Comments regarding Prof. Jones’ “Why Indeed Did the
WTC Buildings Collapse?” (More comments will be added as there is
time. Not all of this will be fan-mail…)
1. Email to
Prof Jones from a structural engineer in
“It occurred to me that structural
engineers and architects are practitioners of static physics [like yourself]
although we use different terminology peculiar to our professions to elaborate
on our designs.
I am surprised how few of my
colleagues have expressed public disbelief at the official line which lurches
from theory to theory as the shortcomings of each became apparent. I guess they
have run out of ideas on Building 7.
You nailed the biggest problem
when you focused on the symmetry of collapse in comparison to the asymmetry of
the damage... Steel high rises are designed (and overdesigned)
as cantilever beams on end. There is so
much redundant steel in these buildings because they have to resist hurricane
force winds. Was there a hurricane in
If steel framed structures
designed by world class engineers (who are still being commissioned to design
high rises elsewhere in the world) can collapse with so little provocation, I
should send my diploma back and take up fortune telling.
So
astute that the president promptly declared 9/11 an Act of War (the truth, sort
of). This
relieved the designers of having to defend themselves for negligent
design. No professional liability
policies cover war (because of exposure to explosives etc.), so no deep pockets
to make a lawsuit worth while. So no engineer singing to a jury…”
2. From another
structural engineer:
•
“A couple of
months back I examined [Jones] claims in detail. Initially I was a bit
incredulous… so I downloaded all the official reports basically expecting to
find holes in the good prof's hypothesis.
•
I'm a professional
civil engineer with a lot of experience in the construction of major structures
and I was just astounded at what I found. In my COO days if my staff had put up
reports like that relating to a disaster on my patch, there is no way they
would have been accepted and I would have been asking some very tough
questions: The [official] reports
are not at all convincing.
•
That they are
not is a serious worry.
•
Regards, Ted [last name withheld pending
permission]
3. From a
Mechanical Engineering Professor, email to Dr. Jones:
•
“You may be
interested in the fact that I have begun approaching discussions of the WTC
"collapses" in my classes. It began with the appearance of your
[SE Jones] article, last fall. I found the article just before class, and
left it on my laptop so that when I plugged in the laptop projector, the
students would see it. (I tried to make it look accidental.) Some
were very interested, but I had a few violent responses… (e.g. "I'm
extremely offended”) and a few of the students acted as though they would turn
me in to the Dean. I'm embarrassed to say that I backed down.
•
That was on a Friday (Veteran's Day).
By Monday, I had my wagons in a circle and was ready to take on the Dean, if
need be. I felt the topic of the WTC was totally appropriate to
discuss in this class (Engineering Statics), and I
could counter any logical argument against it. By the end of the
semester, at least a third of the class was seriously questioning the official
story. Also, I've been continually improving my techniques for
approaching this topic in my classes, and it has become very
rewarding.
•
Last Thursday, I introduced the topic to my
Strength of Materials class for the first time, and about half of the class
jumped in to the debate. The topic of the day was material properties and
how heat affects the strength and stiffness of steel. How could I
resist? I was so pleased to find that half of the class was
willing to debate the issue.
•
As far as I know, I'm the only person in my
department that doesn't buy the official story, and this bothers me. I
have approached a few others, but they've each thought I was crazy, yet were
unwilling to look at the facts. So far, I've not been called to the
dean's office or the chair's office for covering this material.
•
Beginning with your article, last semester,
I made a separate folder on the class web space where I put links to various
articles and videos.
•
Last September [2005], you corresponded with
my friend… In his letter to you, Alex mentioned that he has a friend who
is an engineering professor. I am the person he was referring to.
•
I'm sorry I didn't contact you then.
I was afraid of what might happen with my career.
•
Now, I'm more afraid of what is happening
with the world than with my career.
•
I'm writing you now because I'd like to join
your Scholars for 9/11 Truth team.”
[Prof. J. Wood at
4. From a mechanical
engineer with ‘government contacts’, sent to Prof Jones and BYU administrators:
[Nov.
2005, shortly after Prof. Jones’ article first appeared on the web] “The publication of this [Jones] article can be
stopped on the basis of endangerment, and I have the contacts to make this
happen if necessary, but I prefer to give you the opportunity to consider
the consequences - which you have not addressed. You need to give this very
serious consideration. This is an issue that is more important than any
individual career, or whether or not you believe that you
are correct. …The molten metal may be the best evidence that local conditions
in the fire where [sic] hotter than the post-test evaluation of
specific points… your theories are likely to be subject to intense scrutiny and
criticism. As painful as it may seem
now, perhaps it may be less painful than could occur after publication.”
[Nov. 2005, after responses
by Prof. Jones]: “The
[Dec. 2005, following answers and detailed responses
by Prof. Jones]: “I… have learned to
appreciate the value of silence, even in the case of superior data and
information…. There are, perhaps,
several reasons why the administration [at BYU] would pay more particular
attention to me than to you in this matter. First, you made many assertions
without the least amount of analysis to support your assertions… [Prof. Jones challenged this comment!]
“I regret that you are still trying to publish your
paper. The fact that a paper passes peer review and is accepted for
publication should not be viewed as validation of ideas unless the peer reviewers
are really qualified to perform the peer review.
“In contrast to studying things that could cause harm,
the whole focus could be changed to something that is assured to prevent
harm… Maybe a low velocity rocket fired
from a helicopter could disperse fire retardants on a floor that can't be
reached otherwise. Even if explosives are planted, this makes it much more
difficult to cause the collapse of the building. If this interests you, I would be happy to
contact Tom Hunter and the Head of Homeland Security to see if funding for BYU
could be found to research options for this purpose.
Again, I am sorry for the difficulty of this
interaction.”
[end of Dec., 2005]: “Steven:
I have recently given some thought to how I can help you preserve your
good name at BYU. My intent is to show
that I have as much concern for your well being as I have in preserving the
safety and security of others.
“It is better to demonstrate that structural collapse
can be prevented than to show how or why structures may be collapsed.
Toward this goal, I have recently had some ideas that may be inexpensive,
passive, light weight and effective against attack by both fire and
explosives. [A rather detailed outline
for a suggested grant proposal follows, snip…]
“The concept is patentable, could be easily applied
during construction (beneath facia), could be
required by building codes, and has a potentially large market. Naturally,
research is required to define the required thicknesses, attachment in a way
that preserves existing fire protection, and attachment in a way that is
difficult to remove without obvious alterations. It could even be added as a
decorative feature in existing buildings.
“Perhaps you may come up be different or better ideas,
but it suggests a course of action that protects others, rather than put them
at risk. It could bring substantial
resources to BYU, and could involve a cooperative effort between the
structural design group and physics department. This would give you the
opportunity to address your explosive ideas without having to capitulate, while
improving the resistance of the structure to collapse by fire. It also
generates a project that could bring the various departments together in a
cooperative effort. Naturally, you are most likely to achieve the greatest
success in such an effort if you change course, rather than continue to
pursue your present effort…” [Name
withheld. The reader can judge for
her/himself the statements and tactics used by this man with “contacts.” Note that his comments and efforts to thwart
publication of the Jones paper did not succeed, but may have influenced the
statement by the BYU Fulton College of Engineering which follows.]
5. [The following was posted at the web site of the BYU
Fulton College of Engineering and Technology from November 2005 to April 2006,
when it was removed without explanation.]
"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
[Comments by Prof. Richard McGinn]: “Notice the form it takes. It undermines
Jones' hypotheses with a hand-wave about academic procedure. No mention of the
substance of Jones' work.
”Another problem of the statement: The Physics Department at BYU, which ran its
own version of the offending statement on its web site last [autumn], was
persuaded to take it down following a letter-writing campaign. Yet the
”It would really, really help if we could find ways to get engineers and
scientists to focus on the substance of Professor Jones' hypotheses.” Richard McGinn
6. [Letter from Prof. McGinn to the Dean of the
Alan
R. Parkinson, Dean
270
CB
Dear
Dean Parkinson,
I
am writing to you both as an individual and a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth
(ST911.org). At issue is a statement posted on the
The
web site makes three questionable statements. First, it implies that Dr. Jones’
in-progress research into the physics of the 9/11 attacks in
Second,
it states without substantiation: “The structural engineering faculty in the
Third,
it names Dr. Jones’ own department as complicit in all of this, and in
particular, that the Physics Department is "not convinced that his
analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that
would ensure rigorous technical peer review."
I
hereby request the
"Professor
Jones' 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
There
are additional reasons for deleting the unprofessional and unethical statement.
First, although I am not a member of American Society of Civil Engineers, I am
permitted, according to the ASCE code, to lodge an ethics complaint against an
engineer. (The ombudsman for formal complaints to ASCE is: tsmith@asce.org).
