Publication in a Peer-reviewed Civil Engineering Journal!

(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: (our paper is listed on top at the moment, the most recently entered paper); or go here:
(Click on “year 2008” then scroll down to the paper and click on it.)

(HTML version below. -rep.)

Yes, it is available on-line FOR FREE, since this is an “open e-journal.” TOCEJ = The Open Civil Engineering Journal. You may download the paper and make copies to give to local professors and engineers (hint, hint). That's one reason this particular journal was chosen -- open access, free to download and make copies. What do Profs/Engineers say about it -- let us know would you?

In this Letter, we emphasize “points of agreement” with FEMA and NIST, seeking to build bridges for further communications. Of course, we will send a copy to NIST for their comment and hopefully open a public discussion on these crucial evidences and analyses. Note the title – but then read more—the paper only six pages long:

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
The authors are: Steven E. Jones*,1, Frank M. Legge2, Kevin R. Ryan3, Anthony F. Szamboti*,4, James R. Gourley

Approaching this as “Points of Agreement” is NEW, I believe (obviously some “older” quotes are cited in this new context) and we hope this will be a fruitful approach! Mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti and I are the “corresponding authors,” the ones people are invited to write to with comments.

With publication in an established civil engineering journal, the discussion has reached a new level – JREF’ers and others may attack, but unless they can also get published in a peer-reviewed journal, those attacks do not carry nearly the weight of a peer-reviewed paper. It may be that debunkers will try to avoid the fourteen issues we raise in the Letter, by attacking the author(s) or even the journal rather than addressing the science – that would not surprise me.

Professor Chomsky wrote to several, who passed it on to me:

“You, or anyone who agrees with you, has a very simple task. Since the evidence is so obvious and compelling, submit an article about it to Science, or Nature, or even Scientific American, or more technical journals, say those in civil engineering, where your article can refute the conclusions of the professional society of civil engineers… To date, no one has been willing to submit an article -- at least, after probably hundreds of inquiries to Truth Movement advocates, no one has been able to mention one...”

Would someone who has received this note from Prof. Chomsky please send him a copy of the downloaded paper? Perhaps we can build a bridge with him. You might note that the paper is published in a “technical journal [one of those] in civil engineering,” to use his own words, which I took as sort of a challenge. I have published before in Nature (e.g., May 1986 and April 1989) AND Scientific American (July 1987), and this paper in a civil engineering journal I consider to be a very significant step in the history.

Further in the spirit of building bridges, I’d like to quote from Prof. Fetzer who wrote today – and I agree: “I would appreciate it… if those who are reaching out to the public would show a degree of appreciation for those who are trying to figure out how these things were done…. I believe we can succeed if we show more tolerance and less disrespect for one another.” Agreed! In this paper, the authors are both reaching out to the public (most can read this Letter with understanding, I think) AND seeking to progress in figuring out how the buildings were destroyed…

Now let’s work together to unify the 9/11 truth movement and show some mutual respect, shall we? Suggest we seek a focus on getting NIST (or other technical people) to work with us in doing a thorough and proper investigation which will include release of NIST-held photos AND the NFPA-921-mandated search for “thermite residues”. [Hint- good time to read the paper if you disagree or don’t know really what I’m talking about here.]

Finally, I should note that the editor that we worked with was polite and professional throughout the process. We hope others, in their responses, will maintain that decorum. In the final analysis, all THREE reviewers approved publication!

Time to celebrate, and move forward together.

Note: another blog will discuss the journal chosen and the Letter format (as opposed to a typical “article format” with methods, results and discussion). Also, I will take note of your comments to this announcement of a formal publication in a peer-reviewed civil engineering journal!

HTML version (please note any hyperlink errors in the comments area).

From: The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 2008, 2, 35-40

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction

Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, and James R. Gourley

Abstract: Reports by FEMA and NIST lay out the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. In this Letter, we wish to set a foundation for productive discussion and understanding by focusing on those areas where we find common ground with FEMA and NIST, while at the same time countering several popular myths about the WTC collapses.


On September 11, 2001, the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (WTC) were hit by airplanes. Total destruction of these high-rises at near free-fall speeds ensued within two hours, and another high-rise which was not hit by a plane (WTC 7) collapsed about seven hours later at 5:20 p.m.

The US Congress laid out the charge specifically to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to “Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed”.1 The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was acting with a similar motivation in their earlier study of these tragic collapses.2 NIST and FEMA were not charged with finding out how fire was the specific agent of collapse, yet both evidently took that limited approach while leaving open a number of unanswered questions. Our goal here is to set a foundation for scientific discussion by enumerating those areas where we find agreement with NIST and FEMA. Understanding the mechanisms that led to the destruction of the World Trade Center will enable scientists and engineers to provide a safer environment for people using similar buildings and benefit firefighters who risk their lives trying to save others.


1. WTC 7 Collapse Issue

FEMA: “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue”.2

FEMA analyzed the remarkable collapse of WTC building 7, the 47-story skyscraper that, even though it was not hit by a plane, collapsed about seven hours after the second Tower collapse. We certainly agree that FEMA’s best firebased hypothesis “has only a low probability of occurrence.” NIST’s final report on WTC 7 has been long delayed and is eagerly awaited.3 Apparently it is difficult to fully explain the complete and rapid collapse of WTC 7 with a fire-based hypothesis alone.

2. Withstanding Jet Impact

FEMA: “The WTC towers had been designed to withstand the accidental impact of a Boeing 707 seeking to land at a nearby airport…” 2

NIST: “Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact, standing for 102 min and 56 min, respectively. The global analyses with structural impact damage showed that both towers had considerable reserve capacity”.4

Yes, we agree, as do previously published reports: “The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur?”5

John Skilling, a leading structural engineer for the WTC Towers, was interviewed in 1993 just after a bomb in a truck went off in the North Tower:

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer….

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building [which did not collapse], Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.

…Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."6

Thus, Skilling’s team showed that a commercial jet would not bring down a WTC Tower, just as the Empire State Building did not collapse when hit by an airplane, and he explained that a demolition expert using explosives could demolish the buildings. We find we are in agreement.

3. Pancake Theory Not Supported

NIST: “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… Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon”.3

Agreed: the “pancake theory of collapse” is incorrect and should be rejected. This theory of collapse was proposed by the earlier FEMA report and promoted in the documentary “Why the Towers Fell” produced by NOVA.7 The “pancake theory of collapse” is strongly promoted in a Popular Mechanics article along with a number of other discredited ideas.8, 9 We, on the other hand, agree with NIST that the “pancake theory” is not scientifically tenable and ought to be set aside in serious discussions regarding the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC 7.

4. Massive Core Columns

NIST: “As stated above, the core columns were designed to support approximately 50% of the gravity loads”.4 “The hat-truss tied the core to the perimeter walls of the towers, and thus allowed the building to withstand the effects of the aircraft impact and subsequent fires for a much longer time—enabling large numbers of building occupants to evacuate safely”.10

“Pacific Car and Foundry of Seattle, Washington, fabricated the closely spaced exterior wall column panels that gave the buildings their instantly recognizable shape. Stanray Pacific of Los Angeles, Cal, fabricated the enormous box and wide-flange columns that made up the core… The core of the building, which carried primarily gravity loads, was made up of a mixture of massive box columns made from three-story long plates, and heavy rolled wide-flange shapes.” “The core columns were designed to carry the building gravity loads and were loaded to approximately 50% of their capacity before the aircraft impact.... the exterior columns were loaded to only approximately 20% of their capacity before the aircraft impact”.11

We totally agree that the WTC Towers included “massive” interconnected steel columns in the cores of the buildings, in addition to the columns in the outside walls. The central core columns bore much of the gravity loads so the Towers were clearly NOT hollow. Yet the false notion that the Towers were “hollow tubes” with the floors supported just by the perimeter columns seems to have gained wide acceptance. For example, an emeritus structural engineering professor asserted, “The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube…”.12

The fact is the Towers were constructed with a substantial load-supporting core structure as well as perimeter columns – and on this point we agree with NIST in dispelling false popular notions.

The fact is the Towers were constructed with a substantial load-supporting core structure as well as perimeter columns – and on this point we agree with NIST in dispelling false popular notions.

5. Essentially in Free Fall

NIST: [Question:] “How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2) — speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?” [Answer:] …As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that: “… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation. Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos”.3

We agree with some of this, that the building “came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.” This is an important starting point. (Because of obscuring dust clouds, it is difficult to determine the exact fall times, but the statement that the buildings “came down essentially in free fall” seems correct when accelerations are viewed, for the WTC Towers and also for WTC 7.)13, 14 Further, we agree with NIST that “the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance” to the fall – but we ask – how could that be? NIST mentions “energy of deformation” which for the huge core columns in the Towers would be considerable, and they need to be quantitative about it (which they were not) in order to claim that the “intact structure” below would not significantly slow the motion.

Beyond that, NIST evidently neglects a fundamental law of physics in glibly treating the remarkable “free fall” collapse of each Tower, namely, the Law of Conservation of Momentum. This law of physics means that the hundreds of thousands of tons of material in the way must slow the upper part of the building because of its mass, independent of deformation which can only slow the fall even more. (Energy and Momentum must both be conserved.)

Published papers have argued that this negligence by NIST (leaving the near-free-fall speeds unexplained) is a major flaw in their analysis.13, 14 NIST ignores the possibility of controlled demolitions, which achieve complete building collapses in near free-fall times by moving the material out of the way using explosives. So, there is an alternative explanation that fits the data without violating basic laws of physics. We should be able to agree from observing the near-free-fall destruction that this is characteristic of controlled demolitions and, therefore, that controlled demolition is one way to achieve complete collapse at near free-fall speed. Then we are keen to look at NIST’s calculations of how they explain near-free-fall collapse rates without explosives.

We await an explanation from NIST which satisfies Conservation of Momentum and Energy for the rapid and complete destruction of all three WTC skyscrapers on 9/11, or a discussion of alternative hypotheses that are consistent with momentum and energy conservation in these near-free-fall events.

6. Fire Endurance Tests, No Failure

NIST: “NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11”.4

We agree that NIST had actual fire tests completed and that all four “trusses like those in the WTC towers” survived the fire-endurance testing “without collapsing.” We also agree that “the fires in the towers on September 11 … were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces;” the test furnaces were hotter and burned longer. NIST may wish to perform a series of different tests in an endeavor to discover some other hypothesis for collapse initiation. As it stands, however, we have no physical evidence supporting the concept of total collapse due to fire from real fire-endurance tests. On the contrary, these real-life tests indicate that the buildings should not have completely collapsed. In addition, we have hundreds of cases of fires in tall steel-frame buildings and complete collapse has never occurred.

But experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire, and engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country…. Although the fireproofing was intended to withstand ordinary fires for at least two hours, experts said buildings the size of 7 World Trade Center that are treated with such coatings have never collapsed in a fire of any duration. Most of three other buildings in the complex, 4, 5 and 6 World Trade, stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire.15

Fire engineering expert Norman Glover agrees:

Almost all large buildings will be the location for

a major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire… The WTC [itself] was the location for such a fire in 1975; however, the building survived with minor damage and was repaired and returned to service.16

Yet three such high-rise buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7) completely collapsed on a single day, 9/11/2001, and could not be returned to service. There is much left to learn here.

7. Fires of Short Duration

NIST: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes”.4 “At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 °C or below”.4

We agree. But then, given that the fires were brief and patchy, how did both towers experience sudden-onset failure of structural steel over a broad area in each tower and how could the collapses of all three WTC high-rises have been so symmetrical and complete?13, 14, 17 We seek discussion on these points.

8. WTC Fires Did Not Melt Steel

NIST: “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, figure 6-36)”.3

Agreed. We also find agreement with Prof. Thomas Eagar on this point:

The fire is the most misunderstood part of the
WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.18

We are in remarkable agreement, then: the WTC fires were not capable of melting steel. Of course, NIST then may have trouble explaining the molten material flowing out of the South Tower just before its collapse, as well as evidence for temperatures much higher than NIST’s reported 1,100 °C.13 We offer to discuss explanations for the observed high temperatures.

9. Destruction of WTC Steel Evidence

NIST: “NIST possesses 236 structural steel elements from the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings. These pieces represent a small fraction of the enormous amount of steel examined at the various recovery yards where the debris was sent as the WTC site was cleared. It is estimated that roughly 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of steel used in the construction of the two towers was recovered.” “The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure…”.1

Thus, only a tiny fraction of steel was analyzed from the WTC Towers, and none of the WTC 7 steel was analyzed by NIST. What happened to the rest of the steel from the crime scene?

For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.19

And although only a small fraction of the steel was saved for testing, it is clear that an “enormous amount” of the WTC steel was examined either for or by NIST, and the samples selected were chosen for their identified importance to the NIST investigation.20

We agree that only a “small fraction of the enormous amount of steel” from the Towers was spared and the rest was rapidly recycled. The destruction of about 99% of the steel, evidence from a crime scene, was suspicious and probably illegal, hopefully we can agree to that.

10. Unusual Bright Flame and Glowing Liquid (WTC 2)

NIST: “An unusual flame is visible within this fire. In the upper photograph {Fig 9-44} a very bright flame, as opposed to the typical yellow or orange surrounding flames, which is generating a plume of white smoke, stands out”.4

“NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower”.3

We agree and congratulate NIST for including these observations of an “unusual flame... which is generating a plume of white smoke” 4 “followed by the flow of a glowing liquid” having “an orange glow” [3]. With regard to the “very bright flame… which is generating a plume of white smoke”, NIST effectively rules out burning aluminum, because “Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures…”.3

Again, we agree.

The origins of this very bright flame and of the associated flow of an orange-glowing liquid remain open questions in the NIST report. NIST opened a very appropriate line of investigation by publishing these significant clues from the data, 3, 4 providing an important starting point for further discussion which we seek.

11. High-Temperature Steel Attack, Sulfidation

FEMA (based on work by a Worchester Polytechnic Institute investigative team): “Sample 1 (From WTC 7)… Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure…. Sample 2 (From WTC 1 or WTC 2)… The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation. …The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified… A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed…”2

We agree that the physical evidence for “severe high temperature corrosion attack” involving sulfur is compelling. Here we have grounds for an interesting discussion: How were “severe high temperatures” reached in the WTC buildings? What is the source of the sulfur that attacked the steel in these buildings? The answers to these questions may help us find the explanation for the “total collapse” of the Towers and WTC 7 that we are all looking for.

The WPI researchers published their results2, 21 and called for “a detailed study” of this “high-temperature” “oxidation and sulfidation” phenomenon. Yet the results were unfortunately ignored by NIST in their subsequent reports on the Towers’ destruction.3, 4 Their failure to respond to this documented anomaly is a striking phenomenon in itself. Perhaps NIST will explain and correct this oversight by considering the high-temperature sulfidation data in their long overdue report on the collapse of WTC 7. The existence of severe high temperatures in the WTC destruction is by now very well established.22 It appears that NIST has inadvertently overlooked this evidence and we offer to investigate the matter with them, in pursuit of understanding and security.

12. Computer Modeling and Visualizations

NIST: “The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted...4 “The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns.4 “The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse…4

We agree that NIST resorted to complex computer simulations and no doubt “adjusted the input” to account for the Towers’ destruction, after the fire-endurance physical tests did not support their preordained collapse theory.

But the end result of such tweaked computer models, which were provided without visualizations and without sufficient detail for others to validate them, is hardly compelling. An article in the journal New Civil Engineer states:

World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators. …A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. “By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,” he said. “The software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls”.23

Further detailed comments on the NIST computer simulations are provided by Eric Douglas.24

We would like to discuss the computer modeling and extrapolations made by NIST and the need for visualizations using numerical and graphical tools to scrutinize and validate the finite-element analysis.

13. Total Collapse Explanation Lacking

NIST: “This letter is in response to your April 12, 2007 request for correction… we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse”.25

This admission by NIST after publishing some 10,000 pages on the collapse of the Towers shows admirable candor, yet may come as a bit of a shock to interested parties including Congress, which commissioned NIST to find a full explanation.

We agree that NIST so far has not provided a full explanation for the total collapse. Indeed they take care to explain that their report stops short of the collapse, only taking the investigation up to the point where each Tower “was poised for collapse”.4 We offer to help find that elusive “full explanation of the total collapse” of the WTC Towers which killed so many innocent people, in the hope that it does not happen again. We have a few ideas and can back these up with experimental data.13, 22 Our interest is in physical evidence and analysis leading to a full understanding of the destruction of the WTC.

14. Search for Explosive or Thermite Residues

From a NIST FAQ: [Question: ] “Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter." [Answer: ] NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel”.3

We agree; there is no evidence that NIST tested for residues of thermite or explosives. This is another remarkable admission. Probing for residues from pyrotechnic materials including thermite in particular, is specified in fire and explosion investigations by the NFPA 921 code:

Unusual residues might remain from the initial fuel. Those residues could arise from thermite, magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials.26

Traces of thermite in residues (solidified slag, dust, etc.)
would tell us a great deal about the crime and the cause of thousands of injuries and deaths. This is standard procedure for fire and explosion investigations. Perhaps NIST will explain why they have not looked for these residues? The code specifies that fire-scene investigators must be prepared to justify an exclusion.26

NIST has been asked about this important issue recently, by investigative reporter Jennifer Abel:

Abel: "..what about that letter where NIST said it didn't look for evidence of explosives?” Neuman [spokesperson at NIST, listed on the WTC report]: "Right, because there was no evidence of that." Abel: But how can you know there's no evidence if you don't look for it first? Neuman: "If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time... and the taxpayers’ money.”.27

The evident evasiveness of this answer might be humorous if not for the fact that NIST’s approach here affects the lives of so many innocent people. We do not think that looking for thermite or other residues specified in the NFPA 921 code is “wasting your time.” We may be able to help out here as well, for we have looked for such residues in the WTC remains using state-of-the-art analytical methods, especially in the voluminous toxic dust that was produced as the buildings fell and killed thousands of people, and the evidence for thermite use is mounting.13, 22


We have enumerated fourteen areas where we are in agreement with FEMA and NIST in their investigations of the tragic and shocking destruction of the World Trade Center. We agree that the Towers fell at near free-fall speed and that is an important starting point. We agree that several popular myths have been shown to be wrong, such as the idea that steel in the buildings melted due to the fires, or that the Towers were hollow tubes, or that floors “pancaked” to account for total Tower collapses. We agree that the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7 (which was not hit by a jet) is hard to explain from the point of view of a fire-induced mechanism and that NIST has refused (so far) to look for residues of explosives.3, 22, 27 Our investigative team would like to build from this foundation and correspond with the NIST investigation team, especially since they have candidly conceded (in a reply to some of us in September 2007):

“…we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse”.25

We are offering to discuss these matters in a civil manner as a matter of scientific and engineering courtesy and civic duty. The lives of thousands of people may very well depend on it.


Many thanks for useful discussions with Jim Hoffman, Dr. Gregory Jenkins, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, Prof. Kenneth Kuttler, Prof. David R. Griffin, Gregg Roberts, Brad Larsen, Gordon Ross, Prof. David Griscom, Prof. Graeme MacQueen, and researchers at and


1 S. W. Banovic, “Federal building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade Center disaster: Steel inventory and identification, NIST NCSTAR1-3B”. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, September 2005.

2 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), World Trade Center building performance study: Preliminary observations, and recommendations, Report FEMA 403. Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, May 2002.

3 S. Sunder, W. Grosshandler, H. S. Lew, et al. “National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) federal building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade Center disaster, answers to frequently asked questions”, Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, August 30, 2006. [Online]. Available: NIST, [Accessed March 17, 2008].

4 S. Sunder, W. Grosshandler, H. S. Lew, et al. “Final report on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, NIST NCSTAR. Gaithersburg”, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, September 2005.

5 Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, “Why did the World Trade Center collapse? Simple analysis”, J. Eng. Mech., vol. 128, pp. 2-6, January 2002.

6 E. Nalder, “Twin towers engineered to withstand jet collision”, Seattle Times, February 27, 1993. [Online]. Available: [Accessed April 5, 2008].

7 Public Broadcasting System, “Why the Towers fell”, Public Broadcasting System, 2002. [Online]. Available: [Accessed March 17, 2008].

8 J. B. Meigs, D. Dunbar, B. Reagan, et al. “Debunking the 9/11 myths, special report”, Popular Mechanics, vol. 182, pp. 70-81, March 2005.

9 D. R. Griffin, Debunking 9/11 debunking: “An answer to Popular Mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory”, Northampton, MA: Interlink Books, 2007.

10 S. Sundar, Opening remarks of Dr. S. Shyam Sunder (NIST), May 2006. [Online]. Available: NIST, [Accessed March 27, 2008].

11 S. W. Banovic, T. Foecke, W.E. Luecke, et al. “The role of metallurgy in the NIST investigation of the World Trade Center towers collapse”,JOM, vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 22-29, November 2007.

12 D. A. Firmage. (April 10, 2006). “Refuting 9/11 conspiracy theory”, The College Times, p. A6.

13 S. E. Jones, “Why indeed did the WTC buildings completely collapse?”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 3, pp. 1-47, September 2006. [Online]. Available: [Accessed March 17, 2008].

14 F. Legge and T. Szamboti, “9/11 and the twin towers: Sudden collapse initiation was impossible”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 18, pp. 1-3, December 2007. [Online]. Available: www. journalof [Accessed March 17, 2008].

