BYU Professor on 9/11
The Deseret News is reporting BYU Physics Professor Steven E. Jones’s theory that pre-positioned explosives commonly used in the construction implosion of buildings are responsible for bringing down the Twin Towers and the 42 story building nearby called WTC 7, and not the Muslim terrorists who rammed commercial airliners into each of the Twin Towers. The News report summarizes some of the evidence that Professor Jones has assembled for his article to be published in a book called The Hidden History of 9/11. The News article also links Jones’s article online at www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.
In addition to presenting this evidence, Professor Jones draws the inference that “Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all[.]“ Is this creepy conspiracy theory stuff, all the more embarassing because it is coming out of BYU, or is Professor Jones onto something here?
Umm. Creepy conspiracy stuff to me. I mean we all *saw* the planes hitting the buildings. It’s odd stuff for Jones to be pushing, unless he has some pretty compelling evidence. I’m surprised he’d do that after the bad name he got by association with Cold Fusion.
Comment by Clark Goble — November 10, 2005 @ 4:38 pm
Yeah. Disturbing. Sad.
Comment by J. Stapley — November 10, 2005 @ 5:34 pm
I don’t think it’s necessarily disturbing or sad. There are unanswered questions about why the buildings collapsed in the manner they did. Especially WTC 7, which was not hit. Scientists propose hypothesis and then try to test them. If that’s all Professor Jones is doing, I don’t think it’s embarrassing. Now if he’s going beyond the science of it and speculating that some conspiracy is responsible, rather than those who took responsibility, then that is wacky.
Comment by Greg Call — November 10, 2005 @ 6:23 pm
Wow. I even understood a lot of that. Sometimes things just never make sense. The older I get, the more stuff like that I see.
Comment by annegb — November 10, 2005 @ 6:54 pm
While that’s true, Greg, I think that had the terrorists had pre-planted bombs of that degree that they would have sent the planes elsewhere. As I recall they were surprised the buildings totally collapsed.
Comment by Clark Goble — November 10, 2005 @ 7:13 pm
Clark, that probably supports the argument that Jones is trying to make. I think he is implying some kind of government involvement in which the pre-positioned explosives were set by someone other than the terrorists. What connection he tries to draw between the terrorists and the pre-positioned explosives, I can’t imagine.
Comment by john fowles — November 10, 2005 @ 7:34 pm
He’s going beyond the science of it.
His conclusion that the buildings were not brought down by Muslim terrorists requires one of the following ridiculous scenarios:
1. The explosives were pre-planted in the towers by someone other than Muslim terrorists (SOTMT), and then — by amazing coincidence — Muslim terrorists hijacked some planes and crashed them into the towers. Whoever planted the explosives then took advantage of the crashes to demolish the buildings and blame it on the Muslim terrorists.
2. The explosives were pre-planted in the towers by SOTMT, who knew the Muslim terrorists were planning to crash planes into the towers. Whoever planted the explosives didn’t think the plane hijackings and crashes would be sufficient damage, so they planted the explosives to cause even more damage.
3. The explosives were pre-planted in the towers by SOTMT. They then provided a pretext for the collapse of the towers by hijacking planes with Muslims on board who happened to have trained for hijackings and using those planes to crash into the towers.
4. After the planes crashed into the towers, SOTMT carried explosives into the burning buildings and planted them in order to bring the towers down.
If you believe any of the above to be what actually happened, you should stop wearing your aluminum foil hat, because the foil actually magnifies certain frequencies used by the government.
And at least some of his evidence is obviously (at least to me) a misinterpretation of video footage. What he claims to be “squibs” on WTC 7 do not behave like puffs of smoke ejected from the building, because they clearly move down as if attached to the building as it collapses. Furthermore, they do not clearly protrude beyond the edge of the building (unlike the “squibs” from WTC 1, which do.) I’m pretty sure what he claims are squibs are actually just shadows caused by distortion to the building (and possibly by breaking windows) as it collapses.
Comment by Eric James Stone — November 10, 2005 @ 7:37 pm
Rule #1: Scientists who become interested in new areas of study after hearing a woman make an off-handed comment at a seminar about near-death experiences are not to be trusted.
That said, I don’t know what to do with his ‘evidence’ because I don’t know enough science either way.
However, what’s his scenario: some non-Muslim group plants explosives and then convinced Muslims to crash planes into the buildings in order to hide their tracks? I thought the point of terrorism was leaving tracks. Why would the Muslims cooperate? And why did the mystery group want to destroy the towers and have Muslim extremists get ‘credit’ for it?
Comment by Julie in Austin — November 10, 2005 @ 7:44 pm
The owner of WTC 7, Larry Silverstein, was quoted after 9/11 in a PBS doc., that there was a decision made to “pull it”, a common term for demolition experts when detonating explosives:
“I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”
How did they get the explosives there?
Also, many claimed that the planes that flew into the WTC had no windows and were clearly not passenger jets.
There is a lack of evidence that any plane hit the pentagon–Are you telling me the most secure building in the world with countless survelleince cameras didn’t catch one image of the incoming plane?
Concerning Flight 97, have you ever had a cell phone work on an airplane?
If you think that there is no way there can be a conspiracy or cover-up, you can go to several places and read media excerpts from the Okla. City bombing a few years back. There were two other explosive devices recovered which were reportedly larger than the one detonated, yet we were led to believe that McVeigh and Nichols acted alone. You’ll remember McVeigh’s execution was delayed because hundreds of documents were found by his lawyers suggesting that investigators were thought someone else had done this.
Sorry ’bout the length.
Comment by Tim J. — November 10, 2005 @ 8:18 pm
Julie, I would guess that the deep underlying agenda is to imply that the Bush administration did this to justify war on the Muslim world.
Comment by john fowles — November 10, 2005 @ 8:56 pm
So do all the buildings in New York have built in wired explosives so that in a case of a fire, the fire department can simply call the building owner who may choose to make the executive decision to simply “pull it” rather than save the building as a sort of “emergency self destruct system”?
I wonder what everyone in Boston was thinking when they boarded a plane that had no windows.
By the way, where’s Barbara Olsen? Its not often that the wife of a sitting soliciter general coincidentally disappears on the same day that the plane she purportedly boarded purportedly crashes into a building in Washington D.C.
Comment by Pete D. — November 10, 2005 @ 9:28 pm
…have you ever had a cell phone work on an airplane?
Yes. I always forget to turn mine off. Moreover, I have a really hard time taking your assertions seriously, so I will just leave it at that.
Comment by J. Stapley — November 10, 2005 @ 9:33 pm
J.,
You’re probably right, we should do as Bush asked immediately following 9/11 and not give heed to so-called conspiracy theories that will only distracts us from the truth…
“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain….”
Comment by Tim J. — November 10, 2005 @ 10:08 pm
Listen, Tim J.,
I’m with you that…
…(Scary music) Cheney et. al. are evil (/scary music)…
…but not that evil. Besides that isn’t the point. IT’S JUST CRAZY! (i.e. what Eric and Julie said)
Comment by Ronan — November 10, 2005 @ 10:26 pm
Again, you guys are probably right–the gov’t would NEVER even think of doing any thing like this, allowing or aiding or possibly causing an attack on U.S. citizens to further its agenda. It’s CRAZY! Right!
Check this out:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
Comment by Tim J. — November 10, 2005 @ 10:43 pm
There is a lack of evidence that any plane hit the pentagon…
except for the gaping hole in the side…
Comment by brock — November 10, 2005 @ 10:59 pm
Until there is any sort of empirical evidence (something that this physicist would understand) this whole thing will wreak of the typical Protocols of Zion/”the Jews did it”/X-Files stuff.
Comment by Brian P. — November 10, 2005 @ 11:05 pm
Brock,
Look at the photos detailing the aftermath of the impact. It left NO gaping hole–surely not like the one the hit the WTC and caused them to fall. Plus, there is no wreckage to be found. Nobody has been able to explain this.
Let me just say, I’m not sure what to believe. However, it’s clear we don’t know the truth of what really happened, and I’m not about to believe anything my gov’t tells me. They’ve covered up too many things before.
Comment by Tim J. — November 10, 2005 @ 11:26 pm
Not sure how many of you have linked from my handle to http://www.lonepatriot.com, but the author has a well-written post on 9/11, interesting timing. The author is LDS and served in the Air Force for several years and is now a newpaper executive. While I do believe a lot of his readers and commenters are holed up in the woods with a stockpile of weapons awaiting (hoping for) WW3, he’s got some pretty good stuff. Check it out and see what you think.
Comment by Tim J. — November 10, 2005 @ 11:39 pm
How embarassing and sad (both this thread and the article).
Comment by NFlanders — November 11, 2005 @ 12:07 am
Personally I blame it all on the fluoridating of water…
Comment by Clark Goble — November 11, 2005 @ 12:28 am
Clark,
LOL
Comment by Tim J. — November 11, 2005 @ 12:34 am
When we saw the buildings come down, I’m sure most of us thought, ” that’s impossible”. But all these years later, anyone who’s been paying attention has learned from the scientists and engineers who’ve been studying this, that it is perfectly understandable how two large airplanes could have brought them down. My guess is that Jones is certifiable.
Comment by Duff — November 11, 2005 @ 6:07 am
Duff,
I’m not really arguing that the planes brought down the 2 WTC buildings (though many have), but rather how the adjacent buildings which collapsed were brought down is the question. And this is troubling for some especially when taking into consideration the fact that the owner of WTC 7 is quoted as saying that he with the FD chose to “pull it” a demolition term meaning to detonate. How is this explained? Again, I don’t have one, but neither does anyone else.
Comment by Tim J. — November 11, 2005 @ 7:29 am
I understand people trying to politicize either:
a) those who accept some facet of a 9/11 conspiarcy, or…
b) those who deny some/any facet of a 9/11 conspiracy.
However, we must not politicize this, but simply search for the truth of the matter.
Did jet fuel really fall down hermetically-sealed elevator shafts of the Twin Towers?
What about all the squibs(look it up) caught on tape coming out of the Twin Towers and WTC Building #7?
Why did WTC Building 7 fall like it did when hit by no planes?(cf. Image of WTC 7 falling
How did one tower supposedly fall faster than the “Law of Falling Bodies” said it could(cf. the documentary “9/11: The Great Ilusion” by George Humphrey)?
This is a serious issue with some serious evidence. I think anybody anti-conspiracy on this issue can at least concede that there should AT LEAST be an independent investigation to either prove some/all of these things right/wrong.
