Professor Steven Jones Says He Was Misquoted; Now Fighting for His
Job at B.Y.U. And Needs Your Help
Jones | August 17, 2006
from Moseley's "9/11 Bush Bashers": At a national conference
broadcast nationwide on C-SPAN, key conspiracy leader Alex Jones announced
that the American government has already collapsed and a shadow government
is now running our country. This radio talk-show host next announced –
on tape – that Osama bin Laden is now a paid agent of the CIA.
Professor Steven Jones of Brigham-Young University accused George Bush of
being a dictator, mimicking the preamble of the Declaration of Independence.
When asked if violent revolution was necessary, this scientist declared –
in front of national TV cameras – that there is no peaceful way to achieve
the group's goals. In the context of the question, professor Jones was calling
for the violent overthrow of the government.
Those publishing this essay should check my actual comments on the C-SPAN broadcast.
I made no such statement that "there is no peaceful way to achieve the
group's goals." This is FALSE, UNTRUE, AND TOTALLY NOT WHAT I ACTUALLY
SAID, NOR DO I IN ANY WAY SUPPORT THIS STATEMENT AT ALL.
I need your help. I have a meeting here now ==very serious -- about my standing
here -- in 1/2 hour. I must prepare.
Please find out who to write to, to protest these untrue statements, so that
after my meeting I will be able to respond. If you would respond in my behalf,
I would deeply appreciate that. These lies need to be challenged, for anyone
can listen to CSPAN and determine that I did not make the alleged comments.
Kevin Ryan, Formerly of UL, Also Refutes Moseley's Statements About
Of the numerous false statements made in the article by Jon Moseley that you
recently published, at least one could result in legal action.
Anyone who actually listens to the CSPAN broadcast of the 9/11 Scholars
group can clearly hear that Moseley's quote of Steven Jones is inaccurate,
to say the least. Dr. Jones did not say that "there is no peaceful way
achieve the group's goals" and Dr. Jones has not promoted violence in any
of his presentations.
A correction of this libelous error might be a wise choice.
Thanks. Kevin Ryan
9/11 Truth Scholar Jim Fetzer Responds Point-By-Point to Moseley's
Truth Seekers, not Bush Bashers: Why doubt 9/11?
Jim Fetzer/ st911.org | August 17, 2006
Bush bashers" by Jon Moseley, worldnetdaily (16 August 2006), alas,
is reprehensible and irresponsible in almost every respect. He abuses language
and logic and attempts to smear me without justification in an apparent effort
to mislead the public from appreciating the objective and scientific findings
about the events of 9/11 that have been established by Scholars for 9/11 Truth,
an organization that I founded and co-chair with Steve Jones, a physicist from
BYU, who has done extensive studies of how the towers were in fact destroyed.
Moseley has been fanatical, even obsessive, about posting attacks upon
members of Scholars. To verify my impression, I did a search on recent Moseley
posts. On 15 August 2006, for example, he posted 15 attacks. On 1 August 2006,
23 July 2006, 19. He would post attacks and post again immediately after
any response in a style that was immature and juvenile. Had they advanced
serious arguments about our findings, they might have been justified in spite
that, but they committed elementary fallacies that made them virtually worthless.
In one recent post, for example, he claimed that the Twin Towers cannot have
come down as the result of controlled demolitions, which, he said, "blow
the first and second floors, so that he building falls down into its own
This is known as trading upon an equivocation, because Moseley's definition
is applicable to standard controlled demolitions, while the towers appear to
have been subject to special kinds of controlled demolition in which they were
blown up from the top down. I explained that to him then, but it was to no avail.
That post revealed the abuse of language. In another, he committed a
logical blunder by maintaining that, because different "conspiracy theories"
are not consistent with one another, they must all be false! But the only inference
that follows is that they cannot all be true! You don't have to have taught
logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years to have
noticed this, but perhaps it helps. I also explained this mistake at the time,
he still choose to repeat it in the article WND published on 16 August 2006.
