July 6th, 2006

Steven Jones and the 9/11 Cover-Up

Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain—and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be.
Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up. (Ether 8:23-24, emphasis added)

Stephen E. Jones, a BYU physics professor (I was his student for one of my physics classes), has published a peer-reviewed paper, documenting his claims that the “official story” of 9/11 is a hoax, and a possible cover-up.

Now, before those of you reading this roll your eyes, try opening your minds to the possibility. Ask yourself “What if?“.

The implications of Jones’ allegations are far-reaching, thought-provoking, and of great importance. The fact that his critics seek to write him off as a nutcase instead of attempting to scientifically refute his claims is further evidence of their potential validity. Having taken a class from Dr. Jones, I know a little of his character, his spirituality, his personality, and his professionalism. I deem him to be a sane, humble, spiritual, intelligent man who is merely trying to seek the truth.

That being said, I highly recommend watching the following videos to learn more about what Dr. Jones has to say. The people who I’ve related his claims to are very shocked and surprised at their strength, logic, and potential for proof.

First, I recommend watching a 6 minute interview Dr. Jones did with Tucker Carslon, a political windbag, on MSNBC. It is interesting to note in this video how Tucker/MSNBC refused to air the footage of tower #7 falling, though Dr. Jones had previously provided the short clip to them. That clip can be watched here.

Second, I recommend getting a snack and sitting down for two hours to watch this UVSC lecture done by Dr. Jones late in 2005. Here he outlines the several points from his paper. It is very enlightening and informative.

Finally, it would be beneficial to also watching an hour-long clip of this meeting, in the style of a fireside of sorts, with some concerned citizens and church members in Provo in April 2006. They talk about, among other things, Jones’ claims in light of Book of Mormon prophecy.

Fact or fiction? As Fox News likes to chant, “we report, you decide”.

12 Responses to “Steven Jones and the 9/11 Cover-Up”

  1. the narrator
    July 7, 2006 at 1:55 am #

    I’ve heard Steve Jones’ presentation and read his paper. There are several problems I have with it.

    -Jones needs to stop calling his paper ‘peer-reviewed.’ While I have enjoyed the work that David Griffin has done in process philosphy, his and others’ “peer-review” is hardly up to par with typical academic use of peer-review.

    -Jones’ paper can hardly be called good research, and definitely not his own research. He merely cut and pasted different unscientific speculations that he found online. He is merely person with a Ph.D. attached to the end of his name.

    -Jones should know that his supposed research is pathetic. For example…

    —Jones claims that the towers should have collapsed at an angle. Anybody with a basic knowledge of physics should quickly realize that with a building as tall as the WTC buildings, a relatively small damage would not displace the center of gravity enough to cause an angular fall. His examples of tipping buildings he provides are very problematic because they are smaller buildings which have a greater displacement of a center of gravity due to damage.

    —Jones asks why the Madrid building failed to collapse due to fire. He fails to answer that it was because the Madrid building had a concrete infrastructure (as opposed to the WTC buildings which had a steel infrastructure)

    —Jones’ supposed science relies on the melting point of steel. He is apparently too stupid to realize that a steel infrastructure does not need to melt to cause a building to collapse. It only needs to be weakened by a much lower temperature.

    —Squibs. Jones doesn’t realize that a collapsing building creates a build up of air pressure which will cause the air to shoot out the side. Much like an accordian with a hole in its side.

    —Jones claims the building fell at (near) free fall speeds. He failed to notice that debris outside the buildings fell much faster. Hmmm… how could that be?

    This list could go on and on and on and on.

    What it all comes down to is that Jones is driven by two things. 1 – Religious motivation. 2 – He needs media attention again now that his cold fusion media attention days are over.

  2. Angela Sarth
    September 7, 2006 at 11:23 pm #

    Narrator: You say you GRADUATED from BYU? It is obvious that your personal beef with Jones has affected your ability to read and understand exactly what it is that Jones has written. Please reread his paper carefully. You will find that you grossly misrepresent the points he is trying to make.

  3. Angela Sarth
    September 7, 2006 at 11:28 pm #

    My apologies, Connor. I mistakenly assumed that response #1 was your own. My response is directed at the author of response #1. I have anger issues.

    Begin scathing recriminations………..now!

  4. Connor
    September 7, 2006 at 11:30 pm #

    So you thought I was responding to my own post, to rebut myself? :)

    I assumed that you had directed it to the narrator, so I included a “Narrator:” indicator at the beginning of your comment.

  5. the narrator
    September 8, 2006 at 12:05 am #

    I have read Steven Jones’s paper several times. I have seen him lecture on his plagerism of others’ conspiracy theories. I have met with (and was interviewed for almost an hour by) the directors of Improbable Collapse, the conspiracy documentary who helped promote Jones (I don’t know if I made the final cut). I have also watched Steve Jones fail to respond to almost every single response and refutation of his conspiracy theories.

    As I have asserted before, Jones is not doing science. He is merely a Ph.D. being attached to a collection of conspiracy theories that have been available online for years before Jones stepped onto the conspiratorial scene. I will also make the ad hominem attack that Jones is merely hungry for media attention now that the spotlight is long off of him from the cold-fusion fiasco a couple decades ago.

