Steven Earl Jones is an American physicist. For most of his career, Jones was known mainly for his work on muon-catalyzed fusion. In the fall of 2006, amid controversy surrounding his work on the collapse of the World Trade Center, he was relieved of his teaching duties and placed on paid leave from Brigham Young University. On October 20, 2006, he announced his retirement. He holds that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition during the September 11 attacks.

Steven E. Jones is a professor at Brigham Young University. He has created the paper which has created the ground swell around the 911 conspiracy theories. His paper was peer reviewed but not by a civil engineering journal. One would think a serious professor would get his paper peer reviewed by a scientific journal which specializes in the field they are writing the paper on.

But is Professor Jones qualified to create a paper which says the towers must have fallen due to explosives? He is a physics professor but what experience does Jones have in building collapse forensics? He has none. His other peer reviewed papers consist of cold fusion technology. He conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. Nothing in his background would suggest he is qualified to write a civil engineering paper on the infinitely complex building collapse of the towers.

Brigham Young University doesn't want anything to do with the paper.

A few department chairmen at Jones' university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".

The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Jones says his paper will pass peer review again. But will it pass peer review in a respected civil engineering journal? Nothing less would be taken seriously.

One of Jones BYU colleagues had this to say after reading his paper...

Letter to the Editor
Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

April 09, 2006
Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

Yeah sure..lets thrust this fella,cause he have such an honest face LOOL

Yeah sure..lets thrust this fella,cause he have such an honest face LOOL

Instead of trying to smear his character why don't you watch his lecture and objectivly take in the evidence he presents? Why are you so afraid of the truth?

"lets thrust this fella"

Personally, I wouldn't be interested in "thrusting" any fella

because he dose not have the credentials, training, or background to make these claims. he is not an expert.
2nd that!

LOL, are you serious?! He's not an expert and does not have the "credentials, training, or background" ?? Really? How can you support that?

Jones was a founding member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth for approximately one year as co-chair .

Jones was a founding member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth for approximately one year as co-chair .

I bet he doesn't give his fee to the cause though.

Key word is FEE,this conspiracy bollocks has turned into a multi million dollar industry,the truth isn't what drives these fuckwits.

These guys obviously don't read anything I post (geez I'm pissed right now lol). This creatard is the last person anyone should go to for the truth, pmsl. Benthams is a 'pay to publish' journal, they get to choose who 'peer reviews' it and this idiot Jones won't say who reviewed his crud, nor what their credentials are!?! I would'nt trust this guy to butter my bread never mind inform me of anything relevant to this subject. Research (ARJ) AKA Answers In Genesis, Benthams is the exact same format, you're buying bullshit hook line and sinker!

For more than a year, like Richard, I've received emails from researchers wondering what was going on. I shared the suspicions of the suspicious, but couldn't answer their questions and wanted to leave room to distinguish a scam from a clumsy start-up. I commend Richard for the hard work of pulling together the most complete picture for public discussion.
Honan says that the company carefully targeted its emails and made only a few mistakes. I wish this were true. But if Bentham knows that researchers are good enough to invite to join an editorial board, then it must know at least the fields in which they work. He says that Bentham will remove anyone from its email lists, or journal mastheads, if they contact the company. If this wasn't true before, I hope it will be true now. He will not name the owners of the company and will not say why. This is very inauspicious, and the owners, whoever they are, should know that.
I applaud Bentham's use of CC-BY licenses for its OA journals. That is good without qualification. However, the policies for its subscription/hybrid journals are not nearly as enlightened. I'm dismayed that Bentham still does not have a self-archiving policy for its TA journals. (I asked Honan about this in January, and he replied that the company was thinking about it.) I'm also dismayed that the policy previewed here would impose a 12 month embargo on self-archiving. That's the longest embargo on green OA I know, and hard to square with Bentham's support for OA. Because the Bentham TA journals offer a hybrid OA option, the restriction on self-archiving appears to be a way to steer authors toward the OA option and and its publication fees.
Finally, I'm not as happy with Bentham's "limited OA option" as Honan is. His rationale is that "the number of citations a paper receives tends to decline after 12 months. So we don't want to charge somebody a lot of money to have their article up for an indefinite period, when the number of citations they receive will all occur in the first six to twelve months...." That's true, but only half the story. It omits the fact that publishers can rarely generate significant revenue from access fees on older articles. Hence, it's in their interest, not just the author's interest, to make articles OA forever once they are OA for 12 months. Publishers have much more to gain from long-term OA (through increased visibility, citations, submissions, and good will) than from the trickle of revenue they'd get by moving an article behind a pay wall. If Bentham can cover its expenses with the half fee plus subsequent trickle, then its full fee is too high --or Bentham hopes that the the option to pay a discounted fee for temporary OA will function as pressure to pay a full fee for permanent OA.

thanx interesting
remember trolls are only talking to themselves if you dont feed them
rip jimmy

thanx interesting
remember trolls are only talking to themselves if you dont feed them
rip jimmy

thanx interesting
remember trolls are only talking to themselves if you dont feed them
rip jimmy

i dont troll im so sick of people muscling around in here

just make a post a move on its so simple
peace all

i dont troll im so sick of people muscling around in here

just make a post a move on its so simple
peace all

Active Thermitic Material" claimed in Ground Zero dust may not be thermitic at all

According to Danish science news site Videnskab.dk, a controversial article claiming that World Trade Center dust samples contained "active thermitic material" was published in the "Open Chemical Physics Journal" without the knowledge or approval of the editor in chief, Marie-Paule Pileni.
The editor in chief has resigned over the incident.
Says Pileni:
“I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.