Anybody who is intersted in a good introduction to this topic should watch this free online documentary “Confronting the Evidence” Available Here and/or purchase 9/11 In Plane site(Available Here
May the truth prevail!
Comment by Mr.Conspiracy — November 11, 2005 @ 7:42 am
The interesting thing about conspiracy theories like this:
It doesn’t matter how much evidence you have one way or the other. Conspiracy theories (like this one) are always fungible (The evil people behind it are more or less interchangeable) and irrefuteable (all evidence against the theory becomes evidence for how powerful the theory is).
You can’t really ever have a reasonable conversation with someone who has bought into a bizarro conspiracy theory.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — November 11, 2005 @ 9:12 am
I just wish Jones weren’t associated with BYU.
Comment by Ben S. — November 11, 2005 @ 9:23 am
At that point, I would have thought that I had stumbled into the Twilight Zone and got the hell out of there. But rather Jones thinks to himself, “These nutbars must be on to something! Perhaps I can latch on to this and embarrass my university again.”
Comment by gst — November 11, 2005 @ 9:54 am
I thought he took a reasonable tone to advance his theories. It doesn’t appear that he has an agenda to me, speaking as an ordinary person.
If what he says is true (and I’m not convinced), then I suppose the terrorists were coordinated and had others in the building set bombs. I’m not too big on government conspiracies
There is just so much in life that doesn’t make sense. For instance, while my son’s death was fairly clearly proven to be a suicide (after three investigations), there are still questions which will never be answered. The gun was found with the safety on. In a locked room. The bullets, there were only three of them, could not be traced to any store in the area. They were some type of specialized bullet.
I think any tragedy carries an an element of mystery. Isn’t there some highbrow theory that says the simplest explanation is usually the right one?
Comment by annegb — November 11, 2005 @ 9:55 am
In the first place, I don’t believe in conspiracies either–having seen people try to do thing in concert, without concern for secrecy, makes me doubt that anybody could act in concert in secret, keep it a secret, and actually bring about the desired result.
On the other hand, Jones raises some interesting questions–read his draft, not the Deseret News article–and don’t paint Jones with the same broad brush that appropriately smeared Pons and Fleishman on the conld fusion thing. He was then, and seems now to be, a careful scientist, positing hypotheses and testing (or asking for permission to test) those hypotheses with the evidence.
How can the rapid fall of the buildings be explained? Jones said that he measures the fall of 7 WTC at 6.6 seconds, just 0.6 seconds longer than an object dropped from the roof and falling free. Didn’t the internal structure–the columns and floors and braces–cause any more slowing in the collapse than that?
How can the symmetrical failure of the buildings, and the uniformity of their collapse, be explained? This is especially intriguing regarding the collapse of 2 WTC, where the top 30 storeys or so began to rotate towards the southeast, and then that rotation stopped and the building collapsed on itself.
One WTC’s collapse was extraordinarily “neat”–most of the debris ended up in the footprint of the building. Life is messy, and accidents are especially messy, but the building’s failure was symmetrical.
An anecdote: My daughter was at school at Stuyvesant High School that morning, 5 blocks north of the WTC on West Street. The school was being evacuated (out the north entrance, thank goodness) just as 1 WTC collapsed. Just as she was leaving the school, she heard what sounded to her like gunshots, and she and her friends attempted to run back into the school. I have assumed that the noise she heard was the sound of the floors of 1 WTC “pancaking” onto each other as the building collapsed. Prof. Jones’s article makes me wonder.
Prof. Jones makes some estimates/calculations regarding the heat of the fires–the burning jet fuel and the building contents. The high end of the range, about 500 C, isn’t hot enough to melt or substantially soften steel.
Anyway, I don’t think Prof. Jones is a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist. He simply has some questions and, taking Occam’s Razor to the official explanations, finds that those raise even more questions.
And, to Mr. Conspiracy: I don’t know where you got the idea that the WTC elevator shafts were hermetically sealed–they were lined with sheetrock, which isn’t airtight. (At least the joints aren’t.) And, the initial explosions caused by the jet fuel did cause damage at ground level–presumably because jet fuel entered those shafts and exploded, causing elevator doors 800 feet or more below to be blasted out.
Comment by Mark B. — November 11, 2005 @ 12:01 pm
Prof. Jones raises interesting questions, but there’s a bigger one left over: How could the buildings have been wired for demolition? And, how could it have been done without someone knowing about it? If the symmetrical nature of the failure, or the failure of the steel at lower temperatures than expected, or the oddly non-rotating top of 2 WTC, or the total pulverization of almost all that concrete, etc. etc. raise puzzling questions, an even bigger one is the “how and why and when was it wired for demolition” question.
Comment by Mark B. — November 11, 2005 @ 12:11 pm
One last note: Larry Silverstein’s alleged comment about 7 WTC: “Let’s pull it.”
I don’t know where Silverstein was when he said this, but, consider:
1. If he was in the vicinity of the building, it was noisy. Sirens, firefighting equipment, fires burning, etc. Perhaps he was misunderstood, and he was referring to “pulling out”, meaning getting the people, esp. firefighters, away from the building.
2. This makes sense in the context of his complete statement. You’ll note that before the line about “pulling it” he referred to there having been so much loss of life. The second part of his comment then makes sense, if he was suggesting moving emergency personnel away from the building so there wouldn’t be more loss of life.
3. Larry Silverstein is a real estate developer, not a demolition guy. Why would he know demolition slang?
Comment by Mark B. — November 11, 2005 @ 12:18 pm
Mark,
I don’t know about you, but I use demolition slang all the time. And when I use it, I mean it in the most literal sense popular.
Anyway, let’s blow this joint and go home.
Comment by Kaimi — November 11, 2005 @ 2:34 pm
Aargh, typo. Most literal sense _possible_ .
i kant tipe two sayv mie lif.
Comment by Kaimi — November 11, 2005 @ 2:35 pm
An article that relates.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/42384
Comment by John Kane — November 11, 2005 @ 2:40 pm
Just to avoid anyone taking the conspiracy theories too seriously, for all their problems, I think the wiki for the controversy is pretty good at point out the basic facts.
Comment by Clark Goble — November 11, 2005 @ 2:50 pm
Re #32, here’s a web page that argues the same point regarding what Silverstein meant with his comment, i.e., he was referring to pulling the contingent of firefighters out of the building.
9/11 Revealed
Comment by Justin Butterfield — November 11, 2005 @ 2:53 pm
A related wiki discussion is here.
Comment by Justin Butterfield — November 11, 2005 @ 3:06 pm
There were firefighters killed in the building. I can’t remember the specifics, but quite a few died. They didn’t die evacuating people, they died because there was a communication problem and they were told to stay in the building. All their families would have to be in on the conspiracy as well. Where are they, witness protection?
Also I have a friend who worked in the Pentagon when the plane hit. I assure you a plane hit the Pentagon and people were killed.
I don’t understand the discrepancy in the facts per the strength of the WTC, but it’s ridiculous to contend that the government blew it up and faked the Pentagon destruction.
Sometimes happen that just don’t make sense. That’s all.
Comment by annegb — November 11, 2005 @ 3:55 pm
Minor correction annegb. There were 343 NYFD men who died in the WTC attack. None died in the 7 WTC collapse.
They weren’t told to stay in the building. They didn’t hear the order to evacuate, because their radios were not able to pick up the signals.
You’re right that most of the firefighters who died were probably not actually helping people evacuate at the time the buildng collapsed, since almost all of the people below the plane impact got out of the buildings before they collapsed. The best evidence seems to be that they were resting, or climbing toward the fires, when the buildings fell.
I agree with your last statement–it is ridiculous to posit a government conspiracy to blow the buildings up. I don’t think Prof. Jones is doing that. He simply has raised some questions, made the hypothesis that the collapse of the buildings fits the controlled demolition model better than any other, and is seeking more evidence to prove/disprove the hypothesis.
Comment by Mark B. — November 11, 2005 @ 5:00 pm
This thread is great. Sometimes I need a good laugh.
Comment by measure — November 11, 2005 @ 7:45 pm
annegb has the best insight so far. Real life is “messy.” Tragedies even more so. The attractiveness of Conspiracy Theories is that they explain away all the “messiness” by attributing it to some powerful entity (the Illuminati/The Trilateral comission/The Elders of Zion/Bush and his cronies) that can do pretty much anything. The messiness and unexplainable stuff gets explained away (though not really).
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — November 11, 2005 @ 8:49 pm
I don’t want to be branded as a conspiracy nut, but I have researched quite a few as I find them interesting. 9/11, Okla. City, JFK, TWA Flight 800, and more. While I can’t claim to have any answers, there are several questions that were never answered with several of these. I’m appalled at the number of people that scoff at the notion that we know everything there is to know. The fact that the gov’t hasn’t revealed a lot of info. is often why they are implicated. I feel it is important and absolutely necessary to demand answers to questions, and not allow us to be spoon-fed by the privately owned media, and simply accept it as truth.
Comment by Tim J. — November 11, 2005 @ 11:07 pm
Maybe people scoff at things (like 9/11 conspiracies for example) because of the sheer number of attempts by people to make it a conspiracy. When one idea is refuted, they find another. When that is refuted, they try ten more. They are convinced that it was foul play and attempt to search out some proof to prove the theory as opposed to finding a theory based on the proof.
Not unlike critics of the Church by the way. So many accusations have been refuted, so they find new ones. There are ones now that have not yet been answered, but I have no doubt that they will be in time. Then I can look forward to the next theory.
Comment by John Kane — November 11, 2005 @ 11:41 pm
Well put John. I have refuted several of the theories on my own ( and there are a ton more that have not been mentioned), as well as through other research, but let me tell you, there are still some major (and obvious questions) questions that still remain.
I still wonder (as I did when it very first happened) how the incoming plane that hit the Pentagon was never caught on film, even thought there were 6 to 8 surveillence cameras on that side of the Pentagon itself–I just don’t get it.
I also wondered how these hijackers with very basic flight knowledge were so easily able to fly these planes and none made the slightest pilot error. I could be wrong on this one–maybe it is that easy–I dunno.
There are others but hopefully they will be answered.
Comment by Tim J. — November 11, 2005 @ 11:56 pm
Like I said some questions haven’t been answered, and some may never be answered.
For me, two things override any questions that may or may not be answered.
(1) A question of motive. I don’t understand why these two sides would agree to do something like this.
