9/11 Truth Red Herring: Neoliberal BYU Has Financed, Staffed, and Peer-Reviewed Prof. Jones’ Flawed Thermite Distraction Since Day One

by Scott Creighton

It may even be that [the Lord] will hold us responsible if we try to impede or hedge up the way of those who are involved in a contest with forces of evil and repression.”  Gordon B. Hinckley, 2003

Prof. Jones is at it again; he is attempting to fool the Truth movement into believing that the physical evidence of explosive demolition has been found and that we need not do more research into the field.

It’s bullshit and he knows it.

Prof. Jones refuses to run tests to see if there is trace evidence of high explosives in all that dust he proudly admits he has. The following is a comment Prof Jones left on the 911Blogger forum thread that he started…

We’re in this together.

There appear to be two main WALLS of defense for the “official story” of 9/11.
1. People’s extreme reluctance to question a BIG LIE, especially when the lie comes from their government. This “Big Lie principle” was enunciated by Hitler and used by him, and is the basis of “false flag events.” This is seen also in the refusal of NIST to even LOOK for residues of explosives in the WTC dust — and they are getting away with it.
2. The wall of nonsense thrown up around solid evidence by so-called “debunkers”. For example, the notion that the red/gray chips are merely flakes of primer paint (suggested by Eagar of MIT and others). This notion ignores the fact that the primer paint contains significant ZINC whereas the red/gray chips contain NO zinc (looking at an inside surface freshly exposed by fracture); it also ignores the fact that the red/gray chips produce iron-rich spheres upon ignition which burning paint does not do. There are many other examples.

With the solid evidence we have published, we are breaking down wall #2… but how to break down wall #1??  Prof. Jones

There are several conflicting aspects of Prof. Jones’ little bit of propaganda that I just have to point out. 

1. The Audacity of Hype

Prof. Jones has the audacity to post this comment on a thread he started about AE911Truth nearing the 10,000 signatures mark on their petition for a new investigation. This a remarkable accomplishment and it should be celebrated by all Truth advocates.  However, Steven Jones has certainly not forgotten that when he was asked to present at the Press Conference for the 1,000 architects and engineers signed onto the petition, he chose that specific moment to delve into the Judy Wood world of “earthquake weapons” as if it were something that should be considered along with other 911 research.

If Jones wants to speculate about man-made earthquakes as part of some new world order plot to capture the world’s oil supplies, he should say so elsewhere and refrain from sticking it up the 911 Truth Movement’s arse. dearth

Prof. Jones deliberately undermined the credibility of the event to not only the press but to other engineering professionals who may have been considering joining up with Richard Gage’s group. This cannot be more obvious and the audacity of Jones to use this other milestone of Gage’s as an opportunity to push his own “red herring” agenda again, is nothing more than a perfect insight into a man who has effectively been hired to undermine our efforts from the very beginning.

Prof. Jones couldn’t have provided better ammunition to our critics if they had asked for it directly. And they used it.

… but the biggest news, as far as the nutters on 911 Blogger are reporting it is that Steven Jones is now into researching “man-made earthquakes” and “weather modification”, which should come as no surprise as he announced his interest in chemtrails last year. Good thing they have serious science on their sideScrewLooseChange

2. Professor Jones and Gregg Roberts are “Getting Away With It”

Prof. Jones makes the following claim “the refusal of NIST to even LOOK for residues of explosives in the WTC dust — and they are getting away with it.”

Steven Jones has been asked by myself and others, repeatedly, to test for residues of high explosives in the dust he is in possession of – and he has all but flat-out refused to do so.

Steven Jones is a physicist who has done work for the Idaho National Laboratory,  the U.S. Department of Energy (Division of Advanced Energy Projects), and U.S. Department of Energy and Electric Power Research Institute. Not to mention the fact that Steven Jones was a professor at BYU.

In several email attempts to get Jones to agree to run tests for residues of high explosives (PETN, RDX, TNT) in the dust in his possession, this highly decorated and experienced educator attempted to tell me there was no way to test for such residues and then he tried to tell me he didn’t know how to test for the residues and would not have access to the equipment to do so.

I am supposed to tell you (Prof. Jones) how to run the tests?

Well, I did.  4 times and I gave him 3 options…

“I responded 3 times you your question about how to test for these explosive

1. I sent you PDFs and links to a place where you can purchase a registered
testing kit that uses a reagent process

“Sirchie – Explosive Residue Test Kit – cat ERTT10″

2. And I sent you links to a company that you can send the materials off to
in order to have them test the samples in their labs

“Leeder Consulting:   Explosives Residue Analysis”

3. And I also sent you detailed information on how to use the Griess reagent
not only how to use the process but detailed information on the
preparation of the reagent itself.

“The key to selective and sensitive explosives trace identification by TLC
lies in the visualization reagent. Griess reagent, in a number of versions,
has proven to be the most popular means of visualization.”

One question, three clear and precise answers.”  AE April 7 2009

Prof. Jones never acknowledged receiving these emails. Apparently these were the only ones that were “diverted” that I had sent him.  But then Steven Jones even went so far as to put me in contact with Gregg Roberts (for what reason, I do not know). After writing him several times,  Jones finally told me it sounded like a good idea, but he had to ask Gregg Roberts, formerly partnered with Jim Hoffman and Victoria Ashley (take from that what you will).  Roberts replied back that he didn’t think it was a good idea, but that he would pass it along to others in the movement. He never responded back.

Back in May of 2008, my conversations with Jones moved beyond the 911 Blogger thread that I put the article up on.  In an email response to me, he expressed an interest in looking into this further, but then he referred the matter to Greg Roberts and my discussion about the subject went forward with him.

At long last, after being told that they were really more interested in pushing for political or legal action, Greg Roberts told me something quite amazing in one of his last emails to me.

