By Ryan McIlvain

Reports that BYU administration put a gag order on Physics Professor Steven E. Jones are exaggerated, Jones said in a phone interview Friday.

Jones seemed surprised to hear that he’d been censored. He too was unaware of an e-mail that was circulating claiming that “BYU Brass Discredit Physics Professor for Saying WTC Brought Down by Controlled Demolition.” The e-mail quoted a “non-traditional” news Web site.

Jones said the only conversation he’s been involved in, in regards to the articles, was one he’d had with the dean of the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences. Earl Woolley. Jones said the dean gave him tips on how to cut back on the interviews, but was never told not to talk to the media.

“The dean explained to me how he handled requests for media interviews; how he managed to give so few,” said Jones, a full-tenured professor whose controversial research into the WTC collapse has sparked national media attention. “I’ve made the personal decision to stick with peer-reviewed papers and scholarly seminars as a means of expressing my views, as much as possible. No one at the university has told me not to talk about this subject.”

When asked about the college’s stance on Jones, Woolley said, “I respect the review process for manuscripts, and since that has not been finalized as far as I know, than it would be inappropriate for me to make a comment.”

University spokeswoman Carri Jenkins said all decisions regarding Jones’ research were made exclusively at the college and department levels.

Jenkins also said Jones called her to ask advice on handling the media.

“My advice to him, as I would tell any professor, was to not discuss a paper until it was published,” she said. “And that’s just what I would tell any professor.”

Nearly three weeks ago, Jones posted a scientific paper online calling for an investigation into his “explosive demolition hypothesis,” which posits that pre-planted explosives, not planes, may have brought down the two Twin Towers and another, 47-story building known as WTC 7.

Since then, the mild-mannered physics professor has given numerous interviews to media ranging from independent Web journalists to MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson.

Some media members have been sympathetic to Jones’ research; others dismissive, even derisive.

An article posted on articbeacon.citymaker.com, reported that BYU administrators had stymied Jones from giving any more interviews. It further stated: “Critics suggest Bush administration had its dirty hand in forcing BYU to ‘shut up’ its professor.”

A columnist for the Pittsburg Tribune-Review said while Jones isn’t the first to make a case for a controlled demolition hypothesis, “it’s hard to imagine anyone making it clearer.”

On the other hand, conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson attacked the political implications of Jones’ research on national television.

“I’m sure your writings were greeted with just glee in Islamabad and Peshawar and places like that,” Carlson told Jones. “But for Americans…”

Not long after this spate of interviews, BYU’s College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences posted a statement on its Web site stressing Jones’ right to publish what he wished while distancing itself from Jones’ current research.

That statement has since been removed, but a similar one is still online at the College of Engineering and Technology’s Web site.

“The University is aware that Professor Steven Jones’s hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU’s own faculty members,” it reads in part.

“Professor Jones’s department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.”

Reached for comment, structural engineering professors Steven Benzley and Rick Balling both said they supported the statement as written.

Balling said he and Benzley have made contact with Jones on more than one occasion, engaging him in a dialogue about the more technical aspects of his research.

Once again, Jenkins said top university officials did not influence the structural engineering faculty or the College of Engineering and Technology to challenge Jones’ work.

She said the college administration wrote the statement in response to media reports that Jones’ colleagues “had given in essence a vote of confidence to his hypotheses.”

“In fact,” Jenkins said, “the faculty hadn’t supported that further research be done in this area, and so they were concerned about misrepresentation in the media.”

On Sept. 22, prior to going public with his provocative suggestions, Jones gave a seminar to a group of his colleagues from the Department of Physics and Astronomy.

After the seminar, all but one of Jones’ colleagues said they agreed an investigation was in order, Jones said. And the lone dissenter came around the next day.

In a Nov. 11 interview, Physics Professor Harold Stokes, one of several faculty members who attended the seminar, said the explosive demolition hypothesis “certainly raises some interesting questions” and that Jones’ claims “certainly appear to be valid.”

Like many of his other colleagues, though, Stokes was up front in saying that he didn’t have the technical expertise to properly scrutinize Jones’ claims.

In an effort to accommodate administration and others, Jones said he has modified his paper, and submitted it to another journal and another round of peer reviewing.

He said he feels “a bit awkward” that some colleagues now question the peer review process his paper initially passed through.

“My paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication before being made available on the Web with the editor’s approval,” Jones said. “The reviewers included a physicist and an engineer, I now understand. The review has not been shown to have been inappropriate and I believe it was appropriate.”

Still, Jones said he willingly submitted his paper to another publication, where he is confident it will pass peer review a second time.



Copyright Brigham Young University 5 Dec 2005