Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

How false flag attacks are manufactured by the world's elite.


Archive for May, 2010

Submitted by Professor Steven Jones on Sun, 05/09/2010

A few days ago I was asked by a Professor at the University of Massachusetts what happened to me at BYU, in my own words. My response follows.

In September 2005, I presented a colloquium at Brigham Young University (BYU) in a large auditorium, presenting the physical evidence I had accumulated by then that the “official story” of the 9/11 disaster was highly suspicious. I had invited professors from across campus and many came, from numerous disciplines including physics, math, psychology, engineering. I asked them to take the “kid gloves off” and tell me where I was in error. In particular, we watched the rapid, nearly-symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 and discussed this at length. After two hours, we had to leave because a class had the room scheduled. But before they left, I asked the audience (about 70 in all) if they agreed with me that an investigation into 9/11 events was warranted. By show of hands, all agreed with this proposition, except one, a geology professor. The next day, he saw me on campus and said that he had changed his mind and that he now supported a full investigation into 9/11. A number of those in attendance provided helpful, critical comments for my nascent paper published later in a volume by Profs. David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, and available on-line here: Click to read Why the WTC buildings completely collapsed.

In February 2006, I presented a 2-hour colloquium at Utah Valley State College (which soon became Utah Valley University). That seminar was taped and aired on BYU’s TV station, KBYU. Later in 2006, I was invited to speak on my 9/11 research at a colloquium sponsored by the BYU Mathematics Department – the reception to my 9/11 research was cordial and supportive at this colloquium.

1. BYU put me on administrative leave on Sept. 6, 2006, for my research on 9/11 — but while clearly stating that “The university doesn’t have an opinion regarding the theory.”


Jones was placed on administrative leave for publishing a theory that explosives
were involved in the towers’ collapse through channels university officials deemed inappropriate,”

BYU spokesperson Carri Jenkins said.

“The university doesn’t have an opinion regarding the theory,”

she said.

This was an important distinction — BYU was specifically NOT denigrating my “theory” that explosives were involved in the World Trade Center towers’ collapse, as you see from the statement to the press by the BYU spokesperson.

It was never clear to me why the channels I chose were “inappropriate” (one was the Utah Academy of Arts and Sciences, April 2006 which was reviewed and approved by a fellow BYU Physics Professor), but the point is that BYU did NOT take a position on my 9/11 work and they made that point very clear.

2. BYU allowed me to continue my research on 9/11 after I was placed on admin leave, particularly regarding the dust generated during the collapse of the Towers, and even encouraged that research. It was important to the work that I was allowed to use the electron microscopes at BYU for this research. Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, director of the Transmission Electron Microscopy Laboratory at BYU was (and still is) permitted to work with me. 

3. Based on that research at BYU, a group of scientists wrote the paper now published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” April 2009. BYU reviewed the paper prior to publication and found it to represent sound science, and approved it for publication in the Open Chemical Physics Journal. Specifically the chair of the BYU Department of Physics and Astronomy approved publication and told me personally this was sound scientific research and that he was now persuaded that explosives/pyrotechnics were involved in the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11.

4. There were two authors from BYU listed on that paper, Dr. Farrer (as second author) and Daniel Farnsworth. Their affiliation with the BYU Department of Physics and Astronomy was listed in the paper, with the approval of BYU. Click to read Steven Jones paper on nanothermates in the WTC buildings

Deseret News article on the paper:Trace explosives found in 911 dust.

5. About the same time as this paper was published, I was made an Emeritus Professor of Physics at BYU.

6. BYU explained that they had been under considerable pressure to let me go, which is to their credit to admit this. We know from press releases that Dick Cheney’s office contacted BYU; and this resulted in Cheney’s coming to BYU to give a commencement address just three months after my “early retirement” from BYU. BYU — also to its credit — allowed TWO on-campus demonstrations against the policies of Dick Cheney. I understand that outside of Utah, it was these on-campus protests against Cheney that received favorable attention. (How many protests has BYU allowed through the years? Very few!)