However, our detractors could be counted on to do their best to use a negative result against us for P.R. purposes. They would say that we have a non-scientific belief, since a negative outcome from an experiment fails to shake it.    Thus, the potential costs of doing what you’re proposing and coming up empty-handed, or worse, must be considered.”  Roberts

The idea that you wouldn’t run a scientific test that is standard investigative procedure when an explosive is suspected, for any reason, let alone for “potential P.R.” consequences… was astounding to me.  AE April 7 2009

For Steven Jones to make the claim that NIST is “getting away with” not testing for explosive residue in the Ground Zero dust is one of the most hypocritical statements I have ever heard. Jones and Harrit and Roberts all make the claim in their “peer-reviewed paper” that they did NOT test for these finger prints of high explosives and that someone else should.

The red material does burn quickly as shown in the DSC, and we have observed a bright flash on ignition, but determination of the burn rate of the red material may help to classify this as a slow or fast explosive. It may be that this material is used not as a cutter-charge itself, but rather as a means to ignite high explosives, as in super-thermite matches [30]. Having observed unignited thermitic material in the WTC residue, we suggest that other energetic materials suitable for cutter charges or explosives should also be looked for in the WTC dust. NIST has admitted that they have not yet looked for such residues.” Steven Jones, Gregg Roberts, Harrit, et al

We can all understand why NIST doesn’t run the tests; because they are a branch of the Department of Commerce and they essentially worked for the people who carried out 911.  But Jones. Harrit, and Roberts are SUPPOSED to be a different story. They are SUPPOSED to be an unofficial investigation into the demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7.

Why would Jones, Harrit, Roberts, et al deliberately chose to not run these tests? And who exactly is “getting away” with not running them? NIST is condemned for it, Jones is given a pass.

3. BYU and the the Truth Movement

At this point, the scientific aspect of the Truth Movement is a whole-owned subsidiary of Brigham Young University (BYU).

Many Truth Advocates wrongly believe that Prof. Jones’ 911 Truth work cost him his career.  That is NOT true. In fact, it has apparently gained him professor emeritus status at BYU.

A professor emeritus or emeritus professor is a title that may be given to a full professor who retires in good standing. According to the American Council on Education it is typically awarded for “long and distinguished service”.

The term is also used as a title given to retired professors who continue to teach and to be listed; they may also draw a very large percentage of their last salary as a pension.

Less than 3 months after BYU elevated Prof. Jones to the professor emeritus status, securing for him what Jones calls a “nice’ pension and an office to work in (as well as the maintainance of his webpage) BYU had Dick Cheney deliver the commencement address to their graduating students.

Contrary to popular belief, BYU has been paying Prof. Jones all this time.

BYU freed up his schedule so that he could do the work, his 911 Truth work, at BYU and in BYU labs. 

BYU provided an office and equipment so that Prof. Jones could do the work.

BYU supported Prof. Jones’ research and provided him with additional help.

BYU paid for the Jones, Harrit, Roberts “nanothermite” paper to be published in the vanity press Bentham Open journal.

BYU provided the “peer review” official seal of approval for the Jones, Harrit, Roberts, et. al “nanothermite” paper.

The following is from Prof. Jones’ own statement regarding his affiliation with BYU…

BYU allowed me to continue my research on 9/11 after I was placed on admin leave, particularly regarding the dust generated during the collapse of the Towers, and even encouraged that research. It was important to the work that I was allowed to use the electron microscopes at BYU for this research.

Based on that research at BYU, a group of scientists wrote the paper now published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” April 2009. BYU reviewed the paper prior to publication and found it to represent sound science, and approved it for publication in the Open Chemical Physics Journal. Specifically the chair of the BYU Department of Physics and Astronomy approved publication and told me personally this was sound scientific research and that he was now persuaded that explosives/pyrotechnics were involved in the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11.

There were two authors from BYU listed on that paper, Dr. Farrer (as second author) and Daniel Farnsworth. Their affiliation with the BYU Department of Physics and Astronomy was listed in the paper, with the approval of BYU.

About the same time as this paper was published, I was made an Emeritus Professor of Physics at BYU

BYU provided a nice (not large) pension as I accepted their offer of early retirement, gave me a (shared) office that I still use. They allowed me to keep my research web page, which links to three formally-published peer-reviewed papers regarding 9/11 in technical journals, here: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/

We know from press releases that Dick Cheney’s office contacted BYU; and this resulted in Cheney’s coming to BYU to give a commencement address just three months after my “early retirement” from BYUProf. Jones on his association with BYU

Prof Jones has been working for BYU since his involvement with the Truth movement began. He never lost his job because of his involvement, but rather HIS INVOLVEMENT IN THE TRUTH MOVEMENT WAS HIS JOB.  And he has been handsomely rewarded for it. He still does research at BYU to this day.

With regard to current activities, I am pursuing energy-related research at this time. This is another where I continue to have support at BYU. For example, see: http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/4CF06/Event/55778 . Our experiments at BYU involving a low-energy deuteron beam impinging on a liquid lithium target are ready to launch… stay tuned.  Prof. Jones

4. BYU and the Neocons

In April of 2003, the president of the Mormon Church and a Board member of BYU, Gordon B. Hinckley, made the following statement about the Iraq War

… “One of our Articles of Faith, which represent an expression of our doctrine, states, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law

…  “…as citizens we are all under the direction of our respective national leaders. They have access to greater political and military intelligence than do the people generally,” adding, “Furthermore, we are a freedom-loving people, committed to the defense of liberty wherever it is in jeopardy.” He also noted that “It may even be that [the Lord] will hold us responsible if we try to impede or hedge up the way of those who are involved in a contest with forces of evil and repression.”  Gordon B. Hinckley, 2003

In 2004 President Bush gave the president of the Mormon Church, Gordon B. Hinckley, the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

In 2006, ground was broken at BYU for the Gordon B. Hinckley Alumni and Visitors Center.

