BYU Issues Statement About Steven Jones's WTC Research Paper

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.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Research WTC7!

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

this is disgusting. Dr.

this is disgusting. Dr. Jones deserves better.

dantastic, can't agree

dantastic, can't agree more.. write them an email or snail mail about it..

here is what i sent in:

In reference to:

To Whom it May Concern,

Your recent statements related to Steven Jones's paper on the WTC appears to approve of the idea of researching topics, however it goes on to state that 'the engineering faculty .. do[es] not support the hypothesis of Professor Jones'.

After reading this statement I have a few questions:

Have other members of the engineering faculty researched the statements made in Jones's paper, or statements by Jim Hoffman(1) and Jeff King(2)?
(1) -
(2) -

Will BYU support the idea of discussion of these subjects, or will this simple blanket statement of non-support be all that is provided in opposition to Jones's paper from BYU?

Will other members of the engineering faculty be providing responses to Jones's paper to contribute to an open discussion or in rebuttal of his findings?

I personally have researched 9/11 for around 15 months so far. While I have researched a much broader scope of 9/11, I do have a shared intrest in the research presented by Jones, and personally agree with his desires for an open discussion of the physics involved in the collapses of the WTC towers - specifically WTC7.

I hope that BYU will not make such blanket statements in the future that disavow the research done by one of its own professors, especially without providing any rebuttal or analysis which refutes, or adds to, their research. The scientific community and professors in general are looked to to provide fact based analysis and research. Cowing to P.R. fears in the scientific community is a path which I hope the scientific community would avoid. Analyzing the commonly accepted story of 9/11, specifically the collapses of the 3 buildings on 9/11, is a role which I would love to see more professors explore, and I hope that your disavowing statement will not keep others from researching such subjects.

Thank you for reading my email. Please provide more details on BYU's stance on this issue, and if possible please provide a direct email address for someone who might be willing to have a direct discussion of these issues.

sorry dz, will you use the

sorry dz, will you use the submit link. slipped my mind!

*i will use

*i will use

That blanket comment by BYU

That blanket comment by BYU is nothing more than intellectual cowardice.

The citizens of the towns outside the camps in Germany and Poland had to be force marched to them to witness the truth in order to receive food/water.

I imagine it will be the same here too.

sickening cowards. they would have proclaimed the world flat too if they faced the pressure of the Vatican inquistion instead of supporting Galileo.

To Rebel Patriot. Be

To Rebel Patriot.
Be careful. A year from now, the world will be flat... or whatever else they tell us it is. And, of course, gravity acted upward, directly above the WTC on 9-11-1, but only briefly... and then... ?

Of course I'm eager to hear what BYU teaches its students about gravitational constants, ...or even critical thinking.

Janedoe, I certainly hope we

Janedoe, I certainly hope we have another year.

I have a bad feeling about next years elections. these rehashed, recycled, repackaged Nazi's are not going to give up power because of something - in their opinion - as insignificant as an election.

i agree with Rebel, dont put

i agree with Rebel, dont put it past the cheney/oil cabal to stage another one before 08.






This is plain stupidity, and

This is plain stupidity, and BYU should reconsider this statement. I dont think there will be many new students at BYU, when they don´t even understand these basic elements of physics. Come on! My little sister is THIRTEEN, and even she understands Jones´ article.

Please, let me know when you will be invading Norway. I mean, we DO have lots of oil! Why aren´t we terrorists/communists/unpatriotic assholes, that want to harm the US?

Do anybody here think someone will go to jail for 9/11, or will they get away? -Its hard to tell from here, because everybody here believes the official story.. I mean, almost everyone.

I sincerely hope more people will join Jones, and maybe our world will eventually become a safer place.

"The structural engineering

"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

I wonder how much they were paid. Watch out for bling bling professors!

That's BULLSHIT Man!!

That's BULLSHIT Man!!

dz your letter was certainly


your letter was certainly worder better than mine. nice going. here is what i wrote to

I am dissapointed in your institution. You claim to be an organization that supports honest academic inquiry, but your recent statement about Dr. Jones shows that you have bowed to critics of 911 truth. Make no mistake, this is about truth, and the future of this country. thousands of innocent people died on that day and we deserve a serious scientific investigation. Dr. Jones is a real patriot. Instead of joining the masses that go along with the crowd without investigating the evidence why not make BYU a place for free inquiry. Dr. Jones deserves better.


