From: Christopher Bollyn
To: Doug Fabrizio, KUER, Salt Lake City
Dear Mr. Fabrizio,
You wrote me the following note. My responses are within the text.
As you know, I spoke with you about the show before I wrote the article, which you told me you had produced. You told me you had arranged the guests, etc., and took full responsibility for the show.
This radio show, and the ruckus it caused among the organized Jewish community in Utah, is clearly the immediate cause behind the suspension of Prof. Jones from his teaching position at BYU. That much is evident.
BYU had scheduled Jones to teach his classes and, indeed, he had already started teaching on September 5, when you had him on your show the same day. BYU clearly had no problem with Jones' 911 research - until your program lit the fires in the Zionist community of Utah. It is this reaction to your show that led directly to Jones' dismissal.
Two days after the show, the heat from the fire had reached the highest levels of BYU officialdom and Jones was sacked. Obviously your show was the spark that lit the fire.
I listened to your show carefullly and stand by my statement that you quizzed him aggressively on the "motivation" and "Neo-Conservatives" blamed for being involved in 911. You went directly to this question of political "motivation" rather than addressing the science or evidence, while Prof. Jones is a physicist.
Furthermore, Jones clearly said that he was citing the opinion of Webster Tarpley and provided the necessary caveats to his comments, yet these were not noted in the subsequent discussion that more closely resembled a hit squad.
My responses to your comments below appear after my name in capitals.
Re: Are Zionists Behind Banning of Truthful 9/11 Scientist?
Chris,
Someone sent me a copy of your story and I thought I should clarify a few points.
I wasn't 'aggresively quizzing' Dr. Jones about his neo-con assertions. Before the program I didn't have the slightest idea about his suspicions in regards to motivation.
Dr. Jones has a right to his theories - I wasn't trying to ambush or discredit him.
BOLLYN - But it certainly looks that way. Rather than discuss the physical evidence from the crime scene and discuss what it means, you repeatedly quizzed Jones to explain the Neo-Con link to the "motivation behind the science."
Before the program aired we told him quite clearly how the show was going to play out - with him laying out his ideas and then Dr. Goldberg and another (we hadn't confirmed the booking on Dr. Fine yet) talking more broadly about conpiracy theories in general and their take on his in particular. He didn't object. I do want to make it clear that I didn't tell him any of the particular questions I was going to ask - but he's a bright man and I feel like I'm a respectful host. If - at any point - he would have said he felt uncomfortable talking about motivation and just wanted to stick to the science - I would have found that perfectly reasonable and would have moved on.
BOLLYN - You were talking to a well-known physicist about the physical evidence from the WTC, so why did you even go to the question of Neo-Con "motivation" behind the science, which is how I think you phrased it? Jones is a REAL scientist, not a political scientist, and has repeatedly and clearly stated that the unexplained collapse of WTC 7 and the presence of molten metal were the things that inspired him to dig deeper into this matter. Why did you not accept his scientific questions as being his motivational impetus? Because that would not have lit the fire, I suspect.
Our program begins at 11:06 (after the NPR News) - it ends at around 11:58 or 11:59 - with two minut-long (give or take) breaks that leaves a news hole of some 50 minutes - Dr. Jones was on until the bottom of the hour - that means rather than the 'brief 20 minutes' you say he was on the program - he was invited to make his points for half of it. That seems reasonable. Again, he was informed how long he would be on the show before air time.
Dr. Goldberg and others did hear anti-semitic themes in Dr. Jone's comments - and they said so. They also have a right to their opinion. Dr. Jones has since said he felt stunned to be accused of anti-semitism - that it simply wasn't his intent. I don't doubt this for a moment - but Jones did acknowledge to the Deseret News that he didn't fully understand the origin and history of the language he used and regretted it.
BOLLYN - The comments of Goldberg and Tumpowsky are absurd and meant to harm Jones. They failed to even address the science and evidence Prof. Jones has presented and instead attacked the man. This is despicable.
Finally - I unequivocally DID NOT take resonsibility for the "the program that sparked the sacking" as you reported. I specifically told you more than once during our conversation that I had absolutely no idea what connection our show had with Dr. Jone's suspension - I had not (nor still have not) been contacted by anyone at BYU or anywhere else for that matter. In fact the only person who has made that assertion has been you. You told me that Dr. Jones told you as much - but I have made no attempt to verify the claim.
I'm hoping you will correct your story. It would be tragically ironic for a man so devoted to telling the whole truth of a thing to be satisfied with a story that didn't get it right. As journalists all we have is our integrity.
BOLLYN - You told me that you took full responsibility for producing the program and you were the host. As I said above, your program was clearly what sparked the sacking of Prof. Jones. That is clear. The origins of the attack and criticism of Prof. Jones are clearly coming from within the Zionist community of Utah. Sorry, Mr. Fabrizio, but I stand by the story as it you read it.
Best wishes,
Christopher Bollyn
Photo: Christopher Bollyn (left) in discussion with Professor Steven E. Jones in his office at Brigham Young University in the spring of 2006.
