Professor Steven E. Jones

I've been seeing the good professor attacked a lot lately. From both inside and outside the movement. I thought it prudent to post this.

Y. Professor Thinks Bombs, Not Planes, Toppled WTC

BYU Forms New Theory About 9/11 Attacks

Professor Steven E. Jones' Report - Available For Download

Tucker Says 9/11 Skeptics Should "Leave The Country", Commits Slander - Video Inside

Tucker's Challenge

Tucker Carlson Resorts To Calling 9/11 Skeptic 'Quack' - Video Inside

Fulton College Response To Professor Steven Jones's Statements Regarding WTC

BYU Professor's Group Accuses U.S. Officials Of Lying About 9/11

Questions Remain From 9/11 Report, Professor Says

Prof. Jones' Utah 9/11 Seminar - Feb.1, 2006

Professor Steven E. Jones' Lecture - February 1st, 2006 - Audio Inside

Professor Steven E. Jones' Lecture About WTC Collapse - Video Inside Attacks Professor Steven E. Jones

9/11 Theorizing Professor Speaks Out

Taboo Topics

Time For The True Story About 9/11

System Breakdown

Representative Curt Weldon Takes Part In A Town Hall Meeting - Audio Inside

Physicist Says Heat Substance Felled WTC

BYU Professor Steven Jones Gives Update On 9/11 Research - Video Inside

Comments Regarding Prof. Jones' "Why Indeed Did The WTC Buildings Collapse?"

Alex Jones Interviews Professor Steven E. Jones - Audio Inside

One Night In Chicago

Prof. Jones Has Tested Two WTC Steel Samples, Clearly Shows Evidence Of Thermate

Webster Tarpley Interviews Professor Steven E. Jones - Audio Inside

11 Questions Avoided By The Media In Recent Reporting Of DoD Violations Of Law

9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Thriving

Michael Wolsey Interviews Professor Steven E. Jones - Audio Inside

Chicago Tribune: It Seems We're Destined To Have A Debate

Support Jones

Anyone with any judge of character, or knowledge of science, can easily see that Steven Jones is sincere and objective.

They can also see that his attackers have an agenda. It is all a little too obvious.

Well, I have little knowledge of science...

But I do think he is sincere.


The strongest arguments I can make regarding Controlled Demolition are this:

1) The evidence was removed.
2) Normally, they would have put the structure back together to see how it collapsed. They didn't.
3) The eyewitness accounts talking about explosions.
4) Rudy Guiliani is the one who ordered the evidence removed.
5) NIST's inability to release a report regarding WTC7.
6) WTC7 was not mentioned in the 9/11 Report.
7) The Madrid fire burned for hours, and didn't collapse.
8) The WTC had a fire that burned for hours back in the 70's, and it didn't collapse.
9) William Rodriguez.
10) The existence of Molten Metal.
11) NIST's unwillingness to look at alternative theories regarding the collapse.
12) NIST's inability to duplicate the collapse.
13) Kevin Ryan.
14) I don't think a building would disintegrate as those three did on 9/11.


I won't get into a back and forth argument regarding Controlled Demolition. It takes up time, and energy, and both are precious.

Nice List

Now all those haters can get off your back about CD.

IMHO, I would add:

* FEMA's pitiful report

* The virtual media blackout of WTC 7

* Squib footage (especially WTC 7)

This doesn't change the fact...

That I won't lead with Controlled Demolition when talking to someone. Hopefully someday you people will understand why.

i would say CD is pretty

i would say CD is pretty much beyond debate at this point. now its just a matter of presenting the evidence to the public. hopefully Jones will be forthcoming with his thermite findings soon. anybody know what the hold up is?

"hopefully Jones will be

"hopefully Jones will be forthcoming with his thermite findings soon. anybody know what the hold up is?"

He's probaby too busy trying to deal with attacks by no-planes agents. Perhaps now would be a good time to repost Eric Salter's analysis:

On has to wonder, with the no-plane theories gaining the support of bigshot Morgan Reynolds, if a redux of the pod debacle is in the cards.