We’ve all heard it said that the Administration wanted to go to Iraq to finish what his Daddy started, etc., etc. This is something I see as childish bitterness. But for the sake of discussion, say I grant you that Bush agreed to partner with these lunatics for his own selfish and moronic purposes. Which really is granting a lot, because that puts him at much worse than being a bumbling fool who has a very loose grasp on his native language. It now makes him an evil genius. Fine. Say I grant you that. Then what do the Islamic-fascists get out of the deal? Why are they fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan?
(2) Paying as much attention as I do to Washington and life in general…people just aren’t very good at keeping secrets. They just aren’t. I mean, this Administration can’t even keep a story about letting a dog bark in a prisoner’s face secret, but they can override people’s sense of conscience about mass murder so as to keep them quiet about it? I find it hard to believe to say the least.
Comment by John Kane — November 12, 2005 @ 12:13 am
The reason for 9/11, as most theorists say, had a few consequences. First was the Patriot Act. It has been proven it was written before 9/11. It was passed at 3am in the morning and almost all of congress passed without admittedly reading it. One thing all secret combinations want is power, and the best way to acheive this is to limit the freedoms of those you wish to control.
The other is obviously oil. The Bush-Saudi relationship is no secret. It’s also no Michael Moore joke. Oil absolutely rules the earth. He who possesses oil has power. Many of the Al-Qaeda members who captured and subsequently tortured reportedly gave up the names of a few Saudi princes as their contacts. These princes all then died mysteriously.
Again, I agree it would be difficult to believe that so many people knew about this conspiracy and yet no one has said anything. But if they did, would you believe them? I would have to say no.
Comment by Tim J. — November 12, 2005 @ 12:40 am
It depends on what position the accuser holds.
But again, you gave me the American reasons for being complicit in 9/11, which was something I already granted you in this hypothetical. What I’m interested in is why would Al-Qaida do what they did?
Comment by John Kane — November 12, 2005 @ 12:45 am
Most conspiracy theorists will tell you Al-Qaeda was merely a scapegoat. They had nothing to do with it, but they were an easy target for blame due to the fact that the USS Cole bombing and Embassy bombings took place fairly recently. Which leads to another point, in each of the two previously mentioned attacks, credit was immediately claimed by them. But if you remember, there were days of speculation about who was responsible, as no one claimed responsibilty.
There is also a thought that Bin Laden was in cahoots w/ the Bush camp. Remember, we put Al-Qaeda in power and helped them to fend off the Soviets in the 80′s. The fact that he remains at-large just fuels their theories. As a side note, there was a local geology professor from a nearby University who, after watching a Bin Laden tape, said that the rock formations behind Bin Laden were only found in a small portion of Afghanistan. He was told to be quiet.
BTW, when was the last time we heard anything about the search for BIn Laden?
Again, I’m still sorting out what I believe, but these are the theories currently floating around.
Comment by Tim J. — November 12, 2005 @ 1:05 am
I’m confused, you start by making the point that Al-Qaida didn’t make an immediate claim of responsibility…meaning what? They weren’t involved?
OK, fine.
But then you go on to say he may have been in bed with the Bush camp. Which is it? It seems like shots in the dark to me. Seeing what will stick. That’s why it’s hard for me to take these things seriously. Maybe another Church comparison isn’t correct here, but many accusations about Joseph Smith happen to be contradictory.
One other point. Friends at one time are not always friends later in life. Yes we helped Bin Laden against the Soviets. But it is a question of the greater evil. Soviets were at the time. We also sided with Saddam in the war between Iraq and Iran. Was he in on this too?
Again, I fully acknowledge that there are questions that have yet to be answered, and fully encourage the exploration of such questions. It’s the web sites and DVDs making outrageous claims that bother me.
Comment by John Kane — November 12, 2005 @ 1:18 am
Someone mentioned the wiki before. Look at this. It about sums up everything you want to know about 9/11 conspiracy theories. As you can imagine, it’s quite extensive…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_domestic_conspiracy_theory
Comment by Tim J. — November 12, 2005 @ 1:19 am
John,
I’m not endorsing any of these theories, I’m simply letting you know what’s out there–some believe BL had nothing to do w/ it, some believe he was cooperating with Bush/Cheney, there’s evidence (if that’s what you want to call it) to support both claims.
As far as him not immediately claiming responsibility, the point of terrorism is obviously to create terror. In every terrorist attack, the responsible party stands up and says, “We did it, this is why.” Yet this didn’t happen until well after we had already assigned the blame to him. I can’t think of another time this has happened.
Again, please don’t attack me–I don’t believe all of these things, I’m just making you aware of all the theories that do exist.
Comment by Tim J. — November 12, 2005 @ 1:29 am
I’m sorry, I was trying to state things in a way that was non-confrontational. I guess I need to be better at that.
I do happen to be aware of many of the points you have been bringing up, as I work with a couple of fellas who are really into the 9/11 conspiracy thing.
Maybe I just don’t understand, but Al-Qaida waiting a week to take responsibility doesn’t strike me as rotten simply because they ended up taking responsibility. Now, had they never claimed it, then I would have to wonder.
Comment by John Kane — November 12, 2005 @ 1:38 am
Mark B., if you think Occums Razor leads one to think a buillding was brought down by explosives and fell faster that physics will allow, rather than by natural forces set in motion by two very large airplanes, you have a serious misunderstanding of Count Occum. Plus you have too much time on your hands.
Comment by Duff — November 12, 2005 @ 5:34 am
John,
Do’t woory about being confrontational. I understadn people have strong feelings about this controversial subject and sometimes emotions can run high.
My only problem is that by being the one that’s raising these questions, I will be branded as a nut and lumped together with those who have bomb shelters in their backyards, a stockpile of guns in their basements, and are awaiting WW3.
I will say that for a long time I discounted the conspiracy theories in regards to 9/11. But after seeing everything, I just have too many questions that could be easily answered by our gov’t. It’s the same thing that happened with JFK (there is NO WAY Oswald was alone), Okl CIty (what happened to the other bombs that were found, as reported by the local media?), and others. Again, I don’t know what to believe, but there are WAY too many simple coincidences and inconsistencies that questions should be raised.
BTW, (and I will undoubtedly receive some flack for this) check out None Dare Call it a COnspiracy, it’s intersting stuff. A lot can be and has been refuted, but it hits more than misses. It was also endorsed by Ezra Taft Benson from the pulpit. While your at it, read some of his talks about secret combinations. It’s sad that many members labeled him as a right-wing conspiracy theorist, when he definitely had inside info. on the inner-workings of our gov’t.
Comment by Tim J. — November 12, 2005 @ 9:20 am
…Astroturf! You know who’s responsible for that, don’t you?! The Jews! Ah, the Jews hate grass. They always have, they always will. . .
Comment by George Costanza — November 12, 2005 @ 12:51 pm
Wow! Back to conspiracies again! Google Chandra Levy and Timothy McVeigh, THEN put your tin-foil hats on!
Comment by Dave Lucas — November 12, 2005 @ 5:38 pm
Michelle Malkin has posted about Professor Jones’s theory today on her widely read blog. This is an example of why it is embarassing that BYU is now associated with a theory suggesting that Muslim terrorists were not to blame for mass murder at the WTC after all.
Malkin jokes Look for Jones to be hired as a script consultant for Oliver Stone’s 9/11 movie any day now.
On the other hand, Malkin labels Jones a “Moonbat” based on his theory, and associates BYU with it. This might be good in a counter-intuitive way: it might challenge the assumptions many people have about BYU being an institution devoid of academic freedom. The ironic thing about this, however, is that Jones is likely not harping on this theory because of a liberal worldview, but rather based on an ultra-right-wing suspicion of the U.S. government (and not a liberal attempt to point a finger at the Bush Administration).
Comment by john fowles — November 12, 2005 @ 5:40 pm
That last bit is pure speculation on my part and might well be completely inaccurate. I do not know Professor Jones personally at all.
Comment by john fowles — November 12, 2005 @ 6:55 pm
Hi,
I probably won’t be returning to this comment section (just passing by via Malkin’s blog trackback), but anyone really wanting to sort the wheat from the chaff wrt 9-11 theories –and there is a lot of chaff– will want to peruse THIS website:
http://911research.wtc7.net/
That site has a very clearheaded, engineerish approach.
Aggressive commentary regarding bogus theories can be found here:
http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html
Note that “In Plane Site” is generally held to be highly inaccurate.
To gauge how far the criticism of the official theory has spread, see here:
http://www.911truth.org/index.php
The evidence that the official story isn’t even remotely credible goes far beyond analyzing grainy photographs, as advanced on some dubious sites.
Comment by drivebycommenter — November 12, 2005 @ 6:56 pm
drivebycommenter wrote: “The evidence that the official story isn’t even remotely credible goes far beyond analyzing grainy photographs, as advanced on some dubious sites.”
Right. And the more respectable Holocaust-deniers are probably similarly embarrassed by the more dubious Holocaust denial sites.
Comment by George Costanza — November 12, 2005 @ 7:20 pm
George,
Wow! Now if we’re questioning a few 9/11 events, we’re anti-semitic? A little harsh.
Like I’ve said, any time anybody brings these questions up, we’re branded as either an Ultra Right-Wing Conspiracy Nut, or an Anti-Bush Liberal, exactly like John (#58). Why is not possible that as a scientist he had a few problems w/ the official version of the story based on scientific data, and would like to investigate further? I believe more people would look a little deeper as well, if they weren’t so worried about the accompanying label.
Comment by Tim J. — November 12, 2005 @ 7:45 pm
Tim J. wrote: “Wow! Now if we’re questioning a few 9/11 events, we’re anti-semitic? A little harsh.”
Hey, just because someone denies that the Holocaust occurs doesn’t make him anti-Semitic, does it? Just like the guy on your website who proclaimed the following wasn’t necessarily anti-Semitic:
“
“
Comment by George Costanza — November 12, 2005 @ 9:52 pm
It’s not my website and I don’t support those comments just like the original poster here doesn’t agree with mine. My problem is that out of the hundreds of ridiculous conspiracy theories, you chose to equate 9/11 to the one that would be the most inflammatory and cause the greatest amount of negative feelings. As a recovering snarker, I’m familiar with the tactic.
Comment by Tim J. — November 12, 2005 @ 10:13 pm
George Costanza has been triggering Godwin’s Law pretty liberally around here. That has a tendency to defeat the point he is trying to make. In general, I think he is trying to point out that at some point, most conspiracy theories end up implicating the Jews one way or another.