Daniel Strong

ps. if the towers weren't brought down by bombs why did so many who was there report hearing explosion after explosion?

has anyone sent Tucker

has anyone sent Tucker Carlson a copy of 911 Eyewitness?

the pre-collapse explosions can not be ignored, no matter how close-minded one is. (at least it shouldn't) otherwise that person should just be killed on the spot, for they are worthless flesh sucking up good oxygen the rest of us need.

besides handing out free

besides handing out free 9-11 DVD's
this is what i do...I first started out getting Law professors email address i have them all from Notre Dame, FSU (my home state), yale,UCLA,
University of Michigan,..i know there one more...but anyways i started on the Engineers and criminolgy dept from some of the so called 'Higher Learning" facilitys
below is all BYU engineer professors and a few Biology mixed in
ps it feels good...i got BYU is anybody is help me out on some other colleges? ,, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Your response to this news

Your response to this news is amusing. The reason this brief announcement was issued is because Prof. Jones has repeatedly claimed that he presented his theory to the BYU faculty (including many engineering faculty) and that the audience was unanimous in support. This is simply not the case.

No one is stopping Prof. Jones from publishing his paper. He is welcome to submit it to a peer-review process. He has currently submitted the paper to a journal on "Classic Marxist Thought" (look it up if you don't believe me). This is hardly the venue to objectively analyze the PHYSICS of Prof. Jones's paper.

If you honestly believe his physics and structural engineering arguments are correct (I don't), then you have nothing to worry about. Prof. Jones can submit his paper to any and all technical journals on physics or structural engineering and go through the peer-review process.

For what it's worth, I am a member of the engineering faculty at BYU. I highly resent having my e-mail address posted on your blog - show some class please. I fully support Prof. Jones right to free speech and academic freedom. I also believe that I (and others) have the right to criticize his work. I think his paper is junk science and is an embarassment to the university. Freedom of expression works both ways, folks.

byu engineering prof: can

byu engineering prof: can you point us to a more valid scientific analysis of the collapse of WTC 7 than that presented by Jones?

FEMA (which is not an investigating body in the first place) noted that their hypothesis about office fires having brought down the skyscraper symmetrically and in 6,5 seconds has only a "low degree of probability".

The 9/11 Commission did not devote a single world in their report to WTC 7.

NIST in turn is now preparing its report, perhaps to be published some time next year, without access to a single steel member of the building whose collapse represented only the third most catastrophic building collapse in world history. Do these official "investigations", in your view, correspond to your idea of good scientific practice?

I personally would assume that even a child could see that the collapse of building 7 has not been investigated in a way that the scope and the safety implications of the event would have required.

If you disagree with professor Jones's arguments, please put forward your counterarguments.

Sorry: single world =>

Sorry: single world => single word

byu prof, believe it or not

byu prof,

believe it or not we are about the truth here. if you can disprove Jones's claims I would be the first to hear what you have to say with an open mind. please do tell us why you say Jones's claims are junk science.

If you so upset by junk science, are you upset by the FEMA report or the other official gov't reports about 911.

How do you explain all the accounts of bombs going off after the planes hit? How do you explain that the buildings collapsed at free fall speed indicating it encountered no resistance? 3000 americans are dead and you are only concerned about showing class?

please... bring forth your evidence. Is it junk science to claim that 3 skycrapers collapsed from fire for the first time in history? Is the pulverization of all the concrete in the wtc towers junk science? Is the siesmic evidence junk science? Is the silverstein quote junk science?

byu engineeringprof: if

byu engineeringprof: if Prof Jones' work is 'junk science', would you take a few minutes to explain the errors in his work? The fallacies must be fairly basic if he is 'an embarrassment to the university.'

