Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths
Professor Says Cutter Charges Brought Down WTC Buildings
Evidence of Thermite Uncovered at World Trade Center
By Christopher Bollyn
PROVO, Utah In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act, said the British writer George Orwell. Orwell's words aptly describe the situation of Steven E.
Jones, a soft-spoken professor at Brigham Young University (BYU) who has turned his attention to the unanswered questions of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Provo, the home of BYU, is America�s most conservative city in the most Republican county. With more than 85 percent of the population supporting President George W.
Bush, Provo seems an unlikely place for any revolutionary act unless that act were simply telling the truth.
On the picturesque campus of the private Mormon university, surrounded by snow-capped peaks, Jones teaches physics and carries out research in the fields of metal-catalyzed fusion, solar energy and archeometry, or the scientific study and analysis of artifacts.
As an archeometrist, Jones applies physics to explain events in the past. Since last year when he became aware of the unanswered questions of 9-11, he has focused his attention on the available data and evidence.
The unexplained presence of molten metal at the World Trade Center (WTC) puzzled Jones and he contacted this writer to confirm the reports first published in American Free Press in 2002. These reports came from two men involved in the removal of the rubble: Peter Tully of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., and Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, Md.
Tully told AFP that he had seen pools of literally molten
steel in the rubble.
Loizeaux confirmed this: Yes, hot spots of molten steel in the basements, he said, at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels.
The molten steel was found three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed, he said. He confirmed that molten steel was also found at WTC 7, which mysteriously collapsed in the late afternoon.
Last November, Jones presented a draft which has since evolved into a 52-page paper. His paper begins with an appeal for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down . . .through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges.
Jones presents evidence that an aluminothermic process called thermite was used to weaken and sever the 47 massive core columns that held up the towers. The official version fails to explain how these critical columns failed. When ignited, thermite, a combination of finely ground aluminum and iron oxide (rust), cuts through steel like a warm knife through butter, Jones said, especially when mixed with 2 percent sulfur. The resulting combination, called thermate, lowers the melting point of steel.
Thermite was patented in Germany by Hans Goldschmidt in the late 1800s. Extremely high temperatures are produced when the aluminum and iron oxide react. The reaction produces temperatures of more than 2,500 degrees Celsius (4,500 degrees Fahrenheit) as the ferric oxide is reduced to molten iron. Iron melts at 1,535 degrees Celsius. The reaction causes the oxygen from the ferric oxide to bond with the aluminum, producing aluminum oxide, molten iron, and approximately 750 kilocalories per gram of thermite. The aluminum oxide is a whitish smoke.
AFP recently attended a presentation of Jones's 9-11 research at BYU. Jones began with footage of the unexplained collapse of Larry Silverstein's 47-story building, WTC 7, at 5:25 p.m.
When Jones was interviewed by Tucker Carlson of MSNBC, the producers refused to air this short but crucial video segment.
AFP observed thermite reactions in Jones's physics class. As a colleague combined the powdered rust and aluminum in a mounted ceramic flowerpot, Jones filmed the reaction. A paper wick with magnesium ignited the sand-like mixture.
The reaction was intense, nearly explosive, and white flames and pieces of metal flew out of the pot. From the bottom poured a white-hot liquidpure molten iron. After a few seconds a glowing yellow-hot piece of iron was lifted with tongs and shown to the students.
Because thermite does not require air and can react underwater, it may explain the persistent hot spots that were unaffected by a continuous dousing from fire hoses. The white-hot molten iron and slag can itself prolong and extend the heating and incendiary action.
As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running, Leslie Robertson, structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, told fellow engineers.
Footage taken by WABC-TV of the burning South Tower at 9:53 a.m., immediately before the building collapsed, reveals large amounts of white-hot molten metal, presumably iron, pouring from the 81st floor of the east corner.
The amount of spilling molten metal suggests a pool of molten iron was in that area of the building. While some have suggested that the molten metal was aluminum, this is easily disproved by the fact that molten aluminum appears silver-gray in daylight. The only possible explanation is that the white-hot metal gushing from the South Tower was molten iron and had been produced by a very large amount of thermite.
The amount of molten metal seen falling would indicate that tons of thermite had been used on that floor. From the video footage it appears that several cubic yards of molten metal fell, which, if iron, would have weighed over eight tons.
Jones's explosive paper is accessible on his web page (physics.byu.edu) and will be published in a forthcoming book by David Ray Griffin and Peter
Dale Scott. Reading Jones' paper on-line allows the reader to review the photographic/video evidence.
I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports, Jones writes, which claim that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings.
He challenges the official explanation and provides evidence to support the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which, he says is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable.
Jones notes that the hypothesis that the towers were demolished by explosives has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the U.S. government.
Ignoring the evidence of the controlled-demolition hypothesis, the FEMA-sponsored study of 2002 concluded, The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown.
Furthermore, the official report found that the fire-induced collapse hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.
The engineers concluded that further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.
That is precisely the point, Jones says, further investigation and analyses are indeed needed, including serious consideration of the controlled-demolition hypothesis which is neglected in all of the government reports.
The fact that the 9-11 Commission report does not even mention the collapse of WTC 7 is a striking omission of data highly relevant to the question of what really happened on 9-11, he said.
Further investigation is what Jones is trying to get other scientists to do. One would think that the mainstream media would be interested in a highly respected physicist answering questions about 9-11, but that has not been the case. The controlled media and supporters of the official version completely avoid Jones.
Like a modern-day Galileo or Luther, Jones has exposed the flaws in the official version, a myth, he says, which has taken on religious proportions.
There is a clear disconnect between what the official reports say happened and what actually happened, Jones says. A scientific theory has to be falsifiable. It must be able to be tested and challenged.
The data stands on its own. Where are the honest scientists? Jones asks. Take the blinders off and find out what happened.
The official 9-11 reports are what Jones calls pathological science, in which investigators ignore all evidence that contradicts the conclusion they have been asked to prove.
AFP contacted three scientists who support the official theory to ask if they would review Jones's paper.
Thomas W. Eagar of MIT refused to even look at the paper and said there is no evidence of molten metal pouring from the WTC. Challenged with the
evidence, he hung up the phone.
Zdenek P. Bazant of Northwestern University submitted his fire-induced collapse theory to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) two days after 9-11, without examining any evidence. Asked if he would review Jones's paper, Bazant also refused, I have seen Jones's fiction before. If you want my private opinion, it is nothing but sensationalism, he said. His purported refutation of my analysis is baseless.�
Asked to simply look at five photos in an e-mail showing the cascading molten metal and core columns, which appear to have been cut with thermite, Bazant responded, I do not have time.
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, an Iranian-born professor at Berkeley, who was a member of the ASCE team studying the WTC collapse, also refused to look at Jones's paper.
I will not be able to find time to review the material that you have sent me, said Astaneh-Asl.
I would appreciate if you post an article that you also post the URL for the article. I would also like to know the date of this article as I seem to have read it more than at least a year ago.
I realize now, Chuck, (hope OK to use your first name) after listening to your most recent show on the Real Deal with Dr. Fetzer that you intend to argue for thermite and mini nukes in combination. The thermite cutter charge, I generally understood you to say, may have taken on characteristic of an explosive, and not simply a "cutter charge", by possibly being encapsulated in some form of specialized plastic. The mini-nukes neutron bombs you say may have also been used also "somehow" will destroy non-living material such as building components even though the definition of these kinds of bombs say they only destroy living tissue, not inanimate material, and also that their destruction is limited to, what was it?, 500 yards, but I guess you and Dr. Fetzer will discuss those matters more on a future show. I am thinking that somehow not only the thermite you envision is special, but also the mini-nukes you believe may have been employed are also somehow special.
All of these "special" forms of things for which we thought we had precise definitions remind me of Dr. Steven Jones' (at least) four iterations or forms of thermite. Let's see if I can remember them. First there was just plain 'ole "thermite." Then there was "super-thermate". Then there was "nanothermate". There was also something along the way he called "a thermite analog". And then there was "sol gel nanothermite" I think said only procurable from top secret military industrial contractor manufacturers. Dr. Fetzer and Dr. Morgan Reynolds laughed about all these different versions of the culprit substance thermite put forth over time by Dr. Jones and company.
All of this reminds me of the technique, Dr. Fetzer would know the name for this practice but I don't, where you "fix the facts around the policy." For example, Dr. Wood says the reason the hurricane Erin was suppressed in the TV news for New Yorkers was that that suppression was needed to "prove" that the hurricane was a secret special engineered hurricane to make possible the presence of the necessary ingredient for the source of energy needed for the Hutchison Effect. Dr. Jones saw over time that his original plain ole cutter charge thermite was not going to cut it. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
There have been a few forums and websites that are now defunct that I really miss for the reason that they contained so much valuable documentation and commentary. One of those was the forum of Killtown. I think it was the Investigate 9-11 forum. Web Fairy had some wonderful contributions there and so many others. They had a large number of referenced articles about Dr. Steven Jones and all of his activities over his career with the U.S. Government. Dr. Jones was instrumental in scuttling the Pons and Fleishman study of "cold fusion." This matter was also connected to the murder of Dr. Eugene Mallove as I recall but can't remember all right now. Anyway, for many reasons, I do not now and never have trusted or respected Dr. Steven Jones. He may only be peddling information that is technically true, but from what I have read about him, truth is only incidental to his game. His game imposed the overall strict orthodoxy that those in the "real" 9-11 truth "movement" MUST adhere to.
I do not debate that it is quite possible that "thermite" or some like substance may have been found in WTC debris. There may have been many things found that would indicate the presence of other kinds of destructive devices having been employed. It also may have been possible that a combination of more than one substance/device actually "got the job done". I think the "Niels Harrit" paper also acknowledges these possibilities. Also,
is the thermite to the destruction of the towers is as to planes is to the destruction of the towers?
that is, window dressing items but not actually doing the main destruction job.
I guess when you "hypothesize" about thermite and mini-nukes, you will have to give a good estimate of how much of the thermite would have to have been placed. Then we judge upon the feasibility of that amount of stuff having been carefully installed in all the right places. You will have to say how many mini nukes of your special kind would have had to have been placed and where. Then we can judge upon the feasibility of that too.
A question I have about your theory, Chuck, relates to the following. I seem to recall early 9-11 truth videos showing what were said to be "squids" or "squid blast points" where these puffs of smoke and "explosions" emanating at regularly spaced points on each floor spewing chunks of material outward. Are those squids just minor little "thermite explosions" for show or are those "blasts" crucial to making possible the work that the mini-nukes had to do? Or could those squids have been something else entirely?
One thing I thought was very good in your Real Deal presentation was the sentence you read where you sort of gave your summary of what Dr. Wood appeared to be saying in her new book. The word "somehow" occurred in that sentence about ten times. But I have to say that while I appreciate your rebuttal of what is in Dr. Wood's book, I find that I have to use the word "somehow" pretty often in summarizing how I understand, at least at this point , your hypothesis.
My impression is that while Dr. Wood's book may be really a bargain and a very nice presentation of the pictures and graphs on her website and may be well worth $40, the book appears to be primarily just that -- about 80 percent a reproduction of her website material. My impression of the book is that she does not provide us much in the way of anything even approaching "science" or an hypothesis, and that kind of text is really the only thing that can be the object of debunking on grounds science or math or the object of an analysis of her general ethicality in her manner of treating the subject.
I have been posting my Power Point Poster now for about 2 years now on this site and my analysis has gone through some modifications as you could if you reviewed my PP Posters from back then.
I calculated the minimun energy required for the basic forced collapse to take place using quoted "safety factors" of 100, then 20, then "5". I estimated the required use of 3.2 Little Boy Atomic Bomb equivalents in mini-nukes of the matchbox or grapefruit size, but I still do not know what is the kiloton of TNT yeild of energy attributed to those mini nukes and still have not been able to find this information on the internet.
Since I decided to use the thickness of the vertical columns, graduated from 6 inches thick at the bottom to 1/2 inch thick at the top, I am now able to use the ridiculous "safety factor" of "3" and still debunk the OCT
My last calculation of required energy was 0.5 Little Boy Atomic Bombs in combination with some form of explosive or non-explosive thermate, and I am not sure which form was used, but some form had to be used to get the long lasting molten metal in the basements for many months and for all of the damage to nearby vehicles and to people, etc.
All damage can be accounted for with whatever form of thermate was used and the mini neutron bombs, of whatever size they were.
Dr Judy's evidence can not prove her theory, not at all, not even close, and I predict that she and her duped disciples are in for a very great and most embarrassing fall, and I hope that I am the person who will be able to prove it, if given the opportunity in a national debate. I am more than confident that I can account for all the her "mysterious" anamolies, which she calls a "mystery"
The squids appear to come smaller explosions to break support columns, core likely, to prep for the actual final bombastic explosions.
Presently, I am able to account for all or nearly all destruction. I am still working of the 43 replies to Judy's summary of questions that have to be answered, so some new discoveries are like to be uncovered by me.
I do not have any problem accepting the nano thermate of Niels Haritt and Steven Jones and the other 9 scientists who signed on the that revolutionary paper that the media will not touch.
Without the nano thermate, I can not explain all of the anamolies, so I will not easily disbelieve its existece.
We only know what the media has claimed about the cold fusion controversy, and I have researched the accusations and still do not know what to believe, but I do believe in the discovered and analyzed nano thermate, until conclusively disproven.
They have repeatedly requested NIST to analyze their many dust collected samples to prove the existence of the thermate in the dust, and of course, NIST, has refused to check it out, which tell us a lot about their continued deception and lies..
I have used the word somehow in my research, but we do have the proof of thermate and the implied proof of the mini nukes due to the required energy amount for the pulverizations...
I am understanding that you "need" something like "thermite" to explain the "molten metal" for several weeks that is said to have been present. "Thermite" is the only thing you know of that could provide the heat needed. Again, I think this "backing in to" form of reasoning is not the greatest. (I won't even get started on the big debate about the existence of "molten metal" for weeks.)
I never said "thermite" does not exist.
We are agreed that the "NIST OCT" is false and so does Dr. Wood. I agree with most of the commentary I have heard so far about Dr. Wood's book (most recent two radio shows).
There are big debates about the dust particle samples. They were not random samples for one thing. Another thing is that we must trust that the protocols for "chain of custody" of the samples were perfectly followed. I am just saying this to illustrate that even with the most elemental "data" or "samples" or "evidence", there are big questions and "belief" must be employed. It is not possible to replicate the "study" of the samples" and I thought ability to replicate was fundamental to operational science. Also the academic journal where the Niels Harrit study was published, according to CheckTheEvidence.com site is a kind of journal where you can pay ($600 or so) to have your study published. That does not speak well to me.
I personally appreciate very much the Real Deal and this forum for allowing alternative viewpoints to be discussed. These kinds of discussions have been ruled "heresy" by the "Alternative Official Conspiracy Theory" "AOCT" which is the "theory" of Dr. Steven Jones and the Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth as well as 9-11 Blogger and a myriad of other 9-11 "truthers".
I generally have most appreciated the work of Dr. Morgan Reynolds and the articles on his website, though not necessarily all of the material of Dr. Wood that Dr. Reynolds wholeheartedly supports and is personally involved with at least in some peripheral way. The NIST lawsuit was great, etc...
I just think that we have enough information at this point to warrant a legal case. We probably never have to "prove" exactly what did or did not take "down" the towers and we probably never will know the whole truth even if we got just ajudication. I just do not see how we outsiders can employ real science or true science to prove anything AT THIS POINT IN TIME about what happened to the Towers. We can use science to say what did not happen.
The study of the dust samples have been replicated by other scientists at other universities as I have read about.
The real replication of the existence of thermate in the dust lies with the NIST, who will never test and analyze it.
Proof could be obtained from the "fried cars" if one could get at them. Just take samples of the highly pitted gasketing and samples of the rusted areas of the rusted and melted parts of cars. There should be plenty of residual thermate with those fried cars, I would bet money on it.
I am not in a position to go to New York and then getting access to those cars, if they were not melted down already. If they were buried or stored in a salvage lot, one could still take forensic sample from the vehicles.
Somebody need to attempt to do what I have just said. That would be backup proof for the use of thermate, direct proof.
Where is all of the dust from the streets buried. That could be further massive proof for the thermate as the thermate was in all dust samples no matter where found, everywhere and anywhere the dust could be found.
Most people are not aware of potential physical evidence that may still be available from any of the remnants of the destructions. Someone needs to "go for it" and become a national "truth movement" hero
The dust and cars are by far the best sources of still existing, maybe, evidence...
I have been doing this research for nearly 2 or 3 years now and I do not know if any of the major researchers even know that I exist or even aware of my "kick-butt" research, which includes Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan, Judy Woods, Niels haritt, Dave Thomas, Bazant, etc. etc., as none of the researchers has ever contacted me and I am nearly only located on the site, but have other older material on other blog sites.
Just enter my name, "Chuck Boldwyn" and see how much comes up. One could review the history of all of my research, easily.
Another very important thing that most people may not realize, is that near all or all of the major scientific journals in the USA are controlled by the main stream media, a fact, so how would one expect that Haritt & Jones could ever get published in a major journal. I believe it would be disallowed.
Also, why do you think the dust samples were taken oversear to be analyzed? Because submission to any lab in the USA would get the samples confiscated and destroyed.
The main stream media own nearly every form of publication in the USA.
Jones did the correct thing: just find a journal that will get it published.
The paper was reviewed by very highly qualified scientists and did not need the approval of its avowed opposition scientific forces, all of which receive funding from the USA Government..
These explanations are adequate from my point of view and hopefully you can and will see where I am coming from on this topic, which Jones, I am sure, understood...
"I have been doing this research for nearly 2 or 3 years now and I do not know if any of the major researchers even know that I exist or even aware of my "kick-butt" research, which includes Steve Jones, Kevin Ryan, Judy Woods, Niels haritt, Dave Thomas, Bazant, etc. etc., as none of the researchers has ever contacted me and I am nearly only located on the site, but have other older material on other blog sites."
Chuck, I am afraid that no matter how good your science is, these particular 911 truth leaders will never contact nor debate you, because you are correct in your research and they are just plain wrong. But the scientific truth or falsity of a claim is not relevant to them, because they have colossal big egos and they are not going to now admit they were wrong after having expended years of emotion/research/big egos over their pet hypotheses. But you have convinced this guy 100% and even on the toasted car thing I am positive you are correct about thermate in the clouds causing the strange effects, because thermate would react with certain materials and not with others to give the apparent strange effects. And yes, mini nukes would be needed to provide a lot of the pulverization energy. These people were expert demolitions people and cleverly worked out every detail. On the Joule yield of the mini nukes, you might never learn those because they are trade secrets like KFC chicken secret recipe, I hope you do though.