Personally, I don’t believe in a strict construction of Godwin’s Law, namely that an argument that brings in the Nazis and Holocaust for comparison can be automatically dismissed out of hand. But it does seem a type of hyperbole that goes too far (to be a useful rhetorical device) in many cases.
Comment by john fowles — November 12, 2005 @ 10:33 pm
It is a shame that a professor at Brigham Young University, A school owned by my church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would stoop to conspiracy theories instead of hard science. Steven E. Jones a nuclear physics professor has theorized that preplanted explosives must have been used to bring down the World Trade Center on 9/11.
For one thing Steven E. Jones is a nuclear physics professor. What he is attempting to hypothesize is not even in his area of expertise. Just because you are a professor in one area of study dose not make you an expert in all. You might as well ask your heart surgeon to operate on your brain. Hey he’s a doctor isn’t he?
Comment by Ken Bingham — November 13, 2005 @ 1:19 am
Challenge:All of you who think that its impossible 911 was a covert op performed by one of these “letter” agencies who have unlimited funding with no accountability to provide the political and domestic support to justify a war on terror that will not end in our lifetimes should form an educated opinion on 911. 911 was a “conspiracy” reguardless of what version you beleive. How about looking at what conspiracy theory stands up to the evidence? I can tell you the propaganda version of reality created by the mass media does not stand up to the reality of the evidence regaurding 911. To start with go to 911busters.com-check out video presentations by David Ray Griffin, Jim Hoffman, Webster Tarpley, watch Painfull Deceptions, etc. Check out wtc7.net with companion site 911research.com. 911blogger.com has some quick video compilations focussing on the “collapses” of these billion pound steel frame buildings that disintegrated into ash in seconds at nearly free fall speed. Go to reopen911.com and watch the commercials Jimmy Walter spent several million dollars of his own money running in the NY area. He is offering $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove with science the collapse of those 3 buildings without explosives. Those buildings were so strong that you cannot visibly see them move when airplanes fly into them traveling hundreds of miles per hour. Those fires were not infernos. All flamable material would have burnt off long before any steel could have softened. If you beleive the “pancake collapse” theory what happened to the massive steel cores of those bulidings. The pictures and videos clearly show these buildings explodeing. The fires were oxygen starved and people were photographed standing in the impact holes the airplanes created waveing for help. The firefighter tapes confirm they made it to the impact area of the south tower and were confident they could put the fires out. Why did “terrorists” send anthrax letters to members of the media and congress who were raiseing questions about the events of 911? Was it a coincidence Sadam stopped accepting payment for oil in dollars and switched to the euro in 2000? Saudia Arabia was then talking about switching to the Euro. Interesting 15 of 19 hijackers were allegedley Saudies. Why would pilots with mostly military backgrounds hand over control of planes to guys with boxcutters? Women have lifted cars off their children when their lives were in danger. How did these idiots find their targets without help from ground control? How did they know the planes wouldnt be intercepted by the most powerfull military in the world and hijack planes far from their targets? If this was incompetence why was everyone who failed rewarded and noone held accountable? Why havent we sealed the borders? Why are we confident we can fix the world if we cant protect our own nation? Who has profited from this mess? Who has lied about evrything regaurding Iraq being a threat? Have you heard of “The Project For A New American Century”? Have you read “The Grand Chessboard” by Zbigniew Brzezinski? If you think you know about 911 how do you know what you think you know? Who controls the mainstream media? Who controlled the 911 commission? Who put the NYFD under gag order? Why was all the remains at ground zero shipped overseas while under protest from NYFD and victim families? Why dont you wake up?
Comment by JAYBIRD — November 13, 2005 @ 3:05 am
When it comes to conspiracy theories, I think we should discount all theories including the government’s theory if the evidence does not support their claims.
Simple Logic Exposes the Truth:
http://www.911blogger.com/2005/08/user-submission-simple-logic-exposes.html
Simple Logic Part II:
http://www.911blogger.com/2005/10/simple-logic-part-ii.html
Controlled Demolition of World Trade Center Is Now a Fact, Not a Theory:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20051021&articleId=1129
Comment by somebigguy — November 13, 2005 @ 9:08 am
Ken,
The WTC7 collapse defied the laws of physics, which IS Prof. Jones expertise. And you’re probably right, we should all be led like sheep and do/believe exactly what everyone tells us and question nothing. Right? Isn’t that the Mormon way?
Comment by Tim J. — November 13, 2005 @ 9:34 am
Popular Mechanics ran a “debunking the myths of 9-11″ as their cover story back in March. Predictably, they’ve been labeled as part of the coverup.
Comment by Ben S. — November 13, 2005 @ 10:41 am
Instead of God in the gaps, we now have come up “evil conspiracies” in the gaps.
A reasonable, sophisitcated wacko Conspiracy theory is still a wacko Conspiracy theory. During tragedies, people react even less rationally than usual. OF COURSE there will be discrepencies and gaps in the reports. Eyewitnesses to any event usually disagree in small or large details.
Just because it can be sophisticated and nuanced – well, that doesn’t mean squat. I have fellow grad students capable of sophistication, reasonableness and nuance who fell that Bush stole the 2004 election by rigging all the ballot boxes in Ohio, Florida and everywhere else.
Bush and Rove have become the new Iluminati, apparently.
That’s all I have to say. This thread started out okay, but it is now more of a source of amusement than good discussion.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — November 13, 2005 @ 11:35 am
Ivan you didnt say anything at all and thats all you have to say. Continue living your life like a sheep and dont look at any of the evidence you seem to think you know something about without seeing. Brilliant. Ben the Popular Mechanics article was written to deceive readers who are not educated on the real issues of 911. They ignore hundreds of well known facts and pick the most dismissable arguments so uneducated readers will think “911 inside job?-I already know better because Ive read all about that in Popular Mechanics and those arguments for an inside job are weak”. Hundreds of thousands of people who read that one sided fraudulent article will now not look at the real issues because they think the entire issue has been exposed as a lie in a big magazine. If you read the Popular Mechanics piece fine. Now go to 911research.com and see the rebuttal by Jim Hoffman. Look at another side then form an opinion that is balanced. Go to 911busters.com into the “misc. videos” section. Watch Painfull Deceptions and David Ray Griffins Santa Rosa presentation. Why are you all so afraid to open your mind and think a little? 99% of people who dont beleive the “official ” conspiracy theory anymore initially did beleive it. Relax. Breath. Open your mind and look at another point of view. Come back with an educated opinion on something and lets have a balanced discussion. Professor Jones and Professor Griffin arent running from anyone. They will debate the issues publicly with anyone. Yea this blog conversation was going great until people with another point of view with specific arguments butted in huh? Evolve or perish.
Comment by JAYBIRD — November 13, 2005 @ 9:24 pm
Tim J. wrote: “It’s not my website”
But it’s the website you chose to type in the “Website URL” field, and as far as I can tell not one of the denizens of the website thought the quoted statements about a pseudo-Jewish conspiracy worth questioning.
“My problem is that out of the hundreds of ridiculous conspiracy theories, you chose to equate 9/11 to the one that would be the most inflammatory”
I didn’t realize Astroturf was such a touchy subject.
Comment by George Costanza — November 13, 2005 @ 11:38 pm
John Fowles wrote: “George Costanza has been triggering Godwin’s Law pretty liberally around here.”
Is there some sort of meta-Godwin’s Law that says that a person can’t mention attitudes towards Jews on the Internet without being accused of accusing others of being Nazis? I neither said nor do I believe that Steven E. Jones or Tim J. or drivebycommenter or JAYBIRD are Nazis. I think they’re conspiracists. I think people like Daniel Pipes and Peter Knight have done a pretty good job of developing an analysis of the conspiracist mindset; a penchant for fascism is not an integral part of that profile.
Comment by George Costanza — November 14, 2005 @ 12:09 am
JAYBIRD wrote: “Professor Jones [isn't] running from anyone. [He] will debate the issues publicly with anyone. ”
Really? And your source for this assertion is . . . what? Tempting. On the other hand, the angle-trisectors who keep sending me manuscripts probably would welcome a public debate, too.
Comment by George Costanza — November 14, 2005 @ 12:19 am
This entire train-wreck of a thread reminds me of a conversation I once had with a co-worker who didn’t believe we had landed on the moon. I tried to explain to him that we had left mirrors on the moon and we could shoot a laser and have it reflected back to us, which is pretty conclusive proof, but he didn’t care. He told me that he had heard that the Chinese had sent probes to the moon and hadn’t seen any trace of us.
“So the American government and scientists from every nation in the world are lying but these alleged experts from China are telling the truth?”
Shockingly, he also believed that “the Jews” were in on 9/11. You guys are in great company. Conspiracy theories have always been around (Rosicrucians, Freemasons, Witches, the Trilateral Commission, Oklahoma City, Vince Foster), it’s just sad that people apparently smart enough to operate a computer are dumb enough to believe them.
Comment by NFlanders — November 14, 2005 @ 12:49 am
I think it’s fairly obvious that 9/11 was a conspiracy by Bush so that he’d have an excuse to cancel the 2004 elections by declaring martial law. And that’s exactly what happened.
You don’t remember that happening? It’s because the NSA’s mind-control rays make you think there was an election. The NSA is also behind the plot to make people think the works of Shakespeare were written by William Shakespeare, rather than by a time-traveling Dick Cheney posing as the Earl of Oxford.
Comment by Eric James Stone — November 14, 2005 @ 1:08 am
Professor Jones is right. There is more to the 911 story. A crime of this magnitude will not simply fade away. The truth will finally shake out and Professor Jones will be remembered for his courage.
Comment by Harlan Felt — November 14, 2005 @ 8:32 am
Examination of Jones’ bibliography is instructive. No citations from peer-reviewed technical journal articles dated later than 6 months after the attacks, even though numerous relevant articles appeared in the subsequent 3.5 years. Two citations of articles in American Free Press, whose mission statement manages to mention all of the following: The Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, and the Rothschilds. Three citations from Global Outlook, which proclaims itself “a major news source on the New World Order” and compares its readership to that of the Council on Foreign Relations. Nope, no conspiracist leanings there.
Comment by George Costanza — November 14, 2005 @ 9:38 am
Ben S.–
Thanks for the link.
