agree there is activity around a topic" is completely irrelevant. Us agreeing on "activity" should not be represented as "someone is investigating something". I would propose removing information that is not verifiable using reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we shouldn't pull claims out of thin air. But for some reason there appears to be much interest in keeping unsourced junk in this article. That seems to be the general approach in conspiracy theory articles: pile junk on junk, ignoring basic things like WP:RS :-( (Aside: from what I have seen I hope his activity is not what "research" is in the US scientific community in general. He appears not to be engaged in genuine research but rather bolstering a preset conspiracy theory opinion.) Weregerbil 12:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Editing a journal and holding colloquiums do not constitute research nor "investigation". --Mmx1 16:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a research if that is what this journal was created for. He made experiments, he wrote paper. He is a scientist, with praiseworthy past, living person who makes a statement on his university page that he is researching into WTC collapse. http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/

By saying that he is not "researching" you undermine his credibility as a scientist. He is a living person and you can't just sling mud at him. You would have to source others saying that what he does is not "researching" or that he is not scientist. (I remind you - we are not arguing about his claims but about "what is that he do").

I think this issue is a waste of time. Another attempt to take away his credibility. --SalvNaut 17:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Go on, remove "currently investigating" and put "researching into". I can live with that. --SalvNaut 17:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not attempt to hijack academic credentials for your own purposes. In his own words, he states that he is conducting "fusion research involving deuteron and proton beams impinging on various metals, and Z-pinch." However, he does not state that he is conducting research into his 9/11 theories, merely "work". Colloquiums and journal editing (not writing, editing) are "work", but don't constitute research by any academic frame of reference. --Mmx1 17:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

<--

I do not attempt. I can see that you agree that his current academic work (in archaeometry) includes WTC collapse analyssis. English is not my native language but when I see a scientist at work who analyses data and draws conclusions I call it "a research". Would you preffer to formulate it something like this way?: "His current academic work embraces the hypothesis that the World Trade Center Twin Towers and WTC 7 were brought down by pre-positioned cutter charges." I will insist on "academic" or similiar adjective, because that what it is. If BYU agreed to him putting this paper on his university page then this is his academic work. If we would only say that this is his "work" that would be unfair because he is doing his work as a scientist, not just some ordinary guy. Isn't that "a research" what you call a scientist's work? --SalvNaut 18:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• But he is doing his research as an ordinary guy. He's not an engineer, his paper hasn't been properly peer reviewed and his university doesn't support his work. --Sloane 20:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you are just plain wrong, or to put it midly it's your prersonal POV. Jones is a physicist, he specialises in archaeometry(it's relevant!-electron microbe), he is a scientist beyond doubt. Jones clearly put his results under his "Current Work" at BYU, he repeatedly stated that he was applying scientific method, he used BYU equipment for analysis. BYU supported his scientific work (not necessarily his views and claims) in one of their statements, and by providing equipment, a place to organize colloquium, place on their web server.

C'mon, you just don't like the fact that some scientist made a research and come up with such claims. And you keep undermine his credibility as a scientist - stop it, it's your personal POV and it is unfair for Jones as he IS a scientist. He never stated that his work was something else than a research (a hobby or something he is just interested in.. - NO). BYU supports this view by letting him work on this at the university. If they wouldn't support his work on that matter they would ask him to remove it from his university page (not to say about colloquium he organized at BYU).

Feel free to contribute with well refferenced findings contrary to his, a critique of his research - please be my guest. But you are not the one to conclude that what he did was "not a research" but just "unscientific work" - you would clearily contradict Jones, BYU, and other scientists that work with him, that peer-reviewed his paper 3 times. You must understand that, even if Jones is wrong with his claims, it still does not make his work nothing other than a research (a bad research maybe - yet, this would have to be veeery well refferenced to put it in the first paragraph!).

This discussion is over. We can argue about "currently", about whether it's "investigation" or a "research". Not about the points you keep bringing on.--SalvNaut 21:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

SalvNaut, Prof. Jones has absolutely no expertise in this area. He has not studied any discipline of engineering, worked in any discipline of engineering, published, or done any research whatsoever in any pertinent field. BYU does not in any way endorse his work. Multiple colleges within the university even went so far as to publicly disavow any relationship between him and their qualified Profs. No matter how much you and others insist, his hypothesis will remain "a non-issue" to anyone with even a modicum of expertise or intelligence. Levi P. 21:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, throw around scientific terms and hope that they stick. Jones was trained as a particle physicist. He has no training in materials science and his work there is as academic as his archeological work. Being a "scientist" does not qualify one to speak authoritatively on areas outside their specialty. --Mmx1 22:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem not to understand what I am trying to say here. It's irrelevant whether his claims are correct or not. He did his work as a scientist, as a physicist, as one of BYU staff. It's not up to you to decide how to call it. He made a research. Did he make mistakes? Please feel free to refer to any statements abut them.--SalvNaut 22:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's been a fact since early 2006 that Jones has been studying the WTC collapses. It does not need to be peer-reviewed in order to be research (you have to start somewhere) and academic freedom normally has a pretty wide berth. Not only is inter-disciplinary research very common these days (i.e., research across the boundaries of the established disciplines that scientists find themselves entrenched in) a lot of very important and (now) uncontroversial scientific work has been done by, say, physicists having a go at biology. Schrödinger's What is Life? is a good example. The arguments against Jones' work as "research" being made here look like they would also invalidate Schrödingers very successful contribution to what would become molecular biology. That said, I agree that words like "currently" and "recently" require too much vigilance to keep, well, current. So the phrase "Since early 2006..." might work (or whenever he actually starting looking). Certainly, the "has not been peer reviewed" is pejorative and unnecessary and, most importantly, not "simply true" enough to let stand as it is. It would be quite fitting to say (further down in the article) that his views are not accepted by engineers.--Thomas Basboll 22:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation requests already on the page or deleted after posting