In 2006 President Bush met with the president of the Mormon Church, Gordon B. Hinckley, who was also on the Board of Directors of BYU.

In 2007, BYU extended an offer to George W. Bush to give the commencement speech. Bush refused and Dick Cheney gave the speech instead and received a honarary degree at the same time.

In its invitation to Cheney, LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley and counselors President Thomas S. Monson and President James E. Faust wrote, “Along with BYU graduates, their parents and the faculty and staff, we would be honored to welcome you on this special occasion and to hear your commencement address.”

Does it not seem odd that such an institution would keep Prof. Jones on the payroll and even give him more money, research assistants, and then even peer review his paper and pay to get it published in a vanity press? Especially since the “research” Jones does practically accuses Bush and Cheney of conspiring to attack the United States on Sept. 11th 2001?

However, considering the fact that Jones’ research is seriously flawed and that it is leading the movement nowhere, that makes perfect sense… yes, they would indeed fund THAT KIND OF RESEARCH wouldn’t they?

5. BYU and the Neoliberal Milton Friedman Ideology

from EZRA TAFT BENSON – A Vision and a Hope for the Youth of Zion –  given at Brigham Young University on 12 April 1977.

… As citizens of this noble land, we have marched a long way down the soul-destroying road of socialism. If you question that statement, consider the recent testimonial from the Nobel prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman. He indicated that government spending in the United States at all levels amounts to over forty percent of today’s total national income.

…Today’s socialists (doesn’t Glenn Beck, Morman, call Obama a “socialist”)–who call themselves egalitarians–are using the federal government to redistribute wealth in our society, not as a matter of voluntary charity, but as a so-called matter of right… This means that the federal governments collects from one income group and transfer payments to another by the tax system. These payments are made in the form of social security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid, and food stamps, to name a few. Today the cost of such programs has been going in the hole at the rate of 12 billion dollars a year…

When you accept food stamps, you accept an unearned handout that other working people are paying for. You do not earn food stamps or welfare payments. Every individual who accepts an unearned government gratuity is just as morally culpable as the individual who takes a handout from taxpayers’ money to pay his heat, electricity, or rent. There is no difference in principle between them. You did not come to this University to become a welfare recipient. You came here to be a light to the world, a light to society–to save society and to help to save this nation, the Lord’s base of operations in these latter days, to ameliorate man’s social conditions. You are not here to be a parasite or freeloader. The price you pay for “something for nothing” may be more than you can afford. Do not rationalize your acceptance of government gratuities by saying, “I am a contributing taxpayer too.” By doing this you contribute to the problem which is leading this nation to financial insolvency


There is no way that BYU would do anything to directly oppose the stance of LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley and counselors President Thomas S. Monson and President James E. Faust, by supporting the work of someone who was actually attempting to prove George Bush and Dick Cheney conspired with others to attack the United States on Sept.11th 2001.

The facts as represented here and admitted to by Prof. Steven Jones show that BYU not only continued to pay Jones during his tenure with the Truth Movement, but in fact, they financed his studies, peer-reviewed them, and paid to have them published at a vanity press. Subsequently the editor of that journal quit her position there upon discovering Prof. Jones’ work had been published in her absence. Her explanation was that the work was not science and that it had been published for “political reasons”

Steven Jones did not lose his job because of his work on 911 Truth… his work on 911 Truth WAS HIS JOB. And he was being paid to do the work by an institution with close ties to the Bush/Cheney administration who also seem to possess a neoliberal economic agenda.

39 Responses

  1. There are no doubt residues of high explosives in the dust since at the very least there were explosive onboard the planes.

    Why ask Prof. Jones to conduct tests for “residues of high explosives (PETN,RDX, TNT)” when you could ask him for the results… Surely the tests have already been conducted and the results are known…

  2. Jones hasn’t run the tests. He admitted that in the nanothermite paper.

  3. Why is Morman church so involved with Bush and Cheney? Are the Mormans the ‘power’ church of America? Is Bush a Morman/ is cheney?
    guess Jones is,,,,,, and he is still nurtured by them, I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could see him.

    ask some one else to do the test. Why doesn’t some other scientist do the test? they all scared to?
    well, guess there is reason to be scared…..
    the devil was busy on 9/11,,,…. and the devil enjoys these little games of cat and mouse…. sure sounds like Cheney….. doesn’t it?

  4. Scott, can you not do the tests using samples from the lady who is using debris to make home decor? What say you?

  5. Shawn;

    I could certainly try and raise the funds to get the testing kit and do the tests myself.

    Or they could be sent out to labs for even more accurate tests.

    But leagally speaking it wouldn’t be worth running the tests on her samples.

    But the problem is; if they came back positive, which I am sure they would, her samples would be highly questionable in a court of law.

    Since she has used at least one sample as a prop the defense could easily claim the integrity of all of her samples were questionable at best and possibly even suspect due to the way she has clearly demonstrated a lack of respect for them in the past.

    Without a solid chain of possession for the evidence, I don’t think any AG would consider using the results.

    Even the PR aspect of it would be too easily dismissed by debunkers.

    But there are other people who still have clean samples and who have not used them as props.

    Testing her material could still be a good course of action for the Truth Movement to take, even if it just serves as an ice-breaker, getting others motivated to test theirs.

    So, it could be useful overall I suppose. She or anyone close to her could run the tests themselves or send them off to have the material tested. I would be glad to provide any help I can.

    What may also be an interesting idea is for Truth advocates to possibly approach local universities with criminal science/forensics departments. They would certainly be qualified to run tests and would have the equipment already to do so.

    In a perfect case, the ideal sample would come from someone who collected the sample themselves, sealed it at that time, and has never opened it for any reason. Samples like that would be perfect.

  6. Have you been banned from 911blogger too? Jones posts there frequently, would be interesting to see you debate him on this subject.

