Justin Case wrote:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+

9%2F11

I see the burning stuff. No evidence of molten steel.

That would be that bright yellow river flowing down the side.
Open your eyes.

The question is, how do you know for sure that this is steel?
If this is the result of thermite reactions, as Jones Claims, then
why were thermite charges only planted in the precice area
of the building where the bulk of a 767 wreckage came to rest?
Why couldn't this possibly be molten alluminium mixed with
flamable debris? Or something else entirely?

His field is nuclear fusion. Pretty sure the WTC collapse was
not a nuclear phenomenon.

How is a professor of physics not qualified ?

The paper displays a lack of competence and honesty. He
misquotes sources and present others as authoritative that
are not. He suggests that the "official" account of the collapse
violates the laws of conservation and momentum but he
provides no quantitative analysis. He merely quotes as
support a paper from a mechanical engineer who seems to
think that total momentum can magically turn into energy
without the provision of external forces.