Fulton College Response to Professor Steven Jones's Statements Regarding Collapse of World Trade Center

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's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's 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. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.

BYU has issued an official statement in response to Professor Steven Jones's recent paper which is pressing for a real investigation into the collapses of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7.

While the statement seems to suggest that Jones's paper and research are very much valid in the 'pursuit .. of knowledge and ideas', the last sentence of the paper quite bluntly states that the entire faculty of the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support his hypothesis.

To issue a blanket statement that the entire faculty disagrees with his hypothesis is quite a quick jump from supporting his research, to saying everyone thinks he is wrong. Ironically the statement has absolutely no discussion of the subject matter and science involved at all (unlike Jones's recent paper), but yet quickly dismisses all of his research in one fell swoop.

I can't say that I am surprised at BYU cowering to the negative publicity that comes along with questioning 9/11, but science and research is supposed to be the one section of the educated masses that could care less about 'P.R.' and being 'P.C.' . Facts are facts, and a simple blanket statement simply doesn't matter.

Along with Steven Jones from BYU, Jeff King from MIT, and Jim Hoffman, many educated scholars have made similar statements as to the impossible 'pyroclastic flows', 'free-fall speed collapses', and issues with the 'conservation of momentum'.

When a blanket statement like this from BYU is released it does little to quell a debate, but in fact urges it along. Those that question 9/11, specifically those that question the 'collapse' of WTC7, will continue to challenge the reports issued by the NIST, and the accepted common knowledge that 3 super-structure steel-framed buildings collapsed on 9/11 at the speed of free-fall despite resistance provided by the lower intact super-structure for the first and only time in all of recorded history.

Quite simply, there are numerous flaws with the physics 'analysis' done regarding the 'collapses' on 9/11. We can either ignore these issues and adhere to the 'official story' or have open and public debates about the issues themselves. Or in this case, just issue a blanket statement denouncing a 9,000 word research paper issued by a 20+ year professor with absolutely no counter-argument.

Feel free to contact the engineering department at BYU and encourage them to help Jones in spreading the need for a real investigation and honest public discourse on the subject matter.



NOTE: Another article on this same subject:
BYU Brass Discredit Physics Professor for Saying WTC Brought Down by Controlled Demolition