  7. Hi Chris;

    I would love that. I used to contribute to 911Blogger before all this took place. In fact, the first contact I had with Jones was on that site…

    it culminated on Dec. 28th 2008 with me getting pissed because they weren’t covering Operation Cast Lead in Gaza at all…


    Jones replied once to a Open Letter I posted on Blogger… he suggested I “flush it out”…

    when I did what he asked, I never heard back from him… at least not in the public forum of 911 Blogger


    I offered to have a little “chat” with Jones. All I wanted was to do it live in front of other truth activists and to have it video taped.

    the offer went through a 3rd party so I will never know if they have even been made aware of it.

    The offer was simple: Dwain Deets, Gregg Roberts, and Steven Jones on one side of the table, and me on the other.

    I have not heard back from that 3rd party since the offer was made.

    I would love to have that discussion with Jones and the rest, but I believe they are ultimately served better by just hoping I will go away. You would think after a year and a half they would realize that isn’t going to happen.

    But you see, my side of the argument is too simple: since Jones has access to an entire engineering research department and chemistry lab at BYU… and since he has the FULL SUPPORT of BYU, why hasn’t he conducted the very FIRST tests that are run by any forensic investigation when they think HIGH EXPLOSIVES have been used at a scene?

    especially since he and Roberts and Harrit suggested those tests be conducted in their “peer reviewed” paper?

    Hell, Jones can probably walk right out his office door and down the hall to the chemistry department with those samples in his hand and get an answer to these important questions in a matter of hours.

    but he hasn’t and he won’t. And I don’t think he would ever put himself in a position to have to answer the question of “why” in front of a couple hundred active Truth Advocates…

  8. from what all JOnes represents, I wouldn’t want him to run the tests… he would probably deny the results anyway.

  9. I wonder why we’re not doing the math on how much this costs and just getting it done.

    Wily can you just forward the links again to the testing equipment that you would purchase if you were going to test for explosives ?

    granted we have best, good, fair, poor levels here of testing – but just to get something going —- please send the links again – or point me to the paper where you describe where one can purchase such testing equipment


  10. Can you still post on 911B though? Or were you actually banned like so many others? If not I would drop by, Jones has been posting a lot lately. Its very weak how he ducked you before. It’s a debate I would like to see.

    On Israel, I am not surprised they didn’t cover the slaughter in Gaza as 911B have always let the LIHOP-ish, blame the arabs type crowd there basically run things. Reprehensor was a frequent contributor to GNN. The crowd(and mods) at 911 B have always been especially allergic to mentioning evidence of Israeli involvement in 9/11. Not a whole lot if anything on Zakheim,SPC, ICTS, UBS and Suter,SITE etc. to be found.

    After reading your link I can see that you and I probably disagree on the level of Israeli involvement and what it means. I think its clear 9/11 was an inside/outside job, with the motives of those involved varying. By ignoring the roles of some we fail to complete the picture and imo 911B has always been a part of distorting the picture, so I don’t blame you for giving up on them.(though I must say when I first started posting there years ago when it was un-moderated I got a lot out of it and the comments)

  11. Chris;

    if you Google 911Blogger one of the first links for a long time was my article “why i don’t think blogger is a truth site”… and I think that kind of got to some of them.

    It seems to me that they have made a bit of a switch in the past half year or so. Adam Sayed and a few others stayed and plugged away at the John Gold/ Arabesque controlled oppositioners and it seems that the general feeling there is improving.

    They did end up covering Operation Cast Lead, but not until a few days after my article was published.

    To answer your question, yes, I was ultimately banned, I believe by Jim Hoffman’s girlfriend Victrinox (Victoria Ashley) because I dared to question Hoffman’s “1.8 million ceiling tile bombs” hypothesis.

    I was surprized and pleased to see they haven’t wiped out my archive from when I ran a blog there. I forgot how many articles I had posted back then.

    So I never really gave up on them, as much as I got pissed when they completely ignored Operation Cast Lead.

    I would actually consider a blog debate under one condition only, and that is it must be in a place where I know for a fact the comments will not be altered in anyway or actually removed from view.

    Blogger’s comment voting system doesn’t lend itself to a debate like the one you suggest.

    I would love the opportunity to do it here. Or again, like I said, to have the discussion live, with a responding audience of Truth Advocates.

    But I seriously doubt any of them would agree to that.

    frankly, the way I see it, when you have three highly (and I mean HIGHLY) educated men like that refusing to debate a college drop-out like myself, something must be obviously wrong with their position. or that is just the way I see it.

    (and I agree… BLoggers old unmoderated system was much better…. but the controlled opp guys fixed that…)

  12. you should check out WCTDemolition…

    they have a good site. They got mad at me back when I didn’t think much of CIT (the whole… “blow up the pentagon then fly a massive plane right over the building and through the smoke in front of a highway packed with witnesses” thing)

    (I think gretavo has his doubts about them as well, but I can’t say that for sure…)

    and they and I got into it once over Israel. practically called me “disinfo” (well, the did call me “disinfo”) because I didn’t focus enough on the Israeli connection. I pointed out the fact that they had not single link to a pro-Palestinian site like the Finkelstein site link on my place… Finkelstein, BTselem, Israel’s 60th birthday, Free Gaza, electronic Intifada, Filisteen, diary of a Palestinian mother, ect… all of those I mentioned that are on my site are there for a reason. because I truely support the efforts of the Palestinian people.

    I have been to more Free Gaza rallies than I have Truth rallies. And that is a fact.

    It was then suggested by gretavo that most of those organizations are useless because they don’t support the “israel did 911” idea.

    I found that a very odd comment coming from someone who runs wtcdemolition.

    but aside from all that, you can find good information on wtcdemolition, and when they aren’t talking about Jon Gold (that useless limited hangout creep) you can find well researched comments and articles.

  13. You are quite fond of withholding information yourself scott, are you not?

    So as not to offend your “favourite”, jewish aunt and uncle.

