Retired Physicist Claims 9/11 Attack was Really Controlled Demolition

Retired physicist claims 9/11 attack was really controlled demolition

Ex-BYU professor bases theory on examination of dust samples

By Philip Jankowski

Stephen E. Jones, a retired physicist from Brigham Young University, announced his findings Saturday that imply a controlled demolition as the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001, instead of the impact from the two airplanes.

His findings were announced during the Project for the New American Citizen's two day event "Rebuilding America's Senses: Exposing False-Flag Terrorism to Prevent a New 9/11."

"We're trying to expose this idea that governments have used false-flag terrorism in order to get their public to go to war," said Matt Dayton, co-founder of the Project for the New American Citizen and radio-television-film junior.

"I'm sure [Stephen Jones] is a talented scientist," said Thomas Kelley, government junior and president of College Republicans at Texas. "But I think he can bend it anyway he wants. As a scientist, he can present facts in any way he chooses."

As the headlining speaker on Saturday, Jones gave a technical presentation that examined dust from the collapse of the towers in an attempt to debunk a report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which determined molten material photographed flowing out of the World Trade Center towers before their collapse was liquefied aluminum from the airplanes.

The molten material seen from several news and amateur cameras appeared a yellow-orange hue, but Jones said that when aluminum is melted, its color remains silvery. When Jones added several materials present in the towers to the molten aluminum, its color remained silver.

Jones was able to duplicate the color by adding aluminum and iron oxide. With the addition of sulfur, the liquid would become quite volatile.

"It could cut through steel like a hot knife through butter," Jones said.

By examining dust particles obtained from ground zero, Jones was able to compare the compositions of metal particles with those that remain from controlled demolitions.

He claims that the two were nearly identical, resembling thermite, a fire "accelerant" that Jones said is often used for arson. […]

For videos of Steven Jones discussing the new Thermite Evidence see this blog:

DR. STEVEN JONES Lecture in Austin Texas

Project for a New American Citizen: Rebuilding America’s Senses

The fact that Professor

The fact that Professor Jones has recently retired from BYU has absolutely no bearing on his professional qualifications or abilities as a physicist, therefore the prominent use of the modifier 'retired' is entirely unnecessary in this context; indeed it smacks of pejoration.

Furthermore, Professor Jones has not merely 'claimed' that the composition of the metal spherules recovered from the WTC closely resemble those that remain from controlled demolitions. In fact, he has scientifically proven that the two match. This is beyond dispute.

Mr. Jankowski must surely recognise the distinction between an unsubstantiated claim, and an evidentiary truth.

I like Jones! That being said...

I think he needs other scientists(chemists, ect.) doing seperate research to corroborate his findings or else no one will take him seriously. JMHO!
I have many questions about his research. Why is it taking so long?
How will he prove the samples are from the WTCs? What about "chain of custody"?
Anyway I wish him the best but I don't think it's enough.

Chain of custody

is of paramount importance. I'd like to know, too.

interns < internets

The dust samples came from Janette MacKinlay

She collected it from her apartment across the street from the WTC and gave samples to Steven Jones.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

I know, and I trust the evidence

the question is how to handle the naysayers. What if they say this was concocted evidence? What steps have been taken to document and preserve the chain of custody? I'm sure there must be some legal modes of operation -- any lawyers around?

interns < internets

He is using other scientists to confirm his findings...

In fact he references some in his video from the Austin presentation, including the leading X-EDS (Xray Microscope) specialist.

Video links in blog :

Please DIGG news item.

Thanks and best wishes

Many thanks and best wishes




Dr. Jones is attempting to bring into the debate more and more professionals who can verify his work, but most people are cowards and belong to Institutions who would fire them if they came forward. But unless there is a reason to doubt his work, (which I see none) then our questions should not be abour "Chain of Custody" or the like, it should be about, who can we call, write, or demonstrate to to get this Verifiable evidence in wider publication. Trade magazines, HBO, maybe an episode of CSI...

Thank You Prof Jones

In God I Trust, All Others Bring Data

Show " "Evidence" (is that like in "standards of evidence")" by theSaiGirl