Dr Steven E. Jones is an American physicist who worked on muon-catalyzed fusion. In 2006, amid controversy surrounding his work on the collapse of the World Trade Center he was relieved of his teaching duties and placed on paid leave from Brigham Young University, retiring October 20, 2006 with the status of Professor Emeritus (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones ).
Dr Steven E. Jones on explosive demolition of the WTC: “On the basis of photographic and video evidence as well as related data and analyses, I provide thirteen reasons for ejecting the official hypothesis, according to which fore an impact damage caused the collapsed of the Twin Towers and of WTC7, in favor of the controlled demolition hypothesis…I believe this is a straightforward hypothesis, much more probable actually than the official hypothesis. It deserves thorough scientific scrutiny, beyond that which I have been able to outline in this treatise. Conclusion. I have drawn attention to glaring inadequacies in the “final” reports funded by the US Government. I have also presented multiple evidences for an alternative hypothesis. In particular, the official theory lacks repeatability in that no actual model or buildings (before or since 9-11-01) have been observed to completely collapse due to the proposed fire-based mechanisms. On the other hand, hundreds of buildings have been completely and symmetrically demolished through the use of pre-positioned explosives. And high-temperature chemical reactions can account for the observed large pools of molten metal , under both the Towers and WTC7, and the sulfidation of structural steel. The controlled demolition hypothesis cannot be dismissed as “junk science” because it better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony.” [1].
Technical experts Steven Jones (former full professor of physics at Brigham Young University), Robert Korol (professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, and a fellow of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering and the Engineering Institute of Canada), Anthony Szamboti (a mechanical design engineer with over 25 years of structural design experience in the aerospace and communications industries) and Ted Walter (director of strategy and development for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), a nonprofit organization that today represents more than 2,500 architects and engineers) on the controlled explosive demolition of the WTC Towers and WTC7 [by the US Government] and published in Europhysics News (the magazine of the European Physical Society) (2016): “In August 2002, the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) launched what would become a six-year investigation of the three building failures that occurred on September 11, 2001 (9/11): the well-known collapses of the World Trade Center (WTC) Twin Towers that morning and the lesser-known collapse late that afternoon of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7, which was not struck by an airplane. NIST conducted its investigation based on the stated premise that the “WTC Towers and WTC 7 [were] the only known cases of total structural collapse in high-rise buildings where fires played a significant role.” Indeed, neither before nor since 9/11 have fires caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise—nor has any other natural event, with the exception of the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, which toppled a 21-story office building. Otherwise, the only phenomenon capable of collapsing such buildings completely has been by way of a procedure known as controlled demolition, where-by explosives or other devices are used to bring down a structure intentionally…
NIST sidesteps the well-documented presence of molten metal throughout the debris field and asserts that the orange molten metal seen pouring out of WTC 2 for the seven minutes before its collapse was aluminum from the aircraft combined with organic materials (see Fig. 6) [6]. Yet experiments have shown that molten aluminum, even when mixed with organic materials, has a silvery appearance—thus suggesting that the orange molten metal was instead emanating from a thermite reaction being used to weaken the structure [12]. Meanwhile, unreacted nano-thermitic material has since been discovered in multiple independent WTC dust samples [13]…
As for eyewitness accounts, some 156 witnesses, including 135 first responders, have been documented as saying that they saw, heard, and/or felt explosions prior to and/or during the collapses…
It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11. Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate times on September 11, 2001? The NIST reports, which attempted to support that unlikely conclusion, fail to persuade a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists. Instead, the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities” [2].
[1]. Dr Steven E. Jones, “Why indeed did the World Trade Center Buildings completely collapse?”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, September 2006, volume 3, 1- 48.
[2]. Steven Jones, Robert Korol, Anthony Szamboti and Ted Walter, “15 years later: on the physics of high–rise building collapses”, Europhysics News, 47 (4), 2016: http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf