- Professor Steven E. Jones only was in the public eye
for five days before BYU told him to stop giving interviews. Now the university
has issued a public statement distancing itself from Jones and even discrediting
his work. Critics suggest Bush administration had its dirty hand in forcing
BYU to 'shut up' its professor.
- By Greg Szymanski
- Brigham Young University (BYU) issued a public statement
this week, discrediting and distancing itself from physics Professor Steven
E. Jones for publicly claiming the WTC was brought down by explosives not
jet fuel like the government contends.
- Jones, a tenured BYU professor, went public two weeks
ago after releasing a 19 page academic paper, essentially showing how the
laws of physics do not support the WTC's freefall and, consequently, the
official government story.
- While expressing doubt about the government's version
of 9/11, he called for an independent investigation concerning the strange
collapse of the towers and Building No. 7, something the 9/11 Commission
failed to do and something the Bush administration adamantly opposes.
- However, Jones' notoriety turned out to be short lived
as only days after giving numerous press interviews, including a six-minute
spot on MSNBC, BYU officials twisted his arm and convinced him to stop
- Critics quickly pointed out that Jones must have been
'silenced quickly' after the Bush administration pressured BYU to end any
further embarrassment while, at the same time, reminding officials about
the numerous government grants swinging in the balance.
- But before the situation turned ugly, Jones himself tried
to immediately end the controversy, claiming all parties reached an amicable
agreement without anybody strong arming anybody.
- "I want to thank everyone for the attention, but
it is best that I limit my appearances at this time," said Jones in
a telephone conversation from his BYU office only five days after first
appearing publicly about his controversial 9/1 statements. "University
officials and I have come to an understanding that in the best interest
for all parties involved, it is better that I limit my speaking on 9/11
to academic peer reviews."
- Even tough all parties appeared to be on the same "closed
mouth" page, BYU this week BYU came out with an official statement,
distancing itself from its professor and even finding a way to politely
criticize him for the methods he used in researching his 9/11 paper, adding
his techniques may have not been up to high standards usually attached
to other BYU academic work.
- The paper now openly questioned by BYU officials is entitled
"Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse" and has been accepted
for academic publication included in the book "The Hidden History
of 9-11-2001, Research in Political Economy, Volume 23."
- Finding a way to discredit Jones in a subtle way, BYU
issued the following public statement about Jones' controversial 9/11 views:
- "Brigham Young University has a policy of academic
freedom that supports the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge and ideas.
Through the academic process, ideas should be advanced, challenged, and
debated by peer-review in credible venues. We believe in the integrity
of the academic review process and that, when it is followed properly,
peer-review is valuable for evaluating the validity of ideas and conclusions.
- "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones'
hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World
Trade Centerbuildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and
practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones'
department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses
and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would
ensure rigorous technical peer review."
- Jones was unavailable for comment as he is no longer
talking openly with the media, but when he did talk it created a stir which
even was addressed on MSNBC by conservative talk show host, Tucker Carlson.
- Jones made a brief six minute appearance, saying publicly
afterwards he was unhappy by the "one-sided presentation" siding
with the government as well as Carlson's failure to show the video clip
of Building No. 7 freefalling to the ground as requested by Jones during
- "I asked three times to play the clip of Building
No. 7 falling but they wouldn't do it," said Jones after the appearance
with Carlson, a well-known Bush administration mouthpiece who slanted Jones'
story in favor of the government, as expected.
- Not only did Carlson refuse to address key visual evidence
clearly showing a freefall of the WTC, he also issued a statement telling
Jones and others who think the government may have been complicit in 9/11
to leave the country, an analysis completely lacking sensibility and bordering
on outright insanity.
- Responding to a caller about pre-positioned explosives
detonated in all three buildings at Ground Zero, Carlson said:
- "If you really believe the U.S. government killed
3000 of its own citizens for no reason and lied about it and invaded Afghanistan
as a result of something it did, you ought to leave the country? because
that's so terrible? so evil, that your tax dollars go in to support it
make you complicit in it? if you really believe that, you ought to leave?"
- Besides the MSNBC appearance, Jones previously granted
one of his first interviews to the Arctic Beacon and American Free Press,
also making one of his only radio appearances before going silent on Greg
Szymanski's radio show, "The Investigative Journal," on the Republic
Broadcasting Network. For a replay of the hour-long radio interview go
to www.rbnlive.com (archives page) and for a feature article on Jones go
- Before ending his media appearances, Jones tried to explain
why he wrote his paper:
- "I wanted to limit my discussion to my expertise
and that is why I talked mainly about the physics of the freefall of the
towers and Building 7," said Jones, adding he did criticize the so-called
"pod theory" or the theory that a "drone plane" was
used to crash into the towers.
- In his paper, Jones stayed away from commenting on most
other aspects of 9/11 except for the freefall of the towers and the limited
criticism of the "pod theory."
- "I did receive emails about why I did that (criticized
the pod theory) and even told Morgan Reynolds, I really felt it was important
to stick with the issues of 9/11 that are the most obvious and the easiest
to prove. That is why I wanted to limit my discussion, but in further papers
I plan to address other 9/11 issues. Also, I feel the 9/11 community needs
to work together and not be splintered by constantly arguing among ourselves
over conflicting theories that may take away from the ones we can conclusively
- Jones literally shocked the "Red State" of
Utah and the conservative world when he released his 19 page critical paper
basically ripping apart the official 9/11 story, limiting his discussion
to his expertise in physics and the virtual impossibility of the towers
falling from merely jet fuel as the government contends.
- Jones earlier said he first presented his explosive conclusions
at Brigham Young University (BYU) on September 22, to 60 people from the
BYU and Utah Valley State College faculties, including professors of Engineering,
Electrical Engineering, Geology, Mathematics and Psychology.
- After presently scientific arguments in favor of the
controlled demolition theory, Jones said everyone in attendance from all
backgrounds, conservative and liberal, were in total agreement further
investigation was needed.
- Jones added that the contingent of faculty members at
the September seminar were all in agreement that the government needed
to "come clean" and release more that 6,900 photographs and close
to 7,000 segments of video footage, now being held from independent investigation
by the FBI and other agencies.
- In Jones' 9,000 word paper, his conclusions why the towers
most likely were brought down by a controlled demolition can be summed
up as follows:
- * The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically,
falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled
demolition" ? and even then it's very difficult, he says. "Why
would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers
when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much
more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would
they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical
implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along with other
data, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job."
- * No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings,
has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel
columns, he says.
- * WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed
in 6.6seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object
dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that
must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational
laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors
strike lower floors ? and intact steel support columns ? the fall must
be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors
fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?"
The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition
hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including
steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses."
These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission,
- * With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically
be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the
towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling,
he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives?
Remarkable, amazing ? and demanding scrutiny since the U.S.government-funded
reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."
- * Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed
proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned
explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says.
- * Steel supports were "partly evaporated,"
but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate
steel ? and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures
that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most
a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20
minutes in any given location, he says.
- * Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade
Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly
used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives
"have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities
of metal," Jones says.
- * Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported
by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred
far below the region where the planes struck, he says.
- For more informative articles, go to www.arcticbeacon.com