A few days ago I was asked by a distinguished Professor at the University of Massachusetts what happened to me at BYU, in my own words. I often get this question and would like to say the following.

1. In September 2005, I presented a colloquium at Brigham Young University (BYU) in a large auditorium, presenting the physical evidence I had accumulated by then that the “official story” of the 9/11 disaster (that it was all due to Al Qaeda ALONE with no US foreknowledge of the attacks) was highly suspicious. I had invited professors from across campus and many came, from numerous disciplines including physics, math, psychology, engineering. I asked them to take the “kid gloves off” and tell me where I was in error. In particular, we watched the rapid, nearly-symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 – which was NOT hit by a plane and yet fell to the ground seven hours after the Towers were completely destroyed.

The editors of the Journal of 9/11 Studies are pleased to announce publication of the following peer-reviewed article in the February 2010 volume of the Journal:

Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics
By David Chandler

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf

Physicist David Chandler continues his insightful analysis of the destruction of three WTC skyscrapers on 9/11/2001 in this very readable paper. From the summary:

I am pleased to announce the translation of the peer-reviewed article on “Active Thermitic Materials” by Prof. Niels Harrit et al. into Spanish and German, published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies:

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/SpanishRedGray.pdf

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/RedGrayChipsGerman.pdf

May I take this occasion to wish all of you a Happy New Year.

In the past I have urged all to acquire at least a three-month (preferably 1-year) supply of food and water, wherever this is legal. Now to add to this – I urge you to have a rural place of safety to go quickly to, perhaps in groups of families or friends, far away from the large cities. In a case where trucking of food into the cities is curtailed, or the electric power is out, or an EMP blast, or any number of scenarios where services to cities are cut, it will clearly be prudent to have pre-arranged retreat(s). The goals of self-sufficiency and voluntary-simplicity that some have been discussing “theoretically” in the Truth Movement for years can be quickly achieved with pre-planning and work and cooperation.

A special on 9/11 has just been shown on the National Geographic Channel, produced by Robert Erickson. Robert also conducted interviews with me and others. In March 2009, Prof. David Ray Griffin and I and Gregg Roberts exchanged emails with Robert Erickson which demonstrate our efforts to get Mr. Erickson and his team to be accurate and fair in their treatment of our scientific work regarding 9/11 – particularly the evidence for the use of explosives in the World Trade Center destruction. For the record, then, I have pulled together our exchanges of emails.

Robert Erickson, emailed David Ray Griffin on 3/27/09:
"if Jones is surprised that we just placed bags of thermite around the column...what else would Jones have suggested? "

I was informed of the question above and I responded on 3/28/09 as follows:

Robert,

Bags of commercial thermite set against a steel column -- what a pathetic "experiment." Not anywhere close to representing my views, as you must know, from our discussion about the red/gray chips and the crucial distinction between ordinary thermite and super-thermite! What a terrible and unfair straw-man joke you are evidently trying to pull.

Noted 9/11 research Dr. Frank Legge has published a revised version of his paper with additional notes and discussion, “What Hit the Pentagon?” The paper is available at the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug.pdf

His first version of the paper generated a great deal of discussion about this important issue. In presenting this revision, Dr. Legge notes:

“This version has been prepared to take into account a number of issues raised by critics and defenders of the original paper. Discussion of the implications of accepting or rejecting the official position that a 757 hit the Pentagon has been expanded and clarified. I am very grateful for the help provided. All significant alterations have been identified and discussed in footnotes.”

No doubt this revised version will encourage further discussion of what hit the Pentagon, and perhaps more importantly, a renewed push to obtain release of withheld video footage that will show unequivocally what hit the Pentagon – and a renewed interest in the whistleblower testimony of Secretary of Transportation (at the time) Norman Mineta.

As we approach the 8th anniversary of 9/11, we can work for increased media attention.... and get it.

An article just came out in City Weekly, a newspaper in Salt Lake City:

http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-8858-we-all-fall-down.html

The author, Eric Peterson, interviewed me in my home in rural Spring City, Utah. (I moved away from the densely populated Wasatch front area last year.) He makes some good points while missing a few points, IMO -- but I would like to hear what you think of this news article. The comments at cityweekly.net so far are supportive of 9/11 research.

The reporter did his homework -- contacting BYU, Fetzer and Greening to get "balance", which is fair. And he caught Fetzer in an error when he blamed Greening's non-appearance at a conference on me unfairly. "Greening sides with Jones," the article says on this point. Greening got this straight, but makes other criticisms without substantiation.

The reporter says that "James Farrer is currently giving presentations on the nano-thermite research in Europe" -- he meant, Niels Harrit. I could nit-pick a few other points.

Announcing two new papers by Dr. Frank Legge (Ph.D., Chemistry):

1) "Controlled Demolition at the WTC: an Historical Examination of the Case" provides a brief history of research related to explosive demolition at the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001, from Dr. Legge's point of view. Cogent and pithy; worth the read.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/LeggeCDatWTC.pdf

2) "Frank Greening versus Isaac Newton" provides a brief expose of the "lapse" by F. Greening in understanding Newton's Third Law -- and the significance of this gaffe by Greening. Sometimes humorous, certainly enlightening.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/FGvsNewton.pdf

Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading, commentary and even challenge before publication by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.

The 116th peer-reviewed paper was published today in the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
“The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis,”
by Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti. Take a look!
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt4.pdf

This fine paper underwent several months of rather arduous peer-review preceding its publication in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. The paper supports work by James Gourley published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and recent analysis by David Chandler. A few quotes from the paper should wet your interest:

“In its Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, the National Institute of Standards and Technology summarizes its three year study and outlines its explanation of the total collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2.[1] Readers of the report will find that the roughly $20 million expended on this effort have resulted in an explanation of the total collapse of these buildings that is so vague it barely qualifies as a hypothesis. But it does have one crucial feature of a hypothesis: it is, in principle, falsifiable. In fact, it is easy to demonstrate that it is false.
In this paper we will, concentrating on the North Tower, offer a refutation that is:

• easy to understand but reasonably precise
• capable of being stated briefly
• verifiable by any reader with average computer skills and a grasp of simple mathematics.

[snip] Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou, with whose September 13, 2001 back-of-the-envelope theory (with subsequent revisions and additions) NIST largely agrees, have never hesitated to say that the upper block fell. [8] Bazant has likewise been frank about the need for severe impact as the upper and lower structures met: he believes the impact may have been powerful enough to have been recorded by seismometers. [9] In his view, collapse initiation of the lower structure required “one powerful jolt.”[10] Of course, if there was a powerful jolt to the lower structure there must also have been a powerful jolt to the upper falling structure, in accord with Newton’s Third Law.”

We are pleased to announce that an article by Aidan Monaghan (B.Sc., EET) article has successfully passed the peer-review process at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. The article was published Oct 3, 2008: Plausibility Of 9/11 Aircraft Attacks Generated By GPS-Guided Aircraft Autopilot Systems. Link here: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/AutopilotSystemsMonaghan.pdf

The editors continue to accept submitted scholarly papers, with the proviso from the Introductory page at this Journal, which states that we encourage contributors to first consider submission to mainstream established journals. And frankly, the editors themselves are busy doing research and writing on such papers (one of which is now undergoing the peer-review process with such an established journal, on the subject of anomalous red/gray chips observed in the WTC dust).

Dear friends and colleagues,

I have been invited to give a presentation at the Physics Dept. seminar of Utah Valley University on 10 Sept 2008, 4 pm, room PS-202. You are invited to participate. Here is the title and abstract:

9/11/2001: Forbidden Questions, Explosive Answers
By Dr. Steven E. Jones
Seminar at Utah Valley University, Physics Department
10 Sept. 2008, 4:00 pm, room PS-202

Why did three (not two) skyscrapers fall to the ground on 9/11 at near free-fall rates, killing thousands? Why were numerous bone fragments found on a roof-top 600 feet away? Why did the National Inst. of Standards and Technology, charged by Congress to explain the collapses, concede to us, "…we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse"[1]? Why did NIST refuse to look for residues from explosives? (We, however, did so using state-of-the-art methods and I will report results.) What is the significance of red/gray chips found in the 9/11 dust? What is super-thermite? Who are the whistleblowers and what do they have to say? Why were there no air defenses on 9/11?

NIST'S WTC 7 technical briefing took place this morning. A number of good questions were asked, it seemed they came mostly from the 9/11-truth-seeking community. I asked (and these got through but were somewhat re-worded by the fellow "reading" the questions):

1. Did NIST have available to it samples of dust from the WTC catastrophe, and if so, did NIST examine the dust for red/gray chips as described by Dr. Steven Jones (physicist)? Note that over a dozen WTC-dust samples were examined by the US Geological Survey, and these were presumably available to NIST.

2. NIST discusses the fall time for WTC 7 on page 40 of their summary, where we find the significant assumption: "Assuming that the descent speed was approximately constant..." However, observations by Dr. Frank Legge and others of the descent speed shows that it is accelerating, not constant at all. Why did NIST assume "that the descent speed was approximately constant" when observation shows otherwise?

Thanks to the able translators who have made the "Fourteen Points" readable now in Dutch and Italian:
http://journalof911studies.com/letters/c/14PuntenDutchVersion.pdf
http://journalof911studies.com/letters/c/14PuntiItalianVersion.pdf

It is through INTERNATIONAL efforts that I believe we can succeed in the TRUTH AND INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT (seeking Truth about 9/11 and the 9/11 wars, the NAU/SPP, the expanding US debt and falling dollar, rising oil prices, and so on -- and Independence from corrupt and decaying systems, individually and in communities).

The Italian translators are Riccardo Pizzirani and Massimo Mazzucco. Massimo wrote about this paper:
"we have just [finished] a translation of your “14 points” piece, which I personally found delightful: I never thought such fine irony could be married so elegantly to any 9/11 discourse.
Thanks for it all, on behalf of all Italian 9/11 truthers as well."

The translation into Dutch was accomplished by Frank Ho, who wrote:
"Thanks for showing interest in my Dutch translation of your 14 points study. I'm impressed by this new approach in seeking for agreements. The Journal of 911 Studies is free to use this translation for it's purposes.
"There is one remark. I translated this article with lot's of efforts because of it's main importance....
My main goal is making the information about 9/11 irresistible and inevitable for mainstream oriented public and press. Therefore I consider a smooth readability and presentation as an obligation."

Further translations are welcomed!

Reddit the deseret news article: (hit the "up" arrow - http://reddit.com/info/6i1kb/comments/ )

The "Fourteen Points" paper regarding the WTC destruction has been translated into Czech and appears in the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
http://journalof911studies.com/letters/c/14%20PointsCzechversion.pdf
The authors hold the copyright to the peer-reviewed paper (our thanks to the respected editors at the Open Civil Engineering Journal) and so we can strongly encourage further translations and publications of the article -- into Spanish, German, French, Italian... Thanks to Petr Kral for his first translation of this paper, original here: http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM

The Fourteen Points paper is also the basis of a break-through media article, in a major Salt Lake City newspaper, here:
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695275973,00.html
As my colleague Kevin Ryan wrote me this morning "They took the high road this time." I think so, too.
The reporter (Walch) was willing to speak about microspheres and red/gray chips which we found in the WTC dust -- and to nudge NIST to take a look at the evidence.

(EDIT: FYI, it is extremely common for Open Access Journals to charge a publication fee. This in no way reflects upon the quality of the peer review process, or the contents of the paper. -rep.)

Finally! After submitting a half-dozen papers to established peer-reviewed technical journals over a period of nearly a year, we have two papers which have passed peer-review and have been accepted for publication. One of these was published TODAY! In science, we say that we have “published in the literature,” a major step in a nascent line of scientific inquiry.

And many thanks to the editors for their courage and adherence to science in allowing us to follow the evidence and publish in their journal. (Indeed, expressions of thanks along these lines to the editors will be appreciated, as they will probably get a few letters chastising them… )

The paper is here:
http://www.bentham.org/open/index.htm (our paper is listed on top at the moment, the most recently entered paper); or go here:
http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/openaccess2.htm
(Click on “year 2008” then scroll down to the paper and click on it.)