BYU Censors Artwork for Being Too Conservative

[Fiannan]

If everything BYU does is gospel then I suppose we should let our daughters dress in skimpy outfits like the cheerleaders there do?????

and preach evolution, global merger, NWO,UN, witchcraft, birth control, un Constitutional government, the welfare state, government schools, only listen to globalist speakers, promote Mao, and avoid those that speak against the previous, and you will be right in line with BYU

Oh, and how about the BYU professor who came out and said that homosexuality was biological? I think he is still working there -- not sure about the professor who was questioning 9-11.

[HeirofNumenor]

The Church is doing exactly what Our Lord wants the Church to do! As soon as we recognize that factor and repent of those thoughts, the better off we'll be.

As a people we have exactly the government we deserve, we want a better government, we repent and get closer to the Lord. Folks, Our Lord is now in the process of compelling us to repent, the natural disasters will continue to increase until we do! Are each of us going to continue to be part of the cause of that increase?

Bob

Agreed. O:-)

[BroJones]

Many good things came out of my early retirement and subsequent research on the dust generated on 9/11. I have discussed these matters at 911blogger and here. I suspect that much good can yet come of Brother McNaughton's painting regarding the Constitution!

[BroJones]

Here is my blog (not a mere forum comment which has been edited!) of positive things to come out of my relationship with BYU, which I wish to emphasize:

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-05-09/b ... isited#new" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A few days ago I was asked by a distinguished Professor at the University of Massachusetts what happened to me at BYU, in my own words. I often get this question and would like to say the following.

1. In September 2005, I presented a colloquium at Brigham Young University (BYU) in a large auditorium, presenting the physical evidence I had accumulated by then that the “official story” of the 9/11 disaster (that it was all due to Al Qaeda ALONE with no US foreknowledge of the attacks) was highly suspicious. I had invited professors from across campus and many came, from numerous disciplines including physics, math, psychology, engineering. I asked them to take the “kid gloves off” and tell me where I was in error. In particular, we watched the rapid, nearly-symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 – which was NOT hit by a plane and yet fell to the ground seven hours after the Towers were completely destroyed.

After two hours, we had to leave because a class had the room scheduled. But before we left, I asked those present (about 70 in all) if they agreed with me that an investigation into 9/11 events was warranted. By show of hands, none disagreed with this proposition, except one, a geology professor. The next day, he saw me on campus and said that he had changed his mind and that he now supported a full investigation into 9/11. Note that a large number of professors supporting an investigation of the full story of 9/11 is not the same as an endorsement by BYU.

A number of those in attendance provided helpful, critical comments for my nascent paper published later in a volume by Profs. David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, and available on-line here:
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2 ... e_WTC_Buil.." onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. This peer-reviewed paper includes discussion of this colloquium/review described above.

One could say that this was an initial “peer-review” for my research in this area, a peer-review that I sought out well before the paper was published, and at no time have I shied away from scientific peer-review of my research (on the contrary). There was a more formal peer-review process on the paper as well, by multiple referees. The paper was finally approved for publication following extensive peer-review and published in about August 2006:

Professors David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, editors, 9/11 And The American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Northhampton, MA: Interlink Publishing, 2006. It was re-published on-line by kind permission of the editors (see link above). One of the editors (Prof. Griffin) has explained that there were four reviewers for my paper, all Ph.D’s. To clarify some apparent confusion: the paper is not published in “The Hidden History of 9-11-2001,” Elsevier, 2006, although that volume does contain a number of relevant articles.
2. In April 2006, I presented a talk regarding my 9/11 research findings at a meeting of the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters. I recall that the abstract for this talk was reviewed and approved by a fellow BYU Physics Professor, and my contribution was subsequently published by the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters.

3. BYU placed me on administrative leave on Sept. 7, 2006, with reference to my research on 9/11 (see http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,51 ... .html?pg=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

The University spokesperson clearly stated that "The university doesn't have an opinion regarding the theory."

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/193556/4/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“Jones was placed on administrative leave for publishing a theory that explosives were involved in the towers' collapse through channels university officials deemed inappropriate,"
BYU spokesperson Carri Jenkins said.
"The university doesn't have an opinion regarding the theory," she said.”

This was an important distinction -- BYU was specifically NOT stating an opinion regarding my "theory" which challenges the official narrative of 9/11, the highly-publicized "official theory" that ONLY ill-trained Muslim hijackers were involved in the complete destruction of three WTC skyscrapers, one of which was not hit by a plane (WTC 7), with no foreknowledge of the plans by the Bush-Cheney administration.

4. Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, director of the Transmission Electron Microscopy Laboratory at BYU was (and still is) permitted to work with me on my research. 



5. Based on that research, a group of scientists wrote the paper now published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," April 2009. There were two authors from BYU listed on that paper, Dr. Farrer (as second author) and Daniel Farnsworth. Their affiliation with the BYU Department of Physics and Astronomy was listed in the paper as anyone can see by referring to this paper in an established, peer-reviewed journal:

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/conte ... 002/000000.." onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
Deseret News article on the paper:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7052 ... in-911-dus.." onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

6. Retiring Professors at BYU (at least in the Department of Physics and Astronomy) often are allowed a shared office on campus and to keep a research web page and to continue research, and given emeritus status. One can find this out by asking several retirees; it is not a secret. In response to numerous questions – in my retirement, I was probably treated in a more-or-less standard way.

7. It is apparent from the news media at the time that BYU had been under considerable pressure regarding my 9/11 research; this was particularly clear in radio talk-shows in 2005-2006 (e.g., by Bob Lonsberry, KNRS). Further, we understand from press releases that Dick Cheney's office or the White House approached BYU leaders, and this resulted in Cheney's coming to BYU to give a commencement address just three months after my "early retirement" from BYU, in April 2007. BYU -- to its credit -- allowed TWO on-campus demonstrations against the policies of Dick Cheney in spring 2007. Again, this information is available publicly in the media. (How many protests has BYU allowed through the years? Very few!)


In view of such facts, my friend and fellow 9/11-researcher Kevin Ryan said "Hurray for BYU!" And I have to agree.

Reply from Professor Niels Harrit, Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark (March 13, 2010)

Quote:

Steven: I am glad that you can see beyond your own (and ours!) annoyance and point to the positive aspects of BYUs handling of their situation.
Let me hasten to join Kevin and cheer for BYU – loud and clear.
We have to acknowledge the political space they live and operate in, and BYU deserves the credits you point out.
One senses a high level of decency at BYU.
Kind of the same thing I feel in the mainstream press these days. The young journalists try to squeeze some information in and take the discussion as far as they can before they run their head into the editors hammer.
Regards
Niels
[Unquote]

Steven E. Jones

Professor of Physics (retired)

PS -- In my email to the distinguished professor in Massachusetts, I added that I feel that an INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATION conducted by scientists and engineers and others is needed -- not a US-congressional investigation at this time. She agreed with me, writing:

"I entirely agree with your suggested objective: an international review body to investigate 9/11, with scientists and engineers from a number of participating countries... In fact, I suspect that this is THE ONLY way to get national and international coverage so extensive that the US media will have to follow the news stories."

With regard to current activities, I am pursuing energy-related research at this time. This is an area where I continue to have support. For example, see:http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/4CF06/Event/55778 . Experiments involving a low-energy deuteron beam impinging on a liquid lithium target are ready to launch at BYU... stay tuned.

American dependence on foreign oil is causing great problems. It is time to declare American Independence a second time -- this time, energy independence.

[BroJones]

Mark, I hope you and Shadow will carefully read the above blog, noting what BYU did NOT say about my "theory".

And then, if you wish to comment further, please say it outright and not with vague innuendo (which appears to me to be mocking). Thanks.

With regard to Paul Drockton, he did not ask me if he could publish my remarks on this thread and I would not have given him permission if he did. Note that remarks on a forum like this are tentative and certainly subject to change, and I reserve the right to edit my remarks as my understanding increases and I apologize for earlier, hasty remarks now retracted.

I would like now to get back to my research on alternative energy which I hope will benefit mankind...

[Fiannan]

"Professor claims scientific evidence of homosexuality
By Brittney McLaws NewsNet Staff Writer - 26 Mar 2004"

This article is from the BYU Universe.

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/49488" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Guess God makes people gay and lesbian. @-)

Actually, I listened to one of his presentations on the net and the stuff he brings up is a pathetic attempt to make his case.

[pritchet1]

I would definitely question anything published by Drockton. :-$

Maybe worth a thread called something like the Drockton Question. Maybe Paul will see fit to join in. But maybe this is too hot of a potato to handle.

Any thoughts? A separate thread?

[shadow]

Mark, I hope you and Shadow will carefully read the above blog, noting what BYU did NOT say about my "theory".

And then, if you wish to comment further, please say it outright and not with vague innuendo (which appears to me to be mocking). Thanks.

What in the world are you talking about doc? What vague innuendo are you referring? Seems like the innuendo is coming from you . I double dog dare you to find any comment from me criticising your "research". Granted, I disagree with you on the "Minetta" thing, but that is separate form your research. I think you'll find that I'm a supporter of your research, and even Mark can back me up on that one. And for what it's worth, I really am curious if your professor friend is on leave because of his 911 views.

[BroJones]

I don't know for certain if his 911 views had anything to do with it. Thank you for clarifying, Shadow, and for "I think you'll find that I'm a supporter of your research".

[Mark]

I don't know for certain if his 911 views had anything to do with it. Thank you for clarifying, Shadow, and for "I think you'll find that I'm a supporter of your research".

Elwood Blues here Doc. My teasing came from the call of possibly organizing a forum picket at the BYU welcome sign. The TPing comment came out of my sick sense of humor. Nothing personal. I just think doing things like organizing pickets against BYU by people who are clueless as to the specifics of these actions is just a bit premature. You wisely discouraged that for the time which I think is proper.

[waking]

Dr. Jones, I really appreciate you taking the time to explain the details of your "early retirement" from BYU. It takes a meek man to hold his tongue, and still see the good in the hand that has been dealt him. I hope there will be more international exposure of 9/11.

[larsenb]

Is the professor on leave because of his 911 views?

Exactly what I was thinking oh wise one. Maybe a total disclosure of the facts might be beneficial before everyone runs over to the BYU sign and starts TPing it. )

Actually, that would be my motivation for wanting to picket BYU or even TPing it (maybe a good idea ). I.e, if it were disclosed that the professor put on leave was someone involved in Dr. Jones' research. Enough is enough. Hence, my "two black marks" comment.

But don't get me wrong, I agree with both Kevin Ryan and Niels Harrit's assessment of the situation. You do have to consider the political/donor climate BYU has to deal with. And you have to ask: what other University has allowed 9/11 research to be conducted on their premises? BYU does come through with flying colors under the circumstances in allowing what they did allow, especially when compared with the utter inactivity from any other US University or college.

It doesn't make it easier for me and many others, however, to see some of the people BYU brings in as speakers or chooses to honor.

[BroJones]

Thanks for clarifying, Mark.

Dr. Jones, I really appreciate you taking the time to explain the details of your "early retirement" from BYU. It takes a meek man to hold his tongue, and still see the good in the hand that has been dealt him. I hope there will be more international exposure of 9/11.

Thanks waking. Well said, larsenb:

But don't get me wrong, I agree with both Kevin Ryan and Niels Harrit's assessment of the situation. You do have to consider the political/donator climate BYU has to deal with. And you have to ask: what other University has allowed 9/11 research to be conducted on their premises? BYU does come through with flying colors under the circumstances in allowing what they did allow, especially when compared with the utter inactivity from any other US University or college.

And my apologies Shadow, for including you in my question on the previous page.

[larsenb]

Where do I begin? 8-| Let me post one paragraph from the illustrious ones article.

Some members of the Church wonder if the lack of revelation surrounding these perilous times is a consequence for the Church turning its back on both the Book of Mormon and the United States Constitution. It seems that the last official revelation was the "Church's Proclamation on the Family", given in 1995. The last time a leader of the Church said, "Thus Saith the Lord" was under pro-Constitutionalist and Book of Mormon advocate Ezra Taft Benson. He condemned the Church for not defending the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Book of Mormon.

