Professor Steven Jones: "9/11 Revisited: Scientific and Ethical Questions"

On February 1, 2006, BYU Professor Steven E. Jones gave a public lecture on the various anomalies of 9/11. The lecture took place at the Utah State Valley College in Orem.


Professor Jones

The nearly 2-hour lecture was broad in scope, and very well attended. The main lecture hall which held around 250 was filled to standing-room only, and the two annex rooms with live feeds were also full.


Full House

Jones began his lecture from a patriotic point of view, summoning the words of Patrick Henry, and framing 9/11 truthseeking as a struggle for liberty and truth.



Jones then moved quickly to the heart of the matter, the video footage of the "collapse" of WTC7, which Tucker Carlson and MSNBC would not air when they interviewed Jones.


Controlled Demolition?

It's clear that WTC7 is the anomaly which drew Jones into 9/11 truthseeking. The available video footage of the collapse was shown, alongside footage of known controlled demolitions. The similarities are eerie, and old hat for most people researching the events of 9/11, but when Jones asked for a show of hands among the audience, just under half of the attendees had never seen the footage before.

Such a basic sequence of video footage that shows a serious problem both with the official narrative of the events of 9/11 and the shortcomings of the NIST investigations, and it is still largely unknown outside the 9/11 research community.


Humor, ar, ar.

Jones is an excellent public speaker, and he addressed the crowd in an uncondescending manner, presuming no special of knowledge of Physics from the audience as he presented slide after slide interspersed with video clips all packaged in a slick PowerPoint presentation.

Among the slides were quotes from engineers, explosives experts and other similarly related professionals who are slowly coming out of the woodwork and questioning the events of 9/11.



Moving away from the purely physical attributes of 9/11 skepticism, Jones then addressed the elephant in the room, PNAC, and their agenda. Neoconservatism and its Machiavellian tendencies were singled out for special criticism by Jones, as he, a professed life-long Republican now distances himself from the party.


PNAC

The agenda of pre-emptive war, enabled by the events of 9/11, was labelled unconstitutional by Jones, torture was condemned, and a call was put out for a return to a more practical application of again, the Constitution.

Jones covered a lot of ground, from the failure of American air defenses on 9/11, to "data falsification" from OSHA and the EPA.



Judging from the standing ovation that Jones got at the end of his presentation, it was well received by a motley crowd of blue collar workers, students, and various representatives of the "Well-Heeled".

A careful blend of fact and very logical speculation made Jones' seminar a pleasure to behold, especially for those in the crowd who are new to all of this.

----------------------------------------

(I'll post a link to the entire series of slides later on.)

"Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" by Steven E. Jones


http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

Cant we put this insanity to rest already?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's time that everyone on here faced the facts: something other than Bushco's official story of "Osama and the 19 cavemen" happened on 9/11.

None of us knows exactly what, but there are plenty of resources and credible researchers, like Mr. Jones, who are trying to piece it together. There are many many areas of controversy; the towers collapse is just one small piece of the puzzle.

Please be supportive of those who are trying to figure it out. The entire, fraudulent, corrupt Bushco administration has been built on the 9/11 foundation. None of their subsequent heinous acts would have been possible without it.

Thanks.

It's important to start talking about this in the open and we really don't know what happened.

just check out this video of Dan Rather talking about building 7 deliberately being blown by dynamite:

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc_7_cbs.mpg

There's one where he likens the the appearance of the collapse to more familiar video of controlled collapses, but he never claimed that 7 was deliberately blown. If you can point to one where he did, point it out (the exact one, not just a page full of them).

Thank you.

Everything this Administration has fed us has been a lie... to believe the official story of 9/11 would be like believing the official story on the Valerie Plame leak and believe that BRownie really was doing a heck of a job. There is precious little evidence that the towers were brought down simply from the heat of burning jet fuel (in fact, there's been a lot of expert evidence to prove that theory is bunk) but a lot of expert evidence to prove the the official explanation is chuck full of holes. The magic bullet theory is more believable in most respects.

but you can't take the opinions of a physics professor from a major university lightly. I for one would like to see more objective scientific discourse on the subject.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Is the same BS garbage that you and your fellow conspiracy mongers have been wanting DU to embarrass itself with for years.