7. BYU provided a nice (not large) pension as I accepted their offer of early retirement, gave me a (shared) office that I still use. They allowed me to keep my research web page, which links to three formally-published peer-reviewed papers regarding 9/11 in technical journals, here:

In view of these contributions to 9/11 research, my friend and fellow 9/11-researcher Kevin Ryan said “Hurray for BYU!” And I have to agree.

Reply from Professor Niels Harrit, Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark (March 13, 2010)

Steven: I am glad that you can see beyond your own (and ours!) annoyance and point to the positive aspects of BYUs handling of their situation.

Let me hasten to join Kevin and cheer for BYU – loud and clear.

We have to acknowledge the political space they live and operate in, and BYU deserves the credits you point out.
One senses a high level of decency at BYU.

Kind of the same thing I feel in the mainstream press these days. The young journalists try to squeeze some information in and take the discussion as far as they can before they run their head into the editors hammer.


Steven E. Jones

Emeritus Professor of Physics
[end quote]

In my email to this distinguished professor, I added that I feel that an INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATION conducted by scientists and engineers and others is needed — not a US-congressional investigation at this time. She agreed with me, writing:

“I entirely agree with your suggested objective: an international review body to investigate 9/11, with scientists and engineers from a number of participating countries… In fact, I suspect that this is THE ONLY way to get national and international coverage so extensive that the US media will have to follow the news stories.”

With regard to current activities, I am pursuing energy-related research at this time. This is another where I continue to have support at BYU. For example, see: . Our experiments at BYU involving a low-energy deuteron beam impinging on a liquid lithium target are ready to launch… stay tuned.

By Jonathan Elinoff, New World Order Report

If you enjoy this article, please check out my documentary film sereis, Core of Corruption. You can see it at

After reading the article released by, I decided to update and revise their work. The article gave me a chuckle because it lacked many famous and much larger conspiracy theories that became known. Their article had only listed seven. I can name 33 and I am about to release a revised list soon with 75. The article I read at cracked can be viewed here, but don’t waste your time, all of that is in this article and more.

Most people can’t resist getting the details on the latest conspiracy theories, no matter how far-fetched they may seem. At the same time, many people quickly denounce any conspiracy theory as untrue … and sometimes as unpatriotic or just plain ridiculous. Lets not forget all of the thousands of conspiracies out of Wall Street like Bernie Madoff and many others to commit fraud and extortion, among many crimes of conspiracy. USA Today reports that over 75% of personal ads in the paper and on craigslist are married couples posing as single for a one night affair. When someone knocks on your door to sell you a set of knives or phone cards, anything for that matter, do they have a profit motive? What is conspiracy other than just a scary way of saying “alternative agenda”? When 2 friends go to a bar and begin to plan their wingman approach on 2 girls they see at the bar, how often are they planning on lying to those girls?“ I own a small business and am in town for a short while. Oh yeah, you look beautiful.”

Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal or political conspiracy. However, it has come almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning. To conspire means “to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end. “The term “conspiracy theory” is frequently used by scholars and in popular culture to identify secret military, banking, or political actions aimed at stealing power, money, or freedom, from “the people”.

To many, conspiracy theories are just human nature. Not all people in this world are honest, hard working and forthcoming about their intentions.Certainly we can all agree on this.So how did the term “conspiracy theory” get grouped in with fiction, fantasy and folklore? Maybe that’s a conspiracy, just kidding. Or am I?

Skeptics are important in achieving an objective view of reality, however, skeptism is not the same as reinforcing the official storyline. In fact, a conspiracy theory can be argued as an alternative to the official or “mainstream” story of events. Therefore, when skeptics attempt to ridicule a conspiracy theory by using the official story as a means of proving the conspiracy wrong, in effect, they are just reinforcing the original “mainstream” view of history, and actually not being skeptical. This is not skeptism, it is just a convenient way for the establishment view of things to be seen as the correct version, all the time, every time. In fact, it is common for “hit pieces” or “debunking articles” to pick extremely fringe and not very populated conspiracy theories. This in turn makes all conspiracies on a subject matter look crazy. Skeptics magazine and Popular Mechanics, among many others, did this with 9/11. They referred to less than 10% of the many different conspiracy theories about 9/11 and picked the less popular ones, in fact, they picked the fringe, highly improbable points that only a few people make. This was used as the “final investigation” for looking into the conspiracy theories. Convenient, huh?

In fact, if one were to look into conspiracy theories, they will largely find that thinking about a conspiracy is associated with lunacy and paranoia. Some websites suggest it as an illness. It is also not surprising to see so many people on the internet writing about conspiracy theories in a condescending tone, usually with the words “kool-aid,” “crack pot,” or “nut job” in their articulation. This must be obvious to anyone that emotionally writing about such serious matter insults the reader more than the conspiracy theorist because there is no need to resort to this kind of behavior. It is employed often with an “expert” who will say something along the lines of, “for these conspiracies to be true, you would need hundreds if not thousands of people to be involved. It’s just not conceivable.”

I find it extremely odd that the assumption is on thousands of participants in a conspiracy. I, for one, find it hard to believe any conspiracy involving more than a handful of people but the fact remains that there have been conspiracies in our world, proven and not made up, that involved many hundreds of people. It’s not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of fact.

One more thing to consider, have you noticed that if the conspiracy is involving powerful interests with the ability to bribe, threaten or manipulate major institutions (like the mafia, big corporations or government) then don’t you find it odd when people use one of those as the “credible” counter-argument? What I mean is, if you are discussing a conspiracy about the mafia, and someone hands you a debunking article that was written by the mafia, it doesn’t seem like it would take rocket science to look at that with serious criticism and credibility. This is the case with many conspiracies. In fact, I am handed debunking pieces all the time written in many cases by the conspirators in question. Doesn’t this seem odd to anybody else but me?

While intelligent cynicism certainly can be healthy, though, some of the greatest discoveries of all time were initially received (often with great vitriol) as blasphemous conspiracy theories — think of the revelation that the earth was not the center of the universe, or that the world was not flat but actually round.

What follows are some of these most shocking modern conspiracy theories that turned out true after thorough investigation by our society. Some through congressional hearings, others through investigative journalism. Many of these, however, were just admitted to by those involved. These are just 33 of them, and I still had a long list of others to add. There are a total of 33 in this article. Many of these are listed with original and credible news clips on the matter, as well as documentaries.

1.The Dreyfus Affair: In the late 1800s in France, Jewish artillery officer Alfred Dreyfus was wrongfully convicted of treason based on false government documents, and sentenced to life in prison. The French government did attempt to cover this up, but Dreyfus was eventually pardoned after the affair was made public (an act that is credited to writer Émile Zola).

2.The Mafia: This secret crime society was virtually unknown until the 1960s, when member Joe Valachi first revealed the society’s secrets to law enforcement officials.What was known was that organized crime existed, but not that the extent of their control included working with the CIA, politicians and the biggest businesses in the world.

3.MK-ULTRA: In the 1950s to the 1970s, the CIA ran a mind-control project aimed at finding a “truth serum” to use on communist spies. Test subjects were given LSD and other drugs, often without consent, and some were tortured. At least one man, civilian biochemist Frank Olson, who was working for the government, died as a result of the experiments. The project was finally exposed after investigations by the Rockefeller Commission.

Click here to read the rest of the 33 conspiracies that turned out to be true.

May 8, 2010 presentation in the San Francisco Bay Area. During this live multimedia presentation, Seattle firefighter Erik Lawyer and SF Bay Area architect Richard Gage, AIA, examined the myths surrounding the events at the World Trade Center.

Read more on the Explosive Truth about the WTC Destruction

Article from Pilots for 9/11 Truth

United 93 is the aircraft that went down in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

04/28/09 ( – Recently it has been brought to our attention that Air Traffic Control (ATC) transcripts reveal United 93 as being airborne after it’s alleged crash. Similar scenarios have been offered with regard to American 77 and American 11 showing an aircraft target continuing past its alleged crash point in the case of American 11, or past the turn-around point in the case of American 77. However, both these issues can be easily explained by “Coast Mode” radar tracking. This is not the case with United 93.

Radar Coast Mode activates when a transponder is inoperative (or turned off) and primary radar tracking is lost, which enables ATC to have some sort of reference of the flight after losing radar coverage of the physical aircraft. When an aircraft target enters “Coast Mode”, ATC is alerted in the form of a blue tag on the target as well as the tag letters switching to CST. ATC will readily recognize when an aircraft enters “Coast Mode”.

According to National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Flight Path Study, United 93 allegedly impacted the ground at 10:03am, September 11, 2001. The following transcript excerpts are provided by the Federal Aviation Administration. It is a conversation between Air Traffic Control System Command Center – East, Management Officers (ntmo-e) and other various facilities. The conversation is as follows in real time:

(relevant portions have been placed in bold)

1405 (10:05 a.m.)

ntmo-e: ok united ninety three we’re now receiving a transponder on and he is at eighty two hundred feet

doug: now transponder and he’s eighty two-hundred

ntmo-e: southeastbound still

doug: eighty two hundred feet and now getting a transponder on him

ntmo-e: correct

doug: ok buddy


ntmo-e: ok we’ve lost radar contact with united ninety three
doug: all right


ntmo-e: sixteen south of Johnstown where they lost united ninety three and it was heading turning one four zero heading

doug: which will put him to what do you think

ntmo-e: uh I guess that put him down coming right just west of Dulles

doug: ok

ntmo-e: if he stays on that heading of course

doug: how we doing John with getting stuff on the ground

ntmo-e: uh we’re they ‘re not they ‘re still going to their original destinations if you look at TSD you’ll see that the eastern part of the unites states is thinning out

doug: ok

ntmo-e: uh you know airports like dulles uh new york there we have no aircraft going into there

doug: ok


ntmo-e: ok uh there is now on the on united ninety three

doug: yes

ntmo-e: there is now a report of black smoke in the last position I gave you fifteen miles of Johnstown

doug: from the airplane or from the ground

ntmo-e: uh they’re speculating it’s from the aircraft

doug: ok bud

ntmo-e: uh who hit the ground that’s what they’re speculation it’s speculation only

doug: ok


doug: hey john

ntmo-e: yes

doug: do we have anything on delta nineteen eighty nine is she still heading to cleveland?

ntmo-e: delta nineteen eighty nine was returning to Cleveland and they were no longer treating it like a hijacked aircraft

doug: ok

ntmo-e: I don’t know if he’s landed ok; the last position of united I’m going to give some coordinates united ninety three

doug: yes

ntmo-e: three nine five one north zero seven eight four six west

doug: zero seven eight four six

ntmo-e: west

doug: west

doug: all right

ntmo-e: you got the thirty nine fifty one north

doug: ya thirty nine fifty one north zero seven eighty four six west

ntmo-e: that’s the last known position of united ninety three

Full Transcript Here

United 93 transponder is recognized by Air Traffic Control as airborne after alleged impact time. Some have made the excuse this is due to Coast Mode tracking. ATC did not recognize any signs of CST (Coast Mode). Further confirmation that this was not any type of “Coast Mode” is that ATC also recognized United 93 reporting an altitude. The only way ATC could observe a reported altitude is if United 93 were squawking Mode C on the transponder, which means altitude reporting capability. Further confirmation comes in the form of latitude and longitude positions reported by ATC. N39 51 – W78 46 were reported as the last known radar position of United 93. It is unclear if the position is reported as Degrees, Minutes or Decimal, however, standard aviation terminology is in Degrees, Minutes. With that said, both positions are well past the alleged United 93 Crash site.

It is impossible for ATC to have observed United 93 transponder and altitude after the reported impact time and southeast of the crash site, if United 93 did in fact crash in Shanksville as the 9/11 Commission would have you believe.

Entire presentation is 7 parts in total.

Better Tag Cloud