Dr. Van D. Romero, a doctor of physics and vice president for Research and Development at New Mexico Tech, first made his expert opinion known in an Albuquerque Journal news article days after 911. He later recanted, giving no explanation.

In November 2004, Dr. Romero refused to comment on his "flip-flop," acknowledging through his secretary he had nothing to say about the 9/11 controversy. Again this week he refused to talk about the controversial issue as to whether jet fuel or a controlled demolition brought down the WTC.

Dr. Romero’s "flip-flop" and his refusal to discuss why adds more fuel to the burning WTC ‘collapse controversy’ since recently a well-respected former economist in the first Bush administration brought the issue to light when he went public with a detailed analysis.

Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, a former chief economist in the Labor Department during Bush’s first term and a professor emeritus at Texas A&M, claimed the facts indicate a controlled demolition brought down the towers, not burning jet fuel like the government contends.

"If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either" said the former Bush team member. "The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings.

"More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC. Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9/11 right."

Dr. Romero was one of the first explosive experts to weigh in on the issue, but no longer appears interested. Government officials have also refused to comment on the highly respected demolition expert’s reasoning.

But a lawyer, who filed a federal law suit against Bush for complicity in 9/11, contends he may have been "unduly influenced" to change his mind after officials got "early wind" of his expert statements contrary to the official jet-fuel theory.

Although steadfastly remaining silent when independent thinking is desperately needed to sort out the WTC collapse controversy, Dr. Romero may some day be forced to talk one day, despite his reluctance.

His comments, as well as comments from many other experts on both sides of the issue, are a part of a federal law suit filed October 22, 2004, by Philadelphia attorney Phillip Berg, accusing President Bush and 54 others of complicity or prior knowledge in the events surrounding 911.

The way the Twin Towers fell is one example given in the lawsuit of how the government officials may have lied or manipulated facts in order to hide the truth surrounding 911.

Berg’s massive 237 page RICO action, filed on behalf of William Rodriguez, a maintenance worker at the WTC, claims a broad cover-up existed before, after and during 911, involving high ranking government officials complicit in the attacks in order to justify wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Berg cites that FEMA never allowed independent investigators a chance to analyze structural components of the WTC, which would have ultimately proven exactly how that the massive steel columns were brought down.

Before evidence could be gathered, the law suit claims FEMA obstructed justice by quickly scrapping the steel and shipping it overseas to China, far away from any independent prying eyes. Berg also wants to use Dr. Romero’s statements to get at the truth behind a possible government cover-up.

"Although he would eventually recant his statements that explosives were used, perhaps there was some prodding by government officials, said Berg, eventually hoping deposition testimony will clear up the confusion behind Dr. Romero’s conflicting statements.

"He is still on the record saying "the collapse of the towers was too methodical to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures."

From the beginning, the Bush administration claimed that burning jet fuel caused the collapse of the towers. Although many independent investigators have disagreed, they have been hard pressed to disprove the government theory since most of the evidence was removed by FEMA prior to independent investigation.

Mainstream experts, speaking for the administration, offer a theory essentially arguing that an airplane impact weakened each structure and an intense fire thermally weakened structural components, causing buckling failures while allowing the upper floors to pancake onto the floors below.

Despite the numerous holes in the government story documented in the federal lawsuit, the Bush administration has brushed aside or basically ignored any and all critics.

Last month, however, Berg was successful in defeating a government motion to dismiss the case, but said a motion to change venue from Philadelphia to New York was granted.