Anybody who doesn't see the underlying jab at church leadership concerning his premise of a "lack of revelation" is either a thick Mick or has been compromised. I watch conference every 6 months and read articles and books from church leadership all the time and I see a steady flow of revelation coming from the Brethren on a regular basis. This "no revelation" premise is used by apostates who want to make the case that the heavens are sealed and wickedness has overcome the flock. I don't buy it from them and I don't buy it from some obsessive compulsive Farmers Insurance ex agent. Deception is rampant in these times. Has anyone considered that this deception can effect both ends of the political spectrum? @-)

I haven't made Paul Drockton's story much of a study. Though I'm familiar with his claims of being stomped on by Farmer's Insurance after he raised his head above the waters regarding the question of 'promotional' discrimination based on religious affiliation, then seeking help from the Cannons and allegedly having them contribute to his world falling apart even more, coupled with betrayals from close associates. Sounds like a rough time. Is lumping all of this under the label of being an "obsessive compulsive Farmers Insurance ex agent" being very charitable, in the face of this kind of apparent personal trauma?


Particularly, regarding his allegations about the Cannons, where are the slander law suites if Drockton's claims aren't true?

And if there is truth to these claims, you can begin to understand his disappointment in seeing Joe Cannon being made the Chief Editor of the Deseret News. These associations and others he gets into are troubling to a lot of people, including me.

Your quote where he says: "Some members of the Church wonder if the lack of revelation surrounding these perilous times is a consequence for the Church turning its back on both the Book of Mormon and the United States Constitution", I think refers mainly to the Church staying largely away from issues of a larger conspiracy or even from what seem to be rampant current violations of the Constitution. Why this is so has been hashed over again and again on this forum. I think the general consensus has been that the Church HAS to stay away from these issues at this time if they want to give as many people as they can a chance to accept the gospel before the curtain falls. Otherwise, their proselytizing efforts would be greatly hampered.

I don't see the Church turning its back on the Book of Mormon at all. This is Drockton hyperbole.

That's about as far as I go with Paul Drockton. I think his very real trauma drives his views. Has he gone overboard? Between him and the Lord. If the Church thinks he has, they will deal with him. But I don't like where he broadcasts quotes from Dr. Jones' posts made in this forum to a much, much broader forum without Dr. Jones' permission. This really isn't a very nice thing to do.

[AussieOi]

If everything BYU does is gospel then I suppose we should let our daughters dress in skimpy outfits like the cheerleaders there do?????

No way
please tell me they DO NOT have cheerleaders?
and at a university?
surely not
even we in Oz (where cheerleaders dont exist) know a cheerleader represents
no no, you're pulling my leg
might as well have pole dancers under a basketball ring and be done with it

[AussieOi]

oh no
i just found they have a web site
cougarettes

insert the double facepalm photo please

[Fiannan]

If everything BYU does is gospel then I suppose we should let our daughters dress in skimpy outfits like the cheerleaders there do?????

No way
please tell me they DO NOT have cheerleaders?
and at a university?
surely not
even we in Oz (where cheerleaders dont exist) know a cheerleader represents
no no, you're pulling my leg
might as well have pole dancers under a basketball ring and be done with it

Yes they do: http://cdn.faniq.com/images/blog/BYU%284%29.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Not all that partial to blonds though.

[gkearney]

Ack! my eyes! too many blonds in one place!

[buffalo_girl]

Why do they grimace?!

[shadow]

even we in Oz (where cheerleaders dont exist) know a cheerleader represents

http://cheerleadingaustralia.com/cheerl ... hotos.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
No cheerleaders in Oz, eh? Maybe they don't have cheerleaders at your stone throwing contests, but Oz is full of cheerleaders. Look around a bit... )

[BroJones]

...

I don't see the Church turning its back on the Book of Mormon at all. This is Drockton hyperbole.

That's about as far as I go with Paul Drockton. I think his very real trauma drives his views. Has he gone overboard? Between him and the Lord. If the Church thinks he has, they will deal with him. But I don't like where he broadcasts quotes from Dr. Jones' posts made in this forum to a much, much broader forum without Dr. Jones' permission. This really isn't a very nice thing to do.

Agreed.