Comment by Julie in Austin — November 14, 2005 @ 12:02 pm
I was just reading the Pop. Mechanics article and was really about to give them a lot of credit, until I looked at the names of the writers/researchers. Benjamin Chertoff (Michael Chertoff’s cousin, head of Homeland Security) was the first name listed. I’m not coming to any conclusions, just considering the source.
I also want to thank George for Prof. Jones’ bio. It is absolutely relevant and I take it into full consideration. I wish we could have an independent group investigate the matter, that has no affiliations one way or another. I understand this is difficult but it’s the only way.
Comment by Tim J. — November 14, 2005 @ 12:18 pm
A friend of mine noted the similarities in this thread with Umberto Eco’s Foucault’s Pendulum. In that vein, once freed from the
shackles of conventionality, why confine yourself to just a few
“big” ideas? Probably a good point.
It seems to me that incredible charges demand extremely strong proof. Merely raising questions does not provide evidence for believing these things. Especially not when the problems with the proposed models (i.e. a secret cabal planning all this) have far more problems than what is being critiqued.
Comment by Clark Goble — November 14, 2005 @ 12:35 pm
You have all read Professor Jones entire paper. You have checked out all the vidoes, pictures, and sources he sites in his paper. What specifically do you disagree with? If you beleive one of the official government explanations which one do you beleive? Obviously talking truth to morons is no different that talking truth to power. “I know this one guy that was raised by gorillas who thought aliens were responsible for the attacks of 911″. “Good one dude” Enjoy your sheltered lives.
Comment by JAYBIRD — November 14, 2005 @ 12:39 pm
> What specifically do you disagree with?
As I mentioned in my initial comment, the supposed squibs in the video of WTC 7 do not look like squibs to me. You’ll notice that what are claimed to be puffs of smoke and debris from pre-planted explosives fall at exactly the same rate as the wall of the building, without moving farther away from the wall. I’m no nuclear physicist, but I know that smake and debris don’t act like that.
When someone uses such flimsy evidence as a base for building a tower of conspiracy, I tend to discount their entire argument.
Comment by Eric James Stone — November 14, 2005 @ 12:58 pm
Regarding Jones’ article being peer-reviewed for publication by Elsevier, the peer-review process for Elsevier publications sometimes falls far short of what it should be. In fact, the BYU Math Department is currently in the middle of cancelling the BYU library’s subscription to the Elsevier journal _Nonlinear Analysis_, largely because it has published 5 articles by E.E. Escultura. The less I say about Dr. Escultura the better, but those who are curious about the whole sad affair can learn about him by googling his name.
Comment by Chris Grant — November 14, 2005 @ 2:04 pm
First off, he is a physics professor. His theory is that the physics of the official statement don’t make sense. That is well within his expertise.
Second, read his thesis. It is not nutty at all.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Read it before you judge.
To me it sounds like he is interested in science to me.
He has not implicated the Bush administration in anything, though apparently people are a little paranoid about that.
Explosives planted in the WTC does not necisarily implicate the Bush administration, so keep your hats on. Hiding information in the investigation only makes the administration look bad.
He may be right, he may be wrong. Why would you automatically assume that he is a nut job? It sounds like many people, including many members of the church are showing the same kind of bias that we accuse Antis of having. We want to see things our way and we ignore any evidence to the contrary. It sounds like many of you have made up your minds without evidence.
I implore you to read his theory and scientifically prove him wrong. You can’t because the evidence has not been released. He is conducting a scientific investigation, not a witch hunt like a lot of people seem to be doing.
Comment by Ian M. Cook — November 14, 2005 @ 6:58 pm
And you are going to pretend that accusations thrown at Bush don’t immediately follow the planted explosives theories?
Comment by John Kane — November 14, 2005 @ 8:07 pm
Man, I’m in a church of nuts.
“Prof. Jones makes some estimates/calculations regarding the heat of the fires–the burning jet fuel and the building contents. The high end of the range, about 500 C, isn’t hot enough to melt or substantially soften steel.”
Now the truth: hydrocarbon fires can easily reach 2000 F (1093 F) within a few minutes! Check UL 1709 standard, a common test for resistance to such fires. The intumescent passive fire protection coating used in the towers was for a cellulosic fire and didn’t have a prayer of protecting the steel from a hydrocarbon fuel fire. The little shoddy fire protection they had probably came off in the initial shock wave from the explosive hydrocarbon fire. Jones should have his tenure challenged for spouting such unresearched crap.
I’m going to the mens room. Should I write “BYU diploma” on the toilet paper?
Comment by Steve EM — November 15, 2005 @ 10:13 am
I for one would count it an honor to be called a moonbat by Michelle Malkin.
Comment by Bryce I — November 15, 2005 @ 11:47 am
Sorry, I meant 1093 C in comment #88.
Comment by Steve EM — November 15, 2005 @ 12:03 pm
Professor Jones could be wrong about the temperature of the flames in the twin towers, but just becase Jet fuel CAN reach the temperatures you mentioned, I have a feeling that it has to be under perfect conditions for it to burn that way. Is it possible those were perfect conditions? I suppose.
But but what about the building that was not hit by a plane. Why did it collapse like the other two?
Comment by Ian M. Cook — November 15, 2005 @ 1:12 pm
I think a lot of these people are serial conspiracy theory defenders and not Church members.
Comment by John Kane — November 15, 2005 @ 1:19 pm
Ian M. Cook wrote: “But but what about the building that was not hit by a plane. Why did it collapse like the other two?”
Obviously because its greedy Jewish owner, Larry Silverstein, had pre-wired it with explosives in the hope that radical Islamic terrorists would fly two jet airliners into the neighboring twin towers, thus providing the perfect distraction for him to blow up his own building to collect insurance money without anyone noticing. His fiendish plan failed, however, when he forgot the part about not confessing on national television.
Occam’s razor, indeed.
Comment by George Costanza — November 15, 2005 @ 1:26 pm
Actually, upon further research, I found an interesting article that shows that the temperatures most likely did not reach any more than 500 C. The article does claim however that it was enough heat to do the kind of damage needed. The author also makes some claims that Dr. Jones would be interested to hear.
I think the main place that the author disagrees with Dr. Jones is in how the buildings collapsed. The author claims that the sheer weight of the buildings caused them to fall in on them selves. This doesn’t answer other questions posed by dr. jones, but it is interesting none the less.
Comment by Ian M. Cook — November 15, 2005 @ 1:38 pm
I love how, if you disagree with someone, you autmatically resort to the fallacy of “attack the speaker” and try to say they are nuts or something.
Somehow, if someone has a different point of view than the “mainstream” they are ridiculed. This is not becoming a Christian. It’s laughable to assume that anyone who disagrees with you is “not a member of the church”. I don’t have to prove my membership to the likes of you.
Good thing I don’t offend easily.
Comment by Ian M. Cook — November 15, 2005 @ 3:54 pm
I’ve read many of the comments that have been posted on this site. I am dismayed by how many people are criticizing professor Jones because he sounds like a “conspiracy theorist.” I am assuming that most people that are reading and posting on this site are mormons. As such, are you not aware of “secret combinations” that were talked about in the Book of Mormon? How about some of the prophecies of Joseph Smith. Most specifically, you need to review Ezra Taft Benson’s talk in the October General Conference in 1988, entitled “I Testify.” Then look at what he said about “secret combinations.” Remember, he was a prophet testifying before all of the members of the church.
I am also surprised at the number of people who question professor Jones’ arguments without providing a sound alternative based on solid physics. If you wish to question his assertions, feel free, we live in a free society. But please don’t name call and then simply just dismiss his propositions, which are in fact based on Newtonian physics and the laws of thermodynamics. I could continue, but the real reason I feel that people are resistant to this professor’s paper is what it could mean if his assertions are proven true. It is a difficult reality to face, but one mormons should be aware of, especially in light of what Joseph Smith prophecied about the constitution.
Comment by John Allen — November 15, 2005 @ 8:32 pm
John, there is a certain way of believing held by conspiracy theorists that is simply wrong. And Steve Jones is demonstrably following it and giving BYU a black eye in the process.
To say there are secret combinations is not to buy into conspiracy thinking. That is, the kind of thought process that claims specific conspiracies in the absence of strong evidence.
I also think there are compelling reasons to reject his thoughts with respect to his article. One can read one of the many explanations of the collapse to see why. For instance the “puffs” which don’t resemble what Jones claims they do could well be a shock wave propagating down the building as the floors collapse. That could also cause lower floors to fail before the above floors fell on them.
The problem with this kind of thinking isn’t what it provides, but rather what it leaves out. And it is that leaving out that is, I think, why some frank disbelief that a BYU physicist would write this persists.
This really is a black eye for the department (which has some extremely good people in it) and for the university. Those who can’t see why probably just aren’t that familiar with the approach to learning that goes on in science.
Comment by Clark Goble — November 15, 2005 @ 10:35 pm
I only accept conspiracy theories based on quantum physics, sorry.
Comment by Ben S. — November 16, 2005 @ 2:51 am
Ian, I hope you weren’t talking to me, because I certainly wasn’t talking about you. I said most, not all. Further, I certainly didn’t reference you. I was referring to people earlier in the thread such as Mr. Conspiracy, Jaybird, and drivebycommenter (who stated he/she found the page via Malkin’s track back)
Comment by John Kane — November 16, 2005 @ 4:18 am
Clark,
I appreciate your comments. I still am searching for an alternative explanation that is in fact based on science. Such as an explanation of how building seven fell only slightly slower than that of a free fall, and how it was able to fall directly onto it’s own footprint, which seem to violate the second law of thermodynamics. A scientific explanation rather than, a “the squibs I saw….” would be appreciated. Again, I could go on with science, but I still haven’t heard a viable alternative that explains the collapses based on sound science.
Secondly,, as to secret combinations did you read President Benson’s talk? If not, let me quote from it. ” Secret combinations lusting for power, gain, and glory are flourishing. A secret combination that seeks to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries is increasing its evil influence and control over America and the entire world.” (See Ether 8:18-25.)(emphasis added)
It seems to me that secret combinations are conspiracies. And it also seems to me that President Benson is actually saying that a single secret combination exists and is global. If you can see another meaning in his words, I’d like to hear it. Finally, I am not an average Joe citizen. While I reserve my right to remain semi-anonymous, I feel it is important to emphasize that professor Jones is onto something important. His paper was discussed in a faculty meeting amongst all of his peers at BYU before he went public. No one found anything objectionable in that meeting, therefor, it is not just professor Jones, but the faculty who also support his conclusions.
