I stand firmly against the war in Iraq and any war of aggression.
I support scientific scrutiny of the events of Sept. 11, 2001 a day
which will live in infamy. I speak as a private citizen of the United States.
"In a democracy we can renounce war and proclaim peace. There is opportunity
for dissent. Many have been speaking out and doing so emphatically. That
is their privilege. That is their right, so long as they do so legally
. . . We can give our opinions on the merits of the situation as we see
it." (President Gordon B. Hinckley, LDS General Conference, April 6,2003.)
Wholeheartedly agreeing, I am exercising that right and that privilege.
"A team of American and Iraqi public health researchers has estimated that
600,000 civilians have died in violence across Iraq since the 2003 American
invasion." (New York Times, 11 Oct. 11. 2006) I renounce these killings
in the Middle Eastern wars.
We must insist on complete answers to questions about what really happened
on Sept. 11, why there were no air defenses that day, and why we have gone
to war in the Middle East. These issues transcend party politics. These
yearnings for understanding of 9/11 and the wars that followed take us
to the core of our heritage as Americans -- I support the Constitution
of the United States. I am very concerned about those elected officials
who would engage in pre-emptive war rather than "common defense" to "repel
invasions" (Article I), compromise our rights against torture and cruel
punishments (Eighth Amendment), take away the right of habeas corpus (Article
I), and diminish the freedom to speak out without fear of reprisals (1st
Two structural engineering professors in Switzerland have recently spoken
out as I have also done, declaring that explosives were with "utmost probability"
responsible for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on Sept. 11. "WTC7
was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives", said one.
After seeing the collapse of World Trade Center 7 (see wtc7.net), many
instinctively want to know why this 47-story skyscraper, which was never
hit by a plane, collapsed completely seven hours after the WTC Towers had
collapsed. How could this happen? The 9/11 Commission report fails to mention
the collapse of WTC7. Federal laboratories have not officially answered
yet. FEMA explains how fire might initiate a collapse, then admits, "Our
best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence." Is it a crime,
then, to consider an alternative hypothesis, that explosives were used?
I invite you to study this matter for yourself. Please read the peer-reviewed
articles published here:
This Journal is supported by the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which I co-chair,
and considers the "official theory" of what happened on 9/11 as well as
alternative explanations. One of my scientific papers on 9/11 issues is
published in this Journal (as well as in a book edited by Professors David
Ray Griffin and Peter Scott.)
The paper therein by Joseph Firmage explores evidences that US intelligence
knew in advance that the hijackers were coming and that the attacks were
"allowed to happen," to justify wars in the Middle East. At least ten nations
are on record as having warned the current administration that terrorist
attacks were imminent, shortly before 9/11.
If another "9/11-like event" is "allowed to happen" in the near future,
do you not suppose that it will be blamed this time on Iran or Syria, followed
by a swift and deadly attack on the country blamed? Can you not imagine
that a military draft will follow next, with college students constrained
to enter the military, and handed rifles to go and kill people in the Middle
East, by the tens of thousands?
Because of my concern for college-age students I have taught and loved
for decades, I am motivated to speak out emphatically against what I judge
- after thorough study and reflection - to be terrible wars, wars of aggression,
founded on deceptions.
Steven E. Jones Physicist and Co-chair, Scholars for 9/11 Truth