On November 10, 2005 Brigham Young University Physics Professor Steven E. Jones released a report entitled Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse which postulated that the Twin Towers were not brought down due to damage from the airliners’ impact on the morning of September 11, 2001, nor the resulting jet fuel fires; but instead were destroyed through the use of ‘pre-positioned explosives.’

Of course other respected sources have spoken out in opposition to the government’s ‘official’ version of events, namely Underwriters Laboratory site manager Kevin Ryan, former Bush cabinet member Morgan Reynolds, University of Minnesota Professor James H. Fetzer, and theologian David Ray Griffin, who has authored over 20 books during his career. All of their contributions have lent a great deal of weight to the findings of independent 9-11 researchers; but with Professor Jones entrance into this highly volatile arena, we now have unimpeachable data from an unimpeachable source that supports virtually every claim we’ve made in regard to how the World Trade Center towers were brought to their knees.

Naturally, the release of Professor Jones’ report was of great interest to me because I had based the entirety of my book 9-11 on Trial (released February, 2005) on the premise that a controlled demolition was in fact what had destroyed the WTC towers, and not those factors cited by the federal government and its various agencies. Now a tenured professor from a nationally recognized university was speaking on this exact same subject. The biggest question was: would his results coincide with mine?

To my profound delight, after reading Professor Jones’ analysis of the WTC collapse, I discovered that his findings supported every major point in 9-11 on Trial with little, if any, exception. Such corroboration of data is no small feat, for now the 9-11 truth movement has confirmation from a credentialed scientist within the university system that the World Trade Center tower controlled demolitions was no longer simply a theory, but a provable fact backed by cold hard science.

Subsequently, such a development lends a great deal of weight to 9-11 on Trial, for this was the first book ever devoted solely to the World Trade Center collapses. Of course other authors devoted individual chapters to this tragic event, but I threw caution to the wind and decided that the WTC controlled demolitions were the crux issue of 9-11, and if we ever wanted to expose who was ultimately behind this disgraceful deed, this is where we should be focusing our energy (and not on other peripheral matters).

Thus, what follows is a sampling of the findings which Professor Steven E. Jones put forth in his above-mentioned report which parallel that which I proposed in 9-11 on Trial:

• The asymmetrical impacts and asymmetrical fires of WTC 1 and WTC 2 could not produce the symmetrical collapses we witnessed on the morning of September 11, 2001. Asymmetric damage on different structures cannot produce symmetrical results.

• In regard to The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Jones’ concurs with the analysis in 9-11 on Trial that a “complete and symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the ‘official’ theory is small, since asymmetrical failure is so much more likely. On the other hand, the major goal of controlled demolition using explosives is the complete symmetrical collapse of buildings.”

• Therefore, Jones says unequivocally that it is likely that there were pre-planted explosives in all three buildings that were destroyed at Ground Zero.

• Likewise, WTC 7, which collapsed at 5:20 pm on the afternoon of 9-11, was not struck by an airliner, nor was it subject to ‘raging infernos,’ yet it fell into its own footprint as did WTC 1 and WTC 2. Jones states with certainty, as did we, that this building could not have come down any other way than via controlled demolition.

• No steel building has ever in the history of the world (before or since 9-11) collapsed due to fire. But, Jones writes, “Complete symmetrical collapses have indeed occurred many times before – all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a procedure called implosion or controlled demolition.”

• The hydrocarbon and office fires in WTC 1 and WTC 2 did not produce temperatures significant enough to melt the steel beams, and they certainly didn’t generate enough energy to produce the molten remains from the steel beams that had been ‘partly evaporated’. To do so would have required temperatures greater than 5000 degrees Fahrenheit, a feat impossible for mere office and/or jet fuel fires.

• In this same vein, molten metal was found in the WTC sub-basements of all three towers which was still ‘red hot’ weeks after 9-11.

• The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) admitted that the WTC fires were insufficient to melt the steel beams in those structures.

• Although we were told that there were ‘raging infernos’ inside WTC 1 and WTC 2, Jones corroborates our findings that the jet fuel which escaped from each airliner burned-off within the first 2-3 minutes.

• Massive steel beams which were ejected hundreds of yards from the towers, plus the complete and utter pulverization of hundreds of thousands of pounds of concrete, provide “further evidence for the use of explosives.”

• Numerous eyewitnesses and news agencies on the scene that day recounted hearing multiple explosions at the base of each tower on the morning of 9-11.

• Professor Jones reiterates the words of MIT Professor Thomas Eager, who deduced that the jetliner impacts would have been insufficient to topple each tower.

• In opposition to what the government wants us to believe, the World Trade Center towers were not flimsy structures with sub-standard construction qualities, but were instead extremely strong – with 47 steel core columns and 240 peripheral steel beams.

• Using a simple mathematical equation, we can determine how long it should take a structure to collapse when there is absolutely no resistance whatsoever upon it (i.e. a gravity freefall). This gravity freefall is exactly and precisely how each of the WTC towers fell, therefore an incredible energy source must have eliminated ALL the resistance on every single floor.

• Just seconds prior to the controlled demolition of WTC 2, its ‘cap’ toppled 23 degrees past vertical and hung 65 feet over the edge of the remaining structure. In accordance with Newton’s First Law of Motion and the law of preservation of angular momentum, this ‘cap’ should have continued falling over onto the streets of Manhattan unless some other energy source caused the entire structure below it to suddenly collapse. Again, such a scenario is only possible via a controlled demolition.

• The ‘pancake theory’ postulated during the PBS Nova special, Why the Towers Fell, was nothing more than an elaborate hoax with absolutely no scientific validity.

• In stark opposition to the ‘scientific method’ which states that for a theory to be accepted as true it has to be repeatable, the government’s ‘official theory’ lacks repeatability and could not occur again due to the “proposed fire-based mechanisms.” On the other hand, we could repeat time and time again controlled demolitions that were virtually identical to those that the entire world saw on the morning of September 11, 2001.

I could continue citing dozens of other examples where Professor Jones’ data concurs with mine, but I’ll instead provide a quote from Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratory: “The probability that fires and [impact] damage (the ‘official theory’) could cause the Towers complete collapse is less than one in a trillion.”

Now please think about these words for a moment. There is less than a one-in-a-trillion chance that the government’s explanation of events in regard to the WTC collapses is true. Such a statement is of vital importance, especially when it is corroborated by the scientific analysis of Professor Steven E. Jones (not to mention the contributions of Reynolds, Ryan, Fetzer, Griffin, and dozens of other independent 9-11 researchers).

Therefore, the only conclusion we can arrive at is that the government’s ‘official’ theory about how the WTC towers collapsed is nothing more than an elaborate fabrication. In addition, we now have respected, credentialed scientists and academians providing unimpeachable evidence that fully supports the previous findings of many groundbreaking 9-11 investigators who laid the foundation for future studies. Their invaluable work was what allowed me to compile 9-11 on Trial; and with the release of BYU Physics Professor Jones’ report to confirm my findings, we now know that the premise of this book – that the World Trade Center towers were destroyed via three separate controlled demolitions – is 100% accurate.

For more information on 9-11 on Trial, click here: 9-11 on Trial

Note: To read Professor Jones' original report, click onto the link below:

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?