Dr. Steven E. Jones is a world renowned physicist recognized for his research into muon-catalyzed cold fusion. In recent years, Dr. Jones has conducted metallurgic analyses of debris from the World Trade Center tragedy of September 11, 2001. His findings led Dr. Jones to posit that the Trade Center towers were brought down by controlled demolition. This highly controversial theory made Dr. Jones a target for much criticism.
Worse, a few vocal critics demanded that Brigham Young University fire Dr. Jones from his post as Physics Professor there. Perhaps the most odious attack of all came from author and lawyer Jonathan Moseley. Published in the popular conservative publication World Net Daily, Moseley’s hit piece accussed Dr. Jones of calling for the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government, an accusation that WND would later retract.
Following is the email exhange I made at the time with Jonathan Moseley and Dr. Jones.
Sent By “Van Smith”
God help us! I have apparently pushed Mosely into a psychotic fit. This man
is an insane maniac! How did he obtain the level of respectability necessary
to get his thoughts featured on WND? He wields his influence like a
genocidal Hutu handles a machete.
“Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!” I almost had to wipe his spit off my
monitor screen. Moseley is truly on a Jihad.
Moseley has connections with a number of different policy making councils, has
been quoted in mainstream media before, and has written a fear mongering
novel about the threat of Islam (either it reads like a nightmare, or it was
ghost written judging from my exchanges with him). He and another Moseley
(brother? father?) also have formed a strange company providing services to
the jewelry import industry helping businesses ensure conformity with the
I read somewhere (but have not verified) that he is also related to one of the
founders of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
The drive-by terrorist job that he did on you really smells of a gun-for-hire
piece. I cannot help but strongly suspect that this man is being used as an
attack dog by an intelligence operation. His mental discipline is so weak
that he is probably viewed as expendable, but his single-minded fanaticism
combined with his limited intellect mean that his puppetmasters risk little
exposure even if he is forced to go down in flames.
Good luck in your fight and trust Jesus,
P.S. If you have mailing lists for news related to your 9/11 research and/or
your current status at BYU, please add me to them.
On Monday 11 September 2006 21:11, Jonathon Moseley wrote:
> Like all of the conspiracy theorists, you do violence to the truth by
> ignoring the parts of it that prove your arguments wrong. You call those
> tangential issues. Steven Jones has harmed himself.
> The local press reports that it was Steven Jones’ own radio interview on
> Tuesday 9/6, that created a furor on campus, leading to his suspension. SEE
> — [scroll 1/3rd down to see the latest controversy]
> Jones had been relatively reticent to discuss the implications of his
> findings, but he created buzz on campus Tuesday with his appearance on
> KUER-FM 90.1. He expressed the opinion to talk-show host Doug Fabrizio that
> blame for the attacks rests with neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz, Richard
> Perle and others.
> Even after all of the discussion, Steven Jones went on LOCAL radio and
> accused government officials and private political leaders of 3,000 counts
> of mass murder, on a radio show THAT COULD BE HEARD ALL ACROSS THE BYU
> CAMPUS. The person who has harmed Steven Jones is Steven Jones.
> BYU has announced that it is the “accusatory” nature of Steven Jones work
> about 9/11 — that is accusing people of mass murder — that they are
> investigating, along with breach of peer review rules, NOT what anyone else
> has said ABOUT him. It is the fact that Steven Jones is accusing people of
> mass murder that has Steven Jones in trouble.
> Secondly, you falsely assume that I don’ belive what I wrote about Steven
> Jones. Steven Jones is one of the founders of Scholars for Truth, the
> SPONSOR of the event. Steven Jones helped CHOOSE the panel.
> Steven Jones is responsible for ALL of the venomous, treasonous, outrageous
> statements that HIS group — which he helps run — spewed out across the
> nation. I previously explained this to you, but you are blind to the truth,
> as are all conspiracy nuts. Steven Jones’ organization, even if not Jones
> himself, and indeed Steven Jones by extension is “in the CONTEXT of the
> question[and answer period]” is GUILTY of advocating for a coup that would
> depose America’s political leaders from office and put them on trial at the
> international criminal court outside the United States, GUILTY of accusing
> George Bush of being a dictator, GUILTY of claiming that the U.S.