Why does Levi P. delete the link to Jones' CV page which I put in so that now, again, the section has a citation request? I'll put it in again but please stop making wholesale reversions when you have an issue with a single phrase about CT or researcher. bov 21:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

Please do not delete the fact which I have included in the criticism area that Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood's paper is about the theory that commercial jets did not the WTC towers (the no-Boeing or no-planes theory (NPT)) -- that there is no evidence that this occurred as far as they are concerned. If you think this is nuts, join the club. That's part of why this attack paper is transparent. But without reading the paper, you cannot know what it is about. Clearly a goal is to post *anything* that is critical of Jones, regardless of how looney the theories are that the writers are proposing. Please READ the source before deleting my additions to it. It is relevant what the paper is about. bov 22:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• This page isn't about Wood or that other crazy person but about Jones. --Sloane 23:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant when a criticism is coming from a crazy person, Sloane. 198.207.168.65 00:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Still not necessary to list their theories in Jones' article. --Sloane 00:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to include criticism by them, then it is meaningful that they have these beliefs. Few will be interested in information coming from these people if they know that they think real planes didn't hit the WTC towers - which apparently you want to cover-up. bov 00:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This section is a criticism because of its contents in bold (redundant info in italics):

On August 7, 2006, Jones appeared on Dave Ross’s morning radio show on KIRO (AM) in Seattle, Washington. During the broadcast, Jones postulated that it would take approximately 1000 pounds of thermite to take down each of the WTC towers. When Ross asked Jones to describe the possible number and positioning of the charges, Jones consulted the Internet and described on-air that it would take about 100 pre-positioned locations, extrapolating this information based upon the positioning information from the implosion of the Kingdome. He explained that his conclusions were based solely upon on-the-fly back-of-the-napkin analysis extrapolated from the Kingdome implosion data done during the commercial break. [34]

The goal of this section is to show how Jones doesn't know what he's talking about and doesn't do research but makes guesses via the internet. How hard is it to understand that this is criticism? We could also have 20 other inserts from radio and tv interviews that talk about how Jones actually DOES do his analyses (not on napkins) but those are not listed here for a reason -- the goal is to attack Jones.

So we can move it to the criticisms section, or delete those sections which are obvious criticisms in bold. There is no relevant information conveyed in this paragraph so I'll gladly delete the whole thing. bov 01:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

We may agree that these particular facts reflect badly on Jones, but the fact remains that there is no explicit criticism contained within that paragraph (unlike every other paragraph within the crit. section). I daresay that most people would think Jones' affiliation with conspiracy theories in general reflects badly on him, but it is not appropriate to put everything relating to CT under the heading of "Criticism". That section should remain for pointed, verifiable criticism (not facts that belie your belief in him as a careful researcher). Levi P. 01:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

>>the fact remains that there is no explicit criticism contained within that paragraph

I don't know what you mean -- that the sentence: his conclusions were based solely upon on-the-fly back-of-the-napkin analysis is not explicit criticism??

>>people would think Jones' affiliation with conspiracy theories in general reflects badly on him

That's your opinion, but many disagree with your opinion. My moving it has nothing to do with whether it's considered CT or not. The phrases, his conclusions were based solely upon on-the-fly back-of-the-napkin analysis, and in this context, consulted the Internet, are critical of Jones' research. bov 03:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Bov, I fully understand that you think that those observations reflect poorly on Jones. But, they are not explicit criticisms of him. To be honest I am confused by your repeated insistence to move that entire paragraph, which, again, clearly contains no criticism, to a section that, until now, is filled with explicit criticism. Levi P. 04:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Levi, why don't we just delete the offensive phrases and then we won't have this disagreement? But since this paragraph is so important to you, why don't you tell me what's so unique and special about it. Jones has done a lot of media interviews, radio, tv, so I can start to include each and every one of those, and get into the numerous details of the discussions of each of those. I can start with the info covered here and move on from there. If you like, I'll be glad to start posting all that info, with as much detail as this paragraph has. bov 19:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Bov, this paragraph is not " so important to me". I don't know what I have posted that gives you this impression. I just don't want things that are not criticism to be moved into the criticism section. Levi P. 20:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Well, Bov, I've looked around and haven't found any precedent for us to put Jones' radio interview under "Criticism" just because you don't think he acquitted himself well. For instance, in the article about George W. Bush, his arrest for D.U.I. went under the appropriate heading (Early Life), not under the criticism section. In our article, in my opinion, the Ross interview should go in the section titled WTC Collapse Hypothesis since that is what it speaks to. It seems that there have been "edit wars" over this paragraph before; moving it into the incorrect section isn't a way to resolve those "wars". Levi P. 04:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)