Mike McAuliff collected a sample of the WTC dust on 9/11/2001, and a few weeks ago sent it to a lab for analysis.

He writes:  "very fine fragments of photographs, fingernails, bones, hair, and tissue."  What Mike does not ask is: What agent reduced human bone, fingernails, and tissue to very fine fragments (as he notes from lab reports)? Will pancaking floors have this effect -- if so how?  It seems to me that pancaking floors would tend to trap bones, not fragment them as explosives would do.  Centimeter-long human bone fragments were found on the roof of the Deutsche Bank building, about 200 meters (or yards) away from the WTC complex.  What force splintered human bone and hurled it hundreds of yards?  Are not these observations evidence for the use of explosives?  I hesitate to speak in scientific terms of of such a sensitive matter, but victims' relatives (including Bob McIlvaine) have asked that I, as a Professor of Physics, speak out on these issues. 

A long article regarding 9/11 and challenges to the official narrative appears today in the Brazilian “Ultimo Segundo.” I was interviewed by the author, Marsilea Gombata. A Google translation appears below.

Link to the article in Portuguese: http://ultimosegundo.ig.com.br/11desetembro/perguntas+sem+respostas+aind...

SPECIAL SEPTEMBER 11 - TEN YEARS
“Unanswered questions still surround the September 11
Ten years later, scientists urge new investigation into the attacks that left nearly 3,000 dead in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania”

Marsilea Gombata, iG NY | 09/07/2011 08:00

Ten years later, on Sept. 11 is still shrouded in mystery, explanations that do not suit everyone and many questions unanswered. In the midst of several theories that raise the possibility the attacks were masterminded a plan by American authorities - because of coordinated actions by terrorists have been released without much technical knowledge and President George W. Bush (2001-2009) had a hurry to invade Afghanistan less than a month later -, academics and experts based on scientific evidence for a new investigation of the terrorist attacks.

During my career as a physicist, I have done research on muon-catalyzed fusion and metal-catalyzed fusion (both of which are examples of cold fusion and are published in the journal NATURE), on the dust generated on 9/11, on solar energy and non-conventional alternate energy; and on earthquakes. I have and will speak publicly on all of these research areas, except that I decline to say much at all publicly on earthquake research. Recently I was asked why this is the case.

When confronted with an interesting claim, I generally ask – What is the physical evidence and what experiments have been done? And -- Has the claim reached the level of a peer-reviewed publication? Not that such a publication is a necessity prior to discussion, but if there is a refereed publication, I would start with that.

Here I field questions that come to me fairly often, to help get the facts out and to counter misrepresentations and misunderstandings. I expect to make edits for a while and welcome comments.

1. Can nanothermites (also called superthermites) be explosive?

The definition of “explosive” can lead to endless debates. Is a flash of light required? Is a loud sound required? How loud? What rate of energy generation is required for a material to be called an explosive? Where is the line between low explosives and high explosives?
Rather than getting mired into ad nauseum debates, I will use the term “explosive” in conjunction with superthermites/nanothermites IF the national defense laboratories which developed these materials use the term. Here we go.

      I heard April Gallop speak a few years ago and had the opportunity to talk with her, when we both participated in a conference in Irvine, California. April was in the Pentagon with her infant son on Sept. 11, 2001, when the devastation occurred. There was no warning. We know from Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony that Dick Cheney et al. were following the progress of the jet as it came in towards the Pentagon, "50 miles out", 30 miles out, etc. Yet there was no warning to April Gallop or her co-workers in the Pentagon, and the jet was not intercepted. (See articles in the Journalof911Studies.com )  Over 100 died in the Pentagon disaster. April suffered physical injury from the blast and has filed a lawsuit charging Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers and others.

She deserves to be heard. But her case has been dismissed by Judge Denny Chin of United States District Court for Southern District of New York and is now in appeal status before the Circuit Court in Connecticut. Can we do SOMETHING to help April Gallop in her quest for justice and a fair hearing?

                 When I jumped into the ring to study 9/11 events in early 2005, I found that there were numerous wild and even conflicting claims. It was the “wild, wild west.” Some were saying that no planes hit the WTC Towers at all, and some said (in 2005 or soon thereafter) an energy beam from space knocked the Towers down. There were NO published peer-reviewed scientific papers in the field. To make a long story VERY short, this confused situation changed via experimental data and peer-reviewed papers published by Kevin Ryan, Dr. Niels Harrit, Dr. Frank Legge, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, James Gourley, Dr. Crockett Grabbe, Tony Szamboti, and myself and others. Now the science of 9/11 and the use of pyrotechnics/explosives is on firm experimental footing and serious challengers to our papers will need to find a way to publish peer-reviewed papers of their own (in established journals preferably) if they can. (They have not done so.) That's how science works-- peer-reviewed published papers stand until challenged by another peer-reviewed paper.