Comment by John Allen — November 16, 2005 @ 7:07 am
John Allen writes:
“ I still am searching for an alternative explanation that is in fact based on science. Such as an explanation of how building seven fell only slightly slower than that of a free fall, and how it was able to fall directly onto it’s own footprint, which seem to violate the second law of thermodynamics.”
Have you read all of the websites listed as “[s]keptical of or debunking larger conspiracy claims” at the bottom of this page?
“A scientific explanation rather than, a “the squibs I saw….†would be appreciated.
But much of Jones’ article itself doesn’t seem to rise above the level of “I looked at a videotape and saw something that looks like . . .”
“Secondly,, as to secret combinations did you read President Benson’s talk?”
That there exist secret combinations does not make every allegation of a secret combination at work correct. I don’t see how President Benson’s remarks support 9/11 conspiracy theorists anymore than they support Holocaust deniers or those who claimed that the Plague was caused by Jews poisoning their wells (or those who claimed that when President Benson was ill and out of the public eye he was really being suppressed by some of the Brethren) .
“Finally, I am not an average Joe citizen. While I reserve my right to remain semi-anonymous, I feel it is important to emphasize that professor Jones is onto something important.”
FWIW, that’s my real name below, and I’m a member of the faculty of the BYU Department of Mathematics.
“His paper was discussed in a faculty meeting amongst all of his peers at BYU before he went public. No one found anything objectionable in that meeting, therefor, it is not just professor Jones, but the faculty who also support his conclusions”
Can you be a little more explicit about this? What are the names of the faculty who support Jones’ theory?
Comment by Chris Grant — November 16, 2005 @ 9:40 am
Jones appeared on Tucker Carlson recently. Here’s his take.
Comment by Ben S. — November 16, 2005 @ 11:25 am
Chris,
Thank you for your comments. Maybe as a fellow faculty member you could talk to Professor Jones yourself? However, here is a copy of an e-mail he sent to the Physics faculty in which he specifically names Prof. Weyland. Since you are a faculty member at BYU I find it very strange that you are discussing his ideas here in a blog and not directly with him. But here is his e-mail to the physics dept.
Dear Colleagues,
Here I go sticking my neck out again. A few other scientists and I have been analyzing the remarkable collapse of World Trade Center 7. If you haven’t seen it (probably most of you haven’t, since it collapsed in the evening of 9-11-01 with very little media coverage then or since), please take a moment to look at the short clips here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
I will show and analyze this and other videos and data regarding this puzzling skyscraper collapse at a brown-bag-style seminar on Thursday, Sept. 22, 2005 in C-215 Eyring Science Center at 3 pm. Please join in for a Power Point presentation and discussion. Other 9-11 anomalies will also be considered. (Yes, there is a lot of 9-11 bunk out there too; I’ll touch on this matter briefly but will emphasize the analysis of the collapse of WTC-7 and the Towers.)
Why does Building 7 collapse (a 47-story steel-beam building) over seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed on 9-11? Why does it collapse nearly straight-down and symmetrically (compare with other fallen buildings)? How fast? Are demolition squibs seen, or not? Why was molten metal found (chemists) in the basement of WTC7 after its collapse — and in the basements of WTC 1 and 2? Was the pulverized dust from these buildings safe to breathe as government re-assurances said over and over after 9-11? (The answer to that is emphatically “no”.) What is going on here?
Prof. Weyland (Physics, BYU-ID) has reviewed my analysis and writes:
“Thanks for letting me in on this. I also am intrigued by the molten metal… I respect you a great deal for the way you use physics to be helpful to society…. the physics argument is so strong and compelling.”
Well, you may disagree with Prof. Weyland — please come and observe then express your opinions. I really want to know what you think, with the kid gloves off (but no ad hominems please). This matter is too important to ignore or dismiss without consideration.
The seminar is designed primarily for faculty discussion (not students at this time) — science and engineering faculty but others are invited as well, of course.
Yes, we question the “official” version that jet planes/fires was what brought these buildings tumbling down. Oh, remember that WTC7 was never hit by a plane… So what brought it down?
Jot that down: Thursday, 9/22/05, 3:00 pm in C-215 Eyring Science Center.
See you there,
Steven E. Jones
P.S. I have read many of the articles debunking much of the conspiracy theories regarding 911. Many of them are right on as there is a lot of crap out there. I still am at a loss for finding a reasonable explanation for the collapse of WTC 7, for most articles don’t even mention it. And again with the squibs, you are talking about a minor detail when the big picture is how the building collapsed onto itself, i.e. the path of most resistance, at the speed of a freefall. I would thank you to find a scientific explanation for that.
Comment by John Allen — November 16, 2005 @ 12:59 pm
John Allen writes: “Maybe as a fellow faculty member you could talk to Professor Jones yourself?”
Yes, I suppose I could–if he’s answering his phone–but I’m less interested in his personal beliefs than in his public pronouncements, and it seems to me that public questioning is a reasonable way to address the latter. Neither the BYU Department of Physics & Astronomy nor the BYU College of Physical & Mathematical Sciences nor BYU itself has issued a news release publicizing Jones’ claims, which would be unusual if they were proud of his new national prominence.
“However, here is a copy of an e-mail he sent to the Physics faculty in which he specifically names Prof. Weyland.”
Weyland is an instructor at BYU-Idaho (and a fine author of teen fiction), not one of Jones’ “peers at BYU”.
Comment by Chris Grant — November 16, 2005 @ 2:04 pm
John Kane,
I suppose I did take your comments personally. Sorry about that. I was just a little frustrated.
The truth is, my father is really big into reading conspiricy theories and probably puts too much faith in what he reads on the internet. I read along with him and usually withold my judgement. When my father pointed out that a BYU professor wanted to further study the events at the WTC using a theory that there were explosives planted there, naturally I was interested.
I first read his article and it was well reasoned and he actually quotes from all the studies that have been done. He has done his research, he may be wrong. As a matter of fact, I hope he is wrong. But that should not be a reason for him to do an in depth study into it. This would actually please many of the families of the victims there. Many of those families have been demanding a closer investigation.
Calling this guy a wacko without taking a serious look at what he is proposing is like putting on blinders.
Yes there will be secret combinations at the last day. We don’t know who will be involved. This means we should keep an eye out for what is going on in the world. This doesn’t mean that we should be caught up in ever secret combination theory out there. It means that we should be continually seeking out truth.
Besides, there is no point in arguing this matter to the point of contention.
If you disagree with his theory, you have nothing to worry about. Once he does his research and finds that the previous theories were right, then it is pretty certain that the matter will be closed, nothing to worry about. If his findings are correct, then we need to find out who planted those bombs. Perhaps there were more terrorists involved and we need to hunt them down. Maybe there was a government official involved, maybe some janitors at the WTC. These things seem improbable, but not impossible.
All of this is moot until all questions are fully answered. If you read the paper put forth by Dr. Jones, he points out some inconsistencies in the reports “that have already been done.â€
I should also note that my Dad is an inactive member that is highly critical of the church and continually looks for ways to discredit it. He fully expects this professor to be fired by BYU becuase of the churchs close ties to the Bush administration. It is a futule effort on my part to tell him that no such ties exist.
Comment by Ian M. Cook — November 16, 2005 @ 2:16 pm
This is nuts, nuts, nuts!!! Planes filled w/ fuel fly into buildings. The buildings collapse in short order and some are talking about pre-rigged explosives being used? Then building 7 collapses that evening from earlier shaking and uncontrolled fires (know to soften steel and turn concrete into dust), and some are saying it too was brought down by pre-rigged explosives?
Beyond having his tenure challenged, should Jones also face discipline for embarrassing the church? Other’s have been ex’d for causing far less damage. Has the Strengthening the Members committee been dissolved?
Comment by Steve EM — November 16, 2005 @ 4:27 pm
1.) How is Dr. Jones embarassing the church by doing this study?
2.) Why should his tenure be challenged?
3.) How can you possibly question his standing in the church?
I think you are being a little overeactive aren’t you? This is a scientific study using real science.
I highly doubt you have read his draft . Perhaps you should try that before judging him.
Comment by Ian M. Cook — November 16, 2005 @ 5:29 pm
Comment by Ian M. Cook — November 16, 2005 @ 5:30 pm
I just wasted some time reading his website and I’m disturbed. It does not read like a scientific paper. It reads like a typical internet conspiracy page. It isn’t clear that he has consulted with any strutural engineers of demolition experts, merely cited some stuff he found online. Yes there are questions, but they have to raised in a more professional manner than this. Didn’t he learn anything from the cold fusion debacle?
Finally, the mere fact that he is a physicist does not qualify him to analyze this stuff. He studies electrochemical reactions, doesn’t he? Not falling buildings.
Comment by a random John — November 16, 2005 @ 5:35 pm
Steve, although I am no friend of conspiracy theories and find this to be somewhat embarassing (though not uninteresting), I too am interested in your intensity in denouncing Jones. I am interested why you find Jones’s line of research egregious enough to merit church disciplinary action. What does Jones’s interest in conspiracies and the physics of skyscraper collapse have to do with the Gospel any more than an accountant sitting at her desk reviewing tax filings?
Comment by john fowles — November 16, 2005 @ 5:35 pm
arJ, yours is a criticism that I can more fully get behind. I too am very skeptical about Jones’s research and even moreso about the inferences he is already drawing from that research as reported by the News article (and repeated on national TV on the Tucker Carlson show) that Muslim terrorists may not be responsible after all. I think that the fact that he is drawing this inference in conjunction with research that is not yet conclusive (aggravated by the fact that he is claiming that he hasn’t yet come to a conclusion) is what is wrong with this whole thing.
At the most, however, this is something that could raise some eyebrows in his academic department, and has nothing to do with his standing in the Gospel.
Comment by john fowles — November 16, 2005 @ 5:40 pm
I think most of you would be surprised at how many LDS members believe in this and other conspiracy theories. It probably has to do with the aforementioned secret combinations belief, but people that I have heard talk about these conspiracies include my father (a current bishop), my uncle ( a current member of the Pres. of the Seventy), and my former mission president (who Rusty will tell you was very level-headed and down-to-earth, and who also had a HIGH level security clearance with the Air Force.
I was also shocked at Tucker Carlson’s surprise that he got the response that he did. You would think someone in the media would have been aware of the vast amount of conspiracy theories, especially ones about 9/11, but I guess not.