    Steve Jones’ peer reviewed paper cannot be called ‘peer-reviewed’ in any academic sense (the very sense that he and Griffin wish to pretend it is). It has not been reviewed by Jones’s peers in the scientific community. It is not a scientific paper. It is not real science. This is an example of a scientific paper. Jones’s paper is a great example of what is not a scientific paper (I can’t find it online anymore… perhaps the secret shadow government erased it from existence).

  6. Connor
    September 8, 2006 at 8:37 am #

    Of note: KSL reports today that Professor Jones is on paid leave.

  7. Scott
    September 19, 2006 at 11:11 am #

    If the govt has nothing to hide because their story is so solid, one would think they would release certain videos to put those “conspiracy nuts” to rest. Even for that reason alone, if a Virginia Dept of Transportation video that would have captured the alleged airliner passing over the freeway(two cameras actually) on the way to the Pentagon, they should release it. But they won’t. That same day, Sept 11, the video footage was confiscated. Why?
    These kinds of simple questions with apparently simple answers surely are not too difficult to put public.
    Instead the govt keeps alive the “shadow govt” image by not answering some of these people’s requests. I know that some theories do not deserve the govt’s precious time, but this example would be a simple one…but they refuse. Hmmm.
    I am glad an LDS member above sees the importance of looking at something he/she might disagree with.

  8. Kelly Winterton
    September 19, 2006 at 2:32 pm #

    I was a disbeliever in the government’s explanation long before Steven Jones came on the scene. There are many points besides the ones Jones makes in his paper and lectures which point to the weakness of the government’s claims. The lack of proof coming from government is not dependent upon Jones’ research. I happen to like what Jones is saying, simply because I believe what Joseph Smith had to say about the Constitution hanging by a thread. The Constitution’s sorry condition right now dovetails nicely with Moroni’s warnings about secret combinations. Whether Jones’ research is of good quality or not should not deter us from trying to safegaurd the Constitution from secret combinations.

    Just for starters on how weak the government’s claims are, consider: Osama bin Laden was declared to be the culprit by 11:00 A.M. on the morning of September 11th. Yet, five years later, Osama does not appear on the FBI’s most wanted list as the perpetrator. When the FBI is asked why Osama is not listed as wanted for 911, they reply by saying there is no evidence to link him to the attacks. This statement by the FBI is interesting, because even Bush himself claims no link of Osama bin Laden to Iraq. So, let that sink in for just a moment! FBI says no link of Osama to 911, Bush says no link between Osama to Iraq. So why are we quibbling over Jones’ research to the attacks of 911? This appears to be an “attack the messenger” rather than address the other mountains of evidence, like building #7 for starters.

  9. Daniel
    March 29, 2007 at 1:29 pm #

    So Stephen Jones was put on probation and subsequently retired from BYU shortly after a “private” meeting occured in SLC between the BuCheney and President Hinckley. The meeting occured on Aug. 31, 2006 and Jones was placed on academic leave on Sep. 9, 2006! That’s 10 days folks!

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/images/20060831-1_g015517-515h.html

    Aug. 31, 2006-Sep. 9, 2006

    http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650200587,00.html

    Our church has learned by experience (persecution, poligamy, etc.) to not mess with the government. How many times did the church pick up and move to avoid governments beating it up. The church moved into MEXICO to avoid it when it moved to what is now Utah. It is my belief that BuCheney pressured the president to shut Jones up. Even the prophet is scared of these guys. The real question is why does Cheney want to talk to BYU students? Is he coming to try and repair the damage or squash any remaining conspiracy theorist ideas? I say let him speak. This could be interesting.

  10. Daniel
    March 29, 2007 at 2:35 pm #

    Here are my responses to this spoon-fed, plagiarizing, hypocritical, and brain-washed neoconservative sympathizer. My comments are in blue.

    I’ve heard Steve Jones’ presentation and read his paper. There are several problems I have with it.

    -Jones needs to stop calling his paper ‘peer-reviewed.’ While I have enjoyed the work that David Griffin has done in process philosphy, his and others’ “peer-review” is hardly up to par with typical academic use of peer-review.

    - Mark Twain said, “In the beginning of change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause suceeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.” While the review process of this work is controversial, one must understand the reasons why people are scared to back him up. The timid, like you my yellow-bellied friend, are too scared to touch his work, let alone endorse it by peer-review.

    -Jones’ paper can hardly be called good research, and definitely not his own research. He merely cut and pasted different unscientific speculations that he found online. He is merely person with a Ph.D. attached to the end of his name.

    -So now Ph.D. = NOTHING. Please don’t tell me your high school degree = GOD. The brainwashing is literally permeating through your pompous, generation Y attitude despite your lack of experience. Plus, do you know what a REFERENCES section is? Jones provides over 40 references and an ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS section as well. ALL scientists build off of previous scientific knowlege, even the those working on the cutting edge. -Jones should know that his supposed research is pathetic. For example…

    —Jones claims that the towers should have collapsed at an angle. Anybody with a basic knowledge of physics should quickly realize that with a building as tall as the WTC buildings, a relatively small damage would not displace the center of gravity enough to cause an angular fall. His examples of tipping buildings he provides are very problematic because they are smaller buildings which have a greater displacement of a center of gravity due to damage.

