Steven Jones research question

[MG1962]

Every version of the Jone's paper on 911 I have ever seen has not included specific details of the methodology he used for his results, or figures showing the values he used or details of the raw data on the steel tests etc.

Most scientific papers I have read deal in astronomy. Usually how the experiment was conducted is included, and information about what data was revealed. Followed by a summary of what the interpretation of the data means.

Now is this a case I have always been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or is there no version of his paper that includes the above information?

[Big Al]

Most scientific papers I have read deal in astronomy. Usually how the experiment was conducted is included, and information about what data was revealed. Followed by a summary of what the interpretation of the data means.

And physics. And clinical trials. And maths. And... well, any real scientific paper.


Scope
Background
Assumptions / supporting data
Raw data
Synthesis of the data
Conclusions
References and notes.

[fsol]

The version I saw confused me. I was trying to work out if it was "the" paper or just a summing up of "the" paper. It was a bit of a horrible mess.

[Larry Lovage]

Nope, I saw a paper that was evidently formatted to look like a scientific paper, but unfortunately the "evidence" consisted of "look at these puffs of smoke on this video."

I'm quite certain that his suspension from BYU was entirely to do with the fact that he had released this piece of speculative garbage under the pretence that it was a scientific paper when he damn well knew better, and not because of the substance of his opinions about 9/11. Because the paper had none of the usual safeguards and demonstrations of impartiality required of any normal science publication, it was effectively bringing the University into disrepute. (This is only an opinion, I don't know the details of Jones's suspension).

The paper I saw about the low probability of getting a phone call through was exactly the kind of thing you should expect to see. Lots of controls, examination of different circumstances, accurate reporting of results. The conclusion, however, that since there was a 1% chance of getting a phone call through, therefore the phone calls received must have been faked, was the only thing wrong with it - since what they had demonstrated was that as many as 1% of phone calls would get through. And since 7 calls had got through, that struck me as a not unlikely proportion of the total number of airborne calls attempted where an attempt could be defined as entering a number and pressing send. Good paper, incorrect conclusion. http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles

[beachnut]

Every version of the Jone's paper on 911 I have ever seen has not included specific details of the methodology he used for his results, or figures showing the values he used or details of the raw data on the steel tests etc.

Most scientific papers I have read deal in astronomy. Usually how the experiment was conducted is included, and information about what data was revealed. Followed by a summary of what the interpretation of the data means.

Now is this a case I have always been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or is there no version of his paper that includes the above information?

I will post his very first paper I can find. It was before he learned from a polite CD expert that thermite was not used in CD. He had to add RDX, which was news to him. I expect Dr Jones missed out on the Vietnam protests of the 60s and he wants to make it up by telling lies about Bush or something. Wish he would just stick to some facts.

I wonder if LCFC will have some junk of Dr Jones thermite quest?

[beachnut]

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://tinyurl.com/7drxn

WTC collapses due to controlled demolition
Steven E. Jones
Professor of Physics/BYU

I believe WTC collapses to be due to controlled demolition are:

1. My own analysis of the "pancaking" floors model (the FEMA/NIST model) combined with Conservation of Momentum considerations gives a much longer time for the fall (over 10 seconds) than that which was actually observed for WTC-7 (about 6.3 seconds, just over the free-fall time of 6.0 seconds). I find no evidence in their reports that government researchers (FEMA, NIST, 9-11 Commission) included Conservation of Momentum in their analyses.

2. The fact that WTC-7 fell down symmetrically, onto its own footprint very neatly, even though fires were just observed on one side of the building. A symmetrical collapse, as observed, requires the simultaneous "pulling" of support beams. By my count, there were 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns in WTC-7. Heat transport considerations for steel beams heated by fire suggest that failure of even a few columns at the same time is very small. Adding in the Second Law of Thermodynamics ("law of increasing entropy") leads to the conclusion that the likelihood of near-symmetrical collapse of the building due to fires (the "government" theory) -- requiring as it does near-simultaneous failure of many support columns -- is infinitesimal. Yet near-symmetrical collapse of WTC-7 was observed. (If you still haven't gone to the links above to see the actual collapse for yourself, please go there now.)

Note that the 9-11 Commission report does not even deal with the collapse of WTC-7. This is a striking omission of highly relevant data.

