9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

Massimo Mazzucco - New movie about 9-11 coming out soon

Massimo Mazzucco is an Italian with a Japanese name that speaks good English and is a frequent guest on GCNlive.com radio shows.

 

He lives at least part-time in California and was involved in Hollywood film making.  He is an  innovative skilled photographer and videographer and award winning cinnematographer.

 

His video, New American Century, can be vied on YouTube.

 

His video, Cancer the Forgidden Cures, probably can also be viewed online as he states people who buy the DVDs can copy and distribute them at will.  He is on Wikipedia.

 

He seems like a really nice, intelligent, reasonable, and truth telling person.

 

I heard him today say he is coming out soon with a new 9-11 video that will purportedly take the best from "all the best from all the major 9-11 truth sources" and highlight them in the film.

 

Apparently several radio talk show hosts in the "truth movement" are going to be focusing a lot on 9-11 in the coming months to show how so many of the geopolical events the world  we are now experiencing can be traced to 9-11.

 

Massimo in his earlier film on 9-11, the New American Century, focused on Bush, Cheney, PNAC, and the neocons being the culprits of 9-11.  I am sure his new film will revolve around that same hypothesis. 

 

What I think  will be interesting is that all the wrong misleading "findings and research" of all the main 9-11 truth groups will again be foisted on the all the people who listen to alternative radio on the Internet.    I am sure all the Dr. Steven Jones and Architects and Engineers stuff will be strongly reinforced in the next few months by this "9-11 truth establishment" propaganda video.  It will be all the more saleable because Massimo's movies heretofore have had some unusual footage and great screenplay  and he presenats as such a personable forthright person with no agenda, including no money making agenda.

 

Here are few of the inclusions and exclusions and themes I bet will be part of this new video, which will be heaviliy pushed in the next few months on many alternative radio shows.

 

Only mention of no-plane will be strictly in relation of Pentagon event

 

Little or no focus on cause of the physical events at the Twin Towers.

 

The focus, if any at all, on Twin Towers physical events will probly be limited to

molten metal,

people hearing explosions,

and maybe a little William Rodriquez testimonhy thrown in.

 

The work of Dr. Steven Jones will be emphasized.

 

The work of Architects and Engineers and Richard Gage will be emphasized.

 

There will be a strong focus on Building 7 just as is now the emphasis of Architects and Engineers..

 

There will emphasis on term "controlled demolition" and probably no correct defintion of that term will be given, but it will be just understood by viewers  that that term means the placement of traditional "explosives" to demolish a building.

 

The work of Dr. David Ray Griffin will probably receive some emphasis.

 

It just thought it would be interesting to sort of anticipate this film and see if I, and maybe others participating here, can predict accurately the content of this soon to be released propaganda film.

 

Views: 869

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Jesse Ventura has now attached his voice and star to the Judy Wood bandwagon after reading Judy's book and appearng on the Alex Jones Show.

 

I am interest in what you surmise to be the causes of the WTC Complex destructions, since you seem to be rejecting the Steven Jones Show and the Richard Gage Show. If you do not agree with them then please tell us why and what you have that can replace their theories or even parts of them and which part of them.

 

My next show I will be debunking or refuting the Judy Wood Magnetosphere disruptions as the 911 WTC complex events occurred and hopefully presenting some more unique evidence that refutes the DEWs and The Hutchison Field Effects.

Every anamoly can be easily and simple explained by Thermate and/or mini nukes or high explosives, all, all, all and most easily, as you will see when you listen in and review the whole history of the 11 hours of debunking that are already posted on the Real Deal.

Yes, I heard Ventura on Jones show when he said he read her book and kept trying to praise some of her ideas but Alex kept cutting him off.  Alex is totally Dr. Steven Jones - only thermate, yes planes, yes ilsamic hijackers.

 

Steven Jones and Richard Gage are really one entity.  They represent the core of what I guess I call the "9-11 truth establishment" or "9-11 truth orthodoxy".

 

I read all of the early papers on NoMoreGames.net refuting Dr. Jones early "research papers".    Reading those and listening to Dr. Fetzer, I came to doubt the "science" of Dr. Jones.  I also came to doubt his forthrightness in dealing with objections people expressed to his assertions.  I personally am not a scientist so I have to rely on others with science degrees and advanced research skills to help me see the problems with his ideas.  All I know is he impressed me as a "flaky" person when he was interviewed by Dr. Fetzer and Alex Jones.  All I know is I saw the main part of the 9-11 truth movement immediately and wholeheartedly adopt and enforce the Steven Jones ideas and all other questions and alternative ideas and criticisms were excoriated.  I remember Alex Jones and Dr. Jones saying ugly things about Dr. Fetzer on air calling him a "buffoon" and a "clown."  911blogger even made up a photo of Dr. Fetzer as a clown and posted some nonesense there.   So those are the reasons I do not trust and respect Dr. Steven Jones and Alex Jones and all of the 9-11 "truth" movement who got on that bandwagon.

