Steven Jones - The Open Civil Engineering Journal

[Anders Lindman]

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

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."

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM

[Anders Lindman]

Good points in Jones' research paper, such as:

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.

[americana]

Thanks very much for posting this!:D

One comment I would make concerns the quotes from Skilling on Page 2 (actually Page 36 in the document). The author(s) of "Fourteen Points of Agreement" cite an article that appeared in the Seattle Times in 1993, that quotes one of the people who wrote a (structural) analysis of the WTC in 1968.

I don't mean to be overly picky, BUT in all seriousness, it would be preferable if the authors had gone to the original document! It's mentioned in my post, here http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26625

In the interest of doing serious research that looks to primary documents, reference to an analysis or analyses done at the time the WTC was built would be best.

This analysis, written by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson , must exist SOMEWHERE. Wouldn't it be great to see what it actually says, and what claims were made at the time!

[Anders Lindman]

Thanks very much for posting this!:D

One comment I would make concerns the quotes from Skilling on Page 2 (actually Page 36 in the document). The author(s) of "Fourteen Points of Agreement" cite an article that appeared in the Seattle Times in 1993, that quotes one of the people who wrote a (structural) analysis of the WTC in 1968.

I don't mean to be overly picky, BUT in all seriousness, it would be preferable if the authors had gone to the original document! It's mentioned in my post, here http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26625

In the interest of doing serious research that looks to primary documents, reference to an analysis or analyses done at the time the WTC was built would be best.

This analysis, written by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson , must exist SOMEWHERE. Wouldn't it be great to see what it actually says, and what claims were made at the time!

Hmm... How come Steven Jones et. al. didn't use the original analysis? Has it been classified because of national security reasons? It wouldn't surprise me if they made tons of documents classified after 9/11.