If so, there are many reasons why it has progressed to this point. The phrase "Fools Rush In" has never been so appropriate than in describing the rougher edges of the 9/11 truth movement, in which we've seen all sorts of instant experts talking about technical subjects far removed from their expertise. Some researchers who are quite good at tracking down information have proven themselves completely incompetent at making a sound technical analysis. It's a completely different skill set. I suppose part of the problem is that so far I'm the only one with a background in visual media that has taken a critical look at these theories and that I've refused to spend too much time or energy on them. But the fact that the no-plane advocates have not sought out a second opinion from another experienced professional on their amateurish analyses speaks volumes.

The no-plane ideas are a manifestation of an epidemic of "smoking gun fever," the rush to see promising evidence in any and every perceived anomaly. One could chalk this up to technical incompetence, reckless enthusiasm, or a desperate desire for ammunition to use against a terrifying conspiracy, but the problem in fact is deeper. Is often driven by an ideological imperative to pursue a more radical case. And by radical I don't mean "leftist" but more divergent from the official story. If you look at the rhetoric of a no-plane supporter, such as Nico Haupt, you see an attempt to make accepting no-plane claims synonymous with pursuing the "real truth." Likewise, the "Gatekeepers" research of Bob Feldman, for which I helped build the flowchart graphic, has been hijacked and transformed from a complex analysis of elite control of lefty media into a simplistic ideological litmus test: "If you don't support my spurious physical evidence claims you're a 'gatekeeper.'"

The discussion of physical evidence has been politicized, subject to the old and tiresome radical-moderate dialectic. I worry that the 9/11 truth movement is devolving towards a predictable, manufactured divide: moderates who treat physical evidence responsibly but who advocate limited-hangout analyses of both 9/11 and world politics, and radicals who pursue a deeper and more accurate overall analysis but who lunge after spurious and sensational physical evidence claims in the name of exposing a deeper truth. You can find Haupt questioning the "peak oil" theory one minute and posting the windshield UFO garbage the next. That behavior discredits those who are pursuing more "radical" analyses.

Discussion of physical evidence should be egoless and non-ideological, characterized by stark realism. First the evidence has to be demonstrated simply to be reliable. Then it must be decided whether there is enough evidence to make a convincing case. The no-plane theories don't even make it past the first test. Every day prosecutors drop charges in criminal cases because they don't have enough evidence to go to trial, and they may do this even though they know the suspect is guilty as sin. Why? You pick your battles carefully, pick those you can win. In the end, the physical evidence may only support a limited hangout. If that is the case the answer is not to give up and go home but to augment the physical evidence with research about the past history of elite manipulation. Despite some forays into questionable evidence, Webster Tarpley has done exactly this in his book "9/11 Synthetic Terror."

On the other hand, massaging the evidence to fit a more radical analysis is exactly what the perps of 9/11 want. It leads to straw man arguments that the debunkers can knock down.

It should go without saying that an investigation of a conspiracy like 9/11 will always be a two-front war against disinformation. On one side are the gatekeepers pursuing a limited hangout. On the other side are crackpots and disinfo agents pushing bogus, discrediting evidence. Weeding out bogus claims is neither gatekeeping nor censorship but an absolutely critical activity. In defending no-planers and pod people, some who don't even support the theories have cited "freedom of speech" in defending those theories' place at the table, evidently feeling that if there is any tendency to suppress any lines of inquiry, then there will not a an atmosphere conducive to uncovering the full truth. This attitude simply ignores one front of the two-front war we're involved with. The treatment of the "pod" issue by PM is a perfect example of how this "freedom of speech" argument can backfire. It's clear the advocates of certain theories have shown themselves to be completely egotistically and ideologically attached to those theories. They'll never change. So if this breaks through and embarrasses us like the pod issue did, the real responsibility will be with those who kept forwarding or tolerating the no-plane material in the interest of "dialogue" or "exploration" or "askin' questions" and who failed to use their powers of discernment.

In between the two fronts of this information war there is a lot of grey area, with quite a bit of room for principled disagreement about both evidence and tactics. Of course, principled disagreement is exactly the opposite of the obnoxious behavior of the no-planers, some of which I've documented in my articles. This behavior creates an acrimonious and divisive atmosphere in a movement that prevents productive work, and is usually the M.O. of deep cover agents. But I'm not suggesting no-plane advocates are agents. In fact I believe that most are deluded "useful idiots," as the terminology goes. As such, their offerings are misinformation, not disinformation. But that doesn't mean that the spooks wouldn't flood lists and forums with vociferous multiple-pseudonym supporters of these theories, in a tactic similar to the astroturfing of mainstream politics. If I were in charge of the cover up I would let the authentic fools emerge and then use mind control to encourage egomaniacal, narcissistic, and aggressive tendencies. But while general comments on what theories constitute disinfo are reasonable, it's useless to let fly specific accusations of disinfo activity regarding individuals. There is never any evidence. Charges going back and forth is what the cover-up crew wants. Divide and conquer. Given the historical record of COINTELPRO, the ones making the accusations are most likely to actually be the agents.

From the same

From the same article:

"Compounding the misinterpretations due to blurry footage, the no-planers were originally using a half size, compressed mpeg movie to conduct their analysis. Moreover, Webfairy performed processing on this low quality movie which created even more degraded images, aptly described by Mark Bilk as "abstract video art." The no-planers, not knowing what full quality video was or what compression artifacts were, claimed these muddy, altered images were proof of the absence of a real plane."

These "no-planers" are not professional videographers. Most of them don't even seem to be playing with a full deck. They mistake compression artifacts for smoking guns of "TV fakery". They concoct hysterical, "everybody's in on it" conspiracies and create neoligisms for sane people who rightly laugh at their lunacy. With every truther who gets suckered in by these quacks, a little bit of 911 truth dies.

People need to come out STRONG against these agents/dupes before they damage the movement beyond repair.

We've been worried about disinfo from day one, usually without basis. Now we have REAL DISINFO rearing its ugly head. Don't get bamboozled!

Five ways to lead on CD...

First off, it's not CD in the case of the towers. Brought down by bombs is an accurate description of what appears to happen, but in no way were these examples of classic "controlled demolition." The term is an albatross, leads to irrelevant debates about how CD is "supposed to be" done.

Good introduction to issues here:

Best arguments for leading in:

1) Rapid destruction of the physical evidence.

2) Seven: symmetrical collapse inconsistent with asymmetrical damage, in this case appearing exactly like a CD. Plus, the tenants of Seven - incredible list. OEM, CIA, SEC, etc.

3) The psychological impact: the collapses were the real traumatizing event, creating randomness and chaos (tower impacts are at a distance, shocking but removed - suddenly it all comes down on your head). Towers still standing would have completely altered the "PR" aspect of 9/11 (also incomparably greater expense, danger and time to remove the still-ruined buildings).

4) The glaring inadequacies of the NIST report (no temperatures tested sufficient to cause failure of steel, need to constantly revise model so that it fits, modeling stops at "collapse initiation" and does not deal with actual coming down, no interest in testing for explosives). Why?

5) 9/11 was an inside job for a hundred other reasons.

From there, can go on to actual footage: speed and symmetry of collapses, lack of resistance from lower floors, squibs far below impact zone, pyroclastic expansion, etc. And design considerations: what happened to interlaced core columns?!

Some Correspondence...

I sent this to Professor Jones...



His response...

Thanks very much, Jon -- great job as usual.  Thanks for taking time to do this summary.  And note that I have written a brief (so far) reply (part 1, really) to the recent Reynolds & Wood piece -- my reply is available at

Steven J

Take that...

People who jump on me about Controlled Demolition. :)