 

It is possible thermate was found in the dust and that that part of Dr. Jones' work may turn out to be accurate.  But that study was never never done in a truly scientific way and we will never be able to have truly scientific proof about if there was thermite and where exactly it came from, and exactly what function it performed.  (Thermite cutters were used by the clearn-up crew at Ground Zero, and that crew cleaned up the premises in record speed time to remove all evidence.)

 

So I do not reject "thermite or thermate" out of hand.  It is just that Dr. Jones has proven to me to be so less than aboveboard in so many other ways that I just do not trust him.

 

Another thing Dr. Jones did as I recall was published the "first peer=reviewed sciencific study" on his website.  It was ONLY published on his own website which he called "Journal of 911 Studies" or something like that to give everyone the idea that it was a ture science journal.  That study's reviewers were his buddies at his own website, like Keven Ryan an a few others.  What a joke!  They just rubber stamped their boss's study.

 

Another thing he did, when he got so many objections to some photograph of the "molten metal" pouring out of one place in the South Tower, was just quietly go in an change his only only "journal study" and take the photo out of his paper.  He did not post anywhere that he made such amendment and never responded in writing to anyone who lodged legitimate objections to that photo.  You can't do sneaky things like that with a legitimate research study.

 

I do not know what caused the destruction of the WTC towers.  Bldg. 7 looks like a traditional controlled demotion to me using tradtional exposives for that purpose.  Technically, "controlled demolition" only means a demolition or destruction that was controled and operated by man.  It does not include what kind of "explosive" agents were used to accomplish the destruction or exactly in what way the destruction was accomplished.

 

I like your idea about mini nukes and I think Dr. Ed Ward's findings about radioactive isotopes being found in abudance in the air at Ground Zero right after the event is strong strong evidence.

 

Thermate may have played an important role but if it did, then it could only have done a cutting function, and I have never gotten you to tell me if the steps that I think you are saying took place, with the cutting of the core main columns first, followed later by the nuke explosions.  Again, we never are going to be able to get true thorough independent studies of the dust, so the people who say thermite may just be a "red herring" or like "toothpaste" seem on just as sure ground as Dr. Jones' studies.

 

The nukes are going to have to account for almost all of those 42 items in Dr. Wood's book, and I cannot see so far that nukes do that.  The air isotopes found and the large number of young people first responders now with cancers usually caused by radiation poiosonting are THE strong evidences I find for nukes. 

 

 

" please tell us why and what you have that can replace their theories or even parts of them and which part of them."

 

I have no ideas to replace anyone's theories or even parts of them.  I just see them and see that they sometimes  do not seem to explain what we say are the "objective data", evidence...etc.   I honestly do not believe we will ever know for sure, or even approximately for sure, how the destruction of the Twin Towers was effected.  I don't have to have any theories to be critical of what does not make sense to me.  I always openly give my reasons why some things do not sound right to me and I always make it clear that I am not a scientist.

 

Apologize for all errors typed here.  Just had my eyes dilated and can't see a darn thing.

My own opinion is that yes, Steve Jones was planted by the intel community to wreck future research into 911.  I am very very suspicious of his whole involvement in DOE projects and work at BYU and if Lyle Slaughter is correct we have to watch very carefully for nazi  and mormon involvement in intel ops out of BYU.  I do not trust Steve Jones as far as I can throw my car.

 

However, I do believe that Chuck's independent research is correct and I am 100% positive that he is on the right track with his thermate/nuke hypothesis, and I believe all future evidence will confirm his H in spades again and again, just watch in the future, as evidence comes to light, it'll just keep confirming his hypothesis.  He has done the very best research in the twin towers.

 

As for Judy Wood, she is a total waste of time as far as her DEW H, although her book does have great pictures and evidence to be explained.  She got some type of emotional connection to DEW through prior pet research she did early in her career ( I heard her talk about that maybe 5 years ago somewhere) and now just can't drop her hypothesis.

 

People in JFK do this all the time, for example, the Z film is a massive fraud, yet Robert Groden will not admit this and he must save his ego from his unveiling the extant film on Geraldo show and his ego will not permit him to see the light, as Judy will forever refuse to see the light.  She is a lost cause now, and a misinfo. agent and drawing in people like Jesse is not good.