3.Squibs (horizontal puffs of smoke and debris) are observed emerging from WTC-7, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. (SEE: http://tinyurl.com/7drxn ) Yet the floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos, so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors is excluded. I have personally examined many building demolitions based on on-line videos, and the presence of such squibs firing in rapid sequence as observed is prima facie evidence for the use of pre-positioned explosives inside the building.

4. The pulverization of concrete to powder and the horizontal ejection of steel beams for hundreds of yards, observed clearly in the collapses of the WTC towers, requires much more energy than is available from gravitational potential energy alone. Explosives will give the observed features. Other scientists have provided quantitative analysis of the observed pulverizations, and I can provide references if you wish. Here we are appealing to the violation of Conservation of Energy inherent in the "official" pancaking-floors theory-- a horrendous violation, forbidden by principles of Physics. (What is going on for the FEMA/NIST researchers to make such striking errors/omissions?)

5. I conducted simple experiments on the "pancaking" theory, by dropping cement blocks from approximately 12 feet onto other cement blocks. (The floors in the WTC buildings were about 12 feet apart.) We are supposed to believe, from the pancaking theory, that a concrete floor dropping 12 feet onto another concrete floor will result in PULVERIZED concrete observed during the Towers' collapses! Nonsense! My own experiments, and I welcome you to try this yourself, is that only chips/large chunks of cement flaked off the blocks -- no mass pulverization to approx. 100-micron powder as observed. Explosives, however, can indeed convert concrete to dust --mostly, along with some large chunks-- as observed in the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9-11-01.

6. The observations of molten metal (I did not say molten steel!) in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7 is consistent with the use of the extremely high-temperature thermite reaction: iron oxide + aluminum powder --> Al2O3 + molten iron. Falling buildings are not observed to generate melting of large quantities of molten metal -- this requires a concentrated heat source such as explosives. Even the government reports admit that the fires were insufficient to melt steel beams (they argue for heating and warping then failure of these beams) -- but these reports do not mention the observed molten metal in the basements of WTC1, 2 and 7. Again we have a glaring omission of critical data in the FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports.


7. I understand that models of the steel-frame WTC buildings at Underwriters Laboratories subjected to intense fires did NOT collapse. And no steel-frame buildings before or after 9/11/2001 have collapsed due to fire. Thus, the "official" fire-pancaking model fails the scientific test of REPRODUCIBILITY. (Earthquake- caused collapses have occured, but there were no major earthquakes in NYC on that day. And buildings which have collapsed due to earthquakes collapse asymmetrically, as expected -- not like the nearly straight-down collapse of WTC 7 to a small rubble pile!)


8. Explosions -- multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence -- were heard and reported by numerous observers in (and near) the WTC buildings, consistent with explosive demolition. Some of the firemen who reported explosions barely escaped with their lives.

Essentially none of these science-based considerations is mentioned in the Popular Mechanics article on this subject, authored by B. Chertoff (a cousin of M. Chertoff who heads the Homeland Security Dept.) (Squibs are mentioned briefly, but the brief PM analysis does not fit the observed facts.)

I have performed other analyses regarding the WTC collapses on 9-11-01 which may be of interest --let me know if you're interested. The matter is highly interesting to me as a physicist -- and as a citizen of the United States. I conclude that the evidence for pre-positioned explosives in WTC 7 (also in towers 1 and 2) is truly compelling.

Steven E. Jones
Professor of Physics/BYU

This article was posted on 9.16.05

I think this is his first effort at making up stuff on 9/11. He sure was late on the scene. He should have tried to make it up to New York before the wisked away all the evidence in 7 to 9 months; they are still finding stuff; Dr Jones!

I like how he is just a standard CTer with a degree. How many kids without degrees are smart enough to see through Dr Jones's lies?

[beachnut]

In ref to the paper above;

I want to see his number 5 expanded on by some smart JREF or even Dylan the leader of the pack of nuts. Pdoh would do fine. OMG do not let chris see the concrete block stuff.

Woowooooo, Dr Jones mention how physics forbids the WTC to fall as they did! Ironic Dr Jones, the fact you are a physicist will be safe forever if one only has access to you papers. How embarrassing it must be to of been in his department at BYU.

I forbid you to fall by gravity! DR JONES commands!

[boloboffin]

I expect Dr Jones missed out on the Vietnam protests of the 60s and he wants to make it up by telling lies about Bush or something.

Jones is actually quite conservative. He probably sees Bush as ushering in a NWO domination of the American system of government.

At time 1:04:07
"I keep coming back to the constitution because it does have remedies. It was designed with checks and balances to prevent one branch, like the executive or the judicial, from getting too much power, it was designed to contain just that problem, and I think it's high time we get back to the constitution and exercise constitutional remedies."
At time 1:24:13
"We still have a Constitution and we still have remedies and we can keep that if we work together."

http://www.supportthetruth.com/jones.php

Careful of the link. It tried to make Firefox do something when I went there. What, I don't know.

[Gravy]

The paper I saw about the low probability of getting a phone call through was exactly the kind of thing you should expect to see. Lots of controls, examination of different circumstances, accurate reporting of results. The conclusion, however, that since there was a 1% chance of getting a phone call through, therefore the phone calls received must have been faked, was the only thing wrong with it - since what they had demonstrated was that as many as 1% of phone calls would get through. And since 7 calls had got through, that struck me as a not unlikely proportion of the total number of airborne calls attempted where an attempt could be defined as entering a number and pressing send. Good paper, incorrect conclusion. http://www.physics911.net/projectachillesI disagree with you about Ken Dewdney's research methods. He took a few flights with a couple of phones to a maximum altitude of 8,000 feet over London, Ontario, Canada, extrapolated what he thought the results would be at as high as 32,000 feet, and for some reason thought those results would apply to airliners flying at varying altitudes on four very different routes in the U.S. I don't call that science.

[The Silver Shadow]

I was wondering about that whole experiment. Since when could a Cessna fly 32,000 feet? It never made total sense. Thanks for clearing up what you put in Gravy, you learn something new everyday!

[MikeW]

The paper I saw about the low probability of getting a phone call through was exactly the kind of thing you should expect to see. Lots of controls, examination of different circumstances, accurate reporting of results. The conclusion, however, that since there was a 1% chance of getting a phone call through, therefore the phone calls received must have been faked, was the only thing wrong with it - since what they had demonstrated was that as many as 1% of phone calls would get through. And since 7 calls had got through, that struck me as a not unlikely proportion of the total number of airborne calls attempted where an attempt could be defined as entering a number and pressing send. Good paper, incorrect conclusion. http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles
Dewdney does have an explanation for that. Unfortunately it's wrong, though.

What he says is that to calculate the probability of two calls getting through, we must multiply their individual probabilities together. So if that's one in a hundred, then the chance of both going through is one in 100x100, or 10,000. He then says that extending that to all 13 calls makes the story impossible.

First, he ignores airphones, which made up the majority of the calls, and so shoots his theory down right there.

Second, he's calculating probabilities based on specific calls: so if one passenger dials and gets through, what's the probability of the person sitting next to him getting through when he tries, say. This ignores the fact that we don't know how many calls were attempted. If the second caller presses redial a hundred times, for instance, then on Dewdney's math it's highly likely that he will get through.

But third, the idea that you can usefully apply one probability figure like this is useless, anyway. The chances of success depend on the plane's position, altitude and speed in relation to base stations on the ground, and that's about it. If the plane was out of range, then no-one would get through. But if, let's say, there was a 60 second window in that flight when it was within range of a base station, then everyone who tried at that time would be able to get through. Dewdney's game of multiplying probabilities is great for fooling people into accepting his position, but it has very little to do with the truth.

[twinstead]

The fact that he ignored airphones is a show stopper for me. Who in their right mind would ignore something like that and broadly declare the phone calls from the planes impossible?

Dewdney's 'research' sums up the entire truth movement in a nutshell.

[Big Al]

We are supposed to believe, from the pancaking theory, that a concrete floor dropping 12 feet onto another concrete floor will result in PULVERIZED concrete observed during the Towers' collapses! Nonsense! My own experiments, and I welcome you to try this yourself, is that only chips/large chunks of cement flaked off the blocks -- no mass pulverization to approx. 100-micron powder as observed. Explosives, however, can indeed convert concrete to dust --mostly, along with some large chunks-- as observed in the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9-11-01.

I would have been ritually disembowelled and nailed to the front gate as an example to others if I'd dared put stuff like that in a school science report!

Incorrect:

"They used to say heavy things fell faster than light things - NONSENSE! I did a test and it showed that was absolute bollocks!"

Correct:

"SCOPE: To empirically test the theory that the acceleration due to gravity is independent of the mass of a falling object.

Equipment: One retort stand, 1m high. One retort stand clamp. One 1kg mass. One 2kg mass. One 3kg mass. One custom timer unit (refer to Figure II).

METHOD: Refer to Figure I for detailed setup. The system atomatically detected the release of the weight from the clamp and activated the timer until the falling mass impacted the plate and stopped the timer.

RESULTS: Ten time measurements were made for each of the test masses. Results were as follows....


...CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the test equipment, and taking account for measurements inaccuracies detailed in Appendix 1, the correlation between the results and the theory under test..."

Sorry, Jones major. 3/10 - must try harder. See me.

[Larry Lovage]

I have to say I continue to disagree that Dewdney's report was either "not science" or that his methodology "summed up the entire truth movement in a nutshell". There are any number of reasons for quibbling with his methodology, but you can't deny that they did the best they could and must have invested considerably in order to get an experiment performed in flight that they had proper scientific control over, plus honestly (I believe) reporting the results. When I first read it I myself did not know that the majority of the calls were made from airphones, and at that time Dewdney may not have known it either. As I repeatedly pointed out, it was the evaluation of the results that were completely incorrect and undoubtedly biased by a prejudicial belief that the phone calls were faked.

ignores the fact that we don't know how many calls were attempted.Actually it's not that he ignores it, it's practically spelt out in the report that the seven calls made were the only ones attempted. This is the gigantic hole in Dewdney's reasoning (and the reason he's applying the probability of making a call to each call that was received).

Were the majority of the calls really made from airphones? I'm a European who flies as cheaply as possible, so I don't know from airphones. If in that situation, however, I would have assumed that using an airphone would alert the occupants of the cockpit, so would not have used that method if it was presented.

One thing I thought the experiments indicated was that the aircraft would necessarily have been flying low at the time that the calls were made, and that this had been confirmed elsewhere. I don't know if anybody can bolster this? Because, frankly, you can dismiss the experiment all you like, that doesn't remove the puzzlement of getting phone calls through if they planes were really at 32,000 ft when they were made. That you can be as high as 8,000 feet and still get a call through was a valuable result, I thought.

[Aggs]

I expect Dr Jones missed out on the Vietnam protests of the 60s and he wants to make it up by telling lies about Bush or something. Wish he would just stick to some facts.


I think this portion of his recent lecture is very telling about his subconscious motivation: youtube.com/watch?v=-_C56vTPNBg

He talks about Patrick Henry, George Washington and Ben Franklin the way teenage girls talk about Justin Timberlake.

"My exemplar, actually, said 'The truth shall set you...free [audience].'"

His exemplar, of course, was a pop star in his day too....

[DrDisco]

Sorry to drag this topic back up, but when I did a search on Steven E. Jones this thread seemed my best choice to ask the following question:

Is there a website out there (or a thread here!) that looks carefully at Jones' ideas and either confirms or deconstructs them?

My brother seems to be convinced this guy's the real-deal and I'm so new to all this 9/11 CT stuff that I'd never heard of this dude before. In fact, before my brother started going off one evening about how the official 9/11 explanations weren't explaining enough, I was only marginally aware that there was a 9/11 "Truth Movement." I'm so green about this stuff that Kermit made up a song about me.

Thanks for any help you guys can give to "initiate" me into this new world.

[Firestone]

Try this (http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm) for a starter.

[Troylus]

As a former Mormon, several of Steven Jones's comments seem motivated by an oft-repeated prophecy of Joseph Smith that at some unspecified future date the US Constitution will "hang by a thread" and that the Elders of Isreal (meaning - faithful Mormon men) will need to step in to rescue it and restore the proper balance of political power.

Although I don't know if this prophecy is motivating Jones (encouraging him to "keep the faith as it were), many of his comments look to me as though it might be.

For more on this prophecy, check out:
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/whitehorseprophecy.htm

[TellyKNeasuss]

The paper I saw about the low probability of getting a phone call through was exactly the kind of thing you should expect to see. Lots of controls, examination of different circumstances, accurate reporting of results. The conclusion, however, that since there was a 1% chance of getting a phone call through, therefore the phone calls received must have been faked, was the only thing wrong with it - since what they had demonstrated was that as many as 1% of phone calls would get through. And since 7 calls had got through, that struck me as a not unlikely proportion of the total number of airborne calls attempted where an attempt could be defined as entering a number and pressing send. Good paper, incorrect conclusion. http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles

I would disagree with your assessment that this is a "good paper". There are a number of things wrong with it.

The paper, without specifically stating it, assumes that the probability of getting a phone call through is: 1) random; and 2) independent of the success or failure of any other attempt. MikeW has given some of the reasons why these assumptions aren't valid.

A more fundamental problem is that he didn't calculate confidence intervals. This is tantamount to assuming that his test, involving a few dozen attempts, perfectly represents the entire population of cellphone call attempts. Try flipping a coin 20 times. Will you always get 10 "heads" and 10 "tails"?

There is also the problem of extrapolating from one location to another. I live on the top of a hill in a suburban neighborhood in a major metropolitan area. Yet I often have trouble with my cellphone, even outdoors. Yet on my last vacation I had no trouble making calls miles from any town in west-central New Mexico.

Yet another problem is whether he used the same types of cellphones as the 9/11 passengers did. I don't see any claim that they were the same types. I re-collect reading something that said early model cellphones were more powerful than newer cellphones (if anyone knows of a link to this, I could really use it for a debate on another forum).

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Dr. Steven Jones has done research, on 9/11/2001, that is news to me, I thought he just wrote a paper on it without the research.

[R.Mackey]

Sorry to drag this topic back up, but when I did a search on Steven E. Jones this thread seemed my best choice to ask the following question:

Is there a website out there (or a thread here!) that looks carefully at Jones' ideas and either confirms or deconstructs them?

Lots of them.

Perhaps the most amusing debunk of Steven Jones comes from his fellow nutballs. Read here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62643) for some of the hilarious hijinks that came up when the Scholars for Troof broke apart. Some of this may even still be posted on the "Scholars" website.

Moral of the story is, even his own organization doesn't buy his sloppy work.

[Gravy]

I have to say I continue to disagree that Dewdney's report was either "not science" or that his methodology "summed up the entire truth movement in a nutshell". There are any number of reasons for quibbling with his methodology, but you can't deny that they did the best they could and must have invested considerably in order to get an experiment performed in flight that they had proper scientific control over, plus honestly (I believe) reporting the results. When I first read it I myself did not know that the majority of the calls were made from airphones, and at that time Dewdney may not have known it either. As I repeatedly pointed out, it was the evaluation of the results that were completely incorrect and undoubtedly biased by a prejudicial belief that the phone calls were faked.

Actually it's not that he ignores it, it's practically spelt out in the report that the seven calls made were the only ones attempted. This is the gigantic hole in Dewdney's reasoning (and the reason he's applying the probability of making a call to each call that was received).

Were the majority of the calls really made from airphones? I'm a European who flies as cheaply as possible, so I don't know from airphones. If in that situation, however, I would have assumed that using an airphone would alert the occupants of the cockpit, so would not have used that method if it was presented.

One thing I thought the experiments indicated was that the aircraft would necessarily have been flying low at the time that the calls were made, and that this had been confirmed elsewhere. I don't know if anybody can bolster this? Because, frankly, you can dismiss the experiment all you like, that doesn't remove the puzzlement of getting phone calls through if they planes were really at 32,000 ft when they were made. That you can be as high as 8,000 feet and still get a call through was a valuable result, I thought.Yes, the vast majority of the calls were made from Airphones. For example, of the 37 calls made from flight 93 (17 lasting over 10 seconds), 7 were made on cell phones, and AFAIK none of those were at high altitude. Using an Airphone in the cabin does not alert anyone in the cockpit. There's detail on the phone calls from all the planes in this flash presentation from the Zacarias Moussaoui trial: http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200055.html

[Gravy]

Yet another problem is whether he used the same types of cellphones as the 9/11 passengers did. I don't see any claim that they were the same types. I re-collect reading something that said early model cellphones were more powerful than newer cellphones (if anyone knows of a link to this, I could really use it for a debate on another forum).Analog systems, which were common in 2001 (I had an analog phone then), operate at lower frequency (usually 800 MHz) than the digital systems in use today (1900+ MHz), which gave them greater range. Actual reception would depend on location of the towers and other factors.

Here's an abstract from a 1998 paper about cell phone use in airplanes. The whole thing would be interesting to read:

The passenger aircraft is one of the last places on earth yet to be invaded by the mobile phone. Safety is the major reason forbidding their use, with interference to navigation equipment cited as the principal hazard. Surprisingly, tests have shown that mobile phones actually work very well in the air. The aircraft structure does not prevent communication with the ground-the windows may well act as a form of slotted waveguide antenna-and coverage is excellent. The drawback, as far as the mobile operators are concerned, is that a mobile phone operating at 30000 ft can be seen by many cells at any one time, playing havoc with frequency reuse between cells. A number of approaches to enabling ordinary mobile phones to be used on board an aircraft have been studied. The author looks at some of the developments that should bring seamless communications from ground level to 30000 ft. In particular the author discusses the potential of aircraft based satellite communication using INMARSAT http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=675091

[DrDisco]

Thanks for all the pointers, folks! I got some reading to do!

And then arrange for this information to somehow wind up in my brother's Outlook Inbox! hee hee hee

[Anti-sophist]

Thanks for any help you guys can give to "initiate" me into this new world.


Given that you are here and you and your brother likely share the same upbringing and much of the same DNA, I'd also suggest that if your brother really cares about the truth he should read this forum and/or make a post detailing all the reasons he believes in the 9/11 truth stuff, with his evidence.

I can assure you people like me (and many many others) respond very favorably to well-thought out and well-evidenced posts (even if they are completely and utterly wrong). If your brother is reasonably rational, and willing to think critically on these issues, he will be cured rather rapidly by the vast knowledge base available in the minds of the frequenters of this forum.

Also, a link repository has been created at the top: http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18
That link contains most of the links that contain most of the information necessary to debunk virtually all conspiracy theories. If you want to deal with Jones, specifically, allow me to point you to the debunking911 site, NIST, and implosionworld.

If you want to search the forum, a common suggestion is to use google and search with 'site:randi.org' in the query, as the search feature of the forum has been acting up recently.

Furthermore, don't be afraid to ask questions. Also, welcome.

[TellyKNeasuss]

Here's an abstract from a 1998 paper about cell phone use in airplanes. The whole thing would be interesting to read:

Gravy, thanks, but all this paper proves is that the conspiracy was already underway in 1998. Even that early, the NWO was undertaking preliminary operations like publishing phony papers to make people believe that passengers would be able to make cellphone calls from hijacked airplanes.

[TellyKNeasuss]

Here's an abstract from a 1998 paper about cell phone use in airplanes. The whole thing would be interesting to read:

I posted this and a second-order link from the "How to reconcile Tom Burnett's cell phone call." Now there's nothing to do but sit back and wait for his rant about how I distorted his claims (he said about a CNN article "If you read the story, then you know that cell phones don't work" - not exactly a statement open to interpretation) and that the articles don't prove anything anyway.

[DrDisco]

You guys are overwhelming me with amazing material! I can't believe my brother fell for Steven Jones' nonsense. Heck, I've learned more how to debunk this guy in the last couple of hours of reading than my bro claims to have read supporting him.

Anti, my brother didn't used to be like this. My dad and I are stunned by his paranoia. We blame it on his wife who really is somewhat crazy. I think to keep peace in his family he's taken on her psychosis. He'd never come to this forum, claiming to not have time (and yet plenty of it to "research" 9/11 CT claims, Roswell, and be a salesman for Mangosteen). But thanks for the offer. If I ever see a window to invite him over, I will. But what I think is more likely is I will have to do all the research myself and be the "voice" for JREF in his personal presence.

Again, all, thanks a bunch. This is a topic I didn't really want to visit (I still feel the wounds and pain of that day) but I just can't fathom how my brother was hoodwinked by these CTers to become one of them. My personal crusade is to rescue him and you all have given me some wonderful "ammunition." Nothing destroys myths like facts!