......because the mini-nuke knocked the cartoon planes out of the sky, jarring loose the pods underneath, which crashed to the ground and ignited a super-intense nuclear fire with no residual radiation.

isn't it funny that the two 'researchers' with the most controversial theories - no-planes and nukes - are so busy at work attempting to discredit the research of others in this movement?

what's wrong with that picture?

Assuming this article is for real & is indeed co-author by those identified therein ... I offer the following quick comments on some sample quotes:

“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.”

Would it be churlish of me to point out that, by the authors own logic, they would not be qualified to “peer-review” Jones' paper, specifically on the grounds that: (i) neither of them are professors and, (ii) neither of them hold a PhD in physics; therefore, it would seem their so-called “peer review” is null and void.

“Demolition at the WTC was proven fact long before Jones came along.”

And the “proof” for this? A citation perhaps to back up this statement?

“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.”

“Wood” & “Reynolds” in this so-called “peer-review” paper have not displayed what might characterised as “professionalism” in the construction of their arguments (by their frequent use of unsupported assertions and innuendo), nor have they displayed any understanding of the scholarly apparatus – critical methodology – in their production of this “hit” piece. By advancing their academic qualifications; yet failing to live-up to any standard that could be deemed as "academic", they indite themselves by their own behaviour and spoil some of the VALID points/questions they do raise.

“Given Professor Jones’ enormous popularity in the 9/11 arena, we must undertake the unpleasant task of social analysis. Jones "evokes" the persona of a choirboy and he plays to the gallery. Here is evidence: over half of his slides have no connection with physical science, and instead are political. In effect, they proclaim, "Elect Steve, I wanna be your physicist, I’m a NICE guy." The clutter in Jones’ presentation ranges all over the map: Jones proudly points to "growing investigative support at BYU" [pdf (7/19/06) p. 44], a sympathy-soliciting but phony-sounding email threatening negative consequences and promising bribes (I’m a victim, I’m courageous), crowd—pleasing calls for investigation/impeachment, paeans to phony peak oil crises and fragile infrastructure, denunciation of corporate profits (he is a conservative [pdf (7/19/06)] and corporate profits are bad? Corporate losses are good?), solar cookers, shared values, the Prophet Nephi and other irrelevancies.”

Seriously, I can hardly believe that “Woods” & “Reynolds” would make such laughable, school-playground style comments. I think they're alien dis-informants.

whether intentionally - or unintentionally - they disrupt this movement by forwarding junk science - and sewing the seeds of confusion. Attacks upon other researchers does not help their cause.

In all probability, in my opinion, the no-planes faction of this movement is simply a continuation of the 'pods' faction. they are, in my OPINION organized disruption.

when you compile all of the attacks coming from this faction - including the grand wazoo of no-planes research himself - Nico Haupt - and look closely at the personal attacks and smears he has published - it it quite clear that there is a pattern to this madness.

i could maybe half believe that people could be stupid enough to believe this trash. but, when you see the organized and methodical way it is being distributed online - COMBINED with the accusations and attacks against virtually everyone credible in this movement - it is a pattern that, in my humble opinion, portends a very high probability of illegitimacy to this faction.

Dr. Judy Wood AND Dr. Steven Jones BOTH have some explaining to do...

Why are they wasting our time talking and writing about "Aluminum versus Iron" and about pictures and videos that have NOT been AUTHENTICATED?  Are these pictures and videos real?  Or are they fake?

I understand that the issue is whether or not Aluminum CAN glow at particular temperatures; however, this issue is IRRELEVANT until the pics and videos have been authenticated. 

Who is the photographer of the pictures of the ALLEGED WTC window-pouring molten metal?

Who was the videographer for the video of the ALLEGED WTC window-pouring molten metal?

Are there ANY independent eye witnesses to this ALLEGED WTC window-pouring molten metal (other than the not-named MISSING photographer and the not-named MISSING videographer)?

You may recall that Michael Zebuhr (one of Dr. Judy Wood's students) worked with Dr. Wood to provide Dr. Steven Jones and others with SOME evidence that Aluminum CAN glow at particular temperatures (as Zebuhr, Reynolds, and Wood have said) -- as opposed to the assertions that Aluminum cannot glow at ANY temperature or is "silvery" under ALL conditions and at ALL temperatrues (as Steve Jones has said). 

If we are NOT even sure whether these alleged WTC window-pouring molten metal events even occurred, then WHO CARES???

Shortly after graduate student Michael Zebuhr and his professor, Dr. Wood, did tests that provided SOME evidence for their position, Michael Zebuhr was MURDERED.  See www.MichaelZebuhr.blogspot.com. 

If the pics and videos of this pouring WTC molten metal are BOGUS, and IF (and only IF) Michael Zebuhr's murder was 9/11-related, then Michael Zebuhr may have been murdered to promote another 9/11 Red Herring.

So, yes, I see the "GLOWING" in the "Aluminum versus Iron" controversy.  However, until EITHER Steve Jones OR Judy Wood authenticates the pics & videos, the "glowing" that I see is a glowering, glowing RED HERRING.

Please DO NOT waste any more of our time on this issue until SOMEONE authenticates the pictures and videos AND until someone provide us with one or more independent eye witnesses to these ALLEGED WTC window-pouring, glowing, molten metal events -- other than the photographer(s) and/or the videographer(s), who MUST be produced.  Otherwise these pics and videos canNOT be "evidence" of ANY type (hard or soft, good or bad).