 

The perps love this kind of stuff.  For instance, why did they fabricate the Z film?  Easy.. because now people in great majority believe a totally fictious series of events in dealey plaza and will never know the exact truth.  Read Jim Fetzer's trilogy on JFK to get the total or approximate truth.  

"I am very very suspicious of his whole involvement in DOE projects and work at BYU and if Lyle Slaughter is correct we have to watch very carefully for nazi  and mormon involvement in intel ops out of BYU."

 

Interesting, will look up Slaughter and read up.

Paul Drockton of MoneyTeachers.com, I think, often linked from Rense.com, is a practicing Morman and he writes frequently and I think honestly, from his Mormon perspective that is, about the "Satnanic psychopaths" who are pretty much in control of the top hierarchy of the Mormon Church.  He never says a word negative about "NAZIs", Glen Beck (also a Mormon), Zionists etc.   would note that "psychopaths" is the favorite way both the right and the left want to describe those secret elites they judge are running the show.  To me, it is all the dialectic and all "sides" are run by the same entity. 

 

Lately there is a big move by Michael "Savage" Weiner (Jewish "right wing" radio personality), radio show host, to prove Obama is a "psychopath."  Dr. Steve Pieczenik (Jewish Polish psychiatrist and government psychological warfare expert) was on A Jones show recently elaborating on this.  This personality disorder/ psychopath line of thinking may be absolutely correct but somehow it seems to be avoidance of better identifying the puppet masters.

 

Mormons seem to be patriotic Americans and they are definitely "right wing" or "conservative" and seem to revere the Constitution, but from there they somehow have gone awry.  They have turned in to the "NAZI" kind of right wing which really has zero to do with true American patriotism, but probably is more akin to "nationalism" as exhibited in 1930s Germany.

 

_________

 

"However, I do believe that Chuck's independent research is correct and I am 100% positive that he is on the right track with his thermate/nuke hypothesis, and I believe all future evidence will confirm his H in spades again and again, just watch in the future, as evidence comes to light, it'll just keep confirming his hypothesis.  He has done the very best research in the twin towers."

 

I am looking forward to seeing that "future evidence" brought forward and discussed on this forum.

 

______________

"She got some type of emotional connection to DEW through prior pet research she did early in her career"

 

Interesting.  I have never heard that.   I do think Dr. Wood is "on to something" by wanting to explore directed energy and its ramifications.  I do think this kind of energy is being used right now in weaponry and since it is all top secret, we just have to gradually try to pick up on what we can to come to understandings about its characteristics and capabilities.  It does seem to offer the hope of free inexhaustible energy for all and the dark forces that want to rule the world definitely do not want free energy for all.

 

______________

 

"for example, the Z film is a massive fraud, yet Robert Groden will not admit this and he must save his ego from his unveiling the extant film on Geraldo show and his ego will not permit him to see the light,"

 

This Robert Groden person has put himself and the "government" in the exact place that Dr. Fetzer and all JFK assassination researchers should be very happy about.   Now, Groden HAS TO. MUST, stand by the Z film, and that will be the demise of the Z film's value in the deception as Dr. Fetzer's et al. work becomes more and more communicated to the public.

 

This reminds me of what Jerome Corsi and Joseph Farrah at WND did regarding this latest April 2011 presenting of Obama's long form birth certificate by Obama on live television to the world.  Corsi named his book "where is the birth certificate" and Trump (operating completely separately from Corsi and for his own agenda, whatever that is) also pressed to be shown the actual true long form birth certificate.  They forced Obama's hand by holding off on pointing out in print the obvious evidences of forgery on that long form b c in hopes Obama would declare something to be his long form birth certificate, and Obama fell right in to that trap.   Now all the technical evaluations of that fake document are being clearly documented by document experts and a criminal complaint for document forgery has been formally filed with the FBI.  Ping!

 

Now we get to see the crooked FBI, the crooked U S congress, and the crooked judges make their next play.

 

But Obama is wedded to the forged document just as Groden is wedded to the fake Z film and that is a good thing!.

 

___________

 

 

 

 

As a Navy Seal Demolition Expert, I think Jesse can make up his own mind about what explosives can or cannot do.

He can see the truth in what Judy is saying. Take a good look at this picture of reinforced concrete rubble from Fukushima and compare it to the microscopic pulverization at GZ:

 



Thoth II said:

My own opinion is that yes, Steve Jones was planted by the intel community to wreck future research into 911.  I am very very suspicious of his whole involvement in DOE projects and work at BYU and if Lyle Slaughter is correct we have to watch very carefully for nazi  and mormon involvement in intel ops out of BYU.  I do not trust Steve Jones as far as I can throw my car.