15 J. Glanz, “A nation challenged; the site: Engineers have a culprit in the strange collapse of 7 World Trade Center: Diesel fuel”, New York Times, November 29, 2001, p. B9.

16 J. Glanz, “A nation challenged; the site: Engineers have a culprit in the strange collapse of 7 World Trade Center: Diesel fuel”, New York Times, November 29, 2001, p. B9.

17 D. L. Griscom, “Hand-waving the physics of 9/11”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Letters, February 8, 2007. [Online]. Available: [Accessed March 17, 2008].

18 T. W. Eagar and C. Musso, “Why did the World Trade Center collapse? Science, engineering, and speculation”, JOM, vol. 53, no. 12, pp. 8-11, December 2001.

19 W. Manning, “Selling out the investigation”, Fire Engineering, January 2002, p. 4.

20 J. Gourley, R. McIlvaine, W. Doyle, S. E. Jones, K. Ryan and R. Gage, “Appeal filed with NIST pursuant to earlier request for correction”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, 17 pp. 1-16. [Online]. Available: [Accessed March 17, 2008].

21 J. R. Barnett, R. R. Biederman and R. D. Sisson, Jr., “An initial microstructural analysis of A36 steel from WTC building 7”, JOM, vol. 53, no. 12, p. 18, December 2001.

22 S. E. Jones, J. Farrer, G. S. Jenkins, et al. “Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 19, pp.1-11, January 2008. [Online]. Available: [Accessed March 17, 2008].

23 D. Parker, “WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation”, New Civil Engineer, November 1, 2005. [Online]. Available: [Accessed April 8, 2008].

24 E. Douglas, “The NIST WTC investigation-- how real was the simulation? A review of NIST NCSTAR 1”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 6, pp. 1-28, December 2006. [Online]. Available: [Accessed March 17, 2008].

25 C. S. Fletcher (NIST), “Response to request for correction”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, vol. 17, pp. 17-23, November 2007. [Online]. Available: [Accessed March 17, 2008].

26 National Fire Protection Association, “Guide for fire and explosion investigations”, NFPA 921. [Online]. Available: [Accessed March 17, 2008].

27 J. Abel, “Theories of 9/11”, Hartford Advocate, Hartford, Connecticut, January 29, 2008. [Online]. Available: with reply: [Accessed March 17, 2008].



html fix needed, Rep?

not sure how to fix this, myself....

(I can get a bit Monkish about html at times, lol)

Thanks again!

Did I get it?

I got it...

Thanks. have you Reddit it yet?

I submitted the original link, the ones submitted by GW appear to have been deleted- it's currently at zero

Reddit is an up and coming Digg-type site, actually way easier to use than Digg once you set up an account- according to they're the 3851st most popular site on the net; Digg is 127

I wish i had immediately posted the links, i didn't know they'd get buried so fast and become hard to find even with a search, sorry.

The Top 40

Some losers are down-digging the better links I put in Comments

Please digg them up so people can see them and access the article easier:

there's a comment with the link and instructions below the first fold,

and the direct link is currently the bottom comment

The Top 40


I look forward to seeing the government shills try to combat this article.

wait, they did it with Popular Mechanics.

just kidding.

thank you very much to all those involved in this paper, and deep thanks for Bentham Open Civil Engineering Journal for accepting this.

The tipping point

I can just feel the tipping point coming soon. This administration is probably beginning to get more desperate and stupid with each passing day. They might do something crazy soon.

Superb!"Further in the


"Further in the spirit of building bridges, I’d like to quote from Prof. Fetzer who wrote today..."

Piss on his bridging spirit. Keep him OUT of it, and condemn his every word (and that includes that Judy Woods person, too).

Are any of the engineers mentioned in the blog below represented in this publication?

What a long strange trip it's been.

Hard to believe that was just over 2 years ago.

Congratulations! A toast to everyone for getting this published.


and thanks to Dr. Jones and all involved. This is a monumental milestone. Your tone and strategy are well-considered--a sound foundation for cooperation with other concerned professionals (and an invitation to whistle-blowers within these official bodies).

“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

I keep hearing that we're on

I keep hearing that we're on a tipping point, that the dam is breaking. I hate to add to all that, but finally I think its true. When I talk to people, I see a receptiveness that I've never seen before. I don't know if its the facts of the case, or celebrities like like Willie Nelson and Jesse Venture; but one thing is for sure.... The truth will still be there tomorrow, standing like a rock. It will eventually win.

I was flyering commuter crowds for a 9/11 film screening Wed.

I said "Free Movie! Anytown Public Library!"

People waved, "no, no, no."

I said "It's about 9/11." And they turned around to get the flier.

geoff, I have noticed that "shift" of perspective also...

You wrote: "When I talk to people, I see a receptiveness that I've never seen before."

Same here. I have been seeing this gradual, more receptive, more willing to look or listen, ...a less antagonistic-defensive-ridicule attitude.

There is a shift occurring.

If one does not thoroughly LOOK, the TRUTH is not visible.

I, too, have noticed a recent change

I think all the popularly known lies of the Cheney/Bush cabal have finally penetrated the public mind and made our jobs easier.

Wednesday evening I went to a Michael Klare event in Berkeley where I have done previous outreach (near the Cal campus). Aside from the guy running the event, who pitched a fit and had two guys from the church politely ask me to move 15 feet (which I did), I got a very positive reaction from most people attending the event and students walking by. Many saw my signs and said things like " a friend told me about this, yes, give me what you have". A few even stopped to talk for a while.

I was passing out the "11 remarkable facts" cards and flyers from .

The two guys from the church took my flyers and are hip to 9/11, btw. The event organizer first tried to get someone else from the church to get me to move but I heard her tell him "we support freedom of speech here". I'm pretty sure this tweaked out anti-free speech event organizer was Bob Baldock from KPFA radio. He's probably one of the guys there who doesn't support the very 9/11 truth friendly Bonnie Faulkner of "Guns and Butter".

I think that the perilous state of the economy and all the threats against Iran are also causing people to look up and look around.

Good old $4/gallon gas does the trick, just wait until it gets to $4.50/gallon this summer!

The tide is turning, brothers and sisters, the real action is on the street, get out there and let's MAKE IT HAPPEN!


The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Great article Steve and all

A really enjoyable read, so the audience will be able to be larger . . . lots of positives! Great job.

The paper

It wasn't easy getting too . . . I hate frames!

(removed my link - GW provides direct link to site pdf below. . better idea)


Great job- you guys, in a very cordial and diplomatic way, continue to back NIST into a corner- using their own words!

Submitted to,, and

6. link is dead; live one here:

The Top 40

Great Literature

Abel: "..what about that letter where NIST said it didn't look for evidence of explosives?” Neuman [spokesperson at NIST, listed on the WTC report]: "Right, because there was no evidence of that." Abel: But how can you know there's no evidence if you don't look for it first? Neuman: "If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time... and the taxpayers’ money.”

Lewis Carroll couldn't have put it any better.


It would appear that it took so long to get anything as scientific as this great article published is because Larry Silverstein needed to get paid the bulk of his claims first. The insurance companies should have insisted on a scientific study, especially to explain #7, and should never have paid out until that was completed. The government evasiveness helped his gigantic payday. it fantastic to finally see Prof. Jones get his peer reviewed article in a well-known journal.

Insurance fraud.

Someone should send this info to the insurers. An insurance fraud case against Silverstien would shake up the financial world.

Good suggestion Phaedrus

However, wasn't it Blackstone who was the insurer, or was it several carriers?

Like it's not shaking enough already?


Let's do it!

Bring down the pathological Ponzi scam!

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Insurance Claim Money Laundering

Russ Hallberg

It is a well kept secret that insurance companies are not required to account for the source of money to pay claims. The relationship between 9/11 and insurance industry money laundering needs further investigation by researchers who have more time and resources than I do.

Larry Silverstein's settlement for the WTC destruction of 9/11 was fraudulent. He received much more than the appraised value of the buildings. Why did the insurance companies not prosecute Silverstein for fraud? It wasn't insurance company money used to pay the settlement.

No regulatory agency oversees that insurance claims are actually paid with insurance company money. Insurance companies accept embezzled money to pay claims. The embezzled money cannot be traced back to its original source.

Here is a documented example. From:
"Of all the days, of all the almost 3000 days that had passed since these girls murders, APD chose the hour after a San Antonio jury convicted the Brice group of fraud. $20 million disappeared during the same time frame that the $12 million 'insurance' settlement appeared. [Eric Moebius is referring to the settlement for the families of four girls murdered at Brice Food’s I Can’t Believe Its Yogurt store]

"And this so-called settlement has always been suspect. Extremely suspect. What insurance company pays for the criminal conduct of third parties? How was Brice Foods responsible? There was no 'murderer in hand.' As a result, no one act or omission could be identified as having 'caused' the murders. There is no insurance liability, no causation."

Life insurance proceeds are not immune from the money laundering scheme.

"FM Properties, an entity represented by [Lawyer M] of Austin, has experienced the murders of 26 of its employees in Indonesia, with all murders taking place on FM sites or being conducted in trucks or shipping containers owned by FM Properties. Even these murders can be 'insured' here in Texas, allowing money to be downloaded through death claims that take place half a world away."

2.3 trillion was missing from the Dept of Defense before 9/11. Donald Rumsfeld claimed the records were destroyed in the 9/11 Pentagon attack. One way this money could have disappeared without a trace is through insurance claims.

From, The Bar, Insurance Fraud and Murder by Eric Moebius:
”If anyone thinks these reserve fraud transactions are a once in a while event, they are tragically mistaken. Reserve fraud is an industry and it has taken a firm grip in both the state and federal courts. The amount of capital flowing through these reserve fraud schemes may soon dwarf the capital that disappeared through the S&L crisis. Reserve fraud creates a huge and spiraling demand for pirated catastrophic injury claims and explains why the Texas State Bar is so well organized at the state and county hospitals where it is illegally picking up referrals of severely injured patients. .... But add to this tragedy the fact that there is an enormous body of evidence that conclusively demonstrates that this almost insatiable demand for the catastrophic claim has resulted in the use of intentionally induced catastrophic claims; intentional injuries and murders conducted through the use of over-insured vehicles or on overinsured premises. As a result, we are seeing multiple arsons and multiple murders.”

9/11 was a case multiple arsons and multiple murders on a grand scale. The World Trade Center Towers were over insured.

more great news about the

more great news about the path to Justice

This is...

...such great news. Congratulations Dr. Jones on your success and thank you so much for all your hard work. This is truly an historic moment for the movement and so nicely timed for the week of truth. Steve Alten should be spreading this wherever he goes.

By the way if you would like to email Noam Chomsky his email is chomsky at mit dot edu he usually writes back very quickly.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." -The Declaration of Independence, 1776


a must read



"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." -The Declaration of Independence, 1776


Link already down

probably courtesy of the Pentagon's 'Operation Information Roadmap' machinations.
"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." (Goethe)

Good Work!

I would have preferred a more truly conciliatory attitude,
less gotcha, less snark, but the points are solid.

Thank you , Dr. Jones!

Hot Dogs! Just in time...I have a college paper to write...

I have a very short college paper to write this weekend for a Science class where I need to cite a Journal article. My paper is on the "evidence of explosives used on 9/11". I have a brief class presentation on Tuesday with instructors present as judges.

This is just the ticket I need for a source!

Thanks to you guys (Authors: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley ) and others! Ya'll are changing the world.

If one does not thoroughly LOOK, the TRUTH is not visible.


That is one awesome paper I hope it gets enough attention we should all send this to our congressmen!

Contact your represenatives!

Yea...I sent the A & M Library a link; pointed out BENTHAM

Good point!
Libraries are in a bind. Ask any Library.
Journal access is a problem.
Reed-Elsevier (they are changing part of their name...because they are a big-time arms dealer) has been buying up Journals. Now, the rates for access to Journals are often very tough for Universities and Libraries to budget for.

Bentham is a wonderful thing to see.

If one does not thoroughly LOOK, the TRUTH is not visible.

Simple question for Steve Jones

Where did the collapse start in each tower - what floor?

Answered in my first 9/11 paper...


(Near where the plane went in, each Tower... Pls see the paper for details.)

I don't see it

It's 47 pages. I read it when it came out, but do not recall seeing the precise collapse initiation floors. Am looking at it again now.

Could I ask you to provide a page reference and quotes? Thanks.

Edit: I flicked through it again. On page 27 you say, "We observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a block," putting that collapse initiation floor around 80 for WTC 2. It is obviously around 80, but which one exactly, and which one is it in WTC 1?

Also, there are also the questions of how much damage did the collapse initiation floors suffer? And how does that compare with (known and assumed) damage to the other floors that were hit but which did not collapse?

Which one exacly?

This is a matter of millimeters or less.
Where ends the 80th and where starts the 81th?
Do something more usefull with your time.

The towers did not collapse.

The towers did not collapse. They were brought down in controlled demolition. There is a big difference.

With you in the struggle,

Thanks for the comments, everyone --

wish to underline that I'm so glad this came out for the push for the current "Week of Truth"... Further, as I noted in San Diego last week, let's work to keep the momentum going for a Month of Truth!

Opportunities for spreading the facts and pushing for change seem to come in waves; together we can make a "truth tsunami" this month... And again, the goal is a Renaissance of peace and truth (which seem to always come together.)

Interesting comment on the arson aspect

Probing for residues from pyrotechnic materials including thermite in particular, is specified in fire and explosion investigations by the NFPA 921 code:

Unusual residues might remain from the initial fuel. Those residues could arise from thermite, magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials.26


that reminds me that I want to read this report by TriData.

065 High-Temperature Accelerant (HT A) Arson Fires

I could not find it.

Peer review

Dr Jones, congratulations on your peer review. I also remember you saying that you had peer review paper critiquing Zhou and Bazant's analysis of the collapse of the trade towers. Any word on this one?


Interesting link you provided for from you know about the history of that company? Dov Zakheim used to be in a major executive position there before comptroller at the Pentagon.

Yeah I searched

for the 93 report on the WTC, that gave them all the details of the buildings, all vunerabilities...

Interestingly I found another report on a high rise building fire.

TriData has one fire examination that can be view as similar to the WTC because of the structure of the building.

Construction was classified by the Philadelphia Department of
Licenses and Inspections as equivalent to BOCA Type 1B construction
which requires 3-hour fire rated building columns, 2-hour fire rated
horizontal beams and floor/ceiling systems, and l-hour fire rated corridors
and tenant separations. Shafts, including stairways, are required to be 2-
hour fire rated construction, and roofs must have l-hour fire rated
The building frame is structural steel with concrete floors poured
over metal decks. All structural steel and floor assemblies were protected
with spray-on fireproofing material.

page 10. Interesting fotos of the decks from page 102 on.

Remember: It burned hotter and longer and there were no automatic sprinklers in the lower floors.


But the high temperatur arson article I couldn't find. I'm interested in it, maybe there are some words about thermite and other high incendiary arsons. ;-)

Good research SittingBull!

Good research SittingBull!

Amen Professor Jones...

Amen to that

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." -The Declaration of Independence, 1776

Great work. Tone, content,

Great work. Tone, content, presentation all just right. Wonderful contribution.

JFK on secrecy and the press

True American patriot and hero

Prof. Jones -

You and your colleagues are real American patriots and heroes of the WORLD!

This planet owes you a debt of gratitude, the magnitude of which may be appreciated only by future generations.

I am absolutely humbled by your intelligence, tenacity, and humility.


Background information about Bentham Science Publications

This first publication was in a Bentham Science Open Journal; our paper had three reviewers. Here's some additional background info; we liked the promise of rapid review and publication, and world-wide distribution via internet. The review was quite rapid, in fact...

Bentham Science Publishers have gained a longstanding international reputation for their excellent standards and top quality science publications. Many journals published by Bentham Science Publishers have received high impact factors in their respective fields. For the current list of publications, please visit Seven Nobel Laureates have endorsed a number of Bentham Science's journals; please read their quotes at

The publishers are now undertaking a new publication venture by launching a number of Open Access journals in 2007, devoted to various disciplines in the fields of science and technology.

Open Access Journals are freely accessible via the Internet for immediate worldwide, open access to the full text of articles serving the best interests of the scientific community. All interested readers can read, download, and/or print open access articles at no cost! There is no subscription fee for Open Access journals. The modest open access publication costs are usually covered by the author's institution or research funds. Moreover, authors who publish in our Open Access journals retain the copyright of their article. Open Access journals are no different from traditional subscription-based journals; they undergo the same peer-review and quality control as any other scholarly journal.


The journals aim to provide the most complete and reliable source of information on current developments in the field. The emphasis will be on publishing quality articles rapidly and making them freely available to researchers worldwide. All published articles will be deposited immediately upon publication in at least one widely and internationally recognized open access repository...

More info, about Bentham Science

Pls see:

(Wish I had time to quote from it; discusses the location of their editorial offices, etc. Gotta run this a.m.!)

The SECOND paper which was accepted is in a non-OPEN journal, incidentally...

Thanks for the Journal info.

Thanks for the Journal info. It helps. I like to be prepared in the face of potential "challenges" asking verification of credible sources.

If one does not thoroughly LOOK, the TRUTH is not visible.

Prof. Jones

Once again I thank you all who worked on this peer review paper, and the sacrifices all of you and yours have had to endure. What a way to begin the Week of Truth.

I would also like to thank Bentham Science for respecting the field of science, physics, and the laws of the universe. There is still hope with institutions of merit.

Great job, Prof. Jones and associates!

I'm guessing that this is the "very readable" paper you told me about on our ride from the Oakland airport.

Most excellent!

I look forward to distributing this very timely paper far and wide, and can't wait to read the other papers as they are published.

Thank you for all your hard work!

I hope that you and yours are well. Please extend my warm regards to your wonderful wife.

(Have you planted a "truth garden" yet?)


The truth shall set us free (good science is a critical part of this).

Love is the only way forward.

I am getting hit by debunkers with

"The journal is a vanity press" not a true scientific or technical journal" It is "pay for" publishing.

Prof Jones Thanks for your perseverance dedication to truth.

Very interesting concept

They publish social sciences ( including ethics, political science and law), pyschology, forensic sciences, criminology, along with phsyical sciences. It would be nice if Laurie Manwell could publish an article there - her 9/11 psychology articles at Journal of 9/11 Studies werre very interesting and this might give them a broader readership. . Thank you for your paper and for teaching us about open access publishing.

My biggest question - effect of self-funding on quality - is answered very well here:

I agree that there is no necessary relationship with quality and the relationship may even be positive.

thanks for all the hard work

thanks for all the hard work you have done so far, all of you. much appreciated.

Incredible News!

We are so fortunate to have someone of Steven Jones's expertise and balance as part of the 9/11 truth movement.

I do want to point out the one possible issue I have with the paper, and that is:

"Of course, NIST then may have trouble explaining the molten material flowing out of the South Tower just before its collapse"

I think the visible molten material from the South Tower may be due to the Fuji UPS batteries on the 81st floor. Here is a link:

In a roundabout way, I think the Fuji battery explanation actually helps 9/11 truth, because thermite charges used for demolition would probably not account for tons of molten steel coming from a single floor anyway. And it undermines the official explanation of aluminum, which could then be used as evidence of high jet fuel fire temperatures on that floor adequate to melt many tons of aluminum to an orange color, which also seems unlikely, to say the least.

Anyway, comments offered in good faith. It's real important to have all our ducks in a row now. :-)

What material are you suggesting it was?

Aluminum needs to be hotter than iron to glow in daylight.

I agree that thermite cutter charges do not explain the hot spots in the piles as they produce a high speed jet of molten iron (which would quickly cool into microspheres).

I hypothesize that a continuing oxidation reaction was adding heat to the piles.

I honestly don't know...

...but so far I haven't seen this issue addressed yet in a thoroughly scientific way. It mentions that the batteries were lead, but that doesn't tell us their full chemical composition, or what these chemicals may look like when heated. Lead by itself is silvery in color when melted, so just saying it's lead unfortunately doesn't solve the riddle either.

Until that is covered in depth by a chemist (which I am not!), I would tread lightly around this argument.

bearcat, with all due respect I think you need to reconsider

Most, if not all, of the 47 core columns were cut every three floors, this would create tons of molten iron, imo.

Some of the other significant structural members were probably rigged with thermite/thermate, as well. A careful forensic analysis of the video may shed some more light on this, as we no longer have the actual structural members to analyze, which is the normal way to determine these questions.

The UPS rooms may have played a part, though, my understanding is that the one on the 81st floor was never activated, most curious if you ask me.

One more reason we need thorough investigations, yes?

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.


...but probably not streaming from one section of one floor. I would not think that you would need to create tons of iron every third floor, if cutters were placed on every third floor.

I honestly don't know if there is more to the UPS rooms than what is known.

Core Column Ends

Many of the core columns appear to be snapped at their wield points, some with obvious concave blast damage. The physical and chemical evidence for thermite is undeniable, the two small dust samples I have are full of microspheres of various types (microprobe spectra coming soon), clearly indicating molten material was accelerated and broken up fast enough to form microspheres, but I only have a few images of core columns that appear to be cut by incendiary cutter charges.

Dust images:

I have read from a number of

I have read from a number of sources that large amounts of thermite were not needed, a notion that I think would be supportive of the CD hypothesis. Maybe the ratio of microspheres in the dust samples lends credibility to the view that instead very large quantities of thermite, i.e., many tons, were used in the WTC? I honestly don't know.

Btw, I don't know how anything I said could be seen as critical of the thermite theory itself. I was only bringing up what I thought was a loose end (the UPS floor in relation to the molten flow observed at the South Tower) that needs to be covered before that area is aggressively pursued in debate. My views are very similar to Jim Hoffman's in that regard, namely that you have to be very conscious of what constitutes unassailable evidence and what areas need further investigation before being pursued avidly in public discussion.

I felt my post was useful, but if people are hypersensitive here to constructive criticisms that are at least offered with good intentions, then I won't offer them in the future on this forum. I wasn't seeking to offend. :-)

Welcome to 911Blogger, bearcat, sometimes you need thick skin

around here.

Folks tend to parse every word very carefully, especially when someone new pops up at a critical time for a significant event, such as the publication of this paper.

Don't take it personally and don't be afraid to speak your mind, anyone civil (and reasonably rational*) is welcome.

When did you begin questioning the events of 9/11 and what aspect of said events first caused you to question the government story?

As for me: I couldn't sleep one night in late 2003 (I think) and turned on the tv and began channel surfing. I ended up on the local public access station and saw the video of WTC 7 going down, that did it for me and I've been hard at it ever since. I did wonder about NORAD's absence and the Pentagon strike on the day of 9/11/01, but got distracted with children and life and really didn't think about it again until I saw Seven go down.

* For the definition of "reasonably rational" in regard to 911Blogger, please see Reprehensor and his "site notes" here:

All genuine critical thinkers are welcome and needed in this struggle to restore our constitutional republic and create a sustainable future for humanity.

I hope that you and yours are well.

(Yes, I'm an unofficial member of the welcoming committee here, heck, I may be that "committee", LOL)

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Thank you

Leftwright and Vesa, thank you both. :-)

I suspect a lot of people got into this after seeing WTC7, but I actually wasn't one of them. I do think the way I got into it was kind of cool, though.

I had seen one of the earlier "pod theory" video clips years ago, and for better or worse, that made me write it off. Then last fall, someone showed me a video of the WTC7 building falling and the Silverstein "pull it" comment. The building falling seemed odd, but I didn't know enough about collapses by fire, and I didn't know any of the motivational background, such as how profitable the insurance settlement was, or that the buildings had asbestos in them, or Silverstein's friendship with Netanyahu, and so on and so forth. To this day, I don't think the "pull it" comment is particularly good evidence of anything, although it probably gets a lot of people thinking.

There are lots of conspiracy theories out there, and it is very easy to get too dismissive after a while, particularly when you follow them up, and the ones telling them didn't do the most basic fact checking.

Then last December I became more politicized when it looked Ron Paul really had a chance to win the Republican nomination. That excited me, and I began to catch up much more on current events. At one point, I happened to be watching a Youtube clip of Bill O'Reilly and Michelle Malkin talking about how horrible Rosie O'Donnell was for questioning 9/11. It really seemed to disturb them, and they were just heaping opprobrium on the poor woman. I have a low opinion of both of those two warmongers, and the fact that 9/11 Truth seemed so threatening them really piqued my interest. If it were a completely groundless line of inquiry, like UFO theory, they would have just laughed about it and moved on. In any case, it started from there, and led to Steve Jones's paper and Scholars for 9/11 Truth, David Ray Griffin, Barrie Zwicker, Jim Hoffman, and many other great sources.

So I can think Bill O'Reilly and Michell Malkin for getting into 9/11 Truth! LOL I think that's kind of funny. :-)

Thanks again.

What a great story!

I'm still laughing, thank you.

So I can think Bill O'Reilly and Michell Malkin for getting into 9/11 Truth! LOL I think that's kind of funny. :-)

I almost want to put that on a tee shirt, it's so doggone funny!

(I think I would probably change "think" to "thank", though)

Are you part of a group? Is there one in your town/city that you know of?

I was a "lone truther" for a few years before I went to an event and hooked up with some very cool folks, many of whom are now like brothers and sisters to me. We get a lot done and have some serious fun, too. So far I've traveled to Memphis, Phoenix, Seattle, Portland and Vancouver with them and look forward to many more road trips.

Thanks again for the great story!


The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

thank you

For your courtesy and encouragement. :-)

I have joined the local 9/11 Truth Meetup group, but have only gone to one meeting so far. I expect to be more active this summer with different actions, and making new friends and just having fun. To me, 9/11 Truth is easily the most important issue of our time. It's a lot more than just bringing the perpetrators to's about creating an environment where officialdom loses its force, where marginalized viewpoints that carry weight can finally get a fair hearing. It's about creating a more open society with a better informed and much more knowledgeable and alert populace.

My best contribution so far has been sharing it with friends and family.

It all starts with friends and family, bearcat,

and everyone is unique and has a different contribution to make.

When talking to people about 9/11 truth eventually I always get around to describing what I call the "levels of 9/11 truth" which I define as:

1) The realization that the government story of 9/11 has serious problems and can't be true.

2) That for the events of 9/11/01 to have happened as they did some elements of the U.S. government had to have been involved.

3) That the Democratic and Republican elites are parts of the same corrupt system and, ultimately, work for the same corrupt international elites.

4) That the exposure of the truth behind the events 9/11/01 is part of a greater human spiritual awakening.

On a practical level, the process involved in exposing these layers of corruption requires true grassroots political activism and a commitment to critical thinking, both of which are critical to addressing all of the problems facing humans as we strive to create a peaceful and sustainable future.

I think that, sooner or later, most people seeking the truth of 9/11 realize these greater truths in one way for another, consciously or not; and this is the reason so many of us work tirelessly to leverage this terrible tragedy in the service of positive change.

I hope that you and yours are well.

Love is a verb, let's get busy brothers and sisters!

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Your comments are valuable

"I felt my post was useful, but if people are hypersensitive here to constructive criticisms that are at least offered with good intentions, then I won't offer them in the future on this forum."

No. Please stick around. Welcome to the forum.

10 hours 18 min

( Home » user account » bearcat )

Member for
10 hours 18 min

Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence.

~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

so what?

I joined because I wanted to point out a potential weak point in Steve Jones's paper. Would you rather this was pointed out by Schermer or some other debunker in a debate?

Others have mysteriously

appeared on 9/11 Blogger at times of sudden breakthroughs with ridiculous critiques, no plane theories, DEW nonsense, etc., only to disappear after disrupting threads not unlike this one. I posted that in a self-righteous haste as a kind of 9/11 truth self-defense mechanism. Accept my apology, no harm meant. I'd edit it out but the Blogger won't let me for some reason.

Those things said I believe Dr. Jones' (and his pals') paper is pretty much air-tight.

Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence.

~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

No apology needed :-)

I understand completely. There is something almost pathological about the way the debunkers typically behave in discussion. I am relatively new to this, but if I were a veteran like many of you are, I know it would leave me on edge at times.

My post could have been better in that I made it seem like Professor Jones was unaware of the UPS room. Of course he knows, but I haven't seen a good paper on it looking at it from different angles. One possibility I thought of today would be if that room had a lot of copper wiring, which would not seem out of place in a battery room. Copper glows golden when molten, and melts at a temperature of just under 2000 degrees fahrenheit. Still high, but significantly less than iron. I don't know if it explains all of the phenomena, but it is an interesting speculation. Maybe a completely unfounded one, I just don't have the data or requisite knowledge.

I think it is very rare for copper to melt in a normal fire, or in what we saw at the WTC. (As a kid, I used to burn the insulation off of copper wire and sell it for scrap. Copper is unaffected by small fires.) But maybe it would fit in with the thermite theory, and make a little bit more sense in terms of the sheer volume of what appeared to be metal that was pouring out of the tower.

Thanks for your comments. :-)


Wow, just wow!
Congratz :)

Corrections to NIST Figures and Claims

1. FEMA reported “The WTC towers had been designed to withstand the accidental impact of a Boeing 707 seeking to land at a nearby airport…” Actually the towers were designed to support a "collision with a large jet liner (Boeing 707 - DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour." -- NISTNCSTAR1-2, April 26, 2006 update. This means the towers were designed to withstand the kinetic energy impact of 60.5 billion foot pounds (based on the weight of a Boeing 707 -320B traveling at 600 miles per hour). The kinetic energy of Flight 11 impacting into the North Tower at 440 miles per hour was 38.2 billion foot pounds, well below the towers' design parameter of 60.5 billion foot pounds. The second aircraft, Flight 175, impacted the South Tower at 540 miles per hour, resulting in a kinetic energy impact of 59.6 billion foot pounds, still below the towers' design parameter of 60.5 billion foot pounds.

2. NIST says, “The core columns were designed to carry the building gravity loads and were loaded to approximately 50% of their capacity before the aircraft impact.... the exterior columns were loaded to only approximately 20% of their capacity before the aircraft impact”. Since NIST underestimated both the dimensions and the number of the core columns the towers contained, the 50% calculation NIST provides is much lower. NIST provides no data in its report of the redundancy properties built into the perimeter walls. Because of this, the 20% calculation is suspect, especially since Engineering News Record reported that the towers' perimeter walls had 2000% redundancy:

"live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs."
--John Skilling, lead architect, in Engineering News Record, 4/2/1964.

3. NIST has not one word in any of its reports concerning the thermal conductivity (heat sink effect) properties of the towers! This must be addressed by NIST and Dr. Jones.

Dean M. Jackson
Washington, D.C.

Wooo woooo!

Congrats Dr. Jones. I was having a *down* day as far as 9/11 Truth goes, and this has cheered me considerably!!!

Thank you!

I’d like to quote from Prof. Fetzer who wrote today...

"Those who ridicule the idea of lasers in space, however, are ignoring quite a lot of information about the development of "Star Wars" technology. Even Bob Bowman, who directed the program under Carter and Ford, recently acknowledged that the program was always offensive, which requires the militarization of
space. Lasers can be ground-based, aircraft-based, dirigible-based, or even satellite-based. But whether they were the mechanism has yet to be resolved."

Sorry, but no thank you. Call me divisive. Insinuate that I'm destroying the movement. This man cost us so much credibility, and that is something I will NEVER forgive OR forget. Let's remember Prof. Jones that you completely and totally discredited the idea of "Exotic Weaponry" in Arizona, yet, here he is, STILL pushing the idea. I've done this for TOO long, and really don't feel like playing games anymore. Too much is at stake.

He also said, "Although I was unaware of it at the time, my participation was being assailed on a Ron Paul website for allegedly maintaining that no planes hit the Twin Towers. But that's not quite right. A distinction has to be drawn between video fakery and no planes, because we can have video fakery and planes, if, for example, some features of the planes or of their interaction with the buildings had to be concealed. The case for video fakery looks very strong."

Interesting to hear from Jim now that we're getting attention again. Sorry, but no thank you.

Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

Not a reason to avoid analysis of crash physics

The planes are alleged to have cut core columns, and also preventing people from escaping the upper floors. The crash physics are a key premise of NIST "collapse" model and should be probed. It's not scientific to avoid analysis of the impacts merely because of the conclusions some people have drawn.

This has nothing to do with "exotic weaponry" or Jim Fetzer, and I'm tired of these issues always appearing together. I'm not criticizing your comment, Jon, as apparently the article mentions both. I wouldn't worry, though. There's no reason people reading this article by Jones, et al will even know about what Fetzer said somewhere on the Internet, and no reason that the serious audience this article is intended for will read in whatever Fetzer said.


"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."
~ Nietzsche

Jim: We are not going to forget what you have attempted to do. Your actions are inexcusable and will haunt you forever.

Space Weapons, Video Fakery & Attack Of Jones Work Simultaneous

If memory serves me, the attacks upon Prof. Jones' theories coincided with the beginnings of the 'space weapons' and 'video fakery' nonsense, as well as being provided by some of the very same people who attacked Prof Jones' work.

Evidence of a deliberate campaign in my view to undermine the movement.

And the very same people who now peddle the above mentioned nonsense once upon a time were very successful at embedding themselves within the movement, by advocating some of the movement's most mainstream positions.

All that tells me

is to look critically and see if any areas of inquiry are being discouraged by mixing it in with nonsense. I will say again that the crash physics are an obvious area of inquiry that are raised by Jones et al's paper in three points - 2, 4 (indirectly), and 12.

Isn't your FOIA request aimed at determining what hit the Twin Towers? Isn't the crash physics related to that question?

And aren't the crash physics a core premise of NIST's "collapse" argument? Why is there a complete refusal to seriously look at this issue?

Congratulations Dr. Jones...

And everyone else for getting published.

Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

Fantastic work Dr. Jones!

Fantastic work Dr. Jones! Thank you for all hard work!

Congratulations + question

This is "absolutely fabulous"!

I hope the other paper will come out soon. Now, more 9/11 researchers with qualifications should submit papers for review.

Am I correct in that not so many articles about WTC destruction - even articles supporting the official views - have been published in real science journals?


Fantastic! This is HUGE for the 9-11 TRUTH MOVEMENT!

With you in Solidarity!

9-11 Myths and the New York Times

Jones et al say: "Yet the false notion that the Towers were “hollow tubes” with the floors supported just by the perimeter columns seems to have gained wide acceptance. "

I remember reading a long and liberally illustrated article in the New York Times about the collapse of the WTC towers, based on the pancake/tube theory. I would say very probably that much of the public acceptance of the pancake theory stems from this article. I never heard the Times issue a retraction, and they are still promoting 9-11 myths to this day.

The path-blazing journalism of the New York Times

Interestingly, the NY Times has just published a long article exposing . . . wait for it . . . how the administration has manipulated the press around the Iraq war.

This is done with no hint of irony or self-deprecating humor.

Perhaps after the entire world knows that the Bush regime lied about 9/11, and there are Congressional hearings into the fact, the NY Times will demonstrate its probing, intrepid journalism and lay bare in detail how the press was mislead about 9/11.

Did you see this part?

On Tuesday, April 18, some 17 analysts assembled at the Pentagon with Mr. Rumsfeld and General Pace, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

A transcript of that session, never before disclosed, shows a shared determination to marginalize war critics and revive public support for the war.

. . .

"Frankly,” one participant said, “from a military point of view, the penalty, 2,400 brave Americans whom we lost, 3,000 in an hour and 15 minutes, is relative.”

I'd like to know the name of the person who said it, and the full context. Sounds like he's calling the 9/11 victims acceptable collateral damage.

I hear you on the irony of the NYT doing this now, as it was generally obvious all along and this is 5 years too late. Still, this is good journalism, getting emails and transcripts, etc which is seems they had to bring a FOIA suit to get.

publication fee

"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.)"

I heard that they are already using this on the JREF forum to mitigate the article...

journal publication fees

It is standard practice to pay a "publication charge" to have journal articles published. As an example take a look at the lower right section of this webpage at APS and follow the links under the "publication charges" heading:

The same is true for Elsevier journals...I don't recall the costs (approximately $500 per article?), but that is where "our" spectroscopy results are published in several articles in recent years.


Thank you Professor Jones!

And I've also been wanting to say thank you to LeftWright for the many words of wisdom being shared on the pages here at 911blogger...thank you!

YCDiamond -- Thanks for info

and link regarding publication charges. Yes, these are standard practice these days.
The fact that the JREF'ers made such a big deal about these charges (also at Demo Underground I understand) shows a lack of understanding, evidently by those who have not published in scientific journals.

(I've learned to not pay much heed to hecklers, if any...)


Well, I went looking at the Elsevier web pages to locate a cost for publishing an article and it appears that in most cases there is no cost.

I recall being informed that “our” articles cost several hundred dollars each to publish in Elsevier journals. I can readily find out if there was a publication fee (and the dollar amounts), but it really is not necessary, as this is a non-issue.

Anyway, this is how scientists (and people in general) should be expected to behave...when we come to realize that there may be a mistake or discrepancy in what we said or did, we own up to it and set the record straight.

(Oy!...things would have been so much simpler if I just stopped with the APS example…LOL.)

As for JREF or similar such websites, I don't even bother visiting them...people with a solid training in the physical sciences should rather quickly recognize that most (if not all) of what is going on at such websites is a waste of time.

"Well, I went looking at the

"Well, I went looking at the Elsevier web pages to locate a cost for publishing an article and it appears that in most cases there is no cost."

It depends. If you include any graphics at all there can be huge costs. And online journals can charge a lot, such as PLoS --

"To provide open access, PLoS journals use a business model in which our expenses — including those of peer review, of journal production, and of online hosting and archiving — are recovered in part by charging a publication fee to the authors or research sponsors for each article they publish. Authors who are affiliated with one of our Institutional Members are eligible for a discount on this fee.

* PLoS Biology US$2750
* PLoS Medicine US$2750
* PLoS Computational Biology US$2100
* PLoS Genetics US$2100
* PLoS Pathogens US$2100
* PLoS ONE US$1250
* PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases US$2100

The Journal of Neuroscience has a flat publication fee of $850 for Regular Manuscripts and $450 for Brief Communications. It's one of the most respected publications on neuroscience in existance.



Thank you so much Dr. Jones! I really admire your work and your courage in face of all you've had to face.
I just added this to my website and will begin letting the printing presses roll.

Brilliant! Well done!

Brilliant! Well done!

A page-charge is fairly common in technical journals,

especially OPEN-access journals, from what I've seen. Yes, some are making a big deal of this, overlooking this common practice -- it would be helpful if someone would research the page-charges for other journals, especially e-journals. Bentham explains, correctly, that having a publication fee in no way compromises the peer-review process.

I just found this at the JREF site -- so you can see what "R. Mackey" is doing (no doubt the same Ryan Mackey to whom Kevin Ryan replied, in the Journal of 911 Studies):

"Upon reflection, however, I've decided that the general idea of an Open Access Journal, fees and all, is not inherently bad. The problem is that it makes it much, much harder for readers to distinguish a genuine OAJ from rabble producing their own whitepapers. As a result, the OAJ has to uphold the absolute highest standards of review, accuracy, transparency, and scientific rigor. If this is done, I support it.

I've just fired off a lengthy letter to the publishers at describing why this paper should have failed review, and asking them to reconsider it. We shall see their response. It's possible they were just completely blindsided by the Truth Movement." [R. Mackey, JREF]


Interesting. Like I said in my blog, it would be nice to let the editors know that some readers of their journal SUPPORT the publication of this article.

Remember (as I said) that all three reviewers approved publication (I do NOT know who the reviewers were!), so it is unlikely that Mr. Mackey's objections will overturn the approval for publication. He could write me and explain why I should retract the paper, but it would need to have specific objections... (good luck)

Very Well Done, Prof. Jones!

Needless to say, this is a touchy subject with many...

As I've struggled with issues of the "collapse" of the WTC towers it has been the SCIENCE presented by yourself
and others that has allowed me to avoid much conjecture and stay focussed. Rationality, reason, logic and science
would be enough, but then you go on and add class!

Thank you so very much.


Yes, page charges are fairly common in technical journals. All IEEE journals, for example, carry page charges, which are voluntary until certain page limits, but non-voluntary when the limits are exceeded. These journals are not open-access, so they get their income from both their authors and their readers.

The common policy of publishers is that the payment of page charges does in no way influence decisions of acceptance of papers. I have no experience with publishing at Bentham open publications, but I have never heard about a scientific publisher that makes the review process dependent on payment of page charges. Otherwise, they would be out of business in no time.

As a scientist, I have been puzzled in the past by some of the issues now addressed in your paper, and you give good pointers to the relevant literature. It turns out that there have been critical voices in scientific publications all along, as far back as 2002 (e.g. Ref. 19), of which I have not been aware. Your paper serves as a helpful review to the literature.

I will write an email to the publishers supporting the publication of your paper, expressing my view that your paper is a very useful base from which some pertinent questions regarding the events of 9-11 need to be addressed, and hopefully starts a value-free scientific discussion with critics of your work.

Finally, I wish to congratulate you and your co-authors with the publication of your paper. I look forward to the publication of your other accepted paper. Keep up the good work!

I want to thank SurfinScientist and Vesa and others

for writing letters to the publishers supportive of publishing this paper, especially since Ryan Mackey has said he has written to them asking them to pull the paper (or words to that effect). I have confidence the editors and publishers will stand their ground, but I anticipated opposition of this sort because strenuous efforts were made to induce me to pull my first 9/11 paper (in November 2005), and the opposition may very well grow stronger. Rather than addressing the issues in a letter with specifics to me or the other authors, as is expected in science, Mackey admits that he is writing Bentham to try to get them to withdraw the paper.

I actually got a response from the director of publications...

... thanking me very much for my email which he "read with interest".

I sent the following

Dear Sir or Madam,

thank you very much for courageously publishing Steven E. Jones et al's article "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction" in Open Civil Engineering Journal. You are doing an important service to your scientific readership and the general public.

It is high time the entire scientific community engages in a real discussion of how three steel-framed skyscrapers could have come to their foundations - the collapses starting suddenly and lasting just seconds - from random fires and random damage. Having researched these issues for several years now, I find e.g. the idea that about 10 percent of the building's mass above the crash zone in the North Tower could have destroyed the 90 percent of the mass below - and close to free fall speed at that - without controlled use of explosives, physically impossible.

And the way in which the destruction of building 7 has been and continues to be studied by official bodies is nothing but a travesty. Carefully examining the steel debris of this evacuated building would have revealed the cause of its destruction. It is really quite simple. Instead, what was done? No on-site investigations were conducted, few pieces were retrieved from the salvage yards, and all of its debris had been destroyed by the time FEMA published its report calling for further investigation and admitting that they could not really explain its destruction in spring 2002. No matter that we are talking about the third-worst building disaster in recorded history. [1]

I thank you again and hope that you'll continue to encourage free scientific discussion about this issue, which may be one of the most important in our time.

* * * * *

I suggest all of you thank them for their publishing decision. I'm sure the "debunkers" are doing their best to the opposite effect.


and thank you for your selfless contribution(s) to the betterment of life here on Earth!


Your friend,

Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence.

~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Inside Job

911truthmachine wrote:


The evidence for this is indeed mounting. I cannot find any other way to explain the strange circumstances surrounding the events of 9-11.


You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

Attributed to Abraham Lincoln


Prof. Jones-!

A Difficult Paper To Disparage!

I congratulate Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan and the others for their tactical brilliance in choosing the subject of their newly published peer-reviewed paper: "Fourteen Points Of Agreement...".

So what are the Defenders of the Official Story going to use to pull this paper down? To disparage any of its points requires hauling down the official investigating agencies' analyses as well - because these are the points of agreement! To accept the obvious points of agreement inevitably leads to a renewed investigation of 911. To reject these 14 points of agreement means rejecting NIST. Philip Zelikow couldn't have begun a debate any better!

was it lead?

Yesterday Bearcat pointed out that it has been argued that the molten material seen flowing from WTC 2 for several minutes prior to its collapse was lead, coming from the lead-acid batteries of a large uninterruptible power supply (UPS).

There are at least four reasons to dispute this:

1. Lead melts at a temperature of 327 C, far below the temperature indicated by the colour of the glowing stream, about 1000 C. It is hard to imagine any mechanism which would hold back such a dense material for the time it would take to rise in temperature through nearly 700 C. Even the heaviest material likely to be present in the building, steel, would float on top of liquid lead and permit it to pass underneath.

2. Photographs at the time show copious amounts of white dust emerging above the liquid flow, contrasting strongly with the black smoke flowing out everywhere else. See photo in the link above, taken at 9:52:51. The melting of lead produces no such effect.

3. The emissivity of lead appears to be similar to that of aluminium, shown to look silvery in daylight, and about 1/3rd that of iron, known to glow visibly in daylight. Even if it had been at 1000 C lead would have appeared silvery.

4. Any suggestion that the energy of the stored electricity in the batteries could have produced the flowing stream if short-circuited is clearly without foundation as the battery terminals would have melted and disconnected the system long before the observed temperature was reached.

Just prior to the beginning of the flow of material, a white hot patch was observed, not far from the place where the flow subsequently emerged. Again a cloud of white material was observed flowing upward. Ordinary fires cannot produce white heat as a temperature of about 1200 C is required, far above the temperature of the flame and even further above the temperature of an object being briefly heated by such a flame.

Thermite produces molten iron at about 2500 C, far hotter than white heat and also produces a cloud of white dust, aluminium oxide. It therefore seems that thermite is much more plausible as an explanation of the observations and that the flowing material is iron or steel or, most probably, a mixture of both.

Do not forget the fuses

I agree with all your points, and like to add that a short-circuit in the UPS systems would blow out their fuses in no time, even before the battery terminals would start to melt.

As I recall from reading an account from someone involved

with that UPS system, it had not even been put into service yet and thus may not have been energized.

I also recall that he (an IT tech, unless I am mistaken) wondered why it had yet to go in service, as "the installation" was complete.

Just one more small, but interesting, question regarding the events of 9/11/01.

Keep seeking the truth, brothers and sisters, and speaking those truths we know already EVERY DAY!

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

thanks :-)

While I am still curious as to whether or not all the materials stored in the batteries could have produced the effects we saw, your 4 points makes me feel more comfortable with the notion that it was thermite. Or at least, in this context, that there is a very good argument for thermite. We don't have to be right on everything, but we do need to present solid evidence. I just don't want us to pursue anything that could easily be knocked down in argument The public discussion on this is not a level playing field, and any area where it looks like our research is inadequate can become a significant setback.

inside the batteries

This is an interesting question you raise. Inside a real lead acid battery the only active materials are pure lead plates, lead plates covered with lead oxide, and sulphuric acid. If there is no pathway for the electricity to flow none of the chemical energy can be released.

It has been suggested however that some of the battery cases may not have contained the above materials but might have contained thermite - a neat way to hide a heavy material in plain sight without attracting attention. Who knows? If the UPS had never been put into service fake batteries would not draw attention to themselves. Even if it had been put into service it is likely that it would be done in such a way that no-one would notice. A UPS after all is rarely used and when used the period may be short and a reduced capacity would not show itself.

For all we know

For all we know our treasury simply gave the insurance companies the money to pay Silverstein.... the government really couldn't have the insurance companies making a stink about the reality of the buildings collapsing.

Think of the windfall the insurance companies have made in large cities since 911. Or was Silverstein the only one buying terror insurance????
Together in Truth!

A More Powerful Side of Professor Jones...and a heads-up.

I have been very fortunate to meet and see the work of many of the tremendous people who call themselves 911 Truthers...and none are more wonderful and commanding than Steve Jones. From my view he gets his power from a deep committment to the constitution and a highly acredited history in academia, and from something else.

If we truly believe, and have evidence for, what we understand as the many "truths" behind the events associated with 9/11, then we really do not need to confront anyone with anything. We need only to simply assemble our message, back it up with some facts, truths and valid questions, and present it politely, respectfully and with civility to those who we are trying to reach...the middle 40% of the citizenry.

Its THAT 40% group that will bring about the eventual change in this country. This is because both we in the "vanguard 30%" who are usually ahead of the curve, and the 25% who have been identified by John Dean as being hopelessly stuck hiding from their own shadows and in desparate need of ANY type of "father/authority figure" in order to remain emotionally functional on any given day, effectively cancel each other out as each groups tugs on the rope in equal but opposite directions.

But these two groups are actually NOT equal groups...the "Deaners" are hiding and afraid, and we are out standing in the public and displaying unending individual courage.

The longest lasting and TRUEST POWER of Steve Jones is his demeanor, and patience, and self belief in that his work will do the loudest speaking for him. Steve is simply a wondeful man and his "table setting" of information for all of us to dine on is no more important than are his manners when serving these delicacies.

I have been arrested protesting at Seabrook Power Plant, went on a life altering strike against the labor policies within the US Governement with PATCO and got fired by Reagan, I have attended rallies and protests [and they feel great but are less effective than what is commonly thought],...was in NYC at the Republican Convention in 04' and stood for hours in front of FOX NEWS with my sign that stated "DEMOCRACY REQUIRES TRUTH", have even quietly used my position to favor young comedians who spoke truth to power as they climbed the SHOW BIZ ladder [Garofalo, Seder, Cross, Maron, Winstead, Crimmins, Tingle, Durst, Credico] believing that when they matured and became more successful that they would continue to speak truth to power [best guerilla actions that I ever pulled off...]. And the point that I like to make whenever I can is that I am in my fourth decade in the peace movement, my first decade in the 911Truth Movement and my first year in the Civil Informationing Movement.

And in ALL of these experiences, eventual change comes about by supporting a wondeful concept that is so horribly deformed...for now anyway. The two best hidden and underutilized words in our "alleged" democracy are the words INFORMED CONSENT.

Only if the citizenry is informed, and ONLY if we can give or withold our consent, can this experiment in self governance work. So, maybe the "hammer on the head" approach might force some information into those who are yet to accept some of what we hold to be true about 9/11 and our own government, but afterward, they are unlikely to vote for what we want changed, or to become involved in making that change standing alongside all of us as we try to inform even more citizens.

So, I cannot possibly have deeper appreciation of Steve Jones' science, dilligence, integrity and ability to frame irrevocable conclusions. But I hold even higher the fact that he is Steve Jones, a great guy, and a very powerful person with his demeanor and respect that he offers even to his detractors.

I argue that, although few of us truthers can really get our arms fully around Professor Jones' "science" and deeper understandings of such, we all can become better ourselves by appreciating his more powerful side. Steve Jones IS the person who he wants to be, and I suspect that he would like the world to become more conversational instead of more confrontational. If we are to throw stuff around this planet, I bet he would want it to be powerful but respectful words and discussions in lieu of the horrendous bombs and bullets that are being thrown around. Bombs and bullets that are clearly the result of the nefarious activities surrounding the events of 9/11/2001.

Steve Jones' work is brilliant...and so is that of his parents.

Thanks Steve...and when the 9/11TM swings into other subjects as we move forward, I bet that your oar will somehow be pulling in those waters too!

[The above words are known in THE BIZ as a segue...]

On another note that I am putting on the table regarding my understandings of my dishonest government:

My best guess is that ALL the events on Manhattan, the towers being brought down, the put options making millions, and what I think is the key to WTC7, the SEC records, will eventually be steered into being a rogue "Mahattan Real Estate, Port Authority and Finacial Moguls" inside job to make billions and to stay out of jail pulled off by these Manhattan Icons. And when the HI PERPS make this point: "Who us?'-no way, the HI PERPS within our government will try to "wash their hands" of the events on Manhattan and cop only thyat the Mossad or somebody else had some inside info that the HI PERPS didn't really have. Thusly, they will try to foist another line of their own defence....a defense of ignorance and being surprised.

So, no rest for the weary here, the demolitions are irrevocable, on to some other stuff:

...The Pentagon hit...most likely a TRUE false-flag-flight [ a Northwoods spin-off ]...
...COG, Cheney and the PEOC activities...
...The Patriot Act being written BEFORE 9/11...
...The War Games Scenarios...[more evidence about a "9/11 War Game Scenario" inside the War Games].
...The Stand-Down of NORAD...
...The anthrax attacks...

And many more that are in the pipeline...

Again, I'm in the FIRST decade of the 9/11 Truth Movement...and there is more to come...much more.

Lets hope that these truths we are uncovering will last for centuries!

Love, Peace and Progress with:


Robin Hordon

Interesting, that's one limited hangout option

I had not yet considered.

I think we're way past that now, though. Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush will have to be sacrificed to have any real chance of slowing the truth train down at this point, imo and even that won't work.

Thanks for adding that possibility to the mix, Robin.

Even more thanks for all your public outreach, we both KNOW that's where it's at and I think we both enjoy it about as much, too. (Which is to say, quite a lot!)


The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

What can I say but Thanks, Robin,

for your comments and significant insights. As I see it, we're all working together and I acknowledge and appreciate your efforts. No one person can do it all -- very glad to see so many working, reaching out to others, pooling taletns and ideas.

Arabesque -- glad you saw the humor in it...

Robin your expressions of the heart thru your mind are inspiring

I was confused on where to place the following commentary, in a blog or the comments section. After reading your post, I figured this place is just fine.

Last night I actually left the computer and went to a movie by Ben Stein, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". All thru the movie the thought of: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, and James R. Gourley, was embedded in my mind.

In the beginning I assumed it was about Intelligent Design vs. Darwinism, personally I have no absolute views on either side, because in reality no one really knows empirically, at best, it's a belief system either way.

However, it soon became clear it was about the freedom of study in science, and the dogmatic political agenda currently demonstrated in academia funding and peer survival. The documentary provided interviews with 3 professor who were fired from their positions because they presented the concept of a non-religious theory of intelligent design based on an inquiry of the mathematical calculation of 256 individual proteins that needed to arrive at the same place and time to form the first cell. This framework was not even considered to be worthy of further study from the academic professionals and pundits that hold Darwinist view of the Origin of Species thru natural selection.

To counter the Intelligent Design inquiry, representatives of the professional shill union, such as Schulmer and Hitchens were there relating their message: no, no, and no, that can't be, because I say so mantra, without any scientific evidence to support their position. I recommend this movie because it parallels the group dynamics and conflicts of the 9/11 movement vs. OCT.

In summary, what concerns me the most is the direction that science is going, not on the platform of: physical laws, evidence, discovery, and the ability to predict, however, down a spiraling path of easy political funding. We should all be deeply thankful to such organizations like Bentham.

Great work Steven and a

Great work Steven and a brave effort all round, history will remember you.

"If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise"

-Rudyard Kipling

open publishing - interesting concept

Here's a poli sci article of interest:

Public Support and Terrorism: The Putin Paradox
pp.1-4 (4) Author: Joao Ricardo Faria

"The Putin paradox is defined as the capacity of a government under systematic and increasing terrorist attacks to keep or even increase its popular support."

We saw that in the U.S., but with fake or exaggerated threats:

Assuming the voting system is accurate - a big assumption these days.

Simple, scientific and accurate

Excellent read and accomplishment. Time to activate the dorment brain cells in the "great unwashed masses." As the economy accelerates it downward spiral into the abyss of a third world nation, more of the populace will search for answers. This article and the activities involved in its production will serve as a beacon to the answer seekers. Too bad the country has to hit rock bottom before an effective reformation can occur. Patriots are those in the front, neo-facists cower in the rear.

Secondary Benefit

The interest generated by this publication will pave the way for an onslaught of 9/11 FACT/TRUTH papers.

I can see light reaching the depths of the chasm.

14 points of agreement?

Great. As I've often felt, if people knew what the actual NIST report claimed, we would be on our way to 9/11 truth.

14 points of agreement? Hilarious, but true as well.

I'd like to see an effort to debunk these points of AGREEMENT with the NIST report by some of these so-called debunkers. But then again, they would be doing our own work for us by debunking NIST; or at least their points that show the official collapse mechanism to have serious flaws--even irreconcilable ones. Dr. Jones and co. are doing an admirable job of advocating 9/11 truth.

The NIST report was always merely a "pre-collapse" theory that never even attempted to explain the total destruction of the buildings. They even admit that they cannot explain what happened.

“…we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse”.

Arabesque: 911 Truth

dangerous parasites, re: Fetzer

The paper is a hit. Good work.

Whether it gets even 1 percent of the coverage of Fetzer's next BBC space beams / no planes appearance is to be determined.

Fetzer is just trying to get back in the spotlight after being exposed as a disinformation agent. He's an expert on disinformation, and has been sabotaging the relevance of the Zapruder film for years before 9/11 came along. [See Josiah Thompson's review of Fetzer's book here. "It marks a new low point in the "National Enquirer" approach to the case."]

"Further in the spirit of building bridges, I’d like to quote from Prof. Fetzer who wrote today – and I agree: “I would appreciate it… if those who are reaching out to the public would show a degree of appreciation for those who are trying to figure out how these things were done…. I believe we can succeed if we show more tolerance and less disrespect for one another.”"

There is no "we" including James Fetzer. Don't be a sucker. It's quite obvious what he's doing, attaching himself to your coattails AGAIN!!!!

Don't be afraid to reach for that can of Raid.

Fetzer is trolling for "appreciation?" You have got to be kidding me. More like he's trying to piece together some semblence of credibility after being shown to be completely full of shit.

Lest we be reminded:

Jim Fetzer: "I must say I think we're finding out Judy, what happened on 9/11. I'm just blown away by your work. This is the most fascinating development in the history of the study of 9/11 ... I'm going to make a wild guess Judy; I'm going to presume that these [directed energy] beams had to be located in Building 7?"

Judy Wood: "Nope. I don't think so."

Fetzer: "Planes?"

Judy Wood: "No ... I think it's very likely it's in orbit."

Fetzer: "Oh Really?? Oh ho ho ho ho! Oh Judy. Oh my oh my oh my oh my. This is huge ... this is huge Judy."

--RBN Live: Jim Fetzer interviews Judy Wood; November 11, 2006

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--

Dr. Fetzer has shown his true colors

I have to agree here...

Fetzer: “I would appreciate it… if those who are reaching out to the public would show a degree of appreciation for those who are trying to figure out how these things were done…. I believe we can succeed if we show more tolerance and less disrespect for one another."

Good in principle... but...

You mean we need to be more tolerant of Fetzer when he launches into obscenities into phone calls with prominent 9/11 truthers (like Dr. Jones)?

We have to be more to be more tolerant of Fetzer when he creates a series of (obviously!) bogus straw-man arguments in a futile attempt to debunk the thermite evidence?

After he tries to embarrass scholars for 9/11 truth by posting an obviously bogus rant that Dr. Jones was attempting a "hostile takeover" of scholars for 9/11 truth?? I remember the feeling of bewilderment when I read that one!

You mean we need to be more tolerant of Fetzer when he threatens to take legal action against a 9/11 truther? Are you kidding me?

I could go on and on... but Mr. Fetzer has shown his true colors in spades and has assigned himself to as he puts it "to the dustbin of history"...

Is unity putting up with outrageously divisive and destructive behavior? I believe in the concept of unity, but I'm afraid that intentional disruption (or the kind that we must assume is such) will not result in unity of any kind! That is an unfortunate reality of the situation. I believe we should have unity in standing up against divisive behavior, name calling, and intentionally provocative accusations without merit (shill, agent, etc.).

While Dr. Jones' restraint in responding to these kinds of disruption is extremely admirable--and it would be a blessing if more people in the movement emulated this, if I would criticize Dr. Jones at all, it would be only to say that he is too nice a guy, and has too much patience for this kind of behavior. The truth movement has by and large moved on from Dr. Fetzer and his antics. It is not a false assumption to conclude that this behavior is not to the benefit of the truth movement--regardless of intent or ego. It is only opinion to judge the motives here, but I have my own opinion and most of the 9/11 truth movement is smart enough to figure out who the intentional antagonizers are.

I think we can make an assumption that after a certain amount of bad behavior, some people are not going to change. I think it is fair to make this assumption in relation to Dr. Fetzer, who has alienated many in the truth movement.

Now here's food for thought: How did Fetzer create the scholars for 9/11 truth in the first place if he is so divisive? Was he divisive in the beginning? It's hard to disrupt a group when people know you are destructive influence, let alone be a founding member of a group! It's much better to pretend to be a good guy and then start acting up when you want to create a maximum amount of disruption. If Fetzer was like this all along, it is extremely doubtful he would have been "co-founder" of ST911--no one would join it! I've seen this process (turning to the "dark" side) repeat more than a few times when it comes to disruption in the 9/11 truth movement. But the good thing about human nature and understanding is that you can only be fooled so many times.
Arabesque: 911 Truth

Anyone who witnessed Dr. Fetzer's behavior in Chandler, Az.

in February of 2007 knows exactly what he's about.

There is video, if anyone needs to see it.

Let the good Dr. do his thing, alone.

The truth shall set us free (some will show their true colors along the way).

Love is the only way forward.

Thank you so much!!

Thank you so much for this fantastic paper, Professor Jones! Defeating them with their own weapons is the best approach there is, I think - just like David Ray Griffin's new book does it so brilliantly, too. I'm so enthusiastic about these "fourteen points" that I immediately started working on a thorough and accurate German translation (it's quite hard because of the architectural and physical terminology throughout, though), which I'm gonna forward to just about everyone! There is no quicker path to convince people than this list "of agreement"! It really is a terrific piece of work!

You are such a courageous man, Professor Jones! There must be so many other scientists out there having these doubts but only you and your fellow researchers speak out for truth, no matter how hard you are attacked or ridiculed - until recently I was laughing at skeptics, as well. It takes a strong backbone to position yourself against the vast mainstream and I do admire you for that. May God bless you.


"Nothing is harder and takes more character than to stand in open opposition to one's time and loudly say: No!"

(Kurt Tucholsky)

Please make the translation available

here or let us know where it can be downloaded from.

We need to create an archive of key tools in as many languages as possible.


I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

MP3 - The Architect of Steel Framed Buildings


Friday March 14, 2008
Richard Gage, AIA broke into mainstream radio last Friday morning
March 7th at midnight in a one-hour interview on the Christine Craft
show on KGO-810(San Francisco ABC)

(21 Min - 11.3 Meg)

* source =

Wednesday December 19, 2007
Richard Gage AIA Comments As Part Of NIST NCST Committee Meeting On WTC7 Report

* source =

Saturday March 8, 2008
Peter B Collins stands tall in the 9/11 truth saddle and interviews Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

(42 Minutes - 12 Meg)

* source =

Monday November 26, 2007
Richard Gage on the Jeff Farias Show, NovaM Radio Network

* source =

Wednesday October 24, 2007
Richard Gage AIA, Founder of Architects For 911 Truth, Talks Truth on Drive Time Radio About Explosive Demolition Of The 3 WTC High-Rise Buildings

* source =

Thursday September 6, 2007
Richard Gage AIA, Founder of Architects For 911 Truth, Talks to Alex Jones GCN Radio Network

* source =

Someone needs to do a press

Someone needs to do a press release and post it around (I haven't had time). There was the one so far done but it might be good to not have it originating in Pakistan.

Excellent approach

Friends, Americans, countrymen.

I come to praise the NIST report, not to bury it.

The WPI researchers published their results [2,21] and called for “a detailed study” of this “high- temperature” “oxidation and sulfidation” phenomenon.

It appears that NIST has inadvertently overlooked this evidence and we offer to investigate the matter with them, in pursuit of understanding and security.

Most eloquent

Carry on Professor

Make Copies and Put Them Out

When the student is ready the teacher will come.

This peer reviewed article fits on three pages both sides. I mailed out about 50 copies already. All the state senators of Wisconsin, our Governor and Lt. Governor got a copy and I also sent them DRG's 25 Contradictions. Did you know you can send 5 pages of information on a single 42 cent stamp. Mailed letters usually attract curiosity. Who is this person sending me a letter? They open it and you hope they read it. That's called planting the seed. Make copies and put them out. Great work on getting the article peer reviewed and published in a journal. Take Care Matt