 Let me know what you think -- I find evidence that Glenn Beck in the last few weeks is raising questions about the government "creating a situation" -- a false flag event.  

Exhibit 1:  "if you ever got an oppressive state, if you ever had people who didn't respect the Constitution at the top, the fastest thing they could do to take over is create a situation and then have the Army march into these states.” http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/48957/ 

As a Full Professor of Physics at BYU, I reviewed dozens of scientific papers as an "anonymous" peer-reviewer.  I have reviewed papers since accepting early retirement from BYU in 2007. And I have published as author or co-author over fifty papers which have been subjected to peer-review. Based on my experience in the peer-review system,  I can add that it is not the place of an author of a paper or even an editor to reveal the names of anonymous peer-reviewers, but it is precedented and generally acceptable in the scientific community for a peer-reviewer to disclose his/her OWN name and role in the review of an important paper. This is the case for a prominent reviewer of the Harrit, Farrer, et al. paper -- one of the reviewers discloses his name and further comments on our paper and his review of it here:   http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2010/09/911-truth-evidence-of-energet... .  The reviewer's name is Prof. David L. Griscom.   Among his impressive credentials, Prof.

After a period of several weeks, Bentham Scientific has restored access to our "Fourteen Points" paper, but the link has changed -- please update your links to this paper:

"Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the
World Trade Center Destruction"
Authors: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F.
Szamboti, James R. Gourley
The Open Civil Engineering Journal, pp.35-40, Vol 2 (April 2008)

The new link is: http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/articles/V002/35TOCIEJ.pdf

(The old (defunct) link is:
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000... )

I am incorrectly quoted (to put it mildly) in http://911booger.blogspot.com/2007/05/steven-jones-on-wtc-7-collapse-we.... :
"Steven Jones (above, left) admitted today that he and other 9/11 researchers "screwed up on the collapse time of WTC 7. We blew it."

No, I never said that. The blog goes on with its despicable misrepresentations, putting words in my mouth that I never said:

"Responding to the overnight controversy, Steven Jones announced this morning that WTC 7 did indeed take over 13 seconds to collapse. 'We screwed up. We had never seen the CBS video when we claimed that it took WTC 7 6.5 seconds to collapse. We only relied on the street video that does not show the Penthouses. By the time we saw the CBS video, we had so much invested in the 6.5-second collapse time, we could not disappoint our supporters who were successfully using the 6.5 free fall time to push 9/11 Truth. We just ignored the evidence.' "

Checking today, the count of architects and engineers calling for a new, serious 9/11 investigation is 1197:
"1197 architectural and engineering professionals and 8178 other supporters including A&E students have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation. The petition is open to everyone."
Note that the total membership approaches a significant milestone: 10,000 members!
This calls for an effort to get a few hundred more to sign up -- and then for a big celebration. I am inviting people to sign up on forums that I frequent (including 911blogger).
Perhaps you will be #10,000 ;)

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.

The editors of the Journal of 9/11 Studies are pleased to announce publication of the following peer-reviewed article in the February 2010 volume of the Journal:

Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics
By David Chandler

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationO...

Physicist David Chandler continues his insightful analysis of the destruction of three WTC skyscrapers on 9/11/2001 in this very readable paper. From the summary:

I am pleased to announce the translation of the peer-reviewed article on “Active Thermitic Materials” by Prof. Niels Harrit et al. into Spanish and German, published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies:

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/SpanishRedGray.pdf

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/RedGrayChipsGerman.pdf

May I take this occasion to wish all of you a Happy New Year.

In the past I have urged all to acquire at least a three-month (preferably 1-year) supply of food and water, wherever this is legal. Now to add to this – I urge you to have a rural place of safety to go quickly to, perhaps in groups of families or friends, far away from the large cities. In a case where trucking of food into the cities is curtailed, or the electric power is out, or an EMP blast, or any number of scenarios where services to cities are cut, it will clearly be prudent to have pre-arranged retreat(s). The goals of self-sufficiency and voluntary-simplicity that some have been discussing “theoretically” in the Truth Movement for years can be quickly achieved with pre-planning and work and cooperation.

