On February 1, 2006, BYU Professor Steven E. Jones gave a public lecture on the various anomalies of 9/11.

Prof. Jones' Utah 9/11 Seminar - Feb.1, 2006
Hard a'Port!
Prof. Jones' Utah 9/11 Seminar - Feb.1, 2006
B12675 / Thu, 2 Feb 2006 09:42:40 / "War on Terror"
On February 1, 2006, BYU Professor Steven E. Jones gave a public lecture on the various anomalies of 9/11. The lecture took place at the Utah State Valley College in Orem.
Professor Jones
The nearly 2-hour lecture was broad in scope, and very well attended. The main lecture hall which held around 250 was filled to standing-room only, and the two annex rooms with live feeds were also full.
Full House
Jones began his lecture from a patriotic point of view, summoning the words of Patrick Henry, and framing 9/11 truthseeking as a struggle for liberty and truth.
Jones then moved quickly to the heart of the matter, the video footage of the “collapse” of WTC7, which Tucker Carlson and MSNBC would not air when they interviewed Jones.
Controlled Demolition?
It’s clear that WTC7 is the anomaly which drew Jones into 9/11 truthseeking. The available video footage of the collapse was shown, alongside footage of known controlled demolitions. The similarities are eerie, and old hat for most people researching the events of 9/11, but when Jones asked for a show of hands among the audience, just under half of the attendees had never seen the footage before.
Such a basic sequence of video footage that shows a serious problem both with the official narrative of the events of 9/11 and the shortcomings of the NIST investigations, and it is still largely unknown outside the 9/11 research community.
Humor, ar, ar.
Jones is an excellent public speaker, and he addressed the crowd in an uncondescending manner, presuming no special knowledge of Physics from the audience as he presented slide after slide interspersed with video clips all packaged in a slick PowerPoint presentation.
Among the slides were quotes from engineers, explosives experts and other similarly related professionals who are slowly coming out of the woodwork and questioning the events of 9/11.
Moving away from the purely physical attributes of 9/11 skepticism, Jones then addressed the elephant in the room, PNAC, and their agenda. Neoconservatism and its Machiavellian tendencies were singled out for special criticism by Jones, as he, a professed life-long Republican now distances himself from the party. He didn’t exactly pick up the banner of the donkey either, but instead said he was looking for a party that was interested in truth.
PNAC
The agenda of pre-emptive war, enabled by the events of 9/11, was labelled unconstitutional by Jones, torture was condemned, and a call was put out for a return to a more practical application of again, the Constitution.
Jones covered a lot of ground, from the failure of American air defenses on 9/11, to “data falsification” from OSHA and the EPA.
Judging from the standing ovation that Jones got at the end of his presentation, it was well received by a motley crowd of blue collar workers, students, and various representatives of the “Well-Heeled”.
A careful blend of fact and very logical speculation made Jones’ seminar a pleasure to behold, especially for those in the crowd who are new to all of this.————————————————————(I’ll post a link to the entire series of slides later on.)
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? by Steven E. Jones
Vote: Avg: 4.57 Votes: 21 Comments: 50 [Add]
RELATED ITEMS
Scholars for 9/11 TruthPosted by reprehensor on Saturday, January 28th 2006
Minnesota Prof. Stands Up for 9/11 Truth.Posted by reprehensor on Friday, December 16th 2005
RECENT COMMENTS
Local media;
Questions remain from 9/11 report, professor says
reprehensor @ 02/02/06 10:15:57
did anyone video this..will a video file or DVD be available at any point in the near future?
zirkonyx @ 02/02/06 11:12:31
I, for one, would really appreciate being ale to hear Prof. Jones ”...uncondescending manner, presuming no special of knowledge of Physics from the audience”. AN audio file of this presentation would be really freat as well..maybe it could be podcasted with permission…
zirkonyx @ 02/02/06 11:15:18
I taped it, but I haven’t QC’ed the video yet. I was stuck with a real basic Hi8 recorder with no line-in, so I have to check it out and see if Jones is audible and legible.
There were lots of people taping. I’m sure something will turn up fairly soon.
reprehensor @ 02/02/06 14:05:53
Excellent report, thanks
whitey @ 02/02/06 14:18:58
is this your report from the event?
anthony @ 02/02/06 18:05:20
anthony, the main blog entry is, yes, so are the pix.
I posted the other slides at my photobucket account, but I’m letting the server cool off before I pass the links around anymore. I’ll hook it up in the morning.
reprehensor @ 02/02/06 19:50:24
Balance of slides.
reprehensor @ 02/02/06 22:11:05
Audio MP3 now available, around 63megs. Currently two downloads;
One
Two
If you can mirror, or better yet, set up a Torrent, please do.
reprehensor @ 02/02/06 22:50:31
Thank you, Rep, for the report.
Continuity @ 02/02/06 22:50:40
“did anyone video this..will a video file or DVD be available at any point in the near future?”
That is exactly what I wanted to know.
.........– Ø®£Z -
OriginalG @ 02/03/06 06:01:10
The audio quality is good in mp3 “One”, reprehensor :) I haven’t listened to “Two” yet.
Are you going to upload the video in QT also?
And if “yes”, what QT format? MOV, AVI, MPG, other?
.........– Ø®£Z -
OriginalG @ 02/03/06 06:41:29
OG, I’m on the road right now, I imagine someone will probably beat me to the punch on the video.
The MP3 is the same file, two separate download locations.
reprehensor @ 02/03/06 06:45:32
rep – thanks for the reportgood workseems like he went into a lot of the big political stuff, did he focus in on the science, which is his area of expertise?
anthony @ 02/03/06 08:48:19
An interesting note from the lecture:
He calculated it would take 4000 lbs of explosives.
And calculated it would take 10 people, 10 trips to plant it all.
There you have it.
valis @ 02/03/06 10:47:43
“It is not nutty to say that the collapse of World Trade Center 7 looks like a controlled demolition.” Jones said he tired to get the video of the collapse shown on the Tucker Carlson program, but they would not show it.Listening
Suitcaseman @ 02/03/06 11:01:38
Yes, as a Physicist, he commented directly upon what he views as the impossibility of the rapidity of the collapse of WTC7 without assistance, i.e. demo charges.
You can get the gist from the slides.
He is now being joined by other experts, Engineers and Materials Specialists, and one former military demo expert that is publicly backing up the feasibility of Jones’ claims regarding heat retension via “spiced up” Thermite charges. He offered his analysis of their views.
Of course, most of this stuff is not new to anyone following 9/11 skepticism. What is new, is a growing host of accredited professionals who are saying, “Hey, something is not adding up here.”
In other words, Muslims cannot suspend the laws of physics.
Not without some assistance, that is.
Notably absent are Structural Engineers. But I say, “For now.”
The ASCE was heavily involved in the formulation of reports on the collapses of the Towers and the Pentagon strike.
I suspect that the “unofficial” pressure upon ASCE members to stick to the conclusions of the 9/11 reports is enormous, no matter how contrary a narrative can be generated from unpoliticized factual analysis.
Then of course there is the whole milieu of Government grants, Government contracts, etc., these could be used as “compliance” bargaining chips.
I was suprised at the breadth of material that he covered.
reprehensor @ 02/03/06 11:10:31
“Non-symmetrical collapse of tall buildings, consistent with the Law of increasing entropy when due to random causes (approximately 9+ stories, here due to earthquakes).”
Mrh?
Joe @ 02/03/06 11:16:09
former military demo expert that is publicly backing up the feasibility of Jones’ claims regarding heat retension via “spiced up” Thermite charges.
what is his name?
Suitcaseman @ 02/03/06 11:16:26
“3. As you observed (link above), WTC 7 collapsed rapidly and nearly-straight-down symmetrically—even though fires were randomly scattered in the building.”
Myth: WTC7 collapsed despite only having small, limited fires.

Joe @ 02/03/06 11:59:16
Jones says: “Horizontal puffs of smoke and debris are observed emerging from WTC-7 on upper floors, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. (The reader may wish to view the close-up video clip again.) The upper floors have evidently not moved relative to one another yet, from what one can observe from the videos.”
hey.. more from 911myths.com
One of the penthouses collapses a few seconds before the puffs of smoke appear – but he didn’t notice because… I don’t know. The video he references starts after the collapse has already started – so his assertion that the upper floors hadn’t moved is flat wrong.
Joe @ 02/03/06 12:20:36
Joe, I think that is dust from one of the collapses, probably the second tower.
If you feel Jones is in error, feel free to contact him.
reprehensor @ 02/03/06 12:24:34
“I think that is dust from one of the collapses, probably the second tower.”
It’s not though, if you click the picture it links to a video of the building smoking, and you can see that it’s not dust from one of the collapses. The people in the video (firefighters?) are talking about the damage & the fire, it seems. A New York accent translator is needed though.. I can barely make them out. :-/
“If you feel Jones is in error, feel free to contact him.”
maybe I will.. right now I’m not really in the mood for starting this kind of discussion with a physicist.
Joe @ 02/03/06 12:48:22
i dont really care if the building was a blazing inferno, the fact is is that there have been much more major fires before and after 9/11 and none have caused a uniform collapse, especially at near free-fall rates.. the arguement focuses on the conservation of momentum and the resistance that is provided by the structure itself.. collapsing at near freefall rates means there was no resistance at all.
please google ‘madrid fire’.. or just start looking around..
dazinith @ 02/03/06 16:35:28
“please google ‘madrid fire’.. or just start looking around..”
That skyscraper actually suffered a partial collapse and had to be destroyed:
“Several top floors have slumped onto lower ones, and Madrid fire chief Javier Sanz told local radio the 106m (350ft) tall building was still unstable.
“It is clear the structure has been damaged and has suffered high temperatures, and we cannot be certain that a pillar, girder or some other structural element will not collapse,” he said.”
Unlike WTC 7, the Windsor Tower wasn’t damaged prior to the fire. Firefighters had apparently abandoned WTC 7, not so in Madrid.
And I don’t know if the Windsor Tower was anything like the WTC 7 building – it was shorter, for one thing.
Joe @ 02/03/06 17:01:21
Joe, on another page on “911myths.com” (the irony!), we have the Hijackers page.
This page is replete with misdirection, omission and strawman hooey. Here are some examples:
Example #1:“Many of the hijackers were actually trained to fly by the US government”
I’ve heard that some of the hijackers may have been trained at US military bases. 911myths clarifies;
“Some of the hijackers were trained by the US government, at Pensacola Naval Air Station.”
Ok, not “Many”, but… “some”.
“However, if you look at the original source for this story, a Newsweek article, you’ll find some important qualifications.”
Uh, yeah. It was reported in Newsweek, The Washington Post, and in a Knight-Ridder wire piece, followed up by The Pensacola News Journal and Daniel Hopsicker who reports this exchange;
We reached a major in the Air Force’s Public Affairs Office who was familiar with the question, she said, because she had read the initial Air Force denial to the media.
“Biographically, they’re not the same people,” she explained to us patiently. “Some of the ages are 20 years off.”
“Some” of the ages? We told her we were only interested in Atta. Was she saying that the age of the Mohamed Atta who attended the Air Force’s International Officer’s School at Maxwell Air Force Base was different from the terrorist Atta’s age as reported?
Um, er, no, the major admitted. Still, she persisted. “Mohamed is a very common name.”
We asked if the registrar of the International Officer’s School might provide us with the name and address of this second Mohamed Atta, so that we might call him and confirm that there were really two Mohamed Atta’s of about the same age pursuing flight training in the U.S. at about the same time.
“I don’t think you’re going to get that information,” the major replied.
Example #2:
“The hijackers reportedly had girlfriends, drank alcohol, went clubbing, not the acts of fundamentalists”
Reportedly? You can say that again;
Filipinos Recall Hijack Suspects Leading a High Life
Agents of terror leave their mark on Sin City Las Vegas workers recall the men they can’t forget
Suspects’ actions don’t add up
Top Ten Things You Never Knew About Mohamed Atta
So, not “reportedly” but, “definitely”, from multiple sources.
But, that’s ok! ‘Cause Atta was Takfir! Sorry, believed to be Takfir.
But, but, Takfiris hate Al Qaeda. They think Osama and co. are a bunch of pussy sell-outs.
So much for that one.
It is incomprehensible that a person could drink and go to a strip bar one night, then kill themselves the next day in the name of Islam. People who would kill themselves for their faith would come from very strict Islamic ideology. Something here does not add up.
– Mahmoud Mustafa Ayoub, Professor of Religion at Temple University in Philadelphia. >>MUSLIM<<
There are scholars who fully disagree with 911myths.com, if you bother to look for them.
Example #3:“It’s claimed that many of those named as hijackers are still alive”
Yes, yes it is.
Just some silly “name confusion”. Yeah, and…
The Saudi Airlines pilot, Saeed Al-Ghamdi, 25, and Abdulaziz Al-Omari, an engineer from Riyadh, are furious that the hijackers’ “personal details” – including name, place, date of birth and occupation – matched their own. – Revealed: the men with stolen identities
Yeah. “Name confusion”.
Example #4:“The planes were flown to their targets by remote control, not hijackers”
“Can these planes really be controlled remotely?”
Uhm, yeah. The technology to fly full-sized Boeing jets via remote control has been around for ages. Ages, I say.
Example #5:“The final list of bodies identified from Flight 77 shows there were no hijackers aboard”
Not only is the title misleading, but their rationalization is such a complete and utter mutilation of the original article that it must be read to be believed.
I’ll be taking any debunking helpfully provided by 911myths with a grain of salt.
reprehensor @ 02/03/06 17:01:45
Joe, on another page on “911myths.com” (the irony!), we have the Hijackers page.So, not “reportedly” but, “definitely”, from multiple sources.
If you actually read the link you’ll see that it quotes multiple sources that say they “DEFINITELY” weren’t acting fundamentalist – and that this wasn’t all that uncommon, because Muslims don’t all act like we expect them to. It links to an article that explains that Takfir ideology ‘allows them to blend in with Western society and also to disobey all rules of their form of Islam for the goal of destroying Western civilisation from within’
I’ll be taking any debunking helpfully provided by 911myths with a grain of salt
That’s perfect. Did you read the homepage?
“Whatever you believe about 9/11, the spreading of false claims helps no-one, and we’d like to play a small part in revealing some of them. We’re not about debunking entire conspiracies, then, but will use this site to zoom in on what we think are the more dubious stories, revealing the misquotes, the distortions, the inaccuracies that are so common online.
But does this make us an authority? No. If we’ve an overall message here, it’s check things for yourself. Don’t trust a site just because it’s telling you what you want to believe. Don’t believe us without evaluating our arguments and checking the references we provide, either (we’re as likely to make mistakes as anyone else). Look into the claims yourself, discover both sides of the argument, and make your own mind up. The truth deserves nothing less.”
Joe @ 02/03/06 17:26:22
Joe, in the very same article you link to;
“Takfir wal-Hijra’s ideology is so extreme that in 1996 the group plotted to assassinate Osama bin Laden, supposedly for being insufficiently radical. Many also considered the Taliban movement in Afghanistan to be unbelievers.”
I don’t think they are the same dudes, Al Qaeda and Takfir.
Here’s Nafeez Ahmed’s take on all of this;http://www.gnn.tv/B12624
...and I find their disclaimer to be disengenous at best. They’ve got all the time in the world to debunk everybody but the Whitewashers.
Kinda lopsided.
reprehensor @ 02/03/06 18:26:29
I don’t think Joe is ready for Nafeez Ahmed
Excerpt from reprehensor’s link
The evidence that 9/11 was the result of a distinctly radical Islamist plan is highly questionable. The nature of “al-Qaeda” as a distinctly radical Islamist organization is also questionable. Finally, compelling evidence that identifiable groups involved in terrorist activity around the world are, in fact, manipulated on behalf of entirely non-Islamist Western geostrategic interests challenges the entire official narrative of the “War on Terror”.
It is nice to see that you reprehensor are so immersed in the details surrounding 911. We’re through the looking glass here: white Is black and black is white.
The problem for the 911 story is it cannot get out. Even here 911 stories get sabotaged.
Suitcaseman @ 02/03/06 19:03:32
it can get out…it will be the biggest grassroots effort yet undertaken in this country, the most difficult one yet undertaken, and the most mind-altering story to hit the people in a while…all it takes is truthers tirelessly working to build credibility, build knowledge, provide tools, context, understanding and solutions.
zirkonyx @ 02/03/06 21:51:09
sabotage only works so well…the longer it goes on, the more it can be identified, labelled, pointed out and itself marginalized. that’s the theory…..
zirkonyx @ 02/03/06 21:52:11
it will be the biggest grassroots effort yet undertaken in this country
That would be sad.
fennec @ 02/03/06 21:54:47
“Kinda lopsided.”
I can’t really say I know what your problem is with it. If you want me to debunk your debunking of the myths page, you’ll have to format it so it makes sense.
Have you debunked Dr. Jones’ article as thoroughly as you’ve debunked 911myths.com? That’s the reason I brought up that disclaimer. I bring up a website that says “don’t just believe this website – do your own research” and you accuse it of being innaccurate for questioning many different aspects of different conspiracy theories regarding 9/11. Yet Dr. Jones makes a serious error in his WTC 7 collapse “analysis” and.. you say it’s my job to argue with the guy?
Joe @ 02/03/06 22:57:55
it’s so tough to google 9/11 and get something other than the official story
I heard that after porn, 911 alternate theories is the top ranking search on google or whatever.
YT_ @ 02/03/06 23:06:32
what would be sad?
zirkonyx @ 02/04/06 02:10:04
joe,
regarding the smoke,
the nist (draft) report states:
“The source of the smoke is uncertain, as large fires were burning in WTC 5 and WTC 6, as well as those noted below in WTC 7.”
but anyway… i want to know what the “big egg” they is talking about in that video
whateveryousay @ 02/04/06 07:39:45
Strange how Rudy had relocated his emergency command and control bunker (also sited in WTC7) down by the Pier the night before.
He must have known Larry was told to pull it.
devilsavocado @ 02/04/06 13:51:21
whateveryousay @ 02/04/06 15:32:03
what would be sad?
I find it somewhat sad when relatively small tragedies get a lot of attention while things that are actually pretty important get ignored. Granted, 3000 people is a lot compared to like a couple dozen, and these were God’s Americans, so they deserve more attention than the other races and religions, but it’s rather minor, still.
When I say sad, I don’t mean like boo-hoo Days of Our Lives sad, but rather Frank Stallone sad.
fennec @ 02/04/06 17:27:40
thanks for this report of the presentation. regardless of the opinion one takes on 9/11, it’s important to know what small facets of the academic community are focusing on besides living out their tenure.
silverback @ 02/04/06 17:38:50
Jones began his lecture from a patriotic point of view, summoning the words of Patrick Henry, and framing 9/11 truthseeking as a struggle for liberty and truth.
Bravo! The double-edged sword is totally non-partisan!
lday @ 02/04/06 20:53:57
Fennec, why do you keep pretending you haven’t considered the wider ramifications of 9/11? The tragedy clearly was a catalyst to ram through a lot of bad stuff. And there’s probably lots more to come too.
As for Prof Jones: I hope we hear more physics from him.
Continuity @ 02/04/06 21:14:49
_He calculated it would take 4000 lbs of explosives. And calculated it would take 10 people, 10 trips to plant it all. There…_
Those are the ‘publically available’ stats;‘classified only’ stats are smaller.
lday @ 02/04/06 21:37:07
Some of you have been asking about obtaining the video recording of Professor Jones’ UVSC lecture. I filmed it. The sound is good quality because I was able to plug directly into the multibox. If you visit my site: http://www.911truthseekers.org you will find an mp3 download available… if you would like to obtain a DVD of what I filmed, please contact me through the contact link on 911truthseekers.org – I also have multiple Power Point Presentation that Professor Jones made and has used in his lectures.
911truthseekers @ 02/05/06 00:04:04
Still, she persisted. Mohamed is a very common name
It’s the most common name in the world for males.
EGisJUICE @ 02/05/06 00:27:11
911truthseekers, thanks for making the audio mp3 of the lecture available.
Continuity @ 02/05/06 00:47:00
I’m 30 minutes in to his lecture. Along with citing other credible sources, such as engineers, he’s brought up many of the sources we linked in the big WTC thread.
Continuity @ 02/05/06 01:16:55
Fennec, why do you keep pretending you haven’t considered the wider ramifications of 9/11? -contin
you’ll have a hard time getting fennec to care about humans i think.you should better tell him that 14 out of 97 rescue dogs died…
14 WTC search and rescue dogs deadOriginally published on August 22, 2004
they were god’s own dogs.
whateveryousay @ 02/05/06 05:02:35
you’ll have a hard time getting fennec to care about humans
Yeah, because if you don’t care intensely about 911 then you don’t care about the whole species. What a fucking joke.
you should better tell him that 14 out of 97 rescue dogs died
That is sad.
fennec @ 02/05/06 17:02:00
Yeah, because if you don’t care intensely about 911 then you don’t care about the whole species.
no: only if you’re fennec and you try to place yourself outside of culture by only referring to people as “humans”, and constantly go on about what a fuck up their species is compared to all the other cute animals. the “i’m not with them” approach.
whateveryousay @ 02/06/06 03:25:56
View Full Thread


Create your own GNN profile/blog page. -->