9/11 Truth Red Herring: Neoliberal BYU Has Financed, Staffed, and Peer-Reviewed Prof. Jones’ Flawed Thermite Distraction Since Day One

by Scott Creighton

“It may even be that [the Lord] will hold us responsible if we try to impede or hedge up the way of those who are involved in a contest with forces of evil and repression.”  Gordon B. Hinckley, 2003

Prof. Jones is at it again; he is attempting to fool the Truth movement into believing that the physical evidence of explosive demolition has been found and that we need not do more research into the field.

It’s bullshit and he knows it.

Prof. Jones refuses to run tests to see if there is trace evidence of high explosives in all that dust he proudly admits he has. The following is a comment Prof Jones left on the 911Blogger forum thread that he started…

We’re in this together.

There appear to be two main WALLS of defense for the “official story” of 9/11.
1. People’s extreme reluctance to question a BIG LIE, especially when the lie comes from their government. This “Big Lie principle” was enunciated by Hitler and used by him, and is the basis of “false flag events.” This is seen also in the refusal of NIST to even LOOK for residues of explosives in the WTC dust — and they are getting away with it.
2. The wall of nonsense thrown up around solid evidence by so-called “debunkers”. For example, the notion that the red/gray chips are merely flakes of primer paint (suggested by Eagar of MIT and others). This notion ignores the fact that the primer paint contains significant ZINC whereas the red/gray chips contain NO zinc (looking at an inside surface freshly exposed by fracture); it also ignores the fact that the red/gray chips produce iron-rich spheres upon ignition which burning paint does not do. There are many other examples.

With the solid evidence we have published, we are breaking down wall #2… but how to break down wall #1??  Prof. Jones

There are several conflicting aspects of Prof. Jones’ little bit of propaganda that I just have to point out. 

And Another Thing, Jim Hoffman…

by Scott Creighton

Another glaring problem with Jim Hoffman’s revised “Hypothetical Demolition Theory”.

Jim Hoffman’s Wiki page says that the man worked “applying scientific visualization of mathematics” which makes this next problem I found in his hypothesis even more stunning.

Hoffman makes the following claim in his paper…

“We know that the Towers had only two types of ceiling tiles: 20-inch squares for the tenant spaces and 12-inch squares for the core spaces. An estimate of the number of tiles per tower is 12,000,000 large tiles and 8,000,000 small tiles.”  Hoffman

This is basic math folks, surely not even childs play for someone with Mr. Hoffman’s background. And yet, somehow, Mr. Hoffman publishes his paper on his site missing the mark by a factor of about 10.666….

Still More Serious Problems With Jim Hoffman’s Revised (version 1.1) “A Hypothetical Blasting Scenario ” Makes His Recent Essay Remain Far From “Plausible”

by Scott Creighton

***UPDATE*** – Mr. Hoffman has modified his hypothetical scenario and published version 1.1 on his site.

I emailed a copy of my first evaluation of his work to all three of his email accounts yesterday morning as soon as I finished the essay. The night he published the first version, I stayed up till 4 in the morning writing my response because I knew that if Hoffman’s hypothesis remained as the “official” theory of how these materials were used to bring down the towers, that elements out there would use it to undermine the credibility of this movement in general. I also emailed a copy to Steven Jones.

Where Jones did reply, Hoffman never did. Hoffman simply made a few revisions in his labor estimates, and gave a little more detail about his proposed demolition process. And I have to say I am extremely disappointed. You see I had also offered to help Hoffman configure a more realistic manpower estimate in an email I sent him later in the day but he never responded. What he did was change his estimates to a “believable” 6 tiles switch outs per minute per man. That’s the big change.

Problems I still have with his highly unrealistic “Plausible hypothesis”

“This is just the sort of wackiness defenders of the Official Story harp on to show how gullible and incompetent we conspiracy theorists are supposed to be.”  Jim Hoffman, 2006 interview – Salon

Serious Problems With Jim Hoffman’s “A Hypothetical Blasting Scenario ” Makes His Recent Essay Far From “Plausible”

by Scott Creighton

Jim Hoffman has just published his essay ” A Hypothetical Blasting Scenario:  A Plausible Theory Explaining the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers Using Aluminothermic Incendiaries and Explosives with Wireless Ignition Means” in time for it to coincide with the new Jones et al piece, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” and quite frankly, Hoffmans work is structurally unsound.

I don’t want to get too far into a critical review of Hoffmans work till I can wrap my head around what Jones’ paper concludes and that is mainly because Hoffman’s efforts are largely based on giving what he thinks is a practical application for the hypothesis of aluminothermic controlled demolition of the Trade Centers.  Clearly understanding more about the new Steven Jones work is key to validating Hoffman’s theory.

I am currently working through the Jones effort as you will see in a moment.

But Hoffman’s “Plausible” theory is a horse of a different color. It would appear that he may have been too eager to get a working demolition theory out there at the same time Jones released his research.

His “Plausible” theory and his conclusions need a lot more work.