BYU Professor, I am the one

BYU Professor,
I am the one who posted you all's e-mail address and i will challenge any Professor anytime anywhere on the subject of 9-11...I'm glad you took the time to already do a little research from the E-mails that i have sent to you all yesterday and today...Keep reading Prof. and connect the dots and you will come to one conclusion and that Sir/Ms is that the Bush/PNAC adminstration Planned and Orchestrated 9-11... you think that this is the first time in history that a country "faked" an attack and blamed it on others...
i wonder who this is Tim, Chad or Mellisa....when it comes to 9-11 truth...let the god damm sunshine in

Thanks for the replies. I

Thanks for the replies.

I have already gotten into enough of these debates on websites that I know that this quickly becomes a never-ending time sink. I simply don't have the time or energy to start a thread this week that I think would do justice to the issue. Maybe some other time. I am sure some of you will think that is a cop-out, but so be it.

There were just three main points that I wanted to make:

1) The announcement by the BYU engineering faculty is in NO WAY a cover-up or censorship of Prof. Jones's theory as some of you are implying. It is simply a response to the media attention and the numerous comments made by Prof. Jones implying that the engineering faculty at BYU are in agreement with him. That is simply not true.

2) If in fact Prof. Jones believes that his theory has technical merit, he should submit it to a technical journal and go through the peer-review process. That is the way we generally do things in academia. Not just at BYU, but at ANY university.

3) The article in the blog said that the announcement implied that the entire BYU engineering faculty disagreed with Prof. Jones. That is NOT what the announcement said. It said that the "structural engineering faculty" were united in disagreement. This represents a group of 4-5 people in the civil engineering dept. This is a small percentage of the overall college faculty. However, they are the ones most qualified to evaluate the situation. Moreso than a physics professor.


Dear pw Trust me, I have had

Dear pw

Trust me, I have had lots of debates on this issue and have researched it quite thoroughly. I actually have enjoyed the debate. But I think posting the e-mail addresses like you did and encouraging an e-mail barrage was pretty lame.

really what is PNAC who are

what is PNAC who are the members?
what time did the Planes and what ever hit the pentagon thier targets,timeline,?
How many time lines did NORAD give?
What were our leaders doing during the 9-11 event.
How full were or what percentage of the, how many passengers were on the Suppose flights?
If i was UBL the targets would not have been the WTC or the side of the pentagon that nobody was in but 3 planes flew over with in minutes, what was that target?
i can go and on and on with much more important questions but until you know the basics....

BYU Engineering

BYU Engineering Prof:

"Pretty Lame"??? You call Professor Jones' theory "junk science", however, you don't have time to debate it or open our minds to your opinions? Although you have supposedly done plenty of such debating in other forums.

Then you make a statement more fitting of a 12 year old skateboarder?

Sorry bud, signing your name "byu engineering prof" doesn't gain you any credibility here, time to put your money where your mouth is.

Very good somebigguy. I'm

Very good somebigguy.
I'm "pretty sure" we won't hear from
him again....compared to I "know" the Bush/PNAC adminstration planned 9-11

arguing the aspects of the

arguing the aspects of the theories of controlled demolition in WTC7 are pretty futile here, however I do believe if one wants to argue a counter-position then they should release some sort of research paper that specifically addresses the material presented.

So, if you disagree that is great, but at least help add to the discussion by presenting a counter arguement to his research or that done by Jim Hoffman..

so far i havent seen anything which does so.

(and don't bring up the NIST report, it only discusses theories up to the point of global collapse, not the aspects brought up by Hoffman and Jones)

The NIST and FEMA reports

The NIST and FEMA reports both present theories based on the foregone conclusions that the collapses were somehow caused by the airplane impacts.

This fact alone invalidates both of those reports.

it also seems the Prof. is

it also seems the Prof. is practicing
the fine art of CYA in knowing there are other Professors and mabey his bosses looking at this thread
Send me your mailing address i will send you a DVD that proves the Bush/PNAC adm Planned and Orchestrated 9-11...i have handed out over a 1000 my self

With each passig day more and more American citizens
are learning the truth about 9-11.
And the truth is that the Bush adminstration Planned and Orchestrated 9-11
and i'm here to offer you the proof for free.
send me your mailing address and i will send you the DVD
or you can order it here

Professor, your maturity

Professor, your maturity level is 'junk'.

