While trying to find the original New York Times article in which one of the lead engineers of FEMA, Jonathan Barnett, was to supposed to have said something about "evaporated steel" at WTC7, I came across a website that had the transcript of correspondence with him about his remarks. It also has much more of his opinions about what brought down WTC1 and 2, which certainly doesn't support the controlled demolition hypothesis. But I will quote the part related to WTC7 and the evaporated steel:
Dear Prof. Barnett,
I came across the following comment made by you to James Glanz of the
New York Times of November 29, 2001, regarding the collapse of WTC 7 on
September 11, 2001:
"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might
have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But
that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to
have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr.
I was wondering what prompted you to state that steel members have been
"partly evaporated in extraordinary high
temperatures". Did you follow up this observation?
I would be most grateful for your observations.
Elias Davidsson 31 Dec. 2006
Those were early observations. Since then, a metallurgical study
was completed (see the ASCE/FEMA BPAT report). Please let me know
if you have any more questions.
Jonathan 2 January 2007
Dear Prof. Barnett,
I am aware of the ASCE/FEMA BPAT report which reported unexplained
sulferization and corrosion of the steel of the towers and WTC7.
Professor Steven Jones finds that the most plausible explanation is the
use of thermite. According to his account, thermite would fully
explain these observations.
What is your take on that?
Elias 2 January 2007
I would suggest that the crushed gypsum wallboard would explain
the source of the sulferization. As that effect is a
certainty (the effect of the pulverized wallboard), and thermite is an
unsupported theory, I'll settle for the certainty.
As I like to say, the real problem is that Bush has really been
taken over by Martians; Of course, this is as ridiculous as any
other pie in the sky theory.
[Jonathan] 2 January 2007
I think it's clear from Barnett's remarks that he was not happy with the theory that fire brought down WTC7, since it did not account for the "evaporated" steel. He does not mention how much steel he found in this condition, but it was enough to trouble him about hypotheses of fire alone bringing down the building. The gypsum wallboard hypothesis seemed to relieve his troubles. I wonder what he thinks now that Jonathan Cole has performed his experiment. My guess is that Barnett would say that if Cole's steel had burned longer, perhaps it would look more like the corroded steel he found at the sites. Again, it would help if someone did a metallurgical analysis of Cole's steel, so that we could compare it with FEMA's samples.
The whole correspondence is worth reading for anyone digging for the truth. Barnett makes it clear that they did not find evidence of explosives for WTC1 and 2. He makes it clear that he thinks their collapses are fully understandable and predictable from an engineering point of view.
I wonder if Barnett is available to answer further questions. I could be mistaken, but he strikes me as an honest fellow. I think he would be helpful for those who are interested in finding the truth.