 

However, I do believe that Chuck's independent research is correct and I am 100% positive that he is on the right track with his thermate/nuke hypothesis, and I believe all future evidence will confirm his H in spades again and again, just watch in the future, as evidence comes to light, it'll just keep confirming his hypothesis.  He has done the very best research in the twin towers.

 

As for Judy Wood, she is a total waste of time as far as her DEW H, although her book does have great pictures and evidence to be explained.  She got some type of emotional connection to DEW through prior pet research she did early in her career ( I heard her talk about that maybe 5 years ago somewhere) and now just can't drop her hypothesis.

 

People in JFK do this all the time, for example, the Z film is a massive fraud, yet Robert Groden will not admit this and he must save his ego from his unveiling the extant film on Geraldo show and his ego will not permit him to see the light, as Judy will forever refuse to see the light.  She is a lost cause now, and a misinfo. agent and drawing in people like Jesse is not good.

 

The perps love this kind of stuff.  For instance, why did they fabricate the Z film?  Easy.. because now people in great majority believe a totally fictious series of events in dealey plaza and will never know the exact truth.  Read Jim Fetzer's trilogy on JFK to get the total or approximate truth.  

Jeannon,

 

after you read Lyle Slaughter at mormonzeitgeist.com I think you might reconsider.  He is about the only one who knows what he knows but I totally trust him.  I've studied websites 10 years and have a pretty good idea who the real ones vs. phony ones/ops are at least many times.  I agree that most MSM like Savage are just playing in the left-right kiddy pool to totally contain and divert the discussion.  At first 50 years ago when they took out JFK, I thought they'd never get away with it.  But they hired the best minds and they realized it is pretty easy to buy people, look at Gary Mack for a classic study and so they were able to coop the entire country with their misdirections and lies to where now typical people really do not know fantasy from reality.  As I said, this is one of the most sinister parts of human history and these monsters are really starting to show their hand.  

I found the interchange on this new topic to be very interesting. Jeannon, you have expressed your position very well. A number of questions come to mind for me after reviewing the above posts.

 

First, I would like to know (from someone who purports that both nano-thermite and nuclear explosions were used to destroy the Twin Towers) how we can differentiate that hypothetical scenario from the one in which only conventional (non-thermite/nanothermite) cutter agents were used in combination with nuclear explosions or from a third option in which only nuclear explosions were employed?  Assume for the moment that we are unable to trust the analysis of WTC dust carried out by Jones/Herrit et. al in which allegedly an identification of nano-thermite was made. Assume this either because we cannot document that a proper chain of custody was insured or because the sample was obtained allegedly from only one location in the WTC area. How then do we prove that nano-thermite was utilized at all in the process of destroying the 2 buildings?

 

My sense is that nuclear explosions of the proper kind and number could not only account for the USGS dust evidence which proves to a very high degree of probability that a large amount of nuclear fission of Uranium 235 occured but could also account for the virtual complete pulverization of all the Twin Towers concrete into dust along with the vaporization of virtually the entire contents of each building including file cabinets, electrical wiring, computers, other business machines, plumbing fixtures, furniture and human beings. It also explains the increased incidence of cancer being documented in first responders especially in those who are much too young statistically to be developing those with which they are afflicted. The only question that then remains is whether the several hundred tons of steel beams could have been demolished as they were, some of which were forcefully ejected up and out away from the buildings, some of which fell into the sub-surface basement levels of each footprint and some of which appears possibly to have been vaporized--without invoking the use of nanothermite as a cutter agent.

 

For those who think that nuclear explosions could not have produced all of the above findings either in combination with conventional non-nanothermite cutter agents or in isolation, it would be helpful if they could explain why. One possible explanation is that the appearance of some of the steel beams suggests a rapidly occuring cutting action which presumably cannot be explained without postulating the use of nanothermite. On the other hand, some steel beams do appear to be bent around the wrong axis as argued by Dr. Judy Wood in her book, an effect which if real needs to be investigated to see if it can be produced by nuclear explosions or any other conventional means short of DFEW.

 

In another thread I suggested that properly constructed mock-ups of the Twin Towers should be constructed and then empirically subjected to demolition utilizing various agents including nanothermite. It would very readily be determined what could be acoomplished without the use of nuclear explosions. When all else fails, conduct an experiment. Has this been attempted?

