Further Commentary on Steven Jones's Thermite Hypothesis


North Tower 'collapse'

Thermite Identified As Culprit Of WTC Collapse - prisonplanet.com

A new branch of 9/11 research claims to have identified the cause of the collapse of the twin towers. The photographic and video evidence makes a very strong case for thermite being responsible for the unprecedented implosions of steel framed reinforced buildings on September 11.

This facet was first brought to light during a November 2005 appearance on The Alex Jones Show by Brigham Young University physicist Professor Steven Jones. Jones said that white phosphorous wasn't powerful enough to cause the implosion but that thermite was the likely culprit. Alex Jones's 2005 release Martial Law 9/11 Rise of the Police State highlighted the physical evidence that the towers and Building 7 were brought down with incendiary devices.

Brigham Young University physicist Professor Steven Jones told peers at a Utah meeting that, "while almost no fire, even one ignited by jet fuel, can cause structural steel to fail, the combination of thermite and sulfur "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
..
Jones also told the Deseret News that sulfur traces found at ground zero indicates the thermite was combined with sulphur to make it burn even hotter than the normal 2500 degrees Celsius.

Jones stated that thermite was a "clever" choice because its ingredients, aluminum and iron oxide do not require identifying tags by law, meaning they couldn't be traced back to their manufacturers.
..
Jones also, "cited video pictures showing white ash rising from the south tower near the dripping, liquefied metal. When thermite burns, Jones said, it releases aluminum-oxide ash. The presence of both yellow-white molten iron and aluminum oxide ash "are signature characteristics of a thermite reaction," he said."

There are a handful of media clips in this article, so swing by prisonplanet.com and check them out.

I've seen video clips that

I've seen video clips that looked like thermite. But it must of been a combination of thermite and explosives as evidenced by the way the concrete turned into microscpic powder. I don't think thermite by itself would have done that.

U.S. Operations In Iran

Bill Owens, Jon actually

Bill Owens,

Jon actually emailed Jones about that exact thing.. he said that depending on the ratio of the two ingredients and the size of the granuals that thermite can be explosive..

Jon, wanna post his exact comment?

I said... Dear Professor

I said...

Dear Professor Jones...

I read the latest piece in the deseret news, and I have one question... does thermite cause an "explosion" of sorts?

Thanks,

Jon Gold

And he said...

Jon,

Thermite is a mixture of aluminum POWDER and iron oxide POWDER. The fineness of the powder determines whether or not the thermite is incendiary ("melting" through steel) or explosive -- the latter requiring ultra-fine aluminum powder, sometimes called nanoaluminum, and
the thermite is then called "superthermite."

Thus, one can tailor thermite to cut more slowly, without causing explosions, or more quickly with explosions. The evidence is consistent with both types of thermite being used, although HMX or RDX could also have been used -- with a danger that the required taggants would be observed for HMX and RDX explosives.

Oh -- I should have pointed you to my paper where more detail is provided:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Sincerely
Steven J

I've read elsewhere that

I've read elsewhere that thermite may have been residing in the towers naturally or it could have been a consequence of the initial explosions from the aircraft, e.g. not a planned thermite-induced demolition, but a thermite-induced collapse nonetheless. I don't know how authoritative the source was.

bb, probably 911myths. Check

bb, probably 911myths. Check out Jone's latest video from 911truthseekrs, he addresses this. Pretty much nonsense.

http://www.911truthseekers.or

"bb, probably 911myths.

"bb, probably 911myths. Check out Jone's latest video from 911truthseekrs, he addresses this. Pretty much nonsense."

You mean, Dr. Frank Greening, the Canadian scientist who demonstrated that Jones's hasn't been able to prove Greening wrong.

Sorry to disappoint you.

http://www.dailykos.com/story

Jon, I am surprised you

Jon,

I am surprised you forgot to ask Steven Jones how much thermite was used, who and how it was planted, how many people wewre involved, how long it took, how were the cords concealed, and how the buildings were prepped by weakening the columns on every floor, completely unseen, of course, and the uncanny ability to start the explosions where the planes hit.

