Monday, January 20, 2014

Peer Reviewed: Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate? by Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood

Dr. Judy Wood is a wonderful researcher who has spent much time reviewing Data from a objective and unbiased perspective. In other words, she places all the facts on table and allows us to come to our own understanding. Although this method doesn't give us nice easy explanations, it does implore us to expand our awareness and develop a true intrinsic understanding of the data we are looking at. 

I have been focusing more on probability then belief in my process, and I find it helpful to discern whether something is illusion or representative of an actual dynamic truth. Intrinsic understandings, or actual knowing, allows us to free ourselves from the dependency of experts which usually lead to dissatisfaction and potential control. 

- Justin

Source - 2012: What's the 'real' truth?

Please do not fail to scroll down to read the stunning conclusions to this investigation, which I have included here at this site! For her dedicated work, Dr. Judy Wood apparently lost her university professorship. This is how the cabal works! ~J
A peer-review of Steven E. Jones‘  9/11 Research
by    Morgan Reynolds1 and Judy Wood2
1Ph.D. in economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1971
M.S. Economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1969
B.S. Economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1965
2Ph.D. in Materials Engineering Science, from the Department of
Engineering Science and Mechanics, Virginia Tech, 1992
M.S. Engineering Mechanics, Virginia Tech, 1983
B.S. Civil Engineering (Structural Engineering), Virginia Tech, 1981
(This article has been “peer-reviewed.”)
Nothing doth more hurt in a state than
That cunning men pass for wise.
– Francis Bacon
Disturbed about the content and quality of physicist Steven E. Jones’ 9/11 work, Drs. Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood conducted a peer-review.  This review covers ten major issues which include demolition of WTC 7, demolitions of WTC 1&2, evidence for high-energy explosives, thermite, glowing aluminum, No Big Boeing Theory (NBB) and other issues. In the “truth movement,” it is vital that we police our own. If we don’t, the defenders of the OGCT certainly will. You can be sure that it will get mighty ugly when defenders of the OGCT find major errors. This is the purpose for having research peer reviewed.
I. Introduction
Four years after the event, a Brigham Young University physics professor, Steven E. Jones, suggested that the destruction of the World Trade Center skyscrapers was not caused by impact damage and associated fires but by pre-positioned explosives. Jones’ paper caused a stir because of his credentials and apparent expertise in physics, mechanics and chemistry. Jones is the only full professor in physics at a major university who has publicly expressed skepticism about the official 9/11 story. Jones’ background includes research in the controversial area of “cold fusion,” but his work in muon-catalyzed fusion did not seem to produce any significant energy and hence proved a dead end, in contrast to the promising electrochemically-induced process.

Figure 1: Professor Steven E. Jones in his office.

Within weeks of Jones’ arrival on the 9/11 scene Dr. Jim Fetzer, a philosophy professor at the University of Minnesota-Duluth, founded a new organization? Scholars for 9/11 Truth? and invited Jones to become co-chair, effectively second in “command.” The society grew rapidly to 300 members and Fetzer and Jones made notable strides in publicizing shortcomings in the official 9/11 story. Steven Jones’ star continues to rise: “Now he [Steven E. Jones] is the best hope of a movement that seeks to convince the rest of America that elements of the government are guilty of mass murder on their own soil,” writes John Gravois in the Chronicle of Higher Education, June 23, 2006. Canadian chemist Frank R.Greening says members of the 9/11 conspiracy community “practically worship the ground (Jones) walks on because he’s seen as a scientist who is preaching to their side.”
Among other activities, Jones initially was responsible for the scholars’ discussion forum and he and Judy Wood instituted a “peer-reviewed” Journal of 9/11 Studies. Jones appointed the advisory editorial board, later Kevin Ryan as co-editor and chose the “peers” to review manuscripts. Peer-review normally boosts the prestige of academic articles because professors within the same discipline review manuscripts but in this case there is little or no such review, even when offered. That fact convinced Wood to resign.
The steep ascendant of one scientist puts many of the 9/11t ruth movement’s eggs in one basket. The question is, are we being set up for a fall? The time for applauding Jones’ stepping forward has passed. Events force us to take a hard look at Jones’ growing influence on 9/11 research.
II. Overview
Collectively we are engaged in a struggle to expose the government’s lies about 9/11. The physical sciences and analysis are key to this project. The only investigation worthy of the name has been conducted on the internet by researchers like Thierry MeyssanGerard HolmgrenJeff KingRosalee GrableKee DewdneyNico HauptKilltown, and “Spooked” who proved no Boeing 757 went into the Pentagon, flight 93 did not crash in the designated hole near Shanksville, PA, and the WTC towers were demolished by explosives.
Unfortunately, Jones fails to credit this body of research. More importantly,
    • Jones’ work is deficient as shown below
    • Its overall thrust is to rehabilitate portions of the Official Government Conspiracy Theory (OGCT).
More specifically, we assert:
  • Demolition at the WTC was proven fact long before Jones came along, but he initially said that it is “…a hypothesis to be tested. That’s a big difference from a conclusion…” His subsequent concentration on issues like steel-cutting thermite and experiments with newly-discovered materials from unofficial sources allegedly from the WTC site have undermined confidence in demolition.
  • That no Boeing 757 went into the Pentagon was proven years ago but Jones suggests it is unproven because the Scholars are split on it, though truth is hardly a matter to be democratically decided.
  • Jones ignores the enormous energy releases at the twin towers apparently because his favorite theory, thermite and its variants, cannot account for data like nearly complete transformation of concrete into fine dust. Instead, in a blinkered fashion Jones narrows the issue to thermite versus mini-nuke (fission bomb) and predictably finds no evidence for a mini-nuke.
Figure 2: Mostly unburned paper mixes with the top half of the Twin Towers. As seen a block away, a large portion of the towers remains suspended in air.
  • Jones neglects laws of physics and physical evidence regarding impossible WTC big plane crashes in favor of curt dismissal of the no-big-boeing-theory (NBB). He relies on “soft” evidence like videos, eyewitnesses, planted evidence and unverified black boxes. When others challenge how aluminum wide-body Boeings can fly through steel-concrete walls, floors and core without losing a part, Jones does not turn to physics for refutation but continues to cite eyewitnesses and videos, thereby backing the OGCT.
Figure 3(a): Husky, beefy beams
Figure 3(b): Loss of a chunk (sizable section) out of this tower would be inconsequential.
Figure 3(c): If the tower is viewed as a “towering tree” and the Keebler Elves carved out a residence, no measurable weakening would occur. If their cookie oven set fire to the tree, it would be inconsequential.
On 9/11 issues where the case is proven and settled, Jones confounds it. On controversies with arguments and evidence on both sides like NBB, he conducts no physical analysis and sides with OGCT. The world asks, what energy source could have transformed 200,000 tons of steel-reinforced concrete into ultra-fine particles within seconds, suspended in the upper atmosphere for days while leaving paper unharmed, hurling straight sticks of steel hundreds of feet, incinerating cars and trucks for blocks, and leaving nary a desk, computer, file cabinet, bookcase or couch on the ground? Jones seems to reply, “Superthermite.”