A special on 9/11 has just been shown on the National Geographic Channel, produced by Robert Erickson. Robert also conducted interviews with me and others. In March 2009, Prof. David Ray Griffin and I and Gregg Roberts exchanged emails with Robert Erickson which demonstrate our efforts to get Mr. Erickson and his team to be accurate and fair in their treatment of our scientific work regarding 9/11 – particularly the evidence for the use of explosives in the World Trade Center destruction. For the record, then, I have pulled together our exchanges of emails.

Robert Erickson, emailed David Ray Griffin on 3/27/09:
"if Jones is surprised that we just placed bags of thermite around the column...what else would Jones have suggested? "

I was informed of the question above and I responded on 3/28/09 as follows:

Robert,

Bags of commercial thermite set against a steel column -- what a pathetic "experiment." Not anywhere close to representing my views, as you must know, from our discussion about the red/gray chips and the crucial distinction between ordinary thermite and super-thermite! What a terrible and unfair straw-man joke you are evidently trying to pull.

Noted 9/11 research Dr. Frank Legge has published a revised version of his paper with additional notes and discussion, “What Hit the Pentagon?” The paper is available at the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug.pdf

His first version of the paper generated a great deal of discussion about this important issue. In presenting this revision, Dr. Legge notes:

“This version has been prepared to take into account a number of issues raised by critics and defenders of the original paper. Discussion of the implications of accepting or rejecting the official position that a 757 hit the Pentagon has been expanded and clarified. I am very grateful for the help provided. All significant alterations have been identified and discussed in footnotes.”

No doubt this revised version will encourage further discussion of what hit the Pentagon, and perhaps more importantly, a renewed push to obtain release of withheld video footage that will show unequivocally what hit the Pentagon – and a renewed interest in the whistleblower testimony of Secretary of Transportation (at the time) Norman Mineta.

As we approach the 8th anniversary of 9/11, we can work for increased media attention.... and get it.

An article just came out in City Weekly, a newspaper in Salt Lake City:

http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-8858-we-all-fall-down.html

The author, Eric Peterson, interviewed me in my home in rural Spring City, Utah. (I moved away from the densely populated Wasatch front area last year.) He makes some good points while missing a few points, IMO -- but I would like to hear what you think of this news article. The comments at cityweekly.net so far are supportive of 9/11 research.

The reporter did his homework -- contacting BYU, Fetzer and Greening to get "balance", which is fair. And he caught Fetzer in an error when he blamed Greening's non-appearance at a conference on me unfairly. "Greening sides with Jones," the article says on this point. Greening got this straight, but makes other criticisms without substantiation.

The reporter says that "James Farrer is currently giving presentations on the nano-thermite research in Europe" -- he meant, Niels Harrit. I could nit-pick a few other points.

Announcing two new papers by Dr. Frank Legge (Ph.D., Chemistry):

1) "Controlled Demolition at the WTC: an Historical Examination of the Case" provides a brief history of research related to explosive demolition at the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001, from Dr. Legge's point of view. Cogent and pithy; worth the read.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/LeggeCDatWTC.pdf

2) "Frank Greening versus Isaac Newton" provides a brief expose of the "lapse" by F. Greening in understanding Newton's Third Law -- and the significance of this gaffe by Greening. Sometimes humorous, certainly enlightening.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/FGvsNewton.pdf

Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading, commentary and even challenge before publication by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.

The 116th peer-reviewed paper was published today in the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
“The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis,”
by Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti. Take a look!
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt4.pdf

This fine paper underwent several months of rather arduous peer-review preceding its publication in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. The paper supports work by James Gourley published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and recent analysis by David Chandler. A few quotes from the paper should wet your interest:

“In its Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, the National Institute of Standards and Technology summarizes its three year study and outlines its explanation of the total collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2.[1] Readers of the report will find that the roughly $20 million expended on this effort have resulted in an explanation of the total collapse of these buildings that is so vague it barely qualifies as a hypothesis. But it does have one crucial feature of a hypothesis: it is, in principle, falsifiable. In fact, it is easy to demonstrate that it is false.
In this paper we will, concentrating on the North Tower, offer a refutation that is:

• easy to understand but reasonably precise
• capable of being stated briefly
• verifiable by any reader with average computer skills and a grasp of simple mathematics.

[snip] Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou, with whose September 13, 2001 back-of-the-envelope theory (with subsequent revisions and additions) NIST largely agrees, have never hesitated to say that the upper block fell. [8] Bazant has likewise been frank about the need for severe impact as the upper and lower structures met: he believes the impact may have been powerful enough to have been recorded by seismometers. [9] In his view, collapse initiation of the lower structure required “one powerful jolt.”[10] Of course, if there was a powerful jolt to the lower structure there must also have been a powerful jolt to the upper falling structure, in accord with Newton’s Third Law.”

