Prof. Jones Tallks To Arctic Beacon On WTC Demo

Prof. Jones Tallks To Arctic Beacon On WTC Demo
By Greg Szymanski
11-12-5

Advised in for Whirlwind 9/11 Ride, after Claiming WTC Was a Controlled Demolition

Prim, proper and Republican-looking BYU professor crosses into uncharted 9/11 truth waters. Bush attack dogs lurking around every corner. Watch your back, professor!

The story of the day in the 9/11 truth world is the prim, proper and conservative-looking BYU physics professor, coming out of the closet with a 19 page report about how the WTC buildings, defying laws of gravity, most likely collapsed due to "pre-positioned explosives."

Professor Steven A. Jones' highly-provocative and scientifically researched report, concluded the government's jet fuel theory was inconceivable due the nature of the freefall of the buildings, the towers falling in a matter of seconds within their own footprints exactly like a controlled demolition.

Jones' story first appeared Friday in the Salt Lake City Deseret Morning News and was quickly circulated throughout the country on the internet. And, apparently expecting a barrage of callers, emails and faxes, Jones seems to have cut-off communications with the rest of the outside world, instead letting his 19 page report do the talking for him.

Numerous calls to the number listed on his resume were met Friday by a strange sounding busy signal and emails requesting an interview sent to jonesse@physc1.byu.edu were returned undeliverable.

Perhaps the good professor wants his privacy or perhaps he has been overwhelmed with calls and emails. But let's just say good luck since now he's nothing but "media meat" to slice up every which way by those on both sides of the hotly contested 9/11 truth issue.

However, on Saturday Professor Jones telephoned the Arctic Beacon, saying he is more than willing to tell everyone why he believes the WTC came down from a controlled demolition and why he is urging the American people to insist authorities open up a fresh investigation.

"I came to the conclusion after several months of serious investigation and after conferring with people like David Ray Griffin and others," said Jones today from his home in Utah, sounding like a very sincere, honest and forthright person, wanting to get to the e truth about 9/11.

"My paper has been accepted for publication and surprisingly I have been met with a lot of encouragement and support from my colleagues at BYU. There have been, of course, emails calling me nuts and crazy but that's to be expected."

However, for practical purposes and to help Professor Jones adjust, let's just say his quiet Utah world has ended forever with his decision to essentially tell the world the government is lying about 9/11. Of course, that's not what he said specifically, but that's how it will be interpreted, especially by the administration's hyper-sensitive attitude towards those in academia who have questioned the official 9/11 story.

"I just believe we should get at the truth and open up another investigation. What finally tipped the scales for me was the way in which Building 7 collapsed," said Jones, who admitted coming from a conservative background.

Although he stops short of saying exactly who pulled the demolition plug on the towers, the insinuation is there that it was an inside government job, his statements being enough to ignite a fury of retaliation from the Bush administration attacks dogs if reaction to past statement made by others like Jones is any indication.

And if history proves right, Jones is now in for a world-wind 9/11 ride, a ride like he's never experienced before. So professor be prepared to strap yourself very tight to your office chair since those on both sides of the 9/11 issue are going to be pulling and tugging at you, pulling hard in very different and opposite directions.

Professor, be prepared to first be hounded by the 9/11 truth seekers, who are going to try top use your every word to bolster their position that Bush and his cronies killed 3,000 on the morning of 9/11. Interviews from radio stations, news outlets and underground television stations will come by the thousands as you have now, for the time being, become the 9/11 truth movement's new poster child, replacing the likes of former Bush administration official, Morgan Reynolds, and other conservatives who came out of the closet attacking Bush for bringing about 9/11.

The Arctic Beacon was one of the first to interview Reynolds and his statements about the 9/11 being a government inside job, the story being literally picked up round the world. Then came former Reagan Treasury Secretary, Paul Craig Roberts, making similar statements while bashing Bush on the Iraqi War as well, causing equally as big of stir as Reynolds.

And all bets are off as to how hard the Bush attack dogs will come down Jones, who will be viewed as hitting Bush below the belt from a strongly conservative stronghold like BYU and Utah.

So, it's really only a matter of time before he is somehow discredited for his views and only a matter of time before the Bushies pull out of their hats five, ten or fifteen other physic's professors who totally disagree with him, as endless scientific debates will automatically take center stage for awhile like the many debates on the same issue have transpired in the past.

And what will be accomplished? Well, in reality Jones will probably get frustrated of the constant harassment and soon slip back into academia. The Bush administration will try to hasten that move and uncover whatever dirt on him available to discredit his character while, at the same time, checking to see what type of government contracts can be withheld from BYU in order to get Jones to shut up.

And, in the end the great scientific debate over 9/11 will continue as the real culprits in Washington like Daddy and Baby Bush, Clinton, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice. Wolfowitz, Pearle, Rove and the other crooks continue to walk hand in hand by the banks of the Potomac, smoking cigars and laughing all the way to the bank.

But for the sake of discourse, it's rather interesting to note the innocence, almost schoolboy attitude exhibited by Professor Jones, as to why he finally decided to go public about 9/11. First he said he was inspired by a clairvoyant who had a near death experience, warning others "if you think the WTC came down just due to fire, you have a lot of surprises ahead of you."

He then was quoted as saying "at which point everyone around me (at the speech) started applauding." Even though this is a rather amusing tale, Jones should be prepared for some near death experiences of his own, since crossing the line with Daddy Bush is sometimes hazardous to one's health.

Also, Jones should be prepared to be forever classified by the Bushies as "a crazy clairvoyant nut" as he made his first mistake by giving the administration this type of ammunition to use against him, being too honest and too naïve -- two big mistakes he will come to regret when looking back on the whole story

Next Jones makes a second statement about his 9/11 reawakening in the Deseret Morning News, again indicating he has no idea what kind of corrupt government world he is entering. Although a good idea, he said he would like the government to turn over 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage for "independent scrutiny" now being conveniently held out of sight and out of mind by the government.

Fat chance! All that can be said is good luck since most serious investigators and truth seekers to date can't even get their hands on one video, let alone 12,000, an example being from the gas station across the street from the Pentagon, a video which is being held by the FBI that most likely could show an airliner never struck the Pentagon.

Besides the 12,000 pictures and tapes, Jones is also asking the government to turn over a piece of molten steel from the core of the towers for his independent investigation, again perhaps not understanding FEMA shipped the steel right after 9/11 out of the country to China in an obvious obstruction of justice criminal violation.

Good luck again to Jones if he can get a piece of WTC steel, but it should be remembered for four long years thousands before him have tried and failed, obviously proving we have a cover-up of massive proportions.

Even though Jones means well and his heart is in the right place, he is going to have a rude awakening when he tries to get anything, even a cup of coffee and a roll, from anyone close to the government after what he has said. It's basically the gloves off, professor, so get used to the controversy as perhaps the old saying "be careful what you ask for as you just might get it" may aptly apply here.

But regarding his 9/11 conclusions, it's important to note they are bolstered by what he says are many eye-witnesses who have come forward, saying they heard, felt and experienced explosions in the sublevels of the towers just prior to the airliners striking at the top floors.

Jones is correct in his conclusions since the Arctic Beacon has been one of the first to conduct interviews with many of those eye-witnesses, including a North Tower survivor named Felipe Sanchez, who experienced third degree burns from the powerful basement explosions, resulting in a six month hospital stay before he finally recovered.

Jones should be told that 9/11 Commission as well as everybody else in high places, including the major television and newspaper outlets, have all categorically censored all the eye-witnesses, shutting up anyone who can finger the government liars and verify a controlled demolition took place, thus revealing the true nature of the corrupt media owners protecting the equally corrupt government officials.

However, in all fairness, Jones' thoughts should be heard and added to the words of many other 9/11 truth seekers who have come spoken before him. In the article written by Elaine Jarvik of the Deseret Morning News, the following points are highlighted from his 9,000 word article claiming the towers and Building 7 were most likely brought down by a controlled demolition:

* The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled demolition" - and even then it's very difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job."

* No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns, he says.

* WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors - and intact steel support columns - the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.

* With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing - and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."

* Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says.

* Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel - and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.

* Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal," Jones says.

* Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says.

Greg Szymanski is an independent investigative journalist and his articles can been seen at www.LewisNews.com. He also writes for American Free Press www.AmericanFreePress.net and has his own site www.arcticbeacon.com .