Does this look like a collapse?

This page is currently UNDER CONSTRUCTION
and is currently being updated.

Hit Pieces in the J.O.N.E.S.

Both direct and indirect

July 2, 2007

It is interesting that J.O.N.E.S. is the abreviation of the Journal Of Nine Eleven Studies.

Descripton of Categories

Direct hit pieces: The primary purpose of the article is a response to the work of Dr. Wood and/or Dr. Reynolds and/or Dr. Fetzer. This includes articles that are designed to undermine the work of Wood and Reynolds as well as articles that resulted in direct response to their work.

Example#1: The article "The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center," by Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, was designed as a hit piece directly recruited by Steven E. Jones.

Example#2: There was a copy-cat filing of an RFC 4-6 weeks after others had filed such documents. It was only posted on the JONES website when questioned if they had even filed such a document two months after they claimed to have filed it, as it had yet to appear on the government's website.

Example#3: The article, "A description of molten aluminum poured onto rusty steel," by Wes Lifferth, hardly rises to the level of a "journal article." (archived) What is the purpose?

Indirect hit pieces: The primary purpose of the article is not to attack or undermine the work of Dr. Wood or Dr. Reynolds, but the article aims to do so on a more sublte level.

Example#1: Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method, by Dr. Steven E. Jones
In this piece, references are made to “nutty fringe science” and photos are taken from Dr. Wood's website (without credit) of "toasted vehicles" below FDR Drive. The "evidence" found on Dr. Wood's website is "repackaged" and proposed to "prove" that this is the result of thermite dribbling on vehicles parked adjacent to the WTC. In other words, the evidence presented on Dr. Wood's website is repackaged and "spun" in an underhanded attempt to direct the reader to mis interpret the data.

Figure 1. Hit pieces in the letters section.

Figure 2. Journal articles (the diamond symbols) and the letters section (circles).

Figure 3. Combined, all letters and journal articles.

Letters Top

Responses to Stephen Phillips, James Fetzer and James Bennett

Correspondence from James Bennett to Laurie Manwell with Responses June 27, 2007
Laurie Manwell and James Bennett

Steven Jones Replies to James Fetzer June 12, 2007
Steven Jones

Reply to Stephen Phillips (“A physicist critiques Steven Jones' new paper”, May 21, 2007) May 28, 2007)
Steven Jones

An Open Letter to Dr. Steven Jones by James Bennett, with replies by Steven Jones April 23, 2007)
James Bennett and Steven Jones

Responses to Bazant & Greening, etc.

Sonic Booms in the Collapse of the Twin Towers? June 12, 2007
Graeme MacQueen

Response to "Anonymous": Partial Logic - Partial Answer June 12, 2007
Gordon Ross

Letter to Gordon Ross June 12, 2007
Anonymous (NB: Anonymous letters are strongly discouraged)

Discussion of Disinformation/Misinformation

9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Definitions and Examples June 12, 2007

Molten Metal at the World Trade Center

Molten What? May 16, 2007
Jerry Lobdill

Glowing Aluminum Disinformation (Feb 8, 2007)
Brian Vasquez

Discussion of Issues Raised by Wood, Reynolds

Analysis by Greg Jenkins and Arabesque

Responses to "Interview" Letter, by Judy Wood; Greg Jenkins and Arabesque (May 15, 2007)
Judy Wood; Greg Jenkins and Arabesque

A Brief Analysis of Dr. Judy Wood’s Request for Correction to NIST: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (May 15, 2007)
Greg Jenkins and Arabesque

Responses to "Brief Analysis" Letter, by Judy Wood; Greg Jenkins and Arabesque (May 15, 2007)
Judy Wood; Greg Jenkins and Arabesque

"A study of some issues raised in a paper by Wood & Reynolds" (January 11, 2007)
Dr. Frank Legge.

"“Thermite Hypothesis” versus “Controlled Demolition Hypothesis”: a response to “The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis” " (April 17, 2007)

WTC Towers Destruction

Collapse Time Calculations for WTC 1 (May 9, 2007)
Kenneth Kuttler, Professor of Mathematics

Analysis of Mass and Potential Energy in the World Trade Center Twin Towers (April 25, 2007)
Gregory H. Urich

The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the Destruction of the Twin Towers (April 24, 2007)
Tony Szamboti, ME

9/11 - The Twin Towers and Common Sense (Feb 27, 2007)
Frank Legge, Ph.D.

