Home

 
BYU Off the Hook -
Steven Jones Resigns

by Christopher Bollyn
23 October 2006

Photo: Christopher Bollyn and Professor Steven E. Jones discussing the evidence of 9/11 in the professor's office at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah in March 2006.
Professor Steven E. Jones, the Brigham Young University physics professor, is retiring Jan. 1, 2007
"I am electing to retire so that I can spend more time speaking and conducting research of my choosing," Jones said in an interview Friday. "I appreciate the wonderful opportunity I have had to teach and serve and do research at BYU for more than 21 years." 


In September, the university owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints placed Jones on paid leave in order to conduct a professional review of his controversial Sept. 11 theories.

The review was in its earliest stages - a panel had not yet been appointed - but it has been canceled due to Jones' retirement, said Carri Jenkins, BYU spokeswoman.

Bollyn comments: This is the review that could not be done. I was eagerly awaiting this review. Because I know they could not disprove what Professor Jones has proven. Therefore, this was the review that could not be done.

I wish Professor Jones had stuck to his guns and demanded a professional review. The professors of political correctness should put up or shut up. They could not and will not. Professor Jones' resignation has let them off the hook.

The cowards have won this one.

That is a crying shame.

Here is the letter of Professor Jones:
 
 


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

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

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

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

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

Two structural engineering professors in Switzerland have recently spoken out as I have also done, declaring that explosives were with "utmost probability" responsible for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on Sept. 11. "WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives", said one. 'Tages-Anzeiger, 9/9/2006"

After seeing the collapse of World Trade Center 7 (see wtc7.net), many instinctively want to know why this 47-story skyscraper, which was never hit by a plane, collapsed completely seven hours after the WTC Towers had collapsed. How could this happen? The 9/11 Commission report fails to mention the collapse of WTC7. Federal laboratories have not officially answered yet. FEMA explains how fire might initiate a collapse, then admits, "Our best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence." Is it a crime, then, to consider an alternative hypothesis, that explosives were used?

I invite you to study this matter for yourself. Please read the peer-reviewed articles published here:
www.Journalof911Studies.com

This Journal is supported by the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which I co-chair, and considers the "official theory" of what happened on 9/11 as well as alternative explanations. One of my scientific papers on 9/11 issues is published in this Journal (as well as in a book edited by Professors David Ray Griffin and Peter Scott.)

The paper therein by Joseph Firmage explores evidences that US intelligence knew in advance that the hijackers were coming and that the attacks were "allowed to happen," to justify wars in the Middle East. At least ten nations are on record as having warned the current administration that terrorist attacks were imminent, shortly before 9/11.

If another "9/11-like event" is "allowed to happen" in the near future, do you not suppose that it will be blamed this time on Iran or Syria, followed by a swift and deadly attack on the country blamed? Can you not imagine that a military draft will follow next, with college students constrained to enter the military, and handed rifles to go and kill people in the Middle East, by the tens of thousands?

Because of my concern for college-age students I have taught and loved for decades, I am motivated to speak out emphatically against what I judge - after thorough study and reflection - to be terrible wars, wars of aggression, founded on deceptions.

Steven E. Jones Physicist and Co-chair, Scholars for 9/11 Truth