9 - 1 1 R e s e a r c h letters

US News

This letter was written in response to the USNews article BYU takes on a 9/11 conspiracy professor

STATUS: sent to US News

Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 23:36:49 +0200
From: Anthony Roble 
Subject: US News article on Steven E. Jones
To: letters@usnews.com
Cc: mail@wtc7.net


I was impressed by the relatively objective treatment you gave to the recent
activities at BYU surrounding Dr Steven E Jones. I would however like to
comment that one of the statements made in your article is a
misrepresentation of the nature and quality of the debate taking place
between 9/11 skeptics and the powers that be.

"His claims were tackled head-on in a fact sheet last month from the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, which created a 43-volume
report about the collapse of the World Trade Center towers."
This is, unfortunately, simply not true. His claims were not tackled head
on, the NIST merely re-iterated aspects of its investigation that have
already been published. What they did in the fact sheet is challenge the
plausibility  of certain aspects of the alternative hypothesis, such as the
difficulties inherent in placing explosives in the twin towers. Steven E.
Jones has since replied to the challenges, and is seeking laboratories to
independently verify his findings. It is quite clear that the government and
its apologists take a rather different stance - instead of welcoming debate
and questioning of their own, supposedly sound, conspiracy theory they place
academics under pressure to retract allegations that are rooted in logic,
empirical evidence and the supposedly quintessential American value of
questioning authority.

In no way has the NIST compromised Steven E. Jones work and research, in
fact it is worth mentioning that this man's research appears to be rather
more rigorous and analytical than that carried out by FEMA and the NIST
since it takes into account all evidence, instead of ignoring aspects of the
story that don't fit in with the official theory,

The press seems to miss the fact that both FEMA and the NIST are working
backwards from allegations made against Osama bin Laden and his hijackers
within days of the attacks, attempting to tweak scientific theory to the
point where it accommodates the official version. In contrast Steven E.
Jones is working forwards by sifting through physical, forensic anomalies
that point directly at the fact that there is something wrong with the
official version. Please stop labelling people who ask the hard questions as
'conspiracy theorists', if you were at all honest you would realise that
many people who support the official story are in fact incapable of dealing
with cognitive dissonance that would come with a realisation that their
government is corrupt and sick. The use of this type of rhetoric betrays a
fundamental weakness in the argument of the party making use of this
discursive tactic.

Yours Sincerely,
Anthony Roble