We are pleased to announce that an article by Aidan Monaghan (B.Sc., EET) article has successfully passed the peer-review process at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. The article was published Oct 3, 2008: Plausibility Of 9/11 Aircraft Attacks Generated By GPS-Guided Aircraft Autopilot Systems. Link here: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/AutopilotSystemsMonaghan.pdf

The editors continue to accept submitted scholarly papers, with the proviso from the Introductory page at this Journal, which states that we encourage contributors to first consider submission to mainstream established journals. And frankly, the editors themselves are busy doing research and writing on such papers (one of which is now undergoing the peer-review process with such an established journal, on the subject of anomalous red/gray chips observed in the WTC dust).

Dear friends and colleagues,

I have been invited to give a presentation at the Physics Dept. seminar of Utah Valley University on 10 Sept 2008, 4 pm, room PS-202. You are invited to participate. Here is the title and abstract:

9/11/2001: Forbidden Questions, Explosive Answers
By Dr. Steven E. Jones
Seminar at Utah Valley University, Physics Department
10 Sept. 2008, 4:00 pm, room PS-202

Why did three (not two) skyscrapers fall to the ground on 9/11 at near free-fall rates, killing thousands? Why were numerous bone fragments found on a roof-top 600 feet away? Why did the National Inst. of Standards and Technology, charged by Congress to explain the collapses, concede to us, "…we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse"[1]? Why did NIST refuse to look for residues from explosives? (We, however, did so using state-of-the-art methods and I will report results.) What is the significance of red/gray chips found in the 9/11 dust? What is super-thermite? Who are the whistleblowers and what do they have to say? Why were there no air defenses on 9/11?

NIST'S WTC 7 technical briefing took place this morning. A number of good questions were asked, it seemed they came mostly from the 9/11-truth-seeking community. I asked (and these got through but were somewhat re-worded by the fellow "reading" the questions):

1. Did NIST have available to it samples of dust from the WTC catastrophe, and if so, did NIST examine the dust for red/gray chips as described by Dr. Steven Jones (physicist)? Note that over a dozen WTC-dust samples were examined by the US Geological Survey, and these were presumably available to NIST.

2. NIST discusses the fall time for WTC 7 on page 40 of their summary, where we find the significant assumption: "Assuming that the descent speed was approximately constant..." However, observations by Dr. Frank Legge and others of the descent speed shows that it is accelerating, not constant at all. Why did NIST assume "that the descent speed was approximately constant" when observation shows otherwise?

Thanks to the able translators who have made the "Fourteen Points" readable now in Dutch and Italian:
http://journalof911studies.com/letters/c/14PuntenDutchVersion.pdf
http://journalof911studies.com/letters/c/14PuntiItalianVersion.pdf

It is through INTERNATIONAL efforts that I believe we can succeed in the TRUTH AND INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT (seeking Truth about 9/11 and the 9/11 wars, the NAU/SPP, the expanding US debt and falling dollar, rising oil prices, and so on -- and Independence from corrupt and decaying systems, individually and in communities).

The Italian translators are Riccardo Pizzirani and Massimo Mazzucco. Massimo wrote about this paper:
"we have just [finished] a translation of your “14 points” piece, which I personally found delightful: I never thought such fine irony could be married so elegantly to any 9/11 discourse.
Thanks for it all, on behalf of all Italian 9/11 truthers as well."

The translation into Dutch was accomplished by Frank Ho, who wrote:
"Thanks for showing interest in my Dutch translation of your 14 points study. I'm impressed by this new approach in seeking for agreements. The Journal of 911 Studies is free to use this translation for it's purposes.
"There is one remark. I translated this article with lot's of efforts because of it's main importance....
My main goal is making the information about 9/11 irresistible and inevitable for mainstream oriented public and press. Therefore I consider a smooth readability and presentation as an obligation."

Further translations are welcomed!

Reddit the deseret news article: (hit the "up" arrow - http://reddit.com/info/6i1kb/comments/ )

The "Fourteen Points" paper regarding the WTC destruction has been translated into Czech and appears in the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
http://journalof911studies.com/letters/c/14%20PointsCzechversion.pdf
The authors hold the copyright to the peer-reviewed paper (our thanks to the respected editors at the Open Civil Engineering Journal) and so we can strongly encourage further translations and publications of the article -- into Spanish, German, French, Italian... Thanks to Petr Kral for his first translation of this paper, original here: http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000...

