NY Times' Jim Dwyer Responds To Prof. Steve Jones Thermite Evidence

The following is my e mail to the NY Times' Jim Dwyer on 5/30/2007 and his reply, regarding his critique of the deliberate demolition hypothesis of the WTC that has also recently been espoused by Rosie O'Donnell.


My e mail:

"It's time as a serious journalist, that you and the NY Times depart from the unsubstantiated myth that fire and damage lead to the building collapses of the WTC on 9/11 and instead start acknowledging the real science that indicates thermite was utilized by some party to bring down these structures.

Dust recovered from the vicinity of the WTC BEFORE clean-up reveals signature elements of thermite (which can cut steel)


Thanks to the internet, the world is learning this information, while the major media in it's refusal to address this information is losing credibility in the minds of a watching public."

His response:

"How much dust? How much thermite? Enough to knock down two of the tallest buildings in the world, without anyone noticing it?"



The evidence suggesting deliberate demolition of the WTC is compelling (including the opinions of FBI and Chief of Safety for the NYFD):


Besides the dust analysis, there is an abundance of evidence suggesting thermite use at the WTC.

Molten metal deposit images recorded on 9/11 post collapse (I discovered this image myself, now being utilized by Jones):


FEMA also reported sulfidation of steel samples that was cited by the NY Times, that conform with thermate use (thermite with sulfur added for greater effect.)

There are also numerous accounts of lava-like molten metal (thermite produced molten iron?) literally flowing in the ruins of the WTC weeks after their collapses.

(Is there another example of coventional building fires resulting in flowing molten metal pools?)

"As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running."

"Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster."

"One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains."

"In the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole."

"In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel."


Great job Badmachine... Thanks for contacting the NY Times

I'm not sure about this part though...

"indicates thermite was utilized by some party to bring down these structures"

My analysis and what most others state, is that...

Thermate or similar was used in conjunction with conventional explosives (i.e. RDX, other shaped charges, maybe even explosive nano-thermate) to demolish the towers and WTC7.

It might sound like nit-picking but I just wanted to clarify, as Wood and Fetzer often use this against Dr Jones.


My research and observations indicate that thermate was used mainly as an incendiary, except when it was used to eat away the eastern edge columns and corners of WTC2 (around floor 80), which "gave-way" when the core was compromised (taken out by explosives) and the damaged outer columns were unable to support the weight above the eastern edge.

I have also observed that the corners of WTC1/2 (specifically below below the plane impact points) were key in the demolitions, in that columns either side of the corners were strategically targetted for destruction which then allowed large portions of the buildings "face" to fall away unhindered.

This can be clearly seen on many videos, especially close-ups / slow downs.

Some good ones at... http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=Xenomorph911&p=r&page=2

Best wishes

send him this too

Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

Good Job!

Great job my friend... stay on this rat!

My New Pet Project

I'm gonna work on this guy for a while.

Believe it or not, I feel he will eventually see the merit in the alternative evidence.

How much thermite

"How much thermite? Enough to knock down two of the tallest buildings in the world, without anyone noticing it?"

A pretty weird thing to ask given he believes that NO thermite/explosives/etc were 'needed' at all to bring them down.
Is jet-fuel sooo much more efficient in bringing buildings down than thermate that these guys never have to wonder how much jetfuel it would actually take??

Yes, that, and the fact that

it hasn't gone unnoticed. This is probably the most ridiculous logical fallacy of all times, the "how can there be evidence of a perfect crime?" fallacy. All the evidence there is can't be evidence -- because there can't be any evidence of something no one noticed! Hooray for ingsoc!

interns < internets


thats just an amazing sentence he managed to come up with. 911-deny-ism par excellence.

great work! i love it when

great work! i love it when we get these media cowards on record.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

Give him specifics.

He asked how much thermite?

His intention is probably to print an astronomically high number, and make it sound silly, right in the NY Times.

Jones extrapolated something like .04% of the dust had steel spheres. Go back to the source. Give them hard (verifiable) facts with sources. Let Jones make the case, since he is the expert -- not you.

Definitely clear up the situation with conventional explosives. That is where most of the evidence points. It has to have a combination of explosives and thermate to account for the observed phenomena. Show him photographs of the beams ejecting below the collapse.

They may come back at you with the Fetzerite claim that "the steel didn't melt," ergo, thermate could not have been present because no melting is evidenced on the steel samples.

To that you have to respond that the approx. 240 saved pieces of structural steel at JFK airport represent X% of the buildings' steel (calculate), and they were cherry picked so as not to reveal anything that the people in control of the site did not want revealed.

These samples are useless as evidence because we don't know exactly where they were from in the buildings, and they only show a tiny fraction of a percent of the steel. (Cite the NY Times own coverage of this fiasco back in 2001).

Dr. Jones needs to get out in front on this issue. When he takes the NIST finding that no steel got above 600deg.C, this claim must be thrown out. That claim only relates to the small amount of steel that was saved (based on what criteria?), and it negates his own hypothesis that thermate burned at 4500deg.F.

And check your grammar: its/it's, lead/led...

They are not your friends and are only looking for material to use against us. Don't give them any.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.


"His intention is probably to print an astronomically high number, and make it sound silly, right in the NY Times."

I sure would LMAO if he would do this. The most stupid and self-defeating debunker argument ever.

I think this Jim Dwyer guy