I don't get it with the adamand official theory apologists. Is every question about 9/11 garbage? Only the controlled demolition part? Do you believe in the amazing coincidence and complete incompetence only theory? Is it still possible to believe that given all the facts that have been developed?

...if you think the 9-11 Commission's explanation (they chose not to speak of building 7 by the way) as believable you should support it with facts. Explain why the buildings come down at nearly free fall speed. This is typical of controlled demolition, not collapse due to fire, which is unheard of for structures of that type until the 9-11 Commission dreamed it up.

Bush's cousin was the head of the company in charge of WTC security, Chertoff's cousin wrote the PM hit piece. My goodness, it's a Crime Family Affair!

You finally guessed our evil plan. :)

Actually-- to question the government is PATRIOTIC.

Got it?

all of those link

someone has to be the adult

That would hold up in a court of law as proof of their version of 9/11 events.

Not a single piece.

None.

Nada.

Zilch.

Only, THEIR WORD.

Even the bin Laden tape where he claimed to take responsibility has been determined by Swiss scientist to be highly questionable.

So given how much they are already known to lie, what could possibly make you think they're telling the truth on this?

Just the fact that some of the hijackers are still alive pulls their story apart.

BBC News (not a BS site):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

And ask anyone who has done even the slightest bit of serious research on 9/11. They will tell you there is tons of evidence to support at least LIHOP, if not MIHOP. And the government changes their story, every time they get caught in another lie.

The BS is the government's story and the PM story. The truth is, nobody (on the outside) knows exactly what happened on that day. We only know what COULDN'T POSSIBLY HAVE HAPPENED, which is their version.

http://wtc.nist.gov/

http://www.9-11commission.gov/


and watch out for the black helicopters coming to get you.....

Neither report mentions the WTC7 collapse (well, the NIST says it still has not determined the cause of the WTC7 collapse, as of its final conclusion). And it neglects to mention the steel cores in the middle of the buildings which were put there to withstand things like airliners.

The 9/11 report doesn't mention WTC7 at all, except as perhaps a footnote.

Don't you find that odd?

Another gem from the 9/11 report is that they say it's not consequential to the investigation to determine where the financing for the attacks came from.

Isn't it Rule #1 to Follow The Money when you're investigating a crime?

There are in fact hundreds of unresolved issues in the 9/11 report. Just ask the Jersey Girls whose husbands died on 9/11.

one does not quickly sell the physical evidence and ship it overseas. The NIST report is based on a complete dearth of true investigation - as intended.

Welcome to DU, peace_on_earth.

IS NOT admissable in a court of law in the United States.

Just a single piece!

One has to wonder. Why is it so important to you to try to make people be quiet about this, that you resort to insults and personal attacks?

There's a good book out there about the omissions in the 911 Commission Report - you might want to read it before dismissing everyone who disagrees with you, but somehow, I think you aren't interested. There are quite a few good books out there, actually.

Even if you completely accept the "official" story - why did the administration stonewall, refuse to cooperate, do everything they could to make sure it wasn't REALLY investigated? Doesn't that alone make you wonder? Wouldn't it make sense that they'd WANT to know exactly what happened? Nothing about what happened that day or after, with regard to the administration, makes ANY sense, from our pResident sitting and reading a child's book when our country was under attack, to the attempts to stop any kind of investigation. The behavior of our "leaders" was more than a little odd. I was never a conspiracy theorist, but I DO have common sense, and something just is not right here. I don't have the answers, but neither does the "offial" report.

I do know that this administration was able to follow an agenda they had all planned and set to go, but would have been unable to go through with, until 9/11 happened. They said they needed a "new Pearl Harbor", and they got one - did they just get lucky? I think not. You call it a "fantasy land", I call it common sense.

Happy flying.....

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

how many other lies have they fed us? Until or if we get an independent investigation into all the facts, you believe this administration's "truth" about the facts of 9/11 at your own peril.