  14. oh goodie… the cannibal is back. the guy who thinks because I don’t think all jews are evil I must be disinfo… so nice to see you again.

    its called nuance, rabbi… you leave some stuff for the reader to decide on their own.

    but this thread is simply about basic tests that should be run by Jones and the fact that he condemns NIST for not running the same tests he won’t run himself. And yes, it is about BYU funding Jones’ campaign of deception. The readers can come to their own conclussions about “why” BYU would chose to do that. I have offered ample examples of their connections to neoliberal economic philosophy and their apparent loyalty to the neocons… the rest is for others to explore…

    nuance ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/nuance )

    now if you want to spoil the jovial mood by bringing up other connections, be my guest. frankly, I’m not going to argue today. I’m too busy getting my next talking point from the ADL… 😉

  15. well, I hated to do it, but I had to ban Cannibal Rabbi… again… and I had to remove two of his comments. (the only reason I do that is “racism’ and “threats of aggression”… that’s my rule… but to be fair, Cannibal didn’t offer up any threats of violence toward anyone…)

    didn’t take him nearly as long this time… when you say things like this, you go bye-bye…

    “All jews subscribe to the “oral torah”, or talmud… a compendium of evil.”

    “I didn’t say all jews are evil. You did.”

    (actually what I said was “the cannibal is back. the guy who thinks because I don’t think all jews are evil I must be disinfo” – so no, I didn’t say all jews were evil)

    “They are however consummate actors and mimics. Name-changeing. Shape-shifting. Lying, to themselves and other’s.”

    “Are you a jew yourself?…Well. Are you?”

    “Is this jewish nuance?”

    So, once again, we should all wish a hardy adios to Cannibal Rabbi till he pops back up again….

  16. Willy… why even bother disputing Jones? After all, we need to go after the big fish, not the small fries. Who cares whether or not it was thermite, thermate, nano-anon or whatever? The simple fact is to have any samples (of which I’m sure hundreds of new yorkers have many) analyzed by several reputable, independent labs. We need to have a real criminal investigation, period. I think getting into any “dust up” with Jones or anyone else over minutae is a waste of time.

    Btw, as a group I’ve learned to despise jews, on the other hand some of my best friends are jewish. Even I’m part jewish, but I’m also white, a portagee, and irish. But these days I hate just about everyone 🙂

  17. ADIOS, BYE……. cannibal,,,,,,,

  18. Norman Finkelstein is jewish, I know you don’t hate him…

    so was Sammy Davis… what kind of un-American hippy could hate Sammy Davis Jr.?

    methinks thou dost protest too much…

    I used to have a friend in Brooklyn who said he was a mad racist… he hated everyone … except his two daughters. I never asked him about his wife.

    After a year or so in Brooklyn, I came to the same conclusion. I hated everyone except his two daughters. They were nice.

    you’re a mutt too huh? good for you.

    You’re right, I should focus on getting the testing done… but of course that would mean I would be arrested for hooking up with al Qaeda in florida I suppose… and then there is the whole torture thing. I don’t like torture. As a rule, I am opposed to being tortured. I tend to make stuff up and snitch on people I don’t even know.

    But you are right, NIST won’t do it, RJ LEE wont do it, Steven Jones and Gregg Roberts won’t do it, FEMA won’t do it…

    so what I need to do is announce to the entire NSA monitored internet that I am about to do it… then see what happens.

    I guess people could carry a banner with my name on it into the riots that spawn afterward though. That would be nice. while I am locked away in some Egyptian black site with a girl from West Virginia pointing her finger at me piled up on some other poor well-meaning slobs who once said “you know! that’s a good idea! let’s DO IT!”…

    uh… yeah…. let me see… pick on Steven Jones… or … get tortured in Egypt…. hmmm….. let me think about that one…

  19. Interesting, the cannibal rabbi and I just got into it over at kennyssideshow(yes Rabbi, I’m the anonymous guy ripping you for your homophobia and love for obvious shill Duke. Respond to me there if you must) and I referenced Finkelstein in saying that the media has no problem giving David Duke air time-because hes a fucking shill. Meanwhile they ignore Finkelstein. One is legit, one is not.

    Anyway, Ive actually been going to WTCDemolition.com since its inception. It’s actually the first site I visit each morning. They don’t all agree with CIT’s conclusions but value the effort of getting people on the record. I do as well. I think I recall gretavo getting into a pretty heated argument with a couple of the CIT guys. Haven’t seen them post too much there since.

  20. Shit, i had this long, well thought out response but it didn’t show up! Anyway, the long and short of it is-cannibal rabbi is a homophobe(among other things) who I just ripped on on kennyssideshow for sticking up for obvious shill and walking red herring David Duke. I actually mentioned how the media covers Duke(to link him to all critics of Israel) but does not cover or allow Finkelstein on the air. One is a shill meant to discredit and one is legit. I’m not surprised you had to ban him, much as I hate that sort of thing(and have been the victim of it elsewhere) I’m sure it was warranted.

    About WTCDemolition, Ive actually been going there since its inception. Great site. gretavo got into a pretty heated argument with a couple of the CIT guys awhile back. Haven’t seen them around much since then. I’m not exactly sure where gretavo stands on CITs conclusions, but like many at that site I appreciate CIT getting people on the record.

  21. Last 2 comments didn’t show up. Was it something I said?

  22. Willo

    Leave Jones alone he is not your Man.

    You don’t like him, He doesn’t like You. That’s it.

    Your are showing no wisdom.

    Take a look at this news.

    Russia is sending a team to N.Korea.

  23. sorry chris, sometimes they do that. its a WordPress thing… just let me know if it happens again and I will check the spam folder…

    i suppose you don’t want to keep all of them up?

  24. you know what Jlennon? I will stop fucking with Jones when he stops fucking with the truth movement and goes on his merry, BYU way… ok?

