- The BYU professor, who thinks explosions most likely
brought down the twin towers, is now limiting his media appearances to
only 'peer reviews.' Read his last words to the media here in the Arctic
- The BYU physics professor who thinks explosions brought
down the WTC said Wednesday he's "bowing out of the limelight"
and limiting his media appearances to only academic peer reviews.
- Conservative Professor Steven E. Jones has been barraged
by media appearances since releasing a 19 page paper last week, saying
"pre-positioned explosives" most likely brought down the twin
WTC towers as well as WTC No. 7.
- Professor Jones told the Arctic Beacon in a phone conversation
from his BYU office Wednesday, he was disappointed over having to turn
down numerous media requests, but felt it was in the best interests of
all parties to end the media shower and concentrate again on academics.
- He added after discussing the enormous media attention
with the heads of BYU, enormous attention coming from all corners of the
country, it was jointly decided by all parties it would best for the university
and for Jones to limit his speaking engagements to "peer review events
- "I want to thank everyone for the attention, but
it is best that I limit my appearances at this time," said Jones in
a conversation with the Arctic Beacon Wednesday morning, a parting word
which could be his last with the media for quite awhile.
- Professor Jones previously granted one of his first interviews
after calling the Arctic Beacon last Saturday and appearing on Greg Szymanski's
radio show, "The Investigative Journal," Monday on the Republic
Broadcasting Network. For a replay of the hour-long radio interview go
to www.rbnlive.com and for a feature article on Jones go to www.arcticbeacon.com.
- "I thoroughly enjoyed your interviews (with the
Arctic Beacon) and you were very fair," added Jones. "I wouldn't
say as much for Tucker Carlson and my appearance on MSNBC, who was short
with me and refused to play the video that graphically showed Building
7 come down in a freefall, as I described in the paper I just released.
- "I am going to have to turn down the appearance
tonight on the Rense show and also have decided not to attend a recent
invitation by the philanthropist, Jimmie Walter, to speak at a 9/11 event
in Tampa. No hard feelings to anyone but it is just something I have decided
is in my best interest.
- Before ending his media appearances, Jones tried to explain
why he wrote his paper:
- "I wanted to limit my discussion to my expertise
and that is why I talked mainly about the physics of the freefall of the
towers and Building 7," said Jones, adding he did criticize the so-called
"pod theory" or the theory that a "drone plane" was
used to crash into the towers.
- In his paper, Jones stayed away from commenting on most
other aspects of 9/11 except for the freefall of the towers and the limited
criticism of the "pod theory."
- "I did receive emails about why I did that (criticized
the pod theory) and even told Morgan Reynolds, I really felt it was important
to stick with the issues of 9/11 that are the most obvious and the easiest
to prove. That is why I wanted to limit my discussion, but in further papers
I plan to address other 9/11 issues. Also, I feel the 9/11 community
needs to work together and not be splintered by constantly arguing among
ourselves over conflicting theories that may take away from the ones we
can conclusively prove."
- Jones literally shocked the "Red State" of
Utah and the conservative world last week when he released a 19 page paper
basically ripping apart the official 9/11 story, limiting his discussion
to his expertise in physics and the virtual impossibility of the towers
falling from merely jet fuel as the government contends.
- Jones earlier said he first presented his explosive conclusions
at Brigham Young University (BYU) on September 22, to 60 people from the
BYU and Utah Valley State College faculties, including professors of Engineering,
Electrical Engineering, Geology, Mathematics and Psychology.
- After presently scientific arguments in favor of the
controlled demolition theory, Jones said everyone in attendance from all
backgrounds, conservative and liberal, were in total agreement further
investigation was needed.
- "I was quite surprised how my conclusions were received,"
said Jones, adding he plans to give two continue telling the public how
he came to his startling conclusions essentially ripping apart the official
government story that jet fuel brought down the towers, including Building
- "In fact, after I researched how Building 7 fell,
I am certain there existed pre-positioned explosives to bring down the
- Jones added that the contingent of faculty members at
the September seminar were all in agreement that the government needed
to "come clean" and release more that 6,900 photographs and close
to 7,000 segments of video footage, now being held from independent investigation
by the FBI and other agencies.
- In Jones' 9,000 word paper, his conclusions why the towers
most likely were brought down by a controlled demolition can be summed
up as follows.:
- * The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically,
falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled
demolition" - and even then it's very difficult, he says. "Why
would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers
when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much
more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would
they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical
implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along with other
data, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job."
- * No steel-frame building, before or after the
WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively
sever steel columns, he says.
- * WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes,
collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take
an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay
that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational
laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors
strike lower floors - and intact steel support columns - the fall must
be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors
fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?"
The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition
hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including
steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses."
These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission,
- * With non-explosive-caused collapse there would
typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material
in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were
falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without
explosives? Remarkable, amazing - and demanding scrutiny since the U.S.
government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."
- * Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were
observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when
pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says.
- * Steel supports were "partly evaporated,"
but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate
steel - and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures
that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most
a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20
minutes in any given location, he says.
- * Molten metal found in the debris of the World
Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of
a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled
by explosives "have insufficient directed energy to result in melting
of large quantities of metal," Jones says.
- * Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were
reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions
occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says.
- Greg Szymanski is an independent investigative journalist.