His blizzard of posts of low intellectual quality led me to send an email
asking about his background and education. In the absence of a response, I offered
my own guess about the kind of person who would behave like this, speculating
that he was 15 years old, very bright, probably Jewish, possibly a resident
Brooklyn, attending a scientific/technological high school, who believes
that he is superior to everyone else and has an obsession to try and prove it!
was commenting on his behavior, not the subject of his posts--and it fits to
In addition to his abuse of me and of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Moseley claims
that, during the LA American Scholars Symposium, Steve Jones asserted "there
is no peaceful way to achieve the groups goals". This is false and misrepresents
his position, which is that only Constitutionally prescribed remedies, such
as impeachment, are appropriate. I was there and verify the libelous character
of Moseley's gross distortion. C-SPAN was also there, and anyone can confirm
this point for themselves by viewing the panel discussion archived on st911.org.
Although he would not identify himself to me, Moseley now tells us that he
is "executive director of the U.S. Seaports Commission". A friend
who's active in Wisconsin politics has told me that this means he is a "political
hack". I don't know what to say about that, but it is apparent that his
posts in these exchanges and his article in WND are intended to mislead the
concerning the state of objective, scientific knowledge of the events of 9/11.
As the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (st911.org), I would observe that
our members have established more than a dozen disproves of the official
government account, the truth of any one of which is enough to show that the
government's account--in one or another of its guises--cannot possibly be correct.
is an overview that offers a thumbnail sketch of 15 important points about
(1) the impact of the planes cannot have caused enough damage
to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand
them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes that
hit were very similar to those they were designed to withstand, and they continued
to stand after those impacts with negligible effects;
(2) the melting point of steel at 2,800*F is about 1,000*F
higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do
not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, so the fires cannot have caused
the steel to melt, which means that melting steel did not bring the buildings
(3) UL had certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000*F
for at least six hours before it would even significantly weaken, where these
fires burned too low and too briefly--about one hour in the South Tower and
one and a half in the North--to have even caused the steel to weaken, much less
(4) if the steel had melted or weakened, the affected floors
would have displayed completely different behavior, with some asymmetrical sagging
and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt,
and total demolition that was observed;
(5) there was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of
one floor to bring about the collapse of the next lower floor, even if the impact
of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken,
which means that, even if one floor had collapsed due to the impacts and the
fires, that could not have caused lower floors to fall;
(6) there was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of
one floor to bring about the pulverization of the next floor, even if the impact
of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken
and one floor to collapse upon another, which required a massive source of energy
beyond any that the government has considered;
(7) heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers,
built with more than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of "pancake
collapse", which can only occur with concrete structures of "lift
slab" construction and could not occur in "redundant" welded-steel
buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at
the same time, as Charles Pagelow has pointed out to me;
(8) the destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of
the North in 11 is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which
would have taken at least 12 seconds, which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is
an astounding result that would have been impossible without extremely powerful
(9) the towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing
to the ground, where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has
likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like
the pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain;
(10) pools of molten metal were found at the subbasement levels
three, four, and five weeks later, an effect that could not have been produced
by the plane-impact/jet-fuel-fire/pancake collapse scenario, which, of course,
implies that it was not produced by such a cause;
(11) WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at
5:20 PM/ET after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to
"pull it", displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled
demolitions, including a complete, abrupt, and total collapse into its own footprint,
where the floors are all falling at the same time, and so forth, an event so
embarrassing to the official account that it is not even mentioned in THE 9/11
(12) the hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate
a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above
the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings,
no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Which means that the
building was not hit by a Boeing 757!
(13) the Pentagon's own videotape does not show a Boeing 757
hitting the building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when it was shown on "The
Factor"; but at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the
71-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and visible; it was not,
which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!
(14) the aerodynamics of flight would have made the official
trajectory--flying at high speed barely above ground level--physically impossible;
and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater;
but there is no crater and the government has no way out, which means that the
building was not hit by a Boeing 757!
(15) if Flight 93 had come down as advertised, then there
would have been a debris field of about a city block in size, but in fact the
debris is distributed over an area of about eight square miles, which would
be explainable if the plane had been shot down in the air but not if it had
crashed as required by the government's official scenario.
There are more, especially about the alleged hijackers, including that they
were not competent to fly the planes; their names were not on any passenger
manifest; they were not subject to any autopsy; several have turned up alive
and well; the cell phone calls appear to have been impossible; on and on. The
evidence is archived at st911.org. No matter what Moseley may write, our objective
is seeking truth, not bashing Bush.
World Net Daily Forced To Issue 9/11 Hit Piece Retraction
"No such comments made by Jones," admits website as another
attack exposed for baseless allegations and shoddy research
Paul Joseph Watson/Prison
Planet.com | August 18 2006
Following a radio show debate yesterday in which a 9/11 hit piece article written
by Jonathon Moseley for World Net Daily was
exposed as containing numerous flaws and baseless allegations, the online
news site was later forced to issue a retraction.
One of the most glaring inaccuracies of the article was Moseley's claim that
Professor Steven Jones of the 9/11 Truth Scholars, during a conference aired
on C-Span, called "for the violent overthrow of the government."
After painstaking analysis of all the tapes from the conference there was no
evidence whatsoever that a statement even close to this nature was ever made
Following the radio debate, World Net Daily were pressed into issuing the following
retraction on their website.
Editor's note, Aug. 17, 2006: In paragraph four of this column, the author
makes an assertion about professor Steven Jones' remarks at a 9/11 symposium
broadcast by C-SPAN. A review of the program online evidenced no such comments
Despite the fact that the claim has been ridiculed and a retraction issued,
it can still be read in the fourth paragraph of the article. Since the false
claim is potentially damaging to Professor Steven Jones' career - it should
be removed altogether.
The last major instance where a retraction to a 9/11 hit piece was issued was
in the case of Cinnamon
Stillwell's San Francisco Chronicle article in which she claimed that the
"whole country witnessed the horrific sight of planes flying into the....Pentagon,"
an obviously fraudulent claim given that no clear footage of whatever hit the
Pentagon was shown on 9/11 or to this day.
"Cinnamon Stillwell's column Wednesday on SFGate originally stated that
images of the plane that struck the Pentagon had been seen by the American
public. No such images have been made public," read the Chronicle's retraction.
Now we have forced two major websites, one being one of the biggest newspapers
in the country, to eat crow and in the case of the journalists concerned, expose
themselves as narrow-minded and inept in performing the most basic research
Mistakes mirrored by other large newspapers who seem gung-ho about attacking
9/11 researchers yet seem to struggle when it comes to actually naming them
correctly or accurately citing their work.
This latest example of ineptitude on the part of Moseley and World Net Daily
only brings their other claims about 9/11 under further scrutiny. If they can't
even ascribe the correct statements to the right people, yet use false allegations
to try and smear the characters of respected professionals, how can we trust
their assertions that 9/11 skeptics are wrong?
The agenda of these individuals is not to research the subject matter and present
an honest appraisal of the evidence, it is to zealously savage and try and discredit
the 9/11 truth movement. In most cases this isn't because they are on a CIA
payroll, it's because any dissenting voice that challenges their cosey world
view is an affront to them - and they will go to any lengths to shout us down
- including inventing quotes and using them to tar people with.
Unfortunately, their faux pas are as stiflingly obvious as a turd in a punch
bowl - and their credibility sinks ever deeper each time they try and pull one
of these stunts.
Following a spate of editorials which sought to debunk
the 9/11 truth movement and personally attack its progenitors, released
on cue almost as if an order went out, this website will continue to defend
our friends and colleagues from unfounded personal attacks and also counter
any attempts to debunk credible 9/11 evidence.
Read from Looking Glass News
Investigative Journalist Harassed And Beaten At His Home By Undercover Cops
for 9/11 Truth under Attack
Iran-Contra Criminal Grills Jim Fetzer
Skeptic on 9/11 Prompts Questions on Academic Freedom
Teacher Persecuted for 9/11 Heresy
Ward Churchill, 9/11 Official Version Guardian
Receives Customary Death Threats
Destruction of the World Trade Center
Half-Dozen Questions About 9/11 They Don't Want You to Ask
reasons to question the official story of 9/11
: ON THE EVE OF DESTRUCTION
Reasons to Question the Official 9/11 Story
Evidence that Official 9/11 Story is a Lie
Flight 77 Hitting The Pentagon Would Really Look?
"Come Out of the White House with Your Hands Up!"
Larry Silverstein can’t get it up