I think why many members (and most people) deny these conspiracies is much the same reason why most people don’t accept the gospel. On my mission, one of the hardest things was getting an investigator to even pray about the BOM. But they wouldn’t simply because they were afraid of what the answer might be. If they discovered it to be true, they would have to change their whole belief system, possibly have to renounce friends/family, change their lifestyle, and admit to themselves that they were essentially being misled by people they trusted. The same holds true here. People discount these theories not with counter-evidence, but simply stating that it cannot possibly be true–it would just be too crazy. They don’t want to even admit the possibility.
Comment by Tim J. — November 16, 2005 @ 6:38 pm
Ok guy’s, why my reaction to Jones?
I am a physical scientist, a BYU alum and LDS. I also know quite a bit about passive fire protection specs as per an earlier comment, and Jones is full of crap. In the absence of some cooling mechanism, such as water sprayed into the fire from a tanker helicopter that could quickly suck up and convey Hudson/East river water (equipment which probably doesn’t exist on the planet), the WTC towers never had a chance against hydrocarbon fires. Then to question the collapse of building 7, obviously weakened by shaking and fires, adds insult to injury.
Jones embarrasses me threefold. He embarrasses me professionally. He embarrasses me because I worked hard for my BYU undergrad degree, and profs like him not having their tenure revoke (after due process) reduces the value of my degree. And he embarrasses me as a co-religionist in the religion that many think is already weird w/o the likes of Jones.
As far as his standing in the church, it seems our church disciple system is very quick to ex people who may even potentially embarrass the church. I know someone who was ex’d for vehicular manslaughter (after his criminal conviction). Yes, someone died, but it was an accident! He was ex’d solely because his continued membership might embarrass the church. It may not be proper or fair, but that is the BKP way. Why should Jones, who has done far more damage to the church’s rep, be an exception?
Comment by Steve EM — November 16, 2005 @ 6:41 pm
One more comment.
Let’s stop comparing the 9/11 conspiracy with other absolutely preposterous and harder-to-believe theories. Some people discount the 9/11 conspiracy by simply equating to another theory that is much more ridiculous, including:
The invented holocaust (already mentioned)
The gov’t-staged moon landing (pretty interesting evidence-terribly false, but interesting)
The gov’t sabotaging levees after Hurricane Katrina (there’s also a theory that the gov’t steered the hurricane towards NO using a laser from outer space)
Chem-Trails
Fluoridated water (we have a private well and fluoridate ourselves)
etc., etc., etc.
While there is obviously some cross-over, most who believe in the 9/11, JFK, Okl. City conspiracies/cover-ups do not give much credence to those mentioned above. And those that do believe them do nothing but distract others from believing.
Me? I don’t know. All I know is that there is a lot out there that hasn’t been answered. All I want is what Prof. Jones, the victims’ families, and the MAJORITY of Americans want. An independent investigation (not one appointed by Bush nor the DEMS) to take this matter on.
Comment by Tim J. — November 16, 2005 @ 6:46 pm
No offense Steve, but calling into question someone’s membership for what admittedly appears like questionable science seems a bit much.
Comment by Clark Goble — November 16, 2005 @ 6:48 pm
If his theory turns out to be completely preposterous and a total psycotic crap shoot (which I doubt that it is), then you may be able to make a case for him getting booted out of BYU, maybe.
But to say that he should lose his membership is extremely laughable, and rediculous. You think that somehow the fact that he beleives that the attacks at the WTC was an inside job makes him unworthy to be a member of the Church? There is no connection. Sorry.
Your manslaughter theory doesn’t make sense either. I know someone who was in the same situation, I’m not sure wether he was ex’d or disfellowshipped, but he had to wait a year to go on his mission. My understanding was that it is standard practice for anyone who is facing charges like that. It isn’t necissarily personal. An excommunication on these grounds would be kind of dumb.
Good thing you aren’t running the church.
Comment by Ian M. Cook — November 16, 2005 @ 10:09 pm
Any time a member is convicted of a felony- any felony – they are automatically excommunicated.
Comment by Tim J. — November 16, 2005 @ 10:18 pm
Any time a member is convicted of a felony- any felony – they are automatically excommunicated.
Not automatically. There are many unexcomunicated members in the federal pen. It still requires administrative action.
Comment by J. Stapley — November 16, 2005 @ 10:50 pm
Tim J.,
And some people believe these theories despite any counter-evidence — in fact, any counter-evidence seems to be attributed to a cover-up.
Did you read the article linked to by Ian in comment #94? It has some very good explanations for things that seem to puzzle Prof. Jones, like why the buildings collapsed downward instead of toppling over.
And believing those explanations does not require believing in clearly ridiculous scenarios in which explosives were somehow pre-planted into the buildings into which Muslim terrorists happened to crash planes.
Comment by Eric James Stone — November 17, 2005 @ 1:36 am
Tim J. wrote: “Some people discount the 9/11 conspiracy by simply equating to another theory that is much more ridiculous, including:… The invented holocaust (already mentioned)…While there is obviously some cross-over, most who believe in the 9/11 . . .conspirac[y] do not give much credence to those mentioned above.”
I don’t know that it’s true that most people who agree with Jones that “Muslims are probably not to blame for bringing down the World Trade Center buildings after all” don’t also have sympathy with Holocaust denial. Both theories are apparently most prevalent in the Arab world. Even, Mahmoud Abbas, the “progressive” current president of the Palestinian National Authority, wrote a book in 1984–based on his doctoral dissertation–that has been roundly criticized as an example of Holocaust denial. (Abbas has since distanced himself from such theories.)
And I disagree with your assertion that Holocaust denial theories are much more ridiculous than the theory that Muslims didn’t bring down the WTC buildings. Based on my reading of Evans’ _Lying about Hitler_, Shermer & Grobman’s _Denying History_, and Van Pelt’s _The Case for Auschwitz_, I think the theories are approximately equally ridiculous.
Comment by Chris Grant — November 17, 2005 @ 10:11 am
So, if I understand correctly, the BKP way is we ex some who might embarrass the church but not others. To clarify, personally I don’t want nut jobs like Jones nor the guy I knew convicted of vehicular manslaughter ex’d. I just brought it up as a matter of fairness since damage to the church’s rep is far greater in the Jones case.
I’ve already stated my personal beef w/ Jones and BYU (for keeping him): personal professional embarrassment as a BYU alum and LDS. Isn’t a reasonable standard for keeping one’s tenure to conduct oneself in a scholarly fashion and not using one’s university professorship as a platform to spout embarrassingly unresearched crap that, in turn, makes the university look ridiculous? Thank G-d for my graduate degree from a university that values its rep.
I’m contemplating writing “BYU diploma†on some toilet paper and, upon use, sending it to Jones w/ a cover letter encouraging his resignation for crapping on BYU.
Comment by Steve EM — November 17, 2005 @ 10:18 am
Did you read the article linked to by Ian in comment #94? It has some very good explanations for things that seem to puzzle Prof. Jones, like why the buildings collapsed downward instead of toppling over.
Eric,
I did. It doesn’t mention anything about WTC7 which is the entire basis of Prof. Jones’ argument. No steel frame building before nor after 9/11 has ever collapsed due to a fire.
Comment by Tim J. — November 17, 2005 @ 10:34 am
Hello, I happened across this blog by chance and decided to respond to a few statements. I cannot imagine why someone could think that our goverment would never take part in killing people. What makes them different from most other goverments in all of history? The amount of historical instances where goverments use terror to influence adgendas is striking. People have skewed perspectives, they have an us and them mentality. People are people to those who favor war and domination. Presidents give many orders that cause thousands to die, why should it matter to them what nation they are from. If these theorists are correct and the goverment helped or planned 911 then they are against all decent citizens. People overlook alot in all of this, Silvenstein made alot of money off of 911, if I made money cause my house exploded I would be investigated, he wasnt. He took out huge insurance just 3 months before the attacks. He is more that a real estate guy he has influence in isreal goverment and is tied with the owner of fox as well. Both of them have huge bussiness with ariel sharon . In march fox aired the lone gunmen 1st episode which was about foiling a gov. plot to run a plane into the WTC . Someone who knows history could see this as a classic mind game to throw blame toward the gov. by planting this tidbit in the minds of the conspiricy theorists which would definatly be watching that show as it is a spin off from x files. In conclusion all I can say is thsat the official story given for 911 has no more credibility than any other wacko theory out there as the evidence to support it is not available.to the people the story was sold to. If an average person went to a site before 911 and someone gave this theory toexplain planes hitting buildings in another country “19 people from a war torn muslim country managed to hijack 4 planes using plastic knives and box cutters and then, utilizing the skills they received in a dime store flight school they managed to fly the 3 story high planes in manouvers that pulled as much as 5g’s ,they did this after managing to disable the dozens of safegaurds built into the planes that cause the planes to right themselves when their angles are too sharp and they apparently disabled the geo tracking system because noone could find them. I have the evidence to prove it too, we found the pilot of one of the plane’s ID in the rubble because it flew out of his back pocket just as he sunk into the building and exploded and landed 1000ft away where we could find it” If you saw that before 911 what would you think?
Comment by richman — November 17, 2005 @ 8:26 pm
What I don’t get is how the planes figure into this. Why go through the trouble of flying planes into buildings if what you are really going to do it blow them up with demolition techniques anyhow? Why not just put in several huge truck bombs? Or send in a demolition team along with an armed group to protect them? Such things could be “blamed” on terrorists just as easily. I don’t understand why anyone would add the complication of the planes to such a plan.
Also, even if there are questions about how the buildings fell, why does a scientist make any claims about who is or is not responsible? That isn’t his job. Of course falling buildings isn’t his job either.
Comment by a random John — November 18, 2005 @ 12:35 pm
Well, random John, my conclusion is that the way this all fits together is that the buildings weren’t the real target. The real target was to transform the air transportation system from irritating to infuriating, so planes had to be involved too. Oh, those clever, fiendish terrorists who fooled us into believing that ramming a jetliner into a building could be dangerous.
Comment by John Mansfield — November 18, 2005 @ 1:09 pm
I curse that Tom Clancy every time I face the inconvenience of our new security measures when flying.
Comment by john fowles — November 18, 2005 @ 1:31 pm
john fowles -
are you sure it was Tom Clancy? There was a Spider-Man comic and an episodes of the X-files Spinoff “Lone Gunmen” that actually dealt with flying airplanes into the WTC. Blame Chris Carter or J.M DeMatteis then, since they anticipated the targets and not just the means of attack.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — November 18, 2005 @ 3:41 pm
Yes, I guess that it is more likely that Muslim terrorists were reading comic books or watching TV than reading Tom Clancy novels.