The Fourteen Points paper is also the basis of a break-through media article, in a major Salt Lake City newspaper, here:
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695275973,00.html
As my colleague Kevin Ryan wrote me this morning "They took the high road this time." I think so, too.
The reporter (Walch) was willing to speak about microspheres and red/gray chips which we found in the WTC dust -- and to nudge NIST to take a look at the evidence.

(EDIT: FYI, it is extremely common for Open Access Journals to charge a publication fee. This in no way reflects upon the quality of the peer review process, or the contents of the paper. -rep.)

Finally! After submitting a half-dozen papers to established peer-reviewed technical journals over a period of nearly a year, we have two papers which have passed peer-review and have been accepted for publication. One of these was published TODAY! In science, we say that we have “published in the literature,” a major step in a nascent line of scientific inquiry.

And many thanks to the editors for their courage and adherence to science in allowing us to follow the evidence and publish in their journal. (Indeed, expressions of thanks along these lines to the editors will be appreciated, as they will probably get a few letters chastising them… )

The paper is here:
http://www.bentham.org/open/index.htm (our paper is listed on top at the moment, the most recently entered paper); or go here:
http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/openaccess2.htm
(Click on “year 2008” then scroll down to the paper and click on it.)

I appreciate 911blogger and the opportunity to share some recent events and thoughts with all of you. I'm just going to talk freely to you my many friends in this community...

1. Recently had a technical paper accepted for publication following peer-review (three reviewers!), in a mainstream journal. Hopefully it will be out soon. Please read the entire paper when it comes out -- not just the title! You will see a little humor coming through (I hope you'll see it), but the overall thrust is very serious: countering popular myths about the destruction of WTC 7 and the Towers -- and pointing out areas where we the authors find agreement with NIST (and FEMA). Yes, we agree with NIST that the Towers fell at nearly free-fall speed, for example -- and that the WTC fires were NOT hot enough to melt structural steel. Don't you? The paper should come out about the same time as Truth Week, and hopefully add to the momentum of that week (beginning April 16th).

Dr. Frank Legge has a knack at explaining difficult concepts logically and succinctly, as exemplified in his latest paper: "WTC 1 Collapse – What if the Columns Miss?" Dr. Legge considers four possible ways in which the columns in WTC 1 could have interacted in a gravity-driven collapse, and concludes:

"None of these four outcomes was observed. Clearly all the evidence points to the use of explosives to sever the columns in a precise sequence designed to produce vertical collapse at near free fall speed. As felling of such a tall building had previously not been attempted, it is likely that a considerable excess of explosive was used to make absolutely certain that the collapse would be vertical and complete. As a probably undesired consequence of this excess, most of the concrete was pulverized, as we observe.

"We can therefore safely conclude that, regardless of how the columns of the upper section interact with the columns of the lower section, the official explanation for the collapse is false."

Please read this three-page letter, here: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/c/ColumnsMissLegge9.pdf

Dr. Daniele Ganser (History Department, Basel University, Switzerland) succeeded in publishing an academic paper in Sept. 2006 a significant European newspaper – quite an accomplishment! Subsequently, his article was translated into French and English. With his permission, his article is re-published for convenience of researchers in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, in THREE languages:

Deutsche: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/d/GanserDeu11Sept.pdf

Français : http://journalof911studies.com/letters/d/GanserFrancaisOnzeSept.pdf (Actress Cotillard pls read)

English : http://journalof911studies.com/letters/d/GanserSwissProfs.pdf

The editors of the Journal note that some of his views may be controversial even in the 9/11 fact-seeking movement – which is fine for publication as long as the views are substantiated and supported with solid evidence (as his are) and ad hominem-type attacks are avoided. The model of publishing an article like this in a major newspaper provides a notable good example. (Publication in mainstream peer-reviewed technical journals is even more highly encouraged!)

A great event came together very well Saturday evening, 23 Feb 2008, under the able leadership of Julia and Kristine (sp?) of KPFK - LA. Julia provided introductions followed by Richard Gage for about 35 minutes, then I spoke for about an hour, followed by Richard once more... Then Cynthia McKinney gave a powerful, motivating talk -- she is running for US President in the Green Party (USA). She is very 9/11-savvy. Finally, Q&A. It was fun -- a lot of energy at the meeting.

I presented new SEM/EDS data on the red/gray chips -- and explained further research that is being planned and done to finish this up. (Hopefully the video will be available soon.) I also spoke about areas where I/we actually agree with NIST scientists and engineers, e.g.,

1. The "pancake theory of collapse" -- has been analyzed and dismissed by NIST in their reports. For example, in an FAQ released by NIST in Aug 2006, they write:

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers."
wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm