The fact that he even has to address that is sad.

Real planes, that sounds right.

But the alleged flights? And if so, flew by remote control or not?

That's another piece of the book.

I for one am prepared to accept what Steven Jones says on all three points. This means I have to abandon my hunch about WMD at the WTC.

Jon, you know that the no-planers are a sizable chunk of the truth movement. They are not agents, any more than you or I are. They are just people with a particular obsession.

Like, for instance your conviction that flight 77 hit the Pentagon, against considerable evidence to the contrary.

Let's all join together to fight the real enemy.

Well said Andrew Lowe Watson.

and most members of st911 are silent about israel, prior knowledge, and the battle for greater israel

>So, if nanothermite or nanothermate (as opposed to conventional thermite/thermate) was used at the WTC, why then is Rick Siegel planning on showing a film that says WMDs were used on the WTC?

I agree. I think he should take that stuff out as it is not verifiably true.

"Like, for instance your conviction that flight 77 hit the Pentagon, against considerable evidence to the contrary."

:) What about the "considerable evidence" that it was Flight 77?

I'm not going to get into it, but you're only telling one side of a VERY divisive story.

Check it out I just posted this at C&L, any bets it last more then 5 minuets?

You guys at Crooks and Liars are damn scary, delete peopleÂ’s comments like that is something straight out of OrwellÂ’s 1984. What the hell is wrong with you people?
Dem Bruce Lee Styles | Homepage | 07.21.06 - 2:23 pm | #
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/crooks/10019105/

"Real planes crashed into the Twin Towers"...

The fact that he even has to address that is sad.

Jon Gold | Homepage | 07.21.06 - 2:03 pm | #

^ True, but at least that craploa will be more marginalized now. It's because of clowns like Nico that C&L delete all 911Truth related comments.

I think it's absolutely amazing that people can go see the movie UNITED 93 and believe that fairy tale. When people mention the film, I ask them why debris was scattered over a 8 to 10 mile swath. I also ask them why no blood and bones were found. I also ask them about the ease at which cell phones work in flying planes. And lastly, I ask them if it is expected that a plane would liquefy in the crater into which it has crashed. They just look at me with that worried look of what the implications are.

Can we all agree at least to that much?

Nanothermate is fairly exotic stuff, is it not? That would greatly restrict where it was procured from. Anybody know?

And let's dump this WMD idea if there is no radiation.

We don't know all of the how.
We do know the who.
We do know the why.

Simple?

Site Monitor: Please consult our commenting policy for terms and conditions of commenting. Your comments were off-topic and therefore, subject to deletion and/or editing.

Edited By Siteowner
Dem Bruce Lee Styles | Homepage | 07.21.06 - 2:23 pm | #

^ There you go HAHAHA, jokes!

"And let's dump this WMD idea if there is no radiation."

I agree. And if someone has pull to keep that Rick Siegel film from being promoted in DC on 9/11 weekend this year, that would be helpful. That kind of product just confuses people and creates discredit to the search for truth.

We don't know all of the how.
We do know the who.
We do know the why.

Simple?
Jon Gold | Homepage | 07.21.06 - 2:35 pm | #

True.
True.
True.

Firstly, I also attempted to speak to Cindy Sheehan when she came up here to speak, they sequestered her from all comment. I get the opinion that many sites, organizations and individuals are aware of the truth of 9/11 and avoid the discussion (thereby forfeiting the moral high ground and compromising their integrity) in order to acheive their own goal. Often this is justified as a means to an end, but really it boils down to obstruction/complicity.

Jon, what is the best site to check out info on flight 77 indeed hitting the pentagon?

Nowhere in my travels have I found any of this evidence, (sans what is on MSM, which is not evidence, merely a priori arguments backed up by the blurry checkpoint-cam videos so (to me at least)it is hardly considerable. Indeed, any and all evidence I have seen suggests that 77 did not, so I am very interested in alternative hypothesis.

Now I wonder how long before some cretin comes along and destroys our new-found unity.

Ok then. Let's do our best to spread the word.

Siegel needs a new narrator to his film!!!

How can someone suggest the use of WMDs with THAT voice?

It sounds like an SNL skit. Perhaps that's better anyway, since the idea would do more harm than good.

Jon, I'm still muddy on the 'why'. Because of PNAC? new world order? christian zionist rapture? the recipe for crabby patties?

Also, many kudos to st911.org for their ongoing heroic work.

"Jon, what is the best site to check out info on flight 77 indeed hitting the pentagon?"

The best one I've seen is www.pentagonresearch.com

JG:

True-True-True.

Still, there's nothing like Prof. Jones' hard physical evidence to nail the bastards.

truth911.net supports all those points made by jones.

In terms of "what hit the pentagon"... all i feel i can safely say somewhat for sure is that

"a plane hit the pentagon" .

"this plane was not flown by Hani Hanjour"

"there is no evidence that this plane was a boeing 757, let alone AA 77, and was likely a smaller aircraft."

again, it's smart for the 9/11 truth movement to stay away from the pentagon and just demand the release of all tapes. however, even if/when they do release more tapes, somehow none will show the plane (which is what they've been saying all along. so it works for them on that level, but they're trying stop media coverage, and more people will start to wonder when they see these strange videos on Fox and CNN). they've had plenty of time to edit all the videos by now.

it's best left alone as a mystery. focus efforts on controlled demolition where the evidence is strong.

I also wonder why we don't about United 93 much. i find the evidence for that quite strong.

"Jon, I'm still muddy on the 'why'. Because of PNAC? new world order? christian zionist rapture? the recipe for crabby patties?"

There are MANY variations as to the why, but the simple argument is this:

1. Money
2. Power
3. Oil
4. America's Hegemony
5. The protection of Israel
6. The logistical placement of bases in that region for future use.

Those are America's reasons for the most part.

And those plans are the PNAC's, but also the corporate element within the United States.

Exxon, Halliburton, Carlyle, Bechtel, Lockheed Martin, GE, etc...

Wait... doesn't GE own Lockheed?

"Bugger Cindy Sheehan...she's worried about getting the boys home from Iraq before she can deal with 9/11 issues...well, guess what, we're trying to stop WWIII....what a witless cow.
Anonymous | 07.21.06 - 3:31 pm | # "

9/11 is the ONLY thing with a snowball's chance in hell of getting soldiers home.

http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=90
July 21, 2006

COINTELPRO "Truth" OP
History lesson from
By Gerard Holmgren and Nico Haupt

Not to bust on Jon, but we did have this conversation once. There is no evidence that we have seen that 77 hit the Pentagon, we have only been told by the government and the media that 77 hit the Pentagon. Its up to us to decide whether or not we want to believe them.

All we know for sure, based on what we've been shown, is that something, probably a plane hit the pentagon.

oh jesus, if its by Nico its gonna be trash, slandering a bunch of people.

That missive blasts S. Jones as cointelpro. In my mind, S. Jones and D.R.G. are untouchables. Anonymous, why don't you show your bitch profile in here? Let's look at this statement:

"What was Steven Jones doing all this time ?

Hiding in the shadows, letting people like Jeff take the heat, not only from the flag wavers, but also the movement which treacherously united with them against the demolition evidence."

Dude, he didn't even stumble onto truth until recently!

I don't mean to rain on my good friend Gerard Holmgren's parade, but I read this sentence...

"First, we have proof that the “truth movement” in general is controlled at the highest levels by cointelpro forces. The single most identifiable fact of that proof is David Kubiak. The executive director of “911truth.org” is on record as telling the NY times that Sept 11 was *not* an inside job."

David is no longer the Executive Director of 911Truth.org. That would be Janice Mattews.

Hi guys, please keep it civil, things have been pretty good for a few days now, please keep it that way. If Nico wants to stop by and have his say, he is welcome to it, but he is expected to show some respect as well.

"Not to bust on Jon, but we did have this conversation once. There is no evidence that we have seen that 77 hit the Pentagon, we have only been told by the government and the media that 77 hit the Pentagon. Its up to us to decide whether or not we want to believe them.

All we know for sure, based on what we've been shown, is that something, probably a plane hit the pentagon."

Ask dz what he thinks about the "planted evidence".

"S11"

I forgot how much I hated that expression.

Ask dz what he thinks about the "planted evidence".

Based on the evidence, a plane probably hit the Pentagon. What more do you want than that? I haven't seen anything to prove that it was 77, I have only been told it was 77.

Believe what you want, but it is not proven beyond any reasonable doubt to anyone here that 77 hit the Pentagon.

Janice Matthews, Executive Director

David Kubiak, International Campaign Advisor

"Based on the evidence, a plane probably hit the Pentagon. What more do you want than that? I haven't seen anything to prove that it was 77, I have only been told it was 77.

Believe what you want, but it is not proven beyond any reasonable doubt to anyone here that 77 hit the Pentagon."

I'm not arguing with you. I just told you to ask dz what he thinks of the "planted evidence" of Flight 77. He once said something to me that made a lot of sense, but I forget what it was... something about having the ability to plant evidence in front of everyone else.

Yeah, who knows, I've heard a couple of theories on that as well. Hopefully one day we will have an answer.

something about having the ability to plant evidence in front of everyone else.
Jon Gold | Homepage | 07.21.06 - 3:55 pm | #
remember the various "incoming" orders that emptied the Pentagon? this happened more than enough times to plant and or hide evidence.

the Pentagon was emptied numerous times after it was "hit" and even emergency personnel was told to get out.plenty of time.

Let's keep in mind that somewhere in the FBI, there are more than a couple of video tapes that were confiscated minutes after the Pentagon "crash" that would provide definitive video evidence of what exactly did hit the Pentagon... assuming it was hit with anything at all.

My opinion is that IF Flight 77 did actually hit the Pentagon, the government would have released a tape showing this to the public months ago to discredit the 911 Truth movement. (the video showing five frames provided a couple of months ago proves nothing)

I myself am not quite sure what happened at the Pentagon. People here make very fine arguments on both sides of the plane/no plane theories. What I am sure of is nothing should have ever been able to hit the Pentagon, unless stand- down orders were issued by someone very high up in the government (i.e. Cheney).

I heard that since they were running drills that morning anyway, they put plane parts on the lawn earlier that morning as part of the drill...

Sorry OT ,but I have created a short 6min clip of Jones and others recent media appearances , and a "911 on the street in Victoria BC"
kind of thing.I would like feedback and music suggestions , etc. How can I upload to the site when I'm done editing?

Just finished watching LC Final Cut. It was a 60 minute clip from the film. It showed a news report indicating that one of the policemen was on the 82nd floor when one of the towers collapsed and "rode" the collapse to the ground and survived. While I am a bonifed "truther" I find this piece of info. to be highly suspect. Anyone got any info. to corraborate this "fact"?

anyone have an idea why he didn't release his findings yet?

Is he being threatened or something?

Is he waiting to prove arson by thermite?

Is he waiting for other scientists to do independent analysis so they can both submit to a scientific journal at the same time?

What
Is
Taking
So
Long
?

Steven Jones has been outed as a disinfo agent, posing as a professor of physics, yet he's done ZERO 9/11 physics!!! All he's ever done is be a "thermite hunter" and talk about "the planes" (sic), hence this outburst from him before he goes down in history as an outed discredited disinfo agent.

Further, by trying to look for thermite in order to "prove" demolition, he's denied the well-known classical physics, of all things, which had already proven that!!!

(We mostly thought highly of him mainly because MSNBC et al covered him.)

I've matched wits (or tried!) with more than my share of physics professors in my days, and Jones is "playing possum" when it comes to thinking like a competent honest physics professor.

Jones told me on April 21st (after having dragged his feet for months) that he'd have the molecular analysis of the WTC dust sample(s?) in his possession for evidence of molecular dissociation (which would indicate that temperatures hotter than the Sun had been present over a region of significant size, which would rule out "thermite"), "next week". Well, guess what? It still hasn't happened. Steven Jones has not been a man of his word. (Forget that Jones was mixed up in that "cold fusion" fiasco, in which word of the existence of fusion at room temperature hit the mainstream media, only to be later rescinded/retracted as false due to a lack of critical reporting.)

Consider what Jones has really done all this time: distract us from the realization that exotic weaponry was undoubtedly involved in the highly unconventional destruction (beyond the mere deverticalizations) of the 3 WTC buildings by monomaniacally looking for "thermite":

http://911blimp.net/research/imgs/DrJones,RainbowHunter.gif
http://911blimp.net/research/imgs/DrJones,RainbowHunter.gif
http://911blimp.net/research/imgs/DrJones,RainbowHunter.gif
http://911blimp.net/research/imgs/DrJones,RainbowHunter.gif

Trying to ascribe Jones' conventional explanation to such a highly unconventional event is even less believable than the government's official version of events of 9/11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No "controlled demolition" (the precise removal of vertical supports so gravity can do its thing straight down) has ever resulted in massive pyroclastic debris flows as were witnessed at "Ground Zero" on 9/11:
http://911blimp.net/images/spireFrame.jpg
http://911blimp.net/images/spire+plume+pyroCloud!.jpg

Use of thermite is not ruled out, but Jones' "thermite theory" is woefully and grossly inadequate and insufficient to account for what occurred at "Ground Zero".

Good, honest investigators certainly have the right to follow their hunches, but not to pre-emptively rule out other possibilities.

=================================================

IMHO, the best single measure of a 9/11 presentation's value is how
impossible the presenter makes it for people to keep clinging to the
belief that they can blame "Muslim hijackers" for 9/11. Further, if
the presentation tries to advance that unfounded belief (especially
subliminally), then it is acting as government propaganda.
_________________________________________

"First, we have proof that the “truth movement” in general is controlled at the highest levels by cointelpro forces. The single most identifiable fact of that proof is David Kubiak. The executive director of “911truth.org” is on record as telling the NY times that Sept 11 was *not* an inside job."

^ I can vouch for that being total bullsh!t. David Kubiak is a great guy, he got my first little film "ask questions demand answers" up on 911truth.org. The bi!ch who wrote that is more likely to be the "cointelpro".

And after months of side stepping, PROOF Nico and company are NOT on the side of 9/11 Truth...in their own words folks:
http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=90

"Steven Jones has been outed as a disinfo agent, posing as a professor of physics, yet he's done ZERO 9/11 physics!!!"

LOL ok, Jon, Sbg, everyone, we're just going to lean from that past now and ignore the trolling, right?

off topic, but WWIII related.
From Wayne Madsen's sometimes reliable sources:

July 21, 2006 -- Informed sources have told WMR that arch-neocon Michael Ledeen, who acts as an unofficial foreign policy adviser to Karl Rove, was at the White House yesterday with a group of Iranian opposition figures. Among the topics discussed was a promised $25 million grant by the Bush administration to the Iranian insurgents. The money is to be used to plant Desert Storm-vintage biological and chemical weapons shells, confiscated by U.S. forces in Iraq, on the Iranian side of the Iraqi border. The weapons will be used as "proof" of Iran's plan to "attack" U.S. troops in Iraq. That will be used to justify, ex post facto, the coming U.S. attack on Iran. Our sources report that George W. Bush dropped by the White House meeting to offer his support to the Iranian opposition operatives.

Goddamn "lean" was meant to be "learn", I need to "learn" how to spell, the shame of it lol.

Blimp,

Great info on Steven Jones!!!! You trying to discredit him only makes me believe even more that he is the real deal. Especially after reading all the disinformation on your suckass website.

Blimp... ignored.

People in Victoria are on to the truth at a street level.Remarkable considering most dont have regular access to highspeednet. SBG , could you help me with my media clip?

Colin, contact me via the links on the left of the page, I will give you some FTP info to allow you to upload your file.

Hey 180killer911, I thought that was an urban legend that was disproven years ago. I remember hearing that story shortly after the attacks occurred and that it was false...

George Washington,

It was incredible inappropriate for you to put up this post. The
issue is under considerable discussion on the forum and there is no consensus. I find this very troubling. What do you think you are doing?

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/07/professor-jones-no-nukes-at-wtc.html

Frankly, when there are so many interesting unresolved issue involved here, I cannot believe that Steve Jones actually wants to commit himself at this point in time. Certainly, given the state of inquiry, we just don't know.

Your post has the effect of tossing a damper on an important question that
requires resolution based upon far more investigation than it has received at this point in time. I am tremendously bothered that you would do this.

Jim

Is blimp entitled to his opinion if it is in fact, not an opinion, but instead slander?

And that's all I have to say about that.

Hey DBLS, ignore or discuss the topic as you wish, but there should be no attacks, namecalling, etc as it causes the entire conversation to go into the toilet. This goes for Blimp Pilot too, calling people disinfo, shills, etc for having differences of opinions is very close to namecalling in my book.

Jim,

I am truly sorry you feel that way.

Which specific statement do you think has been prematurely committed to?

Wow Jim, that couldn't have been sent in an email? Privately?

Hey DBLS, ignore or discuss the topic as you wish, but there should be no attacks, namecalling, etc as it causes the entire conversation to go into the toilet. This goes for Blimp Pilot too, calling people disinfo, shills, etc for having differences of opinions is very close to namecalling in my book.
somebigguy | Homepage | 07.21.06 - 4:25 pm | #

Cool.

If Israel sent 100 nukes toward america,still Washington would say-- it's only a child of ours and just growing pains.
We all know that demolishment crews brought the WTC bldgs down. Most Americans know it but don't want to admit it.
Suggestion that will work--kidnap the scum Marvin Bush and hang the bastard by his balls--10 ft of the ground, And if he still does not Rat on his other operatives like brother Bush, and Sharron,Channy, Pow=powell plus 14 other scums-total 19, I'd use a electric drill on the knee caps. If that still does not work--wrap thermite around his waiste and lite the stuff and watch with glee!

Prof. "Los Alamos" Jones can claim what he wants. Isn't it interesting that he immediately responded to our article?

So who is the 'agent' now?
Why isn't Jones just ignoring our analysis on his background regarding his military connections on the Sonoluminescence/Sonofusion stuff?

Maybe it didn't trigger Jonathan Gold's braincells but i hope some readers raised some alarm flags.

If you think Jones will protect the 'evidence' on controlled demolition then go with it.
However his whole evidence based on 'some samples' is completely unscientific and can be dismissed out at any time. Who is setting us up?>?

And now HE is talking about the planes again? Why? Also getting nervous? And then he overrules Jim Fetzer's censorship? Interesting.

Maybe Fetzer will wake up.

btw, i will speak out on the findings on 9/11TVFakery at this years hacker conference in NYC, info up the blog. Sunday 10AM-12 AM
http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com/

Jones' connections stink.
And this isn't about infighting.
This is about Jones running away from our confrontations with him on the unconventional weaponry part of the collapse.

Jones had(has?) extraordinairy military affiliates working on this stuff. And turned into specialist No.1 all for a sudden.

His contacts are all high rank military specialists. And noone of them is complaining about Jones turning into a 9/11 conspiracy theorist??

Is K. Barrett the only fall guy for him now, showing up even on CNN?

Check out also Dr. William Coblenz (NIST!, DARPA)

Sonofusion
http://members.nuvox.net/~on.jwclyme/snf/
Debut: June 13, 2004
...History of Sonofusion

The earliest reference I have found on a sonofusion-type process is a patent by Hugh G. Flynn, a professor at the University of Rochester. Flynn passed away in 1997...

...A discussion of this patent has been given by Larry Crum.

The earliest reference to the term "sonofusion" seems to be by Steven E. Jones, a professor at Brigham Young University.

1994...Joseph A Clark of the US Navy received a patent that teaches a method of sonoluminescence. ...

...The most recent stir about sonofusion has been made by Rusi P Taleyarkhan, currently of Purdue University...

Impulse Devices Inc. is a company interested in developing sonofusion devices. Their lead technologist appears to be Ross Tessien
http://www.impulsedevices.com/about_es.html
"...Plasma in liquids using acoustics, and is most closely related to the laser inertial confinement fusion approaches being developed at Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratories..."

(ED: Russ George-David Kubiak connection again:)
=======================================================

Another company working on fusion devices, mostly solid state, is D2Fusion. Their lead technologist is Russ George, who has been studying sonofusion since at least 1997. Russ George is also involved in Saturna Technologies, Inc.

A Canadian company, General Fusion Inc., has filed the following patent application.
http://www.generalfusion.com/management_team.html

Dr. Michel Laberge, President
He has practical experience in plasma physics and with all the modern plasma diagnostic techniques...
...Following his education, he was a Senior Physicist and Principal Engineer at Creo Products, Vancouver, Canada, from 1992 to September 2001...

DARPA Sonofusion Project
http://www.darpa.mil/dso/thrust/matdev/sonofusion.htm
Program Manager: Dr. William Coblenz
http://www.darpa.mil/dso/personnel/coblenz.htm
Previous R&D experience includes positions at the US National Bureau of Standards (now NIST), the US Naval Research Laboratory, and the General Electric Company (Corporate R&D).

...you guys will never wake up, who really fooled you. But what to expect from a 'cult'.

I give you an advice. More other 9/11 scholars, less Jones vs. Fetzer and there is even hope for the 9/11 TV Fakery. They should bring up our paper and let the audience decide.

