It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BYU Suspends 9/11 Researcher

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 04:57 AM
link   
Steven E. Jones, Professor of Physics at Brigham Young University has crossed the wrong people with his controversial research regarding 9/11 and has been suspended.


PROVO, Utah -- A professor who has suggested the World Trade Center was brought down by explosives has been placed on paid leave by Brigham Young University while the Mormon church-owned school investigates his claims.

Steven Jones, a physicist who has taught at BYU since 1985, is co-chairman of a group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth.


Link to Article

As Co-Chair of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Jones has been a thorn in the side of powerful Republican influences within the Mormon Church.

It would appear that tenure holds no significance when someone commits themselves to uncovering the truth.



I urge all to click on the link provided and make a protest to the President of Brigham Young University (BYU):BYU


Steven E. Jones; Wiki

Scholars for 9/11 Truth

[edit on 11-9-2006 by Beelzebubba]




posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Hmm... I can't say I blame them for putting him on leave. He's making fantastic claims about a touchy subject, and ignoring the normal scholarly debate channels.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not disputing his claims. I just think he put them forth poorly, and the university reacted predictably.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 05:19 AM
link   
How many people would actually believe a word you say, if you said that you thought the CIA arranged WTC collapse. I tried explaining this to a few friends, but they were so brainwashed by the media, they just laughed "yeah right".
This guy obviously ants the world to hear his thoughts, and my thoughts, your thoughts etc. Its a shame such an intelligent man has marred his chanced in a few moments.

I just read a leading media channel in the UK, infact its the main news feeder in the country, and all over their pages, it showed the words TERROR and SUICIDE BOMBERS...the people read this and think nothing more of it, as long as they feel sheltered and secure in their own countries. In addition to this, they were stressing how 'the terrorists' should be made to pay.. they were right... George Bush and his cronies should pay.

Sorry to drone on but I feel like I want to shout to the world. I am realising how opressed we are, as well as controlled - constantly.

Paul



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hobbes
Hmm... I can't say I blame them for putting him on leave. He's making fantastic claims about a touchy subject.


And so are alot of other people, your point being? Fantastic claims or stabbing the heart of a "touchy" subject? You pick.

Note: Its touchy to the ones who orchestrated the whole thing, ofcourse.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Is this something that he is discussing with his pupils or within BYU itself?

If his research is conducted on his own time outside of BYU; what right do the powers that be have to punish him for something that is essentially none of their business?





[edit on 11-9-2006 by Beelzebubba]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mammoth
And so are alot of other people, your point being? Fantastic claims or stabbing the heart of a "touchy" subject? You pick.


My point is, the university probably viewed him (by virtue of association) as an unofficial spokesperson for the school. If they don't criticise what he wrote, they'll be seen as condoning it... black or white.

So, they hit a pause button, while they decide what to do. It's a PR move.



Note: Its touchy to the ones who orchestrated the whole thing, ofcourse.


It's touchy to more people than just those responsible. It's touchy to me, for instance... and I'm just some guy that saw that afternoon first-hand, and lost many friends in the process.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beelzebubba
If his research is conducted on his own time outside of BYU; what right do the powers that be have to punish him for something that is essentially none of their business?


Professors are salaried... there really is no 'his time'/'their time' to the equation.

I'd wager that his research was done as part of his professorial role ('their time', if you're still looking at it that way)... but that's okay. They didn't put him on leave for researching, but rather for the way he presented his 'findings'.

As for it being their business or not, his contract likely allows the university to act as it sees fit regarding his behavior and its reflection upon the school (a completely 'at-will' relationship, from their point of view).

Not to mention, a religious school like BYU is going to have a BIG morals clause in there...



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Even though we was put on leave,

I would LOVE to hear both sides of the story with scientific evidence and calculations and make the decision for myself.

Take care and peace,
- Nazgarn



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Hobbes
It's touchy to more people than just those responsible. It's touchy to me, for instance... and I'm just some guy that saw that afternoon first-hand, and lost many friends in the process.


It is touchy to many people on an emotional level, but should that preclude rational inquiry into the event, which, now 5 years after the fact, is still far from being fully understood? If we confidently lay claim to being a free and open society, clearly the answer must be no. If we're truly willing to prevent another such event in the future, clearly the answer must be no.

Constricting scientific debate into the mental equivalent of "free speech zones" is no less than censorship. Accepting barriers limiting the realm of socially sanctioned thought is no less than captivity.

Truth fears no questions.





[edit on 11-9-2006 by Lumos]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 06:36 AM
link   


How many people would actually believe a word you say, if you said that you thought the CIA arranged WTC collapse.


It wasn't the CIA nor was it the US Government.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lumos
It is touchy to many people on an emotional level, but should that preclude rational inquiry into the event, which, now 5 years after the fact, is still far from being fully understood?


Don't get me wrong... I agree that the event should be explored rationally and fully.

But BYU isn't interested in free-speech as much as protecting its image. As such, I understand them reacting the way that they did.



Constricting scientific debate into the mental equivalent of "free speech zones" is no less than censorship.


Ok, analogy time...

You're walking down the street with a friend. He starts spouting out hate speech that you do not approve of.

Do you have the right to sever the relationship between him and you? You don't want to be associated with what he is saying... would walking away be considered censorship?

How is BYU acting any different? They think that the professor's claims may reflect poorly upon them, so they are exercising their right to 'walk away'.

Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom from consequences.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 06:57 AM
link   
I don't see how "hate speech", irrational by definition, is supposed to serve as an appropriate analogy here.


It's not that Jones has violated scientific etiquette or that BYU, or anyone else for that matter, could rightfully criticize his methodology. It's just that he's touched on something considered taboo deep within the american psyche, courtesy of MSM brainwashing, and BYU's now bowing to external pressure of some kind. There is no conceivable explanation for any intrinsic motivation adhering to scientific integrity, at least the way I see it.

Here's an analogy: You're walking down the street with your friend, when suddenly, he proclaims something highly controversial. It's not illogical, but so unorthodox as to be guaranteed to raise eyebrows. You're being overheard by several people that appear upset by it and react hostile. They're closing in on you. What will you do? Will you stand by your friend, after all, he hasn't done wrong, unless you consider opposing the mainstream a crime, or will you distance yourself from him in order to cover your rear? Which would be the right thing to do?



[edit on 11-9-2006 by Lumos]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hobbes
But BYU isn't interested in free-speech as much as protecting its image. As such, I understand them reacting the way that they did.


Incorrect...

BYU is concerned about GOVERNEMNT GRANT MONEY.

That is how you "shut up" a mouthy professor... threaten the University President with the loss of MILLIONS of dollars worth of government grants. End of story.


[edit on 11-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Pleae add your comments there.

Thread closed.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join