Comments regarding Prof. Jones’ "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" (More comments will be added as there is time. Not all of this will be fan-mail…)


1. Email to Prof Jones from a structural engineer in Texas:

"It occurred to me that structural engineers and architects are practitioners of static physics [like yourself] although we use different terminology peculiar to our professions to elaborate on our designs.

I am surprised how few of my colleagues have expressed public disbelief at the official line which lurches from theory to theory as the shortcomings of each became apparent. I guess they have run out of ideas on Building 7.

You nailed the biggest problem when you focused on the symmetry of collapse in comparison to the asymmetry of the damage... Steel high rises are designed (and overdesigned) as cantilever beams on end. There is so much redundant steel in these buildings because they have to resist hurricane force winds. Was there a hurricane in New York on Sept 11?

If steel framed structures designed by world class engineers (who are still being commissioned to design high rises elsewhere in the world) can collapse with so little provocation, I should send my diploma back and take up fortune telling.

So astute that the president promptly declared 9/11 an Act of War (the truth, sort of). This relieved the designers of having to defend themselves for negligent design. No professional liability policies cover war (because of exposure to explosives etc.), so no deep pockets to make a lawsuit worth while. So no engineer singing to a jury…"


2. From another structural engineer:


3. From a Mechanical Engineering Professor, email to Dr. Jones:

4. From a mechanical engineer with ‘government contacts’, sent to Prof Jones and BYU administrators:

[Nov. 2005, shortly after Prof. Jones’ article first appeared on the web] "The publication of this [Jones] article can be stopped on the basis of endangerment, and I have the contacts to make this happen if necessary, but I prefer to give you the opportunity to consider the consequences - which you have not addressed. You need to give this very serious consideration. [Endangerment to whom? The current administration?] This is an issue that is more important than any individual career, [I think he means Dr. Jones’ career] or whether or not you believe that you are correct. …The molten metal may be the best evidence that local conditions in the fire where [sic] hotter than the post-test evaluation of specific points… your theories are likely to be subject to intense scrutiny and criticism. As painful as it may seem now, perhaps it may be less painful than could occur after publication."

[Nov. 2005, after responses by Prof. Jones]: "The North Tower "squibs" [Jones discusses in his paper] are more interesting and deserve more attention because they are quite similar to the material ejected from the Southwark Towers shown at"

[Dec. 2005, following answers and detailed responses by Prof. Jones]: "I… have learned to appreciate the value of silence, even in the case of superior data and information…. [He seems to be telling Dr. Jones to shut up!] There are, perhaps, several reasons why the administration [at BYU] would pay more particular attention to me than to you in this matter. First, you made many assertions without the least amount of analysis to support your assertions… [Prof. Jones challenged this comment!]

"I regret that you are still trying to publish your paper. The fact that a paper passes peer review and is accepted for publication should not be viewed as validation of ideas unless the peer reviewers are really qualified to perform the peer review.

"In contrast to studying things that could cause harm, the whole focus could be changed to something that is assured to prevent harm… Maybe a low velocity rocket fired from a helicopter could disperse fire retardants on a floor that can't be reached otherwise. Even if explosives are planted, this makes it much more difficult to cause the collapse of the building. If this interests you, I would be happy to contact Tom Hunter and the Head of Homeland Security to see if funding for BYU could be found to research options for this purpose.

Again, I am sorry for the difficulty of this interaction."

[end of Dec., 2005]: "Steven: I have recently given some thought to how I can help you preserve your good name at BYU. My intent is to show that I have as much concern for your well being as I have in preserving the safety and security of others.


"It is better to demonstrate that structural collapse can be prevented than to show how or why structures may be collapsed. Toward this goal, I have recently had some ideas that may be inexpensive, passive, light weight and effective against attack by both fire and explosives. [A rather detailed outline for a suggested grant proposal follows, snip…] 


"The concept is patentable, could be easily applied during construction (beneath facia), could be required by building codes, and has a potentially large market. Naturally, research is required to define the required thicknesses, attachment in a way that preserves existing fire protection, and attachment in a way that is difficult to remove without obvious alterations. It could even be added as a decorative feature in existing buildings.


