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
9 Responses
wow, i think it has if any, little, Im mormon and my sister is going to BYU this fall!
Now that utah is the first state to legalize concealed weapons on campus, I’m sure one of his students that disagree with him will cap his a*ss. It’s getting crazy in this country.
I would not be surprised to learn that some branch of our government conspired either actively to promote or passively to allow the attack on 9/11. For those who watched this tragedy used for reactionary political ends, it’s easy to conjure up a variety of possible conspiratorial motives that would have led the president, the vice president, or some branch of the armed forces or CIA or FBI or other “security†forces to have passively or actively participated in a plot to re-credit militarism and war, which had been losing their appeal after the collapse of communism. We’ve learned enough about the subsequent ways that the Bush administration lied to the American public to no longer be shocked if they had been some active involvement by them in these deeds.
Please have a look at this web site , the article was written by Dr. David Ray Griffin
The New Pearl Harbor, Griffin supports the work of other theorists who assert that elements of the US government were behind the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center in New York City. He purports to use his training in logic to analyze the validity of their arguments. Griffin states the overall thesis of his argument: There should be a well funded and thorough-going investigation of all the questions raised about the 9/11 attack. Griffin also appeared on C-SPAN that covered his talk, ‘9/11 and American Empire: How should religious people respond?’
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20051202&articleId=1391
He has several other scientists, and common sense behind him.
Professor Jones has not credibility, no standing in the community, and generally makes all other professors look bad in the mean time. Professor Jones needs to either stick to physics or retire. He has no business in trying to meddle in criminal justice and political science matters.
Not with me & I have dozens of friends with children at BYU.
He does not have the experience to apply any knowledge he has to make such bold statements. He likes attention & has been wrong before.
I initially thought so. I mean he is from a very conservative University, and a Professor.
He put together some compelling information. And I watched his slide shows and diagrams and read his info.
Then I looked elsewhere and pretty much everything he has said has shown to be lacking and misunderstood and its all been totally disproven.
We find that his expertise is not an expert of any kind relating to this incident ( structural engineer, metallurgist, demolitions expert ).
He kept on this theory for a long time.. after the theories were pretty well quashed and disproven and he kept it up for about a year or so the University finally fired him.
Greetings,
I’m not understanding your motivation in this statement, nor am I understanding why the distinguished Professor Jones would risk his career if he was uncertain about his conclusions. The details Professor Jones has provided is very credible and persuasive to me.
It’s wonderful to have someone with such excellent credentials stand up and express a challenge to this popular rumor which has gained enormous momentum (pun intended). I’m a bit tired of people simply saying they are the experts and just trust them. Professor Jones has clearly laid out his claims, fortunately.
Can you refute some of his 13 points? I’d like to be able to convince myself that Jones is wrong, because I would like to believe that the airplane collisions were the cause of the collapse of the three buildings.
Given your outstanding credentials, I was hoping that you to be able to find or generate a persuasive computer model for the collapse. I’m very interested in how the buildings collapsed at free fall speed? I assume that you do not support the pancake theory offered by the 911 Commission report. But, can you offer us a plausible theory that does not involve demolition?
In order for the building to collapse at near-free fall speed, I believe that most of the 47 steel support columns had to be destroyed at many levels. Alternatively, the floors would have to become detached at multiple levels. Which is correct or is there another theory?
The NOVA special showed how the floors could become detached causing a free fall speed of the floors. The only problem is that the 47 steel support columns would have remained up and mostly intact. Why was the support structure destroyed.
I cannot pretend to have the same credentials that you have, but even a Physics 101 student can determine that the official “pancake theory” is obviously flawed and the floor detachment theory has the 47 steel support column flaw.
Can you help me understand how the buildings collapsed at free fall speed and why they fell straight down?
I’m a skeptic, so I need something substantial. Right now, Professor Jones is the only expert that has presented a coherent and rational explanation. The official explanations have all come up way short. Unfortunately, the few sentences that you’ve included here are not persuasive. Please publish more. I do want to be convinced that Professor Jones is wrong!
GODS we need more posts like this!
Facts, the names of opposing views (Professor Jones), sources for the facts, etc.
Except for those desperate to believe their own propaganda (we have a few that even answer themselves in enthusiastically positive ways, just to feed their self-image), why would anyone post anything but this or direct questions where one doesn’t have a possible answer?
At present, I hypothesize that he has little credibility IN THAT FIELD. I withhold judgment until I can gather more information and make an informed decision.
Would that more people did that as well.
I’m amazed that people behave as if the U.S. government is “guilty” and they have to PROVE their innocence. It’s a sad example of the loss of American values amongst those who are unwilling to actively participate in government (the government being anyone but them, the MAN, or whatever they do to disown their own responsibility in a democratic representative republic (I believe there is one more aspect to our government, but I’m close enough).
I’m also confused as it seemed as if one of the people disagreeing (in a fairly agreeable way, I might add) thought that D. Allan Firmage’s credentials were your own (or am I mistaken?).
Thank you for the amazingly well-designed post.