 

I tend at this point to agree with Jeannon that the nanothermite issue may turn out to be a "red-herring." Occam's razor holds that we must not multiply entities unnecessarily. If the destruction of the Twin Towers  is explainable without nanothermite being involved, its presence should not be assumed unless there is unimpeachable evidence that it was used.

 

Thank you, Dr. Hubert, for helping us sort all of this out.

 

I cannot say for sure but I think Dr. Steven Jones et al. reject, if not necessarily openly, any suggestion of a nuke being used.  They allow for the possibility of other "explosives" being used that they did not report on.  There became the "need" to have an "explosive". I think that may be why Dr. Jones started "evolving" what "thermite" really was or could be.  Hence nano-thermite, super nano-thermate, thermite anaologs, sol-gel thermate etc.   But if at least some of the "explosives" are bound to the "thermite charges", as Dr. Jones has proposed,  then what Chuck and Thoth and I have all expressed becomes the problem, that is, the likelihood that the "package" of thermite-with-explosive would  interfere with the cutting action of the thermite. 

 

I think Chuck and Thoth leave all of the explosion part of the sequence of events to the last part when the nukes explode but they both hold on to the cutting step at the beginning.  So  Dr. Jones' thermite (or whatever he currently calls it) is increasingly being shown to be a cutting agent only.  Dr. jones appears to "require"  the cutting action step too, as does Chuck,  but does not tell us where this cutting action step occurs in any stated possible sequence of events.  So that points us now to the need to elaborate  a bit on that cutting action step being necessary at all.    Dr. Hubert now logically points us to discussing nukes being able to do the whole job without thermite and cutting action.

 

Dr. Hubert said...

"My sense is that nuclear explosions of the proper kind and number could not only account for the USGS dust evidence which proves to a very high degree of probability that a large amount of nuclear fission of Uranium 235 occured but could also account for the virtual complete pulverization of all the Twin Towers concrete into dust"

 

A couple of questions about this statement...

 

Is it the fission of Uranium 235 that accounts for the "55 times the normal" measurement of tritium in the air at Ground Zero that Dr. Ed Ward told us about? 

 

Is there any record of an event in history where a nuclear fission bomb(s) produced the degree of puliverization (and "vaporization") ( ? micron sized dust particles) of concrete and all of the contents of the Towers.?

 

 I am remembering what Dr. Morgan Reynolds wrote about "proof concept" that is a criterion to judge the hypothesis of a research study.)  I realize we are not talking about studies here but I just think if we had any past events to draw on, it would certainly make for a stronger case.

 

"I think Chuck and Thoth leave all of the explosion part of the sequence of events to the last part when the nukes explode but they both hold on to the cutting step at the beginning.
"

 

yes, exactly.  But Chuck is the chemist and he has done some hypothetical chemical reactions involving thermate that would account for the "lathering" cloud before the demolitions, and a white cloud of aluminum oxide , plus the strange effects on cars due to thermate in the cloud that reacts by accident with the cars.  Chuck has explained in detail, but again, for us non-chemists, that is the problem, it is a little hard to follow him.  Still, I totally trust his expertise and I think he is totally on track.

 

The only events I know in history are the nuclear bombs that were buried in New Mexico desert and blown up about hundred feet below the surface, totally vaporized sand and kicked up a big fallout cloud.   

"Chuck is the chemist and he has done some hypothetical chemical reactions involving thermate that would account for the "lathering" cloud before the demolitions, and a white cloud of aluminum oxide , plus the strange effects on cars due to thermate in the cloud that reacts by accident with the cars."

 

I certainly did "like" Chuck's explanations for the effects on cars and paint etc., but still they seemed to be "missing something" to me that would more surely or fully explain that "evidence", just as Dr. Wood's explanation is found wanting too.

 

Will have to read up more on the "lathering" but as I recall some discount "lathering" altogether.  Lathering shown in photos seem to occur only on one side of a building.  That seems strange to me being only on one side of the building.

 

I came across this interesing article about the dust and the cutting refuting Dr. Jones.

 

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/stevene.jones'thermitethermat...

 

Worth a read.

 

 

 

 

 

I wanted to add this material from the Jones/Harrit paper and a clarification of my previous post.

In the Materials and Methods section of the Jones/Harrit paper published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31, it states that 4 private New York civilians totally of their own volition and utilizing their own methods, collected samples independently, one within minutes of the destruction of the second Tower, two were collected on the morning and afternoon of 9/12/2001 respectively by different individuals, and one a week later, all from locations in lower Manhattan. Presumably, no communication occurred between the 4 individuals or with any scientific experts with respect to the proper methods to be employed in collecting the samples or with regard to what procedures, methods, standards etc. should be utilized in order that the samples would be properly preserved. From a reading of the paper, it is unclear why the individuals collected the samples in the first place other than as a curiosity.

 

Some five years later in the fall of 2006, a general request was made for WTC dust samples that appeared in an on-line journal article by the Jones et. al research group. According to the authors, five individuals who presumably saw the request submitted samples for analysis. Four of the five agreed to have their names disclosed and their samples were subjected to detailed testing. All five samples were said to contain iron rich microspheres in the form of red/gray chips, which according to the authors, is diagnostic of nanothermite or superthermite. 

 

 Thus, 4 of the 5 individuals who sent samples had their material reported on in the Jones/Harrit paper. The 5th was excluded because of not be willing to have his name disclosed, a decision which seems perplexing given that the authors state that the sample contained red/gray chips. It is unclear from reading the paper however, whether these 5 were the only samples that the Jones research group was supplied with. If other samples were in fact sent to the authors, then it is possible that they did not contain the red/gray chips. The authors should clarify whether they tested every sample sent to them and report on the results if more than 5 were received.

 

Moreover, in the introductory section of the paper, the authors state that they studied dust samples from the WTC prior to being given the 4 samples which they report on in detail in their paper. It is not clear where these dust samples came from. While they mention other WTC dust studies such as that of the USGS, the RJ Lee Company study, the McGee et. al study and the Lioy et. al study, they do not specifically state that they obtained their preparatory dust samples from any of them. Rather, they reported the following: 

 

"In June 2007, Dr. Steven Jones observed distinctive bi-layered chips with both a red and a gray layer, in a sample of the WTC dust (no disclosure was made of where that sample came from)…The authors also obtained and examined additional samples of WTC dust which had been collected by independent observers on, or very soon after, 9/11."

 

It was the foregoing that apparently raised their interest. However, there is no documentation of the actual origin of these samples. The authors concluded their paper with the following:

 

"Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material."

 

Thus in 2009 they were referring to nanothermite as an explosive.

 

Based on what is reported in the paper itself, all of the samples studied by Jones/Harrit et. al were handled in less than a pristine/controlled/standardized way. That does not mean that the conclusions made by the research group are wrong. It does mean that a separate study should be conducted by independent investigators in which for example, USGS dust samples could be tested utilizing the exact same protocol as that used by Jones/Harrit et. al. If nanothermite is discovered once again, the conclusion that it was involved in the destruction of the Twin Towers will be rendered more highly probable.

Dr. Hubert, I am going to repost your last posting so that the background is white and text is readable... and then comment.

 

"

 

 

I wanted to add this material from the Jones/Harrit paper and a clarification of my previous post.

In the Materials and Methods section of the Jones/Harrit paper published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31, it states that 4 private New York civilians totally of their own volition and utilizing their own methods, collected samples independently, one within minutes of the destruction of the second Tower, two were collected on the morning and afternoon of 9/12/2001 respectively by different individuals, and one a week later, all from locations in lower Manhattan. Presumably, no communication occurred between the 4 individuals or with any scientific experts with respect to the proper methods to be employed in collecting the samples or with regard to what procedures, methods, standards etc. should be utilized in order that the samples would be properly preserved. From a reading of the paper, it is unclear why the individuals collected the samples in the first place other than as a curiosity.

 

Some five years later in the fall of 2006, a general request was made for WTC dust samples that appeared in an on-line journal article by the Jones et. al research group. According to the authors, five individuals who presumably saw the request submitted samples for analysis. Four of the five agreed to have their names disclosed and their samples were subjected to detailed testing. All five samples were said to contain iron rich microspheres in the form of red/gray chips, which according to the authors, is diagnostic of nanothermite or superthermite. 

 

 Thus, 4 of the 5 individuals who sent samples had their material reported on in the Jones/Harrit paper. The 5th was excluded because of not be willing to have his name disclosed, a decision which seems perplexing given that the authors state that the sample contained red/gray chips. It is unclear from reading the paper however, whether these 5 were the only samples that the Jones research group was supplied with. If other samples were in fact sent to the authors, then it is possible that they did not contain the red/gray chips. The authors should clarify whether they tested every sample sent to them and report on the results if more than 5 were received.

 

Moreover, in the introductory section of the paper, the authors state that they studied dust samples from the WTC prior to being given the 4 samples which they report on in detail in their paper. It is not clear where these dust samples came from. While they mention other WTC dust studies such as that of the USGS, the RJ Lee Company study, the McGee et. al study and the Lioy et. al study, they do not specifically state that they obtained their preparatory dust samples from any of them. Rather, they reported the following: 

 

"In June 2007, Dr. Steven Jones observed distinctive bi-layered chips with both a red and a gray layer, in a sample of the WTC dust (no disclosure was made of where that sample came from)…The authors also obtained and examined additional samples of WTC dust which had been collected by independent observers on, or very soon after, 9/11."

 

It was the foregoing that apparently raised their interest. However, there is no documentation of the actual origin of these samples. The authors concluded their paper with the following:

 

"Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material."

 

Thus in 2009 they were referring to nanothermite as an explosive.

 

Based on what is reported in the paper itself, all of the samples studied by Jones/Harrit et. al were handled in less than a pristine/controlled/standardized way. That does not mean that the conclusions made by the research group are wrong. It does mean that a separate study should be conducted by independent investigators in which for example, USGS dust samples could be tested utilizing the exact same protocol as that used by Jones/Harrit et. al. If nanothermite is discovered once again, the conclusion that it was involved in the destruction of the Twin Towers will be rendered more highly probable.  "

 

 

I know that Janette McKinlay is one of the people that gave dust samples to Dr. Jones' team.  She lived in a 4th story apartment in a building next to the South Tower.  The dust came in two broken windows.  There is a video somewhere on the web of Dr. Jones' team going into her apartment to collect the samples.  I believe this happened fairly shortly after 9-11, not years.

 

________

 

I am going to repost in full with the link the article link I posted above but seems now to not be working.  These "debunkers" of Dr. Jones use the term CT I guess for "conspiracy theorists" and I find that odd since Dr. Jones from the beginning presented himself as above and set apart from "conspiracy theorists."  He was a Ph.D. physicist giving us pure science.  The article also says there was no evidence of the clean up crew using thermite cutters.

 

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/stevene.jones'thermitethermat...

 

stevene.jones'thermitethermateclaims

Steven E. Jones' Thermite / Thermate claims

 

Contents
Main 9/11 Links Page

A commonly repeated 9/11 conspiracy theory is that an incendiary, thermite or thermate, rather than an explosive, was used to cut the huge steel columns, causing the WTC buildings to collapse. Steven E. Jones, a (former) physicist at Brigham Young University in Salt Lake City, and (former) co-chair of the 9/11 conspiracy-promoting “Scholars for 9/11 Truth,” and now founder of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice," is the chief proponent of this theory.

In his paper “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?” (revised several times) Jones shows a startling propensity for abandoning the scientific method in favor of jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions. As with his “evidence” that Jesus Christ visited the Americas (a Mormon tenet), in his 9/11 work Jones promotes faith over intellectual rigor.

Jones claims to have found traces of thermate (thermite with a small amount of sulfur and a large amount of barium nitrate added) on a piece of steel from the WTC. This claim is unsubstantiated. First, Jones does not cite the chemical composition of actual spent thermate signatures, for comparison. Second, Jones has not provided a chain of custody for the steel he tested that would preclude its contamination by other sources. Third, and most importantly, there is nothing unexpected about finding sulfur and trace metals on WTC steel and dust samples.

Sulfur-based drywall was the third most-used construction material at the WTC. Thousands of gallons of fuel oil containing sulfur was spilled beneath the rubble piles, along with numerous other sulfur-containing inflammables. Thermate typically contains only 2% sulfur, so if the sulfur Jones detected was from ther-mate, we would expect to see the reaction byproducts of its main ingredients, iron oxide, aluminum, and barium nitrate, in proportionally greater amounts. The qualitative chemical analyses performed on sulfidated steel from WTC 7, 1, and 2 shows no signs of the presence of the incendiaries Jones says were used, nor did it reach anywhere near its melting point.

Chemist Frank Greening makes a strong argument that sulfur in its gaseous state would best have been able to combine with the steel to produce the sulfidated effects, and that such sulfur probably would have been abundant in the witch's brew of burning chemicals in the piles at Ground Zero. For more information on this sulfur/steel issue, see http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf and http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

In this rambling defense of his theories, Jones cites an EPA report by Erik Swartz as evidence of the presence of thermite at the WTC: “Large amounts of 1,3 diphenylpropane strongly suggests the high-tech thermite arson used on the WTC buildings...” (bolding mine).

Swartz’s EPA report says nothing of the kind:
One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said. He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers.http://tinyurl.com/rp7xg

In the report abstract, Swartz says, “In addition, the compound 1,3-diphenylpropane ...was observed, and to our knowledge, this species has not previously been reported from ambient sampling. It has been associated with polystyrene and other plastics, which are in abundance at the WTC site.

Only after Jones’ deceptive comments were publicly criticized did he include Swartz’s explanation in his presentations.