Prof. Jones will be confronted on our findings again. He lies.
Our evidence is solid. Fakery took place. Jones can tell his handlers that we will NOT shut up!!

On page 47 Prof. Jones quoted D. Allan Firmage:

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure
consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure
was similar to a tube.*

*I would like to learn the source of this misinformation. Basically the same “false premise”
was raised to me by another BYU civil engineering professor.

***

I think Mr Firmage refers to the "hollow shafts", as mentioned in the 911 commission report.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

For the dimensions, see FEMA report, "World Trade Center Building Performance Study," undated. In addition, the outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14-inch-wide steel columns; the centers of the steel columns were 40 inches apart. These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building. The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped. Ibid. For stairwells and elevators, see Port Authority response to Commission interrogatory, May 2004

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/911commission/report/911Report_Notes...

***

There we can see how mythbuilding works...

Nico, you are truly only interested in your own agenda and appear to want to cause as much damage to the 911Truth movement , of which you are a part, as possible.

I urge you to refrain completely from this policy of disruption, unless you wish to see the failure of the movement, in which case you are as good as working for the government.

Thank you Andrew.

As some know, I consider Nico to be my own twin brother. This doesn't mean we don't often disagree, only to reassume our kinship in the morning. From what I understand of the S for T -bunch is that they are working on lots of theories under the table, pursuing and flushing-out leads, etc. So are the many other research sub-set groups, and I think it's just dandy that they range from 'peakers' to 'no-planers.'

'Blimpie' remains an independent floater, IMHO, and while his handle befits his curious pathalogical-come-from, I do not consider ANY of the aforementioned people to be, quote, "agents," yet we should all acknowledge there are some among us! Backing Jon's statement, we can all forget about 'How' if we are collectively interested in, hell, Determined to see real Justice come to pass.

But, while we are speculating, I would like to point out my beliefs: Whatever was exploded in the basement, stayed in the basement, and we may not have a good sample. That sonic-blast waves at pure harmonics would greatly assist the process, leaving no radiant footprint. That we have yet to hear about the actual 'process' of placing these (assumedly) 'tubular' devices against the columns, ie: "What's up guys?" -"I'm just retro-fitting the sprinkler-heads in your office, mate!" -etc.

Nano-tech must, like all technology, also follow some form of retro-probabilities. I have provided real starting dates, and I have also pointed out that there were not just one 'roll-over' in the security staffing process, but TWO very certain events that preclude the auspice of your Rockefeller, Poppy Bush connections, largely unaddressed by all. I am neither a scholar, nor an historial/researcher, only someone who happened across data vital for all. Due to my lower than average reading abilities, I can only skim this polluted pond, where I distinctly note the aroma of some silver-bellied fish.

Overall, I never intend to waste another minute of my life in NYC. But, {like Nico,} I could endure crashing on a few sofas if I thought this was the best way to purge a few forgotten {Humm, where is that Dictionary of Yiddish} files.

Nico, et. all, must accept that it's the 'preponderance of the Evidence' upon which the entire public consensus rests. We have garnered 42% so far, and the rest all rely on what, the military 'windfall'...?

My strenuous and public response to the post by George Washington was because the issue of the source of energy that caused the complete and total destruction of the Twin Towers has yet to be resolved. There was a lively discussion on the S9/11T member's forum about this issue at the time, which is exploring a wide range of possibilities, including non-standard explosives of various kinds. Steve knows that this debate continues to rage, because he is an active participant and contributor.

Some of the evidence that, in my view, has yet to be accounted for has been discussed by other students of the crime, such as

http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htm

Some of the potential sources of the energy required, which has to have been immense, would leave traces of radioactivity, others not. I am very skeptical that thermate, even in some nano-enhanced version, would have been sufficient to bring about these effects.

In my opinion, this post prematurely suggests that certain issues have been settled, which is not the case. I was therefore taken aback by its appearance here. I had already sent a private email at the time I put it up, but it seemed to me that these issues are too important to let such an inappropriate post stand without a response on behalf of the society.

Not the least of the possibilities that have been suggested to me is that the towers were constructed with built-in explosives to bring them down when their useful lifespans had expired. I do not know which among the various alternatives is right. I do know that a great deal more study and inquiry will be necessary before we are at the point of possessing a degree of certainty sufficient to rule out any explanation besides thermate.