"Perhaps you may come up be different or better ideas, but it suggests a course of action that protects others, rather than put them at risk. It could bring substantial resources to BYU, and could involve a cooperative effort between the structural design group and physics department. This would give you the opportunity to address your explosive ideas without having to capitulate, while improving the resistance of the structure to collapse by fire. It also generates a project that could bring the various departments together in a cooperative effort. Naturally, you are most likely to achieve the greatest success in such an effort if you change course, rather than continue to pursue your present effort…" [Is this some sort of bribe? The reader can judge for her/himself the statements and tactics used by this man with "contacts." Note that his comments and efforts to thwart publication of the Jones paper did not succeed, but may have influenced the statement by the BYU Fulton College of Engineering which follows.]

5. [The following was posted at the web site of the BYU Fulton College of Engineering and Technology from November 2005 to April 2006, when it was removed without explanation.]

"Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

[Comments by Prof. Richard McGinn
]: "Notice the form it takes. It undermines Jones' hypotheses with a hand-wave about academic procedure. No mention of the substance of Jones' work.

"Another problem of the statement: The Physics Department at BYU, which ran its own version of the offending statement on its web site last [autumn], was persuaded to take it down following a letter-writing campaign. Yet the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology continues to run the statement, including the surprising contention that "Professor Jones' own department" remains unconvinced. Well, is this true or not? Why did the Physics Department remove the offending statement from its own site? Did they have a change of heart, or did our letters merely induce the chair to stop harassing a faculty member, from a sudden burst of collegiality?

"It would really, really help if we could find ways to get engineers and scientists to focus on the substance of Professor Jones' hypotheses." Richard McGinn

6. [Letter from Prof. McGinn to the Dean of the BYU Fulton College of Engineering and Technology, March 27, 2006]:

March 27, 2006

Alan R. Parkinson, Dean

Fulton College of Engineering and Technology

270 CB

Brigham Young University

Provo, UT 84602

Dear Dean Parkinson,

I am writing to you both as an individual and a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth ( At issue is a statement posted on the Engineering College’s web site that is harmful to the career and reputation of BYU physicist Steven Jones.

The web site makes three questionable statements. First, it implies that Dr. Jones’ in-progress research into the physics of the 9/11 attacks in New York has not yet been subjected to a relevant and sufficiently rigorous peer review process.

Second, it states without substantiation: "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." If they really mean this, the engineers should defend the official FEMA and NIST reports which Jones challenges, giving specifics.

Third, it names Dr. Jones’ own department as complicit in all of this, and in particular, that the Physics Department is "not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

I hereby request the Engineering College to remove the offending statement from its web site. At the very least, the College should remove the reference to Dr. Jones’ home department on the basis of the following, new, information. One of Dr. Jones’s research papers ["Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"] has undergone relevant and sufficient peer-review, and has been accepted for publication in a book to appear later this year, titled "9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out" (Northampton, Mass: Olive Branch Press, 2006), edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott. In fact, as you may know, this paper had been peer reviewed for a publication by Elsevier Press. But after the stated concerns about "rigorous technical peer review," the paper was withdrawn and submitted to a different publication and peer reviewed again. One of the editors, while maintaining anonymity of the reviewers, disclosed that four PhDs reviewed this paper, two of whom were physicists (and thus peers). Notably, even before the fact of this forthcoming, peer-reviewed publication, BYU’s Physics Department revised its own web site last fall, removing its reference to Dr. Jones’ in-progress research. Therefore, as a first step, it behooves the Engineering College to follow suit, and to remove the following passage from the web site:

"Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

There are additional reasons for deleting the unprofessional and unethical statement. First, although I am not a member of American Society of Civil Engineers, I am permitted, according to the ASCE code, to lodge an ethics complaint against an engineer. (The ombudsman for formal complaints to ASCE is:

Second, no dean has the right to represent individual faculty, much less the entire faculty of BYU’s Engineering College, on the issue of whether they do (or do not) "support" a colleague’s research, whether published or in-progress. The offending statement is a breach of collegiality, and seems as well to infringe upon Professor Jones’ academic freedom.

