Steven Jones

Letter to the Editor by Professor Steven Jones

Letter to the Editor:

I stand firmly against the war in Iraq and any war of aggression.

I support scientific scrutiny of the events of 9/11/2001, a day which will live in infamy. I speak as a private citizen of the United States.

"In a democracy we can renounce war and proclaim peace. There is opportunity for dissent. Many have been speaking out and doing so emphatically. That is their privilege. That is their right, so long as they do so legally… We can give our opinions on the merits of the situation as we see it..." (Pres. Gordon B. Hinckley, LDS General Conference, 6 April 2003.)

Wholeheartedly agreeing, I am exercising that right and that privilege. "A team of American and Iraqi public health researchers has estimated that 600,000 civilians have died in violence across Iraq since the 2003 American invasion," (New York Times, 11 Oct. 2006) I renounce these killings in the Middle Eastern wars.

We must insist on complete answers to questions about what really happened on September 11th, why there were no air defenses that day, and why we have gone to war in the Middle East. These issues transcend party politics. These yearnings for understanding of 9/11 and the wars that followed take us to the core of our heritage as Americans -- I support the Constitution of the United States. I am very concerned about those elected officials who would engage in pre-emptive war rather than "common defense" to "repel invasions" (Article I), compromise our rights against torture and cruel punishments (8th Amendment), take away the right of habeas corpus (Article I), and diminish the freedom to speak out without fear of reprisals (1st Amendment).

BYU's 'Conspiracy' Professor Getting New Support

(KUTV) SALT LAKE CITY - It’s a local story – with ties to September 11th – that won’t go away.

Now, a BYU professor who believes a conspiracy was involved in the terror attacks on America is getting support from fellow scholars.

Physicist Steven Jones was put on administrative leave last week, because BYU officials were worried that his conspiracy beliefs are tarnishing the university’s image. The school also expressed concern over his research methods.

Jones believes that the hijacked airliners that crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 were not enough to topple the towers by themselves. He says the resulting fire simply did not burn hot enough to cause the structural damage necessary for the buildings to collapse.

Many have criticized Jones for his theory, but now an academic group is stepping forward to offer support.

A local chapter of the American Association of University Professors is criticizing BYU for its actions, saying that it restricts academic _expression of thought.

“The way that our institutions are supposed to work is, to raise questions,” said AAUP local founder Larry Anderson. “Let everybody else attack if they must.”

“This will help the information about his case get out to other people who are interested in academic freedom,” he added.

In response, BYU issued a statement saying that it “did not make its decision based on external pressure.”

Jones’ conspiracy theory is still generating some interest on the internet, among both supporters and critics – including Popular Mechanics, which says it can discredit any conspiracy theory.

A 9-11 Truth Digest

At 11 a.m. on Sept 11, 2001, our television sets told us an organization called Al Qaeda was responsible for the death and destruction that had transpired a few hours before. We were supplied with little evidence to support this claim, but we needed someone to blame and so we went along. Five years later, we have growing reasons to believe it was never true.

I could go on about the reasons, but to get to the point, what has changed recently has been mainstream media coverage of what is now called the "9-11 Truth Movement." This movement of people like you and me has grown exponentially as it endeavors tirelessly to uncover what really happened on that horrific day.

Polls now say that between a quarter and a half of Americans believe that what really happened on 9-11 was something other than the official government theory. Are these millions of Americans "Conspiracy Theorists"? In truth of course anyone who thinks in any way about 9-11 is a conspiracy theorist. A conspiracy occurred that day. The question is, Who do you believe was involved in it and in what capacity? "9-11 researchers" might be a fairer title with which to label those who, like myself, find it to be a deeply patriotic duty to uncover the truth behind this defining event in the current life of our nation and our planet. All of our wars and reshaped domestic priorities continue to revolve around our shared, but possibly very flawed, accounting of 9-11.

Not everyone has the time or willingness to look into this. In the past week, dozens of new stories have been written about the growing trend away from belief in the official story. I invite you to read one or two of them as part of commemorating and understanding 9-11 and the governmental changes it has created.

Association Of Professors Defending BYU's Jones

Via: The Gaelic Starover, thanks, Daithí.

Association Of Professors Defending BYU's Jones

Sep 12, 2006 8:09 am US/Mountain

PROVO A national organization is coming out in support of a BYU professor placed on paid leave for his controversial theories about the September 11th attacks.

The American Association of University Professors says the school should not have placed the physics professor on leave for statements made outside of the classroom.

Steven Jones has published a paper suggesting the World Trade Center towers fell because of pre-set demolition charges -- not just because they were struck by planes.

General secretary for the AAUP Roger Bowen says academic freedom also protects statements professors make outside the classroom.

Jones says he only discussed his theory in class after students asked him questions about it.

A spokeswoman for Brigham Young University says what Jones said in the classroom and how careful he was about disclaimers are subjects of the university review.

Why Professor Jones was put on "Paid Leave"

An article in U.S. News and World Report states:

"BYU's explanation for Jones's review cites his accusations about government involvement . . . not the quality of his research into the collapse's physics . . . ."

This is what I've been hearing also: that the cause of BYU putting Professor Jones on "paid leave" pending further review is not that the school has become concerned about his 9/11 physics research. Instead, it is Professor Jones' accusations concerning the involvement in 9/11 of prominent U.S. government employees and other powerful people that has BYU running scared.

Postscript: Professor Jones has not issued any requests for help. If he does so, I'll promptly post them.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth Address Recent Backlash

SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH ASSAILED - Members and movement attacked from several directions

Madison, WI (PRWEB) September 9, 2006 --- Three professors who are members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth have been threatened with the loss of their positions for their research and teaching about the events of 9/11. Other attacks are coming from national magazines, such as TIME and U.S. NEWS, which have cover-stories this week suggesting that those who believe 9/11 involved a conspiracy may need psychological counseling. In addition, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Popular Mechanics have published pieces intended to bolster the official account of 9/11.
“According to the government, 9/11 is ‘the pivotal event of the 21st century,’ which changed everything”, he observed. “So it obviously deserves to be studied. College and universities are the institutions that undertake the study of significant historical events. The very idea that faculty should not be studying the events of 9/11 verges on the absurd,” he remarked. “And since the official account-that the events of 9/11 involved 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacking four commercial airliners and perpetrating terrorist acts under control of a man in a cave in Afghanistan-involves a conspiracy, it is impossible to study 9/11 without dealing with conspiracy theories.”

Follow the link for the full press release

Important Information on Steven Jones' Research

As a former major supporter of Steven Jones I must convey the following


Steven Jones spends much of his time on molten metal, in particular the molten metal dripping from the South Tower. Using a picture from the NIST report, he determines the color of the molten metal in order to gauge the temperature. However, the NIST report states that the “intensity levels” of the picture were adjusted. This information was placed at the bottom of the picture, but for some reason Jones removed it.


Why did Jones use a picture that had its intensity level adjusted to determine the color or something?

Why did he hide the fact that the levels were adjusted?

Was the dripping molten metal really there? Notice that the windows switch.



A Critical Plea To Dylan Avery, And A Call To Action

I had a very bad feeling last night about the upcoming debate on Amy Goodman's show, and 9/11 Truth in general. Although I couldn't quite pinpoint it at the time, now it seems as plain as day. Simply put, The Movement is currently coming under a most vicious, strategic attack by the official storytellers and the powers that be. Let me repeat myself: ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake about it: WE ARE UNDER ATTACK.

This all began over the past couple of weeks, as the disinfo regarding no planes at the WTC started to appear en masse on this site. I've been a regular visitor and contributor to 911 Blogger for a number of months now and I've never seen so much organized commentary on these fringe, unscientific topics prior to this recent period of time. In addition, The Movement has been receiving much press coverage over the past month or so- the vast majority of it highly unflattering and unhelpful.

Virtually every single instance of mainstream media coverage that has covered so-called "conspiracy theories" regarding 9/11, follows this modus operandi:

  • first and foremost, ignore and prevent any mention, whatsoever, of WTC Building 7
  • never debate or give credence, or acceptance, to any of the skeptical points raised, no matter what

Update on our Debate with Steven E. Jones (Reynolds / Wood)

Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood — August 29, 2006
Printer friendly copy of this article available here.