Hehe, I simply love people

Hehe, I simply love people like BUY prof.

You have simply not even considered his paper, and youre probably not even from BUY. Shut up, and go to bed.

I´d LOVE to believe in the official story. It is not that easy though, when the physics prove it wrong. WTC7 was brought down with explosive, and when the truth comes out, I hope you go to jail for helping with the cover-up.

You could prove Jones wrong in 2minutes, if you KNOW he is wrong. Come on. Show us the physics. The math. Thats what its all about.

I don't think it's a good

I don't think it's a good idea to present ALL arguments for 911 conspiracy to civil engineering professors or professors in physics, applied math, or other mechanical engineering types of disciplines.

These are typically busy guys who, to put it bluntly, may not really care about 911. If you challenge them to spend a month reading up on 911, they aren't going to do it. But if you point to technical arguments, as presented in the papers of Jones, Trumpman and Hoffman, then they have something that they can chew on.

Even doing this is a bit of a problem, as all three authors mentioned above have essentially presented physics arguments. Besides the problems having different mindsets brings to the problem, wherein a construction engineer might dismiss, out of hand, a qualitative or sem-quantitative argument which has no history of being useful in his/her field, there is an additional problem.

And that is, some ASPECTS of the collapses are not (AFAIK) properly objects of study in EITHER construction engineering OR physics.

I SPECIFICALLY refer to at least 2 aspects of the collapse which are highly damning to the FEMA Fairy Tale version: 1) the extraordinary speed of the collapses (12 - 16 seconds vs. free fall in vacuum speeds of about 8-9 seconds) and their symmetry. (IMO, the symmetry of the collapse of WTC 7 is so perfect it's not even worth arguing about. Thus, questions about symmetry of collapses should start with videos of WTC 7, not WTC 1 or 2.)

I seriously doubt that there has been any extensive study of how a collapse could possibly proceed symetrically and with such and such a speed. Certainly, my interactions with an engineer and an architect convinces me that they are trained only to think about "how do I make the building strong enough to prevent a collapse, or at least delay it long enough such that the occupants can escape?"

The engineer-type (he wasn't a certified engineer) and the architect (my cousin) that I spoke with both had no problem believing that the building SHOULD have collapsed. The architect insisted that the building performed very well.

If this is generally the case, then we are not in a good position to ask for an extensive amount of construction engineers' time to evaluate the collapses. We are essentially asking them to create a new body of theory that will probably not do them any good in their careers, but may well harm it (due to time taken away from more mainstream pursuits, plus any "ridicule factor" that probably does exist)


Some of the "arguments" for demolition are considered non-arguments by specialists. E.g., skyscrapers in crowded cities are designed to collapse into their footprints. Therefore, there should not be a big mystery as to why they did. It's probably more of mystery why so much of the rubble fell outside of the footprints. Thus, this is a better question to ask a construction engineer, than it's opposite!

Ultimately, a completely convincing explanation of collapse can only follow from extensive computer modelling. However, I hope that there are shortcuts that might allow construction engineers to get a handle on the speed and symmetry problem. Also, it is beyond my belief (at least at this point) to see why finite element computer simulations could not affordably be done that modelled just a few floors below the collapse zone (as opposed to the whole building - doing so would be prohibitively expensive)

Of course, there are other aspects of the collapses construction engineers cannot or will not approach. The one that they cannot approach, even in principle, is the uber-weird telescoping, powderizing collapse of the surviving "spire". It is unknown to me whether presenting info regarding the spire to construction engineers would pique their interest, or weird them out. No doubt, the answer to that question depends on the individual engineer. HOWEVER, I CERTAINLY RECOMMEND TRYING THIS APPROACH WITH A SUBSET OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS THAT YOU APPROACH, TO GET A SENSE OF WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN THE GENERAL CASE. Furthermore, if they do give you the time of day on that subject, don't let them escape the issue with a casual comment about camera angles and throwing up dust. I have analyzed this and shown that the spire collapses about 46 feet before emitting any dust. Furthermore, the collapse is caught on video and camera from multiple angles. (see my posts on for more info; my username there is metamars)

I'D ALSO RECOMMEND ASKING AT LEAST SOME OF THE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS "HOW CAN THE TOP OF THE SOUTH TOWER TILT BY APPROXIMATELY 25 DEGREES, THUS ACQUIRING ANGULAR MOMENTUM, AND THE THE ROATION BASICALLY JUST CEASE? (Conservation of angular momentum implies, at the very least that the top cease to function as a rigid body and/or that there were sufficient unsevered columns to arrest the rotation, which appears impossible from the pictures)

In all your attacks against

In all your attacks against the BYU prof who posted hear earlier, not one of you tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists have addressed why Jones has opted to publish his article in a Marxist rag instead of a peer-reviewed physics journal.

I'm guessing by the coherency in most of your comments that not many of you have actually gone to college. should know that peer review, not news appearences, not blanket accusations, is how scientific theories gain credibility.

So...if you really want to see Jones' views him and convince him to submit his article for vigorous peer review.

Unless, of course, that's too "establishment" for you. Idiots...all of you.

yeah it does seem like a

yeah it does seem like a weird place to publish his article. maybe he did submit it to other journals. maybe the "serious" journals wouldn't accept his paper. I couldn't find the marxist journal you're talking about, and the reference to Jones only submitting his ideas there. could you show us more about that?

Some Guy with a Brain: "In

Some Guy with a Brain:
"In all your attacks against the BYU prof who posted hear earlier, not one of you tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists have addressed why Jones has opted to publish his article in a Marxist rag instead of a peer-reviewed physics journal."

This is a self-serving "argument". The poster pre-supposes that "normal" venues for publishing his paper are available to Jones.

I assume just the opposite, and for very good reason. If anybody here entertains the fantasy that scientists are not human beings and that politics, ego, financial and career concerns don't work strongly against a fair approach to what is seriously studied and what is shunned, I refer you to The very reason this site came into existence is partly because of the shoddy way that scientists with non-mainstream theories and even EVIDENCE are treated by the authoritative gatekeepers in the astronomy scientific community.

For the utter corruption that can and does exists amongst scientists associated with pharmaceutical and nutrition research, I refer the interested reader to

As this poster has based his argument on a fantasy, I recommend that nobody take it seriously. In case there's any doubt as to how fair-minded this poster is, one need only read his last line, "Idiots...all of you." Perhaps he is simply ignorant of the realities I noted above, but I suspect he is not interested in reality, and is quite happy with Fairy Tales aside from those touted by FEMA, NIST, and the US Government.

I will agree, though, that some of postings by people on my side of the debate were disrespectful.

Some Guy With a Brain : Do

Some Guy With a Brain :

Do you get lonley up there on your pedestal ?

Some Gut With a Brain, You

Some Gut With a Brain,

You know what it does not take a person with a college degree to figure out the Bush/PNAC adminstration Planned 9-11.
lets see if you can answer these questions correctly

Do you believe everthing the Bush/PNAC adminstration has told you?(this one is based on opinion)

What is PNAC,and tell me the top 10
prominent members?
What time was alleged AA#11 first first reported highjacked and when did it
attack the WTC?
The same goes for alleged flights
UAL#175 and AA#77(pentagon)?
What time did the acting Joint Chief of Staff Gen Myers order interceptors in the air?
How full were the alleged planes percentage wise?
UBL, the official bad guy, had a chance to kill 20 million american people
on the morning of 9-11 3 alleged plane within minutes flew over what target that would have done this?
In the History of steel framed buildings how many have collasped do to fire?
and for Now the last question for now.
How many timelines have NORAD given
about 9-11?

Some Guy With a Brain, or any other professor or "true believers" of our Govt story, entertain us of your knowledge about 9-11.
then i will ask some more questions and by finding to these answers
you will find that Bush/PNAC adm. Planned and Orchestrated 9-11.
But first you need to find the answers to these very simple questions.

How full were or what percentage of the, how many passengers were on the Suppose flights?
If i was UBL the targets would not have been the WTC or the side of the pentagon that nobody was in but 3 planes flew over with in minutes, what was that target?

Funny how Some Guy With A

Funny how Some Guy With A Brain makes statements suggesting that none of us went to college when his post is littered with spelling errors.

I thought people with brains knew how to spell?

I'm not quick to dismiss or

I'm not quick to dismiss or accept ANY claims about 911. I said nothing about the FEMA claims or the 911 Commission. Nice of you to obfiscate, though.

My point, and I'll say it again, is why did Jones, until he was asked by his employer not to, decide to circumvent the traditional process of academic veracity?

He didn't even have the agreement of his BYU colleagues before he started giving interviews and making his claims. He has yet to submit his findings for publication in anything but fringe-left political journal.

sl makes some valid points about how, in some instances, the scientific community will shut out non-mainstream claims and hypotheses. However, there is no evidence this has happened to Jones as, once again, he's apparently decided to go another route.

Shouldn't the fact that he's acted like a fringe scientist with questionable claims lead anyone to think that possibly his IS a fringe scientist with questionable claims?

Some Guy With a Brain is one

Some Guy With a Brain is one of the many people who would much rather believe a corrupt government than everyday citizens who have nothing to gain from speaking the truth.

Some guy with a brain: There

Some guy with a brain:
There is ONE key question regarding Jones - is his theory accurate? Questions regarding his motivations, lifestyle and past transgressions are only important to Fox viewers and official lie backers as a means to discredit his findings. Ignore the molehills for a moment and look at the mountain.

"There is ONE key question

"There is ONE key question regarding Jones - is his theory accurate?"

Correct. These sorts of questions about why Jones did things one way as opposed to another, remind me of all the skeptics' questions along the lines of : "well, who WERE the real perps?" As if the perps in a covert operation would take out an ad announcing their wondrous deeds.

Since Jones is asking for a new, thorough, international investigation, it's not as though he doesn't WANT peer review at all. Exactly the opposite is the case. The most reasonable explanation is that he knew his paper had no chance at all of being published in a regular, peer-reviewed journal.

And quite frankly, even ignoring the "hidden agenda", murder plot aspects of his thesis, what journal would he publish in? The only journals that I can think of that might accept his "out of the box" TOPIC (as distinct from THEORY) are, perhaps, journals like Nature or Science, at least one of which has had unusual topics in the past.

Certainly, Physical Review (the Webster of Physics Journals) would normally have no interest in the topic from a physics point of view (AFAIK).

9-11 activist, Just wanted

9-11 activist,
Just wanted to let you all
know, you guys and gals are good
thanks, dz.
I have gotten some e-mails from BYU
Professors threating me if i don't take that person off my list they will talk to thier "server" and block
my e-mail address to all BYU Professors,that creates a problem for the them and me :-) for me its obivous,them,they will block others by mistake,
I call this a block of e-mails (above),most others have more addresses, i have 23 more blocks,
MSM,DOJ,FBI,almost all of congress,
and my favorite the "bush supporters"
I hope more than one person here picks up the BYU Professors addresses. and send them 411 and ask them questions.
ps..Some Guy With a Brain,
nobody mentioned FEMA.
PNAC was mentioned and it obivous that you missed the first question i asked? LOL LOL

my mistake on the FEMA

my mistake on the FEMA comment

Wasnt there found lots of

Wasnt there found lots of melted steel on ground zero?

- This is not a conversation starter. Please send a link about this.

Jones' call for a new

Jones' call for a new investigation only warrants attention if his theories are shown to have any merit. Merit is not established by random TV appearences and publication in Stalinist rags.

Jones actions (especially given the fact that his research was inspired by a visit with a psychic) thus far have resemble those of a barking moonbat and not a serious scientist.

Some guy with some

Some guy with some brain:
Have you read Jones' report? Or are you waiting for someone to tell you what you think of it?

some guy with a brain, here

some guy with a brain,
here is prof. jones' report::
if for some reason you just can't accept the validity of said report, then here is yet another report by yet another physicist::
by all means, read these reports and this third report which is about the ASCE's pentagon report::
then, perhaps you will be qualified to say who resembles a serious scientist and who does not