    -Jones doesn’t have to explain the tipping buildings! It’s on tape! Did you even watch it!? You pretend to understand basic physics yet seem to be having trouble understanding Newton’s FIRST law of physics. That’s a basic as it gets. An object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by a unbalanced force. The top of the building had began to slide to one side. When the demolition explosives took out the support from under the sliding portion of the building, GRAVITY took on the position of the unbalanced force, pushing it to the ground.

    —Jones asks why the Madrid building failed to collapse due to fire. He fails to answer that it was because the Madrid building had a concrete infrastructure (as opposed to the WTC buildings which had a steel infrastructure)

    -So you’re saying that the World trade Center didn’t have concrete reinforced steel? What are your sources for that statement, the third Reich? You’ve got to be kidding me. You’re more brainwashed than Sanjaya’s dreams in American Idol!

    —Jones’ supposed science relies on the melting point of steel. He is apparently too stupid to realize that a steel infrastructure does not need to melt to cause a building to collapse. It only needs to be weakened by a much lower temperature.

    -Of course his research relies on the melting point! Why, you might ask? Because that’s what mainsteam media says happend. The average idiot thinks the jet fuel melted the steel taking down the towers. The whole point of his research was to sho that jet fuel did NOT and COULD NOT cause the steel to melt and buckle under the pressure. You’re running around in circles, double talking your own conclusions. Jet fuel did not melt the steel, rather cutter charges.

    —Squibs. Jones doesn’t realize that a collapsing building creates a build up of air pressure which will cause the air to shoot out the side. Much like an accordian with a hole in its side.

    -Ok genius, ever heard of Occam’s razor? When you’re given two theories, the more simple one is usually correct. When a building is taken down with cutter charges, they create squibs. Now you’re going to postulate that the squibs are created by the pancake theory, something that has never occured EVER in the history of man. Don’t fix what isn’t broken. You know, as well as everyone else, that when you saw those towers going down for the first time you were thinking it looked like controlled demolition. YOU KNOW IT! DON’T LIE TO YOURSELF!

    —Jones claims the building fell at (near) free fall speeds. He failed to notice that debris outside the buildings fell much faster. Hmmm… how could that be?

    -CUTTER CHARGES! During an EXPLOSION particles are excellerated much faster than the speed of gravity. You pretend to be this highly educated connoisseur of physics and can’t even READ. Did you miss that fact that Jones said there were explosives in the building?

    This list could go on and on and on and on.

    What it all comes down to is that Jones is driven by two things. 1 – Religious motivation. 2 – He needs media attention again now that his cold fusion media attention days are over.

    -Christ was driven by religious motivation. Is he bad now too? Who’s motivating you?
    -You’re ridiculous. You just want to throw in the fact that you know he was involved in cold fusion research to prove that you know what you’re talking about. It’s a total red herring.

  11. Kelly Winterton
    March 29, 2007 at 3:02 pm #

    Way to go Daniel, you must have been doing some study. I have been watching Jones’ research for more than a year now, and have come to the conclusion that Jones is sincere and honest in his research. But in reality, it doesn’t take a PhD to debunk the government’s official explanation of how a guy in a cave got 19 hijackers to wield boxcutters. All you really need to know is a few basics of high school physics. With a little common sense and an open mind, you just need to watch the video clips of the collapse of each of the 3 towers, and then realize these facts:

    If you took a billiard ball and dropped it from floor 110 through thin air, the ball would take 9.2 seconds to hit ground. If you could magically take floor 110 off of floor 109 and to the side and drop the whole of floor 110 through thin air, it would take about 9.5 seconds to hit the ground. But, even with the mass of 109 floors beneath floor 110, the top of the building hit ground level in less than 10.5 seconds. That is almost free-fall speed. This cannot physically happen UNLESS the mass of the floors underneath floor 110 was exploded out of the way first. (And this is exactly what happened if you watch the videos.)

    Second, what source of heat kept the pools of molten metal red-hot in the sub-basements of all three buildings for more than 5 weeks? There can only be one explanation for that huge amount of extra heat – - explosives.

    But, it’s still nice we have a sincere LDS PhD to tell me that my common sense can be backed up by physics.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Connor’s Conundrums | 9/11 Apathy, Doubt, and Disbelief - September 15, 2006

    [...] It is somewhat disconcerting that so many people write off so-called conspiracy “theories” as an irksome habit of UFO believers, drug users, and hippies. That is not the case anymore. There is a large community seeking to expose the 9/11 myth and inform people. Yet the average person will pay no attention to such “theories”, seeking to distance themselves from it as an LDS person would to anti-mormon literature. This must stop. We must inform people, openly discuss and debate the topic, and show how weak and fallacious the official 9/11 story really is. [...]

Leave a Reply

Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.