Maybe these important questions never occurred to you.

More likely you don't want anything inconvenient to interefere, am I correct, Jon?

Help from the real

Help from the real world:

From "A Physicist's Guide to Skepticism", Milton A. Rothman, Prometheus Books, 1988, ISBN:0-87975-440-0.

Chapter 1, Beliefs and Disputations.

1. Everybody's a Philosopher

Everyday anarchy romps through the current intellectual scene: an engineer writes books on evolution, a science fiction writer becomes a psychotherapy guru and founds a new religion, a pyschoanalyst rewrites the laws of celestial mechanics, theologians give pronouncements on physics, physicists write books on theology, and legislators write laws defining life.

Within the confusion a few fundamentals remain constant:

a. A strong belief is more important than a few facts.

b. The stronger the belief, the fewer the facts.

c. The fewer the facts, the more people killed

If some variation of

If some variation of the thermite reaction was indeed used to sever steel columns as strongly suggested by the photos and video above, then along with molten iron, aluminum oxide should be found in unusual abundance and particulate-size in the toxic dust from the collapses of the Towers and WTC 7. We intend to look for these residual end-products, in particular, for iron and entrained aluminum oxide in solidified slag extracted from one of the WTC-molten-metal pools.

Other explanations for the observations are sought, of course. For example, F. Greening has suggested that aluminum from the planes which struck the Towers could melt, and that this aluminum might fall on "rusted steel surfaces inducing violent thermite explosions." [Greening, 2006] So a few students and I did straightforward experiments by melting aluminum and dropping molten aluminum on pre-heated rusted steel surfaces. There were in fact NO "violent thermite" reactions seen. We observed that the temperature of the molten aluminum in contact with the rusty iron simply cooled at about 25 C per minute (using an infrared probe) until the aluminum solidified, so that any thermite reactions between the aluminum and iron oxide must have been minimal and did not compete with radiative and conductive cooling, thus NOT supporting predictions made by Greening. There was no observable damage or even warping of the steel. (See photograph below.) Nor were violent reactions observed when we dropped molten aluminum onto crushed gypsum and concrete (wet or dry) and rusty steel. [Jones, 2006] These experiments lend no support whatever to the notion [see Greening, 2006] that molten aluminum in the WTC Towers could have destroyed the enormous steel columns in the cores of the buildings, even if those columns were rusty and somehow subjected to direct contact with molten aluminum.

We also noted that while a steel pan holding the aluminum glowed red and then yellow hot, the molten aluminum inside retained its silvery-gray color, adding significantly to the evidence that the yellow-white molten metal dripping from the South Tower shortly before its collapse was NOT molten aluminum. (Recall also that the yellow color of the molten metal (video clip above) implies a temperature of approximately 1100 oC -- too high for the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires burning in the building.) This is point worth emphasizing: aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten aluminum will appear silvery-gray, while molten iron (with its characteristic high emissivity) will appear yellow-white (at ~1100 oC) as observed in the molten metal dripping from the South Tower just before its collapse (see http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite2.htm).

Molten aluminum poured onto rusted steel: no violent reactions observed at all.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Thanks, The Professional.

Thanks, The Professional.

"Jon, I am surprised you

"Jon,

I am surprised you forgot to ask Steven Jones how much thermite was used, who and how it was planted, how many people wewre involved, how long it took, how were the cords concealed, and how the buildings were prepped by weakening the columns on every floor, completely unseen, of course, and the uncanny ability to start the explosions where the planes hit.

Maybe these important questions never occurred to you.

More likely you don't want anything inconvenient to interefere, am I correct, Jon?"

You're 100% correct. About everything. This is all just a scam. I'm here because I'm psychologically incapable of dealing with the events of September 11th, and pointing to the Government is easier for me to accept than to think scary terrorists are out to get me.

We should accept everything the Government tells us about the events of September 11th. We should show support for our Government when they want to pre-emptively invade other countries. If we don't, then the scary terrorists will come and get us.

We should allow certain civil rights to be discarded for the safety of our people. We don't need them anyway.

We should openly and willingly sign over a portion of our paychecks to whatever corporations our Government specifies. Cut out the middle man.

We should not read anything that conflicts with anything our Government tells us. We should only read approved literature. Everything else should be burned.

We should accept living paycheck to paycheck as the way the world works.

We should not be concerned that almost all of our money goes towards military spending. In fact, we should give them more.

You're 100% correct, and I'm sorry that I ever doubted you.

"When the people fear their

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

Thomas Jefferson

I think Jones needs to

I think Jones needs to emphasize that there is strong evidence that SOME of the explosive devices used were likely thermite, in addition to RDX and other more standard explosives used in controlled demolitions.

...there is no way thermite (which is really incendiary and not an explosive) produced the "squibs", pulverized the concrete, and other explosive phenomenon evident in the collapse videos -- high order explosives are the only explanation for that.

We'll await Prof Steven

We'll await Prof Steven Jones's response to Dr. Greening. (Note that Jones was asked months ago to respond to Dr. Greening's first paper, http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf, demonstrating that WTC 1 & 2 could fall without the need to introduce explosive demolitions into the equation. Prof. Steven Jones & Co. has failed to respond.)

3. Prof. S. Jones at BYU has recently tested the reactivity of molten aluminum
towards materials such as rusted steel and concrete. (See his Feb, 2006, article at:
Scholarsfor911truth.org). While his results are interesting, Prof. Jones has not
conducted anything close to the tests I suggested. Ironically, Prof. Jones quotes
from an e-mail I wrote to him on January 26th 2006, where I outline the type of
test that would settle the question of the role of molten aluminum in the WTC
collapse:

“I suspect our different views will never be resolved by discussion alone. I
therefore suggest an experimental resolution: The NIST fire tests, which were
designed to simulate the conditions in WTC 1 & 2 after the aircraft impacts,
should be repeated in a more realistic environment that includes shredded
aluminum alloy 2024, crushed concrete and gypsum, water, rusted steel, aviation
fuel, plastics, etc.... Then I want to see two things happen: (i) The fires melt the
aluminum, and (ii) The molten aluminum ignites violent, explosive reactions.”

In spite of what I suggested in my January e-mail, namely simulations that reproduce
conditions in the WTC fires and would thus be an acceptable test of my claims, Prof.
Jones carries out two entirely different experiments:

(i) Molten aluminum was poured onto a section of clean, dry, rusted steel.
(ii) Molten aluminum was poured onto a clean, dry, concrete block.

Because there were no violent reactions in these two tests, Prof. Jones concludes that
my hypothesis is invalid! This conclusion is reached in spite of the fact that gypsum
was not even tested, and none of the materials were pre-heated or crushed.

Of all the parameters not duplicated in Prof. Jones¡¦ experiments I would argue that
the crushing of the materials is one of the most important. Why? It is a well-known
fact that solid-state reaction rates depend on the surface area of the reactants. A one
kilogram block of concrete has a surface area of about 0.06 m2. The surface area of
one kilogram of concrete crushed to 60 ƒÝm particles has a surface area calculated as
follows:

Surface area of 1 kg of crushed concrete = (6 „e 60 „e 60 „e 10ƒ{12 m2) / (3.24 „e 10ƒ{10 kg)
= 67 m2

Crushed (pulverized) materials are much more reactive than solid blocks of
material¡K..

In conclusion I would say that Prof. Jones is, of course, entitled to his opinion, but I
would argue that his ¡§simulation¡¨ lacks most of the key conditions that were present
in the WTC impact zones on 9-11, namely prolonged fires ignited by aviation fuel,
sustained by burning plastics, paper, furniture, etc, that directly heated water,
aluminum and rusted steel in the presence of crushed concrete and gypsum. I
challenge Prof. Jones to repeat his tests under these conditions and publish the results.

Update April 7th, 2006:

In the past few months there has been considerable discussion on Internet forums
concerning the molten metal that began to pour from window 80-256 on the north face of
WTC 2 moments before the collapse of this building. (See page 1 of this authorÂ’s
Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster report.)

An interesting feature of the videos and still photographs of this event is the bright yellow
glow inside WTC 2 from what appears to be the source of the molten metal. The color
and intensity of this glowing ball shows that something was burning at a very high
temperature - perhaps as high as 1100„a C. Such a temperature is well beyond the 800 -
900„a range of flame temperatures attainable in typical solid or liquid hydrocarbon-fuelled
fires. This has led some researchers to invoke the inevitable ¡§ pre-placed thermite
incendiaries¡¨ as the cause of the bright yellow glow. However, rather than jump to this
conclusion, we offer below an alternative, less-conspiratorial, explanation of this
phenomenon: Localized Oxygen-Enhanced Fires in WTC 2.

[...]

Based on the calculated trajectory of UA Flight 175 inside WTC 2, the forward cabin area
of the aircraft ploughed into floors 80 to 82 of the northeast corner of the building. Thus
the 3200-liter oxygen cylinder carried in the crew compartment of Flight 175 came to rest
precisely in the area where the bright yellow glow was to later appear. As many videos
show, about 50 minutes after impact, fires were well established in localized areas of the
northeast corner of WTC 2 ¡V these fires would have gradually heated the entire forward
fuselage to temperatures in excess of 200„a C. We therefore suggest that the intense
yellow glow seen moments before the collapse of WTC 2 was caused by the discharge of
the onboard oxygen cylinder and the subsequent enhancement of the pre-existing fires.

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

Read the whole thing. Then demand that the Scholars for 9/11 Truth address these papers.

Jon wrote, "We should accept

Jon wrote,

"We should accept everything the Government tells us about the events of September 11th. We should show support for our Government when they want to pre-emptively invade other countries. If we don't, then the scary terrorists will come and get us."

C'mon Jon, your gig isn't about "questionning" the U.S. Government and you know it. You keep hiding behind the canard that you are "questionning" anything.

This is entirely about you and every other 9/11 conspiracist making claims, assertions, and accusations without supporting evidence and doing so deliberately, with forethought, and ignoring every bit of scientific counter evidence about the physical events of 9/11, the majority of which NEVER has been in the hands of the government, much less their control.

You can't stand that any U.S. citizen with some brains comes around and questions your assertions by demonstrating factually with examples and links that you are clueless about physics and structural engineering, chemistry and forensic science AND you will ONLY rely on claims by those who are wholly unqualified to speak to those issues, including Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

You don't really fool anyone.

i demand that greening do

i demand that greening do his own tests.

S. King--"I am surprised you

S. King--"I am surprised you forgot to ask Steven Jones how much thermite was used, who and how it was planted, how many people wewre involved, how long it took, how were the cords concealed, and how the buildings were prepped by weakening the columns on every floor, completely unseen, of course, and the uncanny ability to start the explosions where the planes hit."

All of these tasks are do-able by covert govermnet operatives like yourself. (Well, probably ones considerably smarter than you. You aren't too bright.)

S. King: point your currupt

S. King: point your currupt little eyes at the photo of the North Tower "collapsing" at the start of this thead. You expect us to believe that this is a steel building falling down! That thing is ERUPTING & EXPLODING THROUGHOUT ALL 4 SIDES! This is not a building collapsing because fire weakened it!

S. King, why don't we just

S. King,

why don't we just show you the 9/11 eyewitness video again where the explosions are easily audible, and where white smoke is rising from teh base of the tower? oh, because you will say that it was probably faked, and refuse to look at it, just like you blame everyone else for doing.

you act like you are the reasonable one, but everything you throw in other's faces could be thrown back in yours. you throw out every single eyewitness that saw flashes at the base of the towers prior to collapse, you throw out eyewitnesses that felt the rumbles and heard the explosions, you throw out the wtcshake footage, you throw out anything that doesn't match what you have already decided on yourself.

i have no issue with you not agreeing with others, but you do the same shit you say others do, you avoid anything that goes against your predetermined opinions.

so, here it is again, here are a few clips that prove you completely wrong, go ahead and say they are fake and shut the hell up.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtcshake.mpg
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc1_split.wmv
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.ann.thompson.cars.wmv
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.2.demoltion.west.below.wmv
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc1_street_level_smoke.wmv

Q. How did you know that it [the south tower] was coming down?

A. That noise. It was noise.

Q. What did you hear? What did you see?

A. It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was - do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear "pop, pop, pop, pop, popÂ’? ThatÂ’s exactly what - because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, thatÂ’s when I saw the building coming down." (Oral history of Daniel Rivera, 9)

i wish you would be honest and admit you might be wrong, but you wont, i will, but you wont - and that makes you much worse than any of us.

3. Prof. S. Jones at BYU has

3. Prof. S. Jones at BYU has recently tested the reactivity of molten aluminum
towards materials such as rusted steel and concrete. (See his Feb, 2006, article at:
Scholarsfor911truth.org). While his results are interesting, Prof. Jones has not
conducted anything close to the tests I suggested.

Why doesn't the amazing Dr. Greening just do these test himself and then we will judge his performance. If it can happen spontaneously in a building he shouldn't have much problem at all.

From "A Physicist's Guide to

From "A Physicist's Guide to Skepticism", Milton A. Rothman, Prometheus Books, 1988, ISBN:0-87975-440-0.

Chapter 1, Beliefs and Disputations.

1. Everybody's a Philosopher

Everyday anarchy romps through the current intellectual scene: an engineer writes books on evolution, a science fiction writer becomes a psychotherapy guru and founds a new religion, a pyschoanalyst rewrites the laws of celestial mechanics, theologians give pronouncements on physics, physicists write books on theology, and legislators write laws defining life.

Within the confusion a few fundamentals remain constant:

a. A strong belief is more important than a few facts.

b. The stronger the belief, the fewer the facts.

c. The fewer the facts, the more people killed

***

A bad try to reinforce the serfdom to science. Only the "experts" are in power to answer our questions, don't think for yourself. Who is the one that brings up the flat earth theory every time? This is the excat same way of thinking. Trust your authorities, in this case the experts, a few hundred years ago the church. Don't ask questions.

And another point: sometimes laymen or interdisciplinary scientist have a better overview than detail studied university professors, and MAKE indeed path-breaking invetions or discoveries. Just think of Linus Pauling. That's harming the ego of all scientists, and a bad sign for their research, but none the less a hard, given fact.

So, please stop to misuse the serfdom to science for your world explanation "sovereign right" and deny every other self-thinking researcher who asks questions (BTW another scientific behaviour)the right to look after it.

both of the profs. Karjanmaa

both of the profs. Karjanmaa contradicted Greening's findings on the 911hypothesis blog, which has since been taken off the net -

absent some REAL

absent some REAL whistle-blower we may never know what the cause of the concrete's total pulverization was - and even the claims of thermite for the steel can be disputed and debated endlessly - no evidence - that's the beauty of having all of the steel hauled away on trucks equipped with GPS as fast as possible except for a few select pieces reserved for FEMA to pretend to analyze - no evidence.

Sometimes I feel we should

Sometimes I feel we should nuke the whole fucking planet and start over again (somehow). We should genetically enode that fucking lying bitches like GWbush and cheyney cannot exist/duplicate and never repoduce.

Geez, "Who will rid me of this man!"

One question that I have had

One question that I have had is how come I have not heard any explosions in any of the videos of the towers collapse? When you see video of controlled demolition you hear series of explosions going off. In many of the amateur videos you can hear the reactions of people but everything is pretty silent before the collapse. Any thoughts anyone? The thermite theory is interesting. This might explain why they fell silently.

"so, here it is again, here

"so, here it is again, here are a few clips that prove you completely wrong, go ahead and say they are fake and shut the hell up."

You're goiung to demonstrate to us how these clips demonstrate "explosive demolition", right, anonymous?

"All of these tasks are

"All of these tasks are do-able by covert govermnet operatives like yourself."

Can't you show us how, Anonymous?

"Why doesn't the amazing Dr.

"Why doesn't the amazing Dr. Greening just do these test himself and then we will judge his performance."

You've been strangely silent. Why don't you bother to judge this:

"Physics research establishes that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings."

- Scholars for 9/11 Truth

After all, Greening showed otherwise and Jones hasn't responded.

"You expect us to believe

"You expect us to believe that this is a steel building falling down! That thing is ERUPTING & EXPLODING THROUGHOUT ALL 4 SIDES!"

You're going to demonstrate your expertise in building collapses, right, Anonymous, particularly ones built like WTC 1 & 2 that suffered 767 crahses and fires?

"A bad try to reinforce the

"A bad try to reinforce the serfdom to science. Only the "experts" are in power to answer our questions, don't think for yourself.

I'll remember that the next time someone relies on the so-called "expert", Prof. Steven Jones, without bothering to "question" him or his so-called "scholars."

It is unfortunate that attitudes from the Middle-Ages like yours still exist, Sitting Bull. One wonders how anyone will ever establish anything with that attitude.

James Ha wrote, "Karjanmaa

James Ha wrote,

"Karjanmaa contradicted Greening's findings on the 911hypothesis blog, which has since been taken off the net."

Michiel Brumsen took down his own site and is not doing too well making his case on other forums.

"Jon wrote, "We should

"Jon wrote,

"We should accept everything the Government tells us about the events of September 11th. We should show support for our Government when they want to pre-emptively invade other countries. If we don't, then the scary terrorists will come and get us."

C'mon Jon, your gig isn't about "questionning" the U.S. Government and you know it. You keep hiding behind the canard that you are "questionning" anything.

It isn't? I have several questions lined up, waiting for someone willing to answer them. Unfortunately, no one has been willing to.

This is entirely about you and every other 9/11 conspiracist making claims, assertions, and accusations without supporting evidence and doing so deliberately, with forethought, and ignoring every bit of scientific counter evidence about the physical events of 9/11, the majority of which NEVER has been in the hands of the government, much less their control.

S. King, how long have you been a shill? I've supplied COUNTLESS pieces of evidence. Just because you say I haven't, doesn't make it true. It's just a pathetic attempt on your part to be shilltastic.

You can't stand that any U.S. citizen with some brains comes around and questions your assertions by demonstrating factually with examples and links that you are clueless about physics and structural engineering, chemistry and forensic science AND you will ONLY rely on claims by those who are wholly unqualified to speak to those issues, including Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

I love when people like you spew bullshit over and over again. It adds credibility to what we're saying.

You don't really fool anyone.

I haven't tried to. You, on the other hand, have, and really, YOU don't fool anyone."

You're goiung to demonstrate

You're goiung to demonstrate to us how these clips demonstrate "explosive demolition", right, anonymous?

well, lets see.. in the 5 movie clips i posted what is observed? lets see.. a camera on a tripod shaking from apparent vibrations, then chunks of the building falling off, and a plume of white smoke coming from the bottom of the tower.. (and loud concussion sounds in the 9/11 eyewitness dvd i didn't link).. i would say that is pretty self explanitory.

but, you will say 'oh, its an internal failure, so powerful it could shake a tripod blocks away and cause massive booms to be heard at the sinatra peir, and cause white smoke to come from the bottom - or the tapes are fake'..

bah, you are as bad as those you continue to bait here, and on every other 9/11 discussion forum you can be found on.. and for what? what is your point or purpose? to stop another investigation.. wow, what a great idea! heaven forbid we have these videos addressed, or further investigation - oh no!

deny deny deny, whatever helps you sleep at night.

I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.

it sounded like gunfire... you know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang and then all of a sudden three big explosions.

do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear “pop, pop, pop, pop, pop”? That’s exactly what -- because I thought it was that

we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.

there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building

now who is in denial? now who is just looking at what they want and refusing to look at anything that supports the counter arguement?

you are such a hypocrit s. king.

Here's a couple of the MANY

Here's a couple of the MANY questions I have S. King.

Why was the United States preparing countries like Pakistan in July 2001, for an October 2001 invasion of Afghanistan?

Why were there plans to invade Afghanistan on the desk of George W. Bush September 9th, 2001?

Please S. King... answer those questions for me. You are, after all, someone "with a brain" apparently. You said so yourself.

And please... the tired

And please... the tired rhetorical answer of, "we always have contingency plans for invading countries available" won't cut it. These were specific plans, based on a specific date, prior to the events of 9/11.

Here's another question for

Here's another question for you S. King of the non-existent list of questions I have.

Where was NORAD on 9/11?

yes, I'm sure that Michiel

yes, I'm sure that Michiel Brumsen did take his own site down (911hypothesis), but both Karjanmaa's did contradict Greening, and it's not as if Greening is the only one who knows what he's talking about -

the windy towers of 911

More pics of North Tower

More pics of North Tower collapse:
http://newguards.us/links.html

In Frame 4 (hi-res only) glowing embers can be seen rising in the smoke.
WTC_Frame4_p8310118.tif

I just emailed Reijo to ask

I just emailed Reijo to ask if he has a copy of his debunking of Greening, posted on Brumsen's blog.

Anyway, here's a related article:

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=refuting_demolition_d...

S. King, have you read my updated WTC 7 page?

http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html

Very nice links by James Ha,

Very nice links by James Ha, Manhattanite, Vesa, & others! Thanks!

@ S. King: I'll remember

@ S. King:

I'll remember that the next time someone relies on the so-called "expert", Prof. Steven Jones, without bothering to "question" him or his so-called "scholars."

***

Sure he is one. But in your mind boggling world you decide who's the expert. The best money can buy and fear can keep quiet.

***

It is unfortunate that attitudes from the Middle-Ages like yours still exist, Sitting Bull. One wonders how anyone will ever establish anything with that attitude.

***

A no brainer again. You have no clue what I archieved in my life.

King, ANY achievement is

King, ANY achievement is better than what you "accomplish" as a gov't shill (unless you were also one of the perpetrators, which I am not ruling out).

"Why doesn't the amazing Dr.

"Why doesn't the amazing Dr. Greening just do these test himself and then we will judge his performance."

You've been strangely silent. Why don't you bother to judge this:

"Physics research establishes that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings."

- Scholars for 9/11 Truth

After all, Greening showed otherwise and Jones hasn't responded.
S. King | Homepage | 04.25.06 - 8:00 am | #
I'm still waiting for Dr. Greening to respond to the challenge I just made of him in my last post.

At the web page

At the web page http://911u.org/CoDR/ you can find the thought-provoking comparison chart http://911u.org/Physics/graphics/PlasmaVsThermite.gif and also the observation that it is counterproductive to bemoan the evidence we do not have, given that we've never examined for signs of molecular dissociation the abundant evidence -- that special WTC "dust", of which many samples remain -- we do have.

(On 9/11, Rudi Giuliani did a Linda-Tripp-in-reverse and told NYers to get rid of their clothes, but not everyone followed that advice...)
_______________________________________