I admire Steve Jones' contributions and expect them to continue, but he is one man who is pursuing a specific line of research. We need others to become involved in order to explore the full range of possible alternatives, as, indeed, some from as as far as Finland are doing. We need more exploration of more alternatives and should not be cutting off lines of research that may carry us forward.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&add...

My special thanks for petgoat to serve the OCT shit whenever they deserved it.

Perhaps I should add something that every 9/11 student has to understand. The Twin Towers and WTC-7 were brought down by controlled demolitions, but the kind of demolitions were compeletely different. WTC-7 came down in 6.6 seconds as the result of a classic, standard demolition of the kind that we have witnessed time and time again in Las Vegas, for example, bringing down casinos and resorts to rebuild them. Its rate of fall was only slightly greater than free fall, which would have taken 6 seconds. Notice that all the floors are moving as the building collapses into its own footprint. Complete, abrupt, and total--and vintage in its character.

The Twin Towers demolition was also compete, abrupt, and total--but it was entirely different in its character. As Judy Wood has observed, the buildings are exploding from the top down. It is (in her words) as though two gigantic trees were turning into sawdust from the top down! The rate of fall is especially interesting, because in this case the buildings took about 10 seconds and about 11 seconds apiece. That is astounding, because the rate of free fall, given only the resistance of the air, would habe been 12 seconds! Think about it. These buildings were destroyed in less time than free fall!

Moreover, none of the floors is moving! That is a sure sign that we are not witnessing a classic controlled demolition. The 47 core columns appear to have been blown from the bed rock coincident upon the impact of the planes with the buildings. The .7 and .9 seismic events that were recorded cannot have come from the impact of the planes and have to have come from huge explosions in the subbasements, which even destroyed a 50-ton hydraulic press, as Willie Rodriguez and "Loose Change" have emphasized. When the buildings were destroyed (not "collapsed", since there was virtually nothing left when all was said and done), seismic events of 2.1 and 2.3 were recorded.

My inference is that these recordings were caused by the jack-hammer-like sequence of detonations at faster than free-fall speed. They were immensely powerful in pulverizing the concrete, the office furniture, and everything else into very fine dust. Some suspect that this could only have been possible if there were explosives in the concrete itself. I find it very difficult to imagine how millions of tons of concrete could have been so transformed by thermate, even in copious quantities. So my opinion is that we have only begun to figure out the physics of the demolition (not "collapse") of the Twin Towers, the topic to which Steve Jones has made so many important contributions.

These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building. The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped. Ibid. For stairwells and elevators, see Port Authority response to Commission interrogatory, May 2004
---
i don't believe that is the case.
the core 47 giant columns did the lion's share of bearing most of the weight of the building.
core columns photo
a hollow steel shaft?
----

Andrew Love,

you are sitting here in this room with 5 years zero account of 9/11 research groups or any kind of activist projects and telling me what to say and think?

Your notion on "policy of disruption"
is exactly what we pointed out early in this movement, to target the , especially on physical evidence.

If we wouldn't have done this, saboteurs like Ruppert, Hence and Schwarz would still run the show and you would have nothing to talk about right now.

You didn't read anything what i had to say. You wouldn't even recognise, if Cheney runs 911truth.org

james ha, right, but Steven Jones wanted to know what's the source for the tube or hollow shafts assertions.

Again, after reading some people's assertions about prof. Jones and his "suspect" connections, I must say you're shooting beyond the mark in my opinion. I've spent time with the guy and all I've seen is earnest dedication to this research. See my previous post.

"..all I've seen is earnest dedication to this research.."

These are the same words, 9/11 truthlings used also in support for Ruppert and Schwarz.

"earnest" in the context of controlling the outcome might be true, whoever tells him how to spin it.

Jones owes us many answers, that's all what we need.

Why also did he react so quickly yesterday on our article and changed his conclusion on 'nanothermite', without any explanation if this based on his samples as well?

Yet another 9/11 scholar, Veronica Chapman also wants to have some answers from Jones and mirrored our summary on her website.

Kubiak meanwhile is hiding as usual as well....

http://www.veronicachapman.com/nyc911/Jones-Kubiak.htm
Steven Jones, David Kubiak- The Los Alamos Connections
http://www.veronicachapman.com/nyc911/Jones-Kubiak.htm

(more dirty past?)