> government is no longer legitimate, GUILTY of urging the armed forces of
> the United States to refuse to obey the orders of the Commander in Chief,
> GUILTY of calling for the removal of the U.S. government. Frankly, I hope
> that Steven Jones burns in hell for endangering this country. It is the
> fact that I am a far superior patriot that I want even scum like Steven
> Jones to have the right to speak in America, even if they cause the DEATH
> of Americans by advocating for the terrorist’s agenda to weaken the United
> Jon Moseley
> —–Original Message—–
> From: Van Smith [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 05:18 PM
> To: ‘Jonathon Moseley’
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Support for Dr. Steven Jones
> Mr. Moseley,
> I have been consistently discussing two topics:
> 1. The harm that you have caused Professor Jones though an overt act of
> academic and intellectual terrorism.
> 2. The scholarly merits of Dr. Jones’ research.
> You wish to focus on tangential, irrelevant issues.
> As I have stated several times already, I stand firmly behind the 1st
> Amendment to our Constitution, but nowhere does the 1st Amendment allow
> for Jon Moseley, according to your own /WND/ editors, to bear false
> witness against Dr. Jones, exposing him to potential imprisonment,
> public ridicule and irreparable damage to his livelihood.
> And one thing continues to bother me like a splinter beneath my right
> index fingernail. You are a lawyer. Arguably, Dr. Jones can be
> considered a public figure. As such, Dr. Jones is fair game for much
> broader written criticism than would normally be considered libel if the
> same words were directed at normal Americans. However, your /WND/ piece
> is far, far outside of this extended area of accepted criticism of
> public figures.
> What made you think you could get away with groundlessly accusing Dr.
> Jones — in a major publication no less — of committing a federal crime
> without your being sued penniless? Even if you thought you were right,
> you exercised very little effort to fact check, demonstrating a callous
> disregard for Dr. Jones’ welfare.
> I have written many, many articles that have been read by millions of
> people. If I were to ever even conside
r making the extremely explosive
> and damaging charge against an individual that you used against Dr.
> Jones, I would only do so if I also substantiated my claim with
> carefully obtained and vetted quotes from that person.
> I’m still scratching my bald head trying to figure out just what you
> were thinking.
> And do you still believe that you can simply make up serious charges
> against anyone you disagree with and publish your terrorist vitriol in
> /WND/ or some other major publication?
> I also do not understand how /World Net Daily/ could have allowed your
> article to be published at all. One thing that typically gets an
> editor’s attention in a hurry is when he sees an author making personal
> attacks against a victim that could immediately lead to the victim’s
> I was a frequent visitor to the /WND/ Internet site, but after seeing
> your article published there, I vow to never return to /WND/ again
> except to obtain quotes from your hit piece.
> Van Smith
> Jonathon Moseley wrote:
> > I strongly believe in Steven Jones’ right to speak, and anything that
> > restrains or intimidates that is harmful to our country and to the
> > body politic and to the discussion itself.
> > However, in the same way, I have an EQUAL right to speak and to say
> > that Steven Jones’ efforts are likely to result in the death of more
> > Americans in the future, from the next terrorist attack, as it helps
> > whip up anti-American sentiments around the world, chills our allies,
> > and discourages Americans from taking measures to protect the country.
> > If, God Forbid, a nuclear bomb or other terrorist attack on
> > Washington, D.C. kills my sister and her family, Steven Jones will
> > also be free to apologize over their dead bodies at the funeral.
> > However, it would make more sense to consider those consequences now,
> > rather than after the death of more Americans.
> > Simply because Steven Jones has a RIGHT to accuse his country of
> > treasonous actions worse than anything since Pol Pot does not mean
> > that it is NOBLE that he does so.
> > I believe that if Steven Jones is silenced “from behind” everyone will
> > assume that his accusations were true, and were too dangerous to
> > answer, and that he had to be silenced covertly and outside the field
> > of ideas.
> > But that does not mean that there is anything laudable about — in a
> > time of war — accusing one’s own goverment of mass murder,
> > particularly based only on supposition and speculation.