Comment by john fowles — November 18, 2005 @ 3:43 pm
Tom Clancy wrote about terrorists hijacking a plane and flying it into the White House (Jack Ryan then becomes Pres. I believe). I believe this where they thought Flight 93 was headed, though maybe it was the Capitol.
Comment by Tim J. — November 18, 2005 @ 4:51 pm
No, he didn’t.
Tom Clancy wrote about an airline pilot who flies a plane into the Capitol.
Comment by Eric James Stone — November 18, 2005 @ 6:52 pm
Sorry,
I didn’t read the book. Amazon.com said it was a Japanese terrorist (perhaps it wasn’t hijacked?), and yes it was flown into the Capitol.
Comment by Tim J. — November 18, 2005 @ 7:13 pm
Well, the Lone Gunmen episode was about the Government hijacking a plane by remote control and attempting to fly it into the WTC in order to have an excuse for increasing military funding.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — November 18, 2005 @ 8:03 pm
The problem with Steve Jone’s is the websites that he references are not objective in the least. Look at the bylines. Political agenada. And how ridiculous does all of theories sound. So there were no hijackers. The US planted the bombs and flew the planes into the building for the hell of it. Just because someone states something doesn’t make it fact. It is only an opinion. A convention center in Chicago collapsed due to a fire in 1967. It was a metal building. Yet Steve Jone’s references a statement that says no steel buildings have collapsed due to fire. Not true. Steve Jones needs to do his own research instead of referencing others who have political agendas. Mr. Jones should stick to teaching physics.
Comment by M. Curtis — November 20, 2005 @ 12:13 am
Hello dumb-dumbs. Anyone watch Jones on Tucker Carlson? Did you catch the fact that they refused to play the video of WTC 7 “collapseing” even tho Jones sent it to them and spent most his time challengeing them to air it for America? Tucker actually lead him to beleive it was being played as they showed a still photo of WTC 7 which wasnt even a photo from 911? Im glad to see all my tax dollars spent brainwashing the nation havenot been wasted.
Comment by JAYBIRD — November 20, 2005 @ 8:41 pm
Hey Jones, did you notice the company website is down on the day GM annouces 30000 layoffs and 9 plant closings? They’re all out to screw us man!
Comment by Steve EM — November 21, 2005 @ 10:05 am
Admin, the edit to my #135 doesn’t make sense. The website I’m referring to is called f’edcompany and the web address is spelled out , you know, http://www.f___edcompany.com. It’s a legitimate discussion of screwed-up companies and is sometimes cited by the WSJ and other news traditional organizations.
I just hope Jones will investigate why the site was down on the day GM reported the bad news.
Comment by Steve EM — November 21, 2005 @ 11:55 am
http://www.chipublib.org/images/disasters/mccormick_fire.jpg
Take a look at the picture of the 1967, January 16: McCormick Place Fire that has been refrenced.
Now tell me there is a similarity between the two occurences. The Mcormic Place was nothing near a “High Rise”.
Try again.
Comment by Ian M. Cook — November 21, 2005 @ 12:51 pm
I spent several years hanging around the BYU Department of Physics and Astronomy as a graduate student. I think I am better acquainted with Steven Jones them most of the bloggers here.
Jones is a thoughtful, quiet-spoken fellow, and if from what I could see I had to pick someone from the department as it was back then as the epitome of mainstream Mormon decency, it would probably be him. I would certainly prefer his chances before the bar of the Great Jehovah to those of, say, Rush Limbaugh.
Jones offered his arguments in good faith, in considerable detail, and further invited particular tests.
Criticise the nuts and bolts of his arguments by all means. It is entirely possible that he is sincere and rational and still wrong or incomplete in his evaluation of existing evidence.
Yet many of you seem to have been so revolted by the possible political implications as to question his livelihood, his sanity (“nutter” is just another way of saying “Thou fool”), and even his church standing, often without bothering to meet his arguments. I shouldn’t have to tell you what spirit inspires such venom. And I should think Americans in general and American Mormons in particular could do with a little more skepticism about official truthfulness, after buying the threadbare pretexts manufactured to justify the US invasion of Iraq.
On the one hand, the Book of Mormon is explicit about the rise of secret combinations in the last days, and it is true that a skimpy reading of it can indeed fuel the regrettable existing tendency of nativist Americans and their fellow-travellers to look for Grand Conspiracy.
And yes, I think Ezra Taft Benson fell far into that trap, trusting as he did in the unsavory J. Edgar Hoover. Nor was Benson alone. Benson certainly enjoyed vastly more prominence than a mere professorship at BYU could ever offer, but no-one here appears to be arguing for Benson’s retrospective release and excommunication—or did I miss something?
Despite Benson’s political loopiness, he asked us to read the Book of Mormon, as has Gordon Hinckley, who himself now appears much less supportive of the invasion of Iraq than he was earlier. So it’s back to the Book of Mormon—but the Book of Mormon secret combination is not the Grand Conspiracy of American lore.
First, a secret combination’s aims are often widely known, and they are viewed sympathetically or even backed by significant portions of the public, especially by those who consider themselves to be the of the better sort. Second, it rapidly becomes murderous internally as well as externally.
In particular, Lamanite guerilla war follows naturally from murderous power plays by high-born political Nephites.
Apropos this, consider the following, from a story dated 24 August 1998, i.e. well before 9/11 :
In fact, while he returned to his family’s construction business, bin Laden had split from the relatively conventional MAK in 1988 and established a new group, al-Qaida, that included many of the more extreme MAK members he had met in Afghanistan.
Most of these Afghan vets, or Afghanis, as the Arabs who fought there became known, turned up later behind violent Islamic movements around the world. Among them: the GIA in Algeria, thought responsible for the massacres of tens of thousands of civilians; Egypt’s Gamat Ismalia, which has massacred western tourists repeatedly in recent years; Saudi Arabia Shiite militants, responsible for the Khobar Towers and Riyadh bombings of 1996.
Indeed, to this day, those involved in the decision to give the Afghan rebels access to a fortune in covert funding and top-level combat weaponry continue to defend that move in the context of the Cold War. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee making those decisions, told my colleague Robert Windrem that he would make the same call again today even knowing what bin Laden would do subsequently. “It was worth it,†he said.
“Those were very important, pivotal matters that played an important role in the downfall of the Soviet Union,†he said.
Hatch should have read his Book of Mormon.
Is it crazy in Mormon terms for Jones to be reluctant to join the new Republican consensus that, in the absence of communism, the love of Allah is the root of all evil? The Muslims I met at BYU generally kept BYU standards better than the Utahns, to say nothing of the Californians.
I would find it extremely difficult to believe that American intelligence careerists were behind 9/11. None of them had the guts to resign and go public, like Australia’s Andrew Wilkie or the UK’s Katherine Gun. How would they have found the moxie for this?
Much of the Islamic world believed, at least at first, that Mossad did it. It is at least curious that only Barbara McCluskey’s faint note in an addendum names Israel specifically in the Senate’s Intelligence Failure report. Nor does that report even mention the earlier Knesset report (a pdf—see section 1.15 on p. 27) on the same matter, and its curiously wooden denial of culpability for helping precipitate the invasion of Iraq.
The two best-known books on Mossad are probably Gideon’s Spies and By Way of Deception, the first by an admirer, the second by a renegade katza. Both books agree that Mossad is extremely skilled at “false flag” operations and strategic deception, systematically framing one country before the intelligence services of another.
Would Mossad quietly back up a terrorist attack that they’d learned about in advance, without alerting either the terrorists themselves or US authorities? I find that difficult to believe even of Mossad, despite its singular and legendary chutzpah, unless, perhaps, its own sources were at risk… And what if the prize for sufficient destruction was likely to be an American invasion of Iraq? And what if the ancillary explosives were originally intended to limit or manage damage by preventing hit buildings toppling into other buildings?
I mention these possibilities not because I think them likely, but because they should not be dismissed out of hand as any crazier than other crazy things currently accepted, like American legal authorities calmly discussing torture, or imprisoning people indefinitely without even pretending to acknowledge their rights.
Other strange things have been reported, such as 2004 electoral results differing systematically from exit polls, only in favor of Bush, and only where there is no paper trail. So why is it so hard to get hold of the exit polls? That should be an open-and-shut case…
Comment by Alma Teao Wilson — November 25, 2005 @ 1:00 am
“the new Republican consensus that, in the absence of communism, the love of Allah is the root of all evil?”
Total bunk. I’ve no doubt that some Republicans go overboard in condemning all Muslims (see LGF, e.g.), though I haven’t seen anything like the complete dismissals of their faith like I’ve seen from the secular left. But at least they have the excuse that most Mulsims are far away and they probably don’t know them well. What excuse do you have for your bigorty and misunderstanding of republicans, many of whom belong to your church and whom you interact with?
Comment by Adam Greenwood — November 28, 2005 @ 9:04 pm
Adam Greenwood,
Bigotry? Misunderstanding? Total bunk? But I love Republicans roughly as much as I love Democrats. I think every country should have one. Of each.
It’s not just that the invasion of Iraq (like much Iraq policy under the Clinton administration) was wrong before it happened. It’s that you had to be hiding from obvious, publicly available information not to know that you were being lied to. It was just that clear. Anybody who went along with this has blood on their hands.
And, to our shame, every last self-identified LDS federal legislator, Republican or Democrat, voted for the “all necessary means” resolution that gave the invasion the green light.
Sure, Republicans can be found who say occasional nice things and possibly even feel occasional nice things about Islam—they talk and feel nice things about Mormons too. As they probably did during the Utah War, the Raids, and Edmunds-Tucker.
And it may even turn out that the US has only invaded what missionary-minded evangelicals call “the 10-40 Window” not for oil or for Israel or to remind the world that it is still the “bigest bully on the block”, but because so many Bushies feel deep love in their hearts for all Muslims, in just the way so many evangelicals feel deep love in their hearts for all Mormons.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
He only hits me because he loves me.
Comment by Alma Teao Wilson — December 1, 2005 @ 1:37 am
Someone said earlier in this blog piece: “Man Im in a church of nuts”. No doubt!
Comment by JAYBIRD — December 2, 2005 @ 1:32 am