22nd July, 2006

I'm still waiting for someone to show me what, if any, 9/11 PHYSICS (you know, like an equation...) physics professor Jones has ever done (thanks, lurker).

Steven Jones continues to "play possum" by pretending that there is no humonogous energy surplus and resulting highly UNconventional evidence to be accounted for, or even addressed!!!

If that's not a diversion and a limited-hangout rolled into one, then what ever is?

The Wizard Of Oz told Dorothy to pay not attention to that man behind the curtain. Steven Jones, by omission, tells us to pay no attention to all the highly UNconventional evidence staring us in the face.

Jones' "thermite theory" does not fit the facts any better than Danny DeVito's clothes fit Hulk Hogan. Trying to make a conventional chemical compound explain away such massive, highly UNconventional evidence is not only wrong, it is wrong-headed. http://911u.org/Physics/graphics/PlasmaVsThermite.gif

If any [other] honest 911 truthers are lurking out there: if a majority opinion can determine the truth, then the government's fable of 9/11 must be right, no? Why would a majority of posters here support such shoddy, misdirective work by Steven Jones, especially after Jones failed to analyze the WTC dust sample(s?) in his possession for evidence of molecular dissociation as he said he would, hmmmm? What's wrong with all of them, that they cannot see anything at all wrong with Jones' behavior?

911blogger should change "Comments which are purely abusive will be removed." to "Comments which are purely abusive will be removed unless they are directed at 911blimp.net". This forum's hypocritical attempts at social cat-herding and fact-ignoring opinion-forming are becoming more and more obvious.

=================================================

IMHO, the best single measure of a 9/11 presentation's value is how
impossible the presenter makes it for people to keep clinging to the
belief that they can blame "Muslim hijackers" for 9/11. Further, if
the presentation tries to advance that unfounded belief (especially
subliminally), then it is acting as government propaganda.
_________________________________________

Jim, howcome you've never mentioned the shaking before the collapse?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=i24y511VAMM&mode=related&search=

Nico,

I recognize your commitment to your own area of research, and in no way do I want to join in the name-calling campaign. I have studied your work , and though I do not agree with your conclusions I think your questions are valid.

What I object to is that you frequently come on to this forum and disrupt whole threads with page after page of your highly controversial and sensational theories, presenting them as if they are divine truth , when they are just theories.
It is very unhelpful to the credibility of the movement and gives wonderful ammo to the vultures in the press who are waiting to pounce.

Don't worry, if you are right you will have the pleasure of seeing everyone admit they were wrong. Until then, please quieten down a little.

Jim did say important things!

Jim said that UNKNOWN, SUPERBLY POWERFUL (like nuclear!) explosives were used in bringing the Towers down.

I am happy he said it. Having little trust in any US scientist I will scrutinize Jim's next steps.

IMHO he MUST go public with this and start a debate, however emotional... logic demands it.

The US doctrinal system might give him air-play to show what a whacko thought it is.. and in the process discover that many many many people WOULDN'T PUT IT PAST the bushites.. and find it WORTH CONTEMPLATING. Thereby the MSM might inadvertendly do their duty to report.

If Jim goes public with a "nuclear brainstorm" it is entirely legitimate scientific questions he raises. More inportantly it will pry open the doors of perception.

Israel is angry that the US has not attacked Iran yet. So they are bombing innocents and thereby provoking and hoping for another 911... this time a REAL event. Maybe they have furnished AL QUEDA with a micro-nuke that will only explode inside the USA ... and take photos of the perps...

To those who would criticize only:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”
– Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

Prof Jones makes no such claim whatsoever.

Among other items of available evidence of for an aircraft crashing into WTC2 he simply presents one statement in his paper:

Quote:

"Real planes leave radar traces, as found in empirical data (see below). Any claim to the contrary must refute the data or the analysis. www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/index.htm"

So he is simply presenting one piece of empirical evidence that a radar has a trace of an aircraft and says that any evidence to the contary must refute the data and analysis.

How this is interpreted as "No planes hit ..." is beyond me.

Also, does anyone have any idea where the "broad consensus" claim comes from ?

It is certainly not in Jones' paper.

Reference has been made to this piece on http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=15337#15337 by Veronica a member of ST911 as I understand.

My response to it is there also.

I meant "real planes hit" not no planes hit

Apologies for the confusion