Most poignantly, it is inconsistent with the code of ethics of the American Society of Civil Engineers, by which you, as dean of the Engineering College, are bound, given that your web site claims to represent the opinions of an entire faculty of BYU engineers. The ASCR Code states in part:


g. Engineers shall not maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, injure the professional reputation, prospects, practice or employment of another engineer or indiscriminately criticize another's work."

If members of the College disagree with Dr. Jones' assertions in his paper that the official FEMA and NIST reports are inadequate as they stand, then they should be specific in their reasons for supporting those reports, neither of which provides (routine) visualizations for finite element analyses.

Sincerely yours,

Richard McGinn


CC: ASCE Ombudsman

AAUP Committee on Academic Freedom

[The web-statement by the Engineering College was soon removed.]


7. Email to Dr. Jones from an explosives expert:

8. Email to Prof. Jones from a Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT:

"I agree wholeheartedly with one comment [in Jones’ paper] – that the [official] enquiries are grossly inadequate and the conclusions may well be wrong. I have publicly stated that they are significant for what they do NOT say rather than for what they say. Building engineers on the defensive."

9. Rep. Curt Weldon Town Hall Meeting (April 2006, transcript from audio tape)

Dave Slesinger: First, I want to praise you for your Able Danger efforts. Since you are the Congressman most sympathetic to firefighters, have you looked at the quotes from NYC firefighters at the World Trade Center on 9/11 about explosives? If you have, will you accept information on [this] for later comment?

Rep. Weldon: I will absolutely accept information, and I'm very close to the NYC firefighters because one of my best friends was killed there…

I talk to the fire department on a regular basis. When the Republican convention was held in New York in 2004, I went up a day early, I went down to the fire department headquarters. I spent the day with them. And when I finished the briefings, and getting their input, as to what happened on 9/11, which I had ongoing, I went up and spent two hours running with Engine 54 (inaudible) in midtown Manhattan. And I wanted to do that because on 9/11 all 15 firefighters on duty from that station were killed. And I wanted the firefighters to give me their views without going through any chiefs or other officers about what happened.

Now, there's a lot of theorists out there about what occurred. And uh, I haven't gone into the structural elements of the building. The fact that there are reports on multiple explosions on other floors... I am open to that information. I'm willing to challenge the system. And uh, and don't automatically discount anything that's told to me because I've seen, I've seen too much. I mean, ya know, I hate to say that sometimes I don't trust my Government, but sometimes, I don't trust the Government. The bureaucracy. Ya know the best evidence of that is we had the, uh, Tillman, the football player. Joined the army, he was killed. We now find out that the army burned his clothing. So the family never got to get the real story about how Pat Tillman died. Now if it was an accident, so be it. You don't hide that information because somebody is going to be embarrassed.

That's the whole story with Tony Shaffer. It's the bureaucrats trying to hide information and facts, so they're not embarrassed. So, do I automatically accept what the Government tells me? No. And that's why I get myself in trouble. I challenge the CIA, I challenge the DIA. I'll challenge our Defense Department. That's why you send me there. If you want somebody to go there, and just go along, you would send a robot. That would vote the way the party wanted, and would go along with the current President. I won't do that. So I'm absolutely open to any information anyone has that challenges anything about the 9/11 Commission or the work there.

Dave Slesinger speaks up: Congressman, that was my question, I, wanna give out, anybody who wants this, this is a speech by a physics professor at BYU, Steven Jones.

Rep. Weldon: Yea.

Dave Slesinger: It's the hottest thing happening on the 9/11 issue. In his speech, he praises Congressman Weldon, he's a conservative Republican [or was], he praises Reagan, he quotes St. Paul. I think I have [DVD copies] enough for everybody. Just ask me.

Rep. Weldon: It'll open your eyes, because his allegations are pretty strong.


[UVSC Presentation on Feb. 1, 2006, by Prof. Jones is available in various formats: .]

10. Words can't express how thrilled and happy I am that someone with some status and crediblility----someone that people might actually listen to, has FINALLY come forward and put all this together.

I read your paper VERY carefully, and with a mounting sense of incredulity, because believe it or not-----and for what it's worth, I have been saying almost every one of the things you have pointed out in your excellent paper, and jumping up and down and screaming about it since September 11, 2001. And of course, virtually no one paid any attention whatsoever. I'm not a professor of physics or chemistry, and I don't work for Controlled Demolitions, Inc., so this is not really surprising. Angular momentum, the three laws of thermodynamics, and mathematical formulas are not my area of expertise. I reached these conclusions intuitively.

I would like to say much, much more, but am very tired, so for now----thank you, thank you, thank you!!

Ken 11/14/05

11. Professor Jones, thank you for your dedicated work toward obtaining the truth.  I am very impressed by your paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?".  When I saw the initial collapse in real time on 9/11/01 --- my words were, "that was a controlled demolition".  I think that ultimately the truth of what happened will be proved, however the proof of why it happened and who is responsible will be very difficult.  In my opinion, the massive support columns in the building at Oklahoma City were not brought down by an IED in a vehicle.  I truly respect your efforts at obtaining the truth concerning WTC, but as you know, those who get too close to the truth often meet with unusual circumstances.  Please be careful and aware.  Yours truly, Gary DeKorte.  (Police Captain). May 8, 2006

12. like so many Americans,

I've personally spent several thousand dollars in

a frustrating effort to expose the 9/11 truths. Who

would have thought the progress would be so slow.

Currently, at the urging of Micheal Woolsey of, my concerted focus has

narrowed exclusively to disseminating Steven

Jones 9/11 Revisited lecture, taped at Utah State

University. I find this lecture most credible,

And do my best to represent your organization in a

most professional manner. To this end, I ask for your

endorsement in allowing me to continue disseminating

this lecture, at as many venues as I can. One of

my upcoming efforts is providing Public Service

information booths at the various summer events

which seasonally occur in our region. [Yes, of course, continue your efforts!]

13. I've never been a "tin hat" kind of guy just  curious with some common sense. [2006] would be the perfect time for an october surprise considering things are going turtle for this administration. Blow the Reichstag and scrap the constitution. If anything this gave me a chance to purge, thank you. When i think of the battle you gentlemen and ladies are fighting to get your message out i can't help but compare you to the resistance fighters of ww2 and admire the hell out of you for your integrity and courage. Personally i feel the only thing that's saving North America from a Goebbels/Rove propaganda machine is the internet. When i think of what makes up the best of America i will always think of people like you. Good luck. [May 10, 2006, From Canada.]

12. Professor Jones,

I wanted to thank you for writing you article on the many issues revolving around 9/11. For years I have been trying to convince my father that the official account is far from complete or accurate. Your article was the piece which finally brought him face to face with the inadequacies of the official story. Thank you for your bravery and patriotism. It scares me that people, even fellow students here at Brown, still try to tell me there were connections between Iraq and 9/11!!! A closed mind is a dangerous one. Thanks again.

Best Regards,

C. T. M. (5/11/06)

13. (11/15/05) Prof. Jones,


I listened to your talk on the Republic Broadcasting network yesterday and have your paper as well. Thank you for doing this important and fascinating research.


I wanted to express my displeasure at the way you were treated on Tucker Carlson’s show last night on MSNBC. It’s obvious that the network or Tucker had no intention of giving you the time of day or giving your hypothesis any legs. He would not show the video [of WTC 7 collapse] and did not give you the opportunity to tell your story. I wonder why they even bothered scheduling this segment other than to deliberately kill the story.


I wonder if you might get a better reception on Keith Oberman’s show or Air America (although not a mainstream audience, which is what is needed). Please let me know if you have any other interviews scheduled or where you go from here with this. Like you, I would like to see further investigation done. I have little faith that this will occur. Ron B

[Note: Carlson’s staff asked me what I would like to show/discuss, and I replied – a video clip of the collapse of WTC 7. I sent them the URL for the clip – remember, this was at their request. That night, the TV crew did not provide a monitor for me to look at, although I requested it, so I could not tell whether or not Tucker Carlson was showing the collapse of WTC 7 -- and I was very surprised when after repeated questions about this, he said they would not show the clip! Hope you will look at it, available here: and here:  .]

14. Maybe the media is beginning to wake up from its unquestioning acceptance of the official story about 9-11.  I have seen several stories like this recently in the media, albeit not in major papers. People are also beginning to question the omission of Able Danger from the 9-11 Commission Report and hear Rep. Weldon speak of it as a whitewash…  I wonder if Cheney is beginning to sweat? 11/11/05


Peter H




[The KU-TV news broadcast linked above was much more complete than the Tucker Carlson interview – and they actually showed the collapse of WTC 7! ]

15. 11/12/05 Dear Professor Jones:

I live in Los Angeles and have been active in the 9/11 truth movement for about a year.

I'm just writing a note of thanks for the article you are preparing on the Twin Towers collapse…

I cannot imagine the courage you have mustered for doing this--it seems so few people are willing to come foward, especially those with active careers and reputations to put on the line. Our most prominent people--David Ray Griffin and Morgan Reynolds--are emeriti. You are the first active academic in the lot, and you will probably be hounded from both sides--by those of us who want more and those who want you to pipe down.

But cheers and all the best. If you're ever in Los Angeles, I have a couple of groups who would be delighted to meet you. We're also trying to put together a teach-in on the subject--I'm copying this to a couple of students who have been active in 9/11 truth.

With highest regards,

Tony B

Northridge, California

16. 11/12/05 Professor Jones,

I just wanted to say thank you very much for coming out and telling the

truth about the collapses of the World Trade Center towers and building 7. I'm sure your receiving tonnes of email about this

right now and I'm not sure if you'll even be able to read this, but I also wanted to tell you that there are millions of people out there who think the same way you do. Judging by what the Bush

administration has done in the past to any dissenters, it is likely that there is going to be an all out assault on you and your credibility. I'm sure you already know this too, but my point is that you have support not only in the USA, but in Canada, and the rest of the world. Thank you for standing up for the truth.

Jimmy G

Student - University of Victoria

Victoria, B.C.



17. 11/12/05 Morons like Jones do the world of science and forensic enquiry no good at all by perpetuating flagarant mistruths and indeed it calls into question every thing he does as a scientist. How do we know he isn't lying about his work.. More people have been directly involved in investigating the events of 9/11 that will every [sic] be peer reviewing his work. 

Perhaps Jones would like to leave his ivory tower every now and again and join the real world which already knows.. what happened</a> on Tuesday, September 11, 2001.


Cynicism is not a useful basis at arriving at facts because the enquirier [sic] is blinkered by their own perceptions as Jones clearly is. 

Am I being cyncial in saying Jones wrote his 9/11 paper because he needed to get his academic publishing quota up for the year?

Tell Jones he's a moron.

Nora C

18. I went to Toronto for a discussion of 9-11 held by Richard Lee, Provost and Vice-President of the U. of Toronto (preceeded by a video 'Confronting the evidence' if I remember the title). The main reason I mention it is that he talked the same way anyone in your volume [where the Jones paper is being published] would -- and he is both a famous anthropologist and high university official at an important Canadian University… So, we are not as alone as we might sometimes think.

Paul Zarembka 11/12/2005

19. Too bad the vast right wing conspiracy that blew up the WTC hasn't taken you out yet, you clown. Your terrorist apologist stance is appalling as your apparent lack of intellect. Stick with what you're allegedly good at, staring at the sun --you ass.

Frank DeC. 11.13.2005

20. Pro. Jones,


I am a concerned American citizen that reads different posts on different websites, searching for news.  One website of interest is  According to a recent post on that site, you have written an article about 9/11 and the destruction of the twin towers using explosives in coordination with the planes.  I often wonder if the stuff I read on that web site is real.  No offense, but are you a real person who wrote this article, and do you really believe what the web posting states?  I'm not doubting that what you say is real; I'd just like to get conformation once that some of the stuff I'm reading is actual real information from a real person.  I often try to tell people about some of the information I read, and they think it's crazy to say that stuff.  If you are real and you believe in this, please send me a short conformation email just so I have a small sliver of proof and not just some website to show people. Most of all, if all this is real and you are trying to get the real information out, thank you very much.  I believe the most patriotic thing a person can do is search for the truth and try to let others know of the truth if you can find it.


thank you,


William L 11/13/2005

21. 11/15/05 Dear Professor Jones,

I just want to thank you for your research that investigates the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC-7. As you already know, there are many inconsistencies that occurred on 9/11 in contrast to the 9/11 Commission.

Our Government and mainstream media have done nothing to examine this. Your efforts are important to the continuation of democracy in this country. Do not let your detractors deter you.

Respectfully, Erik G.

22. prof jones,

i am sure you are being inundated with emails at the moment, and may very well never make it to this one. but in case you do, i just wanted to say thank you for the work you are doing. i believe there are many americans who have felt for time that we have been misinformed about many things surrounding sep 11th, and thereafter. maybe, just maybe, when those of respectable academic backgrounds, such as yourself, start research and produce the questions you have, the events will get some attention. and then maybe one day we can find out the truth and return our country to what it was meant to be. thanks again.


kevin a 11.15.2005 (College student, South Carolina)

23. 11/15/05 Thank you very much, Dr. Jones, for your recent work on 9/11. I have been delighted to see coverage of your work on the issue in the mainstream media and appreciate your courage. (I think that you freaked out Tucker Carlson! I've sent him an e-mail asking that he interview you again, for a longer period of time.) I read The New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin about 18 months ago and find the alternative descriptions of what happened on 9/11 very convincing. Again, thank you, and please keep it up!

Karen R

Associate Professor

24. 11/15/05 I’m a…student at the University of San Francisco in my senior year. I have excelled at physics, astronomy, video, audio, and I am currently a computer tech working on campus. Thus, when I tell you that I give my utmost respect to you for your efforts regarding the truth behind 9/11, it comes from a well educated, stable - loving mind.

You are correct… To well trained eyes and educated minds, 9/11 is a joke. There is no theory, it is exactly what you say: physics. No one is guessing or going by assumptions, we are simply observing what seemed impossible. The steel framed building 7 that somehow collapsed is the missing link. Once people start to understand the indefinite truth behind the physics of building 7 and why it is nearly impossible for it to fall, they will undoubtedly question not only buildings 1 and 2, but the entire government itself.

Yesterday my friend asked me (after talking about you and your position as a respected teacher) why I cared? What if the government did it? What if we are being led by a neo-Hitler who took down the towers like the Feuhrer [Hitler] burned the Reichstag [and blamed it on others]? Many people tell me that I'm worried or nervous; paranoid.

That is not the case. People like me can argue and debate all day long

about this "conspiracy theory" but ultimately, it takes scholars and

teachers like you to show the masses that these ideas are far from a theory.

Thus, thank you...thank you thank you thank you. You are a beacon of

light for those who have been turned away by an ignorant America.

When I revealed to my family what I had learned about 9/11, I was regarded as an outcast from then on. I stopped talking to both of my aunts, my closest cousins and now word has been passed around my family that their relative Andrew has gone over the deep end. People like me are now considered crazy, as if we are saying that the world is flat. Please remember that your perseverance and energy is for a cause that lives within each town, each city, and in each heart that aches - knowing day after day that our entire political movement has been shaped by a lie.

Again, I forward my everlasting thank you. If you get this, please just

e-mail me back, telling that you have read my words. It would mean the

world to me.


25. Structural Engineer, 11/15/05:

Perhaps the people at Worcester Polytechnic have some updated information they would care to share with the BYU Physics Dept. If you would like to see similar material let me know an address where I can send you a package in the mail. I have been archiving structure and materials related text found on the internet since late 2001. Most of the sites have expunged the information by now, but you may find the text useful for following up with individual engineers… I am surprised how few of my colleagues have expressed public disbelief at the official line…

The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel

Worcester Polytechnic Institute Transformations

Spring 2002

There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction-- occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.

Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. A more detailed analysis comprises Appendix C of the FEMA report. The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal.

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

A eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. Blacksmiths took advantage of this property by welding over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron. In the World Trade Center fire, the presence of oxygen, sulfur and heat caused iron oxide and iron sulfide to form at the surface of structural steel members. This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity.

[Prof. Jones’ emails to Profs. Barnett and Sisson were not answered…]

26. 11/15/05 Dear Prof. Jones,

Thank you so much for your intelligent and very courageous work on the physics of the collapse of the three buildings at the WTC on 9/11. I am very impressed by your paper and applaud your brave performance last night on MSNBC. I have just sent an email scolding Tucker Carlson for treating you so dismissively and then not even showing the video which is persuasive evidence that explosives where used to bring down Building 7.


I was a resident of 75 West St, just 1,000 feet south of WTC 2 on 9/11 and still live here. On that day I was in my apartment on the 8th floor. Just before Tower 2 collapsed, I felt an explosion or earthquake that shook my building quite severely just before the dust and debris of the tower began pouring in the windows. When I stepped out onto the street I was immersed in a cloud of grey dust filled with snowflake-sized clumps. My feet sank into 6 inches of grey powder. There were no chunks of concrete or metal in site.  I have heard other eyewitness reports similar to mine, most notably, William Rodriguez, the WTC janitor.


As a 9/11 survivor, I am so grateful that you have undertaken a serious investigation of the collapse of the buildings. I will pray for your well-being and for you to be able to continue this important work.



Gary W

27. 11/15/05 The thing that I cannot explain away is how all three buildings collapsed so precisely. I just cannot convince my mind that my eyes did not see a well engineered "pull." SteveK (magazine editor)

28. 11/16/05 Dr. Jones,

> I just watched the video clip of you on MSN video over the Internet,

> short-titled "Explosive Theory." I applaud you on a job well done,

> while on camera.


> I also wanted to mention that your interviewer, Tucker [Carlson], committed several logical errors and potentially

> unfair interviewing tactics in his interview, which collectively

> operated to muddle and obscure what you were trying to explain. His

> logical errors and potentially unfair tactics include, but are not

> limited to: 1-Interrupting; 2-Conveying facts that are accurate but

> incomplete, and therefore misleading; 3-Condescension.


> Despite Tucker's logical errors and potentially unfair interviewing

> techniques, sincere viewers saw, as I did, your good faith effort to

> be complete under pressure. I acknowledge Tucker's tone appeared to

> be congenial, and his purpose not overtly nefarious, but I felt that

his efforts to conduct a fair and balanced interview fell short for at

> least the foregoing reasons. However, I noticed that your natural

good will caused you to conclude by thanking your interviewer, without

> any hint of irritation. I believe sincere viewers could sense that

> there is more substance and heft to your theory than the interviewer

> had time or interest to report.


> Thanks for listening. I enjoyed the interview.


> Karl C (Patent Attorney)

29. 11/17/05 I have just watched the interview with Steven Jones and read the follow up blog article. By way of introduction, I am a Ph.D. mathematician and worked for a number of years at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I mention this only to indicate that I may not be a park-dwelling writer of messages in crayon. I, too, am surprised that a mainstream news source took notice of Prof. Jones' article and had the courage to bring him on air. However, the interview was far too short to allow Prof. Jones to adequately defend his position with which I am largely in agreement.

I found Prof. Jones' paper one of the best expositions on the matter since it deals entirely with the scientific evidence that strongly suggests the official account of the "collapse" of the WTC towers is in error. I also side with Prof. Jones in his call for the release of all available physical evidence to be applied to a serious and independent investigation to help resolve this matter.

For myself, and I am sure for many others, wrestling with the 9-11 issues has been difficult and, at times, painful. I am appalled at the suggestion that those who disbelieve the official account of 911 events should want to leave the country. It is, rather, our duty as citizens of this country to work calmly and patiently for a truthful rendering of those events and for a proper redress of grievances if the official account is indeed in error.

Best Regards,

Lon W