> > Jon Moseley
> > —–Original Message—–
> > *From:* Van Smith [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > *Sent:* Sunday, September 10, 2006 08:57 PM
> > *To:* ‘Jonathon Moseley’
> > *Cc:* email@example.com
> > *Subject:* Re: Support for Dr. Steven Jones
> > Dear Mr. Moseley,
> > I have combined your last two emails below.
> > Your points are, as far as I can discern, irrelevant to my message to
> > you or to the plight of Dr. Jones and your involvement with it.
> > However, I will respond briefly to your remarks.
> > As an American, I believe in free speech as guaranteed by the First
> > Amendment to our Constitution. I am not afraid of knowledge or
> > discussion. I also have faith that the American people can discern
> > the truth when they eventually encounter it. I do NOT believe that it
> > is necessary, desirable or constructive for any member of the media to
> > use sensational rhetoric to frighten the trusting citizens of the
> > United States into conforming with prescribed viewpoints.
> > And as an American I am deeply disturbed by the distinctly
> > un-American, terrorizing tactics that you used to harm Dr. Jones in
> > your /WND/ article.
> > Frankly, I am confused by your references to antisemitism, Hugo
> > Chavez, conspiracy theories, neocons, the Nuremberg Trials, Vietnam,
> > the Taliban, bin Laden and George Bush.
> > Professor Jones has provided evidence that supports the theory that
> > the three World Trade Center towers were brought down by controlled
> > demolition. His evidence is compelling. His scientific methodology
> > appears to be sound and straightforward. His request for further
> > investigation is logical and reasonable.
> > I applaud Dr. Jones for his courage to conduct objective, independent
> > research on the horrific WTC events. I hope his work will inspire
> > further independent investigation into whether or not controlled
> > demolitions were used to bring down the three towers that tragic
> > September morning.
> > BTW, whether you realize it or not, you are lending credence to your
> > opposition when you use the term “conspiracy theory.” By definition,
> > a theory is an explanation supported by several different facts and
> > all known facts support the explanation. Of course, a “conspiracy” is
> > an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime or other
> > misdeed. Properly — and I mean no insult — supporters of the U.S.
> > Government explanation for 9/11 should consider their explanation a
> > conspiracy theory.
> > Van Smith
> > ========
> > I think there are sinister motivations for the 9/11 conspiracy
> > theories. Someday when more Americans are murdered by foreign
> > terrorists, I hope the conspiracy theorists will realize what they
> > have done and shudder. However, that should be debated on the field
> > of ideas, not short-circuited through administrative means.
> > A letter from Usama Bin Laden from 2001/early 2002 just released last
> > week called upon the Taliban and other sympathetic groups to CREATE A
> > WEDGE BETWEEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT.
> > 5 years later 9/11 conspiracy theorists are DOING EXACTLY THAT.
> > They are implementing Usama Bin Laden’s strategy and desire for
> > defeating the West.
> > They probably don’t realize it… but they SHOULD by stopping to
> > think about it.
> > But again this is a concern to be debated openly, not cut short in
> > silence.
> > Jon Moseley
> > Jonathon Moseley wrote:
> >> First, I believe that there are some in the 9/11 conspiracy movement
> >> (mostly overseas participants using the anonymity of the internet,
> >> but not necessarily all) who are intentionally implementing Usama Bin
> >> Laden’s strategy for destroying the West, by repeating the entire
> >> Vietnam dynamic.
> >> Second, there are a far greater number who simply hate their country
> >> so much that they don’t care that they are helping foreign terrorists
> >> to better and more successfully attack America the next time around.
> >> They don’t care that our families and loved ones are in greater
> >> danger of a terrorist attack because of their efforts to persuade
> >> Americans to focus on the U.S. government instead of on foreign
> >> terrorists. They don’t care that this kind of rhetoric whips up
> >> anti-American sentiments abroad and encourages our enemies, while
> >> peeling away our friends around the world.
> >> Third, there are many in the 9/11 movement who hate the Jews and
> >> Neocons and certain other groups that they are intentionally trying
> >> to destroy the government and the country to get at the people they
> >> hate, similar to burning down a house to kill the bugs inside.