9/11 Commission, Dick Cheney, Norman Mineta, WTC Hard Drives

Further evidence that Vice President Cheney’s order on 9/11 regarding Flight 77 was not a shoot-down order, but a standdown order - an order NOT to shoot the plane down. (May 9, 2007)
John C. Ekonomou

The Ghost in the Machines: Mystery of the WTC Hard Drive Recoveries (April 23, 2007)
Michael Fury

Norman Mineta and Richard Clarke Contradict the 9/11 Commission Report (April 11, 2007)
Adam Letalik

International Contributions

Japanese Translation of Paper on WTC Collapses (May 3, 2007)

Geschmolzenes Metall am Ground Zero! (Mar 6, 2007)
Dirk Gerhardt

French Translation of Steven Jones' Paper on WTC Collapses (Updated 28 March, 2007)

Spanish Translation of Paper on WTC Collapses, Anton Montsant (Updated 29 March, 2007)

No Planes Hit Towers?

Interpreting the Boeing-767 Deceleration During Impact with the WTC Tower: Center of Mass Versus Tail-end Motion, and Instantaneous Versus Average Velocity (April 11, 2007)
Gregory S. Jenkins, PhD

Letter added to A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories (March 21, 2007)
Eric Salter

What Hit the Pentagon?

Official Account Of 9/11 Flight Contradicted By Government's Own Data (March 28, 2007)
Pilots for 9/11 Truth

Involvement of a Third Jet During 9/11 Attacks?

The Flying Elephant: Evidence for Involvement of a Third Jet in the WTC Attacks (Updated March 22, 2007; retracted by original author/see After the Circus Letter below)
Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Flying Elephant or Routine Takeoff? Evidence for Involvement of a Third Jet in the WTC Attacks Evaporates Under Scrutiny (March 22, 2007)
Jim Hoffman

Threats and a Pilot: A Message In Response to Jim Hoffman’s Letter Entitled: Flying Elephant or Routine Takeoff? (March 27, 2007)
Robert Moore

After the Circus (April 9, 2007)
Reynolds Dixon

What are the goals in the 9/11 Truth community?

"What are the Goals in the 9/11 Truth Community?" (Updated Mar 7, 2007)
Steven Jones

"The way forward through published papers and letters" (January 29, 2007)
James Gourley

"Mission Accomplished" (March 23, 2007)
Neil Patel

Response to Manuel Garcia's Article in Counterpunch

"Manuel Garcia Sees Physics That Don't Exist" (Feb 2, 2007)
Kevin Ryan

"Hand Waving" the Physics of 9/11 (Feb 8, 2007)
David L Griscom

Was a "star-wars" beam weapon used at the WTC?

"Scientific Critique of Judy Wood's Paper "The Star Wars Beam Weapon" (January 9, 2007)
James Gourley

Why the damage to WTC Bldgs. 3 and 6 does not support the beam weapon hypothesis and some correspondence with Dr. James Fetzer about it (Updated March 20, 2007)
Tony Szamboti

"Introduction to and Interview with Dr. Judy Wood conducted at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. regarding the use of Directed Energy Beams in the Demolition of the World Trade Center Towers" (Febuary 9, 2007)
Greg Jenkins

Were “mini-nukes” used at the World Trade Center?

"Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers" (January 16, 2007)
Steven Jones

    9/11 Commission, Cheney, Mineta; Thermite; Goals; Pentagon-hit; Responses to 911-debunkers and "alternative theorists"; Common Sense and Laws of Physics; International Contributions; WTC Towers and WTC 7 Destruction

Articles Top

Volume 12 - June 2007

Some Physical Chemistry Aspects of Thermite, Thermate, Iron-Aluminum-Rich Microspheres, the Eutectic, and the Iron-Sulfur System as Applied to the Demise of Three World Trade Center Buildings on 9/11/2001
Jerry Lobdill

Faulty Towers of Belief: Part I. Demolishing the Iconic Psychological Barriers to 9/11 Truth
Laurie A. Manwell, M.Sc.

9/11 Family Members and Scholars: Request for Correction Submitted to NIST
Bob McIlvaine, Bill Doyle, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice

Request for an Investigation by the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health into the Falsification of pH Corrosivity Data for World Trade Center Dust
Dr. Cate Jenkins

Addendum: Request for an Investigation by the FBI into the Falsification of pH Corrosivity Data for World Trade Center Dust
Dr. Cate Jenkins

Volume 11 - May 2007

Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method
Dr. Steven E. Jones

The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the Destruction of the Twin Towers
Tony Szamboti, ME

NIST and Dr. Bazant - Simultaneous Failure
Gordon Ross, ME

The American Empire and 9/11
Prof. David Ray Griffin (Also published in March/April 2007 Issue of Tikkun; here: full-length version with notes)

Volume 10 - April 2007

Proof That The Thermal and Gravitational Energy Available Were Insufficient to Melt Steel in the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center on 9/11/01
Prof. Terry Morrone

Jones v. Robertson, A Physicist and a Structural Engineer Debate the Controlled Demolition of the World Trade Center
Gregg Roberts

Volume 9 - March 2007

A description of molten aluminum poured onto rusty steel
Wes Lifferth

Volume 8 - February 2007

The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center
Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins

Volume 7 - January 2007

Statement Regarding Thermite, Part 1
Robert Moore, Esq.