Figure 4(a): Unexplained spontaneous combustion toasted cars in a lot near the WTC.
It is at this point that I invite you to Click Here to visit the site where this article was developed and finally reached the following conclusions:

Steven E. Jones, BYU physicist, rocketed to the top of the 9/11 research ladder based on position and credentials. But nearly a year later, his contributions range from irrelevant to redundant to misleading to wrong. He has not turned up a single item of value. The majority of what Jones says is political and his physics is egregiously wrong (SJ: aluminum “cannot” glow yellow in daylight), deceptive (SJ: WTC demolitions can be treated alike), nonexistent (SJ: jet liners crashed into WTC, a jet liner might have crashed into the Pentagon) and shallow (SJ: thermite is key to WTC demolitions).

The proof that 9/11 was an inside job was well developed by internet researchers, not academics. The question now is whether participation by academic researchers will hamper or help in expanding our understanding of 9/11 and bringing the perpetrators to justice. Early returns from the most highly sought-after research on 9/11?that of physicist Steven E. Jones?predict little or no good will come from the academic establishment on either 9/11 truth or justice. Proof that government/media lied and 9/11 was an inside job is being confounded and rolled back.

 Critics may claim that we damage Scholars for 9/11 Truth by exposing failings in the work of Steven Jones, who has been thought of as the leading physical scientist. Yet the Scholars are ”dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths.” S9/11T is devoted to applying the principles of scientific reasoning to the available evidence, “letting the chips fall where they may.”



Sign-up for RSS Updates:  Subscribe in a reader

Sign-up for Email Updates:

Delivered by FeedBurner

View and Share our Images
Curious about Stillness in the Storm? 
See our About this blog - Contact Us page.

If it was not for the galant support of readers, we could not devote so much energy into continuing this blog. We greatly appreciate any support you provide!

We hope you benefit from this not-for-profit site 

It takes hours of work every day to maintain, write, edit, research, illustrate and publish this website from a small apt in Morocco, Africa. We have been greatly empowered by our search for the truth, and the work of other researchers. We hope our efforts 
to give back, with this website, helps others in gaining 
knowledge, liberation and empowerment.

"There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; 
not going all the way, and not starting." - Buddha

If you find our work of value, consider making a Contribution.
This website is supported by readers like you. 

[Click on Image below to Contribute]


  1. People who are in any doubt about Dr. Wood's work should look at Dr. Wood's work for themselves, rather than people who claim to be supporting her in such ways. Not that there aren't people out there legitimately supporting Dr. Wood because there are. But never doubt the demonstrable fact that there is an operation in place to obscure and misrepresent Dr. Wood's work which started 12 years ago and is not about to stop now. and

    Secondly, there has been an effort to obscure, misrepresent and ridicule Dr. Wood's work since she went public with it. If you are unaware of the magnitude of this operation, then Andrew Johnson's free ebook "9/11 - Finding the Truth" will help you fill in some of the blanks -


SITS blog is a venue where Data we come across can be shared with all of you. If we look past personal bias, and distill the Absolute Data within each post, our natural intuition will assemble these nuggets together and reveal a greater truth.

We do not know what that truth is yet of course. We are discovering that together as a whole by sharing and discussing our unique perspective. Share your thoughts and we will all come to a greater understanding as one.

Support Stillness in the Storm