> >> F
ourth, you have to go back and listen to the videotape broadcast on
> >> C-Span. Among the points made in that virulently anti-American hate
> >> fest:
> >> o The movement should support and promote Venezuala President
> >> Hugu Chavez’s attempt to put Bush Administration officials ON TRIAL
> >> at an international criminal tribunal. Presumably that would require
> >> DEPOSING THOSE OFFICIALS FROM OFFICE in order to take them to the
> >> international criminal court overseas. It would require a coup
> >> against the U.S. to take U.S. government leaders overseas to stand rial.
> >> o The U.S. government has already collapsed and a shadow
> >> government is now running the country.
> >> o U.S. troops should DISOBEY orders of the Commander in Chief in
> >> the war on terror.
> >> o George Bush is a dictator (odd how this group was broadcast 4
> >> times on C-Span if Bush is a dictator).
> >> And on and on.
> >> However, the answer to such hate speech by the 9/11 conspiracy
> >> movement is MORE speech in reply, not intimidation or efforts to
> >> muzzle any speaker.
> >> Jon Moseley
> >> —–Original Message—–
> >> *From:* Van Smith [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> >> *Sent:* Sunday, September 10, 2006 06:03 PM
> >> *To:* ‘TRANSGUARD (Jonathon Moseley)’
> >> *Cc:* email@example.com
> >> *Subject:* Re: Support for Dr. Steven Jones
> >> Dear Mr. Moseley,
> >> I am pleased to see your written support for academic freedom.
> >> However, your /World Net Daily/ article appears to expose sinister
> >> motivations that contradict the positions that you express in your
> >> correspondence.
> >> Please have another look at what you wrote about Dr. Jones:
> >> /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*.
> >> /
> >> Not only do you continue the /ad hominem/ tone that saturates the
> >> rest of your article, but you have, according to your own editors at
> >> /WND/, falsely accused Professor Jones of committing a federal
> >> crime. Your actions, according to news reports, had immediate,
> >> frightening ramifications for Dr. Jones.
> >> Your /WND/ article is akin to academic and intellectual terrorism.
> >> It is simply not possible to have either academic freedom or free
> >> speech when citizens of a country have to live in fear that their
> >> research or their words might lead to groundless attacks in the
> >> mainstream media that can threaten their careers or even lead to
> >> criminal charges against them.
> >> Your article placed Steven Jones’ position at BYU in jeopardy,
> >> potentially exposed him to imprisonment and has soiled his reputation
> >> to a point that his career might very well be permanently damaged.
> >> Your article almost certainly also had an effect on BYU grant funding
> >> and has soured public perception of that fine institution of higher
> >> learning.
> >> And although BYU might not directly cite your article as the reason
> >> they have placed Dr. Jones on leave pending the results of their
> >> investigation into his behavior, your article caused intense scrutiny
> >> and criticism directed towards both Jones and BYU from both the
> >> public and media which has doubtlessly influenced BYU’s decisions
> >> regarding Jones.
> >> I have many years of experience in the semiconductor industry and
> >> have crossed paths with a number of other analysts who will say or do
> >> anything to ensure their next paycheck. Forgive my cynicism, but
> >> your /WND/ article immediately brought to mind the “Gun-for-Hire”
> >> pieces so commonly seen in my line of work.
> >> Dr. Jones is a well respected, well known physicist. His early
> >> research into cold fusion was the only reason many physicists still
> >> took that field seriously after the Fleishmann and Pons media circus.
> >> You state that you find Professor Jones’ positions “reprehensible and
> >> irresponsible.” This emotive outburst demonstrates a lack of
> >> understanding of the scientific process.
> >> When searching for the truth behind any phenomena or event, a
> >> scientist must not rule out any possibility without supporting
> >> evidence. A scientist must especially be aware to not close his mind
> >> to any possible explanation due to emotional bias.
> >> Any so-call scientists who counter Dr. Jones by invoking words like
> >> “reprehensible” or “irresponsible” immediately discredit themselves
> >> as emotionally compromised regarding research on the topic at hand.
> >> In his paper “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?”
> >> and throughout his presentations to various groups, Dr. Jones
> >> intelligently and logically argues for a serious investigation into
> >> the possibility that the three World Trade Center towers were brought
> >> down by controlled demolition.
> >> In addition to the extremely peculiar *intergranular sulfidation*
> >> reported by FEMA that is impossible to explain as sourced from
> >> drywall, Dr. Jones’ electron microprobe analysis revealed iron slag
> >> that, with little chromium, was clearly not structural steel. In
> >> that slag were abundant traces of manganese, potassium, aluminum and
> >> fluorine in addition to sulfur. Through wave-dispersive X-ray
> >> fluorescence, Dr. Jones has also found abundant zinc oxide, titanium
> >> and barium in WTC debris samples. In other words, the slag and
> >> sundry debris material look persuasively like Thermate residue; in
> >> fact, the evidence that Jones has uncovered looks like a Thermate
> >> fingerprint. Additionally, EPA’s very peculiar discovery of
> >> 1,3-diphenylpropane in their WTC samples point to the possible use of
> >> a very specific form of thermate: sol-gel thermate.
> >> Dr. Jones has been primarily lobbying for more research into the
> >> hypothesis that the World Trade Center towers were brought down by
> >> controlled demolition. His evidence supports such a request.
> >> The truth is never endangered by additional, objective scientific
> >> inquiry. However, the truth can remain hidden for many years by a
> >> lack of scientific investigation and an absence of open-mined discourse.
> >> I am sure that Dr. Jones welcomes intelligent scientific discourse —
> >> in fact, his conclusions urge for it — but no respectable scientist
> >> embraces the intellectual terrorist mentality that you bring to the
> >> table as evidenced by your World Net Daily piece.
> >> Dr. Jones is not responsible whatsoever regarding the statements of
> >> Dr. Fetzer or any other member of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth.
> >> Scientific and academic organizations loathe to control their
> >> members’ opinions since discovery and genius often come from the
> >> person who thinks differently than the rest of the group. As United
> >> States citizens, we should instinctively feel similar towards free
> >> speech in general.
> >> As a Christian, one of my foundational beliefs is that people can
> >> change for the b
etter. I pray that your support for academic freedom
> >> and free speech voiced in your letter truly signals a change of heart
> >> for you. However, I am afraid that irreparable damage has already
> >> been done to Dr. Jones and other innocent parties as a result of your
> >> World Net Daily article.
> >> Sincerely,
> >> Van Smith
> >> TRANSGUARD (Jonathon Moseley) wrote:
> >>> Dear Mr. Smith:
> >>> cc: Professor Jones
> >>> I also sent a letter to BYU by email back in mid-August
> >>> urging them to ensure academic freedom and the freedom to debate
> >>> these issues publicly as American citizens. I sent a copy to
> >>> Professor Jones.
> >>> From news reports this week, it appears that BYU is
> >>> concerned NOT about anything said through World Net Daily, but the
> >>> extreme statements made by Steven Jones himself and his organization
> >>> Scholars for Truth.
> >>> BYU cites the “accusatory nature” of Jones’ work in contrast
> >>> to a scientific inquiry as their concern.
> >>> Neverthless, I have defended and do defend anyone’s right to
> >>> debate these matters openly and to be able to engage in a public
> >>> discussion without fear or hesitation.
> >>> I believe as a personal matter that Professor Jones’
> >>> positions are reprehensible and irresponsible, in that he has
> >>> accusing individuals in and out of government of 3,000 counts of
> >>> mass murder and treason with the slimmest of pretexts. The sulfur
> >>> from the gypsum drywall and from other sources is as likely to
> >>> account for sulfur traces as to indicate a criminal plot to commit
> >>> treasonous mass murder by public officials. The charges being made
> >>> against individuals who are unable to defend themselves (being
> >>> public figures subject to public discussion) are extraordinary and
> >>> extreme.
> >>> It would be quite a different matter to analyze the steel
> >>> from the WTC — as many have done — from a scientific perspective.
> >>> But it is the conclusions of a criminal plot to murder 3,000 people
> >>> that is the point of departure.
> >>> Furthermore, as a Board member of Scholars for Truth, I
> >>> believe that Steven Jones is responsible for everything that was
> >>> said at the Scholars for Truth event broadcast on C-Span hosted by
> >>> his organization.
> >>> However, all of these matters should be openly discussed on
> >>> the field of ideas, not intimidated or restrained or muzzled in any
> >>> way.
> >>> I believe that it would be infinitely worse to muzzle
> >>> discussion, or appear to be muzzling discussion, through any
> >>> administrative or employment action.
> >>> Frankly, BYU would do more to reinforce and substantiate
> >>> Steven Jones’ accusations by retaliating against him than anything
> >>> else could possibly do. Nothing could be worse in this or any
> >>> other debate than the appearance or reality of chilling speech about
> >>> possible government malfeasance.
> >>> I strongly believe that the proper response to speech that I
> >>> or anyone disagree with is MORE speech, not less.
> >>> Furthermore, no one can have a full and complete discussion
> >>> of anything important if no one is raising both sides of the
> >>> discussion. It would do a great dis-service if people cannot have a
> >>> frank and complete discussion. No one can have a debate if only
> >>> one side is debating. And therefore ideas can never be aired and
> >>> resolved.
> >>> I wrote all of that previously to Jones’ department at BYU in
> >>> mid-August, and I will again.
> >>> Nevertheless, when someone accuses ofificials and individuals
> >>> of 3,000 counts of intentional mass murder, each of those counts
> >>> eligible for the death penalty, one must expect that such a public
> >>> position is going to be controversial. I think you overlook the
> >>> extent to which the issue is what Professor Jones and Professor
> >>> Fetzer are saying out of their own mouths rather than anything that
> >>> people are saying about them.
> >>> Jon Moseley
> >>> Jon Moseley
> >>> —–Original Message—–
> >>> *From:* Van Smith [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> >>> *Sent:* Friday, September 8, 2006 05:17 PM
> >>> *To:* email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
> >>> email@example.com *Cc:* firstname.lastname@example.org, Contact@JonMoseley.com
> >>> *Subject:* Support for Dr. Steven Jones
> >>> To the Esteemed Drs. Sommerfeldt and Stokes,
> >>> My name is Van Smith. I am head of benchmarking for a major
> >>> designer of x86 microprocessors. I am also an R&D; engineer for the
> >>> company.
> >>> I have an international reputation as a computer technology analyst
> >>> and have held high profile positions for Inquest, /Tom’s Hardware
> >>> Guide/ and my own site, /Van’s Hardware Journal/. My work has been
> >>> frequently cited by IT news organizations like /The Inquirer/ and
> >>> /The Register/. My work has also created headlines in Reuters, /The
> >>> New York Times/, /PC Magazine/ and other major news publications.
> >>> At its introduction, I was the only analyst in the world who
> >>> enumerated the precise flaws in Intel’s Netburst architecture that
> >>> eventually led to the demise of the Pentium 4. I have been given
> >>> credit for my “Pentium 4 death by thermal density prognostication”
> >>> by a recent article published in /The Inquirer/.
> >>> My investigation into computer memory intellectual property company
> >>> Rambus uncovered details that led to that company’s recent FTC
> >>> conviction. One of my articles caused Rambus stock price to tumble
> >>> by over $150/share in one day according to a Reuters report.
> >>> I also have a BS in Physics from Henderson State University.
> >>> I have always had a great deal of respect for Brigham Young
> >>> University and this respect has been strengthened by the heroic work
> >>> of Dr. Stephen Jones who has conducted scientific investigations
> >>> into the tragic September 11th, 2001 collapses of the three World
> >>> Trade Center towers.
> >>> In these politically charged times, it is keenly important for
> >>> academic leaders, like Dr. Jones, to independently confirm or
> >>> contradict official government explanations for such pivotal events
> >>> in our nation’s history. The United States is a constitutional
> >>> democratic republic that inspired freedom throughout the world. In
> >>> our very special country, it is singularly important for our voters
> >>> to have information from many diverse sources at their disposal so
> >>> that voters can make wise, informed decisions at the polls.
> >>> In America, knowledge and information is essential to freedom. Our
> >>> Founding Fathers codified that fact with the First Amendment to the
> >>> United States Constitution which guarantees the right to free, open,
> >>> public discourse on any topic.
> >>> Our nation’s President announced that September 11th launched the
> >>> onset of a 100 year War on Terror. Since then, in the name of
> >>> fighting terrorists, bipartisan U.S. Government actions have
> >>> severely eroded our freedoms originally secured by our nation’s Bill
> >>> of Rights.
> >>> With such radical Government actions, Americans must carefully
> >>> scrutinize whether or
not the security measures our nation has
> >>> recently undertaken are worth the penalties that we are paying
> >>> through lost civil freedoms.
> >>> And most importantly of all, we need to be absolutely certain that
> >>> the initial catalyzing events of September 11th are well understood,
> >>> investigated thoroughly and from many points of view.
> >>> Dr. Stephen Jones has bravely taken a leadership role in the
> >>> academic and patriotic pursuit of providing independent scientific
> >>> investigations into exactly what happened on that horrible September
> >>> morning.
> >>> Sadly, Dr. Jones has already paid a great price for conscientiously
> >>> carrying out his civic duty through his research. Shockingly, Dr.
> >>> Jones was the recent victim of scurrilous attack on the popular
> >>> conservative news site, /World Net Daily/. This reckless, vicious
> >>> hit piece not only jeopardized Professor Jones?s livelihood, but
> >>> also exposed Dr. Jones to the very real danger of imprisonment.
> >>> Author and lawyer Jonathan Moseley accused Professor Stephen Jones
> >>> of committing the serious federal crime of calling for the violent
> >>> overthrow of the U.S. Government. Under pressure from its readers
> >>> and BYU itself, /World Net Daily/ reviewed the video cited by
> >>> Moseley and found no evidence to support Moseley?s damaging accusation.
> >>> /World Net Daily/ has since published the following retraction:
> >>> /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 by Jones.
> >>> /
> >>> Moseley’s article, along with the WND retraction, can still be found
> >>> here:
> >>> http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51540
> >>> I am cc’ing Mosley and Professor Jones on this correspondence.
> >>> The pursuit of the truth is the goal of all scientists and, having
> >>> to withstand the harsh scrutiny of mathematics, physics is possibly
> >>> the purest of all sciences. Physicist Dr. Jones has selflessly and
> >>> doggedly pursued the truth regarding perhaps the most important
> >>> topic in our lives. For his noble deeds, Professor Jones is being
> >>> viciously attacked for politically motivated reasons by parties like
> >>> Mr. Mosley who, themselves, have demonstrated that they have little
> >>> regard for truth.
> >>> Any punitive action BYU takes against Professor Jones for his
> >>> metallurgic study of the WTC debris sets dire precedents inside of
> >>> academia. Scientific persecution during the European Dark Ages is
> >>> now recognized as institutional efforts to silence reasoning that
> >>> might have weakened the control of ruling organizations. Many of
> >>> Professor Jones detractors would like a return to those dark,
> >>> frightening, hateful, tyrannical conditions.
> >>> As a university with an outstanding record in academic research and
> >>> higher education, it would be sadly ignoble if BYU signaled the
> >>> demise of modern academia by punishing Professor Jones, a modern
> >>> Galileo, for his scholarly quest for truth under fire.
> >>> Agree or disagree with Professor Jones’ conclusions, BYU must follow
> >>> his bold, patriotic, Godly lead in his pursuit of truth despite
> >>> living in a dangerously charged political climate.
> >>> The Truth can withstand scrutiny; indeed truth must be subjected to
> >>> scrutiny lest it devolve into dogma.
> >>> I have confidence that the great leaders of Brigham Young University
> >>> like yourselves, who are, no doubt, currently under pressure from
> >>> New Inquisition-style detractors, will make the right choices
> >>> regarding Professor Jones’ heroic research. By supporting academic
> >>> freedom exemplified by Professor Jones’ 9/11 work, BYU and its
> >>> leaders will go down in history for preserving the basic foundations
> >>> of scientific investigation.
> >>> Sincerely,
> >>> Van Smith