Update on our Debate with Steven E. Jones

To our fans and opponents: Our critical review of the 9/11 work of Steven E. Jones appeared the evening of August 23. We understand that he responded on August 25, but we were not notified. We discovered it on the PhysOrg forum on August 27 and we replied to it on August 27. We posted our response and sent Jones the link. After posting our response, we learned that Jones had changed the file he had posted. So, it appears that to respond to whatever he posts is like aiming at a moving target.
Jones’ response has appeared at but not our original article nor ourreply. Only one side of the debate is represented at the Scholars’ site. Can there be better evidence of what Scholars’ "Truth" is really about?
It looks like Jones intends to issue a string of rebuttals over the next XX weeks. Once we judge that he has dribbled the bulk of his replies out, we will scoop them up and put them under the microscope and refute them.
In the meantime, we urge interested parties to consult our original critique since it contains a great deal of 9/11 analysis, including some original findings, in the context of knocking down Jones’ errors. Our original article and our reply to Jones’ August 27 response are key to uncovering the bogus nature of Jones’ work.

Reynolds and Wood Reply to Jones

Disturbed about the content and quality of physicist Steven E. Jones' 9/11 work, Drs. Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood presented a critique. It covered ten major issues like demolition of WTC 7, demolitions of WTC 1&2, evidence for high-energy explosives, thermite, glowing aluminum, No Airliner Crash Theory (NACT instead of NPT) and other issues. Jones responded on two issues and Reynolds/Wood found it so unsatisfactory that they reply here, which incorporates Jones' response.

The above submission comes from Judy Wood.

This is likely to be the last in our coverage of this inner-fued due to an incredibly divisive email we have received regarding our coverage. Users who wish to continue to follow this spat are more than welcome to follow it on their own, or discuss further in their personal user blogs, but we will no longer treat this feud as news worthy of promoting to our front page.

We'll all bow down and praise you no-planers once we win

How about this to settle this dispute, and its most recent formulation with the Morgan Reynolds/Judy Wood hit piece today.

All of us who don't believe in "No Plane Theory" (NPT) will promise to give you guys all the respect and deference once 9/11 truth gets out. I'll even give you money for being right if you are, I mean that.

For now, the no planers at the WTC need to shut up and stop attacking their own, like Steven Jones, etc. This debate won't be settled until we win and 9/11 truth is out and then we can actually look at the evidence, have a complete investigation, etc. Until that time, 'No-planers' have to realize that they are hurting the movement. They are hindering the truth from being delivered to millions of more people in America and around the world. They are preventing the truth from breaking through the wall of mainstream media and left gate-keepers we are working so hard to crack. They are hurting the chances that others who know and have credibility will come out.

We all know that the government's explanation of how World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7 came down doesn't stand up to evidence.

Reynolds, Wood, Jones & Plane Parts

Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood have posted an article critical of Steven Jones and his 9/11 research at Reynolds' website: The Trouble with Steven E. Jones' 9/11 Research

In fairness, here is Jones' prior defense of his research, (note that this was published before the above linked article).
"Answers to Questions and Objections"

Last year, a construction worker sent us scans of photos that he took, of wreckage that he believes are pieces of the planes that struck one of the WTC towers. Now that is seeing more traffic, it's time to represent Louis' story;

I was there that morning of 9/11 working on a nearby roof and the following week I was asked to go to Ground Zero to help with the rigging of some of the buildings that were damaged. I worked on, 1 Liberty Plaza, Century 21 Building, Hilton Millenium Hotel, and The Federal Building.

Short Review of the Chicago 9/11 Conference Keynote DVDs

Here is my short review of the - Chicago Keynote address DVDs

Annie Machon

"MI5 was founded, way back in 1909, and its primary purpose was to investigate the threat of German espionage in the run-up to the first World War. They have moved on slightly in those 80 years, but all that time, they didn't exist, officially." - Annie Machon, June 3, 2006.

Annie Machon is a former intelligence officer for MI5. She and infamous truthteller David Shayler walked away from MI5 after deciding that they could not morally justify withholding from the British public the unpleasant realities that made up the workaday intelligence lifestyle. This included criminal practices that went as far as subletting an assassination attempt on Libya's Qaddafi to a terrorist organization with al-Qaeda links - 3 years after the first WTC bombing in 1993. (If you go to the archived April 8, 2006 broadcast of "World Crisis Radio" you can listen to Shayler tell his story in his own words.)