The BYU physics professor who thinks explosions brought down the WTC said Wednesday he’s “bowing out of the limelight” and limiting his media appearances to only academic peer reviews.

Conservative Professor Steven E. Jones has been barraged by media appearances since la releasing a 19 page paper last week, saying “pre-positioned explosives” most likely brought down the twin towers as well as Building No. 7.

Professor Jones told the Arctic Beacon in a phone conversation from his BYU office Wednesday, he was disappointed over having to turn down numerous media requests, but felt it was in the best interests of all parties to end the media shower and concentrate again on academics.

He added after discussing the enormous media attention with the heads of BYU, enormous attention coming from all corners of the country, it was jointly decided by all parties it would best for the university and for Jones to limit his speaking engagements to “peer review events only.”

“I want to thank everyone for the attention, but it is best that I limit my appearances at this time,” said Jones in a conversation with the Arctic Beacon Wednesday morning, a parting word which could be his last with the media for quite awhile.

Professor Jones previously granted one of his first interviews after calling the Arctic Beacon last Saturday and appearing on Greg Szymanski’s radio show, “The Investigative Journal,” Monday on the Republic Broadcasting Network. For a replay of the hour-long radio interview go to www.rbnlive.com and for a feature article on Jones go to www.arcticbeacon.com.

“I thoroughly enjoyed your interviews (with the Arctic Beacon) and you were very fair,” added Jones. “I wouldn’t say as much for Tucker Carlson and my appearance on MSNBC, who was short with me and refused to play the video that graphically showed Building 7 come down in a freefall, as I described in the paper I just released.

“I am going to have to turn down the appearance tonight on the Rense show and also have decided not to attend a recent invitation by the philanthropist, Jimmie Walter, to speak at a 9/11 event in Tampa. No hard feelings to anyone but it is just something I have decided is in my best interest.

Before ending his media appearances, Jones tried to explain why he wrote his paper:

“I wanted to limit my discussion to my expertise and that is why I talked mainly about the physics of the freefall of the towers and Building 7,” said Jones, adding he did criticize the so-called “pod theory” or the theory that a “drone plane” was used to crash into the towers.

In his paper, Jones stayed away from commenting on most other aspects of 9/11 except for the freefall of the towers and the limited criticism of the “pod theory.”

“I did receive emails about why I did that (criticized the pod theory) and even told Morgan Reynolds, I really felt it was important to stick with the issues of 9/11 that are the most obvious and the easiest to prove. That is why I wanted to limit my discussion, but in further papers I plan to address other 9/11 issues. Also, I feel the 9/11 community needs to work together and not be splintered by constantly arguing among ourselves over conflicting theories that may take away from the ones we can conclusively prove.”

Jones literally shocked the “Red State” of Utah and the conservative world last week when he released a 19 page paper basically ripping apart the official 9/11 story, limiting his discussion to his expertise in physics and the virtual impossibility of the towers falling from merely jet fuel as the government contends.

Jones earlier said he first presented his explosive conclusions at Brigham Young University (BYU) on September 22, to 60 people from the BYU and Utah Valley State College faculties, including professors of Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Geology, Mathematics and Psychology.

After presently scientific arguments in favor of the controlled demolition theory, Jones said everyone in attendance from all backgrounds, conservative and liberal, were in total agreement further investigation was needed.

“I was quite surprised how my conclusions were received,” said Jones, adding he plans to give two continue telling the public how he came to his startling conclusions essentially ripping apart the official government story that jet fuel brought down the towers, including Building 7.

“In fact, after I researched how Building 7 fell, I am certain there existed pre-positioned explosives to bring down the three buildings.”

Jones added that the contingent of faculty members at the September seminar were all in agreement that the government needed to “come clean” and release more that 6,900 photographs and close to 7,000 segments of video footage, now being held from independent investigation by the FBI and other agencies.

In Jones’ 9,000 word paper, his conclusions why the towers most likely were brought down by a controlled demolition can be summed up as follows.:

• The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job."

• No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns, he says.

• WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.

• With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."

• Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says.

• Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.

• Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal," Jones says.

• Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says.