Second,
no dean has the right to represent individual faculty, much less the entire
faculty of BYU’s
Most
poignantly, it is inconsistent with the code of ethics of the American Society
of Civil Engineers, by which you, as dean of the Engineering College, are
bound, given that your web site claims to represent the opinions of an entire
faculty of BYU engineers. The ASCR Code states in part:
"CANON 5.
g.
Engineers shall not maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, injure the
professional reputation, prospects, practice or employment of another engineer
or indiscriminately criticize another's work."
If
members of the College disagree with Dr. Jones' assertions in his paper that
the official FEMA and NIST reports are inadequate as they stand, then they
should be specific in their reasons for supporting those reports, neither of
which provides (routine) visualizations for finite element analyses.
Sincerely
yours,
Richard
McGinn
…
mcginn@ohio.edu
CC: ASCE Ombudsman
AAUP Committee on Academic Freedom
[The
web-statement by the
7. Email to Dr. Jones from an explosives expert:
•
“I am a veteran of the
•
•
“I have read
your paper concerning the WTC towers collapse and agree; Military thermite [which contains sulfur as an accelerant] is
the only explanation for the molten slag found weeks after the collapse.… Thermite charges
used in conjunction with small linear shaped charges could be used to drop
the
•
•
Keep fighting
the good fight.
•
•
Sincerely,
•
Michael …”
•
Note on
linear-shaped charges: "...
Linear-shaped charges focus the energy of the charge into a line, generating
about 3,000,000 pounds per square inch of pressure. This pressure creates
a flow in the steel, forcing the steel aside. Such charges can be used to
slice steel as thick as 10 inches." CDI p 43
8. Email to Prof. Jones from a Professor of
Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT:
“I agree wholeheartedly
with one comment [in Jones’ paper] – that the [official] enquiries are grossly
inadequate and the conclusions may well be wrong. I have publicly stated that they are
significant for what they do NOT say rather than for what they say. Building engineers on the defensive.”
9. Rep. Curt Weldon Town Hall Meeting (April
2006, transcript from audio tape)
Dave Slesinger: First, I want
to praise you for your Able Danger efforts. Since you are the Congressman most
sympathetic to firefighters, have you looked at the quotes from NYC
firefighters at the
Rep. Weldon: I will absolutely accept information,
and I'm very close to the NYC firefighters because one of my best friends was
killed there…
I talk to the fire department on a regular basis. When
the Republican convention was held in
Now, there's a lot of theorists
out there about what occurred. And uh, I haven't gone into the structural
elements of the building. The fact that there are reports on multiple
explosions on other floors... I am open to that information. I'm willing to
challenge the system. And uh, and don't automatically discount anything that's
told to me because I've seen, I've seen too much. I mean, ya
know, I hate to say that sometimes I don't trust my Government, but sometimes,
I don't trust the Government. The bureaucracy. Ya know the best evidence of that is we had the, uh, Tillman,
the football player. Joined the army, he was killed. We now find out that the
army burned his clothing. So the family never got to get the real story about
how Pat Tillman died. Now if it was an accident, so be it. You don't hide that
information because somebody is going to be embarrassed.
That's the whole story with Tony Shaffer. It's the
bureaucrats trying to hide information and facts, so they're not embarrassed.
So, do I automatically accept what the Government tells me? No. And that's why
I get myself in trouble. I challenge the CIA, I challenge the DIA. I'll
challenge our Defense Department. That's why you send me there. If you want
somebody to go there, and just go along, you would send a robot. That would
vote the way the party wanted, and would go along with the current President. I
won't do that. So I'm absolutely open to any information anyone has that
challenges anything about the 9/11 Commission or the work there.
Dave Slesinger speaks up: Congressman, that was my question, I, wanna give out, anybody who wants this, this is a speech
by a physics professor at BYU, Steven Jones.
Rep. Weldon: Yea.
Dave Slesinger:
It's the hottest thing happening on the 9/11 issue. In his speech, he praises
Congressman Weldon, he's a conservative Republican [or was], he praises Reagan,
he quotes
Rep. Weldon: It'll open
your eyes, because his
allegations are pretty strong.
[UVSC Presentation on Feb. 1, 2006, by Prof. Jones is available in various formats:
http://www.911blogger.com/2006/02/dr-steven-jones-utah-seminar-video.html
checktheevidence.com/911/BYUStevenJones
.]