Ugh. Steve Jones. Long story short, his work has been refuted by many demolitions experts and mechanical/structural engineers (Jones is a physicist, but not a mechanical or structural engineer). Here's the long story made short on his major claims.
1) Fire not hot enough to melt steel: This is quite true. However it is also an established fact that steel gets weak long before it starts to melt and the fire DID get hit enough to weaken the steel.
2) "Pools of molten metal" in the rubble: Sure, but it hasn't been established that those pools were molten steel. As for why the rubble stayed that hot that long after the collapse, any Boy Scout or wood burning stove owner can answer that one. The rubble on top of the smoldering wreckage is pretty much like "banking" a fire by cutting off most of its oxygen. Also he seems to blame thermite for somehow keeping the fires going. thermite doesn't act that way.
3) Twin Towers and WTC 7 collapsing into their own 'footprints': Either a bald faced lie or really, really, really wrong, take your pick. Both caused extensive damage to the surrounding area.
4) No Previous Skyscraper Collapse Due to Fires: Sure, but then again how many skyscrapers in the past were slammed into by 767's at full throttle fully loaded with fuel? How many were showered with flaming rubble from the collapse of the tallest skyscraper in the world? It's a non starter from the beginning
5) Squibs: The horizontal puffs of smoke seen in some films aren't necessarily "squibs". You don't start seeing them until AFTER the tower starts to collapse. Unless you have magic explosive devices, whose effects reach backwards in time, you would expect to seem them BEFORE the collapse. Further, no evidence of explosive planted in the building have been found. No explosive residue, nothing. More likely you are seeing ejecta from the collapse.
6) Eyewitness Accounts of Flashes and Loud Explosions: People see and hear lots of things in panicky situations. Just because they heard pops or booms does not mean those pops and booms were bombs going off. And again, there is a complete lack of evidence for bombs.
7) The speed of the fall: This one is hard to explain, but it's based on flawed math, poor measurements and inaccurate assumptions about what the speed of the fall should be.
All this aside the biggest nail in the coffin of the "Controlled Demolition" theory being bandied about by Prof Jones et al, is the complete lack of positive evidence for such a demolitions. Poking a hole, poking a million, billion, gazillion holes in the "official story" doesn't constitute one bit of proof of a "controlled demolition". Show me a bomb that failed to go off, show me an eyewitness who admits they were part of it (and whose story holds up), show me ANY piece of evidence that doesn't say "the official story is wrong" and instead says "The controlled demoltion theory is right" and I will consider it. SO far such evidence is lacking.
