I Have Been Cited

One of the things that lends credibility to an academic is how often you have been cited. For example, if you write a seminal work on options valuation, and finance professors use you as a footnote for their papers the next 20 years, than you get all sorts of bragging rights at tenure reviews and department cocktail parties. What happens, however, when you get cited by a nut?

Well, as a result of Steven Jones posting our exchange of e-mails, that has now happened to me. Greg Jenkins, who I actually kind of like based off of his hilarious trashing of Judy Wood in an interview, writes a letter to their Journal criticising her further, including this passage:

There are also photographs of red-orange metal(10), and several photographs of previously molten metal(11).

With the footnote for these claims reading:

Steven Jones, Why indeed did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse? page 1-2, 17 http://www.journalof911studes.com/. See also: An Open Letter to Dr. Steven Jones by James Bennett, with replies by Steven Jones (April 23, 2007) James Bennett and Steven Jones

The thing is though, the "several photographs of previously molten metal" were not photographs of previously molten metal. That was the whole point of my letter. Jones' entirely ducked this question, saying only that someone else had taken the photograph (a point entirely not under contention) and that he would need to perform tests on it to determine what it was.


Actually, the above photo which appears above and in my paper was taken by Janette MacKinlay. Note that the people standing behind the object have had their faces “whited out” at her request for privacy reasons. (The paper is website, describes it:

To determine whether the metal in the object quietly photographed by J. MacKinlay in fact contains residue from a thermite-analog (such as thermate), it will be necessary to perform analyses on samples from the actual object. I explained this already in my paper:
“The abundance of iron (as opposed to aluminum) in this material is indicated by the reddish rust observed. When a sample is obtained, a range of characterization techniques will quickly give us information we seek. X-ray energy dispersive spectrometry (XEDS) will yield the elemental composition, and electron energy-loss spectroscopy will tell us the elements found in very small amounts that were undetectable with XEDS. Electron-backscattered diffraction in the scanning electron microscope will give us phase information; the formation of certain precipitates can tell us a minimum temperature the melt must have reached. We will endeavor to obtain and publish these data, whatever they reveal.”

But we don't have to guess at what it is, we know. You can look up photographs of this on the web, with a description:

Large pieces of debris, likened to meteorites by preservationists, are actually several floors of the towers compressed together as the buildings collapsed. Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and even papers with legible type are visible. The pieces are kept in a humidity-controlled tent in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport.
(Photo by Lane Johnson)

Now if Jones, who says that he can't tell what it is without testing, cannot prove it is molten metal. Then how can someone else cite him as proof that it is molten metal?

Update: I had a rather nice e-mail exchange with Dr. Jenkins, in which he clarified his position. For brevity's sake I will just quote the last part of his response. The first part was an explanation of his position on molten metal in general, which basically repeats that of Dr. Jones in his papers.

The reference "11 Ibid page 9" is admittedly wrong --- it should be page 2 &/or 12 instead of page 9, as these pictures most likely show molten metal which is flowing in the pictures, and can be regarded as previously molten metal. A better example of previously molten metal which aligns better with the common vernacular is given by the Jones's newest publication of previously molten metal(JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf) p77:

It should be noted that the presence of these iron-rich spheres eradicates the debate regarding the question of whether previously molten metal existed at GZ. The presence of previously molten spheres in the dust samples definitively closes that particular chapter. Now, the debate should be re-framed regarding the possible mechanisms (and there are at present multiple mechanisms to consider) which formed the spheres.

For the record, I do not believe that the picture on p9 as referenced necessarily represents molten metal or previously molten metal. From the picture, all I see is substantially oxidized ferrous material (steel) mixed with compressed concrete and various materials. I believe that stating that the pictures of 'meteorites' from hanger 17 are evidence of previously molten metal is one of the many misconceptions that float about in the 9/11 truth movement, and I definitely do not agree with it.

I should state that I think that it would be a good idea to run a metallurgy study on the 'meteorites' much in the same manner that WPI did (half of a) study on the steel beams pulled from the rubble at WTC 7 and the towers which is summarized in the FEMA report Appendix C. The degree of oxidation together with a chemical and phase analysis of the steel would give an accurate assessment to the environment the 'meteorite' may have been exposed to offering a window into chemical and temperature conditions. However, it is highly likely that the heat in which these particular samples have been exposed to are not anomalous and could have benignly suffered only surface oxidation.

I apologize that I did not catch this error before publication (reference 11), and appreciate your diligence in pointing it out. I definitely do not want to promulgate misconceptions as I am sure you feel the same. I will issue a correction regarding this footnote, and I hope that this has not caused any unnecessary concern.

-- GJ