Volume 6 - December 2006

The NIST WTC Investigation--How Real Was The Simulation?, Word version
Eric Douglas, R.A.

Volume 5 - November 2006

9/11 - Acceleration Study Proves Explosive Demolition
Dr. Frank Legge

Volume 4 - October 2006

A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories
Eric Salter

Volume 3 - September 2006

Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?, Word Document, French Translation
Dr. Steven E. Jones

Updates: Italian 9/11 Conference video
FAQ: Questions and Answers

Seismic Proof - 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version III)
by Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross

Volume 2 - August 2006

What is 9/11 Truth? - The First Steps
Kevin Ryan

To whom it may concern
Dr. Frank R. Greening

Reply to Dr. Greening (See also How the Towers were Demolished)
Gordon Ross, ME

Intersecting Facts and Theories on 9/11
Joseph P. Firmage

118 Witnesses: The Firefighter's Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers
Prof. Graeme MacQueen

NIST Data Disproves Collapse Theories Based on Fire
Dr. Frank Legge

Volume 1 - June 2006

WTC 7: A Short Computation
Prof. Kenneth L. Kuttler

9/11 - Evidence for Controlled Demolition: a Short List of Observations
Dr. Frank Legge

9/11 - Evidence Suggests Complicity: Inferences from Actions
Dr. Frank Legge

The Flying Elephant: Evidence for Involvement of a Third Jet in the WTC Attacks
Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC1
Gordon Ross, ME

Stalking Horse

Stalking horse: a mask to conceal some design; a person put forward to mislead; a sham. Sportsmen often used to conceal themselves behind horses, and go on stalking step by step till they got within shot of the game.

"He uses his folly like a stalking-horse, and under The presentation of that he shoots his wit." (Shakespeare, "As you Like It.")

From wikipedia:
A stalking horse is someone or something whose role is to become the focal point for, or the initiator of, a debate or challenge. In reality, however, their leadership role may be an illusion, and the stalking horse is really working to promote a challenge or debate that will benefit a third party whose identity remains a secret.

The phenomenon occurs particularly in politics, where a junior politician acts as the stalking horse to promote the interests of a senior politician who remains unseen in case the actions would damage him or her but nevertheless wants to provoke a debate or challenge to a party colleague. In some cases stalking horses are not working for a particular individual but may wish to provoke a response that leads others to join in. In politics, the truth about the relationship between an individual stalking horse and a candidate may never be known, as both sides may claim that the (alleged) stalking horse acted without the agreement of anyone else.

Stalking horse:

stalk·ing-horse (stôkng-hôrs)
1. Something used to cover one's true purpose; a decoy.
2. A sham candidate put forward to conceal the candidacy of another or to divide the opposition.
a. A horse trained to conceal the hunter while stalking.
b. A canvas screen made in the figure of a horse, used for similar concealment.

ThesaurusLegend:  Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. stalking-horse - a candidate put forward to divide the opposition or to mask the true candidate
campaigner, candidate, nominee - a politician who is running for public office
2. stalking-horse - something serving to conceal plans; a fictitious reason that is concocted in order to conceal the real reason
dissembling, feigning, pretense, pretence - pretending with intention to deceive
putoff - a pretext for delay or inaction
3. stalking-horse - screen consisting of a figure of a horse behind which a hunter hides while stalking game
cover, covert, concealment, screen - a covering that serves to conceal or shelter something; "they crouched behind the screen"; "under cover of darkness"
4. stalking-horse - a horse behind which a hunter hides while stalking game
Equus caballus, horse - solid-hoofed herbivorous quadruped domesticated since prehistoric times

Shortcut links
Jump to Chart 1

Jump to Chart 2

Jump to Chart 3

Jump to Articles

Jump to Letters

Jump to Jones recruits Jenkins

Jump to Stalking Horse


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the articles posted on this webpage are distributed for their included information without profit for research and/or educational purposes only. This webpage has no affiliation whatsoever with the original sources of the articles nor are we sponsored or endorsed by any of the original sources.

© 2006-2007 Judy Wood and the author above. All rights reserved.