If so, why did WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein say this?

"I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.' Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

What is your interpretation of this statement?

Thanks.

Seems obvious to me.

Why, what do you think it means?

Sid

and to expect to have all of your questions (which you are right to ask!) answered right here and now is unreasonable. YOU have to do your homework. Go to our 9-11 forum, go to the numerous other 9-11 websites, read some books, watch some videos, keep an open mind, and THEN come to your own conclusion.

The term "Pull It", in the demolition-Building
business, means, Bring It Down With Charges.

Are you being serious?

Never before has a fire brought down a building
like w.t.c.#7...It was a relatively small fire,
IT COULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT DOWN THE BUILDING!
:hi:

demolish

verb

To pull down or break up so that reconstruction is impossible: destroy, dismantle, dynamite, knock down, level, pull down, pulverize, raze, tear down, wreck. Aerospace destruct. See help/harm/harmless.
To cause the complete ruin or wreckage of: bankrupt, break down, cross up, destroy, finish, ruin, shatter, sink, smash, spoil, torpedo, undo, wash up, wrack, wreck. Slang total. Idioms: put the kibosh on. See help/harm/harmless.

http://www.answers.com/topic/demolish

Why not say, "pull them out" or "pull the firefighters out" or "pull them" or "give up" or "give up fighting the fire"?

Can you direct me to a plausible explanation of how and why WTC7 came down? All at once, like that?

Not confrontational, just curious.

There is ZERO reason Silverstein would destroy his own building.

plus, loss of millions in monthly income

yeah, great incentive

Link(s), please...

Thank you.

Silverstein got a paltry amount compared to the value of the WTC complex. Plus its not just insurance, he lost ALL of the leases. He's getting now killed trying to lease the WTC7 building. That is the major loss that no insurance could ever cover. There was no financial incentive for him to destroy his own buildings.

http://www.forbes.com/home_europe/2003/09/26/cx_da_0926wtc2.html

Silverstein Loses World Trade Center Appeal
Dan Ackman, 09.26.03, 5:00 PM ET

NEW YORK - A federal appeals court in a ruling issued today, substantially affirmed the position taken by the insurance industry that Silverstein Properties, the leaseholder to the devastated World Trade Center, likely can claim no more than the $3.5 billion insurance policy limit.

While the appeals court did allow for a jury trial concerning the interpretation of certain terms in the contracts with 22 insurers, the court largely upheld the insurers' claim that Silverstein itself advocated a definition that would preclude its theory that the attack on the buildings should be considered two "occurrences" allowing for two separate insurance claims. The decision leaves in doubt Silverstein's financial ability to rebuild the Ground Zero site.

http://images.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html

Trade Center Financing On Shaky Ground
Dan Ackman, 09.11.03, 11:00 AM ET

NEW YORK - Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks destroyed the World Trade Center, there has been tremendous worldwide concern about what the rebuilt complex might look like. That question has largely been answered, at least in broad outline. Meanwhile, though, there is a serious question about where the money will come from to pay for it.

Larry A. Silverstein, whose Silverstein Properties obtained a 99-year lease for the Twin Towers and other portions of the complex just weeks before the catastrophe, says he has both the right and the obligation to rebuild and he intends to do so. The money Silverstein needs, he says, will come from the proceeds of his insurance policy on the towers.

Silverstein says those proceeds should come to $7 billion. No one has made a serious estimate of the cost of rebuilding. But Gerald McKelvey, a spokesman for the developer, says with a chuckle, "It's probably about $7 billion." What if Silverstein loses in court and doesn't get the full amount? "He's never gone beyond that," McKelvey says. A spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey says Silverstein has assured them he has the resources to complete construction, and they have no reason to question it.

It seems more than likely, though, that Silverstein will wind up with something closer to $3.5 billion. If that's all he gets out of the court fight with his insurers, it means that the rebuilding of the Trade Center site will have to be rethought.

Silverstein Wins Latest WTC Insurance Payment Case

(archrecord.construction.com - 12/08/04)

By Kevin Lerner

On December 6, a federal jury decided that the two planes that crashed into the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001, were two separate attacks, entitling Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder, to approximately $2.2 billion from nine different insurance companies. Had the jury, in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, decided that the two planes constituted only a single attack, Silverstein would only have been paid half of that.

Silverstein lost a first trial regarding insurance payouts earlier this year, but this new jury’s decision means the developer could ultimately collect $4.6 billion for the Sept. 11 attacks.

While that decision may still be overturned on appeal, the promise of more money may attract private investors to the site, or help Silverstein attract tenants for the two World Trade Center buildings he is already building, including 7 World Trade Center, where workers completed the steel frame in October, and at the landmark 1776-foot tall Freedom Tower. Neither of the buildings has a tenant.

<snip>

http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/AR/20041208r.asp


WTC Insurance Trial in Its Final Phase
Jurors urged to reject bid to 'exploit' attack's timing
Mark Hamblett
New York Law Journal
04-15-2004

World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein's bid to recover almost $7 billion in insurance money reached a critical phase Wednesday as his lead attorney said insurers were trying to avoid meeting their full obligations under policies still being negotiated when the towers were destroyed on Sept. 11, 2001.

Attorney Herbert Wachtell told a jury that key witnesses for the insurance industry were less than credible when they claimed during trial that they always assumed a restrictive definition of the term "occurrence" was in place when the Trade Center was attacked by terrorists piloting hijacked planes.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1081792929964

WTC Verdict Won't Hike Insurance Prices

Even if the insurers lose their second-phase appeal, observers don't expect companies to hike premiums.

Stephen Taub, CFO.com
December 08, 2004

Despite losing a lawsuit related to the World Trade Center collapse, officials at property/casualty companies say that other corporate customers will not be affected by their financial loss.

Earlier this week, a jury decided that, for insurance purposes, the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center were two separate occurrences. That verdict was a win for Larry Silverstein, the World Trade Center’s leaseholder, who has been wrapped up in insurance lawsuits for three years. Silverstein lost the first phase of the WTC insurance case earlier this year.

http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/3469961/c_3470317?f=home_todayinfinance

I can dig up some more to see where it stands today if you'd like....

It might barely cover the cost of building a second tower (after the Freedom tower), but not not the third and 4th.

Freedom Tower will be 2.6 million sf, Tower 2 is supposed to be 2.2 million sf.


He's still 5 million sf underwater that he is obligated to rebuild and no money to accomplish that goal.

which reflects on your credibility on other 9/11 matters. Silverstein was a leaseholder, not an owner of the "bricks and mortar" of the complex. Basically he did not purchase the buildings in mid 2001; he purchased the discounted present value of the difference between the projected rents from tenants and his operating expenses and a return on investment.

Hence although the towers were worth much more, he gained control of the complex with a winning bid of around $3 billion, much of it financed by banks.

With the towers destroyed, he received no rents and his rental obligations to the PA were excused. He is likely to receive $7 billion in insurance (twice his consortium's investment -- and an even more spectacular return to Silverstein himself, considering the original investment was debt leveraged), plus control of the site.

Basically Silverstein gained $3-4 billion profit, control over the richest real estate in NYC and basically a fund the pay for new buildings.

Excellent points, thank you. Yes, Silverstein was the leaseholder, not the owner.

He does not have control of the World trade Center, he has a 99 year lease and Is still responsible for making million dollar monthy payments whether the buildings are there or not. He owes $120 million a year to the PA to lease the now empty WTC complex. He did own WTC7 and has lost millions in rent. Silverstein is also obligated to rebuild the WTC complex under terms of his lease.

His rental obligations were not excused.

Bloomberg is considering tossing him out completely.

this is from Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein_print.html

In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding. His lenders, led by GMAC, a unit of General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ), which financed nearly the entire cost of the lease, agreed.

Some of the insurance companies have accused Silverstein of manipulating the press coverage of the litigation. These insurers said the whole idea that there were two occurrences mandating two payouts was concocted by Wachtell. If this is the case, Silverstein certainly would not be the first businessman who has used the best legal minds to press his advantage. It's not inconceivable that the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals will agree with him, though at the District Court level he has lost so far.

Despite the pitfalls, Silverstein has gotten everyone else in the process--apart from the insurers--to back his vision, and he also has been able to have his architect take the lead in the redesign. As long as he continues to make payments (perhaps financed by the insurers with whom he has settled), the Port Authority continues to insist that Silverstein will pay to rebuild the commercial parts of the site. (The federal government will finance the transportation hub; others may pay for the memorial or for the cost of expanding the site's original 16 acres.)

http://thewebfairy.com/911/pullit/

and

http://thewebfairy.com/911/pullit/pull-it2_lo.wmv

The insanity has been in the cover-up of 9-11!

There have been MANY EXPERTS who've come forward
who'd disagree with your pronouncement about
demolition charges, as they are the only thing
that could've brought down W.T.C. Building #7.

What evidence do you have to support your statement?
:shrug:

Zero evidence of demolition charges.

with this kind of cheap nil-information?

Don't you fear people will realize that you're spreading claims without even trying to support them with arguments?

Move on. Your comments are welcome.

"Don't you fear people will realize that you're spreading claims without even trying to support them with arguments? "

thats how I feel when I read the kook MIHOP websites

It's not funny!
People died...we've LOST our freedoms!

"Kook MIHOP websites"...Ummm NOT!!!

Hello!!! RESPECTED PHYSICS PROFESSORS!!!!

You're WAY off.

Anything to add except insults? 3000 people died on American soil on 9/11. No accountability. Bush ignored the warnings and, at the very least, let it occur through gross criminal negligence. He failed his oath of Office. He should be impeached and tried for the incompetence (he hasn't caught Osama) and war crimes (he lied about the Causis Belli in his elective war on Iraq).

"Insane experts"...NOT!

These are RESPECTED PHYSICS TEACHERS.

Who are YOU?

For one reason or another...

This article proves beyond a reasonable doubt that based on the evidence, controlled demolition of the WTC is likely, while the government's claim that the planes alone caused the buildings to collapse is virtually impossible.

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

If you read the article and still deny these assertions, you are not a rational human being, pure and simple.

The WTC7 footage is undeniable proof that something is not right with 9/11.

And the more you look at it, the more questions emerge.

"Loose Change" 9/11 Video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194

Possible Demo Explosions Seen Below WTC Collapse (Go to 38:15)

Shanksville, PA Scattered Debris - (Go to 46:05)

Project Achilles - Cellphones Don't Work (Go to 54:10)

you need to do a little research before you make such a broad, sweeping, unverifiable statement. All of the "History Channel"-type "investigations" set out to prove your statement, but have failed to do so, and have ignored much evidence in order to try to do so.

Simple denial is not a valid argument. People can be shown all the EVIDENCE in the world and still say that they do not belive something. I am not surprised being that we live in a world where a majority of people belive in something that there is no proof of...God. This shows me that people belive what they want...regardless of evidence.

K & R!!

Thanks, reprehensor.

as more and more people get to view the information out there...more and more people will realize how sinister 9/11 really was

:kick: and nominated

Perhaps if this post makes the Greatest page, it won't be quickly shunted to the DU basement or deleted outright as "conspiracy theory."

That quote from Patrick Henry really gets me:

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know it -- now."

I am willing to know the whole truth also.

Professor Jones is at BYU, he's probably Mormon and most likely Republican. Any yet he can't ignore the science and the efidence. If my memory serves me right, he isn't saying who did what, but that it just doesn't make sense scientifically.

Trudy

but a Democrat.

the key Commissioners (Kean and Hamilton)? Why did they get to set the ground rules for their testimony?

3000 people died and no justice served - no one held accountable. The root of all the crimes committed by this administrations began when we took a walk on finding the truth about what happened on 9/11.

the info on ABLE DANGER?

spoke of PNAC.

YES!
I Hope & pray that more Professors Of Truth come forward.
Righteous!
:hi:

TRUTH

who feel the hijacking had to be an inside job in order to pull off.

And it is great that a physics professor is doing so. I hope that he goes on tour with this, it is a subject that badly needs to be seen by as many people as possible.

And the physics of this are entirely wrong. Before 911, no structural steel buildings had collapsed due to fire, yet miraculsly three fall to that very cause, all in one day, all virtually straight down into their own footprint. And all caused by a fire whose maximum possible temperature could not even reach the minimum needed for weakening structural steel, much less structural steel encased in fireproofing material.

The Looniest of All 9-11 Conspiracy Theories
Written by Gerard Holmgren

Astute observers of history are aware that for every notable event there will usually be at least one, often several wild conspiracy theories which spring up around it. 'The CIA killed Hendrix', 'The Pope had John Lennon murdered', 'Hitler was half Werewolf', 'Space aliens replaced Nixon with a clone' etc, etc. The bigger the event, the more ridiculous and more numerous are the fanciful rantings which circulate in relation to it. So it’s hardly surprising that the events of September 11th, 2001 have spawned their fair share of these ludicrous fairy tales. And as always, there is -- sadly -- a small but gullible percentage of the population eager to lap up these tall tales, regardless of facts or rational analysis.
<snip>
These crackpots even contend that the extremist Bush regime was caught unaware by the attacks, had no hand in organizing them, and actually would have stopped them if it had been able. Blindly ignoring the stand down of the US air-force, the insider trading on airline stocks -- linked to the CIA -- the complicit behavior of Bush on the morning of the attacks, the controlled demolition of the WTC, the firing of a missile into the Pentagon and a host of other documented proofs that the Bush regime was behind the attacks, the conspiracy theorists stick doggedly to a silly story about nineteen Arab hijackers somehow managing to commandeer four planes simultaneously and fly them around US airspace for nearly two hours, crashing them into important buildings, without the US intelligence services having any idea that it was coming, and without the Air Force knowing what to do.
<snip>
"Uh, how come their passports survived fiery crashes that completely incinerated the planes and all the passengers? "The answer of course is that its just one of those strange coincidences, those little quirks of fate that do happen from time to time. You know, like the same person winning the lottery four weeks in a row. The odds are astronomical, but these things do happen.
more ....
http://www.bushstole04.com/looniest_of_all_911.htm

:hi:

:toast:

"60 Minutes"

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11222.htm

Thank you!!! :hug: I just LOVE truthseekers!!! :bounce:

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This is not another "What hit the Pentagon" thread posted here anonymously. This is an educator with a strong science background challenging the Official Conspiracy Theory.

I can understand why many would be unable to get their heads around the idea just after 9/11. But we've had 5 years to understand the events in context with the neocon blueprint to Americanize the world and the facts that they ignored the warnings leading up to that event. People who disbelieve LIHOP are the ultimate reality deniers.

For that, I give them a whole lotta thanks and credit.

Cheers.

As Rummy would say, "The lack of evidence is the evidence." What kind of person refuses to testify under oath concerning a national security breach of this magnitude?

LIHOP, MIHOP, some other HOP, whatever. I agree with the astute poster who noted that it is critical to examine 9/11 in all its details because it is the singular event by which the neocon agenda has been implemented in this country and in the Middle East. Immediately you have Rummy calling for evidence against Iraq. Two years later we invade Iraq. Now the war drums beat for Iran. Don't suspend your critical thinking when it comes to this matter, and by all means follow the money, absolutely. I'm sure there are those who still don't believe the truth of the Reichstag fire either.

How in God's name people fail to see bush's incompetence and criminal negligence in the events of September 11, 2001 is beyond me, but there is no point in mocking people as tinfoil hat wearers when 9/11 was never fully investigated. In fact the surface was barely even scratched. Remember, $69 billion American tax dollars to investigate Clinton, $19 billion or less to investigate September 11, 2001."

We have yet to hear the truth. We need the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help us God.

If you can mirror, please do. Please do not use these jpegs commercially, i.e. republish for money. Professor Jones was kind enough to provide his seminar to the public, for free.