  25. Excellent> My eville (pronounced as written) plan has acheived some success. Just a few hastily chosen words (earlier in the thread) to redirect the focus. Let us dispense with all the concern about how Jones is destroying the truth. Such endless chatter is only evidence that his diversionary role effects not only those who buy into it but also those who do not. Let’s get on with exposing the massive conglomeration of Lies that we’ve all been crying about for nearly nine years. Somebody, somehow do the tests. As Scott counsels though, it should not be blatently broadcast. Are you going to do it? No, not me. How bout You? No way. Good, it’s settled then. Now if you will excuse me there are some men in gray suits yelling something through the door about “encouraging Un- American activities. Got to shore up the barricade and toss my mattress out the window. P.S. (pinky in mouth) MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

  26. Then again, If it makes you happy, by all means let Jones have it, perhaps it doesn’t hurt to have a sideline.

  27. Feel free to delete my comments willyloman, for some reasons they did not initially appear(most of them).

  28. I will get rid of the repeat ones… chris.

    I don’t know why WordPress does that sometimes. I am sorry for the confusion. If it happens again, please let me know.


  29. Yeah, the guy from CIT and I got into a while ago back when gretavo was still a supporter of theirs. I don’t know if he really isn’t now, but he seems to be more skeptical about their theory than he was. Anyway, as soon as you question anything about CITs work, they instantly start calling you “disinfo” and other ad homenem attacks that go with that. very trollish behavior if you ask me. It has gotten them banned from many sites, BTW.I am not a big fan of the “flyover” theory…

  30. I’m agnostic on the Pentagon overall, including the flyover theory. I will say that I find it hard to believe it was Flight 77 that hit th Pentagon though. The CIT guys are very abrasive it seems, and as you point out they lash out at anybody who questions anything about their work. It’s possible they were banned from WTCD and thats why I haven’t seen them lately. They would be much better served to just let their work stand on its own, controversial as it is, I still find it to be important work.

  31. “I will say that I find it hard to believe it was Flight 77 that hit th Pentagon though.”

    good for you… because it didn’t…. at least that is my opinion…. 🙂

  32. Yeah, I agree with the other commenters. You definitely lose a lot of credibility with your obsession on Jones. Not only are there a lot more important things to focus on, but the convoluted theories of conspiracies you’re conjuring up really are not convincing. It’s like the no-planers who may genuinely believe what they’re saying occasionally, but are just a distraction that discredits the movement in the minds of the public.

    Your limited knowledge about the LDS church and BYU hamstrings any attempt to come up with a coherent conspiracy theory. That you cherry picked some statements by Benson (one of the many Presidents since the 1800s) is ironic on two levels. Firstly, because Benson was very alarmed by the work of the globalists in the CFR, which he sought to expose and which he believed was part of a conspiracy that was working to reduce the liberties of the American people–as has since happened through 9/11 and the Patriot Act, NSL’s, etc. (He actually encouraged church membership to read what Carroll Quigley exposed about the CFR, as reprinted in “The Naked Capitalist.”) In other words, he was a conservative in the mold of Ron Paul, viewing the monopoly of the state as dangerous to the freedom of the individual (9/11 was just another example of many that have verified their concern). (He also was a Mises/Austrian School guy like those at antiwar.com, not a Friedmanite)

    Secondly, because others in church leadership were skeptical of his concerns as were most at the time, and not all church leadership are or have been conservatives (Marion G. Romney, Mitt’s father’s close relative was a supporter of FDR, as many in the church were). You mention the leadership of Hinckley, Monson, and Faust, without actually knowing that Faust was a democrat! (And have you heard of the Mormon Harry Reid?)

    Hinckley actually became disgusted by the war as time progressed, and clearly was misled by the lies of the Bush Administration, as was 99% of the country at the time. Your quoting of excerpts from his address on the Iraq War also is an exercise in cherry picking, as other statements in that same address expressed concern and skepticism: “We sometimes are prone to glorify the great empires of the past, such as the Ottoman Empire, the Roman and Byzantine Empires, and in more recent times, the vast British Empire. But there is a darker side to every one of them. There is a grim and tragic overlay of brutal conquest, of subjugation, of repression, and an astronomical cost in life and treasure,” and “modern revelation states that we are to “renounce war and proclaim peace,” and “When all is said and done, we of this Church are people of peace. We are followers of…the Prince of Peace.” As did most Americans, he believed that our leaders had intelligence which confirmed Iraq as a threat: “But as citizens we are all under the direction of our respective national leaders. They have access to greater political and military intelligence than do the people generally. Those in the armed services are under obligation to their respective governments to execute the will of the sovereign. When they joined the military service, they entered into a contract by which they are presently bound and to which they have dutifully responded.”

    The whole idea of BYU and the LDS church in on some nefarious conspiracy with the Bush Administration, to have Jones actually secretly working with those who did 9/11, to stage his firing, to come up with theories (with other colluding scientists) so close to what you allege actually happened–with such miniscule differences that less than 1% of 1% of Americans would actually notice or understand (as if verification of the “true” theory would blow the roof off the whole conspiracy, with the media and the establishment simply rolling over and conceding “yep, looks like it was an inside job all along, sorry,” given all the enormous evidence of the cover-up we have already), to make presentations that have alone convinced hundreds of doubters that it was unquestionably an inside job, and thousands more to question the official theory and look more closely at all the discrepancies in the whole facade, and all that by someone whose legitimate academic credentials couldn’t just be dismissed–serving to bolster the credibility of all the films, books, and articles making the case for a cover-up that he’s been cited in… all just as a diversion, so the “real” theory would never be found out, is nothing short of obsessive compulsive insanity!!! Even briefly following the points of your theory to their bizarre implications makes it obvious that it’s incomprehensible and entirely illogical. Yes, I’ve read the Operation Northwoods documents, and they make it clear that the government will go to quite the extreme lengths to manufacture their deception, but the level your theory goes to belongs in some alternate reality.

