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.

LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley said, "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..."

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 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 (First Amendment).

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 Building 7 on Sept. 11.

After seeing the collapse of Building 7, many instinctively want to know why this 47-story skyscraper, which was never hit by a plane, collapsed completely seven hours after the twin towers had collapsed. How could this happen?

The 9/11 Commission report fails to mention the collapse of Building 7. 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. The Web site www.Journalof911Studies.com 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 U.S. 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 10 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 deception.

Steven E. Jones recently taught physics at Brigham Young University and is co-chairman of 9/11 Scholars for Truth.