Likewise, in this presentation, Jones claims that WTC-area dust samples showed elevated levels of elements that indicate the use of thermite. Note his statement in yellow at lower right:

 

 

 

Jones cites a government report on post-9/11 dust samples in lower Manhattan. Here’s what the report actually says:

"The trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment. Further detailed SEM studies of dust and beam coating samples are needed to develop a better understanding of the residences of metals in the samples. A detailed review of the materials used in construction, and the elemental composition of materials commonly found in office buildings would also be useful to understand more completely the potential sources and compositions of the materials in the dusts."

There's nothing there that would indicate anything out of the ordinary in the dust samples.

Another report about the settled dust at the WTC says,
"The levels of many of the elements are consistent with their presence in building materials, including chromium, magnesium, manganese, aluminum, and barium." Source (p. 709)

And the zinc? Galvanized zinc coating covered roughly 150 acres of corrugated steel floor decking in the towers. Red oxide zinc chromate primer paint was used on the structural steel, and many of the aircraft components were coated with zinc corrosion protection. Zinc also constitutes 10-40% of the content of brass, and a significant portion of bronze and nickel, and is used in many other construction and mechanical applications.

A common CT claim is that the angled column in the photo below is evidence of a cut made by thermite / thermate. Until recently this photo was prominently featured on the “Scholars for Truth” website and in Steven Jones’ papers and presentations. It still is featured on the page of another website promoting a debate challenge by the Scholars on teamliberty.net:

 

 

 

Had these CTs taken a minute to enlarge the photo, as I have done below, they would have seen that the column shows obvious blowtorch marks, and slag sitting on top of the loose debris. Ironworkers used oxyacetylene torches to cut the WTC steel. Similar cuts are seen in many Ground Zero photos.

 

 

Below: My comparison of known use of thermite with Jones' suspected thermite cut. The top photo shows the characteristic residue left by thermite. The bottom photo shows what Steven Jones wants us to believe is a cut made by thermite. In fact it looks nothing like a thermite cut, and shows obvious signs of torch cutting. Is it any wonder why Jones didn't use a photo of known thermite use for comparison? I have seen thousands of photos from the WTC cleanup, including photos in private collections made by Ground Zero workers. None show any sign of thermite/thermate use.

 

 

Thermite/thermate cuts vertically, guided by gravity. For example, the military uses thermite to disable materiel to prevent it being used by the enemy. A thermite grenade placed on the horizontal hood of a truck will melt straight down through the engine block. If a necessarily huge amount of thermite was used to significantly weaken or cut through the thick WTC steel, it would have left behind unmistakable signs of its work.

To attack a thick vertical steel column with thermite, a large, complex, and extremely durable (capable of withstanding temperatures of 4000 °F) apparatus would have to be attached to each column to hold the thermite against the steel throughout the cutting process. And equally durable ignition devices (timers / wiring / radio receivers: take your pick) would need to survive the aircraft impacts/debris impacts and raging fires, and work perfectly when needed.

The huge thermite devices would have to be attached to many columns, for redundancy, because the “conspirators” would not know exactly where the planes or debris would hit. Obviously, it would be highly suspicious if the building collapses initiated in an undamaged area.

All this work would have to be done invisibly, with absolutely no chance of detection.

No thermite cutting devices were found in the three billion pounds of debris that was meticulously sorted by FBI investigators and NYPD detectives at Fresh Kills Landfill.

No evidence of thermite or thermate use at the WTC has ever been found. Zero. Steven Jones ignores the many possible sources of the trace chemicals he found on steel and in reports of dust analysis. And as a reminder, Jones does not have a chain of custody for the steel he examined that would rule out other sources of contamination.

NIST’s informative FAQ covers the thermite question (excerpt):

"Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present [approx. 19% by weight] in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions." (bolding mine)

I’ve only delved this far into this subject to show how quickly the CT claims unravel when examined in the light of the facts, and how far even a prominent, trained scientist will go to distort the truth.

For now, perhaps we should leave the final word on this issue to Brent Blanchard of Protec, from his paper A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 from...:

"Dr. Jones acknowledges that his investigation is still in the research phase and that questions regarding the viability of his theory remain unanswered. For example, it is unknown how thermite’s destructive process could have been applied and initiated simultaneously on so many beams – in several buildings – undetected and/or under such extreme conditions. It is also unusual that no demolition personnel at any level noticed telltale signs of thermite’s degenerative “fingerprint” on any beams during the eight months of debris removal."

Next: Larry Silverstein: Insurance Profit Motive?

 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2022   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service