Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 7:24 pm Post subject: Steven Jones Confirms Unignited Thermite
Los Angeles February 23 2008
Dr. Steven Jones stated in a meeting on Saturday that an independent laboratory has been able confirm his finding that dust from the WTC contains unignited thermite. The large gathering also had architect Richard Gage as a presenter and was attended by approximately 900 people.
Dr. Jones first made mention of the unignited thermite in December 2007 as seen in this clip:
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:59 pm Post subject: Controversial theory!
Not that I would want Jones'es hypothesis about thermate to be banished to a Controversial secton mind you!
But the molecular analysis of dust doesn't necessarily point to thermate/CT, but could reflect molecular dissociation from Directed Energy Weapon/Hutchison effects,
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirt1.html .
I take the view there could well have been some thermate involved for lowest level of core columns, maybe external ones but no big beams were thrown out onto the roofs of the much shorter surrounding buildings, only their sides.
Even if Prof Jones is correct about the physical samples he has proving the use of thermate-enhanced explosives, we still need to try to understand (not just repress) a host of other strange physical phenomena - such as
toasted cars,
the huge cut outs in WTC6,
the weird lack of debris (relatively speaking) under the twin tower (unlike WC7) [google Hunt the Rubble] ,
the fountaining up of the steel and concrete into a fine powder plume billowing up like a mushroom cloud (you could say these buildings took two days to fall),
the coldness of the dust clouds,
and the lack of reliable evidence for any liqid metal coming out of a window of the towers (changes window!) and as pools of molten metal for a hundred days thereafter - how come no flash explosions from the hosing water meeting these alleged hot spots?
Because the truth matters to me, and also because injustice and (possible) unconscious sexism upset me when I become aware of them,
I request that henceforth:
either all 'theories' positing real hi-jackers and all theories suggesting that 'thermite' brought down the WTC be moved to the 'Controversial theories' sectionof this website:
or (much better)
the fine scientifically trained observations of Dr Judy Wood (who has lots of degrees around Civil engineerings and materials science) be no longer discriminated against !
006d.jpg-for-web-large.jpg
Description:
Filesize:
36.6 KB
Viewed:
377 Time(s)
006d.jpg-for-web-large.jpg
Description:
Filesize:
36.6 KB
Viewed:
361 Time(s)
_________________ For the defence of our one worldwide civilian Motherland, against whatever ruling or informal fraternities.
Keith,
As far as I know Jones doesn't disagree with Gordon Ross' theory on the use of an incendiary -
That is was used to cut through the corner sections of the building which the explosives would not significantly weaken due to their positioning.
Ross proposes that every three floors there were four explosive devices in the elevator shafts adjacent to the strongest four (corner) core box columns. These would break their welds (positioned every three floors) as well as break apart the welds of the perimiter columns on the four faces of each tower.
The corners would not receive enough of the force to break them apart and so an incendiary (possibly thermate) was placed or applied every (don't quote me on this it's by memory) ten floors. As the collapse front progressed the incendiary substance would ignite and cut through the dense corner pieces. He also adds that the central and weakest core columns would not receive much of the bast - hence us seeing some of them remain well into the collapse (with the north tower even after the collapse).
His theory matches very well with the videos - we see three floors being destroyed at a time - we see the corners remaining basically intact as they do and then breaking apart in larger pieces.
Thermite is not explosive, thermate not particuarly so (or so I'm told) - its use would play no part in flinging heavy beams into nearby buildings. They would naturally be very heavy and drop as they were flung and hence not be on the top of the tall buildings (although bone fragments were).
Jones has never claimed an incendiary substance as the sole agent in bringing down the towers - just an element of the process which could explain the extreme heat found at ground zero. His tests seem to suggest he is on the right path. _________________
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:05 pm Post subject: Re: Controversial theory!
keith Mothersson wrote:
toasted cars
There is no confirmation where these were from - or when the photos of them were taken. If they were in the underground car parks and the surrounding area of the WTC this would not be inconsistent with a (realtivley) more conventional CD - the cars which were blown over are far more consitent with an explosive blast effect that an energy weapon coming from above, I am certain you will agree.
Quote:
the huge cut outs in WTC6
Huge amounts of rubble falling directly on to the buidling from 80+ stories above?
Quote:
the weird lack of debris (relatively speaking) under the twin tower (unlike WC7) [google Hunt the Rubble]
I have never been shown anything to convince me of this - photos from certain angles are hardly scientific - the debris pile was over a much wider area than the footprints of the towers, and much was in the basements (whatever people posting mid-clean up photos want to suggest).
Quote:
the fountaining up of the steel and concrete into a fine powder plume billowing up like a mushroom cloud (you could say these buildings took two days to fall)
Now this is something which is absolute nonsense. I'm sorry Keith, there is no evidence to support this idea whatsoever.
Quote:
the coldness of the dust clouds,
Again, where is this coming from. Rodriguez said near the towers it was hot - it spreading was it cooling.
Quote:
and the lack of reliable evidence for any liqid metal coming out of a window of the towers (changes window!) and as pools of molten metal for a hundred days thereafter - how come no flash explosions from the hosing water meeting these alleged hot spots?
There is evidence for liquid metal - video and photographical.
There are numerous reports of molten metal in the rubble for days and at times even weeks later.
Quote:
All 'theories' positing real hi-jackers
I'd be happy for thermite, as a contentious issue, to be in controversies.
As for your suggestion that any one positing real hijackers be sent to controversies - you must be joking.
We have no knowledge whatsoever of what happened inside those planes. Therefore no one stance on it can be said to be more controversial than the other.
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:28 pm Post subject: So many other effects
Dear Stefan,
Thank you for your calm reply and explanation of one interesting perspective. [this is my reply to your first reply, but I now see you have posted a second reply! so will respond to that later]
I agree some thermate could have been used, how much we can remain open-minded about, or for what purpose.
I think I saw the tilting top stories block stop tilting when they/it turned to dust in a one-er.
I don't think Wood's pictures about the numerous circular vertical cut-outs in WTC 6 and others are faked. (I know you didn't suggest they were, just to remind you/readers that there are many issues beyond thermate.)
I wonder what caused them? and the toasted cars, etc ? (NOT mostly photographed having been placed there post destruction).
I wonder what explanation you give for the need to keep shifting topsoil in and out of the building?
Or the strange effect of a big truck being disappeared but not the guy who had flung himself under it.
So let us agree to differ (perhaps) about Jones
- the overall helpfulness of his work originally when he burst on the scene, and subsequently,
- the present adequacy of his hypothesis,
- what relevance his background may or may not have,
- and how he handles evidence and how he my or may not have been acting vis a vis other researchers.
But I hope you can agree with me that the comprehensive portfolio of visually arresting and detailed scientific and legal work showcased at www.drjudywood.com should be treated with respect and no longer have to endure either abuse or semi-censorship by relegation to another department of this website. (Even if occasionally she or some supporter has been a little quick to convert disappointment at someone's slowness in taking in their evidence into indication of secret agendas, discreditable motives, etc. We all get a bit that way at times, don't we? Personally I think 'Wood's side' has been much more sinned against than sinning. And virtually all of her website is tremendously evidence-focussed, I hasten to add.)
I hope you will join me in encouraging everyone to cool it concerning personal abuse and unsubstantiated allegations, which only distract people from following with an open mind this evolving trail called 911 truth.
Like that of Steven Jones, the work of Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds and Andrew Johnson should all be examined on their own merits. Fine to criticise or issue challenges, or course, or express concerns about the usability of this more advanced stuff when approaching the first graders (to use your analogy).
But in simplifying for 'external' communication, let us not inadvertently give legs to wrong stories (racist bloodlibels about hijackers, for instance) or VERY DUBIOUS tales/photos about molten metal at Ground Zero, if it turns out that that story just isn't well-supported.
Cheers, Stefan.
. _________________ For the defence of our one worldwide civilian Motherland, against whatever ruling or informal fraternities.
Keith,
As I said to Andrew last time I saw him: the book remains open with me as far as DEW research goes.
For the no-planery - I've seen nothing but paper thin arguments for and at present have no time for whatsoever - but I don't completely reject out of hand unconventional weaponary -
I've looked at judy woods website and continue to look at it every so often - I go to Andrew's website mainly for his space based material but have looked at all his 9/11 stuff as well - I am just not seeing anything which puts me anywhere near supporting the theory. A lot of the stuff on woods site is misleading as well. I was arrested one time I went there by images of cutlery melded into wood and so on, it wasn't till I looked into the hutchinson effect that I found the photo to be one non-related to 9/11 - the photos on woods site were not labeled explicitly to say "these were found at ground zero" but it was certainly suggested. As it is I see nothing at ground zero which could not be acheived through Ross's theory .
So while I encourage people looking into every angle when it comes to determining cause - it certainly should be regarded as controversial to propose DEW as though it were a certainty - which many people do - as I don't beleive the foundations are there. It IS controversial when a wholely theoretical idea is presented as though it is a proven fact - as it reduces our credibility a thousand fold.
I maintain my disagreement with your stance on speaking about hijackers - it is a part of the official story which has not been disproved and cannot (at present at least) be confirmed or deneyed. _________________
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:57 pm Post subject: Re: So many other effects
keith Mothersson wrote:
But I hope you can agree with me that the comprehensive portfolio of visually arresting and detailed scientific and legal work showcased at www.drjudywood.com should be treated with respect and no longer have to endure either abuse or semi-censorship by relegation to another department of this website.
...Like that of Steven Jones, the work of Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds and Andrew Johnson should all be examined on their own merits.
Sorry if this post seems a little heavy handed but Woods and Reynolds (and Fetzers) work has been found to be distinctly lacking in merit, hence why their services are no longer required by the 911 Truth Movement:
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/03/tight_fit.html
March 19, 2007
"...The Navy SM-3, designed for midcourse defense, is hitting its targets in tests..The combination of chemicals required for a laser powerful enough to kill a missile makes the airplane nothing short of a ticking chemical timebomb.."
Navy Missile Hits Spy Satellite on First Attempt
[ SS Lake Erie, armed with SM-3 missile]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbBc_xrJWwE
From: AssociatedPress
Added: February 20, 2008
Sunday, 17 February 2008
US spy satellite plan 'a cover'
Russia has accused the US of using a plan to shoot down a broken spy satellite as a cover for testing an anti-satellite weapon...
Do you think people who disagree with the use of DEW at the WTC are not aware that DEWs exist?
You are referring to small weapons which can destroy missiles in mid-flight - how does this relate to the claim that there is a weapon in orbit or else where that could perform an impression of an explosive demolition on a 110 story skyscraper?
It doesn't.
It's like me saying "I believe a huge skyscraper sized gun was fired at the WTC towers which caused their destruction" and when challenged as to a) how such a weapon could acheive the result we see and b) the existence and location of such a weapon responding with pictures of hand guns and saying knowingly "see - guns DO exist". _________________
Andrew Johnson, the innuendo in that first link under the heading -
"Will the REAL Steven E Jones please step forward...."
- is nothing short of ludicrous.
according to andrew johnson, if you disagree with him it somehow puts you in the JREF camp....
Andrew Johnson wrote:
Also, if you check the comments from the JREF forum at the end of my witness study article, they're not that far removed from some of the comments on this thread by people who nevertheless say 9/11 was an Inside Job etc. Funny old world, in't'it?
I presume that andrew's endless, obsessional attacks on Steven Jones have nothing in common with JREF's endless, obsessional attacks on Steven Jones. otherwise he'd be revealing himself as a hypocrite (as well as an idiot)....
i don't debate the existence of thermite
but does not mean i think it is what made the towers vaporise.
i have seen conventional thermite demolition on video, that is not what we see on the towers
no-one has seen a demolition like wtc 1&2 before, so don't try to tell me it's a conventional thermite demolition.
everyone has heard the thermite theory, it doesn't explain the lack of debris on the ground, the holes and the sudden 'rusting' of everything.
i don't debate the existence of thermite
but does not mean i think it is what made the towers vaporise.
The notion that the towers "vaporised" is in itself completly unsubstantiated. Work on presenting decent evidence for this having happened before stretching for far-fetched explanations as to why.
Quote:
i have seen conventional thermite demolition on video, that is not what we see on the towers
"Conventional thermite demolitions"?????? Thermite is not conventionally used in demolitions at all - making it a very unconventional proposition in the first place - albeit one which the evidence nods towards.
Show me this video? The only demolitions involving thermate I have ever heard of were of oil rigs - there is no such thing as a conventional thermite demolition...
Quote:
no-one has seen a demolition like wtc 1&2 before, so don't try to tell me it's a conventional thermite demolition.
I'm not trying to tell you it's a "conventional thermite demoltion" as there is patently no such thing.
Of course there has never been a CD like the WTC - who is deneying that - does this instantly mean explosives (and perhaps limited use of an incendiary) were not used? No it does not.
Quote:
everyone has heard the thermite theory, it doesn't explain the lack of debris on the ground, the holes and the sudden 'rusting' of everything.
I saw plenty of debris. I saw a lot of it smashing right into the top of the surrounding WTC buildings - leaving great big holes...
As I said before - there is nothing more than a wish for the science-fiction behind these claims. I'll pay attention to the argument as it builds and rule out nothing, but I have been presented with nothing which is not incorporated into Ross' theory. _________________
Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Posts: 290 Location: New Albion
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:11 pm Post subject: Re: Controversial theory!
keith Mothersson wrote:
Not that I would want Jones'es hypothesis about thermate to be banished to a Controversial secton mind you!
But the molecular analysis of dust doesn't necessarily point to thermate/CT, but could reflect molecular dissociation from Directed Energy Weapon/Hutchison effects,
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirt1.html .
I take the view there could well have been some thermate involved for lowest level of core columns, maybe external ones but no big beams were thrown out onto the roofs of the much shorter surrounding buildings, only their sides.
I do not understand what you intend here.
keith Mothersson wrote:
Even if Prof Jones is correct about the physical samples he has proving the use of thermate-enhanced explosives, we still need to try to understand (not just repress) a host of other strange physical phenomena - such as
toasted cars, Hot debris from thermite carried in the dust clouds.
the huge cut outs in WTC6, There is at least one witness account of explosions in WTC 6.
the weird lack of debris (relatively speaking) under the twin tower (unlike WC7) [google Hunt the Rubble], an unconventional approach to controlled demolition
the fountaining up of the steel and concrete into a fine powder plume billowing up like a mushroom cloud (you could say these buildings took two days to fall), If you are talking about the pyroclastic flows, they are explicable from controlled demolition
the coldness of the dust clouds, at least one witness described the cloud that carried him down the street as hot
and the lack of reliable evidence for any liqid metal coming out of a window of the towers (changes window!) and as pools of molten metal for a hundred days thereafter - how come no flash explosions from the hosing water meeting these alleged hot spots?Read the NIST report's discussion of this issue. That part of the analysis is based on observable phenomena which is preserved in the photographic record, and makes good sense. The part that fails is their nonsensical claim that it showed the characteristics molten aluminum at or near melting temperature.
the fine scientifically trained observations of Dr Judy Wood (who has lots of degrees around Civil engineerings and materials science) be no longer discriminated against !
Link _________________ "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Pennsylvania Historical Review (1759)
Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Posts: 290 Location: New Albion
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:18 pm Post subject:
Moving this thread was yet another victory for disinfo. _________________ "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Pennsylvania Historical Review (1759)
ok sorry did not know thermite was not used in CD's,
do we know what a thermite demolition looks like?
you did not answer the question about 'rusting'
Rusting is another area which is evidence shy.
Are you referring to the sulfidation and oxidation of steel samples from the debris of 1, 2 and 7?
The FEMA report citied this would take a great deal of sulfur (which could be accounted for by an incendiary like thermate) and not an energy weapon.... _________________
Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Posts: 290 Location: New Albion
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:30 pm Post subject:
The ample evidence for thermate is overwhelming. I will confidently say it is conclusive. _________________ "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Pennsylvania Historical Review (1759)
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:02 pm Post subject: Controlled Demoltion/Thermate can't produce all the effects
Hi Gareth,
I haven't had time to review the abundnce of stuff on your posts: but will do.
However it would be helpful if you did a two or three line summary in note form of the key arguments in each? (I have looked at greg jenkins surprise late night interview when wood hadn't slept for 48 hours, and consider it a pity she consented to do it, as she was clearly exhausted. But judge her by her website, eh?)
Anyway, my computer had problems last night, else i would have responded sooner to Stefan.
Stefan: Basically, lets agree to keep the planes/no planes argument to one side as it doesn't affect the argument about what destroyed the WTC much. (Though if explosives arrays had been set, there must surely have been a risk of real planes going into the towers mucking it up?)
I am glad that you 'don't completely reject out of hand unconventional weaponry' . On my side I can agree that we shouldn't be too dogmatic about having proved exactly what weapon was involved.
But actually, though Wood has used various names for the sort of weapon that might be involved, her core position is that the full range of the evidence of physical phenomena that day has been ignored and shouldn't be ignored; and also that it is consistent with some kind of directed energy weapon, as most likely developed in the Star Wars programme [which scored a huge increase in its budget a couple of days after 9/11 I seem to recall ! ]
I was surprised that your wrote the following:
Quote:
A lot of the stuff on woods site is misleading as well. I was arrested one time I went there by images of cutlery melded into wood and so on, it wasn't till I looked into the hutchinson effect that I found the photo to be one non-related to 9/11 - the photos on woods site were not labeled explicitly to say "these were found at ground zero" but it was certainly suggested. As it is I see nothing at ground zero which could not be acheived through Ross's theory
[bold emphasis mine]
Wood's site isn't perfect, but it is pretty damn good, and I think you should provide masses of more evidence or else withdraw 'a lot of' , and also make clear that you do not believe she was deliberately suggesting the spoon/wood fusion was found at ground zero.
Okay, on that occasion she slipped up, I quite believe you, which is only to be expected from anyone's website of such a huge size. But taken as a whole her work has a high quality of referencing/attribution, including of course her legal challenge to NIST. (Some details about the time and place of photos are being tidied up in due course, so far as she can, and she puts ??/9/2001 when she isn't sure of a date yet.)
(What point would there be for Wood in not giving sources, or trying to deceive people?; the heretic-outsider can only make their way into the mainstream by being impeccable on all the stuff which people who are subconsciously over-identified with the establishment Myth will be only to eager to seize on and blow up out of all proportion.)
Wood's thesis does take some getting used to, but she really does have masses of evidence on her site, which cumulatively makes a strong impression, even if individual photos or conclusions on minor matters turn out to be wrong. No one wants us all to follow Wood uncritically, just for people to check her evidence and that of Andrew Johnson, Morgan Reynolds, and other colleagues of hers on the [url]www.911scholars.org [/url]
side of the split within Scholars for 911 Truth with the same seriousness as people have accorded the work of Jones and collaborators.
I do disagree with you that both sides should be relegated to a Controversial Theories section. But am thankful that you agree that we shouldn't take sides either way invidiously by the way in which proponents of these theories/hypotheses/observations are treated.
[ Okay, Maybe I went too far in saying that talk of hijackers should be considered too Controversial for the rest of us to want to go along with in the main parts of the site, - but I do believe that if people put forward a thesis which has been presented as evidence free assertions by known racist liars, and can find no non-racist-liar-organisation evidence to confirm it, and that thesis is highly detrimental to the image of Muslims/Arabs in the eyes of the rich West, then I think people should be challenged to say how their story is any different from Enoch Powell championing the plight of poor pensioners in Woverhamption who had allegedly had * pushed through their letter box by 'grinning picaninnies' - just an urban folk tale which gets repeated because of our residual racism in the imperial metropolis ... - of course there were 'hijacker' patsies, but that is another story!
Maybe I should rephrase: the hypothesis of an Arab Hijacking attempt is conceivable, though diminishingly so for a successful attempt, let alone four out of four hijackings, and three out of four missions).
But until someone shows me some half decent evidence I do believe it is racist to believe in actual Arab hijackers/hijackings on the basis of
- the present level of inconsistencies (absence of Arab names on flight manifests; several still alive) ,
- faked 'proofs' (like Korans and Flight manual and Will in a suitcase, or the Hijacker passport in Manhattan),
- who it has come from (FBI, CIA, Mossad, Fox News, etc),
- what huge benefits there were in swinging public outrage for the Manhattan murders against the Arabs/Muslims, etc;
- and when the patsy hypothesis covers all the true bits in the 'hijacker story' perfectly well - as per tarpley and Hopsicker. ]
Too many people are clutching at straws and hoping that the stories they are told about how these cars were upturned by the clean up bulldozers, or had all been towed away fromunder the towers, etc, are true. One or two these photos may turn out to be wrong - but all of them?
Incidentally, Astro, there is no presumption that the cars got toasted by big energy clouds blowing past them. Rather more as a kind of field effect, which also had many engine blocks suddenly go on fire, with paper nearby unscathed. Doorhandles were especially remarkable by their absence.
HUGE CUT-OUTS
If rubble fell on them they wouldn't be regular and circular, as they obviously were down through WTC6. No rubble much to speak of at the bottom of the shafts.
Other buildings also affected by these vertical cut-outs, like pastry cut outs.
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam4.html
see especially figs 87 a) to e). However I do agree that there is a difficulty for many of us in being able to be quite sure of the times and the locations/directions of many of the shots.
I feel pretty sure this will be tightened up in due course (so much work to be done, so few to do it, is the usual story.)
Have you googled Hunt the Rubble yet?
Remember that there were reasons why Guiliani and co were controlling which photographers to the site on the day, and subsequently, so many people got confused by mounds of rubble pictures but according to Wood the main Pile pictures aren't from WTC1 and 2 footprints.
See her model of how the towers seemed to 'float down' at figure 31, which is also at page 88 of her article in James H Fetzer (ed) The 911 Conspiracy - the Scamming of America. (Every bit as good as Tarpley's book, IMO)
See also the steel spire melt to dust at figure 36. Could Ross'es theory do that?
If over 50 percent of the towers went upwards as per figure 31 then we can indeed talk of the buildings taking days to come down. Even more if the figure is nearer 97 percent....? Whereas with WTC 7 you DO get a respectable pile of seven stories height (approx), from the downwards destruction of the 47 storey building !
If Ross'es theory is correct, wouldn't there have been much more shaking of the ground when the half-million tons fell on it twice - to judge by studies of other lighter buildings coming down by controlled demolition?
And wouldn't that have acted like a pile driver to destroy the bath-tub and flood Manhattan? Too great a risk.
"That there was no damage to this fragile layer of reinforced concrete when there is such total devastation to the concrete within the structures themselves is horribly inconsistent."
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/short/FAQ.html
COLDNESS of dustclouds - okay - jury's out on this one, let's both keep an open mind, check more reports.
Molten Metal underground? At least one of the pictures is a forgery (workers looking down through a hole from which shines 'orange' light from hot metal?? - NO white light of torches orignal photo);
The source of these stories about pools of molten metal are very much permitted insiders, who may on occasion include rough worker looking actors?
The hydraulics couldn't work if grabbers were hauling molten metal about; nor would boots merely melt, legs would too; What fuel kept it molten for 99 days? - the satellite sequence Wood shows reveals just a few notveryhot spots for a few days, nothing major nor long; and how come no steam explosions?
Also: How would Ross'es theory explain the phenomenon of the constant attempts to dampen down the unself-quenching reactions at ground Zero? (Like Lady MacBeth's compulsive handwashing, this endless clean-up may not constitute proof but it does strongly suggest guilt.)
As John White says: We are not a community looking to believe: We are a community dedicated to seeing what is . (Sorry John, couldn't resist it).
On that basis no need for any of us to get cross with each other if we don't see things the same way. (only if insincere people are deliberately using bullying or elitist rhetoric to try to make some hypotheses a priori off limits, and moreover knowingly inviting people to waste time explaining or checking up on stuff or believing stuff which has already been proved or disproved.)
IMO thanks to Judy we can now see in greater detail, less captured by the media-intel complex's pre-framing of 911 for us which began in 1993, and went into over-drive within seconds of the first 'plane crash' on our screens, then BBC etc announced jet fuel melted the beams, then set up a bunch of fall back positions (limited hang-outs) led by people with agendas so we wouldn't use our eyes or check the rumours - e.g. molten metal pools; the steel was ALL shipped to China.
Which may or may not take us to PROF JONES - who I regret to say has quite a case to answer by now. This peer-review by Wood and Reynolds of his research is from 18 motnhs ago: [dispute still centres on the Aluminium emissivity issue - I should add]
http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=trouble_with_jo nes
Quote:
Perhaps Professor Jones’ most disturbing offense is failure to verify his data and show reproducibility in his experiments. The origin of his evidence is shadowy, chain of custody unknown, and materials and proof for the testing processes undocumented.
It is tempting to think that Jones is just "not looking at all the data and therefore has not drawn the correct conclusions". However, if one views what he has done and said far, it becomes increasingly difficult to accept this.
1) He has presented clearly massaged or flawed data.
2) He has ignored lots of data
3) He has suggested publicly one can dip damp fingers in molten metal (nothing to do with 9/11)
4) He disclosed Dr Wood's identity when he was asked not to.
has more data and questions on certain suspicious happenings and aspects, and as to who may be using Jones'es intervention. His project is increasingly seeking to build bridges with the NIST scientists (which could be tactically useful some might well think??) BUT he is also calling for more discipline (shaming? silencing?) regarding people with fantastical 'Space Beam' theories which according to him would require all the energy in the world to destroy the towers. Wood has never used the 'Space Beam' term, but Jones still hangs it round her neck.
And remember JONES VALIDATES WICKED ARABS STRUCK FIRST !
Final word from [url]www.drjudywood.com FAQ 22[/url]
Steven Jones: Consider that his entire carreer has focused on energy and has been funded by the Department of Energy (DOE). He also has worked at Los Alamos, where Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) were developed. Steven Jones was involved in the "debunking" of cold fusion. (more -- see "heavy watergate")
(she then reminds us that Rumsfeld admitted that DEW have been used in Iraq.)
Well, even if Jones is a good guy, his theory might be nonsense, and even if Jones is (at the max) a witting agent of the Military Industrial complex his work may be good, I grant you.
So lets keep the main focus on the adequacy or otherwise of the thermate hypothesis and what other hyptheses may or may not be fruitful. (Inciedentally Wood suggests that thermate may - also?- have been used in cutting down some of the standing columns. )
Anyway, over to you, all for now, take care, keith _________________ For the defence of our one worldwide civilian Motherland, against whatever ruling or informal fraternities.
I saw a Hutchison video which contained some rusting effects, as well as dissociative shredding and snakey contorting.
By the way: if anyone still has the appetite for some more of my views and of why I think we have no choice but to go down the road of 'weird effects' - to release the subconsious hold of the psy-op of 911 - readers may please have a look at this thread, which was moved to Controversial theories as well. (boo!)
Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Posts: 290 Location: New Albion
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:55 pm Post subject: Re: Controversial theory!
Stefan wrote:
keith Mothersson wrote:
toasted cars
There is no confirmation where these were from - or when the photos of them were taken. If they were in the underground car parks and the surrounding area of the WTC this would not be inconsistent with a (realtivley) more conventional CD - the cars which were blown over are far more consitent with an explosive blast effect that an energy weapon coming from above, I am certain you will agree.
These cars were in the lot of the building on North End Avenue, Between Vesey and Murray Streets.
They were very much on fire. Please contact the moderator of the stj911 forum and ask her to provide the details of my discussion of this matter. I posted as Hetware.
Stefan wrote:
I have never been shown anything to convince me of this - photos from certain angles are hardly scientific - the debris pile was over a much wider area than the footprints of the towers, and much was in the basements (whatever people posting mid-clean up photos want to suggest).
They were pretty much scattered all over the site. They came down symmetrically about their footprints, but most of the debris fell outward:
Again, where is this coming from. Rodriguez said near the towers it was hot - it spreading was it cooling.
See toasted cars above. When you contact Ms. Ashley at stj911.org, ask her to provide the quotes from Pellegrino. _________________ "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Pennsylvania Historical Review (1759)
Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 645 Location: UK Midlands
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:21 pm Post subject: Re: Controversial theory!
keith Mothersson wrote:
I request that henceforth:
all 'theories' positing real hi-jackers and all theories suggesting that 'thermite' brought down the WTC be moved to the 'Controversial theories' sectionof this website:
Makes sense to me. More ppl need to speak up on this - forget the rather intense peer group led humiliation you undergo for a few days... water of the proverbial duck...
We currently inhabit an upside-down, parallel world in this forum. The most ludicrous theory - that conventional demolition charges and mega-buzz-thermate-marmite-maybe reducing the WTCs to particles and cars to waRped, LSD-visual entities - is allowed to reside in the normal section of topics.
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 10:51 pm Post subject: Re: Steven Jones Confirms Unignited Thermite
Fleet wrote:
Los Angeles February 23 2008
Dr. Steven Jones stated in a meeting on Saturday that an independent laboratory has been able confirm his finding that dust from the WTC contains unignited thermite. The large gathering also had architect Richard Gage as a presenter and was attended by approximately 900 people.
Dr. Jones first made mention of the unignited thermite in December 2007 as seen in this clip:
Nothing in Steven Jones' presentation needs thermite to explain it. Sulphur was present because iron particles from columns were subject to very brief, high temperatures caused by high explosives in close proximity. Fine particles were melted amidst gases rich in sulphur released from burning gypsum in wall-board and other building materials. That's why Jones' iron spherules contain sulphur. It's evidence of contamination, not thermite/thermate.
These scientists
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5930/5930.html
carried out exhaustive tests on air and dust samples taken from the WTC complex soon after 9/11 and find nothing anomalous. As usual, it's a case of finding what you want to see.....(And of course defending your worthless findings at all costs, knowing that no other scientist is going to refute your findings because you guard your samples from independent analysis).
As usual, Jones does not name the so-called 'independent' lab that he claimed verified his earlier findings. Are independent researchers able to check its findings? Nope. Do we have to trust Jones's word for it? Yep. Call that science? Nope.
Thermate is thoroughly debunked here:
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
The molten metal that flowed out of the South Tower on the 81st floor before it went puff! was not iron melted by thermate but lead from the many batteries kept by Fuji Bank on the very floor that Flight 175 hit. Bollyn falsely interpreted his inside information from a former employee of the bank by hypothesizing that the batteries were dummied filled with thermate. This is a ludicrous and redundant suggestion, as lead melts well within the temperatures achieved by office fires. But then he was already wedded to Jones' idea by the time he wrote this:
http://iamthewitness.com/Bollyn/Bollyn-Thermate-WTC.html
I repeat: the 'evidence' of unignited thermite is merely heavy metals and sulphur released by the burning of conventional office materials. Jones' ignores these alternative sources because they render his theory redundant. Which it always was.
I challenge anybody to reproduce the recorded phenomenon of brightly glowing molten metal (or any other material exhibiting a similar appearance) using only materials and conditions reasonably present in World Trade Center Building 2 (WTC2) without assuming the presence of some intentionally placed pyrotechnic material such as thermate.
Put up or shut up. _________________ "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Pennsylvania Historical Review (1759)
I challenge anybody to reproduce the recorded phenomenon of brightly glowing molten metal (or any other material exhibiting a similar appearance) using only materials and conditions reasonably present in World Trade Center Building 2 (WTC2) without assuming the presence of some intentionally placed pyrotechnic material such as thermate.
Put up or shut up.
It's a shame you don't have $1M to put behind that like Jimmy Walter, because I reckon you'd get to keep it.
My lack of belief in a connection between the Hutchison effect and 9/11 is not at all due to any sort of censorship or mind control. It's due to the lack of mathematical explanation for how the Hutchison effect could cause the tower collapses. I understand quite well and have seen the corresponding figures illustrating why there is a problem with a freefall collapse given the Commission scenario, I have a theory that explains the freefall and observed molten metal, high temps, etc rather well.... why shouldn't I discount Dr. Wood's or anyone else's theory until I see some descriptive equations that show how those collapses could have come about from anything other than explosives and incendiaries? _________________ The answer to 1984 is 1776!
I have a theory that explains the freefall and observed molten metal, high temps, etc rather well.
Also does it trouble you - or do you just not think about it - or don't you think it matters politically? - the sheer number of weird phenomena around the WTC that day?
Does your theory also explain the toasted cars, the big circular vertical cut-outs in the WTC6 and 5, the problem of the fresh Bankers Trust replacement steel becoming 'infected' , the hosing and gthe soil in and out?
Maybe you should direct a FOI request to someone other than Wood for their quantitaive calculations and formulae? ... _________________ For the defence of our one worldwide civilian Motherland, against whatever ruling or informal fraternities.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