    So again, I’d recommend focusing on what you do best, which is bringing to light important current events and government lies, and stop harping on far-fetched, illogical theories. One of the biggest weaknesses in this movement is that its members irrationally construct their own realities to fill in the gaps about what they know is a cover-up, and that undermines any attempts at raising public awareness.

    For the record, anyone who actually followed the Steven Jones controversy when it happened knew that he was never fired–nor did they make it appear to be such. Rather, BYU became pressured and embarrassed once Jones started naming names in the US government, and only then did they ask him to take an early _paid_ retirement. This idea that everyone always has thought otherwise is completely false.

    This comment has gotten much longer than I intended it, but if it can convince you to spend your intellectual resources on things that will actually make a difference in waking people up to the truth about what’s going on, rather than causing pointless infighting in the movement dedicated to that objective, it will be worth it.


    PS – BYU is not a “neoliberal” Milton Friedman-loving institution–their economics program is actually quite Keynesian, unfortunately. Their econ professors actually fell for the bailout fraud, believing that more government intervention could fix the crisis it created

    PPS – I had Jones as a professor and I can say I never had a more honest, thoughtful professor. He wouldn’t know me today, but I’ll never forget all the effort he took to share valuable practical advice and life-lessons in handouts and anecdotes to help his students live successful, fulfilling lives. I don’t know why he won’t do your testing, but it’s most likely that he truly does have the concern that a negative or inconsequential result could do damage to the movement. (If it’s so easy, he’s likely actually done it and didn’t achieve the desired result)

  33. Nate;

    I am very sorry that I don’t have more time to address more of your comment right at this moment, because I think it desrves my attention, since you took the time to write this out.

    But right now, I am engaged in a three day situation with the story of the sinking of the Cheonan and the South Korean propagandists from their capital just admitted that the drawing they offered up is not a “perfect match” for the evidence, so I have to jump on that now.

    I am sorry.

    But, your comment interests me greatly for many reasons and I just wanted to point out a few things very quickly.

    I do thank you for writing.

    “Their econ professors actually fell for the bailout fraud, believing that more government intervention could fix the crisis it created”

    how can you seriously say the econ professors at BYU (your school) are not neoliberal when they “fell for” the bailouts? seems odd to me. The bailouts are the root of neoliberalism.

    but this is the most important thing I wanted to point out…

    “I don’t know why he won’t do your testing, but it’s most likely that he truly does have the concern that a negative or inconsequential result could do damage to the movement. (If it’s so easy, he’s likely actually done it and didn’t achieve the desired result)”

    that, my friend, is not science…

    and it certainly isn’t what the Truth Movement is all about….

    You cannot pick and choose the Truth you want to expose simply because it supports your belief system..

    I am not sure how you can get out of a class with Prof. Jones or any college level degree and not know that.

    That is NOT science Nate… and it doesn’t make sense either…

    IF he had done those tests as you suggest and IF they didn’t come up positive, Jones would release that information so that the growing debate in the Truth movement about his “nanothermite” would be put to rest… if there were no other explosives used, then it would HAVE to have been “nanothermite”

    what you are suggesting is wrong on so many levels, its hard to explain.

    but there is no justification for not running those tests and the is CERTAINLY no justification for withholding the results if he did.

    Frankly, that kind of thinking is dangerously close to what has been reported as the “politization of science” that took place in NIST n 2001. The EPA did the same kind of thing when they said the air was safe to breath… what you are talking about is NOT SCIENCE.. in fact, it sounds more like neoliberal science than anything else.

    do you understand that?

  34. Willyloman –

    I would agree that the developments with regard to North Korea are a much more important target of your focus.

    To clarify a couple things regarding economics-

    “how can you seriously say the econ professors at BYU (your school) are not neoliberal when they “fell for” the bailouts? seems odd to me. The bailouts are the root of neoliberalism.”

    First of all, bailouts are far from the root of neoliberalism. In fact, the very idea of a bailout is antithetical to “neoliberal,” Milton Friedman ideology. Such central-planning and state interventionism is much closer to the ideology of Keynesianism–a traditional nemesis of free-market proponents. Remember when Bush said he had to abandon capitalism to save capitalism? While it is certainly not entirely free-market oriented, Milton Friedman’s Chicago School of economics is generally critical of such state intervention.

    The term “neoliberal” is itself problematic because it relies on a simplistic, over-generalized view of the complex spectrum of economic thought. Lumping together figures such as Hayek and Friedman, who had enormous differences and came from entirely separate schools of economic thought, is to use much too broad of a brush. Hayek considered himself an ardent liberal (in the classic sense of the word), and the Austrian school is very critical of the Chicago-ites acceptance of the federal reserve–hostile to the very idea of a central bank having state-enforced monopoly control of the money supply. While the Chicago school might grudgingly tolerate the bailout given their acceptance of some state planning and monetarism, the Austrian school abhors such intervention, viewing it as crony-capitalism that allows corporations to exploit the government control to their advantage.

    As for BYU, they have elements of the Chicago School and Keynesianism, but on the whole they are more Keynesian. (Ironically, it was a Chicago School professor who sharply criticized the bailout plan as the unjustified corporate wealth transfer that it was, while the more prominent Keynesian-school professor favored it.)

    Now back to Jones –

    that, my friend, is not science… and it certainly isn’t what the Truth Movement is all about…”

    You very well may be justified in criticizing Jones on those grounds. I don’t know, I not familiar enough with the details of the various CD theories to know. That at least is a more plausible criticism, given that no one’s perfect. But to form some far-out theory about that being evidence for some ultra-complex, multi-layered, incredibly far-reaching conspiracy (much moreso than it already had to be) is very implausible and strains imagination. And it certainly rejects the well-known scientific idea of Occam’s Razor.

    My point about him deciding against following certain avenues of research was based on the assumption that he agreed with your assertion of your theory’s plausibility and simpleness–I have no idea myself. I know there are others who have no scientific credentials who have strongly criticized him because they felt their theory was much more closer to reality: http://www.rense.com/general77/geddno.htm (you may have seen this, but here some Dr. criticizes Jones based on his hypothesis that it was radioactive explosives, perhaps mini-nukes). Jones briefly responded with his skepticisms of such a view, but encouraged him to do his own testing: http://www.rense.com/general77/ward.htm .

    So again, I’d say let’s avoid getting diverted by far-fetched theories about why one theory isn’t given as much attention, and stick with valid scientific criticism.

  35. “First of all, bailouts are far from the root of neoliberalism. In fact, the very idea of a bailout is antithetical to “neoliberal,” Milton Friedman ideology.”

    You see, it’s how you defend both BYU AND neoliberalism that makes me think they may be connected…

    aside from the class schedual and the lecture I put aquote from.

    You seem to be having a hard time distinquishing rhetoric from reality, which might explain why you didn’t think something was wrong with a scientist like Steven Jones refusing to release data that didn’t suit his hypothosis.

    That’s basic stuff really.

    But lets quickly deal with this issue of what you seem to think neoliberalism is and what it isn’t.

    The bailouts were not Keynesian school economics, thank you.

    Had they actually been used to loosed up credit markets and get main street back in the black, I can see how you could try and make an arguement.

    But the fact is, the Bailouts were pure Friedman economics…. ie… they were an example of privitization of public resources.

    You see, first of all, the money went from the coffers of the public straight into the pockets of the Wall Street banks… I don’t know what school you learned economics (perhaps a neoliberal school would have taught you that) but shoveling money into the Wall Street banks isn’t Keynesian philosophy.

    Now, you talk about neoliberalism and Friedman as being a “free market” system.

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Friedman didn’t bring “free markets” to Chile, he brought privitization, crony capitalism, open border trade policies… and so on.

    They worked so well in fermenting massive transferences of wealth upward, the IMF adopted these measures and history went on its merry way.

    You see, by bailing out the banks after they did exactly what the Bush administration wanted them to do, cripple the economy, then they were able to start the next administration along on the road to imposing IMF style “austerity measures” on America.

    So, specifically, yes. The bailouts are a example of neoliberalism. The worst kind… disaster capitalism/shock theropy.

    “But to form some far-out theory about that being evidence for some ultra-complex, multi-layered, incredibly far-reaching conspiracy (much moreso than it already had to be) is very implausible and strains imagination. And it certainly rejects the well-known scientific idea of Occam’s Razor.”

    Why is it always about “Occam’s Razor” when someone wants to suggest they don’t WISH to look that far?

    Does Occam’s Razor” apply to 9/11? Of course not. It was a carefully laid out plan to change this country from the inside out. The simplest explination is “19 pissed off Muslims”… That’s “Occam’s Razor”… is that right?

    of course not.

    Here’s Occams Razor… Cass Sunstein suggested in a paper that the government use government agents OR AGENTS FROM GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS to infiltrate popular dissent movements in order to spread confusion and dissent.

    Pretty simple isn’t it?

    Who did he hook up with first? Morgan Reynolds (no planes hit the towers) and Judy Wood (ray beams from space)… and Jones offered “thermite” at that time.

    Pretty simple so far? Pretty straight forward.

    No factor in what you yourself said… he may be choosing to report certain tests and to not report others as suits his desires.

    Is that scientific? No. It almost sounds more like the corrupt version of NIST doesn’t it?

    I wonder why that is.

    As far as the “mini-nukes guy and Steven Jones” chat… I do know that debate well. Is that the one where Jones is asked twice straight out about testing for high explosive residues and he changes the subject each time? Do you remember that? I do. Funny how things like that stick in your memory.

    Lastly, these aren’t “far fetched theories”, these are facts.

    “Nanothermite” being used to blow up the towers when Jones and Harrit and Roberts themselves CLEARLY STATE IN THEIR PAPER that they don’t even know if “nanothermite” is a high explosive…

    … now THAT is a “far fetched theory”

    do you have any other questions?

  36. Jones let the entire Truth Movement think he had been kicked out of BYU for years. Everyone thought he had been suffering for his pursuit of the Truth like a Norman Finkelstein type figure.

    Nothing could have been farther from the truth.

    Go back and read a few comments on Blogger where someone praises him for sticking to his guns IN SPITE of what BYU was doing to him…

    and Jones said nothing to correct the false impression back then.

    The man is institutionally dishonest.

    He knows, as a scientist, to investigate a potential controlled demolition, the VERY FIRST THING he should have done was test for traces of residues from conventional high explosives.

    Not only has he NOT done that, he has lied about it and made up excuses why he hasn’t done it in order to preserve his credibility in this movement for as long as he can.

    He serves a different agenda than people like Gage and Griffin. You need to wake up and see that.

  37. Coming soon,

    A Steven Jones documentary film … Hypothesis

  38. Placed on administrative leave… continued to draw paychecks, elevated to professor emeritus status, allowed to keep his office, keep his research assistants, BYU “peer reviewed” his paper, paid 2 researchers and Steven Jones while they worked on the paper, AND PAID to have the paper “published” in the vanity press Bentham Publishing…..

    wow…. that’s one heck of a “administrative leave”

    ever wonder how Jones (a “conspiracy theorist”) gets on local tv, MSNBC, Fox… and now an entire documentary made about him? Now when he is starting to take some heat from the rest of the truth movement for various reasons?

    Ever wonder about that lennon?

  39. […] 9/11 Truth Red Herring: Neoliberal BYU Has Financed, Staffed, and Peer-Reviewed Prof. Jones’ F… By Scott Creighton 2010-05-26 […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: