Steven Jones Takes Early Retirement from BYU

Steve Jones Announces Early Retirement From BYU

Friends and Colleagues:



With this window of opportunity, I sent the letter below to local newspapers; perhaps it could be posted at, Jim, if you wish. "Dr. Jones letter to newspaper editors upon announcement of his retirement from BYU," or something like that.


Thanks for all your support, especially to those who signed the petition at in my behalf.



Steven E. Jones
20 October 2006

What will the COINTELPRO'ers say

What will the "Particle Beam-Operative Team" have to say about this one?

The COINTELPRO bunglers who run around with an operation designed to be so obviously disruptive that people cannot resist wasting time to debunk them.

The "No Plane"-"CGI Fakery" bottom feeders who are desperately trying to get you to waste time battling their idiocy-by-design. The "Mini Nuke-Particle Beam" low-lives who are sent by their handlers to stir the pot and turn activists on ourselves.

These were the cowards who called Steven Jones an agent. Now what will they say?

Show "Let's remember that Jones would have been thrown out of BYU." by Anonymous (not verified)


How did Professor Jones violate every ethical code, and what did he deliberately lie about?


Show "Questions about Former Professor Steven E. Jones" by Anonymous (not verified)

Why don't you just "pull-it" and watch the building collapse?


Gotta love people brave

Gotta love people brave enough to slam someone elses efforts but too chikkenshit to put his name next to it.
Face it, the research he has done and the questions he asks has you guys really scared huh......lmao.
I would be too.

Dear Anonymous, how about this?

Using your Great and Wonderful powers of deduction..... what the heck are you going on about Chain of Evidence for Prof. Jones, when you should be asking the very same f'n thing about that bullcrap 9/11 report?

Get your priorities straight, wind-bag.



Rumsfeld has a three billion dollar PR budget a large part of which is directed at influencing public opinion on the internet.
The attacks on Steven Jones from his PR shills....your tax dollars at work.

How paranoid do you have to

How paranoid do you have to be to believe that anyone who disagrees with you must be a government agent? You know, they have medicines for that.

The chain of custody

The chain of custody arguement doesn't mean jack. We have the collapse time and the collapse characteristics on film. Those are enough to prove demolition. Besides, crime scence evidence goes through multiple hands before it reaches specialized forensic analysts. You don't think someone who has to do PCR actually gets their hands on DNA first do you?

I don't see how you can make the arguement either that somehow our scientific credibility is on the line. In science sometimes you have to change your hypothesis to better account for observations. Since when did the movement's entire case rest on the pieces of potential ground zero thermite? Obviously you need to do some more reading.

So how would you propose the buildings came down at near freefall speed if not by demolitions(I could use a laugh, go ahead and say the "planes did it!")?


Dr. Steven E Jones Is the Achilles Heel of Controlled Demolition

Whitey, you are the ONLY person who took the time and trouble to respond with a scientific comment about my comment, "Questions about Former Professor Steven E. Jones." THANK YOU! Everyone else tried to play "Kill the Messenger."

Your comment about my Chain of Custody argument is very good -- if and only if the other persons in the Chain of Custody are known to Dr. Jones. But Dr. Jones does NOT know who all these persons are, and therefore Dr. Jones does NOT know whether his Thermite test samples really came from Ground Zero.

Of course, the planes and the jet fuel did NOT DISINTEGRATE the WTC towers. However, Dr. Jones and others have said that Thermite is the PRIMARY cause for the disintegration and "collapse" of the WTC towers. The Thermite Theory of Controlled Demolition is now the gospel of the 9/11 Truth Movement on how the WTC towers were brought down. The Thermite Controlled Demolition Theory is endlessly promoted at 911 Blogger and at the 9/11 Scholars site (and elsewhere).

What happens when other well-known scientists appear in the mainstream media and say that former Professor Steven E. Jones has no idea about the SOURCE of his test samples that supposedly prove that Thermite DISINTEGRATED and brought down the WTC towers at the speed of gravity?

Dr. Steven E. Jones has NEVER really shown that his test samples came from Ground Zero. In addition, Thermite appears to have been used in the clean-up operation at Ground Zero after 9/11. So, even if the Jones test samples came from Ground Zero, the question is: Was the Thermite introduced before or AFTER 9/11 (i.e., during clean up)?

In addition, can Thermite DISINTEGRATE the WTC towers in the manner that we saw on 9/11? Is Thermtie an explosive? Or does it just melt and cut steel? If Thermite ONLY melts and cuts steel, then how do we account for the fact that BOTH the concrete AND the steel DISTEGRATED on 9/11? What was the source of all of the ADDITIONAL energy that would be required to DISINTEGRATE the steel and concret in the WTC towers on 9/11? I don't know. Do you?

IT GETS WORSE. Former Professor Steven E. Jones says that ONLY his Thermite Theory can prove the Controlled Demolition of the WTC towers. See "Steven Jones Trashes the Demolition Research" at (discussing how Dr. Jones trashes all other research about Controlled Demolition -- except for his Thermite Theory).

If Dr. Jones has answers for the above issues and questions, then maybe he should tell us. So far, he has not. Maybe someone else should ask him about these issues on a regular basis.

So, is former Professor Steven E. Jones BOTH the achilles heel AND the straw man of 9/11 Controlled Demolition? What happens when the mainstream media demolish our ONLY 9/11 scientific truth hero, Dr. Steven E. Jones? I don't know. Do you?


Just remember that if controlled demolition did happen, there are hundred of thousands of tonnes of irrefutable physical evidence just waiting to be tested. The debris piles at the local dumps contain the rubble from the buildings. This rubble would have the chemical residue of explosives. The rubble is not going anywhere fast and it can be tested in a year, ten years or a hundred years.


Nothing overshadows truth so much as authority. ~ Leon Battista Alberti

It is not by the sword or the spear, by soldiers or by armed force that truth is to be promoted,
but by counsel and gentle persuasion. ~ Saint Athenasius

Truth isn't always beauty, but the hunger for it is. ~ Nadine Gordimer

If you speak the truth, have one foot in the stirrup. ~ Turkish proverb

What proof of WTC explosives or Thermite do we have NOW?

Truth for a Change:  You may be right about some WTC rubble being taken to the local landfills.  However, I would be interested in knowing where you got the figure of several hundred thousand tons being taken to the local dumps (if I understand your comment correctly).

In addition, what proof do we have about how much steel was scrapped & taken to China & elsewhere?  And what happened to pulverize all of the concrete into 100-micron-sized powder?

IF there is Thermite residue on the WTC Ground Zero debris at the local dump (if & when you dig it up), and IF Thermite was used during the clean up of Ground Zero, then finding such Thermite residues on the steel at the local dump may still NOT prove anything.

In addition, Thermite is NOT an explosive.  See

The questions are:  What definitive proof of explosives or Thermite do we have NOW?

Yes, we do have SOME proof of Thermite on test samples supposedly taken from Ground Zero; however, what proof do we have that either explosives or Thermite could have caused the WTC steel & concrete to disintegrate & be pulverized in the manner that we saw on 9/11? 

Thomas J Mattingly

The figure of a hundred thousand tonnes has been used by someone here on this blog. I just used it as an example. But now that you mentioned it, with all or most of the steel gone I’m sure it would be much much lower. You got me on that. I’m not sure how one would determine what the weight of all the concrete and contents of the towers and building seven would be. My guess would be that it is hundreds or thousands of tonnes would be a better way to say it; but yes, not hundreds of thousands. Thanks. If anyone has an estimate on what the rubble would weigh, I’d love to hear it.

I agree that we have no idea how much steel was shipped overseas. But I’ll bet that a lot of the rubble was put in dumps, even some of the steel. There are reports that said that everything was blasted to little pieces and dust, all these little pieces and dust add up to a lot, they had to put somewhere. I’m not sure how one would find out where the rubble was dumped. I guess word of mouth could find people that drove the dump trucks. I don’t think they could have scrubbed all the rubble of evidence.

Well, I’m not sure what caused all the concrete to be pulverized. Maybe it wasn’t all pulverized, maybe most of it could have been pulverized by the impact of the upper floors hitting the lower floors. If it was pulverized because of conventional explosives, the explosive residue would clearly still be intermingled in the dust and rubble. I can understand that if conventional explosives were used on the towers it would have been brought down from the top down, to avoid the risk of it toppling over, that seems reasonable. This would cause all the contents to be pulverized. But how many times have we heard, “what about building 7”? It looked like a conventional implosion and if so, conventional explosives would have been used. Therefore the contents would not have been pulverized like in the towers because it would have been pulled from the bottom..

I agree that if only thermate was used, that finding the residue may still not prove thermate was used. If conventional explosives were not used, then all the talk about beams being thrown horizontally, the puffs of smoke from the sides of the buildings, the pulverization of everything would have to be caused by something else.

I agree that thermite is not an explosive and I’m not sure thermate alone could bring down all the buildings as observed?

I don’t think we have any proof of explosives or thermite NOW, except common sense. There are indications, as listed above and also, freefall speed, building’s footprint, visual observation and many more. It has been reported that sulfur was found, that‘s another indication. Also the pieces of beams or columns that were eroded or burnt away in a way not consistent with a gravity collapse. In the movie “Improbable Collapse” there is a photo of pieces like this. Pieces that were obviously burnt through.

The proof in the debris is threefold; first, the chemicals and elements there from thermate and conventional explosives; second, the pieces of the devices used as detonators for the thermate and explosives, they would have had to use a lot of detonators; and third the pieces of columns and beams that were burnt away. If thermate was the only thing used, there would be remnants of the detonators and burnt through columns and beams. If both conventional and thermate was used, then you would have chemical proof, burnt through coulmns and pieces of the detonators.

Either way, a close examination of the rubble would reveal this proof, if there. Do I have proof that it is there? No, I don’t have proof, only way to find out would be to dig it up.

The real question then becomes how do you create an independent investigation? The politicians and the military would have to be excluded because they are suspects. Therefore, I just can’t see how an independent investigation could be created. If it’s true that it was politicians and military, they are not going to let a truly independent investigation happen. But over the very long haul, over many many years, that proof will still be there, if indeed it exists in the first place.


Statistically one hundred percent of the shots you don't take don't go in. ~ Wayne Gretsky

The injury we do and the one we suffer are not weighed in the same scale. ~ Aesop



fair and balanced

I actually don't think this criticism is totally counterproductive, and I'm a Stephen Jones fan! It's true that if you can't verify the source of the material it's not going to stand up in court. We're all conspiracy-minded: what if a disinfo agent delibrerately gave him thermite encrusted hunk of metal to throw him off and to make Jones look foolish later and bring down the whole movement?

The thing that worries me about the truthers (though I consider myself one) is there isn't a lot of source verification. Theories grow based on bad new reporting in the first place and then catch hold, so that when the news is later debunked it's too late. For example, Atta's supposed girlfriend who spoke of his decadent lifestyle has now admitted she never knew Atta. But how many truthers are still going to use the story that he was not a devout muslim to argue with. I really liked the Tarpley book at the time, and think his logical trails are reasonable, but he doesn't exactly give you sources for his "facts".

I think it would be in everyone's interest to make sure the story is airtight before continuing. I believe those Loose Change are in earnest, but they come across as young and foolish and many of their theories are crap. I don't buy the Pentagon missile story anymore (though I used to follow it). It's just too absurd and will bring the whole movement down when the gov. releases more footage and autopsy information. The hypothesis of a missile is based on what's NOT there and that's ridiculous.

If there are other cautious truthers out their who agree with me, you might want to take a look at I know, I know. Dunne can be abrasive and it's hard to get past the outing of supposed CIA disinfo agents. But the 3i Investigation forums breaking down everything we can verify can be a great source of information.


I just want to say that I think you have a very valid point regarding the reliability of the test results. Quite frankly, I've never heard about this whole chain of custody issue but I believe it's very important because, as you say, we are only as strong as our supporting evidence.

You have a point when you state that we should not hitch all our wagons to one scientist, that's true. However, there are other scientists out there with variant theories regarding how the demolitions were conducted. It's all a lot of speculation, because they do not have physical evidence to look at. With the exception of Dr. Jones, as you pointed out. So this does indeed raise some questions in my mind (but only about Dr. Jones and his research).

The one thing we can all agree on, however, is that demolitions did indeed occur: whether by thermite or some other unknown explosive. The visual evidence and outlandish probability of 3 steel-framed buildings crashing in on themselves within the space of a few hours is too overwhelming to buy into official version.

Stop posting groundless, stupid accusations against Prof. Jones

Isn't it enough that vermin like you led to his early retirement. Unfortunately for the likes of you, Dr. Jones will now have more time to devote to 9/11 truth!

Show "Ask Jones to stop" by Anonymous (not verified)

oooo Staurday

oooo Staurday it...we got em workin overtime boys!!

"Courage to ask Jones to stop?"

Is this some kind of joke? It takes courage to SPEAK your mind in the midst of ridicule. (My courage for standing up to whoever posted this is irking him/her this moment.) Dr. Jones has spoken out even though he risks being called a "terrorist" for even suggesting that the plane theory may not even be true. This has already HAPPENED on the O'Rielly Factor. Dr. Jones is to be commended for his courage to slam the jokes the US Gov't calls "reports."

The fact that Dr. Jones was put on leave because the research he can properly SUBSTANTIATE his claims with concrete physical evidence is "of questionable value" tells you the direction in which our education system is going.

Instead of the shameless name-calling, could any of you who slam anti-9/11 doctors substantiate your claims that "they're frauds?" You should do that instead of criticizing someone who can substantiate an idea that conflicts with your perceptions.

It's not rocket science. TELL me the "true" temperature at which steel melts. Tell me at what temperature jet fuel burns. Tell me how much jet fuel is needed to level an entire building. Tell me how an entire steel core can be leveled by a fire. Can you show me a history of other steel structured buildings that have come down due to fire? Or even further, a history of buildings that came down sympathetically with buildings brought down by fire? Could you explain the WTC7 phenomena? Since when do buildings collapse on their own? If Dr. Jones is wrong, then you need to tell me how's just wrong, instead of begging me to take your word for it that "he's just plain dishonest."

Political arguments aside, chemical and physical fact, is chemical and physical fact. The rules of nature weren't magically bent to accomodate the 9/11 attacks. Dr. Jones' research proves that airplane fuel fires couldn't have brought the WTC towers down, if not that the buildings were brought down by an internal controlled demolition, but anyone with a general knowledge in physics could have told you that.

Your link?

Could you please post the link to your paper where you discredit all the points of his paper as he asks?

Show "Jones is a dishonest hack" by James (not verified)

LOL "Particle Beam-Team"

LOL "Particle Beam-Team" hahahaha, loving it!


You do your country proud!

Thank you Dr. Jones! Your a man of honor & integrity.

Much love to Dr. Jones for

Much love to Dr. Jones for fighting the good fight. Once you understand the truth, good people can not turn their backs on it. It's called morals, and a lot of people lack them.

Good Luck

God bless you, Professor Jones. You're a credit to humanity.

Isn't it amazing

how much heat people have to take when they stand up for some 9/11 Truth?

Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Or academic freedom? Or tenure? (Or habeas corpus, for that matter?)

Prof. Jones sounds optimistic about his future work. Let's all wish him the best of luck.

Still excited, but antsy, waiting for him to publish.

9/11 truth folks,

I completely support the efforts of Steven Jones to draw people's attention to the issue of 9/11 truth. I am also quite interested in his research. But he hasn't published it yet, and therefore, none of his peers have had the chance to review it. In academic circles, this is everything.

Isn't the reason that Jones is such an asset to us is that he's a professor, and is doing reputable research? Well then assuming we appreciate that reputation, we must also respect the process that makes him reputable. The academic review process. If his research is solid and conclusion valid, then he will have helped us greatly as others in the academic community will have to acknowledge that facts contradict the official view.

But, he has to publish his work. Being frustrated that this hasn't happened yet serves no one, but I am feeling antsy. There's certainly a lot of pressure on him to publish from our community. But a certain amount of patience is required. Academic research can take a great deal of time. He may be moving to another school that will be more supportive of his research. But this does mean that we will likely have to wait even longer for his first publication. I hope not.

I can only wish him luck and look forward to a paper or book in the near future.

International Truth Movement

Truth, not trust

Obviously, we would like to see his work validated. Sad to say, but our movement is built on truth, not trust.

I heard that Dr. Jones did some additional work recently at Idaho State. So maybe he's still working through the process.

But some good issues have been raised. The source of the steel from WTC needs to be varifiable, or what's the point?

I agree with you

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Peer Review?

Of what good is peer review if your peers are pompous a--holes that won't even look at your review? (Just like some people posting on this very blog?)

Times are critical, and our current situation is not friendly toward people that question the status quo; the people who have the gall to ask questions; the people that aren't swallowing the pill...

But isn't it the same with all doctors of the past? History doesn't show a series of steel buildings brought down by fires, and it doesn't show a series of buildings spontaneously collapsing. Rather, it shows revolutionaries being ridiculed at every turn. It shows revolutionaries who's peers refuse to acknowledge merit. Pasteur. Semmelweis. Pare. Jenner. Sound familiar? Research them. See how the doctors of the time wanted to shut these people down. Now they are big names in history.

No. His bigwig peers would do what O'Rielly have done. Besides. His research IS open for everyone to see. You can research his facts. You don't need samples of 9/11 to know the temperature at which steel melts. You don't need to test jet fuel over and over again to know at what temperature it burns. You don't need a rocket scientists to note that WTC7 came down without being touched.

Good Man

Thank you Dr. Jones for all of your convictions. You are such a breath of fresh air to a world so full of anger. I admire how you keep your cool and still are able to convey your concerns.

Thanks for all you do. I will pray for you and your family during this time of transition. It is both exciting and a relief to hear that you have options and are with us for the long haul---which hopefully won't be much longer!

Jones: Exposing the traitors, perpetrators enablers & shills

Right on Dr. Jones. Thanks for all your work. I sincerely appreciate all the insight your work has given me in my search for answers.

who even runs

who even runs I can't find a name on the site and it looks as though it was registered in private; after calling the number on number listed on the Registrant WHOIS, i am sure it was registered in private.... anyone have some info?

What difference does it make

What difference does it make who runs the site, he makes no claims to any specific credentials, so his arguments stand or fall on their own merits. If you put PhD behind your name and claim to write peer reviewed work, then you can get all picky about provenance.

People who give two bits care....

... because SOURCE is all that and a bowl of grits in an Information War.

I could be wrong about lots of things.... yet I do NOT present an anonymous face impossible to pin down for clarification, correction or retraction. "Myths" and "debunking" have failed to modify their content to more closely resemble the facts as they come into focus... yet Official Narrative sycophants continue to cite these "sources", which are NOT reportable sources by definition. Thus, the 9/11 delusion persists for the uncritical.

You see it some other way? Do tell.



If you have anything to show

If you have anything to show that they are misrepresenting the research of Steven Jones, by all means share it with the rest of us. Please take a look at the pictures from the WTC wreckage that Jones misrepresents and explain to us how that demonstrates the height of academic rigor.

Go auto-copulate yourself.

A named person, not talking about a named person, debating an anon vaguely suggesting links and an un-named anon? I suggest you go find a quite corner and auto-copulate yourself into a frothy lather.... count me out, blow-hard.

No need to check back looking to see if I engage you further. I won't be there.

OK, now I have a name,

OK, now I have a name, please explain to me how that changes the nature of either our arguments.

Because it changes things this way...

Hello Eric:

First, I can offer my apologies for being crude. In a time of rampant deceit, offense, and invasion by the State.... I find it equalizing (if only personal) to drop my own pants and tell The Man to "choke on it!" I do hold, that anonymity and privacy is a right, save all things being balanced. Yet today, and on this subject... I think people, at least more people, should put their names to their claims. I do so myself, and IF I'm only one tenth correct with my charges against this government.... than I've offered my own neck in a very public way... and placed all my chips upon the table.

Second, because we are now speaking as men, I can simply ask you to clarify yourself. I have no time for people who dilly-dally with the "Sole Gang of Magic Islam-O-Fanatics" bull-shit story. In this forum, and this late date, The State is neither innocent, nor worthy of defense (seeing as habeas corpus is unimportant 'n all. Hitler, the fuck, was the last great piece of shit to say such things). So don't even dare, don't even dare to play Devil's Advocate to flush me out.

Now with that said, please expand. Are you looking to understand "misrepresentations" about Jones, or "misrepresentations" made by Jones? Are you looking to clarify valid points where Jones could have been more tight? Are you looking to improve upon his work, or tear the man down?

I'll give you an example of my own, where this is my first public admission to being "sloppy" as pertaining to this subject following. Jones quickly, and I followed, chastised Greening for his claims of aluminum incandescence. Where Jones failed to expand, and I too, is on this: At the temperatures needed for aluminum to incandesce, (which IT CAN), is however far above its temperature needed to flow, and a temperature where steel is red hot, and ductile.... HOWEVER... this still completely fails to account for instantaneous symmetrical "global collapse". So don't even try.

Is that what you want to clarify about Jones? Is that what you want Jones to clarify about himself? Is that the kind of thing you'd like to hold MY feet to the fire.... great... it feels nice and warm.

Your turn.


P.S. I also invite you to read James Redford's cogent and topical comment below.


Eric Blair a.k.a. George Orwell

I'll take your username as a confession, ok?

Tribute to Dr. Steven E. Jones & Vigorous Scientific Debate

Following is my congratulatory letter to Dr. Steven E. Jones regarding the mixed blessing of his early retirement as a BYU professor.

Steve helped to pave the way for where we are now in the debate about 9/11 Truth.  Therefore, we ALL should pay appropriate tribute to Steve Jones.

Steve also defends the Scientifc Method.  Although 911Blogger is a NEWS site, cutting-edge 911 scientific research is also NEWS of a special type.

Although we can & should subject such NEWS to vigorous scientific debate, cutting-edge 9/11 scientific NEWS may need special protection at 911Blogger so that it does not receive the same type of ridicule that first confronted & delayed such formerly controversial (but now semi-established) areas of alternative 9/11 research such as the "No Big Boeing Crashed at the Pentagon" hypothesis, the "No Big Boeing Crashed in Pennsylvania" hypothesis, and the "Controlled Demolition" hypothesis.  I am sure that Steve would probably agree.

If we don't vigorously protect the free speech rights of cutting-edge 9/11 scientific researchers (such as Dr. Steven E. Jones and others) from unwarranted personal and NON-scientific attacks, then the 9/11 Cover-Up Perps and the 9/11 PsyOp Perps can easily delay the vigorous SCIENTIFIC debate that is necessary to prove or disprove such hypotheses.

Let me know.  Thank you.  Best regards,

Thomas J Mattingly

Dr. Steven E. Jones 

Steve - Congratulations on Your Early Retirment! Now What? 

Hi, Steve:

Congratulations on your early retirement!  Although this may be a mixed blessing for you after many years of faithful service to BYU & your students, this will allow you to spend more time on your 9/11 research, writing & speaking.
You have now joined the ranks of Jim Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds & Judy Wood in semi-retirement & semi-unemployment.  Fortunately, you did not have the misfortune of also having one of your students murdered (arguably) due to 9/11 considerations.  However, just like Morgan & Judy, your departure from BYU was (more than arguably) due to 9/11 considerations.
It was also good to hear that you are again corresponding with Judy & Morgan on 9/11-related scientific issues.  I look forward to seeing the scientific fruits of your renewed communications.
Of particular interest to others & me is the upcoming issue of your Journal of 9/11 Studies in which you will publish the four (4) articles on the 9/11 No Big Boeings Hypothesis, the 9/11 Pro-Big-Boeings Hypothesis, the 9/11 TV & Media Fakery Hypothesis, and the 9/11 TV & Media Integrity Hypothesis
Some may have been surprised when you signed Nico Haupt's petition calling for these articles to be published in your Journal of 9/11 Studies, but others & I were certainly not surprised.  Despite your personal opinions on these issues, you know that the best way to put these controversial issues to rest is via the Scientific Method of publishing the best scholarly articles that you can find on these issues and to engage in a scientifically-rational debate thereafter.

Now that you have more time to devote to 9/11 issues, I also look forward to seeing your complete response to Morgan & Judy's article, The Trouble with Steven E. Jones' 9/11 Research [also at Morgan's site in a slightly earlier version].  I read with interest your hasty & admittedly-incomplete response to their article (and their also-hasty replies to your preliminary response).  I too found some of their language to be inappropriate (e.g., "We gasp at Jones’ 'analysis' of tower oscillation. Can a Ph.D. physicist be this retarded?"); but I know that you too now know that a Big Boeing is not not the only possible scientific explanation for WTC tower oscillation.  Let's not allow their choice of a few unfortunate words to get in the way of the vigorous-but-rational scientific debate that we all need to resolve the remaining scientific issues of 9/11.
As you know, I also disagree with Morgan & Judy's statements about your Cold Fusion research.  Cold Fusion is real, legitimate & significant science; and Cold Fusion has the potential to meet some if not many of our planet's energy needs.  Of course, there are at least two (2) types of Cold Fusion research: The high-dollar Cold Fusion research on which you work; and the low-dollar Pons-&-Fleischman-type research that others whom I know at the U.S. Naval Research Labs work.  As we briefly discussed in our correspondence, you know both areas of Cold Fusion research very well.  In addition, one or more of the "New Energy" companies that I know and/or with which I informally work may be ready, willing & able to provide a hospitable & tolerant home for your talents & abilities in the near future.
Have you seen Judy & Morgan's new article, "The WTC Bathtub and the 'Star Wars' Beam Weapons" (still incomplete) at  Is this one of the subjects of your correspondence with them?  As you may know, Judy & Morgan are getting verbally beaten pretty badly by the non-scientists at  As your recent experiences at BYU may prove all too well, there are few hospitable & tolerant places where cutting-edge 9/11 scientific research can be openly done & discussed.
Although you don't post many if any comments at 911Blogger, a personal request from you for tolerance & patience at 911Blogger or at might pave the way for them to complete their research & writing in environments that are not filled with scientifically-unwarranted personal attacks (e.g., accusing Judy of "dickriding" Morgan, a personal attack that was laughed at by the Admins at 9/11Blogger).  After completion, of course, they should submit their article (or a modified article) to an appropriate scientific journal for publishing (after the requisite Peer Review).  If you haven't done so, then please glance at their preliminary article and provide them with your sage feedback on any "glowing" errors that you see.
As you know, we invited you to speak at the National Press Club even before we invited Morgan & Judy to speak.  After Morgan accepted our invitation (and before we also invited Judy), we invited you to speak with Morgan.  Unfortunately, you declined (and I could not get you to "un-decline" -- even after you had no class schedule conflicts).  Now that you have some free time on your hands, would you be willing to speak at the National Press Club in the near future?
Congratulations again on your "retirement."  And may you have the best of luck in whatever you do in the future!
Let me know.  Thank you.  Best regards,
Thomas J Mattingly

Attached again is Morgan & Judy's "Proposal for Revitalization & Reconstruction of ST911 & J911S" that I submitted to Jim Fetzer & you on 23-Aug-06 after their resignations from ST911 (also containing Jim's & your rejection of all of their proposals).  In light of what has recently occurred with others & you, would you & Jim please reconsider these proposals?  Judy & Morgan certainly did not ask me to re-send this proposal to Jim & you (in fact, they might be quite upset with me for having done so -- as you know, that never stops me).  Nevertheless, these proposals are probably worth reconsidering and implementing -- whether or not Judy & Morgan are ever interested in rejoining ST911.

Cc: Dr. James Fetzer, Dr. Morgan Reynolds, Dr. Judy Wood, Jim Marrs, Webster Tarpley

Show "Jones already debunked" by Anonymous (not verified)

When Did That Supposedly Occur?

Hello, Anonymous. If Dr. Steven Jones has been debunked or has told any lies then surely you could present an example of your claim. I've closely examined Dr. Jones's paper on the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings and it is quite sound in the evidence it presents that the towers were collapsed with the use of thermite/thermate.

The yellow to white-hot molten metal seen cascading off the South Tower had to be at least over 1000 °C, yet jet fuel burns in open air at 260-315 °C; nor do any office, building, or plane materials burn anywhere near that hot (indeed, it would present quite a hazard if such articles were constructed with such powerful incendiaries, and so designers of such objects go out of their way to make sure that they are not). Thus, if it wasn't molten iron from thermite that we are seeing come off the South Tower, then by necessity a reaction source with a heat intensity very much like thermite had to be present. Yet there is nothing in the U.S. government's account that can explain such a heat source; indeed, there's nothing innocent that could explain it, since it requires some sort of extremely powerful incendiary.

Moreover, even the official FEMA scientists Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, and R. D. Sisson, Jr. bolster the evidence that thermate (i.e., thermite with sulfur added) was used to bring down the WTC towers (see "C Limited Metallurgical Examination," FEMA 403--World Trade Center Building Performance Study ):

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent inter granular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. ... No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown.

Below is Dr. Jones's relevant paper:

"Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?," Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, editors (Northampton, Massachusetts: Olive Branch Press, 2006); and as "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?," Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol. 3 (September 2006):

"Experiments with Molten Aluminum," Steven E. Jones with Wesley Lifferth, Jared Dodson, Jacob Stevenson and Shannon Walch, circa June 2006:


Jones takes a picture of

Jones takes a picture of firefighters searching for their fallen comrades and misrepresents it as glowing steel. He takes pictures of ironworkers cutting beams during the cleanup and misrepresents it as the "red hot core". He takes a picture of crushed debris and misrepresents it as molten metal. He finds traces of sulfur in the WTC wreckage, ignores the dozens of likely sources, and then says it was thermate, a substance which isn't even used in controlled demolitions. This is the sign of a religious zealot, not a scientist.

and you take a picture of a missile hitting the pentagon

and say it was a jumbo jet. and you see a video of a building being demolished and say--"it was fire and debris"

what's you're point? we're right and you're lying. it is OVER, shill. Why do you bother?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force



Eric - Not sure if it was you b/c I think you were posting as "Anon" earlier in this thread, but I actually stood up for you, if it WAS you, a few threads back. If you are the same person, however, I MUST say that with regard to the red hot core business (whether it was misrepresented in a picture or not, I don't know), it was documented by Controlled Demolition that molten metal was in the sub-basements several days, even weeks, after 911.

And as for zealotry, attack his research if you like, but to claim this man is a zealot smacks of shillery. This is classic Republican playbook speak: trying to discredit an otherwise calm, rational, intelligent human being who happens to hold an opposing viewpoint by labeling that person with funny, inflammatory names. You're not gonna get away with that on here without my calling you on it, sorry.


I don't think "shillery" is an actual word. There is nothing rational about having fervent beliefs that allow you to manipulate photos, and ignore contrary evidence in the name of science.

If this is so well "documented", then why does he have to fake it?

I am just asking questions...

eric blair

Just so everyone knows, this moron is using the real name of George Orwell, Eric Blair, who wrote 1984 and Animal Farm. he probably thinks it's ingenius but he's obviously too stupid to have read any of it, just a grammer school government boot licking loser spewing lies with no facts. don't waste your time with this idiot, focus your energy on real debates with real facts that result in knowledge being shared

FEMA also reported molten steel

And Pop Mechanics actualy went to great pains to concoct the lie that the steel melted because since the fires were covered by rubble and debris they could increase in temperature. I mean, that has to be the crown jewel in the whole bogus book...

What the shills are trying to do is fill these forums with "debunkifying" comments that will only make sense to people who want to be reassured that the lie is in fact the truth. That is part and parcel of the O'Reilly led campaign to breed vigilante bus drivers, etc. who will of their own accord go out in the street and try to intimidate people spreading the truth.

Hopefully the rise of these brownshirts will not intimidate truthers but encourage them, and also make clear to anyone who still doesn't get it that the game is OVER and that nothing they do will make the lies true, or change anything about who was really responsible for 9/11, nor mitigate the consequences that are coming down the pipe for the perps and their defenders/allies.

We knew they would get vicious when they were cornered, and we can't back down now. We are going to end this charade.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force



It was also reported by fema and the new york times about the sulfidation of steel, so anyone who thinks Dr Jones is solo on this has not done their homework or is just a government lying shill. The imprtance of sulfer is that when added to thermite it creates thermate which burns hotter and faster than thermite. If you want to see the video he presented at the Italy 911 conference, it is posted at:
Also note how these same hypocrites who attack Steven Jones refuse to question the governments official story which has been proven to be lie after lie after lie. They're probably just part of the billions of dollars paid to to report fake news and spew official lies. This has all been admitted, but these same hypocrites won't bring that up but they'll go after an honest man trying to get to the truth by showing open research, but they'll lick boots of the government shills who lie, refuse to answer spew hate speech or claim national security every time a question is asked. Pay no attention to the morons who go after Dr Jones they're not worth your time, don't throw your pearls to pigs.

FEMA backs Jones or Jones backs FEMA

How do you know they aren't in bed together? You've just made a good case that they are!

incredible stupidity

fema kisses goverment but, Dr Jones is exposing goverment lies, by saying they are in bed together shows your stupidity has no limit.

You're stuck in the honey pot!

Someone throw this dude a rope and save him!

How is Jones trying to expose "government lies?" Haven't you heard his latest sales pitch? "Thermite is available on ebay, so anyone could have done it. We'll probably never know for sure who did it." But, thermite is NOT explosive. So, thermite couldn't have blown up the building into fine dust.

Let's apply "the scientific method." Does thermite explain the data we observe?

Thermite is a distraction to keep you from looking for the REAL cause. Meanwhile, the criminals can keep advancing their plans while the clock runs down...

more stupidity, more lies

Dr Jones States "9-11 was an inside job" you government bootlick loser. keep posting your lies and you'll keep being exposed as a liar.

molten steel

You are absolutely correct about the molten steel being around 6 WEEKS after 9-11 and it was reported by the firemen and shown in video, just check out the thermite video at:
and it'll be more than enough to prove who the liars are!! Then ignore the government licking scum who attack Dr Jones by spewing government sponsered lies, they're not worth your time.

RBN Cancels 911 Radio Show of ST911 Co-Chair Jim Fetzer

Due to personal and political differences, Republic Broadcasting Network General Manager John Stadtmiller has now canceled the radio show of Dr. Jim Fetzer, Co-Chair of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Listen to the first and second segments of the first 30 minutes of John Stadtmiller's show from October 18th by clicking on the following link:

Similar to the mainstream media, if the alternative media are now beginning to speak with one political voice, then where can we have a free discussion of 9/11 issues without personal attacks?