Jones has some sort of problem. He misrepresents many things in his paper. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims."
Here are two major problems from Section 12 of Jones' paper:
Jones invents a contradiction between NIST and Lane and Lamont, he writes: "even though the UK experts complained that “the core columns cannot pull the exterior [i.e., perimeter] columns in via the floor.”
BUT NIST DOESN'T SAY core columns pulled the exterior columns!
Jones is at his most blind when he quotes NIST: "To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports" THEN HE ADDS: [e.g., complete collapse occurred]
But NIST is referring to changes in the building BEFORE the collapse! Clearly NIST is talking about the photogarophic evidence and eyewitness reports of things BEFORE complete collapse occurred. Apparently Jones is ignorant of the building changes before complete collapse. He thinks the simulations were tweaked to conform to the collapse not understanding that NIST is talking about observable events BEFORE that, like the bowing columns.
I have not seen Jones acknowledge the fact that the building was observably undergoing changes before the collapse. He communicates this ignorance when writes "How fun (perhaps) to tweak the model like that, until the building collapses -- until one gets the desired result." And he is not mentioning the bending of the columns and the sagging of the floors which is what the simulation was being tweaked to conform with. This doesn't have to be "faked" as Jones is implying, since we know that the columns did bend and the floors did sag. The simulations were simply tweaked so they would conform WITH WHAT WAS SEEN (photographed and witnessed) before the collapse. And this was done "only within the range of physical reality" as NIST writes.
This is a key point. Griffin himself says changes like this would be evidence of a fire induced collapse, "In fire-induced collapses ... the onset would be gradual. Horizontal beams and trusses would begin to sag; vertical columns, if subjected to strong forces, would begin to bend." The very thing that Griffin points to as a feature of a fire caused collapse we can see in photos of the World Trade Center. But both Griffin and Jones are apparently ignorant of this key fact.