Prof. Jones compiled his PowerPoint presentation for educational purposes under the 'fair use' umbrella. In that spirit, I'm providing these for all the people who never got to see this event.

There are 73 slides, I'll group them in 10's, and the last set in 13.





















Continued...

Continued...

Continued...

Continued...

Continued...

Continued...

Finis.

(There were a handfull of slides that I didn't manage to capture, but this gives a pretty good idea of what happened.)

:toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast:

"Error: You can't recommend threads from this forum" (you lunatic conspiracy tinhead.)

And it should be the GOVERNMENT's obligation-- NOT THE PEOPLE's-- to prove their "theory" of 9/11 as an unforeseeable act of terror for which the government had no viable defense.

People, including some DU posters, who demand "hard evidence" of LIHOP before ascribing any significance to critical theories, are erecting unfair and impossible barriers to the reasoned evaluation of the many irreconcilable facts associated with that infamous date.

Who knows...maybe in the end Condi is right and "...nobody could have envisioned terrorists using aircraft as missles..." and Bush's version will go permanently into the history books.

But, Good Gawd, people. Not without a fight!

If you have the technical ability to set up a Torrent, please help out.

If you can mirror the MP3, please do.

(Right click, download - around 63megs)

http://www.911blogger.com/files/audio/BYU_Professor_Steven_E_Jones_at_UVSC_February_1_2006_911_9-11_Lecture_Bombs_WTC_September_11.mp3

In the Summer of 2004 I spent a lot of time researching 9/11 and posting about it on the Kerry Forum. If I recall, Helderheid was there too (Hi, Helderheid! I posted under Kitty27), and we all debated 9/11 ad nauseum for months. A small group of us had done tons of research and knew the evidence cold. The rest of the folks there consisted of perhaps 30% who were really curious and wanted to know the facts, and another 50%-60% who constantly called us conspiracy theorists, tin-foil-hat whacko nutjobs, and a whole lot worse.

And, the forum mods deleted our threads on a regular basis, out of fear that the topic might reflect poorly on Kerry's campaign. This was frustrating, because we would have to repost all of our evidence again and again, and answer the same questions over and over. But, we hung in there until the election, when the forum went away.

So, in all, there were probably only about 15% of us who were convinced of MIHOP/LIHOP, and had the facts to back up these opinions. That left about 85% who either didn't know, or people who lashed out and resorted to name calling. That psychology was certainly understandable, given that it's an awful process to go through when you begin to open your mind to the possibility that your own government could have been involved in such an atrocious crime. I know it took me about three days of intense deliberation, thinking, "No way! They would never do that!! Could it be? Nah!!" It was hell for me to wake up and realize that just perhaps, they would. So I looked at the evidence, and their LACK of evidence, and their motives, and it began to seem like a possibility. I was really close to the attacks in NYC - in fact, I thought I had lost my husband that day while watching it happen on TV. So it took us both a long time to get over the trauma, and to begin to wake up. And as I continued my research, I eventually became convinced that they were involved.

Today, on this thread, I see that aside from just a handful of serious skeptics, the rest of the posters have very impressive awareness and knowledge of the facts, the facts(on BOTH theories), AND a willingness to discuss it! That's a HUGE shift in public awareness!

So I just want to say how grateful I am to see that perceptions are shifting, more and more people are waking up to this horror, and the evidence is finally getting out into the open where it belongs.

And, thanks again to the moderators for allowing this to stay on the Greatest page. This crime needs to be fully investigated, and somebody must be held accountable. To date, not one person has - in fact, what's really sickening is that most of the people who screwed up that day have gotten promoted.

No matter how ugly the truth is, it shall set us free.

Prior to 9/11, prior to coming to DU, I was on a yahoo group with Michael Ruppert and others who were discussing and sharing information about the cia-drugs connection. Many of us interested in that particular perspective were already of the opinion that "the government" (actually, I think "secret government" is closer to the truth--none of us know what to call it, but it is a small extremist group with direct ties between global finance, military and covert operations) was going to do SOMETHING to advance their long-range agenda: That is, to create the social conditions necessary for the complete overthrow of the Constitution.

When 9/11 happened, Mike Ruppert, for example, told us all to immediately begin saving news information because in the first few hours the "official story" would not yet have been clearly established. I did not have the technical capacity to save video of news broadcasts but I do recall, for example, one talking head--a CIA Middle Eastern analyst--talking on CBS, I believe it was. There was a lot of speculation at that time flying around about who could have been responsible. The name bin Laden had come up but had not yet been fingered as THE culprit. This particular suit and tie was saying (paraphrasing), "Bin Laden doesn't have the capacity to do this sort of thing. Besides, bin Laden is more a MYTH than a reality. I'd be curious to know who is behind that myth." Interesting, hugh? At the same time, this same suit and tie was directing the audience attention in a different direction. Paraphrasing again: "I'd be more prone to look at State sponsored terrorism; such as might emanate from Sadam Hussain."

When I began hanging out at DU, I was dismayed at how many people here swallowed the "bin Laden did it" scenario. It was clear to me that 9/11 was an "inside job" in some sense of the word that involved the manipulation of our strategic air defense systems. Over the years there have been different polls taken here at DU asking the question, was it like they say, the official story, was it LIHOP or MIHOP--and we've seen the opinion shift increasingly toward the MIHOP side.

One of the big obstacles many face in accepting the MIHOP idea is when they think "MIHOP" they think "* administration" (which has this gloss of incompetence about it) or the gum-shoe bureaucrats that run the government. People generally don't think about a darker, more sinister player that is within the halls of government power but never shows itself as such.

IF 9/11 was an inside job, there are four people we can name who would have to have known. They are: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers and Eberhart. There may be others as well but at least those four would have to have known. Everyone else, including the * himself, can be played. (I also suspect nothing of this magnitude could be pulled off without GHWB and a few others at his level knowing about it but that doesn't mean they were directly involved in the implementation.)

So, here we are. The events of 9/11 were a massive psychic driver for our society. The VICTIMS of 9/11 were not merely those who lost their lives that day but ALL OF US. We are all victims of a mass deception of mythical proportions.

As horrible as it is to contemplate this, there is a very bright side to it: For perhaps the first time in human history there is the real possibility of exposing the role that TERRORISM plays in manipulating SUBJECT POPULATIONS to bend their will to those of an elite group. 9/11 is the foundation upon which the tyranny that is forming around us is based. IT IS A FOUNDATION OF LIES--and this is a good thing for those of us who oppose it. All that we need to do is EXPOSE it to the point where any person or any organization which DENIES the obvious will be seen as COMPLICIT in crimes against the people of the United States and, by extension of our foreign policy, crimes against Humanity.

The darkest hour, it is said, is just before the dawn.

I have posted my Hi8 footage of Jones' seminar at the Internet Archive. You can download it here: http://www.archive.org/details/Professor_Jones

The audio is ok for ambient sound from a condenser mike, but just ok. The text on the slides is largely not legible in my video, but Jones has posted the slideshow, (after numerous requests!), here:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/

(If you decide to download from the archive, wait until your download is finished before you pass this link around so we don't jam their server.)

The person who made the audio MP3 is in the process of releasing his Jones video online. The torrent is currently in the process of seeding. His website is here:
http://911truthseekers.org

Once it is fully seeded, it should download in a snap. Once it is fully seeded that is.

His video will undoubtedly be of superior quality, he had a decent camera and was plugged straight into the sound board.

fewer trolls on this topic

maybe the AHEM academy is running out of scripts

9/11 is the biggest cash bonanza in US history
and insiders made lots ..but the FBI can't bother to investigate

BTW According to Mo Mo atas papa Mo is still alive as are 5 other terrsists

Official Govt story is the real conspiracy

If you want a DVD of Jones' seminar... (much better quality than my download)

Please mail a self-addressed DVD mailer with adequate return postage, and a
$5 check payable to UVSC to:

Carrie Farnworth
Utah Valley State College
Studios and Engineering
Mailstop 264
800 West University Parkway
Orem, UT 84058

Re: Steven Jones DVD